Problems with... denial?

So far as I have been able to figure out. Tohei believed in hard practice. I saw some videos of one of his high ranking students a while ago. It might have been his son. I'm not sure. But he wasn't messing around. Wish I had a link.

 

We had a 4th degree and 7th degree come up this weekend along with a bunch of other black belts so a few people could test for shodan all at once. It was nice to see some new stuff and see a little more aggression from the instructors' examples, but it's also somewhat reinforced my belief that Ki Aikido isn't practical enough to be used properly in the streets. And like others are saying, they did go hard years ago but now it's all about letting the person get the technique and trying to make it possible as uke, not simulating anything that you would encounter in a real fight.. which is surprising, considering all the talk of 'resistance' and how to use it against the attacker. Thing is, the attacker most likely won't circle you once he grabs your wrist (if he grabs your wrist).


And yes, I understand a lot of these techniques are to teach the principles but if so, I think any talk of 'martial' should be excluded, especially with students who have never seen real violence and believe their art to be combat effective when they have yet to see a realistic attack. As a philosophical art, Ki Aikido is beautiful and teaches a lot of ways to overcome difficult situations but sadly, violence (once engaged) isn't one.

I plan on continuing the art and hopefully I can get some guys to train with more intensity with me after class or something and seeing what we can and can't utilize and I also hope we can have a serious discussion on the practicality and effectiveness of our style without anyone getting offended.

 

If an art focuses on teaching the principles that allow the techniques to work it shouldn't be considered martial? That makes no sense at all. How else should a martial art be taught?

The problem Ki Aikido is suffering from at the moment is one of dilution by individuals and organisation who have an agenda other than teaching martial arts. It's a wide spread common problem in the martial arts world. Try not to confuse the art with those who teach it badly to their own ends.

Ki Aikido taught and practised properly is no more or less effective or realistic than any other style of Aikido or martial arts in general. It's the attitude of the individuals that makes the difference. Those who choose to train hard and test their understanding or techniques will reap the benefits. The rest will wallow in their ignorance.

 

One problem is that (in Ki Aikido as in any martial art) there is a large amount of self selection.

That is, the stated goals and image of an art has a large influence on the type of people attracted to that art. Large numbers of a certain type of person practicing that art tends to insure that the art remains a certain way - or goes even further in that direction.

Often that means you get into a kind of a feedback loop pushing the general focus of the art - the way in which it is practiced - into one direction or another.

Best,

Chris
Aikido Sangenkai - Honolulu, Hawaii

 

I always thought that what attracts those certain types of people to the art are the ways it's advertised and portrayed in books. All the talk of calmness and inner peace attracts people to the art who aren't interested in martial arts. But are interested in the meditative side and the social aspect. And it doesn't take teachers long to realise that's a fairly decent pension fund.

I'm not sure if that's what you mean by self selection. But I'd agree the type of students are a major influencing factor. Which I happen to think is wrong. The teacher should be strong enough to lead the class and weed out students who don't make the grade.

I realise that might not pay the bills. But there are ways around that problem.

 

Yup, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

I think that very few teachers are really that selective in choosing their students - some of the koryu mostly, none of the commercial places, I would think.

Best,

Chris
Aikido Sangenkai - Honolulu, Hawaii

 

Maybe I should've rephrased it. When I mean principles, I mean teaching us how to give them our balance and energy, rather than simulate a real attack. The principles on energy are cool and all, but I think a lot of people take it out of context. We can take a negative situation and with the right energy and care, make it into a positive one. That should be the focus and is many times. Looking at it as a cultivating art, it can change lives, which is awesome... but I have seen no martial value. If someone attacks me and I attempt to calmy, peacefully, unify our energy while ignoring any effects of adrenaline and all while keeping one point, I will die. Even as a higher rank, I don't see how that mentality will save your life.

I know it sounds like I'm talking down on the art but I'm really not trying to. All I'm saying is, from what I've seen, our style is ineffective unless trained intensively and with resistance, speed, strength, etc., but we don't do that. It's not in the curriculum.

Black belt bumped his head into another guys tooth the other night. Drew enough blood to draw a cute smiley face on the floor. No big deal. He went off apologizing and giving lectures about the danger of our training. Safety is always of importance but if you pretend like violence is no different than what we train, failure is inevitable. Ki Aikido, and maybe it's our specific group, doesn't seem to address the ugliness of violence but then again, it's not for that, which is why I like it.

