What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"?

I'll work backwards...

Quote:

Shiho Nage with your right hand grabbing my left hand...

So many ways to go wrong, the first of which is for me to tense up my left arm, which gives you something to react to. So I need to keep my left arm relaxed and move my body around your attack (grabbing my wrist), in this case down and to my left.

How about a RH punch to the nose as I extend with my LH (which is grabbed) into your center, followed by pressing the ridge of my RH thumb into the radial nerve at LU7?

As I'm digging my thumb ridge into the nerve, I've already taken your balance onto your right foot, and your arm is nicely bent at the elbow.... which makes the following moot.

Quote:

My next opportunity to screw up is to enter with the wrong angle. If I come directly into you, I'll end up pushing into your grip and your arm and your strength; so I need to enter but allow your arm to pivot naturally about your shoulder. (Don't push)

Now as I'm moving and entering, I need to rotate my left arm with my thumb coming back and down. Here I can screw up by not rotating my whole arm, or by pulling away and breaking your grip. (don't pull). This rotation, ifI am connected to you will cause your right shoulder to begin to open up a bit as your upper torso rotates over your hips. Now I'm beginning to break down your posture (beginning kuzushi) on my way to breaking your base. This i very important because it takes away the first real counter to shiho which is you rsimply clenching your right elbow to your ribs.

Quote:

As I'm entering with my left foot across your body and hopefully placing it somewhere near your main front triangulation point, I trap/hook your right wrist with my right hand and then begin to raise my right elbow up over my head (as if drawing a sword, hmmmmmm). At this point your grip will likely be lost and my left hand can reinforce the grip I have with my right or I can leave it free for a moment in the event I want to use it for "something else" later.

As I step across the front of your body with my LF, I extend my L forearm into your R elbow (which is nicely bent) and stress the elbow joint as I am raising both my hands in front of my face. (Note: I am still digging my thumb ridge in LU7...)

Quote:

As I draw my sword, I mean raise my elbow above my head, I now have room to step through, turning my body about 180 degrees and bringing my right foot to my left. As I do this, the back of my left shoulder will come into contact near your right armpit, as I rotate I maintain a little bit of connection but let the contact point slid across my upper back. This will cause you to turn and be looking in the opposite direction as me.

In the same motion of stepping thru I drop into a horse stance so that your arm transitions over my head (at which point, I could also apply ikkyo using my R shoulder).

Quote:

From here a common mistake would be for me to start walking and trying to throw myuke to the ground, but off course uke should simply walk with me around the mat. The proper thing for me to do here is relax my elbows down almost as if I was doing a sword cut. This will cause you to arch into a bit of a back-bend as I begin drawing your right hand down behind your right shoulder...Your balance is mine and you have no base to speak of. I've locked your skeletal system from your wrist to your shoulders, down your spine to your hips....

Good. Lock the entire skeletal structure - wrist, elbow, shoulder, hips, knees and feet. Already done that as soon as you grab hold.

Quote:

And this is where things can get really exciting.

I can maintain a downward pressure and guide you down fairly gently (very aikido like)

I can step back with my right foot and make my cutting motion very firm, and you'll get to take a hot fall across the shoulers (maybe a "hard-style" aikido)

Here's a variation I like:
As I stand up from the horse stance to turn into you, I am also cutting (like bokken suburi) my hands to my belt knot. The dual action causes you to start to fall sharply - in effect, taking your center with me. From there I can control how fast you hit the mat.

Quote:

I can drop to my left knee and cut down 90 degrees to my left which will likely dislocate your elbow and possibly your shoulder and then force you to either drop your expanded ribs onto my upright right knee or bail and hope you can get over before I drive you head first into the mat. (probably not very aikido-like, and definitely not good for reusing ukes)

If I want to be really nasty, I use my R elbow as a lever and lever your R elbow as I'm dropping my hands, dislocate the shoulder as I'm going up and you're going down (i.e. using your own weight to do the nasty work for me).

If I want to be really really nasty, how about as you're already going down, I help you along into the mat by reaping your now fully weighted R leg with my R leg as I'm standing up and cutting down with my hands? Or even throwing you over my hip with your locked elbow? (as in basic jujitsu)

So, the same basic technique is there. The gross general movements are the same. But the devil is the minute detail and subtle differences...

I'm going to throw a curve ball out here. I'm sure everyone does this same technique slightly differently, so what makes it "aiki"?

Posted by: eyrie

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/02/05 08:51 PM

OK, let's not cloud the issue with situational variables.

Using a simple example, say, ikkyo from a straight punch to the face. (men tsuki ikkyo tenkan - using it as an example "exercise" of course - not a "real" situation).

Say you've done the cursory stuff, stepped off the line and entered to the dead side, and you've turned in onto the lead arm and checked it with your right hand and found the "path of least resistance" thru the elbow. What next?

"Cut"? Extend "ki" to redirect? Mechanically leverage the elbow? What?

IOW, how is what you do next considered "aiki" - as opposed to not "aiki"?

Posted by: csinca

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/02/05 11:17 PM

eyrie,

Gotcha...

short answer, there isn't necessarily only one direction that I can go that has an "aiki path".

Long answer --- so I've got the ikkyo on and the shoulder locked and uke is bent over. If I have him locked and off balance then I have options such as

1. tenkan and take down to a pin
2. irimi and " " " " "
3. knee to the ribs and then drop my near elbow into the back of the neck
4. project them on their way and let them go

any of these can have a path of least resistance. If I want to sweep the legs, its very easy to do while I have them locked and off balance. However if I shift my weight to deliver the mother of all sweeps, I'll inevitably lose the lock and let them regain their balance....

As long as I follow my principles it can be aiki.

chris

Posted by: csinca

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/02/05 11:24 PM

Interestingly enough, the further you go through a technique and the further you go down the path of least resistance, the more options you get and the morepaths that become available.

similar would be if I wanted to punch my opponent. Squared off against each other andlikely just outside of range, I have limited options to make contact.

If I just dive in to try to punch him I'm not following a path of little resistance, I'll run into all his power.

If I work my jab a bit with some footwork I might be able to control the distance and angles, reducing the resistance. Then I may notice that my opponent flinches when I jab, or he brings both hands together and tucks his chin, or he reaches out to block... any of which are going to leave an opening in his defense/resistance. So then I throw the jab and follow with a right hook... around the defenses.

Of course if that hook connects, then I have initiative and things in theory get easier for me and harder for him... (assuming I have any power in the shot)

Chris

Posted by: eyrie

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/02/05 11:24 PM

Hmmm.... I feel you're still looking at it from the surface. Dig deeper.

Maybe we need to define what "ki" is. And what "ai" is. And together what "aiki" means....?????

Posted by: eyrie

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/03/05 12:04 AM

OK, let's revisit the "empty jacket fighting" that KiDoHae brought up very early in the thread.

What does it mean to "fight an empty jacket"? How do you fight an empty jacket? What does it feel like?

Posted by: eyrie

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/03/05 12:21 AM

OK, let's see if we can make it even clearer still. Using the previous example of ikkyo, uke attacks with a straight punch to the face, and it's like fighting an empty jacket.

How do you become the empty jacket? How does an empty jacket perform ikkyo????

