The Value of Aikido

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Many people are interested in defending their bodies from harm. They may learn a martial art to this end, so as to defend against a physical attack. Their training will usually consist of applying force to the attacker. They are trained to resist the attack, hence the term "combat".

There are generally two forms of hand to hand fighting, and recent rise in UFC type contests have generally proven this out. I would list them like this:

1: Strike fighters [hit their opponent]
2: Shoot/Grapplers ['shoot' for the hips and take opponent to the floor]

...Generally the best UFC fighters are the ones with a good mix of both these two skills. Certainly if we imagine someone like this in a self-defense scenario, chances are they will be quite able to deliver punishment to an attacker and so many people will study fine martial arts like Karate, Tae Kwon Do, Kung Fu, Ju-Jitsu, etc. All of these are excellent ways to deliver force to the attacker who brings force to you.

...But is this the best way to deal with an attack?

There is a third and radically different type of fighter, and he/she is called the Aikidoka. The Aikidoka lives by three principles, explained very well here by Aikidoka Charles T. Tart:



Any effective attack means the attacker must flow a burst of concentrated energy along a line directed at you. If the attack is a punch to the belly, the attacker's energy, embodied in his fist, moves along a line from his body to your belly. If it hits, you can be badly hurt. So you follow the first basic principle: you get off the line--you move or turn so that the energy of that punch does not connect with you.

The first principle of Aikido is get out of the way, and I cannot stress how unique and important this principle is. When we imagine combat, we instantly imagine a scenario like above where an attacker's moves are resisted and countered. BUT, the Aikidoka understands the message of O'Sensei (founder of Aikido) who knew that the attacker must be communicated toward love. If you can take an attack and nuetralize it in a spirit of love, the attacker may be changed in his heart. This was the core of O'Sensei's vision, and the Aikidoka practices it first. When an attack comes at us, it is not appropriate to ever clash with it or to block it, but rather to simply step out of the way.

Aikido, if it teaches you nothing else, will teach you how to avoid attacks and provide an exit for yourself. This applies equally to persons of any size (large or small). Aikido makes you super-elusive.



The second principle is to blend or harmonize with the attack. You practice Ai. . . . To truly harmonize with the attack, you would not only get off the line, you also would not slow the punch down or oppose it in any way. In fact, you might put your hand on the punching arm and add energy to it in the direction it was already going. You have harmonized and blended with the energy of the attack. By projecting your energy in the same direction the attacker projects his, you see, as it were, your attacker's point of view. . . .

The attack is going in a specific direction. If you merge with it and send it in that direction, the attacker will be forced to accept your position (he must rest on your center of balance) and this places you in control of him, entirely. If you merge with an attacker's movements, it is childishly simple to 'borrow' his balance and direct him to wherever you wish. Again, Aikido enables this regardless of how big you are.



The third basic principle after you have gotten off the line and harmonized with your attacker's energy is to lead energy further than it originally intended to go, thus taking control of it. Then you can throw or otherwise control your attacker. The attacker thus provides most of the energy for handling his attack.

—Charles T. Tart, 'Aikido and the Concept of Ki', Psychological Perspectives, Fall 1987

And the third step, is that once you have taken responsibility for an attacker, and borrowed their center of gravity, you have an important responsibility to deliver him safely to a place where he cannot harm anyone. Generally in Aikido, the attack is 'spun' away from you (such that the person flops or spins away without falling akwardly) or the person is directed into a painless immobilization. Well, it's painless unless they are still resistive, but Aikido holds are really the end of any fight, assuming there is only one attacker. If there are more than one attacker, Aikido again is the ultimate art for by spinning each attacker into the others, you can take them down like bowling pins. One attack becomes your bowling ball and by leading him correctly, you prevent the others from striking you.

The point is this: The most effective and spiritually beautiful answer to violence, is to take responsibility for the attack and for the person who is confusedly striking you. It may sound strange to think this way about an attacker, but really, if you are faced with a disruption of society, that person who is attacking you may simply be another hungry human who is forced to desperate measures.

Each Akidoka on planet Earth, is a force for education on the deepest and most important level for humans. In my opinion, Aikido represents the most important language humans can learn. Please feel free to ask any questions in this thread, and particularly in relation to hand-to-hand combat which might be faced in a survival situation.

[edit on 12-1-2007 by smallpeeps]



CX

posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Whilst Aikido is a most excellent martial art, and a beautiful one at that to not only watch but to practice as well, in a survival situation there is a good chance that i would want something a little more destructive than "locks and spinning my opponent away from me" in accordance with the laws of nature.

I have used Aikido many times in my previous career and also in public whilst off duty, (traditional as well as competetive) and all of these times i was greatful of the techniques of Aikido. They allowed me to handle someone and restrain them until the police arrived, and i was'nt left with an assault charge against me as i'd not marked my assailant.

However, traditional Aikido, i mean the way it should be and not the destructive variations that have emerged over the years, i feel has it's limitations as far as incapacitating someone. I am don't forget talking from a point of survival, as this is what the forum is about.

If even one person comes at me with a knife, whilst it is nice to be able to restrain them without having to knock the living daylights out of them, there comes a time when you are going to have to let go of them. If thats into the arms of someone who can deal with them like the police then all well and good. If that is'nt an option, i think i'd rather they stayed down so i could leave the situation.

