Aikido?

[red5angel]

is it a viable self defense art?

[Mr Punch]

yes
;)

[Ford Prefect]

Define viable..

[red5angel]

can it be used and can it be considered a good source for self defense? I don't know a whole lot about it and would like to hear what anyone has to say about it.

[Mr Punch]

But perhaps the questions should be:

What is a viable self-defence art?

What do you want from a self-defence art?

Do you even believe in a self-defence art?

Why are you asking?

Will you believe a random internet nonentity who says he has effectively used it on the door, in the street, in sparring, falling out of a tree and in a major civil disturbance?

Is it not true that you already have preconceptions that will not be altered one way or the other by anyone else's answer?

If you want a serious discussion on this, please search the forum first (it has been discussed at length, especially by people who had preconceptions, or conceptions based like those of so many martial arts, on just witnessing the shoddy and badly taught), go to some self-defence, aikido and/or police unarmed classes, or find somebody you could trust from aiki to go over the basic concepts or to spar with you...

Cheers.

[Judge Pen]

I studied it for a while. My observations in class were that EVERY student (about 10) had previous experience in another martial art. At least half had extensive (at least black or its equivilant) experience. I found the moves and techniques to be an excellent supplement to my training and I beggan to see different applciations in my forms.

I think it can be a viable art, but if that was all you ever trained in, then I think it would take you 5 years or more of extensive training before you could apply its principles effectively against a resisting opponent.

[red5angel]

Mat, I'm not a newbie, and don't need to be lectured by you. If you have thoughts about Aikido then say so, if you don't then best not to say anything at all. I certainly know where I am, have no pre-conceptions of what I am looking for, as I stated I have no reference for aikido, thought I would ask here.

JP - why would you say it takes 5 years? Just that long to get the basics down on solid footing or is it that complcated? not a judgement, just a question. how did it help you as a supplement to your training?

[Mr Punch]

lol :D

I wasn't lecturing you, I was asking questions. I know you're not a newbie Red but I also know that that doesn't necessarily stop people asking pretty stupid questions (and no, I'm not necessarily talking about you!), and I also know how sensitive you can be dear, so maybe I should have asked the questions in pink.

I have a lot to say about aiki; practiced tried and tested, strengths and weaknesses: most of it I have put in posts on this board numerous times, but no ****er bothers reading, or half the time even responding, especially not when they can be going off with their fascinating crusades about what is right and wrong in x martial art. And as you're not a newbie, perhaps you would remember some of these many threads...?

Also, if you wanna check posting times before starting a pointless internet slanging match, maybe it's not beyond you to see that I was typing while you were writing your disclaimer.

Thank you for answering one of my questions, by saying you don't know a whole lot about it. But unless you get that bunch out of your panties, the rest of this thread is I guess, doomed to be old ground, but this is KFM...:rolleyes:

And I still want to know what the point of your question is.

And no, that's not an attack on you either, I'm just wondering if you think this thread will generate any martial value, good training tips, relevance to kungfu, discussions on energy generation or power transfer, or what...

[red5angel]

Sorry Mat, the reason I have not been on the forum for a while for the most part is because of some of the crap on here. My apologies to you. I honestly don't remember many threads on aikido in the past but that could be because my interest was not there at the time.

As for why I am asking? For whatever reason, the Japanese arts have started to come of interest for me. There is supposed to be a pretty good Aikido Dojo around here that I am going ot be checking out soon, mostly out of curiosity. I figured I would ask here to see if anyone has any experience with it and see what they thought about it. It' s not ultimately going to make me see it as any more or less, just part of what I do when I am looking into something I am interested in.
You'll just have to trust that I am not out to "prove" aikido is useless or that it is the best as sometimes happens on these forums. Just honestly and earnestly asking about the art.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Judge Pen
I studied it for a while. My observations in class were that EVERY student (about 10) had previous experience in another martial art. At least half had extensive (at least black or its equivilant) experience. I found the moves and techniques to be an excellent supplement to my training and I beggan to see different applciations in my forms.

I think it can be a viable art, but if that was all you ever trained in, then I think it would take you 5 years or more of extensive training before you could apply its principles effectively against a resisting opponent. What do you call extensive training? Training a lot of different techniques? Trainign a lot of one step drills? Training a lot of "ki exercises"?

This is one of the main problems with aiki. People train techniques, not principles. You can use the principles of aiki from a couple of weeks into training, against an unwilling opponent, if you are taught in a principle framework. If you are taught techniques as most people are, it may take you five years (the time I took to get my shodan), and you still will not be able to use much.

So basically I agree, but I think it is a problem with the training ethic rather than the principles of the art. It is trained as a spiritual discipline, not an MA, or as in Yoshinkan, it is trained against non-resisting opponents in basically cooperative drills in a broken down sequence of movements... It's only when you train against resisting opponents that it becomes effective.

Love to continue, but it's way past my bedtime!

[Golden Arms]

It works just fine, especially well against a person trying to shoot/grab/really slug you, but it works fine against pretty much any attack. Like was said already..its the principals you must learn, and much like tai chi, most people that practice it NEVER really get it to a large extent. Much of that is because it takes complete faith in your technique to remain relaxed as you use it in a harsh situation, and aikido doesnt work very well if you dont relax..so there is a sharp learning curve. No real defined stance, but you often can start out from sort of sword stance, with hands on the centerline and back foot pointed more to the side, not very wide either.

[CaptinPickAxe]

Aikido is an alright art against the Average Joe. But, I find when pitted against another throwing art it lacks something. I don't have much experience with it, but there is a black belt in my class. All the turns seem unnessesary when fighting a more direct art like SC or Judo.

[ShaolinTiger00]

is it a viable self defense art?

In my opinion- Absolutely not.

Pre 9-11, there was an aikido club sharing the dojo with my judo club. Once a month we would have a shiai tournament (we were on very freindly terms)

We thrashed them soundly every single time. In fact I don't ever recall a judoka above yonkyu ever being thrown let alone losing.. in fact being a bjj practicioner myself, I delighted in the competitions because I would immediatey shoot in on uke and get them to the ground, where they knew even less than the beginning judoka about newaza and were quickly submitted with basic techniques..

I think aikido is wonderful. The men and women who came to our club had excellent character, humility, grace and poise. but in my opinion to capable of performing the art successfully vs another grappler, you would first have to have a foundation built upon judo, and then seek the more sophisticated, refined skills of aikido.

p.s. - the aikido club loved the competitons because they were always interested in realistic application and evidence that their techniques were sound. kudos for them for seeking application based in reality!


I do not mean this post to become a brag or a boast about "Yeah, we're better than them!" because I do not feel that way. I do not mean to offend you all. But I'm sure some (at least one..) may find it indignant.

to them -My apologies.

[PHILBERT]

Just go over to http://www.e-budo.com/ and ask them on the Aikido forums what they feel about the art.

[ShaolinTiger00]

Philbert, How would that get you any closer to the truth? ( I am a poster on e-budo)

go to a Shotokan karate forum and ske them if they think they are good.

go to a Hung Gar forum and ask them if they are good.

Go to a kempo forum and ask them if they are good.

in fact I'd like to you to find a forum that says "no. we suck!"

;)

[Water Dragon]

ST00
How valuable do you think Aikido training would be to a Judo black belt?

