# Digging Deeper....



## Spinedoc (Mar 13, 2018)

So, have been training Aikido for a number of years now, and BJJ for a while as well. Was thinking a lot about Aikido earlier this week, and how so many people, including myself for a long time, simply don't/didn't understand it. Been thinking a lot about effectiveness, pressure testing, etc. Well, as I was thinking about Aikido and Tai Sabaki and I realized, that Aikido techniques were never really designed to be combat effective, I mean...they can be..but that was never the point. O'Sensei's first students (overall-I think Shioda might have been the exception) were all experienced martial artists already. People came to O'sensei because he moved in a way that no one had experienced. They didn't know what it was, but his presence and movement was so effective and so different from anyone else, that Kendo, Judo, and even some Sumo guys all realized that they wanted to learn that. But, Aikido was teaching a form of body movement and aiki to strengthen what they already knew, not necessarily to start from scratch. This was higher level stuff... The purpose was not to learn specific, effective techniques, but to really learn no techniques at all. To use the techniques as a scaffold, not as the end result. The techniques are only there to teach the body to move in a way that enhances aiki and teaches you to apply a redirection of energy. The whole point of Aikido is to train the body to move in a different manner....where techniques become secondary and really irrelevant to a degree. Kind of mind blowing realization to be honest...

To be fair, it occured while I was trying to escape a triangle that my BJJ partner had me in, so blood flow could have been affected.. All of a sudden, I realized that all of the criticisms about Aikido being an effective martial art were ABSOLUTELY true, and ABSOLUTELY wrong at the exact same time. They were true in the sense that Aikido isn't trained with significant pressure testing and/or combat effectiveness, but this also is wrong, because it misses the entire point of Aikido. If we follow this line of reasoning, it also means that BJJ, Judo, MMA, and other artists should all take Aikido to strengthen their own game/art because it's sole purpose is to make what you already do more effective by improving your flow and body movement....


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 13, 2018)

Spinedoc said:


> Aikido techniques were never really designed to be combat effective,


i agree with this but i would say the entire art and not limit the comment to apply just to the techniques.
i have also thought a lot about this and i remember reading or hearing about how OSensei would "ramble on" about stuff but that the students would humor the man and just want to get to the fighting and throwing. they were not listening.  
i was listening to a psychologist on Youtube talk about the correct way to deal with violence and confrontation. he was saying that the highest moral response you can have is to not engage the person. because it only escalates the violence.  i cant explain his idea and do it justice at the moment but all i could think about was how what he was saying was exactly what Ueshiba was trying to do with Aikido.
something to remember is that we have to put Aikido into the proper context. it was post WWII Japan. a country that for a long time was set in a mindset of Budo as a way to war and destruction.  Ueshiba was twisting the national identity to be budo as a way of harmony.   the nations self identity was wrapped up in Budo.  he was not trying to show people self defense technique.  Ueshiba was totally against using Aikido as a competitive sport like the way Kano was doing with Judo.  it wasnt about that at all.  it was about the spirit of Budo being developed as a way of peace and harmony. to counter act the years of an entire nation set on a path of fighting and war.   the technique just by chance happened to be the vehicle for the psychology to be taught.
i mean he said this stuff ALL THE TIME.  but none wants to listen all they see is the martial art technique and want to live in a fantasy of how it can be effective for fighting.  some people believe Aikido needs to change in order to be effective.   lol its not meant to be effective,,,it is actually the opposite of being effective , at least for fighting.


----------



## JR 137 (Mar 13, 2018)

Spinedoc said:


> So, have been training Aikido for a number of years now, and BJJ for a while as well. Was thinking a lot about Aikido earlier this week, and how so many people, including myself for a long time, simply don't/didn't understand it. Been thinking a lot about effectiveness, pressure testing, etc. Well, as I was thinking about Aikido and Tai Sabaki and I realized, that Aikido techniques were never really designed to be combat effective, I mean...they can be..but that was never the point. O'Sensei's first students (overall-I think Shioda might have been the exception) were all experienced martial artists already. People came to O'sensei because he moved in a way that no one had experienced. They didn't know what it was, but his presence and movement was so effective and so different from anyone else, that Kendo, Judo, and even some Sumo guys all realized that they wanted to learn that. But, Aikido was teaching a form of body movement and aiki to strengthen what they already knew, not necessarily to start from scratch. This was higher level stuff... The purpose was not to learn specific, effective techniques, but to really learn no techniques at all. To use the techniques as a scaffold, not as the end result. The techniques are only there to teach the body to move in a way that enhances aiki and teaches you to apply a redirection of energy. The whole point of Aikido is to train the body to move in a different manner....where techniques become secondary and really irrelevant to a degree. Kind of mind blowing realization to be honest...
> 
> To be fair, it occured while I was trying to escape a triangle that my BJJ partner had me in, so blood flow could have been affected.. All of a sudden, I realized that all of the criticisms about Aikido being an effective martial art were ABSOLUTELY true, and ABSOLUTELY wrong at the exact same time. They were true in the sense that Aikido isn't trained with significant pressure testing and/or combat effectiveness, but this also is wrong, because it misses the entire point of Aikido. If we follow this line of reasoning, it also means that BJJ, Judo, MMA, and other artists should all take Aikido to strengthen their own game/art because it's sole purpose is to make what you already do more effective by improving your flow and body movement....


I don’t know much of aikido, other than watching a bad local teacher (separation of art and practitioners here) run a few bad classes.  That being said, it’s what you’re arguing kind of the ultimate aim of pretty much every art - to perfect the techniques to the point where you’re not longer “using techniques,” but rather, subconsciously just using principles?  Mu shin in a sense.


----------



## Headhunter (Mar 13, 2018)

If that is true then that's fine but instructors need to be honest about that fact


----------



## Spinedoc (Mar 13, 2018)

Headhunter said:


> If that is true then that's fine but instructors need to be honest about that fact



I think most instructors are.  I know mine is.   And yes, the goal is to get to a point where you are using mushin,  but Aikido goes even deeper than that.  Using subtle, slight changes in movement to affect your opponents center.  But at the end, it is all Tai Sabaki.   Most of the yudansha I practice with would tell you that Aikido was never designed to be a combat art.  That is not its purpose.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 13, 2018)

Headhunter said:


> If that is true then that's fine but instructors need to be honest about that fact


one of my instructors consistently said that "it doesnt matter one iota if my aikido works or not, its not about that"


----------



## jobo (Mar 13, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> one of my instructors consistently said that "it doesnt matter one iota if my aikido works or not, its not about that"


, sounds like a snake oil salesman,  what is it about then?


----------



## jobo (Mar 13, 2018)

Spinedoc said:


> I think most instructors are.  I know mine is.   And yes, the goal is to get to a point where you are using mushin,  but Aikido goes even deeper than that.  Using subtle, slight changes in movement to affect your opponents center.  But at the end, it is all Tai Sabaki.   Most of the yudansha I practice with would tell you that Aikido was never designed to be a combat art.  That is not its purpose.


wouldnt you need to define combat, to say that, it was certainly never intended to be a battle field art, to say it has no fighting use at all, begs the question of what its purposes is


----------



## Headhunter (Mar 13, 2018)

jobo said:


> , sounds like a snake oil salesman,  what is it about then?


