Aikido.. The reality?

[Gerry Seymour]

It just depends if you want to treat martial arts as a science or a belief system.

I am sure no touch guys can support their method with more method. I am sure there are books of explanation out there.

What they can't do is get a random person and make that method work.

Yeah, you're pretty dogmatic about this when you decide you don't like a style. Pretty sure you wouldn't think it was so vague as to be meaningless if someone from a style you liked mentioned using a heavy bag.

See, all we've talked about in this lampoon of a side thread is what is done in training, not the effectiveness of it. You're essentially said that anything I say about how I train becomes a claim you feel no need to accept, even if it's a totally normal kind of training. You've also gone so far as to say even mentioning things like a heavy bag is meaningless in discussion with you, because it is too vague.

TL, DR: No sense talking to you about anyting, because it's all too vague for you to comprehend.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Okay. I don't even know how to respond to this. I hope you have a good day. It's too beautiful outside to mess with your irrational hostility. I honestly don't even know what your point of contention is, at this point. You're clearly upset, but for the life of me, I don't know why.

You are hilarious. You don't even see the aggression in your own approach? Really? You think I'm being hostile when I mock your lack of willingness to discuss, choosing instead to be condescending without bothering to read?

I'm done with you. You've made it clear you're not interested in any actual information. You made up your mind about me and have become increasingly more biased, condescending, and insulting - and less rational in your arguments. You used to be fun to debate with and learn from. Now you're just angry at the world.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Ultimately, I don't think aikido was designed for 'fighting'. I think it was created and proliferated as a cultural exercise.

I'm not so sure about this. Just looking at some of the basic. Aikido has some of the same basic other fighting systems have. Stepping off center 45 degrees is one of them. Using the fore arm to deal with a downward strike. They aren't the only system that has that. Hung Gs has a down strike that lands on top of the head. The purpose of the strike is that it compresses the bones in the neck. I not only have seen this done. I have also seen the effects of it and I have it on video. Long fist systems have a lot of these downward punches. Karate and TKD have upward blocks. That can be used to deal with vertical strikes be it arm or leg. The same upward blocks can be used against horizontal punches. The forearm itself can be used as a striking tool to strike under the nose to send force upward. There's actually a pressure point there. Using the forearm increases the possibility that you will strike it since you are basically striking with the bone of the forearm.

The stance that is use is also viable. In a way it's cheating because it gives the person a head start. The only draw back is that you can probably only get away with it using by using clothing that hides your stance. I'm all about attacking stances but, it becomes a guessing game if I can easily see how your legs are position. I don't think anyone can get away with it the stance wearing modern pants. In my 20's I would wear big t-shirts to hide my waist. When people targeted my waist with kicks or punches, their strikes would always fall short of where my stomach was. Their punches would get tangled in my shirt which made it possible to grab the punching arm, by wrapping my arm around it.

I haven't gotten past dealing with at "Aikido Chop" but I do know that the only people who understand how to use the forearm to slow punches are those who actually tried to use it. The impact of something like that is painful for the person with the weakest forearms. I personally call this technique "Shaving a punch." because that's the focus you should have.. The same way you would use a blade to shave wood chips from a stick is the same way this technique is used. When I teach this technique I tell students to think of there forearm like a blade and you are going to shave or carve the flesh of that straight punch.

In that one Aikdo video he explained it the same way and the only way someone would understand that is if they actually used it in sparring, which is why so many other Aikido instructors seem to miss this.

You can see me say the same thing in a November 2020 post here
Basic punching skill 101

If you feel your ulna near the wrist you can feel an edge to it which is why I call it "shaving the punch"
The stance in Aikido reminds me of this. Stance. If I see legs like then it is my advantage because this person only has 2 options for forward movement . To his and forward.

You may also see this stance used by some boxer like this guy

Usually when something is trash, none of the pieces add up. Even if you were trying to get it close to making sense, it still would. So far things are adding up on "How to receive the force of the "Aikido Chop" as far as I can tell that's pretty sound. Especially if the "Aikodo chop" isn't an actual attack but a training too to help students understand what they should be doing with their for arm.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Why does Aikido take this stance

The Answer may be in this video.

