PDA

View Full Version : Did Aikido fail you in "real life"?


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


LvB
01-30-2006, 04:04 PM
All the "does aikido really work" - threads are pointless:
people without evidence claiming that aikido doesn't work in "real life" self defence; then some dude will tell a segal-like story of how he whipped someone's ass with flawless aikido techniques, and saved his friends life, and so forth.

Now, this thread is for anonymous confessions:

Did you ever try to defend yourself (or someone else) with an aikido technique in real life AND IT FAILED??? :blush:

Please confess...

Adam Alexander
02-14-2006, 02:18 PM
That's impossible. Aikido doesn't fail, the Aikidoka only fails to apply the right technique.

Mark Uttech
02-14-2006, 03:14 PM
The answer to that question doesn't matter, so maybe the question doesn't matter either...

Aristeia
02-14-2006, 03:29 PM
heaven forbid we discuss the possibility of Aikido not working like it does in the movies. Of course the question matters. We learn more from failure than we do from success. So by anlalysing, as a community instances of failure we can maybe draw some interesting conclusions about how we are training etc etc.

But let's not do that because it may threaten the perception we have of aikido and ourselves.

How about we change the question to "Did your Aikido training fail you in real life". Surely even Jean must concede that's a possability.

seank
02-14-2006, 04:12 PM
Did you ever try to defend yourself (or someone else) with an aikido technique in real life AND IT FAILED???

Once only (so far - and touch wood) and it worked perfectly fine. The two people turned and ran without anyone being hit and without any contact being made.

Would this be an example of victory without contention? I'm sure it could have gone quite differently had things escalated. My Aikido technique was to avoid fighting; it seemed to work very effectively.

Nick Simpson
02-15-2006, 05:41 AM
Not yet...

Dirk Hanss
02-15-2006, 07:42 AM
Whenever i tried to apply aiki(do) techniques, they at least did not work easily or even failed, as I was really focussed on doing one special technique - ("which one is the best for this situation? Why can't i get the wrist for kote gaeshi?") and every aikidoka can tell you why it could not work. (all the three times ;) )

But I had situations, in which I just instinctly acted and it worked well. I even had a moment, when I thought, I knew exactly what happened all around me, even in my back. Everything seemed to happen in slow motion and even though I did not do any technique, just diving below his arm and tenkan, my opponent could not even touch me.
Well the main reason might be that he was drunk, but the feeling was great.

So I know aikido works, even if for me the best proofs had been my ukemi in bicycle and roller blade accidents. But even there, especially on my first snowboard classes I thought, my ukemi should have worked better.


Dirk

ian
02-15-2006, 08:11 AM
I suppose if you mean, was it anything like aikido in the dojo I would have to say it failed me every time. However the basics of aikido (body movement, responsiveness, instantaneous reactions, entering) all came out during attack situations. (that's not to say that the techniques are not there in one form or another). One time it was a bit of a mutliple attack and I didn't move as much as I'd have liked to, but every confrontation I've had I thank aikido for keeping both me and the attacker pretty intact by the end of it. I'm sure countless confrontations have also been avoided from the correct mental attitude (not aggressive, but not passive) which aikido seems to help develop.

This is partly why I have the signature (below). I think it is a fallacy to think that you will think 'now I will do a lovely shiho-nage' in a confrontation. We are just developing useful reactions and responses and the techniques and training is a method of doing that. I think the use of single, directed attacks used in aikido has an enormous advantage over sparring simulations in developing a response to sudden attacks.

Edwin Neal
02-15-2006, 08:23 AM
learning to flow from technique to technique and blend with your attacker is a level of 'spontaneity' that does take some time to develop, but if you think you will just "do an aikido technique (one)" and its all over then you may want to think again... always have a plan b, c, d, etc ad infinitum... even in the successful situations i have had it rarely came down to just one technique... there was some amount of set up involved... when an attacker resists one technique it naturally provides openings and opportunities to apply other techniques... go with the flow, and don't get hit is my motto...

Simone
02-15-2006, 09:12 AM
When I read the title I spontaneously thought to answer. When I read the original post I thought I can't answer because I've never been in a situation where I had to defend myself. On the other hand, Aikido or as Michael suggest my Aikido training didn't fail my up to today. Even today in the morning when I fell of my bike (due to an icy road) my ukemi was good enough to not get hurt (not even a bruise). It may not be what you wanted to hear, Johan, but nevertheless I thought it's worthwile to note that for me the ukemi side in real live is more important.

Simone

Adam Alexander
02-15-2006, 01:26 PM
heaven forbid we discuss the possibility of Aikido not working like it does in the movies. Of course the question matters. We learn more from failure than we do from success. So by anlalysing, as a community instances of failure we can maybe draw some interesting conclusions about how we are training etc etc.

But let's not do that because it may threaten the perception we have of aikido and ourselves.

How about we change the question to "Did your Aikido training fail you in real life". Surely even Jean must concede that's a possability.

Ah, Mr. Fooks,

It's a shame that the last exchange we had yielded you no apparent gain in interpersonal skills...atleast as they relate to me.

How is it that you write two sarcasm laden, sophisticated paragraphs about why we should question Aikido...and then change the question!?!...And then, suggest that I'd be conceding by agreeing?

LOL. Come on.

Did training fail? That's a significant question. I've always said that. So, do I concede? No...I agree with it anyway.

Look over the responses to the post. Apparently, most people get it...it's a failure of the artist, not the art.


BTW: About Aikido working like it does in the movies, sure it would, if it were the same attack as the movie. People who "get" the techniques understand that.

Adam Alexander
02-15-2006, 01:43 PM
Look over the responses to the post. Apparently, most people get it...

I take this part back. One or two posts stood out, then I reread. I don't know if "most people" feel the same way.


BTW, I did make it into a JJ (emphasis on ground) studio.

The guys larger than me, when they were able to take me down (twice) kept me down pretty easy once on top of me. However, they couldn't get any pins because of the sensitivity developed from Aikido.

I took them down more than they took me (then I got tired as can be...and that's when they took me down.)

The guys my size and smaller (three dans) couldn't take me down. Once down, they could, at best, only call it a stalemate.

I didn't have the pins for it. However, the pins are in Aikido (I just spend my time working on other stuff).

Being that I've never done any serious ground work, I'd say that it was something of a triumph for me as far goes my Aikido.

It's the artist, not the art.


I did confirm something from the trips: Aikido does have all the same stuff. It's just on the ground.

I will, however, concede one thing that's been on my mind since the conversation: If you want to learn ground faster, go to a ground school.

Ron Tisdale
02-15-2006, 02:25 PM
Sounds like you had a good and informative time Jean. Congrats!
Best,
Ron

Dirk Hanss
02-16-2006, 03:36 AM
Apologies,
I did reread the thread and now I have to add, that when I failed to apply aikido techniques, I was not in a defense situation, but more in an "enforce" situation. And even if I still believe there is no clear distinction between defense and attack, our training usually focusses more in react on direct aggression to myself. Defending others or enforcing something is an issue, but not part of daily training - on my level in my dojo.
LEO's etc. have to develop other skills, of course.


Dirk

Dajo251
02-16-2006, 08:33 AM
I haven never used a full aikido technique out of the dojo, well unless yu count doing nikkyo on my friends cuz they dont believe aikido can be painful, but using aikido priciples I have avoided quite a few punchs

Aristeia
02-16-2006, 11:28 AM
Ah, Mr. Fooks,

It's a shame that the last exchange we had yielded you no apparent gain in interpersonal skills...atleast as they relate to me.

What can I tell you, it bugs me when someone asks a question that should yield interesting results and gets stonewalled

How is it that you write two sarcasm laden, sophisticated paragraphs about why we should question Aikido...and then change the question!?!...And then, suggest that I'd be conceding by agreeing?

You seem to think the purpose of my post was to "get you to concede". Actually it was to reframe the question in a way that most sensible people would have read it in the frst place to see if there was any useful discussion to be had.


Look over the responses to the post. Apparently, most people get it...it's a failure of the artist, not the art.
.

because even if the vast majority of practioners of an art exhibit common problems, that are not found by the vast majority of practioners of certain other arts, that has nothing to do with the art itself.

Let's not rehash that.

Aristeia
02-16-2006, 11:30 AM
BTW, I did make it into a JJ (emphasis on ground) studio.



Well done, that's a great first step. I suggest to try the experiment again, but this time instead of going to a JJ (emphasis on ground) school, seek out a BJJ school.

Adam Alexander
02-16-2006, 05:25 PM
What can I tell you, it bugs me when someone asks a question that should yield interesting results and gets stonewalled.

Ah, so you figure two wrongs make a right?

However, I'd say that you make a good point. I could of explained the 'why' of my position rather than simply answering the question.


You seem to think the purpose of my post was to "get you to concede"...

No, not really. I don't think the reason for your post was simply to get me to concede. I think the point was to bring light to the idea that good can come from a discussion that some might consider similar to the discussion that was solicited.

However, I can't grasp why'd you even mention me in your post if my concession didn't matter to you. Either way, it doesn't really matter that much.

Actually it was to reframe the question in a way that most sensible people would have read it in the frst place to see if there was any useful discussion to be had..

Well, I think that when "most sensible people" hear the word "dog", they think of something that barks and poops on the rug--They don't think of every possibility that might be misconstrued for the word.

I really don't know what "reframe" means, but if it means totally change the point being made with the question, I'd say that I don't know why you didn't just come out and say "Yeah, I can see why that question doesn't make sense. What about if we ask..." in the first place.

There's a galaxy's difference between "Did Aikido fail?" and "Did your training fail?"

As for "usefel" discussion, I think the discussion of "did the art fail or did the artist fail" is very useful. But, that's just me.

because even if the vast majority of practioners of an art exhibit common problems, that are not found by the vast majority of practioners of certain other arts, that has nothing to do with the art itself.

Who's to say? I guess each of us have to answer it with our own understanding of that art. For me, I think I'd rather keep searching for the answer within the art, rather than take the egotisitcal route...but that's just me;)


Well done, that's a great first step. I suggest to try the experiment again, but this time instead of going to a JJ (emphasis on ground) school, seek out a BJJ school.

Maybe some day. For now, I answered the questions that I had.

I'm still working on total implementation of Aikido for now. The carry over from Aikido to the ground-work was so immense, it doesn't make sense (for me) to mess with the any of it.

I wasn't looking to start doing ground (whatever style), just to see how Aikido effectively overlapped.

Just for the sake of honesty, on the visit, I forgot (as soon as I logged off, of course) I did get slammed twice. It was beautiful. Both by kyus.

Adam Alexander
02-16-2006, 05:36 PM
Sounds like you had a good and informative time Jean. Congrats!
Best,
Ron

Yes indeed! It was excellent.

I think the most signifant thing was that my understanding of Aikido techniques opened the door to understand their techniques (the ones that I was shown).

I don't think I'd have the same level of understanding of those techniques in four/five years of training that initially. The training seems to stifle understanding...atleast that's my observation.

Very fruitful.

Edwin Neal
02-16-2006, 06:07 PM
i tend to agree with Mr. Fooks, but lets break it down... we are talking about three distinct things...
1) Aikido... i hold as a complete martial art that includes all techniques, ranges and strategies... therefore it can neither fail or not fail...
2) training methodology... if you train crappy then your performance is crappy... whether you train aikido or ice skating or flower arranging
3) YOU... this tends to be the weakest link... how you approach your training and study makes all the difference... if you are not willing to be objective about your goals and performance level it can result in the kind of things Mr. Fooks is pointing out...

Man, the living creature, the creating individual, is always more important than any established style or system.
Bruce Lee

Michael O'Brien
02-16-2006, 07:28 PM
people without evidence claiming that aikido doesn't work in "real life" self defence; then some dude will tell a segal-like story of how he whipped someone's ass with flawless aikido techniques, and saved his friends life, and so forth.

I think that part of the original post sums it up; Some people claim Aikido doesn't work either A) because it didn't work for them for whatever reason or B) because they don't believe it will work but don't know for sure.

Others claim it did work either A) because they believe it will based on their training or B) it really did work in some fashion.

I've never had to use Aikido, or any martials arts training for self-defense since the early 1990's but here is my take on the situation. Aikido is a means to an end and as I believe Edwin said, Aikido can't fail or succeed, it is what it is.