Read the op


----------



## Spinedoc (Mar 13, 2018)

jobo said:


> wouldnt you need to define combat, to say that, it was certainly never intended to be a battle field art, to say it has no fighting use at all, begs the question of what its purposes is



  I would not say that.  I think Aikido does have fighting use, and the techniques certainly can be effective.  I just think that was not the point of the development of the art. It's far, far beyond that.


----------



## jobo (Mar 13, 2018)

Spinedoc said:


> I would not say that.  I think Aikido does have fighting use, and the techniques certainly can be effective.  I just think that was not the point of the development of the art. It's far, far beyond that.


this is a mystical rabbit hole your carrying us down, if it has fighting applications then it's a " combat" art, if it has other benefits and it does, these will be much the same as any other exercise


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 13, 2018)

_The purpose of training is to tighten up the slack, toughen the body, and polish the spirit.

There are no contests in the Art of Peace. A true warrior is invincible because he or she contests with nothing. Defeat means to defeat the mind of contention that we harbor within.


As soon as you concern yourself with the 'good' and 'bad' of your fellows, you create an opening in your heart for maliciousness to enter. Testing, competing with, and criticizing others weaken and defeat you.


To injure an opponent is to injure yourself. To control aggression without inflicting injury is the Art of Peace.
Read more at: Morihei Ueshiba Quotes_


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 13, 2018)

_“The Art of Peace begins with you. Work on yourself and your appointed task in the Art of Peace. Everyone has a spirit that can be refined, a body that can be trained in some manner, a suitable path to follow. You are here for no other purpose than to realize your inner divinity and manifest your inner enlightenment. Foster peace in your own life and then apply the Art to all that you encounter. 

One does not need buildings, money, power, or status to practice the Art of Peace. Heaven is right where you are standing, and that is the place to train.” 
_
The art of peace
Morihei Ueshiba


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 13, 2018)

If Aikido has a combative application it is by mere inheritance from the previous generation of Daito ryu


----------



## lklawson (Mar 13, 2018)

Spinedoc said:


> So, have been training Aikido for a number of years now, and BJJ for a while as well. Was thinking a lot about Aikido earlier this week, and how so many people, including myself for a long time, simply don't/didn't understand it. Been thinking a lot about effectiveness, pressure testing, etc. Well, as I was thinking about Aikido and Tai Sabaki and I realized, that Aikido techniques were never really designed to be combat effective, I mean...they can be..but that was never the point. O'Sensei's first students (overall-I think Shioda might have been the exception) were all experienced martial artists already. People came to O'sensei because he moved in a way that no one had experienced. They didn't know what it was, but his presence and movement was so effective and so different from anyone else, that Kendo, Judo, and even some Sumo guys all realized that they wanted to learn that. But, Aikido was teaching a form of body movement and aiki to strengthen what they already knew, not necessarily to start from scratch. This was higher level stuff... The purpose was not to learn specific, effective techniques, but to really learn no techniques at all. To use the techniques as a scaffold, not as the end result. The techniques are only there to teach the body to move in a way that enhances aiki and teaches you to apply a redirection of energy. The whole point of Aikido is to train the body to move in a different manner....where techniques become secondary and really irrelevant to a degree. Kind of mind blowing realization to be honest...
> 
> To be fair, it occured while I was trying to escape a triangle that my BJJ partner had me in, so blood flow could have been affected.. All of a sudden, I realized that all of the criticisms about Aikido being an effective martial art were ABSOLUTELY true, and ABSOLUTELY wrong at the exact same time. They were true in the sense that Aikido isn't trained with significant pressure testing and/or combat effectiveness, but this also is wrong, because it misses the entire point of Aikido. If we follow this line of reasoning, it also means that BJJ, Judo, MMA, and other artists should all take Aikido to strengthen their own game/art because it's sole purpose is to make what you already do more effective by improving your flow and body movement....


You're not the first person to come to this conclusion.  It is an epiphany because it's your epiphany.  Most people come to this conclusion about Aikido after having trained in Aikido and in some other fighting style.

For what it's worth, I more or less agree with most of what you are suggesting.  My conclusion about Aikido is a tad more restricted/refined.  I believe that Aikido is generally focused on a very limited subset of "the fight."  It is narrow in such a way that only people with a developed fighting system can really integrate the concepts of Aikido effectively.

But "fighting" isn't the only reason people might want to learn a martial art.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 13, 2018)

jobo said:


> if it has other benefits and it does, these will be much the same as any other exercise


Budo is Budo,  its not jogging in the park with your dog.    if you dont know what Budo is from the Japanese perspective then you have some homework to do.  its not my job to give you an education.


----------



## jobo (Mar 13, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> Budo is Budo,  its not jogging in the park with your dog.    if you dont know what Budo is from the Japanese perspective then you have some homework to do.  its not my job to give you an education.


if jogging with my dog, is part of your ma training, and it is for me, then its as much part of budo as anything else, ergo, it has the same value if its part of ma training or not


----------



## Martial D (Mar 13, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> _The purpose of training is to tighten up the slack, toughen the body, and polish the spirit.
> 
> There are no contests in the Art of Peace. A true warrior is invincible because he or she contests with nothing. Defeat means to defeat the mind of contention that we harbor within.
> 
> ...


wait are you talking about a martial art or a religion? It really sounds like the latter.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 13, 2018)

Martial D said:


> wait are you talking about a martial art or a religion? It really sounds like the latter.


Those are Ueshiba's words not mine, and yes he was into a sect of the Shinto religion. His art was a reflection of his beliefs. For o Sensei there was no separation between the two. Modern practioners might understand the art better if they looked into that.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 13, 2018)

Thanks for the thread Spinedoc.  I have had an interest in Aikido for a long time.  I think since Hapkido and Aikido can be said to have a common heritage, I like to watch and learn possible techniques.  That isn't always easy since I think their basic philosophies are quite different.  Neither is wrong, they are just different.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 13, 2018)

Spinedoc said:


> So, have been training Aikido for a number of years now, and BJJ for a while as well. Was thinking a lot about Aikido earlier this week, and how so many people, including myself for a long time, simply don't/didn't understand it. Been thinking a lot about effectiveness, pressure testing, etc. Well, as I was thinking about Aikido and Tai Sabaki and I realized, that Aikido techniques were never really designed to be combat effective, I mean...they can be..but that was never the point. O'Sensei's first students (overall-I think Shioda might have been the exception) were all experienced martial artists already. People came to O'sensei because he moved in a way that no one had experienced. They didn't know what it was, but his presence and movement was so effective and so different from anyone else, that Kendo, Judo, and even some Sumo guys all realized that they wanted to learn that. But, Aikido was teaching a form of body movement and aiki to strengthen what they already knew, not necessarily to start from scratch. This was higher level stuff... The purpose was not to learn specific, effective techniques, but to really learn no techniques at all. To use the techniques as a scaffold, not as the end result. The techniques are only there to teach the body to move in a way that enhances aiki and teaches you to apply a redirection of energy. The whole point of Aikido is to train the body to move in a different manner....where techniques become secondary and really irrelevant to a degree. Kind of mind blowing realization to be honest...
> 
> To be fair, it occured while I was trying to escape a triangle that my BJJ partner had me in, so blood flow could have been affected.. All of a sudden, I realized that all of the criticisms about Aikido being an effective martial art were ABSOLUTELY true, and ABSOLUTELY wrong at the exact same time. They were true in the sense that Aikido isn't trained with significant pressure testing and/or combat effectiveness, but this also is wrong, because it misses the entire point of Aikido. If we follow this line of reasoning, it also means that BJJ, Judo, MMA, and other artists should all take Aikido to strengthen their own game/art because it's sole purpose is to make what you already do more effective by improving your flow and body movement....


