How effective is aikido in self defense?

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[tomhill]

as you know im new to aikido.

as a martial art im lookin for it not for competitions or to show of just purely self defense as the youths generation is gettin filled with killing and crime and im 16 and want to protect myself . how effective is aikido in self defense?

[rob_liberti]

http://aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=206044&post206044

http://aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?p=206044&post206044

[Daniel Ranger-Holt]

Pure self defence you're better off going for something else other than aikido. Unless you're willing to spend a good few years getting to grips with it. Even then, for pure self defence, you'll need another art to compliment it IMO.

[Mark Uttech]

Onegaishimasu. I think it was the late Morihiro Saito Shihan that said once: "To question effectiveness is to kill effectiveness." A person is always better off just going to the dojo and seeing what kind of experiences you have.

In gassho,

Mark

[dps]

Think of self defense as a life long pursuit of collecting the necessary tools to keep yourself and loved ones safe and Aikido as one tool in a collection of tools to be used for self defense.

If you need protection immediately, I would get a gun and learn how and when to use it. Then let everyone know you got a gun and you know how to use it.

David

[gdandscompserv]

If you need protection immediately, I would get a gun and learn how and when to use it. Then let everyone know you got a gun and you know how to use it.

David
I would recommend pepper spray.

[dps]

I would recommend pepper spray.

Lets see, telling people you have pepper spray and know how to use it and telling people you have a gun and know how to use it. Which one would make people more afraid of you?

David

[Dieter Haffner]

Lets see, telling people you have pepper spray and know how to use it and telling people you have a gun and know how to use it. Which one would make people more afraid of you?
He is 16 and lives in the UK.
I don't think he can buy a gun just yet.
And even if he could get his hands on one, it would be illegal to wair/use it.
Although I might be wrong ofcourse.

[Mannix Moya]

as you know im new to aikido.

as a martial art im lookin for it not for competitions or to show of just purely self defense as the youths generation is gettin filled with killing and crime and im 16 and want to protect myself . how effective is aikido in self defense?

the effectiveness would depend on your state of mind. i believe its the same with any other martial arts.

this is just my opinion

[Alexander Lee]

He is 16 and lives in the UK.
I don't think he can buy a gun just yet.
And even if he could get his hands on one, it would be illegal to wair/use it.
Although I might be wrong ofcourse.

You are indeed correct. It is completely illegal to possess a gun unless you have a hunting lisence or a police trained lisence.

Aikido is useful against weapons to unarmed situations. In the UK most youths on the streets are drunk, drugged up or so angry they are disorientated. Aikido I feel is an art that protects yourself from being stabbed and also makes sure that the attacker won't land up in casulty. They have enough problems already.

[dalen7]

Lets see, telling people you have pepper spray and know how to use it and telling people you have a gun and know how to use it. Which one would make people more afraid of you?

David

Ill tell you what will make people afraid of you - rub habanero peppers on the palms of your hands and then rub it on someones face - they wont mess with you again. ;)

p.s. -
I do not recommend trying this at home, as your likely to rub it on your own face - and a note, even the less spicy Hungarian peppers stay on your hands even after washing... :)

p.s.s. -
I can imagine it now: "Stay back - I have habanero hands!" :)

Peace

dAlen

[DonMagee]

He is 16 and lives in the UK.
I don't think he can buy a gun just yet.
And even if he could get his hands on one, it would be illegal to wair/use it.
Although I might be wrong ofcourse.

I've always gotten the impression you are required by law to lay down and submit in the UK.

[Andrew S]

Tom,
To put things in perspective:
I was training back before you were born. I have also never been in a situation that required physical force. Just lucky? Maybe, but I believe it's more about alertness and awareness first.
Being "switched on" allows you to recognize and avoid a threat before it becomes a situation that you have to fight your way out of. Try this: next time when you're walking home, try "tracking" the people around you. Is there someone walking behind you? How many? How far away?
Budo is one way to develop this alertness. (Training in a crowded dojo keeps you aware of bodies being thrown in your general direction;) )
There are also no real short-cuts to self defence. I can't remember how many times I have "died" doing knife defence.
However, my budo training has given me some confidence, and people can read that confidence. I remember one time when I did think I was going to have to fight my way out of a situation. I resigned myself to the idea of taking the "bad guy" down, and for some reason my body relaxed. They aggressor sensed this and backed away.

Most importantly, the question "How effective is aikido in self defence?" is far less important than "How effective is the aikidoka at self defence?

My ￥2 worth, and for free!

[Amir Krause]

I think I answered this question once:
http://aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=167460&postcount=17

In short, M.A. learning is a tool which may prove usefull in S.D. situations. Particulalrly if you learn diligently with the right teacher. In this latter case, you may find the changes to self are of greater scope and affect things in more diractions then the simple fght element of S.D. you were asking about.

Amir

[lbb]

as you know im new to aikido.

as a martial art im lookin for it not for competitions or to show of just purely self defense as the youths generation is gettin filled with killing and crime and im 16 and want to protect myself . how effective is aikido in self defense?

I know you're not going to answer this question, because no one ever does...but just how often are you called upon to defend yourself? How many of your friends have been the victim of a violent crime?

In other words, before questioning the suitability of a tool for a particular job, first make sure that's a job that you need to do.

[Keith Larman]

I know you're not going to answer this question, because no one ever does...but just how often are you called upon to defend yourself? How many of your friends have been the victim of a violent crime?

In other words, before questioning the suitability of a tool for a particular job, first make sure that's a job that you need to do.

Or as a corollary to Mary's excellent question... If you spend the next two decades training hard but never get into an altercation are you going to feel you wasted all those years? That's a lot of energy to devote to something you never use.

If so you might want to consider if there are other reasons why you might want to learn something like Aikido...

And don't get me wrong -- I think you *should* be able to defend yourself using Aikido. But I'd really suggest you should have many more reasons why you'd want to learn it in the first place...

And "yes", "just because" is also a valid reason... Which is my reason...

[phitruong]

no martial arts affective against the self. I have studied a number of martial arts. None has worked. meself is an ugly and vicious bastard who just won't give up. aikido helped with keeping the distance. :)

[gdandscompserv]

It doesn't fare well against pit bulls.

[Trish Greene]

It doesn't fare well against pit bulls.

This has GOT to be the quote of the hour....

You crack me up!

[Will Prusner]

Training Aikido is more effective than not training it. :)

[tomhill]

thank you all. i have a few things to say in response to people questions and stufff. it is illigal to own a gun in the uk but i do have a air rifle :), none of my freinds have been attacked but as you are aware if u live in britian some kid gets stabbed every other week. and i made a mistake by sayin pure self defense. i want a martial art that will teach me how to pass and over come potentiol situations without having to fight but at the same time i wud like to know aikido will help me in a fight if one should sadly ever arise

[aikidoc]

In my opinion, the martial art is only as effective as the martial artist is.

Aikido with give you conflict resolution skills, multi-attacker skills, movement skills, and joint locking skills. It will teach you how to move out of the way of a punch and to get out of holds and grabs.

Again, all these things are effective depending on the individual's skill and the situation. In a knife fight give me some kali sticks.

The training journey is long but what you learn will help.

[Daniel Ranger-Holt]

Think of self defense as a life long pursuit of collecting the necessary tools to keep yourself and loved ones safe and Aikido as one tool in a collection of tools to be used for self defense.

If you need protection immediately, I would get a gun and learn how and when to use it. Then let everyone know you got a gun and you know how to use it.

David

With respect, its this kind of talk which puts some people off of aikido. "Aikido is a lifelong persuit", "some techniques will take 20years to learn", "what is the definition of effectiveness"

It's not a hard question to answer, and i would answer Toms question as NO. If you're looking for a martial art to use purely as self defence. Aikido personally is the last one you should go for. Due to the amount of time it takes to grasp as opposed to something like Boxing, Kickboxing etc.

However if you're after something with a bit more spirituality to it, and something that will craft you over many years to become more aware to situation as well as an extra little tool in your belt if you ever do need to defend yourself, then Aikido would be good for you mate.

But i wouldnt recommend Aikido for instant basic self defence, take up something nice and simple and easy. Like one of the arts mentioned above.

[Amir Krause]

With respect, its this kind of talk which puts some people off of aikido. "Aikido is a lifelong persuit", "some techniques will take 20years to learn", "what is the definition of effectiveness"

It's not a hard question to answer, and i would answer Toms question as NO. If you're looking for a martial art to use purely as self defence. Aikido personally is the last one you should go for. Due to the amount of time it takes to grasp as opposed to something like Boxing, Kickboxing etc.

However if you're after something with a bit more spirituality to it, and something that will craft you over many years to become more aware to situation as well as an extra little tool in your belt if you ever do need to defend yourself, then Aikido would be good for you mate.

But i wouldnt recommend Aikido for instant basic self defence, take up something nice and simple and easy. Like one of the arts mentioned above.

I have a problem with such a response.
While intellectually, I agree with you, actual experiance has shown more then one student of my teacher and my friends, came to the dojo and told us of an attack he faced and repelled using the things he learned in the dojo.
I have also heard of failures, mostly attributed, byu the person himself, to his not doing something we practice.

It might be a matter of culture (Israeli people are often pro-action, so the technique might be more missing compared to the initiative\agrresive aspect) or maybe of a great teacher who has vast experiance with other M.A. too, and so really understands what he is talking about, and successfuly transmits it to his student\teachers or maybe even of Korindo Aikido being less simbolic in its techniques and closer to reality from the start.
Or possibly, the same situation exists in many other Aikido Dojo's only they do not boter to write about it.

Amir

[Shany]

I like the way my teacher has done other MA stuff (Judo, sambo..etc) it blends really well in his aikido / presence.

sometimes off mat he's a usefull source of information regarding different attacks and their responses in other MA

[Abasan]

thank you all. i have a few things to say in response to people questions and stufff. it is illigal to own a gun in the uk but i do have a air rifle :), none of my freinds have been attacked but as you are aware if u live in britian some kid gets stabbed every other week. and i made a mistake by sayin pure self defense. i want a martial art that will teach me how to pass and over come potentiol situations without having to fight but at the same time i wud like to know aikido will help me in a fight if one should sadly ever arise

Hi, I was just browsing through the threads and this one caught my eye. Its an oft repeated question and most times would have been met with pretty blatant 'I'm tired of this kinda questions type of answers'. I guess you just have some decent folks who still try to answer in a decent manner.

In my case I would like to share with you 3 different occasions that I personally went through during my time in the UK. At that point in time I was living in Manchester, and there were some pretty rough neighbourhoods there especially near old trafford where gang fights and guns are pretty much a reality (gun laws in UK not withstanding).

Anyway -
1st incident. Was waiting on a friend who just arrived from Malaysia and wanted to call his girl in London. So we went to a public phone near the pub at Old trafford. Busy road and everything but I still kept an eye out. Until he called me to check the phone ringing tone since he wasn't familiar with it. It took a second for me to go into the booth, listen to the tone and tell him its alright and then as I turned to exit, a large man tried to grab me. I didn't think or tried to do anything, but in a second I had him in a modified jujinage and I was crossing the road. I think the only thought I had at that point in time was NOT throwing him into the moving cars.
After this came the low point of the story... so I'll skip it in the interest of brevity.

2nd. I came across a group of drunks on my way to Odeon City Ctr. I think a girls boyfriend started beating her on the face. At that point in time I had 2 girls with me and there were too many to handle safely so I made a conscious choice not to get involved. Again, a low point in my life.

3rd. This time I saw a girl tussling with a man outside my apartment (near UMIST) as I was walking back home. So I shouted at them about 50m away and jogged towards them. Then I grabbed the guy and threaten to strike him. However, the girl started hitting him and I had to separate them. The man told me the girl ripped him off his wallet. and not a second later she threw his empty wallet at his face and ran off.

Moral of the story
1. keeping awareness is key to good self defence.
2. common sense is also vital. Keeping to a public place is a good idea. but in the end, no one came to help in any of the 3 incidents.
3. So you are responsible for your own safety.
4. Once you start practising seriously, you will do what is necessary to keep yourself safe. But this is true only if your practice correctly applies the principles of the art. If you keep training to master techniques only, you might not benefit entirely from your training.
5. Having practiced martial arts, you will learn your limitations. It's not a license for you to have a go at everyone. So you will learn to recognise situations that call for self defense and other times when you have to leave the place. (its not the movies. Learn the art and beat everyone else up)

Anyway, its good to see you interested in martial arts at 16. I would advice you to learn a couple of martial arts during the early period so that you get a feel of the different emphasis some arts have. That way, you will find one that is most suitable for you.

If this doesn't answer your question then try this.
Ask the aikido teacher at your place that you have concerns on self defense. Ask him if he can demonstrate how aikido can help you. Tell him you will attack him the way you think someone will attack you. If he can show you how to deal with your attacks in a manner you think is positive then go study with him. Just don't think you'll immediately get it.... that takes serious practice.

[joseft]

Think of self defense as a life long pursuit of collecting the necessary tools to keep yourself and loved ones safe and Aikido as one tool in a collection of tools to be used for self defense.

If you need protection immediately, I would get a gun and learn how and when to use it. Then let everyone know you got a gun and you know how to use it.

David
Isn't this young man 16 years old ? He would have to obtain or carry it illegal I don't know British laws .I guess a lot of factors would come into play .I don't totally disagree but maturity plays a great deal in responsibility of carrying a gun.I wish nothing but good luck to this young man.But a gun maybe opening him up for more problems.

[Michael Douglas]

1st incident. Was waiting on a friend who just arrived from Malaysia and wanted to call his girl in London. So we went to a public phone near the pub at Old trafford. Busy road and everything but I still kept an eye out. Until he called me to check the phone ringing tone since he wasn't familiar with it. It took a second for me to go into the booth, listen to the tone and tell him its alright and then as I turned to exit, a large man tried to grab me. I didn't think or tried to do anything, but in a second I had him in a modified jujinage and I was crossing the road. I think the only thought I had at that point in time was NOT throwing him into the moving cars.
After this came the low point of the story... so I'll skip it in the interest of brevity.

2nd. I came across a group of drunks on my way to Odeon City Ctr. I think a girls boyfriend started beating her on the face. At that point in time I had 2 girls with me and there were too many to handle safely so I made a conscious choice not to get involved. Again, a low point in my life.

3rd. This time I saw a girl tussling with a man outside my apartment (near UMIST) as I was walking back home. So I shouted at them about 50m away and jogged towards them. Then I grabbed the guy and threaten to strike him. However, the girl started hitting him and I had to separate them. The man told me the girl ripped him off his wallet. and not a second later she threw his empty wallet at his face and ran off.
Good stories, thanks for posting.
Ahmad, your 'moral of the story' bits don't seem to gel with your three incidents... none of which seemed (to me) to involve aikido despite the japanese technique name you give to bundling a drunk across the road. What was the low point in THAT story please ... now I'd dying to know!
I wholly approve of your incident number 2 (avoiding a drunk domestic incident) and would state that showed ABSOLUTELY CORRECT self defensive behaviour, certainly NOT a low point in my opinion. Be safe.

To Tom Hill : READ the other (all of them, there's millions) 'is aikido good for self-defence' TYPE threads, then come back and tell us your opinion.
As for training, learn boxing and jacket-wrestling (Judo is good) to become better at common unarmed violence than your potential attackers. Once you KNOW you are good at those disciplines you will be far less likely to be attacked in low-risk situations as the 'crim' can tell you're not such an easy mark.
THEN go study aikido if you want, personally I'm sure it is only valuable to students who can already grapple to a competent degree.

[eric_lecaptain]

as you know im new to aikido.

as a martial art im lookin for it not for competitions or to show of just purely self defense as the youths generation is gettin filled with killing and crime and im 16 and want to protect myself . how effective is aikido in self defense?

hey tom.

in my opinion aikido is not a self defence. if you really need to protect yourself i would go with bujutsu. here is a good page with some media for you to check out some techniques.
http://www.bujutsu.be/home.php

[Conrad Gus]

I had an interesting "effectiveness" experience on the weekend. I was at the beach with my dog and this guy got super mad at me. He was screaming and running at me trying to grab me and hit me. Every time I tried to walk away he ran at me from behind and tried to take me out. For over half an hour my dog and I walked down the beach while this clearly disturbed individual attacked me over and over again.

The funny thing was, I remained completely calm and blended with his every move. I didn't retaliate or try to hurt him, I just redirected every punch and grab. Sometimes he fell down and sometimes he just got pushed away. I never really locked any joints on him or tried to pin him, I just kept swooshing him off me by doing tai-sabaki and the occasional kokyunage.

By the time we got back to the car, he was really, really mad. I squatted down and said to him, "Let's not fight anymore. I'm second-degree black belt in aikido -- you're not going to be able to hurt me." Still red-faced but somewhat appeased, he climbed into the back seat and allowed me to strap him into his car seat. He fell asleep on the way to the bakery, but when we got there he woke up and I bought him a cookie.

It was like the whole thing never happened. Aikido is frikkin' amazing.

[gdandscompserv]

lol Conrad

[Michael Douglas]

Conrad wins a cookie!
(Watch out that guy isn't secretly bearing a grudge or you could find jam in your disc drive or lego in unlikely places)

[mwible]

I would say "yes" Aikido is an excelant tool to have for self defense. One among many though. You must also have a mind that is aware of its surrounding, and always be mindful of yourself and your own body( i.e. your breathing, stay calm, stay relaxed), always be AWARE.
But, having said that, Aikido is also an exelant way to help develop and enhance the awareness that i have just described;)

And, as for me, Aikido work's exelantly for self-defense. And i started when i was about 16 too.
But, be mindful of the school you join, check it out first. Not all Aikido schools teach Aikido. If that makes any sense.

I'm not sure if i helped any. But that is my take on the answers to your questions.:o

Feel free to ask questions!! ALWAYS!

in aiki,
morgan

[mwible]

Good stories, thanks for posting.
Ahmad, your 'moral of the story' bits don't seem to gel with your three incidents... none of which seemed (to me) to involve aikido despite the japanese technique name you give to bundling a drunk across the road. What was the low point in THAT story please ... now I'd dying to know!
I wholly approve of your incident number 2 (avoiding a drunk domestic incident) and would state that showed ABSOLUTELY CORRECT self defensive behaviour, certainly NOT a low point in my opinion. Be safe.

To Tom Hill : READ the other (all of them, there's millions) 'is aikido good for self-defence' TYPE threads, then come back and tell us your opinion.
As for training, learn boxing and jacket-wrestling (Judo is good) to become better at common unarmed violence than your potential attackers. Once you KNOW you are good at those disciplines you will be far less likely to be attacked in low-risk situations as the 'crim' can tell you're not such an easy mark.
THEN go study aikido if you want, personally I'm sure it is only valuable to students who can already grapple to a competent degree.

I'm not sure i agree with your opinon on having to have prior training in grappling arts to succeed in Aikido. I had NO prior experience in grappling, just a little TKD, and i am coming along just fine.
In my opinion all that it takes is an open mind and a willingness to learn to succeed with Aikido.

in aiki,
morgan

[Amassus]

Most importantly, the question "How effective is aikido in self defence?" is far less important than "How effective is the aikidoka at self defence?


Absolutely. It's the martial artist, not the martial art that determines how well you will do.

Living in NZ, I tell people that if they really want to protect themselves...take a defensive driving course. More people die on our roads than through other violent means.

[Abasan]

"I'm not sure i agree with your opinon on having to have prior training in grappling arts to succeed in Aikido. I had NO prior experience in grappling, just a little TKD, and i am coming along just fine.
In my opinion all that it takes is an open mind and a willingness to learn to succeed with Aikido."

Heh heh, an 'Open mind' would have imagined the usefulness to have grappling experience to add to your aikido vocabulary. Seriously though, do yourself a favour and ask a friendly bjj or judo guy to show you some stuff with grappling under dojo conditions. Ask them to take you down earnestly and pin/hold/choke/lock/submit you as they see fit. Try your hardest not to get thrown down and if they do manage to bring you down, try your hardest to get finished off. It doesn't matter whether you get through it unscathed or not, but the learning experience will open your eyes a bit.

To Michael, seriously...low point. Too embarrassed to say. :)

[tomhill]

id just like to say thank you to everyone that helped me. when i finally decided to call the aikido club i was told by them they only accept people 18+ and im 16 :confused: :( :disgust: so i looked at other similar martial arts and found another dojo were i lived for aikido went down told them wat i wanted from it saying " slef deffense and to be able to fight if needs be" and they said aikido isnt really a martial art as sush its more like yoga and tai chi, so i am now goin to join a jui jitsu club because after going to them and seeing what they can do it makes aikido look like a cat fight, jui jitsu has all the moves and teaches you how to fight and defend yourself not just slap people in there faces and twist there arm... but thank you all anyway

[Kevin Leavitt]

Yea aikido doesn't work well against slefs.

[mwible]

"I'm not sure i agree with your opinon on having to have prior training in grappling arts to succeed in Aikido. I had NO prior experience in grappling, just a little TKD, and i am coming along just fine.
In my opinion all that it takes is an open mind and a willingness to learn to succeed with Aikido."

Heh heh, an 'Open mind' would have imagined the usefulness to have grappling experience to add to your aikido vocabulary. Seriously though, do yourself a favour and ask a friendly bjj or judo guy to show you some stuff with grappling under dojo conditions. Ask them to take you down earnestly and pin/hold/choke/lock/submit you as they see fit. Try your hardest not to get thrown down and if they do manage to bring you down, try your hardest to get finished off. It doesn't matter whether you get through it unscathed or not, but the learning experience will open your eyes a bit.

To Michael, seriously...low point. Too embarrassed to say. :)

I HAVE done that, with a friend of mine who studies BJJ. I was disagreeing with the PRIOR part about it. And i stand by that, i 100% believe that even if Aikido is your first and primary Martial Art, you can most definitly succeed.

-morgan

[mwible]

id just like to say thank you to everyone that helped me. when i finally decided to call the aikido club i was told by them they only accept people 18+ and im 16 :confused: :( :disgust: so i looked at other similar martial arts and found another dojo were i lived for aikido went down told them wat i wanted from it saying " slef deffense and to be able to fight if needs be" and they said aikido isnt really a martial art as sush its more like yoga and tai chi, so i am now goin to join a jui jitsu club because after going to them and seeing what they can do it makes aikido look like a cat fight, jui jitsu has all the moves and teaches you how to fight and defend yourself not just slap people in there faces and twist there arm... but thank you all anyway

The 18+ rule is kinda of dumb. And Aikido as an equivilant to Tai Chi? pffff. There may be some similarities. But no way would it be considered to be on the same level as Yoga or Tai Chi. Not Suenaka-Ha Aikido atleast. And CERTAINLY not just an art where you slap people in the face and twist there arms. Thats a good way to get your a#% beat. But sorry about that mate. Good luck in your' Martial studies.

-morgan

[Michael Douglas]

... teaches you how to fight and defend yourself not just slap people in there faces and twist there arm... but thank you all anyway
Hey!
Don't knock Slappy-Twisty! That's my primary fu!

But just think, after two years of wriggling around you'll get to join the Aikido class.
Mind you, only allowing 18+ to join sounds like a very big PLUS for that dojo, they might be seriously good.

...After this came the low point of the story... so I'll skip it in the interest of brevity.
---
To Michael, seriously...low point. Too embarrassed to say. :)
Oh I see. It involved wee wee didn't it. :straightf

[Michael Douglas]

I'm not sure i agree with your opinon on having to have prior training in grappling arts to succeed in Aikido. I had NO prior experience in grappling, just a little TKD, and i am coming along just fine. ...
But not AS fine as your own style's founder Suenaka sensei who (surprise surprise) trained extensively in other combat disciplines ;

"Roy Yukio Suenaka Sensei, founder of Wadokai Aikido™, is one of contemporary budo's most experienced practitioners and best-kept secrets. Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Suenaka Sensei's martial instruction began under his father, Warren Kenji Suenaka, who taught his son budo basics and carefully selected his primary martial tutors. These included such legends as Okazaki-ryu Kodenkan Jiu-jitsu founder Henry Seishiro Okazaki, Kosho-ryu Kempo's legendary James Masayoshi Mitose, judoka (and later, aikidoka) Yukiso Yamamoto, and celebrated kendoka Shuji Mikami, from whom Suenaka Sensei received a nidan (2nd degree black belt).

Suenaka Sensei began his aikido study upon Koichi Tohei's 1953 visit to Hawaii, and continued his study directly under Founder Morihei Ueshiba O'Sensei at the Aikikai Hombu for eight years, beginning in 1961. That same year, Suenaka Sensei received an aikido menkyo kaiden (master-level proficiency) teaching certificate from O'Sensei, and became the first person to open a successful aikido dojo in Okinawa. He also commenced eight years of private study with renowned Matsumura Seito and Hakutsuru Shorin-ryu Karate-do Grandmaster Hohan Soken, receiving from him the rank of rokudan (6th degree black belt). In addition, Suenaka Sensei continued his judo and jiu-jitsu education at the Kodokan under famed Meijin Kazuo Ito, who personally sponsored Suenaka Sensei's promotion to sandan (3rd degree black belt) in judo and jiu-jitsu."

Tadaa! :)

[Abasan]

wow... what a wealth of knowledge. his students are real lucky.

"Roy Yukio Suenaka Sensei, founder of Wadokai Aikido™, is one of contemporary budo's most experienced practitioners and best-kept secrets. Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Suenaka Sensei's martial instruction began under his father, Warren Kenji Suenaka, who taught his son budo basics and carefully selected his primary martial tutors. These included such legends as Okazaki-ryu Kodenkan Jiu-jitsu founder Henry Seishiro Okazaki, Kosho-ryu Kempo's legendary James Masayoshi Mitose, judoka (and later, aikidoka) Yukiso Yamamoto, and celebrated kendoka Shuji Mikami, from whom Suenaka Sensei received a nidan (2nd degree black belt).

Suenaka Sensei began his aikido study upon Koichi Tohei's 1953 visit to Hawaii, and continued his study directly under Founder Morihei Ueshiba O'Sensei at the Aikikai Hombu for eight years, beginning in 1961. That same year, Suenaka Sensei received an aikido menkyo kaiden (master-level proficiency) teaching certificate from O'Sensei, and became the first person to open a successful aikido dojo in Okinawa. He also commenced eight years of private study with renowned Matsumura Seito and Hakutsuru Shorin-ryu Karate-do Grandmaster Hohan Soken, receiving from him the rank of rokudan (6th degree black belt). In addition, Suenaka Sensei continued his judo and jiu-jitsu education at the Kodokan under famed Meijin Kazuo Ito, who personally sponsored Suenaka Sensei's promotion to sandan (3rd degree black belt) in judo and jiu-jitsu."

Tadaa! :)[/QUOTE]

[Amir Krause]

But not AS fine as your own style's founder Suenaka sensei who (surprise surprise) trained extensively in other combat disciplines ;

"Roy Yukio Suenaka Sensei, founder of Wadokai Aikido™, is one of contemporary budo's most experienced practitioners and best-kept secrets. Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Suenaka Sensei's martial instruction began under his father, Warren Kenji Suenaka, who taught his son budo basics and carefully selected his primary martial tutors. These included such legends as Okazaki-ryu Kodenkan Jiu-jitsu founder Henry Seishiro Okazaki, Kosho-ryu Kempo's legendary James Masayoshi Mitose, judoka (and later, aikidoka) Yukiso Yamamoto, and celebrated kendoka Shuji Mikami, from whom Suenaka Sensei received a nidan (2nd degree black belt).

