There's a lot that I'd want to say over the last half dozen pages or so, but I'm going to restrict it to one, as I see it, major misunderstanding from quite a number of people here.
Oh, Drop I forgot to mention. According to most, and who am I to argue with them, you can't do aikido close to another person, so you can't do it in a clinch, by definition.
Aikido at its core is a movement art, we move to cause things to happen. If you can stop us from moving, we lose. That simple. So, for most aikido people the clinch means game over. So, the lesson here is... you probably need something else, other than aikido, if you get caught and stopped, or held, or grabbed, or elsewise put in a position where you can't move where you want.
Hmm... hubris, perhaps?
Look, this speaks specifically to what I wanted to talk about, which is the misapplication and misunderstanding of "kuzushi", especially as it pertains to Aikido... because these clips are a very good example of not understanding what the difference is, or why JP3 said that Aikido isn't so useful in the clinch... as what is shown is really nothing like Aikido...
Let's begin with kuzushi... as most people misapply it. To start, the term itself doesn't really mean what is thought by most... nor is it by any means a universal idea. The term kuzushi really refers to "breaking down", and in Judo comes from the terminology of Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu (as does Uke and Tori, for that matter...), and is used there to refer to an initial action applied against a stationary body/opponent in order to break down their structure, and begin to start their momentum towards a direction, which the judo-ka then takes advantage of in order to affect a throw. By contrast, the term kuzushi is used in Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu to refer to the breakdown and application of their (somewhat long) kata, showing the hidden aspects (in a way similar to the karate idea of bunkai.... again, a largely misapplied term).
The thing is, kuzushi is applied when both partners are starting from a stationary, solid, balanced structure and position.... so it's required in arts such as Judo, where the initial position is stationary. There, kuzushi is applied offensively, aiming to take an opponent from balanced and solid to unbalanced and broken (structurally)... but Aikido is approaching things from a different direction. There is no kuzushi, as known and understood in Judo.
This is because, in Aikido, the practitioner doesn't start with the opponent in a stationary position...they're already moving towards you. Aikido is based upon, not upsetting the opponents balance, but taking their incoming energy (movement, momentum, however you want to describe it), extending it, and redirecting it. This means there is no kuzushi, as the opponent has already provided the break to their own structure by attacking in the first place. It's not about doing anything to them, but allowing them to provide their own path to their defeat. If they don't attack, or provide any energy coming in, all good... everyone gets to go home!
This is why even the only "sporting" version of Aikido still has designated attackers and defenders.... typically with the attacker armed with a knife.... but Judo competition doesn't. Judo is offensive as much as defensive... you work to create a throw... Aikido doesn't... it just takes what is given.
Which takes up to the videos above. Neither of them show anything even like Aikido, or Aiki principles in action. As a result, using them to show how correct you are, really doesn't do you any favours, Drop Bear.... all is shows is that, every time you've said you "use Aiki", or have any understanding of it, and are told that you don't, well, it shows that you don't have any understanding of it... and you don't know what it is to know if you use it or not (I'm going to say flat out that you don't, by the way).
In both clips what is shown is more akin to the idea of kuzushi, as seen in Judo... in both cases, Mr Nelson applies pressure to force the opponent to break their structure, and uses some pretty good timing and mechanics to take advantage of their then compromised structure.... but that's not what Aiki is. Aiki would require that the energy/momentum is something that is brought in by the attacker... which is why Aikido operates from a further distance, really.
In other words, Drop.... no, that's not anything like a good or accurate representation of Aikido (or Aiki) being used from the clinch... instead, it's a good example of why Aikido isn't that suitable for clinch work at all.
I have made the point though about there is no such things as Aikido principles. There is fighting principles.
Which would be staggeringly incorrect.
Or they are at least different principles.
I don't have a clue what you're meaning by this... again, there's no context to your comment.... are you saying that the Aikido principles that you don't think exist are different principles, and therefore do exist, or.... huh?
It is like having a diet that only consists of eating blue food. You can but that is you trying to subjigate reality to your whims.
It's really not.
If you think you are speaking english. You are not. It is french and Russian and chinese. Whatever makes the conversation work.
Uh... what? Seriously, what are you talking about? If we think we are speaking English, we're actually speaking Russian? Dude... make some effort to have some kind of context for your ramblings, I beg of you....
