Yoko Okamoto

[JowGaWolf]

It depends on the question.

Wouldn’t you agree that some questions cannot be answered with symbolic representations (e.g. words), but require direct experience, leading to implicit understanding?

I've only seen that in cases where someone is learning how to do something or when some explains a feeling. That doesn't apply to identifying what you think is destroying the essence of a system, which is what my question was about. Direct experience doesn't apply because some else who practices Aikido may think the opposite that the essence of Aikido isn't being destroyed.

 

[JowGaWolf]

It is aikidokas’ place to provide it if they so choose. Nobody is bound to answer. There have been multiple threads on aikido over the years. To my memory, people connected to aikido have tried to provide clarity over and over. But those demanding the clarity either refuse to accept the answers or they simply ignore or disregard them because they think aikido must be something like what they are used to or what they want it to be, they think they know what something must look like in order to qualify as a martial method and aikido does not fit their notions. “Aikido can’t be THIS because they don’t train like THAT (meaning: they don’t train like I train); aikido must be THAT because of blah blah blah”. It gets old. After a while, the answer simply becomes, “you don’t like aikido. That’s fine, sod off.”

Aikido is fluid, it isn’t just one thing. Like it or not, that is aikido, whether it makes sense to you or not.

You really want to understand it? Enroll in a good school for a few years.

Not sure how this relates to what someone else sees as the essence being destroyed. I could take Aikido and learn how it's done and I may still not see the same issue about the essence of it.

To assume that that everyone who takes Aikido will see Aikido in the same light is unrealistic. To assume that they will see the same essence is unrealistic. There is already proof of this. I'm also willing to bet that like most martial arts systems there is also some inner debate about it as well.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

or thinking that its only for spiritual and mental growth?

I try to stay away from spiritual and mental discussion. I have no interest in it.

I also don't like to get into discussion that people attack the messenger instead of discussing the message.

A: What's your opinion on ...?
B: My opinion on ... is ...
A: You are wrong, you should feel ashamed of yourself, you are a bad person, you are ...
B: @#$%^
A: ^%$#@

Jus to share 2 funny statements here:

- If I haven't seen it, it doesn't exist.
- My logic conclusion is the only truth in the world.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If we compare the Aikido video with this video, you can see difference in training.

What's the difference? IMO, the counter training is missing in that Aikido video.

Most Aikido schools do have some counter training - it's what they use to practice flow drills. Unfortunately, I've rarely seen it used to actually practice practical counters.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I use to truly enjoy watching the late sensei of my daughters Aikido dojo do demos, even more impressive was his Randori. I could not believe on how small his circles were.

I love to feel technique from a really good practitioner. When someone uses aiki principles well, it's surprising how much control is transmitted through those obviously limited connections. I haven't had a chance to experience that in a while, and I miss it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think most people want clarification and much of that confusion is because Aikido is not clear about Aikido.

Part of the difficulty is that there's a large part of aiki training that, as far as I know, has no common vocabulary with most arts. I can talk grappling principles with anyone who does grappling, but some of the aiki principles aren't even properly understood (or used) by some who are training in aiki arts (I've seen this within my primary art, far less often within Ueshiba's Aikido). Trying to describe these nuanced principles is really difficult. It's much easier when someone gets to experience them from someone who does them really well, but that takes a long time to develop, so there are relatively few people who do them that well.

 

[Xue Sheng]

So much for clarity. I will not ask you about Aikido again.

Ask a silly question.....

 

[Flying Crane]

Not sure how this relates to what someone else sees as the essence being destroyed. I could take Aikido and learn how it's done and I may still not see the same issue about the essence of it.

To assume that that everyone who takes Aikido will see Aikido in the same light is unrealistic. To assume that they will see the same essence is unrealistic. There is already proof of this. I'm also willing to bet that like most martial arts systems there is also some inner debate about it as well.

I’ve already said that aikido can be different things to different people, as well as many things at the same time, including contradictory things, to the same person.

I would say that, to your question of what would destroy aikido’s essence, is this attitude that aikido must not have much value because it isn’t seen in mma, and that the only way to validate its methods and techniques is through sparring. Trying to fit aikido into that mindset would, in my opinion, destroy the essence of aikido. The whole notion is extremely myopic and is silly, but is the common theme in these discussion both surrounding aikido and other martial arts as well. Holding up competition and sparring as the yardstick against which all methods must be measured is ridiculous and I would say that aikido overall does a much better job than most at simply thumbing its nose at such notions. For that, I applaud it.

