Books - Martial Arts - Aikido the art of fighting without fight

VIP免费
2024-12-06 0 0 2.72MB 44 页 5.9玖币
侵权投诉
Introduction
There was once a very famous Aikido player in Japan who spent
his whole life studying Usheba's legendary art. Although he had
dedicated his whole existence to this beautiful art he had never
actually had occasion to test it in a real life situation against a
determined attacker, someone intent on hurting him. Being a
moralistic kind of person he realised that it would be very bad
karma to actually go out and pick a fight just to test his art so he
was forced to wait until a suitable occasion presented itself.
Naively, he longed for the day when he was attacked so that he
could prove to himself that Aikido was powerful outside of the
controlled walls of the dojo.
The more he trained, the more his obsession for validation grew
until one day, travelling home from work on a local commuter
train, a potential situation did present itself -an overtly drunk and
aggressive man boarded his train and almost immediately started
verbally abusing the other passengers.
'This is it,' the Aikido man thought to himself, 'this is my chance
to test my art.'
He sat waiting for the abusive passenger to reach him. It was
inevitable that he would: he was making his way down the
carriage abusing everyone in his path. The drunk got closer and
closer to the Aikido man, and the closer he got the louder and
more aggressive he became. Most of the other passengers
recoiled in fear of being attacked by the drunk. However, the
Aikido man couldn't wait for his turn, so that he could prove to
himself and everyone else, the effectiveness of his art. The drunk
got closer and louder. The Aikido man made ready for the
seemingly inevitable assault -he readied himself for a bloody
encounter.
As the drunk was almost upon him he prepared to demonstrate
his art in the ultimate arena, but before he could rise from his
seat the passenger in front of him stood up and engaged the
drunk jovially. 'Hey man, what's up with you? I bet you've
been drinking in the bar all day, haven't you? You look like a
man with problems. Here, come and sit down with me, there's
no need to be abusive. No one on this train wants to fight with
you.'
The Aikido man watched in awe as the passenger skillfully
talked the drunken man down from his rage. Within minutes
the drunk was pouring his heart out to the passenger about how
his life had taken a downward turn and how he had fallen on
hard times. It wasn't long before the drunk had tears streaming
down his face. The Aikido man, somewhat ashamed thought to
himself 'That's Aikido!'. He realised in that instant that the
passenger with a comforting arm around the sobbing drunk was
demonstrating Aikido, and all martial art, in it highest form.
Why have I written this book? Why have I written a book about
the art of fighting without fighting when my claim to fame is
probably the fact that I have been in over 300 street fights,
where I used a physical response to neutralise my enemy. Why
write a book about avoidance when it is obviously so simple to
finish a fight with the use of a physical attack? Indeed why
write it when my whole reputation as a realist, as a martial arts
cross trainer, as a blood and snot mat man may be risked by the
endeavor? The reason is simple: violence is not the answer! It
may solve some of the problems in the short term but it will
create a lot more in the long term. I know -I've been there. I
was, as they say, 'that soldier'.
It took me nine years of constant violence and many more of
soul-searching to realise this truth and because so much has
happened to me in my post-'door' years, my attitude and
opinion has changed. At my most brutal I justified violence, to
myself, to those I taught and to those I spoke to. I was even
prepared to use verbal violence to substantiate my views. That
was how lost I was. But I' m not at all ashamed of that, my views
may have been distorted then but I did genuinely believe them. I
was never a bad person, it's just that my beliefs were governed by
my limited knowledge, which left me somewhat Neanderthal.
As my knowledge has grown so has my intellect and confidence,
this has allowed me a new belief -a belief that will keep changing
as long I grow. I can see it all now. I can see where I fit into the
scheme of things. I can see the futility of violence and the pain of
violent people. I can see that fighting on the pavement arena is
war in microcosm and that wars destroy worlds. I know now that
violence is not the answer, in the short term or the long
term. There has to be another solution. At this moment in
time I cannot tell you what that solution is, only that
knocking a guy unconscious and doing a 56 move kata on
his head is not it. Not if we are ever going to survive as a
species and learn to live in peace with one another. I spend
my time now trying to avoid violence and trying to develop
alternatives to taking an opponent off the planet with a
practiced right cross. Some of the stuff is good too, it works,
it will at least help keep some of the antagonists at bay until
we can find a better alternative.
But, I hear you cry, what about those who won't let you
avoid, escape, dissuade, loophole, posture, the ones that not
only take you to the doorway of violence but want to kick it
open and enter the arena and no amount of talk or
negotiation is going to stop them. What are we to do with or
