"Scorpion Kick"?...never mind (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117403) Wouldn't it depend on the fight situation?
One point is that the old timers in Aikido were often from a background of Judo or Karate. So if you were to make assumptions about an old timer Aikidoka, you might find yourself dealing with not just Aikido but a full background of cross-training from Judo or Karate. These days, it isn't as often true that you get Aikidoka that were also Judo black belts or something like that. I was a black belt in karate when I cross-trained in Aikido... I can tell you that Aikido works. When I started cross training in BJJ, I could see the benefits from Aikido too. So I will say that Aikido does work, but probably most won't be able to really appreciate just how valuable Aikido can be until they cross train for many years. Even better to appreciate Aikido after you get a black belt in Judo, for example.
people do need to remember that martial arts aren't fighting. they're systems of training which teach a fixed or semi-fixed repertoire of techniques, but the fighting is something completely separate, that YOU do, and you can do whatever the hell you want while doing it. if you train aikido and can't fight because you try to fight using only formal aikido techniques, rather than seeing how you can integrate them into the totality of the possibilities open in a physical altercation, then that is entirely your fault, not a reflection on the system. on the other hand though, aikido is one of the styles that suffer the most from an overabundance of people who are just like that and teach aikido just like that, combined with that of people who are just plain bonkers and/or conmen (ki peddlers and such).
an observation: it took a pretty long time to establish in the mainstream that karateka who try to fight with kihon are dumb, even though i'd say most karateka with more than one functioning braincell figure it out by the first year of training. this is essentially the equivalent. aikido techniques are principle training that shows you different ways of manipulating limbs, formally trained in such a way that they can be trained many times with minimal interruption, while at the same time training the falling skills of the one receiving the techniques. that seems pretty damn efficient as formal technique training to me, but i think we can all agree that it's not enough, the same as a karateka won't learn to fight by doing pre-arranged step sparring, even though it's pretty damn useful as an initial tool before moving on to progressively more freeform drills and sparring. both methods also tend to fall prey to a lack of quality assurance, resulting in them turning into compliant drills rather than something where you get hit in the face if you don't do it right. take an aikidoka who fully understands that he's free to kick you in the nuts as soon as he grabs your arm, who trains with people who actually aim for his face in training, and that he can lock up said arm however the hell he wants because he knows a ton of ways to do so, and you'll have a pretty good fight on your hands, even though you probably won't see a single clean kote gaeshi, gokyo or whatever (although you might expect a forearm to the face during an irimi nage or some similar improvised hit instead of the formal training techniques).
Is there an equivalent to freeform sparring in aikido? You know, where uke isn't practicing his/her pratfalls? The only aikido 'sparring' videos I've seen involve cooperative ukes. This is a failure in aikido in general though. There are very few schools where pretending to go flying across the room isn't at the core of the syllabus. I don't think it is sensible to point at the one exception to this rule and say 'look, that proves aikido is effective', because it doesn't.
Wait. what are the odds of a pro boxer trying to mug you? and why would you want to take down a pro boxer?
Forget the pro - would the kind of aikido techniques you see being demonstrated work against anyone with a decent amount of Boxing (etc etc) training? I would argue no, because those people don't leave their arms hanging around to be grabbed and manipulated. I have a hard enough job blocking and parrying shots with 16oz gloves - there's no way I (or I believe any non-preternaturally gifted person) could react fact enough to catch a punch in the way the videos in this (and many other) thread advocates.
not in aikido per se, that i know of, just like most karate schools don't have "kumite" that isn't based on sporty rules, because karate sparring essentially arose from the JKA macho men's competition sparring, made because the uni students wanted to beat each other up so they went and copied kendo. nothing prevents either group from doing proper sparring though. indeed. but it has the means to be, in my opinion.
Absolutely, I know there are shotokan schools who train and spar properly, but they are vastly outnumbered by the schools who believe five step sparring is sufficient. I believe all martial arts have the means to be effective, but most lack the desire to do the work necessary. Aikido as it is taught and practiced today in most places is little more than performance art. It's impressive to watch and probably the most attractive martial art, but it is very much style over substance.