There are many ways of ensuring this, but unfortunately not many of these fall under the harmonious ways of Aikido.

I don't want someone repeatedly attacking me because i have'nt done a good job the first time! If there are multiple attackers, the survival situation just escalated. It's hard enough to deal with one repetitous attacker let alone three or four.

Something i have found that has helped in the past. Have a basic knowledge of many techniques from different martial arts. Having a mixed bag can often be better than just one option. Being strong enough and able to hit hard the first time counts for a lot too!

When it comes to that survival situation when you are faced with a very real and threatening threat, you'd be amazed at what someone can do with just natural aggression alone. Again, does'nt quite fit the Aikido principles but then again aikido does'nt always fit every scenario....for me anyways. That said, i was no Morihei Ueishiba!
Now theres an old guy that would be an exception to my above post!

This is not a post to knock Aikido. If people read into the whole meaning behind traditional aikido, i think the world would be a much nicer place, but thats as likely as me winning the lottery so until then i think i'll stick with not letting someone get back up again!

CX.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Survival depends on what? Our own independent ability to pound others into the ground? I would say that in a survival situation, it is very possible that the people who are engaged in hand to hand combat are just ordinary folks, hence, the fact that they are not armed.

In a survival situation, what kind of persons engage in hand to hand combat without weapons?

Aikido is the most loving way to deal with an attack, and this increases the chances that once the attacker is dealt with, there can be dialogue. I am of the firm belief that in survival situations, there is strength in numbers and I can forsee that knowledge of Aikido will prevent many such attacks from being lethal.

But yes, even if one knows the value of Aikido, it is still useful to learn striking. Once I asked my Aikido teacher how to use Aikido to defend someone else. "It seems like Aikido is designed to defend my own body," I asked him "but how would I use it to defend my friend who let's say, is assaulted while I am standing next to him?" ...His answer to me came with a smile and a very serious tone: "If someone next to me were being attacked, I would kick, punch and do whatever I could do, to stop that attack." His answer told me that really, Aikido is best used to deal with an attack coming at you directly but less useful when the attack is directed somewhere else.

But in the larger picture, "survival" situations, if they come to pass, might be quite debilitating and horrible for lots of folks. In such conditions, it is humans who will help each other survive, and Aikido therefore allows them the most effective way to preserve human life and perhaps create an ally where a moment ago there was only an attacker.

Thanks for your excellent points CX.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   
Personally, I liked the root art, Aiki-jutsu.

Instead of spinning them away with love, you use their attack to spin them around a few joints, get a sequential joint lock and snap their arm, maybe a neck. Certainly how to proceed from a lock to a hard throw. Aiki-jutsu also teaches you how to add your energy back to Uke to make sure he does more than spin away, where Aikido does not.

It also teaches you how to initiate the attack in a way that Aikido does not. Most Aikidoka can switch to Aiki-jutsu pretty easily.



Survival depends on what? Our own independent ability to pound others into the ground?


Yes, quite possibly. CQC teaches you that the more brutal you are to the first attacker you engage, the less likely the remaining attackers will follow. If I give the first guy a compound fracture, and the other three or four see their buddy shrieking with bones sticking out of his upper arm and blood spewing everywhere, they're pretty likely to say "screw this!" and run for it, or to freeze long enough for you to set up your next attack. At any rate, the first guy won't be able to re-engage so it's not a lost effort either way.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Personally, I liked the root art, Aiki-jutsu.

Please explain how Aiki-Jutsu is the root art of Aikido. Yes, O'Sensei studied hard arts when he was young, Aikido is something different, I would say. You can say that you have identidfied the "root", but really it is the one who causes the branching, who should tell you what root goes where.



Instead of spinning them away with love, you use their attack to spin them around a few joints, get a sequential joint lock and snap their arm, maybe a neck. Certainly how to proceed from a lock to a hard throw. Aiki-jutsu also teaches you how to add your energy back to Uke to make sure he does more than spin away, where Aikido does not.

It also teaches you how to initiate the attack in a way that Aikido does not. Most Aikidoka can switch to Aiki-jutsu pretty easily.


Violence is not Aikido. Here is the Founder of Aikido speaking:



www.eastbayaikido.com...

O'Sensei: In my opinion, it can be said to be the true martial art. The reason for this is that it is a martial art based on universal truth. This Universe is composed of many different parts, and yet the Universe as a whole is united as a family and symbolizes the ultimate state of peace. Holding such a view of the Universe, aikido cannot be anything but a martial art of love. It cannot be a martial art of violence. For this reason, aikido can be said to be another manifestation of the Creator of the Universe. In other words, aikido is like a giant (immense in nature). Therefore, in aikido, Heaven and Earth become the training grounds. The state of mind of the aikidoist must be peaceful and totally non-violent. That is to say, that special state of mind which brings violence into a state of harmony. And this I think is the true spirit of Japanese martial arts. We have been given this earth to transform into a heaven on earth. War-like activity is totally out of place.






Survival depends on what? Our own independent ability to pound others into the ground?

Yes, quite possibly. CQC teaches you that the more brutal you are to the first attacker you engage, the less likely the remaining attackers will follow.

Brutality has no place in Aikido. Its purpose is to provide a path where any violence can be seen for what it is. Confusion of intent.

Here is a graphic from Westbrook and Ratti's excellent book, "Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere".




