I agree but also I think it is more than learning a system but actually living the life style, walking the walk. Not all karateka are the same. I threw off Aikidoka by using boxing combinations and slap blocks, they thought I was a black belt in karate. I was a black belt in karate, but I had to explain that kickboxing is a part of karate training for many these days (err... well fifteen years ago anyway). Had the Aikidoka "lived' the life of a karateka, I would bet they would have known more about kickboxing without me having to tell them. This comes down to having a good foundation. Part of a good foundation is having a good understanding of the application of principles.
So Aikido is usless against other systems unless Aikidoka have trained in those systems as well as Aikido. Kinda makes Aikido redundant doesn't it?
I would have to diagree. A person who trains in a martial art does not need to train in other styles to learn to counter them. They should also not underestimate the knowledge of their opponent. With that said, I do train in both Aikido and Karate, but with Aikido as the second art to help improve my combat skills in an area that I enjoy that Karate does not focus on - throws. I never did understand to point of doing attacks against an opponent to the front with such an attack. On the same hand, I've also never trained in a martial art that utilized such attacks.
Hi 'armanox' and All, That depends It depends on what you mean by 'training' - do you mean knowing a bit about it, doing a couple of lessons, getting a 'black belt'... I'd say that if you know nothing about the art that an opponent uses then if everything else is equal (and of course it never will be - but hey this is just chatting) then you are at a big disadvantage compared with the same situation when you know about the other art. Simple example... Suppose you are a boxer and you have NEVER seen or heard of karate - you get into a fight with a karateka and he kicks you in the knee, then the groin and then as you start to fall to the floor, the head... Why? Because if ALL you knew was boxing you wouldn't know about kicking and you WOULD be at a disadvantage - if you did know about Karate, maybe even have had some lessons, then you would be aware of kicks and probably have worked out how to avoid them... All the best. Robert.
The simple but often quite acid test mate is to walk in to a karate (or any other art) dojo and pit your skills. Now, I've done just that and after a fair amount of time in aikido I had some serious problems dealing with the speed and power karateka can employ, don't take my word for it, try it yourself. But to answer your question, why do you think that martial systems were such guarded secrets for much of the feudal era of Japan's history ? Much of the answer stems from that fact that each art (be it different or quit similar) didn't want the opposition knowing their waza to such extent any advantage would be lost. Lets zip forward several hundred years, many koryu arts still operate in this way, its part of the heritage of the art however, with many arts today you can walk in off the street, watch a class and talk to the students and instructors, there's no big deal in that however; and this is the point many of us fail to recognise, no single martial art has all the answers, aikido included. I personally do not consider much of what we see as practical in terms of aikido so, a large majority of aikidoka, certainly in this country, couldn't effectively fight their way out of a paper bag, let alone deal with a motivated karateka who's bread and butter is kumite and, will happily trade blows with an aikidoka willing to step in to that arena. Is that a 'fault' of the art ? Not at all, it is what it is. All you have to do is look at where aikido comes from and the principles which form it foundations. - From a Daito-Ryu perspective, students were mostly taught [branch name] itto-ryu kenjutsu therefore the jujutsu wasn't always considered the primary art of study (as it is today for instance) - Aikido has developed from Daito-Ryu and the principles of perhaps at least two methods of swordsmanship thus, although aikido is generally considered an "empty handed" art the strategies and movements drawn from other systems are partly not. Put present day aikido against a striking art, I know for a fact (through my own experiences) that it will have difficulties in dealing with the waza presented.
Really? Bring a karateka place him in an iaido dojo and face him off against a swordsman. The karateka has absolutely no comprehension of what is about to happen, other than to acknowledge the sword will at some point be drawn from the scabbard. Put an aikidoka in a karate dojo, the same general circumstances apply. Whilst I agree there are some fairly universal truths with regards to all martial systems however; to assume that one art will accommodate others, is, frankly daft at best and entirely foolhardy and worst.
So in short that would be a yes then? Aikido is for all intensive purposese redundant? At the very least in an effective martial sense? From what you seem to be saying Karate with Jujutsu would seem to be a far better combination than Karate with modern day Aikido.
