There's always an ongoing discussion somewhere in the aikido world about the "proper" role of uke; that is, the role that involves attacking a partner and, usually in most dojos, staying in that role to have the technique applied and accepting the fall or pin that results.
What is most often derided (well, after the really cruddy attacks you see in some dojos) is the practice of "tanking," of being so into playing the role that you go through it pro forma and roll or fall regardless of what your partner does. The funny thing is, I've been in dojos that will remain nameless that decry the practice while engaging in it, at least when the person applying the technique wears a black belt. Anyhow, it does seem to be widely recognized, if only in lip service sometimes, that unless you are with a real beginner, nobody learns if uke tanks.
The problem is, if you are not tanking, what ARE you doing?
I've practiced with partners who seem to think the proper non-tanking ukemi is active resistance, muscling back at their partners. There are others who, having delivered their initial attack, simply hang on and root themselves. In my opinion, they miss the point of the type of training we are doing.
Peter "the Budo Bum" Boylan and I have been having a back and forth about the role of kata for some time. Like him, I believe that the kind of partnered practice most aikido dojos use outside of kiyuwaza or randori is really a kata: an attack and a technique are specified, and two people, each with a predestined role, do their best to deliver it.
Viewed in this light, the role of uke is to deliver and keep delivering a committed attack,one that isn't so fast or hard as to overwhelm the skills level of the partner, but one that is continually aimed at the partner's center and continues the attacking energy as long as possible. This allows the partner to move appropriately, connect with uke, find the technique, and let it happen.
I also agree with a thought Jun Akiyama articulated many years ago: "nage, uke, same, same;" that is, it shouldn't matter which role you are in, the principles apply. So if the person doing the technique to uke is not supposed to be muscling or rooting, why would it be considered apt to incorporate such non-aiki principles in one's ukemi?
My own ukemi is a work in progress. It's limited by inability to move swiftly in some directions, certain actual disabilities and certain lingering fears. But I'm striving to find what I believe is the middle path, finding the "aiki" in the role: giving a sincere attack and, once it establishes a connection with my partner, being as committed as she is to staying connected. With a beginner I aim to let my body assume to shape of an idealized ukemi. But with others, I aim to relax and let my body reflect accurately what it is my partner is actually doing.
2 comments:
I think you describe very well how I also would like to see ukes role, at least most of the time. With some of my more senior dojomates we've been experimenting with a more challenging ukemi, where we try to use the connection between uke and tori to actively reverse the technique and take over, where uke doesn't allow tori access to their center in the first place but tries to get to tori's (who just became uke) center instead, that kind of thing.
Pauliina, I think that is the ultimate form of aikido training, where there is no uke or nage, but that kind of fluidity. It's rarely done - I know that its a hallmark of Chuck Clark's aikibudo - and I've played with it at aikido-L seminars and from time to time with a willing partner outside of regular classes. I think it's not unlike some tai chi push hands also. It's so difficult - most people will just revert to force. One dojo I used to train at had us do various exercises that really do help develop the ability to work that way.
Post a Comment