Aikido Sacrifice Throws?

This remains one of the most interesting Aikido videos for me ever.  I had developed a very exacting idea of what the different basic kata were supposed to look like as a Nikyu when I saw this for the first time.  Of course, while I was focused on "Correct," Morihei Ueshiba was doing things differently.  I can process what I see here, and I can't always with his later video work.


Why refer to it today?

There are no sacrifice throws in Aikido, or Aikikai proper apparently. In doing some kaeshi-waza the other day, I finished the roll and did a nice, lazy, smooth yoko sutemi. I throw this young student, and he looks me in the eye. "That was straight-up Judo. That's not Aikido, is it?"
 

I wonder when that happened?  It used to be that a martial arts master had a particular favourite skill, or maybe had to answer to the boundaries set by their environment and times.  Knowledge was kept from rivals; knowledge was not refused.  This vision of proprietory skills and information and dogmatic refusal to learn anything outside of a narrow world view has nothing to do with our history, nor the history of any martial art.  As we in Aikido train to work with multiple attackers, any technique that involves reducing our mobility is undesirable.  That does not mean that we never lose balance, never fall down or never find ourselves working from a disadvantage.  Warriors developed new variations of a technique to answer to their circumstances and give themselves a slight advantage.

 

In the CAF, Kawahara Sensei had shown sutemi on a number of ocassions. Not every seminar, but about once a year he would throw some out for us to see.  Maybe it was partly that we had icy or muddy streets for 7 months of the year or more. I learned these were seldom used, and did not leave you in a desirable position. This was never an opening move, but rather a belated response to being thrown. This was Kaeshi-waza, or reversals. Kaeshi-waza was for senior students, and not a required element until Ikkyu.  Reversals could happen at any number of points during a kata, and being this late was not the goal but rather a reality we might need to acknowledge. 

Fun cool fact:  We don't need to learn anything different.  Any of our traditional ukemi is the platform for a number of throws, locks and strikes from the ground.  We just need to focus on maai and kuzushi.  Above all, we need to be receptive to the movement being applied to us so that we can best use this incoming force.

Morihei Ueshiba was a Judo student for admittedly only around a year, but he never did much of anything halfway - a year for him was probably more than 3 years worth of hours in training for any of us. I don't know what his rank was when he moved.  Several of his students were also students of Kano Jigoro, so he would have been well exposed to the theories and techniques of Judo and other arts.  Aikido Journal and Youtube have some brilliant clips of Aikido Sutemi-waza in schools descended from students of both Kano Jigoro and Morihei Ueshiba. 

This one clip of O Sensei in his 50s shows him doing a version of a sacrifice throw around 2:42. He is pulled out of seiza, and throws from on his back.  The Noma dojo photo shoot shows the same technique.  This is not a Judo technique to my knowledge.

If you look up the dictionary definition of a sacrifice throw, "putting oneself in a disadvantageous position to throw someone, LIKE falling (I read that as not necessarily falling)" then all of this dropping to one or both knees which seems to be much more popular these days starts to sound like a sacrifice throw. All of the multiple attacker work, all of the disarming an armed individual, all the hanmi handachi - isn't this all putting ourselves at a disadvantage and going forward anyway?  A way of deliberately forcing ourselves into a disadvantageous position and taking advantage of a disadvantage?

Snake Creeps Wayyyyyy, Wayyyyyyyyy Down - what is "martial?"

Yang Chen Fu, third generation Yang Style Taiji master doing Snake Creeps Down

Chen Man'Ching, most noted for his short form and his years spent teaching Taiji in the USA, also doing Snake Creeps Down.

Eventually, "good technique" seems to involve straighter legs and a lower butt.

I don't know who this is.  This is also the same posture, and this gentleman's flexibility is very impressive.  

When I hear someone talking about wanting to do a "more martial Taiji," this last picture is what they seem to be referring to.  The thing is, no one fights like this.  This last posture is for extreme stretching, which can aid martial ability, but is not for combat.  The last picture has more in common with Yoga and dance than combat.  A number of other martial arts like Aikido and Karate have adopted a more extreme Wu Shu type approach to form work - lower, wider stances, higher kicks, more jumping, more aerobics and gymnastics.

Most of the actual applications of Snake Creeps Down have more to do with Judo type throws, or a drop step.  Some will resemble sacrifice throws:

While the movement in the form has a person stand up, this application has someone stay on the ground.

Chinna is possible with the handwork.  You can lock the arm, or legs, or neck.

Just throwing this out there for people who want an actual martial idea of this movement.  How come all the Judo pics?  Any Taiji person who talked to me about these applications only described them to me - no one ever did this in push hands to me.  This is how I have come to understand this movement.  

More extreme postures can lend themselves to developing an aspect of martial ability, but that doesn't make them martial.  People who actually used and discovered these applications were often wearing armor and on a variety of surfaces like mud or ice or uneven ground.  The posture is now judged for it's aesthetic appeal, not for how the application would work.

Thanks to all the impressive martial artists who posted these pictures online.

Motions of Non-Confidence - Old World Government Reform

I started a blog for martial arts and baking.  I am not really all that qualified to write on these topics.  I am much less qualified to be a political critic.

I enjoy living in American.  The USA has been good to me.  I enjoy working in health care here.

When a Canadian talks about “American Style Politics” we have a definite image coming to mind:

Sarah Palin and Nancy Pelosi engaged in Satanic ritual and sexual abuse of aborted lesbian genetically mutated poodle-pittbull crosses?  Obama and his Muslim love child from Mars in a hot threesome with the president of Afganistan after they discuss the DEATH OF AMERICA?  We'll let you know the truth (sort of)!  News at 11!