Suenaka Sensei began his aikido study upon Koichi Tohei's 1953 visit to Hawaii, and continued his study directly under Founder Morihei Ueshiba O'Sensei at the Aikikai Hombu for eight years, beginning in 1961. That same year, Suenaka Sensei received an aikido menkyo kaiden (master-level proficiency) teaching certificate from O'Sensei, and became the first person to open a successful aikido dojo in Okinawa. He also commenced eight years of private study with renowned Matsumura Seito and Hakutsuru Shorin-ryu Karate-do Grandmaster Hohan Soken, receiving from him the rank of rokudan (6th degree black belt). In addition, Suenaka Sensei continued his judo and jiu-jitsu education at the Kodokan under famed Meijin Kazuo Ito, who personally sponsored Suenaka Sensei's promotion to sandan (3rd degree black belt) in judo and jiu-jitsu."

Tadaa! :)

As I study with a teacher who also practices other M.A. (judo and Krate). I can see his experiance in other M.A. affects his teaching, and so I wonder, can I stand on the shoulder of a giant or must I try to emulate his steps?

I guess part of the reason Morgan Wible does not feel a need to learn other M.A. is he has taste and ideas from them already in his teachers regular lessons. I know this is the situation in our Dojo, we do not mix M.A. but my sensei often gives examples from other M.A. and we practive against Karate style attacks on a regular basis ...

So I wonder, can the teacher experinace affect the requisites of the students, and up to when?

(In fact, my Sensei incourages us to learn additional M.A. and In took a year of Karate with him on my 3rd year of studying Aikid, which turend out to be too soon for me. Years later, I practiced TKD combined with scenario S.D. with another teacher, in parrallel to the Aikido, only to find my basic approach to the scenarios was much more sophisticated and influenced by strategy compared to other students who did not have similar experince tom and were beginners or just practiced with the TKD teacher).

Amir

[mwible]

But not AS fine as your own style's founder Suenaka sensei who (surprise surprise) trained extensively in other combat disciplines ;

"Roy Yukio Suenaka Sensei, founder of Wadokai Aikido™, is one of contemporary budo's most experienced practitioners and best-kept secrets. Born in Honolulu, Hawaii, Suenaka Sensei's martial instruction began under his father, Warren Kenji Suenaka, who taught his son budo basics and carefully selected his primary martial tutors. These included such legends as Okazaki-ryu Kodenkan Jiu-jitsu founder Henry Seishiro Okazaki, Kosho-ryu Kempo's legendary James Masayoshi Mitose, judoka (and later, aikidoka) Yukiso Yamamoto, and celebrated kendoka Shuji Mikami, from whom Suenaka Sensei received a nidan (2nd degree black belt).

Suenaka Sensei began his aikido study upon Koichi Tohei's 1953 visit to Hawaii, and continued his study directly under Founder Morihei Ueshiba O'Sensei at the Aikikai Hombu for eight years, beginning in 1961. That same year, Suenaka Sensei received an aikido menkyo kaiden (master-level proficiency) teaching certificate from O'Sensei, and became the first person to open a successful aikido dojo in Okinawa. He also commenced eight years of private study with renowned Matsumura Seito and Hakutsuru Shorin-ryu Karate-do Grandmaster Hohan Soken, receiving from him the rank of rokudan (6th degree black belt). In addition, Suenaka Sensei continued his judo and jiu-jitsu education at the Kodokan under famed Meijin Kazuo Ito, who personally sponsored Suenaka Sensei's promotion to sandan (3rd degree black belt) in judo and jiu-jitsu."

Tadaa! :)

Thank you, i have read his book twice. I DID know all that, but that still doesnt make me change my mind about HAVING to have prior grappling training to succeed in Aikido.

Also, Suenaka Sensei has since recieved his 8th Dan in Hakutsuru Shorin-ryu Karate-do. AND and 8th dan in Aikido.

-morgan

[scandibilly]

This post will seem like trolling, or a blatant insult to Aikido people, or what-have-you, but in honesty it isn't. Let me provide some background.

I love the 'idea' of Aikido. I walk past a lovely dojo full of competent instructors (http://aikidoofmadison.com/) a few times every week, and I've wanted to join for a while now, but time and money have been an issue. As many of you know, it takes a long time to progress from level to level in Aikido, even with dedication and regular training, and that's good for a martial art.

I'm facing a dilemma, however, and that dilemma is that it is really hard to have faith in the techniques. In the situations where they are applied, it is obviously effective. Outside of the dojo, it starts to appear much less effective. This is probably something that's been mentioned around here before (in a few forums posts at least).

Many of the renowned Aikido guys do demonstrations, and what I see time and again is that their demo guys attack in unrealistic ways and in multiple vids perform the exact same attacks, often in the same sequence. Some examples:

Christian Tissier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXG57rOTE8I

More than half the "attacks" in this vid are like silly old spy movie "judo chops". No one ever gets attacked with a judo chop. Ever. No one ever has someone half-run at them with an open palm outstretched. Like Bas Rutten said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k_uumIQ1uk
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k_uumIQ1uk)
Steven Seagal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=herSynqVN3M

I like that Steven Seagal's stuff is usually faster, ergo much more like a real confrontation, but the attacks are still unrealistic and I notice in that almost all of his old demo vids he's demonstrating with the same guys -- guys who know the choreography of the demonstration and who have been with Seagal for at least a couple years.

So in a more realistic situation that isn't merely a demo, how does pure aikido stack up?

Here an MMA fighter doesn't do much to take the aikido master out of the fight:
http://fr.truveo.com/Aikido-vs-MMA/id/3792273418

Here's what I often see in "aikido vs whatever". The aikido guy begins with aikido moves, but then falls into kicks and punches like the taekwondo/karate/muai thai guy. (This happened a teeny bit in the previous vid) In this one, the half-arm man wins, but aikido is only part of it -- and his oppenent isn't all that good.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLqovX4G8Z0
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwt9_G6VcME (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwt9_G6VcME)

Now, people might point to some MMA guy like Royce Gracie ( http://fr.truveo.com/aikido-vs-free-fight/id/3332018667 ) and say, "Ah-ha! Aikido guy!" But, he's not really using anything you regularly see in a dojo. If anything, most of what he does is the same stuff wrestlers do, plus punches.

There are many demonstration vids showing how aikido is effective against kickboxing/karate/etc. but the only time it appears to have an advantage is in demonstration of how good it is, not real combat. This match is the exception (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLmQ-Tci3bk) but does not appear to be the Aikido taught at my local dojo.

Here's a quote from "callsignfuzzy" from an online conversation (which I wasn't a part of) regarding the effectiveness of Aikido and Hapkido:

"I don't think either are ineffective. In fact, two of the people I respect the most in martial arts have an Aikido background. Of course they both cross-train, have hazardous jobs (bouncer and troubled-teen manager), and both look at "flower-child" aikidoka as being unrealistic. I think the difference between these folks and a lot of aikidoka is that they have been in real, physical danger and train their technique appropriately. If you look at how the majority of Aikido, Hapkido, and similar systems are trained, you'll notice a lot of unrealistic training. There's a lot of, "grab my wrist and hold on for dear life, no matter what I do" kind of training. Fun fact: adult males are hardly ever subject to wrist grabs. Think about it. When was the last time you saw two guys squaring off in a bar fight, and one of them grabs the other's wrist? I've never seen it happen. I've asked an aikido forum what techniques they found the most useful, and despite the wealth of locks and throws, they only mentioned a handful of techniques."

I know there are techniques to counter kicks or punches, but some have proven to be completely useless in real combat. The rest don't appear to be used very often to any great degree of success. There are different flavors of Aikido, and, yes, some are "harder" and more competitive, but to say one flavor of Aikido would work here and maybe this one would work there kind of dismisses those other kinds of Aikido to wu-shu status, and where does that assessment leave the practitioners of those styles?

Before the dozens of "well why don't you come to our dojo and find out on the mat" comments, all I want is for someone out there to show me more than a couple real examples of where Aikido seriously shows its mettle and merit as an effective defensive art -- because I want to respect it and even participate, given the opportunity, if it's more than hype. I've looked all over (notice the diversity of websites I've posted here), yet can't find anything showing Aikido lives up to its hype. I thought the Aikido community would be better able to provide some evidence if it exists. Also, as a side note and provided there's some evidence of Aikido's effectiveness as a martial art, how does the community feel about the style taught at my local dojo (http://aikidoofmadison.com/) ?

Thanks!

[Phil Van Treese]

As I have said before, train as though your life depends on it. What you put into Aikido is what you will get out of it, or any martial art. Does Aikido work? For me, you bet. I was in Viet Nam, Desert Storm and Mogadishu, Somalia on the Blackhawk Down Rescue mission and I actually did use aikido, and judo, to my defense. Wasn't a good thing that I had to do but that's why I am here.

[scandibilly]

You used Aikido in Viet Nam, Desert Strom and Blackhawk Down...

[scandibilly]

Okay, so to be more specific, what I'm looking for is some evidence that isn't purely (and fantastically) anecdotal. Even videos of situations where Aikido may not defeat another martial art or a brawler, but at least holds its own for a long time.

[Ketsan]

This post will seem like trolling, or a blatant insult to Aikido people, or what-have-you, but in honesty it isn't. Let me provide some background.

I love the 'idea' of Aikido. I walk past a lovely dojo full of competent instructors (http://aikidoofmadison.com/) a few times every week, and I've wanted to join for a while now, but time and money have been an issue. As many of you know, it takes a long time to progress from level to level in Aikido, even with dedication and regular training, and that's good for a martial art.

I'm facing a dilemma, however, and that dilemma is that it is really hard to have faith in the techniques. In the situations where they are applied, it is obviously effective. Outside of the dojo, it starts to appear much less effective. This is probably something that's been mentioned around here before (in a few forums posts at least).

Many of the renowned Aikido guys do demonstrations, and what I see time and again is that their demo guys attack in unrealistic ways and in multiple vids perform the exact same attacks, often in the same sequence. Some examples:

Christian Tissier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXG57rOTE8I

More than half the "attacks" in this vid are like silly old spy movie "judo chops". No one ever gets attacked with a judo chop. Ever. No one ever has someone half-run at them with an open palm outstretched. Like Bas Rutten said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k_uumIQ1uk
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k_uumIQ1uk)
Steven Seagal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=herSynqVN3M

I like that Steven Seagal's stuff is usually faster, ergo much more like a real confrontation, but the attacks are still unrealistic and I notice in that almost all of his old demo vids he's demonstrating with the same guys -- guys who know the choreography of the demonstration and who have been with Seagal for at least a couple years.

So in a more realistic situation that isn't merely a demo, how does pure aikido stack up?

Here an MMA fighter doesn't do much to take the aikido master out of the fight:
http://fr.truveo.com/Aikido-vs-MMA/id/3792273418

Here's what I often see in "aikido vs whatever". The aikido guy begins with aikido moves, but then falls into kicks and punches like the taekwondo/karate/muai thai guy. (This happened a teeny bit in the previous vid) In this one, the half-arm man wins, but aikido is only part of it -- and his oppenent isn't all that good.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLqovX4G8Z0
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwt9_G6VcME (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwt9_G6VcME)

Now, people might point to some MMA guy like Royce Gracie ( http://fr.truveo.com/aikido-vs-free-fight/id/3332018667 ) and say, "Ah-ha! Aikido guy!" But, he's not really using anything you regularly see in a dojo. If anything, most of what he does is the same stuff wrestlers do, plus punches.

There are many demonstration vids showing how aikido is effective against kickboxing/karate/etc. but the only time it appears to have an advantage is in demonstration of how good it is, not real combat. This match is the exception (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLmQ-Tci3bk) but does not appear to be the Aikido taught at my local dojo.

Here's a quote from "callsignfuzzy" from an online conversation (which I wasn't a part of) regarding the effectiveness of Aikido and Hapkido:

"I don't think either are ineffective. In fact, two of the people I respect the most in martial arts have an Aikido background. Of course they both cross-train, have hazardous jobs (bouncer and troubled-teen manager), and both look at "flower-child" aikidoka as being unrealistic. I think the difference between these folks and a lot of aikidoka is that they have been in real, physical danger and train their technique appropriately. If you look at how the majority of Aikido, Hapkido, and similar systems are trained, you'll notice a lot of unrealistic training. There's a lot of, "grab my wrist and hold on for dear life, no matter what I do" kind of training. Fun fact: adult males are hardly ever subject to wrist grabs. Think about it. When was the last time you saw two guys squaring off in a bar fight, and one of them grabs the other's wrist? I've never seen it happen. I've asked an aikido forum what techniques they found the most useful, and despite the wealth of locks and throws, they only mentioned a handful of techniques."

I know there are techniques to counter kicks or punches, but some have proven to be completely useless in real combat. The rest don't appear to be used very often to any great degree of success. There are different flavors of Aikido, and, yes, some are "harder" and more competitive, but to say one flavor of Aikido would work here and maybe this one would work there kind of dismisses those other kinds of Aikido to wu-shu status, and where does that assessment leave the practitioners of those styles?

Before the dozens of "well why don't you come to our dojo and find out on the mat" comments, all I want is for someone out there to show me more than a couple real examples of where Aikido seriously shows its mettle and merit as an effective defensive art -- because I want to respect it and even participate, given the opportunity, if it's more than hype. I've looked all over (notice the diversity of websites I've posted here), yet can't find anything showing Aikido lives up to its hype. I thought the Aikido community would be better able to provide some evidence if it exists. Also, as a side note and provided there's some evidence of Aikido's effectiveness as a martial art, how does the community feel about the style taught at my local dojo (http://aikidoofmadison.com/) ?

Thanks!

There are no techniques. There are no "realistic" attacks. You get attacked how you get attacked. That's why the attacks in Aikido are how they are. You can't say "That's not a realistic attack" half way though a fight, you have to deal with what you're given.

That being the case, keeping the attacks you train from generic makes more sense than training against a narrow range of highly specialised attacks that are deemed to be "realistic" even if it's statisically unlikely to come across someone trained enough to make them common attacks.

Fact is if you want evidence of an effective art you need to see it on the street where anything is possible and you need to see it over many different situations. You have to consider the test before you talk about the effectiveness as an art and there are many different tests.
There's one on one, there's four man attack, with weapons, without weapons.

[Ketsan]

Okay, so to be more specific, what I'm looking for is some evidence that isn't purely (and fantastically) anecdotal. Even videos of situations where Aikido may not defeat another martial art or a brawler, but at least holds its own for a long time.

You wont find that kind of evidence about any art. Fights are usually over in less than a minute. Even in a world where everyone carries a video camera no-one could get it out quick enough to record the fight.

[JO]

Ryan. First of all, your first example of aikido vs mma isn't an aikido guy (don't believe the titles of online clips, I've seen an aikido instructor throwing his student in a dem labled as Aikido vs jiujitsu, just because the student wasn't wearing a hakama). Second, the minute you start fighting, you are no longer doing aikido. You might use skills learnt in aikido, but aikido it is not. I will regularly put more resistance in my training and this can rapidly break down into a low level grappling match. I learn useful things from this. One is that I can feel the difference in how I think, feel and move, right down to the center of my bones, when I switch from aikido to fighting (even though it is just friendly playfighting). The change would be even greater if I were to give in to aggressiveness.

[Ruairidh]

the thing is i cant seem to get into the mental state of mind to use aikido in a fightim only a yelow belt but i can block things i just cant remember to use it when a punch is coming.

can you help me?

[Dan Richards]

Hi Ruairidh,

Well, you could continue to be insecure and freaked out, and get into fights.

Or you might come back in a few years when you have enough training under your belt that you can actually begin to apply it, and let us know how it's going.

Funny thing happens, though; As your aikido begins to get "ki" into your bones - because aikido means "your relationship with god." - you'll find that your level of consciousness will change. And you'll stop getting into situations where there is what you're calling a "fight."

In this "mental state of mind" that you can't seem to find - there is no fight.

In this "mental state of mind" that you can't seem to find - there are no blocks.

In this "mental state of mind" that you can't seem to find - there is no opponent. And if there is a shred of an opponent left - you only have to look in the mirror to find them.

In this "mental state of mind" that you can't seem to find - you have already won.

If you want to actually learn aikido, I'd suggest getting yourself back in the dojo, and train with qualified instructors. Read as much aikido material as you can get your hands on.
http://www.kinokawa.org/aikido/founder.phtml

And, maybe just be respectful, and do to others what you want them to do to you.

You can take the blue pill, pick up a few "tricks," and get back out on the streets and try your luck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_fighting

Or you can take the red pill, and really learn the art. and see how deep the rabbiit hole goes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redpill

Hope that helps. : )

[philippe willaume]

This post will seem like trolling, or a blatant insult to Aikido people, or what-have-you, but in honesty it isn't. Let me provide some background.

I love the 'idea' of Aikido. I walk past a lovely dojo full of competent instructors (http://aikidoofmadison.com/) a few times every week, and I've wanted to join for a while now, but time and money have been an issue. As many of you know, it takes a long time to progress from level to level in Aikido, even with dedication and regular training, and that's good for a martial art.

I'm facing a dilemma, however, and that dilemma is that it is really hard to have faith in the techniques. In the situations where they are applied, it is obviously effective. Outside of the dojo, it starts to appear much less effective. This is probably something that's been mentioned around here before (in a few forums posts at least).

Many of the renowned Aikido guys do demonstrations, and what I see time and again is that their demo guys attack in unrealistic ways and in multiple vids perform the exact same attacks, often in the same sequence. Some examples:

Christian Tissier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXG57rOTE8I

More than half the "attacks" in this vid are like silly old spy movie "judo chops". No one ever gets attacked with a judo chop. Ever. No one ever has someone half-run at them with an open palm outstretched. Like Bas Rutten said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k_uumIQ1uk
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k_uumIQ1uk)
Steven Seagal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=herSynqVN3M

I like that Steven Seagal's stuff is usually faster, ergo much more like a real confrontation, but the attacks are still unrealistic and I notice in that almost all of his old demo vids he's demonstrating with the same guys -- guys who know the choreography of the demonstration and who have been with Seagal for at least a couple years.

So in a more realistic situation that isn't merely a demo, how does pure aikido stack up?

Here an MMA fighter doesn't do much to take the aikido master out of the fight:
http://fr.truveo.com/Aikido-vs-MMA/id/3792273418

Here's what I often see in "aikido vs whatever". The aikido guy begins with aikido moves, but then falls into kicks and punches like the taekwondo/karate/muai thai guy. (This happened a teeny bit in the previous vid) In this one, the half-arm man wins, but aikido is only part of it -- and his oppenent isn't all that good.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLqovX4G8Z0
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwt9_G6VcME (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwt9_G6VcME)

Now, people might point to some MMA guy like Royce Gracie ( http://fr.truveo.com/aikido-vs-free-fight/id/3332018667 ) and say, "Ah-ha! Aikido guy!" But, he's not really using anything you regularly see in a dojo. If anything, most of what he does is the same stuff wrestlers do, plus punches.

There are many demonstration vids showing how aikido is effective against kickboxing/karate/etc. but the only time it appears to have an advantage is in demonstration of how good it is, not real combat. This match is the exception (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLmQ-Tci3bk) but does not appear to be the Aikido taught at my local dojo.

Here's a quote from "callsignfuzzy" from an online conversation (which I wasn't a part of) regarding the effectiveness of Aikido and Hapkido:

"I don't think either are ineffective. In fact, two of the people I respect the most in martial arts have an Aikido background. Of course they both cross-train, have hazardous jobs (bouncer and troubled-teen manager), and both look at "flower-child" aikidoka as being unrealistic. I think the difference between these folks and a lot of aikidoka is that they have been in real, physical danger and train their technique appropriately. If you look at how the majority of Aikido, Hapkido, and similar systems are trained, you'll notice a lot of unrealistic training. There's a lot of, "grab my wrist and hold on for dear life, no matter what I do" kind of training. Fun fact: adult males are hardly ever subject to wrist grabs. Think about it. When was the last time you saw two guys squaring off in a bar fight, and one of them grabs the other's wrist? I've never seen it happen. I've asked an aikido forum what techniques they found the most useful, and despite the wealth of locks and throws, they only mentioned a handful of techniques."

I know there are techniques to counter kicks or punches, but some have proven to be completely useless in real combat. The rest don't appear to be used very often to any great degree of success. There are different flavors of Aikido, and, yes, some are "harder" and more competitive, but to say one flavor of Aikido would work here and maybe this one would work there kind of dismisses those other kinds of Aikido to wu-shu status, and where does that assessment leave the practitioners of those styles?

Before the dozens of "well why don't you come to our dojo and find out on the mat" comments, all I want is for someone out there to show me more than a couple real examples of where Aikido seriously shows its mettle and merit as an effective defensive art -- because I want to respect it and even participate, given the opportunity, if it's more than hype. I've looked all over (notice the diversity of websites I've posted here), yet can't find anything showing Aikido lives up to its hype. I thought the Aikido community would be better able to provide some evidence if it exists. Also, as a side note and provided there's some evidence of Aikido's effectiveness as a martial art, how does the community feel about the style taught at my local dojo (http://aikidoofmadison.com/) ?

Thanks!
Don’t take my answer as a wind up but most of us here have lived long enough to see a complete iteration of that cyclical argument.
No on never attack with <attack of you choice> is utter rubbish. You have been sold that same old cock flavoured lolly pop, that the oldest of us have been sold 20 years ago.
The only difference between you and me is that you have a more modern wrapper than the one I bought

Since the early 80 I have heard buckets loads of people telling me what a real fight is.
That bloody 1v1versus the street for hand to hand is just “the real way to fight with a knife” re-cooked and served with a different sauce.
For some the only way was to prison shank you for the other the only way to use a knife was to use it like a one handed sword.
It is glaringly obvious that you do not have any influence on what the geezer is going to do and hence that you should be able to deal with both.

Now replace prison shank you with rush or ambush and use it like a sword by fighting like any combat sport. You will find that it is equally daft to expect your opponent to square up with you or to ambush you in dark alley with two of his mates, all on meths with an AK47 in one hand and a machete in the other.

10-15 years ago, the fact that 1v1 martial artist where unable to deal with “real life situation” created the SD craze.
The “new approach” that we see now is that we need to compete to make sure we can use our skill when it matters is directly responsible for all the sport version of martial arts, Modern fencing included.

You can spin it anyway you want 1v1 is designed for the combination of the best athlete and technique to prevail. So the starting situation is equal for each fighter, can not be manipulated, and both fighter are aware of each other and that they will fight.
Yes you will have fighter that will try to rush you and or pressure fight you but equally you have strategy and tactic you can use against then.
All that because you are aware of your opponent and his intentions, as well the distance and the position you fight from is designed to give you that latitude.
In other words, you do not have any other option but establish dominant position after the actual fight started.
Amazingly, combat sports are the best practice for that type of situation

On the other hand you have the warrior class of old or modern thug approach which is advocated that you really need to manipulate the environment to achieve dominant position before you start fighting.
That usually includes weapons, surprise, deception and numbers.

There is no denying that some aikido schools are more turned toward the spiritual development and that the training methods of aikido are not really up to date, but some other are quite adapted to that deal with the later type of attacker.

Phil

[philippe willaume]

the thing is i cant seem to get into the mental state of mind to use aikido in a fightim only a yelow belt but i can block things i just cant remember to use it when a punch is coming.

can you help me?
Hello
From what I read you seem to be bothered about being hit.
You can be decked by one kick, elbow knee or punch if it land at the right place and you have not seen it coming but by far it does not happen on every punches.
I think you just need to get use to punching and get punched.

Take up boxing/MT/KB on top of aikido, or do boxing exercise with a friend.
You can use good old Mendoza with a heavy bag and head gear.
It is quite old but will serve the purpose. (http://www.sirwilliamhope.org/Library/Mendoza)
Phil

[lbb]

I think you just need to get use to punching and get punched.


Or maybe reconsider the need to constantly be in fights.

[philippe willaume]

Or maybe reconsider the need to constantly be in fights.

well it is not because I read the kama sutra that I plan to be a gigolo.;)

phil

[DonMagee]

Don’t take my answer as a wind up but most of us here have lived long enough to see a complete iteration of that cyclical argument.
No on never attack with <attack of you choice> is utter rubbish. You have been sold that same old cock flavoured lolly pop, that the oldest of us have been sold 20 years ago.
The only difference between you and me is that you have a more modern wrapper than the one I bought

Since the early 80 I have heard buckets loads of people telling me what a real fight is.
That bloody 1v1versus the street for hand to hand is just “the real way to fight with a knife” re-cooked and served with a different sauce.
For some the only way was to prison shank you for the other the only way to use a knife was to use it like a one handed sword.
It is glaringly obvious that you do not have any influence on what the geezer is going to do and hence that you should be able to deal with both.

Now replace prison shank you with rush or ambush and use it like a sword by fighting like any combat sport. You will find that it is equally daft to expect your opponent to square up with you or to ambush you in dark alley with two of his mates, all on meths with an AK47 in one hand and a machete in the other.

10-15 years ago, the fact that 1v1 martial artist where unable to deal with “real life situation” created the SD craze.
The “new approach” that we see now is that we need to compete to make sure we can use our skill when it matters is directly responsible for all the sport version of martial arts, Modern fencing included.

You can spin it anyway you want 1v1 is designed for the combination of the best athlete and technique to prevail. So the starting situation is equal for each fighter, can not be manipulated, and both fighter are aware of each other and that they will fight.
Yes you will have fighter that will try to rush you and or pressure fight you but equally you have strategy and tactic you can use against then.
All that because you are aware of your opponent and his intentions, as well the distance and the position you fight from is designed to give you that latitude.
In other words, you do not have any other option but establish dominant position after the actual fight started.
Amazingly, combat sports are the best practice for that type of situation

On the other hand you have the warrior class of old or modern thug approach which is advocated that you really need to manipulate the environment to achieve dominant position before you start fighting.
That usually includes weapons, surprise, deception and numbers.

There is no denying that some aikido schools are more turned toward the spiritual development and that the training methods of aikido are not really up to date, but some other are quite adapted to that deal with the later type of attacker.

Phil

Honestly, the more I train the simpler self defense gets. My current take is that people who develop the work ethic of high school wrestlers, boxers, Olympic lifting, or any other kind of explosive energy training are probably better suited to win fights then the majority of bjj players, aikido players, or karate masters.

I see guys come into the gym with a few years of competitive judo or wrestling and they are just amazing. The same with soldiers straight out of the service. Sure they don't have the hand to hand skills and if you weather the storm you will win with superior technique. But fights in a self defense context don't require skill or technique and rarely have either. It's pure heart in my opinion. Most of us simply do not have it.

Watching this season of TUF made me think about that. One of the fighters loses at least 4 of his teeth. A few days later he is asked if he will take another fight. He tells them "Sure, it's just teeth.". I had a tooth pulled once. I was hold up for 2 days in bed in horrible pain. A punch in my face would of dropped me in a pool of tears. This guy has heart I can never have. I'd bet on him in a life or death situation then most black belts I know or even myself. I can never be that guy.

So the question becomes, can you train heart?

[Ron Tisdale]

What's more, his opponent was an easy favorite. But his opponent didn't have enough heart to come out for the final round. He probably could have won the fight in that 3rd round. But he couldn't get off his @$$ long enough to do it.

And yes, I do believe you can train it, if the person has the right motivation. But it ain't easy.

Best,
Ron

[Ketsan]

So the question becomes, can you train heart?

Yes, if you have the right experiences you will develop heart. I don't think it's easy though. I'm not sure that it's for everyone either. Most people are in martial arts to learn to beat someone else up, not learn how to take a beating.

Can you imagine saying to a prospective student "Well the first part of the training involves getting hit until you get used to it, then we'll teach you how not to get hit?"

[Kevin Leavitt]

It is important to get hit and learn to weather the storm. There is nothing like being overwhelmed by an opponent and curling into the fetal position to show you what you lack.

Sorry, but if you are serious about self defense and working on actual fighting skills, then this is something that you must do.

[philippe willaume]

Honestly, the more I train the simpler self defense gets. My current take is that people who develop the work ethic of high school wrestlers, boxers, Olympic lifting, or any other kind of explosive energy training are probably better suited to win fights then the majority of bjj players, aikido players, or karate masters.

I see guys come into the gym with a few years of competitive judo or wrestling and they are just amazing. The same with soldiers straight out of the service. Sure they don't have the hand to hand skills and if you weather the storm you will win with superior technique. But fights in a self defense context don't require skill or technique and rarely have either. It's pure heart in my opinion. Most of us simply do not have it.

Watching this season of TUF made me think about that. One of the fighters loses at least 4 of his teeth. A few days later he is asked if he will take another fight. He tells them "Sure, it's just teeth.". I had a tooth pulled once. I was hold up for 2 days in bed in horrible pain. A punch in my face would of dropped me in a pool of tears. This guy has heart I can never have. I'd bet on him in a life or death situation then most black belts I know or even myself. I can never be that guy.

So the question becomes, can you train heart?
Hello ron

Would not you say that one purpose of training is to give you heart. For me that is all the point of aliveness and resistance training.

If I ask you to jump a 2.00 m wall on a horse and you never ridden before, you will be scared and rightly so, after a few years of training it will be just a jump. as you said the more you train the simpler it gets.

There is no denying that 1v1 professional fighter are great athlete, just as it is obvious that whatever the competitive combat sport you are doing, it is the sum of the best particle for the activity and the rule set.
And that athleticism and the competition put you in good stead in SD.
However it is important to realise and understand the implication of that there is a different set of rule between SD and competitive fighting.

To be honest in Europe and in northern America, you average “civilian” SD customer is not, in all likeliness, going to be very skilled. So it is quite easy to build a an advantage in the skill set and competitive fighting definitely puts you there.

That being said training in jousting is not going to make me good in cattle roping, like 1v1 and SD there is a vast amount of transferable skills however what makes you a good jouster or cattle handler is not so much the skill set, it is your ability to recognise a situation and rea-act to it and you can only get that from training specifically for jousting and training specifically in cattle roping.

As kev mentioned, body conditioning should really be an important part of SD.

Phil

[DonMagee]

Hello ron

Would not you say that one purpose of training is to give you heart. For me that is all the point of aliveness and resistance training.

If I ask you to jump a 2.00 m wall on a horse and you never ridden before, you will be scared and rightly so, after a few years of training it will be just a jump. as you said the more you train the simpler it gets.

There is no denying that 1v1 professional fighter are great athlete, just as it is obvious that whatever the competitive combat sport you are doing, it is the sum of the best particle for the activity and the rule set.
And that athleticism and the competition put you in good stead in SD.
However it is important to realise and understand the implication of that there is a different set of rule between SD and competitive fighting.

To be honest in Europe and in northern America, you average "civilian" SD customer is not, in all likeliness, going to be very skilled. So it is quite easy to build a an advantage in the skill set and competitive fighting definitely puts you there.

That being said training in jousting is not going to make me good in cattle roping, like 1v1 and SD there is a vast amount of transferable skills however what makes you a good jouster or cattle handler is not so much the skill set, it is your ability to recognise a situation and rea-act to it and you can only get that from training specifically for jousting and training specifically in cattle roping.

As kev mentioned, body conditioning should really be an important part of SD.

Phil

I understand that you can get a little tougher from training. My judo/bjj training has probably doubled my pain tolerance. But I don't consider that heart. I think heart is way above that. Yes, if you want to give me some bruises, bloody up my nose, crossface my lips to a mess, break some fingers or toes I'm fine with that. It comes with the sport. I've had and pushed though the sports injuries, the injured shoulders, the twisted fingers, broken ribs, etc. I just don't think anything I've learned in any martial art be it bjj, aikido, tkd, krav maga, judo, mauy thai, etc has taught me how to deal with a real injury. Losing teeth for example, or an eye, or breaking an arm.

I've only had one life changing injury in martial arts. That was when I broke my ankle in judo. I didn't have the heart to even try to keep fighting that match. I instead hit the ground, curled up and screamed like a little girl until the pain subsided. Not really a useful talent.

[Ron Tisdale]

Hey Don, but there was a time when some of those other injuries might have stopped you. So really, you have trained your heart to deal with that level of injury and pain.

Now, you could let me take a bokken to your ankle to see if you can keep fighting afterward....and then we'll know... :D

But I think I'd better have something more than a bokken handy...just in case your heart has grown... :eek: That, or a REALLY good pair of track shoes...

Best,
Ron

[Kevin Leavitt]

Having heart means having the desire and drive to WANT to stay on the mat....that is, NOT making excuses for staying off the mat.

IMO, it is possible to have injuries that keep you off the mat, but the desire can still be in your heart to be on the mat.

Usually if you have heart you find a way to stay on the mat no matter what, but sometimes you just have to stop.

As one of my Ranger Instructors used to say "Ranger, it is important to know the difference between Hooah and Stupid!".

I have lived by this motto for many years!

[franklaubach]

How effective is aikido in self defense?

one time i saw this club bouncer break the arm (kote gaeshi) of a drunk who took a swing at him. the bouncer has aikido background.

way back in school some dudes were fooling around till it got heated up pushin,yelling. the mma guy dove at the aikido guy- down, mounted him and beat him up.

there are some on youtube, but can't figure if they're for real.

[Abasan]

How effective is aikido in self defense?

one time i saw this club bouncer break the arm (kote gaeshi) of a drunk who took a swing at him. the bouncer has aikido background.

way back in school some dudes were fooling around till it got heated up pushin,yelling. the mma guy dove at the aikido guy- down, mounted him and beat him up.

there are some on youtube, but can't figure if they're for real.

So the answer is, its only as effective as you are.

[pilgrim3970]

as you know im new to aikido. as a martial art im lookin for it not for competitions or to show of just purely self defense as the youths generation is gettin filled with killing and crime and im 16 and want to protect myself . how effective is aikido in self defense?

This is my first post and there is much I could say about this so I'll try to keep it brief.

Because my family moved around through my childhood and all the way up into my teens (including the last year I was in school) I was always the new guy. This meant that I was able to provide the local bullies with a diversion from the boredom of beating up the usual people.

So I talked my parents into letting me take Goju Ryu Karate lessons. As an adult I would eventually go on to study Kempo, Jujutsu, Aikido, Wing Chun Kung Fu, as well as various seminars on different systems.

However along the way to learning how to fight, I discovered I did not have to. This is because I had gained the self-esteem and confidence to avoid confrontation altogether.

In Aikido, dealing with an attack happens before the first punch is thrown. It means being aware of your surroundings - if you know there is a situation where violence is likely to occur, avoid it. If it does flair up don't let fear and pride keep you from being humble enough to walk away.

But sometimes you will not be unable to walk away because the other person is determined to do you harm. In that case Aikido can be effective - provided your training deals with things in a realistic manner. I have faced only one actual surprise attack from a mugger in a dark parking lot and Aikido served me well.

In case you are wondering what cool techniques I used, it was tenkan. The guy walked up behind me as I was walking between two cars, I spun around to face him (caught his movement out of the corer of my eye as I was turning towards my car.) and it startled him enough that he flinched and dropped the pipe in his hand. I guess he didn't know what else to do from there so he took off running. That was the best Aikido I've ever done. :ki:

My $.02.

[Ron Tisdale]

:D

Nice example. Glad he dropped the pipe (although over head pipe attacks are made for aikido).

Best,
Ron

[scandibilly]

Re: Everyone who responded to my lengthy post on page 2 of this forum.

I think the majority opinion from the forum is that there are no "realistic" training scenarios, and that's true, but some are better training for the real thing than others. Doing CPR on a dummy in your EMT class may not be the real thing, but it's better training than doing it on a pillow or pretending you're doing it on a person.

From what I wrote, there was this response by Alex Lawrence:
There are no techniques. There are no "realistic" attacks. You get attacked how you get attacked. That's why the attacks in Aikido are how they are. You can't say "That's not a realistic attack" half way though a fight, you have to deal with what you're given.

That being the case, keeping the attacks you train from generic makes more sense than training against a narrow range of highly specialised attacks that are deemed to be "realistic" even if it's statisically unlikely to come across someone trained enough to make them common attacks.

Still, repeatedly training for the off-balance, half-speed open hand "judo chop" at your chest or shoulder seems a little less than generic -- besides, following the Aikido philosophy anyone actually attacking you like that probably shouldn't be met with a throwing technique because they obviously don't pose much of a threat. That being said, many people suggest that Aikido serves as good cross-training for the martial arts. Also, I think Philippe Willaume interpreted my original post too narrowly, and to his comments on realism in training I refer again to the CPR/EMT metaphor. I wasn't asking for absolutist evidence, rather suggestive evidence other than anecdotes. This sort of evidence is readily found for martial arts such as muay thai, some styles of karate, tae kwon do, and krav manga, and among some mixed martial arts geared specifically for "street" situations. Notice I said "some" and "some styles".

So, what does the forum think of the "Cross Training in the Martial Arts" series, such as "The Anatomy of Combat" and "The Anatomy of Hand Strikes"? The insight of the karate guy from "Hand Strikes" is very interesting, as he comments on the differences between effective origins and contemporary form training. From an Aikido perspective, what are your interpretations and thoughts?

(If you haven't seen them, they are available via a torrent tracker such as Demonoid or Isohunt, and may be found on FilesTube.)

Thanks!

[Janet Rosen]

Awareness, plus knowing how to look simultaneously inoffensive and unafraid, are invaluable skills. I learned them as a teenager in NY decades before I ever bowed into the dojo. Steven B (welcome!)'s post reminded me of an incident in SF Mission district 32 or 33 yrs ago when I was walking home late alone one night and didn't like the looks of a fellow who was angling his walking path towards mine in an interception pattern. Without thinking I stepped down the curb between two cars and as his path came level with me, but now about 8 or 10 feet to the side, I simply raised my hands to shoulder level. His eyes widened, he sidled sideways away and picked up his pace to keep going.
Then there was the guy I scared the heck out of in the NY subway :-)
The nice thing now with aikido is I feel like I have something to back up my basic good instincts "just in case."

[Kevin Leavitt]

Actually the good street sense that Janet discusses has come in handy for me more than anything else.

[Cephallus]

For the life of me, I can't figure out what the people who are constantly worried about being physically attacked are doing to put themselves in such situations. I live in a densely-populated suburban/urban area (Los Angeles), I regularly go out into public where there are tens of thousands of people around me, and I even occasionally go to events/places where people are consuming copious quantities of alcohol. With all of that, I have felt my physical safety threatened by others maybe a half-dozen times at the most, and I believe that the martial awareness I've developed has enabled me to make intelligent decisions that have avoided physical confrontations completely.

For me, the greatest self-defense aspect of martial arts has been this awareness and confidence. Master those, and (knock on wood) the rest seems to take care of itself.

[mathewjgano]

For the life of me, I can't figure out what the people who are constantly worried about being physically attacked are doing to put themselves in such situations.
...For me, the greatest self-defense aspect of martial arts has been this awareness and confidence. Master those, and (knock on wood) the rest seems to take care of itself.

I agree simply being aware of your surroundings is the first step toward self-defense and I wonder how much of those who express these fears of being attacked are from people have any experience being attacked or living in dangerous areas. The greatest thing to fear is fear itself. A lot of it is simply common sense stuff...but then again as Mark Twain said, "common sense, ain't." I've only been in a handful of situations where I felt like I was being sized up and a certain kind of confidence, what I think of as a very self-posessed personality, kept me safe...or so it seems to me. It's been said a million times, but most criminals will choose an easier target over a tougher one just as they'll hone in on an attractive target over a bland one (think "bling").
That all said, sometimes a person must remain in a dangerous area for a variety of reasons. Like Don, I live in an area that has a high meth rate, the dirtiest meth at that. When you grow up in an area it can be hard to simply cut ties. Apart from other logistical reasons, I'd rather remain a positive presence in some of my friends' lives than abandon them completely. As such, when I go to visit them, I'm in a heightened state of awareness because visiting them means putting myself a little closer to harms way...it ups the odds.
Obviously I'm just one case, but I can see plenty of reasons why someone might have just cause for being concerned over possible attack, for what it's worth.
Take care,
Matt

[mcrow]

As far as the training and strikes being unrealistic in Aikido:

Like any MA the techniques are meant to be adapted to situations. An judo chop is the same motion as someone might use to hit you with a bar,hammer, bottle..ect.

Now if you look at a lot of the Aikido techs they represent general motions that you can see in the real world. You just have to think more open minded and not take method so literally. Yes, the attack is a chop but what other attacks use the same type of motion? I think if you do the same for the other attacks you can come up with similar ideas.

[mcrow]

OK, i'm a newbie here and I'm starting my first Aikido class next week, just keep that in mind.

When researching Aikido while deciding on the MA I wanted to train in I noticed that there was a lot of talk about how Aikido is fake. So I looked some more, watched videos and read posts here.

I've come to a conclusion:

#1- It seems to me that people take the attacks used in traing too literally. For instance, a chop, nobody trys a judo chop in a real fight. This may be true but I'll argue that many other attacks have a similar motion: hitting with a bar,beer bottle, hammer...ect. IMO, the techs are meant to be adapted therefore in training for an attack like a chop you are training for any attack with that same basic motion.

#2- It seems to me that while in most of the videos I've watched the attacker is going with the throw. However, I don't think it is because the move does not work and they want to make it look like it does. To me it looks like the speed and power that can be applied along with the torque on the joints could mean serious injury if you attempt to resist too much. It basically comes down to "I twist this joint, you go with it or it gets busted".

I've decided that I want to train in Aikido and am totally mesmorized by Christian Tessier's skill and amd convinced that anyone who is half as good as he is can probably defend themselves quite well.

I thought, I'd post this just because there seems to be some pretty bad misconceptions about Aikido that seems to be from a lack of observation. If you watch the mechanics and physics of the demonstrations you can tell, should they go full bore, people would get hurt and people probably would fly throught the air. :uch:

[brUNO]

These are pretty good observations for someone who has never had a lesson! I train so that I can take these at full bore! There are Aikidoka out there that could probably hurt you if they wanted to, no matter how good your ukemi was (ability to fall), but that's not the point. There are also Aikidoka out there that you couldn't hurt if you tried, because their ukemi is so well developed.

Have fun on your new adventure! Best of luck and Don't get hurt!

[mcrow]

These are pretty good observations for someone who has never had a lesson! I train so that I can take these at full bore! There are Aikidoka out there that could probably hurt you if they wanted to, no matter how good your ukemi was (ability to fall), but that's not the point. There are also Aikidoka out there that you couldn't hurt if you tried, because their ukemi is so well developed.

Have fun on your new adventure! Best of luck and Don't get hurt!

I'm sure you are correct. If your ukemi is good you can probably limit the damage but I would imagine the average thug on the street wouldn't be able to do much against a properly applied technique.

[Cephallus]

I'm sure you are correct. If your ukemi is good you can probably limit the damage but I would imagine the average thug on the street wouldn't be able to do much against a properly applied technique.

This is a gross simplification, by my experience has been that there is also some luck involved in "on the street" confrontations. As a teenager, I lived in an area that was invested with gangs and drugs. In fact, I literally lived next door to a major cocaine/crack dealer who worked for a Mexican cartel and who had a group of police in our [major SoCal, you would instantly recognize the name] city on his payroll. Some of the things I learned by talking with him about how "average street thugs" operate in an organized manner have stuck with me as lessons in vigilance my whole life.

As has been mentioned here, criminals, just like coyotes/hyenas in the wild, target the easiest-looking victims, and rarely confront them head-on. Much more likely is that they will hit you from behind or slash/stab at you quickly from close range with a hidden weapon if they really mean to attack. Working in pairs, one will distract your attention with menacing behavior, but will have no intent to attack; it's the guy he knows is hiding behind you somewhere that will come up and smack you in the back of the head with a blackjack. The luck I mentioned comes in play when something like this happens, and involves whether you are still physically able to get away from the attack, and whether you survive it.

I'm pretty sure there are a few LEO's on this site...they would be a much better resource for information on what goes on with street crime. But I know it's been said here before - if you want to learn effective self-defense, take a self defense class. I took one as a teenager, and they spent very little time on techniques for physically confronting people...they spent most of the time talking about how not to put yourself in a position to be a victim and how to get away from an attacker as quickly as possible if need be. The actual techniques they taught were fast, basic, brutal, and devastating. I've spent my life since hoping that I never have to do anything like that to another human being.

Just my .02...it's a good discussion going here. Thank you all for providing the food for my thoughts. :)

[mcrow]

This is a gross simplification, by my experience has been that there is also some luck involved in "on the street" confrontations. As a teenager, I lived in an area that was invested with gangs and drugs. In fact, I literally lived next door to a major cocaine/crack dealer who worked for a Mexican cartel and who had a group of police in our [major SoCal, you would instantly recognize the name] city on his payroll. Some of the things I learned by talking with him about how "average street thugs" operate in an organized manner have stuck with me as lessons in vigilance my whole life.

As has been mentioned here, criminals, just like coyotes/hyenas in the wild, target the easiest-looking victims, and rarely confront them head-on. Much more likely is that they will hit you from behind or slash/stab at you quickly from close range with a hidden weapon if they really mean to attack. Working in pairs, one will distract your attention with menacing behavior, but will have no intent to attack; it's the guy he knows is hiding behind you somewhere that will come up and smack you in the back of the head with a blackjack. The luck I mentioned comes in play when something like this happens, and involves whether you are still physically able to get away from the attack, and whether you survive it.

I'm pretty sure there are a few LEO's on this site...they would be a much better resource for information on what goes on with street crime. But I know it's been said here before - if you want to learn effective self-defense, take a self defense class. I took one as a teenager, and they spent very little time on techniques for physically confronting people...they spent most of the time talking about how not to put yourself in a position to be a victim and how to get away from an attacker as quickly as possible if need be. The actual techniques they taught were fast, basic, brutal, and devastating. I've spent my life since hoping that I never have to do anything like that to another human being.

Just my .02...it's a good discussion going here. Thank you all for providing the food for my thoughts. :)

It's not a gross simplification. It's a given that there is luck invovled in any sort of threatening situation and yes, there are things you can do to avoid those types of situations. My comment was based on if you were forced to get physical in such a situation that the average thug would probably be on the sore end when faced with a skilled Aikidoka who applied the proper tech and executed it properly.

By my estimation you a grossly over complicating it. :p

[Anjisan]

Another reason for aspiring to take really good ukemi, to be "in the moment" if you will, is that openings will often occur. During these openings which are really noticed by "feel" at full speed allow for reversals which one cannot do if one just approaches ukemi as a kite on the end of Nage's string.

[StevieT]

It's not a gross simplification. It's a given that there is luck invovled in any sort of threatening situation and yes, there are things you can do to avoid those types of situations. My comment was based on if you were forced to get physical in such a situation that the average thug would probably be on the sore end when faced with a skilled Aikidoka who applied the proper tech and executed it properly.

By my estimation you a grossly over complicating it. :p

How is it a gross overcomplication to ask, "who do you actually think you're fighting and why have they attacked you?" Violence comes in many different forms and the assumption that there is a one-size-fits-all solution is a very dangerous one to make. It's a bit like talking about how to survive an "average car accident". It makes a significant difference whether you're talking about getting knocked down at a crossing or being in a 20-car pile up on a highway.

Let me give you some realistic violent situations:

1) Two muggers with knives want your wallet
2) A drunk guy's picking a fight with you to show off to his mates
3) A group of bikers have taken offence because they think you're misbehaving in "their bar" and aggressively tell you to leave
4) A group of teenage gang members have surrounded you and start "messing with you" in a parking lot

Which of these is your "average thug"?

[lbb]

What Steve said. Also:

5) Your spouse/significant other tries to physically abuse you
6) A distant relative/boyfriend of a cousin gets drunk and wants to get physical with you at a family reunion
7) A former employee whom you've had to fire comes to your home late at night, unarmed and very drunk, and wants to fight

You cannot meaningfully talk about solutions to a situation until you define what that situation is.

[Anjisan]

"Like any MA the techniques are meant to be adapted to situations. An judo chop is the same motion as someone might use to hit you with a bar,hammer, bottle..ect.

Now if you look at a lot of the Aikido techs they represent general motions that you can see in the real world. You just have to think more open minded and not take method so literally. Yes, the attack is a chop but what other attacks use the same type of motion? I think if you do the same for the other attacks you can come up with similar ideas."

In my humble opinion, that really sums it up. The principals have certainly been proven over time, on many fields of battle and at the cost of many lives. If one makes the appropriate modifications to deal with modern attacks it really shouldn't matter who the attacker is so much as who the practitioner is.

It seems that the real issue is the Aikido practitioner who gets "locked" into the training patterns and doesn't make the necessary modifications for real combat which can be nasty, brutal, and short (ala Kant). They fall into the mental trap that they can somehow just "flip the switch" at the proper moment even though their training and resulting muscle memory say otherwise.Then there is the issue of executing technique after one has been "hit" a few times which Aikido practitioners typically are not exposed to--but that is a separate issue.
Just my 3 cents.

[philippe willaume]

Hello
Yes you are right people do not really make the per-equation between, technique, training method and what you train for.
As well as I think the problem is the “all good or all bad” approach. I think you just need to recognise the limitation of what you do

If you practice an aiki–fluffy style, it is very good and more than enough to deal with a drunk or someone that attacks out of distance and over commit; I.e. Uncle Benny at a party.
It is not going to work in 1v1 or someone that will break the distance by deception and or quick but no overcommitted attack.

Usually combat sport are that useful someone that will break the distance by deception and or quick but no overcommitted attack. That being said it is fine in 1v1 and Uncle Benny case.

Really if SD is not what you do aikido for; getting punched is not really necessary or even important.
If SD is important, well yes hitting and getting hit is important and building core strength will be or dabbing into ground work as part of you aikido training

What ever approach you have your randory/kokyu nague and your basic training should reflect that.

There is really no such thing a muscle memory, however training/pressure testing condition a response to a give stimuli.
Or if you adhere to the cognitive reflex response as opposed to the standard conditioning, it will enable you to recognise a situation and cause the appropriate automatic response overriding the default flinch.
Regardless the action itself is not “conscious and cognitive” and is more a reflex/ flinch like; you will execute it as you have drilled it.

phil

[mevensen]

Hello

There is really no such thing a muscle memory...

Regardless the action itself is not "conscious and cognitive" and is more a reflex/ flinch like; you will execute it as you have drilled it.

phil

These two statements seem at odds with each other.

Where do you get your assertion that there is no much thing as muscle memory? I believe that it is a pretty well accepted theory of training. And your second statement, that you will do reflexively what you have trained, seems to agree with the concepts of "muscle memory".

Could you expand your distinction between the two?

[philippe willaume]

These two statements seem at odds with each other.

Where do you get your assertion that there is no much thing as muscle memory? I believe that it is a pretty well accepted theory of training. And your second statement, that you will do reflexively what you have trained, seems to agree with the concepts of "muscle memory".

Could you expand your distinction between the two?

Basically muscle memory is the same as explaining the lift on air plane wing with the Bernoulli theorem.
It is a nice shortcut but really has not that much to do with what actually happens

Muscle are not equipped to remember anything and do not have anything that can activate motor neurone directly.
Even reflexes like "tendons reflexes" a receptor have to send a message to the spine in order for the motor neurons to be activated.

That is as far as muscle "memory" goes
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/99/2/414#SEC8
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/2/631

It is certain that repetitive exercise has an influence on which and when motor units are fired but that depends on motor neurons not muscular fibres.

As well motor leaning have lasting effect on neuron of the motor cortex which dictates what motor neurons are activated in what order. it seems that “memory cells “ has been recently put in evidence by Dr. Emilio Bizzi and his collaborators.
(Li C-SR, Padoa-Schioppa C, Bizzi E: Neuronal correlates of motor performance and motor learning in the primary motor cortex of monkeys adapting to an external force field. Neuron 2001, 30:593-607.)

If you are interested there was an interesting thread on the flinch where reflexes vs cognition was mentioned.

phil

[mevensen]

Basically muscle memory is the same as explaining the lift on air plane wing with the Bernoulli theorem.
It is a nice shortcut but really has not that much to do with what actually happens

Muscle are not equipped to remember anything and do not have anything that can activate motor neurone directly.
Even reflexes like "tendons reflexes" a receptor have to send a message to the spine in order for the motor neurons to be activated.

That is as far as muscle "memory" goes
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/99/2/414#SEC8
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/2/631

It is certain that repetitive exercise has an influence on which and when motor units are fired but that depends on motor neurons not muscular fibres.

As well motor leaning have lasting effect on neuron of the motor cortex which dictates what motor neurons are activated in what order. it seems that “memory cells “ has been recently put in evidence by Dr. Emilio Bizzi and his collaborators.
(Li C-SR, Padoa-Schioppa C, Bizzi E: Neuronal correlates of motor performance and motor learning in the primary motor cortex of monkeys adapting to an external force field. Neuron 2001, 30:593-607.)

If you are interested there was an interesting thread on the flinch where reflexes vs cognition was mentioned.

phil

Ah.

The muscle memory you are referring to is literal muscle memory.

You are absolutely correct that this does not exist as such. I think, however, most people refer to "muscle memory" as the process of acquiring learned motor pattern programs.

I did not realize that there was a separate "muscle memory" that referred to body building/strength training. Thank you for pointing that out as well.

[Sy Labthavikul]

Basically muscle memory is the same as explaining the lift on air plane wing with the Bernoulli theorem.
It is a nice shortcut but really has not that much to do with what actually happens


Haha, agreed. I've always gotten a little annoyed when people incompletely explain aircraft lift using Bernoulli's theorem... "the air above the curved wing moves faster, so it has lower pressure than the air below it... " Sure, but who says that air moving over a curved wing moves faster? There's no such thing as "equal transit time" for air; the air above the wing will take its own damn pace traveling, thank you. BUT Bernoulli's theorem is an easy intuitive way to explain the phenomena than a messier explanation that calls on all of Newton's three laws and the Coanda effect.


Muscle are not equipped to remember anything and do not have anything that can activate motor neurone directly.
Even reflexes like "tendons reflexes" a receptor have to send a message to the spine in order for the motor neurons to be activated.