to them? Well, this is where my 'non-violence' theorem
becomes a little contradictory, because if we are forced into a
physical response and if we do not fight back, our species is
as good as dead.
I, like most, have a family to protect and I will protect by
whatever means fair or foul. Because I am trying to become
a better person, and because I am desperately trying to lose
violence from my life, I have been struggling with the fact
that, occasionally when it is unavoidable, I may still have to
employ violence, if only to keep the peace. I am constantly
struggling with the fact that this still feels wrong to me, but
my, our, survival is at stake. When I was in America last
year (1997) I was teaching with Benny 'the jet' Urquidiz and
I asked him whether he thought, given the fact that we were
both trying to be Christian people, you could ever justify the
use of violence. He told me that he believed violence was
wrong, but If someone left you no other option other than to
hit him, then it was their karma, it was meant to be. He said
that he felt they were sent by God to be taught a lesson and
he would give that lesson as gently as possible.
Some people need a poke in the eye to show them the right
direction, others simply need pointing in the right direction.
It is a question of having the wisdom to know when to point
and when to poke. To some in society violence is a
language, a way of communication - a very primitive
language -but a means of discourse nonetheless. If you don't
speak to them in their own tongue, then they will not
understand you. This is where the contention begins.
So, we have a contradiction in play here: violence is wrong
but sometimes we have to employ it. I know that the
uninitiated are already up in arms, probably scribbling away
discontent to the letters page as we speak. I truly understand
how they feel, because I feel the same way, but I fear that
they will never be convinced by words, and their experience
of life is often not broad enough to give them another
perspective. Their truth for a completely violence-free world
is as limited by their finite perspective, as mine was as a
nightclub doorman. I needed to experience the hope of non-
violence to appreciate its potential. They probably need to
experience violence to appreciate its necessity as an antidote
in a world where the species is lowly evolved.
I have a varied background in these matters. I have
experienced violence, pre-bouncer, as a scared young man
who could only suffer in silence. I have also experienced
violence as man who could confidently counter it with
greater violence and I now experience a violent world as
man who
can confidently employ violence but who chooses not to
because I feel it is not the answer. Most people's opinions are
born from experiencing only one of these perspectives.
As a nightclub doorman I was often faced by violence that
terrified me, woundings that revolted me and conduct that
chilled me to the bone. However, what really sickened me -
even more than the congealed blood and smashed teeth of an
adversary -was the absolute hypocrisy of this fickle society.
Facing adversity did show me the beauty of amity but it took
time, many savage confrontations and much self-education,
before I could drag myself kicking and screaming into a
better existence. Unfortunately, even then I could not find a
preferable solution to the threat of immediate attack than that
of counter-attack. I am aware that the state might call my
actions criminal, but how do they rationalise their own acts
of violence? Perhaps by calling them law? I teach many
strategies to evade attack; avoidance, escape, verbal
dissuasion, loopholing and posturing. But what do you do
when all of these techniques have been exhausted and you
are still facing an adversary that wants to step outside the law
and attack you? You are left with a choice, either become the
hammer or the anvil -hurt or be hurt, kill or be killed. Does
that sound brutal? Are these the words of an uneducated
nightclub thug? How would you deal with the situation?
How would your peers deal with it? Those in government?
Those with power?
Without wishing to go into politics and the rights and
wrongs of what is going on in the world, I will offer an
example of how they, the leaders of the free world, the
highbrow of humanity, deal with potentially violent
situations that will not go away. The world recently found
itself in a very threatening
situation with a foreign leader, a threat that could potentially
destroy the world and effect many other planets in our solar
system. The United Nations, the immune system of the
world, tried to avoid a violent confrontation by mediation.
The UN tried to escape a violent situation with compromise,
they 'loopholed' by trying to offer 'the threat' honourable
alternatives to war, they 'postured' by threatening war, (even
flying bomber planes over his country in a threatening
manner). They absolutely exhausted mediation. When it all
failed, what did the United Nation do, what did they consider
justifiable, though unfortunate, what did they greatest minds
in the free world agree upon when all their avoidance
techniques did not work? WAR! War was what they agreed
upon! War: the greatest expression of violence known to
man, where thousands of men, women and children are
killed and maimed. The UN told this leader in no uncertain
