SenseiLou

Posted by: Robaikido

SenseiLou - 12/11/04 04:29 AM

Using SenseiLou as an example, I hope you dont mind [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG]

As far as I can see, you are pretty senior in aikido, so thats why I have chosen you on this board. People say aikido doesnt work, my view is that every single technique works, but. If senseilou got his ass kicked by a eg boxer, as his defense techiniques are all practical, you could say that it was down to him, or anyone, making a mistake.

If a boxer, kung fu etc person attacked him 100 times, would he get his ass kicked every time, I very must doubt it, I'm guessing the opposite, so this must mean that the techniques all work, it just depends at the time of attack if you perform them correctly?

I apologise to you sensei if you mind being used as an example
Posted by: mugen

Re: SenseiLou - 12/11/04 12:45 PM

you sound pretty dumb
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: SenseiLou - 12/11/04 01:18 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Robaikido:
Using SenseiLou as an example, I hope you dont mind [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG]

As far as I can see, you are pretty senior in aikido, so thats why I have chosen you on this board. People say aikido doesnt work, my view is that every single technique works, but. If senseilou got his ass kicked by a eg boxer, as his defense techiniques are all practical, you could say that it was down to him, or anyone, making a mistake.

If a boxer, kung fu etc person attacked him 100 times, would he get his ass kicked every time, I very must doubt it, I'm guessing the opposite, so this must mean that the techniques all work, it just depends at the time of attack if you perform them correctly?

I apologise to you sensei if you mind being used as an example
[/QUOTE]

There is a saying, a good tradesman never blames his tools.

If he gets his arse kicked, it is due to his own inadequacies. Or his opponent was better on the day. (see above point)

Every technique in almost every style, works, in any given situation.

As someone said somewhere else on this board. Aikido does not teach you to take hits, most Aikidoka when they get hit react in a disagreeable way. Most aikidoka when they hit someone get very appologetic.
Most Aikidoka are not trained to punch through the target, there seems to be some kind of stigma that says all Tsuki, uchi and kiri ho must be atemi only. (atemi - false strike). Tsuki is a punch to either the midsection or throat, it is also a thrust. Uchi ho is a strike to the top of the face or forehead-shomen uchi, or yokomen uchi- temple strike, Ago uchi -jaw strike, gyaku yokomen uchi - reverse temple strike. These four strikes are all meant to connect with the opponent, they are not atemi ho.
Gyaku tsuki -reverse punch are generally used only for atemi.

Also one can not say ok if this attack happens next I'll do this.
The best mind is no mind, Zanshin.
Posted by: Robaikido

Re: SenseiLou - 12/11/04 02:23 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mugen:
you sound pretty dumb[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your input my friend, that helped alot
Posted by: senseilou

Re: SenseiLou - 12/11/04 06:17 PM

No offense taken......but why pick on the old guy?

"Most Aikidoka are not trained to punch through the target, there seems to be some kind of stigma that says all Tsuki, uchi and kiri ho must be atemi only. (atemi - false strike). Tsuki is a punch to either the midsection or throat, it is also a thrust. Uchi ho is a strike to the top of the face or forehead-shomen uchi, or yokomen uchi- temple strike, Ago uchi -jaw strike, gyaku yokomen uchi - reverse temple strike. These four strikes are all meant to connect with the opponent, they are not atemi ho.
Gyaku tsuki -reverse punch are generally used only for atemi."

This is the point I have been trying to get across for ever. Most Aikidoka believe the attack originates with the back foot and back hand. They do not train in striking(its not part of the curriculum)so they don't know all the combinations and possible attacks. I had a Nidan in Aikido tell me you can't kick and hit off the front foot. Its a great example of what I am talking about. You really need a working understanding of how strikes are going to come at you, to be able to defend against them.

There was one person here that felt the strikes practiced by Aikido were similar to any attack that one could receive. Attacks in Aikido are based on sword attack, not Karate strikes. They are not the same. Yokomenuchi is Not a hook, or cross. So when these Aikido practice their art, its based on different means of attacking. Also, Karate teaches quadrants, and zones as to where to strike, Aikido doesn't address this either. Its not a knock on Aikido, its purpose and use is NOT BASED on fighting a Karateka, it must be adapted to use in that situation. As for the technique not working, look at ikkyo, its not for the purpose of defending ones self. The technique is a "mother" technique and taught to help a student learn the next level techniques, like Nikkyo or Sankyo etc. The funtion of Ikkyo is not self defense and needs to be adapted if you were to use it, and tehn I am not sure how effective it would be, maybe as a restraint. But its value is in how it relates to other techniques through its principles.

