So here is a straight forward question to anyone who refuses to believe Aikido can work in defending yourself.....How do you explain to people that have used Aikido\Aikido principles in the real world to successfully defend and protect themselves? Are they making it up?
So if you practice Aikido and you want to prove it works, the ONLY true measurement is against someone who trains to fight? If you are attacked in the street by Joe blogs and your Aikido works that is not enough of a judgment that aikido works? Can you define unworthy?
But I think measuring your Aikido training against someone who CAN fight is far more valuable use of your time than waiting until you're attacked by Joe blogs in the street. That's like tossing the dice, friend. Otherwise you're surely stacking the deck against yourself, placing more weight on "hope my Aikido works" where instead you could "know how well my Aikido works". If you only train against people who don't train to fight, as you put it, you're going to be in serious trouble. I think he means that if you're attacked in the street and your "aikido works" in other words you succeed/escape or whatever, chances are good that the other person is probably not trained at all, because people with any other martial art training seem to consistently outperform aikido in all aspects (at least this is true for every attempt at using aikido in a free sparring session I've ever witnessed). There is an obsession with some martial arts to prove "works" in various scenarios but I don't think that's a very realistic way of judging martial arts in general. The proof of "works" should be self-evident, not anecdotal. Somewhere out there should be at least one real, living breathing Aikido master who can effortlessly toy with other martial artists, but the closest thing Aikido has to this is Steven Seagal, and forgive me for that tongue in cheek admission.
Law of averages.... Some people can make anything work, that's not disparaging your art. Also not every fight is the same, the lead into it, the motivations of the aggressors and the environment can and will all be different. These can all be factors towards someone being "successful" in a fight. At the end of the day if you want self defence then train for self defence, not just in an art that might work. TMA in general is not geared for modern self defence training, the practitioner needs to make adjustments.
It can if you train it correctly - The overwhelming majority don't (sadly this is not limited to Aikido either....you should see some JKD schools *shudder*) The other issue is the nature of the encounters; I don't want to train in something where there percentage chance of success is against a complete pug if i can train in something that offers me a higher chance of success across the board If my reason for training is primarily for combat Aikido is a not a good choice - but nor are many martial arts. It is intellectually dishonest to say "all arts are equally valid" because it is an unqualified statement - "valid for what?" has to be the follow up question Ultimately the same maxim is true: Train under pressure, fight under pressure - whether that is Aikido or anything else
No, I want to know what your training background and experience is - it is the single most commonly asked question of members on a martial arts site and when someone will not answer it the reason is typically because it is a) No Instructor b) Moves learned from books and Youtube In an attempt to clarify and put context on someones advice this is necessary. You have made some frankly outlandish statements that shows you are either very inexperienced (which is fine by the way, you can only speak to what you know/perceive after all) or else you are trolling (which is not fine) One - "JKDAA Instructor of the Year 2015" *shameless plug*
I don't have a horse in this race, but just in the interest of encouraging discussion: I notice you included the word "principles" in that question. Was that on purpose? And, if so, what do you mean by it? What's the threshold for "using aikido"? Would it have to be a wrist lock and flip into an immobilization on the floor? Or would simply sidestepping be sufficient to be considered "aikido principles"? Seems to me that someone could be said to be using aikido principles in a fight without ever actually studying aikido. Whereas they're unlikely to attempt an actual aikido technique without substantial trainings, nevermind actually pulling it off.
For me , just side stepping wouldn't be enough. Now , if when you side stepped you utilised your opponents momentum in some way that would be using Aikido principles , I'm well aware other arts do this as well , but to me , this is what Aikido specialises in.
So, as a followup, if someone from another training background did that (and, as you point out, it's not exclusive to aikido), were they using aikido?
I can kind of see your point , but , this then becomes a debate about which arts "own" which techniques and highlights the need for resistive training. I wouldn't say they were using Aikido per se , rather they happened to use principles also found in Aikido.
It's all cool , and as I say , I think I see where you're going , it's just I've never really pointed at a fight and said that principle is from x art , more we do that in y art as well. When it comes to actual techniques it's easier , but when it comes to principles there are such massive overlaps it's really hard to claim any art "owns" a particular idea.
The real question then is how many Aikidoka can employ Aikido principles in a real fight. My wager would be way less than they think.
I'd agree , due to the inherent training methodology , though I suspect it may be a few more than you'd think.
Given how pervasive the art is globally and how few solid schools exist I'd say it's fair to assess the number as being low. Case by case though.
If we look at the following demo clip (I don't know the person in that clip. It's general principle discussion and has nothing to do with individual). We can see something are missing. - Your opponent always attacks with full commitment. In the real world, people won't be that stupid. - Even if your opponent attacks with speed, the moment that you apply your move, he has no defense and no counter. In the real world, your opponent will have some defense and counter skill. - You always deal with your opponent's wrist area. This will not only give too much space between your body and his body, since his elbow joint is free, he can do a lot of counters if he knows how. - You always wait for your opponent to attack. This will add one extra "dependency" on "how to apply your skill". - ... The main concern is, instead of always have to wait for your opponent to attack you, you should attack first. When your opponent responds to your attack, you then respond to his respond. This way, since you don't know what kind of your opponent's respond may come back from your initial attack, your next move will be undefined. Since you don't know "where" and "how" to obtain your opponent's "contact points", your MA straining will be more realistic. [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aicHsMC6rxM"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aicHsMC6rxM[/ame]