This has been my thought on Aikido (Ueshiba's, as well as the overall aiki concept) for some time. Even within NGA, I teach the aiki as a higher level concept, though I start the foundations of it early. It works best (by far) when there's a strong foundation of non-aiki principles and techniques to build upon.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 13, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> Thanks for the thread Spinedoc.  I have had an interest in Aikido for a long time.  I think since Hapkido and Aikido can be said to have a common heritage, I like to watch and learn possible techniques.  That isn't always easy since I think their basic philosophies are quite different.  Neither is wrong, they are just different.


I think Hapkido's approach, if I understand it correctly, is a bit closer to NGA's. The "aiki" (hapki??) is a part of the art, and not all of the art. It gives it some character and adds some tools.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 13, 2018)

Headhunter said:


> If that is true then that's fine but instructors need to be honest about that fact


I don't think most instructors share that view. I think that's unfortunate. Ueshiba's early students were (so far as I know) all accomplished martial artists. Aikido worked for them because of that, and they liked it because it was useful to them in improving what they already knew.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 13, 2018)

jobo said:


> , sounds like a snake oil salesman,  what is it about then?


Some folks study Aikido (I think especially in Shin-shin Toitsu) as a study of ki (and aiki), rather than as a combat system.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 13, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> If Aikido has a combative application it is by mere inheritance from the previous generation of Daito ryu


I think early Aikido (pre WWII) still had combat focus to some extent.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 13, 2018)

Martial D said:


> wait are you talking about a martial art or a religion? It really sounds like the latter.


Especially after WWII, there was little distinction for Ueshiba from what I can tell.


----------



## jobo (Mar 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Some folks study Aikido (I think especially in Shin-shin Toitsu) as a study of ki (and aiki), rather than as a combat system.


I'm prepared to believe in " chi" as a number of real physiological and psychological ,  process that result from exercises and meditation lumped together by people who had no medical knowledge and called ki. However any one who is selling you qi is a snake oil sales man as its totally unquantifiable. They can't even decide how it's spelt


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 14, 2018)

jobo said:


> I'm prepared to believe in " chi" as a number of real physiological and psychological ,  process that result from exercises and meditation lumped together by people who had no medical knowledge and called ki. However any one who is selling you qi is a snake oil sales man as its totally unquantifiable. They can't even decide how it's spelt


Agreed. I teach about ki in my classes, and start that teaching by explaining that it's just a shorthand for something - organization of muscles, use of structure in cooperation with gravity, relaxation and tension, weight shifts and directionality, etc. It's just easier to say "extend your ki" as a shorthand for "extend your arm with relaxed tension, being sure to not tense the opposing muscles, while lowering your center of gravity and staying centered over your stance".


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 14, 2018)

jobo said:


> They can't even decide how it's spelt


while your post is humorous, the problem is not theirs its yours.  Ki is Japanese and Chi is Chinese.  and they know how to spell it quite reliably.  the issue is yours that you cant distinquish between two different cultures and the fact that you cant read their writing, in their language, so you romanize it into your own.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 14, 2018)

Spinedoc said:


> Aikido was never designed to be a combat art.  That is not its purpose.


My friend Armando Flores may disagree with you on this. One day Armando and another Karate instructor visited me. I told them that there was a local Karate tournament in Austin (1977). 3 of us brought our soft Karate gloves and competed in that tournament. A week later, Armando was kicked out of his Aikido Association.

IMO, your MA teacher may lead you into the MA door. How you will develop your combat skill will be up to yourself.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 14, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> My friend Armando Flores may disagree with you on this. One day Armando and another Karate instructor visited me. I told them that there was a local Karate tournament in Austin (1977). 3 of us brought our soft Karate gloves and competed in that tournament. A week later, Armando was kicked out of his Aikido Association.
> 
> IMO, your MA teacher may lead you into the MA door. How you will develop your combat skill will be up to yourself.


I'm missing how that's counter to the statement you quoted.

I'm also curious what the reason was that they gave for kicking him out of the association.


----------



## Martial D (Mar 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Especially after WWII, there was little distinction for Ueshiba from what I can tell.


My love for martial arts is only rivaled by my distaste for religion.

The thought of the latter tainting and polluting the former makes me cringe a little.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I'm missing how that's counter to the statement you quoted.
> 
> I'm also curious what the reason was that they gave for kicking him out of the association.


Whether a MA style is good for combat or not may depend on you and may not depend on your MA instructor. 

In his Aikido Association, to compete in public tournament was not allowed.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 14, 2018)

Spinedoc said:


> So, have been training Aikido for a number of years now, and BJJ for a while as well. Was thinking a lot about Aikido earlier this week, and how so many people, including myself for a long time, simply don't/didn't understand it. Been thinking a lot about effectiveness, pressure testing, etc. Well, as I was thinking about Aikido and Tai Sabaki and I realized, that Aikido techniques were never really designed to be combat effective, I mean...they can be..but that was never the point. O'Sensei's first students (overall-I think Shioda might have been the exception) were all experienced martial artists already. People came to O'sensei because he moved in a way that no one had experienced. They didn't know what it was, but his presence and movement was so effective and so different from anyone else, that Kendo, Judo, and even some Sumo guys all realized that they wanted to learn that. But, Aikido was teaching a form of body movement and aiki to strengthen what they already knew, not necessarily to start from scratch. This was higher level stuff... The purpose was not to learn specific, effective techniques, but to really learn no techniques at all. To use the techniques as a scaffold, not as the end result. The techniques are only there to teach the body to move in a way that enhances aiki and teaches you to apply a redirection of energy. The whole point of Aikido is to train the body to move in a different manner....where techniques become secondary and really irrelevant to a degree. Kind of mind blowing realization to be honest...
> 
> To be fair, it occured while I was trying to escape a triangle that my BJJ partner had me in, so blood flow could have been affected.. All of a sudden, I realized that all of the criticisms about Aikido being an effective martial art were ABSOLUTELY true, and ABSOLUTELY wrong at the exact same time. They were true in the sense that Aikido isn't trained with significant pressure testing and/or combat effectiveness, but this also is wrong, because it misses the entire point of Aikido. If we follow this line of reasoning, it also means that BJJ, Judo, MMA, and other artists should all take Aikido to strengthen their own game/art because it's sole purpose is to make what you already do more effective by improving your flow and body movement....