Its not a question of how effective the techniques are, O'Sensei said the best technique is no technique. So techniques become vehicles to learn aspects of the art, principles, concepts and basics and how to use them. The technique is only as good as the person using it and his UNDERSTANDING of what he is doing.

By the way, I am not a senior in Aikido, I am a black belt, but thats it. My experience with Aikido, is based on the fact that I am a senior in other arts and get to see both sides. When talking about Aikido, I would NEVER, EVER apply technique without some sort of pre-emptive attack. "Shockem before you lockem" is a guiding principle in our art. But to say mine is more effective because we strike is not the issue. The bottom line is this, the better skilled technician, the better knowledge will win out.
Posted by: Ed Glasheen

Re: SenseiLou - 12/11/04 06:35 PM

Attacks in Aikido are based on sword attack, not Karate strikes. They are not the same. Yokomenuchi is Not a hook, or cross.

I am not sure...looking at Daito ryu for an example, alot of atemi techniques were right handed. This was because of their use of the knife. Although I see the sword based techniques, I think they are also ment for other bladed weapon attacks. Based on my study of Kondo's work.
Kurumadaoshi technique of Kondo's Daito Ryu is an exsample I would look at. Looks alot like Yokomenuchi Kokyunage.
I can see it working on a punch to the head. Your taisabaki would depend upon the angle of attack. Irimi left or right.
Just a thought.
Ed
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: SenseiLou - 12/11/04 07:22 PM

[QUOTE]There was one person here that felt the strikes practiced by Aikido were similar to any attack that one could receive. Attacks in Aikido are based on sword attack, not Karate strikes. They are not the same. Yokomenuchi is Not a hook, or cross.[/QUOTE]

I made a point similar to this, based upon another post in an other forum by Chen.
He mentioned that Almost all martial arts and 'street fighters' use the same set of punches. etc.
This in essence is correct.

A hook is exactly the same as Yokomen, both come from the side in order to connect with the temple to lower ear area.
Yokomen uchi is taken from yokomen kiri.
Sure yokomen uchi is an open palm strike with tegetana (knife hand). Basically it is a cut with the hand, karate uses a similar kind of cut does it not?
Just because it sounds different does not mean it is different.

There is a gung fu strike called the Glass owl, basically it is gyaku tsuki. It is delivered in the same way yet with the intention to strike. The above tsuki is also intended to contact, its contact point is the bridge of the nose. In order to break the nose, the same as the Glass owl.

Fundamentally all punches and strikes are the same. However there exists this elitist element in MA that likes to believe their style is superior to all others and somehow different.

A guy with a baseball bat is going to do a crude yokomen and shomen but that isn't what he will call it.
[QUOTE]I am not sure...looking at Daito ryu for an example, alot of atemi techniques were right handed. This was because of their use of the knife. [/QUOTE]
While that maybe so, it is imperative to train with both sides, left and right.
When I studied Tanto, it wasn't just a right handed affair, it was both sides.
I had to be profficient in both right and left handed technique and attack.
The tanto is a very versitile weapon in the correct hands.
Posted by: csinca

Re: SenseiLou - 12/12/04 09:06 AM

When you are working in traditional, sword based Japanese arts, the left and right side are not treated equally. The sword(s) were worn on the left hip which dictated many body movements. I doubt you'll see any Iado schools that practice both left and right side.

I'm not very familiar with Daito but if they are basing atemi off of the position of their tanto, it would be predominantly right handed.

I'll throw my two cents in to agree with Sensei Lou and say that yokomen is not the same as a cross or a hook punch. At least not the yokomen that I've seen in most of the seminars and dojos I've visited! Most of the yokomen I've seen from aikidoka come from above and behind the ear and are a step and strike. I don't recall ever seeing any aikidoka in any sort of practice set up a yokomen strike with any kind of body feint, kick or other jab.

Lastly, as Igneous mentioned, aikidoka seem more likely to apologize when they actually hit someone in class. In most of the other martial arts I've experience, that called training or sparring!

Chris
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: SenseiLou - 12/12/04 10:10 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by csinca:
When you are working in traditional, sword based Japanese arts, the left and right side are not treated equally. The sword(s) were worn on the left hip which dictated many body movements. I doubt you'll see any Iado schools that practice both left and right side.

