|
|
Post by maskedman on Feb 14, 2006 22:07:09 GMT
One problem with some of the Aikido stuff is that the breakfalling can change what would actually happen if a techniques was applied for real. The outer wrist twist lock thing for example (where the hand is grabbed and twisted outwards...anti-clockwise for the right hand). In Aikido this is always accompanied by a high flipping breakfall so that the person executing the lock can apply it fully. The flip out stops the wrist from being damaged. That's all well and good. The problem comes when you do that lock for real and rather than flipping over your attacker goes "Ow my wrist!" and then just falls over on their side. This is what people that can't breakfall do naturally. Any follow up that you learnt to apply here will be thrown out of the window as your opponent has not landed in the position you're used to (due to not flipping out). this is all very true...but once you flip him you dont stop there...in combat hapkido...we follow up with stuff like knee to the bicep and more downward pressure on the wrist to snap it good and proper...followed by a punch to the upper li..or in the bravo of the same technique...we flip the person onto there face using there elbow and stomp on the back of there head...or snap the arm that way! I hope that makes sense..I cant really put it into words! *bows respectfully* |
|
|
|
Post by random on Feb 14, 2006 22:47:31 GMT
The problem I have with all this is when we talk about combat Aikido it is like talking about combat karate against karate. What really makes me chuckle is when we can positively describe how we react in a certain situation, makes it sound a bit like it has been rehearsed over and over again.
“followed by a punch to the upper li..or in the bravo of the same technique...
What do you mean by this? Just a brief explanation will suffice.
Like all martial arts there is the cross over from practice to reality. And there is a fine line between reality and imagination. One of the hardest things to do in a combat situation is hit a particular target with a particular strike, destructive strikes into vulnerable areas is far more realistic proposition.
|
|
|
|
Post by maskedman on Feb 14, 2006 23:27:56 GMT
The problem I have with all this is when we talk about combat Aikido it is like talking about combat karate against karate. What really makes me chuckle is when we can positively describe how we react in a certain situation, makes it sound a bit like it has been rehearsed over and over again. “followed by a punch to the upper li..or in the bravo of the same technique... What do you mean by this? Just a brief explanation will suffice. Like all martial arts there is the cross over from practice to reality. And there is a fine line between reality and imagination. One of the hardest things to do in a combat situation is hit a particular target with a particular strike, destructive strikes into vulnerable areas is far more realistic proposition. This is true..it does sound rehersed...basically these are examples...there are two ways to end after the technique is finished (Alpha and bravo...hey I train with the military)....I agree with what you say it is hard to hit oarticular areas..but the body is presented in such a way that that is not the only vital area to strike! I will try to get a video to show you what I mean! But please bear in mind that this is only a training demo and not real life altercation..as you wouldnt go full force in the dojo! *bows respectfully* |
|
|
|
Post by random on Feb 14, 2006 23:35:42 GMT
So there is a first and a second or a first or a second. For me when it is done it is done, Alpha and Omega, beginning and end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Feb 15, 2006 1:07:33 GMT
The point you seem to have missed in pasmith's post, which you quoted, is that one thing happens against a fellow Hapkidoka, while yet another happens against someone uninitiated in the style.
Not a problem isolated to Aikido, but pretty much every form of MA out there.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with Hapkido/Aikido or whatever etc, but the limitations of safe day to day practice have to be accepted for just that, while the potential variables are what need to be explored.
Not talking out of the top of my head here, as I've sparred and trained with a World Gold Medallist Aikidoka, and we both shook hands and went away with something new.
That's as it should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by maskedman on Feb 15, 2006 21:01:59 GMT
So there is a first and a second or a first or a second. For me when it is done it is done, Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. I am goint to do this tech to a second dan karateka....there is a alpha and a bravo ending to each technique. What I want to show you is the line of the body as it falls and the available strike zones that pop up to use as the situation warrants! *bows respectfully* |
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Mar 29, 2006 1:18:21 GMT
Guess it must have been a de-masking experience?
Pity the second dan Karateka wasn't here to tell us the outcome. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by whitewarlock on Apr 2, 2006 13:10:46 GMT
Ugh... the point presented is that an uke reacts differently depending on their experience and training. I.e., in aikido, an uke trained will roll with the hold and fall in certain ways so as to go with the flow of action. On the other hand, an untrained person may very well attempt to resist, or simply fall flat on his face.
Please understand that the uke's training is irrelevent to his 'reactions' to pain, other than that one person's reactions will limit the pain, while the others will encourage it.
Andy, i have got to ask you what the frick is a world gold medalist in aikidoka. There are no competitions in aikido, so this makes absolutely no sense to me.
Returning to the topic at hand, aeflbird... aikido was presented by O'sensei as a means to peace. This was largely due to his religious beliefs, but it was applicable to his approach. The idea was to deal with a confrontation by ensuring you demonstrate to your assailant it is not beneficial for him to continue with an assault on you. However, if the message is not going to be understood by the assailant, it is completely acceptable to apply lethal force. This was understood by his 'immediate' students, but it has been flowered up, hippied if you will, by those who looked at aikido as a 'purely' peaceful art. It was a means to encourage people to deal with confrontation in the context of 'attempting' a peaceful means, rather than 'resorting' to a violent one.