[backbreaker]

I don't know any aikido , but I've heard they use no sweeps or kicks. It seems to me that putting a leg in between the opponent and the ground would allow more opputunities to end a fight. Does this have to do with the aikido philosophy or something?

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

IMO, Aikido is a very viable Self Defense art.

Like with many other styles there is also a lot of rubbish & politics associated with it. ;)

From what I hear Ueshiba-San never even wanted to name what he did or even class it as a seperate style.
Kinda similar to Bruce Lee's JKD, something that he created for himself and people took it and went away from it's intended purpose.

Most of the splits are recent and I think another group split off very recently.

Having seen a few direct students of Ueshiba-San I must say that my respect for the art few a lot.
You need a good and reputable teacher like in any other art.

[norther practitioner]

Originally posted by ShaolinTiger00
Philbert, How would that get you any closer to the truth? ( I am a poster on e-budo)

go to a Shotokan karate forum and ske them if they think they are good.

go to a Hung Gar forum and ask them if they are good.

Go to a kempo forum and ask them if they are good.

in fact I'd like to you to find a forum that says "no. we suck!"

;)

Or go to a kung fu forum and tell them they suck.. oh wait, happens ever day here...lol:D

Aikido has its good and bad.... I haven't crossed hands with a practitioner that only does aikido.


My art sucks..

NP

[Christopher M]

Tomiki style and its offshoots are really intriguing.

They use shomenate (straight push/strike) as a foundation rather than the shomenuchi (straight chop) common to the other styles. Although it seems like a minor difference, so much of the meat of the actions is in bridging and entering, which are precisely the mechanics that get changed in this variation.

Also, they use kuzushi (offbalance) like in judo. Tomiki claims the other aikido styles primarily use speed and power, whereas his uses offbalance. Perhaps because of this, the Tomiki stylists favor higher, neutral and natural stances over the deep entries found in other styles.

Also they do randori and shiai.

[Becca]

(Inhale, and grimmace)....

Akido is, in principle, nearly identical to Chin Na. It uses the same techniques, just aplied a bit differently. If you can make Chin Na work for you, you can make Akido work for you.



(Runs like heck to dodge the flamming insults...):D

[Oso]

LOL at Becca's reply.

ok, this might be a good place to ask this...

what exactly is the relationship between aikijutsu, jujutsu, judo and aikido?

my understanding is that jujutsu is oldest, aikijutsu next, then judo and aikido, but I'm not sure.

never done aikido but aikijutsu has some different methods from jujutsu.

Becca, I would say that chin na has some aikido principles in it but wouldn't say it was identical. IMHO, chin na and jujutsu are most nearly identical. but that is based on my understanding that jujutsu is the oldest of those japanese arts and that the japanese arts are descended from okinawan arts that are descended from chinese arts.

but, it's all just semantics, really.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

The Aikido Histories claim he learned the following styles:

1.) Daito Ryu Aikijutsu
2.) Kito-Ryu jujutsu
3.) Shinkage-Ryu kenjutsu
4.) Tenjin Shin'yo-Ryu jujutsu

Weapons he learned were sword, staff & spear.

This is for Aikikai naturally.

[Oso]

so, I'm close if Ueshiba learned jujutsu and aikijutsu prior to developing aikido.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by Oso
so, I'm close if Ueshiba learned jujutsu and aikijutsu prior to developing aikido.

Yes, you are correct there.

The biggest influence was Daito Ryu, when he started teaching in 1927 he taught "Ueshiba Aiki-jutsu".

Aikido as such was only formulated much later after the met the reverend Deguchi (Monk), the aikikai was only founded in 1945.


AFAIK, he was only got permission to teach Daito Ryu as a style, not the others.

[PHILBERT]

ST00, I did not mean so much as "Is it effective" but ask them WHY Aikido would work as a viable defensive art.

My old art teacher from last year was a practioner of Aikido. He looked like a hippy, and it was funny. He had really long hair, a beard and mustache, and stuff. When we were drawing, he was explaining how we should relax blah blah blah and said "This is what the Japanese call Ki..." and I just looked up and said "Yeah and the Chinese call is Qi." He asked me later about how I knew what he was talking about when everyone else just kind of stared at him blankly.

Water Dragon, not sure about how a Judo black belt would do in it, but I remember meeting someone who did Aikido who said a student in his class who was a black belt in JuJutsu and was progressing very rapidly in the art because of the similarities. While not identical per se, Aikido has roots in JuJutsu, so practioners of JuJutsu would progress faster. Such as if a JuJutsu practioner took up Judo, sure he'd have to learn some things, but he should progress faster.

[Kempo Guy]

There's also evidence that Ueshiba learned Kashima Shinto Ryu and Yagyu Shingan Ryu...


my understanding is that jujutsu is oldest, aikijutsu next, then judo and aikido, but I'm not sure
I recall reading that the first jujutsu ryu was Takenouchi ryu which was developed during the Muromachi period (early to mid 16th century). So you are correct in saying that Jujutsu is the oldest.

FWIW, jujutsu / yawara / kogusoku / torite etc. seem to have been used around the same time period to describe empty handed arts (taught by various ryuha).

Aikijutsu is part of jujutsu (in the context of Daito Ryu). The term aikijutsu is apparently mentioned in some Kenjutsu ryu as well as at least another jujutsu ryu (Yanagi Ryu Aiki Bugei), so it is not exclusive to Daito Ryu as some may suggest.



Aikido as such was only formulated much later after the met the reverend Deguchi (Monk), the aikikai was only founded in 1945
Onisaburo Deguchi was the leader and co-founder of a Shinto sect called Omoto Kyo which heavily influenced Ueshiba Sensei.


AFAIK, he was only got permission to teach Daito Ryu as a style, not the others.
What do you mean?
Do you mean that Ueshiba was the only one who was given permission to teach others Daito Ryu?
In which case your statement is erronous. He received a "Kyoju Dairi" (teaching certificate) from Sokaku Takeda. There were several individuals who received this particular certificate from him. And I believe there were at least two individuals who received a Menkyo Kaiden (certificate of full transmission) from Takeda as well, Ueshiba is not one of them.

KG

[ShaolinTiger00]

WD,

after reaching shodan, a judoka might find some of the aspects of aikido can offer a few subtle additives to his submissions. ("revving the arm" in ude garami) a few wrist locks one held down by good position. a few finger attacks etc.

an additive, not a substitute..

;)

[jun_erh]

I freind of mine took it for a few years before swithing to BJJ. He said akido was "great if someone is running at yu like this" and made a motion of someone sort of diving at you with two arms.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by Kempo Guy

What do you mean?
Do you mean that Ueshiba was the only one who was given permission to teach others Daito Ryu?
In which case your statement is erronous. He received a "Kyoju Dairi" (teaching certificate) from Sokaku Takeda. There were several individuals who received this particular certificate from him. And I believe there were at least two individuals who received a Menkyo Kaiden (certificate of full transmission) from Takeda as well, Ueshiba is not one of them.

KG

What I meant is that Ueshiba could ONLY teach Daito Ryo as a system, as he never got the "Kyoju Dairi" for any other style that he studied.

[Becca]

Originally posted by jun_erh
I freind of mine took it for a few years before swithing to BJJ. He said akido was "great if someone is running at yu like this" and made a motion of someone sort of diving at you with two arms.

