Strength and weaknesses

[Fuzzy Panther]

I was on another forum and couldn't believe how much some people were slamming Aikido (my beloved art)!:(

I'm asking the Aikidokas here what they think are the strengths and weaknesses in Aikido.

Thanks!

Fuzzy Panther
:Angel:

[AikiSamurai]

Who cares what people think...........

[Fuzzy Panther]

What I mean is basically every martial art has it's strengths and weaknesses and I want to hear what other Aikidokas say about Aikido. ;)

Fuzzy Panther
:Angel:

[Who am I?]

What did they say?

[Fuzzy Panther]

Mostly that it's unrealistic and uneffective and that Aikido can be compared with Gymnastics. I don't take it too seriously 'cause the people who said that never really studied Aikido in the first place. I think it depends on the person studying the art (how they train, etc.) and not the art itself that would make anything uneffective. However, a spin off thread was started and people posted what they thought were the strengths and weaknesses of arts that THEY study. I thought that was a bit interesting and wondered the same about Aikido. To me it's all good but I probably haven't been in it long enough to see it's advatages and disavatages (sp?).

Fuzzy Panther
:Angel:

[aikiMac]

I gotta get myself a new screen name, because I'm not a "knife fighter" anymore. I'm an aikido student now.

Strengths of aikido:
1) I've heard and read and discussed a lot of different martial arts, but aikido is the only martial art that I know of that was consciously made for defending against multiple attackers. Sure, you COULD use shotokan karate or hung gar kung fu or [fill in the blank] in a one-versus-many scenario. But I do not believe that karate or kung fu or any the rest were designed specifically for such a situation. Aikido was. A one-versus-one fight in aikido is identical to a one-versus-three fight or even a one-versus-five fight.

2) The footwork is the most evasive that I've seen, and I've seen a lot of different footwork patterns. Punching an aikido person is like trying to punch the wind. He just isn't standing where he's supposed to be standing. And ...

3) that segues into the defensive posture that characterizes aikido. Aikido doesn't fight. It gets out of the way. In my experience this is where other people fault aikido, but, they fault it out of enormous ignorance. Wing chun, for example, fights. Silat fights. Kyokushinkai karate fights. Muay thai fights. Practitioners in these and 1000 other martial arts will get in your face, toe to toe, and try to pound you into the ground while simultaneously trying to duck or deflect or block your punches. Aikido practitioners don't do that. They step away. They do not stand toe to toe, they do not get in your face, and they generally won't even punch you.

Consequently, there's nobody in your face. Consequently, there is no fight. Hmmm. Think on that. No fight. Hmmm. Maybe, just maybe, that's a good thing, aye?

4) Aikido preserves the "center line" every bit as well as wing chun. Aikido takes advantage of leverage every bit as well as judo and silat. Aikido parries every bit as well as escrima. Aikido uses hip power every bit as well as boxing and judo. But all of these things are done without show, without talk, without advertisement, and I think even without telegraphing. Again, those who criticize aikido do it out of ignorance because none of the "good stuff" in aikido fits the appearance of their paradigms.

5) All the "good stuff" in aikido is done without muscle strength. The defenses that would actually work in a real-life situation are matters of technical skill, not matters of muscle strength. Contrast this with boxing or shotokan karate where strength makes all the difference.


Weaknesses:
1) That reliance on technical skill can be seen as a weakness too, if you are short on time. Assuming that you have no prior martial arts training when you begin, aikido takes longer to learn than most other martial arts. For example, escrima's basic knife defenses can be learned to a practical level of competence in less than a year. Aikido's knife defenses take several years to learn to an equal degree of competence. The same holds for defenses against an elementary jab-cross punching combination, or simple kicks. Anything beyond "get out of the way" takes several years to learn well in aikido, whereas a one-year student of most aggressive martial arts has enough skill to pull off simple defenses.

2) Because aikido doesn't fight, it doesn't attack with blows meant to hurt. Consequently, there is little if any training in how to throw a punch or kick for real.

3) Theoretically aikido's defensive principles work on the ground in a wrestling match, but practically speaking, I have grave doubts.

[Fuzzy Panther]

Thank you very much, Knife Fighter!!! :) :D Thanks for taking the time to think all that through and type all that. I really appreciate it! :)

Fuzzy Panther
:Angel:

[xplasma]

Where was this thread in the other forum, I would like to read it.

[pgm316]

I can imagine what the thread was like, there will always be threads like that. Its great how someone that hasn't trained in a style can go into some detail about its weaknesses! :D

[Cain]

^_^ Now that's a good point pgm :)

|Cain|

[Fuzzy Panther]

Originally posted by xplasma
Where was this thread in the other forum, I would like to read it.

Which thread in the other forum are you referring too? The one where they were picking on me and Aikido or the one where they listed the strengths and weaknesses of the arts that they do?

Fuzzy Panther
:Angel:

[xplasma]

stengths and weaknesses thread.

[Fuzzy Panther]

Originally posted by xplasma
stengths and weaknesses thread.

This link should work.

http://pub228.ezboard.com/ftaekwondo67109frm1.showMessage?topicID=781.topic

Fuzzy Panther
:Angel:

[thiaboxr2]

The people I talked to are up in the air on the subject. I have seen one Deminstration of Aikido. From what i have seen of it, it is effective. One man was actually throwing 3 others around. There were no fake throws. What I mean by that is the attacker was not resisting or purposly falling to the ground before the technique was finished. I have seen both of these done before by one well known master.
Some people I talk to say that It s impractical to grab the wrist of your apponent in training and ALLOW them to FREELY throw you without any resistance.

It would be easier for those that do not like Aikido to go train in it before they start badmouthing it.

I would like to train in it. But im already training in 3 other styles right now.

The above info is from what I have seen or heard and is not meant to affend anybody.

[Da_King_Fish]

I would have to agree with thiaboxr2...If you go to www.akidofaq.com you can see what it is he is talking about...Personaly i beleive(sp?) that akido is the most effective art out there.

