how can people say aikido isnt effective?

k so... remember im still a newb.. 6 months training so far but.. in the last class i went to we did this move where (forgive me for not knowing the name of it) it pretty much starts off as a knife stab to the gut.. you tenkan to the outside of it with yer hand pointed up at about their palm level... after that you grab their hand and do a kinda curl i guess it is... after that ya grab what i believe is kotigishes(sp!!!!) with yer other hand and use the orginal arm to apply pressure with yer elbow onto theirs... pretty much all ya gotta do is drop yer body with yer weight on their elbow and they go down with ya till they tap

well my sensai showed us the follow up to that... if you were to not get the elbow part down fast enough and they were to come up to strike ya... pretty much all ya do is hook their elbow and pull it to yer waste as you fall down...that plus the crank on the wrist really hurts (i know because the guy i was doing it with had the crank going as he fell down... and uhh oww lol) now i can just imagine what would have happend if this guy had my hand really cranked and fell with force (course after that theirs another twist where his arm would be hurtin more but you get the idea... i hope (dun think i explained it too well)

so pretty much 2 questions... what is that called? lol and how can anyone see/feel that and think if it was used in a fight that it wouldnt be very helpful?

-Yellow belt and a half, Skribe

 

In terms of self-defence, when people criticize Aikido, they criticize the training rather than the techniques themselves. If you demonstrated Nikkyo on someone, no doubt they would say "YES! That technique works!". But most people I know argue that to actually get into the position to apply it is very difficult, thereby ineffective.

When we train Aikido, the majority of the time, Uke doesn't attack in the same way as an attacker on the street would. For example, I bet when you trained the above technique (notably: a technique, not a scenario) Uke attacked predictably from a large distance in which you were ready for. Compare that to a street scenario where an attacker could be right next to you before you were aware of a threat, with no idea of what they are about to do (if anything).

These criticisms are helpful to us as Martial Artists as it is possible that our perceptions of Aikido are far from 'effective' (again, I speak in term of self-defence).

As well as that, many conceptions of Aikido are afflicted by ignorance, misinterpretation and aesthetic judgements (i.e. 'seeing' it rather than 'feeling' it).

There are plenty of threads on the forum that present arguements for and against Aikido effectiveness. Both sides have valid arguements which it is wise to consider. Personally, my concept of Aikido and "how it works" is in a constant state of change, especially at our level (a beginner).

 

Skribe,

There are a couple of important things which put context to what you are looking for.

1, Why do you study Aikido, what do you ultimately aim to get from your study and importantly; how quickly do you think you'll achieve this ?

Secondly

2, What 'style' of aikido are you studying ?

Very few styles of Aikido are strongly orientated toward "Oyo Waza" (Self defence or practical technique)

One should bear in mind that whilst the origins of orthodox aikido are derived from 'jutsu' the emphasis of study (certainly since the end of WWII) has been very philosophical - A continuation of traditional methods, techniques some of which are no longer particularly applicable in the truest sense due to the fact that weapons, such as he sword and spear aren't carried any more. We should always strive to remember; there are benefits to learning these applications and the associated knowledge that goes with them but, some suggest or even argue these techniques, applications and training methods are out dated and pointless...

I disagree.

Earlier I used the word "orthodox" rather than 'traditional' to describe aikido. This is a very generalised descriptive because regardless of what style you study, provided there is a lineage back to the founder, theoretically what you do is "traditional". Obviously there are exceptions to this (and that's another debate) but by orthodox I refer to schools which teach all aspects of Ueshiba aikido. Those generally being...

Gozo Shioda-ha, Kenji Tomiki-ha, Morihiro Saito-ha, Ueshiba, Minoru Mochizuki-ha, Koichi Toehi-ha

Yoshinkan, Shodokan, Iwama-ryu, Aikikai, Yoseikan, Shin-shin Toitsu

Tachi waza (Standing Technique) Hanmi-handachi (One standing one kneeling technique Suwari waza (both kneeling technique) Henka & Kaeshi waza (Variation and counter technique) Buki waza (weapons of sword, staff and tanto)

Using training methods...

Ai-hanmi (Mutual stance) Gyaku-hanmi (Reversed stance) Yokomen -uchi (Diagonal strike) Shomen-uchi (Vertical strike) Kata-dori (Shoulder grab) Ryote-dori (Two hands holding - one each) Morote-dori (Two hands holding one) Kata-dori men-uchi (One hand grabbing the shoulder, other vertical strike) and so on and so forth.

My point in describing just these few aspects of aikido is that it takes a long time to begin to understand the relevance of "oyo waza" in many of the things we study, no matter how much we see, our pan of vision never fully covers the scope of the system because it should be so vast.