Classic example of having learned the technique but none of the priciple.

There is this one kick/block/punch/grab compo in one of Pai Lum's forms that is usually done wrong for that very reason... You must adapt the technique to work in the NOW 'cause ain't nobody with 2 brain cells go'n'a punch right in that 4" pochet you just formmed with your fore arms.

[kenso]

Originally posted by EmptyCup
And since I know very little about this art (but a bit more than just watching Under Seige 1 & 2 :)), can anybody tell me what kind of attacks are used? Whether it be open palm, knifehand, or fist. I can't recall ever hearing about such techniques used. When are the locks used? Are there any kicks? What is the stance like? All that I've seen seems pretty static to me with the practioner not really moving from one spot but waiting for the opponent to come to him.

The techniques that Steven Seagal uses in his movies are not Aikido per se, they are pure Hollywood. You'll notice that in his earlier movies, he never really punches and kicks, but later they are added. IMHO, this is because most action choreographers can't understand the concept of an action hero not punching and kicking. His movie "Aikido" has become more and more "Karatefied" over the years.

Attacks in Aikido are meant to illustrate principles and encourage understanding of vectors. There are no kicks as such, because the technical curriculum of Aikido predates the major importation of Okinawan Karate into Japan. There are a variety of strikes, but again they're mostly there to illustrate certain principles and angles. Suffice it to say that Aikidoka don't do Hollywood Aikido. The only demonstration of straight Aikido in Seagal's movies is in "Above the Law". If you watch the beginning, he is teaching an Aikido class. Although IMHO Seagal relies too much on his size and speed to accomplish irimi (direct entry), this is a good demonstration of irimi nage technique.

[kenso]

Originally posted by backbreaker
I don't know any aikido , but I've heard they use no sweeps or kicks. It seems to me that putting a leg in between the opponent and the ground would allow more opputunities to end a fight. Does this have to do with the aikido philosophy or something?
Aikido doesn't contain anything you'd recognize as a sweep. However several techniques can be adapted very quickly to a sweep if one is so inclined.

[kenso]

Originally posted by Christopher M
Also, they use kuzushi (offbalance) like in judo. Tomiki claims the other aikido styles primarily use speed and power, whereas his uses offbalance. Perhaps because of this, the Tomiki stylists favor higher, neutral and natural stances over the deep entries found in other styles.
Unbalancing and the taking of an opponent's balance are not unique to Tomiki sensei's Shodokan style. However most Aikido schools do not use the term "kuzushi" because this is a Judo term. Tomiki sensei, being a student of Judo (8th Dan I believe) was naturally inclined to use the terminology he already understood. He also incorporated shiai because he agreed with Kano sensei's philosophy of martial art as physical and mental conditioning for the general public.

[kenso]

For those of you talking about the history of Aikido:

The correct name of the Daito Ryu is Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu, not Aikijutsu. "Aiki" is a term and/or principle that is/was used in many koryu. The Daito Ryu name did not exist until Ueshiba sensei's teacher Takeda Sokaku. The roots of DRAJ date back to the Ono ha Itto Ryu school of swordsmanship (still taught as a separate curriculum in several DRAJ schools), the family jujutsu of the Takeda family and Oshiki-uchi, the inner palace art of the Aizu clan. Daito is the name of the primary fortress of the Aizu clan.

Although many people have asserted claims that Ueshiba sensei learned (and mastered) several arts, the historical record shows no such thing. He did dabble in a couple of jujutsu schools in his youth, and also received some instruction in Yagyu style swordsmanship, but the bulk of his learning came at the hands of Takeda Sokaku in the art of Daito Ryu. DRAJ was the ONLY art that Ueshiba sensei ever received a teaching license (kyoju dairi) in. That being said, the dabbling of a natural like Ueshiba sensei cannot be likened to that of dilletantes like us (yes I'm talking to you). I'm quite certain that weeks or months of instruction for Ueshiba sensei was quite enough for him to grasp more than most of us could in a lifetime of study.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by kenso
Unbalancing and the taking of an opponent's balance are not unique to Tomiki sensei's Shodokan style.

Surely not; but my understanding is that they take a different approach to it - probably owing to the judo influence, as you noted. The idea that non-Shodokan aikido uses "power and speed" whereas Shodokan uses "off-balance" is a concept of Tomiki's and so simply illustrative of how he saw things.

Anyway, my point was only that the Tomiki styles have a distinctive flavor which I find intriguing, and presumably others might as well.

[The Willow Sword]

and deeper than you can understand.

Aikido is a way of living ones life away from violence and aggression. it is THE esoteric form of defense,,which states that to defend oneself against an attacker is to not be there to be attacked NOR do you attract that sort of violence or attack to you.

Sensei Ueshiba Morehei lived a VERY hard life in service of his government, he was a soldier as well as a well respected swordsman, his path was that of the external and a very violent external path that evolved towards a peaceful internal one.
His story of enlightenment and the things that HE alone was capable of doing were amazing and extra-ordinary. No he was not a superman or invincible. He WAS what he taught and preached.

Aikido looks inneffective to most, and with good reason. for why would someone in aikido want to pit themselves against the very nature of what they are trying to avoid in thier life?and why would a hardened fighter of the tournament circuit want to give up what he does if he likes to be submerged in the violence and aggression? But Aikido is not useless at all. in fact when one practices the techniques one is able to see how they really would work in a confrontation. locks throws and submission is the surface of what the moves are about in aikido. but very few of us, including myself, lack the discipline that Sensei Moreihai had to make the system work. aikido was the first "martial art" i ever did and all that i learned to do was to fall properly and to receive an attack(hehe but not so properly at times, LOL)
it takes precision timing and good footwork to make Aikido work.
which is why most aikido people do not enter competitions or try to test themselves out there on the street(it defeats the purpose of the art anyway to do this). Aikido takes a long time to grasp, and i believe Sensei Morehai made it that way so that it WOULD BE a life long process.
If you really love fighting and competing and you love to hit things and kick things and hurt others willingly then Aikido is not for you,,,,go do something else.

Peace,,,,TWS

[Mr Punch]

Ok, so the title is flippant, but here's my take on some of the background reasons why aiki can be effective for self defence...

I would agree with Kenso's analysis of aikido 'attacks' primarily being a way of understanding vectors (good word, had never thought about using that one really... but makes more sense than 'angles' which I usually use...: cheers Kenso ;) ).

I think it is practised like this for three reasons:

1) Historically as Kenso said, it predates many arts with striking as a primary focus (though of course, many kobudo and old jujutsu styles include a lot of striking);

Technically I hope this will help to explain:

2) A lot of the techniques themselves are said to come from sword disarms, and techniques with a sword. And later, Jukenjutsu - the bayonet - shows its influence, albeit mixed with Jojutsu techniques. Ueshiba learnt Jukenjutsu in the army and is documented as having picked it up frighteningly quickly and having used very effectively against (live!) resisting opponents (! :eek: !). Many of these techniques are disarms, or controls of a sword arm. In some cases there are techniques whose original purpose was to enable you to draw or strike with your sword when somebody was trying to control your sword-arm.

