# Ne waza.  Does your school "roll"?



## theletch1 (Nov 7, 2007)

I'm curious to know how many of you attend aikido schools that a)include ne waza into the curriculum, b)don't have it as an official part of the curriculum or c)encourage you to seek out grappling training on your own.  My style doesn't have it as part of the training.  I and a couple other students in our school have some grappling training in our past and since I've begun teaching have taken a class now and then to dedicate to ground work.  We'll work the basics, starting from a grounded position and so forth and then take it to the standing position and work it as a "Oh, crap! The technique didn't work and now I'm on the ground!" scenario.  One of the rules that I have for anyone beyond white belt when I'm teaching is that if they find themselves on the ground I don't care how slowly they have to work through the situation I want them to figure out what they need to do to finish uke off.  You don't have the opportunity to reset on the street so why do it in the dojo unless it just doesn't fit into the drill you're doing right that second.

Your experiences?


----------



## amir (Nov 8, 2007)

We do not normally do "Ne-Waza" even though my teacher also teaches Judo besides Aikido (He is a high level certified teacher in korindo Aikido, Judo and Karate).  On rare occastions, we do extend our knowledge beyong Aikido, and then we may learn some Judo "Ne-Waza" or some Karate striking\kicking.

When I once asked my teacher about "Ne-Waza" for real fighting situations, he claimed it is the last thing one would like to use. As in a S.D. situaiton one must take care of his mobilityand  the ability to get away as well as the rist of additional opponents coming up. He insisted on this even though he enjoys playing "Ne-Waza" in his judo classes and told me I could practice it in the Judo group if I wish, but he would not recomend it for S.D.  I have heard similar setniments from anumber of other people in our dojo who have LEO related real life expriances.



As for your idea:





> One of the rules that I have for anyone beyond white belt when I'm teaching is that if they find themselves on the ground I don't care how slowly they have to work through the situation I want them to figure out what they need to do to finish uke off. You don't have the opportunity to reset on the street so why do it in the dojo unless it just doesn't fit into the drill you're doing right that second.


I think this is a teaching mistake. When you teach a technique, people should put the emphasis of learning THAT technique, not on other elements. 
You can and possibly even should put a seperate emphasis on following through and on technique changes (first technique failed, move on to second, and be aware of the situational change).
Teaching M.A. is an art onto itself, and should only be attempted after proper schooling in how to teach the specific M.A.  Significant changing the methodics of teaching is in fact an invention of a new M.A. and should not be taken lightly.

Amir


----------



## theletch1 (Nov 8, 2007)

When I'm teaching a specific technique and my students go to the ground they must get up and start over.  When I'm working aiki kuma kata with them or "freestyle" with them the rule applies that you don't stop if you lose your balance and go to the ground.  I'm always very careful about when to kick into full self defense mode as opposed to training a single technique.  All students at our school have the opportunity to attend four additional classes per week and recieve a variety of drills with a little different flavor from each instructor.  Each of us teach the same things, just with our own personality.  We do also work flowing technique drills on a fairly regular basis.  Being able to feel that a lock isn't holding and realize just which way to move uke's energy to maintain control is a tricky skill to master but well worth it.

Your instructor is correct in that going to the ground and using ne-waza is the last place you want to be.  It's a bad, bad place.  It does, however, happen and should be prepared for if you are looking at a complete SD scenario.  It's not something that you would focus on as a regular basis if it's not in your curriculum but is something that I feel your students should at least be introduced to.


----------



## Yari (Nov 15, 2007)

Yes we do, but not enough.... not even near not enough..... I dojo is a "traditional" dojo, but we are a few that like to practice "outside" the techniques, and incorperate other elements. So when we teach, we sometimes teach in "ne-waza". But the funny part is that many pupils already know different styles that work in "ne-waza".

I usally want a base before moving to free-sparring. A kind of reference area (standing point), so a person knows at least were to "start".

/yari


----------



## bdparsons (Nov 15, 2007)

amir said:


> Significant changing the methodics of teaching is in fact an invention of a new M.A. and should not be taken lightly.