terms that they were prepared to talk to him, that they
wanted to avoid war, that they wanted to find an alternative
to bloodshed but the bottom line was, if he did not comply,
they would kill him and his people!'
The immune system recognises cancerous cells, it knows
that one cancerous cell can destroy the whole body if it is not
killed, so it sends out killer T-cells to assassinate the
threatening cell. Ugly, but necessary if you want the body,
and the species to survive.
As for me working with violence? Physically the toll was
bearable, if not a little hideous. My nose, broken in three
places (I'll never go to those places again!) stab scars in my
head, broken knuckles and fingers and a cauliflower ear that
could win a horticultural ribbon. But some of my friends
were
not so lucky: three lost their lives, a couple their marbles and
yet another lost the sight in one eye to a glass-wielding
psychopath.
Psychologically however my wounds were less superfluous.
Overexposure to the brutality of people left me temporarily
paranoid, cynical and often very
violent. I could see only
physical solutions to life's many
disputes. Punching an adversary
unconscious after an argument
was, to me, as perfunctory as a
mint after dinner. It was never
gratuitous, I hated fighting, it
was survival, and that was all.
In my world violence was a
plumber's wrench -no more than
that. This behaviour was
acceptable, even expectable but
in civvy street, me and my kind
were brandished Neanderthal.
So when I finally transcended
the door' there was a time of
readjustment, of trying to locate
my place in a capricious society
where doormen were seen as
vogue in times of trouble and
vague in times of peace.
I was frequently informed by those who had not met
violence down a dark alley (and it's too easy to say when you
haven't 'been there'), that violence was not the answer -a
view
voiced so often these days that it has almost become a
fashion accessory. Not an easy standard to apply though
when faced by a savage adversary intent on flattening the
world with your head. How many would not employ even
the vilest instrument to protect a loved one? For instance the
young lady who nearly burst my ear drum out side a
Coventry nightclub would never have believed herself
capable of violent assault, yet when her beloved was
attacked her principles disappeared quicker than a gambler's
rent money. 'Violence is not the answer!' She yelled at me
indignantly. Granted I had just 'sparked' her irate boyfriend
with a practiced right cross. He had tried to marry my face
with the speared edges of a broken beer glass -I felt
compelled to stop him the only way I knew how.
'No?' I replied with mock surprise. 'Well, tell your boyfriend
that when he wakes up.'
My reply angered her so much that her face contorted into a
domino of hate. She proceeded to remove a stiletto heel
from her elegant foot, hoist the makeshift weapon above her
head like an executioner's axe and attempt to separate me
from my mortality. She was about to employ violence to
accentuate her point that it was 'not the answer'.
It would seem that hypocrisy in our society knows no
bounds. Ironically my own life as a bouncer began due to
my own innate fear of violence. I donned the required 'tux'
in the hope that confronting my fears might nurture a greater
understanding of my own sympathetic nervous system, one
that seemed in a permanent state of alert, maybe even descry
a little desensitization. It was to be an eventful, if not bloody
journey that lasted nine years. En route I discovered that
truths that can only usually be found in the middle of stormy
oceans or at the top of craggy mountains. Nothing comes
free of course, and there is a consequence to every action
that we take; if you pick up one end of the stick you also
pick up the other. Enlightenment came at great expense. My
innocence was clubbed like a beached seal, my marriage
ended in bitter divorce and my faith in human nature took a
near near-fatal slash to the jugular.
So, I realise that until the species we call humankind evolves,
there will always be a need for violence (unfortunately, I
have no doubt about this in my mind) to protect the good
majority and the world, from the bad minority and the
indifferent from themselves. This doesn't make violence
right, rather it is a necessary evil -sometimes you have to
lose a finger to save a hand. This does not mean that
everyone has to partake in violence, or even agree on its
necessity, on a large scale to protect this world from those
who would inadvertently destroy it. Many people make the
mistake of thinking that a solution must be palatable to be
correct -this couldn't be farther from the truth. Violence to
prevent greater violence will never be more than a hideous
expression of physical domination, but it may save mankind
until its metamorphosis into a spiritual domain.
Therefore, not everyone has to 'get their hands dirty'. There
will always be a select few, like the killer T -cells in the
body, that roam the bloodstream protecting the body from
the intrusion of viral cells, who are chosen to do the dirty
work in the name of those who won't or can't. The immune
system protects the body this way, and even God in his
infinite wisdom had warring angels in Heaven to fight evil.
Returning to my
original questions: why did I write this book, why do I teach
avoidance techniques? Because violence is wrong and one of
