Kaze Uta Budo Kai Forum Archive

OK guys I am on a renewed deep study of the atemi waza. I am in deep search of the what each motion really represents. I am gonna break a few eggs in my search, but after all questioning what we think we know is my contribution to the art. I guess I am a meta-technician - the exploration of the 'whys' of technique.

I reviewed Youtube Sensei's work from around the world, then I re-watched Nick's instructional work. Again, I want to thank the Oklahoma crew for putting together the great videos.


Nick in the video labeled the distinctive features of the throws.

Shomen ate - Nick said the hand changes are the distinctive feature

Agamae ate - Nick said the elbow control is the distinctive feature

Gyaku - Nick said entering the center line is the distinctive feature



I question are these really the distinctive features of the techniques? Maybe in this kata, or the expression of the kata as it has been handed to us. But if we use this kata as a foundation of expression of the multifacted manifestation of aikido technique perhaps we need to dig deeper.

Shomen ate is commonly performed single hand to the face, just look at Gozo Shioda, or even Nick in his multiple attach video.

Aigamae is seen in the koryu dai san tachi dori segement without elbow control. Actually the big 10 aiki nage is really a form of aigamae ate. No elbow control there, at least not the way I do it.

I can buy the center line control of gyaku, but really this is could be a distinctive feature of all of the first 3, or even the atemi waza...or even the 17.


So what are the distinctive features you ask? Patience young one....I believe the answer lies in the name of the techniques themselves. You see I am a bit of a literal interpretation sort of person.


1. SHOMEN-ATE: (front head) attack. Shomen means front or forward.
2. AI GAMAE-ATE: Ai(same)(mutual). Gamae (stance or posture). Mutual stance strike.
3. GYAKU GAMAE-ATE: Reverse posture attack. Opposite. Gyaku means contrary or reverse.



I propose Architectural relationships is the distinctive feature of these techniques.

front, mutual and opposed stances define the techniques

Do the specific connections define them? I do not think so. I have been experimenting using the Architectural relationship model, and i find with every technique I can find at least 5-7 points on my body I can connect to my partner and cause kuzushi/structural failure.

So I propose the techniques - and their myriad expressions are found in the relationship of the stances (another word for how the centers are propped up on legs) to one another.

And really 'technique' is an inaccurate word. Front, mutual and opposed stances represent architectural relationships, entry, or an attack position, into endless expression of techniques.


Tag - ya'll are it.


(I assume you are stunned from spontaneous enlightenment. If not..... let it sink in)

I did an "architectural" post of my own last month: http://blog.lostbearlabs.com/2010/06/why-ju-nana-hon-kata.html

Following what I wrote there, techniques 1-4 represent four important combinatorial possibilities: they are the four straight, one-step throws that use contact to uke's center and propel uke backwards. There are four of them because there are two possible stance relations (cross-hand / mirror-hand) and there are two possible arm contact relations (tore's hand is inside the line of uke's arm, tore's hand is outside the line of uke's arm).

As you'll see from the chart at the bottom of my post (assuming you have Silverlight installed -- sorry 'bout that, but it's what I know best) if you take these four possibilities and cross-product them with two other factors (throw to front or back, and contact at center or elbow or wrist) you come close to recovering the entire kata. Close enough that I believe this actually is the story that the kata tries to tell.

good points Eric P -- i think you are right and that i overstated it when i said "distinctive features" -- what i was trying to do in the video was to highlight the particular reactions that the kata is trying to impart for randori play, not make some determination as to the fundamental basis of each waza-- sloppy language on my part -- the architectural formula is an elegant one and i think more correct

along these lines i also like to look at the shift from the earlier forms in the 15 to the later in the 17-- originally these three were the whole atemi waza section-- gedan ate may have come in from kendo and ushiro ate from judo ( personally i suspect Tomiki et al played more toshu randori and these architectural relationships just kept cropping up so they included them and looked for precedents after) -- actually the original gyaukugamate was already alot like a gedanate in some respects as it kinda shears though the guy rather than attacks his eyes -- and you can think of ushiro ate as a backward form (pull instead of push) of shomenate -- aigameate is indeed that mirror sided relationship and has a lot of precedent in iriminage forms that both go over an under the elbow to execute

