Cutting vs. Striking - Aikido Bokken Tutorial
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 май 2020
- Cutting vs. Striking - Aiki-Ken Tutorial | In this Aikido Bokken tutorial Miles Kessler Sensei (6th dan Aikikai) teaches the difference between "cutting" vs. "striking" in the Aiki-Ken (Aikido Bokken) practice.
Want to learn more "Aiki-Ken"? Check out the "Aiki-Ken Masterclass" online course at www.theintegraldojo.com
Very well done! Important distinctions made respectfully (as always).
Love the opening/closing !
Very nice explaination. Thank you, Sensei.
Personally, I follow that "cutting system", you know, from my sensei. But at the same time, I can't help wondering where that striking system comes from. What was it that Saito-sensei wanted to "strike"?
My theory (more like a fan-theory) is that the striking system may have originated from the "yokogi-uchi" practice that O'sensei taught his students, like Saito-sensei, Tamura-sensei, Chiba-sensei... The strike somehow suggests toward a hard, deep hit, like at the hip's level. So comes the guess. It's hard to practice both styles, so I can only make observation on one of them.
What do you think of my guess, Sensei?
For a cutting style of aikido check out Nishio aikido, they have their own style of iaido called Nishio ryu aiki-toho iaido.
I agree in the sense that the two are different but not in terms of the timing with the footwork. More power is generated when leading with the bokken and delivering the strike at the same time as when the front foot lands as the whole body mass is behind the movement. .
The idea of stepping forward leaving yourself open like that seems highly illogical. I can't even relate to it in a Taijutsu application as it seems to be mainly arm movement. I was never taught like this, however this seems to have become the new norm amongst many Iwama style Aikidoka. Maybe I am just seeing things, but from what I can see from Saito Sensei, he timed the cut with his step. ruclips.net/video/9h3z8bnEuws/видео.html
The only times it can see an exception to this is:
1. An irimi type of movement like the start of the 5th Kumitachi or number 7 in the old partner practice.
2. Maybe teaching beginners to breakdown and simplify movements.
As the majority of Iwama style Aikidoka seem to do this now, maybe it can be argued it is Iwama style, however it has definately changed and it is not what it used to be.
Hi Alex, I do not suggest to step forward and leave oneself open before striking. The demo is breaking things down for the purpose of understanding the dynamics. If you watch closely in the intro demo in the above video, you will not see me leaving myself open. Also, as power, speed, and effectiveness is increased, then indeed things do begin to "arrive all together" so to speak. But this effectiveness is based on a solid and basic foundation that allows the power to be generated from the earth and pass through the body. Like in the "tanren uchi" practice (forging strikes). Whole-body integration is gradually achieved when the form is planted before impact, and the earth's power is allowed to be transferred through the body/form in both directions.
As for the changing Iwama Style, yes, Iwama style Aikido has changed and continues to change with each and every generation. When I first arrived in Iwama in '88 what Saito Sensei was doing was the latest evolution of his style, and the generation of students who were training in the late 70's and early 80's was doing things differently in minor, but important ways. Perhaps this is the generation of stylists that you are referring to. I am not sure of your lineage but could it be that your teachers come from that earlier generation of Saito Sensei's students? I don't believe you and I have ever met ( I could be wrong) but there is a very good chance I know your teacher. And my guess is that we would not disagree too much on these points.
In the 8 years I lived in Iwama and trained with Saito sensei daily ('89 to '97) he continued to refine his Aikido in small ways regularly. You could say that Saito Sensei hammered out things in the 70's and early 80's, but he definitely refined and polished them in the late 80's and through the remainder of his life. And yes, these refinements were better, more functional, and more effective.
(Side note; Saito sensei's son and successor, Hitohiro Saito sensei has made significant changes to the art, both stylistically and systematically. Even though Hitohiro Sensei was equally my teacher during my time and period in Iwama, he has made significant changes in the years following Saito Sensei's passing. With all due respect to Hitohiro Saito Sensei as sole successor, I chose not to follow that organizational line.)