i agree with this. you can find very good aikido places; you can also find "performance art" ones very easily. just look at koyo and his guys for good, and there are many more examples. although i've been into martial arts for over a decade, i've studied aikido for about 1 1/2 years. i went to a usaf school that was very good; and inside of that school, there was a cadre of very "martial" artists. i've also studied at a school that was ki-centric, and honestly, wasn't worth the time at all. the only reason i gave it a shot was because it was more convenient to get to. i also think it's ok to do aikido without wanting to learn how to fight. for a lot of people, just breaking a sweat, learning how to move and fall without breaking one's spine is beneficial. here's the good place. well worth the time to visit if you're ever visiting chicago. http://www.midwestaikidocenter.org/
Realistically, there's little to no chance of that happening like you said. As I understand it, Aikido originally had reasonable atemi waza and even keri waza (kicking techniques and strikes meant for breaking balance and concentration). You wouldn't necessarily immediately jump into a lot of the techniques you see per se as you had to create that opening. The other principles of circular movement and getting your body out of the way still stand, but there should be more striking to it. However there's a whole range of arguments in the Aikido sector of the MA world as to whether or not actually hitting your opponent is very "aiki". I maintain that throwing in your own strikes with the intention of actually causing damage to create an opening is fine, but a lot of people I have trained with are adamant that you shouldn't do it because it defies the idea of being "peaceful" and "harmonious". Never mind the issue that if someone is already attacking you then the "balance" of the world has been unsettled and that a swift, controlled resolution is often more favourable than letting someone swing at you. Hell I once got told off when practising Aikido because my atemi waza (a standard boxing hook across the jaw with my free hand) as I turned off the line of attack was ineffective because it was "too fast" and wouldn't give people time to react to it properly. :dunno: Some Aikido schools do practice jiyu waza (free techniques) as a form of sparring. Well, if it's done properly. It's basically several minutes of un-choreographed attacks where the tori has to defend himself in that time. As you go up the grades the attacks change to "any variation of attack" and with greater resistance. Or at least if it's a good school. The way most people practice though is often with over televised attacks and not a great deal of power behind them.
This That said, it's hard to know if someone "works" for you without pushing yourself to "make it work". Aikido for me is a beautiful art and can supplement a lot of styles gloriously if practised honestly. But as I read somewhere (I'll see if I can find it), it's very much one of those arts that you should be proficient at another art before trying Aikido to really get its' beauty. Certainly when I used to practice Aikido, the difference between the guys who came from a judo, karate or a boxing background compared to those who first started with Aikido was huge.
We've cross trained for a few years with the local Aikido school and their instructor has trained (and graded) with our Combat Hapkido program. I've been very impressed. I think the basic premise of the question is difficult from a philosophical point of view. What kind of situation are you looking at? Are you looking at a cage match where you know it's a one-on-one guaranteed fight where the opponent is looking to KO you or are you looking at a murkier 'self defense' situation on the street where you have to pay attention to legal apects and levels of force? I like the basic ideas I've seen in Aikido, namely to be vigilant and humble and to aware of potential bad areas and to avoid physical conflict. I think when conflict arises, Aikidoka try to disengage/de-escalate first. If an attack happens, I like how Aikidoka use their footwork and movement to avoid the attack and turn and move until they can guide the opponent into a 'pre-set' area where they can apply a technique. We've had some of the Aikidoka in class spar with us (and our students) and mostly it depends on the rules. In a TKD-rules match, they are at a disadvantage. In an open rules match, they had some very nice counters to kicks and strikes. I think a lot of it depends on how they train and what the focus is. To be honest, I think it creates a nice self defense system - one that takes into account the legal aspects and level of force concerns and provides for an operating system that can escalate or de-escalate against a range of attacks.
At the end of the day it comes down to the quality of training and the motivations of the student. Excellent students can be failed by poor training and excellent training can be wasted on poor students irrespective of the style.
Some styles encourage both poor teaching and lazy students more than others - specifically by removing any freeform training or competition. There's no benchmark aikido students can use to test the quality of their classes, because they can go through their entire training career never having to test their skills against students from another class.
I agree, but it is complicated though. Since you can also go for years in a great BJJ school and still be useless. We have people that are just really, really bad but all we can do is be nice to them, help them with technique and hope they 'get it'. One of my regular training partners is an ex Aikido-ka who became disillusioned by the lack of resistance in training. He is very, very good at BJJ because he has the mindset that he wants to learn and get it right. He was probably a very good Aikido-ka too as he has a very humble, and very dedicated training methodolgy. I think both environments of Aikido and BJJ can teach good concepts, but it always down to the individual to decide to make it work.
Fair point. But I tend to view a style as being distinct from a specific school or teacher. Which may or may not be the right way to look at it. But the point basically is the style alone will never decide who the winner is. It's the nature of the training and the student.