A good example of this is the wrist-lock known as ikkyo or ikkajo: the first principle which probably crops up Hollywoodized in every Seagal movie but the only one I can remember offhand is Under Seige 2 when he teaches it to his daughter and she uses it in the climax- somebody grabs your sword hand as you try to draw your sword, so using your body positioning you draw and cut down their centre anyways :D (!) which should also drop them to their knees with the tight wristlock coming on naturally at the centre of the circle.

This is a historical reason why studying vectors of attack is more important than dealing with the focus of an unarmed strike: you don't want to block, you want to get your body well out of the way at the same time as closely controlling the attacking arm.

From the 'attacker's' point of view it is easy to understand the aikido 'attacks' with reference to the sword arts. There are three basic 'attacks' apart from the obvious grabs and the lapel grab (the Scooby-Doo zombie double-handed lurch grab as described by Becca and Jun-erh). These are shomen (strike to the top of the head), yokomen (diagonal downward strike to the temple) and tsuki (basic thrust 'punch') as seen in many kendo and kenjutsu schools as staples.

To take one of these as an example, the original reason for the tsuki (basic 'punch') being so 'weak' was that it comes from the idea having a three foot piece of highly sophisticated sharpened steel in your hand! It is taken as read that you have to avoid the end of this so the focus of the attack loses importance to the vector, and which also is why aiki techniques tend to start from a distance of approximately one-and-a-half miles (er, metres! :D ), and concentrate on timing, maiai (distance) and of course, the associated footwork. This also explains the reason why aikido tsuki attacks are stepping forward with the same foot forward: it's the way many sword thrusts are practised.

Many sensei stress maiai. My kendo sensei who is an adept and avid student of old Japanese also, tells me that the old characters for maiai were often those used for 'devil' or 'evil spirit' and 'meet' (nowadays they are nearly always less poetically 'gap' and 'meet'), and this concept of 'meeting the devil' underscores the founding spirit of aiki's irimi (or 'entering body' techniques). Step in, confronting the danger. As Sun Tzu, Musashi, Ueshiba's doka ('Songs of the Way' - like kuen kit) and Bruce Lee have all paraphrased: 'when the enemy comes in, rush in to greet him'.

When you rush in like this, when you make strong advancing contact, what happens?

If he is stronger than you (be it in structure or physical strength), the forward energy of his attack keeps coming strongly... and... you get squished.
If he is weaker than you (or he is trying to retract the limb you are trying to control or some other kind of yielding motion), your forward energy will overwhelm him.
Thus another common thread with the above masters: 'take what comes, see off what goes'... or 'push when pulled, pull when pushed'...
(though in aiki, with its circular motion, pull becomes 'turn away', but the control principle at this point of contact is the same as in most arts which have a variation on this saying I would guess).

All of these mental concepts, underlying the physical principles of aiki, and being the base of the techniques that you hope to pull out of the bag when you need them; rely more on the basic premise of a vector rather than a focus of attack.

3) The techniques are too deadly!!! :D :D :D

OK OK, my nostril-hairs are already crinkling to a crisp in the wave of flames sweeping towards me :D :rolleyes: buuuut... shall we just say, as anyone who regularly practises joint locks will know:

i) Frequent hard practise will cause RSIs, arthritis, calcium spikes, tears in the cartilage, or similar problems.
ii) When practised with a cooperating opponent, and when taken to the point of so-called pain-compliance, there is a small difference between a point of control, and the point where the joint will break.
iii) If practised on resisting opponents in a sparring situation, assuming the opponent can wrench his joint away from you, or beat the **** out of you with his other three limbs/head,or whatever, when the adrenalin wears off, he often finds he can't train with that limb for one, two, three + weeks.

So the history of why aiki practises using vectors rather than 'real attacks' aside, there are still practical reasons why it is advisable to a degree .

[Mr Punch]

Let's remember, the thread is about self defence!

ST100, your experience of aiki fits mine exactly.

I got owned when I first started sparring with other grappling arts! :eek:

However for average geezers who have the patience and who want to get a basic idea of self defence against your average geezer, this does not explain why you think that there is absolutely no value to even badly-taught aiki as self-defence.

1) The understanding of attack vectors and the evasive footwork with a basic guard should be a large percentage of getting out of the way of any initial attack and providing a safe opportunity to run away.

2) Plus, the surprise angle of the attacker wanting to take your head off, and expecting some form of confrontaion, and meeting with well, nothing... is also helpful to practical self defence.

3) Plus, strangely given that the distance at which aiki techniques start, the principle of keeping a certain distance, and as soon as that distance is breached, being able to recognise that there is a potential danger in a relaxed and focussed manner is essential to awareness of many attack situations in a bar, on the street, etc. this is often enough for the practitioner to understand a danger and vacate the situation (go to the toilet or leave or something!). Of course, this is very much a ***** attitude (why should you have to leave a bar or go and hide among your equally geeky friends when there may be some danger!!!??? :D ), but I thought everyone on this board had some understanding of this one aspect of awareness for self defence: recognise danger, or identify potential danger, and don't be there. Given many aikidoka's natural peaceful (= ***** ?! :eek: ) and humble mindset this awareness of what Geoff Thompson might refer to as a barrier theory is a useful combination.

4) Practically, if you can do it, it rocks!

5) Even with a few weeks of practise you should have a couple of useful things to use.

[Black Jack]

If the title is about street self defence than I go with ST00's first answer. A big resounding no.

[Mr Punch]

Simplified cos I'm bored, hungry, and hell, you can wait for the book! :D

1) People are shown technique, technique, technique.

There is no explanation of the principles. Of course the techniques should illustrate the principles so they should learn them anyway right? Wrong! What you have is people who think that putting a wristlock on somebody is going to break their wrist, drop them to their knees (breaking them too) and leave them begging for mercy. What they get is someone wrenching away from the wristlock and turning them in a broken quivering blob. If you understand the aiki principles of distancing, and displacing the centre of balance/disrupting the structure, you should recognise that it a wristlock will provide you with an opening to escape, throw them, or kick the crap out of them. If you are very lucky, it will break their wrist.

2) Following on from technique-heavy training: pain compliance!
No no no no no NO! In training you put your dainty wristlock on your helpful partner, and he taps himself and says, 'ooh, ow, that worked'. In the street the crackhead giggles a little as he rips your arm off, bites you in the face, rapes you, your whole family, the dog, and your descendants forevermore, and steals your wallet. Before shooting you. I've known pain compliance to work on the door, usually when coupled with a large amount of pain from, say a punch in the nose... and by LEOs, usually accompanied with a large amount of authority and associated fear of going to prison for resting arrest and spending the rest of of your life in a very small space with your own faces and a huge gorilla who calls you Betty.

3) Er, also following on from technique-heavy training. There are no strikes, sweeps or even set-ups! Nonsense, every time you meet your opponent, you should be striking them; every time you occupy their space having broken their balance, the natural continuation of your own footwork should be sweeping them; every time you try one thing and it fails, you shouldn't be stopping and going, 'hmmm, why didn't that work, let's try again' because sensei's gonna shout at you for doing the wrong technique: you should be flowing into the next one, following the opponent's 'vector' of retraction (and striking to tense/loosen him) until YOU FINISH HIM. Can I say bwuhaha here? :rolleyes:

This complaint includes that over-complicated locks always have a simple follow-through movement.

4) Following on, blah, people expect Scooby-Doo attacks, usually with one hand.

etc etc etc.