However;

There are of course schools who for their own reasons (again another debate) will chop out aspects of otherwise accepted methods of training and add what they consider to be more applicable to "modern" (perhaps otherwise referred too as the "street") training. Now that's fine in the greater scheme of things provided these schools are open enough to acknowledge the alterations they make, ultimately IMHO create divisions in what is credibly described as "traditional" in value. Indeed I would go so far as to suggest that many of these systems using the name aikido are far removed from what it should actually be (again another controversial debate)

The crux of the matter always relates, pretty much; to the first two questions posed at the beginning.

Regards

 

I think Dave said it all.

Basically, training for self-defense equals better self-defense.

There are training programs geared towards self-defense that utilize Aikido as a base. There are training programs geared towards self-defense that utilize BJJ as a base. There are training programs geared towards self-defense that use MMA as a base.

You name it, it is probably out there, and guess what, they are all very similar even though they are based on different arts.

I have an example that uses BJJ, not Aikido, but it applies. Person comes up and says that BJJ has no striking, is all ground fighting, is not realistic self-defense.

Fine, who cares, I go and train anyway. We work self-defense, standup strikes, elbows, knees, as well as grappling... this IS BJJ class, but it isn't BJJ, it is self-defense training.

 

1, Why do you study Aikido, what do you ultimately aim to get from your study and importantly; how quickly do you think you'll achieve this ?

i study aikido because once im good enough at it ill be able to defend myself without having to hurt anyone/get legal issues thrown at me... i want to get to a point of control.. as far as being able to use it in a fight i think i could do that in 4-5 years

Secondly

2, What 'style' of aikido are you studying ?
i study Dobunkan Aikido, id say its more focused toward "the street" training as ya put it... as far as i understand it

--
im not sure if i put off a violent image of myself in that first post... i was just stating how brutal it can be... personnaly id not use that much force unless i was outnumbered i think

i dunno tho i have total confidence in aikido... dont doubt for a second it'd work in a fight

 

Out of curiosity, what if there was a quicker, more tested, more effective way of doing this? Would you stick with Aikido?

I think the question is not whether Aikido works in a fight, but whether you and your Aikido works in a fight.

One of the problems I see in martial arts is that many Martial Artists train for the fight, without knowing what a fight is (thankfully, myself included to some degree). Perhaps this isn't so much of a problem in something like MMA, where more "fight-like" training is incorporated (i.e. Full contact sparring, limited rules, minimum protection, competition*). However, in Aikido, training for reality is difficult because you don't know what reality really is. I really had to put my faith in the art, and it wasn't easy. A good teacher certainly helps bucket loads, but I'm always questioning my Aikido, and testing it when I can. I suppose it's not something I have to worry about until the basics have become engrained (Shodan), but we could be attacked anytime, anyplace, so there's no point fooling ourselves that you're going to be safe because you're training Aikido (or any Martial Art for that matter).

I think what I'm trying to say is it's OK to doubt it. Check for yourself whether your Aikido fits with your perception of combat.









*Prepares you for the psychological aspects of fighting.

 

any martial is good for a fight sitution but as well as doing Akaido try some thing with more contact like kickboxing this way you can learn to deal with the pressure of fighting the more you fight the more confidence you get ask your instructor if you can semi spar using the techniques you have been taught

 

Well, being "good enough" and the time it takes to achieve this standard is all pretty relative to:

a. What you consider "Good" and b. How well you apply yourself in conflict against someone else.

I have no experience of your style of aikido so I'm not qualified to judge it or you as an individual but, I can say that once an established system of methodology is radically altered either philosophically or physically, it is no longer true to its original self. What defines "ai ki do" ? I think the very name its self says volumes about the actual nature of the discipline.

I have trained with Japanese instructors, most notably in this case, Kazuo Chiba Shihan who stated Aikido wasn't self defence and this comes from a person who is widely accepted as teaching a very 'hard' method of aikido.

I'm always attempting to bring news students in to aikido but, if their motive for doing so is strongly orientated around "self defence" I'm not surprised to see them leave and move on to other things, this is of course within my dojo where, self defence rates very low in the scheme of things so, I do concede that if I were catering for these needs, these people may well have stayed. I'm just that interested in teaching "self defence" perspectives.

As an art Aikido is generally quite removed from the practicalities of street brawling, can it be used effectively ? Yes, it can but (and this is of course only my opinion) if instructors are only focusing largely on practicality, they will be neglecting many aspects of the art which give aikido the breadth and depth it must have to make sense. IMHO without aikido being complete (warts and all) it’s a meaningless practice.

Having said that, many here will know that I don't entirely subscribe to the philosophical nature very often associated with the art and the founder, I do try to understand but often find myself unable to comprehend why people are willing to accept moral/philosophical practices when, these already effectively exist in their own lives in one form or another.