That's like saying if I was in a shootout and I missed the person I was aiming at and I go "the gun failed". No, the gun put the bullet where I was aiming. Perhaps my aim was off, but the failure was with me, and not the gun.

There are people I know and train with who have told me stories of situations where they used Aikido effectively. Could I at this point in my training though? Not a chance! That isn't a flaw in Aikido, or even a flaw in my training. It is simply that I haven't reached a point where I am comfortable in technique and fluid and relaxed enough yet.

I have every confidence that I will never need to test the theory of Aikido working as a martial art; I'm equally confident that if that time does for whaver reason force itself upon me in the future that I, as an aikidoka, will be able to defend myself successfully.

*drops my .02 in the bucket*

Unregistrd
02-16-2006, 07:54 PM
I failed Aikido in 'real life', not the other way around. I saw a bad situation, tried to intervene, and had no effect. It was a failure of spirit, or focus, or intent, who knows... I had too much to drink, and the aggressor was dangerous-crazy. Do or do not, right? Well, that was a hell of a lesson, and it changed my perspective a lot. As far as I'm concerned, it is the person that fails and not Aikido.

RebeccaM
02-16-2006, 08:49 PM
I've never been in a physical confrontation. However, I've had to save myself from myself numerous times. I think knowing how to fall properly is why I'm still alive and in one piece...

As for the rest, I've always been told that it's the artist, not the art, that is weak. This is true for all martial arts, not just aikido.

xuzen
02-16-2006, 09:54 PM
I have always liked this quote:

Aikido works, yours don't. Do not confuse the two.

Boon.

Aristeia
02-16-2006, 10:33 PM
Boon, where's the falsifiablity in that? In other words, if I were to say that Beer Drinking Do is a fantastic form of self defence, and then said that Beer Drinking Do works, but yours doesn't, is that just as valid?

xuzen
02-16-2006, 10:54 PM
Boon, where's the falsifiablity in that? In other words, if I were to say that Beer Drinking Do is a fantastic form of self defence, and then said that Beer Drinking Do works, but yours doesn't, is that just as valid?

I am so sorry M. Fooks, I do not understand your first question? Does Beer Drinking-do really exist? I want a Black Belt in it. Answer to question #2: Yes. :D

Boon.

Aristeia
02-17-2006, 03:14 AM
Great, so I can invent any cockamamie martial art I like and claim it is completely effective , despite no one being able to use it effectively, because it's "the fighter no the art"?

Mark Freeman
02-17-2006, 05:31 AM
If you are physically attacked and you've only been training in aikido for a short time, aikido is likely to fail you.
If you are attacked and you've been training for much longer in aikido it is likely to be more successfull.
Aikido remains the same, you change.

My only 'scrape' involved a potentially difficult situation where I was surrounded by about 6 people one of whom had just informed me that I was going to "get my f*****g head kicked in". How I got to be in this situation is not really the point, but it involved some kids threatening other kids with a fencing sword, I was giving them a peice of my mind when I found I was the subject of attention from their older siblings/friends. I had recently passed my shodan, so felt that I had some chance of at least of taking a few of them out before being overwhealmed. luckily this was all taking place outside a shop doorway, so I quickly moved out of the slowly contracting circle of bodies and into the shop, I then turned and went back out and went very purposefully up to the main protagonist and gave him my undivided nose to nose attention, and advised him not to threaten me, he was a little taken aback, as I advised him that I would rather we were on the same side? He was a little confused but the tension abated, and I walked off un harmed.
So no aikido in the 'bodily' sense, but without my practice, I would not have had the confidence or spirit to do what I did, ( I probably would have stayed in the shop! )

I my early days of practice, I was in discussion with a very experienced aikidoka, and he was talking about a time that he had been working in a very rough part of London, he had gone into a pub and when a couple of the local hard-cases heard his 'not from around here' accent they started to get really heavy, so his response was to put on the thickest Glaswegian accent he could muster ( He is Scottish and glasgow has a bit or a 'reputation' ) and out heavy the two heavys. I asked him why he didn't just let them start a fight and then flatten them with his aikido. His response was that if he had used aikido to win a fight that could been avoided by using other means, he would have been ashamed of himself. This has stuck in my mind ever since.

I believe aikido provides us with a means to 'defence without destruction of the assailant', and that to win without fighting is the highest form of 'Martial Art' and one we should all aspire to.

just my 2 penneth worth.

regards,
Mark

Edwin Neal
02-17-2006, 07:33 AM
Mr. Fooks now you are just trying to be contrary... i respect what you are saying and agree with your assertion about "cockamamie" martial arts, but aikido techniques and strategy are martially sound and effective... therefore it is not in that category... but even within any valid martial art there will be some people that will be better at it than others for a variety of reasons... this does not mean that the art they practice is ineffective, rather their personal 'style' of fighting or applying their techniques is simply not at the level required for success... put a GJJ white belt in the octagon against say Chuck Lidell... would you then say that because the white belt could not sucessfully apply his technique that GJJ is a cockamamie martial art? Realize i am agreeing with you... any valid martial art must have techniques that are effective and strategically sound, and people must practice in a manner that gives them the training/skills to apply these techniques in a 'realistic' situation, but individual ability will allways be a factor in these situations... sometimes more so than the particular martial art they practice or apply...

Adam Alexander
02-17-2006, 02:04 PM
That's like saying if I was in a shootout and I missed the person I was aiming at and I go "the gun failed". No, the gun put the bullet where I was aiming. Perhaps my aim was off, but the failure was with me, and not the gun.

Now, this was perfect!


Boon, where's the falsifiablity in that? In other words, if I were to say that Beer Drinking Do is a fantastic form of self defence, and then said that Beer Drinking Do works, but yours doesn't, is that just as valid?

I don't believe that "Aikido works. Your Aikido doesn't. Don't get the two confused," is an argument. It's a statement.

On the question of BeerDrinkingDo being an excellent form of self-defense, the best we can hope for is "I haven't found evidence to support that conclusion."

If you respond "but I've experienced it," then I'd say,"I'm happy that you find so much value in the art. However, I have yet to see the evidence."

Now, if a lot of schools started springing up by individuals that have reached the rank of drunkard-dan and quality of technique slipped considerably across the spectrum of practitioners so much so that, while walking in front of a BeerDrinkingDo seminar, I see one hundred students get whooped by BJJers, I'd say,"Why those individuals likely do not feel the same about that art as the other fellow."

Is there evidence that the Do is not effective? No...Just still an absence of evidence to the contrary.

Now, what if...There's secrets to the techniques? Secrets that are only unlocked with a little guidance and a lot of hard work? Secrets that most practitioners do not know until they've surpassed Drunkard-dan? Details that make techniques work?

Well, then you'll probably find that there's a bunch of Drunkard-dans running around and talking it up about something they really don't know anything about...While another group prefers to not talk out the wrong hole and continue just to say,"I don't know if it works or not. I just know that I have yet to see it."

Cheers.

Aristeia
02-17-2006, 02:18 PM
Mr. Fooks now you are just trying to be contrary... i respect what you are saying and agree with your assertion about "cockamamie" martial arts, but aikido techniques and strategy are martially sound and effective... therefore it is not in that category... but even within any valid martial art there will be some people that will be better at it than others for a variety of reasons... this does not mean that the art they practice is ineffective, rather their personal 'style' of fighting or applying their techniques is simply not at the level required for success... put a GJJ white belt in the octagon against say Chuck Lidell... would you then say that because the white belt could not sucessfully apply his technique that GJJ is a cockamamie martial art? Realize i am agreeing with you... any valid martial art must have techniques that are effective and strategically sound, and people must practice in a manner that gives them the training/skills to apply these techniques in a 'realistic' situation, but individual ability will allways be a factor in these situations... sometimes more so than the particular martial art they practice or apply...

Hi Edwin. We basically agree. My point is simply this. I'm sick of hearing "it's the artist not the art" being trotted out as a smokescreen to avoid discussing whether particular arts are martially effective. It's generally used to try to shut the discussion down.
And it's nonesense. No you cannot learn much from a GJJ white belt vs chuck. But you might be able to learn something about how the overwhelming number of BJJ Blue belts fare compared to the same number of students with the same time training in another art.

I mean it's a bit like saying "when it comes to lung cancer, it's the smoker not the smoke". Because great uncle Jake smoked every day and lived to be 100. You can't tell heaps by looking at individual cases maybe. But by looking at the general population you can.

I mean I realise Aikido can be martially effective. I love the art. I just wish people would be more honest and say "if it works, it generally takes a long time, and takes a certain sort of training that many schools don't do. If martial effectiveness is all you are after there are better and quicker roads, but Aikido gives you other things beyond that that Aikidoka happen to enjoy"

Rather than "hey it's the artist no the art so lets not talk about it"

Adam Alexander
02-17-2006, 02:30 PM
I mean I realise Aikido can be martially effective. I love the art. I just wish people would be more honest and say "if it works, it generally takes a long time, and takes a certain sort of training that many schools don't do. If martial effectiveness is all you are after there are better and quicker roads, but Aikido gives you other things beyond that that Aikidoka happen to enjoy"

Rather than "hey it's the artist no the art so lets not talk about it"

Tsk, tsk, tsk. That answer, although I'd agree with it, does not respond to the question "Did your Aikido fail?"

We're all being honest. You're just misunderstanding the question posed.

When people ask "how long does it take," I've never seen anyone shut that question down. We all agree that it probably takes longer than other arts. Maybe not all of us, but it's what most of us have found.

When someone asks "is it effective," the only people to shut that down are the nay-sayers...all of us who've witnessed it say "it worked for me"...Again, no-one that you refer to shuts it down.

When someone asks about form of training in Aikido, different people report different things...Again, no-one shuts it down because we all know that dojos vary.

There's only one question that gets shut down..."Did Aikido fail?"

Why does it get shut down? Because it's non-sensical. That's all. It just doesn't make sense.

Whoops. One other thing...I don't agree with "better" necessarily. It's too obscure.

Aristeia
02-17-2006, 02:31 PM
Is there evidence that the Do is not effective? No...Just still an absence of evidence to the contrary.
.

It's often interesting to me how people are prepared to suspend your usual good judgement when it comes to talking about martial arts.

Lets say I'm buying a car, and one of my critereon is that it needs to be able to go over 150km/hr. the salesman shows me one and says that it can do that speed. I ask to take it for a test drive and he says "well it will take a lot of training for you to be able to get it to that speed". I ask for a demonstration and he says "well I can't make it do it yet". I ask to see some footage or talk to someone who can make it go over 150km/hr and am told no such person currently exists. But that the car does meet my requirements because "it's the driver not the car"

Technically speaking, I haven't proven that the car can't do that speed (because you can't prove a negative), so perhaps I can only say I haven't seen evidence of it. But the chances of anyone with my criteria buying that car are slim and none and slim just left town right?

Yet we buy a similar argument when it comes to fighting? This seems odd to me "secret"s nt withstanding (didn't O'sensei specifically say there were no secrets).

In fact if "it's the artist not the art" were really true in the way people want to use it, why bother training at all?

Adam Alexander
02-17-2006, 03:03 PM
It's often interesting to me how people are prepared to suspend your usual good judgement when it comes to talking about martial arts.

Lets say I'm buying a car, and one of my critereon is that it needs to be able to go over 150km/hr. the salesman shows me one and says that it can do that speed. I ask to take it for a test drive and he says "well it will take a lot of training for you to be able to get it to that speed". I ask for a demonstration and he says "well I can't make it do it yet". I ask to see some footage or talk to someone who can make it go over 150km/hr and am told no such person currently exists. But that the car does meet my requirements because "it's the driver not the car"

Nice post. I like this one.

I'd agree. We do suspend it...I guess we exercise a little faith:)

I'd say that's one reason we see a lot of what I'd consider bad Aikido.

Following that analogy, my experience has been, that when being sold, I was told "if you lose twenty pounds, she'll go that speed." Then, I lost a few pounds and she went a little quicker. A few more, even faster--Not there yet, but a little more.


Technically speaking, I haven't proven that the car can't do that speed (because you can't prove a negative), so perhaps I can only say I haven't seen evidence of it. But the chances of anyone with my criteria buying that car are slim and none and slim just left town right?


