Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's a good question, but these are not similar.Thank you for adding some context and detail to your original comments. I never mentioned "catching" a punch. Let's look at it from the opposite perspective: How often can you square off with someone, throw one punch, and have it land against someone, unless very unskilled or "fully cooperative?" Not too many one punch fights. "You either have superhuman reflexes, or you have been sold some hooey."
Of course, whether landing a knockout punch, OR setting a grab, one must set up the opponent by preliminary attacks, gaining control of the arm, position, manipulation, or some sort of disruption which enables you to execute it. It usually takes some work and skill for that to develop.
To your point of working and making mistakes and ultimately getting it figured out. Yes, I agree. But if you have a greater understanding of the system as a whole, then the solutions tend to fall into place more easily and intuitively. That is what I am getting at. You still need to work it and develop it, but you would have a better understanding of what you are trying to accomplish. That was what I was getting at with the square peg-round hole point. If you are fundamentally approaching it without understanding how the system is meant to work, then your solutions are likely sud-optimal.I guess you don't disagree with me, because I agree with this. That is just a small piece of the whole. Which is why I mentioned that while I was performing that chopping motion, that I felt a lot of disconnection of power. If I do it as shown in the video, it's going to be weak. There's no way that motion can be strong. But the moment I started connecting simple things like landing my foot down at the same time I did the strike, the power for a chop (if that's what it is) was there.
This is what I don't agree with. Because "on some level" can is can be anything from getting to gist of it, or understanding something "completely" or in a deeper sense.
In terms of martial arts "some level" can look like this
With martial arts, we get the gist of things and we don't grasp a good understanding of it until we try to apply it. Failing at it is just as important as being successful with a technique. Both help the person gain a better understanding. Your next statement speaks to this same perception.
This statement = the Errors, Mistakes, and Success that comes along with tying to apply a technique. For example, with the chop, I didn't just look at it, I tried it. If I had a quality sparring partner to actually test it, I would have been willing to take a few punches to the face. Those punches that I eat = "inefficient and sub-optimal...pound a square peg into a round hole." I know when I get it right because the technique will stop feeling like that and I will have more success of actually landing the technique. So in this area. You and I are on the same page.
I'm still trying to figure this out. I'm trying to pick up as many clues as possible, reviewing the footwork. Asking questions about what I see. Things like
View attachment 23753
- Does he move off center because moving off center is part of the thing of Aikido?
- why is he moving off center when the other person isn't attacking?
- why does he step first then chops?
- Am I looking at a chop or is it something else."
- What is the person trying to do with that striking motion. What target was he aiming at if any?
- If both are Aikido (Style A vs Style A) then why do those the person attack so far out?
- If I step forward like shown in the video, what is the likely action that my enemy / opponent / sparring partner do?
- In the "chopping drill" (I'll get the official name right sometime this week). Why does he drill the "chopping technique" off center, but in the 2 man drill, everyone attacks head on instead of off center.
- What would happen if you tried to attack someone like that while moving off center.
- Why does the strike end at an angle as if you are standing on someone's flank?
- If it's knife stab simulation then why is the hand open?
Person on the right strikes head on and not off center like in the drill. Off center would place him on the left flank of the defender and he would be facing the camera. Here we can see that is not the case.
Here we see the teacher doing the chop. A punch is thrown the teacher takes an angle. We can tell because we can see the back of the head. The feet are also not far apart, which is the same with kung fu for a similar strike, in Jow Ga,it's called a nail strike and foot work wise, you end up facing in this direction. The stepping off center and turning into the strike is what helps to generate the power. In this scenario he's safe from the left punch because that punch cannot leave until the other one comes back to at least the 50% mark, starting at the point where the punch began.
- Why does he hold his hand across his chest. If the "chop is an Aikido thing" then I'm assuming there is a successful version of this attack
- If there's a successful version of this attack where would his hands be.