When the circumstances warrant, breaking limbs can and should be done utilizing aikido. When they do not, it should not. Aikido attempts to educate people on the idea that there are 'gradiations' to response. I.e., you don't just beat the crap out of every person who assaults you. You can gauge the threat and determine the extent of your actions... just how far you need to go in order to deflate the confrontation. In truth, there are not many arts that consider this in their training, or even 'provide' such options due to the techniques and actions one learns.
Aikido does provide these, by showing and developing the skills necessary to be able to go... just so far. Learning how to restrain 'yourself' is infinitely more difficult than learning how to restrain your opponent. This is, in no uncertain terms, the greatest lesson in aikido.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Apr 2, 2006 13:41:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by whitewarlock on Apr 2, 2006 14:32:50 GMT
Ugh... those things. I think it's important to bring up that randori was presented in aikido as a means to be 'accepted' at Waseda University (and not necessarily with the misnomer that Tomiki thought it beneficial to learning the art). Said university required all sport studies to include competition within their curriculum. Other than that, O'sensei thought it counterproductive and generally frowned upon such. Tomiki aikido is the only variant of aikido that still presents this practice, and not all Tomiki aikidoists actually do randori.
As to this 'world gold' thing you mentioned, i'm somewhat disturbed by this. Competition of aikido is counterproductive, and also highly ineffective when you consider that aikidoists are effective in applying techniques to 'non-aikidoists,' and that it takes decades to become proficient in this particular art, with competition-like activities actually encouraging 'force' rather than 'form.' Also, and this is really important to note, such competitions are primarily being committed by 'youngins' to the art. Very few, if any, elder practitioners participate in such.
Anyway, it's also not even remotely reasonable to consider a 'gold medalist' in this randori to be a 'gold medalist' in aikido, only a competition variant... presented under set rules, and in opposition to other aikido practitioners. Not reasonable at all to look at these medalists as an example of 'the best that aikido can offer.'
This is my take on it, but please consider that is is an educated take, and not merely a rant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Apr 2, 2006 15:15:50 GMT
This is my take on it, but please consider that is is an educated take, and not merely a rant. Seems like quite an education for you. A moment ago, you said there was NO competition in Aikido; "There are no competitions in aikido, so this makes absolutely no sense to me." Now, you tread water...: If Aikido was effective in application to Non Aikido people, then surely we'd know about that by now? Cheers, I really am done with this forum, but thought you merited a bit of destruction ... due to your... latecomer... comments... |
|
|
|
Post by whitewarlock on Apr 3, 2006 10:19:02 GMT
>> A moment ago, you said there was NO competition in Aikido <<
This is my journalistic style, of presenting a question with a clean slate mentality. It is a means to obtain information from people, without intimidating them from the onset, and thus ensuring their input is freely presented. I'm sure you don't believe that, but i'm not here to 'impress upon you' whether i'm knowledgeable about the arts, or skilled in any particular aspect of it.
But, to address your inference, a statement i've said in the past is, "Being wrong means an opportunity to learn." I do not take offense to your presumption. Indeed, my statement was not invalid, in that i do not consider what i've witnessed to be competitions, in as much as they were skill tests with resisting opponents. Splitting hairs perhaps, yet fair such by me.
However, this presentation of, "world gold medalist" is quite new to me and i don't doubt quite new altogether. On such, a thing of this nature has as much merit as winning a blue ribbon at a neighborhood bake sale. Your presentation of this, in the context of it being some measure of commeasurate aptitude that you had 'sparred' with him, is what sparked my query, as it inferred a degree of pride that you were able to hold your own against him. What throws me off is that you then provide this comment below:
>> If Aikido was effective in application to Non Aikido people, then surely we'd know about that by now? <<
You expect an aikidoist to 'brag?' This is contrary to the aikidoists' mentality. Anyway, i'm not an aikidoist, per se, but I've studied aikido for many years and have used it quite effectively during my years working in mental health, as well as in a few street instances. Last, to claim that something is not effective merely because you haven't heard any 'stories' about it being effective, is to give merit to braggarts, and no merit to the humble.
>> Cheers, I really am done with this forum, but thought you merited a bit of destruction ... due to your... latecomer... comments... <<
Interesting. A "bit of destruction" eh? So, am i to understand your intent in this thread wasn't necessarily to have discussion, but to troll and attack others? Or is it merely your efforts to 'win an argument,' as opposed to discussing the points?
I could care less if you think a discussion needs to be won or lost. Tossing out ad hominems merely because you are either incapable or unwilling to debate points presented by another, may make for heated debate, but it does not make for good discussion.
The purpose, as i see it, for the existence of discussion forums... is to discuss, to obtain information and to provide information. I sincerely believe it is counterproductive, both to oneself and to ones study of the arts, to approach these forums with the 'intent' of feeding the ego. Mayhap this is not your path, but these last words to me do give question.
Andy, I hold no ill will towards you, nor am i in any interest to insult or attack you. If you are willing to have civil discussion, i am as well. If you are done with this forum, it may well be that you realized your participation and actions here are no longer 'healthy.' In this, if so, i commend you for recognizing and acting to take a more healthy path. Peace
|
|
|
|
Post by pasmith on Apr 6, 2006 9:19:47 GMT
Please don't go Andy....be a man and stay!  Sorry couldn't resist. |
|