I'm not very familiar with Daito but if they are basing atemi off of the position of their tanto, it would be predominantly right handed.

I'll throw my two cents in to agree with Sensei Lou and say that yokomen is not the same as a cross or a hook punch. At least not the yokomen that I've seen in most of the seminars and dojos I've visited! Most of the yokomen I've seen from aikidoka come from above and behind the ear and are a step and strike. I don't recall ever seeing any aikidoka in any sort of practice set up a yokomen strike with any kind of body feint, kick or other jab.

Lastly, as Igneous mentioned, aikidoka seem more likely to apologize when they actually hit someone in class. In most of the other martial arts I've experience, that called training or sparring!

Chris
[/QUOTE]

What I am getting at with the whole yokomen=hook thing is as follows.
Yokomen is made up of two words Yoko and men.
Yoko means side or temple, where as men means face.
So Yokomen is side of the face. What is the point of contact of a hook?
Is it not the side of the face also?

Looking at Shomen it to is made up of 2 words, sho and men. Again men=face and Sho=means top or above.
So Shomen would be the top of or above the face as in the forehead.
Similar to an overhead strike.

Looking at punches we have Tsuki=thrust.
Two types Do=stomach or abdomen, and NoDo=neck.
Show me a guy on the street that doesn't punch to the stomach and throat?

The point is, when we get bound up in using correct words, and watching strikes etc. We loose sight of what the basic or crude versions of these fundemental atemi, uchi and kiri ho are.

As for being appologetic, I used to get very tired of saying to students, do not appologise.
If your sorry you hit me, then why did you? etc.
Which goes back to an earlier comment, Aikidoka are not taught to punch through. Or to carry through an atemi. They tend to get caught up in this stigma of self defence and soft art rubbish.
Posted by: Ed Glasheen

Re: SenseiLou - 12/12/04 11:51 AM

If you look at the bujutsu origins, yokomen was a strike to the carthoid artery of the neck.
So really what is the difference between that and a hook punch. What I find really is the difference, is the commitment of the attack. By that I mean , boxing with it's jabs and ranging is different than the commited attacks in Aikido. I think that is what Aikidoka have problems dealing with.
Ed
Posted by: senseilou

Re: SenseiLou - 12/12/04 02:18 PM

So Yokomen is side of the face. What is the point of contact of a hook?
Is it not the side of the face also?

No No No, there is no specific contact point for a hook. As a matter of fact I use it to the body more than I do to the head. We use the theory, like the boxer, that body shots are money in the bank, a person can take only but so many. So when we go to the body it presents a totally different angle to deal with.

Show me a guy on the street that doesn't punch to the stomach and throat?

How about forehead, chin, psloar plexis? We punch to the psolar plexis as much as any where else.

But this is the point I am making. You don't study a stiking art and you have assumptions of how people punch. The only commonality is that people will seek the center of the person they are attacking. By setting yourslef up, whether it be tai sabaki or boxing feints, you set yourself up to attack a persons center. So if you are working the ribs, you will position yourself for this strike. If you understand how to stike you don't put limits on where you strike. Punching to the throat is not the most beneficial shot, chin is much easier to hit. Depending on the body posture of the attacker, another weapon such as a yokomen would be a better strike to the neck. Every job has its tool, and striking the throat is not best with a punch. You can believe you understand how to strike, but the only way is to practice striking and be taught by a striker. Yokomen strike in more related to a 'roundhouse' then a properly thrown hook. Chris and I both work with people who know HOW to throw a hook or cross, and its NOT the same as Yokomen movement. The Yokomen(side of head, not face!)has much more movement than a hook. We, like boxers, like to work the body, especially with hooks and uppercuts. We also lead with uppercuts and hooks. A principle in Karate, is to punch from where your hand is you don't cock, or load your punch. Every yokomen I have ever seen cocks the hand and moves to the ear before striking. A good striker will hit this type of strike before you ever would get it off. But this again goes back to the fact, Aikidoka don't understand striking. Its not a criticism, Aikido was not put together to fight boxers. But Aikidoka must eventually open their eyes, that what they precieve striking to be, and what is actually practiced are 2 different things. Once again, I have studied Karate as long, no actually longer than Aikido, and will tell you that the strikes of someone who knows how to strike is different than your Aikido partner.