That is as far as muscle "memory" goes
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/99/2/414#SEC8
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/2/631


Here we're getting into semantics, the difference between "motor memory' and "muscle memory", though semantics are definitely important.

Those are some interesting papers, but for people who don't feel like slogging through the molecular biology, they basically are about the phenomena and underlying mechanisms that govern how a given muscle has the capability to fairly rapidly re-grow in size and strength in response to exercise after a period of inactivity and atrophy IF it had exercised before; this is a truer "muscle memory" in the sense that the muscle "remembered" its previous state of conditioning and was able to better re-attain that state.

This is different from "motor memory" which is what most people use to describe the phenomena of "doing something repeatedly makes you better at doing it," since this is a function of the motor neurons and your brain, not your muscles.

[/QUOTE]


It is certain that repetitive exercise has an influence on which and when motor units are fired but that depends on motor neurons not muscular fibres.

As well motor leaning have lasting effect on neuron of the motor cortex which dictates what motor neurons are activated in what order. it seems that “memory cells “ has been recently put in evidence by Dr. Emilio Bizzi and his collaborators.
(Li C-SR, Padoa-Schioppa C, Bizzi E: Neuronal correlates of motor performance and motor learning in the primary motor cortex of monkeys adapting to an external force field. Neuron 2001, 30:593-607.)

If you are interested there was an interesting thread on the flinch where reflexes vs cognition was mentioned.

phil

Oops, I got ahead of myself, Phillippe said it a lot more succinctly than I.

So anyway, what we're talking about really is "motor memory," the ability of our motor neurons and brains to form more efficient, faster synaptic pathways, our motor units to become increasingly more sensitive to a given neurochemical response, etc.

"Muscle memory" is something else, though for the sake of simplicity of language among laymen, I use them interchangeably too.

[Lyle Laizure]

As I have said before, train as though your life depends on it. What you put into Aikido is what you will get out of it, or any martial art. Does Aikido work? For me, you bet. I was in Viet Nam, Desert Storm and Mogadishu, Somalia on the Blackhawk Down Rescue mission and I actually did use aikido, and judo, to my defense. Wasn't a good thing that I had to do but that's why I am here.

This is my point. It doesn't matter what martial art you study, they can all be effective. Part of whether or not what you train will be effective falls on the shoulders of your instructor. But the majority of the responsibility of whether or not any martial art is effective rests upon the shoulders of the practitioner. Combat it combat, people get hurt in combat. If you are not willing to hurt someone while defending yourself your defense will be ineffective because your preservation is second in your mind and the safety of your attacker is first. Just my two cents.

[Evan Schmitt]

Hello,

I'm brand new to this site and this is the first thread I have participated in, but I am very curious about something. There seems to be ALOT of questions similar to this, and people are very concerned and very divided about what is and is not effective. I've seen other, non-Aikido oriented sites that just hammer Aikido as completely useless and than I see Aikidoka fire back, and then what generally comes about is a number of different scenarios and how they should be handled, and which is better for what ect, ect...

My question, for anyone who knows the answer, is what is the true origin of this controversy? When did it start? Is there some historical context for why this is talked about so much or have there just been sooo many individuallly bad experiences from people who have tried Aikido that this debate has come about on it's own accord?

The second part of my question (sorry for the long post), is really just a commentary. I am a sports fanatic and have played basketball, baseball, soccer ect...my whole life. Now I'm not saying that Aikido or Martial arts are the same thing as "sport" but for every other physical activitity that we learn, it is just understood that there is an ongoing process. If you play basketball, you know that first you have to learn how to dribble, then you have to learn how to dribble with both hands, then you have to learn how to shoot a jumpshot, a ly-up ect. ect. And even once you get all of these basics down, you are no where near being able to step onto the court in a pick up game and be at all effective until you play in 100's of pick up games. Why do we treat Martial Arts (at least the physical componants of it) so differntly? There seems to be such a need to walk into a studio and in three months time we expect to "handle our selves in a street sitsuation". I just don't see how that is possible, no matter what the martial art is. Why is this the litness test for effectiveness?

I promise that will be the last time Iu write a post that long. Apologies.

Evan Schmitt

[Ron Tisdale]

Why do we treat Martial Arts (at least the physical componants of it) so differntly?

Good question! No answers here except...people are LAZY. :D

Best,
Ron

[Kevin Leavitt]

Lazy, or they are taught by instructors that don't know better, or are lazy, or have motives that are less than genuine.

It is all about methodology and endstate. In sports it is usually pretty clear. The basketball example is a good one.

Many martial artist, usually the so-called "budo" crowd will say that they are "basketball players" (martial artist), but in reality they are "dribblers". that is, they are not practicing with the endstate in mind to play basketball, but to perfect the art of dribbling!

Hence they will practice dribbling over and over and over using different techniques, kata, and methods to perfect the art of dribbling a ball. Occasionally they will take a shot at the goal. NEVER will they get on the court with another opponent in a game!

But will talk about how well their "art of dribbling" would do in reality if they were to actually play a game!

It is funny how we adopt languaging in martial arts, it certainly is foriegn to all other practices/sports!

You'd never hear a basketball player ask "how well do you think basketball-do prepares you to play a game of basketball?"

Of course our endstates are a little less definitive, when you are talking concepts such as "self defense", and "perfecting the art of peace", and "learning to be martially effective".

I think most of us that start martial training have no real idea why we do what we do when we start and we certainly have no idea how to measure effectiveness!

It certainly leaves alot of doors open for a wide berth of interpretation about the subject that is for sure!

[philippe willaume]

Lazy, or they are taught by instructors that don't know better, or are lazy, or have motives that are less than genuine.

It is all about methodology and endstate. In sports it is usually pretty clear. The basketball example is a good one.

Many martial artist, usually the so-called "budo" crowd will say that they are "basketball players" (martial artist), but in reality they are "dribblers". that is, they are not practicing with the endstate in mind to play basketball, but to perfect the art of dribbling!

Hence they will practice dribbling over and over and over using different techniques, kata, and methods to perfect the art of dribbling a ball. Occasionally they will take a shot at the goal. NEVER will they get on the court with another opponent in a game!

But will talk about how well their "art of dribbling" would do in reality if they were to actually play a game!

It is funny how we adopt languaging in martial arts, it certainly is foriegn to all other practices/sports!

You'd never hear a basketball player ask "how well do you think basketball-do prepares you to play a game of basketball?"

Of course our endstates are a little less definitive, when you are talking concepts such as "self defense", and "perfecting the art of peace", and "learning to be martially effective".

I think most of us that start martial training have no real idea why we do what we do when we start and we certainly have no idea how to measure effectiveness!

It certainly leaves alot of doors open for a wide berth of interpretation about the subject that is for sure!

hello
There is truth in that

:D

[chuunen baka]

You'd never hear a basketball player ask "how well do you think basketball-do prepares you to play a game of basketball?"
A thought provoking analogy but it doesn't really apply to the field of self defence. A game of basketball is not an unexpected life-threatening event. That is the core problem with discussing the effectiveness of any martial art - it is rare (thankfully) that we have to put it to the test. Sparring and grappling - all that "live" training stuff - might be useful but who was it said "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."

I don't train for self defence so it's not an issue for me. But if you were serious about SD, you need a bigger toolbox than Aikido provides. A serious fighter should be very fit and have some experience in a more physical throwing art (Judo or Jiujitsu) and a striking art (boxing or Karate). Aikido can add a lot to that but I don't believe that those who know only Aikido really have much hope in SD.

[philippe willaume]

A thought provoking analogy but it doesn't really apply to the field of self defence. A game of basketball is not an unexpected life-threatening event. That is the core problem with discussing the effectiveness of any martial art - it is rare (thankfully) that we have to put it to the test. Sparring and grappling - all that "live" training stuff - might be useful but who was it said "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is."

I don't train for self defence so it's not an issue for me. But if you were serious about SD, you need a bigger toolbox than Aikido provides. A serious fighter should be very fit and have some experience in a more physical throwing art (Judo or Jiujitsu) and a striking art (boxing or Karate). Aikido can add a lot to that but I don't believe that those who know only Aikido really have much hope in SD.

May be the analogy did provoke too much thoughts. What you say is somewhat true but I think you missed his point.

What I understood in what kev said was
if you aim is to compete in judo , you need to train and practice in a relevant manner to what you want to achieve. That is fighting 1v1 with even and non changeable starting condition.

If your aim is to preserve a martial tradition as it was in 17th century Siam. You need to train and practice in a manner that is relevant to preserving the way of teaching and the technique in the 17th century warfare and the Siamese empire

If your aim is SD w you need to practice and train in a manner that is relevant to SD in the 21st century England.

It is not a matter of grappling vs striking, the str33t vs sport, it is a matter of understanding what you want to achieve and what method you need to achieve it.

If you do aikido for self defence you will have atemi that means it and you will put koshy in any wasa.
You will deal with weapons and multiple attackers.
The way you train and apply wasa and randori will reflect that.
And at least you will have take down/clinch separation defence and you will add some judo/JJ/BJJ based ground techniques adapted for MMA ground striking.

basically i thinbk his idea is more about what you want to achieve with a given MA than it is about the effectiveness of the said martial arts

[seank]

I've often read through these threads and not really been tempted to post in the before, but the way I look at any martial arts effectiveness always begins with the individual.

Many posts talk about life threatening situations and cross training but none of these address the lowest common denominator - how you will react in a given situation.

Some people can click into their training and react, others can become aggressive and react, others will run away and yet others will stand rooted to the spot unable to do anything.

I liken this to a bad car accident I was in a few years ago. We could see the SUV pulling out in front of us and at 110km/h there was no way of us avoiding the accident. We collided and the car came to an abrupt stop.

My very first reaction was to try to re-start the car and move it out of the way of other vehicles. Of course the front of the car had been totally destroyed so that was a non-starter. A split second later I turned to my wife, asked if she was okay and said get out of the car and get straight to the side of the road. She was in shock (as was I) but it took her valuable seconds to respond whereas I was lucky enough to keep moving.

No one was significantly injured thankfully but I turned to watch the driver of the SUV removing a broom from the back of his vehicle to sweep up debris looking as much as if he was sweeping his verandah - oblivious to everything else.

Why did the three of us have such varying reactions?

Granted, this analogy isn't strictly self-defence, moreso self-preservation, but it gave me much food for thought, and was one of things that came immediately to mind in reading this thread.

Your martial effectiveness, your ability to defend yourself goes far beyond your training of your flavour of martial art. Yes you can take the line of military training in breaking down the individual and teaching people to respond in a set fashion, but we don't train for this in the everyday world.

Will Aikido work in self-defence? I would suggest absolutely, but caveat this by saying the individual's response, the situation, their attacker(s), and virtually any other dynamic you could lay name to will impact on the effectiveness.

If you want so simply create as much damage to your attacker as possible then train an art that emphasises this, if you want to have a half a chance of not seriously injuring your oponent, Aikido gives you some options.

Nothing is ever set in stone and the fight you walk away from today could see you lying in the gutter the next day. How you react and how you respond will be feature parts of this. Does this make Aikido effective or not? That is up to the individual.

I have the benefit of being able to fall back on twenty-odd years of other martial arts training if I fail my Aikido, but I train every time to try and find a better way of confronting an attack or aggressor without the need to hurt them.

I agree wholeheartedly that your sensei have an enormous amount to do with your Aikido and the effectiveness of their teaching and your training will have an effect, but I believe it is a mistake to think of Aikido as technique-based. If you train hard enough and look hard enough you will find the answer to the question of this thread for yourself.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Alastair,

I agree that it does not apply to the field of self defense. My comments were not meant as a criticism of Aikido, but as an observation about the inference that many that practice the art (or teach it) make with respect to self defense or tactics in general.

Here are some random examples I pulled off a google search on the "about aikido" section of the website. I did not reference the website however as it is not my point to point fingers.

Traditional Aikido is distingushed by:

The ability to effectively end conflicts without violence, but the strength to use controlled force if necessary.

another one:

Practitioners find from Aikido what they are looking for, whether it is applicable self-defense technique, spiritual enlightenment, physical health or peace of mind.

These are just two websites that I pulled from in random.

So, while it may be true that you and I understand that the field of SD requires a whole different toolbox, focus, methodology, and practice....are dojos really being honest with themselves or others?

I certainly don't want to impose judgement on the two dojos (or any) that I named above, because they may indeed COMPLETELY understand this issue and practice accordingly and appropriately.

However, I think macroscopically though, it has been my experience, and based on the THOUSANDS of post on this board and others, that the whole "self defense" thing is not clearly understood by both students and teachers.

So, you have to ask the question: Does the methodology you aer using REALLY support self defense? and are we really being honest and with ourselves when we develop our "training mission statements?"

Again, in this respect, I think the basketball analogy to be a very good one!

[Kevin Leavitt]

Sean wrote:

My very first reaction was to try to re-start the car and move it out of the way of other vehicles. Of course the front of the car had been totally destroyed so that was a non-starter. A split second later I turned to my wife, asked if she was okay and said get out of the car and get straight to the side of the road. She was in shock (as was I) but it took her valuable seconds to respond whereas I was lucky enough to keep moving.

Thanks for the great example!

This is very important to understand when talking about methodology.

We train and develop habits for driving cars daily for what is considered "normal tolerances". As long as we operate within those parameters our driving techniques can be very effective.

However, once we incur new conditions and parameters (as in your wreck example), then we end up with dissonance as you experienced when you tried to move a car with no front end on it.

I have talked to many of my fellow soldiers about the firefight/combat situations they have been in...they always experience the same thing...that is, they do things out of habit...somethings right, somethings wrong...but it is always the same conversation and experience as above.

This is important when you start talking about Self Defense or violent encounters.

"effectiveness" really is a interesting word.

It is not that our training is wrong or bad...most of what I have experienced is very good....PRINCIPALLY.

However, if you don't replicate the environmental conditions and practice in as close as possible stress, pressure, system overload...then you will not find your weaknesses and develop ways to mitigate them or develop new habits.

In reality Dissonance I think will always occur. However, I think there is much we can do to reduce it if we train properly.

If you are going to train women how to deal with the realities of violent rape, well then you need to find a 200lb guy to get up close and personal.

I personally do not feel 100% qualified to do this. Lots of pyschological issues and what not to deal with as you push people way outside of their comfort zone and maybe even cause them to re-live old traumas.

Teaching the old "high heel to the foot, kick to the balls" is okay...but it really does not completely address or prepare women for the full spectrum that will be presented in reality.

However, I think at the same time, we owe it to our students to be very honest in what we are really training them to do and exactly what the weaknesses are in their training so if they choose to go down that path, then they do so in a more infomed way.

I do though think that if someone is serious about preparing themselves to deal with this stuff that they can do so. AND I do believe that AIkido type training, done properly is a very important part of that process.

It is not, however, a quick seminar process, or a RBSD DVD solution.

It requires a multi-faceted, and a long term committment to really reach a level of understanding and training.

[philippe willaume]

Sean wrote:

Thanks for the great example!

This is very important to understand when talking about methodology.

We train and develop habits for driving cars daily for what is considered "normal tolerances". As long as we operate within those parameters our driving techniques can be very effective.

However, once we incur new conditions and parameters (as in your wreck example), then we end up with dissonance as you experienced when you tried to move a car with no front end on it.

I have talked to many of my fellow soldiers about the firefight/combat situations they have been in...they always experience the same thing...that is, they do things out of habit...somethings right, somethings wrong...but it is always the same conversation and experience as above.

This is important when you start talking about Self Defense or violent encounters.

"effectiveness" really is a interesting word.

It is not that our training is wrong or bad...most of what I have experienced is very good....PRINCIPALLY.

However, if you don't replicate the environmental conditions and practice in as close as possible stress, pressure, system overload...then you will not find your weaknesses and develop ways to mitigate them or develop new habits.

In reality Dissonance I think will always occur. However, I think there is much we can do to reduce it if we train properly.

If you are going to train women how to deal with the realities of violent rape, well then you need to find a 200lb guy to get up close and personal.

I personally do not feel 100% qualified to do this. Lots of pyschological issues and what not to deal with as you push people way outside of their comfort zone and maybe even cause them to re-live old traumas.

Teaching the old "high heel to the foot, kick to the balls" is okay...but it really does not completely address or prepare women for the full spectrum that will be presented in reality.

However, I think at the same time, we owe it to our students to be very honest in what we are really training them to do and exactly what the weaknesses are in their training so if they choose to go down that path, then they do so in a more infomed way.

I do though think that if someone is serious about preparing themselves to deal with this stuff that they can do so. AND I do believe that AIkido type training, done properly is a very important part of that process.

It is not, however, a quick seminar process, or a RBSD DVD solution.

It requires a multi-faceted, and a long term committment to really reach a level of understanding and training.

Kev
I think you are right on the money there.
In a way you need to train for SD the same way competition fighter train for competition.

It does not mean that we need top train as if we were going to have a MMA fight.
But the MMA training methodology is geared up toward what they want to achieve.

My main grip with RBSD DVD or seminar is that given the time frame, there is no way; you can apply those techniques at the relevant moment in a stress situation. As kev and sean wrote, you will fall back into what you have the habit of doing.

Training for competition boils down to developing good habit for competition and training for SD should boils down to the same.

and I do agree that it is possible with the aikido methodology.
phil

[Kevin Leavitt]

Agreed Phil.

MMA type training can teach us quite a bit about what occurs in a real fight. I think many of us have profoundly benefited by the "R&D" that has gone on in the ring in the last 15 years.

As you state though, one does not need to train as a MMA fighter 100%.

AND, yes, much of what we do in Aikido is very worthwhile.

The important thing I think is to "begin with an end in mind" and focus your training in such a way that it accomplishes those goals.

For many of us today, this means we are looking outside of our base arts and taking more of an "open source" look at our training instead of bowing maybe to one sensei and saying "my mind is blank...teach me".

That said, a rote beginner may not have the ability to discern good training from bad, or even know how to begin.

In that vein, that is why there is nothing wrong with starting out with a good foundational art that is based on sound principles of martial movement. Arts like Aikido, Judo, BJJ, offer these things I think. Although, my thoughts today place Aikido in more of a "grad school" of training, but then others would argue the opposite...I don't think there is a right answer.

However, Aikido, BJJ, and Judo all have shortcomings when you start looking at the SD issues...I have found gaps in all three of these systems.

I think it is a little clearer in BJJ and Judo simply because they are typically trained off a competitive mode and tend to be more measurable and quantifiable, l wheras the "door is wide open" on aikido since it is typically not...but then there are aikido dojos and styles that are based on competitive models. YMMV of course!

[Evan Schmitt]

Thanks to everyone for your replies,

Any thoughts on the first part of the question though? Why do you think that Aikido, it seems, more than any other martial art gets singled out as a poor form of self defense? And why is there always this question of "realism" as well...(and this is partly where I was going with the basketball anaology).

For example, many people say that it is neccesary to train in a MA that envolves sparring. Is there more realism in this? You spar with full pads, in a ring, probably both unarmed, there are rules ect... As someone mentioned before with regards to the basketball anaology when you are sparring you both know that it is not a life threatening sitsuation, you know exactly what is happening. People also often use the example of training MMA. Well, in MMA fighters train for three months straight to fight a single opponent. There are weight classes, rules (no eye gouging, hitting below the belt, top of the head, head butting, kneeing when an opponant is on the mat ect, ect). My point in all this is "street effectiveness" is a myth. Most of us who are not in some form of law enforcement will probably never use martial arts outside a dojo, or if we do it would be on a drunk cousin at a family gathering to keep him driving home or something like that, in which case one could argue that you are more likely to use Aikido effectively than any other MA as you don't want to put your cousin in a coma with a head kick, (or anyone else with law suits running rampid these days). The only person i know who has been mugged (I live in D.C.) was a Div 1 collegiate wreslter and he was hit in thwe back of the head with a brick while walking home listening to his I-Pod. Never heard a thing, just woke up in the hospital. Should he have been more ware? Yes. But he was in a relatively safe nighborhood (Georgetown) and just didn't think of it. That's a "street sitsuation". Robbers don't attack people just at complete random. They wait for someone who isn't paying attention, or use a group to attack a single person ect..

So why does Aikido get singled out? Why the hostility? Even if you train in multiple martial arts, I would argue it is probably better to be really proficient in one (regardless of what it is...) than to be ok at multiple MA's. I know that the LAPD, Tokyo Riot Police, and other law enforcement agencies have Aikido programs as part of their training, so I can't imagin they would do that if Aikido was not effective in certain instances. But rergardless of what they train and how good they are every police officer carries a baton, pepper srey, stun gun, real gun, ect... Why? Because you can know whatever Martial art you want but when you have a big, strong dude hopped up on PCP coming at you full board you are in trouble.

It's good for awareness, once you reach a certain level in may certainly increase your odds of survival (ie, breaking loose and running like hell), but I think you need to find something else in a martial arts other than this made up notion of "street effectiveness". The street is dangerous. Thats why police officers work in teams, that's why they carry weapons. I do not care what you take, ju-jitzu, judo, karate, a combination of everything. So why single out one over the other.

As Mike Myers said on coffee talk "discuss amongst yourselves".

[Ron Tisdale]

So why single out one over the other.

Boredom?

Best,
Ron (nice post)

[Kevin Leavitt]

Why:

Because it is first and foremost a methodology designed to teach "aiki" principles AND not "how to be effective in 30 days in a street fight".

The problem is that principles can be understood mentally way before they are ingrained physically. Many folks jump the gap to "effectiveness" and extrapolate what they think the art can do and what they are capable of....

Hence, we end up with the issue at hand!

[philippe willaume]

Hello Evan
Yes robbers and thugs will manipulate the environment so that they maximise their chances to be successful. But really so did samurai or knights.
And yes you are right combat sport is designed to give an even starting chance to each opponent and they are both aware of each other.
There is limitation on what you can and can’t hit but it is not that important. At the end, if you want your blow to be effective, you need to be in same dominant position to punch someone in the throat as if you were to punch him in the face.

Why aikido is single out?
Well I do not think it is singled out, I think WT and ninju tsu are getting it much worse.
But like many TMA, in aikido the teaching are technique based, so you do have a disconnection between what to use and when to use it.
So it kinds of makes Kevin’s point even more sore, so to speak.

[Douglas Fajardo]

Let me tell you something , no better I´ll ask you
Are you ready for a fight are, you ready for getting hurt ,are you ready for all this
If you wanna learn how to fight you should know that it doesn´t matter wjth Martial Art you know , the most important is (You)
You wanna self defence ,:) Learn Aikido ,muay thai, judo,jiu jutsu ,
Please do not learn only one way of defence , more guns you have more defence :D

[Disillusioned]

Aikido should not be trained as a self defense system. Do it for fun / LARP if anything.

Combat Sambo, BJJ, MT, Boxing, Judo and any other full contact MA are your best bet.

[gdandscompserv]

Combat Sambo, BJJ, MT, Boxing, Judo and any other full contact MA
:confused:
So you consider BJJ and Judo to be full contact?

[Buck]

The kid who started this thread is 16 yrs old. I have re-thunk this with a new perspective.

First consider Aikido really isn't effective in a short time, right, this has been mentioned. Because Aikido is an art, it goes beyond the level of self-defense techniques. If it merely stop and the self-defense level it would take 6 mos. to learn. Why, well only a few techniques are practiced over and over again with the application of muscle force over principle. These techniques would be t defend against certain typical types of attacks. So you would only learn say 5-10 techniques that are roughly applied enough to work for self-defensive purpose.

But Aikido is an art. And practitioners are artisans. With an art you hone and craft your skills with the goal of mastery and technical perfection usually shown in demos and not on the street. That takes years to reach that level.

Secondly, for those thinking similar to this kid. In very simplistic thumbnail sketch, Aikido wasn't intended for street brawling and that kind of thing. The focus of Aikido is spiritual in terms of bettering the world and people. That means not fostering people to choose violence or be violent, but rather peace. That fostering is done through the practice of Aikido. And there is more too it than that but it provides a rough idea.

Aikido isn't a brawling system, it is an art. That can be used (not readily as a street fighting application) as a self-defense. But not everyone practices it that way. Most Aikidoka practice it for other reasons.

odd thought You don't become a baseball player to learn to fight with a bat. Sure you can learn some things from learning to swing a bat correctly that would help you use it as a self-defense or fighting weapon. But that isn't baseball's intention to teaching fighting. Better yet, apply this idea to Hockey, you don't play hockey to learn to street fight.

For those looking to Aikido as tool in your street fighting kit, sure there are things in Aikido that will serve that purpose. Overall, Aikido wasn't intended to be combative it was to be in art by which you tempered the soul sort of speak.

IMO

[Basia Halliop]

Better yet, apply this idea to Hockey, you don't play hockey to learn to street fight.

Um, are you sure? With the NHL, I'm not so sure that's true...

Sorry, couldn't resist :o

[Buck]

Um, are you sure? With the NHL, I'm not so sure that's true...

Sorry, couldn't resist :o

I knew I would be called on that :D Hockey I think is fighting on ice. It like the saying. I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out.

[philippe willaume]

Aikido should not be trained as a self defense system. Do it for fun / LARP if anything.

Combat Sambo, BJJ, MT, Boxing, Judo and any other full contact MA are your best bet.

Sure, and next you will tell us that is way to look attractive in jodhpurs.

If you are old enough, rewind in the late 90, and the very inadequacy of combat sport in SD lead to rise of RBSD. At the time simple technique, little trainning and no conditioning was every thing to man and beast. Do you see the pattern emerging here?

If the answer of any of the question bellow is no, then you are lacking a critical aspect of SD.

Do you understand the legal implication of your actions and those of your opponent?
Do you train to recognise dangerous location and situation?
Do you pressure test your technique?
Do you train with and against weapon?
Do you train in damage limitation/absorbing and oops defence?
Do you train against several opponents?
Do you train in and for asymmetrical situation?

Phil

[Ketsan]

Aikido should not be trained as a self defense system. Do it for fun / LARP if anything.

Combat Sambo, BJJ, MT, Boxing, Judo and any other full contact MA are your best bet.

I think BJJ has demonstrated that entering in rapidly on the whole defeats any striking art and reality has demonstrated the stupidity of willingly going to the floor and of staying there for any length of time.
So you need an art that enters in and takes control rapidly, like BJJ does, with the all the mobility, flexibility and awareness of being on your feet.

[Basia Halliop]

For self defense I'm not entirely convinced _any_ martial art is really the best or most effective use of someone's time, if that's their main goal. It seems like 95% of self defense would be the stuff that usually happens before there is any physical contact (recognizing likely dangerous situations or dangerous people, for example, before you get in over your head, and finding a way to exit the situation before anything happens). If someone is really interested in safety, I think I'd tell them to study all that kind of stuff first, and only when they have done that really thoroughly then maybe learn something physical if they still want.

For example most violence is between people who know each other to some degree. Seriously, I think developing judgment in how to pick your friends and the people you hang out with is probably the first thing (highest payback in safety) I'd recommend someone do for self-defense.

