Dan reliance?

[Poop-Loops]

I'm thinking about switching to Aikido. Not now, and not because I don't think my current style is innefective, but because I've always favored a grappling art, especially an extremely defence oriented one, since that will prevent me from attacking someone in a fit of anger (I've never done that, but I don't trust myself). Besides, I'm in 3rd year Japanese, and learning Korean is messing me up :(

Anyhoo, I did a search for some Dojo's in my area, and got a few, but most of them have 1st and 2nd dan instructors. My questions is, is Aikido as prone to McDojoism as more popular (or competative) MA's? Is a 1st dan as hard to get as it was way back when? Or are these just probably McDojo's? I'm in no hurry to join, I still have 5 months left of prepaid TKD, and I have a strong feeling that if I tell my parents I want to quit, they'll stop paying for my MA. So I'll have to wait for school to be over, then I'll just get a full time job to pay for it.

PL

[DexterTCN]

Firstly Aikido is not a grappling art, sorry.

(hell no-one really knows what it is)

Secondly no, there is not much of the McDojo syndrome in Aikido. But there are a fair amount of clubs where the training is 'not very good' from a self-defence point of view.

If you are going to have some free time when you leave school, many countries have uchi-deshi programmes with very high grade Aikidoka. It is worth considering a 3 or 6 month term like that as more effective than 2 years normal training.

[aikiMac]

Originally posted by DexterTCN
Firstly Aikido is not a grappling art, sorry.
Yes it is. But we had a long thread on this question already, and a few people held to this "incorrect" view. ( :D Heh heh)

(hell no-one really knows what it is)
True.

I have not found any aikido McDojos either, nor have I heard of any from other people. If they exist, they must be rare. All of first and second dan students whom I have met, without exception, were/are qualified to teach aikido. All of them. But like Dexter said, many clubs don't focus on self-defense fighting. Many clubs prefer to focus on the budo aspect of the martial art aikido (and I emphasize that it is still a martial art, even when fist-fighting is not emphasized).

[Poop-Loops]

What do you mean by the Budo aspect? The code of honor and such?

Fighting isn't that important to me really. Don't really like tournaments, and I doubt I'll ever get into a real fight.

PL

[aikiMac]

Originally posted by Poop-Loops
What do you mean by the Budo aspect? The code of honor and such?

Fighting isn't that important to me really. Don't really like tournaments, and I doubt I'll ever get into a real fight.
Aikido was not developed for kill-or-be-killed situations. It is wholly unsuitable for the battlefield. Aikido was developed as tool to teach people to stop fighting one another. This "stop fighting" attitude leads to parallels and applications to life off the mat. Aikido's vocabulary and peculiar philosophical foundation allows one to easily analogize arguments, and lesser disagreements, with other people (spouse, boss, client, neighbor, anyone) as an exchange of verbal punches, and these abstract punches can be dealt with according to aikido's repetoire of techniques. Now a big chunk of life just became aikido. Extend this mode of thought further: Even before the verbal battle, were you "centered" ? Were you thinking about your breathing and your posture? Were you aware of your surroundings? All of these things are crucial to success on the mat. And if the mat has been extended to the rest of your life, then everything you do in the dojo should also follow you into the rest of your life.

The aikido experts begin their defenses the moment the attacker commits to an attack. Analogize that to life off the mat. If you could blend with a person before the disagreement starts, you wouldn't have a disagreement, would you? Ahh -- the goal of aikido (peace) has been achieved. This does not mean be a door mat for the rest of the world. You need be on the receiving end of only one nikkyo lock or one irimi-nage to know that aikido's defensive techniques, properly executed, leave the attacker utterly at the mercy of the aikidoist. Harmony-of-energy is an extremely powerful tool.

Working the other way, if you don't want to open yourself up to attack, you would try hard to always treat people with love and respect, and live an upright and honorable life. O-Sensei is often quoted as saying, "Aikido is love." There are many quotes by O-Sensei to the effect that the highest level of aikido is pure love for all people.

We now have the basis for budo -- the "way" of the warrior as in the "lifestyle" of the one who studies martial arts even when he's not fighting. All of this might seem like touchy-feely abstract mumbo-jumbo, but really now, how often do we engage in a fist-fights? Rarely, I think. I'm still waiting for my first, actually. But how many of us find ourselves in arguments on a weekly basis? (I'm raising my hand.)

[Poop-Loops]

So how exactly would you learn that? Do you stage arguements that you have to get out of? And I'll assume you'll have to read a couple of books on Aikido, right? (I'll do that regardless)

PL

[aikiMac]

Originally posted by Poop-Loops
So how exactly would you learn that? Do you stage arguements that you have to get out of?
Heh heh heh! I've never tried that route.