All that said, everyone will continue on the art that was passed to them from their teachers. The closer they were to their teachers, and the deeper they learned directly from their teachers, the more the potential there will be for having "internalized" those teachings. For me the important question to ask is are they teaching from an internalized place, or are they teaching an external form. There is a big difference between the two.
@@IntegralDojoTV Morning Miles. Thank you for the thorough reply!
Yes you are right you don't do that in your intro.
My first teacher is Paul Lowing he was one of the early students of Tony Sergeant (I think you will know him). Over the last few years I've also followed Tony directly. Both will always focus the timing of the cut landing with the footwork.
We do also place a heavy emphasis on internal movement as well as understanding the martial aspect.
From a personal perspective I have watched many Iwama Aikidoka that have broken the movements down so much and practicing in Kihon seems to be the end goal, even amongst Dan grades. It's seems to be losing fluidity of movement.
so would the striking technique also work when using a real sword?
It may do some damage just because or the weight and sharpness of the blade. But it wouldn't fully function unless there was a slicing movement. (we are talking about a Japanese Katana, or other curved cutting swords). Kind of like eating soup with a fork. You'd manage to get some soup into your mouth, but it has a different function.
@@IntegralDojoTV thank you very much!
In general, I agree. In Iwama, it's most definitely a striking (not cutting) style. Birankai, for example, is a cutting (not striking) style.
However, in my opinion, you are incorrect when you talk about the timing of cutting styles being "sword first, then body". The body must arrive first and be in a solid and grounded position before a cut can be made. Newton's Law states that for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction, therefore the swordsman must be well grounded if an effective cut is to be made (without knocking the swordsman off balance). Watch any tamashigiri (test cutting) video on RUclips, and you'll see a solid, grounded stance is established *before* any cut is attempted. Aikidoka who come from cutting styles follow this same procedure... It directly transfers to body arts where it enables throwing uke with the body, not just the arms.
Cutting styles concentrate on extension, accelerating the tip first and cutting with the tip (monouchi). Hitting styles concentrate on the hands and let the tip follow, which doesn't really work as an effective cut (that's a generalization, of course, because good people can often make anything "work"!).
Many Koryu stylists have significant problems/concerns/issues with Iwama (striking) swordwork exactly because the sword "cut" is a strike, not a cut and that offends their sensibilities, LOL!
Even with my concerns, above, I think this is a very useful video. Thank you for doing it!
Hi Jyunte, points received. There are, however, cutting styles that move sword first, with the body following. So it's looking like my blanket statement isn't so across all cutting styles. So the issue of difference is not so much about the foot placement, but rather the order in which the weapon moves outward; cutting - tip first, hands follow. Striking; hands first, tip follows. Even in the Iwama system there is confusion among practitioners who insist that the strike is an effective cutting method as is. It can be an effective cut with some minor adaptations, but not as is.
@@IntegralDojoTV Yeah, I think we're in agreement here. I'm discussing this very issue with a friend and pointed him to several tamashigiri videos where you can clearly see the body arriving, becoming grounded and then the tip of the sword is accelerated in a big arc above the head. When the tip of the sword impacts the target, there's a (more or less) straight line from the shoulders, to the hands, to the tip of the sword. At this time, the angular momentum, tip speed and therefore the "heaviness" are all at their maximum.
I then pointed him to another video of splitting wood with an axe, which I would suggest is about as close as you can get to an effective and efficient striking motion while using a sharp cutting tool! The axe is lifted above the head, and the axe-head thrown as far away as possible, making a big arc.
Relatively simple physics states that if you want to deliver a strong strike, the impact point must be moving fast, and it just be heavy. That's what projecting the end of bokken (sword or axe) achieves. Someone chopping wood by bringing the hands down first, and letting the axe-head follow may be able to split the log, but it's an inefficient way to do it.
I would say that the Iwama method of using the Bokken, and the Jo, is quite stylized. It's not an efficient or particularly effective way of striking, and it's not good for cutting. It doesn't generate much power, and as a slicing motion it's not very effective... But that doesn't make it wrong. Few aikidoka study Bokken and Jo in an Aikido class for the purpose of learning how to use a Bokken or Jo as an effective combat weapon. Instead, we use them to help us improve our understanding of body arts. Similarly, using a Bokken and Jo in the Iwama style helps Iwama aikidoka practice Aikido in the Iwama style. I hope you understand what I'm getting at!