After the CBC, the US news is far more titillating - and exhausting to watch.  It seems to be for entertainment, not information.  I am one who feels the Daily Show is some of the most informative programming out there.

I am not endorsing either party, nor am I for or against The Affordable Care Act, otherwise known (as are too many other things to count) THE DEATH OF AMERICA!!!!!!

People ask me what I think of “Socialized Medicine.”  We call it Public, not Socialist. Bureaucrats telling me what care I can receive?  Bureaucrats telling me how to do my job?

Whether they are politicians or CEOs, I don’t always notice the difference on the front line. Someone who doesn’t know how to use a needle is telling me how to be a nurse.

When the Minister of Health takes office, we get all their contact information.  We know who they are, where they work, how to find them, what they look like, their email and phone number.  We can complain to our government if something goes wrong.  We can campaign for an increase in coverage, or the coverage for a new procedure.  They are elected officials with a riding they must answer to, and a campaign can be launched to cost them their seat in Parliament.  They are public servants who serve at the will of the people.  And, at our will, they can be fired.

Try that with the CEO of Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

There are other details in the Parliamentary system that I miss:

1.       The Deputy Prime Minister has a riding.  This person must win an election.  The Vice President, second in line to command the world’s largest nuclear arsenal is someone no one actually voted for.  Third in line, the Secretary of State, is someone no one voted for.  I really thought that the running mate of a Presidential Candidate was going to be picked from someone who had campaigned to be the leader of the party.

2.       The Prime Minister’s Cabinet is made up of elected members.  By convention, the Cabinet ministers are picked to represent every area of the country, much like the US Senators do.  The President’s cabinet is an appointment of people who no one voted for.

3.       The person who is the leader of the party to come in second in an election becomes the Leader of the Opposition. There is also the Leader of the Third Party, and so on.  There is an official residence for the Opposition Leader.  Someone loses the election, and we see them in Parliament for years as the Opposition Leader.  Each member of Cabinet is also facing an Opposition Critic.  When someone runs for office, we know their stances on issues, how they speak.  We have seen them in action. 

In the US system, everyone who wants to be President is essentially untested.  No matter what their experience level, running the largest democracy and military in the world is a huge step up in responsibility.  They were a Governor?  A Senator?  That’s like applying to be the CEO of Walmart based on your experience as a corner store owner.

4.       Also off the point above, Canadians can point to who represents their party, their region, and their interests.  Canadians might complain about the validity of this as we aren’t perfect, but:

a.       When the Democrats are in power, there is no official Republican Opposition Leader who represents the (potentially) 49% of the country who voted Republican.  If the Republicans win, there is no official Democratic Opposition Leader.  Half of the USA can complain that they don’t have representation at the top, and feel disenfranchised.  There is some truth to this.  The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is a very important job that I think the USA would do well to implement (no, you wouldn't need to adopt the Queen.)

John McCain, Al Gore, John Kerry and Mitt Romney would be very important, very visible politicians of considerable influence in the Parliamentary system.  I think that would be a good thing for America.

There is one final difference that I miss that is not merely Canadian.  It is a piece of legislation that is also adopted in other countries like Germany, Britian, Spain and Israel in various forms.  I think it is time for Americans to consider what the planet's oldest democracies have had to adopt.  No Confidence.  

Again, I can’t vote in an American election or a Canadian one right now.  I am not endorsing either party.  Non-Confidence is a check and a balance on the power of ineffective legislators, and a way of ensuring the job gets done for the people.

In law, a motion of no confidence is a parliamentary motion which when passed would demonstrate to the head of state that the elected parliament no longer has confidence in the appointed government.  The first vote of No Confidence in a British Parliament was when the American war of Independence was successful.

Sometimes, the government will choose to declare that one of its bills is a "motion of confidence". This may be used to prevent dissident members of parliament from voting against it.  A core piece of a party’s platform and a major election promise like The Affordable Care Act, the Bush Tax Cuts and the Patriot Act would have been motions of confidence.

In the Canadian Parliament, a failed budget automatically a requires a Motion of Non-Confidence.  A successful Motion of Non-Confidence means the resignation of the government or dissolution of Parliament.  A government that cannot spend money is hamstrung.  Some negotiation and revision is possible a set number of times, but the budget must eventually pass by law.

There are several implications of this:

1.       It is not possible in Canada to continue the government without an annual budget being submitted.  Every budget can potentially trigger a new election.  The USA has not had a budget approved since 2009, with no consequences.

2.       Every year is a potential election year.  No threatening about 2016 while not allowing the government to pass legislation.

3.       Elections are not scheduled.

4.       No Elephants versus Donkeys, it's-not-my-fault mentality.  If you make a budget fail, either by being unable to pass it or by successfully challenging it - you answer to the people in a general election.

And, 5:  the election happens in two months.  No screwing around for four years waiting.  No years long election campaign.

Democracies older than the USA did not start with No Confidence legislation, but through circumstances they have been forced to concede power to the electorate.  Try some Old World style reforms.

Today we can giggle and moan at the silly posturing, and we can stop welfare checks to people the Republicans hate anyway, and close National parks (in October, not July and after any summer vacations), and the TV commentators can have their glorious apoplexy.  While the Congress continues to collect their checks.  And accrue their pension savings. For not working.  Until 2016.

If the election doesn’t happen until 2016 – three years of no governance?  Three years of no expenditures?  Three years of political snits?  Those in power were hired to do a job.  No other job in the USA exists where you close the shop (that you don't own!), refuse to show up for work, and still get paid and keep your job.  

The whole world expects better of the largest democracy on the planet.