- If Kung Fu Wang was fighting this guy, The guy on the right would have been punched in the face at the same time the defender made contact with his left arm. (block and strike at the same time. Is that only a Chinese concept? Did the Japanese have a similar concept?
- If there's a successful version of this attack then why wasn't it used in this scenario? Do they train against things that are "crappy"
- If I asked the teacher to show me how the chop works, how might he show me? Would he move off center line?
View attachment 23754
These are just a few things that run through my mind when I analyze things that I don't understand, including Jow Ga techniques. I can answer many of these questions quickly if I have a sparring partner and got punched in the face a few times. Sparring is an excelling way to detect some BS if you have a sparring partner willing to punch you in the face.
- Why does the teacher step off center when he does his chop, but the student does not?
- If I had to do a similar technique, is there a benefit from stepping off center?
Is this the application of a chop in Aikido
- Is this a common way to position across martial arts system or is this something only Aikido does?
So as you can see. I first go through these question to see what answers I get or can find. What do I see. what do I know. I know without a doubt that staying on center line is a good way to eat a punch. I know without doubt moving off center is a good way to avoid a punch while landing a strike. I know that when I see real fights, where a gets nailed with a straight punch is because he didn't move off centerline or parry.
So you can see that I'm asking questions about what I'm seeing
Usually, yes. The second paragraph of my post that your above quote refers to, is about initiating action, resulting in being in a position to where a grab can be set. I would say "setting up" the opponent qualifies as initiating action.The one that initiates has a massive advantage.
I would say "setting up" the opponent qualifies as initiating action.
Sometimes things fit nicely and sometimes we are going to get hit in the face. Not every technique or every aspect regardless of understanding is going to be a smooth transition from what we believe we understand to application. It's just a part of learning.To your point of working and making mistakes and ultimately getting it figured out. Yes, I agree. But if you have a greater understanding of the system as a whole, then the solutions tend to fall into place more easily and intuitively.
No argument there!Sometimes things fit nicely and sometimes we are going to get hit in the face. Not every technique or every aspect regardless of understanding is going to be a smooth transition from what we believe we understand to application. It's just a part of learning.
Ok, but I was replying to these points.Usually, yes. The second paragraph of my post that your above quote refers to, is about initiating action, resulting in being in a position to where a grab can be set. I would say "setting up" the opponent qualifies as initiating action.
This is why you will need 2 different strategies/tactics.3. move in to intercept the punch early (which also causes some disruption) as kung fu Wang has suggested, wrap the arm, then set the grab.
Of the three this is the most plausible but still highly unlikely. It would be like a goalie in soccer saving a penalty kick. It could happen but only because of lucky guesswork. You would need to be in motion for the counter before he began the punch.
Of everyone on this board, you are the one I think I would enjoy a conversation with over a bottle of sakiThis is why you will need 2 different strategies/tactics.
- You know your opponent is going to punch you. When he does, you jump in.
- You don't know your opponent is going to punch you, When he does, it may be too late for you to jump in (your legs are not ready to spring forward yet), you lean your upper body back, and your front leg kick out.
I might have video of this.1. block the punch hard with technique to cause some trauma to the tendons and cause pain to disrupt the opponent, then grab
I don't think I have video of this. I do have a side step deflect and punch. I just don't know if I have any where I was trying to grab the arm. Normally I train to land strikes because they are easier to learn.2. sidestep the punch, deflect while keeping contact with the arm, strike with the other hand (or kick) to vulnerable target to disrupt, then set the grab - you can also deflect with one hand, then strike with that same hand as your other hand takes over contact and sets the grab.
I should have tons of this on video3. move in to intercept the punch early (which also causes some disruption) as kung fu Wang has suggested, wrap the arm, then set the grab.
To be fair, and absolutely no disrespect intended, I've seen your sparring videos and they are neither full speed not against opponents I would consider decent punchers.I might have video of this.