The topic of this thread was how does Aikido verses kicks. The answer was to learn more about kicking (e.g. cross train). In what way is this answer unacceptable that it leads to a conclusion that Aikido is redundant?
I'm not talking about combinations of training at all, so I'm lost as to how you draw your conclusion. I'm refering to learning the methods of other arts to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of those arts thereby better understanding how best to counter them using our chosen skills. But that is of course all based upon need. If you are never likely to enter into a situation where you face a karateka then why study their methods ? If you wonder why I specifically cross train in Shotokan, it isn't so I can 'fight' against karateka, it's because IMHO aikido [generalised] lacks solid atemi waza using several methods of delivery IE Hand, Feet, Elbow, Knee. Put aikido against the average yob in the street who lacks comprehension of his surroundings and the situation and I would whole-heartedly suggest that aikido is going to provide the required measure of response, but... (As I stated before)... I personally do not consider much of what we see as practical in terms of aikido so, a large majority of aikidoka, certainly in this country, couldn't effectively fight their way out of a paper bag. This is absolutely true when facing someone who's art requires regular kumite as part of their training... When was the last time you sparred to the level and intensity of a karate sandan grade? Do you know what level and intensity I refer too ? Do you know what constitutes semi and or full contact kumite in karate ? Have you ever tried to apply any aikido technique on a karateka in a kumite environment ? With respect, if the answer was yes to any of the above, your opinion on the effectiveness of aikido under these circumstances would be slightly different. Aikido is not redundant, not by any means however; it does not automatically or by default train students to deal with every given situation or other martial art which might present its self. I'll digress slightly and ask you, do you honestly feel that through the tachi-dori/muto-dori you've done in aikido, this fully equips you both mentally and physically to perform muto-no-jutsu against a skilled swordsman ?
IMHO some of the problem stems from the different directions taken by different schools of Aikido re. kicking and atemi in general. Very few IMHO retain fast, hard and committed attacks which require a defence to prevent injury. Hapkido and Shorinji Kempo seem to have retained atemi in their arts to a greater extent, including kicks. We are now faced with Aikido being performed by many people who have no source of atemi skills outside Aikido itself; hence the downward spiral effect. We have discussed on different threads the parlous state of atemi in Aikido and it seems to be a general problem. As for defending against kicks - I've hardly ever seen it done, let alone done well. What I have seen is often a slow motion punch or kick by a Uke who is already halfway into his ukemi before he is even touched. If people want to practise Aikido without effective atemi then there's plenty of opportunity out there to be that comfortable. However, I'm with Dave on this one - if instructors can't punch or kick then we've lost a major part of Aikido technique. How can that be restored? By doing what Dave has done and seeking out an art than can teach it to him. My own club instructor was also a Shotokan Karate exponent..it really does make a difference. And no, I wouldn't last 30 seconds using only my Aikido throws, locks etc.against a kickboxer or karateka intent on taking my head off. But if my Aikido included good atemi training which I could also use as well as throws and locks, I'm in a superior position to my opponent. IMHO Aikido needs a huge rethink (i.e. own up to the problem and take action) and restore atemi as a mainstream skill. Unless our attacks are powerful, what evidence do we have of Aikido's effectiveness as a 'martial' art?
