On the Interdependent Nature of Tactics and Strategies by "The Grindstone"
[Discuss this article (50 replies)]
[Download this article in PDF format]
This column was written by David M. Valadez.
In another thread, working off an idea presented by George Ledyard, I
suggested that statements like "Aikido is 90% atemi" could be
understood experientially. In particular, I suggested that we could
experience the importance that a strategy of atemi plays in supporting
Aikido tactics (e.g. Irimi Nage, Ikkyo, Shiho Nage, Kaiten Nage,
etc.). Moreover, I posited that the statement "Aikido is 90% atemi"
is pointing to more than just "you got to be able to strike at Uke,"
etc. I suggested we might be talking about an underlying structure to
the entire Aikido arsenal (as it has come to be practiced today in
general). In other words, I suggested (and I think in agreement with
George Ledyard) that in order to execute Irimi Nage, one would have to
base 90% of that possibility upon the real threat/capacity to strike
one's opponent.
I suggested that one could gain some experience in this understanding
if one were to conduct the following experiments. They are
re-presented here below:
"Conduct the following experiments:
1. First Experiment: Have a dojo mate you are close to come charging
at you with anything they want to -- as long as they are charging at
you "balls to the wall." Of course, I am assuming you have some
spontaneous capacity here. If your dojo mate attacks you "balls to the
wall," and you have some skill at spontaneity, you will be able to
easily pull off any number of techniques. The techniques you pull off
will feel very similar to what you experience in your normal Kihon
Waza training.
2. Second Experiment: Have a dojo mate attack you again, but this time
have them come in slow and cautiously -- more the way that a
Roman-Greco wrestler might bridge the gap from the standing position
in overtime at the end of a championship match. If your dojo mate
attacks you the way that a wrestler (noting here that there are no
strikes in wrestling) might slowly and cautiously bridge the gap, you
will find that you will not pull off any, or near as many, techniques
as you did in the first experiment. You will also find that of the
techniques you did pull off, they were for the most part reduced to
matters of raw leverage, etc. -- not very aiki. These techniques will
feel very different from what you experience in your normal Kihon
Waza.
3. Third Experiment: Now have your dojo mate come in like in the
second experiment, but this time as he/she does, beat the living hell
out of him/her with any and all strikes you can throw -- be sure to
aim for the groin, and slap them across the face a lot, etc.
Remember, your dojo mate is reduced or rather restricted to bridging
the gap slowly/cautiously. When your dojo mate is bombarded like
this, he/she should be able to note the urge in them to not come into
the "kill zone" so slowly and/or like a wrestler trying to bridge the
gap cautiously, etc.
4. Fourth Experiment: Now have your dojo mate come in any way that
he/she would like to, with you doing any technique (Kihon Waza, etc.)
you would like to and/or with you striking (when your dojo mate closes
the gap in a way more akin to what was being done in the second and
third experiment). If you do this, you will start to notice that in
an attempt to not be bombarded coming through the kill zone (as in the
third experiment), your dojo mate will provide an energy that is much
more closely related to that experienced in the first experiment.
Meaning, the tactical architectures you manage to pull off in this
experiment will feel more akin to those you pulled off in the first
experiment AND more distant from those you pulled off in the second
experiment."
In the aforementioned thread, I briefly summarized these experiments
by suggesting that an aikidoka that did not, or could not, support
his/her Aikido tactics with a strategy of atemi could be extremely
vulnerable to the slow advance. Of course, we can open up the "slow
advance" to include non-committed attacks, fakes/feints, acts of
de-commitment, measuring strikes, feeler strikes, etc. As is
experienced in the third experiment, one can conclude that a strategy
of atemi "inspires" an attacker to commit in such a way that tactical
architectures like Irimi Nage, Kaiten Nage, etc., can function as
designed and/or at least as they are currently and generally practiced
today. Consequently, when an Aikido tactic is not supported by a
strategy of atemi, and should that tactic actually "work," that tactic
would likely be reduced to crude mechanical advantages and/or other
matters of raw leverage. In either case, said Aikido tactics would
certainly prove faulty in comparison to other tactics - such as
grappling, trapping, ground fighting and striking, etc.