Depends. If I can spend a hundred bucks on your ten thousand dollar car and use it for a month to sample it--to see if there's any increase in speed--then I say you've still got a chance...That's why there are so many schools out there. Once I develop faith because of slight improvements during the month, I take it on payments. If at any point I decide it's not right for me, I can stop paying on it, return it and suffer no consequence besides the lost time...but I'll still get to keep the benefit that was gained (getting to work those days, to the grocery store, etc. vs. body awareness, exercise, etc)



It's Yet we buy a similar argument when it comes to fighting? This seems odd to me "secret"s nt withstanding (didn't O'sensei specifically say there were no secrets).

I think the intent should be considered. It all comes when we're ready. If you're having a hard time with your front strike, you'll never get side-strike. So, although it's just waiting there to be found, it's something of a secret to one who's still trying to figure out front strike.


In fact if "it's the artist not the art" were really true in the way people want to use it, why bother training at all?

I see what you're saying. However, in the way it's being used, I believe "art" is somewhat defined--atleast for me.

I know Aikido works. Is there an Aikido technique for all situations? Yes and no. There's missed opportunities for techniques that might lead you into a position where there's not a specifically defined technique (300lbs guy mounted on you...I don't know how to use Aikido there...at that point seems to be nothing but a little technique and a whole lot of brute force), but missing the opportunity is not a failure of Aikido.



In all honesty, I've liked this entire post better than any of them (and I've liked plenty of your posts). Nice.

Michael O'Brien
02-17-2006, 03:04 PM
Lets say I'm buying a car, and one of my critereon is that it needs to be able to go over 150km/hr. the salesman shows me one and says that it can do that speed. I ask to take it for a test drive and he says "well it will take a lot of training for you to be able to get it to that speed". I ask for a demonstration and he says "well I can't make it do it yet". I ask to see some footage or talk to someone who can make it go over 150km/hr and am told no such person currently exists. But that the car does meet my requirements because "it's the driver not the car"

In fact if "it's the artist not the art" were really true in the way people want to use it, why bother training at all?

Michael,
I think it has been stated multiple times, in not in this forum then in others though that the art works and has worked for people.

So although your car analogy works to a degree it works to prove the other point just as well.

You may want a car that does 150km/hr and the dealer may even sell you that car. Then you are just as likely to try and drive it at 150km/hr the first day you buy it and you kill yourself in it.

Why? Because the driver couldn't handle the capabilites of the car. It was the driver, not the car.

Just like in Aikido it is the artist, not the art.

For a driver to be capable to handling a performance sports car to the full potential of that car requires years of rigorous training.

For a martial artist, in Aikido or any other art, to handle themselves in a life threatening situation can take years of rigorous training.

Seems logical to me anyway. :)

Aristeia
02-17-2006, 03:28 PM
I take your point Michael, but it falls down a little if the dealer across the road is selling a car that will allow you safely go that speed almost immediately.
to try and wrench this back on topic, my point is simply this. We often hear people talking about times they have used Aikido to successfully defend themselves. I think it would be a valuable exercise to gather stories where people have failed despite their Aikido training. then we can analyse what went wrong. In some cases it may have just have been poor execution. But in many cases there maybe something to learn. What happened that was unexpected? what was it the training didn't prepare the person for. How can we alter the training to take care of that? It's this way an art moves forward. But people have to be ready to admit their failures, and also to move past "well in our dojo we do train for that, it's somebody eles's problem".

Aristeia
02-17-2006, 03:44 PM
There's missed opportunities for techniques that might lead you into a position where there's not a specifically defined technique (300lbs guy mounted on you...I don't know how to use Aikido there...at that point seems to be nothing but a little technique and a whole lot of brute force).

Actually, against someone untrained on the ground, you could escape this most of the time with technique.

Michael O'Brien
02-17-2006, 03:48 PM
I think it would be a valuable exercise to gather stories where people have failed despite their Aikido training. then we can analyse what went wrong. In some cases it may have just have been poor execution. But in many cases there maybe something to learn. What happened that was unexpected? what was it the training didn't prepare the person for. How can we alter the training to take care of that? It's this way an art moves forward.

Now that statement I like a lot. Sadly, I don't have anything to contribute personally. I haven't had to actually "defend" myself in a physical confrontation since 1990 and I was training for my Shodan test in Tae Kwon Do at the time. The confrontration was over in about 1.5 seconds with 3 well placed blows.

I would love to discuss the concept though and see what interesting training ideas, etc come out of it if we can get this conversation going.

Edwin Neal
02-17-2006, 04:07 PM
i agree michael, there is alot of denial in some aikidoka... both in the capabilities of aikido and what aikido actually is... how many times do you hear no striking, no violence, no chokes, etc before you realize many folks have some fuzzy idea of what aikido actually is... what theres no ground work in YOUR aikido... how is that possible? when Osensei clearly studied jujutsu? judo? the fact that most schools/sensei's don't teach it does not mean that it is NOT a part... Osensei said aikido is not about the techniques, and if we are to accept the principle of takemusu aiki this must mean any and all techniques, strategies and ranges... so before the anti grappling crew starts about no ground work heres a couple of good pics of ground and chokes...

http://venus.secureguards.com/~aikidog-/aikicenter/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=1101#1101

aikido or any martial art is about honesty and specifically self honesty... look at what you do... will it work... do you need more practice... do you need to change your training method... what are your goals... denial is very hard to avoid if we blindly follow on "faith", but true faith comes from honesty and cannot be denied...

Michael O'Brien
02-17-2006, 04:52 PM
Welcome Edwin! I was wondering when you were going to jump in on this thread. LOL

Stanley Archacki
02-17-2006, 04:55 PM
Fortunately I have not been in a situation where I had to physically defend myself or someone else. Chances are, at some point I will have to.

I object to the phrase "use Aikido", or use any martial art for that matter. A utilitarian ethic should not be applied to Aikido. I train in two martial arts, and I started Aikido more recently. The other art, Modern Arnis, has some similarities in technique that present a challenge for me when training, lest I should conflate the two arts. When I'm on the mat, at this stage in my training, I'm trying to learn the technique exactly as my Sensei or Guro is showing me. However, principles of motion and anatomy I have learned over the years do come out on the mat when I'm not thinking about them.

What I mean is that if I had to defend myself, I wouldn't be "doing Aikido" or "doing Arnis". I would be moving to keep myself safe and eliminate the threat. I might be successful and I might not.

If I was attacked and I ended up just pummeling the attacker with hook punches, would Aikido have failed me? What if I landed a hook punch and the attacker slipped the second. I moved in and performed Irimi Nage Omote, and then pinned him? Did I "half-use Aikido"? Did Aikido "half-work"?

Unlike some others, I primarily practice Aikido for the physical self-defense aspects. I still find my training very valuable all the time, both on and off the mat. If I practice Aikido my whole life and never have to defend myself, I will not feel that I have been wasting my time. There are so many factors in a fight that no amount of training can eliminate chance, or the "fog of war". I hope I never lose in combat, but to me whether I do is not the test of success or failure for my Aikido.

Michael O'Brien
02-17-2006, 05:06 PM
Fortunately I have not been in a situation where I had to physically defend myself or someone else. Chances are, at some point I will have to.

I object to the phrase "use Aikido", or use any martial art for that matter. A utilitarian ethic should not be applied to Aikido. I train in two martial arts, and I started Aikido more recently. The other art, Modern Arnis, has some similarities in technique that present a challenge for me when training, lest I should conflate the two arts. When I'm on the mat, at this stage in my training, I'm trying to learn the technique exactly as my Sensei or Guro is showing me. However, principles of motion and anatomy I have learned over the years do come out on the mat when I'm not thinking about them.

What I mean is that if I had to defend myself, I wouldn't be "doing Aikido" or "doing Arnis". I would be moving to keep myself safe and eliminate the threat. I might be successful and I might not.

If I was attacked and I ended up just pummeling the attacker with hook punches, would Aikido have failed me? What if I landed a hook punch and the attacker slipped the second. I moved in and performed Irimi Nage Omote, and then pinned him? Did I "half-use Aikido"? Did Aikido "half-work"?

Unlike some others, I primarily practice Aikido for the physical self-defense aspects. I still find my training very valuable all the time, both on and off the mat. If I practice Aikido my whole life and never have to defend myself, I will not feel that I have been wasting my time. There are so many factors in a fight that no amount of training can eliminate chance, or the "fog of war". I hope I never lose in combat, but to me whether I do is not the test of success or failure for my Aikido.

Stanley,
Very interesting concept and something I'll have to consider further and elaborate on more as this conversation develops.

Like you, I have a mixed martial arts background. I have found that Aikido has definitely helped me in my other martial arts with the concepts of moving and closing, avoiding the initial attack as opposed to meeting it with a forceful block, etc.

I also am intrigued by the concept of "half using Aikido" as you put it. In my Tae Kwon Do training our concept of "self-defense" on the street was using whatever was necessary to win. If that meant picking up a garbage can and bashing someone with it then that was fine. LOL However, that seems very un-Aikido-like to say the least.

I'll definitely come back and see what others have to say and post more on this later.

Adam Alexander
02-17-2006, 05:20 PM
Actually, against someone untrained on the ground, you could escape this most of the time with technique.

LOL. Can't lead a horse that doesn't want to follow.


But on your last rant about those of us who'll not discuss how Aikido failed, reread some of my stuff. I've divulged before that I've had an occasion where I failed to implement technique.

Stanley Archacki
02-17-2006, 05:25 PM
Mike,
In principle, I like the idea of "using whatever was necessary to win". One of the reasons I chose Aikido is because I think it has much of what is necessary. I think what I'm trying to say is that as a "do", the success or failiure of Aikido cannot be judged by a single physical confrontation. But in a fight, for any of us, Aikido will be only one factor determining how we move, and how we move will be only one factor determining the outcome.

Aikido is not a "make it your own" art like Modern Arnis or Jeet Kune Do. We all strive follow O Sensei in the do, including following his physical technique. There is only one Aikido. But all Aikidoka should remember that his or her own technique will never actually be exaclty like O Sensei's, or anyone elses.

I am 6' tall, of slim build, 27 years old. My right arm is about 2" longer than my left. I grew up in a culture where boxing is the first conception of "fighting" generally learned. I've studied Modern Arnis for almost five cumulative years. I live in Chicago, thus wearing a heavy coat in the winter. Laws prevent me from carrying large knives or firearms. Custom prevents me from carrying a walking stick or staff. These factors just begin to influence how I might behave in a fight. I have confidence that even after less than a year of studying Aikido, the time I've spent in my dojo has added to my ability.

Edwin Neal
02-17-2006, 05:59 PM
thanks you Mr. O'Brien... i just like to explore new ideas and perspectives... these kind of discussions usually rouse a lot of passions... hopefully they will not cloud simple reason... and devolve into arguments...

Edwin Neal
02-17-2006, 06:07 PM
Stanley i think arnis is a wonderful complement to aikido, i have trained a little in modern arnis and i found that the techniques and principles are amazingly similar... i was extremely impressed and honored to receive instruction from the late Remy Presas and i must say his arnis was very aikido... truly a wonderful man and a gifted teacher...

Michael O'Brien
02-17-2006, 06:23 PM
Aikido is not a "make it your own" art like Modern Arnis or Jeet Kune Do. We all strive follow O Sensei in the do, including following his physical technique. There is only one Aikido. But all Aikidoka should remember that his or her own technique will never actually be exaclty like O Sensei's, or anyone elses.

Interestingly enough I have heard just the opposite regularly. My Sensei often says that "As you train you will find what works for you and the best way to make it work for you and you will make 'your Aikido'"

I understand exactly what you are saying though. Maybe we are just looking at the elephant from opposite ends?


I have confidence that even after less than a year of studying Aikido, the time I've spent in my dojo has added to my ability.

This I agree with wholeheartedly. I have about a year of Aikido total training time so far broken into 2 segments of about 9-10 months and 2 months and I have seen ways that it has helped already.

Edwin Neal
02-17-2006, 06:30 PM
takemusu aiki must by definition include all techniques, strategies and ranges... for Stanley... hook punch = atemi waza = aikido... and i agree michael aikido is an all inclusive art... it is not the technique, but how and with what intent you apply it...

SMART2o
02-20-2006, 06:06 PM
I have effectively applied ikkyo, sankyo, (soft)kotegashi, and (soft)irimi nage on friends I was play fighting with. Not exactly self defense situations, but still a lot more resistance than I normally encounter in the dojo.