the best remedies is to attack proactively so that we can
avoid, escape, dissuade, loophole or posture to avoid
physical confrontation and prevent violence from becoming
manifest. I believe that a part of the evolution of our species
is to rid the world of violence, so I would like to explore as
many ways of avoiding fighting as I can. If all we know is 'a
punch on the nose', then, when the shit hits the fan and
contention is on the menu, we will have no other choice but
to employ a punch on the nose. If, however, we have several
other alternatives to choose from, and we can become expert
in using these alternatives, then we can strategically evade
the use of force, and still ensure victory most of the time.
As with all my concepts, this book is pieced together from
empirical study in the field. None of it is theory, I have
made it all work on many occasions against fearsome
opponents who wanted to part me from my mortality, or
from my good looks at the very least!
When I started in the martial arts my 'ippon', my knock out,
my tap-out was to beat my opponents with the use of
physical force. My objectives have now changed. Now if I
have to hit some one to win the day I feel that no one has
won. So my ippon now is to beat someone using guile as
opposed to force. My hope is that this book will encourage
the same in you.
Chapter One
Avoidance
Avoidance is the very first in a long list of tactical maneuvers
aimed at 'not being there' when an attack is taking place. And it
really is very simple, even obvious, but I find it is the 'simple'
and 'obvious' stuff that usually gets overlooked and lands people
in an affray that should never have occurred. These tactics are
not to be read and stored, rather they are to be read and practiced
over and over again until they are natural, everyday habits, like
getting into the car and putting on your seat-belt, (something that
once had to be forced is now a habit). In fact, I bet if you tried
driving without a seat belt it would feel awkward after wearing
one for so long. Avoidance is being aware, understanding the
enemy, understanding yourself and understanding your
environment. If you are training in a martial art, then avoidance
is understanding that
art and whether it
will stand up to the
threat of a real
encounter. More
than anything,
avoidance is having
enough control over
yourself, your ego,
your pride, peer
pressure, morality
etc. to stop these
negative emotions
from dragging you into a situation that could otherwise be
avoided.
Many people find themselves fighting because they are
worried about what others might think if they run away. If
you are very confident in yourself and you know your
capabilities you will have no problem walking away, or
simply not being there in the first place. Insecure people,
those that are not sure of themselves or their art, will be
fighting all day long because they lack the strength of
character to go against popular opinion. This is often the case
with martial artists (no offense intended), especially high
graded ones. They are frequently on such a high pedestal
(placed there by themselves, or by their own pupils) that they
drag themselves into fights that could/should be avoided,
because they are worried about letting their students down in
some way. This is often their own fault because they have
taught a 'corporal' system that only addresses the physical
response -the ultimate accolade being a KO when attacked by
an assailant.
I understand this; it is a syndrome that I too went through as a
young instructor. As a man that has 'been there', my ideals
have changed and whilst the physical response is, obviously,
still on my training curriculum, it is no longer my main
artillery, neither is the physical ippon (KO) my main aim.
Rather my goal is to defeat an opponent without becoming
physical.
In theory, I am aware that this aim is simple and
straightforward, in reality in a confrontational society such as
ours it is not so easy -a tremendous amount of self-control
and confidence is needed to make this lofty goal an actuality.
This is predominantly why I make my personal system of
combat such
a difficult one: to develop this confidence and control. This is
also the reason why our motto is the latin 'Per Ardua Et Astra'
(through hardship to the stars), and why such people as the
American Dog brothers work with the motto 'higher
consciousness through harder contact'.
Jeff Cooper, legendary American close combat and shooting
instructor (known on the circuit as this generation's closest thing
to Wyatt Earp), was once asked how you would know if your art
was effective for street defence or self-protection. His reply was
simple: when you are worried about hurting, perhaps killing
another human being because your technique is so potent, then
you know your art is real.
Do you feel that way, or are you still worrying/wondering
whether your art will in fact even work in that arena? If your
feelings fall into the latter category it is worth injecting a little
more pressure in your training and putting your system to the
test in the controlled arena, by taking it as close to the real thing
(under supervision) as possible. This can also mean watching
extreme fighting tapes to see how the innovators are doing it.
The key phrase for avoidance in contemporary self-protection is
'Target Hardening'. By making yourself a hard target, you lessen
your chances of being chosen as a potential victim. I once
