# Flowing ki and atemi



## theletch1 (Aug 22, 2007)

I wanted to get some discussion going here in the aiki world and decided to post something that's been bouncing around in my head for awhile.

When doing atemi (whether coincidental during technique or in and of itself) do you view it as flowing very focused ki or just punching beyond the impact point of your strike?  Here's a for instance...I have multiple attackers coming in, I'm able to line 'em up and get a strike in on #1 and I want that strike to put him out of action long enough to deal with #2.  When I strike #1, say in the sinus, I understand that I want the power of my punch to flow through the tissue of the face, through the sinus cavity and into the back of the skull causing a crush cheek.  My question is...is this considered flowing ki in a straight line or is it a simple matter of aiming beyond my impact point?


----------



## ejaazi (Aug 22, 2007)

I don't believe you would have to strike that hard if you are using ki. The force of the ki would redirect his power back to him and maybe through him and do the damage on its own. But this is just my opinion. I was told Aikido has strikes, but I don't know if the strikes are the same as those who study impacting arts.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Aug 22, 2007)

ejaazi said:


> I don't believe you would have to strike that hard if you are using ki. The force of the ki would redirect his power back to him and maybe through him and do the damage on its own. But this is just my opinion. I was told Aikido has strikes, but I don't know if the strikes are the same as those who study impacting arts.


 
Aikido has strikes in the same way as Judo. 
That aside, to answer your question. Yes, it is both. The metaphyics/Ki based thought is that your Ki is flowing into your opponents body, and cutting off the Ki flow in your opponents body. Which can cause a whole host of problems. The physics is, your force is concentrated enough to penetrate your opponents surface, and cause internal damage.

The two sound familar, don't they?


----------



## charyuop (Aug 23, 2007)

I think the problem is what you see Atemi for. I see Atemi merely as a distraction to lead you to a technique.
If you see Atemi that way, you really do not need to kill your opponent with a strike. You need to carry a strike which won't disrupt your posture and won't create too much reaction in your opponent. What I was taught was that Atemi must be the right amount of strength as if you are saying to Uke "look my hand is here and it is hurting you. pay attention to it".
Said that I wouldn't like to be misunderstood. Intention and power are still there. I will make a little example.
Katatedori. You start with an Atemi to the face to later do something else with the other hand. Uke blocks the Atemi. If the Atemi is a light caress or with no intent, it was a useless thing, that actually might be more of use for Uke than yourself. That Atemi must be with full intent with an "Irimi" feeling inside you, keeping the pressure there just to say "hey I am still here, don't forget my hand".
In the same example tho, you cannot think ok I will punch him to kill him. I will punch way past his head to kill him. First of all there is the fact that you would change your posture in doing that, but most important, you would risk to do what Uke is supposed to do and focus only on that punch leaving Uke free to take control of the situation.


----------



## morph4me (Aug 23, 2007)

theletch1 said:


> I wanted to get some discussion going here in the aiki world and decided to post something that's been bouncing around in my head for awhile.
> 
> When doing atemi (whether coincidental during technique or in and of itself) do you view it as flowing very focused ki or just punching beyond the impact point of your strike?


 
I don't see a difference, I don't know that you can do atemi and not flow ki. I look at these to things as exactly the same, but then, I view ki as the result of the melding of physics and physiology within a technique.



theletch1 said:


> Here's a for instance...I have multiple attackers coming in, I'm able to line 'em up and get a strike in on #1 and I want that strike to put him out of action long enough to deal with #2. When I strike #1, say in the sinus, I understand that I want the power of my punch to flow through the tissue of the face, through the sinus cavity and into the back of the skull causing a crush cheek. My question is...is this considered flowing ki in a straight line or is it a simple matter of aiming beyond my impact point?


 
I would say that if you're flowing ki, it doesn't stop at the point of impact in any case.  Atemi is just another technique, you don't aim at the surface of your target, if you did you would stop at the surface and get no penetration or transfer of energy.  The follow up and extension in any technique is the continuation of ki flow.


----------



## theletch1 (Aug 23, 2007)

charyuop said:


> I think the problem is what you see Atemi for. I see Atemi merely as a distraction to lead you to a technique.
> If you see Atemi that way, you really do not need to kill your opponent with a strike. You need to carry a strike which won't disrupt your posture and won't create too much reaction in your opponent. What I was taught was that Atemi must be the right amount of strength as if you are saying to Uke "look my hand is here and it is hurting you. pay attention to it".
> Said that I wouldn't like to be misunderstood. Intention and power are still there. I will make a little example.
> Katatedori. You start with an Atemi to the face to later do something else with the other hand. Uke blocks the Atemi. If the Atemi is a light caress or with no intent, it was a useless thing, that actually might be more of use for Uke than yourself. That Atemi must be with full intent with an "Irimi" feeling inside you, keeping the pressure there just to say "hey I am still here, don't forget my hand".
> In the same example tho, you cannot think ok I will punch him to kill him. I will punch way past his head to kill him. First of all there is the fact that you would change your posture in doing that, but most important, you would risk to do what Uke is supposed to do and focus only on that punch leaving Uke free to take control of the situation.


 
In so far as using atemi to break ukes concentration to allow you to flow through a technique with a single attacker I agree completely with what you've posted.  My thought process, however, was dealing more along the lines of multiple attackers where in you find yourself in a situation where the only option available to you is to throw a "karate" style punch.  I have no delusions that I'm capable of a one punch knock out but I want to stun my first attacker long enough to deal with my second attacker with aikido technique.