In a second post I suggested that through such experiments one could
come to experience the reverse of the statement "Aikido is 90% atemi,"
coming to also understand that "atemi is 90% Aikido." This becomes
realized as the attacker becomes wary to commit in an attempt to not
risk being thrown (i.e. attacking as in the second experiment), and
thus opens him/herself up to being struck (i.e. as was experienced in
the third experiment). Here let it be clear that I do not understand
atemi to be outside of Aikido. Nor is it that I understand Aikido to
only be Irimi Nage, Kaiten Nage, Shiho Nage, Ikkyo, etc. So before I
go on to explain how an atemi strategy supports an Aikido tactic and
how an Aikido strategy supports an atemi tactic let me cease making
uses of these percentages and/or of these huge and often difficult to
define terms like "atemi" and "Aikido."
Here let me now say, in my own way, that the above experiments point
us to the interdependence that must exist between striking, throwing,
pinning, and ground fighting techniques, etc. In particular, allow me
to suggest that we are not merely looking at a combination of things
at a tactical level. We are not merely seeing a reason to use a
strike to setup Ikkyo or a reason for why a kick should be used to
setup a shoot, etc. Rather, we are looking at a total interdependence
of various skill sets, one that occurs at the tactic/strategy level.
In other words, using a specific example, what we are seeing in these
experiments is that in order to get Irimi Nage to work as in Kihon
Waza, an attacker needs to commit. We are also seeing that an
attacker can be made to commit by making use of a strategy of atemi
(since not committing will have them extremely vulnerable to striking
tactics). Simultaneously, but inversely, we are also seeing that a
jab, a kick, a trap, a shoot, becomes tactically viable as the
strategy of throwing (e.g. Irimi Nage) exists as a supporting
structure, making an opponent come in more slowly, less committed,
etc. In short, these experiments are suggesting that the tactical
viability of any combative skill is structurally supported by the
availability of other interdependent strategies, both of which are
being determined by various levels of commitment.
Recently, I filmed one of our workouts. We did not run these
experiments per se, but because we were interested in cultivating and
further understanding higher levels of commitment (because of how
challenging they truly are to manifest and to address tactically under
spontaneous conditions) we did indirectly touch upon the
interdependent nature that exists between tactics and strategies. In
particular, we came face to face with how a strategy of throwing
supports a striking tactic and/or a shooting tactic - which of course
revealed the vice versa. We were seeking to understand that one does
not jump out of the frying pan and into the cool air simply by not
committing in their attacks and/or de-committing in their attacks (as
aikidoka often do come to believe as a result of being captured by
their training culture). We were seeking to understand
(experientially) that a lack of commitment in one's attack and/or a
de-commitment of one's attack only have one jumping into a different
frying pan. In other words, what one is about to see could be
understood as the mirror image to the above experiments: Instead of
going from striking to throwing, we are going from throwing (strategy)
to striking (tactic), etc. I would like to share the following clips
in an attempt to promote further discussion regarding such things.
- In Clip 1, we can see what we are ideally trying to go for in this
practice session. Here, the attacker (myself) is attempting to commit
at such a level that it becomes tactically difficult for the defender
(Sean) to implement any kind of striking strategy. This, I suggest,
is one way, and one reason why, an attacker might manifest the
commitment necessary for a technique like Irimi Nage to function at a
high viability rate. For the sake of our practice, it was not
necessary that this commitment be manifested with any kind of
sophistication. In fact, the point that one can shut down a
defender's striking strategy by committing fully to his/her attack is
more poignantly made when that shut down happens via the use of crude
tactics. Here that crudeness happens along side a proscription
against ground fighting and by really using nothing more than raw
aggression to manifest one's commitment to attacking. As one can see,
a striking strategy is made difficult to implement under such
conditions because the constant attacking pressure forces the defender
into non-beneficial positions (e.g. weight on the back foot, loss of
balance, moving backwards, head kept down, gaze turned away, loss of
proper Angles of Attack, etc.) The emotional and physiological
effects are no less debilitating when it comes to trying to implement
a striking strategy against such commitment (e.g. physical pain,
physical injury, fear, frustration, a sense of helplessness, the
generation of an egocentric-oriented awareness, a sense of Time moving
too fast, etc.).
In this clip, one can see that the attacker has no concern for being
thrown and/or brought into a state of kuzushi, etc. - at least not in
terms of attacking while being cautious and/or prepared for such
things. The onslaught is successful in shutting down the defender's
striking tactics, and with no throwing strategy on the horizon, it
also succeeds in keeping the attacker in a relatively safe position -
one of strategic and tactical domination. Note: Interestingly, if
one looks closely, especially during the slow motion portion of the
video, one can see the embryo of an Aikido tactic doing exactly what
it is supposed to do against such an attack. This occurs about 47
seconds into the video, when the defender inadvertently executes a
kind of tenkan maneuver. At said time, one can see the attacker
actually enter into a state of Kuzushi - having his center primed for
throwing. Unfortunately, the defender is unable to capitalize upon
this opening. Consequently, more of what preceded this moment occurs
all the way until the final guillotine.