Ok, your describing a core value of aikido yet your training is orientated around being more 'street wise' I can see there being a conflict of interests. Maybe you don't want to be overtly violent in your approach to conflict resolution but if the mainstay of your training is defined as practicality, then practicality and philosophy won't always go hand in hand because, to achieve a level of skill where you can actively deal with people who are about to seriously hurt you, without hurting them is essentially the highest level of aikido, many people spend their entire lives attempting to achieve this and never get there. Personally, I doubt many contemporary aikidoists will ever achieve this level of skill because, to do so, requires a substantial amount of actual real testing and a mentality which will allow you to put yourself in harms way just to see if what you do actually works.

Aikido isn't supposed to be brutal, that’s why it’s called Aiki"do". There is a good thread on this forum discussing "intention" and it is possible to switch between passive and non-passive intent however, this alters the nature of one's training to "aiki-jutsu" Search it out, it’s well worth the read.

Kind regards

 

Again, I feel Dave said it all.

In regards to this, I had to put on my memory cap, but as I recall just from my Aikido instructor, she was a Tibetan monk and was pretty much a pacifist. She definitely did not have intentions of violence, but her Aikido was crisp and did what is was supposed to do.

Was the goal self-defense, well yes and no. The goal was for self-development and improvement. This can help one deal with internal conflicts and have more self-esteem which can help in the beginnings of a potential hostile situations to de-escalate tensions before things get out of hand.

One thing I must point out, IME, is that because I had years of experience in karate, Sensei could crank things on me harder because I could take it. Where she might stop with other students, she would continue and show me more of the original jiu-jitsu technique and apply it on me. This technique she did not teach to many others as most of the students were young, but she knew it.

Aikido may not be about self-defense through violence, but certainly one can train outside of Aikido for self-defense and realize that the core techniques are similar.

IME, there really is no Aikido for self defense... let me clarify... there is Aikido training and there is self-defense training that is specifically designed for self-defense that may be based on Aikido techniques. You can train in both, even at the same school, but one is Aikido, the other is self-defense.

 

hm... well its obvious to everyone that i got along way to go before ill be anything special in aikido however i have no intentions of stopping my training its a good art and i like it

yea i know i could take something like mau thai and be able to defend myself much faster but then id have little choice in rather i hurt someone or not with aikido i will have that choice one day, maybe not in every situation but in some i will... id much rather have to break someones arm than bust out their knee or smash in their ribs... ive seen people who have the crap beat out of em and their whole body is in pain, not just a cast on their arm

also id rather not hurt someone if i can control it but if i have to to choose between the attacker and myself or my family ill rip the persons arm off if need be

i like aikido because its about control... i dont plan to take JUST aikido but i do plan to stick with only aikido untill my first dan.. after that i plan to cross train(while still practicing aikido of couse), not sure on what ill train (plenty of time to decide) probably some sort of kung fu and bjj... figure bjj would be good incase i get on the ground which is bound to happen eventually and kung fu... well seems like a good idea at the time

anywho i dont doubt aikido.. maybe its because of ignorance on my part and maybe its because of the way my sensai explains move to me... we havnt done anything of too high a level but he does show us how these moves could be used against certain strikes.. rather its a hook/hay maker(sp) type punch or a straight one to the stomach... right now i know i cant do much of anything with aikido but i will be able to one day and i have no doubts about that

one more thing though.. as far as time goes... im hoping to live to be at least 80.. which gives me a good 60 years of practice between now and then... so maybe at some point ill be good enough.. if not im having fun with it either way

 

Good luck in your training Skribe. Keep it up.

This part of your previous post tells me that you are thinking at the level of martial arts styles rather than function and practical application.

If you want to improve your self-defense, the goal is not dependent on what martial art style you are training in. The goal is developing the experience and tools that you will need. Experience is gained by walking the walk or getting as close to it as possible in training. Tools are developed and refined based on the experience of others and your own personal experiences.

My point is that you don't take a martial arts style to learn self-defense, the self-defense value of your training is based not on style but on the experience and tools your develop specifically for self-defense. So it doesn't matter the style, whether it is Muay Thai, Aikido, Karate, Judo, BJJ... What matters is the experience and tools you develop while training and in the real world.

What I am saying is that you are fine with taking Aikido, if you want self-defense, then don't cross-train, but instead add to your Aikido with specific programs designed for Self-Defense like RBSD.

My instructor taught Aikido, but she would on occassion show more of a technique that could be used for self-defense purposes. It would be an internal conflict if she were to want to apply the more destructive technique as she was a pacifist, but that is different than teaching it to those that they believe would not abuse the knowledge and those that might actually need to use it... there is no internal conflict there. It is also different than using those destructive techniques on those that can take it, if you know someone can take it, then you can use it because you might need to use it... if someone can't take it, then you probably don't need to use it because they will give up the fight before it comes to that.

