all representations of Aikido martial arts emphasize the peaceful character of these. the decisive feature, so we read, is that in aikido we are only defending and not attacking. that sounds good. But let's look at a typical training: there is always an "aggressor" (Japanese uke) and a "defender" ( Japanese tori or nage ). during normal training, both the announced technology for tori (this is the real aikido-defense technology) and the uke for the zwardie and fashion style, how he or attack them! for example Shiho Nage omote (real aikido technique) against shomen uchi (attack technique).
why is that?
makes sense to the defense, one must know where the attack and its potential danger exists at all. and strangely, is one brought in teaching aikido, also. So when you learn aikido attack very well. yes, the challenge is as good attack that the tori the aikido techniques as well as possible needs to run, so the attack can not get through or hits.
is obvious: without attacking one needs no defense. if no one is attacking, there is no need for an aikido technique. if one "bad" acts, ie, for such inefficient, then you do not often aikido techniques: the "attack" is missed, reaches a not is weak, it puts nothing behind it. only when an attack is performed well, the need arises to defend really well and thus arises the need for an aikido technique.
I think therefore that we learn in aikido training to attack the system that is as good as the defense. This makes sense not only to practice at all. It makes sense because only if I know what the really special in a particular form of attack is, can I know which technology to aikido suits! Although aikido is in the curriculum and exams almost every aikido techniques required for each form of attack. sets but in a concrete situation, an attack near a technique and exclude other are rare. the randori , the more or less free play between uke and tori , you realize the special.
it can happen with tests that require the audit partner from a test subject, he should be "right" to attack. there is thus in aikido an understanding of what real, and what is a false attack. a false sense in this attack is that this is not aikido techniques necessary to deal with this motion. screenings are at the very moments most impressive and convincing, if the uke "correct" attacks. then one can understand why Aikido is actually a martial art and not just a movement system, which is like a dance.
there are countless books on aikido. are all known to me the techniques of Aikido explained in detail. but the attacks are presented only superficial. I know only one book in which the attacking movements really be explained specifically in Stefan Stenudd: Attacks in Aikido . one reads through, then one set something surprising that the attack in aikido a central role-playing, anything but easy, and all aikido techniques only one make sense if you understand the attack.
So aikido is not a pure defense martial arts? yes and no. it depends on what we know and can start with our. if what has been said is true, then we can in aikido, as in all other martial arts techniques of attack and learn to perform efficiently. But the attacks used in aikido training as a means to an end. they are the bridge of the pulse, arising from which a reason aikido movement and can be useful. The aim of aikido training in this, even with a very well put forward a reasonable, soft, but clear movement to carry out attack on other things, the end of the attack dissolves. The goal in aikido is not to attack effectively. you learn the side of it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment