Kotegaeshi with a difference

[Gerry Seymour]

Ok first I am well aware that it still dojo set up and it not a boxer (DB I know what ya gonna say lol) however when I was looking around you tube I came across this, It is still Kotegaeshi just not the flowery one and there is an entry for the retracted punch ( DB it not a boxer lol) anyway may explain there is more than one way to apply the principle.

He started talking about the retraction early on, then we track of that for a while. I'd like to see him demo this on a less stylized punch. Kote gaeshi doesn't require that full commitment of weight forward, but not having it changes the dynamics of the throw.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not to be 'that guy' but as this post seems to imply combat application, could you give an example of this working against a resisting opponent?

Thanks in advance.

It's hard to find the opportunity with a resisting opponent (you have to wait for the opening - not one you can force, even with technique). I've pulled it off pretty nicely a few times, but it's not going to be a go-to move. Think more of getting into a struggle where you have ended up with his arm in your grasp. From there, this is a possibility - more so if he's trying to use that arm against you.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When you

- know that your opponent is going to punch you with his right hand at a certain height, to catch his wrist is possible.
- don't know whether your opponent is going to punch you or kick you, to catch his wrist is almost impossible.

Your technique should not depend on that wrist grabbing.

The technique shouldn't really be about catching the wrist. Trapping the arm is easier, as the trap starts high on the arm and leads down. Depending on the situation, it might go to the wrist, where techniques like this become available.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

another style of Aikido with same principles


and yet another classical kotegaeshi from another different style but same principles lol

I can't hear what he is saying, but he looks like he's covering counters in that. Wish i could hear him.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What principle? An abstract principle has to map into concrete technique. That's not a good technique to represent that principle.

For example, when your opponent punches at you, you use your leading hand to redirect his punch arm so your back hand can catch his wrist, IMO that's more realistic technique that your principle can map into.

In all my training, I always attack my opponent first. I don't wait for my opponent to attack me. So I don't have "what attack is coming" issue.

Aiki arts tend to always start from a defensive response. Some have offensive capability in their curriculum, others do not (some don't consider it "aiki" to initiate).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Don't know what you are trying to discuss here.

Since the leg is longer than the arm, if my opponent attacks me first, a kick at his belly should be able to interrupt his attack. In other words, I like to use one common technique to deal with all attacks.

There's no such thing, John. No technique counters every attack. A punch is as close to a universal answer as you can get, and it fails reliably against some attacks (as early UFC showed us).

 

[Martial D]

I am not flying off at all lol

you slagged of shioda and all i said was you were wrong

it is not worth arguing about as you will never see the point as you do not want to

You have a very strong opinion that what you do is the only way

you quote a sword saint etc yet do you study the sword ?

You wish to see broken bodies etc before you will believe anything and that is ok you say you have done this and that with Aikidoka and basically you let them etc.

How can you slang off anything with the same again and again and again if you have never even studied or made the effort to ...that to me is narrow minded.

and I am not going off on one at all

You notice how all of your posts are about me, but all mine are about the subject?

Also, literally none of your wild assertions about me are even true. You keep bringing up that other thread(which isn't even relevant) about that shioda guy, when all I did in that thread is point out people in THAT particular demo video were literally falling over without even being touched. I maintain that in reality some level of contact is indeed needed to put someone on the ground.

As per the signature quote, the content of which is independent of swordsmanship. I'm not sure why that is an issue for you.

As for "I wish to see broken bodies" "what I do is the only way", etc and the rest of your ad hominem BS, you couldn't be more wrong.

So with that out of the way, how about giving a moment to the actual subject at hand? How about this ; since you can't provide evidence of this technique working under resistance, how about you concoct a theoretical situation under which this technique could be applied to someone fighting back?

 

[Martial D]

It's hard to find the opportunity with a resisting opponent (you have to wait for the opening - not one you can force, even with technique). I've pulled it off pretty nicely a few times, but it's not going to be a go-to move. Think more of getting into a struggle where you have ended up with his arm in your grasp. From there, this is a possibility - more so if he's trying to use that arm against you.