Is brutality more effective? Yes. But what is the context of a hand-to-hand attack in a survival situation? Why are two people engaged in hand to hand combat and not using weapons like guns or military hardware? My question boils down like this: What if, the guy who is punching you, and who stepped out from behind a wall, is actually someone who is desperate and who has no weapon because they are poor? I guess it's you or them, but really, learning a technique (jutsu) is but a segment of a journey, the whole of which is to follow a "way" (do). No art offers this but Aikido.

Nobody is going to be changed, persuaded or paradigm-shifted by the bone-breaking actions like those you imaginatively describe above. I think the interview with the Founder of Aikido and his son, says it best:



B: [...] are there also many hoodlum-types who come to study aikido?

Kisshomaru Ueshiba: Of course, that sort of individual enrolls, too. But when this type of person studies aikido with the intention of using it as a tool for fighting, they don't last long. Budo is not like dancing or watching a movie. Rain or shine, you must practice at all times during your daily life in order to progress. In particular, aikido is like spiritual training practiced using a budo form. It can never be cultivated as a tool by those who would use it for fighting. Also, individuals inclined towards violence cease to behave in that manner when they learn aikido.

B: I see... through constant training they stop behaving like hoodlums.

O'Sensei: Since aikido is not a bu (martial method) of violence but rather a martial art of love, you do not behave violently. You convert the violent opponent in a gentle way. They cannot behave like hoodlums any longer.

B: I see. It is not controlling violence with violence, but transforming violence into love.


The point of Aikido is to place yourself in the position seen below. But you are saying that when we are in control of the attack, we should choose violence so as to deter the other persons who might be watching? I would say that is wholly inappropriate for any right Aikido practictioner. Aikido is a way.

But yes, it's useful to be able to hurt people rather than maiming them. Also useful to be able to main them rather than kill them.




posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Two things I find especially spellbinding about Aikido;
1) the motto of the Aikido fighter to be "a warrior of peace"
2) the use of the Ki-force, to use your psyche, giving you strength your physical power can not achieve.


CX

posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   
While we are on the subject of aikido and violence, i feel someone should have a little word in Mr Segal's ear sometime.

I know he's one of the highest graded in the world or somehing like that but he really should calm down and cause less death in his movies, not exactly the most peacefull advocate of aikido!


CX.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Give me street fighting anyday, 0 rules, 0 kindness, 0 sympathy, 0 tolerance and 0 need to "love" your enemy. If I fight I fight to bring them down for good, 0 chance of them getting back up unless I darn well want them too. I am NOT interested in changing their heart, if they decide to attack so be it, why? Fighting and combat is not about being nice to people, you fight to either kill or maim your enemy. If you want them alive then akkaido might work. Frankly though if you throw someone and they are armed they will just shoot you, its easier to just floor them and break their arms or paralize them. Now they cant shoot you.
Thus I have 0 interest in learning akkaido after I saw some training clips of what it was about, throwing my opponent around is something I have no interest in and never will. Violence in combat has a reason, in fact they go hand in hand, if you fight then you are commiting yourself TO violent actions. I found it highly ammusing when I asked a guy what he would do if someone went to make a good old punch movement and he wanted to dodge and throw then run away. Yeah real smart, you run I draw a gun and bang or a good old rock to the back will bring you down.
My philosophy about combat: Be so brutal that they are scared to death of you, be so brutal that they regret ever seeing you or having challanged you. Be so brutal and calous that they think you are an animal.
Bring your oppenent down for good, or risk being shot. THAT is the real world, the real world you have multiple oppoents, knives, baseball bats, guns, and all going at the same time. OH and you have no warning either unless you get the drop on them.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I practice ki energy everyday and used to study karate. I didn't go nearly as far as I would have liked because of personal reasons but ki can be done anywhere. Whether it's physical or emotional I feel mucg better and stronger after them. I have yet to achieve any dragonball z energy of course..lol but like I said I feel better.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps

Please explain how Aiki-Jutsu is the root art of Aikido.



Aiki-jutsu predates O'Sensei's creation of Aikido. Many of the techniques in Aikido are derivatives of similar techniques in Aiki-jutsu, as judo is of jiu-jutsu. Surely you were taught that O'Sensei "purified Aiki-jutsu" or something similar. Ueshiba learned Aiki-jutsu from Takeda, and in fact taught it as his primary art until he moved to Iwama. To deny that Aikido is a derivation of Aiki-jutsu is specious at best. Ueshiba learned and taught Aiki-jutsu before he embraced Omoto-kyo, then over a period of years he removed the more aggressive aspects of it to form Aikido.




Violence is not Aikido...Brutality has no place in Aikido. Its purpose is to provide a path where any violence can be seen for what it is. Confusion of intent.



And that is why it is a sport or philosophy and not a combat art. If my intent is to be violent, then violence is not confusion of intent but an proper expression of it.



Is brutality more effective? Yes.


We agree.



But what is the context of a hand-to-hand attack in a survival situation? Why are two people engaged in hand to hand combat and not using weapons like guns or military hardware? My question boils down like this: What if, the guy who is punching you, and who stepped out from behind a wall, is actually someone who is desperate and who has no weapon because they are poor?


Doesn't your sensei also teach the sword as part of Aikido? Most schools do.