As far as "real life", it has never failed me because I am fortunate enough to have not had to fight for real since my highschool years. If that ever changes in the near future, I will get back to you on this one.

Mark Freeman
02-20-2006, 07:01 PM
As far as "real life", it has never failed me because I am fortunate enough to have not had to fight for real since my highschool years. If that ever changes in the near future, I will get back to you on this one.

let's hope you never have to ;)

Aikibu
02-23-2006, 06:35 PM
Once my temper got the best of me and using Aikido techniques I failed the "spirit" of Aikido by hurting the Uke more than was needed. On the other hand That has happened a few times actually... and usually starts with something like F**K You Aikido is for P***ies" or "Aikido does not work against THIS!!!" Followed by an application of Iriminage or Atemi...followed again by "Hey!!! Thats not Aikido!"

If I truely had the spirit of Aikido under these circumstances I would not have lost my temper. :)

William Hazen

Edwin Neal
02-23-2006, 06:40 PM
aikido does not mean you never lose you temper... in some instances it is entirely appropriate to do so, what else you do like getting violent is where you start to stray from the path... Osensei had a fierce temper and a gentle spirit... yin and yang...

Nick Simpson
02-24-2006, 12:32 PM
He did get rather violent sometimes though, didnt he?

Mike Fugate
02-24-2006, 03:44 PM
I have had a few altercations with other people before. I honestly dont consider myself an Aikido artist, but a Martial Artist....However the techniques I used in one particular event would have been called an Aikido technique....However I learned it from Kung Fu, it was still from the orgins from where the Aiki gets there style...I admire Aikdio very much! :ki:
Bruce Lee had a severe temper too....but then again he was like water,,,right? :ki:

Amelia Smith
02-24-2006, 04:50 PM
To my mind, becoming angry and losing your temper are two separate things, though the often go together. Getting angry is sometimes OK, but losing your temper to me implies a lack of control, which should be avoided.

Qatana
02-24-2006, 08:02 PM
Aikido is teaching me how not to lose my temper.

koz
02-27-2006, 08:34 AM
My line of work has seen me able to practice aikido on unwilling uke on more than the odd occasion for just over a decade now.

It's odd, however, that with 18 years of aikido behind me one of my most trusted applications is a form of Osotogari from the judo I did for 2 years when I was 10.

What that says, I'm not entirely sure. :confused:

LvB
03-01-2006, 07:42 PM
I failed Aikido in 'real life', not the other way around. I saw a bad situation, tried to intervene, and had no effect. It was a failure of spirit, or focus, or intent, who knows... I had too much to drink, and the aggressor was dangerous-crazy. Do or do not, right? Well, that was a hell of a lesson, and it changed my perspective a lot. As far as I'm concerned, it is the person that fails and not Aikido.

Thankyou, anonymous, for answering the question.

I realise that my question needs to be refrased:

Did you try to use aikido in "real life" to defend yourself/someone else, and YOU failed?

(Since aikido cannot fail. :rolleyes: )

Dirk Hanss
03-02-2006, 05:22 AM
(Since aikido cannot fail. :rolleyes: )

Aikido can fail.
If the technique does not work, it is mostly the person or his training level.

If most aikidoka do not act better in daily life or do not find satisfaction, probably their teachers or the organisations fail.

If is (nearly) impossible to improve personality by seeking to understand the universal power (ki) and get familiar with it to use it in harmony, or if martial techniques do not lead there at all, then aikido failed, and probably O Sensei, got his spiritual strength through Shintoism or Omooto-kyo. But I guess, that was not the question for this thread?



Regards Dirk

Keith R Lee
03-02-2006, 06:48 AM
Since no one else seem to want to step up to the plate, I will. It's pretty easy to gain some humility after getting beaten all the time.

In my Sambo classes, and at BJJ gyms I've been to, my Aikido technique has failed. A lot. Repeatedly. Like again and again. Like, dammit, why the hell doesn't this stuff EVER work.

After training in Sambo for a year or so, more Aiki-type principles made themselves apparent to me in Sambo/grappling. After a little bit longer, I was able to pull off a couple of what most would consider "pure" Aikido techniques, but not that often. The two that come to mind are hiji-ate and nikkajo.

Sure, it was in a "controlled" environment and I was stepping into "their" world of grappling, but really should that matter? Also, their "controlled" environment with its rules etc. is a helluva lot more uncontrolled than most Aikido dojos. Not to mention, that even though my gym is a sport-focused one, does not mean that we do not cross over into Combat Sambo, or that guys training for MMA don't swing in. As hard and as difficult as grappling is, combine being on the bottom with someone trying as hard as they can to punch you in the face AND submit you, is a real eye-opener.

Alec Corper
03-02-2006, 07:59 AM
Anyone out there remember the story related by Terry Dobson when he was living in Tokyo. He was about to use his "Aikido" on an abusive, drunken worker, when an old man sat next to the drunk, put his arm round him and talked to him as if he was the man's father. The drunk ended up crying on the old man's shoulder, thanking him for listening, no harm was done.
Terry Dobson made the comment later, "that was real Aikido". At the grave risk of mixing up 2 different threads (or was it threats?) this is a perfect example of a pre-emptive strike, a mind altering irimi, with genuinely compassionate intent. This was what Terry said he wanted to do as well, but his version would have been more physical.
Aikido doesn't fail us, we fail it: too soft, too hard, too late, too early, etc.......... no :ai:

Ron Tisdale
03-02-2006, 08:41 AM
Thanks for that, Alec...
Best,
Ron

NixNa
03-02-2006, 09:53 AM
Thats a good one Alec. Stories like these always facinate me, btw where can i find the exact source to the Terry Dobson story?

Ron Tisdale
03-02-2006, 10:03 AM
I believe it's in his book, 'It's a Lot Like Dancing'.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1883319021/103-8808724-1860668?v=glance&n=283155

Best,
Ron

Alec Corper
03-02-2006, 10:50 AM
It's in "Aikido and The New Warrior" ed: Richard Strozzi Heckler
ISBN 0-938190-56-3
Dozo

MartialIntent
03-15-2006, 10:20 AM
If we concede the possibility exists for our Aikido training to fail us, do we admit this to practitioners of other arts in open discussion or are we more reluctant to do that - akin to some form of admission that our training per se has been fruitless perhaps?

Moreover, I wonder if we believe that our Aikido training can let us down when faced with some real-world action, will this carry through into our performance? This I believe would be like conceding to the attacker himself that our art is useless.

What do yous think?

Respects!

Michael O'Brien
03-15-2006, 03:32 PM
I would say any training can fail you, regardless of the art. My personal opinion is that styles like TKD that have gone largely to either complete no contact or extremely light contact style sparring are training for failure in street self defense as well.

When I trained in TKD we trained heavy contact from day in our sparring. As rank white belt beginners we sparred with the black belts because we couldn't hit them hard enough or well enough to injure them and they had enough control over their technique to not injure us. After we gained some experience and control then we started sparring with people similar in ability to our own. It made for the occasional busted lip, bloody nose, etc but it also taught us to actually throw technique and how to handle taking a solid hit and not lose your composure.

If you can identify where you see a breakdown in your training then you know where and how to train to fix that failure.

Or if you are just training for the sake of training then it doesn't really matter.

Kutisake
03-18-2006, 12:33 PM
"That's impossible. Aikido doesn't fail, the Aikidoka only fails to apply the right technique"
Oh, yes! These words are really wise!!! :ai: :ki: :do:

Mark Uttech
03-18-2006, 12:52 PM
The student who "keeps going" learns things. Failure and success have nothing to do with it. The fact remains with one who tries, there really isn't anything else to do. In Aikido there are no tournaments, aikido is about your whole life; everyone is a champion trying to be a champion. The rest of life around you, changes and doesn't change to suit you; you become like a bell that "invites" the sound. In gassho

LvB
03-18-2006, 06:22 PM
Well, here we are. 70 replies and over 2.000 views later, only one confession concerning aikido failure in real life.

Considering the possibility for viewers to give anonymous replies, one could come to the conclusion that aikido very rarely fails "in real life", despite the lack of sparring, grappling skills etc.

This is indeed happy news! ;)

gregstec
03-19-2006, 06:24 PM
I have not read most of the responses, and I am sure they all have some good points, but I would like to respond to the original question.

I have been in a few real life hostile, and/or, combative situations after I started training in Aikido. Most hostile situations can be avoided by employing 'aiki' principles that focus on harmonizing and avoiding direct confrontations - it is amazing how often 'hostiles' will respond favorably to a redirection. I believe most people really do want to try and avoid confrontation, and when given a 'face saving' out, will take it.

However, there are those that are determined to take it to the physical. In those situations, your defense is only reflexive and there is no time to mentally prepare yourself to apply a learned technique - you react to a force and respond accordingly without thinking based on the conditioning from your training. I think Osensei called this Takemusu. I have been in a couple situations like this, and that is how it works - things just happen. If you have trained enough, you will subconsciously react to the threat and physically perform with what you have trained to do in similar situations. It works just like that; and those of you who have been there, know exactly what I am talking about.


Greg Steckel

Nick Simpson
03-21-2006, 07:33 AM
Alright, Im going to add this:

Though Aikido has so far never failed me, I believe that I have failed aikido many times. I have lost my temper many times with many people (off the mat and sometimes though I had a right to be angry, most times I did not). I have been rude to some people, a general c*ck to others. I have lied and cheated and talked badly about others. I have let pride/ego influence me far too much.

Theres probably more, but you know. It's a start. Im trying to be a better person. Doesnt always work.

Dennis Good
03-21-2006, 01:09 PM
I would have to say that for me, Aikido has never failed. Let me explain where I'm coming from here. I live in Baltimore and work in Washington D.C. Just by where I am located things can get pretty rough especially in the winter time. See, we tend to get alot of sleet and ice. Not warm enough for all rain, not cold enough for all snow. I do have to say since 1991 when I started I have not once been injured in a fall thanks to my Aikido training. You can also make some pretty amazing volley ball saves in the summer when you don't have to worry about getting hurt in a fall. And if walking from the Union station to work on Ice at 7 am isn't "real lie" I don't know what is.

Kevin Leavitt
03-29-2006, 12:33 PM
Good story Dennis.

I remember a few years back when I was in Infantry School I used to carry the M60 Machine gun or M249 SAW (machine gun). Those suckers are forward heavy around your waist. I'd trip in the woods over a stump the gun would learch forward and go right into a forward roll and come up standing and keep on walking. The guys used to get a big kick out of that technique of falling! Beat falling on my face with a rucksack landing on my head!

Dave Forde
12-16-2009, 07:28 AM
So far I have only had to even think about using it once. A friend stupidly got involved in a scrap and when I tried to pull him away one of the other guys grabbed my wrist(I was stunned that he actually did that) all I did was leave my arm there tell the guy that I had no wish to fight him and get ready for the next move he made. the guy dropped my arm and walked away. I think the fact that I didn't panic and try to push him or pull my arm back made this fella stop and think for a second. who called aikido the art of fighting without fighting? wise man/woman.

RED
12-16-2009, 09:56 PM
] On the other hand That has happened a few times actually... and usually starts with something like F**K You Aikido is for P***ies" or "Aikido does not work against THIS!!!" Followed by an application of Iriminage or Atemi...followed again by "Hey!!! Thats not Aikido!"
]

Why?...just why? :confused:

RED
12-16-2009, 09:57 PM
Aikido doesn't fail people... people fail Aikido. (was that Oprah sounding..??. that's what I was going for!)

Connor Haberland
01-08-2010, 02:38 PM
I've never had to use Aikido in a real life situation, hopefully I never will.

But if the time comes than I can only trust in my training to guide me through the situation.

To me Aikido is a martial art that helps both parties live to fight another day.