- In Clip 2,
we see the attacker (Sean) "attacking" without much
commitment. This is of course done in an attempt to not be thrown -
since a throwing strategy is currently supporting the striking tactics
being used by the defender (myself). Because of the attacker not
committing in his attack, you can see the defender having no pressure
applied to his striking tactics. The defender is free to move in and
out of range, measuring and aiming his strikes accordingly and at
will, etc. As a result, and in conjunction with a bare minimum of
trapping tactics involved, the defender is quite free to do just about
anything - which can be noted in the liberty he possesses to implement
any kind of tactic that can be supported by the underlying throwing
strategy. Here, the defender has chosen the least sophisticated of
tactical options - remaining in the given, prime, conditions for
striking.
- In Clip 3,
because a strategy of throwing is continuing to support
the various striking tactics, we see the attacker (Sean) again
"attacking" without much commitment; only here, we see the defender
(myself) now opting for a slightly less crude tactical option than
that seen in Clip 2. Here, the defender chooses not to remain in the
given conditions that are prime for striking and trapping. Instead,
the defender opts to shoot in order to adopt a more dominant striking
position from side control. (Note: This also happens because the
attacker lacks a supporting strategy of throwing.) What one should
see is how free the defender is to implement this new strategy. This
freedom is the direct result of the attacker not pressuring the
defender's striking tactics; which is the direct result of the
attacker not committing; which is the direct result of being pressured
by the defender's supporting strategy of throwing. In other words,
the attacker thus allows the defender the possibility of generating a
committed attack in the face of the one the attacker failed to bring
to the table. With no supporting strategy of throwing of his own, the
attacker is easily brought to the ground where the once "exchange" of
blows now becomes completely one-sided. This is the exact opposite of
what one sees in Clip 1 - where the attacker used commitment to shut
down the defender's striking strategy. Here, the Yin aspect of the
attacker's current strategy is matched with the Yang energy of the
defender's shoot. In the slow motion section of the video, you can
see how the attacker's lack of commitment and/or de-commitment almost
pulls the defender in for the shoot.
- In Clip
4, we again see a strategy of throwing supporting the
defender's striking/blocking/trapping/etc. tactics. This is noted in
how the attacker (Sean) is again opting to not attack in a committed
fashion. However, in this instance, rather then remaining in striking
range (Clip 2) or shooting to side control (Clip 3), the defender
(myself) encourages the attacker forward by combining certain parrying
tactics with certain body postures, etc., in attempt to "squeeze" out
more commitment from the attacker - in an attempt to meet the
architectural considerations for throwing tactics. This does
initially produce an ample amount of commitment from the attacker -
one that allows for the viable execution of Irimi. However,
immediately thereupon the attacker de-commits from his action in an
attempt to again subvert a throwing strategy from manifesting itself
tactically. Since at the point of Irimi a throwing tactic was being
supported by a strategy of atemi, atemi tactics are immediately
(re)available when the attacker again opts to engage combatively
without commitment (i.e. de-commit). The attacker's de-commitment can
be noted in both of the filmed repetitions - especially in the slow
motion sections.
In the first one, the attacker de-commits at the bottom of the ensuing
Kuzushi. This de-commitment does in effect have him not then thrown,
but it ends up having the attacker become a stationary target lying on
the ground - not good. In the second one, the attacker de-commits
right after the Irimi-ashi is performed against him. This
de-commitment does cause the attempted Kuzushi to malfunction, since
the attacker now takes the Angle of Disturbance on both feet and not
just the front foot. However, because the Kuzushi is being supported
by a strategy of atemi, this de-commitment opens the attacker for a
left knee to the ribs (which is available now that the defenders base
is not being used to generate the Kuzushi). In the end, the knee
strike takes the attacker down just the same and opens him up again at
the bottom of the descent to even the most primitive of barrages.
From here, as we can see (inversely) in the video, we should note how
many of Aikido's prescribed ukemi responses are actually expected
responses mature attackers make in order to not be debilitated by such
things as a crude rain of punches and kicks. Additionally, we can say
that Aikido's prescribed ukemi responses are actually expected
responses mature attackers make as a result of being committed to
their victory (i.e. the defeat of the defender) and thus to their
attack.