Posted by: Ubermint

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/03/05 01:44 AM

Roundtable answer style? Maybe this is not a good example. A good jab-cross leaves nothing to be absorbed or taken advantage of. I think something pushing/pulling would be a better question.

BJJ: Change levels (covering up, just in case), come up behind him.
OR, drop, sit on his foot, you are safe in sitting guard.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/03/05 02:03 AM

*sigh* I think everyone's kinda getting caught up in the technical aspects of the response (i.e. response A vs response B). I think we can all generally agree that the number of potential technical applications are infinitely variable?

Also, I'm only using a straight punch as a tool for exploring the parameters of a specific type of strategic response - not as a defense. There's a bit of a difference there.

Let's look deeper at the overarching principles and strategies which determine whether the tactical responses are "aiki" or not "aiki".

Push and Pull is a good overarching principle and a typical Judo/Jujitsu strategy. Is it "aiki"? Can it be called "aiki"?

Posted by: Ubermint

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/03/05 03:52 AM

No, I mean by push and pull, you are being pushed and pulled. I think we all understand the overarching principle here: Move out of line of force and/or redirect force.

For instance what if you found yourself in a half neck clinch/one side of the neck tied up, opp. keeping forward pressure. He's not a great wrestler but he understands what to do here. What is the most "harmonious" response to this?

What i'm saying, is that good punchers simply don't leave anything out there to redirect. So if you wanted an "aiki" defense to such an attack, you should look at something striking oriented.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/03/05 04:55 AM

Oh, OK, my mistake. You're right, my being pushed or pulled is a better example. OK, let's go with that example then.

Perhaps it might help generate some ideas if we looked at a possible "aiki" like response to a push/pull into a clinch???

Part of my difficulty is that I'm not certain how to reconcile BJJ and "aiki". I think most people are already having a hard enough time defining what "aiki" means.

So, are you suggesting that an "aiki" response should be "harmonious"? What does "harmonious" mean to you? And what's involved in being "harmonious"? Structurally? Mechanically? Energetically? What?

Sorry for the barrage of questions..... I'm just trying to draw out the discussion....and I'm not sure where it's going at the moment...

Posted by: wer

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/03/05 07:08 AM

Quote:

If I have him locked and off balance then I have options such as

1. tenkan and take down to a pin
2. irimi and " " " " "
3. knee to the ribs and then drop my near elbow into the back of the neck
4. project them on their way and let them go

I'm more lenient than many aikidoka about what I consider "aiki," but #3 seems very non-aiki to me. You've already got him offbalance and controlled, but are finishing him with two atemi rather than completing the takedown by breaking his balance the rest of the way by pushing him where he can't recover.

Quote:

Perhaps it might help generate some ideas if we looked at a possible "aiki" like response to a push/pull into a clinch???

Part of my difficulty is that I'm not certain how to reconcile BJJ and "aiki". I think most people are already having a hard enough time defining what "aiki" means.

So are you suggesting that an "aiki" response should be "harmonious"? What does "harmonious" mean to you? And what's involved in being "harmonious"? Structurally? Mechanically? Energetically? What?

Sorry for the barrage of questions..... I'm just trying to draw out the discussion....and I'm not sure where it's going at the moment...

I'm not having any trouble defining what "aiki" means --
"harmonizing energy," as in harmonizing your energy with your opponent's, as in sensing his incipient actions and coordinating your own movements to take advantage of them in such a way that adds his force to yours by redirecting his motion or by putting yourself in a position where his movement reinforces your goal (e.g he lunges forward to push you and you sidestep and grab his arm and propel him forwards past where you'd been so he continues along the path he'd chosen and goes in the direction he'd been going).

As for ju being structural/mechanical and aiki being energetic, that's only in the presentation; you'd doing the SAME THING in either art, when it comes right down to it, whether you think of it as using mechanical advantage or using his energy against him.

As to your example: Suppose he comes in and I'm unfortunate or slow enough to give up maai and we wind up clinched in head & arm control (right arms around each other's necks, left arms holding each other's upper arms.

My first two choices of response:

1. Ikkyo

I pull my right arm down at the elbow while releasing my grip on his neck as I bring my left hand to the bottom side of his right arm at the elbow and push his elbow over my head and towards his ear while I twist my torso to the right freeing my right arm and bringing it down to my right (winding up). Continuing the circle, I turn back into him taking him down with irimi nage using my right arm on his face/neck. (Most likely, as I'm entering my left hand has circled down and allowed his right arm to cross his body somewhere between his chest and waist level; but that might not be an essential detail, it's just what seems to happen.)

2. Elbow throw

I pull my right arm down at the elbow while releasing my grip on his neck while I twist my torso to the right freeing my right arm and bringing it down to my right (winding up). Continuing the circle with my right arm, I bring it up making contact under his right armpit, then bring my body and arms forward as if taking ukemi over his right arm bringing him down backwards in elbow throw (hijinage, right? )

I suspect I've missed describing some of the subtleties of the movement and eyrie will let me know, but I'm out of time so that's the best I can do for now.

Posted by: glad2bhere

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/03/05 09:29 AM

The concept of "Ki" was used to explain how the human body generates motion and power but has very little to do with what is being talked about in this dialogue.Where these discussions go off is in confusing the use of "Ki" in martial arts with the concept of "aiki" which is a manner of recieving an attack.

"Aiki" is not some "thing" as much as it is a manner of acting in response to an attack. The concept of "aiki" is based on the premise of "go no sen" (lit: "no first strike). In the Hapkido arts this is sometimes subsumed under the First Principle (aka: "the water principle"-- to wit: "to take what is offered"). To take the "Aiki" approach to a technique requires that the person have mastered very subtle body motions that allow a person not only to have their Dynamic Sphere violated but to actually be grabbed and even grabbed hard. Quite recently I was accepted into a traditional kwan in Korea that teaches these movements. I assure you that there is nothing mystical or magical about them. They are simply good sound training and VERY strong attention to detail including vulnerable areas, vectors, angles of attack and the human neural-muscular system. Now I am sure that a century ago such things must have seemed magical but again I assure that they are not. These things make up the foundation of the second level of the Hapkido arts (aka: "hapkiyusool") and can be taught and learned by anyone willing to apply themselves dilligently.

Now, for comparison, let me say that in contrast to "aiki" techniques are "yawara" or "ju-jutsu" techniques. These are based on "sen-sen" (Lit: "to act before it happens"). Unlike the "aiki" techniques which cause the person to wait and address that which they are dealt, "yawara" techniques (aka: "yu sool" in Korean) are meant to be used pre-emptively much as a policeman must act on a perp before that perp acts out. There is quite a bit of controversey about whether "yu sool" is, at its root, in keeping with the Water Principle of the Hapkido arts. Thats another subject for another day.

Now, you don't have to believe a word that I have written. You don't know me and you don't know that what I have written is true. What I will do is refer you to the AIKIDO JOURNAL article in which the late Tokimune Takeda was interviewed and laid-out everything I just wrote albeit much more articulately. (See Aikido Journal #87 & #88). As most of you know Tokimuna was the son of Sokaku Takeda the organizer of Daito-ryu Aiki-jujutsu the definitive aiki art in Japanese culture. I suspect that if anyone knew about the nature of an "aiki" technique this gentleman would have. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Posted by: aikikiai

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/03/05 12:14 PM

Quote:

So just focusing on the technical aspects.... what would you say is the defining characteristic of an "aiki" technique (if there is one)? Or is it some other technically definable quality that makes it "aiki"?

