I can see what you mean, I didn't phrase that properly. I'm talking about the realism of application at the beginning of an attack, the recieving/entry into an attack, not the finishing of a technique to disable someone.

Practically I don't see what any difference that makes. If I as "uke" attempt to hit you and you don't respond appropriately, you'll get hit. Bearing in mind, the distinction between uke and nage/tori/shi'te is arbitrary and solely for learning purposes. The fact that I pull the strike to avoid smashing the bridge of your nose, or collarbone, within a training context, is a matter of control. Irrespective, the "attack" could be a sloppy, limp-wristed "wet lettuce" for all I care... the redirection of energy (i.e force) in such a way that it affects uke's structural integrity is essentially the same. I cannot see why it would be different, except in terms of degree of subtlety.

The only difference seems to be an implication that "realistic" equates to intent. Why not just call it "intent" then?


This goes back to dealing with unpredictable attacks from someone defending themselves as well as attacking. More like training with a sparring partner, not an uke.

Grady has mentioned this before too... if uke changes, you have to change up. It would be silly, not to mention, un-aikido to force the technique where it is obviously not going to work.

The issue I have with this is, in learning mode, changing up to foil the "technique" robs nage of the learning experience. It also robs uke of a valuable learning experience... that of learning how to read nage's "holes".


I do make the distinction in my previous post's, that there is definetly not only room for both, but a need for both.

Obviously... but it is also dependent on the individual's level of skill and ability.