Aikido is a budo based on the establishment of harmony from chaos. This is accomplished through the principle of take musu aiki, the spontaneous and uncontrived harmonious reaction to a situation that successfully diffuses conflict. But many martial artists look at Aikido as a weak martial form due to its primary focus on self-defense, safety, and a desire for a peaceful outcome. It is not "hard" enough and is therefore unrealistic many believe.
But do not mistake Aikido's desire for peace and harmony for a weakness. Yes, aikidoka practice softness of technique. Yes, they desire a peaceful resolution to any conflict. But this does not mean that an aikidoka cannot "go hard" if the situation warrants. And "going hard" in Aikido can be devastating. Just ask any aikidoka who has taken ukemi for their sensei and had a momentary lapse of awareness resulting in a full speed technique execution.
Do not take Aikido's kindness as a weakness. You could end up being unpleasantly surprised.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The Greeks used to say that the definition of a barbarian was a person who confused courtesy for weakness. In that respect, I totally agree with you. However, I have to take exception again with the hard/soft delineation again.
It is not hard vs. soft. Is is"hard" as a matter of progression. Obata Sensei described it as "go, ju, ryu, ki." That is the progression of skill.
At a basic level, technique is hard like bone. When you get a little beter, it is still hard but pliable like muscle. After still more growth, your technique becomes liquid like blood. At the pinnacle of skill it is like breath and air. We know the stories of O-Sensei throwing people without touching them. The problem with aikido isn't that it teaches the higher levels of this. I've always said that aikido is a graduate level martial art. The problem is aikido teaches the higher level stuff without ensure that its students know the levels before. Because of that, many akikidoka have no foundation. You must have the go through "go" and "ju" to get to "ryu" and "ki." There is simply no shortcut.
All of O-Sensei's students during the "jigoku" dojo phase of Aikido's evolution were black belts in other arts. They all had the ability to hit and throw. "Go" and "ju" were assumed because you wouldn't be there unless you already knew those things. That's not true in today's class.
No disrespect intended but I'm relatively sure you haven't spent much time in a punching art. So when you train with your fellow aikido and punch at them, how realistic is the punch? Is it the same as someone who has spent time boxing in a ring? Of course not. The grounding in punching and kicking is to keep the aikidoka honest. If your training partners do not possess those skills then you're not really practicing for "real."
But besides al that, the point is that people concentrate on the wrong part of a technique. Take something like Yokomenuchi shihonage. That's not one technique. That's actually two. There's the first part that deals with the Yokomen strike and then the second part which is the shihonage. After you perform the first part you could do irimi-nage or kote-gaeshi. It doesn't matter once you completed the first part. Most people training these techniques focus on the ending which is absolutely wrong. You have to focus on the first part when you are defending against the strike. Nothing happens if you don't execute that part correctly. The finishing part is almost an after thought. You cold throw knees if you like.
Point being, the most important part of that overall route (I like to use "route" for combinations of techniques) is recognizing what kind of strike is coming. And nobody ever focuses on that in aikido because the pedagogy has set itself up in such a way that you always know what's coming.
The weakness of aikido is not aikido. It's the regimented mind that insists that it is practiced this one way. The method is the problem, not the art.
Understand and agree with go, ju, ryu,ki, but I disagree with your assessment. You are assuming that everyone trains in aikido the same way and that is just not the case. Also, if you ask most martial artists out there, they would say aikido is a "soft" art, so I am trying to use a vernacular that is easily understandable.
All I can speak for is my sensei and dojo, and I can say that ALL the emphasis is placed on the "getting out of the way" part...technique is secondary. Initial recognition of the attack and immediate movement to blend with it is the focus of our training. Technique is a "nice to have". If you miss the technique, but successfully recognized the attack and got out of the way, then you succeeded.
To use your example of yokomenuchi shihonage, we emphasize recognizing and countering the yokomenuchi much more than executing the shihonage, because, as you rightly state, that is the key. I understand that not all dojo's train this way (which is one of my main citicisms of "dojo" aikido), but we do.
Additionally, our punches (or attacks in general), at least amongst the sempai, are thrown with full speed and are thrown differently every time. The point is to never show nage the same attack. It is important to vary it in some way. We also use combination attacks and feints to ensure we are recognizing actual attacks and not being sucked in by a feint. We also train against multiple attackers.
For example, with yokomenuchi, yes there is a basic form to the attack, but uke can vary numerous elements of it (speed, target, angle of attack, stepping in or not, fist or knife hand, with or without a weapon, a long weapon -jo- or a short weapon - tanto, etc,). It needs to be different because in reality, you are not going to see the same attack twice. It is of utmost importance to vary the attacks lest nage be lulled into complacency.
I think that we both agree that the the general pedagogy used in aikido is archaic, but at the same time, I think it is a good way to show beginners the basic form of the art and gets them moving. You have to start some where.
Most Chinese and Okinawan arts training systems are similarly flawed. They all emphasize katas. This pedagogy is just as flawed (if not more so) in my opinion in that it teaches you to conform to some style before it teaches you to recognize and blend with an attack. It drills the flexibility to respond out of you.
Lastly, aikido does not say that you have to train a specific way. In fact, I would argue that it actually says the opposite. Again, do not follow the teacher but follow the teaching. If training the way O'sensei did with his students does not work, do not force it...find another way to train that allows you to express take musu aiki. That is the entire point. Demonstration of technique is not.
I do not assume that aikido is practiced the same everywhere. I have trained with many different teachers and they have all taught differently.
The fact of the matter is that you cannot train full power and full speed with punching and kicking without safety equipment. I'm saying that aikidoka confuse a hard attack with a real fight. In a real fight, I'm going to feint and try to trick you. You guys may do the same thing but I'm talking at a different level.
I have never been to you school so I'm don't know what you have in your curriculum But working off the Hombu dojo curiculum, there is no emphasis on learning how to punch and kick.
That is still my primary criticism. If you have not studied how to punch and kick, how can a person practicing against your attack say that he is learning to actually defend against it?
We cannot have this discussion with words. I have to show you. There's no other way. We have to put on the gloves and shin guards and go at it.
You're right in saying that the general Chinese and Okinawan pedagogy is similarly flawed. But some of it is already changing. Look at the Kyokushinkai guys. They have adopted a much more Thai style of training because that's what works. Globalization has had a very positive effect on the martial arts.
I still maintain that aikido's primary benefit is understanding shape of energy. I can't explain this to you. I can only show you what I mean.
I want to say something about soft. As far as "soft" arts go, wing chun and tai chi have a much more developed sense of sensitivity and a better method for developing it than aikido.
Chi sao is a particularly effective way to develop sensitivity. It onl appears hard because you are hitting. The point of the drill is sensitivity.
I only wish to point out that different arts excel at different aspects of fighting. Only by learning as many of them as you can, do you get a sense of the complete picture.
[B]NZBsRus.com[/B]
Dismiss Sluggish Downloads Using NZB Files You Can Instantly Find HD Movies, PC Games, MP3 Singles, Applications and Download Them @ Flying Rates
[URL=http://www.nzbsrus.com][B]Usenet[/B][/URL]
Yes if the truth be known, in some moments I can bruit about that I jibe consent to with you, but you may be considering other options.
to the article there is stationary a definitely as you did in the downgrade efflux of this solicitation www.google.com/ie?as_q=001 file joinersplitter pro 3 ?
I noticed the phrase you have in the offing not used. Or you functioning the dreary methods of promotion of the resource. I take a week and do necheg
Post a Comment