Why are they engaged in hand-to-hand? I can't count the reasons. I may not be packing when you attack me. If I am armed, the situation may not lend itself to the use of firearms but may require violent action. There are other situations where I might need to not make a lot of noise, and so use of a sidearm might be contraindicated.

If the guy is poor and desperate, asking me for help might be a better alternative for him. Perhaps it is his Tao to fling himself on another's sword.
Who am I to deny him his path?



Nobody is going to be changed, persuaded or paradigm-shifted by the bone-breaking actions like those you imaginatively describe above.

But you are saying that when we are in control of the attack, we should choose violence so as to deter the other persons who might be watching? I would say that is wholly inappropriate for any right Aikido practictioner.


I doubt that an attacker will be persuaded or paradigm-shifted by being gently tossed on his head either. However, a broken arm might get his attention.

And yes, psychology teaches us that in a group attack, maiming the first attacker will generally deter further attack, or at a minimum, cause hesitation. As such, the sacrifice of the first attacker may prevent the need for further violence, surely a worthy goal. Is it better to somewhat damage a number of people, or greatly damage one?



Aikido is a way.



Every art says this.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Great thread Smallpeeps , you and Tom have made some great points.
I taught Aikido for a few years, wont say how long as you will figure out that Im OLD!! lol I did boxing in my early teens and found Aikido in my mid-teens and later learning some Kendo and a bit of ground fighting.
My first instructor had practised both styles of Aiki aswell as Judo and a few sword styles too. He would sometimes teach the difference between the two Aiki's and which he would use in different situations.
My dad always said "with a group, knock the first one down hard and the others might not try it." lol
Tom your knowledge of Budo history is excellent and you are correct about the history of Aikido. Aikido, Aiki jutsu and ju jutsu stem from Aiki-ju-jutsu and was one of the original forms taught to the Samurai.
I think in a sirvivalist type situation and for some reason you are unarmed any Martial arts training would be better than nothing!!



[edit on 14-1-2007 by Kurokage]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Aiki-jutsu predates O'Sensei's creation of Aikido. Many of the techniques in Aikido are derivatives of similar techniques in Aiki-jutsu, as judo is of jiu-jutsu. Surely you were taught that O'Sensei "purified Aiki-jutsu" or something similar. Ueshiba learned Aiki-jutsu from Takeda, and in fact taught it as his primary art until he moved to Iwama. To deny that Aikido is a derivation of Aiki-jutsu is specious at best. Ueshiba learned and taught Aiki-jutsu before he embraced Omoto-kyo, then over a period of years he removed the more aggressive aspects of it to form Aikido.

Thnaks for the history, but I highlighted at the end of your comment how OSensei simply removed the hard bits of Aikijutsu to create Aikido. That is way, way oversimplification. Oomoto affected OSensei very deeply. There is a spiritual aspect of Aikido which if it is lacking, then the practice is only the lesser form of jutsu like you describe. It is not Aikido in the way the founder intended. Spiritual practice is irremovably bound with physical practice and it has always been so.




it is a sport or philosophy and not a combat art.

Not a sport except in those clubs where people need competition and have altered Aikido to fit their needs. I do believe Aikido is intended as a combat art as indicated by the page I posted above describing the ethics of combat.



If my intent is to be violent, then violence is not confusion of intent but an proper expression of it.

No, because the intention toward violence arises from a state of mental confusion. A person is always confused when they lash out with an attack. They should be encouraged (by aikido) to see their error and change their heart. Anything other than this principle in your mind, and you are not practicing Aikido. You must understand that the attacker in the moment he attacks, reveals himself to be ignorant of Aikido, and therefore he is confused and must be shown the way of peace.





Is brutality more effective? Yes.

We agree.

Yes but only more effective at destruction and pain. Brutality is not effective at winning people over or helping them see the true path to civilized behavior or personal peace. If you keep brutality as a tool in your belt, there will be consequences on a spiritual level.



Doesn't your sensei also teach the sword as part of Aikido? Most schools do.

My Aikido is rusty and poor at best, but yes, bokken practice is part of Aikido practice. I don't think it's for anything like what you are saying. No Aikido practitioner would ever lift a sword in real life combat. Bokken is to teach us the path through violence which OSensei took for us. We do not need kendo practice as Aikidoka, but we use bokken to learn proper hand and wrist positions and correct form. The violent emotion of the sword is to be understood and transcended through Aikido.



Why are they engaged in hand-to-hand? I can't count the reasons. I may not be packing when you attack me.

You would only be attacked by someone who is not a practitioner of Aikido, so there's a great moment to use the art of peace to discern the meaning of the attack.

Surely you see that the whole purpose and beauty of Aikido is to enable YOU to have that moment to discern the attack and deal with it mercifully in the spirit of harmony. Bone breaking has nothing to do with harmony or philosophy, which are the essence of Aikido.



If the guy is poor and desperate, asking me for help might be a better alternative for him. Perhaps it is his Tao to fling himself on another's sword.
Who am I to deny him his path?

Who are you? Well, if you were an Aikidoka with the spirit I recommend, you'd be able to help him through your selection of technique, to realize that Aikido is the better way. Every application of Aikido technique should be used to demonstrate the superiority of the Way of Harmony. I really can't relate to any other type of thinking in relation to Aikido.



I doubt that an attacker will be persuaded or paradigm-shifted by being gently tossed on his head either. However, a broken arm might get his attention.