It would be easy to understand what one is seeing here as a call for
Aikido to become one more part of a given mixed martial art. However,
that would have us falling prey to the current market considerations
that have each art attempting to artificially distinguish itself so
that it may find a proper place on the "for sale" shelf of Modern
material culture. In a way, we should realize, such market
considerations are dependent upon a "shallowing up" of each art in
question. Thus, the combining of such arts would only have us piling
up one superficial aspect upon another superficial aspect. In the
end, we will find we have achieved no depth to what we are attempting
to do and/or become. To understand the interdependent nature that
exists between various tactics and various strategies is not a call to
merely add or substitute a given set of weapons with or for another
set of weapons. It is really a call to dig deeper into one's own
practice in order to cultivate and/or acquire the necessary physical
and emotional considerations that are the matrix for any given
tactical architecture - be that one of throwing, striking, etc.
In addition, such insight is vital to developing spontaneous training
environments that are partial to practicing techniques that are
heavily aiki-based - environments wherein an attacker actually
pressures the defender tactically; environments that are often more
akin to actual self-defense situations and quite distant from match
and/or sporting environments. That is to say, as a beginner has to
first learn how to mimic a committed attack and/or how to make one
within the rubric of Kihon Waza training, intermediate practitioners
again have to learn how to attack with commitment within the rubric of
spontaneous training environments. This is because commitment is
actually a cultivated state of being. Commitment is not something
that comes to us through our own volition. This is true of commitment
whether we are talking about a marriage or whether we are talking
about attacking. Commitment is a matured state of existence; it is
learned only as much as it is practiced, and it is practiced only as
much as it is learned.
In my experience, what makes this maturity particularly difficult to
manifest for the average aikidoka within spontaneous training
environments is that his/her basic training culture subconsciously,
and incorrectly, often cultivates them to believe that having no
commitment and/or de-committing from an attack keeps them safe - keeps
defeat at bay. This occurs because of how they are subjectively
experiencing the relationship between a committed attack and
techniques like Irimi Nage, Kaiten Nage, Ikkyo, Shiho Nage, etc.,
throughout their training. Namely, I am referring to how training
curriculums make it quite clear that these techniques require
commitment in order to function at higher skill levels and/or in order
to reveal deeper or more significant insights, etc. By a sort of
reverse intuition, the average Aikido practitioner through such
training is simultaneously realizing that a lack of commitment, or an
act of de-commitment, goes a long way toward "de-sophisticating" these
particular types of tactical architecture. Within Kihon Waza
training, a lack of commitment or de-commitment is often addressed
with the simple re-stating of Uke's role. However, in a training
environment where one tells an aikidoka that he/she may do whatever is
fitting, said aikidoka often attempts to use a lack of commitment or
de-commitment as a strategy - big mistake - and no amount of reasoning
is going to deconstruct years or decades of conditioning that has up
to then proven that commitment means defeat.
Up to this point in their training, the average aikidoka probably
never experiences first hand the true relationship that exists between
a throwing tactic and a strategy of atemi (or ground fighting, etc.),
and as a result, a lack of commitment and de-commitment seems viable
when they first enter spontaneous training environments - where they
are left to do whatever they find fitting. Because their training has
been so centered around one type of strategic concern (i.e. full
commitment) and one type of tactical response (i.e. Aikido Kihon
Waza), the average aikidoka often seeks to defend him/herself against
these tactics only and he/she often attempts to do so only by lacking
commitment and/or by de-committing in his/her attacks. Therefore, in
a spontaneous training environment, where one cannot tell the deshi
"you SHOULD commit" (as in Kihon Waza training), one can use the
interdependent relationship that does exist between various tactics
and various strategies (e.g. between striking and throwing, or
throwing and striking, etc.) to further educate a deshi on the
cultivated state of commitment and the role it plays within martial
settings. Through such means, a deshi can re-condition him/herself in
how they are going to relate to issues of commitment by experiencing
first hand how important it truly is to the viability of all tactics,
particularly as they are practiced within spontaneous training
conditions. More importantly, a deshi is going to experience how a
lack of commitment or how an act of de-commitment plays no role in the
viability of any tactic. This is the most important thing when
attempting to construct truly productive spontaneous training
environments - since we can only reap what we sow.
David M. Valadez
http://www.senshincenter.com
[Discuss this article (50 replies)]
|