For me, in these discussions as soon as someone says, “…but we never see it in mma…” or “…you gotta test this with sparring…” sorry, I just lost interest in anything being said here. Moving on to something else.

 

[mograph]

I've only seen that in cases where someone is learning how to do something or when some explains a feeling. That doesn't apply to identifying what you think is destroying the essence of a system, which is what my question was about. Direct experience doesn't apply because some else who practices Aikido may think the opposite that the essence of Aikido isn't being destroyed.

Thanks. So, the first question you'd ask the practitioner would be "what is the essence of aikido?"
Have you asked that, in person, and if so, how did they answer?

(I specified "in person," because, you know, the internet has a low signal-to-noise ratio.)

 

[JowGaWolf]

Part of the difficulty is that there's a large part of aiki training that, as far as I know, has no common vocabulary with most arts.

I can see how this would create problems. Thinks like this create problems outside of martial arts and it causes just as much confusion if not more in the non-martial arts environment. This also helps me get a better understanding of some of the challenges that Aikido has. Common vocabulary is vital for clarity.

Trying to describe these nuanced principles is really difficult. It's much easier when someone gets to experience them from someone who does them really well, but that takes a long time to develop, so there are relatively few people who do them that well.

To me this seems like the difficulty is from not having enough people who can apply the principles at a high enough ability required to properly describe what's going on? Example, if I knew Tai chi forms but didn't know how to apply the techniques then I would have difficulty in apply something that I myself have difficulty in applying. Is there a faster path to learning it?

 

[JowGaWolf]

Thanks. So, the first question you'd ask the practitioner would be "what is the essence of aikido?"
Have you asked that, in person, and if so, how did they answer?

I wouldn't ask that question. Because for each person it's going to be different. I went through this with Jow Ga where I was accused of not seeing Jow Ga in the correct light. Then 5 years later that so call perspective is more aligned to my perspective than what was told to me 5 years ago.

If you told me that the "Essence of peace" has changed. Then there's no need for me to know what you consider peace. I just need to know how it has changed in your eyes. For example,
Statement: Kids today don't have the same childhood opportunities that I had as a kid.
Question: In what ways do kids not have the same childhood opportunities?
Answer: When I was a kid we could walk down the street and too the store without being worried that someone was going to kidnap us.

There's no need to know how my childhood is like.

Statement: The essence of Jow Ga Kung Fu has changed compared to what my teacher were told about Jow Ga Kung Fu as students.
Question: In what ways has the essence changed? Does if focus more on health? Or more on fighting?
Answer: Neither. We still still spar and we still do things for health, But now it seems to be more about how good you look doing a form and little attention is put on the application of techniques. When my teachers were young students, the essence was on application, but now it's more on showmanship.

Above I've replaced my Aikido question but I didn't use destroyed because that's not something I believe is happening. I've provided an answer that shows why I think the essence has changed. But I have not told you what the essence of Jow Ga is, I only told you the change that I saw. The Jow Ga example is based on my real life experience. This is how I saw Jow Ga change and as a result I started to regain that by trying to be a good representation of Jow Ga Kung Fu.

Again. I didn't share what I thought the essence of Jow Ga is, I only spoke of the change that in the essence that I saw.. I already know before asking, that people are going to have different ideas of what Essence means.

It would be like me asking you "What is the essence of life?" You may have difficulty in answering that. But if you told me that the essence of life was being destroyed then there is a high chance you can tell me what you think is destroying it. I may not know much about the biology of a tree. But I can look at it and tell you the damage on the tree and how it's being destroyed. Same as going to the doctor. The doctors asks you what do you see or feel is wrong. The doctor doesn't ask you about what you think of illness and health.

Questions I have yet to ask and may never asked another person.
1. What is the essence of something?
2. What is the meaning of life?
3. What is the meaning of death?
4. What is our purpose in life.?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

To me this seems like the difficulty is from not having enough people who can apply the principles at a high enough ability required to properly describe what's going on? Example, if I knew Tai chi forms but didn't know how to apply the techniques then I would have difficulty in apply something that I myself have difficulty in applying. Is there a faster path to learning it?

I think folks performing at a higher level are reasonably common within mainline Aikido at higher levels, but that's a small population compared to the larger MA population. As for learning it faster, I don't know a good method for that. I've personally found a few ways to trick students into doing bits of aiki it without needing to actually grasp the overall concepts or physical principles, but that only goes so far. The practices and exercises I know of that directly develop aiki are pretty far removed from what most folks want to spend time on. Beyond those, it's mostly a matter of practicing techniques that don't work well until you manage to get the aiki principles into them.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I would say that, to your question of what would destroy aikido’s essence, is this attitude that aikido must not have much value because it isn’t seen in mma, and that the only way to validate its methods and techniques is through sparring. Trying to fit aikido into that mindset would, in my opinion, destroy the essence of aikido.