With these and some other probs in mind Red, if you wanna try it, it'll help your understanding of body mechanics, and give you a few extra strings to your bow. But remember to try it in your sparring and try not to break your friends' arms!

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Black Jack
If the title is about street self defence than I go with ST00's first answer. A big resounding no. Well thank you for your in-depth analysis based on your experience of visiting a couple of (bad) schools a couple of times.

As opposed to 13 years+ of using it in sparring against people from many arts, on the street, in bars, on the door... and various LEOs' and doormens' experiences of the same...

How very ****ing KFO.

Cmon BJ, I know you're no noob, and no stranger to self defence (or should I say attack -) training, tell us why you think that. Or **** off with your trite BS answers.

Cheers,

Regards to you too.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Water Dragon
ST00
How valuable do you think Aikido training would be to a Judo black belt? For a bb judoka with an interest in SD, maybe the following (according to my sempai/kohai with exp of both - I don't):

1) A couple of extra footwork options, to keep your distance a little while taking their balance, before stepping in to throw, or so as not to tangle yourself up in event of a failed throw, esp with extra attackers.

2) Another couple of ways of entering, of getting past their arms, or of initiating the throw from a slightly longer range (I suppose forearm to forearm... dunno, my friend didn't explain that one too well).

3) To give you a couple of different ways of pinning/breaks/controls on the ground, and a couple of nifty disentanglements to release yourself if they try to keep you on the floor after a throw: in short, ways of getting free and kicking them on the ground.



For a competition bb judoka with no interest in SD: Bugger All Value Whatsoever :D. Except:

1) A good laugh at their koshiwaza.
2) A warm glow of superiority.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Christopher M
They use shomenate (straight push/strike) as a foundation rather than the shomenuchi (straight chop) common to the other styles. Although it seems like a minor difference, so much of the meat of the actions is in bridging and entering, which are precisely the mechanics that get changed in this variation.I would argue that other styles don't necessarily rely on shomen uchi as a foundation. From the start most styles teach most things with taking the same hand's wrist.

Apart from that, I agree that the meat of the actions are in bridging and entering, but I would argue that the vector of the shomen ate in Tomiki is pretty similar to a shallow shomen uchi in say Yoshinkan or Aikikai. This shallow shomen strike is even found in ki-aiki, where although it's the least like a 'real' attack, they aim to catch it (or rather 'blend with it') on the rise, which makes the angle even more similar to Tomiki.

I suppose the basis for the overhead attack can be likened to the difference between an ikkyu kendo (sho)men strike with its big overhead crashing arc, the end of which (the 'cut through') is taken and refined into the shodan kendo men strike, which is a lot more shallow and therefore direct.

And don't forget in Yoshinkan, the ****e (tori, nage, or 'geezer what does the technique innit'!!!:D ) uses the shomen uchi to provoke the uke (receiver) to counter his strike to set up taking control of his arm.

So, looking at those three shomen varieties, I would argue that Tomiki's shomen-response drill starts earlier, and so has a shorter distance (thus more direct and shallower), so is basically one aspect of the same movement as the other aiki styles.

Overall, it shouldn't make a difference to a rounded or more high level aikidoka, as they should be practising with all strike patterns anyway.


Also, they use kuzushi (offbalance) like in judo. Tomiki claims the other aikido styles primarily use speed and power, whereas his uses offbalance. Perhaps because of this, the Tomiki stylists favor higher, neutral and natural stances over the deep entries found in other styles.
As Kenso says, so do the others, they just don't call it kuzushi. Not sure what you mean by power either in this case. I like the Tomiki stance though, but again would argue that as in kungfu, all aikidoka (with the possible exception of ki-society) learn in low stance for practise, and higher stances for the higher level practitioner.

[Vapour]

Here is an article I discovered and translated.



Yoshimine Yasuo - Budo Free Talk

Number 26 – What is Aiki (2002/06/02)

There aren’t many words which are misunderstood to the extent of the world Aiki. It is quite unfortunate that many dubious martial artist use this term purely for their promotional purpose. As of current state, as far as magazine or books are concered, thre are very few which provide correct information about aiki. If there are ten articles about aiki, probably at least eight of them are incorrect.

The reason why the matter has fallen to such sorry state is because aiki is very difficult to master. So only external forms have been transmitted and it is very rare to encounter genuine aiki techniques. Accordingly, even among people who call themselves Shinan (instructor), unfortunately, only few know it. When someone asks “What is aiki”, often, answers are like “This is beyond the description by words” or even “It’s transcendent ability”. (You may not believe me but true). Hopefully, I think more open and modern/enlightened attitude will slowly change this and make aiki easier to learn.

Then, what is aiki? I will write technical or methodological detail in my book so pardon me if I'm brief. But anyway, stuff like magazine tend to describe aiki as something mysterious but in reality, aiki is very scientific. To cut the long story short, if you seek the origin of the word aiki, answer will reveal itself.

I wrote this few time in the magazine “Hiden” but aiki is originally kenjutu (Japanese sword arts) term and it describe a state where you and your opponent’s seichu (central) line is face to face. (This word is used even in modern kendo as in original meaning). Easiest way to see it is to just pick up swords with your partner, hold it in the middle until the tip of the sword face each other. Obviously, this situation is stalemate. So you have to diver your opponent’s tip of the sword. To do this is called “Divert Aiki”. It’s not even incorrect to state that entire koryu kenjutu techniques are based on methodology of diverting aiki. For example, in case of Shinkage ryu (shin=true kage=shadow ryu=style), they often use technique to enter diagonally to divert aiki. In case of Onoha Ittoryu (Ono branch of one blade style.), it’s characteristic is in how to divert tip of the sword by central breakthrough. Aiki of Daitoryu is application of this principle of central breakthrough of Onoha Ittoryu into taijutu. That is, you deliberately force the state of aiki as in sword fight then proceed to break this state through penetrating into centreline of your opponent. Accordingly, the basic stance use the same one as Onoha Ittoryu. And in aiki, attack target are neck and hip (and occasionally chest) and this is, in fact, same as the thrust targets of Onoha Ittoryu.

Therefore, there are broader definition and narrower definition of the term aiki. The broader definition of aiki is the entire methodology of crushing opponent’s attack stance through central penetration. This includes atemi (strike) into upper part of the body. Narrower aiki means techniques of neutralising attack from the contact, exemplified in technique, aiki age (aiki lift).

Now, as of aiki age, presently, even this technique are often misunderstood. Many people confuse this with Kokyuho in aikido. They looks alike but their purpose is completely different. That is Kokyuhou or Tenchinage in akido originally meant atemi into jaw with palm. In Daitoryu, there are no concept to push someone down with charge like in sumo. The correct concept is to uplift your opponent or smash opponent directly below and the techniques which exemplify this fundamental principle are aiki age (aiki lift) and aiki sage (aiki takedown). These two use entire body and are not mere hand techniques. Hence by looking at even one photo, one could tell whether someone has managed to do it or not. Extremely bad example is when one push someone down just by using body weight . If one do aiki age from kneeling position, if someone standing losing balance on top of you even if your back is straight and your haven’t broken your keeling, then it is the real deal. And if you have opportunity to experience aiki age, pay close attention to the feeling when you grab this person’s arm. With someone who can really do this, there are rarely any sensation of grip because there is no collision of power. Accordingly, anyone who push back with force are out of question. And the biggest difference between correct aiki age and the incorrect one are whether one can make the movement smaller and smaller through training. If one try to push back with force or using body weight, one will never be able to do it. That is, true purpose of aiki is to utilise aiki in every taijutu technique by making it smaller and shaper through polishing your technique. That is why I mentioned in other place that if you got wrong teacher, you never make it.