Well, I see two levels to this definition. The first is the absolute definition of aiki. The second is the "quality" of the technique that makes it aiki.

As to the absolute definition, aiki is when you apply your power to the ura of the attacker's attack.

Please note that this does not mean "to the rear". I didn't realize until recently that many aikidoka use the terms "omote" and "ura" to mean "in front of" and "to the rear of". I saw that even Morihiro Saito sensei used these terms in the sense of "in front of" and "to the rear of".

My sensei, Mochizuki Minoru, a pre-war uchi deshi to Morihei Ueshiba, used the kenjutsu definition of omote and ura.

In this sense, the attacker's omote is his real intention, expressed in an attacking technique. But there is an old saying: "Every front (omote) has a back (ura). The bigger the front, the bigger the back."

But again, this does not imply "in front of" or "to the rear of." It means the empty side of a full effort. In other words, consider a bullet, flying through the air. There is tremendous power at the tip of the bullet, but directly behind the bullet there is a vacuum. Powerful front, empty rear.

Still, the emptiness may not be "behind" the attack. Actually, any concentration of power in any "omote" form will have "ura" in several directions. Say he punches. We can pull him forward into a forward pulling drop. So the ura of the punch is not behind the punch, but further in front of it. Or we could deflect the punch and apply irimi nage, which is "behind" the punch, but still "in front of" the attacker. Yet it is the "ura" of his "omote" attack.

So in short, "aiki" means tailoring our response to the "ura" of his "omote" attack.

In truth, any "counter" to a technique is "ura." Even a hard block or arm break can be "ura" to a given technique. But aiki utilizes ura to create kuzushi, control the opponent's center and weight and neutralize his power.

The "quality" that makes technique "aiki" is that he loses control of his movement at first contact. Like Ueshiba threw Tenryu the sumo tori at first contact, as he threw so many people.

Ueshiba Morihei has been quoted as saying something like, "When he attacks, he throws his spirit away." This has been interpreted to mean that no one can attack without first losing all control of himself. But I think the quote may have been mistranslated.

Katsuyuki Kondo, of daito ryu, demonstrates the ippon dori waza, one of the fundamental essentials of the system which has survived somewhat in aikido.

He said the main quality of this technique is that the opponent loses control over his movement at the instant that he grabs the daito ryu man. The reason is the "aiki age" movement that bends the attacker's wrist back and locks his elbowy, allowing tori to push him up off his balance with small effort.

This is how Ueshiba threw Tenryu. And even if the attacker doesn't become a stumblebum as he reaches for your wrist, he loses the ability to control his movement at the instant of first contact.

Posted by: aikikiai

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/03/05 12:33 PM

Quote:

In aikido, it's "When pushed, turn (tenkan). When pulled, enter (irimi)".

It's interesting to see the same principle (of yin/yang) used differently in Judo - "When pushed, yield (or pull if you prefer). When pulled, push".

I just saw Master of Judo, a really old tape with Kyuzo Mifune, judo 10th dan. There they said the same as aikido: when pushed turn, when pulled, enter (or push--but it means push with the whole body, i.e., "enter").

Quote:

It is also interesing to note that "kuzushi", or the principle of taking someone's balance, is treated very differently in Judo/Jujitsu and Aikido. Judo/Jujitsu tends to work on the principle of mechanical leverage and drawing the opponent's "weight" in 6 or 8 directions (10 if you include up and down).

Aikido tends to use the principle of spherical moment-forces (i.e. centripetal and centrifugal), using the attacker's momentum as the motivating force, and using ki/kokyu extension to control the center.

The lower levels of judo use leverage, etc., to explain techniques, but at higher levels, it's mostly timing, based on "enter when pulled, turn when pushed." In the tape mentioned above, Mifune sensei is shown with a ball, explaining that judo is based on sphericality, completely free movement and an undisturbable center and orientation.

Quote:

Note: when I say "mechanical leverage", I don't necessarily mean using force. Good judo players and jujitsukas are able to affect kuzushi using the principle of mechanical levers and fulcrums to magnify the effect of a (very) small initial force - sometimes by simply using their body weight in the right direction.

That's right. Mochizuki sensei said that Mifune sensei was about equivalent to Morihei Ueshiba in his ability to throw people at will without the uke's being able to feel the technique and resist. And Mifune wasn't doing this with strength because he was a tiny little fellow.

Posted by: aikikiai

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/03/05 12:36 PM

Quote:

2. "Ju" means soft, supple, pliant, yielding. How is the concept of "ju" different to "aiki"?

Ju is compared to a bamboo springing back when bent. As a technical term, it implies building up some resistance. He pushes, you push back, he pushes harder and your yeilding produces great power so that he throws himself.

Posted by: aikikiai

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/03/05 12:50 PM

Quote:

there's a hell of a lot of "aiki" principles int he good boxer when he slips a punch, and then moves in beside the opponent on the weak and blind side, to prepare to deliver his finishing, knockout punch.

That's nothing but aiki.

That's exactly how Morihei Ueshiba handled sword attacks--all those pictures of him standing outside the sword's path, reaching up to uke's head with his folding fan in his hand...

That's what you described, and those photos of Ueshiba are more central to aiki than most people would ever believe.

Posted by: aikikiai

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/03/05 01:07 PM

Quote:

If you can't verbalize it, then half of the teaching delivery is missing.

Well, Morihei Ueshiba seldom explained anything. And if he did, the explanation was usually completely non-rational.

Quote:

I also don't accept the view that "you'll work it out - if you practice long enough". It merely creates the illusory air of mystique that perpertuates much of aikido.

And it shields the fact that most aikido people really don't understand what they're doing. If your teacher doesn't understand what he's doing, practicing longer and longer under him will never bring you closer to understanding. The most important element here is finding a teacher who really knows what he's talking about.

Posted by: glad2bhere

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/17/05 08:53 AM

Dear Wer:

Your post is one of the reasons I have such a soft-spot for Shioda's writing over Saito and many others. There is something very clean about his technical explanations. From a Hapkido POV I can only add that the sort of "mis-direction" (aka: "redirection"; aka: "extension") that he speaks of is only one way of impacting the antagonists neuro-muscular system. To un-balance the antagonist there are also the pre-emptive strikes (J. "atemi"), use of manipulative pressure points, "mis-alignment" (say, by twisting or turning), "un-timing" or "un-focusing" and so forth. Any and all of these can be used to impact the neuro-muscular system of the antagonist following their initiating the attack and so all of these by definition could be "aiki" material. Strictly speaking, in the Hapkido arts, use of physical properties such as leverage, mass, balance and power are typically the domain of yu sool level practice. The effort to unbalance by impacting the neuro-muscular sytem is more the domain of hapkiyusool. In EITHER case, were the technique to be done in response to the antagonists behavior it would be considered "aiki". Were it performed more "pre-emptively" it would be considered "Ki-ai". FWIW.

