From: sasso@flounder.phy.anl.gov (John F. Sasso)
Subject: Re: Crush and maim (was: How to choose...)
Keywords: Crunch, Break, Ow!
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:50:27 GMT

In article <sb600INN1m6@agate.berkeley.edu> robinson@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Michael Robinson) writes:
>
in response

>Nor do I understand this apparent inferiority complex of Aikidoka.
>
Not an inferiority complex, more of an insecurity thing.  ;-)
I mean with all you big bad bone crushers around. ;-)

>"But we could hurt people if we wanted too!" they say.
>
>First of all, one cannot deny that what aikidoka spend almost all their energy
>doing is training techniques designed for use against one or a small group 
>of essentially untrained assailants, with the intention of preventing medical
>and/or legal action all around.
>
Well I can deny this!  The training starts with simple body and hand
movement.  Then one learns the proper hip movement.  Then you learn to
flow with the throw.  Then when you've learned the basics, uke
starts to resist.  This can be difficult, because uke KNOWS how to
resist the technique.  After you've refined the technique to bypass
any resistance (King Kong excluded ;-)), uke starts getting nasty.

Mistake!  Here I could elbow you.  Refine.
Mistake!  Here I could easily kick you in the shin.  Refine.
Mistake!  Here I could spin out and reverse the hold.  Refine.

Oh yes.  We do practice with the intention on defeating another
martial artist.  Take note though:  

We do not suggest that anyone attempt to use Aikido for self
defense until BB rank.  Aikido in not a quick road to self
defense, it is a long one.  But in the end, the martial part
of the art becomes very apparent.  And effective.

>But more importantly, what difference does it make?  Even if every aikido
>technique were certified 100% harmless, would this in any way devalue the
>art?  Or somehow make it inferior to more ICU-oriented arts?
>
Only a few of the techniques can be made 100% harmless.  All of the
throws are meant to cause severe harm.  Several of the locks can
be applied in a non-damaging way, but only vs a non-martial-artist.
My point was that violense is not essential to Aikido self defense.
But maybe that is more of an illusion.

For example, Sensei has spoken about the "legal question."  It is
bad to be sued for punching someone in the face.  He has good evidence
that you did punch him in the face.  Many Aikido throws can be
quite subtle.  If said bully tries to punch the Aikidoist, the
bully may find himself quite bruised and hurt, with no real case
against the Aikidoist.  "But officer, he swung at me, and he was
so drunk he just fell down." ;-)

>I've said before that, in our present time, the ability to defuse random
>confrontation without serious incident is probably more useful than the
>ability to prevail in hand-to-hand combat on the battlefields of feudal 
>China (or Japan, for that matter).
>
How true.

>Or, to put in another way: "So, the ones who didn't get their arms and legs
>cut off were the ones who got the timing right?" (the response of a student
>to whom I had just explained the use of the Chen-style jumping front snap
>kick).
>
Sounds violent. ;-)

						 	John F Sasso



-- 
"The only way to true inspiration is the study of TedDo.  And lots
of MauMau, of course."  The Elvis Lectures
"I am not the False Bob, I am a free man."  The Book of FalseBobs
"Since the introduction of MauMau, HP sales have skyrocketed." Book of MauMau
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts