JohnC

The main issue with the way Aikido is taught is the concept that uke is supposed to 'help' tori do the techniques so that one can have 'harmonius practice'. Similarly there's no 'real' sparring. Bottom line is nothing ever gets stress tested to see if it really works. That doesn't mean Aikido doesn't work. It does mean you should go through a stress testing cycle to pick out the wheat from the chaff and to learn under what circumstances each technique can be expected to work at least 80% of the time or better. For example, try to grab a jab or cross properly delivered and see what happens. These techinques were developed in the land of Shotokan, where everybody chambers and thrusts. Thus, the operational assumptions don't travel very well. Nikyo is a bit subtle. Make sure you get all the angles right or it won't work very well and learn the shift to ikkyo or hiji-jime. Guys with high pain tolerance may not buckle and so operationally you should have a mechanical leverage based technique in reserve to take the guy down / break something. As for practice, take a look at this website: http://www.aikido3d.com/ I have their DVD and it's very well done. Although I do some of the techniques with variation, for a beginner it's a really good learning tool, in my opinion and well worth the money. As for me, I use Aikido for proportional, low - medium intensity self-defense responses where the attacker has made physical contact. My moves tend to be very short and sweet (i.e. I don't do any of the whirl the guy around three times before laying him down. In this my moves are closer to Japanese Jiu-Jutsu than Aiki-Jutsu.). Depending on the situation, I sometimes use Aikido moves as lead ins to more violent stuff (think Jason Bourne taking out the guards in the embassy in Bourne Identity). Hope this helps and hope you and yours are doing well.

A couple of comments: 1) The emphasis should be on the shoulder movement which, as mentioned, uses body weight, rather than arm strength, to move uke's arm to prep position. This implies uke must be allowed to grab so that tori can pin uke's hand against tori's shoulder. Any pure arm strength move implies tori is on par with uke in strength and thus sets up tori to fail against significantly larger / stronger opponents. Besides, if you're ahead of the game enough in timing / ability to be able to 'pick' uke's hand out of the air, why wouldn't you either simply hit him or back off, instead of grappling (loosely used) with him? 2) If you hadn't noticed, the prep position is the same for nikyo, so another response would be to go to prep, take uke down to knees with nikyo and then taisabaki to the outside while switching nikyo to ikkyo and taking uke to the ground face down. Although I realize this isn't the move you were practicing, from a practical standpoint I prefer this move because: Uke's line is forward and this move allows me to not go into direct opposition (the direction reversal in the video) with uke. It takes up less space and is a tad faster in execution, as you don't really step nikyo to ikkyo but rather flow it, using nikyo simply to force uke to start to drop. I limit the possibility of walking into something if I don't get the hold right or uke gets loose or uke has a high pain tolerance or uke doesn't follow along like he's supposed to or ...... It allows me to see what's behind me (e.g. his buddy) as I execute. It allows me, if my back's to the wall, to run him into it or his buddy (as mentioned above). I can always simply disengage once I've peeled uke's hand loose, as I'm always either extending uke or moving off his line. It's a lot easier to change holds if needed (e.g. ikko, nikyo, kote-gaeshi, hiji-jime), as I am consistently extending uke and have both hands / arms against his one hand / arm. I offer the above because of you guys being in LE.

BJJ flow drills help in this, coupled with focusing on the "positional" game while rolling. Keeping on folks to fight with their whole body, rather than only one piece (e.g. only arms). Lastly, Roman - Greco style (High School) wrestling has several drills that emphasize movement / mobility which can be adapted to groundwork (which your bio says you have experience in). Not sure if this is the level of detail that you're looking for.

Short form: Everyone has posted a take on the question. What are the operational impacts of your, and the other, opinions? In doing this kind of analysis, best approach is to define the extremes (binary either/or condition) then work inwards to understand the 'grey'. For example, Tallgeese, your approach, as you've already expressed, would cause serious operational issues within a traditional system because standardization would be lost. However, as Joesteph points out, the gimme for the getme is increased creativity. How are these conflicting goals balanced? In my opinion, these discussions break down into 4 inital positions: Martial Exercise (ME) - This is for people wanting to get / maintain a level of fitness without regard to the practical / competition applications of the movements (Taebo, Cardio Kickboxing and most McDojos fit here). Martial Sport (MS) - This is for people wanting to compete in rule based scenarios without regard to the street / combat applicability of the techniques. Martial Way (MW) - This is for people wanting to focus on traditional techniques / weapons / methods / etiquette / spiritual development without regard to whether those things are currently applicable or can be improved upon via modern approaches. Martial Art (MA) - This is for people wanting to be / become 'street lethal' without regard to style, tradition, etiquette, etc. Obviously, these definitions are extreme and most folks do some combination of the four. Each of the above starts from somewhat different assumptions and with somewhat different (sometimes diametrically opposed) objectives. Most of the discussion on forums centers around the conflict between these different assumptions / objectives. For example, the MA guy says only combat practical techniques should be taught while the ME guy doesn't care whether a technique works or not and the MS guy says the rules won't let me do that so why learn it and the MW guy says traditional things should still be taught regardless of present applicability because they are traditional. What I see is most folks really don't know, can't articulate and / or haven't really thought about where they are in the mix. As folks don't really have a clear set of objectives for their programs, it's no wonder that they can't express how to optimally teach them (i.e. define content, curriculum and pedagogy). Similarly, the closer one is to an extreme, the more one essentially believes the assumptions / objectives of the other groups don't matter or aren't relevant. (For example, RBSD folks basically say why train for a match fight when real fights typically last less than 8 seconds. Thus, all ME, MS, MW and much of MA simply drop out. Put bluntly, the approach is: learn how to do a power slap, be sneaky and you can take on the world. Similarly, your stance that an instructor has no responsibility to guide the student to spirtual / moral enlightenment, drops out a whole series of things embedded in the MW approach). To be effective teachers, I'd argue, one must know the 'why' of content, curriculum, and pedagogy before one can develop the what and how. To know the why, one must also come to grips with what the student wants to learn in addition to what the teacher wants to teach. This has significant impacts upon what is abstracted from the knowledge base, how it is formatted for presentation and how it is sequenced. For example, Kodokan judo teaches Seio Nage (shoulder throw), Seio Goshi (hip throw) and Tai Otoshi (cross body drop) at different belt levels and as stand alone techniques, ignoring that the body mechanics of the entries are essentially the same and operationally they are essentially the same technique applied to opponents of different heights (taller, same, shorter, respectively). This is driven by the MW approach that all throws should be executed against all types of opponents (regardless of shape, size, etc). I argue that to be effectively taught, the three throws should be taught together so that the student's focus is in learning the body mechanics for a 'family' of throws, thus significantly shortening the ramp up time. However, that comes from my serious MA bent (also, I would never teach / use seio nage, for example, for use against an opponent a foot shorter than I am, as I would probably injure my back. I don't much care what the Kodokan's MW approach requires.) . My purpose for the topic was to see where folks were with regards to balancing these competing ideas, the approaches they used in developing how their arts are taught to fulfill the balanced objectives and where they stood on the mix.

Bottom line: I spent most of 2 hours composing a reply to everyone on this topic. Even though I took a copy the board essentially crapped out the original when I tried to preview it and, as it locked into a loop trying to continually download advertisements, it killed the copy too, as I couldn't paste the copy before having to kill IE to get out of the loop. I really don't have the time to recompose it. Thanks to everyone for your input and discussion.

Thanks for the responses. Based upon them, Should the teacher be expected to develop content and / or customize (select / format / change) content based upon course goals, or should the teacher only teach the curriculum set out and approved by the organization? When the teacher prepares classes, should the teacher customize the lesson plans based upon what the student wants to learn or what the teacher wants to teach (assuming they are not the same)? A different way of saying might be: if the student trusts the teacher to guide him / her to the right way, shouldn't the student's goals be considered / added to the selection of content / its presentation and sequencing? Should the teacher be expected to not only have a broad and deep understanding of the subject, but also to have the same level of understanding of teaching / training / coaching theory (i.e. good practitioners don't necessarily make good teachers, and vice versa)? If so, should the teacher be tasked with using that knowledge to continually improve HOW the subject is taught?