BTW: Not to put you on the spot but can you (or anyone) speak to the relationship between "tsukuri" and "atemi". My understanding is the "tsukuri" can be as much "positioning" yourself mentally to deal with a conflict as much as positioning oneself physically to initiate a technique or method. Thoughts? Comments?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Posted by: KiDoHae

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/17/05 03:56 PM

This has been a wonderful discussion so far and very informative. One thing that is quite clear to all by now is it is easier to understand what "aiki" is on an intuitive level than being able to articulate what your personal understanding of what it might be. There is also probably a certain bias to that understanding depending on the type of MA practiced.

Earlier on I mentioned "fighting an empty jacket". That was not intended to be cliche' or of some sophmoric understanding. To me it is the epitome of controlling another's power (or effort, or Ki) by yielding to it. This does not mean that the one yeilding is therefore dominated by the attacker, quite the opposite. In other arts, such as hapkido, the "water principle" also amply describes, IMHO, what "aiki" is. It obsorbs, yeilds to, effortlessly evades and eventually overwhelms what comes in contact with it.

While all of this can get bogged down in technical interpretations, nontheless a worthwile effort, I think it's easier to visualize it.

The other night I caught a classic fight on TV between a then young Casius Clay and the Heavy Weight Champ, Archie Moore. Now much older myself I watched the fight with a more expereinced eye. It amazed me to see just how "aiki" Mohammed Ali was. I doubt that at the time he was aware of the term "aiki" but he certainly intuitively grapsed it's essence. It was not perhaps the aiki of aikido, judo, hapkido or other MAs but it was definately "aiki". Ali always bragged that he was "pretty". He said that because there were very few boxers who could lay a glove on him. For all of his attributes his greatness was in the seemingly effortless ability to deflect and evade his opponents. The damage he inflicted on them was most often the result of transitioning through the attack (deflecting, parrying, slipping) and then countering - which strikes me as just being very aiki.

The way I have come to understand what is aiki is rather simple. I'm by no means saying that it is right but as a broad principle it is exploiting your opponents inherent vulnerablity once he has committed to the attack - however that might present itself. It is also not my intention for that to sound so broad as to be meaningless within the context of this discussion. Just as aiki can be demonstrated in boxing, it can be shown in aspects of BJJ, wrestling and MMA also. Understanding, albeit intuitively, what "classical" aiki is can clutter your perception of aiki applied in other arts, especially when the priciple is not an explicit (or implict) aspect of the martial or sportive combatives being applied.

Just a few thoughts.

Posted by: Ubermint

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/17/05 04:34 PM

RE: Fighting an empty jacket.
There are certain people in BJJ, at brown belt level and above (one of whom is my coach) who, when they hold top position, don't actually try to smash you at all. Instead, when you try to push them away, they kind of float, and allow you to push them in that direction. You have to carry their weight, whichever way you push.
For instance, you are under vanilla side control. You push him towards your legs, to try to get him back in your guard.He goes with the push, moving in that direction, as he switched his hips to end up in reverse kesa gatame. Each push is not opposed, but rather he goes in the direction of the push and switches to a controlling position in that direction.
I suppose the closest analogy is surfing. When the wave lifts you up, you let the wave carry you.

Throw the jacket up, and it falls back down on top of you. Did I mention that this jacket is filled with rocks?

Posted by: KiDoHae

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/17/05 06:12 PM

Actually you described it better than I did.

If I read your description right, you are doing all the work, and he is merely countering you by subtly shifting his wieght. The control is not necessarily through his stength at all is it?

Posted by: eyrie

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/17/05 06:38 PM

A half-intelligent and on-topic post for once, Ubermint. I'm stunned, shocked, surprised and repulsed all at once.

Why can't the rest of your posts be like this? It is so much easier to discuss things when you're not being an a$$hole.

Can't you see that we're all really talking about the same thing? Each person having their own perspectives and way of describing it?

Let me ask you this. How does the empty jacket weigh like it's filled with rocks? How does the same empty jacket (which weigh like a ton of rocks), seemingly float away? What mystical trickery is afoot?

Posted by: Ubermint

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/17/05 06:44 PM

Quote:

Actually you described it better than I did.

If I read your description right, you are doing all the work, and he is merely countering you by subtly shifting his wieght. The control is not necessarily through his stength at all is it?

That's right. That's not to say we don't use our strength when attacking somewhere structurally weak, but this approach to holding top position is definetely best for light people, in my opinion. I think Jkogas could probably describe it better than I can.

Posted by: KiDoHae

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/17/05 08:38 PM

Perfect.

I wasn't suggesting that the use of strength is in anyway absent from what is thought to be aiki. The use of strength, this is again a subtle distinction, IMHO is often misunderstood by many practitioners. Strength can also be equated to effort. Not sure if you picked up on it but I usually couch it in terms of "seeming effortlessness". That is to say that there can (is) indeed effort, power, strength, etc., applied to a given technique, at a given time. If you think of it in BJJ terms perhaps it is effort aplpied to "helping" someone along their way. In the distinction of aiki arts the use of your strength, even in a limited way, has the effect of being a multiplier.
The amount of strength applied can be deceptive to the uneducated eye or the inexeperienced. I think there is a misperception that aiki has an absense of the use of strength altogether. IMHO, that is not the case at all. Amongst the various schools of aiki arts the use of strength in applying any number of techniques may be more a matter degree rather than kind. The same holds true for the skill and experience of the individual practitioner also, regradless of the art practiced.

In your example of the BJJ brown belt, while he is controlling you by accepting your actions and shifting his position he is still applying force with his hands and arms to maintain complete control over you, though that might not be constant pressure on his part - because he doesn't have to right? He's smart and will not waste anything - economy of movement. He will also not give you the opportunity to punch the crap out of him either will he. In the broad aiki definition I apply to things he is absorbing whatever you have while on the ground and though he is probably quite able to do so by some other means, he will allow you to beat yourself by simply wearing you down.

Since you mentioned it, JKogas and I have had similar discussions before. He is well respected member and co-modertor with much to offer. He made me re-think a few things myself and look at my own pratice more critically. (Thoughtful exchanges will do that.) Nothing you've brought up is new to most of the people here, although I'm not telling you not to make whatever points or offer any personal insights you might want to. All are welcome. You might to keep that in mind and frame your comments in that context.

Posted by: wer

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/17/05 10:57 PM

Quote:

Your post is one of the reasons I have such a soft-spot for Shioda's writing over Saito and many others. There is something very clean about his technical explanations.

As an engineer, I find Shioda's explanations MUCH easier to follow than O'Sensei's philosophizing. OK, so I'm a Philistine. But once I understand what Shioda's saying, I'm in a better position to get more out of O'Sensei's discussions.

Quote:

BTW: Not to put you on the spot but can you (or anyone) speak to the relationship between "tsukuri" and "atemi". My understanding is the "tsukuri" can be as much "positioning" yourself mentally to deal with a conflict as much as positioning oneself physically to initiate a technique or method. Thoughts? Comments?

It seems to me that "tsukuri" would have to be both mental as well as physical. Everything aiki is both, I think. Atemi isn't just whacking someone; it's also kuzushi, certainly mental/emotional and often physical. Kuzushi will fail if you don't have sufficient tsukuri; so I'd expect you need good tsukuri (all aspects) before your successful kake, be it atemi or some other sort of kuzushi.

Anyone else?

Posted by: Ubermint

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/18/05 04:26 AM

Quote:

Let me ask you this. How does the empty jacket weigh like it's filled with rocks?