Aikibu
01-09-2010, 01:49 PM
Why?...just why? :confused:

No reason...It's just the way life is sometimes...:)

William Hazen

gdandscompserv
01-09-2010, 05:35 PM
I've never had to use Aikido in a real life situation, hopefully I never will.
I use it most everyday, and am happy to do so!:D

Shadowfax
01-11-2010, 07:46 AM
ugh... last weekend. Got attacked by a sheet of ice and had to take a breakfall..... no visible bruises but I sure have been sore all week.

gixxergary
01-12-2010, 09:32 AM
Ive only been training in Aikido for a year or so now. (5th kyu). I have never had to use it, I think? The family and Iwere at a ski hill a few weeks back. Walked out the door, and there was an obviously loud and drunk individual standing there doing what they do best. ( acting like an idiot). As my family was passing by, he raised his hand to us. At first it appeared threatening, but soon realized he was trying to be cool with a high five for his friends, but in our direction. I know the following sounds like alot of thoughts in a very short period of time, but it truely did happen. As said, my first thought was this was a physical threat. I wanted to side thrust kick this guy in the chops for moving towards my family like this. ( kyukido training) But my mind quickly went to controling. I thought about shomenuchi kotegaeshi and shomenuchi kokyunage. As I shuffled my youngest son away from the threatening side, I had to do nothing more. This all took place in what felt like a minute, but really was just a few seconds. No confrontation, no words exchanged, no harm, and the kids didnt even know anything was wrong, but yet I played out several senarios in my mind. WAS that Aikido? To be honest, I hope it was a direct result of my limited training. It made me feel great and calm inside, knowing that, even for a moment, I had control of my space. This just makes me want to train more. Thanks for reading my little story.
Gary

gregstec
01-12-2010, 09:56 AM
WAS that Aikido? To be honest, I hope it was a direct result of my limited training. It made me feel great and calm inside, knowing that, even for a moment, I had control of my space. This just makes me want to train more. Thanks for reading my little story.
Gary

Were your actions a result of your training? probably.

You were aware of a potential threat and you felt prepared to respond if need be. Most people would not have even recognized the threat, and if attacked, would have froze out of fear.

The best defense is awareness followed by a non-threatening neutral type of action to avoid conflict - your Aikido training can help with this. However, if it does come to the physical, your technical training may be beneficial, but you won't have time to think about - it just comes out naturally. That is why you train, to have takemasu (spontaneous) technique.

Greg

fisher6000
01-17-2010, 09:20 AM
Aikido in a dojo is a bunch of exercises that are organized around mutual participation. When Uke doesn't play along, she either gets hurt or the point of the exercise is lost.

I think that this setup makes aikido metaphorically powerful. I feel more powerful because I regularly practice physical strategies for taking and holding power. This body knowledge I am building gives me the confidence to react quickly and calmly, with a balance of love and power, to things like verbal conflicts and office politics and such.

Aikido is of course also a great way to understand your own body mechanics, and how you interface with the world around you.

But I can't imagine popping off a good kotegaishi "on the street" simply because what aikido is teaching me more than anything else is that conflict is solvable without actually fighting, and because kotegaishi is an exercise.

FAILED
03-08-2010, 08:34 AM
Greetings- sorry to bring up an old thread but I had to chime in.

"If uke uke does not cooperate then they get hurt". What a load of trip this is. If uke doesn't cooperate the Nage gest his ass kicked plain and simple.

After 9 years of training 5 days a week, holding a beginner's rank of shodan blah blah blah I had had enough and decided to go and test myself by attending "open mat" sessions at various dojos.

Against other "TMA" styled arts I faired quite well, let my ego build then I stepped into a judo dojo and had my ass handed to me, same thing in the boxing ring ( I was allowed all techniques and did not wear gloves) and finally MMA. Truly humbling.

I joined the MMA club and found my aikido footwork worked beautifully and was able to use wrist locks after about 6 months of training on my back. Everthing else was modified until it was it was pointed out that I was then doing textbook judo.

What annoys me is the idea that 9 years, 5 days a week and i was told well it takes 15-20 years to truly understand aikido. Bullsheep.

Don't tell me its not meant for the ring as I had the option to use any technique I chose at full force- If uke doesn't cooperate then its nage that gets hurt.

starblocks12221
03-08-2010, 09:29 AM
Greetings- sorry to bring up an old thread but I had to chime in.

"If uke uke does not cooperate then they get hurt". What a load of trip this is. If uke doesn't cooperate the Nage gest his ass kicked plain and simple.

After 9 years of training 5 days a week, holding a beginner's rank of shodan blah blah blah I had had enough and decided to go and test myself by attending "open mat" sessions at various dojos.

Against other "TMA" styled arts I faired quite well, let my ego build then I stepped into a judo dojo and had my ass handed to me, same thing in the boxing ring ( I was allowed all techniques and did not wear gloves) and finally MMA. Truly humbling.

I joined the MMA club and found my aikido footwork worked beautifully and was able to use wrist locks after about 6 months of training on my back. Everthing else was modified until it was it was pointed out that I was then doing textbook judo.


yes. but did you have Aiki?

NagaBaba
03-08-2010, 09:49 AM
Greetings- sorry to bring up an old thread but I had to chime in.

"If uke uke does not cooperate then they get hurt". What a load of trip this is. If uke doesn't cooperate the Nage gest his ass kicked plain and simple.

After 9 years of training 5 days a week, holding a beginner's rank of shodan blah blah blah I had had enough and decided to go and test myself by attending "open mat" sessions at various dojos.

Against other "TMA" styled arts I faired quite well, let my ego build then I stepped into a judo dojo and had my ass handed to me, same thing in the boxing ring ( I was allowed all techniques and did not wear gloves) and finally MMA. Truly humbling.

I joined the MMA club and found my aikido footwork worked beautifully and was able to use wrist locks after about 6 months of training on my back. Everthing else was modified until it was it was pointed out that I was then doing textbook judo.

What annoys me is the idea that 9 years, 5 days a week and i was told well it takes 15-20 years to truly understand aikido. Bullsheep.

Don't tell me its not meant for the ring as I had the option to use any technique I chose at full force- If uke doesn't cooperate then its nage that gets hurt.

I think you took a very courageous decision to test yourself with different sport styles, congratulation! Not very many fresh shodans do it. I.e. Sokkaku Takeda also did such testing, checking various dojo across Japan. Better to train MMA and be happy then aikido and by unhappy 
My question is, as you are getting older, there are more and more young, stronger then you fighters that will kick your ass every day. What benefits you see following such Way, besides being looser which stops your ego growing?

RED
03-08-2010, 07:59 PM
.

What annoys me is the idea that 9 years, 5 days a week and i was told well it takes 15-20 years to truly understand aikido. Bullsheep.



Who told you that?
I heard it was 80...

Abasan
03-09-2010, 12:52 AM
I think its great he's taking that path. Randy is 40+ and still holding his own in the ring. So its a great outlet, that given proper attention, would let you train for a decent amount of time.

As nagababa rightly said, it will come to a point where younger, stronger, fitter and skilled opponents will gradually edge you away even with your mounting experience and matured skills.

Since aikido trains body, mind and spirit, the elements there may be able to compensate for physical deterioration. Not saying that it'll happen to everybody, but perhaps to those who really do practice their mind and spirit as keenly as their body.

For those stuck in the physical, then I guess any art would be as good as the other.

Ketsan
03-09-2010, 09:44 PM
Greetings- sorry to bring up an old thread but I had to chime in.

"If uke uke does not cooperate then they get hurt". What a load of trip this is. If uke doesn't cooperate the Nage gest his ass kicked plain and simple.

After 9 years of training 5 days a week, holding a beginner's rank of shodan blah blah blah I had had enough and decided to go and test myself by attending "open mat" sessions at various dojos.

Against other "TMA" styled arts I faired quite well, let my ego build then I stepped into a judo dojo and had my ass handed to me, same thing in the boxing ring ( I was allowed all techniques and did not wear gloves) and finally MMA. Truly humbling.

I joined the MMA club and found my aikido footwork worked beautifully and was able to use wrist locks after about 6 months of training on my back. Everthing else was modified until it was it was pointed out that I was then doing textbook judo.

What annoys me is the idea that 9 years, 5 days a week and i was told well it takes 15-20 years to truly understand aikido. Bullsheep.

Don't tell me its not meant for the ring as I had the option to use any technique I chose at full force- If uke doesn't cooperate then its nage that gets hurt.

If I might make a small observation. You're talking about techniques. Basically what you're saying is, "I tried doing kata in a fight and it failed."
My experience is the exact opposite. I went to Judo and they couldn't move me, not they couldn't throw me, they couldn't get me to budge an inch forward. I could literally have stood in front of them all day, this was at 3rd kyu. When you went to Judo did you do Aikido or did you play by Judo rules?

My friend was asked to demonstrate some Aikido by a Judo instructor who offered up one unfortunate student as an uke. My friend asked if he was sure, explained that it wouldn't be pleasent and all that. The Judo instructor insisted. The student went for the grab my friend let out a most deafening kiai, punched the guy full force in the face just before he took hold, applied something nikkyo-like and was about to finish the student off with a kick to the head when the instructor stopped him.
That anyone could loose to a Judoka is pushing it for me, I'm sorry. I mean literally you can run upto one of these guys and attack them with katadori tsuki and then go into sumi otoshi or tenchi nage. Try that on a 4th kyu Aikidoka and you're probably going to end up on the floor bare minimum you're going to get punched in the face.
I like Judo, I do, it's fun, it's a good workout but it just isn't a martial art, doesn't even come close. Invariably in these cases of Aikido v Judo where the Aikidoka looses the Aikidoka stands there like a lemon lets the Judoka grab them and then tries to do Aikido, as if that's what they've been trained to do. At 5th kyu in my dojo you're told not to let uke grab you, I presume the same is true in other dojo, so there's no real excuse for this. Again from about 4th kyu atemi starts becoming important, again before uke's grip is established. So again there is no excuse for this.
By 1st kyu anyone who walks up to you without covering their face should be semi-concious if not face down KO'd on the mat in a puddle of blood before they get a chance to touch you, that's what we're trained to do. Jodan tsuki shiho nage teaches this, amongst other provisional forms.

Earlier that year I decided Aikido didn't work and went to Jujutsu and wiped the floor with their dan grades, again at 3rd kyu. Between myself and my previously mentioned friend we put seven of their dan grades out of action. We entered a competition, were told to go full force because our "airy fairy Aikido doesn't work." ten minutes later they were asking us to not be so rough.

Striking arts, again, no challenge. I dash in grab something and put it into the floor, or just dash through them. There's no technique in any of this; I can't say I've used irimi nage or ikkyo or any other technique. Sometimes it's as simple as running past them and grabbing their head as I pass by.
The important thing is that Aikido has given me the body power, posture, timing and knowledge of body mechanics so that technique is irrelevent. Aikido is not the group of techniques taught in the dojo, Aikido is the technique.

I don't buy all this, "It takes ten years" crap. It takes two to three if you have a competant teacher and you have an understanding of how Japanese martial arts are taught i.e. you know you're being taught kata rather than being taught techniques. Ultimately Aikido is so simple it can't fail.

thisisnotreal
03-10-2010, 10:55 AM
The student went for the grab my friend let out a most deafening kiai, punched the guy full force in the face just before he took hold, applied something nikkyo-like and was about to finish the student off with a kick to the head when the instructor stopped him.

LOL. that is hilarious. And evil too.
hmm...I'm not sure that was right..

poor uke..

well, i guess he's just lucky that your buddy didn't pull out a switchblade and finish him off...

anon
03-10-2010, 02:05 PM
Stuff.

Nonsense. I get the feeling if the Judoka knew what this Aikido fellow was going to try. (IE striking allowed) things would have been much different. The fact that your 'friend' tried to kick a subdued opponent reeks of thuginess.

Anyone can win an ambush. Actually explain the rules, get someone who know's some striking as well. And see how you actually fair.

To an extent it's true my Aikido failed not Aikido as an art. However when one is studying an art where one's teachers and training partners likely have the same failure. That criticism starts to break.

RED
03-10-2010, 07:26 PM
I'm seeing that different people are having different experiences when it comes to testing their Aikido against other arts.
I'm thinking the difference might lie in the individual? Not Aikido?

lbb
03-11-2010, 08:48 AM
I'm seeing that different people are having different experiences when it comes to testing their Aikido against other arts.
I'm thinking the difference might lie in the individual? Not Aikido?

Wow! Whodathunkit??? :D

C. David Henderson
03-11-2010, 10:03 AM
Anyone can win an ambush. Actually explain the rules, get someone who know's some striking as well. And see how you actually fair.