Tom, you're right inside my head on your response.


----------



## charyuop (Aug 24, 2007)

theletch1 said:


> In so far as using atemi to break ukes concentration to allow you to flow through a technique with a single attacker I agree completely with what you've posted. My thought process, however, was dealing more along the lines of multiple attackers where in you find yourself in a situation where the only option available to you is to throw a "karate" style punch. I have no delusions that I'm capable of a one punch knock out but I want to stun my first attacker long enough to deal with my second attacker with aikido technique.


 
I see what you mean there.  In this case I would see more appropriate an Irimi inside the attack with a good knee to the ribs or elbow to the chin. Is that still Ki? Well I do Tai Chi and Aikido, but I guess nothing will never lead me to believe that Ki exsists. Does a baseball player use Ki when he bats? I doubt he ever trained to develope Ki. However his movement are relaxed (or he could never hit the ball) and at the same time tense. The movement starts from the root of his feet moving through his center/hip to transfer his Ki to the ball.
I have seen many Tai Chi practitioners have their students fly away with a tiny "touch", just like many Aikidoka (in both cases I talk about great Masters) putting Uke on their knees with what appears a little meaningless movement. Is that Ki? Well I see it more like being aware of the correct movements to do and once you are aware of those you can reduce them in size till the human eye no longer sees them. From my interpretation of your question nad thus the answer Atemi with or without Ki.
That's why I saw it more like a I use all my power punch or not all my power punch keeping relaxed and posture.


----------



## theletch1 (Aug 24, 2007)

Gotcha.  I understand where you're coming from.  As for understanding ki; there are two ends of the spectrum of belief on ki.  

1) Ki is a mystical energy which fills everything in the universe and can be tapped into and directed by meditation and training.

2) Ki is a simple coming together of proper movement and body mechanics which either nullify an attackers energy or redirect it in such a way that it is usable by nage against the attacker.

As a fledgling aikido-ka (4 1/2 years) I am still attempting to understand number 2 in the dojo.  My understanding of #1 is even less at this point and I tend to have the desire to interpret it's usage more for my own psychological growth and for use against the emotional energy of an attacker before the altercation ever reaches the point of physical technique.


----------



## Yari (Aug 27, 2007)

theletch1 said:


> In so far as using atemi to break ukes concentration to allow you to flow through a technique with a single attacker I agree completely with what you've posted. My thought process, however, was dealing more along the lines of multiple attackers where in you find yourself in a situation where the only option available to you is to throw a "karate" style punch. I have no delusions that I'm capable of a one punch knock out but I want to stun my first attacker long enough to deal with my second attacker with aikido technique.
> 
> Tom, you're right inside my head on your response.


 
You thinking this cause your thinking one-to-one in a multi personal attack. Broaden your view, and you'll see there is no "difference". To get the flow in a multi personal attack you have to have a feeling for the whole group as one, instead of thinking them as one, one, one, one (and therefor many).

/yari


----------



## theletch1 (Aug 27, 2007)

Terje, that's an interesting way of looking at mulitples.  What mind-set do you use to get to this point?  I have used one uke against another by using them as shields or throwing them into another uke who is coming at me but that still leaves me at a one, one, one position.  Can you expand on seeing them all as one?  Sounds like viewing the individuals as a group would make it a little easier to deal with multiples.


----------



## Yari (Aug 27, 2007)

theletch1 said:


> Terje, that's an interesting way of looking at mulitples. What mind-set do you use to get to this point? I have used one uke against another by using them as shields or throwing them into another uke who is coming at me but that still leaves me at a one, one, one position. Can you expand on seeing them all as one? Sounds like viewing the individuals as a group would make it a little easier to deal with multiples.


 
Go from thinking tehcnique, to "what's open" and your techique should react according to the opponents movements. 

This filosofi should be the same for multiple attakcers. Your on to it, using the correct techniques. But you should move to openings, or create openings. Closing openings by putting opponents in bewteen or something else.

This would be alot easier to show you then write about it. 

/yari


----------



## theletch1 (Aug 27, 2007)

Yari said:


> Go from thinking tehcnique, to "what's open" and your techique should react according to the opponents movements.
> 
> This filosofi should be the same for multiple attakcers. Your on to it, using the correct techniques. But you should move to openings, or create openings. Closing openings by putting opponents in bewteen or something else.
> 
> ...


Quickest way to fix that, my friend, is to jump on a plane and come to the states to play.  I've an extra room you're welcome to sleep in while your visiting.  I get what you're saying, though, I think.  It's kinda like seeing each attacker as simply a different appendage of the same creature instead of seeing each attacker as a seperate critter all together.


----------



## morph4me (Aug 27, 2007)

Yari said:


> Go from thinking tehcnique, to "what's open" and your techique should react according to the opponents movements.
> 
> This filosofi should be the same for multiple attakcers. Your on to it, using the correct techniques. But you should move to openings, or create openings. Closing openings by putting opponents in bewteen or something else.
> 
> ...


 
Great explanation:asian:, let the attacker dictate your defense. Look for the openings and use the technique that applies.


----------



## Yari (Aug 29, 2007)

theletch1 said:


> Quickest way to fix that, my friend, is to jump on a plane and come to the states to play. I've an extra room you're welcome to sleep in while your visiting.


 
Thanks!



> I get what you're saying, though, I think. It's kinda like seeing each attacker as simply a different appendage of the same creature instead of seeing each attacker as a seperate critter all together.


 
Yup.... easy though, hard to do.....

/Yari


----------