Agreed This will pull the thread away from the topic but I think its quite valid. At summer school this year I did another module of my teaching qualifications, during this period one of the other students on the course debated with the tutor what the purpose of aikido technique ultimately was, his opinion was that aikido wasn't intended to hurt people at all his justification was the ideological position/beliefs of O-Sensei. Unfortunately I for one have some problem with this particular position. 1. Aikido is a physical BUDO it is therefore a martial art, and therefore ultimately a fighting art (and a sophisticated one at that) 2. If people by and large are quite happy spending considerable amounts of time learning "aikido" but have absolutely no desire or wish to study it in a martial sense; that's fine with me but, IMHO under those circumstances, what they then study may look like aikido, may sound like aikido but is most definitely ISN'T a martial art. 3. Although I don't generally associate a great deal of philosophical attachment to my own aikido, I do of course respect that many do however; it stands to reason that if a person wishes to be very philosophical and or attach great importance to the ideological aspects of aikido and the founder, they must do so without sacrificing the martial aspects of the art, unfortunately it is my experience over the largest part of 20 years that this is not that case, a great number of people are attracted to aikido because of the ideological philosophy and quite often not the martial aspects, under those circumstances the aikido promogulated over a period of time simply becomes farcical and nothing more than a dance like reason to wear keikogi and hakama. 4. William Smith Sensei (may he rest in peace) was one of only two western Shihan that I've trained with who continually talked about the "martial mind" and whilst he himself ultimately followed the ideology associated with Aikido he had the martial skills which enabled him to walk and talk the talk. That is IMHO sadly lacking with many schools/clubs and associations. (based upon observations and first hand training) Edit... I just wanted to add that I don't think Aikido as an art is lacking, I think its the methods by which it is taught which does the system injustice, I think by and large we focus too much on the ideological and not enough on the martial.. And just to give this some perspective, I know of one Japanese Hombu Shihan who refused to be filmed and insisted the camera was off whilst demonstrating waza with a bokuto because he didn't want the possibility of the Doshu finding out ! Regards
WE must know the difference between the philosophy and the practical application. I think aiki (harmony) is the philosophy and awase (blending) is the phisical art. We must not confuse the two. regards koyo
I'm new to Aikido, but trained for a few years in TKD a long time ago. The basic principle when facing a kick was "do not get hit", we may have gone through traditional blocks in the syllabus, but in sparring, if you knew the kick was gonna be forcefull (yes some TKDers do hit very hard!), no block would save you. You had to be mobile to avoid the kick and counter attack (timing, distance?). This to my newbie eyes seems the same basic strategy as Aikido. Alternatively, if the kick was weak, we weren't allowed to trap it, only block it which was one of the reasons I felt frustrated in TKD. I understand diff arts will have diff rules though. It all seems to go back to how you train, not necessarily the style. I just witnessed 3 against 1 randori for the first time in my club and punches, kicks and grabs were all flying around (alongside some bodies ). Pretty impressive stuff.
DAFT (IMHO) STATEMENTS FROM INSTRUCTORS RECENTLY: 'Yes, we have a jo and bokken in the cupboard. We sometimes put them at the side of the mat if we want to train with a 'martial spirit'. 'Oh no, we never block atemi. Aikido is about blending.' 'Oh no, we never do techniques in randori, just evasion.' 'I've managed to blend Judo and Aikido together and made a new style.' That's what I meant, Dave. There's nothing wrong with Aikido as a complete art which includes atemi with hand and foot, just the way it has drifted and been toned down or twisted to suit what an instructor can teach. Kind of reinforces Koyo's mantra about not changing the art but letting it change you. It almost makes me believe that, as nobody can totally agree on what Aikido comprises, we should forget the word 'Aikido' as a descriptor of the MA and just use style names: Aikikai, Yoshinkan etc. and accept that we can never turn back the clock. This at least ensures some standards are maintained. The only other extreme IMHO is to run clubs as 'Aikido' with no style affiliation and do whatever we please. Fine if you're an accomplished 6th Dan, kiss of death if you are a 1st Dan with no mentor. Kicking is just one example of how diverse training has become.