[KenpoDavid]

"to properly understand that one's opponent is the same as oneself, one must accumulate life experience."

-some Japenese guy from 500 years ago

[cripplefujitsu]

Whoa, aikimac, I must object! Aikido (pre-WWII) is wholly suitable for battlefeild tactics. I suppose technically that's aikibujistu, but I am a student of the Samurai arts under Obata-san and we often discuss the difference between the passive, aikik-for-instance versons of things and the combat-effective battlefeild tactics.

[Amakasashi]

1st dan is a lower dan level in aikido, but it is still true to its original form in how testing is done due to the nature of the budo. Also you can learn something from a person who has been in aikido for 5 minutes as apposed to 5 years. My instruction i believe is 3rd dan, and is incredible, I have trained with several others that are just as good if not better. It all depends on their approach to teaching. It is also nothing like other martial arts. If you want to chat more for some better info email me or im me under my aim name of amakasashi.

[aikiwolfie]

Aikido is definetly not a grapeling art. Aikido involves continuouse flowing movement. How do you flow if your rolling around on the deck trying to strangle someone between your thighs?

So far as being effective on the battlefield is concerned, I doubt most people will have to worry about that aspect of things. As a method of self-defence Aikido if done properly is very effective.

I'm not sudjesting we should be asking muggers to hold our wrists while we apply a nikkyo. But as a student becomes more proficient at Aikido he or she should begin to see opertunities where the principles of the techniques taught in the dojo could be applied in a real situation.

[Dave Humm]

there is not much of the McDojo syndrome in Aikido
I think you've lead a sheltered Aikido life. There are MANY Aiki McDojo, some tolerable, some just plain piss taking.

The aikido experts begin their defences the moment the attacker commits to an attack.
Wrong.
Anyone who waits for a physical attack to start has waited too long.

If we talk for a moment on the dynamics of conflict (especially in a modern context) there are several opportunities for a skilled Aikidoist to remove the problem long before a physical attack is launched.

I'm an ex Prison Officer so, I understand the mechanics of threatening behaviour. As an individual you have to decide what you each consider threatening behaviour. For me personally the moment a person actually says he's going to "do" something I act. That said I judge events on their merits however, I never wait for a person to prepare much beyond the fact they know they have a problem with me. Why give them time to mentally psyche themselves up to a fight ?

I can also say from several years in the company of prisoners, that fights always ALWAYS degenerate to the floor very quickly, taking early control of an aggressor or potential aggressor is a key to maintaining your advantage.

Now, let’s talk about training for a moment;
In the context of what was said.. "The aikido experts begin their defences the moment the attacker commits to an attack" The statement would be partially correct. Forget the "expert" part of the statement and we have a general situation that is common to most if not all aiki dojo...

A technique is demonstrated, Uke provides the situation where that technique is required so, he attacks in a prescribed manor and Tori responds. We practice that way to allow structure to a class, that everyone knows what they are expected to learn. It is NOT the way we would expect to apply ourselves in a (god forbid) real situation.

There is a misnomer through many aikidoists that fights have rules, they DO NOT. The 'rules' we observe in the dojo bear absolutely no resemblance to real life, unfortunately many Aikido instructors fail to make that known.

Aikido is not just about receiving an attack and dealing with it.

The mental attitude of a student has huge impact upon the effectiveness of their skills, if one trains with the intention of waiting to receive an attack, then that’s EXACTLY what they'll get.

Train to deal with the PERSON and not an attack is the key to resolving the physical conflict.

DaveH

[Poop-Loops]

I haven't taken Aikido, so I'm a bit confused. Are you saying you're supposed to start the attack if you feel there's going to be a fight?

PL

[Dave Humm]

Lets make something clear, I don't wait for the "first punch" because it might not be a punch, I might be possibly a knife, screwdriver, pint glass, bottle or some other weapon.

There is a growing knife/weapon carrying culture in the UK and I'd rather not wait to find that the person(s) in front of me has the capability to cause me serious injury. I was taught ..

"Always assume your adversary is armed"

I know it sounds like over kill but I'd rather be alive or reasonable unharmed than allow a situation to develop that could have been resolved long before an assault began.

No, I'm not saying one should intentionally look to "start" fights, remember what I said about what you considered to be a threat. If you feel threatened, you have the option to remove that threat using a wide range of techniques and applications within Aikido, most of which are taught from a reactionary perspective however, many techniques can be applied from static positions.

O-Sensei said..