[Ketsan]

For self defense I'm not entirely convinced _any_ martial art is really the best or most effective use of someone's time, if that's their main goal. It seems like 95% of self defense would be the stuff that usually happens before there is any physical contact (recognizing likely dangerous situations or dangerous people, for example, before you get in over your head, and finding a way to exit the situation before anything happens). If someone is really interested in safety, I think I'd tell them to study all that kind of stuff first, and only when they have done that really thoroughly then maybe learn something physical if they still want.

For example most violence is between people who know each other to some degree. Seriously, I think developing judgment in how to pick your friends and the people you hang out with is probably the first thing (highest payback in safety) I'd recommend someone do for self-defense.

Agreed. The main purpose of any martial art should be the teaching of a martial mindset. Most of them, Aikido included, fail miserably at that IMO.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Agreed. The main purpose of any martial art should be the teaching of a martial mindset. Most of them, Aikido included, fail miserably at that IMO.

I think it has more to do with the teacher than with the Art. I had a great teacher in aikido many years ago that did/does an outstanding job of teaching the martial mindset. We rarely if ever did anything that would be considered outside the norm of aikido either.

Could I fight? No.

I learned a few years ago that there is a huge distinction between warrior/martial mindset, wanting to be good, identifying with a group of like individuals and actually being able to fight.

I learned my lesson, thank god, in a training environment....

I now train much, much differently overall than I used to.

Aikido plays a part in it, but methodology I learned from BJJ, and Muay Thai are a major part of what I do these days.

[Sasha Mrkailo]

It is very effective. Here is the theory behind this statement.
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15062

Aikido is an martial art. Not ballet.

[Ketsan]

I think it has more to do with the teacher than with the Art.

Up to a point. I think sporting arts struggle with it more than the non-sporting. They're geared up towards a clearly defined end point, the; fight in the ring. There's no need to worry about outside of the ring.

I play "guess the art" whenever I'm by the martial arts section of a book shop. I position myself close to the bookshelf while I'm flicking through a book and wait.
If they politely excuse themselves, pick up a book and stand to one side where they can keep an eye on things they're usually Aikidoka or Karateka, judging by the books they read.
On the other hand if they barge in front and stand in front of me with their back to me while they're flicking through the majority of the time the book they're reading is on either Thai boxing, boxing or similar arts.
In the past five years I could have put about 30 thai boxers, boxers etc in hospital with zero risk to myself.

I had a great teacher in aikido many years ago that did/does an outstanding job of teaching the martial mindset. We rarely if ever did anything that would be considered outside the norm of aikido either.

Could I fight? No.

I learned a few years ago that there is a huge distinction between warrior/martial mindset, wanting to be good, identifying with a group of like individuals and actually being able to fight.

Mastery of a martial mindset allows a budoka to avoid making themselves vunerable, they have little need to be able to fight.
A martial mindset is the mental skills that takes martial arts beyond the realm of fighting.
You only get attacked when the opponent belives he can win, if you can place yourself so that he obviously can't win or with interpersonal skills convey that you are not someone to be messed with you can defend yourself without even throwing a punch.

I take Mushashi as an example of this. By his own admission he was only ever an average swordsman and for years he couldn't figure out why he kept winning until he realised there was a secret to what he did that went beyond physical skils.

[philippe willaume]

For self defense I'm not entirely convinced _any_ martial art is really the best or most effective use of someone's time, if that's their main goal. It seems like 95% of self defense would be the stuff that usually happens before there is any physical contact (recognizing likely dangerous situations or dangerous people, for example, before you get in over your head, and finding a way to exit the situation before anything happens). If someone is really interested in safety, I think I'd tell them to study all that kind of stuff first, and only when they have done that really thoroughly then maybe learn something physical if they still want.

For example most violence is between people who know each other to some degree. Seriously, I think developing judgment in how to pick your friends and the people you hang out with is probably the first thing (highest payback in safety) I'd recommend someone do for self-defense.
hello
Well I am not sure you can separate things to that extend.

Sure awareness and pre-emption is a big part.
But it is only a part.
You do need to be able to deliver and the belief in that ability is more important than the actual ability.
You need to understand the statistics and what they mean are for your gender in your world location.

Of course, it is much more likely for acquaintances of some sort to be involved in violence with you. You spend more time with them and they don't rely on you passing at an appropriate location and time of the day. IE the windows of opportunity for them is much bigger that for a total stranger.

It is a little bit like saying that you can strike before, during or after an attack. It is all very clever but that really what are the other possibilities to attack?

Phil

[philippe willaume]

Up to a point. I think sporting arts struggle with it more than the non-sporting. They're geared up towards a clearly defined end point, the; fight in the ring. There's no need to worry about outside of the ring.

I play "guess the art" whenever I'm by the martial arts section of a book shop. I position myself close to the bookshelf while I'm flicking through a book and wait.
If they politely excuse themselves, pick up a book and stand to one side where they can keep an eye on things they're usually Aikidoka or Karateka, judging by the books they read.
On the other hand if they barge in front and stand in front of me with their back to me while they're flicking through the majority of the time the book they're reading is on either Thai boxing, boxing or similar arts.
In the past five years I could have put about 30 thai boxers, boxers etc in hospital with zero risk to myself.

Mastery of a martial mindset allows a budoka to avoid making themselves vunerable, they have little need to be able to fight.
A martial mindset is the mental skills that takes martial arts beyond the realm of fighting.
You only get attacked when the opponent belives he can win, if you can place yourself so that he obviously can't win or with interpersonal skills convey that you are not someone to be messed with you can defend yourself without even throwing a punch.

I take Mushashi as an example of this. By his own admission he was only ever an average swordsman and for years he couldn't figure out why he kept winning until he realised there was a secret to what he did that went beyond physical skils.
Hello

Yes you are right sporting arts struggle with the situational awareness and tactical positioning just as non sporting arts will struggle with the ability to deliver, what brick top so eloquently put as the rightful infliction of retribution by an appropriate agent.

As you said being a good martial artist or a good fighter is having the ability to manipulate the situation and the environment to make a successful delivery more likely.

But if you train thai-boxing against several opponent and weapons, you will have something that will look like aikido initial atemi but with a MT way of striking and moving about and you will develop a more SD orientated situational awareness and tactical positioning than if you train TB for the ring.

I think it is more a matter of teaching/training more than sport vs MA.

phil

[Matt Shane]

Ill tell you what will make people afraid of you - rub habanero peppers on the palms of your hands and then rub it on someones face - they wont mess with you again. ;)

p.s. -
I do not recommend trying this at home, as your likely to rub it on your own face - and a note, even the less spicy Hungarian peppers stay on your hands even after washing... :)

p.s.s. -
I can imagine it now: "Stay back - I have habanero hands!" :)

Peace

dAlen

LOL!!!

[Basia Halliop]

It is a little bit like saying that you can strike before, during or after an attack. It is all very clever but that really what are the other possibilities to attack?

I'm not talking about striking at all, or even feeling 'confident' you could, or whatever... I'm talking about not getting into situations where striking is likely to even be in question in the first place, leaving the street/person/room/city/conversation/etc long before anything like an attack has happened to you or is likely to. The vast majority of the time (OK maybe it depends where you live and stuff) that seems like the first most important and most fundamental skill, at least to me. Most people (again, maybe that's a perception based on my own experience and people I know) have never in their lives been physically attacked by someone 'for real', let alone someone trying to kill them, and probably never will. If someone is honestly just trying to be safe, learning how to be one of those people seems obviously practical and logical.

There's nothing wrong with learning to physically fight, and there are lots of non-practical reasons to do martial arts, and maybe for the odd rare person it's even 'practical', it just seems several steps lower down the list of priorities if you're looking at purely practical safety-related things.


Of course, it is much more likely for acquaintances of some sort to be involved in violence with you. You spend more time with them and they don't rely on you passing at an appropriate location and time of the day. IE the windows of opportunity for them is much bigger that for a total stranger.


They're also far more likely to feel strongly enough about you or about things you do to get angry at you or try to hurt you.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Alex wrote:

Mastery of a martial mindset allows a budoka to avoid making themselves vunerable, they have little need to be able to fight.
A martial mindset is the mental skills that takes martial arts beyond the realm of fighting.
You only get attacked when the opponent belives he can win, if you can place yourself so that he obviously can't win or with interpersonal skills convey that you are not someone to be messed with you can defend yourself without even throwing a punch.

I take Mushashi as an example of this. By his own admission he was only ever an average swordsman and for years he couldn't figure out why he kept winning until he realised there was a secret to what he did that went beyond physical skils.

Sure I will agree with this up to a point. In reality I have probably avoided more fights through an understanding of "martial awareness"....even before I ever figured out I could not fight.

So yes, I agree, the martial mindset is important...up until the point that the first punch is thrown and it becomes physical.

"Take it beyond the physical realm." Not sure I'd say that, but I understand you allegory... to me, physical is physical you can reframe it however you like, but when knifes, sticks, fist, and guns are involved it is physical and i challenge ANYONE to try and take it beyond that.

At some point I think it is important to link the mind, body, and spirit as a complete unit. You can't dismiss the physical (body) simply because you reframe or envision yourself as transcendental.

We do this alot in arts like aikido and I think it is very, very wrong to allow folks to begin to believe this myth. Transcendence does not mean "well we can skip the physical and move right on to the spiritiual, since that is what we want to do anyway!"

I think it requires us to embrace and understand as much as posssible the limitations and applications of what we do or can do or cannot do.

"ou only get attacked when the opponent belives he can win, if you can place yourself so that he obviously can't win or with interpersonal skills convey that you are not someone to be messed with you can defend yourself without even throwing a punch."

Well, it is up to him to form his own opinion or belief. Can you influence that belief? maybe, maybe not. It is nice to think and believe that we can...the reality of it is that his view of the world is different than yours and he may not pick up on the clues that you are superbad.

I have dealt with guys that it was very obvious (to me) that they could not win...they didn't hold my belief structure so we got physical.

On Mushashi I can't comment on what he said or believed, or how good he was. Like the book though and lots of good stuff in it.

Average? well it is realitive. I consider myself way above average when you consider the public as a whole. Inside a dojo..maybe average. with a small subset of professionals and some MMA guys I have worked with...I am way below average.

The key to this is that I think I have a healthy outlook on where I stand in relation to various demographic groups these days. That was not always the case. If you'd have asked me 7 or 8 years ago, I say that I was much better than average considering all demographics...did I get worse as a MAer? No I have gotten much better. the difference is that I have more external experience and situations and have had my ass kicked enough to understand a little better how much I still have to learn!

[Anjisan]

One could say that mindset becomes even more important after it becomes physical. Do you have the "mindset" or the "stomach" for combat, because that is what it really is, just not as PC. Didn't Mike Tyson say something to the effect that everyone has a plan until they get hit? Due to the nature of our training it would seem to especially apply to Aikidoka. I am sure that there are some amazing Aikidoka out there--great on Youtube, great at a demonstration-- who might not be quite so in tune once an adversary lands a punch, kick, elbow or two.

[Buck]

Due to the nature of our training it would seem to especially apply to Aikidoka. I am sure that there are some amazing Aikidoka out there--great on Youtube, great at a demonstration-- who might not be quite so in tune once an adversary lands a punch, kick, elbow or two.

Isn't that true for all forms of recreational and sports fighting?

[Anjisan]

In my humble opinion..............no. In arts where there is regular striking one gets used to executing techniques under that type of duress. In Aikido we are always training to be in the "right" or "safe" position. Further, we are not being hit. We do not practice executing techniques in that context. When I did kick-boxing and BJJ that was an important element. By the time one tested (which is what one can safely use to approximate a "realistic" execution of one's bag of tools) you knew who could walk the walk while under fire so to speak because that is how you trained. If one is training in Aikido for self-defence, that is something one may want to address. In the real world that is an variable that while removed from the dojo will be front and center.

[Buck]

I In the real world that is an variable that while removed from the dojo will be front and center.

Yes,it is true for all fighting systems. You remove out of the gym, dojo, dojang, and stuff.

Just because you do a popular fighting system doesn't guarantee success. There is more to self-defense then using sport fighting strategies. It is a whole different dynamic with a world of variables. I know it is hard for some to realize that and not all fights are toe-to-toe. And experienced fighter will understand that and use what ever tool is right for the situation. And will not rely on one mentality. The real key to self-defense and Aikido is experience in conflicts. The real key to ring sport fighting is experience in the ring. The real key to combat (as in war) is a whole different thing. Prior to the advent of BJJ to the military there was judo and jujutsu, and karate all of which was proven effective for decades upon decades.

It boils down to experience. Those who fight for a living is one thing. Those who are recreationalists in both sport and recreational arts are another. And those who take self-defense serious is a another. I depend on Aikido, but more importantly I depend on strategy, cunning, intent, awareness and all that that is more than what is found in the ring or the dojo, over which "style" is better than other. Cuz' if I do that then I am not really paying attention to any other the what is trendy and popular, rather than what will keep me safe. That is my humble experience. :)

[philippe willaume]

I'm not talking about striking at all, or even feeling 'confident' you could, or whatever... I'm talking about not getting into situations where striking is likely to even be in question in the first place, leaving the street/person/room/city/conversation/etc long before anything like an attack has happened to you or is likely to. The vast majority of the time (OK maybe it depends where you live and stuff) that seems like the first most important and most fundamental skill, at least to me. Most people (again, maybe that's a perception based on my own experience and people I know) have never in their lives been physically attacked by someone 'for real', let alone someone trying to kill them, and probably never will. If someone is honestly just trying to be safe, learning how to be one of those people seems obviously practical and logical.

There's nothing wrong with learning to physically fight, and there are lots of non-practical reasons to do martial arts, and maybe for the odd rare person it's even 'practical', it just seems several steps lower down the list of priorities if you're looking at purely practical safety-related things.

Hello
Just for the record the striking part was just there to re-enforce the obvious rational of the attack by acquaintances nothing more nothing less.

I understood that you were talking about awareness and pre-emptive evasion. My take is that even though it is important it is not by far the only most important part of SD. Really not one part is more important than the rest.
In fact this is my main grip with RBSD. There is a physical component to SD/personal safety and it is not trivial.

Basically relaying mainly on pre-emptive avoidance even with verbal de-escalation is exactly as practicing a combat sport and saying that it will be good enough.

Just as an example your belief in you ability to deliver does help you to cope with and even help you in choosing pre-emptive evasion and it has a definite effect on your non verbal communication which makes de-escalation much more effective.
There is time when the situation will change rapidly or getting away will make the situation worse for you.
But really, should need to use the physical components, you need to be able to use it effectively under duress and that is a time consuming process.

Phil

[Patrick Crane]

How effective is A minor pentatonic in playing guitar?

Everyone learns it.
Some will always suck.
Some can get pretty good.
Some are awesome.
Some make you think you're hearing the voice of God.

For many, the study of a martial art is begun with a primary interest in self defense.

Then it becomes about improving your fitness level...to learn the techniques better.

Then when you know the techniques and are in pretty good shape it becomes about being able to do them perfectly.

When you're in great shape and can do the techniques perfectly, it becomes about expressing yourself as an artist.

When you can express yourself as an artist pretty well, it might then become about exploring some kind of spirituality.

I think Morehei Ueshiba was there. Most of us won't be, and shouldn't feel pressured to be. It will happen if it needs to.

[Ketsan]

Alex wrote:

Sure I will agree with this up to a point. In reality I have probably avoided more fights through an understanding of "martial awareness"....even before I ever figured out I could not fight.

So yes, I agree, the martial mindset is important...up until the point that the first punch is thrown and it becomes physical.

"Take it beyond the physical realm." Not sure I'd say that, but I understand you allegory... to me, physical is physical you can reframe it however you like, but when knifes, sticks, fist, and guns are involved it is physical and i challenge ANYONE to try and take it beyond that.

At some point I think it is important to link the mind, body, and spirit as a complete unit. You can't dismiss the physical (body) simply because you reframe or envision yourself as transcendental.

We do this alot in arts like aikido and I think it is very, very wrong to allow folks to begin to believe this myth. Transcendence does not mean "well we can skip the physical and move right on to the spiritiual, since that is what we want to do anyway!"

I think it requires us to embrace and understand as much as posssible the limitations and applications of what we do or can do or cannot do.

"ou only get attacked when the opponent belives he can win, if you can place yourself so that he obviously can't win or with interpersonal skills convey that you are not someone to be messed with you can defend yourself without even throwing a punch."

Well, it is up to him to form his own opinion or belief. Can you influence that belief? maybe, maybe not. It is nice to think and believe that we can...the reality of it is that his view of the world is different than yours and he may not pick up on the clues that you are superbad.

I have dealt with guys that it was very obvious (to me) that they could not win...they didn't hold my belief structure so we got physical.

On Mushashi I can't comment on what he said or believed, or how good he was. Like the book though and lots of good stuff in it.

Average? well it is realitive. I consider myself way above average when you consider the public as a whole. Inside a dojo..maybe average. with a small subset of professionals and some MMA guys I have worked with...I am way below average.

The key to this is that I think I have a healthy outlook on where I stand in relation to various demographic groups these days. That was not always the case. If you'd have asked me 7 or 8 years ago, I say that I was much better than average considering all demographics...did I get worse as a MAer? No I have gotten much better. the difference is that I have more external experience and situations and have had my ass kicked enough to understand a little better how much I still have to learn!

Actually I said takes it beyond the realms of fighting.. I'm talking about what the seduction community calls "demonstrating higher value" I'm bastardising the term somewhat but it's the only term that fits what I'm thinking of, and situational awareness/ability to use the envoironment to your advantage/avoiding vunerable positioning.

[Craig Allen Jr]

If you are contemplating pursuing a martial way, I would suggest deciding where you want the path to end up before choosing the route.

If you are looking for pure combat effectivness, I don't think Aikido is the best option for you. Combat is about efficiently disabling an opponent. Aikido takes highly efficient combat-oriented techniques and modifies them to intentionally *not* disable the opponent, at least not permanently. Therefore, the techniques are deliberately made less efficient. Aikido is not just "self" defense, it's about protecting the opponent from harm as well. Obviously this is much more difficult to accomplish.

O'Sensei mastered several forms of "combat" arts before developing Aikido. Aikido, as he understood it, was a higher level of mastery than achieving efficient killing ability. Having already learned how to destroy an opponent, he devoted himself to learning how to reconcile aggression without destruction. However, most Aikido practioners today try to go straight to the "reconciliation" level without first learning how to fight effectively. And that's fine for some purposes. Aikido certainly teaches posture, timing, balance, breathing, awareness, etc., but I don't think that a practitioner can expect to gain a deep understanding of the essence of the art without going through a developmental process that begins with forging effective, if less compassionate, technique. Consider iriminage for example: a battlefield variation would involve avoiding a grasp or thrust, entering from the side and gouging eyes or breaking the opponent's neck. A less lethal jiu jitsu variation might involve entering into a kubishime submission. Aikido usually entails throwing the opponent instead which, if the opponent knows how to land properly, causes no injury.

A lot of people wonder why aikido practitioners worries at all about wrist grabs. "Who would ever grab your wrist in a bar fight". Most law enforcment officers and military personnel never ask that question. Why? Because both train constantly for how to deal with people trying to gain control of their weapon, be it a firearm, baton, restraints, etc. There's an obvious "combat effective" solution, especially where firearms are involved, but that's often not the best option. If the officer can regain control of the weapon with nikkyo rather than deadly force, does that make the technique more or less effective?

One might also ask, if effective self defense is the end goal, why devote thousands of hours to practicing unarmed combat? By all means, get yourself some OC pepper spray or a concealed weapons permit and use the spare time to pursue other endeavors. I sometimes train with a retired Navy SEAL Master Chief who, as a 4th degree blackbelt in Aikido in addition to a career in the most combat-oriented job in the world, carriers pepper spray on a keychain. Why bother with Aikido then? For some of us, the opponent we fear most isn't "out there" it's "in here".

Cheers,
Craig

[Kevin Leavitt]

Actually I said takes it beyond the realms of fighting.. I'm talking about what the seduction community calls "demonstrating higher value" I'm bastardising the term somewhat but it's the only term that fits what I'm thinking of, and situational awareness/ability to use the envoironment to your advantage/avoiding vunerable positioning.

Alex...understand! Thanks for clarifying. I have no issues whatsoever with this!

[Kevin Leavitt]

Phil Wrote:

The real key to self-defense and Aikido is experience in conflicts. The real key to ring sport fighting is experience in the ring. The real key to combat (as in war) is a whole different thing. Prior to the advent of BJJ to the military there was judo and jujutsu, and karate all of which was proven effective for decades upon decades.


Agreed experience is important...in general, but what exactly is "experience in self defense and in Aikido"? What do you mean by that?

What I am getting at is this. You could be attacked and have to defend yourself, and yet, that experience did not lend to teaching you much in the way of martial skill. You may learn alot emotionally about what a fight/violence is about. You may learn that all your training was worthless in that situation. You may learn that luck played a big part in that particular situation.

But how is it important? What do you gain from the experience? How does it increase your skill or make you a subject matter expert in general?

"experience in Aikido". In what way? I have met guys with 3 years experience that I feel are very good and might do well in many ways, self defense and otherwise. I have met guys with 20 years experience that I don't feel really know a whole lot.

Then again, what is the criteria for measuring that experience? That is what is paramount.

"The real key to ring sport fighting is experience in the ring. The real key to combat (as in war) is a whole different thing. "

Is it really? how do you know that? Again, what is the criteria that you are using to make this judgement?

In the Army we have found that the ring actually provides us some very good lessons learned as long as you understand the implications/parameters of the impact of the rules. Again...it is all about "criteria" and "measures of effectiveness".

"Prior to the advent of BJJ to the military there was judo and jujutsu, and karate all of which was proven effective for decades upon decades."

Beating a dead horse here I know...not sure what you mean by this. Are you implying that the military used karate, jujutsu, and karate methods and it was proven effective through military use?

OR are you saying that the assumption made by many is that BJJ is effective because the military (Army specifically) uses BJJ methods of training as a base and that you don't agree with this assumption?

How to you define effective?

The fact is, that military and other professional organizations that use martial methodologies as a part of their job/profession spend a fair amount of time (or should) defining the endstate/objectives/necessity of their training. It is looked at against the "contemporary operating environment" and what is trained/used should meet the needs of those situtations that are presented.

What we have found in the military is that it needs to be a multi-disciplinary approach that considers the effectiveness of the application of tactics, but also is a good mesh with the cultural paradigms that exist. It must also fit within time constraints and budgets as well.

The point is....it is very complex to define what is "experience" what that really means. Appeal to authority asssumptions are not universal (one size does not fit all). We need to think very broadly and be open minded where we learn our lesssons. Parochialism, failure to adequately define endstates, generalization, and not thinking things out will get you killed in reality.

AND that is really the bottom line concerning training in self defense.

[MM]

If you are looking for pure combat effectivness, I don't think Aikido is the best option for you. Combat is about efficiently disabling an opponent. Aikido takes highly efficient combat-oriented techniques and modifies them to intentionally *not* disable the opponent, at least not permanently. Therefore, the techniques are deliberately made less efficient. Aikido is not just "self" defense, it's about protecting the opponent from harm as well. Obviously this is much more difficult to accomplish.


I disagree. I don't see aikido as narrowly defined as you.


O'Sensei mastered several forms of "combat" arts before developing Aikido.


I think you should really do some research on Aikido history. You're wrong. Check Aikiweb threads on the history of Ueshiba and Aikido. Ueshiba mastered one art - Daito ryu. When he opened his very first dojo and when he issued certificates as a teacher, it was all Daito ryu. Check Aikido Journal for history of Ueshiba and Aikido.

Mark

[mathewjgano]

I agree with Mark. "Aikido" is a pretty big group of people. Not all combat is about disabling an opponant, either. My sense of Aikidowaza is that ideally something disabling can be accomplished at any moment. Of course some techniques lend themselves to this more than others, but that's my general impression.

[Craig Allen Jr]

I disagree. I don't see aikido as narrowly defined as you.
Mark

Fair enough. Can we agree that the essence of Aikido is preserving the attacker and that, to do so, certain expedients must be set aside in spite of their effectiveness because they cause significant damage to the opponent?

I think you should really do some research on Aikido history. You're wrong. Check Aikiweb threads on the history of Ueshiba and Aikido. Ueshiba mastered one art - Daito ryu. When he opened his very first dojo and when he issued certificates as a teacher, it was all Daito ryu. Check Aikido Journal for history of Ueshiba and Aikido.

Mark

Ueshiba was an accomplished martial artist before he met Sokaku. I agree that Daito ryu had the largest influence on his development of Aikido, but it was not the only art he studied. A quote from O'Sensei taken from Mr. Pranin's archives as you mentioned:

"First I learned Tenjin Shin'yō-ryū Jujutsu from Tokusaburo Tozawa Sensei, then Kito-ryu, Yagyu-ryu, Aioi-ryu, Shinkage-ryu, all of those jujutsu forms. However, I thought there might be a true form of budo elsewhere. I tried Hozoin-ryu sojitsu and kendo. But all of these arts are concerned with one-to-one combat forms and they could not satisfy me. So I visited many parts of the country seeking the Way and training, but all in vain. ... I went to many places seeking the true budo. Then, when I was about 30 years old, I settled in Hokkaido. On one occasion, while staying at Hisada Inn in Engaru, Kitami Province, I met a certain Sokaku Takeda Sensei of the Aizu clan. He taught Daito-ryu jujutsu. During the 30 days in which I learned from him I felt something like an inspiration. Later, I invited this teacher to my home and together with 15 or 16 of my employees became a student seeking the essence of budo. "

Anyway, I guess I'm not sure what you are driving at with the "all Daito-ryu" argument. The point I was trying to make is that studying Aikido just to learn how to fight is not the right approach. There are several easier alternatives available. Furthermore, one must understand all of the options available in a combat situation before he/she can choose the option that protects the opponent from harm.

Cheers,
Craig

[aikilouis]

Fair enough. Can we agree that the essence of Aikido is preserving the attacker and that, to do so, certain expedients must be set aside in spite of their effectiveness because they cause significant damage to the opponent?

No, not even that.

[Craig Allen Jr]

No, not even that.

Ok, please explain.

[Kevin Leavitt]

I will attempt to explain my perspective on Ludwig's comments.

Philosophically it is about balance or midpoint. Neither preserving or destroying. those are concepts on opposite ends of the spectrum and therefore, if you look at it strictly from the philsophical perspective, then leaning one way or the other is wrong. You want to "be" in the middle where their is not conflict at all.

However, in reality this is not possible probably since in a violent encounter there is on off balance and attempting to resolve it can be complex and you can't be literal in your application and return the situation to "nothing"...even if you physically resolve the conflict you will still have emotions, damage and pain that will last beyond this.

Also, if you go into the fight "constrained", that is constrained with the parameters that you can not use tools that might injure or hurt your opponent...chances are someone will get hurt. That is just plain wrong and stupid. It is also not correct to presume or dismiss intentions of attacks/responses...that is not within the context of aikido. We simply are there...at the midpoint. Possessing the ability, willing and able to deploy, but maybe if we are lucky making the choice to limit our response to an appropriate level of force.

It could be based on skill, timing, luck what not...but we don't assume or limit ourselves to options going into the situation based on some freaking philosophy that we have that we must always resolve fights without harm.

It becomes like a koan. "do no harm, stop harm"

I don't believe it is within the realm of aikido to presume anything at all.