Thank you

This is how adults do it

 

[drop bear]

Ok first I am well aware that it still dojo set up and it not a boxer (DB I know what ya gonna say lol) however when I was looking around you tube I came across this, It is still Kotegaeshi just not the flowery one and there is an entry for the retracted punch ( DB it not a boxer lol) anyway may explain there is more than one way to apply the principle.

I can't see the video so I am not sure yet what I will say.

But at a guess if you don't start with a good clinch and decent pressure. You are going to get your head punched in trying to secure an arm

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

It's worth mentioning that you don't necessarily need to "catch" the wrist to get kotegaeshi to work. I've applied it against one guy who was getting in my face, and it ended the confrontation real fast. In theory, you can also ride the arm of an opponent until you can grab the wrist, giving you more surface area and more reaction time. That being said, I've never pulled it off against a skilled and determined opponent in real life.

 

[drop bear]

I can't see the video so I am not sure yet what I will say.

But at a guess if you don't start with a good clinch and decent pressure. You are going to get your head punched in trying to secure an arm

Otherwise if you clinch up well. And have your head properly tucked. (which he didn't)

You can attack the arm. Stretch it out and start using things like arm bars and wristlocks.

Or grind them. Break their posture then attack the arm or wrist.

 

[pdg]

I maintain that in reality some level of contact is indeed needed to put someone on the ground

If that were universally true I wouldn't have ended up on the floor all those times (usually after half-assing an attempt at something, probably aerial, I've not tried before)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can't see the video so I am not sure yet what I will say.

But at a guess if you don't start with a good clinch and decent pressure. You are going to get your head punched in trying to secure an arm

Don't worry, you nailed the issue without seeing the video.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's worth mentioning that you don't necessarily need to "catch" the wrist to get kotegaeshi to work. I've applied it against one guy who was getting in my face, and it ended the confrontation real fast. In theory, you can also ride the arm of an opponent until you can grab the wrist, giving you more surface area and more reaction time. That being said, I've never pulled it off against a skilled and determined opponent in real life.

Yes, that's the idea I was trying to get to in an earlier post. Arms are easier to make contact with (the higher, the easier).

 

[hoshin1600]

my view is that O sensei never intended for Aikido to be an effective fighting art. it wasnt about using it in a fight at all. but putting that aside and if we are going to "go there" with the fighting application then aikido fails because of one basic flaw... pressure testing. many will argue over this but this is how i see it. in science the biggest question is what test to use to prove out a hypothesis. same applies here. if your not using the right test you will never know if your stuff works.
my 7 yo son seems the think that if he had a few dinosaur size feathers and a trampoline he could fly. in his mind it will work. the problem is that he doesnt have a full concept of the strength of gravity. in the same way martial artists tend to view their technique with the same lack of conceptual understanding. they are not adding the full complexity to their model. thus their mind see's that it will work. there is a big difference between "seeing" it work in your mind and it actually working.
if aikido wants to prove out their hypothesis then they need to step up to a multi level analysis. start with what you have ... a static thrusting munetsuki. then step up to a more boxer style punch. this should also include variability, the punch should be targeted anywhere on the torso ( meaning variation in vectors) then retract back to the gaurd. next the testing needs to be stepped up to randomization, where the uke can throw any punch to any target. over hand right, hook , jab, shovel hook, cross right.
then full sparring full contact and get your technique to work.

until that happens then Aikido is going to have problems with the MMA crowd.

 

[Martial D]

my view is that O sensei never intended for Aikido to be an effective fighting art. it wasnt about using it in a fight at all. but putting that aside and if we are going to "go there" with the fighting application then aikido fails because of one basic flaw... pressure testing. many will argue over this but this is how i see it. in science the biggest question is what test to use to prove out a hypothesis. same applies here. if your not using the right test you will never know if your stuff works.
my 7 yo son seems the think that if he had a few dinosaur size feathers and a trampoline he could fly. in his mind it will work. the problem is that he doesnt have a full concept of the strength of gravity. in the same way martial artists tend to view their technique with the same lack of conceptual understanding. they are not adding the full complexity to their model. thus their mind see's that it will work. there is a big difference between "seeing" it work in your mind and it actually working.
if aikido wants to prove out their hypothesis then they need to step up to a multi level analysis. start with what you have ... a static thrusting munetsuki. then step up to a more boxer style punch. this should also include variability, the punch should be targeted anywhere on the torso ( meaning variation in vectors) then retract back to the gaurd. next the testing needs to be stepped up to randomization, where the uke can throw any punch to any target. over hand right, hook , jab, shovel hook, cross right.
then full sparring full contact and get your technique to work.

until that happens then Aikido is going to have problems with the MMA crowd.