"Aikido is 90% Atemi"

As soon as you feel threatened deliver you atemi to fix your opponent momentarily, then take control accordingly. Simple principle really, the best form of defence is offence.

Remember:
Train to deal with the PERSON and not an attack is the key to resolving the physical conflict.

DaveH

[aikiwolfie]

Just out of curiosity Dave, what would you consider to be a threat? I live in a rough area, so to see a few neds walking around in a gang can be threatning. But the only action required there would be to cross the street. Unless the neds push their luck.

[Dave Humm]

I absolutely agree, walking away is by far the best option if you have the chance, no disputing that.

My definition of a threat (and please bear in mind that discussion here makes it difficult to describe real situation)

If I were placed in a position where the "Push you **** me" situation existed, you know the score, someone has an argument.. Then comes the pushing.. then comes the fisticuffs

If someone is effectively in my face and I strongly believe he's about to escalate to physical other than purely verbal behaviour I will act accordingly. That said, if someone is very verbally aggressive and his manor, posture and general demeanour is that of 'I'm about to kick the ****e out of you' I will initiate the physical side very quickly.

Basically it's a very fine line between seeing what's around the corner and making the decision that waiting isn't going to be the best option.

Alcohol and drugs make this process more complicated. A drugged or pissed up scumbag isn't going to listen to reason. No matter how much you attempt to calmly resolve an 'indifference' that person might have, your simply wasting your time and effort.

Walk away if you can otherwise act positively and decisively.

You've also got to weigh up your surroundings and environment, consider very quickly the reasons why this person is in your face and presenting you with a fight or flight situation.

Be prepared to deal with the police. Remember you are allowed by law to use 'reasonable force' if you feel the safety of yourself, friends, family or work colleague is in jeopardy.

Regards

[aikiwolfie]

Yeah I absolutly agree Dave. That's pretty much how my teacher would put it. Have you ever practiced with Sensei Andrew?

[Dave Humm]

Where within the UK are you and to which organisation does your instructor belong ?

[aikiwolfie]

I'm in Barrhead near Glasgow. We used to be part of the Ki Federation of Great Britain under Sensei Williams. Sensei Andrew broke away in 2000 and formed Aikido UK.

[Dave Humm]

Ah oki, then I'd proberbly say "no" I havent, I haven't had the opportunity to practice 'North of the Border' although did take a couple of Ki Aiki classes as part of a seminar a few years ago in Birmingham.

Personally I think Tohei Sensei was a top bloke. I've seen the B/W footage of him with two US marines at the old Hombu Dojo Post War, his hakama gets ripped to shreds but the Marines (who dwafed Tohei) got thrown and pinned lol.. Verry Interesting to watch.

DaveH

[aikiMac]

Originally posted by Dave Humm
Wrong.
Anyone who waits for a physical attack to start has waited too long.
Did I say that? I certainly didn't mean to. I think what I said would include also your pre-emptive strikes, for intention truly begins in the mind. "Train your mind!" my teacher always said, in every class. Over time we should be learning to read a person's commitment before his blow comes. I have read of numerous accounts of O-Sensei doing just this. "Move with the speed of the gods" I think is how O-Sensei phrased it (translated in John Stevens' books). Riiiight. Okay. That is very good aikido. I'm not there yet. I look forward to the day when I can do it consistently.


Train to deal with the PERSON and not an attack is the key to resolving the physical conflict.
I wholeheartedly agree, but would say the same about verbal attacks.

[Dave Humm]

AikiMac

You are correct you didn't say...
Anyone who waits for a physical attack to start has waited too long
I did, your statement that prompted my reply was..
The aikido experts begin their defences the moment the attacker commits to an attack.
Which is incorrect. Anyone who understands the mechanics of a fight should already have begin their defences long before an attacker commits to an attack. In Aikido sense that would be described as Zanshin, our situational awareness.

I think it's important to to make a differentiation between a "Threat" and an "Attack"

A threat is a presumption of danger or fear based upon a set of circumstances, it can be verbal "I'm gonna FU*K you up!!" or it can be some form of physical means such as body language or manor. - Threatening Behaviour.

An attack should be considered a physical interation between two parties where, harm is intentional.

Both circumstances may warrant pre emtive action.

The definitions of Threat and Attack are based upon my own values of what what I consider appropriate to my safety, naturally I don't presume to suggest they are appropriate to anyone else.

Regards

[aikiMac]

Originally posted by Dave Humm
Anyone who understands the mechanics of a fight should already have begin their defences long before an attacker commits to an attack. In Aikido sense that would be described as Zanshin, our situational awareness.
Fair enough. I was thinking in terms of actions, not awareness. I agree that situational awareness should always be there long before the attack.

