Kotegaeshi with a difference

[Gerry Seymour]

Thats kind of a non issue. MMA guys who do Muay Thai know how to fall.

Do they know falls from that sort of throw? I ask because I don't know. I'd expect someone from Judo to know that fall, probably most branches of Japanese Jujutsu, Aikido folks should be able to do that if they've experienced it before, but I'm not sure who else has training for those face-first falls to convert them into something safer.

the bigger question is along the lines of; what is Aikido? in another thread i posted a Krav Maga guy doing nikkyo. is that Aikido? is that Krav Maga?
the answer is not so obvious. what is a style? how do you define it? if krav, karate, kung -fu, judo and aikido all do the same technique what style are you doing?

I like that question. My answer is that the style is bounded by the principles, not the techniques. That doesn't help much, though, because two different Aikidoka can have a different view of how much the philosophy (from Ueshiba's later life) defines the bounds of the art. So, if I do a technique and consider it NGA, it's NGA. If someone does it and considers it KM, it's KM. Same for Aikido, Karate, etc.

digging into this question it becomes apparent that the techniques do not define the style.
in my training i do kotegaeshi, as well as ikkyo, nikkko and sankyo but i am not doing aikido.
making a claim that aikido works in the street is not the same as saying kotegaeshi works on the street. because my kotegaeshi is not the same as aikido, well it is,... but it isn't. there is something different and it is not the technique per say. all styles can do the same technique. is that a validation for aikido if it works for another style? i think not.

Saying any art works is kind of the same issue. If we define the art as the principles, then all we need is to see those principles in action (regardless of their source). If we define the art by its most common training, then we'd need to see someone who developed their skill with that training approach. If the definition includes the techniques (and I think we often include at least key techniques when we define an art), then we'd also need to see some of those key techniques work. What I'm not convinced is that we need to see it look like what we expect training to look like. I can recognize "aiki" in practice in street altercations, even if it doesn't look like what NB calls "classical Aikido". Mind you, what I see as "aiki" in the wild isn't really exclusive to aiki arts - most arts have at least some of it. A fantastic boxing slip-and-counter can be quite "aiki" to my eyes, because of the principles it uses. Is that Aikido? Maybe. I'd call it NGA, and that's part of the original grouping of Aikido (though not the art of Aikido), so to me, it's Aikido.

Okay, I might have had too much coffee.

 

[Martial D]

Do they know falls from that sort of throw? I ask because I don't know. I'd expect someone from Judo to know that fall, probably most branches of Japanese Jujutsu, Aikido folks should be able to do that if they've experienced it before, but I'm not sure who else has training for those face-first falls to convert them into something safer.


I like that question. My answer is that the style is bounded by the principles, not the techniques. That doesn't help much, though, because two different Aikidoka can have a different view of how much the philosophy (from Ueshiba's later life) defines the bounds of the art. So, if I do a technique and consider it NGA, it's NGA. If someone does it and considers it KM, it's KM. Same for Aikido, Karate, etc.

Saying any art works is kind of the same issue. If we define the art as the principles, then all we need is to see those principles in action (regardless of their source). If we define the art by its most common training, then we'd need to see someone who developed their skill with that training approach. If the definition includes the techniques (and I think we often include at least key techniques when we define an art), then we'd also need to see some of those key techniques work. What I'm not convinced is that we need to see it look like what we expect training to look like. I can recognize "aiki" in practice in street altercations, even if it doesn't look like what NB calls "classical Aikido". Mind you, what I see as "aiki" in the wild isn't really exclusive to aiki arts - most arts have at least some of it. A fantastic boxing slip-and-counter can be quite "aiki" to my eyes, because of the principles it uses. Is that Aikido? Maybe. I'd call it NGA, and that's part of the original grouping of Aikido (though not the art of Aikido), so to me, it's Aikido.

Okay, I might have had too much coffee.

I'd imagine it's the same with many styles. Sure, some look in practice like they do on the mat, like say bjj mt or boxing, but many dont, which has more to do with the training.

Take a guy like alan orr for example. Many would say what he does 'is not Wing Chun', because he doesn't teach a lot of things that people look at and say 'thats Wing Chun' , like the mansau woosau guard or the rooted stepping footwork or the stationary trunk and head, but to me it's still plainly Wing Chun. It's just wing Chun that's functional for fighting.

 

[now disabled]

Thats kind of a non issue. MMA guys who do Muay Thai know how to fall.

the bigger question is along the lines of; what is Aikido? in another thread i posted a Krav Maga guy doing nikkyo. is that Aikido? is that Krav Maga?
the answer is not so obvious. what is a style? how do you define it? if krav, karate, kung -fu, judo and aikido all do the same technique what style are you doing?
digging into this question it becomes apparent that the techniques do not define the style.
in my training i do kotegaeshi, as well as ikkyo, nikkko and sankyo but i am not doing aikido.
making a claim that aikido works in the street is not the same as saying kotegaeshi works on the street. because my kotegaeshi is not the same as aikido, well it is,... but it isn't. there is something different and it is not the technique per say. all styles can do the same technique. is that a validation for aikido if it works for another style? i think not.