Ed is also correct about intent, and committing to the attack. Train with a boxer, or Karateka and they try to hit you, its the purpose of their practice. As a general statement, Aikidoka don't like to be hit, by accident or otherwise. Smae can be said for Karateka, they do not like the pain of the locks of Aikido. But they love to strike. One of the purposes of sparring is to learn how to 'work' your strikes. This fact alone, someone working his strikes, is going to present a different situation to an Aikidoka. A person who has worked his jab from having hands low(Prince Naseem for example)presents a problem sometimes for a boxer, because he is awkward. Can you imagine the problems trying to lock an awkward striker would be , when a natural striker presents problems.

I am not saying Aikido doesn't work, it can be made to work, but only after one understands how an attack can come. My Sensei asked me what I wanted from my Aikido. I told him I wanted to make it work. The first thing he did was have me start watching boxing matches, and study them, break them down,analyze them and understand how a boxer fights. This led to practicing boxer strikes, then learning how to strike. This in turn led me to go back and study karate again.

My main point is that assuming people punch a certain way, has your mind closed. When recieving an attack you need to be aware of movement, not specific punches. If you are focusing and thinking a punch will either come to your throat, or stomach, you are ruling out anything else, which could get you hit. The punch that hits you(or knocks you out) is the one you don't see. We make every effort to hide our strikes, so to assume my hook is coming to your chin, may get your ribs broke. Also many styles work combinations, while you expect that punch to hit your throat, its that cross that you don't see that will knock you out. We also use doubling up. As we uppercut, we follow with an elbow, same with a cross, followed by an elbow, hook to the body same thing. A Sensei once showed how what goes up, comes down, across then back. So a cross can be followed by a backfist, and upper cut followed by a backfist. If you just focus on the strikes you can get tagged. Its studying the movements that is important. That is why you study strikers, not just watch and assume what they do.
Posted by: MrVigerous

Re: SenseiLou - 12/12/04 02:29 PM

Mugen

On the contrary, you are pretty dumb if you think that an attitude like that is going to impress.

Consider yourself warned.

Mr V
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: SenseiLou - 12/13/04 09:30 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by senseilou:
But this is the point I am making. You don't study a stiking art and you have assumptions of how people punch.
[/QUOTE] Well you just made the assumption senseilou, I have studied a striking art, you assume I study aikido, I did study Takemusu kai for 3 of my 10. However the other seven was Aiki Taijutsu. With a large emphasis on striking, and 'punching' through. etc.
[QUOTE]Chris and I both work with people who know HOW to throw a hook or cross, and its NOT the same as Yokomen movement. The Yokomen(side of head, not face!)has much more movement than a hook.[/QUOTE]
Now your being padantic. The side of the face is the side of your head. If you thought to look you would have seen I mentioned between the temple and the lower part of the ear. But your doing exactly as I stated, you are getting caught up in the whole concept of words and what they should mean etc.
[QUOTE]Aikidoka don't understand striking. Its not a criticism, Aikido was not put together to fight boxers. But Aikidoka must eventually open their eyes, that what they precieve striking to be, and what is actually practiced are 2 different things. Once again, I have studied Karate as long, no actually longer than Aikido, and will tell you that the strikes of someone who knows how to strike is different than your Aikido partner.[/QUOTE]
Jujutsu wasn't designed to fight boxers either, however Jigoro Kano Sensei defeated all of the bare knuckle fighers and boxers of the era. When the westerners came to Japan to show the superiority of western boxing systems. Your point is mute.


[QUOTE]My main point is that assuming people punch a certain way, has your mind closed. When recieving an attack you need to be aware of movement, not specific punches. If you are focusing and thinking a punch will either come to your throat, or stomach, you are ruling out anything else, which could get you hit. The punch that hits you(or knocks you out) is the one you don't see. We make every effort to hide our strikes, so to assume my hook is coming to your chin, may get your ribs broke. Also many styles work combinations, while you expect that punch to hit your throat, its that cross that you don't see that will knock you out. We also use "doubling up". As we uppercut, we follow with an elbow, same with a cross, followed by an elbow, hook to the body same thing. A Sensei once showed how what goes up, comes down, across then back. So a cross can be followed by a backfist, and upper cut followed by a backfist. If you just focus on the strikes you can get tagged. Its studying the movements that is important. That is why you study strikers, not just watch and assume what they do.[/QUOTE]
And you SL have missed to total concept of my post.
I did not say that this strike equals that punch etc. Nor did I say that I wait for certain attacks.
I simply said that looking at one thing shows you something else.
I used yokomen, shomen and tsuki as examples only. However you have chosen to write a novel upon what you think I study or haven't what you think you know about me or my ability or lack there of.
In doing the above the only one who has closed their mind is yourself.