But equally, I have never seen aikido demonstrated or taught as anything but a reaction to a committed attack. 'Tis very hard to blend with energy that's not going anywhere (hence, we want the other guy to commit himself), and to strike first makes you the aggressor, which hardly promotes "ai." I don't have Ratti & Westbrook's "Dynamic Sphere" in front of me, but if I remember correctly, their 4th level of physical confrontation to which aikido aspires was something like, "He provokes unjustly, I do not take the bait, he then attacks without reason, and I defend."

[Dave Humm]

to strike first makes you the aggressor, which hardly promotes "ai."

You make a very good point, and I too have the Dynamic Sphere, I consider it very much a modern bible of Aikido. Whilst I understand what you’re driving at in the comment I've quoted, I still don't fully agree.

On another forum recently I debated the practicalities of traditional aikido against the need to develop and refine the art from 'old' school ways, more akin to modern ways of attack etc.

I have to say at this point I am very much a traditionalist and don't believe in altering the art left by the Founder - which is practiced at Hombu Dojo today. That said, I'm not waiting around on some noble quest or sitting on some higher purpose that many see as inherent to Aikido. The principles of Aiki are at heart very martial, granted the Founder wanted to re united people after the horrors of the second world war through the practice of Aikido but, I am under no illusions that O-Sensei's sentiments then do not directly translate to today’s society of muggers, druggies and scumbags, a sad fact but true never the less.

I avoid conflict at all costs because as we all know no one really wins in a fight, but; I'm never going to wait to receive an attack if it's appropriate to seize the initiative and end something quickly and without the risks involved in a prolonged 'scrap'

I have never seen aikido demonstrated or taught as anything but a reaction to a committed attack

Do you practice in a mainstream aikido organisation (IE Aikikai) or another ryu ?

Aikikai don't teach aikido from a physically proactive method, yes we are already mentally prepared, I do accept your point that we wait to receive an attack thus apply technique however, one's own attitude to training has a huge impact upon it's eventual effectiveness. If your training to always receive an attack before you can do something, you are placing yourself in disadvantage.

Yes I also accept that a primary principle of Aikido is to use the Kinetic energy of our adversary but, applications such as Irimi, Tenshi, lend themselves very well to static opponents. A well delivered atemi will create movement, movement you can capitalise upon very quickly.

DaveH

[aikiMac]

We're on the same page. If only 1/4 of the O-Sense stories are true, then I suspect that no modern mugger or druggie or scumbag would stand a chance against him. I think whatever differences we have are due to our individual need to resort to fisticuffs. I am not a prison guard or bouncer or soldier or cop. Neither at my job nor in my residential neighborhood am I threatened with bodily harm. Consequently, I would be in the wrong if I initiated a physical atemi or whatever. But I can understand how a prison guard might need to initiate something while he's inside the prison walls.

My current school is part of the Aikido Schools of Ueshiba, headed by Mitsugi Saotome, a 15-year uchideshi of the Founder. My prior school was part of the American Aikido Association, headed (until his recent death) by Toyoda Sensei. Both organizations are affiliated with the Aikikai hombu dojo.

[Dave Humm]

I really like Saotome Sensei's Aikido.

You Lucky &^%$£ !!! :)

DaveH

[aikiwolfie]

Since I started posting here I have noticed most people seem to be very technique orientated in their thinking when it comes to discussing real fights on the street or how Aikido would match up to another art.

A beginer or practitioner of another art based purely in technique could be forgiven for thinking this way.

However I think that the higher kyu grades and certainly the dan grades contributing to this forum should have realised that the principles behind the techniques are more important than the actual techniques them selves. After all how many basic techniques are there? And how many variations of those techniques exist? Do the basic principles behind those techniques change from basic techniques to more advanced techniques? If they did what would be the point?

The reason I brought this up is in quite a number of threads in this forum people are defending Aikidos apparent lack of practical effectivness by saying something along the lines of "It's not designed for fighting" and yet here we are again discussing what would happen in a real situation. It seems to have become almost a requirement not to leave the subject for more than five minutes. My self included.

I think if we all put more effort into studying the art of Aikido instead of just the techniques involved or what would happen if ... or is Aikido any good against this or that then we'd all make better Aikido students and be more capable.

I'm not putting anyone down. It's just something I've been thinking about for awhile. And considering how repetative the discussion on the Aikido forum seems to be I thought I'd share it.

[Freeform]

Originally posted by aikiMac
I have never seen aikido demonstrated or taught as anything but a reaction to a committed attack.