It is about bang for buck.

So as one of my coaches said to me. Everything you find in judo you will find in wrestling. And they have the better training ethic.

If what Aikido as a whole system had that sort of value. Aikido fighters would be out there beating people.

Otherwise time is taken away from training in a system that will progress the martial artist


----------



## drop bear (Mar 14, 2018)

jobo said:


> this is a mystical rabbit hole your carrying us down, if it has fighting applications then it's a " combat" art, if it has other benefits and it does, these will be much the same as any other exercise



Yes and no.

The idea is it might have a timing or sensitivity advantage that is useful. But not in itself evident.

Like yoga. I could do yoga and not be able to fight my way out of a wet paper bag.

But I could do yoga and BJJ and be better at BJJ because of it.


----------



## jobo (Mar 14, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> The idea is it might have a timing or sensitivity advantage that is useful. But not in itself evident.
> 
> ...


if it's not EVIDENT, ie there us no EVIDENCE for it then it doesn't exist, you might as well claim the fairies are helping you


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 14, 2018)

Jobo VS drop bear .....in an argument. 
this should be entertaining.  let me get some popcorn.


----------



## Martial D (Mar 14, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> Jobo VS drop bear .....in an argument.
> this should be entertaining.  let me get some popcorn.


In that there would be 0 passive agressive dilly -dallying or subject dodging or overly sensitive feelings involved, it would indeed. A refreshing change really


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 14, 2018)

Martial D said:


> In that there would be 0 passive agressive dilly -dallying or subject dodging or overly sensitive feelings involved, it would indeed. A refreshing change really


No subject dodging from Jobo??


----------



## Martial D (Mar 14, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> No subject dodging from Jobo??


Not that I've noticed. Where he seems to get people is holding on to points that have been defeated long after their death, but it usually seems to be on topic.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 14, 2018)

jobo said:


> if it's not EVIDENT, ie there us no EVIDENCE for it then it doesn't exist, you might as well claim the fairies are helping you



Yep. That is also correct.

So you would have to find out what the actual benefits are.

Whether the benefits are worth the effort.

And whether Aikido is the fastest way to get them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 14, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yep. That is also correct.
> 
> So you would have to find out what the actual benefits are.
> 
> ...


Other than smooth movement, I doubt Aikido is the fastest path to anything physical. It might be the fastest path to smooth movement. For those seeking peace, meditation is probably faster, but maybe not as good for the joints.


----------



## BrendanF (Mar 15, 2018)

Spinedoc said:


> The whole point of Aikido is to train the body to move in a different manner....where techniques become secondary and really irrelevant to a degree. Kind of mind blowing realization to be honest...



That's what I've been told - but you wont find it in Aikido (again, just what I've been told).  You'd need to go to one of the Daitoryu groups to learn aiki.. and not just any of the half dozen remaining legitimate lines, but specifically those descending from one of Takeda's students who were specifically taught it, like Kodo or Sagawa (ie Kodokai, Roppokai, Muden Juku etc or Sagawa/Kimura etc)


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 15, 2018)

BrendanF said:


> That's what I've been told - but you wont find it in Aikido (again, just what I've been told).  You'd need to go to one of the Daitoryu groups to learn aiki.. and not just any of the half dozen remaining legitimate lines, but specifically those descending from one of Takeda's students who were specifically taught it, like Kodo or Sagawa (ie Kodokai, Roppokai, Muden Juku etc or Sagawa/Kimura etc)



It might seem strange to say an acknowledged accepted art that has aiki in its name doesn't teach aiki, wouldn't you think? 

Now if you said some or even many students never achieve a good usage of aiki, or chi, or ki, or gi (choose the spelling you like most) that might be more believable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 15, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> It might seem strange to say an acknowledged accepted art that has aiki in its name doesn't teach aiki, wouldn't you think?
> 
> Now if you said some or even many students never achieve a good usage of aiki, or chi, or ki, or gi (choose the spelling you like most) that might be more believable.


I suspect what is used in Aikido doesn't match the definition of "aiki" used by those branches of Daito-ryu. I've heard a number of definitions of aiki, including from some in Daito-ryu (not sure if any were in the branches mentioned), and all were different. I've yet to find a reason it would matter beyond a feeling of ownership of the term.

Folks in the Aikikai defininitely do display aiki as they tend to define it. One of Stan Pranin's recommendations to improve Aikido practice matched one of the definitions I saw the senior Kondo use.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 15, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I suspect what is used in Aikido doesn't match the definition of "aiki" used by those branches of Daito-ryu. I've heard a number of definitions of aiki, including from some in Daito-ryu (not sure if any were in the branches mentioned), and all were different. I've yet to find a reason it would matter beyond a feeling of ownership of the term.
> 
> Folks in the Aikikai defininitely do display aiki as they tend to define it. One of Stan Pranin's recommendations to improve Aikido practice matched one of the definitions I saw the senior Kondo use.



You would know more than I would for sure.  I only know what I learned of gi while studying Hapkido.


----------



## jobo (Mar 15, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Other than smooth movement, I doubt Aikido is the fastest path to anything physical. It might be the fastest path to smooth movement. For those seeking peace, meditation is probably faster, but maybe not as good for the joints.


you can do moving meditations,


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 15, 2018)

If we look at most of the Aikido clip, the demo partners all commit force into one direction. For example, your opponent walks toward you, you pull him, he then fall forward. You just don't see the following demo such as:

- Your opponent walks toward you,
- you pull him toward you,
- He resists,
- You then borrow his resistance force and throw him backward.

Why? Do Aikido guys only train "yield" and don't train "resist"?


----------



## lklawson (Mar 15, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why? Do Aikido guys only train "yield" and don't train "resist"?


Some do, some do not.  The reversal is sometimes considered a second step in training after the "only push" starting place for those who practice it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 15, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If we look at most of the Aikido clip, the demo partners all commit force into one direction. For example, your opponent walks toward you, you pull him, he then fall forward. You just don't see the following demo such as:
> 
> - Your opponent walks toward you,
> - you pull him toward you,
> ...


I've no idea why they don't, but I've only rarely seen them training what to do when they meet resistance. To me, there are two times (and maybe only two) when real aiki is available: when someone overcommits their weight into an attack, and when someone overcommits their weight into resisting. The second is easier to find.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 15, 2018)

jobo said:


> you can do moving meditations,



Its called BJJ.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 15, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I've no idea why they don't, but I've only rarely seen them training what to do when they meet resistance. To me, there are two times (and maybe only two) when real aiki is available: when someone overcommits their weight into an attack, and when someone overcommits their weight into resisting. The second is easier to find.


IMO, all throwing techniques should be trained in pairs in opposite directions. This way you don't care whether your opponent yields or resists.

Can Aikido training be able to help you on wrestling mat like this? Your thought?


----------



## BrendanF (Mar 15, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> It might seem strange to say an acknowledged accepted art that has aiki in its name doesn't teach aiki, wouldn't you think?
> 
> Now if you said some or even many students never achieve a good usage of aiki, or chi, or ki, or gi (choose the spelling you like most) that might be more believable.