I don't think I have video of this. I do have a side step deflect and punch. I just don't know if I have any where I was trying to grab the arm. Normally I train to land strikes because they are easier to learn.
I should have tons of this on video
The problem with "grab a punch" is that it's a low possibility because this would require a person to grab the fastest part of the punch.
The correct thought process is to deal with the punch before it becomes a punch or after it has completed and is moving away from you. If you miss dealing with the punch before it gets past the 50% point then you can go to plan b and follow the punch so that it doesn't come back out and strike you. The hard part is catching the punching arm. The hard part is what to do after you have caught it. Sort of like how some people will catch a kicking leg, but then just hold onto after they have caught it.
1. They are still sparring videos against a resisting opponent who is clearly not punching softly.To be fair, and absolutely no disrespect intended, I've seen your sparring videos and they are neither full speed not against opponents I would consider decent punchers.
I didn't say you were 'sub par'. In fact, I really like that you do light sparring at all coming from a cma background because the overwhelming majority do not. With that said I would be quite interested in seeing you spar against a decent boxer or kickboxer while remaining in jow ga mode.1. They are still sparring videos against a resisting opponent who is clearly not punching softly.
2. They are still concepts and techniques in application against a sparring partner.
3. By your logic the guy @ 1:02 mark doesn't impress you as well. Because he's "not sparring against a decent puncher."
If I'm sub par then he is subpar by your definition of "not full speed, not against opponent's, I would consider decent punchers."
If you cannot see the skill set beyond "not punching hard" or "punching against " decent puncher. Then you will not be able to understand the comments that I've made. The concepts are sound and true.
1. Deal with the punch arm before the punch gets to the 50% mark
2. Deal with the punch arm as it's returning.
If I touch your punching arm before your punch reaches the 50% mark then you will not be able to land that punch on me.
If I touch your punching arm after your punch reaches the 50% mark then you will have a good chance of landing that punch.
It's not magic and you don't have to be a professional fighter to do these things.
This has been my best example of the concept. How close do you think I came?
*video*
What does Aikido claim to teach you? And does it reach those claims?
I think the biggest problem is the disconect between those two concepts.
And this is partly because the measuring stick is so weirdly skewed.
Where as this I think is very bad for your striking. In that it makes you a collapso tap out monkey.
*video*
Then when you are fighting people who are just dying from every hit. You don't have to develop your grappling because they are doing it for you.
I think there's enough similarities among all fighting systems to give valid clues to how Aikido works in application. The only way this wouldn't be true is if it was developed in a vacuum. I just can't see that.
Things like this video below seem to be consistent across systems including BJJ. Generally speaking, because I Know there are variations. It almost always starts as
1. Strike -> Grapple -> Strike = when not within grappling range. The strike is what hides the Grappling
2. Grapple -> Strike - Grapple = when engaged in grappling
We see it here as well. BJJ has a similar approach. With that in mind. My assumption is that Aikido application would have to follow the same rules or strategy.
*video*
Here's my logic.
Drop Aikidio and focus on technique. If you were going to do a wrist lock of your choosing as an attack and not a counter, then what are the things you'll need to do to make it successful and to make it easier to get the lock when your opponent is not aware.
If you Answer that question then you will see that other systems follow that same logic. To say Aikido wouldn't need to follow the same logic is what we often see when it fails. If I were to use Chin Na on you, It would be done as I'm punching you in the face or to the body. Your instinct would be to grab my arms to stop me from punching and that's what I want you do to do so I can apply the Chin Na. You wouldn't have any clue that's what I'm thinking because I would be busing nailing you with hard punches. If you let me punch you, then I'll keep doing it. No need to let good punches go to waste.
Anyone who know's how to sweep understand this same thing in the context of sweeping. Hit that person in the face really hard and often, when your opponent is too concerned with his face then take his legs. If these concepts are common across many fighting systems. Then we can assume that Aikido would follow the same logic and concept.
Aikido being 70% striking seems to fit well with that concept.