I think this is a big part of the problem in much of the way I have seen many folks train. They want to be revisionist and remove or "set aside" things. Dismiss the violent aspects. to ignore them, reframe, and pretend that We are somehow more revolved, more refined, or above that.

Violence and anger exist. It is apart of the human element (unfortnuately). We need to embrace it, learn about it, figure out how to control and work with it to transcend it.

Therefore, if we dismiss certain aspects of the spectrum of martial training simply because we judge these things to be violent, less than ethical, or somehow "not aiki" we are not really learning what we need to learn and we are a danger to ourselves and others around us in reality.

[George S. Ledyard]

I think Morehei Ueshiba was there. Most of us won't be, and shouldn't feel pressured to be. It will happen if it needs to.

It won't happen unless you want it. Almost to the exclusion of everything else. If you don't have a burning desire for mastery, it will never happen. Leaving it up to "it will happen if it needs to" is simply guaranteeing it won't.

[George S. Ledyard]

Yes,it is true for all fighting systems. You remove out of the gym, dojo, dojang, and stuff.

Just because you do a popular fighting system doesn't guarantee success. There is more to self-defense then using sport fighting strategies. It is a whole different dynamic with a world of variables. I know it is hard for some to realize that and not all fights are toe-to-toe. And experienced fighter will understand that and use what ever tool is right for the situation. And will not rely on one mentality. The real key to self-defense and Aikido is experience in conflicts. The real key to ring sport fighting is experience in the ring. The real key to combat (as in war) is a whole different thing. Prior to the advent of BJJ to the military there was judo and jujutsu, and karate all of which was proven effective for decades upon decades.

It boils down to experience. Those who fight for a living is one thing. Those who are recreationalists in both sport and recreational arts are another. And those who take self-defense serious is a another. I depend on Aikido, but more importantly I depend on strategy, cunning, intent, awareness and all that that is more than what is found in the ring or the dojo, over which "style" is better than other. Cuz' if I do that then I am not really paying attention to any other the what is trendy and popular, rather than what will keep me safe. That is my humble experience. :)

One of the things I see in these discussions is that the folks who really think Aikido is about something else than fighting, largely opt out. I wish they wouldn't because it would balance things out on the forums a bit more. I constantly meet people who never post but tell me they really like what I post.

Anyway, why is it that whenever we talk about the "real world", we seem to be talking about some form of street combat? Most people will never use an Aikido technique for self defense in their entire lives. I would maintain that, for most people, physical conflict is about as "unreal" as it gets.

I think what makes Aikido Aikido and not something else is that it was quite consciously designed as a practice that embodied ideals that would make ones life and even ones world better. O-Sensei talked about this all the time. Yet everyone wants to discuss fighting and self defense all the time.

What is "real world" conflict? It's your boss telling you that you've lost your job. It's your spouse telling you she wants a divorce. It's your teen getting in trouble with the law. It's your baby having a seizure and you think it may be dying. It's a co-worker who seems out to sabotage you at the workplace. "I'm sorry, you have cancer."

Every day we meet innumerable conflicts. Many people do not handle them well. In fact, many people go through life as the cause of conflict.

Are we striving for an art which focuses on defeating some, as yet unmet, enemy? Are we really training for that one moment in our lives when we are confronted with an actual attacker who intends to harm us physically? If we are law enforcement or military, I say yes, we are training for that. If we live somewhere extremely dangerous and violence is commonplace, perhaps we need to make this our focus. It's simply a matter of survival.

But Aikido isn't for that. Saotome Sensei always said that if your primary worry is physical safety, buy a gun. "Real" fighting is about weapons. It has been this way since the cave man. Unarmed fighting is about sport, for the most part.

Aikido training should be about attaining some sort of interior balance which allows us to be centered and non-reactive to the conflicts of daily life. Aikido should be about not contributing to the cycle of delusion which causes so much pain and suffering. It should be about leaving the world a better place than it was when you arrived.

Yes, the training has a martial paradigm. But it is meant to go far beyond limited notions of winning and losing. What are the implications of really trying to understand O-Sensei's statement that "there is no attacker?" You want hard training? Make that your goal. Fighting is easy by comparison. It is really the human default setting. Millions of people fight. Hundreds of thousands get competent. Thousands attain some high level of mastery. But only a handful attain the kind of level of understanding which goes beyond all that. O-Sensei was one. He founded our art. I think we need to remind ourselves why he did so. I do not think it had anything at all to do with fighting or self defense. Those skills might be a by product of proper training but one misses the essence of that is the focus.

[Janet Rosen]

To George's above on learning to keep balance when life itself attacks you, I'd add: as we age the most likely source of *physical* attack is going to be the curbstone, the slick pavement or floor, the bunched up rug....being comfortable with going to the ground and having a full repertoire of falls and rolls in "muscle memory" is invaluable "real life aikido" too.

[aikilouis]

It becomes like a koan. "do no harm, stop harm"
That is your koan.

Mine is "There is no enemy for Ueshiba of Aikido."

The way I answer it is :
Aikido is not about self defence because there is no distinct self (we are essentially defined by the nature of our mutual connections in the world) and there is no defence, only the right action at the right moment.

The expression "in the street" makes me laugh because my chief method for avoiding trouble when I'm on the street is to watch left and right before crossing it. I guess it's the same for a majority of people in the world.

Morihei Ueshiba's Aikido definitely had a spiritual/philosophical/ethical component, but if we judge by his attitude towards the multiple ways his students chose, O Sensei was not a prescriptor of fixed rules. His idea was that everyone should get closer to his true nature, his role in the world and fulfill his mission. In clearer words it means working hard on oneself through experience and trials (which is the purpose of our budo training) and letting the process transform oneself into something more integrated internally and externally, the same way a child becomes an adult. One may tend to forget it but it's a difficult and traumatic evolution.

[Craig Allen Jr]

I will attempt to explain my perspective on Ludwig's comments.

Philosophically it is about balance or midpoint. Neither preserving or destroying. those are concepts on opposite ends of the spectrum and therefore, if you look at it strictly from the philsophical perspective, then leaning one way or the other is wrong. You want to "be" in the middle where their is not conflict at all.

However, in reality this is not possible probably since in a violent encounter there is on off balance and attempting to resolve it can be complex and you can't be literal in your application and return the situation to "nothing"...even if you physically resolve the conflict you will still have emotions, damage and pain that will last beyond this.

Also, if you go into the fight "constrained", that is constrained with the parameters that you can not use tools that might injure or hurt your opponent...chances are someone will get hurt. That is just plain wrong and stupid. It is also not correct to presume or dismiss intentions of attacks/responses...that is not within the context of aikido. We simply are there...at the midpoint. Possessing the ability, willing and able to deploy, but maybe if we are lucky making the choice to limit our response to an appropriate level of force.

It could be based on skill, timing, luck what not...but we don't assume or limit ourselves to options going into the situation based on some freaking philosophy that we have that we must always resolve fights without harm.

It becomes like a koan. "do no harm, stop harm"

I don't believe it is within the realm of aikido to presume anything at all.

I think this is a big part of the problem in much of the way I have seen many folks train. They want to be revisionist and remove or "set aside" things. Dismiss the violent aspects. to ignore them, reframe, and pretend that We are somehow more revolved, more refined, or above that.

Violence and anger exist. It is apart of the human element (unfortnuately). We need to embrace it, learn about it, figure out how to control and work with it to transcend it.

Therefore, if we dismiss certain aspects of the spectrum of martial training simply because we judge these things to be violent, less than ethical, or somehow "not aiki" we are not really learning what we need to learn and we are a danger to ourselves and others around us in reality.

Thank you for your comments. I agree with much of what you say.

I think Ledyard Sensei said a lot of what I was getting at much more eloquently than I did. I love aikido and I've gained a lot from the art over the years. As a Coast Guard officer, my career has put me in several situations requiring use of force. In law enforcement, it's not about a "fair fight" and it's certainly not about squaring off with an aggressive subject unarmed. Therefore we train with impact weapons, less-lethal munitions, and spend a lot of time at the range getting proficient with firearms. However, when I practice iaido, it's not because I think I'm going to bring my sword with me on a boarding. What I hope to bring instead is intensity of focus, awareness, posture, timing, and ma'ai.

I choose aikido specifically because it emphasizes control of a subject while minimizing injury. That's not because I think violence doesn't exist, but rather because I know full well that it does exist and my job requires me to use only force reasonably necessary to compel compliance.

I appreciate the different perspectives on the subject- thanks for expoudning.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Thanks Craig!

FWIW. I agree with Ledyard Sensei as well....as long as the rational doesn't become an excuse to ignore important elements of training, which I know he does not!

[Kevin Leavitt]

Ludwig wrote:

In clearer words it means working hard on oneself through experience and trials (which is the purpose of our budo training) and letting the process transform oneself into something more integrated internally and externally, the same way a child becomes an adult. One may tend to forget it but it's a difficult and traumatic evolution.

Agreed!

[dps]

Anyway, why is it that whenever we talk about the "real world", we seem to be talking about some form of street combat? Most people will never use an Aikido technique for self defense in their entire lives. I would maintain that, for most people, physical conflict is about as "unreal" as it gets.

I think what makes Aikido Aikido and not something else is that it was quite consciously designed as a practice that embodied ideals that would make ones life and even ones world better. O-Sensei talked about this all the time. Yet everyone wants to discuss fighting and self defense all the time.


Security is a basic human need and a fundamental requirement for survival. Regardless of intellectually knowing the statistics of actually being in a physical conflict, most people have a basic need to be able to protect themselves from physical harm.

In O'Sensei's example, he first became proficient in martial arts and had the ability to protect himself thus satisfying the need for survival before he moved on to his religious/philosophical ideals.



David

[philippe willaume]

Fair enough. Can we agree that the essence of Aikido is preserving the attacker and that, to do so, certain expedients must be set aside in spite of their effectiveness because they cause significant damage to the opponent?

Craig
Well, I am of a different opinion
Learning aikido to know how to fight is as valid as learning aikido for the spiritual side. In fact it is not mutually exclusive; I would even argue that you need one to get the other.

Of course the practice of aikido will affect or re-inforce your system of value, but really this is the case for most martial arts. For example redirecting and matching the intent of your opponent is the essence of fencing. Just as well you can use that in every day life.

Aikido offers several options between smashing his head in and just going away, for me this is really the particularity of the art. Any martial artist can tell if troubles are brewing and when it is time to leave, but if and when they miss the last bus, the only option left is full on head bashing.
Aikido offers you to choose between all those options so that should you wish it, you can protect your opponent or put him in all word of hurt, according to the situation.

Phil

[Erick Mead]

One of the things I see in these discussions is that the folks who really think Aikido is about something else than fighting, largely opt out. I wish they wouldn't because it would balance things out on the forums a bit more. ...
I think what makes Aikido Aikido and not something else is that it was quite consciously designed as a practice that embodied ideals that would make ones life and even ones world better. O-Sensei talked about this all the time. Yet everyone wants to discuss fighting and self defense all the time.

What is "real world" conflict? It's your boss telling you that you've lost your job. It's your spouse telling you she wants a divorce. It's your teen getting in trouble with the law. It's your baby having a seizure and you think it may be dying. It's a co-worker who seems out to sabotage you at the workplace. "I'm sorry, you have cancer."

Every day we meet innumerable conflicts. Many people do not handle them well. In fact, many people go through life as the cause of conflict. I may be completely off-base, but I think most people's problems with these common real conflicts is exactly the same as their problems in physical training -- precisely -- they try to "handle" them -- they try to grab, grip, manipulate and keep "the conflict" at arms length to "deal" with it. "Handling" is the opposite of resolving. In short, they do not identify with the cause of the conflict -- its center -- and as such cannot transform it until they have become identified with it.

Most people see conflict as transactional -- give, take, bargain etc. Conflict is not a transaction, there is no give/take process-- and everyone who treats it this way ends up with the personal analogue of World War I trench warfare. In true conflict, there is an entry into it and a turn of events that resolves it -- real sudden-like.

Even in physical training they try to form neat categories and fixed roles (uke/nage) or neat progressions (win/lose) that good martial art (of any type) constantly subverts. That subversion is the point of the training, and, IMO, the reason why we start training with our fixed roles and stylized waza -- so as to have something more obviously subverted.

The other day we were working on randori. For most people we emphasize mobility in randori (so long as it is going after the attackers, rather than running away). One of our excellent players has extremely bad knees and is not as mobile as she would like to be (she teaches iai -- nidan MJER). So, we constantly work on ways to subvert the other guy's mobility. She cannot run around, so she has to change her approach and make the other guys run around her. In doing this, she was managing quite well, until one of our jujitsu-trained guys recovered from his initial kuzushi and got in a semi-clinch with her. She kept trying to get "out" of the clinch he was trying to gain -- I kept trying to tell her to go further in. After, we talked about how she was looking for "safe" and while safe "felt" like it should be "out" -- in taijutsu -- as with the sword -- the only possible "safe" is further in.

The way an army wins a battle is to "run to the sound of the guns." The way one resolves conflicts is by entering deeply into and identifying with their primary cause -- the center. Only from there can anything be changed. Aikido is intended, IMO, to build up this instinctive reaction to conflicts -- of all types.

[Craig Allen Jr]

Well, I am of a different opinion
Learning aikido to know how to fight is as valid as learning aikido for the spiritual side. In fact it is not mutually exclusive; I would even argue that you need one to get the other.
Phil

I'm with you on the latter half of your statement. I agree that one needs to recognize the destructive potential of the art before he/she can understand the choice of less destructive alternatives.

However, as Aikido is most commonly practiced- as budo vice bujutsu- the combat roots of the art are not given as much emphasis as the exchange of energy and spiritual forging. That's not to say they are neglected entirely, not at all, but the end goal of the art is not killing an opponent on a battlefield as was the case with some of Aikido's "parent" arts. Donn Draeger does a much better job of explaining the difference between the two approaches than I can here.

Aikido is a very effective martial art at the higher levels. I'd say it takes much longer to get to the level where one is proficient enough in it to use it effectively than other arts because it requires developing a great deal of subtlety and perception. That's why I still maintain that if winning fights is your real purpose for studying a martial art, look into easier, more effective self defense options. Japan learned 400 years ago that peasant ashigaru equipped with firearms could defeat the most skilled classical warriors fighting with sword and bow. That does not mean that continuing to practice the classical arts has no value, quite the contrary, only that focusing entirely on the "combat effectiveness" of martial arts is no longer the fundamental criterion for weighing their value as perhaps it once was.

Craig

[mwpowell]

I think what makes Aikido Aikido and not something else is that it was quite consciously designed as a practice that embodied ideals that would make ones life and even ones world better. O-Sensei talked about this all the time. Yet everyone wants to discuss fighting and self defense all the time.

What is "real world" conflict? It's your boss telling you that you've lost your job. It's your spouse telling you she wants a divorce. It's your teen getting in trouble with the law. It's your baby having a seizure and you think it may be dying. It's a co-worker who seems out to sabotage you at the workplace. "I'm sorry, you have cancer."

Every day we meet innumerable conflicts. Many people do not handle them well. In fact, many people go through life as the cause of conflict.

[...snip..]

Aikido training should be about attaining some sort of interior balance which allows us to be centered and non-reactive to the conflicts of daily life. Aikido should be about not contributing to the cycle of delusion which causes so much pain and suffering. It should be about leaving the world a better place than it was when you arrived.


I think you've really nailed it here, George. I've only been doing aikido for about 15 months, but I'm already seeing changes in the way I approach every-day "conflict". I've yet to be involved in a physical altercation, but work-place and mental / emotional conflicts are (unfortunately) an every-day occurrence.

Since starting aikido training, I find that I no longer clash head-on with someone who disagrees with me, or is "attacking" me. Rather, I step off the line of attack, blend, and redirect. I've discovered that my ability to influence outcomes has improved significantly. More importantly, I am able to achieve my desired outcomes more often, and without embarrassment or humiliation of either myself or others.

As a result, I've become more effective in my job, more likable in my personal life, and my stress levels are significantly lower. It may not be physical aikido, but I do believe it is the every-day application of the principles of aiki.

[wideawakedreamer]

Ledyard Sensei, why is it that you don't have your own column? I don't think I ever get tired of reading your posts. Namaste. _/|\_
:)
One of the things I see in these discussions is that the folks who really think Aikido is about something else than fighting, largely opt out. I wish they wouldn't because it would balance things out on the forums a bit more. I constantly meet people who never post but tell me they really like what I post.

Anyway, why is it that whenever we talk about the "real world", we seem to be talking about some form of street combat? Most people will never use an Aikido technique for self defense in their entire lives. I would maintain that, for most people, physical conflict is about as "unreal" as it gets.

I think what makes Aikido Aikido and not something else is that it was quite consciously designed as a practice that embodied ideals that would make ones life and even ones world better. O-Sensei talked about this all the time. Yet everyone wants to discuss fighting and self defense all the time.

What is "real world" conflict? It's your boss telling you that you've lost your job. It's your spouse telling you she wants a divorce. It's your teen getting in trouble with the law. It's your baby having a seizure and you think it may be dying. It's a co-worker who seems out to sabotage you at the workplace. "I'm sorry, you have cancer."

Every day we meet innumerable conflicts. Many people do not handle them well. In fact, many people go through life as the cause of conflict.

Are we striving for an art which focuses on defeating some, as yet unmet, enemy? Are we really training for that one moment in our lives when we are confronted with an actual attacker who intends to harm us physically? If we are law enforcement or military, I say yes, we are training for that. If we live somewhere extremely dangerous and violence is commonplace, perhaps we need to make this our focus. It's simply a matter of survival.

But Aikido isn't for that. Saotome Sensei always said that if your primary worry is physical safety, buy a gun. "Real" fighting is about weapons. It has been this way since the cave man. Unarmed fighting is about sport, for the most part.

Aikido training should be about attaining some sort of interior balance which allows us to be centered and non-reactive to the conflicts of daily life. Aikido should be about not contributing to the cycle of delusion which causes so much pain and suffering. It should be about leaving the world a better place than it was when you arrived.

Yes, the training has a martial paradigm. But it is meant to go far beyond limited notions of winning and losing. What are the implications of really trying to understand O-Sensei's statement that "there is no attacker?" You want hard training? Make that your goal. Fighting is easy by comparison. It is really the human default setting. Millions of people fight. Hundreds of thousands get competent. Thousands attain some high level of mastery. But only a handful attain the kind of level of understanding which goes beyond all that. O-Sensei was one. He founded our art. I think we need to remind ourselves why he did so. I do not think it had anything at all to do with fighting or self defense. Those skills might be a by product of proper training but one misses the essence of that is the focus.

[Anjisan]

I am certainly in favor of all of the many metaphorical ways that one can use Aikido for. For instance, in my MS program Aikido was used as a primary prism through which we discussed psychotherapy. Also, Aiki Extentions is a means to deliever very positive energy to sick world.

However, any of these other applications may not have the opportunity to be consistently appplied if one does not first make sure one is upright an breathing. In my humble opinion, if one wants to be the keeper of the peace one must be able to stop the war. Saotome sensei spoke of "Stopping the Spear" in his book Aikido and the Harmony of Nature. To me it is like a heirchy of needs with physical safety being a very basic need and at the bottom of the pyrimid.

If one is going to put all the effort into becoming a better human being, would not part of that enlighted state include having a least a shot a perserving or establishing the peace? It seems to me that O Sensei, first delt with this and then evolved to a more philoposhical approach. It seems that some Aikidoka desire to skip these earlier levels. If one doestn't confront the violence both within oneself and without I don't know if one arrives in the same place.

[George S. Ledyard]

Ledyard Sensei, why is it that you don't have your own column? I don't think I ever get tired of reading your posts. Namaste. _/|\_
:)
Thanks so much, but I did have a column... Articles are more formal, just look at the quality of Peter's columns. I got to the point at which I didn't have anything to say which I hadn't more less said already. So I took time away.

Now i find that Blogging is easier.. I don't feel things have to be so formal. And I still get stirred to respond by certain threads. So I am posting again, which I like to do. Also, I want to do what I can to support Jun's site; he's been so supportive of me. This works betterfor me right now.

[Patrick Crane]

It won't happen unless you want it. Almost to the exclusion of everything else. If you don't have a burning desire for mastery, it will never happen. Leaving it up to "it will happen if it needs to" is simply guaranteeing it won't.

Well, I think is comes down to personality. I know for my personality spirituality is a big waste of time; and "wanting" (seeking, trying) it would be an even bigger waste of time.
When I get to the point of expressing myself as an artist, that's gonna be about it for me.
If i "wanted" to find aiki-sprituality because I thought I was supposed to or because Ueshiba did, it would just be a pretence anyway.

For others with different personalities, spirituality might be a great pursuit, or even the only viable pursuit. Especially once "mastery" has been achieved. It would answer the question "what next."

[Kevin Leavitt]

Spirituality I believe is found, sought, and weighted in many different ways. Some feel they need to have a very literal and direct connection to it.

I personally consider myself a fairly spiritual person, but do not have a high affinity for "shirt sleeve" or overt spirituality.

For me, I find it through hard and serious training and experiences.

A recent example is my experiences within yoga. I have avoided yoga for many years cause I found it simply too overt and way too "overbaked" for my liking. I am not a big "open your heart, smell the flowers" kind of person.

Well, I have recently discovered Bikram yoga which works for me. The practice of 90 minutes in a hot room sweating and working hard and serious...works for me.

As I become more in tune and touch with myself and reach what I call a "true" understanding of the physical nature of my body and mind, well the spirituality follows.

I do agree, that chasing it (for me at least) is the best way to not find it.

[Josh Astridge]

one statement I see a lot is

oh man aikido sucks, why aren't there any 'aikido used in streets' videos. blah blah blah.

There aren't any videos of Aikido being used in the streets?
good.
That's how it's supposed to be.

Aikido isn't about wandering around and beating people to a pulp.
Aikido isn't about breaking someone's arm.

Aikido is about bringing peaceful resolution through harmony of Ki (my thoughts).

some punk in the street is high on crack and wants to get past you any way he can. ok. simply step to the side and 'help him on his journey'.

Aikido is as effective as it needs to be.
What are the chances that someone who's experienced in Karate or something is going to beat you? It's against their code, as is deliberately fighting for Aikido.

my thoughts (probably completely incorrect but oh well)

[Anjisan]

one statement I see a lot is

oh man aikido sucks, why aren't there any 'aikido used in streets' videos. blah blah blah.

There aren't any videos of Aikido being used in the streets?
good.
That's how it's supposed to be.

Aikido isn't about wandering around and beating people to a pulp.
Aikido isn't about breaking someone's arm.

Aikido is about bringing peaceful resolution through harmony of Ki (my thoughts).

some punk in the street is high on crack and wants to get past you any way he can. ok. simply step to the side and 'help him on his journey'.

Aikido is as effective as it needs to be.
What are the chances that someone who's experienced in Karate or something is going to beat you? It's against their code, as is deliberately fighting for Aikido.

my thoughts (probably completely incorrect but oh well)

Aikido,.............is about bringing a peaceful resolution to conflict--no argument here. However, it may not always be so easy as just letting a drug abuser pass. Once in a blue moon it may be about physically defending yourself or someone else--your spouse, grandmother, child, someone who is disabled. In such situations there is no escape--one can get out of the house but loved ones cannot. I distinctly remember hearing about a shodan test and when the randori portion of the exam came up the student simply ran off the mat--away from trouble. Symbolically, that may be great and most of the time in the real world, even appropriate.

However, stopping the spear, bringing harmony to a situation may also be about defending oneself when there is no other choice. Further, it may be about defending others and then one does not have the luxury of be selfish but may be required---by the situation however rare/ unlikely--to be selfless. In such situations one's Aikido needs to at least give one a chance surviving the situation both for oneself and others.

Even in metaphorical uses of Aikido such a verbal conflict resolution one may not always be able/ should be silent (such as letting them pass) and may need to speak up--certain civil rights situations come to mind. In such situations one also needs to be effective as well to bring harmony to the solution. In life there are times to bow low-- be humble and times when defense is required. If one can't defend oneself or others then one IMHO is not truly making a choice.

[Chris Evans]

Pure self defence you're better off going for something else other than aikido. Unless you're willing to spend a good few years getting to grips with it. Even then, for pure self defence, you'll need another art to compliment it IMO.

What other art do you recommend to cross-train with aikido?

[TokyoZeplin]

What other art do you recommend to cross-train with aikido?

Since I haven't started yet, I'm not speaking from personal experience, but from what I remember reading in other threads where this question was asked!
In those threads, it seemed most people could agree on this:

1) Wait on cross-training until you are decent enough in Aikido to not confuse the techniques.

2) Cross-train in something Aikido particularly lacks: Brazilian Jiu Jitsu seems to be a favourite, for on-ground gabbling. For standing, the answers are a bit more varied, but generally seem to be Karate, Muay Thai, or Wing Chun. Some have set that particularly Wing Chun seems a good match, since it works on a "centreline principle" that is very compliant with Aikido principles.

Even though I'm a great believer in Krav Maga's martial effectiveness (can it even be argued?), I don't think it's a very (from my unskilled perspective) good one to mix with. How Krav Maga works just seems so incredibly different, the other end of the spectrum, from Aikido, that for me it seems like it would be difficult to mix the two together well. But then again, that might depend on the Krav Maga dojo... I've seen that generally people distinguish between two types of training: personal self defence, and "professional" training (aimed at armed forces, security, bodyguards, etc.). To my understanding, self defence in Krav Maga uses quite a bit of joint manipulation, so I suppose that might fit with Aikido.

Of course, Goju Ryu Aikijujutsu should also be mentioned, I've read from many members, and seen in documentaries, that many Aikidoka feel that it greatly compliments their Aikido, and makes them understand Aikido techniques better. But from a pure self-defence "complete MA system" perspective, it might be too much like Aikido to be "worth while".

But again, this is merely from what I have read from others, and what information I have gathered (on these forums, others, websites, documentaries, etc.), so take it for what it is :)

[Brett Charvat]

I'm almost afraid to ask, but what exactly is "Goju Ryu Aikijujutsu?"

[TokyoZeplin]

I'm almost afraid to ask, but what exactly is "Goju Ryu Aikijujutsu?"

Effin' hell, major brain fart from my end there ._.' would edit it, but can't seem to edit the older posts :( Thanks for pointing it out!
I obviously meant "Daitō-ryū" not "Goju Ryu", my bad!

[lbb]

What other art do you recommend to cross-train with aikido?

It depends. Why are you cross-training? Why are you training in the first place, and what do you feel your training lacks that you want? How much time do you have to devote to cross-training, on an ongoing basis?

If you were buying a pair of shoes, you'd certainly start out with some idea what you wanted to use these shoes for, what your shoe size is, and how much you could afford to spend -- and if you didn't, you probably wouldn't be surprised if the result didn't fit too well (your feet, your purpose or your budget). The same should be true for choosing a martial art, which is a lot harder to swap out than a pair of shoes.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Well. When u start talking self defense and reality, IMO,
TMAs....while they all have elements that are good for various things, but a lot of unnecessary overhead comes with them.