I suppose that was the point of my post.  It's certainly not a popular perspective among Aikido folk, but to summarise, the idea was that

- Aiki was originally a DR concept, with specifically martial applications.
- It was a body art - a conditioned state of 'being'
- Ueshiba Morihei had it, but didn't teach it to many, if any

And critically - What we know as Aikido today largely comes from Ueshiba Morihei's son Kisshomaru.  It focuses on the physical shape of the waza, and does not touch on the internal training required to acquire/express aiki.

As I said, this is not my theory, just what I've heard.  I don't practice any Aiki art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 15, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, all throwing techniques should be trained in pairs in opposite directions. This way you don't care whether your opponent yields or resists.
> 
> Can Aikido training be able to help you on wrestling mat like this? Your thought?


For some reason, I can't get that video to load. Here's my thought from what I've seen of wrestling and Aikido. Most Aikido schools only train an upright structure and variations from it. Wrestling (and Judo, to a lesser extent) often gets into a bent structure from the start. That will cause real problems for someone who has only trained that upright structure. Now add that most Aikido training depends upon direct input. Grabbing an arm and staying still (part of hand fighting, for instance) doesn't feed the weight shift they depend upon, so there's another problem.

They have throws both entering and exiting, both front and back (for the person being thrown), but not much for tight clinch distance. There's plenty of related material that would flesh that out - imagine adding some basic Judo to it. This is why I see Aikido as a sort of "finishing school" - a way to put some polish on movement for someone who already has a solid base. Someone with solid Judo skills might find Aikido expands their options, and they would already have the skills for handling both resistance and input (the latter getting expanded more by the Aikido).

This is a bit more what NGA is. We have some influence from Judo, and I bring that more to the front than most instructors (Judo was the first art that seemed to click for me). I do actually train both aiki and "hard" (Judo-type) throws similar to what you recommend. After I teach a technique, I show the common resistance points and what would be available at each. When showing a technique that depends upon resistance, I follow up with the reverse - what is available if that resistance isn't there or is too weak to feed the technique.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 16, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Most Aikido schools only train an upright structure and variations from it. Wrestling (and Judo, to a lesser extent) often gets into a bent structure from the start.


This can be an issue. When you

- stand upright, it's very easy for your opponent to get your single leg or double legs.
- bend forward, it's easy for your opponent to press on the back of your neck and drag you down.

There is no perfect structure. But when your opponent attacks, your body should be able to change.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 16, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Can Aikido training be able to help you on wrestling mat like this?


my answer is no.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 16, 2018)

BrendanF said:


> What we know as Aikido today largely comes from Ueshiba Morihei's son Kisshomaru


this is not true at all. most of the well known instructors trained directly with O Sensei long before Kisshomaru took over.


----------



## Spinedoc (Mar 16, 2018)

BrendanF said:


> I suppose that was the point of my post.  It's certainly not a popular perspective among Aikido folk, but to summarise, the idea was that
> 
> - Aiki was originally a DR concept, with specifically martial applications.
> - It was a body art - a conditioned state of 'being'
> ...



Actually no.    My understanding is that the concept of Aiki, does not appear in Daito Ryu scrolls or history before the 1920s.  This was around the same time that Takeda Sokaku and his top student Ueshiba were spending a lot of time with an Omoto priest. Deguchi Onisaburo  was spending quite a bit of time with both them.  This is around the same time that the concept in term of Aiki began to appear.  Whether not this is a religious expression/concept is debatable.  But the term itself did not really appear until that time.  Aiki is not a specified martial application.   It literally means, "joining of the spirit".


----------



## Spinedoc (Mar 16, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> For some reason, I can't get that video to load. Here's my thought from what I've seen of wrestling and Aikido. Most Aikido schools only train an upright structure and variations from it. Wrestling (and Judo, to a lesser extent) often gets into a bent structure from the start. That will cause real problems for someone who has only trained that upright structure. Now add that most Aikido training depends upon direct input. Grabbing an arm and staying still (part of hand fighting, for instance) doesn't feed the weight shift they depend upon, so there's another problem.
> 
> They have throws both entering and exiting, both front and back (for the person being thrown), but not much for tight clinch distance. There's plenty of related material that would flesh that out - imagine adding some basic Judo to it. This is why I see Aikido as a sort of "finishing school" - a way to put some polish on movement for someone who already has a solid base. Someone with solid Judo skills might find Aikido expands their options, and they would already have the skills for handling both resistance and input (the latter getting expanded more by the Aikido).
> 
> This is a bit more what NGA is. We have some influence from Judo, and I bring that more to the front than most instructors (Judo was the first art that seemed to click for me). I do actually train both aiki and "hard" (Judo-type) throws similar to what you recommend. After I teach a technique, I show the common resistance points and what would be available at each. When showing a technique that depends upon resistance, I follow up with the reverse - what is available if that resistance isn't there or is too weak to feed the technique.



  I think there are a few misconceptions here.   It is true, that we do not start in a bent structure.  This has a lot to do with the concept of Zanshin.  I would say, that for on armed, 1 on 1, combat, there are number of Arts that are better than aikido.  However, we make 2 assumptions that most arts do not make.  1. every attacker has a weapon. EVERYONE has a weapon.   Could be a bottle, could be a pool cue, could be a stick, could be a knife, could be a glass, there is always a weapon involved.  2. every attack or has friends.  The fight will never be fair, and will never be 1 on 1. We assume always, that there will be another person joining the fight.

  In those situations, when you are fighting against weapons or multiple attackers, Aikido is likely a better choice than many other arts.

 Also, we could create the weight shift if we need.   At lower levels, we train in a static, non dynamic manner.  People have to feel and explore the movement of the technique.  For example, I was working with a junior student the other night on shomenuchi ikkyo.  He was struggling, as he kept trying to push my arm in a linear manner.  I resisted, and demonstrated that he was not doing the technique properly.  I showed him how to employ a circular motion that worked around the resistance.  We always discuss where the resistance is, and how to work around it.  At higher levels, the techniques by necessity have to become dynamic.  Concept of sen sen no sen.  You should already be moving before your opponent even touches you.  This way, resistance can never be established.  It takes a long time however to get to that level.

  As far as creating weight shift, this is where atemi becomes so valuable. O'Sensei once said that 90% of his Aikido was atemi.   What he meant by that, was reacting to an attack before it lands, and using strikes to off-balance your opponent before throwing.  Unfortunately, most aikido dojos do not practice this.  That does not however mean that it is not there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 16, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> this is not true at all. most of the well known instructors trained directly with O Sensei long before Kisshomaru took over.


And it was my impression that for some time prior to him taking over, Tohei was doing much of the teaching at their hombu.


----------



## Spinedoc (Mar 16, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, all throwing techniques should be trained in pairs in opposite directions. This way you don't care whether your opponent yields or resists.
> 
> Can Aikido training be able to help you on wrestling mat like this? Your thought?