Actually, your statement couldn&#8217;t be further from the truth. The &#8220;methodics of teaching&#8221; have little to do with the &#8220;mechanics of the art&#8221;. How you teach should be as varied as the students in your class. It is your responsibility to discover what it will take for each phase of what you are teaching to &#8220;click&#8221; with each of your students. It&#8217;s a proven fact that different folks will respond to different methods of teaching

If you are an adequate teacher you will do the same thing, day in and day out and assume all students are the same. This will result in some students &#8220;getting it&#8221;, primarily in spite of your teaching not the result of it. Most students will be average, and some will be downright bad.

If you are a good teacher you will realize that Bob responds well to being shown a technique over and over again; while Mohammed learns more quickly by hearing a description that uses different but accurate analogies of &#8220;how&#8221; it&#8217;s done; and Hans learns best by repeating back to you what needs to be done. You will grasp what works best for each student to retain the knowledge you are imparting, remember it, and use it consistently.

If you are a great teacher you will constantly be searching out new methods of conveying your art to your students. To assume that the way you were taught is the best way to teach because you are comfortable with it will relegate the majority of your students to mediocrity.

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute


----------



## Yari (Nov 15, 2007)

bdparsons said:


> .......The methodics of teaching have little to do with the mechanics of the art. How you teach should be as varied as the students in your class. It is your responsibility to discover what it will take for each phase of what you are teaching to click with each of your students. ........
> 
> 
> Respects,
> ...


 
I agree....

/yari


----------



## amir (Nov 15, 2007)

bdparsons said:


> > Originally Posted by *amir* http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=877094#post877094
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I know this often sounds very strange to some people. But I stand behind my previous statement, each martial art has its own methodic approach.  The more open I became to other M.A. and the more I have talked with other veteran practitioners (~10-20 yrs), the more convinced I became. 
If you wish to teach Aikido, you must use the methodical  tool inherent in Aikido. Otherwise, as you change, you will get a different M.A. It takes time for minor elements to become significant, but they do. Look at the changes which have happened in Judo or TKD or Kendo over the years due to competitions and the place they took in those M.A.
In Israel one must pass a Gov. M.A. instructor course to get a "sports teaching license". A friend of mine, most of the Tai-Chi instructors and the local head of his Tai-Chi system took the course with a very senior Karateka as the teacher. Turns out, almost everything about teaching methodic the Karateka told (pay attention to detail first, then continue teaching more material, etc.) the head teacher explained to be contrary in their system.

The mechanics of the art of almost all M.A. are very similar. The mechanics stem from few physical and biological facts, which are common to all people. Taking this into consideration, one would wonder how can we have so many M.A. systems and styles. The answer to that is in the teaching manners, in placing emphasis on different elements, etc. 




bdparsons said:


> Its a proven fact that different folks will respond to different methods of teaching




I agree, this is one of the reasons each of us finds another M.A. to be best for him.



bdparsons said:


> If you are an adequate teacher you will do the same thing, day in and day out and assume all students are the same. This will result in some students getting it, primarily in spite of your teaching not the result of it. Most students will be average, and some will be downright bad.
> 
> If you are a good teacher you will realize that Bob responds well to being shown a technique over and over again; while Mohammed learns more quickly by hearing a description that uses different but accurate analogies of how its done; and Hans learns best by repeating back to you what needs to be done. You will grasp what works best for each student to retain the knowledge you are imparting, remember it, and use it consistently.





Most good teachers will find sufficient solutions within the methodical approach  of their system. Talking, showing and letting people experiment and test, based on the same elements inherent to your system.




bdparsons said:


> If you are a great teacher you will constantly be searching out new methods of conveying your art to your students.



Great teachers have often invent a new systems, if they found out they disagree with the way a system is being taught (though often some personal ego issues play into this too, some real issues also exist). Look at Aikido Ki-society, or at the Tomiki\Shdokan Aikido, they talk of the same technical things as most Aikikai people, have very similar history and almost the same technical content. Yet these are well defined styles.



bdparsons said:


> To assume that the way you were taught is the best way to teach because you are comfortable with it will relegate the majority of your students to mediocrity.



I am not a M.A. teacher (a matter of choice), yet I agree with this statement. One should make an effort to give his students the best he can. But, one should also know making changes beyond a certain point, will in fact make the M.A. he teaches different to the one he learnt.