Make your own decisions based on experience, real experiences whenever possible.

 

Hey, this reminds me of a story/analogy.

At some point in the history of Japan, some warriors became so proficient in killing that they were sought out by the younger warriors who were trying to make a name for themselves.

The younger warriors eager to make a name for themselves or die trying would challenge the veteran warrior. The veteran warrior (weapons master) had killed so many that he sought ways of ending the conflict without death.

So the challenge might have gone like this...

Challenger draws weapon and attacks the weapons master. The master does not even draw weapon and instead evades the attack and downs the challenger with such ease that the challenger knows beyond a doubt he is outclassed and without a chance.

The challenger gives up, begs for mercy or just runs away. No one is killed.

To me the analogy above shows a method similar to Aikido. The fight in the challenger goes away, and so they no longer have the want to hurt you, rather they worry about their own safety and they doubt their own abilities, or simply they just don't want to fight anymore.

But one has to think of what happens when the challenger does not give up, does not want to stop the fight?

These masters had such a reputation in killing that any challenger must have known that they would be killed if they continued to fight, thus running away became a very viable option.

What if you are not a proficient killer with a reputation?

 

but i am though

hehe no but in all honesty... from what ive seen so far theres alot of pins in aikido if the person doesnt want to fight i can pin them (saying theres not more than one) and wait for the cops to arive to take them away

if theres more than one id likely shut the people attacking me down as fast as possible... rather it be by breaking bones or what ever

way i look at it though is give them as much as they want but nothing more... i forget where this but i totaly agree with it
if a little pain wont stop them then ill continue to apply presure untill they stop... if they get hurt during that its their fault because im willing to stop before it ever starts

 

Six actually...

One is a guiding principle and not particularly practical as a means of long term immobilisation.

Four will pin (and induce pain if required) as well as immobilise quite effectively

One is an elbow lock and generally not considered an immobilisation (in a true sense)

Regards

 

hey... i was just lookin at the posts again and im wondering what you mean by this?

 

Re: Aikido. Take a look at MMA, the UFC or Pride Japan and you will soon see which techniques work in a real scrap against a tough opponent.
Unfortunately you won't see any Aikido techniques there because they do not work against a tough opponent who is fighting back.
You will see Judo/Sambo/BJJ/ wrestling/Thai Boxing, etc., because these are reality based fighting systems, well tested and proven in heavy duty scraps.

 

Thanks for proving my point on misconceptions of reality.

 

I always like reading these "reality" based opinions. I myself am an experienced Prison Officer having worked in Category A establishments for over six years, with people generally considered "tough" criminals, trust me when I say despite what little rules your aforementioned competitions may have, fighting with a person with mental health issues, on drugs which suppress pain or emotional problem or, just plain old 'ard as nails convicts is where "reality" is at .



Breakerjohn, whilst this forum is open to every MAP member to post, I would respectfully suggest that comments such as yours will soon find yourself branded as either ignorant, arrogant and or a troll (possibly all three)

Don't waste our time trying to compare MMA, UFC or Pride [whatever] with classical study of a Japanese Discipline whilst making definitive and somewhat ill-informed opinions on what aikido is or isn't just because you don't see it in competitions.

Perhaps you might enlighten us who your Aikido Sensei is, how long you've devoted to your study and what Yudansha grade you hold.

Regards

 

Well Skribe, what I meant is that every martial art has a self-defense aspect to it. This self-defense aspect is not generally the same as what is worked on most of the time in training.

Let me put it another way. If you were to go to your Sensei and ask how he or she would teach a self-defense program, with very few exceptions, the answer you will probably get will not match the same training that you are currently doing in class.

This is true for all martial arts with a very few exceptions. Aikido, Aiki-jitsu, BJJ, MMA, karate, TKD, Kung Fu, Wing Chun, Muay Thai, boxing, Judo, jiu-jitsu, Kenpo, Kempo, Kajukenbo... etc. etc. all do not spend the majority of their time in working specifically in self-defense or reality based self-defense.

If you ask the instructors/masters how they would teach self-defense, it would be different than what they teach in class. Not totally different, there will be similarities but different none-the-less.

Once you know the answer to how they would teach self-defense, then you can compare that to what you actually train in during regular class time and see how much of class time is actually spent on self-defense. You will likely find that a small percentage of class time is actually spent on self-defense the way that your instructor would teach self-defense.

There are valid reasons for the way things are done, I'm only saying that you be aware of just how little time is actually spent on self-defense in regular training classes.