ig.
Posted by: csinca

Re: SenseiLou - 12/13/04 02:41 PM

Ig,

Stepping back to an overview here... the original post was just another way of opening the "what style is more effective" question (even used the classic boxer v. aikidoka). That in and of itself gets old and the responses sometimes reflect the fact that we've all been through it before. In this case Robaikido was framing it in a person/time rather than the art which is a better way of looking at things but still not terribly meaningful. Most of us agree that it depends on the person and the circumstances. From there I think most of us would agree that training methods contribute significantly to success or failure in any given encounter.

So then responses get around to the training methods that most aikidoka use. Being an aikido forum this would make sense. Now here is where we all bring our own compiled experiences. In my experience (12 years of aikido) most aikidoka do not train their strikes in the same manner as a boxer might, or a karateka or a MMA person.

I'll go with you that yokomen and a hook have roughly the same target area. That doesn't matter much because the target area is really going to be what is open in a dynamic situation. What does matter to me is how my opponent has trained to deliver that strike.

I've worked with hundreds of aikidoka over the years (at different dojos and seminars) and I can't think of any would have dazed me with the heat they were bringing on their yokomen strike. It just wasn't there, even in freestyle practice. In fact I would say that a significant number of them would had apologized for hitting me if I had just stood in and taken the shot. There have been many times where I have not moved and allowed uke to hit me. One of two things happens, about a third of the time the uke either misses or stops short, my "ki" ain't that could so that calls into question the intent (or eyesight) of the uke. Of the other two thirds, about half the time I get a look like "what are you stupid" and the other half I get an apology. Now I'm not completely stupid yet so I don't do this with someone I've never worked with or seen attack. But I've done this many places and the results don't change much.

Contrast this with the few boxers I've worked with. I can think of four that would have rung my bell had they connected. And none of them would have apologized, they would have told me to move my @$$ or cover up!

So getting away from styles and semantics, I think the underlying factor is how an art is trained. Given this, I know that Sensei Lou can be very effective with his arts becuase I've been on the other end a few times.

Chris
Posted by: Ed Glasheen

Re: SenseiLou - 12/13/04 04:01 PM

Ok but wasn't shomen and yokomen uchi strikes as taught a simplifcation for training purposes. I cannot belive that the founder didn't address the issue. I know they do in Daito Ryu. I really feel that it does not need to be.
The problem is what do you do when someone does not attack...ie boxer, grappler, the way you do in Aikido class.
For this answer I look to Kendo and Kenjutsu. You will see similarities to what we are talking about.
I have seen the same difference in training partners. NYC trains alot harder than Westchester NY.
Ed
Posted by: csinca

Re: SenseiLou - 12/13/04 06:42 PM

Ed,

I might be missing your point but I personally don't have a problem when someone isn't attacking me! [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG]


Maybe I'm drifting off topic here but as you just pointed out, people train differently in different places/dojos, and I've even noticed differences within the same dojo.

I'm certainly not saying the art of aikido doesn't have "answers" or doesn't address these situations. My sole point on this thread is it depends on how any single person interpretes and trains in the art.

References to Ueshiba's abilities or Kano's abilities probably aren't very representative of today's aikido or judo populations. Both men had studied other arts extensively prior to creating aikido and judo and I'll go out on a limb and say that they men trained a bit more than most of us have the luxury of doing.

Yes, I agree they put the answers into the arts, but I do not agree that the average aikidoka has the key to everything O'sensei put in.

Looking at kendo v. kenjutsu, I guess I would interprete kendo as the sport version of kenjutsu. If we are getting into "do" as a way encompassing more of an art and philosophy rather than the more martial "jutsu", I can go along with that.

Chris


Chris
Posted by: Ed Glasheen

Re: SenseiLou - 12/13/04 07:19 PM

I ment the way a boxer, grappler would attack as different than the attacks typical in Aikido class...ie how a boxer ranges and piece meals...reminds me of Kendo and Kenjutsu not vs.
In Kendo there is a stand off like in boxing...

The one thing I like about Aikido is the Aiki ken and Aiki jo training. I can see its usefullness not only for studying Aikido but also for combat. I am starting to get into the midset of Kendo if that makes sense and it is futher evolving my Jujutsu.
Ed
Posted by: mugen

Re: SenseiLou - 12/14/04 12:18 AM

oops sorry I misread the prompt, therefore I am the dumb one. I thought it was another "does aikido work?" type of question.