And it's the quality of those punches and kicks in aikido which we've been discussing. You will know I'm sure identify from your experiences within TKD that many of the atemi based attacks seen in and from aikido exponents lack the technical quality found in striking based arts, in exactly the same way we'd expect to see the absence of kuzushi as a foundation principle in say karate, that said, there are several of the founder's students who are strong advocators of atemi based aikido waza and, of course there are probably equally if not more who are on the other end of the atemi scale but, and getting back on topic; aikido as a martial system will not equip a student to deal effectively with the speed and dynamics of a striking art unless that same student trains for that environment, this can only be achieved successfully if, there are people within the aiki dojo who have the skills to deliver high quality atemi. I don't see any difference in this particular subject than that of why high quality ukemi is required to achieve high quality waza. Indeed I was asked by my Karate Sensei (a 5th dan) at what point does a committed attack transition to committed ukemi ? His point is simply that a karateka isn't at any time looking to "receive" ukemi a technique from their opponent, whereas, in aikido that is EXACTLY the mindset which is programmed pretty much into every aikido student. Of course resistance can be applied at the appropriate point in application of waza but, again, a karateka isn't looking to resist after the point of connection because by then its too late, they want to prevent that situation by immediately following up, one technique after another, see my point ? When I watched the clip presented at the top of this thread I was somewhat impressed with the dynamics of the aikidoka, his methodology in dealing with the atemi however, I also noted and commented that the speed and power of those atemi were a fraction of what we'd expect to see from someone not at all concerned with the required ukemi. Part and parcel of what we do in aikido relies on the kinetic energy provided by the commitment of any given attack, I think that is a fair yet simplistic description of aikido gensoku however, ukemi is only seen in the dojo, the dynamics of ukemi change our perception of what aikido technique actually looks like when performed on an unsuspecting individual. This is simply because ukemi is a means of surviving what would otherwise be (in many cases) a fairly substantial injury. If we expect a karateka to launch technique at the speed and power they are used to then, apply say irimi nage with equal power and speed, we can expect to see the karateka seriously injured and this is why at some point the committed attack has to transition it to equally committed ukemi. Regards
Hi Dave, I suppose there are two points that spring to mind. 1-Yes the quality of the strikes and kicks were not to the same standard as seen in my TKD days (on balance that is, some were way better, its all down to the individual), although I felt this was due to the different training environment. Most strikers don't expect to have their limbs twisted in such painfull ways. There's also the variable of level of contact..semi to full,which varies across striking arts anyway. 2- The fact that kicks and various punches were used, may relate to the uke having trained in a striking art previously, which I suppose backs up your viewpoint of non-Aikido "experience" which can then add to the overall training of those in that dojo. I'm new to the club so only know a few folks' backgrounds plus I cant comment on whether kicks are common. I suppose my view is that the basic strategy should remain the same regardless of style..evade and counter. If in my TKD days I was getting a forcefull attack of a combination of kicks and punches, I would attempt to move of the centreline as I would get followed easily moving backwards, then strike from the side (not allowed to strike from the rear) or move in close for my own barrage of punches. I should at this stage point out, as a disclaimer...I only trained a few yrs in TKD so low level of knowledge. And have zero knowledge of Aikido (well other than it hurts lol).
Trust me when I say your disclaimer isn't required as your perception of aikido thus far is spot on. Here's a big problem, we can never expect uke to deliver 100% commitment in their attacks, if they did they would not be able to safely transition between atemi and ukemi, of course we can work at slower paces where uke is indeed providing 'total' commitment (in terms of the learning experiences of tori) but, 100% commitment in attack leaves absolutely no room for ukemi. Therefore; although we many train strenuously and with a great deal of spirit, as uke our efforts must always include the ability to safely transition from atemi to ukemi, remembering of course; generally, the faster and harder you "go in" the faster and harder you "go out" simply because tori is exploiting the natural energy provided in the attack. In essence what I'm saying is that training for technique alone is a flawed strategy, IMHO we should be training ourselves to recognise and deal with ma-ai and in doing do apply awase and kuzushi, three major principles of aikido. To do this effectively however we must work with quality people who understand the finite skills of ukemi, who can deliver atemi with conviction and spirit, not the run of the mill wishy-washy arm and leg swinging often seen in aikido dojo.
Well I came to that conclusion because your previouse statements seemed to make it pretty clear that based on your experience Aikido couldn't hold it's own against other arts unless the Aikidoka had training in those arts. Thanks for the clarification. Training for every possible given situation isn't something I worry about. I don't think it's possible. Which is why I've always concentraighted on trying to understand how the mind and body work. Both my own and that of my uke. I have no problems with cross training. I can certainly see advantages. But I wouldn't cross train with Karate to better understand where Karate is strong or weak. I'd cross train to better under stand where I am weak. I'd cross train to find out where I need to improve my own skill set. That to me would seem to be a far more valuable lessson. If spoke Japanese I'd probably have a better idea of what you're talking about. But I don't so I'll guess anyway. Could I face up to an expert swordsman in a fight? I'd probably lose but that wouldn't stop me takeing on the challenge.