OSensei was attacked as an old man on many occasions and he never had to toss anybody on their head. Well, he was hard in his youth, but once Aikido sprang forth in his mind, he would never do as you describe here. Aikido disallows the irresponsible actions of panel C as listed above, where the attacker is left to fall on his own neck. Not Aikido.



And yes, psychology teaches us that in a group attack, maiming the first attacker will generally deter further attack, or at a minimum, cause hesitation. As such, the sacrifice of the first attacker may prevent the need for further violence, surely a worthy goal. Is it better to somewhat damage a number of people, or greatly damage one?

You will not need Aikido if your goal is brutality. I'd suggest sticking with the arts which were the road to Aikido, because yes, they are the supreme arts for breaking the human body. OSensei's art is of a whole different mindset, though others can ape the moves and call it what they wish.



Every art says this.

Yes but only Aikido holds peace as its core philosophy. All other punching, grappling, opposing arts, are simply fighting styles and then the "way" of budo is tacked on. I don't dispute that punching and kicking are useful, as I have said. But there is a whole other level above that, and it is Aikido.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps

No, because the intention toward violence arises from a state of mental confusion. A person is always confused when they lash out with an attack. They should be encouraged (by aikido) to see their error and change their heart. Anything other than this principle in your mind, and you are not practicing Aikido. You must understand that the attacker in the moment he attacks, reveals himself to be ignorant of Aikido, and therefore he is confused and must be shown the way of peace.



I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm pretty sure that someone breaking into my house with a weapon, trying to whack me over the head on the street or what not is very intent on violence, and is not in a state of confusion. Omoto has this odd concept that everyone is nice, that's not true IMO. A tiger is being a consummate tiger when he kills and eats the deer: he's not confused at all. One can choose the role of deer or tiger.

Another thing that Omoto/Aikido fails to address is that by leaving the attacker whole and free to attack someone NOT skilled in Aikido, you are in effect killing/injuring someone else, you're just passing the violence along to another who may not be as skilled. A very selfish decision, IMO.






Yes but only more effective at destruction and pain. Brutality is not effective at winning people over or helping them see the true path to civilized behavior or personal peace. If you keep brutality as a tool in your belt, there will be consequences on a spiritual level.



Brutality is just fine at making permanent adjustments in people's behavior, when it's called for, and there are times that it is, here and there. Again, if your sensei is telling you that you should let your family/friends/innocent bystanders be hurt in order to preserve your wa, you should consider if drinking the Omoto Kool-Aid is a good path. It may be for you. The entire "If all the world knew Aikido" theme is pointless, as that will never be.



No Aikido practitioner would ever lift a sword in real life combat. ...the violent emotion of the sword is to be understood and transcended through Aikido.



Good Lord. You believe this? Techniques are taught to be used, and I've seen some pretty good Aikidoka use edged weapons quite effectively. Of course, I guess your definition of Aikidoka is someone that uses Aiki arts in your way, and excludes the others, so no Aikidoka could behave in a way you don't approve of, because if they do they're not Aikidoka. Can't argue with that logic.




You would only be attacked by someone who is not a practitioner of Aikido, so there's a great moment to use the art of peace to discern the meaning of the attack.

Surely you see that the whole purpose and beauty of Aikido is to enable YOU to have that moment to discern the attack and deal with it mercifully in the spirit of harmony. Bone breaking has nothing to do with harmony or philosophy, which are the essence of Aikido.



Got me there. Bone breaking is just ducky in situations that require it, IMO, so I guess I'm not an aikidoka of the Aikido class. Not that I claimed to be, Aikido isn't the right art in some situations, and Aiki-jutsu being a superset, allows you to choose whether you want to sort of help them to land without breaking something, or to amp up Uke's energy on the way down.

Again, is it kind to let the guy go on to knife the next victim? Have you helped either, or simply avoided the situation in a way that has damaged an innocent?




Who are you? Well, if you were an Aikidoka with the spirit I recommend, you'd be able to help him through your selection of technique, to realize that Aikido is the better way. Every application of Aikido technique should be used to demonstrate the superiority of the Way of Harmony. I really can't relate to any other type of thinking in relation to Aikido.



Does Omoto taste like grape, or is it more like cherry?




OSensei was attacked as an old man on many occasions and he never had to toss anybody on their head. Well, he was hard in his youth, but once Aikido sprang forth in his mind, he would never do as you describe here. Aikido disallows the irresponsible actions of panel C as listed above, where the attacker is left to fall on his own neck. Not Aikido.



IIRC, Ueshiba wasn't all that old when he became a kick-ass Aiki artist, and I doubt he was the mystic innocent you are envisioning. Aikido didn't just spring forth in his mind, either, because IIRC he went through several Aiki style changes on the way there. Didn't he also create Aiki-budo on the way to Aikido? I know they teach a lot of mysticism with this stuff in most mainline schools. I think Ueshiba was as human and as down to earth as any other guy. He became a pacifist later and decided to come up with a less violent subset of Aiki. I doubt he had some sort of mystic apotheosis on the way.




You will not need Aikido if your goal is brutality. I'd suggest sticking with the arts which were the road to Aikido, because yes, they are the supreme arts for breaking the human body. OSensei's art is of a whole different mindset, though others can ape the moves and call it what they wish.