Thanks for the clarification senseilou, I may have to re-evaluate my aikido now from a non-purist perspective
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: SenseiLou - 12/15/04 02:09 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by csinca:
Ig,
In my experience (12 years of aikido) most aikidoka do not train their strikes in the same manner as a boxer might, or a karateka or a MMA person.

I'll go with you that yokomen and a hook have roughly the same target area. That doesn't matter much because the target area is really going to be what is open in a dynamic situation. What does matter to me is how my opponent has trained to deliver that strike.

I've worked with hundreds of aikidoka over the years (at different dojos and seminars) and I can't think of any would have dazed me with the heat they were bringing on their yokomen strike. It just wasn't there, even in freestyle practice. In fact I would say that a significant number of them would had apologized for hitting me if I had just stood in and taken the shot. There have been many times where I have not moved and allowed uke to hit me. One of two things happens, about a third of the time the uke either misses or stops short, my "ki" ain't that could so that calls into question the intent (or eyesight) of the uke. Of the other two thirds, about half the time I get a look like "what are you stupid" and the other half I get an apology. Now I'm not completely stupid yet so I don't do this with someone I've never worked with or seen attack. But I've done this many places and the results don't change much.

Contrast this with the few boxers I've worked with. I can think of four that would have rung my bell had they connected. And none of them would have apologized, they would have told me to move my @$$ or cover up!

So getting away from styles and semantics, I think the underlying factor is how an art is trained. Given this, I know that Sensei Lou can be very effective with his arts becuase I've been on the other end a few times.

Chris
[/QUOTE]

Thank you Chris, for broadening the explaination for me. I agree with all of the post above. Even during my Aiki Taijutsu class (roots in Daito Ryu)
When I trained, most when they did any of the grabs or strikes etc simply had nothing there.
I too would stand there and take a punch however most wouldn't hit me. Or by some act of physics they would veer straight past me.
Personally due to the way I was taught I would have them continually attack me until I knew they were going to connect.

When I first started out with my strikes, I wanted realism in them. So I personally started my own strike training. Such that I would strike and punch objects of varying hardness to give myself a 'reality check' as it were.

I would practice in my back yard, for a couple hours a day punching empty five litre fuel tins, then ones half full of water, then full of water. I wasn't satisfied unless I could dent the tin. This was about 13 or so years ago now.

The same with my 'yokomen' I would practice cutting as it were on a wooden pole. That was just me.

I am not hardcore, however I believed if I were to punch or strike someone then I wanted it to work. Not to bounce off.

ig.
Posted by: csinca

Re: SenseiLou - 12/15/04 09:37 AM

Ig,

I'm not so sure about punching fuel tins full of water. Ouch.

Sounds like you and I share some experiences. And all along I thought they were missing me because of my ki extension! [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG] One last comment on this because I also try to get the uke to kep attacking until there is something to the attack. Guys in particular it seems to take two or three times for everything to sink in. The next strike is usually on target but very weak. Finally I think a little embarassment, a little ego and a touch of anger creeps in and all of a sudden they get that look in their eyes.... That's when I know I best not be in the way!

Chris
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: SenseiLou - 12/15/04 11:17 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by csinca:
Ig,

I'm not so sure about punching fuel tins full of water. Ouch.

Sounds like you and I share some experiences. And all along I thought they were missing me because of my ki extension! [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG] One last comment on this because I also try to get the uke to kep attacking until there is something to the attack. Guys in particular it seems to take two or three times for everything to sink in. The next strike is usually on target but very weak. Finally I think a little embarassment, a little ego and a touch of anger creeps in and all of a sudden they get that look in their eyes.... That's when I know I best not be in the way!

Chris

[/QUOTE]

I have to agree yet again... hmm
I used to take the class when Sensei was away.
I taught the class, the way I was taught, in that to be on the mat is to train seriously. Otherwise you may as well go home.

I would have the class do the attack/defense practice. For example: uke does tsuki or yoko or shomen etc nage does the avoidance or defense.
Basically not to move is to be hit. I would try to pair the class up with the yudansha, such that the above line was true.

I found that females, needed to be told only once. As you found males 'didn't want to hurt anyone'.

I have been hit and banged by just about every strike known to man heh..
And been literally poked in the eye with a sharp stick (bokuto).
So I know what it is like to be on the end of a good hit.

ig.