As of side note, it is often said that the secret of aiki age is to “Open palms as in Asagao (morning face, common Japanese flower)” but this is often transmitted incorrectly. “Open palms as in Asagao” in fact point to the entire arm movement in aiki age and not pointing to how one open palm. The reason this theory has spread is probably due either to do with teacher intentionally hid it or someone who hasn’t learned it properly spread it. Once you get used to aikiage, you can do it with your hands closed and the reason one have to open palm is only because it is easier to learn. An important point when you open palm is not to put too much force into your finger. This is bit difficult to get unless demonstrated in practice but in beginner’s level, you open your palm like when you do paper in stone/paper/scissors. When expert do Aikiage, especially little fingers are very relaxed. And often this technique are split between Aiki of Kote, when someone grab your writs, and Aiki of Mune (chest) or Aiki of Karada (Body), when someone grab your collar or other such places but these two are the same. This is also easier to understand in demonstration but if you know the gist of it, the latter one is much easier one to do it.

Daturiki (Relaxlation) is another equally misunderstood word like aiki, and this world is also uttered in sort of aspiration as in the word aiki so I mention about it here just in case. Daturiki doesn’t mean you don’t use muscle. Even in aiki, one is of course using muscle. “To relax” simply means “use only necessarily muscle”. The phrase “To issue ki” is same with this principle.

To add further, when he was alive, Sakawa Sohan swung steel training staff every days and someone said “That is just muscle work”. This is like making speech with your pants down without understanding the fact that aiki as well as koryu kenjutu use entire body movement. In fact, it is natural to arrive at this kind of training if one think about what is needed in Daitoryu. (However, unless one learned proper way to swing sword, one could damage one’s body so I won’t recommend it.)

As stated, aiki is in practice, very scientific. It is true it is based on rather sophisticated principle but it has nothing to do with mysterious transcendantalism. Therefore, to describe aiki mesteriously or even religiously is self evident sign that one hasn’t got proper transmission. It is like someone wondering in amazement at magician's work because he doesn’t know that magic is a trick. For magician, trick is easy to perform. And the fact that aiki is scientific mean that everyone, as long as they practice seriously can master it. To add further, in some part of Daitoryu, it is said that one can master aiki even if you can’t lift anything heavier than chopsticks as long as you receive oral transmission but that is nonsense. This is because the effect of aiki differs according to individuals. Once you got the gist of movement, then you have to reduce the margin of error by applying aiki many many times to various different persons. That is to aim perfection through repetition of movements based on logic. This is the same in any martial arts.

That is it. This time it was rather metaphysical but as I said, I clarify more practical description of technique or theory in detail in my book. So pardon me for that. The next topic will be “utilisation and paradox in form”



Should I post this as a separate thread?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Mat
Tomiki's shomen-response drill starts earlier, and so has a shorter distance (thus more direct and shallower), so is basically one aspect of the same movement as the other aiki styles.

Sure. Some people would prefer to practice against shallow/direct attacks, right?


as in kungfu, all aikidoka learn in low stance for practise, and higher stances for the higher level practitioner.

Similarly: Sure. Some people would prefer to practice with high stances, right?

I'm just observing that such people might find the Tomiki styles characteristically intriguing.


As Kenso says, so do the others, they just don't call it kuzushi. Not sure what you mean by power either in this case.

AFAIK, every martial art uses off-balance in some capacity. That doesn't mean they're all the same. As I said, I'm simply conveying what Tomiki's perspective was. See here (http://homepage2.nifty.com/shodokan/en/kyogi1.html) and here (http://www.karlgeis.com/origin.htm).

[Mr Punch]

Sorry Chris M, thought you were suggesting there was a fundamental difference in their principles through their differences in training technique.

I am familiar with Tomiki, though not as much as some of the other shuha, and I don't believe there is anything fundamentally different about their principles.


Cheers Vapour, excellent article, interesting and new to me. Is this a commonly known concept among Japanese aiki teachers or has it all been superceded by the seemingly common explanation of 'harmonising with your opponent's energy'? I've never heard of this before. My kendo sensei did mention it once, but not related to aikido... I'll have to ask him. Looks like I'll be investigating Yoshimine Yasuo's dojo if it's near Tokyo!

[jun_erh]

If you really love fighting and competing and you love to hit things and kick things and hurt others willingly then Aikido is not for you,,,,go do something else.





so basically it sucks.

[The Willow Sword]

for someone,not you necessarily, who likes to hurt and brutalize others in stupid and frivolous competitions and feels that they are a better person by hurting and dominating another,,,,,then i guess aikido DOES "suck".

peace,,,TWS:cool:

[Black Jack]

Mat-

is it a viable self defense art?

The above is the question pondered by red5angel which IMO would of been better stated as does aikido offer a viable self defense method of training.

My answer was no and still would be no.

It was not intended to be trite and cut offish. Just to the point as this topic has been cut to death and layered with garlic butter so many times that my response and others on the subject has been covered before.

I look at that question from a single non-holistic non-pc non-group think dimension. If the question was can aikido offer value or help enhance certain elements of the fight game than that would be different but it was not the question. Lets just say for short of a big answer that I don't agree with aikido and its spiritual tradition disguised as a means of proper street self defense alone. I belief that the system creates a willing suspension of disbelief for its students who train to for lack of a better word fight within that given method of philosophy.

I consider myself a pragmatist not an artist so that is where the criticisim comes from.

Here is a question.

Would you recommend aikido as a viable method of self defense to a rape victim or a young women looking to protect herself in a bad enviroment?

[The Willow Sword]

actually a post of yours that i sort of agree with. you may yet be actually showing signs of intelligence. :D

Peace,,,TWS


"Would you recommend aikido as a viable method of self defense to a rape victim or a young women looking to protect herself in a bad enviroment?"

as for my asnwer to this good question? NO

[Black Jack]

I will sleep better now:rolleyes:

[Becca]

Originally posted by Black Jack
Here is a question.

Would you recommend aikido as a viable method of self defense to a rape victim or a young women looking to protect herself in a bad enviroment?
With a teacher who is willing to teach it as a form of self-defence- yes. But most teachers of the style will not do this... Then you'd end up with b@stardized Aikido and then you pizz off Mat...:D

[Golden Arms]

Originally posted by Black Jack
Here is a question.

Would you recommend aikido as a viable method of self defense to a rape victim or a young women looking to protect herself in a bad enviroment?


As stated before: YES, but only if it is taught and then practiced correctly. My Sensei was a Judo player for almost 15 years before he started learning Aikido, and if he didnt want to use the 'nice' aikido to help you down, he would just switch to judo to show you how it was better for you to 'let' him control you softly..under the soft was leverage and control. Anyways..the 2nd worst round of ukemi I have ever had to take was for a 100lb japanese woman who could leverage my joints and sidestep me like noones business, so it has its merits for women. Will it work for the majority of people..I really couldnt say.