:confused: Rules? :confused:

Ketsan
03-11-2010, 12:57 PM
Nonsense. I get the feeling if the Judoka knew what this Aikido fellow was going.

Reality check: Even if he did tell the Judoka exactly what he was about to do there's nothing in the Judoka's training that would allow him to deal with it.
Continuing the reality check, no-one tells the other guy what's about to happen in an "excuse me Mr Mugger I'm going to punch you in the face, are you ready for it?" kinda way. What happened was the reality of a fight between Aikido and Judo and Jujutsu and any other art I've seen Aikido put up against.

Getting ambushed IS fighting. Muggers don't tap you on the shoulder and say "excuse me, I'm about to mug you, please get into your fighting stance, oh by the way here are the rules."

RED
03-11-2010, 12:59 PM
", please get into your fighting stance, oh by the way here are the rules."

But they do do that in competitive martial arts.



I think there is a separation between aikido training and competitive martial art training. Majorly. In assumption and tactics.


Competitive martial arts are for title and entertainment. Boxing, MAA, competitive BJJ and Judo... They are sports.(some of which are even Olympic sports.) I don't see Aikido like that. It was made to work outside of the "no below the belt" and "no small joint locks" rules.

I'm not gonna throw aikido out the window because I can't wipe the floor with a boxer.
Nor would I think a British General was a poor strategist if he couldn't defeat me in a game of chess...


And if you can wipe the floor with a boxer.. more power to you.

Aikibu
03-11-2010, 01:18 PM
But they do do that in competitive martial arts.

I think there is a separation between aikido training and competitive martial art training. Majorly. In assumption and tactics.

Competitive martial arts are for title and entertainment. Boxing, MAA, competitive BJJ and Judo... They are sports.(some of which are even Olympic sports.) I don't see Aikido like that. It was made to work outside of the "no below the belt" and "no small joint locks" rules.

I'm not gonna throw aikido out the window because I can't wipe the floor with a boxer.
Nor would I think a British General was a poor strategist if he couldn't defeat me in a game of chess...

And if you can wipe the floor with a boxer.. more power to you.

Brilliant! Thanks for the reality check. :)

William Hazen

RED
03-11-2010, 02:00 PM
Brilliant! Thanks for the reality check. :)

William Hazen

...holy crap, some one just agreed with me :D

*puts a feather in her cap*:cool:

John A Butz
03-11-2010, 02:55 PM
My friend was asked to demonstrate some Aikido by a Judo instructor who offered up one unfortunate student as an uke. My friend asked if he was sure, explained that it wouldn't be pleasent and all that. The Judo instructor insisted. The student went for the grab my friend let out a most deafening kiai, punched the guy full force in the face just before he took hold, applied something nikkyo-like and was about to finish the student off with a kick to the head when the instructor stopped him.


Respectfully Alex, this is showing ignorance of the concept of Rules of Engagement. Yes, yes, I know the "real world has no rules" and I won't debate that point. But even in the real world there are limitations to the use of force. You can NOT deploy as much force as you want against a person who is attacking you unless circumstances warrant it. Obviously, RoE is a lot stricter for police and miltary personnel than for civilian slobs like me, but even so, had the incident you describe here occured on the street, I think your friend would have been the one charged with assualt.

Frankly, even within the dojo, had this happened to me without my consenting to you using strikes, I would have called the police and this would have ended up being taken to court as a case of assualt.

Now, had it been discussed ahead of time that the aikidoist had every intention to use strikes, and that the judoka was allowed to do that same in return, and that contact would be hard and potantially dangerous, and both agreed to it, well then it is the judoka's own damn fault for getting hit in the face.

However, if I had been asking for a reasonably friendly exchange of information in the form of a demo or even randori, and your friend went about slugging me, knocking me down, and kicking my head in without making sure I was game for that level of intensity, he would havebeen at fault, and potentially criminally at fault.

I have done jacketed wrestling with judo players, on their terms and using their rules, and done ok. I have grappled with wrestlers and BJJer guys on their terms and their rules and done ok. I have also been schooled by all of the above at different times too, and maybe that is because the rules got in the way. In my mind it is more likely that they were better than I, or that I needed to be better at aikido. I don't know. All I know is that I have exchanged fairly vigourous practice with a variety of people from a variety of arts without feeling the need to hurt them in order to win.

The people we train with have a reasonable expectation to go home after training without being maliciously injured. Yes, training properly with intention will result in injuries, and if you are on the mat you accept that risk. I have hurt and have been hurt by my training partners. However, those inuries occured in environements where all parties knew what was happening going in and we were willing to accept the results of our actions.

I appreciate that you and your group train hard and have martial ability. And I am glad what you do works against resistance and in a variety of venues. But that is no excuse for irresponsibile use of force.

Anon
03-11-2010, 04:02 PM
But they do do that in competitive martial arts.

I think there is a separation between aikido training and competitive martial art training. Majorly. In assumption and tactics.

Competitive martial arts are for title and entertainment. Boxing, MAA, competitive BJJ and Judo... They are sports.(some of which are even Olympic sports.) I don't see Aikido like that. It was made to work outside of the "no below the belt" and "no small joint locks" rules.

I'm not gonna throw aikido out the window because I can't wipe the floor with a boxer.
Nor would I think a British General was a poor strategist if he couldn't defeat me in a game of chess...

And if you can wipe the floor with a boxer.. more power to you.

Boxing, MMA, Judo all have the characteristics of budo. Despite the audience who watch for entertainment, most of the actual practicioners do it for their own purposes. Which are typically not to satisfy the audience.

You state Aikido was "made to work outside of the "no below the belt" and "no small joint locks" rules." I would contend that since Aikido wasn't developed with fighting in mind. It would also not be that great at any kind of all out combat. (Sure you might learn some basics of fighting/self defense from Aikido eventually. But this is completely auxillary. It's not the primary goal of the art.)

Further there is a huge difference between sparring/randori and fighting/shiai/going all out. When comparing arts, simply holding one's own in a friendly spar doesn't mean you're combatively superior than them.

RED
03-11-2010, 07:15 PM
Boxing, MMA, Judo all have the characteristics of budo. Despite the audience who watch for entertainment, most of the actual practicioners do it for their own purposes. Which are typically not to satisfy the audience.

You state Aikido was "made to work outside of the "no below the belt" and "no small joint locks" rules." I would contend that since Aikido wasn't developed with fighting in mind. It would also not be that great at any kind of all out combat. (Sure you might learn some basics of fighting/self defense from Aikido eventually. But this is completely auxillary. It's not the primary goal of the art.)

Further there is a huge difference between sparring/randori and fighting/shiai/going all out. When comparing arts, simply holding one's own in a friendly spar doesn't mean you're combatively superior than them.

I'm not disagreeing with you.
Judo and other arts in it of themselves and for the practitioners are budo. I'm talking about the "sporting" side, because people are speaking about literally competing on mat-terms with aikido against these arts. Making it a match of sorts.

I don't consider aikido combative, it was never meant for combat. I think it can be used for self-defense. But it is not meant to begin, end, or participate in fights. Aikido is a conscious acknowledgment that there is a fight, followed by a conscious decision to not participate in said fight.

In the end the best way to beat a boxer would be to learn how to box...

if beating a boxer is some one's goal as an Aikidoka, they should of been a boxer and has wasted many years of training.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the individual Aikidoka going to other styles to test themselves. So long as you don't view it ignorantly as anything but you testing yourself. Not you testing Aikido.
Aikido doesn't have anything to prove to some kyu or dan. If the
Aikidoka truly believes that Aikido has to prove its worth to them, then they really haven't been learning Aikido.

My opinion, respectfully.

bulevardi
03-12-2010, 05:32 AM
1, one can say, aikido is not about fighting. Aikido is about not fighting.
2, it is a martial art, one can say it is a self-defense sport. So it contains fighting: attacking and defending.
3, some say, aikido is about creating harmony between the 2 opponents, getting the flow of energy and passing it to the other.

Personally I think aikido attacks are not always real life attacks like on the street, for example katatetori or shomen uchi.
If someone gets attacked on the streets, it's like head knocks, elbow kicks, real boxing...
Real combo's of kicking and boxing, instead of one simple soft atemi.
I can admit honestly that I can't defend myself properly on real attacks, doing only aikido techniques that are based on aikido attacks.

For me, aikido techniques work well in the dojo, doing an aikido attack. Not with a streetwise attack.
Because on the tatami, you use it like number 3 above: creating harmony between the 2 opponents, 2 people work together on a technique. That's not the way in a real life attack.

The sensei corrects me when I put my feet different as an uke, doing an attack. In real life, you are not going to say to your attacker: 'your feet are wrong positioned'.

In this case, Aikido mostly stays in the dojo, as a martial ART. Not as a real streetwise self-defending sport. Otherwise it would be done in competition aswel.

Ketsan
03-12-2010, 10:42 AM
Respectfully Alex, this is showing ignorance of the concept of Rules of Engagement. Yes, yes, I know the "real world has no rules" and I won't debate that point. But even in the real world there are limitations to the use of force. You can NOT deploy as much force as you want against a person who is attacking you unless circumstances warrant it. Obviously, RoE is a lot stricter for police and miltary personnel than for civilian slobs like me, but even so, had the incident you describe here occured on the street, I think your friend would have been the one charged with assualt.

Frankly, even within the dojo, had this happened to me without my consenting to you using strikes, I would have called the police and this would have ended up being taken to court as a case of assualt.

Now, had it been discussed ahead of time that the aikidoist had every intention to use strikes, and that the judoka was allowed to do that same in return, and that contact would be hard and potantially dangerous, and both agreed to it, well then it is the judoka's own damn fault for getting hit in the face.

However, if I had been asking for a reasonably friendly exchange of information in the form of a demo or even randori, and your friend went about slugging me, knocking me down, and kicking my head in without making sure I was game for that level of intensity, he would havebeen at fault, and potentially criminally at fault.

I have done jacketed wrestling with judo players, on their terms and using their rules, and done ok. I have grappled with wrestlers and BJJer guys on their terms and their rules and done ok. I have also been schooled by all of the above at different times too, and maybe that is because the rules got in the way. In my mind it is more likely that they were better than I, or that I needed to be better at aikido. I don't know. All I know is that I have exchanged fairly vigourous practice with a variety of people from a variety of arts without feeling the need to hurt them in order to win.

The people we train with have a reasonable expectation to go home after training without being maliciously injured. Yes, training properly with intention will result in injuries, and if you are on the mat you accept that risk. I have hurt and have been hurt by my training partners. However, those inuries occured in environements where all parties knew what was happening going in and we were willing to accept the results of our actions.

I appreciate that you and your group train hard and have martial ability. And I am glad what you do works against resistance and in a variety of venues. But that is no excuse for irresponsibile use of force.

Legality and ethics are a seperate issue. We're talking about pure practicality.I don't disagree with you I just think it's a seperate issue.
If the Judoka had tried to have a pop at my mate in a bar the same thing would have happened. That's my point.

L. Camejo
03-12-2010, 10:54 AM
It's interesting that people still confuse the difference between a competition/duel and an attack/ambush.

Personally I think if one is using Aikido or anything else for self defense one should never try to have a fair fight. It should always be unfair in your favour. This is why we have kuzushi in Aikido to destroy the balance of the larger, stronger opponent. If we wanted to be fair the larger/stronger person wins every time.

Competition training often gives one certain skills brought from practicing with resistant opponents who know what you can do based on the rule set (e.g. Judo). So it can definitely benefit one in a fight, as long as one understands where the competition rules end and survival begins.

But in an ambush situation (especially where you are the target), the longer the encounter goes the lower your chances of survival, so again in many self defence situations (which are mostly ambushes) one really needs to find ways of survival and escape instead of ways to "fight" better imho. I think good Aikido training offers a few options in this area but it depends on the individual and the training method. I've seen some good fighters who got badly injured or worse because they focused too much on fighting instead of surviving and escaping.

For me, Aikido has never failed in real life. Maybe it's because I practice a competitive form of Aikido, maybe its because I know how to differentiate between the mindset required to compete and the one required for survival. Maybe I've just been lucky.

Imho in a competition one should follow the rules. In a life or death encounter one should do what is needed to survive. There is a big difference. The rules we generally have to comply with in either case are called Laws. In most places, legally one is allowed to do only with is necessary to cease violence being done to oneself, which means that if/when you gain the advantage and can escape safely you should do so and cease the infliction of any additional injury on the aggressor(s). So imho the head stomp used by Alex's friend may be an option depending on the nature of the threat at the time. The thing about the legalities of self defence is "it depends on each situation".

