is it a viable self defense art?
Printable View
is it a viable self defense art?
yes
;)
Define viable..
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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"?Quote:
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.
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!
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.
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.
In my opinion- Absolutely not.Quote:
is it a viable self defense art?
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.
Just go over to http://www.e-budo.com/ and ask them on the Aikido forums what they feel about the art.
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!"
;)
ST00
How valuable do you think Aikido training would be to a Judo black belt?
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?
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.
Or go to a kung fu forum and tell them they suck.. oh wait, happens ever day here...lol:DQuote:
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!"
;)
Aikido has its good and bad.... I haven't crossed hands with a practitioner that only does aikido.
My art sucks..
NP
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.
(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
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.
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.
so, I'm close if Ueshiba learned jujutsu and aikijutsu prior to developing aikido.
Yes, you are correct there.Quote:
Originally posted by Oso
so, I'm close if Ueshiba learned jujutsu and aikijutsu prior to developing aikido.
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.
[edit]
AFAIK, he was only got permission to teach Daito Ryu as a style, not the others.
[/edit]
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.
There's also evidence that Ueshiba learned Kashima Shinto Ryu and Yagyu Shingan Ryu...
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.Quote:
my understanding is that jujutsu is oldest, aikijutsu next, then judo and aikido, but I'm not sure
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.
Onisaburo Deguchi was the leader and co-founder of a Shinto sect called Omoto Kyo which heavily influenced Ueshiba Sensei.Quote:
Aikido as such was only formulated much later after the met the reverend Deguchi (Monk), the aikikai was only founded in 1945
What do you mean?Quote:
AFAIK, he was only got permission to teach Daito Ryu as a style, not the others.
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
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..
;)
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.
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.Quote:
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
Classic example of having learned the technique but none of the priciple.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally posted by kenso
Unbalancing and the taking of an opponent's balance are not unique to Tomiki sensei's Shodokan style.
Anyway, my point was only that the Tomiki styles have a distinctive flavor which I find intriguing, and presumably others might as well.
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
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 .
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.
If the title is about street self defence than I go with ST00's first answer. A big resounding no.