interviewed a group of burglars, I asked them for their prime
requisite when selecting a house to rob. This was their response:
'We always look for properties that are not protected.' The house
that sported an alarm box, dog pictures in the window, window
locks etc. were very often by-passed by the average robber.
'Why bother bursting your balls on a dwelling with all that
protection when there are rakes of houses around the corner
with **ck all, just asking to be robbed. These people kill us.
They fucking gripe about having their houses robbed yet they
leave us an invite at the door. They just make it easy for us.'
Many burglars rob the same house three or more times,
because the owners do nothing to stop them. Self-protection
works in a similar vein. If you make yourself a hard target by
following the rules of awareness, you too will by by-passed for
an 'easier target'. If you don't you will be chosen again and
again.
The contemporary enemy likes to work via dialogue and
deception. An understanding the enemy and his rituals is
imperative, if you are ever going to avoid his onslaught (see
Dead Or Alive). So many people these days say that they train
for self-defence -yet they know nothing about the enemy that
they are training to fight or the environment that they are
planning to fight in -then they wonder why they get their heads
kicked in when a situation goes 'live'. Many such people ask
me, 'Where did I go wrong?' I have a profound love for people,
for my species, and I don't want to see innocent people getting
battered when they could so easily, with a little information,
have avoided a physical scenario. Here are a few of the things
that I have picked up on my travels about the modern enemy.
Note: It is important here to stress one point, fighting in the
street is rarely match fighting. Most affrays of the modern era
are 'three second fights': attacks preceded by dialogue that is
used as a leading technique to create a window of entry for a
devastating physical attack, that usually takes the victim out of
the game before he even knows that he is in it.
Match fighting, as honourable as it is, is an arena that died
with my fathers' generation. If you do find yourself in a
match fight scenario I will bet my trousers that the fight will
go to ground within seconds (most fighters are grossly ill
prepared for ground fighting). If the three second fight goes
more that the usual three, then in all likelihood this too will
end up in a match fight that will end on the floor. If you can
ground fight, great, you can tear the guy a new arse. lf you
can't you should expect at the very least an elongated fight,
perhaps even a brutal loss. If the guy is not on his own and
you are facing two or more opponents then you can expect to
be hospitalised, even killed. Two of my friends were stabbed
by women when they were ground fighting with men.
Ambush fighting is what you get nine times out of ten if you
are not switched on, or coded up, as they say (see colour
codes). An ambush fight is when the first you know of the
fight is a physical attack. If the guy who attacks you is worth
his salt as a street fighter then that first blow is likely to be
the last in the fight and you should get used to hospital food
because that's what you will be getting. If you are switched
on to the enemy and the environment yourself, then you will
avoid nearly all of the potential attacks. Those that are
unavoidable, you will be able to control, those beyond your
control you will be able to defend against.
The four D's are often used by attackers, especially muggers
and rapists. 'Dialogue' is the priming tool, the leading
technique used by many attackers. The attacker does not lead
or open with a jab or a lead leg roundhouse, he leads with
dialogue, and is often either aggressive or very deceptive. If
you do not understand this then you will be suckered into
the first attack. Dialogue, and often appearance, Is used to
'deceive' the victim before attack. Nearly every attack I have
ever documented that was not a blind side, ambush attack
(the ones that happen when you do not use awareness)
always arose through deception -the attacker using this as a
window of entry. The rule of thumb with the unsolicited
attacker is if his lips move he's lying. If anyone approaches,
it is imperative that you employ a protective fence
immediately (see 'fence' later). Most attacks are launched
under the guise of deception, for the street fighter 'that's the
art', you might moan that it is dishonourable, a Judas attack,
unfair etc. but the bottom line will still be the same -he won
and you lost. The fact that you might think it dishonourable
demonstrates your lack of understanding of the modern
enemy. There is no honour in war, and this is war in
microcosm.
'Distraction' is a part of deception and usually comes
through dialogue. The attacker may ask his victim a question
and then initiate attack when the brain is engaged. The
distraction, or brain engagement, also switches off any in-
built spontaneous, physical response the victim may have. A
man with twenty years of physical training in a fighting art
under his belt can be stripped of his ability by this simple
ploy. I have witnessed many trained fighters, who are
monsters in the controlled arena, get beaten by a guy with
only an ounce of their physical ability. How? They were
distracted before the attack. Rob, a hardened street fighter