Just a few thoughts.

LC

Ketsan
03-12-2010, 11:36 AM
If someone gets attacked on the streets, it's like head knocks, elbow kicks, real boxing...
Real combo's of kicking and boxing, instead of one simple soft atemi.
I can admit honestly that I can't defend myself properly on real attacks, doing only aikido techniques that are based on aikido attacks.


This is quite an interesting point to me, this is something I give a lot of thought to. Can someone tell me what the BJJ defence against boxing strikes is? How does a BJJer counter a flurry of punches and kicks?

This to me is where things really get interesting and it leads onto interesting questions about the value of resistive training but that's another issue.

In theory you should be able to walk up to a BJJer and punch his head in with no difficulty. There's nothing in his art that prepares him for boxing attacks or kick boxing attacks. Yet no-one here would claim that BJJers can't take on strikers and win.

Strategically Aikido and BJJ are identical. When attacked we both enter in with the intention of unbalancing on contact, we both take our opponents to the ground.

So this "Aikido vs realistic attacks" thing is actually a very poor argument. If it were true BJJ wouldn't have the status it has today, the gracies would have been KO'd in the early UFCs and that would have been it.

If there's a problem in Aikido it's that we can't see how much alike jodan tsuki and a jab are. We can't see that they both come down the centreline that they both come off what ends up being the lead arm. We can't see that a boxer or kick boxer who's being held by the neck and upper arm, as for irimi nage, is a neutralised threat.

We can't see that all we have to do to get to this position is dominate the centreline, as taught by weapons work, for a fraction of a second. In the same way a BJJer only has to avoid getting punched for a fraction of a second while he gets his take down in, except the BJJer doesn't have the advantage of having his hands up to deal with any punches that get thrown and they still manage it.

roninroshi
03-12-2010, 03:34 PM
Aikido in and of it self cannot fail...the failure is generated by those who in it´s name abuse it by improper instruction,application and attitude.

Anon
03-12-2010, 04:42 PM
Aikido in and of it self cannot fail...the failure is generated by those who in it´s name abuse it by improper instruction,application and attitude.

To play devil's advocate. When we're relying upon arguments that the majority of aikidoka are doing subpar weapons work or attacks. Why wouldn't it be fair to say the art has failed in those respects?

Sure we can blame individuals up to a point. But when there are faults that the majority has, in an art that is supposed to be practicing and teaching these things. Whose fault is it?

The skilled teacher for not teaching his unskilled students properly and then saying it's ok for them to teach? The student who wants these skills for not getting their unskilled teacher to raise the bar of their own standards. IE going out and improving their own stuff so they can spread it to the students? The organizations fault for allowing these unskilled teachers to teach? The student for being lazy because their teacher lets them be lazy?

It's like saying Aikido has *aiki. Which 95% of the practicioners don't even have. In which case it would be fair to say that Aikido, as is widely practiced, DOES NOT have aiki. If 99% of practicioners don't have Aiki would it be fair that Aikido does not have Aiki?

I think it is fair to judge the majority. And if the majority is what represents/defines the art... then you can draw your own conclusions about the art. HUMBUG! some of you might say. That's not THE REAL AIKIDO(tm)!

Honestly what's so unfair about such a judgement? Sure we had the founder and his students were exceptionally skilled. But their skills seem to not have been passed on by the majority.)

As for the BJJ and Aikido scenario. Well some schools in BJJ don't do striking, some do'nt. (Have'nt visited that many to be honest, apart from the one I practice at.) However the general 'defense' for BJJ from my experience. Is to protect the head, shoot in, and go for some kind of takedown. Preferrably with a good position for you.

But assuming one has practicioners of equal skill from both schools. With limited training in dealing against strikes. There's a bit of a difference. The BJJ guy since has been doing body to body grappling and the Aikidoka arm's length grappling.

Ketsan
03-12-2010, 10:50 PM
However the general 'defense' for BJJ from my experience. Is to protect the head, shoot in, and go for some kind of takedown. Preferrably with a good position for you.
.

Uh yeah, like I said, Aikido and BJJ share the same strategy.

Ketsan
03-12-2010, 10:55 PM
[QUOTE]=Anonymous User;253745]
I think it is fair to judge the majority. [QUOTE]

You're the majority. Do we judge your art by you? :D

Aleksey
03-14-2010, 05:31 AM
Aikido fails me anytime I do any sort of sparring with someone who knows how to box or grapple.

What fails me far less in such situations, is using boxing techniques.

It is not possible to get behind a boxer or a Judo/Sambo practitioner, unless they really suck. It is not even possible to get into a position allowing for irimi nage.

Nikkyo may work if you're really good, and if you forgo traditional Aikido retention for one including their thumb - much harder to get out of that one in time.

Ketsan
03-14-2010, 01:36 PM
It is not possible to get behind a boxer or a Judo/Sambo practitioner,

Grab head, twist. :D

Not directly, Judoka have a tendancy to stand nearly square on so your attack has to take this into account. If you really want to go behind a Judoka you need to attack with something like ushiro ryote katadori or morote dori and you need to get in first and then you cut them down.
I wouldn't even worry about doing a technique. Take them off balance and feel where they're going and just keep them moving. I wouldn't even worry about getting behind them truth be told. With a Judoka you have two things to think about.

1) Positioning yourself somewhere they can't use their kumi kata effectively; deny them control of your centreline by not offering it in the first place.
2) Maintaining your posture.

Boxers are Judoka that can't grapple. If they can't KO you as you enter in behind your guard it's all over for them. If you get a hand on any part of them it's over for them. Aim for his head, chances are the jab will come flying out, hit your hands and then you backfoot irimi his lead arm out of the way, turning him by cutting the elbow as for chudan irimi nage, if possible.
If not as long as you get that lead arm across his body and you physically get hold of him so that he can't back off and open up to striking range again you've got him in a position from which he can't really recover.
Take his head, get it on your shoulder, take him to the floor. Or you can slide your hand down his bicep to his wrist, other hand goes on his elbow and cut him down to the floor and go for one of the submissions.

Again there are two things to worry about with boxers.
1) Dominating the centre line which cuts down their techniques basically to hooks, unless they really like punching your hands.
2) Closing the distance.

Tony Blauer talks about this but in a less aggressive way than I am. He's talking about dealing with being attacked by a boxer, I'm talking about attacking a boxer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i9in2e8rMw

RED
03-14-2010, 03:44 PM
Aikido fails me anytime I do any sort of sparring with someone who knows how to box or grapple.

What fails me far less in such situations, is using boxing techniques.

It is not possible to get behind a boxer or a Judo/Sambo practitioner, unless they really suck. It is not even possible to get into a position allowing for irimi nage.

Nikkyo may work if you're really good, and if you forgo traditional Aikido retention for one including their thumb - much harder to get out of that one in time.

The best way to beat a boxer is to box him.

Boxing is a striking art, Aikido is a jujitsu. You have to understand the two very different assumptions in which they were developed under.
Aikido was never developed with the assumption of sport or sparring,or contest. Nor was boxing developed with the assumption of multiple attackers, submission attacks or weapon retention.

Wanna beat a boxer, learn how to box.

Aleksey
03-14-2010, 06:31 PM
I'm aware of your points, Maggie. However, the best way to beat a boxer is not to box him. If you box a boxer, boxer wins.

The boxer is also an abstraction of a larger problem - how would Aikidoka deal with attacks from someone who is not 100% clueless about attacking. Someone who forces their game, and there's no escape.

I don't believe Judo is a realistic martial art, but it is also an abstraction for someone who maintains their balance and thus also forces a certain game.

For instance, this street bully - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eDJgYITx94 - is no world champion. However, I firmly believe he would cream 85% of Aikido shodans out there, simply because in Aikido, speed is frowned upon as something "low-level", while it is absolutely vital in reality.

I do not have a lot of faith in Aikido's shodan-rank individuals being able to withstand something like an aggressive attack from a 16-year-old teenager (unless they have fighting experience from elsewhere), and I deem that to be a problem.

Alex, that's an informative post, just as your earlier post in this thread was. It is certainly interesting in theory, and I've tried a number of similar approaches. The one I'm trying to get to work now is tying up the boxer's hands in opposite directions, making it to his side while keeping pressure on the arms, putting a foot behind him and cutting across his neck to the opposite shoulder. A slightly brutalized version of an Aikido/Daito Ryu technique.

With Judo/Sambo my most successful tactics were either

a) extremely quickly canceling their throw as they put their full intent into it (if lucky)
b) doing a kokyunage--->sankyo by rotating into/under one of their arms

As I'm trying to make Aikido work for me, however, I come to the conclusion that basic boxing tactics have to be the at the front of the defense. The Blauer's spear, and Dimitri's Senshido, and similar systems, they all basically teach you to guard your face and body, like a boxer, only in a less "visibly" combative manner, and they're less thorough about explaining the body positioning involved.

Anon
03-14-2010, 07:46 PM
Grab head, twist. :D
1) Positioning yourself somewhere they can't use their kumi kata effectively; deny them control of your centreline by not offering it in the first place.
2) Maintaining your posture.


Alright, I'll bite. How do you do this? Personally I don't think Judoka necessarily need to control the centerline to establish kuzushi.

Aikido was never developed with the assumption of sport or sparring,or contest. Nor was boxing developed with the assumption of multiple attackers, submission attacks or weapon retention.


Aikido not being a sport. I agree. But not sparring? I disagree. I think it would be fair to assume that Ueshiba sparred with his students, in his own way. Pre-Aikido Ueshiba certainly sparred. (I believe there's an account by Stanley Pranin or maybe Ellis Amdur about a young Ueshiba trying his Daito Ryu waza against a friend of his, a sumo practicioner, and getting his ass kicked repeatedly.) Tomiki aikido competes and spars and what they do is still Aikido.

As for the subject of boxing not developed with the assumption of multiple attackers, submissions, and weapon retention, we agree. But if you're trying to infer that Aikido teaches these things I unfortunately disagree. (If you were'nt my mistake.)

Most multiple attack scenarios I've seen are good training tools. And help develop some tactics on the subject. But in terms of actually training against multiple attackers is not so great. (Most of the time uke's seem to be hesitant and attack one after another. If one uke was willing to just grab their teachers leg while the others drag sensei down, problem solved.

Submissions? Well ok.

Weapon retention? Well...... I don't think those disarms would work on a kendoka or koryu practicioner.

I mean Aikido is fun and it's good at what it does. But claiming things outside of aikido's area of expertise... especially when we don't train these things well.... is rude.

Kevin Leavitt
03-14-2010, 08:17 PM
Alot of fundamentalist and dogmatic talk about what stuff is and isn't. Without commenting to a particular post of poster.....

Some of you guys simply put, IMO, do not have a clue about what you are talking about when it comes to what "IS" and what "IS NOT".

I think if you had a breadth of exposure across the spectrum of conflict, you'd see how inane some of this discussion actually is concerning martial arts and martial training methodologies.

Larry Cameo offers some great insights above.

Sorry to be so blunt, but it is what it is IMO, and this is what this forum is supposed to be discussing.

IMO, arts like Judo, Aikido, BJJ and many others offer great context from which to gain various experiences.

Ironically I am in the process of preparing my unit to go down range and what we are training on is really a blend of many things as we develop strategies for dealing with the threats we will possibly face.

What I have found interesting is not the techinques, as we are not teaching ANY techniques, but focusing on macro movements that center around taking center and balance and positional dominance that is seen in the Jiu Jitsu based arts of Aikido, BJJ, and Judo.

I feel comfortable to say that all three of these arts have elements that have assisted me greatly with AIkido and BJJ being the two best ones...however, in actuality, we spend most of our time in a TMA dojo "over training"...which is a good thing.

Unfortunately, with that, comes the tunnel vision and over focusing on techniques, and specificity because we really want what we do everyday in practice to have some great meaning like Shionage, or Iriminage.

I can tell you...that while these things give us great practice and a great reference point to base a system of learning on...I have yet to teach my guys ONE of those things or used them in the training environment.

That does not mean that these things are a waste of time to practice or study in budo....just that the meaning of their importance needs to be kept in perspective when looking at reality!