Its all about OODA man. If u understand it...then u understand how to train. Your either ahead or behind, winning or losing. IMO, arts like Krav Manga are good as they teach aggressiveness and violence of action...good thing to know and be able to do in a fight. However, it assumes u are ahead and winning. Also can have issues with use of force depending on situation. BJJ does a good job of assuming u are behind and losing and how to get back to winning. Which IMO for self defense is the first thing u need to learn. However u don't need to be an expert at BJJ necessarily either.

All other MAs tend to be arts of parity...meaning we train cooperatively and with equal knowledge...and ignore OODA in pratxice almost entirely.

An over simplification, but if self defense is your goal, save your money and find a decent teacher that can show u how to mitigate your risk...it won't all that hard and doesn't require 20 years and a black belt.

[TokyoZeplin]

Well. When u start talking self defense and reality, IMO,
TMAs....while they all have elements that are good for various things, but a lot of unnecessary overhead comes with them.

Its all about OODA man. If u understand it...then u understand how to train. Your either ahead or behind, winning or losing. IMO, arts like Krav Manga are good as they teach aggressiveness and violence of action...good thing to know and be able to do in a fight. However, it assumes u are ahead and winning. Also can have issues with use of force depending on situation. BJJ does a good job of assuming u are behind and losing and how to get back to winning. Which IMO for self defense is the first thing u need to learn. However u don't need to be an expert at BJJ necessarily either.

All other MAs tend to be arts of parity...meaning we train cooperatively and with equal knowledge...and ignore OODA in pratxice almost entirely.

An over simplification, but if self defense is your goal, save your money and find a decent teacher that can show u how to mitigate your risk...it won't all that hard and doesn't require 20 years and a black belt.

Excuse my lack of knowledge, but... TMA? OODA?

[Demetrio Cereijo]

TMA = Traditional Martial Art(s)

OODA = Observe, Orient, Decide, Act (see OODA loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop))

[dps]

What other art do you recommend to cross-train with aikido?

Boxing, learn to hit and get hit.
dps

[PeterR]

Boxing, learn to hit and get hit.
dps
Boxing does teach you how to take a punch or at least not to be too scared of it but one thing (I actually did Nippon Kenpo (sort of armored MMA) but it still applies) is it really comes down to an exchange of blows with the idea that you deliver more than you get and better still the ones you do give are more devastating than the ones you receive. For self defense boxing just does not happen.

Interestingly while I was doing that art I did get into an altercation (running battle with two purse snatchers which ended up on the escalator on the London underground) and yes blows were exchanged but what decided the issue was something as simple as taisabaki. Taisabaki being the take home lesson for Shodokan Aikido also.

For self defense the real issue once you is aggression management - meaning not being overwhelmed by the aggressor and being able to focus your own to the point where you need to be.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Boxing does teach you how to take a punch or at least not to be too scared of it but one thing (I actually did Nippon Kenpo (sort of armored MMA) but it still applies) is it really comes down to an exchange of blows with the idea that you deliver more than you get and better still the ones you do give are more devastating than the ones you receive. For self defense boxing just does not happen.

Interestingly while I was doing that art I did get into an altercation (running battle with two purse snatchers which ended up on the escalator on the London underground) and yes blows were exchanged but what decided the issue was something as simple as taisabaki. Taisabaki being the take home lesson for Shodokan Aikido also.

For self defense the real issue once you is aggression management - meaning not being overwhelmed by the aggressor and being able to focus your own to the point where you need to be.

I was going to say the same thing as Peter with respect to boxing. Agree with Peter, boxing is a sport of trading blows within a prescribed set of rules. Not that there is anything wrong with boxing, and too a degree agree there is some value in learning how to take a blow and hardening yourself and your spirit, but we also have to understand the limitation that training in boxing presents.

Frankly, as I stated above, although maybe not so well. I think to learn this, boxing comes with a tremendous amount of overhead and methodology that really don't warrant the time you'd spend learning the boxing skills. There are better, more efficient ways to inclucate how to deal with "what to do when you are losing a fight".

so along with Peter...the real issue is agression management and how you deal with it.

The only real way of doing it is to put yourself into those positions and scenarios and then disecting them and identifying the things you need to work on at the various stages. That is, things like guy hits you and backs you into a corner, he knocks you down on the ground and is pummelling you etc.

A big issue I have is dealing with weapons. What typically happens in most dojos, for example is we do it as a "one step" kata...that is, "stab this way", then "block that way". This isolates out the aliveness that is in the fight..which sucks really. Aliveness being, for example...you are behind in the OODA loop and the guy is stabbing at us as we are getting stabbed and you are stumbling backwards etc.

One might say..."well what is the point of practicing this...in that case you are going to die or be severely injured". duh...

I'd say "exactly". Practicing this helps you understand how serious this stuff is and how little you can really probably do about it! Also, it informs you that it may not be about coming out of the situation unscathed, but managing or minimizing loss. It also informs you to have an appreciation for the fact that simply being ahead of the OODA loop is probably THE most important determination of a fight and NOT any amount of training or skill.

That is why I like weapons...it informs us how important the PROCESS of the fight is vice SKILL.

The same is for empty hand, but it is not as amplified or obvious as weapons since we have a little more margin of error and a better chance of turnign the tables than weapons.

However, even with empty hand...he who understands OODA has the greatest advantage in the fight.

Sadly, IMO, this understanding is NOT universal and we have droves of people in dojos looking to improve their ability to defend themselves through learning minute an miniscule technqiues that in reality are probably very hard to apply in reality.

You might be quick to jump to the Krav Maga philosophy and say...well then they get it. I'd say, maybe...but again...for many...even in KM....it is easy to make the huge assumption that "I have knowledge and can inact violence of action on my opponent".

This may or may not be the case. As Peter said,....it is all about understanding agression and how to manage it.

For me, it is better to study the process or "loop" and where you are in that is more important than learning static "skills" without ever really studying how you employ those things at various points in that process that is what is most important. Unfortunately...I think there are not too many schools out there that really concentrate on this holsitically and evaluate against it as the primary criteria for determining effectiveness and "what works".

So yeah, you can study boxing, Krav Maga, Aikido, Jiu Jitsu...or whatever...but IMO, without focusing primarily on the "process or dynamic" of a fight..then even as good as the skills you might learn in those "systems"...they will be lost if not tied together through "aliveness" or understanding the dynamics or spectrum of violence in a fight.

[lars beyer]

I was going to say the same thing as Peter with respect to boxing. Agree with Peter, boxing is a sport of trading blows within a prescribed set of rules. Not that there is anything wrong with boxing, and too a degree agree there is some value in learning how to take a blow and hardening yourself and your spirit, but we also have to understand the limitation that training in boxing presents.

Frankly, as I stated above, although maybe not so well. I think to learn this, boxing comes with a tremendous amount of overhead and methodology that really don't warrant the time you'd spend learning the boxing skills. There are better, more efficient ways to inclucate how to deal with "what to do when you are losing a fight".

so along with Peter...the real issue is agression management and how you deal with it.

The only real way of doing it is to put yourself into those positions and scenarios and then disecting them and identifying the things you need to work on at the various stages. That is, things like guy hits you and backs you into a corner, he knocks you down on the ground and is pummelling you etc.

A big issue I have is dealing with weapons. What typically happens in most dojos, for example is we do it as a "one step" kata...that is, "stab this way", then "block that way". This isolates out the aliveness that is in the fight..which sucks really. Aliveness being, for example...you are behind in the OODA loop and the guy is stabbing at us as we are getting stabbed and you are stumbling backwards etc.

One might say..."well what is the point of practicing this...in that case you are going to die or be severely injured". duh...

I'd say "exactly". Practicing this helps you understand how serious this stuff is and how little you can really probably do about it! Also, it informs you that it may not be about coming out of the situation unscathed, but managing or minimizing loss. It also informs you to have an appreciation for the fact that simply being ahead of the OODA loop is probably THE most important determination of a fight and NOT any amount of training or skill.

That is why I like weapons...it informs us how important the PROCESS of the fight is vice SKILL.

The same is for empty hand, but it is not as amplified or obvious as weapons since we have a little more margin of error and a better chance of turnign the tables than weapons.

However, even with empty hand...he who understands OODA has the greatest advantage in the fight.

Sadly, IMO, this understanding is NOT universal and we have droves of people in dojos looking to improve their ability to defend themselves through learning minute an miniscule technqiues that in reality are probably very hard to apply in reality.

You might be quick to jump to the Krav Maga philosophy and say...well then they get it. I'd say, maybe...but again...for many...even in KM....it is easy to make the huge assumption that "I have knowledge and can inact violence of action on my opponent".

This may or may not be the case. As Peter said,....it is all about understanding agression and how to manage it.

For me, it is better to study the process or "loop" and where you are in that is more important than learning static "skills" without ever really studying how you employ those things at various points in that process that is what is most important. Unfortunately...I think there are not too many schools out there that really concentrate on this holsitically and evaluate against it as the primary criteria for determining effectiveness and "what works".

So yeah, you can study boxing, Krav Maga, Aikido, Jiu Jitsu...or whatever...but IMO, without focusing primarily on the "process or dynamic" of a fight..then even as good as the skills you might learn in those "systems"...they will be lost if not tied together through "aliveness" or understanding the dynamics or spectrum of violence in a fight.

Hi Kevin
That´s very interresting, would it be possible to elaborate a bit on how this would work in practise, I mean maybe through explaining OODA with an example ? I never heard of this "philosophy" before it was mentioned here, and find it quite interresting..Thank you.
Lars

[dps]

Boxing does teach you how to take a punch or at least not to be too scared of it....

...For self defense the real issue once you is aggression management - meaning not being overwhelmed by the aggressor and being able to focus your own to the point where you need to be.

Exactly my points about learning how to punch like a boxer and getting punched.

Shodokan Taisabaki :)

Float like a butterfly,
Sting like a bee,
A boxers punch,
Makes for good Atemi.

My apologies to Muhammad Ali.

dps :)

[TokyoZeplin]

Interesting that people mention boxing as a way to harden yourself... wouldn't Muay Thai be a better choice? It presents all the same benefits as boxing, except you also use (and get hit by) legs, elbows, knees, and throws?
Thoughts?

[PeterR]

Same issue , same benefit, same problem. Muay Tthai = kick boxing.

[dps]

Interesting that people mention boxing as a way to harden yourself... wouldn't Muay Thai be a better choice? It presents all the same benefits as boxing, except you also use (and get hit by) legs, elbows, knees, and throws?
Thoughts?

Boxing is more available to most people then Muay Thai.

Good boxers do anger management and the OODA loop.
dps

[PeterR]

Boxing is more available to most people then Muay Thai.

Good boxers do anger management and the OODA loop.
dps

Anger does not equal aggression - I was watching an interesting program on "The Anger Gene". I figure the jury is still out on that but in the study they found MMA tended not to have it. Apparently uncontrollable anger works against you.

[dps]

Anger does not equal aggression

True.
Good boxers know aggression management too.l

dps

[Chris Evans]

It depends. Why are you cross-training? Why are you training in the first place, and what do you feel your training lacks that you want? How much time do you have to devote to cross-training, on an ongoing basis?

If you were buying a pair of shoes, you'd certainly start out with some idea what you wanted to use these shoes for, what your shoe size is, and how much you could afford to spend -- and if you didn't, you probably wouldn't be surprised if the result didn't fit too well (your feet, your purpose or your budget). The same should be true for choosing a martial art, which is a lot harder to swap out than a pair of shoes.

why? I like practical martial arts for fun fitness that develops the confidence to not fight, if that's right.

non-delusional study of violence, in a framework of respect, cultivates confidence that prevents violence, resolves conflicts, and is a heck of a fun way to exercise. It's "kind to be cruel" kind of thing.

playing (so called "fighting") in the sport of MMA is one fun way to test skill and spirit of a "traditional" martial artist, using the least amount of game-rules in a "lab'" kind of setting.

[Chris Evans]

Interesting that people mention boxing as a way to harden yourself... wouldn't Muay Thai be a better choice? It presents all the same benefits as boxing, except you also use (and get hit by) legs, elbows, knees, and throws?
Thoughts?

Yes, of course, if you can find a good instructor that has a cadre of advanced students, like any martial art/sport.

muay Thai or "International" kickboxing (that allows leg/low kicks, elbows/knees), Sansha/Sanda, and American kickboxing (no leg/low kicks) are more useful than boxing, assuming you have access to good instruction.

Many karata-ka do not realize developing one-strike bare-knuckle knockdown ability (vs. same weight class), even after receiving hard hits, is the cornerstone of 'stand-up" waza,

Granted boxers punch well, but often creates openings for low kicks or knees to face and do not hone in take-down/throws while in a clinch.

[Chris Evans]

The problem I suspect is that many Aikidoka do not seem to train beyond the years of foundation building of cooperative & predictable exchange of skills: None or not much creative sparring/randori, for example. (I'd be delighted to be wrong about this notion)

so I'm looking for riot-poice-Aikido/Aikijutsu in my 'hood.

[Chris Evans]

so, when I am called on to teach I want to be able to offer practical skills to persons of any size or demeanor. I've always been curious about Aikido.

[PeterR]

I am right up there shouting the benefits of good competitive training - it really does have a benefit for a whole range of skills. Just that it is not the whole answer - nothing ever is.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Boxing is more available to most people then Muay Thai.

Good boxers do anger management and the OODA loop.
dps

I agree, absolutely..they do understand the OODA loop. Infact, just about all sports that involve taking an action to affect anothers (cause and effect) do.

However, they do so within the context of their sport and strategy, and that is key to identify that and understand the limitations of this issue.

I do not mean to imply that boxing training is not good training and that boxers do not understand (or cannot) how this applies to self defense. I do mean to imply that as a specific methodology, though that studying boxing as a sport is a tremendous amount of overhead for very little gain in understanding how to manage self defense. IMO, your time is better spent doing other things.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Hi Kevin
That´s very interresting, would it be possible to elaborate a bit on how this would work in practise, I mean maybe through explaining OODA with an example ? I never heard of this "philosophy" before it was mentioned here, and find it quite interresting..Thank you.
Lars

Let me get home this afternoon and see if I can. I might have a post or two on my blog about it that is applicable. I'd recommend starting off by reading about John Boyd and his theory first, and imagine how that might apply to a self defense scenario. google him and start with Wiki for a good primer.

[Kevin Leavitt]

why? I like practical martial arts for fun fitness that develops the confidence to not fight, if that's right.

non-delusional study of violence, in a framework of respect, cultivates confidence that prevents violence, resolves conflicts, and is a heck of a fun way to exercise. It's "kind to be cruel" kind of thing.

playing (so called "fighting") in the sport of MMA is one fun way to test skill and spirit of a "traditional" martial artist, using the least amount of game-rules in a "lab'" kind of setting.

As long as you know what you are doing and why...no issues. Agree it can be fun and for fitness for sure. I love martial arts and I primarily do them cause I simply love the interaction and the dynamics of working with others.

However, for me I am very cautioous when you start talking about the "confidence to not fight", and "how to resolve conflict" kinda stuff. I think it has the tendency to get very muddy and philosophical..which IMO leads to all kinds of delusional issues.

Regardless of how I feel about fighting or how you feel about it, and how much confidence we have, how peaceful we feel and how hard we try to avoid violence, present a strong presence etc...we may not get a vote in the situation.

So, for me, when I focus in on Self Defense and the pyschology etc that surrounds it...I throw all this out the window and simply focus on the fact that you are in a fight...PERIOD. You don't get a vote in what is happening, and you simply have to deal with the reality and violence of the physicality of what is happening to you at that present time. That is, of some person or person(s) are imposing their will on you.

I agree that the MMA paradigm methods can inform us of alot about fighting, but again...you have to still look beyond that as well. However, I have found that MMA and BJJ DO tend to provide a very decent and safe way that is "close" to what we should be doing. However, it is still a limited perspective and we have to look beyond the "rules".

[Kevin Leavitt]

Yes, of course, if you can find a good instructor that has a cadre of advanced students, like any martial art/sport.

muay Thai or "International" kickboxing (that allows leg/low kicks, elbows/knees), Sansha/Sanda, and American kickboxing (no leg/low kicks) are more useful than boxing, assuming you have access to good instruction.

Many karata-ka do not realize developing one-strike bare-knuckle knockdown ability (vs. same weight class), even after receiving hard hits, is the cornerstone of 'stand-up" waza,

Granted boxers punch well, but often creates openings for low kicks or knees to face and do not hone in take-down/throws while in a clinch.

Chris, not to beat a dead horse so to speak, but maybe/maybe not. Again, it depends on where you are in the process of the fight. All off the systems you mention have some good application depending on where you are in the process. Sure a standing clinch, muay thai has some very good applications because the sport of muay thai works the standing clinch and they work on perfecting things in this area. However a good judoka can mitigate a clinch pretty darn quickly so you can argue that Judo is the ultimate answer in the clinch as well. Then you can go to the ground and say that the BJJ guy rules cause he can kick "okay" do a takedown and then can dominate his opponent on the ground better than anyone.

One thing we can really take from UFC and MMA is that there is no one fighting style that will dominate the whole of a fight.

[lbb]

why? I like practical martial arts for fun fitness that develops the confidence to not fight, if that's right.

non-delusional study of violence, in a framework of respect, cultivates confidence that prevents violence, resolves conflicts, and is a heck of a fun way to exercise. It's "kind to be cruel" kind of thing.

playing (so called "fighting") in the sport of MMA is one fun way to test skill and spirit of a "traditional" martial artist, using the least amount of game-rules in a "lab'" kind of setting.

You only answered half the questions, Chris. You've said what you like, but not what you lack in your current training; you've said what you want, but not what time and resources you have to obtain it.

No need to answer here; these are questions for you and you alone.

[lars beyer]

Let me get home this afternoon and see if I can. I might have a post or two on my blog about it that is applicable. I'd recommend starting off by reading about John Boyd and his theory first, and imagine how that might apply to a self defense scenario. google him and start with Wiki for a good primer.

Thanks, I will.

[TokyoZeplin]

so I'm looking for riot-poice-Aikido/Aikijutsu in my 'hood.

The Aikido practised by the riot police is Yoshinkan Aikido - they do the 1 year intensive "Senshusei" course.
Though it should be noted that, apparently, Shodan in Kendo or Judo is also acceptable for the riot police, not just Aikido.

[PeterR]

Where is Michael Kimeda when you need him - he was an instructor there.

Not all riot police take the course - its an option for some. They also don't take the whole year.

I am also not sure a Shodan in anything is an actual requirement for them although I will say that every policeman I knew in Japan had one - mostly Judo or Kendo.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Also riot police training is specific. It deals with over specific situational and environmental factors. As such, again, while some will apply to self defense, much will simply not.

[PeterR]

Also riot police training is specific. It deals with over specific situational and environmental factors. As such, again, while some will apply to self defense, much will simply not.
That in itself is a good point - I wonder what the stated purpose of the riot police taking the Yoshinkan course is. I doubt Judo, Aikido and Kendo techniques have very much to do with what's required for riot control but intense budo training has its own reward.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Agree Peter. I have no idea what exactly they teach as TTPs, but as a general focus of "Riot control" there are some fundamentals that would be common to all Riot Control training.

I think in it's own right, it is interesting to learn about what they do, and as with any other form of "budo" type practice, there are many, many benefits to be gained.

I don't mean to seem dismissvie of any of these forms of practice or styles. I am simply framing my responses within the context of "self defense" which for me, like riot police training, has a very specific focus and methdology for training.

[PeterR]

I don't mean to seem dismissvie of any of these forms of practice or styles. I am simply framing my responses within the context of "self defense" which for me, like riot police training, has a very specific focus and methdology for training.
I understand that and it is refreshing to hear a more nuanced approach.

I think there is benefit towards self defense for all the styles we have discussed but each in their own right does not provide the full story.

[Kevin Leavitt]

I have a post I am going to upload later on. It is long and I need to put it on my blog and provide the link and can't do it where I am now. But it speaks to the same thing you are discussing concerning each in their own right does not provide the full story.

[phitruong]

I doubt Judo, Aikido and Kendo techniques have very much to do with what's required for riot control but intense budo training has its own reward.

i thought riot police usually carry a shield on one arm and baton on the other. i would have thought kendo would be useful. methink, roman legion approach.

[lbb]

i thought riot police usually carry a shield on one arm and baton on the other. i would have thought kendo would be useful. methink, roman legion approach.

...now you're just being silly. But what's new?

Kendo:riot control with shield and baton::sewing:playing the piano. Hey, they both involve the use of the hands, right? Obviously they have lots in common.

[Eric Joyce]

IMO, arts like Krav Manga are good as they teach aggressiveness and violence of action...good thing to know and be able to do in a fight. However, it assumes u are ahead and winning. Also can have issues with use of force depending on situation.

Hey Kevin,

Spot on with the OODA loop. Point of clarification: Krav Maga actually trains you from a point of disadvantage and doesn't assume you are ahead. That has always been stressed to me and the students. The stress training and scenario drills are meant to exhaust you to death, then they proceed with additional scenarios and drills to force you to push beyond the exhaustion. The instructors have stated time and time again that you won't always be fresh and alert when SHTF.

[phitruong]

...now you're just being silly. But what's new?

Kendo:riot control with shield and baton::sewing:playing the piano. Hey, they both involve the use of the hands, right? Obviously they have lots in common.

if i see a bunch of riot police sewing and playing piano, i would run away very quickly. that's a very scary picture. i am willing to face down a bunch of raging MMA/UFC folks, but not those. :)

[genin]

Hey Kevin,

Spot on with the OODA loop. Point of clarification: Krav Maga actually trains you from a point of disadvantage and doesn't assume you are ahead. That has always been stressed to me and the students. The stress training and scenario drills are meant to exhaust you to death, then they proceed with additional scenarios and drills to force you to push beyond the exhaustion. The instructors have stated time and time again that you won't always be fresh and alert when SHTF.

A kravist vs. an aikidoka, now that would make for an interesting matchup. So would piano playing riot police vs. seamstresses....

[Janet Rosen]

if i see a bunch of riot police sewing and playing piano, i would run away very quickly. that's a very scary picture. i am willing to face down a bunch of raging MMA/UFC folks, but not those. :)

I'm developing the curriculum for the Sewinkan Dojo teaching bobbin' and weavin' to evade attacks, some very thimble self-defense techniques from cross stitch AND same side stitch, pinning your opponent, shear mayhem, and if all else fails, pleating the Fifth Amendment. :D

[Rob Watson]

I'm developing the curriculum for the Sewinkan Dojo teaching bobbin' and weavin' to evade attacks, some very thimble self-defense techniques from cross stitch AND same side stitch, pinning your opponent, shear mayhem, and if all else fails, pleating the Fifth Amendment. :D

I already tried this but just got all tangled up in the bobbin moves - auto hojo jitsu of sorts. Not pretty- effective enough.

[phitruong]

I'm developing the curriculum for the Sewinkan Dojo teaching bobbin' and weavin' to evade attacks, some very thimble self-defense techniques from cross stitch AND same side stitch, pinning your opponent, shear mayhem, and if all else fails, pleating the Fifth Amendment. :D

i bow to your expertise and will button down my enthusiasm in self-defense in order to ensure the safety of pin. :)

[Kevin Leavitt]

Lars, as promised here is my response. I posted it on my blog as it was extremely long.

http://www.budo-warrior.com/?p=274

[Kevin Leavitt]

Hey Kevin,

Spot on with the OODA loop. Point of clarification: Krav Maga actually trains you from a point of disadvantage and doesn't assume you are ahead. That has always been stressed to me and the students. The stress training and scenario drills are meant to exhaust you to death, then they proceed with additional scenarios and drills to force you to push beyond the exhaustion. The instructors have stated time and time again that you won't always be fresh and alert when SHTF.

Thanks Eric, admittedly I have only had limited exposure to a few schools. I agree, that KM can and does in many scenarios work this process well, in fact, better than most arts. As a MMA and BJJ guy, I have been able to adjust the scenarios to points of failure that the KM guys that I trained with simply do not have good answers for, so that is what I am basing my assumptions on. And of course, YMMV with schools and instructors.

I think the important thing is to be willing to adapt or adjust your training to make up for the short falls you have. BJJers have many and it comes to light when we start throwing weapons in their hands on the ground for example.

[lars beyer]

Lars, as promised here is my response. I posted it on my blog as it was extremely long.

http://www.budo-warrior.com/?p=274

Hi Kevin,
Thanks a lot for making the topic clearer with your extensive writing, it´s obviously written by a man who knows his "metier". I will let it sink in for a while.. :)
Best regards,
Lars

[Kevin Leavitt]

thanks Lars. I will probably revise it some in the future as I edit and read through it. I am concerned that I made some stereotypes that may or may not be 100% representative of what folks are doing. However, I think if you keep that in mind as simply examples or data points for discussion, then it is a little less a criticism of styles as much as it is simply a way to explain something that is hard to explain.

[Anthony Loeppert]

Hi Kevin,
Thanks a lot for making the topic clearer with your extensive writing, it´s obviously written by a man who knows his "metier". I will let it sink in for a while.. :)
Best regards,
Lars

+1

[dps]

Ran across this statement and thought relevant to the discussion. I am not endorsing the school but like the thoughts in the statement below.

"A good example of this is gross motor skills techniques. A formula would be training with as much spontaneity as you can. Training with as many opponents as you can. Boxing is functional but it must be modified from its sport style and rule structure. Watch out for breaking your hand on some ones bowling ball of a head. Wrestling is functional but it doesn’t advocate cheating on the ground such as nerve attacks, eye rakes and more. The philosophy of my ground fighting system is easy creating a reaction then capitalizes on it. By causing enough pain to create a flinching response allows you to capitalize on it. Allow weapons on the ground as well this ads more problems solving for the student.

Their are no absolutes mind you. Every ones response is quite different but that’s the fun part. Create a cheating mindset, Cheating is often the negative term but it can save your life. Keep your tradition! Do not abandon your system. But venture forward to expand your student’s knowledge and you own knowledge too! Be creative and observe. "

http://express-press-release.net/19/Theoretical%20V.S.%20Practical%20Self%20Defense.php

dps

[Kevin Leavitt]

Hard to make a solid conclusion with out more info on his application, but I'd say...yeah...I would agree with that.

[Mark Greenwood]

In every self defense situation i have been involved, i have been hit. In my opinion being able to defend yourself involves learning to take hits (i think someone has mentioned this point earlier). To the original poster, i advise going somewhere where you will get hit, in any self defense situation you will get hit. If my technique is not good i get hit at my Aikido class, everytime it happens i thank my partner.

[Phil Van Treese]

Self defense, whether aikido, Gung Fu or what ever, is only as good as the person using it. What you put into it is what you will get out of it. As to "how effective is........." the answer is how good is the person using it?????

[genin]

Self defense, whether aikido, Gung Fu or what ever, is only as good as the person using it. What you put into it is what you will get out of it. As to "how effective is........." the answer is how good is the person using it?????
You could also suck at martial arts and self defense, but your opponent could be even worse and you still win. Or you could get a lucky shot in against a skilled adversary, and prevail that way. And the opposite could happen of course, and you could end up losing even when you shouldn't have lost. In those situations it doesn't matter how good you are. That mostly goes without saying.

