In my five years of training I have come to understand the spirit of Aikido as a peaceful option to violence. At the heart of Aikido is the ability to make the attacker and defender equals, so that there is no winner or loser. No one is beaten or injured (seriously), and the attacker sees the error of his/her ways.
Though Aikido is peaceful, it is not demure or submissive. For a technique to work, one must be aware of her surroundings. This includes the attacker(s) and the space in which you move. If you are unaware, the attacker will overcome you before you know what is happening. If you are unaware of the surroundings, you may trip and fall, or throw your attacker into a brick wall or off a cliff. (These are extreme examples.) I’ve heard spectators at Aikido demonstrations say that often they had trouble telling who attacked first. To me, this means that nage’s response to uke must take place at nearly the same time as uke commits to the attack.
Aside from a few Aikido novels, most of what I learned has been through training and listening to my instructors. Books are certainly useful, but they are purely supplementary. It is impossible to truly understand Aikido without doing it.
And another thing. (You can tell I’m frustrated with this conversation because, to my mind, these are basic, fundamental concepts I am discussing).
In yokomen, the cut is diagonal, and intended to cleave your opponent in two. Uke strikes from head to hip. Like a sword cut. Again, basic stuff.
A roundhouse, or “slug” as Buck puts it, does not follow this trajectory. The strike impacts the head only. Why is this? Because your hand is not a sword.
Now explain to me again how a roundhouse and a yokomen strike are the same?
maybe the answer direct. but it looks to me that we are all arguing for different parts in the same machine.
i dont understand this roundhouse/yokomenuchi argument. so when someone throws a roundhouse at me on the streets, cutting the arm and taking them down in an ikkyo wont be aikido because it was done with a roundhouse?
I think its foolish that we are limited to 3 main strikes to derive situations from. Considering my experience i probably out of line and in aikido style am wrong for thinking this way and i hope i dont offend.
Aikido is more than just technique. Other martial arts have elbow locks. This is point five in my previous post.
This also goes to the question of Buck’s altercation. Once again: If you enter a situation with a confrontational mindset, do you perform Aikido merely by performing a technique you learned in class? Remember, other martial arts teach elbow locks. (Your example was ikkyo). Are you also, then, a Hapkido practitioner if you manage to lock someone’s elbow?
Regarding your three strikes comment, (actually, there are more, including jodan tsuki, gedan tsuki, kata menuchi, etc.), you are making the assumption that Aikido strikes are intended for the student to “derive [other] situations from.”
Isn’t it possible that the strikes are intended to simulate a very specific set of circumstances? Such as sword cuts and spear thrusts?
However, please also see point three in my previous post, which gives a deeper perspective on Aikido attacks.
Also, as I mentioned previously, an attack need not be physical. It can also be verbal, (and take other forms).
Again, this is why Aikido is so relevant. You need not be in a (vanishingly rare) street fight to make use of the techniques.
i have no doubt that the strikes are intended to simulate a very specific set of circumstances..that is kata..something my previous style was full of. but can we not think outside the box?
I feel that I am a blackbelt in Tang Soo Do, because, as my certificate says “I posess the physical prowness and mental ability” to be that blackbelt. I know the style, and practice it at the level that is required of me. But out on the streets as i say, i use what works. I’m not a jujitsu practioner, but I have the ability to break every joint in your body if im in an enclosed space and cant move around much.
I understand the reason for specifics and kata, dont think that i dont :).
dear lord, i’m talking like the hypothetical “what if” student that i hated teaching. Thats what i get for not teaching anymore 🙁
DK, regarding your comment about thinking outside of the box.
Did you actually read the rest of my post, aside from the sword/spear comment?
Take a moment and read it again. I’m not sure you understand the implications of what I said.
i think im confused…where are you implications?
Let’s take this off-line…in class. This thread has worn me out.
In a nutshell…Aikido attacks are more sophisticated than simple strikes and grabs. Viewed as vectors and points of projection, they lend themselves to a study of tai-jutsu / balance. Not just physically, but in a more universal sense, according to O’Sensei.
By abstracting attacks beyond physical aggression, Aikido techniques can be made applicable to verbal, psychological and other types of confrontation. Viewed this way, Aikido is made universal, and not just limited to street fights.
How’s that for “thinking outside the box”? 😉
that’ll do
pigdonkey…that’ll do… 😛Edited by Shrek-fan Admin
nice blog. i found lot of info on aikido.
What, you don’t like Babe admin?
Maurice, thank you for not running away in terror. 🙂
Is that a Babe reference? Never saw that movie.
Babe
Again, I am amused that you guys are arguing on a blog post called “the spirit of Aikido”. I love irony. 😀
^^^^ win…