1. You dont have to be strong.
2. It doesn't take any energy.
3. It's good to now when you are going against multiple enemies.
4. Hell...it's even good against weapons.

I keep on hearing about how all these people put down akido after there first month...and personaly if I were them i would stay in the art untill they are fairly advanced. The aplications of akido can be used in a lot of instances...And how cool it would be able to controll your ki(the jappense word for energy).Good luck.

[xplasma]

..Personaly i believe that aikido is the most effective art out there.

Wow really? So either you know nothing or never seen any other art then Aikido.

I still do Aikido once a week for 1 1/2 hours (been doing it for a bit over 2 months now). I take it for one reason, that same reason I take BJJ/Vale Tudo/Muay Thai. I take it to enhance my Taijutsu training.
I supplement Ju-Jutsu with Aikido/BJJ/Vale Tudo
I supplement Daken-Jutsu with Muay Thai.

However, w/o striking and ground fighting Aikido is ineffective. There small joint locks are nice. However, I am never met an Aikido-ka that could defend against a *good* grappler or even a decent boxer. Aikido however is awesome against people who can't punch kick or fight ( people who completely throw themselves into a attack)

[KenpoDavid]

"Wow really? So either you know nothing or never seen any other art then Aikido."

xplasma - Which of your arts teaches jumping...
...
to conclusions LOL!!!

[Sonshu]

And I was one of the people on the other Forum as SONSHU still.

To me the Aikido art is good but it has some very questionable practical applications.

It needs fleshing out as although it can defend against multiple opponents it has no quick safe way of dealing with them. For all the Atemi people talk about too many schools brush over it in an impractical way.

The footwork is great and helps me even in my MMA stuff but as an art it is too weak to be the best SD art about and needs adding to for full combat effectiveness IMO.

[aikiMac]

Originally posted by Sonshu
... but as an art [aikido] is too weak to be the best SD art about and needs adding to for full combat effectiveness IMO.
What needs to be added to it?

For example, I agree that most aikido schools do not teach real strikes, and that's too bad, but I consider that to be the fault of the instructors, not the art form, because the structure of aikido allows for strikes. Is there something not in the structure of aikido itself that you think needs to be there?

[Sonshu]

As in the syllabus Atemi (real striking though) needs to be covered more and it makes the set up of the locks etc much safer to apply.

[Tireces]

I've really only skimmed over Aikido itself, since I prefer to keep my training focused where it belongs, in Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do. I do not believe I am anywhere near a point where I should start milling through the rest of the martial arts world for training, since I have so little of it in the one that is my rooting. From people I've talked to, however, it seems the art is based pretty much on reacting to an opponent. In my opinion, this is not a fool proof method of fighting (as much as some would like to think), when it comes to fighting in ANY style, method, or whatever you'd like to call what you do. Things like broken rhythm, attack by drawing, feinting/faking, and nontelegraphic motion make fighting in a reactionary manner extremely difficult, and against someone good enough, probably nearly impossible. If Aikido is not an art built around only reacting to opponents, then I apologize, I do not claim any deep, inside knowledge of the art, but if that is truly the case, then that is a very large weakness. But I do believe that using an opponents energy against him is very effective, having personally experienced similar concepts applied in trapping. As for the footwork, Aikido is not the only art that stresses it, I can tell you that Jeet Kune Do is almost entirely built around footwork, my Sifu brings up VERY often the fact that movement is the most important part of what we do, and Bruce Lee can be quoted similarly to that end.

[Sonshu]

Its not meant to be a reactive art but sadly thats far to often how its taught. Still

JKD is supposed to be a good art etc but Aikido can work just not how most people are taught it.

I did not agree with how I was shown it but still - there were some good core elements.

[Tireces]

Well, as I said, from all I've seen of it, thats what it seemed. Every demonstration I seem to get my hands on just seems to feature some student running at his teacher and getting thrown, putting no real thought into his offense. Could you recommend anywhere where it is showcased more practically?

[Sonshu]

It is slightly less than I was shown but its some of the footwork that I gained from the style as it can move you well out of the area of attack - still you need to be able to make some offence.

[Vrax]

feint.

that's how you create an offense in a reactive art. you fake and move and twitch and feint, until the ooponent opens up and gives you some energy to work with.

see also attack by drawing.

i must disagree completely with the theory that aikido is effective against a number of opponents greater than one. too many of the movements require circular arc steps away from the opponent (tenkan). if one is forced inot a predictable arc of movement one can be forced into a poor position.

face it - once you're suffering from a "limb deficit" you're going to be at a severe disadvantage. by limb deficit i mean if it's one on one then both fighters have the same amount of limbs with which to quarrel. once you add a second guy and his limbs the odds get worse very quickly.

[Sonshu]

As an Aikido students feinting is less important as you have not strikes to do, so to me its pretty pointless.

Also the footwork does give it a good basis for evasion on multiple attackers but it lacks the striking skills to drop any of them.

The main idea is to drill the miltiple footwork to ensure you dont move yourself in a naff position against mutiples.

The main thing with the Tenkan is its small circular movements and you dont have to go circular as I would use a step to move because I dont like giving my back.

[Tosh]

Originally posted by Sonshu
As an Aikido students feinting is less important as you have not strikes to do, so to me its pretty pointless.


As long as your opponent believes you are going to strike then fienting can be effective regardless of whether you intend to strike or not.

[Silver_no2]

I think that every style has its pros and cons and every style has its supporters and detractors. We have a cross-training weekend every year (FreeForm's doing) and spend a couple of hours doing six or seven different arts. Personally I find that these sessions show up areas where my aikido would not be able to cope very well. That's to say I am not good enough at aikido, not that aikido is not good enough.