[The Willow Sword]

regarding teaching Aikido to women as a viable means of self defense. comeon guys this isnt some judo face off and you cant just teach a woman who has been the victim of a rape the movements associated with aikido and expect her to walk away feeling confident. its too complex and is NOT going to instill within her the CONFIDENCE she needs to get over the hump of being attacked and the confidence to never allow anyone to do that to her again. she would be better off taking track and field and learning how to RUN fast than stepping in to an aikido dojo. this also goes for women who have not been raped or assaulted, who are wanting to learn self defense.

what i would reccomend to women for self defense? Krav maga
or Pakua. and the reason i mention krav maga is because it is an enviroment that is more conducive to what women are looking for in self defense classes. I mention Pakua because that art teaches very good evasion techniques.

Peace,,,TWS

[shaolinboxer]

Although I spend much of my free time practicing aikido, I would not say that it is the best thing to learn if your main interest is success in violent encounters.

Here is a very direct question posted earlier:

"Would you recommend aikido as a viable method of self defense to a rape victim or a young women looking to protect herself in a bad enviroment?"

No, clearly not. However, I would recommend it as a thereputic format for learning to trust other human beings again.

Self defense should be like a course in emergency swimming. You learn the dead man crawl, how to float...a few things to keep you alive that are so simple you can still do them while you're nearly dead.

Martial art is a lifestyle activity that includes self defense as part of the training. Aikido is a fairly interesting and safe one to practice.

IMO, my fellow aikidoist who flip out over comments regarding aikido's lack of realistic self defense training are over estimating their teachers and telling way too many campfire stories.

It is what it is.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by shaolinboxer
"Would you recommend aikido as a viable method of self defense to a rape victim or a young women looking to protect herself in a bad enviroment?"

No, clearly not. However, I would recommend it as a thereputic format for learning to trust other human beings again.I agree with shaolin boxer here, but for a young woman looking to protect herself, it'd be as useful or nor as many others, depending on the teacher. It would offer, good evasion from and breaks of grips, good evasive footwork, good use of distancing, the occasional low maintenance lock, and a certain presence of mind coupled with an absence of sheer panic.


Self defense should be like a course in emergency swimming. You learn the dead man crawl, how to float...a few things to keep you alive that are so simple you can still do them while you're nearly dead.Excellently put.


Martial art is a lifestyle activity that includes self defense as part of the training. Aikido is a fairly interesting and safe one to practice.

IMO, my fellow aikidoist who flip out over comments regarding aikido's lack of realistic self defense training are over estimating their teachers and telling way too many campfire stories.

It is what it is. Again agreed. But then, my fellow aikidoist who spout on about how spiritual it is, then try and tell you it's the best self defence form out there ("I would do this, and this, and then this...!") whilst slavering on in a condescending manner about how martial art is above fighting also need to spend less time around the campfire (or in the bar) and more time on the mat...!

Or did you mean me...?! I'd like to think I was contributing to a discussion, not 'flipping out'! :eek: :D

[shrugs] Some teachers are good, and some campfire stories are true! :D But again, you have a point.

Just thought I'd resurrect this thread for a friend of mine...

[Becca]

Originally posted by sc_guy
If Aikido is right then everybody else are wrong.

- One hand can do the locking.
- One hand can do the throwing.
- Throwing require no leg moves.
- Kicking and punchings do not exist.
- You don't need "entering", he will always come to you.
- Person sit on the floor can reach the person's neck who stands on his feet and throw him.
- When somebody runs toward you, all you need is to bend down in front of him and he would fall over your head.
- Aikido can bring you to a spirit level and allow you to speak to God.

Of course if your teacher has not taught you how to do this then you better find another teacher.

Have you seen God lately?

No?

Your church sucks. Find yourself another church!
:confused: Are you saying that just because you don't agree with that frame of mind, you have the right to cut down anyone who studies this art? Are you saying that this absolutely what is being taught? I studied an art similar to Akido. I don't remember ever being told any of that. Finally... Would you apriciate some one who likely has no effing clue trashing your school based on nothing but a few examples of basic forms and nothing else? For this is what you are doing, my friend.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by Mat
But perhaps the questions should be:

What is a viable self-defence art?

What do you want from a self-defence art?

Do you even believe in a self-defence art?

Why are you asking?

Will you believe a random internet nonentity who says he has effectively used it on the door, in the street, in sparring, falling out of a tree and in a major civil disturbance?

Is it not true that you already have preconceptions that will not be altered one way or the other by anyone else's answer?

If you want a serious discussion on this, please search the forum first (it has been discussed at length, especially by people who had preconceptions, or conceptions based like those of so many martial arts, on just witnessing the shoddy and badly taught), go to some self-defence, aikido and/or police unarmed classes, or find somebody you could trust from aiki to go over the basic concepts or to spar with you...

Cheers.

Good God, Mat. I hope we don't have this to look forward to every time someone asks a question here. It's a bloody discussion forum. Discussions are to be expected.

[Meat Shake]

Originally posted by sc_guy
If Aikido is right then everybody else are wrong.

- One hand can do the locking.
- One hand can do the throwing.
- Throwing require no leg moves.
- Kicking and punchings do not exist.
- You don't need "entering", he will always come to you.
- Person sit on the floor can reach the person's neck who stands on his feet and throw him.
- When somebody runs toward you, all you need is to bend down in front of him and he would fall over your head.
- Aikido can bring you to a spirit level and allow you to speak to God.

Of course if your teacher has not taught you how to do this then you better find another teacher.

Have you seen God lately?

No?

Your church sucks. Find yourself another church!

Bahahahahha....
good stuff.

[fragbot]

NOTE: aiki's not my thing, but I play with aiki guys occasionally.


Originally posted by sc_guy
If Aikido is right then everybody else are wrong.

- One hand can do the locking.


Aiki guys mostly use two hands to lock.



- One hand can do the throwing.


Aiki guys mostly use both hands when throwing.



- Throwing require no leg moves.


Umm, aiki bunnies move around pretty much all the time. It's that whole 180 degree circle thing.

Oh, and they'll do leg traps and sweeps as well.



- Kicking and punchings do not exist.


Honestly, I've never seen an aiki guy kick. I've have seen them hit. The better ones know have reasonable skill with it, but too often they use that goofy downward strike.



- You don't need "entering", he will always come to you.


From what I can tell, aiki's basic principles are entering and turning (tenkan and irimi).



- Person sit on the floor can reach the person's neck who stands on his feet and throw him.


A broken clock is right twice a day. . .I hate that nonsense as well.



- When somebody runs toward you, all you need is to bend down in front of him and he would fall over your head.


Against a committed opponent, I don't think this is an awful idea. I'll grant you it looks silly from the perspective of someone who's trained.



- Aikido can bring you to a spirit level and allow you to speak to God.


It's officially 12 hours later.

=============

Not that you've really named any of them, but I think most aiki practice has a coupla problems:

1) many of the techniques are unpracticable in any sort of randori. So they often don't do any (NOTE: I've never seen tomiki, but I guess they've remedied this).

2) as a corollary to #1, it conditions people to fall over at the drop of a hat. We have aiki people come into our jujutsu dojo periodically. It's pretty remarkable to do standup or newaza with them and have *almost all* of them do the ki society dive (tm) at the first sign of a kote gaishe.