This is how I see martial arts which is why I don't like like the peaceful concept of zen. Zen to me is like "being in the zone" everything is working, flowing, and timing of your attacks and defenses are excellent and you get that feeling that you are unstoppable. That is "Zen" to me. That's the way I want to feel if I'm in a fight on the streets or in the ring. That comfortable calmness and not the panic.
This is one of the definitions for Zen, which is more in line with the above view point of martial arts. I know some of you have played sports when this has kicked off and things just flowed without conscious effort. One of the things we often say about martial arts is to not think so much. Practice repetition so that your actions flow without thought.
Zen - "a state of calm attentiveness in which one's actions are guided by intuition rather than by conscious effort "
Definition of ZEN
Not one mention of peace, and what he says fits more with the definition above then the one below. Just my 2 cents.
*video*
But unfortunately so many people see Zen as "having or showing qualities (such as meditative calmness and an attitude of acceptance) popularly associated with practitioners of Zen Buddhism "
You'll see this projection often with similar system. Yet when we think of Japanese Warrior Monks or Shaolin Monks, this guy doesn't come to mind.
If I take my kung fu approach then I would tell you that I'm going to embarrass you and put you in a wrist lock and make you tap out. Then while you are looking for my wrist lock I will punch you in your face. Then I will tell you that I will still go for the wrist lock. I would feit a punch to your face, go for your hand and then I'll kick you in your gut. Will I eventually go for the wristlock. Only if you aren't looking for it. You will have bragging rights that I couldn't put you in a wrist lock, but I will have bragging rights that I did a lot of kung fu on you. But the moment you forget about your wrist, I will try to take it. But Aikido doesn't do that. right off the back you know they want to grab your wrist, so you defend your wrist and they will fail.
getting closer. I'm guessing those over hand strikes are chops to the neck?
Perhaps he is Isn’t doing anything on the overtly “practical” level, and instead is demonstrating a fundamental body-engagement principal. That type of thing would have a foundational use in everything that they do, and I imagine there are certain drills that are done to develop the foundational skill. But that drill as a stand-alone may not have a direct and obvious fight application. The principles that are developed by practicing the drill are meant to permeate the entire system.
In my system, we do a repetitive back-and-forth rotation drill that serves the same purpose. Any outsider looking in would be befuddled by it. You need to understand the purpose in order for it to make sense. This is what I mean when I say you cannot look at it through the norms of prior experience, when looking at a new (to you) system. Doing so can ensure that you will never understand it.
The confusion is you are looking at the application. There is no application after that demonstration.
The end result is to be able to perform this.
*video*
I have found it messes people up. Not from doing ineffective striking but from good uke training. Which then trains them to break structure all the time or assume there eyes will pop out at the slightest pressure.
They get flinchy. Which is a really bad trait for any contested activity.
How close is this to the Aikdo Chop. I just found it
*video*
Or is this concept correct? If this is correct then I'll stop trying understand. All I need to be able to do is run away if this is the concept
*video*
*video*
Or is this the correct way
*video*
@6:43. I'm prefer stepping to the outside of punches much safer bu you can see how the strike lands
@:7:40 If you do the same technique on the outside of a jab then you will never get hit. If you do it like he says @7:40 then you will get hit. This is where I have problems. Universally fighting systems says don't enter on the inside of punches like that. But here he says they do it differently. My thoughts is that the reason so many systems don't enter like @7:40 is because it's dangerous to do so, as a universal reality.
Based on what I saw, moving to the inside only works if you can pin the arm against the chest upon the strike. I don't think that's possible as that rear hand is already in a position to defend the strike to the head. I'm more opened to @6:43. and would be scared to try to strike or block someone doing punch combos like is shown @7:40.
I had a chance to skim through this video and I think it is revealing in terms of how aikido approaches training and application. In short, I really do believe it approaches things rather differently than folks with a Western mindset are typically comfortable with.