 

[BrendanF]

I would only say I see significant differences; the photo you're asking the question of is not in fact the 'stance' aikido people/Ueshiba is taking. I'd say Xingyiquan's san ti shi is closer, but still different.

I don't believe the overhead strikes/defences are geared toward defending a punch. I think they are what most all aikido/Daito ryu folks say they are - simulations of an overhead sword strike.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I would only say I see significant differences; the photo you're asking the question of is not in fact the 'stance' aikido people/Ueshiba is taking.

I watched tons of Aikido videos and They have a stance that is similar to this? It doesn't have to be exactly the same because stance naturally have variations.
The guy below does fencing notice the position of his feet.

 

[BrendanF]

Posture

The above article provides a nice overview of stance and footwork in aikido. I'd say this is the 'classical' aikido stance:

Not sure the relevance to where you're going; are you arguing that aikido was designed as a striking/punching/kicking art?

Or to take it a step backwards - are you saying you think the aikido overhead chop and associated defenses are intended to be training against people trying to hammerfist the top of your head?

 

[JowGaWolf]

I don't believe the overhead strikes/defences are geared toward defending a punch. I think they are what most all aikido/Daito ryu folks say they are - simulations of an overhead sword strike.

I thought that too until I saw the video of the guy using his forearm.. It's not the same because you would never user your arm like a sword or a blade unless you are fighting open hand no weapons.

Then I went and pulled up some actual sword fighting. There's nothing in Aikido that makes me thing one is going to do any of those techniques against this. Aikido doesn't even move with that sense of urgency.

I just don't see it.

I don't see this happening either. A simple poke motion would put an end to all of this. There's no need to do big movements and slashes.

I did see a video where the concept of the moves were to deal with someone trying to take the sword away from you. That's looked promising because if I was trying to take a sword out of the hilt then I wouldn't want to let go of the sword because I have control over the end that doesn't cut.

I know there are some sword techniques in there, but I don't think it's all sword techniques. The other reason I don't think it's just sword, because the worse way to simulate a sword is to do it with an imaginary sword. A stick is better than nothing. If it doesn't make sense to train knife fighting with an imaginary knife then it's not going to make sense to do so with an imaginary sword

 

[JowGaWolf]

Posture

The above article provides a nice overview of stance and footwork in aikido. I'd say this is the 'classical' aikido stance:

Not sure the relevance to where you're going; are you arguing that aikido was designed as a striking/punching/kicking art?

Or to take it a step backwards - are you saying you think the aikido overhead chop and associated defenses are intended to be training against people trying to hammerfist the top of your head?

I don't like pictures like this because you can't see the legs or the feet, which means you can't see the stance as it's hidden. He could shift into a cat stance and you wouldn't even notice..

 

[JowGaWolf]

Not sure the relevance to where you're going; are you arguing that aikido was designed as a striking/punching/kicking art?

I'm not even that far. I'm still on the basics . No one has given an sound answer to "whst's the purpose of" So far I have put more guesses and observation than I've gotten. "You use that for this." followed by an explanation of why or how it works, or what's being trained. I got a hint, but that's all.

Don't get me wrong it's possible that they don't know. I don't know what all of my kung fu is. There were some simple moves that I didn't understand until I saw a Chin Na video. It gave me just enough of a hint to come up with a good working theory that I tested out and it worked like a charm. So, I understand. "I don't know." and I don't think less of anyone's knowledge for not knowing.

So short answer. I'm not making any claims of "What Aikido is" I'm just making observations to find out who it works and in what context. The only way I would know if I'm correct is if one of the Aikido guys will eventually get a chance to try it or if I get a chance to try it.

If Aikido is just sword techniques then EVERYONE is doing wrong.

are you saying you think the aikido overhead chop and associated defenses are intended to be training against people trying to hammerfist the top of your head?

For this one, I'm saying that's a possibility. Techniques rarely have only one application.

 

[drop bear]

Yeah, you're pretty dogmatic about this when you decide you don't like a style. Pretty sure you wouldn't think it was so vague as to be meaningless if someone from a style you liked mentioned using a heavy bag.

See, all we've talked about in this lampoon of a side thread is what is done in training, not the effectiveness of it. You're essentially said that anything I say about how I train becomes a claim you feel no need to accept, even if it's a totally normal kind of training. You've also gone so far as to say even mentioning things like a heavy bag is meaningless in discussion with you, because it is too vague.