I only said in the other thread it looked like it was a form of nikkyo ,as that is what I would call it

As far as ikkyo sankkyo etc I am sure that they exist in other styles I can only say what I would call them and I am not saying that if it is a validation of Aikido in any way. I have said many times that what I call classical Aikido does not work on the street as it parts it is to big circle and to stylized and can get very complicated therefore it will fail as in a street apllication it needs to be cut done and be more direct.

Kotegaeshi is in no way purely an Aikido tech again I can only say what I call it no more it is not trying to validate Aikido at all ...where it came from originally I do not know and I would suspect that it is contained within many systems and Arts

 

[drop bear]

I mostly agree. The only part I disagree with is, "They are still coming too fast to deal with properly." People deal with punches all the time, sometimes quite properly. As ND has often said, it won't be classical Aikido (what I call "dojo Aikido", which focuses on flow and feel), but Aikido can deal with these. The skill needed includes - which I think you're getting at - the ability to recognize and move with a punch. If someone can do a slip on a punch, they're halfway to accessing Aikido techniques (the other half is knowing the techniques).

I am sure there is a way to deal with fast punches. But not if you are not dealing with slow ones.

 

[drop bear]

that might be better

He is giving himself more time.

 

[now disabled]

He is giving himself more time.

in what way are you meaning that?

 

[drop bear]

in what way are you meaning that?

As I said before. Generally you are trying to squeeze that throw in in the time it takes to to throw another punch. And that generally doesnt work.

Because he clinches up. The other guy can't throw those punches as easily. So he creates more time to do that throw.

 

[now disabled]

As I said before. Generally you are trying to squeeze that throw in in the time it takes to to throw another punch. And that generally doesnt work.

Because he clinches up. The other guy can't throw those punches as easily. So he creates more time to do that throw.

Yeah I agree and that leads to where I say the principles are the same the execution is what is different as in it has been tweaked

 

[drop bear]

Yeah I agree and that leads to where I say the principles are the same the execution is what is different as in it has been tweaked

The technique is the same. The principles are different.

 

[now disabled]

The technique is the same. The principles are different.

no I'd say the reverse but I do get what yo mean ...I am just looking at it from a different angle

 

[Ryback]

It may be my fault in saying that the striking kicking etc etc was left out ...that was just my own thoughts and observations my friend having spent a good number of years in Aikido and reading learning and in some ways researching and what I did learn was that most if not all of the original students knew how to punch ick etc before they started their Aikido journey and it is my opinion only that Ueshiba did not see the need to include the punching drills etc ...I am not a far from am I having a go at Ueshiba the man was truly a gifted human being and a master of what he did and that is easy to see ...what I am saying is that the post war Aikido was affected by his spiritual thinkings and ways

You are right mate it changed after some time and it was affected by Omoto kyo but as Toshisiro Obata says we don't have to keep o'sensei's image and style only as that of his old age....
I'll tell you something very interesting my friend. Before I was studied Aikido I had some background in Fu Jo Pai Kung Fu and in Shotokan Karate, but guess what... My Aikido teacher was the one who actually taught me how to do proper atemi and furthermore how to do correct Mae Geri... Of course, I know it's an exception, Karate people know how to do proper Mae Geri but what I'm trying to say is that we learn how to strike in Aikido, without necessarily having to train in another martial art... But not all schools do that...

 

[now disabled]

You are right mate it changed after some time and it was affected by Omoto kyo but as Toshisiro Obata says we don't have to keep o'sensei's image and style only as that of his old age....
I'll tell you something very interesting my friend. Before I was studied Aikido I had some background in Fu Jo Pai Kung Fu and in Shotokan Karate, but guess what... My Aikido teacher was the one who actually taught me how to do proper atemi and furthermore how to do correct Mae Geri... Of course, I know it's an exception, Karate people know how to do proper Mae Geri but what I'm trying to say is that we learn how to strike in Aikido, without necessarily having to train in another martial art... But not all schools do that...

I fully do understand what yo are saying and I am willing to go further and say that you were taught why you were applying the atemi and mai is very important and especially so from an Aikido perspective

 

[drop bear]

no I'd say the reverse but I do get what yo mean ...I am just looking at it from a different angle

There are principles there that are making that technique work. To start with there is the distancing and foot movement to make that jab bigger and easier to manage. Good striking principles.

Then he enters with pressure. Good grappling principles.

Then when he gets the response he wants he is using aiki.

Three different principles at work. All of them necessary for the technique.

 

[Ryback]

This is a dangerous argument, Ryback. How do you define "enough skill"? Someone with enough skill can successfully defend themselves with a saucepan of water. They'll need skill that's entirely unrelated to the saucepan of water, though.


I've never liked this argument. It's philosophical at best, and specious. What is "the way of the warrior", and who gets to define it? Some martial sports have a background in competition among soldiers during peacetime, and others have a background in people learning to defend themselves and testing their techniques against each other. Sparring is a training tool, and excluding it on philosophical basis is like deciding to leave out an ingredient from a cake because of the color of the box.