I have been studying aikido for a little over three years now, with several breaks due to injuries, and feel that I've still got a hell of a long way to go before I will be in a position to be comfortable using it in a "real" situation. I have used the concepts that I've learnt in real situations, though not that many as I don't have many fights :D

I would have to disagree with you, Sonshu, as to your point that "although it can defend against multiple opponents it has no quick safe way of dealing with them". Several of the techniques that you learn in the randori no kata are more than capable of dealing with an assailant in a quick, safe way. I bloke is unlikely to come back into a fight if you've just tw*tted his head off the pavement or broken his arm. At training last night we were doing loads of things that would have taken someone out of a fight quickly and effectively.

I feel that this thread has gone off on the usual tangent of "Is aikido any good?" as opposed to the strengths and weaknesses that Fuzzy Panther was looking for. So.....

Strengths
Teaches very good footwork for avoidance
Teaches very good awareness of body mechanics, lines of weakness etc.
Size and strength do not matter when you are good at aikido
Teaches you, to a certain extent, to deal with multiple attackers (my personal opinion is that the best way of dealing with them is to run like hell! :D)


Weaknesses
Takes a long time to become proficient enough to use effectively.
Does not teach people how to punch and kick properly.
Can give a false sense of security due to the way in which you train with someone not against them.


One of the things that has come out of this thread, and several others, is that everyone says that aikido is excellent against a untrained brawler but no good against another trained martial artist. It got me round to thinking.....how many MAP users go out on a Saturday night looking for a bit of a rumble? I only ask because it seems to me, statistically, that the vast majority of people out there aren't trained in martial arts . Yet everyone seems to be talking as if every fight that happens nowadays is some huge martial arts frenzy!! Just last week I saw a bit of a fight while I was on my way to basketball....the bloke pulled back his right hand to the fullest extent and then let fly....the other bloke took it full in the face and went down like a sack of sh*t. Neither showed any MA prowess, it was over in three seconds, and I know that I wouldn't have been hit by that right as I could see it coming and would have moved. I'd like to think that I would have avoided the whole situation in the first place but, hey, that's just me. :D In fact the vast majority of fights that I have seen involved big telegraphed punches. I have never seen someone using a jab in a street fight (not that I've seen lots of fights).

As to the whole thing about the atemi not working, well.....I never got my head out of the way properly last night while the victorious Tintin Sensei was demonstrating an atemi technique for the class, my head was ringing for a good 25 minutes or so and so I reckon it's effective! :D The way that the Honourable midget with beard teaches is it is that the atemi is designed to make the other person try and get their head out of the way....if they don't then you will get their head out of the way with the strike. I think that this is the way that it should be taught, even with a sore nose and a fuzzy head because of it! :D

[smee193]

I found the footwork in Aikido amazing!

The sensei come at me with a Bokken and i managed to avoid it! i still use the footwork in jujitsu!( i believe Aikido came from jujitsu originally ) I think that all M.A.s can be effective depending on the situation! an Aikido wrist throw bloody hurts, an arm bar bloody hurts, but then so does a roundhouse kick to the chops!

I love what i do and quite frankly i dont care what anyone else thinks of it!

Mark

[Sonshu]

I prefer to throw a punch with the conviction and intention of it landing.

The reason by this is many people could possibly get better at Aikido quicker if they knew how to apply the techniques from the start rather than how to do them.

Also adding some good stand up striking skills would round the art off better for SD.

Views?

[Tireces]

A feint isnt actually throwing an attack, its performing a very small movement designed to make your opponent think that a certain attack is coming, but you quickly throw a different one. To me, it just seems Aikido is too based on reacting. Against some oaf on the streets who just thinks he can keep swinging and running at you with no real though or tactics, aikido would probably make a mockery of him. But someone who takes advantage of its reactiveness would find themselves fighting a very easy battle. I think adding strikes would help a lot, so long as they are taught in an offensive manner, not a reactive one, and they are actually GOOD strikes. It would make Aikido a far better art in my opinion, because only working with the throws makes it extremely weak to a smarter opponent. But with an actual offense, the throws could probably be adapted to counter such things as tackles and shoots, which would be extremely useful, but still, even those can be feinted. In the end, I just think it shouldn't be taught in such this "fighting is made so easy by aikido, that you can just stand there and let your opponent do all the fighting". Thats a great way to lose a fight. Defense and countering should only be done to regain the better offensive position in a fight, it shouldn't be THE way you fight.

[Clone]

I don't know much about MA's, but I think these type of discussions of Aikido's effectiveness or it's weaknesses it's pointless. As all of you know there's no perfect art. Therefore most of the common flaws are not in the art, but in the practitioner! It all comes down to if the practitioner is actually a MA artist and a fighter too or only a MA artist. You can Know a complete art, but if you don't know how to fight or you have no fighting experience at all you have a great disadvantage in a true fight.

I think that a TRUE fighter would have no problems beating some skilled martial artist using Aikido techniques...

[Sonshu]

This is why we discuss the styles and its merits and short commings. Its also a good chance for people to correct less experienced MA people and to change perceptions of there art.

Some of what you have put is good in that you can no all the MA you want but if you cant apply it then your not much better off but it still does help a little. There are certain arts that have problems in the training they leave out. Aikido for example has not great striking skills and no kicking at all so it misses out that fighting range.


TIRECES

I use faints a lot but the point I am looking to is most Aikido schools dont do enough credible striking to make the feints worth while. If they did then it would be worth doing.

[Budoka]

Hi People!

I read this thread very attentively. Because it is on like many others.
Aikido is a MA as well as Savate or Judo. There are many MA in the world most of them basing on ancient chinese techniques and teachings.
Each MA has its weaknesses and its advantages. Aikido does not make any exception.
It is based on ancient Aiki-Jutsu, Ken-Jutsu and some other stylistic influences. That is one little problems. Aikido is very traditional and most of the techniques are based on fights between elite fighters (Samurais). So some fighting rules are not to be applyable on todays fighting.
On the other hand most of the techniques are efficient IF performed by an experienced Aikidoka.

