regarding throws -
What would you prefer to be hit by> a fist? or unmovable peace of concrete? I know what i would choose.
When throwing an opponent you can do it with little damage (on mats in the dojo) you can do it with moderate damage, as per the dojo technique used in the street (throwing onto ground as per your dojo throw, lack off mats means moderate damage) Or you can fully disable the opponent by using the technique as it was intended.
To illustrate my point - lets take a simple hip throw.
In the dojo you throw the person onto their back, they land with a lovely breakfall and you continue practicing.
On the street, if you use the same technique, throw in the same way, and the untrained faller hits the concrete with a thug and damages their arm and leg, maybe their hip. whatever.
If you do the technique as intended in traditional systems. As you throw the person, when they are facing the ground you drop them verticly into the concrete, head/shoulder first, this would result in a broken neck, dislocated shoulder or a serious head injury.
Why would a proffessional warrior (samurai) throw someone nicely onto their back?? these where killing or disableing techniques used on battlefields and in every day fights between extremely hard people. Wrist locks were to break wrists and throw people down, other throws were to kill, disable or set up for weapon attacks.
When people talk about throwing and locking like it is just an addition to striking it makes me laugh. When you reach a level where you can diferenciate between training methods and the true technique behind the training method then you can see traditional arts for what they are, stunningly effective and sometimes brutel.
Ueshiba the founder of aikido broke hips, shoulders, arms, legs and knocked many a man out in his early days. In later years he became a bit of a hippy. Schools like yoshinkan that reflect this brutel early form of aikido are truer to the fighting art, later versions like ki aikido reflect a much more spiritual side.
Cheers
Chris
|