What makes a good attack?
I was reading Nick's book one night after a class that was frustrating. I was reading it to find out why it seemed so easy to do the #1 release working with a black belt and nearly impossible with a white belt. I came across the part where 90% of the time if there is a problem with a technique, the problem stems from Uke. The next time I was in the situation a gave a more committed attack and the technique seemed to happen all on its own.
Tuesday morning I was at the aikido class in the place of tori and was asked if I was going for the throw everytime I had it. I said yes, but later decided that I had put myself into position for the throw but had not really gone for it because I thought it would terminate the series we were working on. If I don't really go for the throw my partner kind of gets cheated because I didn't really apply the technique, but this week the series ends in the chicken wing, if I throw him at shomen ate we miss practicing the rest of the series.
My question is, what are the components of a good attack from both aspects uke and tori.
By the way, I really appreciate all of the responses I have gotten so far. Thanks to everyone who has responded.
Doug
Being a good uke is probably the toughest job when we're playing. There are many variables in playing this role.
It is said 20% of the population causes 80% of the problems. In our training we should train against the skilled 20%, because this would encompass the lesser-trained 80% of the population.
To accomplish this our attack must be committed, but not over-committed. Our attack must be made with the intention and ability to deliver energy into tori. If we attack too fast or with too much energy, tori's job becomes too easy because we're in the 80% of lesser-trained population. By maintaining Aikido principles (eye contact, good posture, balance) our job as both uke & tori becomes easier. We should also recognize the power in our attack action comes from the second foot. For example, with a straight in shomen-ate attack my first hand/foot action puts my hand on tori's chin and the second foot action is what displaces his head.
Our skill level improves with success. As uke, it's important to ensure tori has success with technique. This is more important from a sempai (senior student in a working pair, responsible for guiding practice) point of view. If kohai (lower ranked student in a working pair) is attacking at his best ability, life is great. I approach this as a window of opportunity. I can exaggerate my movements and make tori's job easy, then I begin making the window smaller by improving my attack actions. As a sempai I want my partner to have success but to have some degree of challenge as well. We must be capable of varying our intensity and commitment to go with the skill level of our partner. It's not fair for me to attack a white belt or green belt the same way I would attack a shodan, or to attack a shodan with the intensity I might play with a godan. The scale must be flexible to the player, not necessarily to the rank.
When attacking we must maintain our initial target. When you shoot an arrow or a bullet, once launched it maintains its course and cannot deviate (except because of wind and gravity). It doesn't have a tracking system, such as an aircraft missile does. So, wherever tori's hand or head is as we launch the attack, that's the spot we attack. If tori moves, we must maintain the attack on the spot. This is an easy place to cheat as we're moving slowly. If we were to attack at full speed it would be impossible for us to change course because of the momentum of our center moving.
there is a certain irony in what we do -- we want the attacker (uke actually means the receiver of the action) to be sincere, honest, and commited (really try to push the head back 4-6 inches or grasp with intent to control), to be brave (falling is very scary), and to be trusting (after all tori often has a ridiculous amount of power over uke and uke's well being is often in tori's hands )-- uke's job is undenaiably tough, -- the requirements on this side of the relationship are very high, so be patient with yourself
for the defender (tori is actually the "doer" or giver of the action) we want a certain degree of duplicity (in that you sometime have to just "play like" things are happening in the technical series-- so you try to make the throw but you play like uke drives you back in the other direction so you switch up to the next move) -- just as you say , tori can commit to the position and the relationship but you dont commit the energy so that you can continue through the series for practice-- this actually adds to the burden of being tori and demands that he take more responsibility for creating the technique than ever
happens on the street-- with a fully reactive uke (someone who is attacking 100% and resisting100%)- probability of injury to uke goes up dramatically and tori actually doesnt need to do so much--the attacker does most of it for you
-- think of the throw or lock as sort of a piece of collabrative art work-- in practice we want tori to do most of the work and uke to only contribute in certain prescribed ways (commit the attack and recover balance or fall safely) uke is asked not to create alot of resistance to off balance and not to overreact or over commit or jump into random secondary attacks (like "what if i try a kick or throw and elbow or try to spin around real quick") -- instead uke is just asked to attack, receive the off balance cleanly, and recover (if possible) and line back up to try to be in the attacking position again-- this keep ukes job efficient and relativly safe-- tori has to really move his ass and get very efficient as well to handle such an uke
this also keeps uke doing good principled aikido action in practice--the attacks are isomorphic to what tori is doing so we arent running counter to our training goals half the time ( we see this in systems where uke is called upon to do alot of punching and kicking etc. -- tori gets lazy since the attacks are less efficient and uke gets alot of practice in not doing aikido) -- makes for cool looking demos but is a slow way to train the subconscious reactions
The idea of "throwing" uke, too, is a sticking one, too. To my way of thinking, I'm never actually trying to "throw" uke. Rather, once he attacks (puts energy into the system), I off balance him and sort of place him on the edge of a cliff (so to speak) with something (kote gaeshi, shomen ate, etc), hold him there and wait (with my butt still moving, of course). If he falls, great; if he recovers and attacks again, I do something else (place him on the edge of another cliff) and wait and see if he falls or recovers, and so on. So I think it's okay if we start out with the intention of going through all the techniques of a given series, but only get part way because uke just slipped off the cliff once in a while. In my experience (usually in randori), it's the moment when I try and "throw", the experienced player will reverse things on me and I end up jumping on my head 😄
As far as elements of a good attack, to me, once uke has delivered a given attack and tore has broken balance and puts uke on the edge of the cliff (done a technique), I, as uke, have three jobs:
1) Get my balance back. Any time my shoulders are not over my center (my butt), and/or my feet aren't under my center, I'm off balance, and I need to get it all lined up again. (It's very hard, if not darn near impossible, to deliver an effective attack when off balance. We tend to throw ourselves rather unceremoniously in the attempt!)