Amir


----------



## bdparsons (Nov 15, 2007)

amir said:


> I am not a M.A. teacher (a matter of choice)


 
Sorry, I still don't buy the premise. If in fact the people you have spoken with have the same view, it merely reflects their lack of skill in the art of teaching (not their martial art of choice). Having taught two separate martial arts for over 30 years, I'm here to tell you that varied teaching methods do not change to art you teach unless you allow that to happen. While experience is the best teacher, don't confuse experience in an art with experience teaching. It is, as you say, an art unto itself. 

Perhaps if you were in the trenches actually teaching you may change your view. 

Respects,
Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute


----------



## morph4me (Nov 15, 2007)

bdparsons said:


> Actually, your statement couldnt be further from the truth. The methodics of teaching have little to do with the mechanics of the art. How you teach should be as varied as the students in your class. It is your responsibility to discover what it will take for each phase of what you are teaching to click with each of your students. Its a proven fact that different folks will respond to different methods of teaching
> 
> If you are an adequate teacher you will do the same thing, day in and day out and assume all students are the same. This will result in some students getting it, primarily in spite of your teaching not the result of it. Most students will be average, and some will be downright bad.
> 
> ...


 

I agree, I'm constantly telling students that if I make a correction to one person, it doesn't apply to anyone else, if I make a correction to the class, it applies to the majority. 

It's possible that that an instructor may instruct one student one way and another student totally different to get the same result.


----------



## amir (Nov 18, 2007)

morph4me said:


> I agree, I'm constantly telling students that if I make a correction to one person, it doesn't apply to anyone else, if I make a correction to the class, it applies to the majority.





morph4me said:


> It's possible that that an instructor may instruct one student one way and another student totally different to get the same result.





I agree to the above too. It does not contradict my statement above.
Each M.A. system and style I have encountered so far has more then a single way of doing each technique or teaching it. And to my understanding your examples above belong within those boundaries.


But this was not my point. My point was not to the individual correction but rather in regard to the larger scale methodic, the pillars of learning and progress if one was to name them. 
As Tomiki found out: if you add Shiai to Aikido, you get a style significantly different (for better or worse, each with his own opinion).
If you were to add singular Kata to Aikido practice, combining several Waza without a partner, as is done in Karate. You would have gotten a new M.A. too.
If you Practice traditional weapons in Aikido it has its own effects too, regarding the students understanding of mai. 
The rules of Randori or Kyoshu (http://www.freewebz.com/aikido/lecture/unit6.htm) you practice in your class also affect your learning process significantly. Adding weapons of multi-opponent scenarios in this type of practice is also influential on the learning process.


 Another example: Korindo Aikido is based on 3 pillars of learning: Tai-Sabaki (a set of moves intended to teach and improve body movement), Kata (or waza)  practicing techniques in pre-ordained way, and Kyoshu  free play practice (see the link above about stages etc). All of those pillars are learnt in all the subjects of Korindo Aikido, including traditional weapons. Removing any one of those pillars will change your studies and make it no longer Korindo Aikido. Adding a pillar, would also change the art. And I am talking of a relatively young M.A. which is eclectic in nature (the founder encouraged senior students to add to the curriculum topics he did not learn himself). 


Getting back to the topic of the first poster. If you start "rolling" on the ground, at the end of each technique, until submission. You will find out that you get something new, which no longer looks like the Aikido done in any other place (again, better or worse is a matter of purpose and opinion, and does not matter to my point). As time progresses your students will likely put more emphasis on their ground rolling techniques, and less on the standup work, compared to other groups. This will affect their progress (in both respects). The way Uke responds to a technique would also change (he will try to go down in an advantageous way, rather then just respond to the technique as most Aikido dojos teach) and this will affect your techniques...


Most techniques exist in many different M.A.  I have seen Karate, TKD & Krav-Maga practitioners do the same locks often done in Aikido. The same things exists in those systems too. But the way of teaching is different, and the resulting performance is also different.



A  M.A. is not a constant thing, and it is defiantly not the sum of the techniques in the curriculum. The way we practice it, has significant effects on the results we get in the end, at least on the long run.

I hope my intentions are clearer now.