Interesting. I'd say that the Aikido practitioners were aping the moves of Daito Ryu Aiki-jutsu, given that those are the source of probably 90% of Aikido. Generally, it works that way.




Yes but only Aikido holds peace as its core philosophy. All other punching, grappling, opposing arts, are simply fighting styles and then the "way" of budo is tacked on. I don't dispute that punching and kicking are useful, as I have said. But there is a whole other level above that, and it is Aikido.


Again, every art I've done any formal training says this too. You should try getting out more, visiting some other schools, maybe talking to some of the more senior Aikido instructors instead of the one in your home town. I ran into this as a kid where the local instructor was all mystic and had us meditating to a picture of Funikoshi, but then I ran into Mikami and he set us straight, not every art is complete, no one art is appropriate for all circumstances. He was one of the leading lights of JKA yet had four or five styles he used.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

About what? About the words of the founder of Aikido?

A person studies Aikido and then finds that the "root" forms of Aiki-jutsu are more to his taste. That is one thing and it happens all the time. You do not have to choose the philosophy of Aikido to do the movements. Osensei discovered that martial arts can be harmonious. It was a revelation of a totally different sort. I respect your right to find your reasons for how and why Aikido came about.




The entire "If all the world knew Aikido" theme is pointless, as that will never be.

I do not think so. I think this future will come. In fact, I am certain of it.

Also, the reduction of Oomoto to a "kool-aid drinking cult" shows a lack of understanding. Such is not the case.

There are those aikido practitioners who see OSensei's Oomoto associations as cult-like. I know far more about cults than I do Aikido, so that conversation can be had, if you wish.



Good Lord. You believe this? Techniques are taught to be used, and I've seen some pretty good Aikidoka use edged weapons quite effectively.

Yes I do believe this. I am certain you have never seen an Aikidoka use a sword on a human being in combat.

A man has a crude view of the human spirit, if he views brutality as being a teaching aid, IMO.



Aikido isn't the right art in some situations, and Aiki-jutsu being a superset, allows you to choose whether you want to sort of help them to land without breaking something, or to amp up Uke's energy on the way down.

Again, is it kind to let the guy go on to knife the next victim? Have you helped either, or simply avoided the situation in a way that has damaged an innocent?

Well you are speaking contextually about the heat of the moment. I am speaking more generally about the philosophical alignment one must practice before that moment. Tom, you are not some brute without a philosophy, so instead of simplifying the idea of cults, why not share your philosophical views as they relate to combat?

As for your question, we both know that Aikido does not allow the knife-wielder to "go on". Aikido will disarm him, but you are naming Aiki-jutsu as better because you can hang uke up on his arm and throw him better. I am describing a much different value which Aikido has, and which you deride.



Does Omoto taste like grape, or is it more like cherry?

Your issue doesn't seem to be with oomoto, because you'd then identify what problem you have with them. Your issue seems to be to piece out OSensei into his various components and then pick and choose. His own words make his martial art very plain and it starts in mental alignment once the basic moves have been learned.



IIRC, Ueshiba wasn't all that old when he became a kick-ass Aiki artist, and I doubt he was the mystic innocent you are envisioning. Aikido didn't just spring forth in his mind, either, because IIRC he went through several Aiki style changes on the way there.

Yes, he did have a vision and he spoke about it in the interview I posted above. But is this interview just the elderly cultish hallucinating/lying OSensei you circumspectly are describing in your position? He said he had a vision of Aikido and then set out to use the finest destructive techniques and alter them slightly such that they could be more harmonious and together, an entirely different martial way.




Again, every art I've done any formal training says this too. You should try getting out more, visiting some other schools, maybe talking to some of the more senior Aikido instructors instead of the one in your home town.

There will never be consensus between those dojos as to what Aikido is, but all Aikido is good, even the harder stuff, because it carries the message of OSensei. Harmony. How much more senior can I get than the very words of OSensei himself?


In my opinion this is a key point which you skimmed over: What is the context of a hand to hand combat situation in a survival world? Is it better to learn aiki-jutsu and break bones but have no inner core discipline of peace? I think bullies will be killed by mobs in a survival situation. I think Aikido may actually preserve the Aikidoka alive because they were very careful in their use of force. You do not know whose wrist you are twisting, so it's always better to twist and direct it until you can find out that answer. In any survival situation, this answer is the correct one.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps

About what? About the words of the founder of Aikido?



That this is true. You believe that it is, and I disagree. Not that he said it or not, but that it is correct. It is a statement of an absolute, and thus is likely to be incorrect ab initio. All violent acts are not the result of confusion. Whether or not an act is violent, to some degree, depends on the point of view of the participants.

To the deer, the tiger is violent. To the tiger, it's a meal. Which is correct?



I do not think so. I think this future will come. In fact, I am certain of it.



What more can I say? I am as certain that the day will NOT come when we are all Aikidoka. History is on my side; you'll find it difficult to spot any point in history when all people world-wide were trained to do any identical thing, much less one as time consuming and as demanding of your devotion as learning either Aiki art.



Also, the reduction of Oomoto to a "kool-aid drinking cult" shows a lack of understanding. Such is not the case.

There are those aikido practitioners who see OSensei's Oomoto associations as cult-like. I know far more about cults than I do Aikido, so that conversation can be had, if you wish.