2) Tore has usually moved off the line of attack, which leaves me and all my "weapons" (my center, my arms, etc) pointing out in space somewhere. I need to re-orient myself back AT tore, to change the line of attack so that it's pointed at tore again (and so he can get off of it again, of course). I see a lot of beginning uke's forgetting this part: they get their balance back, but then just end up walking around aimlessly, it seems, and it kind of kills the whole thing.
3) Deliver another attack. Mostly, that just means moving toward tore again. Sometimes it means we're "playing like" I'm trying to do a specific reaction, like get out of the technique I'm in, eg, I'm in kote gaeshi, try to get out, and tore gets me in kote hineri, that sort of thing; or we "play like" tore runs into a wall and has to reverse the release or something... But for the most part, I'm always trying to move toward tore.
Also, it's scary being a good, COMMITTED uke, because our sub-conscious mind is not programmed to just allow us to "die" and get "got" (our ancestors who didn't mind someone else getting the best of them are no longer with us). So, as silly as it may sound, I think the better we are at ukemi, the better attacker we'll be. If our sub-conscious is okay with falling down, then we become comfortable with living on the edge of that cliff (because if we fall, we know we'll still be safe). If a person isn't comfortable with ukemi, they always hold back a little, and uke never learns where the cliff edge is -- and consequently will never be able to reliably put OTHER people there when he's the tore.
Sean Ashby wrote:So, as silly as it may sound, I think the better we are at ukemi, the better attacker we'll be. If our sub-conscious is okay with falling down, then we become comfortable with living on the edge of that cliff (because if we fall, we know we'll still be safe). If a person isn't comfortable with ukemi, they always hold back a little, and uke never learns where the cliff edge is -- and consequently will never be able to reliably put OTHER people there when he's the tore.
I'll completely agree with this.
Sean Ashby wrote:2) Tore has usually moved off the line of attack, which leaves me and all my "weapons" (my center, my arms, etc) pointing out in space somewhere. I need to re-orient myself back AT tore, to change the line of attack so that it's pointed at tore again (and so he can get off of it again, of course). I see a lot of beginning uke's forgetting this part: they get their balance back, but then just end up walking around aimlessly, it seems, and it kind of kills the whole thing.
As a newbie the principle that's helped me the most to return to a committed attack after having been off-balanced is making eye-contact. There's something about looking straight at tori's eyes that puts me right back on that line of attack.
Douglas
I am really beginning to understand the abstractness or "feel" of an attack. As I think about it and visualize attacks on various people I have worked with, I really start to think in a techniqual stream. In other words, how would these ideas be translated into a physical representation. Thinking about some of the other white belts I have worked with, my attack would be something like:
Wide strides, little resistance, very slow, straight line of attack, feel the technique, regain balance, return in a straight line towards tori.
against more advanced people:
shorter strides, some resistance, moderate pace, straight line of attack, feel the technique, return in a straight line.
Does this sound right?
This is only my opinion so take it for what it's worth. Most of the time a technique fails as tori, it is because of expectation. Most of the time an attack fails because of uke, it's mistrust.
What I mean by that is if uke does not trust the skill of tori, uke is worried about injury rather than application of his attack.
If tori expects to succeed or not, the technique fails whether or not it comes to completion. Only by living in the moment of the conflict can tori understand technique and the requirements of that specific uke.
I think kata isn't only about form, but more of a conversation about form. It's just that it lacks actual words. The method we use is sublte body motion to converse. A common problem, I think, is that this is a new language that must be learned through experience.
I think that the base of the problem is that singular misunderstanding that what we are doing is applying a martial art. I think that is a result (more like a side effect) but not the actual point of kata. The point is learning a new language to communicate subtle features of balance.
Randori, in my impression, is more so, but more general and more specific. I know that doesn't make sense on the face of it. In allegory, randori would be two artists painting a picture that becomes one whole in its execution.
In short, I think uke can only be uke. Good or bad doesn't apply. Whether uke is sincerely uke can be the only judgement. As tori must be there/then, and must only be there/then, because it is tori that is learning to listen and speak with uke's honest help. I think applying the rigid structures of kata aids in learning to a degree, but it can also be a detriment. I think it can be a trap that inhibits growth becuase it is rigid and allows the formation of expectation on both sides.
Most of the goddie have already been discussed, but I'll ad a few things.
First, uke has to do a few basic things or there is no Aikido. I uke doesn't attack, or doesn't apply any energy, there's no Aikido. An Aikidoka who hasn't been attacked just stands around, sometimes in a hakama and usually talking about movies.
Second, what is a good attack against a white belt isn't the same as a good attack against a black belt. I think it's been covered a little, but there are lots of variables we can change in our attacks to adjust for skill level, physical ability or (I think most importantly) what is appropriate for teaching at that time.
Third, the right "kind" of attack is important. Different attacks lead to different responses. Sometimes in practice we want to pratice a certian sequence, but the attack is leading us in another direction.