and nightclub doorman always told his potential attackers
that he didn't want to fight before he attacked them.
Invariably they would come around from their unconscious
stupor, after Rob had knocked them unconscious, some
seconds later muttering 'I'm sure he said he didn't want to
fight!'
If the distraction is submissive; 'I don't want any trouble, can
we talk about it?' This will take your assailant from Code
Red (when a person is ready for 'fight' or 'flight') to Code
White (a state of non-awareness). The submissiveness will
intimate that the danger is over and he'll go into a state of
relief. Brain engagement, via disarming/distracting dialogue
gives the victim a 'blind second'. This is when the assailant
strikes. The distraction technique is also used by the
experienced attacker to take down any protective fences that
may have been constructed by the victim. This final product
of expert priming is your destruction. Few victims survive
the first physical blow and most are 'out of the game', before
they even realise that they are in it, because many street
attackers are pro's with one or two physical techniques that
have been tried, tested and perfected on numerous, previous
victims.
Even trained martial artists get fooled by the four D's,
because they do not appear on their training curriculum.
Therefore, they do not understand the enemy that they are
facing and so also fail to grasp -and therefore translate -
'street speak', the mass deception often causing
disorientation. The attacker uses the former and latter to
prime a victim that is only trained in 'physical response'. As I
have already stated, deceptive dialogue is the professional
attacker's leading technique. Understanding this will allow
you greater awareness, it will keep you 'switched on'. Being
switched on to all of the forgoing is the better part of 'Target
Hardening'.
If and when a situation does become 'live', it is again
Imperative that you understand yourself and what will
happen to your body in its preparation for fight or flight.
You will usually experience a huge injection of adrenaline
(and other
stress hom1ones) into the system (adrenal dump).
Adrenaline can add speed, strength and anaesthesia to
response but, unfortunately, because very few people have
regular exposure to the adrenal syndrome their reasoning
process often mistakes it for fear. Consequently many
people 'freeze' under its influence. Therefore a profound
understanding of fear needs to be sought. If you can't control
the person on the inside then it is safe to say that you cannot
control the person on the out side (the attacker).
Jeff Cooper devised a colour coding system to help
recognise, evaluate and subsequently avoid potential threat.
The codes are a yardstick designed to measure rising threat
and, if adhered to, make most situations become avoidable.
Cooper designed the codes of awareness to allow people a
360 degree environmental awareness. What I would like to
add to this, with respect to the great man, is also awareness
of attack ritual, physical reality and of bodily reactions to
confrontation -after all awareness is a complex thing.
Code White is known as 'switched off', unaware of
environment, inhabitants and their ritual of attack. Code
White is the victim state that all attackers look for. They
usually don't have to look far because most people are
completely switched off most of the time.
Code Yellow is threat awareness. Known as 'switched on',
this state of perception allows 360 degree peripheral
awareness of environmental vulnerability. For example the
awareness of secluded doorways, entries etc. and the
psychological dangers of untested physical artillery (self-
defence techniques that have not been pressure tested)
adrenal dump, attackers rituals etc. Initially, Code Yellow is
similar to commentary driving, where you talk through and
describe, as you drive, everything you can see around you.
Similarly, as you walk, run a subconscious commentary of
everything that is happening in your locale, ultimately, with
practice, managing the same without verbalising the
commentary. Code Yellow is the state of mind which
everyone adopts whilst crossing a busy road. It is not a state
of paranoia, rather a state of heightened observance.
Code Orange represents rising threat, allowing evaluation if
circumstances in your locale deteriorate. For instance, you
may, as you walk, notice a couple of suspicious-looking men
over the road from you. If they begin to cross in your
direction with menacing intent, and you feel there is a
possible threat, Code Orange will allow assessment and
evaluation of the situation.
Code Red is the final stage. You have evaluated the situation
in Code Orange. If there is a threat, prepare to fight or run.
Never stand and fight if there is a possibility of flight. If no
threat presents itself, drop back to Orange and Yellow.
Never lose your awareness and drop to White -many people
have been beaten in real situations because they have lost
their zanshin (awareness). Stay switched on.
Of course this whole system works on the premise that you
are in Code Yellow in the first place. You cannot go into an
evaluation state on a situation that you have not noticed
developing, equally you cannot prepare for fight or flight if
you have not seen and evaluated the same. In this case the
first you are likely to know of the situation is when it is too
摘要：