I have. A Yoshinkan school in Bristol, I only watched one class (never got the chance to train with them). Tori threw a pre-emptive atemi at uke and then capitalised on ukes defensive reaction.

One example was to throw a shomen-uchi, uke raises an age uki to block the attack. Tori switches into an ikkyo/Oshi Taoshi.

Col

[Dave Humm]

Wolfie, you raise some very important points.

Technique is important but as you rightly point out, the principles behind the technique are far more important. Other wise we'd just be practicing 'mechanics' without any real understanding behind the application.

The principles also mirror the origins of the technique. In effect "why" we do something a particular way, this is especially true of Aikikai Aikido.

Naturally we need to teach technique, but as a student develops a firm understanding, the principles become far more important.

I think it's important to make a distinction between the purpose of Aiki 'do' and the prewar forms of 'jutsu' It think it would be fair to say (without quoting verbatim) the founder, that Aiki 'do' wasn’t intended to be a purely martial practice otherwise it would still be called Ueshiba Juku or Aikijutsu, two previous names of what we now know as Aikido.

The practice of Aikido (and I can only speak from the experiences of Aikikai) is as much a continuation of the traditions as it is about a study of the martial aspects of the discipline however, as it's been mentioned before in this forum, it is unfortunate that quite a number of instructors have little or no actual martial combat experience therefore their Aikido is taught with this perspective lacking.

Now, I'm not saying that to be a good Aikido instructor, you need to fight a lot :) absolutely not however, if you make the comparison with Tomiki Ryu or even Judo, these students and their instructors are testing their skills in a semi combative arena known as 'Competition' Aikikai for instance does not include this in their syllabus. It is therefore very important for students to be taught technique/principles from the perspective of correct 'Attitude' if you consider it martial and look for the martial aspects of the applications then you'll find them otherwise, Aikido takes on this spiritual "higher purpose" concept that can often be associated with the discipline.

Having said that, I don't have any problem with a student wanting to understand the deeper aspects of the art, including the religious connections but, it has to be made clear that Aikido can be effectively studied for either reason(s) and not just for realism, combat or self defense.

Regards

[aikiMac]

Originally posted by aikiwolfie
Since I started posting here I have noticed most people seem to be very technique orientated in their thinking when it comes to discussing real fights on the street or how Aikido would match up to another art.

A beginer or practitioner of another art based purely in technique could be forgiven for thinking this way.

However I think that the higher kyu grades and certainly the dan grades contributing to this forum should have realised that the principles behind the techniques are more important than the actual techniques them selves.
Do start a thread on this. I want to hear what you have to say.

[Dave Humm]

...I think that the higher kyu grades and certainly the dan grades contributing to this forum should have realised that the principles behind the techniques are more important than the actual techniques them selves.

I'd like to continue on from my last reply and talk specifically about the above comment.

I *think* I know where your coming from although I did read a degree of 'are you not aware of what I'm saying' in your statement, please correct me if that isn't or wasn’t the intent. It's just the way I read it.

I understand what you’re driving at with regards to the 'principles' however, in many cases the principles of aikido technique cannot be demonstrated or even taught without some for technique unfolding as a result.

I have found that even diligent students appear to be listening and watching what I'm teaching yet, as soon as they stand up, they look lost. I've done it myself many times.

... We look, we listen but didn't absorb.

Principles are (as far as I’m concerned) the hardest aspect of Aikido to teach. As humans we are a tuned to learning what we see (especially in practical lessons) so we focus upon the actions and place less importance on the theoretical or historical aspects which in effect, greatly influence why we move or act in a specific way for any given technique. A good instructor will demonstrate several times a technique, make a simple explanation and allow his students to practice but, it is also very important to explain the "whys" and "hows" of a technique otherwise, as I said before, we just produce robotic aikido with no understanding or depth to it.

It is a difficult balance of technique vs. principle = quality

DaveH

[aikiwolfie]

By priciples I wasn't refering to anything deep and complicated. What I meant was that techniquies are tools to teach people how to move someone off balance, where the body does and doesn't bend. Things like that.

So far as 'are you not aware of what I'm saying' sort of attitude is concerned. No that's not what I was getting at. Like I said it was something I was thinking about.

But now that you've brought it up, I think it's a fair question to ask considering the number of times people in the forum have answered questions like "would aikido techniquies work in a real fight" and faild to clearley make the connection in their answer.

If you read my post again you'll notice I did apply that line of questioning to my self as well as the forum in general. No element of condecention intended.

[Dave Humm]

NP mate.. :) all good points well raised :)

DaveH