Because it doesn't attempt to stand up or push you onto the ground. It just allows you to stay on the ground.

Quote:

How does the same empty jacket (which weigh like a ton of rocks), seemingly float away? What mystical trickery is afoot?

Because I pushed it up there. This is not to say he actually gives you any SPACE. He stays glued to you, but still going where you push him, etc and you're still suffocating.
Or maybe my teacher is a floating tentacle beast. And me in my sailor fuku...

Posted by: xuzen_628

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/18/05 06:24 AM

eyrie said, "What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"?"

Hello fellow aiki enthusiast,

I have ponder for a little while over the above question, and I have come out with the little statement below:

"Aikido technique is basically jujutsu technique that utilizes aiki principle. Aiki principle is not fighting with the opponent but by simple being not there to fight with him; what is not there, he cannot target; what he cannot target he cannot harm, what he cannot harm, he cannot create animosity towards, an absence of animosity is amicability. if we take amicability further we might just create harmony.

So aikido technique is unique because it allows the user to create harmony even with his opponent."

This is what i think is a suitable reply to the above question.

Boon.

Posted by: eyrie

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/18/05 08:44 AM

Quote:

Because it doesn't attempt to stand up or push you onto the ground. It just allows you to stay on the ground.

Because I pushed it up there. This is not to say he actually gives you any SPACE. He stays glued to you, but still going where you push him, etc and you're still suffocating.
Or maybe my teacher is a floating tentacle beast. And me in my sailor fuku...

You answer reveals the shallow depth of your understanding of how it works. How does it allow you to stay on the ground? How does it "float"? By using what describable physical phenomena? It's not imaginary "ki" force or mythical beasts, but describable physical phenomena.

OK, let's try it another way, if I can take your mind off ground techniques for a moment, think of doing BJJ standing up, what have you got?

Apart from the fact that you lose the use of 2 appendages, (i.e. your feet as hands, since they're now gripping the ground), what have you got? If it helps, imagine your back to the wall, and you're standing up, now describe how this works using BJJ?

Now I know that somewhere underneath your arrogant ignorance is an intelligent person, so don't disappoint me.

It's not difficult. But it requires you to think 3 dimensionally and spatially. I know you can do it. Just need to get off the ground and think on your feet.

Posted by: glad2bhere

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/18/05 09:58 AM

There was an intersting bit on TV this morning as settlers/protesters were being removed from a temple in Gaza. The soldiers were being subjected to considerable stress by the demonstrators but seemed to "roll" with what was happening. In response I noticed that army and police individuals did not use batons and tear gas to break-up the group in the synagogue but used simple grappling to cut out a particular individual from the group on the floor, and carry that person off --- four security people to a protester. I veiwed this as very "aiki". Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Posted by: MattJ

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/18/05 12:01 PM

Gak. I have to agree with Uber on the "floating" aspect of BJJ. I can not describe it any better than he did, but I do think it is "aiki" in concept, as has been discussed here. The "empty jacket" is an apt analogy of what a good grappler is like, when on top.

However, let's keep this upright, like Eyrie said. What about the Chi Sao aspect of Wing Chun? While focusing pretty much on the arms (as WC is a fairly linear style), the same idea of shifting non-resistance is worked to a high degree. Thoughts?

Posted by: eyrie

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/18/05 06:31 PM

How to describe how something "floats"? Archimedes did.
How to describe how something sinks. Newton and Galileo did.

Otherwise isn't that a little "esoteric" and therefore bullshido?

If you can't explain it in physical terms and have to rely on "esoteric" meaning and analogy does it make the explanation less valid? As long as meaning is conveyed and mutual understanding is reached, does it matter if the explanation is "non-technical"?

Sticking, floating, sinking are common principles in many MA.
Not just with the hands, but with the whole body.

Posted by: Diga

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/18/05 06:45 PM

WOW again, Eyrie....You really have one going here.
At this time I am not able to read all 10 pages so I will be brief just incase someone has already mentioned this.

One difference I have found in Aikido and most orher M/arts is what I will call "METERING".

Because you know how to blend and enter with someone you also know how much pressure to apply to a manouver. Most other arts are geared toward the hardest hit or kick wins.

It is the metering that allows an Aikidoist ( is that a word ?) to turn someone else's power into their own demise.

Posted by: wer

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/18/05 07:13 PM

Quote:

How to describe how something "floats"? Archimedes did.
How to describe how something sinks. Newton and Galileo did.

Otherwise isn't that a little "esoteric" and therefore bullshido?

If you can't explain it in physical terms and have to rely on "esoteric" meaning and analogy does it make the explanation less valid? As long as meaning is conveyed and mutual understanding is reached, does it matter if the explanation is "non-technical"?

Sticking, floating, sinking are common principles in many MA.
Not just with the hands, but with the whole body.

But when we say something "floats" in MA, we're not talking about Archimedean displacement of an equal volume of water. If I "float" someone in Aikido it means my center of mass is lower than his and just as he is at the top of his trajectory so he's going neither up nor down I apply a force upward in the direction he had been travelling. Right?

Posted by: MattJ

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/18/05 07:31 PM

Eyrie -

I think you may have misunderstood me. I was not saying that floating/sinking could not be explained. I just said that I could not explain them very well.

"Floating" in the MA sense, I believe refers to the concept of staying mobile and allowing the opponent's momentum to dictate your responses.

"Sinking" in the MA sense, refers to being rooted and stable, using your momentum (stopping or starting) to dictate your opponent's responses.

Not quite what Archimedes or Newton had in mind, but close enough.

I think it is fair to say that many arts use these concepts. Are the other arts "aiki" or are there other fundamental differences that I am missing?

Posted by: eyrie

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/18/05 08:30 PM

Good posts from everyone. This is to get you thinking. You think and verbalize. I read, think and verbalize. Sometimes you'll mention something in a different way that gets other people thinking. It's all good.

Quote:

I think you may have misunderstood me. I was not saying that floating/sinking could not be explained. I just said that I could not explain them very well.

My apologies. I did understand you. I was simply stirring our friend.

Quote:

"Floating" in the MA sense, I believe refers to the concept of staying mobile and allowing the opponent's momentum to dictate your responses.

"Sinking" in the MA sense, refers to being rooted and stable, using your momentum (stopping or starting) to dictate your opponent's responses.

wer said it best.

It's not meant to be explained in terms of Archimedian displacement. It was a red herring on my part. (See: "Sh!t-stirring")

"Floating" means to ride the wave. "Sinking" means to plant your weight. "Sticking" means to stick like glue.

Now, can these be described in more precise technical terms that involve physical laws? This is the challenge...

Or are we forced to face the fact that some of these things defy explanation and therefore, its meaning can only be "pointed at" thru analogy and metaphors?

Quote:

I think it is fair to say that many arts use these concepts. Are the other arts "aiki" or are there other fundamental differences that I am missing?

I think this is the whole point. "aiki" is not the sole domain of the "aiki" arts. It is a way (i.e. an explicit path/means) to see and experience "aiki" in everything.

Posted by: KiDoHae

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/18/05 09:24 PM

Hmmmmm....