IntroductionTherewasonceaveryfamousAikidoplayerinJapanwhospenthiswholelifestudyingUsheba'slegendaryart.Althoughhehaddedicatedhiswholeexistencetothisbeautifularthehadneveractuallyhadoccasiontotestitinareallifesituationagainstadeterminedattacker,someoneintentonhurtinghim.Beingamoralistickindofpersonhe...

展开>> 收起<<
Books - Martial Arts - Aikido the art of fighting without fight.pdf

共44页,预览10页

还剩页未读， 继续阅读

声明：本站为文档C2C交易模式，即用户上传的文档直接被用户下载，本站只是中间服务平台，本站所有文档下载所得的收益归上传人(含作者)所有。玖贝云文库仅提供信息存储空间，仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理，对上载内容本身不做任何修改或编辑。若文档所含内容侵犯了您的版权或隐私，请立即通知玖贝云文库，我们立即给予删除！

相关推荐

更多
立即下载
分类：外语学习 价格：5.9玖币 属性：44 页 大小：2.72MB 格式：PDF 时间：2024-12-06

开通VIP享超值会员特权

  • 多端同步记录
  • 高速下载文档
  • 免费文档工具
  • 分享文档赚钱
  • 每日登录抽奖
  • 优质衍生服务

作者详情

相关内容

更多

热门标签

高考理综 人际关系 配电装置 动力学连接体 力的合成 全宋诗作者索引 公务员考试
/ 44
评分 收藏
分享
立即下载 VIP免费下载
客服
关注