Aikido Atemi

A question. I have been told (although I am not sure I believe it) that O-sensei said Aikido was 70% Atemi. If this is the case, why isn't more taught? The only knowledge I have of correct Atemi has come from book, which rarely provide enough information for my liking. I know of the Metsubushi, and that O-sensei's favoured method of Atemi was a head-butt, but I have no further information on the subject.

If anybody can further explain the correct use of atemi, or has any experience to share about specialised Atemi training it would be much appreciated.

Cheers

IMHO, atemi is used as or like a strike. When used with the correct timing, the uke's (opponent) momentum is interrupted by their flinching away from the atemi making it enough to throw the uke. Is his older tapes O'Sensei seemed to throw by raising an arm. Some called it ki, others called it timing. But first, learn the waza (techniques).

Lynn Tenshinkai Aikido/Lucylucay Kali

'We do not rise to the level of our expectations. We fall to the level of our training.' Train well. KWATZ!
http://members.aol.com/SeiserL/index.html

I can not speak to the point of what O-Sensei or Metsubushi may have said or taught. As to why atemi is not used more often in a training situation? Well I would say because it is quite difficult to perform a proper atemi at the proper time. I personally feel that is should be saved and introduced once a basic form has been learned and the concept of extention and timing have been understood and used. Other wise I picture Aikido students learning to strike as they go threw a throw rather than use a proper atemi and that will have profound effects on the uke and the throw.

Despair

What you say is exactly why training in atemi should start early and in very basic practice. Atemi should be part of extention and timing - not something that is 'tacked on' later. It is common in advanced practice to skip the atemi (which often happens at the first moment) and rush to the throw. By incorporating atemi at the most basic level of practice the ability to see openings and possibilities for atemi (or strikes if necessary) grows as skill levels increase. Aikido movements and techniques can lose a lot of martial meaning if the atemis are not an integral part of keeping uke off balance and worried about not getting hit.

If solid atemi is used against someone without martial awareness the consequences can be quite real. A case of 'Honest - he tried to hit me so I moved and he ran right into my fist '.

No matter how advanced one's aikido training is - it all comes back to basics,nage's blending, nage's good posture, and breaking uke's balance. Atemi should be part of basic practice starting from the beginning.

I would disagree with that, respectfully. Yoshinkan shite/uke training in the basic techniques incorporates atemi through-out almost all of the training. Because the techniques are handed down by high level instructors, with a little experience, you can begin to see some of the principles involved in using atemi in your aikido. I think that if you stick with the basic premise that you should always be balanced, and, from the initial moment of contact, your uke off-balance, then you can see where atemi might be placed effectively.

There are some techiniques where you can easily feel a gap, or opening. One example is in yokomenuchi, ayate yoke, kotegaishinage ichi (side strike, cross arm block, kotegaishi throw number one).

Aihamni stance (both partners in right stance)

uke side strikes with lead hand,

shite pivots 45 to 90 degrees and blocks with the lead hand, taking uke off balance, cross-steps in outside of ukes striking arm and pivots 180 degrees.

As you cross-step in and pivot, the left hand comes over uke's hand, to cut their striking hand down to your center, and get the kotegaishi grip. You have one hand over, and one hand under their arm to aid in the trap.

With that grip, after the 180 degree pivot, openstep toward uke, either turning the wrist out with your open step for more of a wrist throw, or more into uke's shoulder to lock their shoulder, and control their center more.

If you do not apply an atemi with the open step, uke has a space where they can strike, kick, or simply ram you with their shoulder if your movement has not lead them off balance enough. They could also apply kaishiwaza and perform an iriminage, or step-in-throw (especially against the wrist throw if their shoulder is not locked).

Techniques related to this movement in almost every style of aikido I am familiar with use some kind of atemi or atemi like movement to fill this gap. The body movement of open-stepping, the leading of uke into the strike, and the power of the strike itself all add to the power of the atemi. Properly done, its like running into a wall for uke.

On the other hand, to simply take a style of aikido that doesn't use strikes and add strikes willy-nilly will *not* have the same effect, IMHO.