I had not intended to return to Mohammed Ali but "floating" is more about imagery, as much as technical interpretation. Each of us seems to need one, the other, and some both. Ali is best known for his own description of himself - to "Float like a butterfly and sting like a bee." Floating evokes a sense of effortless, even grace. Translating it to a mechanical action, with the same visualization, will require more word-smithing than your's truly can muster at the moment.

Posted by: glad2bhere

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/18/05 09:47 PM

".....If I "float" someone in Aikido it means my center of mass is lower than his and just as he is at the top of his trajectory so he's going neither up nor down I apply a force upward in the direction he had been travelling...."

Dear Wer:

With the fervent prayer that I can stay with this discussion, are you familiar with the training flights astronauts take in which the large plane in which they are riding performs an aerial maneuver such that the astronauts become weightless? Is this the sort of "flow" you are alluding to in your post? Are you espousing targeting the optimal point in time and space, or are you suggesting that one "accompany" their antagonist TO that point and then exploit it to accomplish the technique? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Posted by: eyrie

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/18/05 10:56 PM

Ah....imagery of words to evoke meaning....

Such is the nature of language. Sometimes language conciseness can evoke as much imagery. (Anyone studied Shakespeare?)

Quote:

Floating evokes a sense of effortless, even grace.

Quote:

...an aerial maneuver such that the astronauts become weightless?

"Floating" = weightless is probably a more apt description. Unfortunately, as we are bound by the laws of gravity, at some point the person must succumb to such law.

Quote:

Are you espousing targeting the optimal point in time and space, or are you suggesting that one "accompany" their antagonist TO that point and then exploit it to accomplish the technique?

If I can answer this for wer (excuse the boldness). The answer is YES to both, but exploiting the law of gravity at that point in time and space, in such a way that it would seem "effortless" on our part.

Posted by: wer

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/18/05 11:03 PM

Quote:

It's not meant to be explained in terms of Archimedian displacement. It was a red herring on my part.

Yup, I caught that red herring (but you shoulda seen the one that got away!) but decided to go ahead anyway since I was pretty sure I could explain "floating" with real physics. If you agree that my proposed situation is what you mean by "floating", I consider my description sufficient since I could write out the equations governing the motion.

Sinking, though. Now that's harder to explain, which is why I left it as an exercise for the reader. But since the alternative is that I do useful work this evening, I'm going to take a stab at it.

"Sinking" is planting your weight. But how, exactly, does one do that? My tai chi teacher says you do so by "rooting," picturing your feet as connected to the ground and feeling the chi flowing through the ground and your feet. But he's also a kenpo man, and so demonstrated and clearly explained that the physical situation during this "rooting" is that you bend your knees more than they had been and drop your center of mass lower than usual or, more to the point, lower than that of your opponent. If you are both standing, this would entail flexing the knees and "dropping the hips" (which just seems to be tucking in the tailbone while bending those knees and keeping an upright posture). Your weight would be centered on your feet in a very stable stance, not up on your toes or rocked back on your heels, and your posture would be very upright as if you had a pole going straight from the top of your head down your spine into the ground (standard good Aikido posture).

How about if you're grappling? One example of "dropping" might be if you are in his guard (he's on the bottom) and you move so the vector that is perpendicular to the ground and goes down through your center of mass goes directly through his center of mass on the way to the ground. And, your center of mass is placed as close to his as possible. In this way, you add your weight to his in the the most effective way.

Both of these are easily quantifiable descriptions of what "sinking" is. Do these situations cover your idea of "sinking," or are there others we should consider? And do you think there's something quantifiable that I've left out of the descriptions? Finally, do you think we CAN describe "sinking" in terms of pure physics with no visualization or discussion of chi?

Posted by: wer

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/18/05 11:08 PM

Quote:

".....If I "float" someone in Aikido it means my center of mass is lower than his and just as he is at the top of his trajectory so he's going neither up nor down I apply a force upward in the direction he had been travelling...."

Dear Wer:

With the fervent prayer that I can stay with this discussion, are you familiar with the training flights astronauts take in which the large plane in which they are riding performs an aerial maneuver such that the astronauts become weightless? Is this the sort of "flow" you are alluding to in your post? Are you espousing targeting the optimal point in time and space, or are you suggesting that one "accompany" their antagonist TO that point and then exploit it to accomplish the technique? Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

eyrie beat me to it. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Does that agree with your views?

Posted by: glad2bhere

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/19/05 08:25 AM

".....Does that agree with your views?...."

Yes, it does, but not, perhaps the way you might think. In the Hapkido arts this skill MAY develop at higher levels but it is not something that we pursue or focus on specifically. For instance, during a recent series of seminars in Australia, Dojunim Kim (Yong Sul Kwan) demonstrated a very high level of "aiki" work which many times seemed to border on the incredulous. While I deeply respect his skill level, for myself I do not aspire to such skills. At the yu sool level of Hapkido I focus on polishing my use of simple Newtonian physics to accomplish a successful technique. At the hapkiyusool level I see to facilitate my techniques by impacting or exploit the use of my antagonists neuro-muscular system. I am not saying what you are describing is not a fair goal or that I would resist the development of such skill. What I think I am sensing is that the actual returns on being able to accomplish such skill may not justify the time and effort necessary to take my practice to that level. Hope this came out right.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Posted by: eyrie

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/19/05 07:20 PM

It seems like you are drawing a distinction between "aiki" and a high level of skill. Whilst most people would feel like you do, that such a level of skill is not something that they would aspire to, it is nonetheless implied specifically in most "aikido" and from what I gather, explicitly taught as a set curriculum in the parent art Daito-ryu (aiki-no-waza).

It also appears that you are drawing a distinction between what you focus on at the "do" level and "jitsu" (yusool) level, albeit from a structural physical perspective.

Whilst I generally agree that this is a sound approach to understanding the technical principles, as one should if approaching the art from a "jitsu" perspective, but I believe that the "do" expression completes the "circle" - as it were.

I've said this before in other threads, I think you need a balance of both "do" and "jitsu" to be a more complete MAist.

Can I ask what was so incredulous about Dojonim Kim's "aiki" work? What is it about his level of expression makes you draw that distinction?

Posted by: glad2bhere

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 08/19/05 09:42 PM

Dear Eyrie:

".....Can I ask what was so incredulous about Dojonim Kim's "aiki" work? What is it about his level of expression makes you draw that distinction?...."

{Here Bruce is observed to enter a minefield.

}

For my part I have always drawn a distinction between physical attributes and those qualities of execution which transcend common practice. Had it been I on the mat performing for the attendees I could have done a few of the things that Dojunim Kim did, but would have worked much, much harder. But there was something else. True, all of his technique was in response to a committed attack, which would satisfy my original definition of "aiki". However, beyond that there were techniques which he accomplished that directly related to exploiting that "teetering" point mentioned earlier that allowed him to hold and lead his attacker in a way I am still working to understand. In those instances what he was doing was plainly beyond my skill level.