We in the West tend to be very direct and expect things to have kind of a straight line to the goal. We expect results and we want to see a logical progression that meets that expectation. I feel that aikido gets results, but takes a different path. It is less direct and approaches things in ways that are surprising to a Western mindset.
It seems to me that aikido trains evasions and deflections and redirections, essentially a physical education with a focus on reading the energy and intent and body-positioning of an enemy. Within that physical education, there exist opportunities to apply decisive throws and joint manipulations and pins, with some strikes as well. But it doesn’t concern itself with a more direct action-and-response that is often found within other systems. There aren’t hardline answers to questions like “how does aikido defend against a punch?”, or “I see THIS movement done in aikido, how is it used?” I think perhaps the philosophy of aikido’s approach just isn’t concerned with that, and anticipates reaching an effective end through a highly attuned awareness of motion and positioning. Application is highly dependent on circumstances, so it is difficult to answer those questions in the abstract, without an engagement unfolding.
For most people, this is probably a difficult road. Perhaps Ueshiba was a truly gifted person who found a unique way that worked extremely well for him, but is not easily passed on to most people. I expect to really be useable requires a high level of skill and long training. But that’s ok, if someone is interested and willing to travel that road. People do what they find interesting even if others object to the method.
I think that people who are interested in a direct road, with a focus on results as quickly as possible, will always be frustrated by the approach that aikido takes. It will seem misguided. It may be that aikido is a good path for a smaller group of people.
I don’t see any problem with any of that.
I’m not sure if I’ve managed to express my thoughts clearly or coherently. I guess I see similar elements within the Chinese methods that I’ve studied. We can deal with application, but ultimately what one does is highly dependent on the circumstances, and response is often spontaneous and creative, depending on the circumstances. I tend to view my own training as a body of physical education that opens the door to infinite possibilities, rather than as a fixed body of techniques that represent the total of my options. But that’s just me.
Any Aikido school which traces its lineage back to Japan is practicing post world war 2 Aikido, this is problematic for the "practicality" of the martial art in the west. Morihei Ueshiba was a war hero in the Russo-Japanese war and he won the Japanese equivalent of the medal of honor for single handedly breaking a Russian cavalry charge on his position as a lone rifleman. Once he began establishing Aikido, he was a war hero who was also a leading personality within the nationalist movement of pre world war 2 Japan. Ueshiba developed Aikido based on his experience in Judo, Ju-Jutsu, Ken-Jutsu and other specifically Japanese martial arts as a sort of finishing school for Japanese martial artists and as a proprietary "Japanese only" discipline designed to give the Japanese soldier a supernatural edge and to establish the correct philosophy of what he referred to as "Yamato Damashii" or the true spirit of Japan, but as it was seen and understood under Emperor Hirohito and the Japanese fascists.
Morihei Ueshiba spent the entire war training the Japanese military, along with most of his core apostles/students, using Aikido as a framework to blend practical Budo with a quasi-religious indoctrination into Japanese fascism/nationalism. Post war, Ueshiba became a pacifist and attempted to re-brand Aikido as a sort of national discipline which could encapsulate the new spirit of peace and the end of Japanese militarism. Once Aikido entered its post war phase/rebranding, the curriculum was edited, the teachings were watered down and much like the rest of the individual Japanese martial arts, Aikido became more about the cultivation of personal discipline and character than as an actual pragmatic fighting system.
For a "bridge" discipline that was always supposed to be partnered with another discipline like Judo or Kendo, the basket of highly technical and situational techniques that aikido brings to the table is simply not useful or practical on its own even if you get lucky enough to find a good teacher who actually knows what the hell they are doing. Aikido is never going to be an all encompassing martial art above all others, but it was never intended to be that, even in its pre-war format that emphasized practicality and lethality, it was always intended to be blended into something else.
Where Aikido shines, where it is practical and useful, is when it is blended into multiple disciplines and like any martial art, when it is used in conjunction with practical training techniques with an active and resistive partner.