But I do not want to tell to long stories, so I make it short. I perform Aikido since the August last year. Because of an accident during the training I was forced to prematurely interrupt the training and end it for some month. The accident was an totally overstreched wrist caused by an Aiki-Jutsu technique.

Pros:
- Aikido respectively Aiki-Jutsu uses hard techniques. They can
cause heavy damage and great pain.
- No block techniques are used, so the student will not be
damaged as hard as an Karateka for example (because of the
radical blocks)
- it is effective in any situation
- students even learn how to win a fight by PREVENTING it
- training contains weapon techniques
- fighting against more than one opponent

Cons:
- to become a good fighter many many years of hard training are
required
- feet techniques are of minor interest for the student
- the kind of training depends very strong on the way of life the
sensai is performing (in Aikido more than in other MA because of
the strong spiritual aspectss of that MA)

Aikido is only as effectice as the student or master who performs it. It has much to do with spirit and the way you are living. To the Aikidokas: Have you ever recognised that there are not much "Street Fighter Guys" in an Aikido dojo? Most of the students are from other MAs or are performing Aikido and paralel to that a MA more useful for self - defense for a beginner?

And note: outgoing from my experience there are three kind of Aikido:
- Aikido - Zen (meditation in movement) - a very spiritual kind of
Aikido; Zen is affilated with the Zen from Zen - Buddhism

- traditionel Aikido (or simply Aiki-Jutsu) - the name is program ...
it's more traditionel

- "normal" Aikido based on the Aikido performed by O-Sensai
Morihei Ueshiba

- dynamic Aikido - a very hard and compromiseless kind of Aikido
with influences from one or two other MAs, not as traditionel as
the "normal" Aikido, but easier to learn (2 or 3 years instead of
5 or 6 years)

>>>
I think that a TRUE fighter would have no problems beating some skilled martial artist using Aikido techniques...
<<<

I recognise, that you are very unexperienced. A martial artist using techniques doesn't exist. Your are an Aikidoka. Or you are an Judoka. Or a Boxer. You are what you have chosen to be.

There is no "TRUE" or "FALSE" fighter. This is no binary calculation. If you think that a fighter is someone only using techniques you should never enter a dojo.

[Tosh]

Originally posted by Sonshu

I use faints a lot but the point I am looking to is most Aikido schools dont do enough credible striking to make the feints worth while. If they did then it would be worth doing.


Surely, even if you only know one strike it's that feint that's important here not the amount of strikes you know.

The principle is to make the opponent react, even if it is the simplest reaction...i.e blink.

[Sonshu]

It is critical to have more than one striking move, for realistic SD you need to have a decent punch as pre emptive stikes etc can cut the problem down before the attacker gains momentum and speed/power.

I agree locking etc is great but there could be a stronger empasis on practical striking to make your other techniques work easier.

Also a quick point to BUDOKA - Aikido does not work in all situations, its no good really on the ground.

[Silver_no2]

Originally posted by Sonshu
I prefer to throw a punch with the conviction and intention of it landing.

The reason by this is many people could possibly get better at Aikido quicker if they knew how to apply the techniques from the start rather than how to do them.

Also adding some good stand up striking skills would round the art off better for SD.

Views? The atemi that we use in our aikido are intended to land. If your opponent hasn't got his head out of the way then it will hurt....lots! I personally think that some proper punches should be taught in aikido....who knows....in the future they may be, aikido is a developing art.

Originally posted by Tireces
In the end, I just think it shouldn't be taught in such this "fighting is made so easy by aikido, that you can just stand there and let your opponent do all the fighting". I've never heard any of the instructors that I have trained with say anything like that. There have been different views expressed as to whether aikido is a fighting art, a self defence system or a sport, but none have said anything about it making fighting 'easy'.

It would make Aikido a far better art in my opinion, because only working with the throws makes it extremely weak to a smarter opponent.Who said aikido only works with throws? What makes someone a 'smarter' opponent?

But someone who takes advantage of its reactiveness would find themselves fighting a very easy battle.
Aikido is not just a reactive art. It is perfectly possible for an aikidoka to instigate an attack. I have been on the receiving end of it when this happens! A number of the techniques that we are taught can be used on the offensive as well as the defensive. Once again, where does this theory that everyone on the streets is a trained martial artist come from? Unless you are walking around in an aikido club t-shirt how will your opponent know that you are an aikidoka and that he can take advantage of that? Is there something about us aikidoka that every other person on the planet can spot us a mile off? Do must people even know what aikido is? :confused: Am I the only person on MAP who doesn't think that the entire world is populated by sh*t hot fighters? :D

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by Silver_no2
Am I the only person on MAP who doesn't think that the entire world is populated by sh*t hot fighters? :D

Nope. :D

[stump]

Well do you subscribe to the idea that training harder makes fighting easier?

Personally Id rather prepare for the scenario that I've just spilt the local psycho black belt gone bad's pint. In that way I've prepared for anyone prior to that quality of opponent (if that's the right term).

assumptions of the opponents lack of knowledge, reactions etc can be dangerous...

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by stump


1/ Well do you subscribe to the idea that training harder makes fighting easier?



2/ assumptions of the opponents lack of knowledge, reactions etc can be dangerous...

1/ Yes and no! Experience makes fighting easier. You may have trained hard to get that experience, but that's all part of the experience. It depends on the opponent.

2/ They can, but taking time to worry about such things is counter productive. You can still only fight up to the level of your own experience, so I believe you have to fire your cannons until one of you has stopped moving.

[Sonshu]

I think you are making more of Stumps comments than he meat by them.

Simply.

1) Training hard and practical will get better results but you have to train certain ways depending on your goal, strength, stamina, fighting, SD etc.

2) Also in a fight no one worries about how good the guy is but pays more attention on your own game. However if somthing good is shown by the guy at least having the smarts and skills to fall back.