I think I also need to point out that my conclusions about the nature of "aiki" vis "kiai" is not a function of Dojunim Kims work. Rather I continue to pursue this as part and parcel of my own personal study. Having spent years in Hapkido watching people make much of what I have discerned to be little more than high quality "yawara" it was an eye-opener to find an individual, a native Korean, who has taken it upon himself to press the evolution of the Hapkido arts to a higher level. However, there is a mountain of material at the yawara level that one could pursue and make a career of as has my teacher, Myung Kwang Sik. Add to this yet another layer of technical proficiency with hapkiyusool and the challenge can be all but overwhelming. In the kwan to which I belong I would like to begin to teach some of the material Dojunim Kim has shared, but it would require a separate portion of the curriculum off by itself to do it justice. But, if there were any place to make practical use of all the great information that has been exchanged on this thread THAT would be the place to do it. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Posted by: wer

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 09/02/05 01:02 PM

The more I think about it and read O'Sensei's writing (the thread's petering out, but that's not stopping me!), the more I think it's that cultivation of sensitivity to uke's intent that makes it aiki. Or at least, that makes it aiki not ju.

Anyone else?

Posted by: eyrie

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 09/02/05 08:13 PM

Please, don't let this thread petering out stop you.

One of the best imagery I can think of is like bamboo swaying in the breeze, as opposed to bamboo bending from the weight of snow on it's leaves.

Posted by: wer

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 09/02/05 10:21 PM

Quote:

One of the best imagery I can think of is like bamboo swaying in the breeze, as opposed to bamboo bending from the weight of snow on it's leaves.

Bamboo swaying in the breeze sounds like tai chi (which has been called Chinese aikido) -- but unless the bamboo whips back smacking something or pulls something with it when it gets blown, you've only described the yielding part or "roll back." Do you have any images for me that complete the picture?

Posted by: eyrie

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 09/04/05 06:00 AM

Why does it have to (whip back or pull)?

How is that in harmony with nature?

Posted by: wer

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 09/04/05 08:09 AM

Quote:

Why does it have to (whip back or pull)?

How is that in harmony with nature?

If all I do is roll back (talking tai chi terminology again, I lack the vocabulary in aikido) like bamboo in a breeze, how can I discuss any technique? Unless you are discussing just the receipt of technique, nage has to do something other than roll back. In some way, nage must engage uke.

Unless you're going the "avoiding a fight is the highest level of aikido" route -- but that can't be the only way to definine aiki technique as "aiki" since it describes just "roll back" (or "fade away" or "don't be there" or "be insubstantial" or maybe "silk reeling") -- you must find a way to describe an aiki engagement in order to find something compatible with all aiki technique.

If you want to stick with your waving bamboo as your overall image representing aikido technique, how would you make it fit with irimi (entering and engagement)?

Don't get me wrong, I like the image and find it very aiki; I just can't figure out how to extend it beyond the yin, to the essential irimi.

Posted by: csinca

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 09/04/05 03:09 PM

Because you have to restore harmony...

The bamboo intends to grow straight and true, but other forces around it cause it to shift, sway etc... But by swaying, the bamboo is continually going into and out of it's state of harmony (vertical). If it just bent and stayed bent, then it would never again be in its state of harmony

Or something like that...

Chris

Posted by: eyrie

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 09/04/05 09:25 PM

You are right, there needs to be a yang aspect as well in order for "harmony" to be restored. But the way I see the yang aspect manifested isn't necessarily in "whipping" back, "pushing", or "pulling". These descriptions, the way I see it, are "low" level expressions.

But without getting into a discussion of "ki" and "kokyu" (although it is essential to discussing "aiki" technique within the context of yin/yang), perhaps if I alluded to the "8 powers" it may make more sense, and may extend the discussion in other ways.

Different authors discuss the 8 powers differently. But they are merely different expressions of the same 4 polarities, which form the basis of many Chinese arts with Taoist and Buddhist influences (taiji for example).

Bill Gleason's "Spiritual Foundations of Aikido" talks about the 8 powers in the Omoto-kyo paradigm:

Movement/Rest
Push outward/Stabilize (I prefer "expand" to "push")
Extend/Pull inward (I prefer "draw" to "pull")
Unify/Separate

(I don't want to get into any extended discussion of the relevance of Omoto-kyo other than to say that much of its influence comes from esoteric Shigon Buddhism and thus the origin of the 8 powers within that paradigm).

John Stevens, in the Philosophy of Aikido, refers to these as:
Movement/Calm
Release/Solidification (tension?) [inverted?]
Contraction/Expansion
Unification/Division

Bear in mind that these polarities are in themselves different expressions of yin/yang.

Let's take "Separation" or "Division" as a basic concept and discussion within the context of a technique. Tenchi-nage (heaven/earth throw) is a basic technique which elucidates the foundational principle of separating. (Obviously it incorporates other principles, and I would go so far as to say it incorporates elements of all 8 powers, but the heart of tenchi is both unification and separation, the "balance" of which results in "harmony").

Back to the swaying bamboo idea... when the wind quells, the bamboo is returned to its normal upright posture. However, for us to discuss any meaningful technical aiki interpretation, the roles must change, and the bamboo becomes the wind, and the wind becomes the bamboo.

Hence the notion of who is "applying" and "receiving" the technique - uke or nage? (But let's not get into that right now...)

Posted by: wer

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 09/04/05 10:07 PM

Quote:

...However, for us to discuss any meaningful technical aiki interpretation, the roles must change, and the bamboo becomes the wind, and the wind becomes the bamboo.

Hence the notion of who is "applying" and "receiving" the technique - uke or nage? (But let's not get into that right now...)

That's fine, we do switch roles as we exchange technique, so that makes perfect sense. So I believe you're saying that the bamboo returning to its undisplaced position is being yang and is forcing the air to move, which is true. This is a perfect description of technique where uke and nage are perfectly matched and neither is able to beat the other -- like "push hands" in tai chi if it's a stalemate and neither is able to unbalance the other, the pair is perfectly matched and each flows with the other's motion and counters perfectly with no wasted effort.

But how would you extend the idiom (or replace it with another image) to discuss the successful application of a technique? Bamboo and wind are perfectly matched; but in aikido, one person can succeed in taking down the other rather than staying in a perfectly matched stalemate. So what image to you use for that? The 8 powers help us understand ... well ... the 8 powers; but they don't help me see how your idiom can be extended to, say, uke's being taken down by tenchi nage.

Now, it's possible that I'm being annoyingly overprecise in my consideration of the physics here; because when I think of wind and bamboo, I know that unless the wind changes direction all the bamboo can do is go back to pretty much where it was when the wind dies down. The motion's a bit more complicated, but basically it's like when you displace and let go of a pendulum, and all it can do is come back to its starting point. That may be in harmony with nature, but it's really boring if you're trying to see how it could be used in aiki technique.

I suppose if I think of the wind as getting really strong, it would bend the bamboo enough that when the wind stopped the bamboo would indeed whip back with significant force. Is that what you are thinking for the application of a technique (e.g. irimi nage or tenchi nage), or does your image remain the gentle waving one you seemed to be describing in your original description?

Posted by: eyrie

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 09/05/05 03:59 AM

Quote:

But how would you extend the idiom (or replace it with another image) to discuss the successful application of a technique? Bamboo and wind are perfectly matched; but in aikido, one person can succeed in taking down the other rather than staying in a perfectly matched stalemate. So what image to you use for that? The 8 powers help us understand ... well ... the 8 powers; but they don't help me see how your idiom can be extended to, say, uke's being taken down by tenchi nage.