Hi jyunte, I have to disagree a bit here about the efficiency and effectiveness of the Iwama strike. Since you mentioned physics let's just look at the physics of striking with a bokken. The maximum speed and power in order to "break" (like in strikes) is achieved when the tip of the bokken (monouchi) arrives at the point of impact (high, medium, or low hight) like a bullwhip. The ending snap of a whip is the most deadly and powerful point in the whole arc.
With the bokken "strike" all the power is generated sequentially from the ground, through the hips and center, through the shoulders, the elbows, then the wrist, and finally, all accelerating through the bokken to the monouchi (end of the bokken... or jo for that matter). At the very end of this sequential process is an extremely efficient, effective, and powerful strike (when done correctly of course). True that the "stylization" is specific in Iwama Aiki-Ken, but the function leads the style, and the stylized form followed the function.
If you "throw" the tip forward early in the arc and before arriving at the target (like you do in a cut or slicing movement) then you will not get the accelerated snap at the point of impact, reducing the efficiency and effectiveness..
I do completely agree with you that striking in this sequential manner ( with the "monouchi" arriving at the end of the sequence) is neither efficient nor effective for cutting. The power is there, but there is zero slicing movement.
Two more related points that are relevant:
1) The lifting of the bokken is the exact opposite from the downward sequence of the striking. Namely, when lifting first the wrist, then the elbow, then the shoulder. This is precisely where we get the "kokyu" movement in our Aikido. "Kokyu" is applied at the very beginning in the lift, and an inverse "kokyu" is applied downward through the strike This is where the internal power further multiplies the power of the strike. With out "kokyu" it is only muscle power.
2) Perhaps you know the "Katori Shinto Ryu" school of "koryu" (one of the absolutely best koryu schools IMHO). When they do their bokken strikes, they have the exact same lifting and striking sequence, finishing with a snap at the end. There is even the same "bounce" at the end of the strike. The stylization of the strikes are different (KTSR lifts over the shoulder, rather than the head)), but the mechanics are the same.
IntegralDojoTV Good discussion! Please allow me to just use the words Cut and Strike, because I don't want to appear like I'm bashing Iwama style, which I'm not.
Grab a coffee, or a beer, this is a long one!
There are a few things which can be effectively ignored when talking about sword technique, because we can assume both Cutters and Hitters are doing them with the same efficacy: Hip movement, tenouchi (tightening the grip at the end of a cut/strike), the strength of the swordsman, the speed the swordsman can rotate his shoulders etc. We should also assume the same swordsman is doing all the tests with the same Bokken.
The bullwhip example doesn't really apply here, because a bullwhip is flexible and when used is constantly accelerating along the length of the whip. The energy is transferred along the length of the whip like a wave, until all the energy is transferred into the tip. As the wave travels down the flexible whip, the large initial movement is constantly compressed smaller and smaller, into a tiny movement (the tip of the whip). Since energy is conserved, the energy in the tip contains almost all of the energy of the entire system.
In the case of a Bokken cut, the Bokken is a solid piece of wood. The force of a strike (hit) comes from the velocity of the weapon, the point of impact on the weapon, and the distance from the center of motion - the shoulders. Unlike a bullwhip which is flexible, a swordsman's cut/strike has only 3 points of rotation (shoulder, elbow and wrist). It down not accelerate in the same way a bullwhip does and is quite inefficient in transferring energy (even a gentle flip with a bullwhip can cause serious injury, compared to the same amount of force applied with a Bokken).
With all the caveats mentioned above, he greatest effect on how hard a Bokken hits, is how fast the tip is travelling at impact, and how far from the center of motion the tip is.
As you correctly stated, above, the motion of the Strike begins with body movement, then the shoulders, elbows, wrists and ends with the tip.