This is all he has really put I guess

[Silver_no2]

Well do you subscribe to the idea that training harder makes fighting easier?
Yes I do. I'm an Army brat - the British Army has for years worked under the maxim of "train hard to fight easy". My old man instilled that in me for my rugby and every other aspect as well.

Personally Id rather prepare for the scenario that I've just spilt the local psycho black belt gone bad's pint. In that way I've prepared for anyone prior to that quality of opponent (if that's the right term).That's true...but it doesn't change my point that the vast majority of people that are out there do not have MA training. I think that one of the most telling things about your post is the 'black belt gone bad' idea. It implies, and I personally believe it to be true, that a well trained MAist would not normally be involved in this type of confrontation. Nearly every MAist I've spoken to has talked of training to have the ability to defend themselves if they could not avoid a fight. By that logic - if they are trying to avoid a confrontation and you are trying to avoid a confrontation then it'll take something special for things to kick off! :D

assumptions of the opponents lack of knowledge, reactions etc can be dangerous...True but then overestimating an opponents abilities can be counter-productive as well.

Once again I feel that this thread is going a wee bit off track....Sonshu, Stump, Andy, Tireces, Clone, Tosh_Spice (aka Nathan, hi mate!!!) and anyone else out there......WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF YOUR STYLES?...this is, after all, what Fuzzy Panther asked at the start of the thread.....and it would be rude not to do what a lady asks (I hope that FP is a woman and not just a bloke who is in touch with his feminine side:D).

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by Sonshu
I think you are making more of Stumps comments than he meat by them.



Thanks for your interpretation Craig.

I'll wait for Colins.

[Andy Murray]

Originally posted by Silver_no2
track....Sonshu, Stump, Andy, Tireces, Clone, Tosh_Spice (aka Nathan, hi mate!!!) and anyone else out there......[b]WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF YOUR STYLES?...this is, after all, what Fuzzy Panther asked at the start of the thread.....

It's more productive to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the individual, than the style.

[Tosh]

Originally posted by Andy Murray
It's more productive to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the individual, than the style.


I have a weakness for women in french knickers, can anyone show me a place where I can experience my weakness regularly so I can handle it in a pressure situation? :D

[secretninja]

Originally posted by tosh_spice
I have a weakness for women in french knickers, can anyone show me a place where I can experience my weakness regularly so I can handle it in a pressure situation? :D

How about Leith Docks? ;)

[Andy Murray]

I don't believe there are any women who would find you attractive in French Knickers Tosh.

Get over it. :D

[Tosh]

Originally posted by Andy Murray

Get over it. :D

"Thank you, your honor. With God's help I'll conquer this terrible affliction."

[stump]

I was responding to a comment made by you earlier silver, not the origonal topic.

What I meant was the tougher you push yourself in training and the more used you are to digging deep the less liely you are to give up and that for me is what it's about.

Andy I think we're talking about the same thing really in different terms.


By the second point if you have the attitude I'll do this and he'll do that you can get a nasty surprise when he doesn't react the way you thought he would. Better to adopt Murphys law as a starting place and everything from there is a bonus

[Silver_no2]

I may not be a woman Tosh_Spice but I think that you look great in French Knickers mate. If only you hadn't strapped that cod piece on over the front of them!!! :D

[Andy Murray]

Agreed :D

[Tosh]

Arrrgh i've fallen into the dreaded HWU Aikido "Shower of Love" bizzare mating ritual!!

HELP ME!!!!!

[Clone]

I can see your point, but like some of the guys here say, how many times will you encounter a really good fighter which already knows how to fight an Aikidoka?

I don't know if the Aikido lessons I took where any different than the ones some people here took and didn't like, but atleast at the dojo that I visited and took 2 classes they teached me that Aikido was all or had alot of options in every technique you could finish the technique without dealing much harm to your opponent or you could hurt him real bad. As they told me the "many options" you have while doing a technique they also showed you to strike your oponnent during a technique. In some techniques you could strike your opponent up to three or more times and then finishing him by throwing him hard to the ground. Don't know if I was lucky to find a dojo which teached some striking, but to me it had enough(atleast for Aikido).

And as I said before, it all comes down to being a fighter rather than being a MA artist. Some of you guys make look like an Aikidoka can't throw punches just because the art itself dosen't cover that area as much as other arts. If I decide to continue studying Aikido you can bet that I will use my punches if I need before to before applying a technique.

[Tireces]

I think you should go back and read my first posts here, silver. I said myself that anything I said was based on what I had seen and heard of it, and that I'd not actually trained in it, so I said where I was speaking from was not a position of someone knowing the art well. No one had really said that Aikido could be used offensively to any competent degree until you posted, so I figured that what I'd seen and heard was a fairly dead on representation. As I asked earlier of someone else, could you refer me to anywhere where the offensive aspect is showcased?

[Budoka]

@Clone ... see my post at the start of the page and you will get your answer ...

[WOspidermonkey]

@Clone ... see my post at the start of the page and you will get your answer ...

I always hear that there is not enough strikes in Aikido, but what strikes do you actually learn in Aikido? I believe it is an effective art without the jab or right cross.

[Sonshu]

and they are not drilled as a piece of work on there own, they are mostly used for balance breaking/distractions as part of a set of techniques, its not really an art that practices how to take people out by there striking which I think is something that would help the students and give it more appeal to the other people of different MA who come to cross train.

[Budd]

I believe that aikido techniques contain most of the strikes you'd ever need. I am also a fan of cross-training so that you can see what the other folks are doing. But here's some examples of where strikes can be "built into" aikido techniques.

Sumi otoshi -- Nage's entry has a nice hook punch or elbow strike, depending on the ma-ai.

Kaiten nage -- Nage's hand on the back of uke's neck/head doesn't have to be just placed there gently. SMASH!

Sankkyo -- When I trained at an Aikikai-affiliated school, the atemi with the hand not applying the technique is to fix uke in place rather than hit him, but you can also go ahead and hit him.

Those are just a few examples, but if you start looking at your practice from that point of view, I'm sure you'll see plenty of other openings.

[Sonshu]

than strikes in there own right.

I doubt you train them specifically and with power hardly ever. This is what I am driving at.

[Budd]

I doubt you train them specifically and with power hardly ever. This is what I am driving at.

Feel free to doubt, but if I hit you with that elbow on the way into sumi otoshi (it looks and feels very much like a muay thai elbow), I might not even need the throw, because folks have been knocked out before with just the entry.

Now, if I can do that elbow in that entry, what's to stop me from throwing it from a clinch, or after sprawling on someone's shot?

HINT: I've done it in each of those situations.

Still doubtful?

The reason they come across as setups is because in a perfect aiki-world, they'll just fix uke in place long enough for me to put them down gently so that they realize the error of their ways in contributing to a violent encounter.

In the real world, then bash and stun the other guy so that I can, if need be, get ahold of their limb or neck and wrench it out of the socket.

In either case, that doesn't diminish my ability to land said strikes from a variety of positions -- with power and intention.

[Sonshu]

not you!

A normal Aikido student who is caught with a shoot will hit the ground very quickly and be chocked out cos he is a fish out of water not unlike many arts either.

I am saying there are a few strikes in the style but not done enough or practiced and drilled as just strikes.

Do you agree with this souly on Aikido merits as this is the Aikido thread?

The art does not drill effective strikes and hence this is why they use them as set ups perhaps a wider range would be better?

[Budd]

Hi Sonshu,

I think we have some agreement in some areas, but I think what the cruxt of our argument comes down to is training methodology, rather than denouncements of the art as a whole, because there are folks that train solely in aikido that are some scary, scary people (I've met them -- SCARY!). On the other hand, there are also people that will train for decades and achieve nothing more than mastering a meditative dance.

So, here's my recommendation to aikidoka that want to be effective in a number of different areas. If your instructor doesn't address the ground, clinch and how to deal with retracting strikes (punches, kicks, elbows), then yes, you probably should crosstrain. There's nothing inherently wrong with doing so, regardless of what others that are higher ranked might sneer and whine, just remind them of Ueshiba's jujutsu prowess, or of Tomiki's judo skill or of Nishio Sensei, currently alive in Japan and one of the most respected budoka in Japan of any system (and he believed in crosstraining in karate and judo).

I'm pretty fortunate in my aikido training, the strikes I discussed earlier have been taught and drilled. When I started crosstraining in submission fighting, they remained in my toolbox and have been put to good use. But as a result, to say that aikido, as a system, is missing these things is IMO incorrect. Folks might not train them in an effective manner, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

[Sonshu]

The art I am not saying does not work its just it does require a lot of effort if this is your soul art to make it the force it could be.

If you throw in some other tricks form the tool box you mention then it really can be the thing that opens up you to a new pattern of moves that will bolt onto your Aikido. I use the footwork from it in my MMA takedowns and throws as the strange angles work pretty well.

However there is for me some things missing that I went away and got from other arts.

[kensei1984]

I prefer to throw a punch with the conviction and intention of it landing.

The reason by this is many people could possibly get better at Aikido quicker if they knew how to apply the techniques from the start rather than how to do them.

Also adding some good stand up striking skills would round the art off better for SD.

Views?

That's my criticism of many aikido schools. They simply do not teach how to strike. And the emphasis is too much an shomen uchi (diagonal strike), which generally let's face it, never used in a street situation when it comes to a brawl. But you can treat it like a weapon in the hand, it's alright. But it doesn't cover every situation.

Kicks as well, are the bloody worst. Even the simplest kick, the front snap kick, it done terribly at most schools.

If I had an aikido school, I would make sure that striking is included in the curriculum. I was very pleased when my Shihan made it a permanent part of ours, instead of just teaching happoken in 7th Kyu.

It's simple, if your students cannot throw a solid punch, then they will not be able to defend against a real punch.

[koyo]

See martial arts of aikido atemi thread

regards koyo

[Rock Ape]

That's my criticism of many aikido schools. They simply do not teach how to strike. And the emphasis is too much an shomen uchi (diagonal strike), You of course mean vertical.

Diagonal would either be yokomen or, more generically naname

[joriki]

Many people have brough great points on Aikido but I would like to point out a few things.

1. Aikido does have blocks. True they are not like in your typical karate type fashion. They are more in-line with Kenjustsu. Example – I believe (I don’t have my notes in front of me) that Suio yu Iai Kemp (as taught by Soke and by my instructor Sensei Stokes) in either Ranun or Fusei – have a wonderful sword block that is developed by using the structure of the sword in relationship to the body (using proper muscles and skeletal positioning) Aikido has this as well. How many times have use seen from a shoman uchi the tori doing the concept of second sword to the uke and striking/blocking the shoman uchi to gain the upper hand and seize the limb into ikkyo? Now is this a karate type block ..no? is it a force on force block..not really. Is it using correct body postion to negate the force of the attack ….yes. When you had the topic of blending the force of an attack then it becomes even more effective.

2. Aikido is works under a VERY different combat paradigm. It is based off the concept of Japanese sword. Many sword battles did not have lots and lots of cuts and parries and blocks, like in fencing or WMA. There are some but the idea of sword is to kill or disable on the first attack. In Suio Ryu (look it up on koryu.com for more info) there are techniques that are counters to the first sets of techniques. This is the realm of Aikido. Aikido is not passive. It is not defensive in nature. Aikido like sword is about drawing the opponent into you and trying by opening up exploitable weakness in your defense that the opponent can take advantage of – so when the do – you can use the correct counter. As another poster pointed out – if your not training this way or in a similar way – you are doing reactionary defense. Aikido like sword (ideally) is about the one strike one kill concept. The Aikido student looks at the first moment of combat as the only moment. There is no second or 3rd or 4th strike. If the opponent is not dealt with on the 1st attack your aikido is wrong. From my knowledge I have not seen many videos of Osensei block and backing away and blocking and backing away. He handle the first attack allowing the state of mind that this is the only chance he will get to make the technique work. One chance. One technique.

3. Aikido unless you training in good mind training, if not effective for a few years. There is too much to learn. A week a month a year or 2 is nothing. Sorry. After 5 or 10 or 20 years do the fullness of aikido start to show. You can get things to work but a good offensive person eat a beginner up in aikido. Yet like point 2, the experienced aikido person will be able to handle most things.

4. Look at MMA, look at street fights. They are very different then sparring. In a combative situation people do swing offbalcned. They do over commit. In the nice play arena of sparring, people can throw well balanced kicks and punches. Take the person out of that arena. Into a dark alley at night, I have a strong feeling that they wont be throwing the same quality that they do in a dojo. MMA the kicks or poor, the punches are poor. They use pure strength and aggression. Aikido loves that.

5. Aikido is not for attack. Aikido is about strategy. It is an art. To say you need to learn to punch and kick in aikido is silly. Why? Because then you are trying to compete offensively against people who are have studied longer and have much more knowledge in offense. But what about atemi…? It is not an attack it is an opening or creating an opening. Again it is how you train to view combat. Example some internal styles of CIMA allow the concept of when an attack comes in strike/kick then push/pull/throw the opponent. That system views combat as a several stepped approach. Aikido it is a 1 step. Attack comes in…waza…end combat. If Aikido you say well I can attack…then opponent blocks…waza…end combat or/else attack..opponent blocks..counter attacks…waza..end combat. Leaves a huge vulnerability in that must assume your skills are equal or greater then the opponent ability in striking and offensive as you are assuming you have the option of doing the rest of sequence. So no attack in aikido. See point 2.

Aikido is a great art. But it takes a dedicated student to truly understand and study the art..not just dance the waza.

Just my view point others may have different experiences and ideas.

[kensei1984]

I just don't understand point 5, it sounds rather contradictory. Learning to kick and punch in Aikido is silly but yet it is essential in the way of making an opening or creating an opening? Does that not require the application of a well trained and not haphazard punch or kick?

Application of Aikido to a decent trained punch or kick that is on target and not moving at the speed of a stunned snail is paramount to training if it is to have any application.

The reason why i support the learning of strikes to to help the defender develop his technique better against an honest attack.

[joriki]

I would agree with 100% but slightly from a different viewpoint. I would say that the method of learning how to create an opening is what is important. IF that opening is created by a kick or a punch ok then that is form it takes. However I would say that a redirection/deflection of an attack can also create the opening. I view Atemi as the aspect or manifestion of creating the expolitable weakness in the opponent that allows a situation to unfold.

I would say that most people who study punching and kicking are not learning how to create opening, rather then are trying to learn to deal damage.

In suio ryu iai kempo - the soke say that in combat a cut to the wrist or a 1 inch cut to the neck is as effective as beheading the opponent. He states the problem with tamishigiri is that people are so focused on the cut and slicing through the mat that they forget in combat the blade could get damaged or stuck in the body. So a cut that removes the opponent is the correct cut. be killing or disabling as it allows you to move on the the next opponent. in Aikido the concept of Atemi is the same sort of thing. the power and speed of a kick or punch sure needs to be their, however the study of punching and striking to deal damage in the manor of a karate or kung fu student would do is not correct. The end goal of those studies are different then creating the opening in which your waza can take place.

With that said sloppy form when appyling the Atemi is a risk.

just my view

[kensei1984]

Ah k, sorry if I offended you, I totally get your viewpoint now. As a way of controlling the way strikes are applied, my system introduces them later in the curriculum to show them that it is not the only way to create an opening. But we do teach them both ends of the scale, how to do damage and how to create unbalancing. Truth be told, if they were only interested in the damage aspect, they wouldn't be doing aikido, it just doesn't take them that far in that area.

[aikiwolfie]

2. ... From my knowledge I have not seen many videos of Osensei block and backing away and blocking and backing away. He handle the first attack allowing the state of mind that this is the only chance he will get to make the technique work. One chance. One technique.Come to think of it me neither. But then again I've never seen a video of O Sensei in a real fight. Reality rarely runs according to theory. Bad men tend to fight back far more aggressively than is seen on most Aikido mats.

3. Aikido unless you training in good mind training, if not effective for a few years. There is too much to learn. A week a month a year or 2 is nothing. Sorry. After 5 or 10 or 20 years do the fullness of aikido start to show. You can get things to work but a good offensive person eat a beginner up in aikido. Yet like point 2, the experienced aikido person will be able to handle most things.I'm not sure what training in good mind means. I'm guessing English isn't your first language?

In all honesty I've never been sold on the idea that it should take 5, 10 or 20 years for students to show any degree of proficiency in Aikido. That to me is total nonsense. After a few sessions students aren't going to be black belts. But they should be starting to switch on. If they're not there's something wrong. The message isn't getting across.

I would also avoid making massive generalisations. I've known plenty of "experienced" Aikidoka who couldn't translate what they learned in the dojo to real life.

4. Look at MMA, look at street fights. They are very different then sparring. In a combative situation people do swing offbalcned. They do over commit. In the nice play arena of sparring, people can throw well balanced kicks and punches. Take the person out of that arena. Into a dark alley at night, I have a strong feeling that they wont be throwing the same quality that they do in a dojo. MMA the kicks or poor, the punches are poor. They use pure strength and aggression. Aikido loves that.Are you aware that many MMA practitioners are well acquainted with BJJ? Which is fairly technical in it's own right. I'm not a fan of MMA. But there is more to it than you're giving it credit for.

5. Aikido is not for attack.If memory serves me correctly Chiba had an incident where he would clearly have disagreed with you.