Thank you. Very much. That is an answer. While it's not my answer, it is your answer and that's what helps me to understand what you see as destruction in terms of Aikido.

Holding up competition and sparring as the yardstick against which all methods must be measured is ridiculous and I would say that aikido overall does a much better job than most at simply thumbing its nose at such notions. For that, I applaud it.

This is also part of your answer. While I cannot comment about what is destroying Aikido (because I don't train it, nor do I teach it.). I can share some light on the sparring and competition perspective (not that you asked) but it may show a perspective that you have not thought about. I'm in agreement with your MMA comment as a lot of martial arts gets that.

So I'm an applications person. Being able to apply the technique helps build understanding of the technique. Also having someone who can apply the technique correctly apply it to me also helps me to understand what is happening. Again this is just me.

In my mind learning martial arts can be like cooking. Some of the people learn the recipe but never try to use it to cook. In Martial Arts. Application is the same as Cooking. Sometimes I can follow a recipe and things turn out bad. Then someone gives me a tip in the prep stage that helps me with the mixing that wasn't mentioned in the recipe. Application helps me to determine if I have it correct by giving me an outcome.

Sparring for me is individual focus - Can I do a technique? How can I improve my ability to a technique? When I try to do what I see, do I get the same results? In this sense, a person is gaining better understanding through applying.

Competition for me is. comparison focus - Am I better skilled than another person with what I know how to do."
I define sparring and competition differently because they are not the same and to me they don't serve the same purpose.

Somewhere in Aikido there is Application. Somewhere in Aikido there is technique. That is just the nature of it all martial arts There are techniques for movement, breathing, structure, and for fighting. This stuff can be done individually or as a whole. But the thing to focus on is that there are techniques and applications of techniques. There is also a yard stick in which to measure competency or understanding of what is taught.

My assumption is that you don't mind the yardstick. You just don't like that it's always being compared to MMA. if Aikido has testing then there's definitely a yard stick to measure. In terms of Aikido being Measuared to MMA, This used to get similar comparisons about Jow Ga in that way but I don't hear it as much, like almost never since I stopped teaching it. My yard stick is different from what you use, but my reply is the same.

I can't learn Jow Ga from MMA. When asked about Aikido and MMA. simply say that you can't learn Aikido from MMA.. This statement is true regardless of the focus ,be it fighting or spirituality. If an Aikido school doesn't train or focus on fighting or sparring then say that the school doesn't focus on that. Learn to kill those yardstick measurements by creating clarity.



Thank you.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think folks performing at a higher level are reasonably common within mainline Aikido at higher levels, but that's a small population compared to the larger MA population. As for learning it faster, I don't know a good method for that. I've personally found a few ways to trick students into doing bits of aiki it without needing to actually grasp the overall concepts or physical principles, but that only goes so far. The practices and exercises I know of that directly develop aiki are pretty far removed from what most folks want to spend time on. Beyond those, it's mostly a matter of practicing techniques that don't work well until you manage to get the aiki principles into them.

I was able to find some short cuts in Jow Ga, well they really aren't short cuts as much as cutting out exercises that make the learning process longer. Much of it being on the set up applying a technique. I'm not sure why that type of exercise is included in some Jow Ga schools but it causes more confusion than clarity and requires that student unlearns a behavior.. But what it sounds like to me is that there are nothing like that in Aikido.

Have you discovered better ways to help student to understand than what was explained to you?

 

[mograph]

I wouldn't ask that question. Because for each person it's going to be different. I went through this with Jow Ga where I was accused of not seeing Jow Ga in the correct light. Then 5 years later that so call perspective is more aligned to my perspective than what was told to me 5 years ago.

Again. I didn't share what I thought the essence of Jow Ga is, I only spoke of the change that in the essence that I saw.. I already know before asking, that people are going to have different ideas of what Essence means.

Sorry, I don't agree.

Your examples show that characteristics of the concept (e.g. childhood) have changed, not necessarily that the concept's essence has changed. The changed elements might not be essential to the practice: they might simply be observable characteristics, peripheral to the essence.

Your position is valid in discussion of "the changes that we have observed in aikido," but if we cannot define the essence of aikido, we cannot discuss how its essence has changed.

If we want to discuss the essence of a concept, we can't simply describe its observable characteristics, because those may or may not be essential to the concept: they might be peripheral, non-essential, secondary, or trivial. In other words, they would not matter as much as the essence of the concept.

If, however, the practitioners can agree with you that the changed characteristics are essential to the aikido, then you all can be on your way to defining, and thus discussing, the essence of aikido.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Your position is valid in discussion of "the changes that we have observed in aikido," but if we cannot define the essence of aikido, we cannot discuss how its essence has changed.

Flying crane was able to answer that question without me asking him what he thinks the essence of Aikido is. Until there's a unified definition of the essence of Aikido, then I will be happy not to ask. My personal thought about the essence of Aikido is that only one person could have truly answered that question, and that is the founder. He's the one that created and developed it.

There's this book "The Essence of Aikido: Spiritual Teachings of Morihei Ueshiba" which has me interested in how much of what people say matches up with what is in this book.. The only reason I haven't read it, because it only seems like it deals with the spiritual teachings and not the physical teaching.. Just from the title I feel like I'm only going to get half of the story. Time will tell.

 

[MetalBoar]

So I think we're discussing a complex topic. A agree with much of what has been said here and can see where both sides of this discussion are coming from. I've been struggling with getting my thoughts out in a coherent fashion for this post, and I'm currently working as a paid writer!

I'm not an expert in Aikido, but I've done several years of training in the past and was pretty skilled at Hapkido, which is a related art, back in the 90's when I was training in that art regularly. I think there's a lot to unpack.

To start with, I think it's pointless to talk about Aikido in relation to MMA. I think they approach MA from almost opposite perspectives. Aikido is bad for fighting in a competitive sense and it's also bad fighting in a chest beating, bar fight for sport, or bar fight to prove your machismo kind of way. In my opinion, if you need to "win" a fight with Aikido (in the competitive or chest beating kind of scenario) you're going to do significant injury to your opponent, or you're going to lose.

And as a side note, it seems like many people see "chest beating" scenarios as their most likely self defense situations, so I think that's another complication in discussing whether Aikido "works" or not. As someone who was never much into that sort of thing and is even less interested in stupid primate dominance games now that I'm over 50, this scenario is pretty much irrelevant to me, but I think it does lead to a lot of miscommunication when one person says, "Aikido can be good for self defense", and the other person hears, "I can use Aikido to show up (or be) the bully in the bar!".

If you aren't in a position to arrest someone or flee from someone immediately after applying a technique, much of what Aikido offers to end a conflict are things like breaks and hard throws. The problem with breaks is obvious in this regard, and if your adversary doesn't know how to fall (maybe if they do) the problem with hard throws should be obvious too. If they do know how to fall, and you aren't in a position to leave after throwing them, you're kind of left with breaks and throws that can't be safely rolled or break fallen from.

These same issues apply to MMA. Avoiding your opponent, even if you're good enough by some miracle to do it consistently for 5 minutes at a time within the constraints of the ring/octagon, against a skilled assailant, isn't going to win you any titles and is going to bore the spectators to death after about the first 30 seconds. Throwing your opponent is similarly unhelpful. Even if you can consistently pull off those throws against a skilled opponent who knows how you fight, what then? They're going to keep getting up and hitting you or trying to submit you, or you're going to throw them in such a way that they can't get up. Intentional breaks are obviously not OK in a sporting context.

The reality is that Aikido applied properly, at any level of skill that I achieved anyway, is better for responding to being grabbed than for trying to grab someone else. When you chase hands, wrists and arms you're doing it wrong. I feel that it has some cool approaches to avoiding and redirecting an assailant's attacks. Aikido can be applied proactively, rather than reactively, but it's harder and I don't think a lot of people train in ways that are conducive to understanding how that works. Overall, I guess I'm saying that it has a stronger defense than offense.

Having done a variation of Hapkido that had a strong emphasis on striking, I think that Aikidoka would have an easier time setting up proactive throws and locks if they were taught practical striking techniques, but in my experience, most Aikido schools do not do so. I'm not trying to say they should either, just simply stating that it would open more options if they did. I'm not an Aikido historian by any stretch, but these factors do make me wonder about the quote, attributed to Morihei Ueshiba, that Aikido (or combat, depending on your source), is 99% (or 70%, or whatever) atemi. Regardless, it would make the art more applicable to the octagon and for chest beating altercations.

So, to sum up, even if we were to just simply assume that a skilled Aikidoka could pull off the throws and locks that they're taught, against a skilled opponent, it's still not particularly applicable to MMA, nor is it useful for what a lot of people consider to be "self defense"*. I'm not weighing in right now on whether it works or not, simply stating that even if it did, it wouldn't be good, as practiced, in these scenarios. This is an unsatisfying answer for those who want to see everything tested, because it doesn't fit into the usually accepted tests very well. For example, Tomiki Aikido has competitions, but the ruleset is pretty limited and doesn't really try and isn't intended to answer these questions and I've already discussed why the things Aikido is supposed to do aren't very useful for MMA.

If one wanted to test their Aikido in this fashion, something like Kung Fu Wang's standard of being able to avoid 20 of your opponent's attacks in a row to the head, or being able to throw your opponent 7 times in a row, might be more appropriate, but there certainly isn't any existing format for this, and because of its somewhat reactive nature and common philosophical underpinnings, it isn't something that seems likely to evolve out of usual practice. Whether it should or not isn't for me to answer.

*Edit to add, when I say "self defense" in this context, I'm talking about people who think that "showing the other guy they're tougher" or "winning" a bar fight is self defense. I don't think that's valid self defense, but an awful lot of the "self defense" I hear people discussing on the Internet seems to fall into these categories, or not too far off anyway.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Intentional breaks are obviously not OK in a sporting context.

Just for the record, intentional breaks of the sort taught in Aikido or Hapkido are perfectly legal in MMA and there are plenty of fighters who would be willing to apply them if they worked reliably in that context. (The exception would be locking/breaking individual fingers, which is disallowed under most MMA rulesets. But that's a relatively small subset of the Aikido & Hapkido curriculums.)

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Even if you can consistently pull off those throws against a skilled opponent who knows how you fight, what then? They're going to keep getting up and hitting you or trying to submit you, or you're going to throw them in such a way that they can't get up. Intentional breaks are obviously not OK in a sporting context.

The Chinese wrestling has the same issue. A throw is not the end of a fight. You will need to add in follow on

- striking, or
- control.

In the past 40 years, kick, punch, and follow on strike/control has been added into the Chinese wrestling system.

It's not that hard to add into the Aikido training. In other words, Aikido can be used in MMA if Aikido people want to.

There is a difference between

1. You want to do it but you can't.
2. You can do it but you don't want to.

I believe Aikido can be 2. Otherwise, the whole discussion in this thread won't have any meaning.

 

[MetalBoar]

Just for the record, intentional breaks of the sort taught in Aikido or Hapkido are perfectly legal in MMA and there are plenty of fighters who would be willing to apply them if they worked reliably in that context. (The exception would be locking/breaking individual fingers, which is disallowed under most MMA rulesets. But that's a relatively small subset of the Aikido & Hapkido curriculums.)

Interesting! I'm not an MMA expert by any stretch, but I do watch it some and read about it a bit more than that. It was my impression that regardless of legality, as a general rule, fighters give a brief opportunity to tap before applying a break and that most breaks were accidental, rather than intentional, in nature. Accidental in the sense that a break wasn't intended, merely submission. Are you saying that plenty of fighters would go directly to a break, with no opportunity for a tap, if they could, or simply that it would be legal for them to do so?

In my Hapkido school we did a lot of stand up grappling with strong resistance. In my experience, most locks could be applied sufficiently to cause pain and a reaction, perhaps brief control, but that they are generally unreliable (for anyone less skilled than my old instructor anyway) to be used as a means of sustained control or submission against a skilled and/or determined opponent. If applied with no attempt at submission (direct to break), I think they could be used to significantly damage the joint in question (wrist, elbow, shoulder) fairly easily. I have never injured anyone in this fashion, but I know people who have.

So, in a training context against strong resistance, you would apply the lock quickly, but let off short of damage, and if on the receiving end, you would tap very quickly and go with it if you knew the lock was set, because if it was taken further it would result in injury. This would not work in a serious competition or self defense situation because if you let off the pressure at all the lock doesn't work, just causes brief pain, and can be escaped easily, and nobody is going to submit to that. So, if you want the technique to work for sure, you either go immediately for a break with no opportunity to submit, or you don't use that technique.

Tony, I really respect your opinion and feel you're one of the most thoughtful and knowledgeable posters on MT, so I want to be clear that I'm not disputing what you're saying. I'm sure you know what you're talking about. I'm just trying to make sure I understand what you're saying and that I've represented what I was saying accurately.

Thanks!

EDIT: I also wanted to add that I don't think wrist locks (etc.) are particularly high percentage techniques in an MMA setting. They have to be set up or in response to a limited set of attacks by your opponent. They can be more effective in other contexts, I have used them successfully when dealing with belligerent drunks back in my bartending days, but there are other things that are easier to learn and more guaranteed to work in many cases.