When we look at a Strike, the tip of the sword defines a small, compressed arc. The shoulders begin the motion, accelerating the elbows down, which in turn accelerate the hands forward and down through a smaller arc. The hands arrive at their destination first, followed by the tip of the sword, which is essentially "flicked" forward -- followed by tenouchi etc. The Bokken tip rotates around the wrist rapidly at the end of the strike, but it is not being rapidly accelerated away from the center of motion at the beginning or middle of the strike. The tip of the sword travels a relatively small distance through the air (think of a "c" compared to a "C").
In a cutting motion, the motion begins with the body, and then the wrist, elbows, and finally the shoulders. It's the reverse of the Strike.
The acceleration of the tip up and forward begins with the wrists while the sword is above the head. The tip begins to move up as the elbows begin to straighten. The sword is constantly accelerating as it starts it's arc. The elbows straighten, and now the tip of the sword is as far away from the center of motion (the shoulder joint) as is physically possible. Then the shoulder rotates, Continuing to accelerate the tip down and away from the shoulder joint. The arc is a constant radius and that radius is the length of the extended arm. Since we're using the same swordsman, and the same weapon, the speed the shoulder rotates is also the same. Because the Cutting arc is larger than the Hitting arc, the tip must travel further in space, which means the velocity of the tip *must* be greater when Cutting than when Hitting. Since the velocity of the tip is faster, and the tip is further from the center of motion, then the force of impact must also be greater.
During a Cut, the sword is being accelered for a longer period of time, when compared to a Strike. This is the case exactly because of the order of movement you described earlier. Two identical objects accelerated by identical forces for the identical amount of time will reach the same velocity, everything else being equal. But if one of those objects is accelerated for a longer period of time, it will achieve a greater velocity.
This is all just physics and anatomy.
I totally agree about the lifting of the sword. It starts with the wrist... Just as Cutting down starts with the wrist. Think of the sequence for a shomen performed by a Cutter:
Wrist
Elbows
Shoulder
Now think about how a Cutter *raises* his sword:
Wrist
Elbow
Shoulder
It could be argued that raising the sword can be different to lowering the sword, because the intent is different for each act... One is preparing the sword to cut/strike, the other is to perform a cut/strike.
Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu does tight, compressed cuts to exposed areas that are not covered by armor. The cuts are performed by flicking the sword from the crook of the elbow, out to the target. They do this type of cut *not* because it is efficient, or strong, but because it is a sword school where the practitioners are assumed to be wearing full armor, including a helmet. It is, therefore, difficult or impossible to raise the sword above the head. A sharp sword is perfectly capable of inflicting fatal wounds without excessive power in the cut. KSR proponents try to get the sword against their opponent's bare skin as quickly as possible. Their techniques are very fast, but they do not achieve the same kind of power as full extension cuts.
You know what... We just need to get together and train! 😀
@@jyunte Wow, we are really nerding out here! I would love to go into more depth but it takes time to write here, and opportunity costs and all that. If I get you, when speaking about "strikes" (cutting aside for now) we agree on the lift, but not on the downward strike. Am I understanding you?
Striking down in Iwama Aiki-ken:
- Shoulders
- Elbows
- Wrist
- and finally bokken at point of contact.
And if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the strike mechanics is more like a cut:
- Shoulders
- Wrist
- Elbows
- Bokken
Am I getting this right?
And are you saying that there is more power in the point of impact in your style?
Personally, all things being done correctly and equally, I actually think there is more power in the shoulder, elbow, wrist, bokken delivery. But I've never tested it. This would be a very interesting thing to explore and even test out comparatively.
Also, I think the "wave" in your nice example of the bullwhip does translate to the bokken. Think of a bicycle chain, several small parts that could generate the wave of a bullwhip. With bokken just fewer parts and bigger sections. The same wave of transference.
But there is lots of food for thought here. Like you say, I guess we need to train together!
By the way, who are you and where are you from? I couldn't find any info on your channel.
Finally, I will be releasing another video soon with the lifting and striking dynamics in the Iwama Aiki-Ken. The video is still unlisted but you can see it here: ruclips.net/video/7lBIq2MIesk/видео.html
Even though it is obvious that you get what I'm saying, this video shows it more clearly.
Cheers!