If we go back to the source material, the writings and understanding of Morihei Ueshiba and his students/associates before the end of World War 2 and once we filter out the right wing Japanese fascism, we see more practical application and theory.
Aikido is Ai - harmony, Ki - spirit, Do - way or "the way of the harmonious spirit" as a literal translation, though a better one might be "the way of the tranquil soul" but "harmonious spirit" does fit.
Aikido philosophy assumes the student understands the concepts of late Edo period, contemporary views of Bushido and Zen as applied to the martial mind of the Samurai. The ultimate goal and life's work behind Aikido is to produce a truly balanced and harmonious warrior who is not only capable of killing but also of mercy and who has the discipline and expertise to choose the appropriate force to respond to an attack and the expertise to only use exactly that force necessary to achieve the desired result. A true master of Aikido is the same concept as an image of the buddha, a conceptual goal more than an image of a specific person. Through the teachings and principles instilled in the student, the goal is to create a fighter who can do what needs to be done in a war such as efficiently killing an opponent but who has the skill and personal attributes that would also allow them to subdue an armed assailant without hurting them.
Yes, I am not even going to try to defend the Aikido community or the art as a whole, I am here saying that a MAJORITY of the schools are complete rancid garbage. It is super hard to find people who understand or "get" Aikido, even among the practitioners, there's so much leftover esotericism and bullshido that came with its importation to the US and it has never gotten straightened out. I've talked to several black belts over the years from traditional schools with lineages unbroken back to the best schools in Japan who were drinking the koolaid on the non violent / pacifist, post war stuff. I would guess that most Aikido students don't read any of the actual philosophy from Ueshiba except for his post war stuff and have no idea that it was so deliberately neutered post war. Your comment earlier that Aikido seems to be what works for a small group is very on the nose, there's a small group of nerds who put the time in to "get it" and desperately try to make the good stuff available to anyone/everyone.
I also suggest full contact sparring periodically, at least once per class or at least every other class, have the students throw on some headgear and some MMA gloves and tell them to rough house without hurting each other, this way they get to constantly test and try to apply stuff with resistance and encourage them to think outside the box. Getting a few taps to the head because you tried to follow an arm teaches you to not do that in a confrontation real quick. We also throw in trainer knives or the foam batons or even another student to attack the two sparring every once in awhile to mix things up. As you might guess, this looks nothing like uke/nage drills, but it's still very much Aikido. You learn very quickly that if you are being punched in the face, you need to commit to get that arm manipulation or that trying for that perfect wrist/thumb lock isn't going to work so maybe go for the hip throw as you pass, etc.
Once my back has healed and I've lost this weight that I gained, you may very well see such a thing. "Win or lose" I can't be a good representation of Jow Ga if I bail out of my techniques and foundations that I train by. I figure by the time this pandemic is under control, I'll be back in fighting shape and good to go. I hate to say, because it's cruel, but I want to get a chance to go full on without worrying about knocking some out, where I can "just be" and let Jow Ga do what it does without me holding it back or redirecting punches.With that said I would be quite interested in seeing you spar against a decent boxer or kickboxer while remaining in jow ga mode.
It's not as difficult as you make it sound. If you get their timing down, then you be a head of them. There are a couple of things that are universally true that will allow you to stop the punch before it leaves the chamber. One is timing and the other is how punching in general requires one arm forward and one arm back. This is the same for everyone with 2 arms and 2 legs. Skill level doesn't affect that reality. People break that rule will have weak strikes that you don't need to fear. Take the hit and land a harder one in return.You said it yourself. If you can read the intention to punch, can see where it's coming, and get to it before it's 50% of the way out, sure, you'll stop it. But that happens in a single fraction of a second if it's not completely telegraphed and exaggerated, which means you would have to be both inhumanly fast and a little bit psychic to get there against a full speed strike with real intent behind it.