Only because uke is in a precarious position that does not allow him to respond to the continually changing balance between the extremes of yin and yang. Even as uke is in the process of receiving ukemi, they should (if they are good ukes), be able to reverse the polarity of any of the 8 extremes.

I agree, the imagery is that of "perfect synchronicity". It was not my intention to suggest otherwise.

In an unevenly matched scenario, the imagery I would use would be that of a rock being thrown against the wind or skipping it on a pond. Note the rock is only acted upon by gravity or tangential forces to its movement and does not suggest any interaction other than this.

Quote:

Now, it's possible that I'm being annoyingly overprecise in my consideration of the physics here; because when I think of wind and bamboo, I know that unless the wind changes direction all the bamboo can do is go back to pretty much where it was when the wind dies down.

Not at all (annoyingly pendantic).

Are you looking at the bamboo as uke or nage? Is the bamboo (nage) being caressed by the wind (uke) or does the wind (nage) try to move the bamboo (uke)?

Quote:

I suppose if I think of the wind as getting really strong, it would bend the bamboo enough that when the wind stopped the bamboo would indeed whip back with significant force. Is that what you are thinking for the application of a technique (e.g. irimi nage or tenchi nage), or does your image remain the gentle waving one you seemed to be describing in your original description?

Well, it depends on how strong that wind is blowing. I'm not talking hurricane Katrina here... but when there is a lull in the wind, is when it changes "shape" and returns to the obverse aspect (yin/yang). The difference between a person and vegetation is that the person does not necessarily have to be rooted to one spot - the point of rooting oneself to the ground is mutable.

In terms of a technique like irimi nage, the point at which uke's force has reached its limit of extension, is when the movement changes from yin to yang. e.g. from a straight punch to the face, you ride uke's movement (drawing in), and as uke has reached the point where his force starts to dissipate, you enter in over the top and catch his chin/neck/face with the forearm like a hook, such that his momentum carries his feet forward. By adding "kokyu" to the throw as you enter, you add yang to where he is yin. And if his ukemi is really good, he would be able to change the shape of the movement. If not, then he gets "clotheslined" and falls.

How much "kokyu" depends on how stong the uke's attack is - usually much less "force" is required the stronger the attacker - again the balance of forces between yin and yang. Or in taiji terms, 4oz of force to move 100lbs of weight.

Tenchi-nage has more variables in play, not just splitting the center up and down but also drawing it in and spiralling out. To borrow the earlier imagery, it is like the bamboo bending with (drawing in) the wind, but turning and expanding out, whilst splitting the power of the wind up and down, in and out, so that the effect of the wind is nullified.

If the wind has weight, however, then it drops to the ground like everything else does, that is subject to the laws of gravity.

Posted by: KiDoHae

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 09/07/05 08:32 PM

Pretty nice!

The willow v. the oak is perhaps just a helpful. One that yeilds and one that does not. Same storm, different outcomes.

Earlier on I mentioned that aiki does involve the use of force that is complimentary and thus acts as a mulitplier. There may be a subtle difference in philosophy here between a hapkido practitioner and an aikidoka. I may not be able to break a shaft of bamboo on my own, but might find it easy if doing it while the wind has done most of the work. Metaphorically, "the wind" can be a substitue for the energy (ki) projected by the attacker.

Is this helpful? Or am I off target?

Posted by: eyrie

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 09/08/05 07:02 PM

Metaphorically...I would concur.

Not just complimentary, but also contradictory.

Posted by: KiDoHae

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 09/08/05 07:27 PM

Does an aiki technique involve the use of force?

Posted by: wer

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 09/08/05 08:50 PM

Quote:

Does an aiki technique involve the use of force?

Here I go getting all engineery and pedantic again:

Yes, aiki technique involves the use of force since force is just any mass accelerating (speeding up) any amount, F=ma. You add your force to his -- e.g. he's moving towards you, you exert a small force in the same direction to pull him.

But, if you try to force a technique to work, "forcing it" or using "brute force" to make your opponent move the way you want, that's not aiki.

Posted by: KiDoHae

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 09/09/05 06:25 PM

Understood, but lets be more pendantic....

I think I jumped back in around the "ying/yang" discussion. The concept presupposes A naturally occurring balance. The wind blows the bamboo bends. You push, I pull or better yet I yeild - like the bamboo. Nothing has upset that balance. The force of the wind is not constant, therefore the bamboo responds and sways effortlessly with the ever changing changing force of the wind.

Although aiki seems to presuppose the same principle, to a degree, the practioner actaully seeks to only be in this same state for a moment, perhaps a few. Ultimately I wnat to upset that balance and take advantage of my opponents energy. When I do that when does it stop being aiki?

Posted by: eyrie

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 09/10/05 08:31 PM

Stictly speaking? Yes.

However, it is not only (as wer says) adding a smaller force to the larger force (of uke who is attacking properly), but also "leading" the force ("yielding" is a way of "leading") - and in that respect, it is similar to the taiji principle of using 4oz of force to deflect 1000lbs of force.

Here's a section from Cheng-Tzu's Treatise on Taiji that may help elucidate what is meant by the preceeding statement:

Quote:

...When they use 1000lbs to attack, they have a direction. If the attack is straight, I use 4oz to lead the end of his hand [could be any part of the body?]. I follow his tendency and shift to the diagonal direction [yielding the body?]. This is an example of leading. After his force dissipates [yang to yin?], I push him [yin to yang?]....The power of the push [fa-jing?] is then up to me. The power of the leading force should not be excessive or else the opponent will intuit it and be able to mobilize and escape. On occasion I can use the leading force to change his direction [principle of leading control] and attack him. If he detects my lead [i.e. I mis-timed the movement] he will store up his force and not advance. When he stores up his force his tendency is to withdraw [yang to yin]. Follow his withdrawal, give up the leading force [yin to yang?], and discharge [fa-jing?] him....

The way I read this, is that "fa-jing" (release of energy) in taiji is not so dissimilar to how one would use "force" (i.e. "kokyu") in aiki. For the engineering minded, the imagery is that of a loaded spring or a drawn bow releasing potential (stored) energy, where such release of energy occurs through the weak points of the adversary's structural balance.

The more I think about it, the fundamental tactical difference between "ju" and "aiki" is that "ju" is more focussed on manipulating weaknesses in the anatomical structure through nerves, bones, joints and ligaments to affect the internal energy potential of the attacker, whereas "aiki" focuses mainly on external vector forces in relation to the entire anatomical structure (of the attacker).

At least, how I see it at the moment.

Posted by: wer

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 09/10/05 10:06 PM

Quote:

The more I think about it, the fundamental tactical difference between "ju" and "aiki" is that "ju" is more focussed on manipulating weaknesses in the anatomical structure through nerves, bones, joints and ligaments to affect the internal energy potential of the attacker, whereas "aiki" focuses mainly on external vector forces in relation to the entire anatomical structure (of the attacker).

Yes! I agree, that seems just right. Thanks for providing a good thread for us to hash out our ideas.

Now, about that windy bamboo image -- do you have any good ju vs aiki images for us to kick around?

Posted by: eyrie

Re: What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"? - 09/11/05 07:16 PM

The commonly used analogy of "ju" is that of running water flowing around a rock. I prefer the surfing analogy - not that I can surf or have ever surfed.

What makes an "aiki" technique, "aiki"?