TL, DR: No sense talking to you about anyting, because it's all too vague for you to comprehend.

Yeah. So mike Tyson on a heavy bag is not even close to the same sort of training as me on the heavy bag.

Which makes the effects of that training different.

Which is why I wouldn't just say yep I train on the heavy bag and expect anyone to take me seriously.

But then I also don't have an image to maintain.

 

[drop bear]

Is it not you?

Not if you haven't had a real look at why Aikido guy can kick as well as he can.

It is a correlation doesn't always equal causation issue.

 

[Steve]

You are hilarious. You don't even see the aggression in your own approach? Really? You think I'm being hostile when I mock your lack of willingness to discuss, choosing instead to be condescending without bothering to read?

I'm done with you. You've made it clear you're not interested in any actual information. You made up your mind about me and have become increasingly more biased, condescending, and insulting - and less rational in your arguments. You used to be fun to debate with and learn from. Now you're just angry at the world.

About the only thing you get right is that I do actually think you're pretty hostile.

Can you calmly and rationally explain to me where you are getting all this? I mean... draw the line for me between what I wrote and... whatever it is you're doing above. I will try to explain what I meant.

But man, what you seem to be reading and what I wrote... I don't see any connection between the two. This includes whatever emotions you're projecting onto me. You're angry, so you accuse me of being angry. You're irrational, so you accuse me of being irrational. You're hostile, insulting, biased... and so you accuse me of being the same.

If you're prefer to PM me, I'm fine with that. I'm sure others would appreciate it, too, to get it out of the thread. Or if you'd like to continue posting like this in public, I guess that's fine, too. But either way, I'm actually getting a little tired of your emotional outbursts, and if you're going to do it, would appreciate if you'd at the very least be more specific.

 

[O'Malley]

Why does Aikido take this stance

The Answer may be in this video.

You are correct about the stance: the body is 3/4 facing the opponent, the front foot points towards the opponent and the back foot forms a triangle with the front foot. This is aikido's only "stance", called "hanmi" or "half body". The position in the image is a bit wide for aikido but the idea is there. It probably comes from the founder's practice of Japanese bayonet fighting (juken) and its main advantage is that it offers a smaller target to your opponent, especially if he's armed.

It's still used in modern jukendo competition (think kendo, but with wooden bayonets):

I thought that too until I saw the video of the guy using his forearm.. It's not the same because you would never user your arm like a sword or a blade unless you are fighting open hand no weapons.

Then I went and pulled up some actual sword fighting. There's nothing in Aikido that makes me thing one is going to do any of those techniques against this. Aikido doesn't even move with that sense of urgency.

I just don't see it.

I don't see this happening either. A simple poke motion would put an end to all of this. There's no need to do big movements and slashes.

I did see a video where the concept of the moves were to deal with someone trying to take the sword away from you. That's looked promising because if I was trying to take a sword out of the hilt then I wouldn't want to let go of the sword because I have control over the end that doesn't cut.

I know there are some sword techniques in there, but I don't think it's all sword techniques. The other reason I don't think it's just sword, because the worse way to simulate a sword is to do it with an imaginary sword. A stick is better than nothing. If it doesn't make sense to train knife fighting with an imaginary knife then it's not going to make sense to do so with an imaginary sword

Aikido is an empty-handed art. Sword and stick techniques are there to condition your body and teach principles (angles of entry, control of the centerline, power generation, timing, different ranges, etc.).

Yoshio Kuroiwa, one of the founder's disciples, once said at a meeting of top aikido masters: "We should stop doing [sword and stick disarms] in public demos. There are lots of real swordsmen in the audience, people who've really trained with swords, and they know that we can't really do such techniques. We are making fools of ourselves." I think he was right. Even from a swordsmanship perspective, the aikido technical curriculum was not well thought-out (its founder had no formal sword training).

You're doing an interesting exercise but since there's no technical standard for aikido, your conclusions will not apply to the vast majority of practitioners.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't like pictures like this because you can't see the legs or the feet, which means you can't see the stance as it's hidden. He could shift into a cat stance and you wouldn't even notice..

Actually, if he were in a cat stance, I could tell. The balance point is distinctly different from that hanmi (our term, though I suspect it's the same in Aikido).