If you're talking about the one I'm thinking of, you've missed everything important in it - including what the Aikidoka said. It's never going to be useful to try classical Aikido movement against a boxer, and rarely so against a Muay Thai fighter (those being the most common stand-up fighting bases in MMA).

This conclusion was drawn by some folks with a lot more insight and experience into the art than either of us. Aikido's culture is to try to follow Ueshiba's teaching. That includes trying to figure out why he made some decisions. Without that, it's just a religion.

And remember as you read this, I actually kinda like Aikido. But you're breaking out the weakest arguments. Understand the limitations of the art, and it can serve you much better. Defend it blindly with rationalization, and you won't be aware of its or your limitations.

This is a dangerous argument, Ryback. How do you define "enough skill"? Someone with enough skill can successfully defend themselves with a saucepan of water. They'll need skill that's entirely unrelated to the saucepan of water, though.


I've never liked this argument. It's philosophical at best, and specious. What is "the way of the warrior", and who gets to define it? Some martial sports have a background in competition among soldiers during peacetime, and others have a background in people learning to defend themselves and testing their techniques against each other. Sparring is a training tool, and excluding it on philosophical basis is like deciding to leave out an ingredient from a cake because of the color of the box.


If you're talking about the one I'm thinking of, you've missed everything important in it - including what the Aikidoka said. It's never going to be useful to try classical Aikido movement against a boxer, and rarely so against a Muay Thai fighter (those being the most common stand-up fighting bases in MMA).

This conclusion was drawn by some folks with a lot more insight and experience into the art than either of us. Aikido's culture is to try to follow Ueshiba's teaching. That includes trying to figure out why he made some decisions. Without that, it's just a religion.

And remember as you read this, I actually kinda like Aikido. But you're breaking out the weakest arguments. Understand the limitations of the art, and it can serve you much better. Defend it blindly with rationalization, and you won't be aware of its or your limitations.

I follow nothing blindly, on the contrary I'm studying pretty hard and my conclusions are based on my experience... There is no limitation in any martial art... The only limiting factor is each individual person's skill... But how can you define skill? Well, you've got Aikido skills, when you are good in Aikido. What's so difficult about it?
Having understood that it saves me the excuses of blaming the art and makes me work harder... Maybe more people should do that...

 

[now disabled]

There are principles there that are making that technique work. To start with there is the distancing and foot movement to make that jab bigger and easier to manage. Good striking principles.

Then he enters with pressure. Good grappling principles.

Then when he gets the response he wants he is using aiki.

hmmm not my thinking on aiki but yes I guess that is how it looks

Three different principles at work. All of them necessary for the technique.

 

[drop bear]

You are right mate it changed after some time and it was affected by Omoto kyo but as Toshisiro Obata says we don't have to keep o'sensei's image and style only as that of his old age....
I'll tell you something very interesting my friend. Before I was studied Aikido I had some background in Fu Jo Pai Kung Fu and in Shotokan Karate, but guess what... My Aikido teacher was the one who actually taught me how to do proper atemi and furthermore how to do correct Mae Geri... Of course, I know it's an exception, Karate people know how to do proper Mae Geri but what I'm trying to say is that we learn how to strike in Aikido, without necessarily having to train in another martial art... But not all schools do that...

Correct Mae geri is defined by their effect.

So if you can jump in the ring and buckle a kickboxers leg without getting bashed. You are throwing correct Mae geri.

I get the impression you think there is some sort of superior technique that makes the difference. And it is less important than a lot of other factors.

 

[drop bear]

Yeah. You guys have some mystical super hard to explain Aiki.

I just call it good timing.

If it is any consolation there is also mystical super hard to explain pressure as well. If you have the trick of it.

 

[now disabled]

Correct Mae geri is defined by their effect.

So if you can jump in the ring and buckle a kickboxers leg without getting bashed. You are throwing correct Mae geri.

I get the impression you think there is some sort of superior technique that makes the difference. And it is less important than a lot of other factors.

I don't think he is

Mai is a very important principle in Aikido if not one of the first things taught it is up there ...as from that everything else comes ...I dunno if that makes sense

 

[drop bear]

I follow nothing blindly, on the contrary I'm studying pretty hard and my conclusions are based on my experience... There is no limitation in any martial art... The only limiting factor is each individual person's skill... But how can you define skill? Well, you've got Aikido skills, when you are good in Aikido. What's so difficult about it?
Having understood that it saves me the excuses of blaming the art and makes me work harder... Maybe more people should do that...

You should spend time on what works. If you want what you do to work.

This means abandoning preconceived ideas like your method will work if you just try hard enough.

 

[drop bear]

I don't think he is

Mai is a very important principle in Aikido if not one of the first things taught it is up there ...as from that everything else comes ...I dunno if that makes sense

We are talking about a round kick right?

Sorry front kicks.

Yeah sort of? there is a trick to dropping people with them.