The way I see it, everyone has a 50/50 chance in all combat situations, simply because of the unpredictable nature of combat and the uncontrollable variables that arise. But training, strength, and skill can certainly help you with your 50% of the equation. The other 50% you really can't do much about. It's fate and random chance at that point.

[Kevin Leavitt]

No it is not a 50/50 chance. that was the whole point I was making with OODA. he who controls the decision cycle has 100% chance if you can't recover it. Skill is secondary to controlling the cycle. It is not unpredictable and uncontrollable, in fact, for the guy winning, it can be very predictable and very controllable.

[lars beyer]

No it is not a 50/50 chance. that was the whole point I was making with OODA. he who controls the decision cycle has 100% chance if you can't recover it. Skill is secondary to controlling the cycle. It is not unpredictable and uncontrollable, in fact, for the guy winning, it can be very predictable and very controllable.

Reading up on John Boyd as you proposed I understood that skills, or practicing every possible combination (countermoves to specific moves) was of the essence..?
To my understanding John Boyd developed a huge aviation combat curriculum for jet fighter pilots with the intention to teach all possible counter to every possible move and countermove allowing the fighter pilot to stay ahead in "the loop"..?
:confused:
Maybe aerial combat doesn´t translate well into hand to hand combat..?

[Kevin Leavitt]

No I don't see aerial combat as being any different, with the exception that modern aircraft have sensors, and I think there is a big difference in combat and self defense. In combat you are typically expecting the enemy to attack you so there are controls measures and sensors leading up to the attack. That is, unless, it is a complete ambush, which at that point the attacker has seized a huge advantage and you are either way behind and most likely dead.

In Self Defense I think in terms of worst case in which your sensors have failed you are were not available and therefore, the attacker seizes the advantage and thus controls the OODA loop. You could be highly skilled and he could have little skill, but he can still beat you...thus I believe "hard skills" are secondary to simply agility.

In aerial combat, and really any combat, you are working on a much finer edge and the degree of control of the loop may be very close to the tipping point either way....maybe 50/50 like Roger said? in that case, I believe skill and experience becomes the tipping point.

however, even though it may be 50/50 in skilled combat, it is NOT random and chaos...it is controlled and much like a tactical chess game...so yes, you practice moves and countermoves and all the branches and sequels committing them to habits.

[lars beyer]

No I don't see aerial combat as being any different, with the exception that modern aircraft have sensors, and I think there is a big difference in combat and self defense. In combat you are typically expecting the enemy to attack you so there are controls measures and sensors leading up to the attack. That is, unless, it is a complete ambush, which at that point the attacker has seized a huge advantage and you are either way behind and most likely dead.

In Self Defense I think in terms of worst case in which your sensors have failed you are were not available and therefore, the attacker seizes the advantage and thus controls the OODA loop. You could be highly skilled and he could have little skill, but he can still beat you...thus I believe "hard skills" are secondary to simply agility.

In aerial combat, and really any combat, you are working on a much finer edge and the degree of control of the loop may be very close to the tipping point either way....maybe 50/50 like Roger said? in that case, I believe skill and experience becomes the tipping point.

however, even though it may be 50/50 in skilled combat, it is NOT random and chaos...it is controlled and much like a tactical chess game...so yes, you practice moves and countermoves and all the branches and sequels committing them to habits.

Ok, interrestng. It seems to sence the attack before it happens is of vital importance then..?
As well as the ability to set up an ambush and mow down your opponent..?
And then train hard offcourse.. :)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[genin]

Yea, like in a dog fight you might have equipment failure, which would totally disrupt your plan of attack. It's those little things that can change the outcome of the fight. Or maybe you are fighting in a parking lot and slip on an oil slick in a parking space while scrambling with an opponent. You probably never trained to fight on ice or slick surfaces, yet that day you find yourself standing on one with an angry enemy before you. You can't plan for all the contingencies and permutations, that's all I was trying to say. But you are right that you can own your half of the battle if you prepare and train hard enough. It's the other half in which you'll have to rely on a little help from lady luck.

[lars beyer]

Funny subject this OODA, seems to set of many ideas about this or that- the few times I have used aikido in a physical confrontation outside the dojo, it just happened, as much to my own as the agressors surprice.
In a sence the agressor set himself up by choosing aggression, and I "ambushed" him- sort of.. since he never expected aikido to happen since I didn´t tell him before he attacked me and I knew what was coming btw.. So in that case I was ahead in the loop, but I can clearly imagine instances where I would be caught off guard with the opponent ahead in the loop.

[graham christian]

If the opponent feels better as a result then it's Aikido and thus very effective. Thus the word self-defence doesn't fit Aikido. Maybe it should be called 'pan' defence.

Peace.G.

[lars beyer]

If the opponent feels better as a result then it's Aikido and thus very effective. Thus the word self-defence doesn't fit Aikido. Maybe it should be called 'pan' defence.

Peace.G.

How do you mean ?
:)

[Kevin Leavitt]

Funny subject this OODA, seems to set of many ideas about this or that- the few times I have used aikido in a physical confrontation outside the dojo, it just happened, as much to my own as the agressors surprice.
In a sence the agressor set himself up by choosing aggression, and I "ambushed" him- sort of.. since he never expected aikido to happen since I didn´t tell him before he attacked me and I knew what was coming btw.. So in that case I was ahead in the loop, but I can clearly imagine instances where I would be caught off guard with the opponent ahead in the loop.

I think this is very key to understand in self defense. It can be very simple things to disrupt the loop. Crossing the street, yelling at him...it doesn't have to be much.

For me, the ones that scare me are the ones where I don't know. For that, I think is most important to prepare for when we are talking self defense.

[graham christian]

How do you mean ?
:)

I train from the view of making the opponent better, restoring harmony to the opponent as he is out of harmony. Thus it's not so much to do with self and thus defence but rather bringing about peace in the other and harmony between us.

I do nothing to him, only for him.

Peace.G.

[Kevin Leavitt]

If the opponent feels better as a result then it's Aikido and thus very effective. Thus the word self-defence doesn't fit Aikido. Maybe it should be called 'pan' defence.

Peace.G.
I have no idea what u are getting at.

However if u study Boyd and OODA, he makes it clear that the Orient phase is very important. This phase uses things like previous experiences, cultural tradition, analysis and synthesis, new info, and genetic heritage. If u think about it....if u work hard at aikido and budo, it can enable u to see things with a good perspective and make the right decisions when necessary.

There are two things I think are important with this discussion. 1. Recognizing that budo is complex and we have to consider many aspects in order to make good decisions on the action we take. We cannot simply choose to focus on the things we want to focus on,, or redefine things to fit our own world view. We must try and be as objective as possible. 2. We need to accept that if we are in a fight, then we must accept that it is a fight and recognize that there is a process to win, and that is to disrupt your opponents plan and change his ability to act.

I am not sure how your opponent feels about things determines if it is aikido or not.. I tend to think in terms of self. That is, I can only affect my actions. If I train properly, I can make the most informed and skillful actions that are appropriate for the situation. As such, if I have compassion and approach the situation with my he'd screwed on right, and I use the appropriate action, then I am doing aikido. How my opponent feels about it? I can't determine how he feels about it, it is not important as I can't affect this directly.

[Kevin Leavitt]

I train from the view of making the opponent better, restoring harmony to the opponent as he is out of harmony. Thus it's not so much to do with self and thus defence but rather bringing about peace in the other and harmony between us.

I do nothing to him, only for him.

Peace.G.

For me, this is prostylization. For me it is also arrogamce. That is, another person sits in judgement and determines what is better for the other.

I think it is arrogant to believe u can restore harmony in another. (Whatever restoring harmony means).. I believe all you can simply do is set the example and expose them to alternatives, show compassion and strength. They have to make the changes for themselves if they want them. Happiness, if this is what u mean by harmony....is personal. What makes one person happy might be different than another. We don't get to sit in judgement over this. With the exception of when ones happiness causes harm to others or self.

Again, look at the model closel. Self defense is a part of the whole. It is a what budo is all abut. The ability to be strong, unyeilding and to set a good compassionate example. It is okay to defend yourself for the right reasons. Look at the seven tenants of budo...you have to be able to stand up for them...this isn't just about a state of mind...it is about the capacity to actual do something real and physical.

All we can do is be the change we want to see in the world.

Religion is a good example. Some people find happiness through it, others have suffered greatly at the duality that it can create. Looking at how indigenous people lived prior to missionaries that showed up to bring god to them...I personally saw a lot of suffering happen because of it. All those missionaries had good intentions I am sure to fix those folks too.

[graham christian]

For me, this is prostylization. For me it is also arrogamce. That is, another person sits in judgement and determines what is better for the other.

I think it is arrogant to believe u can restore harmony in another. (Whatever restoring harmony means).. I believe all you can simply do is set the example and expose them to alternatives, show compassion and strength. They have to make the changes for themselves if they want them. Happiness, if this is what u mean by harmony....is personal. What makes one person happy might be different than another. We don't get to sit in judgement over this. With the exception of when ones happiness causes harm to others or self.

Again, look at the model closel. Self defense is a part of the whole. It is a what budo is all abut. The ability to be strong, unyeilding and to set a good compassionate example. It is okay to defend yourself for the right reasons. Look at the seven tenants of budo...you have to be able to stand up for them...this isn't just about a state of mind...it is about the capacity to actual do something real and physical.

All we can do is be the change we want to see in the world.

Religion is a good example. Some people find happiness through it, others have suffered greatly at the duality that it can create. Looking at how indigenous people lived prior to missionaries that showed up to bring god to them...I personally saw a lot of suffering happen because of it. All those missionaries had good intentions I am sure to fix those folks too.

I'm glad you said that. So now I see what you think arrogance is. You translate what I said as such thus you misunderstand what I said. It is actually humility and compassion in action.

I don't do to or against but return to harmony. This is my model of Aikido. Tenets of budo? I like and follow the five spirits of budo, five 'minds' and they don't conflict with what I say.

I am not contesting other models but presenting one. One I believe is the goal of Aikido.

For me the correct principles of religion, understood, cannot create duality but only more oneness and harmony. The true path of all religions. It's all dependant only on the awareness of those using the religion.

Peace.G.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Thanks for clarifying Graham. How do u restore harmony. Or more specific sense restore is an action, then the effects can be measured and modeled. So, if we can restore something, then it means it is lost. Thus we can model this. What is harmony? What does it mean to restore it? How do we know when it is restored?

Assuming I am in conflict with someone. We are arguing. I have land, he wants it. He feels it is his and I feel it is mine. How do you resolve this as a win win for both? We could split of down the middle, but one or both of us will still feel we compromised.

So what is the feedback loop that says..mission accomplished...I have restored harmony?

[graham christian]

Thanks for clarifying Graham. How do u restore harmony. Or more specific sense restore is an action, then the effects can be measured and modeled. So, if we can restore something, then it means it is lost. Thus we can model this. What is harmony? What does it mean to restore it? How do we know when it is restored?

Assuming I am in conflict with someone. We are arguing. I have land, he wants it. He feels it is his and I feel it is mine. How do you resolve this as a win win for both? We could split of down the middle, but one or both of us will still feel we compromised.

So what is the feedback loop that says..mission accomplished...I have restored harmony?

O'K' Let's take your example.

Firstly I say this, if you are arguing then you and indeed both parties are already out of harmony in yourselves.

This is the first and most important point to realize. Spirit and mind in harmony has no argument, is calm, not upset, happy and fells good.

Secondly there is a situation and the one you describe is who owns the land. You must find the path which leads to the resolution, just like the circle in Aikido. When both parties, being of sound and calm and amenable disposition (in harmony with themself) agree on a path, a course of action and are happy with it and whatever the result of such a path would be then they have found the 'circle' Harmony. It would probably take some discipline.

Peace.G.

[lars beyer]

O'K' Let's take your example.

Firstly I say this, if you are arguing then you and indeed both parties are already out of harmony in yourselves.

This is the first and most important point to realize. Spirit and mind in harmony has no argument, is calm, not upset, happy and fells good.

Secondly there is a situation and the one you describe is who owns the land. You must find the path which leads to the resolution, just like the circle in Aikido. When both parties, being of sound and calm and amenable disposition (in harmony with themself) agree on a path, a course of action and are happy with it and whatever the result of such a path would be then they have found the 'circle' Harmony. It would probably take some discipline.

Peace.G.

How would you go about someone claiming your land apart from walking the "circle of aikido?"
I feel you are being a bit vague in your responce ?
It´s easy to talk about harmony but actually achieving it in a situation of conflict is a different matter.
Agree on a path: How ?
Dicipline-offcourse :)

[graham christian]

How would you go about someone claiming your land apart from walking the "circle of aikido?"
I feel you are being a bit vague in your responce ?
It´s easy to talk about harmony but actually achieving it in a situation of conflict is a different matter.
Agree on a path: How ?
Dicipline-offcourse :)

Thought it was pretty clear rather than vague.

A course of action both parties agree to and agree to abide by. Straightforward. It's what is needed. Those who want harmony see this. Those who don't pretend they don't see this. Thus they are already out of harmony with theirself.

Peace.G.

[graham christian]

Thanks for clarifying Graham. How do u restore harmony. Or more specific sense restore is an action, then the effects can be measured and modeled. So, if we can restore something, then it means it is lost. Thus we can model this. What is harmony? What does it mean to restore it? How do we know when it is restored?

Assuming I am in conflict with someone. We are arguing. I have land, he wants it. He feels it is his and I feel it is mine. How do you resolve this as a win win for both? We could split of down the middle, but one or both of us will still feel we compromised.

So what is the feedback loop that says..mission accomplished...I have restored harmony?

The effects can be measured and modeled yes. Person attacking is already out of harmony with self and other. So harmony is the lost thing to be restored. Back to a state of feeling better or good about self and other.

Peace.G.

[lars beyer]

Thought it was pretty clear rather than vague.

A course of action both parties agree to and agree to abide by. Straightforward. It's what is needed. Those who want harmony see this. Those who don't pretend they don't see this. Thus they are already out of harmony with theirself.

Peace.G.

I was not asking for the desired endresult of a harmonius conclusion, but how to get there ?

[graham christian]

I was not asking for the desired endresult of a harmonius conclusion, but how to get there ?

Communication. That's how. The fact that people think it's 'not so easy' shows how out of good communication they are really. That's the simplicity and in Aikido that's the 'connection.'

Peace.G.

[lars beyer]

Communication. That's how. The fact that people think it's 'not so easy' shows how out of good communication they are really. That's the simplicity and in Aikido that's the 'connection.'

Peace.G.

Ok,ok.. I get your point ! :)
Cheers
Lars

[Kevin Leavitt]

graham, we don't agree on much, but I do agree that communication is key.

however, we are taking the conversation in a different direction from the discussion concerning self defense. The OODA framework Boyd proposed emphasized the tactical realm and the process of making tactical decision and then actions to be successful in a fight or in this case self defense.

However, I think the framework can also apply to the bigger picture, which is where u have directed the conversation dealing with harmony...a end state that looks beyond the immediate concern of simple self preservation and or physical victory.

So going in that direction, I think it is the same process, but we will spend much more time on the factors influences orientation. Things such has cultural traditions, experiences, skills etc.

So yes communication. Or better yet understanding, empathy and compassion.

What u are proposing is focusing on those things that make two individuals see that by compromising it is in their self interest and long term happiness to work together. A huge challenge in many cases as we have to over come many cultural and emotional issues (experiences) to bridge that gap.

Agreed.

I think though that it requires a budoka to understand more than just the theory of this, but at the base level to be able to transcend the complete spectrum of conflict. We have many diplomats and scholars that can provide us the expertise in these areas...but it is the warrior that alone can stand at the crossroads of conflict and tip the scales in either direction.

I have personally chosen to stand at that crossroad. That is what we should be working toward if not literally then figuratively to at least understand it and support it.

[graham christian]

graham, we don't agree on much, but I do agree that communication is key.

however, we are taking the conversation in a different direction from the discussion concerning self defense. The OODA framework Boyd proposed emphasized the tactical realm and the process of making tactical decision and then actions to be successful in a fight or in this case self defense.

However, I think the framework can also apply to the bigger picture, which is where u have directed the conversation dealing with harmony...a end state that looks beyond the immediate concern of simple self preservation and or physical victory.

So going in that direction, I think it is the same process, but we will spend much more time on the factors influences orientation. Things such has cultural traditions, experiences, skills etc.

So yes communication. Or better yet understanding, empathy and compassion.

What u are proposing is focusing on those things that make two individuals see that by compromising it is in their self interest and long term happiness to work together. A huge challenge in many cases as we have to over come many cultural and emotional issues (experiences) to bridge that gap.

Agreed.

I think though that it requires a budoka to understand more than just the theory of this, but at the base level to be able to transcend the complete spectrum of conflict. We have many diplomats and scholars that can provide us the expertise in these areas...but it is the warrior that alone can stand at the crossroads of conflict and tip the scales in either direction.

I have personally chosen to stand at that crossroad. That is what we should be working toward if not literally then figuratively to at least understand it and support it.

Transcend.....I agree.

Peace.G.

[miser]

I realise this is an old thread, but I wanted to write that I think martial arts are generally afforded too great a status for their role in self defence. The element of surprise is, to my mind, worth far more than a few years' training of any martial art of your choice. The greatest component of self defence, I believe, is one's awareness of dangerous situations and their ability to either avoid or extricate themselves from them. Given this, aikido is one of the more valuable practices because of its emphasis on zanshin.

If you find yourself in a violent altercation with a foe, most likely aikido's strongest assets have already failed - that is, the mindset to allow you to avoid such a situation. Once this happens, this is where cross-training may benefit you. The techniques practised in aikido are not what makes aikido aikido - it is the intention and philosophy they embody. The techniques learnt in aikido, once having reached this violent situation, may or may not be of benefit to you, depending on your technical proficiency. I tend to believe that technical proficiency in aikido to practical levels is harder to achieve than in other arts, so this is not one of its strong points. So my thoughts on the matter are that one should practise arts that have the strengths that are being looked for by the practitioner, because a person would be hard-pressed to find an art that is good at everything.

[Kevin Leavitt]

Hey Matthew, agree with your assessment, about awareness and actions to mitigate or avoid prior to. Very important things. I think that a lot of what we learn and spend time on especially in aikido is what Boyd would call the observation and orientation phase. By doing so, there is much we can learn about ourselves and others, and you are correct, I think for most things we will encounter, concentrating on increasing awareness of ourselves, others, the world around us...expanding our ability to perceive correctly and respond with action prior to an violentand physical encounter is going to be the best use of our time.

I also agree that if self defense it your main concern then their is time better spent learning other thing that can help us.

However, that does not mean we should throw up our hands and say that empty hand martial training is a waste of time all together. Given a correct, sound, and foundational practice, we can do much to improve our odds and in the process learn how to deal with increasingly shorter and shorter "loops" of decisions and action cycles. Having the right type of strength and skills and taking the appropriate actions even when things are extremely not going our way can turn one persons failure into another's success.

Plus the side effects of training in this manner inform the other side, which allows you to observe and orient much better I think. Good budo in my opininon works that way.

[graham christian]

I realise this is an old thread, but I wanted to write that I think martial arts are generally afforded too great a status for their role in self defence. The element of surprise is, to my mind, worth far more than a few years' training of any martial art of your choice. The greatest component of self defence, I believe, is one's awareness of dangerous situations and their ability to either avoid or extricate themselves from them. Given this, aikido is one of the more valuable practices because of its emphasis on zanshin.

If you find yourself in a violent altercation with a foe, most likely aikido's strongest assets have already failed - that is, the mindset to allow you to avoid such a situation. Once this happens, this is where cross-training may benefit you. The techniques practised in aikido are not what makes aikido aikido - it is the intention and philosophy they embody. The techniques learnt in aikido, once having reached this violent situation, may or may not be of benefit to you, depending on your technical proficiency. I tend to believe that technical proficiency in aikido to practical levels is harder to achieve than in other arts, so this is not one of its strong points. So my thoughts on the matter are that one should practise arts that have the strengths that are being looked for by the practitioner, because a person would be hard-pressed to find an art that is good at everything.

I have never found this to be the case. Is your view based on experience or are you supposing?

Peace.G.

[miser]

I have never found this to be the case. Is your view based on experience or are you supposing?

Peace.G.

Are you referring to my claim about the element of surprise? I suggested it because I see it as an environmental factor that is generally out of the control of the martial arts practitioner that also has a significant weighting on the outcome of a violent confrontation, and one that is not trivially compensated for with training. I don't base it on personal experience (I'm lucky enough not to have had to put my myself to the test like that), but it seems intuitive to me that should I be surprised by a blow to the head, I would not be confident that a few years' training would be enough to outweigh that disadvantage (though in a sport like boxing perhaps it would be).

The initial disorientation from an attacker's first strike would make it difficult to assess what was happening quickly enough in order to engage in an appropriate defensive behaviour before being struck again and then repeatedly. People that have not been trained to receive landed punches are generally not well-equipped to handle them, and attacks can happen lightningly quickly - before you know it, a person can be upon you, levying a series of blows that have left you injured.

I wouldn't identify the element of surprise alone in trumping a person's initial forays into martial arts, but also weapons, body-size, etc. In my opinion, it seems likely that it would take a fairly significant amount of training to surpass these relatively simple environmental advantages an attacker may have.

As I say, however, I'm not speaking from my own experience of being attacked, only from how confident I personally feel in my own self-defence. If I'm off the mark then at least I suppose it's better to underestimate oneself than overestimate, and I appreciate your views on the subject.

[graham christian]

Are you referring to my claim about the element of surprise? I suggested it because I see it as an environmental factor that is generally out of the control of the martial arts practitioner that also has a significant weighting on the outcome of a violent confrontation, and one that is not trivially compensated for with training. I don't base it on personal experience (I'm lucky enough not to have had to put my myself to the test like that), but it seems intuitive to me that should I be surprised by a blow to the head, I would not be confident that a few years' training would be enough to outweigh that disadvantage (though in a sport like boxing perhaps it would be).

The initial disorientation from an attacker's first strike would make it difficult to assess what was happening quickly enough in order to engage in an appropriate defensive behaviour before being struck again and then repeatedly. People that have not been trained to receive landed punches are generally not well-equipped to handle them, and attacks can happen lightningly quickly - before you know it, a person can be upon you, levying a series of blows that have left you injured.

I wouldn't identify the element of surprise alone in trumping a person's initial forays into martial arts, but also weapons, body-size, etc. In my opinion, it seems likely that it would take a fairly significant amount of training to surpass these relatively simple environmental advantages an attacker may have.

As I say, however, I'm not speaking from my own experience of being attacked, only from how confident I personally feel in my own self-defence. If I'm off the mark then at least I suppose it's better to underestimate oneself than overestimate, and I appreciate your views on the subject.

Hi Matthew.
O.K.....A person training in a martial art inherently has as one of their goals the gaining of an ability to handle just such an event, one that is environmental and out of their control. In fact I would say that's why the thoughts of it always come up in the mind of the practitioner and the cause of debate by others and indeed this thread.

Those factors you identify in trumping a persons initial forays are no doubt true and so the overcoming of them is all part of training, bit by bit.

This however is also an initial look, an initial contemplation and conclusion.

The true test is not by peers therefor or in a ring or even randori of various kinds for these would still come under practice. The only true test is in life itself and the handling of the unexpected and real for when you can do that quite comfortably then the expected is in comparison much easier. This is martial training.

Now contrary to mass popular belief this does not mean therefor that the solution is to dive into lots of doing this or that hard training or chasing ideas of super strength or inner power that will make you ready for the unexpected for that is a fools paradise. It's all useful, it's all beneficial, it's all part of different training methods but it's not the 'magic' solution

The unexpected by definition is not what you expect. Life will always give you that now and again.

In fact we will always give ourselves that too as we give ourselves unexpected lessons to learn and place ourselves in seemingly impossible positions and dangerous situations. Thus more masakatsu agatsu.

Most martial arts when you think about it are preparing and training for specific competition, specific fight situations and even if you go into the broader area of security forces and armies then it is seen as the same type of thing, scenarios and what ifs. This is not actually training for the unexpected but still is on the path of basic martial art and thus on the path of martial but still only initial, partial, limited even if necessary.

So it all boils down to getting eventually a better understanding of what truly martial is.

Now, to go back a bit to my question to you as to if you were talking from experience. I asked for a specific reason and yes you answered quite clearly thank you.

One of my first really great 'wins' and thus validations was precisely in such a scenario for only then did I know it really did work in such a scene. These things you cannot plan for for then they would be expected.

So part of the martial lesson here is to train well and learn the principles well and learn how those principles apply to all walks of life too and thus live those principles and only then do they become you and natural to you and most importantly have faith in them.

Only then when the unexpected happens will you find out that they actually work and that it was all worthwhile. Only life can give us these truly unexpected lessons. Only faith in what we are doing can lead to that accomplishment. Trying to train from fear of what might be will only lead to a paranoia about needing to do all kinds of everything in case of all kinds of imagined possible foes and an inverted martial attitude.

These are my thoughts on the matter and experience.

Peace.G.

[Kevin Leavitt]

The initial disorientation from an attacker's first strike would make it difficult to assess what was happening quickly enough in order to engage in an appropriate defensive behaviour before being struck again and then repeatedly. People that have not been trained to receive landed punches are generally not well-equipped to handle them, and attacks can happen lightningly quickly - before you know it, a person can be upon you, levying a series of blows that have left you injured.
.

Your assessment is spot on. This is my greatest priority in studying martial arts. That is training at point of failure. Too often it gets dismissed as "well what can u do about it", or " just don't let him do that", or " train to prevent it from happening", or "budo is not about this". Etc.

I spend most of my training in this mode, that is, my opponent, assailant etc has the tactical advantage and I need to mitigate this, recover, and put myself back in control.

Those that dismiss this or fail to address this aspect typically do not understand fighting and/or do not have the ability to teach it, so therefore they don't emphasize it.

it may also not be your thing either and you are doing budo for another reason, I'm good with that as long as u are not giving flippant remarks concerning the importance of addressing this important dynamic in a fight.

[lars beyer]

Your assessment is spot on. This is my greatest priority in studying martial arts. That is training at point of failure. Too often it gets dismissed as "well what can u do about it", or " just don't let him do that", or " train to prevent it from happening", or "budo is not about this". Etc.

I spend most of my training in this mode, that is, my opponent, assailant etc has the tactical advantage and I need to mitigate this, recover, and put myself back in control.

Those that dismiss this or fail to address this aspect typically do not understand fighting and/or do not have the ability to teach it, so therefore they don't emphasize it.

it may also not be your thing either and you are doing budo for another reason, I'm good with that as long as u are not giving flippant remarks concerning the importance of addressing this important dynamic in a fight.

It reminds me of an interview in Aikido Journal with Isoyama Shihan who was teaching aikido to american soldiers in the Japanese Air selfdefence force. (I can´t remember which issue Aikido Journal) They complained
to him that none of the techniques he taught were done from a position where uke has the tactical advantage so he allowed one of the students to grab hold of him from behind and then he busted his nose with the back of his head. As far as I recall he said: "Aikido is Budo, don´t forget that !" or something like that.
I guess in that context anything goes as long as it puts nage ahead in the "loop" again.
Still it doesn´t steal away from the fact that situational awareness is key, It´s just a different aspect I guess..?