My problem is trying to take something martial out of something that is teaching gentleness. One of the higher belts even says Ki Aikido is a way of unifying our body and mind, and the techniques and training are the means to an end. If that's right or wrong, I don't know.

And this is only towards Ki Aikido. I don't know how the other styles are but from what I've seen and trained, our style very rarely places emphasis on SD but when it does, it is impractical.

 

I studied aikido for a couple of years, 15 years ago, and quit because I thought it was entirely ineffective for self defense. Since then I've trained and taught numerous styles, always with a self defense emphasis. Recently, I've had several people email me asking questions about self defense techniques that don't injure your opponent, and I've taken another look at aikido.

The theory of blending with an attack and redirecting your opponent is great...using his "dynamic motion of convergence". But in reality, it just doesn't work. The problem is, no one attacks the way attacks are rehearsed in aikido...with the attacker literally running in circles after a wrist grab, throwing one massively over committed punch, etc.

However, some of the end techniques in aikido certainly can and do work. The key is in the entry...in setting them up. If you can get control of your opponent, then you can apply a number of aikido techniques. But you've got to be able to get in and get control without getting nailed first. And catching punches out of the air isn't the way to do that!

It's unfortunate that aikido has become (or possibly always was?) ineffective as a martial art. I say that because the unique footwork and techniques are valuable, as is some of the philosophy. But most people who are serious about self defense give it a pass due to the training. It could be taught effectively...and can be modified to work.

I've recently added a video to my site demonstrating why aikido doesn't work as it's typically taught, and what modifications you can make to get it to work. I'm not sure if I can post the link since this is my first post here...but I'll try it anyway...video at the top of this page.

To any of you who are still practicing aikido, ask your partner next time he attacks you not to let you do your technique. Once you've got the substance of a technique down, you should always tell your partner (if he's not already doing so)..."don't let me do this". If your partner is cooperative, you can do anything. Try the entries I demonstrate, and I bet you'll be able to make many of your aikido techniques work.

 

Not wishing to be too hard on the new guy but it'd help if you had someone in those clips who looked like they actually had a clue about Aikido.

 

That's definitely a valid criticism! As I mentioned, I haven't practiced aikido in 15 years, and my partner in the video hasn't ever.

But don't judge the video and text based on how my aikido looks...judge it based on the logic and reason in the video.

The truth is, no one attacks like is done in aikido, and no real attacker responds by flipping or falling at the slightest touch. It's also true that once/if you've gotten control, you can apply aikido techniques.

Aside from the way the video looks, do you have a problem with the points I'm making?

So Mark, do you actually think you can learn to defend yourself against an uncooperative opponent by only training with one who is cooperative?

 

Aside from my lack of ability in aikido, what specifically in the video makes you think that? Is there an entry or technique I demonstrate that you think wouldn't work?

 

The problem is that if you are critiquing an art you can't really use a video unless it actually shows the art and that one doesn't.

The video gives a false impression of Aikido so you are already setting up bias to start with.

Why are attacks done in that way is Aikido? I'm of course referring to the stereotypical shomen uchi.

In your video it may well have been at the slightest touch but that true of all Aikido?

Also why is ukemi taken?

Finally ukemi is allowed by tori, if you don't want someone to take it then you don't let them.

Once you've got control you can pretty much do what you want as long as you maintain control so I'm not sure what your point is.

Well for a start in your blog you start by saying it is purely defensive and there are no strikes.

For the most part you are regurgitating what amounts to nothing more than common sense but I think the problem lies in your understanding of the art you are criticising.

With that in mind I have to wonder if you aren't just spewing out stuff you've heard elsewhere.

 

With your demo very little will work.

It's not just down to an unfamiliarity with Aikido it's that you lack anything in the way of good structural alignment and are all arms and hands when trying to apply the waza, there's nothing in the way if kahanshin, poor irimi, not much of an attemp to affect kuzushi and no seme.

You look like you have virtually no familiarity with JMA in general.

 

I totally disagree with that. Think about it this way: If you knew of an art that was based on doing handstands to defend against bear hugs, surely you could critique that without being able to do a handstand, right?

I did study aikido, but I haven't done it in 15 years, as I've said. But it doesn't take an aikido practitioner to realize the training methodology in aikido doesn't lead to functional self defense skills.

Again, what am I saying in the video that is logically or factually incorrect?