Aikido never resists.  If we feel resistance in a technique, we simply switch to a different technique.  Also known as henka waza.  For example,  if I am attempting to execute a shomenuchi ikkyo on an opponent, and he resists before I can capture his kuzushi, I simply move with his resistance. In the case of that technique, I might switch to a maki otoshi or sumi otoshi.  We want to avoid the battle of strength.  That is absolute anathema to aikido. BTW, almost all arts to this. These same principles I see all the time in BJJ.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 16, 2018)

Spinedoc said:


> I think there are a few misconceptions here.   It is true, that we do not start in a bent structure.  This has a lot to do with the concept of Zanshin.  I would say, that for on armed, 1 on 1, combat, there are number of Arts that are better than aikido.  However, we make 2 assumptions that most arts do not make.  1. every attacker has a weapon. EVERYONE has a weapon.   Could be a bottle, could be a pool cue, could be a stick, could be a knife, could be a glass, there is always a weapon involved.  2. every attack or has friends.  The fight will never be fair, and will never be 1 on 1. We assume always, that there will be another person joining the fight.
> 
> In those situations, when you are fighting against weapons or multiple attackers, Aikido is likely a better choice than many other arts.
> 
> ...


I don't get to see much of the high-level (beyond the first couple of years) of Aikido, since I'm always a visitor. I can say quite definitively that in most Aikido schools I've visited (not all), strikes are nearly non-existent in training. In most, I can watch or attend a few classes in a row and literally never see a single strike used by the defender. I agree that Ueshiba used more strikes (at least early in his career - his videos from later in life are much softer). My thought on this has long been that his early students mostly already had good striking, so he didn't teach it - just expected them to copy what he did. I think most taught similar to how he taught them, so also didn't teach strikes much, and that has gradually reduced the strikes found in most lines of his art. There are probably other reasons for that lack.

And while I'm sure that most Aikidoka (experienced) can make those posture shifts to change structure, I never see them used except occasionally to be lower within a technique. Again, I can only speak for the training I've seen and experienced in Aikido schools. If there are lines of Aikido teaching more strikes and posture changes, that's a good sign.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 16, 2018)

Spinedoc said:


> Aikido never resists.  If we feel resistance in a technique, we simply switch to a different technique.  Also known as henka waza.  For example,  if I am attempting to execute a shomenuchi ikkyo on an opponent, and he resists before I can capture his kuzushi, I simply move with his resistance. In the case of that technique, I might switch to a maki otoshi or sumi otoshi.  We want to avoid the battle of strength.  That is absolute anathema to aikido. BTW, almost all arts to this. These same principles I see all the time in BJJ.


I look at Judo for an example of what is being discussed. Sometimes the resistance isn't a push-pull, so there's nothing feeding the movement for Aikido. Judo would then (often) combine a push and pull (yes, with muscle) to create movement. As often as not, it creates active (moving) resistance that they then use to throw. So that last part is very similar to an aiki approach, but needed a non-aiki use of muscle to get there. There are both small and large examples of this - small being where they're not providing enough input for the aiki flow, and large being where they're not proving anything that gives effective input to it.

Bear in mind, I don't know all the same techniques you do, nor with the same approach. So it's possible you have answers to this I'm not aware of. Your other descriptions of your training sound like it's significantly different from what I've seen and experienced at Aikido dojos, so it may be you even train against the kind of resistance I'm talking about, but I've not seen that practice at other Aikido dojos.


----------



## lklawson (Mar 16, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, all throwing techniques should be trained in pairs in opposite directions. This way you don't care whether your opponent yields or resists.
> 
> Can Aikido training be able to help you on wrestling mat like this? Your thought?


Depends on what you think Aikido is.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 16, 2018)

Spinedoc said:


> Aikido never resists. ... If we feel resistance in a technique, we simply switch to a different technique.


An Aikido guy may never resist but his opponent may. To borrow your opponent's force is the general principle for all wrestling art. Will you be able to find any Aikido clip that

- You try to throw your opponent forward.
- He resists.
- You then throw him backward.

In other words, do Aikido guys train combo - use move 1 to set up move 2?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 16, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Depends on what you think Aikido is.


You train MA in order to solve certain problems. Your problem may come from boxing, MT, Judo, wrestling, ...

IMO, Aikido is similar to Taiji. An Aikido guy may like to wait and expect his opponent to commit on something. In most of the wrestling art, one should give before he can take.

An example of "give before take" can be.

- You pull the back of your opponent's neck toward you.
- If he yields into you, you sweep his foot and throw him forward.
- If he resists against you, you push his neck, cut his leg, and throw him backward.

How you may throw your opponent depends on your opponent's respond. But you make the initial move and offer the initial force instead.


----------



## Spinedoc (Mar 16, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> An Aikido guy may never resist but his opponent may. To borrow your opponent's force is the general principle for all wrestling art. Will you be able to find any Aikido clip that
> 
> - You try to throw your opponent forward.
> - He resists.
> ...



All the time. That's the foundation behind Henka Waza. Most of the time, this is not practiced until the higher kyu ranks. You won't be tested on it until nidan at the earliest. Here's a video of Berthiaume Shihan, The first part is just explaining the basis behind the shihonage (strikes included) and then the second part deals with counters and transitioning into a different technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 16, 2018)

Spinedoc said:


> All the time. That's the foundation behind Henka Waza. Most of the time, this is not practiced until the higher kyu ranks. You won't be tested on it until nidan at the earliest. Here's a video of Berthiaume Shihan, The first part is just explaining the basis behind the shihonage (strikes included) and then the second part deals with counters and transitioning into a different technique.


That's definitely a level I've not seen - when visiting (or at seminars) I wouldn't be involved in anything that far into a curriculum. Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 16, 2018)

Aikido uses a lot of "floating hand" that you use both hands to control one of your opponent's arms, twist his arm, and force him to flip. IMO, this will give your opponent one free hand that can do a lot of counters on you. 

For example, at 0.18, his opponent's left hand can hook punch at his head. What's the Aikido solution for that free arm?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 16, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Aikido uses a lot of "floating hand" that you use both hands to control one of your opponent's arms, twist his arm, and force him to flip. IMO, this will give your opponent one free hand that can do a lot of counters on you. What's the Aikido solution for that free arm?


NGA has similar positions in some techniques. My answer to that is that you have to break their structure enough to limit the counters. If you don't/can't, then that particular technique isn't actually available yet.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 16, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> NGA has similar positions in some techniques. My answer to that is that you have to break their structure enough to limit the counters. If you don't/can't, then that particular technique isn't actually available yet.


Many throwing art systems have ignored that free arm. At 0.31 of this clip, when he moves in with a hip throw, his opponent's free left arm can push his head back (or just punch on his head). You have 2 arms. Your opponent also have 2 arms. To ignore your opponent's free arm is not proper IMO.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 16, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many throwing art systems have ignored that free arm. At 0.31 of this clip, when he moves in with a hip throw, his opponent's free left arm can push his head back (or just punch on his head). You have 2 arms. Your opponent also have 2 arms. To ignore your opponent's free arm is not proper IMO.


I agree. That was the point about breaking structure. If I have them off-balance the right way, no punch will have any power and I can limit their reach to be able to push/pull/grab. That has to be a concern with every interaction. I see a lot of folks (even some in NGA) who forget that someone grabbing with their right hand still has an arm left (no pun intended).