I use Saturday as an "Open" class from 10 - 12. I work on anything the students want to work on, in groups / one-on-one / whatever. It's a time for the students to focus on what they perceive to be their weak points. Additionally, with certain students, it's a time where I can work on what I want to so that I can get in at least some quality work out time and not have to always focus on the teaching.

Out of curiousity, how would you define the role of the teacher? What exactly does a teacher do that adds value to the student / teacher relationship?

If you can turn the foot toes up, jump towards the opponent, bending the knee then drive the foot down to the ground breaking the grip. Usually a hand strike is added to take the opponent's mind off the foot hold. If your foot is to the side and can't be turned upward, as mentioned above, jump in and scissor the opponent's legs out from under him (Judo's Kani Waza). If your foot is pointed downwards, deliver a spin heel kick to the opponent's head with the free leg, forcing a defensive move to release the foot. These are the standard defenses I use against a foot grab by the opponent's hands. A grab that is tucked under the opponent's arm is more difficult to defend as the grip is more solid and mobility is less. If the above won't work, I usually grab the opponent with my lead hand and then swing my hips in, using the free foot to attack the opponent's knees / ankles and/or take the opponent to the ground, negating the hold on the way down. Sometimes a Hollywood move can work. For example, if the opponent is in a karate style stance (shiko or kiba dachi). One can literally step up on the lead thigh with the free leg and either attack or bowl the opponent over, freeing the foot as part of the action. My first pass thoughts.

Your post implies all other things are equal. You might want to make sure that's true. That is, do you get the same amount of sleep the night before, do you eat the same kind of stuff the same amount of time before class, etc? Also, you might check if there's some sort of stress / anxiety that's only happening before / in that particular class. For example, your post implies that the fitness studio class is the last of the three classes you take per week. It's possible that you're overtraining and you're simply worn out by the end of the week, especially if you're not getting enough sleep and/or aren't eating properly. If all that comes up OK, then I'd counsel that you probably should see a qualified doctor, as there are all sorts of things that could cause the symptoms you describe and long distance diagnosis probably isn't the best approach. Hope this helps.

In my opinion there is a difference between "respect" which means "to treat with special consideration, to hold in high regard" and "courtesy" which means "kind and thoughtful behavior toward another, politeness". In a civilized society courtesy should be freely given and expected. As you say, B96, respect, on the other hand, must be earned. To demand respect is a non sequitur by definition, even if 'most' seem to do it now-a-days.

I'd caution however that the appropriate / best targets change sans the weapon. For example, you probably can more easily reach / effectively strike the collar bone with a stick in the fight, why would you want to with a hammerfist (as there probably would be a lot more effective techniques / targets available)? This is a fundamental problem of using the one size fits all approach -- it simplifies overall training but leads to sub-optimal solutions as, in reality, arms are not spears and hands are not swords.

An unexpected honor. Thanks to all.

Three books you might find interesting: Zen Catholicism by Dom Aelred Graham Jesus & Buddha, The Parallel Sayings editted by Marcus Borg. Zen Spirit, Christian Spirit, The Place of Zen in Christian Life by Robert E. Kennedy

Personally, I use low belt (White / Yellow) one-steps to teach prepared basic self-defense (e.g. wrist grab, choke) responses and to get the student to begin doing scenario analysis (i.e. what would I do if an attacker did X). Above Yellow, I don't really 'teach' one steps. Instead I use them more for dynamic application of technique, rather than prepared responses, which become more randomized with each belt. For example, for testing Green the student must respond to 5 random striking / holding attacks. For testing Brown, 5 random striking / holding / takedown attacks. For Black, strikes / holds / takedowns / weapons (and combinations of these) are all fair game. In training, the attacker is very generally limited to attacking appropriately to the defender's knowledgebase / belt level, attacking in a realistic way (i.e. Hollywood moves are out) and the attack can only be one or two moves. (As a note, my students are taught pre-emptive strike so attacks rarely can be more than one or two moves. For example, for Black the attacker might attempt a strike to the head and then point a gun at the defender's chest.) In my view this trains the student to quckly determine the kind of attack and implement an effective solution but also does not program the student to respond to certain attacks in specified ways that may not be appropriate to the actual situation (e.g. I believe this was pointed out on another thread that a defense technique wasn't working very well because the attacker was too tall for it to be executed).