How is that? Take a look at videos of the top aikido practitioners, honestly. Are the attackers not entirely cooperative? Honestly. Are they not giving the defender exactly what he wants, and going along with the defense?

Ah...but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the level of commitment inherent in the attacks, such that the attacker attempts to chase a wrist grab, or hang on while being contorted for more than a second or two. I'm talking about exaggerated singular punches, stabbing attacks, etc.

It is where I studied aikido, and it is in the vast majority of videos I've seen...both instructional and on the web. I'll be happy to post multiple examples if that helps.

My point is that in the vast majority of aikido techniques, at least in the way they're started, there is only an illusion of control due to training with a cooperative partner. Using the example I gave in the video, you can't do a tsuki kotegaeshi against a real punching attack on the street (by catching the punching hand), particularly when you have no clue which punch is coming or what angle it's coming in on. Have you ever seen that work against a boxer? Or, have you ever tried it against a boxer, where he was actually fighting back? I can assure you, it will not work. Most aikido entries are like that. Blending with a striking attack is great in theory...but VERY low % in reality.

Nope. I have a far better understanding of aikido than you think.

 

I'm not the one doing the "aikido" techniques. I'm the guy in the fleece jacket/blue t-shirt. The guy doing the techniques has never practiced aikido a day in his life. I didn't feel comfortable throwing him in the dirt, so I had him do the techniques simply as an example.

I probably should have done them myself... But the logic still stands.

The techniques I (or my partner) demonstrate toward the second half of the video are a more cooperative than they would be in training for the purpose of clear demonstration. I can assure you that if you try them yourself, you'll see that they work. Give them a try.

By underlying principles I'm referring to directional changes and taking an opponent down manipulating his head/balance.

I generally prefer for people to hold logic and experience through training higher than my personal qualifications. They're both far more important.

I started in a karate based system in the early 90's. I was a 2nd degree there, and later received a 3rd degree in another karate based style. I've studied plenty different styles since...boxing, thai boxing, wing chun, bjj, pekiti tirsia, etc., and owned/operated a self defense school in New Orleans from 1998 - 2007.

Again though, that's far less important than solid, honest training with a fully resisting, uncooperative opponent. See my training page.

 

You miss my point.

Which was if you are going to include a video of why something is bad then you need to ensure that the video is an accurate representation of what you are criticising or you are pretty much dealing with strawmen.

Sorry I didn't realise there was commentary, I've had the volume turned down because I was putting the kids to bed .

However your comments in the article seem off, there are strikes in Aikido you are going to have a hell of a game trying to set things up without atemi. Every Aikidoka I've had any real contact with has said similar things

You do not have the technical competence to demonstrate the art or its principles thereby making it look far far worse. You aren't doing Aikido you are doing a mess that is trying desperately to be Aikido but failing.

You are saying "oww look how bad it is, here I'll show you" but then giving a false impression in the video. It would have been far better to pull apart videos of actual Aikido.


I think using embu as an example would be a poor choice. Videos of keiko would be far better but if course harder to get hold of.

Again you are missing my point a bit. You criticise the attacks but can you tell me the reasoning behind them? Or their purpose?

I'll repeat my question.

Why is ukemi taken?

For the record I agree that Aikido is probably not the most efficient route to self defence skills but I've came across a few places where the intent and application is ramped up.

Again not disagreeing per se but I'd like to think I know enough not to write everything off with broad brush strokes.

Personally I think you'd be better off looking at why Aikido does what it does instead of criticising it for not fitting to a context that is probably outside its scope to begin with.

Was that waza developed for use in that situation?

Keep in mind the cultural context you probably have in your head right now.

I'm not an Aikidoka so it's not likely but I'd like to think I wouldn't try and put a square peg in a round hole.

Probably is low if you are trying to blend with his arm but I fell that may well not be the point.

Well going on your clip I'd disagree. That's not just lack of practice.

 

Quick point.

With regards to the functional part of the clip you are demonstrating how to work with the principles found in the art, this is after pointing out various flaws.

However you appear to not only be working from a fixed distance but also an artificial one for the attacks being presented. In a way that's not much different to your previous criticisms.

The timing is off too and it appears uke's targeting is wonky, maybe he's using Apple Maps???

All of that is only slightly different to the criticisms you level at the art to begin with, it creates a false context to work within and the risk is there of working the waza in such a way that they begin to rely on that artificial set up.

p.s. your Sankyo is going to get you a knife in the ribs if you keep ignoring that other hand with your positioning.