----------



## Spinedoc (Mar 16, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many throwing art systems have ignored that free arm. At 0.31 of this clip, when he moves in with a hip throw, his opponent's free left arm can push his head back (or just punch on his head). You have 2 arms. Your opponent also have 2 arms. To ignore your opponent's free arm is not proper IMO.



We don't ignore it. We stay out of the way. The first fundamental in Aikido is GETTING off line. At that 18 second mark that you note, he is off line, and would strike at Uke's face, this causes uke to try and block or protect, rather than strike. As you do that, you are already positioning for shihonage. Remember, this is being done at slow speeds in a seminar teaching the form. At high speeds, ideally, the throw should be happening before uke really knows what happened.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 16, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I agree. That was the point about breaking structure. If I have them off-balance the right way, no punch will have any power and I can limit their reach to be able to push/pull/grab. That has to be a concern with every interaction. I see a lot of folks (even some in NGA) who forget that someone grabbing with their right hand still has an arm left (no pun intended).


Sometime even if you may have crashed your opponent's structure, since the clinch has combine your structure and your opponent's structure as one, your opponent can still borrow your structure and apply his free hand.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 16, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime even if you may have crashed your opponent's structure, since the clinch has combine your structure and your opponent's structure as one, your opponent can still borrow your structure and apply his free hand.


In clinch, the problem is a bit different - the additional contact does join structures, so you won't be able to break their structure as fully from one side (unless you can get it broken backwards). But then, in clinch, you're probably already dealing with both hands.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 16, 2018)

Spinedoc said:


> We don't ignore it. We stay out of the way. The first fundamental in Aikido is GETTING off line.


To move away from your opponent's back hand can be a good solution. But when you throw your opponent, that distance will become shorter again.

One general solution for this is to use "tucking", you guide your opponent's free arm away from your entering path. But if you use both hands to control one of your opponent's arms, you don't have another free hand to do that "tucking".



Spinedoc said:


> 1. every attacker has a weapon.


What if your opponent has 2 daggers, one in each hand? Is it real a good idea to use both hands to control one of your opponent's arms and give him one free arm?


----------



## drop bear (Mar 16, 2018)

Spinedoc said:


> Aikido never resists.  If we feel resistance in a technique, we simply switch to a different technique.  Also known as henka waza.  For example,  if I am attempting to execute a shomenuchi ikkyo on an opponent, and he resists before I can capture his kuzushi, I simply move with his resistance. In the case of that technique, I might switch to a maki otoshi or sumi otoshi.  We want to avoid the battle of strength.  That is absolute anathema to aikido. BTW, almost all arts to this. These same principles I see all the time in BJJ.



Yeah. But BJJ also a fight.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 16, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To move away from your opponent's back hand can be a good solution. But when you throw your opponent, that distance will become shorter again.
> 
> One general solution for this is to use "tucking", you guide your opponent's free arm away from your entering path. But if you use both hands to control one of your opponent's arms, you don't have another free hand to do that "tucking".
> 
> ...



Lol.

People hate two daggers.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 16, 2018)

drop bear said:


> People hate two daggers.


In wrestling, you 

- use your right arm to deal with your opponent's left arm, and
- use your left arm to deal with your opponent's right arm.

I don't believe any MA system can avoid that general principle.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 16, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In wrestling, you
> 
> - use your right arm to deal with your opponent's left arm, and
> - use your left arm to deal with your opponent's right arm.
> ...



There are 2on1 controls. But for some strange reason the other guy doesn't just let you walk up and take them.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 17, 2018)

drop bear said:


> There are 2on1 controls. But for some strange reason the other guy doesn't just let you walk up and take them.


If you learn a technique, you should also learn how to counter that technique. IMO, to assume that your opponent has no knowledge and no ability to counter your "2 on 1" is not realistic.

If you write a MA book and your book include 100 techniques, your book should also include

- how to counter those 100 techniques.
- how to counter those counters of those 100 techniques.

For example, when your opponent applies "2 on 1 - arm drag" on you,

- You can push his dragging arm across and in front of his body. This will change his dragging into you use his leading arm to jam his back arm. This will also prevent him from moving behind you.
- He can then borrow your pushing/jamming force, spin his body, and take you down.
- You can then ...

Not sure if Aikido will get into this level of training - technique, counter, counter to counter.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 17, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you learn a technique, you should also learn how to counter that technique. IMO, to assume that your opponent has no knowledge and no ability to counter your "2 on 1" is not realistic.
> 
> If you write a MA book and your book include 100 techniques, your book should also include
> 
> ...



If they are not banging in to each other. (force on force)the counters would be a bit weird.


----------



## BrendanF (Mar 18, 2018)

Spinedoc said:


> Actually no.    My understanding is that the concept of Aiki, does not appear in Daito Ryu scrolls or history before the 1920s.  This was around the same time that Takeda Sokaku and his top student Ueshiba were spending a lot of time with an Omoto priest. Deguchi Onisaburo  was spending quite a bit of time with both them.  This is around the same time that the concept in term of Aiki began to appear.  Whether not this is a religious expression/concept is debatable.  But the term itself did not really appear until that time.  Aiki is not a specified martial application.   It literally means, "joining of the spirit".



I don't know the specifics regarding the scrolls, however the Daito ryu party line is that Aiki is a DR concept that absolutely predates Ueshiba.

And yes, I'm aware of what the kanji mean (not exactly what you said, but whatever), and of the (aikikai) aikido application of the term.  I was trying to illustrate the fact that this interpretation/application differs from the application the term has at it's source.

No, I didn't say it's 'a specified martial application' - I said it's a conditioned state of 'being', that has specifically martial applications.  What that means is that in the 'aiki-heavy' lines of DR, it is considered to be an internally conditioned body, the result of specific type of tanren, which creates an ability to apply kuzushi on contact.  This is in many ways similar to Taiji, Baguazhang and the other internal Chinese martial arts - and also what supposedly creates the unique (read: nearly unbelievable) look to many DR techniques.

And to reiterate; I'm only repeating what I've been told by those who have significant experience with both Aikido and DR.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 19, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Aikido uses a lot of "floating hand" that you use both hands to control one of your opponent's arms, twist his arm, and force him to flip. IMO, this will give your opponent one free hand that can do a lot of counters on you.
> 
> For example, at 0.18, his opponent's left hand can hook punch at his head. What's the Aikido solution for that free arm?



It is a concern, but ...

Done at speed, the opponent has less chance, especially when he will be defending against the strike to the chest and knee to the groin.  And then you see the pull off balance and wrist lock into a throw (or a break of the wrist), from a position where the opponent's arm cannot be brought into play.




Kung Fu Wang said:


> To move away from your opponent's back hand can be a good solution. But when you throw your opponent, that distance will become shorter again.
> 
> One general solution for this is to use "tucking", you guide your opponent's free arm away from your entering path. But if you use both hands to control one of your opponent's arms, you don't have another free hand to do that "tucking".
> 
> ...