Yes, my instructor in Germany also felt it was cult-like. I like my training without religion, thanks, especially Omoto Kyo.



Yes I do believe this. I am certain you have never seen an Aikidoka use a sword on a human being in combat.


That depends on what you want to call a BMF, I guess, but so be it.





Well you are speaking contextually about the heat of the moment. I am speaking more generally about the philosophical alignment one must practice before that moment. Tom, you are not some brute without a philosophy, so instead of simplifying the idea of cults, why not share your philosophical views as they relate to combat?

As for your question, we both know that Aikido does not allow the knife-wielder to "go on". Aikido will disarm him, but you are naming Aiki-jutsu as better because you can hang uke up on his arm and throw him better. I am describing a much different value which Aikido has, and which you deride.


Yes, I understand that you are taught that encountering Aikido will cause an attacker to become enlightened, and cease to be violent. Another point where we won't be agreeing, I'm afraid, and again an aspect of the philosophical/religious aspect of Aikido. I just get this weird mental picture of using a sankyo on someone and the guy saying "master, I've seen the light!" at which point I bow and say "Chop wood, draw water" and walk away, my job done.

Philosophically, the Tao of Tom says to avoid confrontation where possible. If I can get you to leave me alone with a mininum of force, yay! I'd much rather just give you the dead look and ask you if there isn't any place else for you to be. However, I have a pretty fast rate of escalation, and I fear I don't have the wa to shihonage someone with love and compassion. In fact, by that time, I'm pretty much enjoying it. I might aim you at the grass if we're outside, rather than concrete.

My viewpoint is probably contaminated by gross expediency instead of gentle philosophy due to the school and the reason we were learning Aiki-jutsu.



Yes, he did have a vision and he spoke about it in the interview I posted above. But is this interview just the elderly cultish hallucinating/lying OSensei you circumspectly are describing in your position? He said he had a vision of Aikido and then set out to use the finest destructive techniques and alter them slightly such that they could be more harmonious and together, an entirely different martial way.


Goodness, no. Quite the opposite. I think Ueshiba was a really great artist that became a pacifist in his later years. I just don't sit in front of his portrait with candles on each side and meditate. I think he probably tossed back the sake and had great times with his students. I just don't think he glowed in the dark and spoke with Ushi-tora on Saturdays or something, he put his hakama on one leg at a time.

Tell me, does your school do the candles/portrait thing? I've seen them that do, it's a bit off-putting.




Harmony. How much more senior can I get than the very words of OSensei himself?


Have you personally done the little Ueshiba shrine thing? Just curious.



In my opinion this is a key point which you skimmed over: What is the context of a hand to hand combat situation in a survival world? Is it better to learn aiki-jutsu and break bones but have no inner core discipline of peace? I think bullies will be killed by mobs in a survival situation. I think Aikido may actually preserve the Aikidoka alive because they were very careful in their use of force. You do not know whose wrist you are twisting, so it's always better to twist and direct it until you can find out that answer. In any survival situation, this answer is the correct one.


So, you're talking post-apocalypse here? Or just getting punched at by a drunk guy?

If it's a "survival world" then I think I don't agree with you. Everything is context, and a lot more complex than just trying to share inner peace with any hoodlum that comes through. What's with the absolutes? There may NOT be a "correct" answer for any particular situation, much less one universal one. A lot of times it's going to get down to a least-bad decision, the universe isn't kind enough to provide you a single perfect solution to every problem.

[edit on 14-1-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
On another ATS thread, someone mocked the art by pointing out the fact that there were no "Aikido Badasses" in the UFC tournaments (direct quote).

My response was that no self-respecting Aikidoka would ever become a prize-fighter, and anyone with the proper training who managed to fall so far from grace would quickly find their skills useless and their power sapped.

Aikido is a wonderful art, but it's not meant for people who start fights.

Aikidoka simply don't fight.

My working theory on management is the same as my theory on martial arts (and just about everything else, it's a philosophical multi-tool) - be as nice/gentle as you can be, and as mean/forceful as you need to be. Never use more force than is necessary, never use less, only do what must be done - do it without hesitation and without fear.

Aikido appealed to me when I worked as a bouncer - my job was not to start fights, or to participate in fights, but to prevent them. I could have lost my job, even my freedom, if I had attacked someone or allowed someone to get hurt. My job, my DUTY, was to keep the peace, and I took it very seriously (even if I was only ever paid in pitchers and peanuts).

And to those who poo-poo notions of love..

Would-be warriors would do well to remember that peace is the only reasonable, honorable, and justifiable goal in any war. If there is a shorter road leading to peace, apart from love, I'd like to know about it.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
On another ATS thread, someone mocked the art by pointing out the fact that there were no "Aikido Badasses" in the UFC tournaments (direct quote).


Actually, there was one, but that was the only one I ever saw. It was either 1 or 2, and one of the preliminary bouts. It wasn't pretty. I don't remember what the other guy was. It was over pretty fast, the Aikidoka got foot swept and once off his feet it was over in seconds.

Which doesn't really mean anything, because I think in those days you could say you were prince of space-fu and they'd announce you that way. I'm also not sure UFC is a really great arbiter of usefulness, what you might be measuring is more size, strength and aggressiveness than the value of one style over another. On top of which, it depends a lot on whether that style fits YOU, I can't do styles with a lot of kicking because my legs are short, a high kick from me is about waist level. Works great for horse-stance styles though.