Ron Tisdale

Before you buy.

eserve.co.uk> writes

I've heard 70% and 90% quoted but I've no strong views on atemi in aikido, nor received any 'from the horse's mouth, genuine original, one and only' teachings about it. However, here are some thoughts.

One of the disadvantages of punching is that to become good at it requires long and hard training and even those who *are* good at it will usually admit that they'd be extremely lucky if they finished a fired-up assailant with one or even two shots. To *concentrate* too much on atemi would probably thus be pointless for weaker students who could never achieve this standard and might actually put them off developing their throwing techniques which they *could* use as effectively as a stronger person.

I have always assumed that the comment referred to the use of atemi (or threat of it) as a means of disturbing the attacker's balance to both unsettle the attack and set him/her up for a throw and, when stepping in, I always keep punching opportunities in mind. This, I think, is the best use of atemi in aikido. That's not to say that a little punching practice would not go amiss for anyone - at the least it's useful 'release' training for the more reticent students. And, of course, if you are good at it, then it'll unsettle an opponent even more.

Another problem with too much specific atemi training is that punches have to be pulled and this leads to false training, something that is already a serious problem in aikido practice.

Cheers

Roger Taylor

Rich,

Saito's books on Aikido contain a quote that says something like 90% of Aikido is hitting. I can't remember which book it was in the series, nor the exact quote.

Nor do I know specifically what kind of hits.

My guess is he eliminated much of the hits because they were dangerous in practice.

B-b-b-but Steve,

THAT doesn't sound so loving and harmonious to me!!

Yes, may people forget that one.

The assumption is also that the attacker is of a Japaneese art. I find Akido has no defenses for much of the Western and FMA/IMA stuff.

What if the grab lasted <.5 sec and was to perform a petjut type movement to lead into head manipulation? Or is was just to touch-reference for the elbowstrike to the arm. Most IMA reaction to the other arm moving would be to let go and attack the other arm.

I really have been meaning to play with some more Akidoka, I like their movement (it's similar to the way our school moves the first 1-2 years)

Care to elaborate? And how could you know? Do you go around attacking high level aikidoka in alleys?

Beginner's classes are for practicing beginner techniques. Obviously beginners are not great at defending against real attacks, so the attacks in beginner classes are somewhat limited.

One way or another, he had to close on you, move to grab you, and get close enough to grab. If you stand there with your eyes closed, that is one thing, but it is not aikido. If you start reaching for an aikidoka, you better start ducking atemi at the same time.

Will aikido always prevail? Probably not, but there is nothing fundamentally lacking in its defense. I believe it is a mistake to think of fighting as a bunch of little tricks and defenses against them. If you perceive fighting that way, someone will always have a new trick that will defeat you. Aikido, and Japanese arts in general, as most other serious arts see attack and defense as larger patterns. In aikido, the key aspect is the close of ma ai (meeting distance). If you allow someone go get close to you, there really is no defense. No person can react fast enough, and no art can deflect an unseen three inch stab.

Hmm. As mentioned above the aikido approach is to attack your face. You are saying that the way aikidoka move for the first 10 to 20 years is the same way as your school moves for the first 1-2 years?

Why is it always one art against another? Maybe, for example, 1-on-1 an equally ranked BJJ guy against an Aikidoka, the BJJ guy would overpower..... I don't know, I haven't heard of it happening (remember I said equally ranked and even that has little meaning). Different arts for different applications. Relatively speaking, how would a BJJ guy go against multiple attackers with weapons, say, swords? From my understanding, relatively poorly. 'Going to ground' is suicide.....great for 1-on-1 however!! If he knew how to disarm one of the attackers, would he know how to use the sword? Therefore, different arts for different applications. What is more likely, meeting a BJJ guy in a 'bad mood' who wants to harm someone unprovoked (despite his training being for self-defence, supposedly) or meeting a group of young guys, a couple of them with knives who want to start a fight? I would say at least 10,000 to 1!!! So for the more likely situation, I choose the more effective/efficient art.