I think most of what you will see in Aikido will be ensuring the opponents arms and legs are put in a position of no physical chance to be used offensively.  Of course IF he has a dagger in each hand, maybe there will be a chance to get another arm/hand in play, and a different defense IF possible would be necessary.  But if your attack or defense pulls the opponent in such a way as I mentioned, when the video shows him doing that, so you control one hand, and the other arm is unable to be used.  But that is only IF he has two daggers.


----------



## wab25 (Mar 19, 2018)

Just thought I would put in my two cents here. For some context, I have been studying Danzan Ryu Jujitsu for about 20 years now. For the last 4-5 I have been training Kenkojuku  style Shotokan Karate as well. The dojo I rent space out of, primarily teaches Aikiko, but they have a lot of other Japanese arts their as well, including Daito Ryu Aiki Jujitsu. I get the opportunity to get on the mat and train with the Aikido guys quite a bit... and unfortunately to a lesser extent with the Daito Ryu guys as well.

My take on Aikido is similar to what many have mentioned here. It is a finishing art, as in you already know some other arts before starting Aikido. As you move through the Aikido patterns, they are quite lengthy, but do offer many opportunities to apply other arts to short circuit the Aikido pattern. However, as the student, you need to recognize where these places are. The pattern will open targets to punch or kick and provide places to enter for a number of different throws. The more you bring to the table, the more opportunities you find. However, many students start with Aikido as their first art... and thus don't understand what they are missing. When they go on to be instructors, there is a lot to the patterns that they don't understand, in my opinion.

The patterns for Aikido, are sometimes long and intricate. They seem to require a partner who knows the other side of the pattern and who needs to be willing. To me, this is like learning ballroom dance. At first, both the lead and follow need to know where to go. In order to become a good lead, you need to work with patient follows, who know where they need to be and who can give you feedback on how to lead better. With dance, you get to a point where you can start to lead a good follow, without the follow knowing before hand what is coming up. Eventually, you can lead even a beginner, with no knowledge what so ever, into at least the basic moves and more as you get better as a lead. However, at the beginning you need the cooperation.

I feel that a lot of time, people think Aikido is about the end of the technique... where the guy falls down or taps out. In my opinion, this is due to the lack of other martial arts experience of the student. By the time Aikido gets to the "make him fall down" part, you have already passed many opportunities to punch, kick, lock, take down or throw the guy. You didn't, because you were following the pattern. Aikido is about the very first part of the technique. Can you immediately off balance and compromise your opponent and can you keep it? If you can, you can use it to set up any number of much more effective techniques to end the confrontation.

So why the long pattern? I look at it like adding a really long lever to a small precise movement. By adding a really long lever, you can work on making the movement slowly, applying the right pressure at the right time, in the right direction. As you get better, the lever can be shortened. Eventually, no lever is needed.

The question is: Is it effective? In all the rolling / sparring I have never been able to apply an "Aikido" technique to my opponent. I have however, been able to better employ certain principles. It has helped me develop a better feel in some cases, helped me break their balance and or structure easier in other cases and even develop more leverage. However, remember I said I was a DZR guy? Well, the Shotokan has also given me improvements in all those same areas. So has the bits of BJJ I have worked on, as well as the Daito Ryu... All of them, have helped me improve my DZR. All of them have shown me things my Sensei has been pointing out to me for years. Here is the thing though, each one of these arts has given me different insights and different improvements to the same techniques and to the same principles.

So, is Aikido the best way to learn these extra finishing bits? Is it the fastest way? I don't know. I know its not the only way. I know it has shown me things that other arts have not, though that may be due the denseness of the student, in my case. Comparing it with Daito Ryu, I find Daito Ryu to do the same thing, only more directly... in an opposite kind of way. (one enters when the other yields and vice versa) I find Daito Ryu to be a bit more complete for a combat art. 

In the end, I find Aikido does bring some things to the table, if you look at it right. Its about that initial contact... not the finishing of your opponent. The long complicated patterns, are levers to make certain motions much bigger for the student to see and feel. That pattern also provides many opportunities to short circuit and finish the opponent, but these are left for the student to find and fill (or bring with them). Just like in dancing, those long patterns, with a cooperating partner, will allow you to develop a feel for what the other guy is doing... you will feel him resist, much sooner. Some of the patterns have that resistance bit built into them, slowed down and magnified, so that you can practice dealing with it.

In the end, I think everyone has to evaluate how they spend their allotted training time. Aikido has a lot of things to offer, but its not for everyone. It also helps if you know what it is giving you and what it is not. But that is true for all arts. 

Anyway, these are just my opinions based on the experiences I have had. Would I recommend it for a guy getting ready for an MMA match or going out to be a LEO? No. Would I recommend it to an experience martial artist looking to fine tune some things, or who might be looking to get off their current plateau? In this case, it would be worth trying out. If you just enjoy it for the sake of enjoying it or want exercise or to work on range of motion... sure go for it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 19, 2018)

wab25 said:


> Just thought I would put in my two cents here. For some context, I have been studying Danzan Ryu Jujitsu for about 20 years now. For the last 4-5 I have been training Kenkojuku  style Shotokan Karate as well. The dojo I rent space out of, primarily teaches Aikiko, but they have a lot of other Japanese arts their as well, including Daito Ryu Aiki Jujitsu. I get the opportunity to get on the mat and train with the Aikido guys quite a bit... and unfortunately to a lesser extent with the Daito Ryu guys as well.
> 
> My take on Aikido is similar to what many have mentioned here. It is a finishing art, as in you already know some other arts before starting Aikido. As you move through the Aikido patterns, they are quite lengthy, but do offer many opportunities to apply other arts to short circuit the Aikido pattern. However, as the student, you need to recognize where these places are. The pattern will open targets to punch or kick and provide places to enter for a number of different throws. The more you bring to the table, the more opportunities you find. However, many students start with Aikido as their first art... and thus don't understand what they are missing. When they go on to be instructors, there is a lot to the patterns that they don't understand, in my opinion.
> 
> ...


Nice write-up. I like your focus on the beginning of the Aikido pattern. Even though NGA is more direct (and arguably a lot less "aiki"), that's still an important point in our grappling. First touch is meant to break structure in some meaningful way. If it doesn't it's time to NOT continue that pattern...that's what strikes, hard grappling, etc. are for.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Mar 20, 2018)

Your opponent's free hand that can punch on your shoulder that can interrupt almost all your take downs. This is why I have serious concern about my opponent's free hand.


----------



## wab25 (Mar 21, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your opponent's free hand that can punch on your shoulder that can interrupt almost all your take downs. This is why I have serious concern about my opponent's free hand.


I find it interesting that the video you presented, clearly shows your guy shifting to a 2 on 1 approach, using both his hands on the other guys left arm, 1 second in... leaving the other guys right hand free. He does it again even more clearly at the 8 second mark. The other guys right hand is free, and has a direct path to the jaw. Why doesn't he throw the right hook and drop him? First, its a demo and looks bad... Second, for the same reason those hip throws work... he has broken the other guys balance and posture, thus removing meaningful power in the free hand. At this point, you can do whatever you want to the guy, up until he regains his posture and balance, then you better not have any openings for him to exploit, no matter what your art.


----------