3) finally, there's a self-selection problem. Aiki gets alot of the people who have similar mindsets to a good portion of the people in the internal systems--it's where the new age flakes go.

[Meat Shake]

In my experience with aikido, the oponent must work with you to get the throws off. The throws may be good for attemting and then breaking someones wrist... but unless they help, most that crap wont work. We have an experienced aiki that trains SC occasionally with us.... i cant say Im impressed by what I see.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by apoweyn


Good God, Mat. I hope we don't have this to look forward to every time someone asks a question here. It's a bloody discussion forum. Discussions are to be expected. Well forgive me!

1) I thought he was trolling. Red's been around long enough to have seen all the aiki discussions, most of which start off from as ignorant a perspective as a non-kungfuer talking about kungfu. Turns out he just has the memory of a goldfish (as one koi to another!).
2) I thought it was worth clarifying (briefly) what he meant by self-defence: sometimes this has been done on the board, sometimes it has failed, and sometimes people have different ideas about it.
3) I was in a bad mood!

OK, so I was being a bit defensive, but I would also hazard that as I thought I was trying to clarify his question and potential standpoint, I was in fact contributing to a discussion, which then did in fact take off rather nicely with no mud-slinging! Are you not, therefore, being a little sensitive yourself!? :D

Whassup, didn't get what you wanted from Santa?!! :D And did I forget to say: Bite me! :D :p



SC
Either he is wrong or we are all wrong. It's possible that we are all wrong. Interesting points in general, but since you're getting metaphysical on us try this one on for size:

No-one is wrong. He was different. We are all different.

In the very physical aspects of fighting/self defence in martial arts, a difference of a few millimeters can make the difference between somebody pulling away and regaining control, and their elbow snapping... or a bad stabbing becoming fatal...

There are so many variables, it is possible for black, white AND grey to exist.

So from the metaphysical, back to the hypothetical (which is what all self defence discussions come down to without accurate definition): what it boils down to for me is somehow, I don't think I could have kicked his ass!!!


Good post Fragbot.

[apoweyn]

Red's been around long enough to have seen all the aiki discussions, most of which start off from as ignorant a perspective as a non-kungfuer talking about kungfu.

And you've been around long enough to know that Red has already undergone some significant shifts in perspective. No reason to doubt his sincerity in asking.


OK, so I was being a bit defensive, but I would also hazard that as I thought I was trying to clarify his question and potential standpoint, I was in fact contributing to a discussion, which then did in fact take off rather nicely with no mud-slinging! Are you not, therefore, being a little sensitive yourself!?

Well, I responded two days ago. But if I remember correctly, yeah I was being pretty sensitive that day. But man alive, the dearth of good discussions here is getting really oppressive without trying to squelch the few there are by suggesting that the person has no intention of changing their mind anyway.


Whassup, didn't get what you wanted from Santa?!!

Santa did alright by me. You?


And did I forget to say: Bite me! :D:p

That's what your mum said. :)


Stuart B.

[yenhoi]

Happy Holidays!

:eek:

[Becca]

Originally posted by sc_guy
Did I say anything about their style is good or bad? I'm not cutting down any arts. I'm just saying that my "spiritual training" sucks.

Originally posted by sc_guy
If Aikido is right then everybody else are wrong.

... Yep. Tha's exactly what you sound like you are doing, IMHO.

[yenhoi]

- Saved human being from pain, suffer, and diseaster.

Who? :mad:

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[Becca]

Who said anything about any of that?!? You posted a comment. I replied. Nothing personal. I think. Maybe I'm wrong.:rolleyes:

[Samurai Jack]

I personally invite anyone who has any questions about Aikido to come to the Eugene Aikikai and ask thier questions there. If you happen to be in southern California, try popping in at the San Diego Aikikai where our Shihan, Chiba Sensei teaches. Expect to recieve the level of respect you are willing to show.

Gong li fat choy!

[fragbot]

Can anyone here tell me what it's like to have multiple personality disorder?

Does anyone else love Jekyll and Hyde?

[shaolinboxer]

The concept that aikidoka do not resist eachother during practice is at least in part a fallacy, with its origins in three specific areas.

The first is that in the 1970's Koichi Tohei began implementing his concept of "Taigi", a series of flowing non-resistant movement patterns between partners. It is important to understand that many original American Aikidoists literally were hippies...full blow weed smoking disaffected neglected youth of the rich seeking a higher purpose in life. They, in a very real way, worshiped and followed Tohei and his "Ki Society" into the present. The focus of the Ki Society is extreme... "attitudes that lead to action" and all of that. They are more like a self-help group than any other aikido school and they are extremely popular and their affiliates publish lots and lots of books. So, in this case it is certainly true that aikido lacks any real sense of martial effectiveness and almost entirely a cultural persuit.

The second reason why people are convinced that aikidoka practice with no resistance is the philosophical context of ukemi. Ukemi, literally "receiving", has two main functions. The primary function is to avoid injury. For example, if I perform a harsh standing arm-bar, my uke can roll out of it....or I can simply tap. Or if I perform a throw that will may dislocate your shoulder, you can slide under it or breakfall out of it. This way I can perform full power techniques any nobody gets too hurt (although breakfalls DO hurt). The second function is to learn technique. I subject myself to your will so that I may "see" with my body what is is you are doing and then replicate it. Like photography, you become the negative and then try to produce a print. So, there are two real reasons to not "resist" but rather "read" with your body. However, what this can lead to is a sort of excessive willingness. You Jump into the fall before being effected by you partner. This increases the likelyhood that you will not get hurt, but it deceases your ability to absorb the real content of the technique.

The final and most obvious reason is O'Sensei's mantra "there is no competition in aikido". Here he is speaking of an ideal state of mind. It is only a form of superficial control that there are no formal competitions, since we all know that when two strong guys come up to eachother they want to see what the other can do...a very real form of competition. Therefore, there is competition going on in Aikido all of the time, but not on the record.

The reality is that many aikidoka compete, resist one another, attack oneanother with practically murderous intent, spar with other styles, practice other arts, challenge their teachers, do randori that ends up bloody, throw mean boxing punches at oneanother to see what happens, etc. They just do it in moderation and on the sly. Like their teachers did. Aikido classes are set in the ideal. But after class, into the late evening, often it gets a bit more real.

[SevenStar]

you can only tap them - literally. I've had points taken for excessive contact and I didn't draw blood. I popped him in the forehead, he fell. I was used to full contact, so went in the tournament with the same mindset.

[Samurai Jack]

Excellent explanations sevenstar. I still think people should bring thier questions concerning the efficacy of Aikido to an Aikido dojo. However, as you point out, the quality and focus of some dojo will not represent Aikido in the manner I believe it should be represented.

It boils down to this: If you want to dis any art, you'll find opinions and circumstantial evidence to support your negative opinion. Personally, I was always wary of studying Aikido because I fancy myself a self-defense, kill-or-be-killed type of martial artist.

I like contact, I don't mind pain, and I get a peculiar thrill when someone hits me hard enough to draw blood. Maybe I'm sociopathic, or maybe I just won't settle for anything less than reality.

Whatever the case, it wasn't until I moved to an area with a decided lack of such hard training schools that I looked into Aikido personally, and it was then that I found out how very real and effective it can be.