Cool stuff Eric J-- i will get silverlight an take a peek

good points Eric P -- i think you are right and that i overstated it when i said "distinctive features" -- what i was trying to do in the video was to highlight the particular reactions that the kata is trying to impart for randori play, not make some determination as to the fundamental basis of each waza-- sloppy language on my part -- the architectural formula is an elegant one and i think more correct

along these lines i also like to look at the shift from the earlier forms in the 15 to the later in the 17-- originally these three were the whole atemi waza section-- gedan ate may have come in from kendo and ushiro ate from judo ( personally i suspect Tomiki et al played more toshu randori and these architectural relationships just kept cropping up so they included them and looked for precedents after) -- actually the original gyaukugamate was already alot like a gedanate in some respects as it kinda shears though the guy rather than attacks his eyes -- and you can think of ushiro ate as a backward form (pull instead of push) of shomenate -- aigameate is indeed that mirror sided relationship and has a lot of precedent in iriminage forms that both go over an under the elbow to execute

Cool stuff Eric J-- i will get silverlight an take a peek

Interesting Eric J -- just reviewed the grid its pretty cool -- the relationships marked in red are interesting to me though since i think there maybe some applications from inside the elbow to the back ( thinking here of a wicked form of sumiotoshi) and wrist to the back (a backward kotegaeshi or kotemawashi perhaps) also for the inside core to the front it looks like a good case for shizumi otoshi or possible kubi garuma action... but perhaps i am extrapolating too much

Hussey was working with me with on Tani Otoshi Valley Drop, without the sacrifice. His version are identical to gedan ate in many ways. I was surprised as he is not a Tomiki guy.

I have changed my practice of gedan ate to start with a head lock, head scoop or waki gatame from uke. Starting the move as a counter brings in the 'low' element better than the flawed logic (in my opinion) of the kata version of the 17 - where is the low???

BTW Nick, I wasn't bustin your chops over the 'distinctive features' thing. I am just trying to polish the mirror of dust.

not feeling any busting of chops -- Hussey started with Rinard and that makes him family wheater he identifies with the tomiki model or not -- yes the higher type gendanate is more similar to the old school gyaku gamae ate i mentioned before-- i have had good results with gedanate everywhere from the floor to the shoulder -- i usually shoot for elbow or so just prevent the free hand from operating with a potential weapon-- i like the lower forms an counter ideas as well

nick lowry wrote:... applications from inside the elbow to the back ( thinking here of a wicked form of sumiotoshi) and wrist to the back (a backward kotegaeshi or kotemawashi perhaps) also for the inside core to the front it looks like a good case for shizumi otoshi or possible kubi garuma action...

Of the throws you mention, Kubi Garuma is the one I understand best ... it didn't make the chart because the critical final throw involves rotation around the fixed standing leg, rather than a straight projection. In this particular dissection, I'm really thinking about very old-fashioned linear throws, not the more rotational ones we frequently use nowadays in "dynamic" kata.

(The Owaza Ju Pon seem to break down pretty nicely into a similar chart of rotational throws from different contact distances. I'm still thinking about that one ... Shiho Nage and Ushiro Ate never quite seem like they fit the pattern, which makes me think I'm not actually doing the correct Big-10 variations...)

Eric Johnson wrote:

nick lowry wrote:... applications from inside the elbow to the back ( thinking here of a wicked form of sumiotoshi) and wrist to the back (a backward kotegaeshi or kotemawashi perhaps) also for the inside core to the front it looks like a good case for shizumi otoshi or possible kubi garuma action...

Of the throws you mention, Kubi Garuma is the one I understand best ... it didn't make the chart because the critical final throw involves rotation around the fixed standing leg, rather than a straight projection. In this particular dissection, I'm really thinking about very old-fashioned linear throws, not the more rotational ones we frequently use nowadays in "dynamic" kata.

If I may suggest, being a Yoseikan practicioner (ey, prewar styles rulez!), this seems like the right place to attach Kubi Otoshi, which you can find in our Taisabaki no Kata as its second technique. Just for your reference, this is Roland Hernaez Sensei's version of the kata:



Actually I can see a lot of similarities between the styles of Tomiki, Mochizuki and Shioda. I'd love to hear what are your views on this 😉

Best from Spain!

OK, I've reread this thread maybe three times in the past month, and each time I ask myself, "Why is Eric asking this question, or these questions?"

I'll pose my confusion as to the "why," in the form of another question, as follows:

Bad guy comes in hard, and for whatever equational-relationship reason I manage to end up after my kazushi behind bad guy with my ahnds up. I body drop forward, putting my palm into the middle of his back if I'm feeling nice, or at the base of his skull if I'm not, and hit my body-drop step, driving forward.

My body performed a Shomenate, didn't it? Or... did it? And if it didn't, was it only because my body was behind bad guy when I moved forward?

Nomenclature, people. Nomenclature. It's a big deal.

I don't have an answer for Eric at all, as you can see from the above. I think the meaning derives from language. If Eric thinks Shomenate means what I think it means, then we're both right. If one of us differs from the other, then one of is "wrong," by definition, maybe.