That's true. I actually read the comment as more of a "here's some of the principles you find in Aikido used in things other than Aikido" to avoid the "Aikido sux 'coz it's Aikido" mind set you sometimes get. I could be something completely different to everyone else, but that's how it came across to me.
No one has said anywhere that aiki has anything to do with love and hugs and hippy daisy chains, so that's good. Is "Aiki being about taking away your partners/enemies physical and mental posture efficiently with the minimum of effort" a personal interpretation or can a corroborating translation/explanation be found anywhere in Aikido literature? If anything, that statement seems like an extrapolation compared to the more literal translation. Ai = one, join. Ki = energy. Never stated tori has to muscle through anything. What I said is that a clothlesline-type attack negates two core principles. 1) Defeating your attacker without causing injury. 2) It is a head-on direct opposition of forces and not two energies blending together as is the case with the spinning irimi. There's a reason aikido techniques rely on tai sabaki, sucking in the attacker's energy, blending with it and redirecting it and not force-on-force collisions.
What Ueshiba meant by Aiki aside, the answer to the thread remains. Aikido as a stand alone art fails against other MAs. People can try to slice that one any way they want, real world results (or lack thereof) speak for themselves. People keep saying "it's not about the art, it's about the practitioner". While that is true to a certain extent, the skills of the two practitioners being more or less equal within their respective arts, some arts fail in their real-world practicality and applicability against other arts or against unskilled opposition. I can create a new art - thumb-warido. I'll be the master at thumb-war techniques and philosophy. If I can catch any martial artist from any martial art under my thumb, he's going to go down to his knees in excruciating pain. Except that thumb-warido has no answer for anything other than the thumb-war shake, no matter how hard I train. Saying "it's not about the art, it's about the artist" is an easy shortcut constantly take to explain a more complicated problem that includes multiple variables. Of course it is in great part about the art. It's about its principles, context, training method, techniques, how complete it is, etc. If I start incorporating techniques that deviate from its core underlying principles, is my art still my art or has it evolved into something else?
I still say my own video is pretty much Aikido...even though it actually isn't. That makes no sense, but it did when I started typing
Yeah, I'd go with that. If your art is dedicated to the myopic fixation on one or two principles, then it's going to hurt when you try to apply it on a more rounded practicioner.
Sort of, kind of, maybe....my version was Gendai Ju Jitsu of my own concoction, so at least has the same sort of parent art
Yeah, you are on my list too. I'll get to you one day once I've sorted the world's ninja problem out.
I think I might have said this once in this thread already, but I'll say it again. The answer to every "does my martial art work against ____" question is the same: your martial art works against what you train against. Most of what we train against in aikido is a short list of stylized, antiquated attacks presented in a contrived, isolated fashion by opponents who aren't really trying to beat us. And that means that after a lifetime of aikido training, I'll be really good at defending myself against a short list of stylized, antiquated attacks presented in a contrived, isolated fashion by opponents who aren't really trying to beat me. If I was looking for practical, effective self-defense training, I would train something other than aikido.
Is that the one with the take-down from a while back? That makes no sense, but it did when I started typing[/QUOTE]
It was a pretty decent takedown, intercepting the sudden attack - there is a precise Aiki name for this - pre-empting the sudden intention and imparted danger. Pity we couldn't see the angles and footwork though - this is the fulcrum of Aikido's worth (IMHO.). Its worth posting again.
Here you go [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQKtRZXNetE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQKtRZXNetE[/ame]
Little bit of feedback. This is more ura (reactive reverse pivot motion) than omote (angular pre-emptive entry) - so the timing is more responding rather than intercepting. Most Aikidoka would do well to make that one in similar circumstances. The slap/punch to the fellow's barnet is somewhat like irimi-nage (entering throw) but is more like TaiChi's 'tiger embraces head'. To really take him out of the picture, immediately use the other parrying/controlling fist/forearm/elbow to whack him on the jaw whilst controlling his head with the other hand. From that you need a head like concrete to survive.
Ok. So we don't have an over abundance of YouTube videos of Aikidoka getting into trouble in the street and Aikidoka don't generally enter MMA competitions. I totally follow your logic and agree. Before YouTube and MMA nothing worked.
Before YouTube and MMA there was no way of testing what worked, short of getting into fights. Now that we have tools for testing, why disparage them? You admit that (a) there's no video evidence that aikido works and (b) that aikidoists don't test their skills in competition against practitioners of other styles. What reason, then, do we have to believe that aikido works at all? In light of what you just said, it's hard to see a a belief in the effectiveness of aikido as anything but pure faith.
I admit A) I don't have any video evidence and B) It makes no difference. Without video evidence it seems nothing anybody says is relevant. Although the video Hannibal posted looks like bog standard Aikido. Granted Aikido don't normally train with all that padding or in the manner. But all the same, the technique looked like something you'd typically encounter in an any Aikido dojo of any style.