Would-be warriors would do well to remember that peace is the only reasonable, honorable, and justifiable goal in any war. If there is a shorter road leading to peace, apart from love, I'd like to know about it.


A lack of further opposition? Grant you, it's drastic, but no enemies, no conflict. Rome had no more problems with the Carthaginians after the third Punic War using this philosophy. Had they done this in 241 BC, there wouldn't have been a second or third Punic war.

[edit on 14-1-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   


Actually, there was one, but that was the only one I ever saw. It was either 1 or 2, and one of the preliminary bouts. It wasn't pretty. I don't remember what the other guy was. It was over pretty fast, the Aikidoka got foot swept and once off his feet it was over in seconds.


My point though, is that he could not have been an Aikidoka, if he was content to fight for money, fame, honor, applause, or whatever else. What was he doing there in the first place?

What self-respecting Dojo teaches such a thuggish mentality? I can guarantee that no respected, accomplished Aikidoka would EVER sign himself up for that sort of nonsense. It flies in the face of everything espoused by the masters of the art. The more accomplished the martial artist, the greater his/her responsibility is to avoid conflict.

Anyway, on another note, how old was the guy? How long had he been training? I'm guessing twenties and one year respectively. Is that an adequate measure of Aikido?

Here's another comment on the relative value of Aikido:

How many of those UFC fighters could live and work in crime-ridden urban death-mazes, without incident? The fights they would gladly walk into, with that 'me-big-and-me-prove-it' mentality, might just end with a burst of gunfire if they're unlucky. An Aikidoka would be much less likely to find himself in that situation, would he not?

The real value of Aikido is the ability to predict and avoid fights - but when it comes right down to it, and an unavoidable attack occurs, an accomplished Aikidoka is well-prepared to defend himself.



A lack of further opposition? Grant you, it's drastic, but no enemies, no conflict. Rome had no more problems with the Carthaginians after the third Punic War using this philosophy. Had they done this in 241 BC, there wouldn't have been a second or third Punic war.


Victory is a cessation of hostilities on favorable terms, it's not conditional on massive bloodshed or widespread destruction.

If there is no other way, then so be it, but in just about every case, victory can be realized without resorting to such measures. The Roman empire (which you made mention of) and the Muslim empire of the 12th century were most successful in taking and holding territory when they opened with a reasonable offer, followed with a firm and uncompromising threat if necessary, and ended with overwhelming and rapid application of force to achieve submission in lieu of a scorched earth approach (which serves only to reinforce future threats, and nets little in the way of resources).

What is that methodology similar to, if not Aikido?



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Anyway, on another note, how old was the guy? How long had he been training? I'm guessing twenties and one year respectively. Is that an adequate measure of Aikido?


He looked like he was in his thirties, and they didn't say. He was sort of...different. You know, you see certain artists from some styles and they tend to be built sort of alike because the style itself weeds out builds that don't fit? This was a big porky biker looking Aikidoka, which I had not often seen with the exception of Segal (sorry). I guess there's no reason it couldn't be but just looked odd.

As a side note, though, do you consider Segal to be an accomplished Aikidoka off the set? Two words...Gene LeBell.





Victory is a cessation of hostilities on favorable terms, it's not conditional on massive bloodshed or widespread destruction.

If there is no other way, then so be it, but in just about every case, victory can be realized without resorting to such measures. The Roman empire (which you made mention of) and the Muslim empire of the 12th century were most successful in taking and holding territory when they opened with a reasonable offer, followed with a firm and uncompromising threat if necessary, and ended with overwhelming and rapid application of force to achieve submission in lieu of a scorched earth approach (which serves only to reinforce future threats, and nets little in the way of resources).

What is that methodology similar to, if not Aikido?


I'd say that the Roman Empire was more Aiki-jutsu, because otherwise they wouldn't have been able to attack. If the Roman Empire was Aikido, they'd ask for tribute, Carthage would politely say "no" and go on their merry way. As long as they didn't physically attack, Rome would sit there and look baffled.

Now, if Rome was Aiki-jutsu, not only could they have b-chslapped Carthage, but they'd have caused irreparable rotator cuff damage with the throw; Carthage would never have been able to use a sword correctly again.



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Well, on your first point about dude's age and appearance - I've seen a couple of portly, even obese, Aikidoka play discus at the Dojo using students (video, never in person). It doesn't require an enormous amount of muscle mass, and a lot of fat guys can move suprisingly quickly - it's sort of an advantage, a clever deception.


I'm six and a half feet tall, and I weigh three hundred and fifty pounds or so - so you can see why Aikido would appeal to me more than just about everything else out there.

And, on a personal note, I'm not trying to portray myself as some sort of master - not even close. I'm a hobby martial artist, a dilletante, a nibbler. I spend entirely too much time on theory, reading, talking, writing, etc., and not nearly enough on dilligent practice. So, everything I say must be taken with a grain of salt, and I'm not someone who has a hard time accepting when I'm wrong - if you can show me the light please do so.

Case in point, your argument about the Rome/Ayyubid empires rings true - for me at least. You're right; they were aggressive, they were attackers, and the relative degree of chivalry with which they prosecuted their respective campaigns aside, they don't embody the principles of Aikido very well. Anyway, well argued.





new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join