 

[drop bear]

Interestingly when it comes to showing evidence. There is a trend of people unable to do so.

And a specific pattern of resistance.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Why does Aikido take this stance

If you want to be precise, his back foot should point 45 degree forward.

 

[BrendanF]

Not if you haven't had a real look at why Aikido guy can kick as well as he can.

It is a correlation doesn't always equal causation issue.

If "you haven't had a real look"... it's not .. you?(who didn't take the initiative to learn that kick?) Sorry you've lost me.

Aikido is an empty-handed art. Sword and stick techniques are there to condition your body and teach principles (angles of entry, control of the centerline, power generation, timing, different ranges, etc.).

Yoshio Kuroiwa, one of the founder's disciples, once said at a meeting of top aikido masters: "We should stop doing [sword and stick disarms] in public demos. There are lots of real swordsmen in the audience, people who've really trained with swords, and they know that we can't really do such techniques. We are making fools of ourselves." I think he was right. Even from a swordsmanship perspective, the aikido technical curriculum was not well thought-out (its founder had no formal sword training).

You're doing an interesting exercise but since there's no technical standard for aikido, your conclusions will not apply to the vast majority of practitioners.

Yes, koryu weapons folk tend to scoff at aikido weapons work (wasn't that Mochizuki?). In saying 'aikido is an empty-handed art', are you saying that the overhand chop/sankyo techniques (not to mention ikkyo etc) are supposed to be empty handed defenses against people overhand chopping at the top of the head? I've always heard that the aikido/DR theory stressed that these were symbolic of weapon defense and retention?

 

[geezer]

If you want to be precise, his back foot should point 45 degree forward.

Not sure of the relevance. This does't look like aikido or fencing. Looks like southern Chinese boxing, or maybe Hsing-i? Obviously some of the cool stuff you've encountered over the years, John. What is it ...and where did you take the picture?

 

[JowGaWolf]

Interestingly when it comes to showing evidence. There is a trend of people unable to do so.

And a specific pattern of resistance.

In all honesty I think the evidence is that.
1. HE doesn't know
2. HE doesn't understand the functionality of fighting in general
3. He doesn't understand the function of what he trains.

It says more about him than about systems. He could have used functional reference points then test them out with an Aikido perspective. Compare what I've written with trying to analyze a "Chop", a stance, and a Forearm. Between me and him, I've probably added more possible insight for Aikido than what he has added in all of his videos. His biggest problem is that he's still new to sparring. You can clearly see that when he spars against people, his foot work tells oh him, his body movement tells on him. His lack of interest of being hit even with light punches tell on him as he tries to dodge every punch.

There's definitely a Trend, but I think it's a trend that people who don't understand stand the system that they train in, probably:

• Haven't looked
• Haven't sparred
• and have a general misunderstanding of what fighting looks like or what fighting spirit is.

I'll tell you this much if I crack "The Aikido Code" and learn how to successfully do a Aikido technique, then I'm going post a video response back to him. Titled "If I can figure this out, then why can't you." He talks about testing beliefs. I can tell you for a fact that I've never once tested my Jow Ga beliefs. I think a person that "Tests beliefs" is going to gain less than a person who sets out to understand function and then "Test Function" to see if they understood correctly.

Think of it this way. Where would we be if we just assume that just because it didn't work for some that there was no validity in trying to fly. How many failures were made, but people still believed that they could fly. But where they testing belief or testing function?

So what fits your thoughts when looking at the video below.

• It doesn't work for me, so it must not be possible
• It doesn't work because they lack the understanding.

Martial arts are just like this. 90% of the time is will be your lack of knowledge of how something works, that will make you think "it's impossible" or that "it doesn't work."

My personal thoughts on Aikido is that Aikido is a flying machine. The people in the video are Aikido Practitioners who don't understand what's needed to in order to actually fly. Their idea or concept of a flying machine with flapping wings is sound. The techniques used to accomplish that are the wrong technique because they failed to understand flying.

(0:06) in the video above. Machines that fly by using flapping wings. The reality. video below. You can clearly see the different levels of understanding.

Sometimes the system is at fault. But I think a lot of times, it's our lack of understanding that causes us to do things incorrectly