[joriki]

Actually, English is my first language. But I shall inform you as you seem to have issues with non-English writing, less then stellar grammar or your cultural methodology of expression of the written words/communication, that under the disabilities act of 1973 (USA) certain language learning disabilities are listed. I happen to be GTLD. MS word can only do so much. However, pointing of issue of language rather then trying to read for content does not reflect poorly on me… But thank you for the heads up that I did not come through clearly.
good mind training means just that. Correct combative view point, correct mushin, correct zanshin, correct awareness, correct method of seeing your environment are some of the few facets that are needed. I am sure you have read up on cognitive psychology/buddhist mindfulness or even read one of the recent Time writings on the how the brain works. training of the mind to be and or correct states and patterns are among the cutting edge work. However Buddhism has known this for a very long time. the theory that entering the "ZONE" is a mental concept and one that can be training for and achieved. many it just happens randomly. however new training (or old depending on you philosophical bent) can have people enter the "ZONE" faster and quicker and more often.

so good mind training ummmm means good mind training. If you school of aikido does not train for it ... ask why not. Osensei clear said when someone fight him they fight the universe (which is a an egotistical saying or be he was able to achieve a state of mind and being that was above what most do - by entering a state that is something like the "zone". It should be obvious that I think he was able to enter the state of mind or “zone”)

Yes I am well aware of BJJ and MMA (in fact my wife is Brazilian) but again thanks for the heads up. I am not sure which shows you watch but many of the UFC fights they say so and so got x rank in bjj. It seems rare when one is even a BB in BJJ).
MMA is a miss mash of highly effective offensive techniques. Some of the best MMA fighters as I am sure you are aware have strong wrestling background. Yet, many of these great fighters do not spend the time/dedication on perfecting specific tasks.
Aikido is a specialty not a generalist concept. You go to a surgeon to get an operation. You go to a general family doctor for health checkups. Both are doctors. Take that one step further you go to a heart surgeon for dealing with heart surgeries. MMA at this point is like a regular MD. Effective and respected but not trusted cut you open and operate. Aikido is like a heart surgeon. Very specialized this takes longer to train to become highly skilled.


Well Chiba is Chiba and for every thing there are exceptions. However, I would ask you honestly if you would like to take a 6 month student and put him/her against a 6 month karate person. Which do you think will have better attacking skills? A generalist who focus on offensive capabilities or a person who is focused on learning defensive counters and counter techniques?


Lastly I cant explain why experienced Aikidoka cant translate it to the street but I can hazard that many styles of Aikido are focused on different things and end visions.

That is why my view of aikido may be correct for me but not for you or your style. Your mileage my vary

[aikiwolfie]

Correct combative view point, correct mushin, correct zanshin, correct awareness, correct method of seeing your environment are some of the few facets that are needed.So your assumption then is most students don't train this way or aren't taught this way? Then there's something wrong with the teaching method.Yet, many of these great fighters do not spend the time/dedication on perfecting specific tasks.I would say they use the training methods that suit their goals.

Aikido is a specialty not a generalist concept. You go to a surgeon to get an operation. You go to a general family doctor for health checkups. Both are doctors. Take that one step further you go to a heart surgeon for dealing with heart surgeries. MMA at this point is like a regular MD. Effective and respected but not trusted cut you open and operate. Aikido is like a heart surgeon. Very specialized this takes longer to train to become highly skilled.Very true but even brain surgeons need to learn the basics of medicine before they are allowed to specialise. Those basics are the same across the board. Why then are Aikidoka taking so long to get to grips with basics?
Well Chiba is Chiba and for every thing there are exceptions. However, I would ask you honestly if you would like to take a 6 month student and put him/her against a 6 month karate person. Which do you think will have better attacking skills? A generalist who focus on offensive capabilities or a person who is focused on learning defensive counters and counter techniques?In all honesty. For the vast majority of Aikidoka I have come across, I wouldn't pit them against anybody. On the whole the standard of training just isn't there any longer. And often the excuse given is it takes 20 years to learn anything useful. I say that's a cop out. The core techniques in Aikido are shared with god knows how many other systems. Why aren't they taking 20 years to learn basic techniques?
Lastly I cant explain why experienced Aikidoka cant translate it to the street but I can hazard that many styles of Aikido are focused on different things and end visions.I can. Students are sold on the excuses trotted out when techniques don't seem to work. "Uke didn't follow correctly". "It takes 20 years to learn". "Aikido is not for attack".

[joriki]

So your assumption then is most students don't train this way or aren't taught this way? Then there's something wrong with the teaching method.I would say they use the training methods that suit their goals.

Very true but even brain surgeons need to learn the basics of medicine before they are allowed to specialise. Those basics are the same across the board. Why then are Aikidoka taking so long to get to grips with basics?
In all honesty. For the vast majority of Aikidoka I have come across, I wouldn't pit them against anybody. On the whole the standard of training just isn't there any longer. And often the excuse given is it takes 20 years to learn anything useful. I say that's a cop out. The core techniques in Aikido are shared with god knows how many other systems. Why aren't they taking 20 years to learn basic techniques?
I can. Students are sold on the excuses trotted out when techniques don't seem to work. "Uke didn't follow correctly". "It takes 20 years to learn". "Aikido is not for attack".


You bring up some amazingly good points. I wish I had answers. In the 15 plus years I have been doing this art i have watched the effectiveness go down among many of the groups in my area. I do agree totally with you that some of it takes 20 years is because is of the very thing you said. I do think something do take that much time to reach full potential. btw that I should restate and say it should take 20 or so years for one to be "a master" (i know i know very bad term but I am trying to denote someone with great skill)

As a student of koryu sword style that appears semi passive at first, it is actually regarded as one of the more aggressive styles. Because it uses the concept drawing the opponent in and having the opponent commit to a foolish line of attack so they can be cut down. I see some of that flavor in Aikido. I was never fortunate enough to study under Osensei but from the videos I can sort of see that same sort of mentality. Allow them to attack and enter which is the cause of their own destruction. but it takes huge amount of skill to be able to draw the opponent to attack in the specific manor of choosing...sadly I wish I can could claim that I possess such ability. maybe with hard training I will one day.