Personally, I wouldn't put my self in the 'mma crowd' box. I'm a CMA guy at heart, and everything I do filters through that. This is perhaps why I am so hard on 'bologna', as I ate my share of it early on, swallowing gratuitously, until a proverbial stiff shot to the gut made me throw it all up and re-evaluate.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

my view is that O sensei never intended for Aikido to be an effective fighting art. it wasnt about using it in a fight at all. but putting that aside and if we are going to "go there" with the fighting application then aikido fails because of one basic flaw... pressure testing. many will argue over this but this is how i see it. in science the biggest question is what test to use to prove out a hypothesis. same applies here. if your not using the right test you will never know if your stuff works.
my 7 yo son seems the think that if he had a few dinosaur size feathers and a trampoline he could fly. in his mind it will work. the problem is that he doesnt have a full concept of the strength of gravity. in the same way martial artists tend to view their technique with the same lack of conceptual understanding. they are not adding the full complexity to their model. thus their mind see's that it will work. there is a big difference between "seeing" it work in your mind and it actually working.
if aikido wants to prove out their hypothesis then they need to step up to a multi level analysis. start with what you have ... a static thrusting munetsuki. then step up to a more boxer style punch. this should also include variability, the punch should be targeted anywhere on the torso ( meaning variation in vectors) then retract back to the gaurd. next the testing needs to be stepped up to randomization, where the uke can throw any punch to any target. over hand right, hook , jab, shovel hook, cross right.
then full sparring full contact and get your technique to work.

until that happens then Aikido is going to have problems with the MMA crowd.

I agree, and will add one adjustment. With many grappling techniques - especially when focusing on least resistance - you can't expect to perform a specific technique against a resisting partner. If your partner knows what is coming, and uses what he knows, most grappling fails reliably. Same is true for punches, of course: if you know I'm throwing a jab, my ability to connect that jab goes way down, because all you have to do is defend that one thing. So, variable input and variable response options. If an opening almost never presents, that's a low percentage technique against that person. If that pattern continues with other people (especially if it continues with new students and people from other styles), that's probably a low percentage technique all-around...and only worth training if it's just too damned much fun to not train.

 

[Martial D]

I agree, and will add one adjustment. With many grappling techniques - especially when focusing on least resistance - you can't expect to perform a specific technique against a resisting partner. If your partner knows what is coming, and uses what he knows, most grappling fails reliably. Same is true for punches, of course: if you know I'm throwing a jab, my ability to connect that jab goes way down, because all you have to do is defend that one thing. So, variable input and variable response options. If an opening almost never presents, that's a low percentage technique against that person. If that pattern continues with other people (especially if it continues with new students and people from other styles), that's probably a low percentage technique all-around...and only worth training if it's just too damned much fun to not train.

Exactly that. Here is a clip of what aikido vs aikido actually looks like. A whole lot less running and diving and a whole lot more stifling and struggling.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Exactly that. Here is a clip of what aikido vs aikido actually looks like. A whole lot less running and diving and a whole lot more stifling and struggling.

I've often said that, if trained well, Aikido against a collected and/or skilled opponent should look more like Judo. If not trained well, it keeps trying to look like Aikido in the dojo, and just doesn't work.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I've often said that, if trained well, Aikido against a collected and/or skilled opponent should look more like Judo. If not trained well, it keeps trying to look like Aikido in the dojo, and just doesn't work.

The reason is simple. You have 2 arms and your opponent also has 2 arms. If you use 2 arms against your opponent's 1 arm, you will give him 1 free arm. If you use both arms to deal with both of your opponent's arms, wrestling, Judo, or Aikido should all look similar.

It doesn't matter which style that you may train, you still need to know how to handle a clinch.