Amir


----------



## theletch1 (Nov 18, 2007)

The style that I study is oriented toward self defense.  I would be remiss if I intentionally left out things that could get my classmates home in one piece just for the sake of holding to a strict interpretation of the original form of my art.  Aikido is an ever evolving art and has changed a great deal since its founding.  It will continue to change in the future.  The ne-waza that we do is outside of the normal curriculum of techniques and each student understands that.  Self defense isn't out side of the curriculum and if there is a disparity I will always err to the side of getting my classmates/students home in one piece.  I will not sacrifice the safety of a student for the "purity" of an art.

I believe I do understand where you were coming from, though.  To teach an art is to teach only those things which you were directly taught in that style.  It's OK, to change the method of teaching said technique so long as you don't try to teach anything that's not a traditional part of the art.  I can understand that.  We each study an art for our own reasons and choose to pass it on to others for our own reasons as well.


----------



## amir (Nov 18, 2007)

theletch1 said:


> The style that I study is oriented toward self defense. I would be remiss if I intentionally left out things that could get my classmates home in one piece just for the sake of holding to a strict interpretation of the original form of my art. Aikido is an ever evolving art and has changed a great deal since its founding. It will continue to change in the future. The ne-waza that we do is outside of the normal curriculum of techniques and each student understands that. Self defense isn't out side of the curriculum and if there is a disparity I will always err to the side of getting my classmates/students home in one piece. I will not sacrifice the safety of a student for the "purity" of an art.





theletch1 said:


> I believe I do understand where you were coming from, though. To teach an art is to teach only those things which you were directly taught in that style. It's OK, to change the method of teaching said technique so long as you don't try to teach anything that's not a traditional part of the art. I can understand that. We each study an art for our own reasons and choose to pass it on to others for our own reasons as well.





Well, almost.

The style I study - Korindo Aikido, is also martially oriented (In my view, S.D. and martial are not exactly the same). But, the way I see it, and the way my teacher teaches it. The classical soft applications are invaluable for high efficiency levels, and one should strive for them in a practical fighting situations. 
Some of my dojo friends have very real experience at their jobs, they strongly support this view - for their very real world purposes the classical and soft is proven to be better.
Our typical way of teaching things is moving back and fourth, once every several months,  from very classical soft and gentle, to practical (including some resistance), once and again. The idea is to learn the way to face reality from inside the style, with in-depth understanding. And not to try and skip from one practice approach to the next, without getting the real ideas behind it.

My teacher does not oppose learning more then one M.A., he teaches 3 different ones (Korindo Aikido, Karate & Judo). And while explaining, can use analogues from one style to the next. But, when we learn Korindo Aikido, we learn Korindo Aikido, and when he teaches Karate, he teaches Karate. One can make a mix of M.A., but then he would not be teaching neither one nor the other  rather he would be teaching a new mix!
That is my point: *If you change the content or methodic of teaching in a systematic manner, from the way you were taught, you are constructing something new!* 
(new may be better or worse)

I am not talking of short introduction seminars or occasional supplements (we have those), but on making the change part of your normal weekly routine practice. 
It is not the issue of telling one student to be softer, and the other that he should not give in. Or any other differing instruction  each did something else, and your advices are inside the system.

One well known example is the issue of adding Shiai (contest) where there was none. The changes to the system will come later shifting some techniques to be less damaging so one could use them with full force (I had a great meeting with a Tomiki\Shodokan practitioner  and we could actually see such changes in the variation he liked to use. He recognized the variations I liked, and said those were considered a penalty in his system  since they were too dangerous for full force practice). 
Then the ranking system would be adapted to ones success in Shihai, and the focus of a non-competitive system would change.




*I must also warn against strict interpretation of this approach. Each change should be considered with care, prior to passing judgment.*

For example, the Korindo system is eclectic in nature, having some basic movement principles in its base, would adding one Judo throw make it something else? How about the inclusion of an additional Koryu Kata with sword, from a different Ryu to the ones the founder and his senior students learned (some of the latter are part of the system)? We already have Kyoshu (again -http://www.freewebz.com/aikido/lecture/unit6.htm) and some levels of it are very close to sparring, would the art stay the same with competition?
My own answers to these question is yes to all but the last, but any one can give his own answers.

Amir


----------