How do you fight a boxer? well that depends. I certainly wouldn't box him. I might shoot him, I might club him, I might clinch him and choke him out...or I might walk away. (see Larry's comments above about a fair fight). I certainly would not sit there and trade crosses, jabs, and upper cuts with him bare handed..but that is me! (Sorry Maggie).

RED
03-14-2010, 08:29 PM
Alright, I'll bite. How do you do this? Personally I don't think Judoka necessarily need to control the centerline to establish kuzushi.

Aikido not being a sport. I agree. But not sparring? I disagree. I think it would be fair to assume that Ueshiba sparred with his students, in his own way. Pre-Aikido Ueshiba certainly sparred. (I believe there's an account by Stanley Pranin or maybe Ellis Amdur about a young Ueshiba trying his Daito Ryu waza against a friend of his, a sumo practicioner, and getting his ass kicked repeatedly.) Tomiki aikido competes and spars and what they do is still Aikido.
.

I was referring to a typical sport's sparring. The good ol' "no below the belt." Sparring match.
I'm of no opinion either way, but some Aikidoka question whether or not competitive Aikido is still Aikido from a philosophical stand-point. As I said, I have no strong opinion on that at this time however.

RED
03-14-2010, 08:31 PM
How do you fight a boxer? well that depends. I certainly wouldn't box him. I might shoot him, I might club him, I might clinch him and choke him out...or I might walk away. (see Larry's comments above about a fair fight). I certainly would not sit there and trade crosses, jabs, and upper cuts with him bare handed..but that is me! (Sorry Maggie).

LOL that might work too! :cool:

But I was referring to beating him in a ring, for pride, not life.
In which case I think boxing would do you better than Aikido, if winning a boxing match was your aim.

L. Camejo
03-14-2010, 11:40 PM
I'm of no opinion either way, but some Aikidoka question whether or not competitive Aikido is still Aikido from a philosophical stand-point. Well Maggie it depends on who you consider to be an Aikidoka, which definition of Aikido one is using and which philosophy in particular. Honestly I see more competition in Aikido dojos who profess to be "non-competitive" due to the absence of any objective measure of skill, which results in egocentric posturing and the like. On the flip side I have taught and trained with many styles of Aikido (esp. Aikikai and Yoshinkan) and except for shiai itself, everything is recognizable as part of typical Aikido training. At least by those who train it as a martial art.

You guys would do well to read Kevin's post above imho. There is a lot of good info there.

One last point on Boxing a Boxer - if you train in a particular method and you come up against someone who trains in a different method then unless you also train as much in that method you will come up lacking. You will not find strikers who can grapple to the level of a Judoka / Jujutsuka unless the striker puts in the time and effort to train in that method and approach to combat. The reverse is also true.

Best

LC

akiy
03-14-2010, 11:50 PM
I have moved this thread out of the "Anonymous" forum into the "Training" forum, as I haven't seen any need for anonymity in the responses.

-- Jun

Chicko Xerri
03-15-2010, 04:03 AM
In real life when you fail, you fail yourself. It has nothing to do with the Ai Ki Way. This question comes from the mind focused only on technique practice.

I some times wonder what people are studying and being taught in dojos around the world.

CitoMaramba
03-15-2010, 04:22 AM
Did basketball fail Michael Jordan during his career as a baseball player?

Ketsan
03-15-2010, 08:40 AM
Alright, I'll bite. How do you do this? Personally I don't think Judoka necessarily need to control the centerline to establish kuzushi.

You're right, they don't, but kuzushi isn't really what I'm bothered about, it takes a while for a Judoka to establish kuzushi even if they get a good grip.
If a Judoka gets a hand on your centreline that's it virtually over because your ability to move effectively just evaporated, you're now tied in with the Judoka. This is why I say that you have to deny them the centreline. The other reason of course is that Judoka are used to being able to use their normal Kumi kata, why fight where they're strongest?

Other than that it's just psychopathically attacking the shoulder with ai hamni kata dori or going for morote dori, but this has to be done with speed and aggression, more speed and aggression than most Aikidoka, in my experience, are used to.

And the nano second you make contact then you need to drop your posture, sugi ashi back, make tenkan, whatever you need to do to break their posture. Sometimes you can get in behind sometimes you can pretty much just pull them over. Sometimes you end up clinging on their arm going round and round in circles. :D As Kevin says I wouldn't worry about techniques. Worry about speed, speed, speed, violence of action, speed and suprise.

bulevardi
03-15-2010, 10:26 AM
Did basketball fail Michael Jordan during his career as a baseball player?

No, by playing basketball no... but maybe by playing football with a basketball it would... but my point of view was to use it in real life attacks on the street.

For example: you don't use a basketball to defend yourself on a street attack, but you can if you carry one at that moment. Same for aikido, if you're an aikidoka, you can use Aikido to defend yourself in a street attack. It doesn't say it will always work.

Because: in Aikido you learn to defend yourself with aikido-attacks. On the street you could get attacked by other ways, kicks, strikes and combos of strikes, weapons (others than used in dojo),...
In that point of view, aikido will not fail with aikido attacks, but perhaps it's possible to fail with other attacks...

Aikibu
03-15-2010, 10:58 AM
Life has "failed" me more times than I can count and so has Aikido....The point is.... are they teachable moments from which I can learn... or should I just move on...

There seems to be a Zero Defect Black or White attitude about this subject....

Thank God Life is infinitely more complex otherwise I would be running around like some arrogant crazy chicken looking for "things" that would never fail me...

The only place life/Aikido is not "realistic" is in my own crazy chicken mind...

Have fun you rascals...I've got 10 Bazillion more sword cuts to enjoy...LOL :)

William Hazen

Johann Baptista
03-15-2010, 01:30 PM
You state Aikido was "made to work outside of the "no below the belt" and "no small joint locks" rules." I would contend that since Aikido wasn't developed with fighting in mind. It would also not be that great at any kind of all out combat. (Sure you might learn some basics of fighting/self defense from Aikido eventually. But this is completely auxillary. It's not the primary goal of the art.)

Why do you know what the primary goal of Aikido is? Personally, I think Aikido is a perfectly capable fighting art. O'Sensei was an excellent fighter. Aikido has been used successfully to defend against many different styles of fighting including street fighting by many people on this forum. Using Aikido as a fighting art retains and enhances the Aikido philosophy. Why would O'Sensei create a whole philosophy around fighting, and create an art that has nothing to do with fighting? Aikido is Budo; it works. But the philosophy must be respected; Aikido is nothing without its philosophy. People must not injure others using Aikido unless absolutely necessary. Emphasis on protecting uke is what makes Aikido so unique... and its what the techniques were developed for.

Further there is a huge difference between sparring/randori and fighting/shiai/going all out. When comparing arts, simply holding one's own in a friendly spar doesn't mean you're combatively superior than them.

Agreed, but no one is claiming combat superiority. At least, not that I have interpreted. All I'm trying to say is that we haven't been practicing a useless art.

Peace, - Johann

bulevardi
03-15-2010, 03:51 PM
*points the finger*

Can someone give that Anonymous User a name, please. :blush: :blush: :blush:

RED
03-15-2010, 04:15 PM
One last point on Boxing a Boxer - if you train in a particular method and you come up against someone who trains in a different method then unless you also train as much in that method you will come up lacking. You will not find strikers who can grapple to the level of a Judoka / Jujutsuka unless the striker puts in the time and effort to train in that method and approach to combat. The reverse is also true.

Best

LC

My point when I said "box a boxer" was this:

I think when people say "Aikido has disappointed me in the past" it is because they were looking for something from Aikido that Aikido does not offer.
Thus, if you entered Aikido with the goal to one day be able to defeat a boxer you will be disappointed if you can't. I wouldn't care if a boxer defeated my Aikido, Aikido still wouldn't let me down, because what I want out of Aikido has nothing to do with defeating other people or arts.
People who feel let down by Aikido need to evaluate why they are in Aikido, and what it is they were wanting from the art.

If after evaluating what they wanted out of Aikido, and in their hearts of hearts all they ever wanted to do was defeat a boxer, then they should of took up boxing.

Kevin Leavitt
03-15-2010, 07:04 PM
LOL that might work too! :cool:

But I was referring to beating him in a ring, for pride, not life.
In which case I think boxing would do you better than Aikido, if winning a boxing match was your aim.

Gotcha...I see what you mean! absolutely. It is like my trainees that used to ask me the secret to improve their pushups...which of course is "do more pushups!".

Kevin Leavitt
03-15-2010, 07:13 PM
My point when I said "box a boxer" was this:

I think when people say "Aikido has disappointed me in the past" it is because they were looking for something from Aikido that Aikido does not offer.
Thus, if you entered Aikido with the goal to one day be able to defeat a boxer you will be disappointed if you can't. I wouldn't care if a boxer defeated my Aikido, Aikido still wouldn't let me down, because what I want out of Aikido has nothing to do with defeating other people or arts.
People who feel let down by Aikido need to evaluate why they are in Aikido, and what it is they were wanting from the art.

If after evaluating what they wanted out of Aikido, and in their hearts of hearts all they ever wanted to do was defeat a boxer, then they should of took up boxing.

That is a good point. The first day I walked into Saotome Sensei's dojo years ago the "rules and expectations" of the dojo and aikido were posted and they were very clear, still are and they have not changed.

That did not stop me though from trying to turn Aikido into something that I wanted it to be! lol!

I think we all go through this in life as we attempt to get close to something we love to do. Be it aikido or even a relationship!

RED
03-15-2010, 08:01 PM
That is a good point. The first day I walked into Saotome Sensei's dojo years ago the "rules and expectations" of the dojo and aikido were posted and they were very clear, still are and they have not changed.

That did not stop me though from trying to turn Aikido into something that I wanted it to be! lol!

I think we all go through this in life as we attempt to get close to something we love to do. Be it aikido or even a relationship!

Frankly, after my first Aikido class I wanted to quit. I was slow, 50 pound over weight, had bad ballance. I wanted to quit bad! (I couldn't even walk in the morning.)

I only showed up to the class to see my boy crush.(now fiance'). I had a bad work schedule, and he had a crazy school schedule. It was the only time I could be in the same room with him some weeks.
But I kept going to see him, and kept falling and getting back up. Until one day I went even if he wasn't there. Aikido made me healthier, challenged me, improved me. It was like a relationship, when I gave it something, it gave back.

I loved him-- in turn I loved Aikido.
My reasons are still the same for going everyday. I love Aikido. Therefore so long as Aikido is Aikido I will never fail me.(Or my expectations for it.) I'll still love Aikido because it is Aikido..... the same things goes for my fiance' I guess. :p

bulevardi
03-16-2010, 07:13 AM
Frankly, after my first Aikido class I wanted to quit. I was slow, 50 pound over weight, had bad ballance. I wanted to quit bad!

I only showed up to the class to see my boy crush.(now fiance'). I had a bad work schedule, and he had a crazy school schedule. It was the only time I could be in the same room with him some weeks.
But I kept going to see him, and kept falling and getting back up.

So in the beginning, you didn't like it... If that boy wasn't there in that club, you wouldn't go back again and again. Aikido would have failed you?

People who feel let down by Aikido need to evaluate why they are in Aikido, and what it is they were wanting from the art.

If after evaluating what they wanted out of Aikido, and in their hearts of hearts all they ever wanted to do was defeat a boxer, then they should of took up boxing.
So apart from your boyfriend, what did you want out of Aikido at that moment?
(1)Didn't you want to get yourself defended when attacked on the street? Or (2) did you just do it to get fit?

For 1: you could start boxing. For 2: you could go playing basketball either.

What do people want to get out of Aikido anyway?

My personal cultural interest goes to Japanese lifestyle, history, language. Budo in general, so also other martial arts interest me.
I wanted to combine my theoretical interest with some physical activity, like practicing Aikido. But why Aikido and for example not Karate or Judo or something else?
I already practiced Aikido when I was a child for 6 years. Because my mother did 15 years Aikido, she signed me in for the Aikido class aswel, didn't know better as a child. But when I was 12 I took a break... for 15 years. And then I decided to restart again at 26.
But actually... If it would be just to get a good condition or te get fit, I should practice basketball in the same sports center where my dojo is located. It's so much more running, jumping, sweating,...

wuyizidi
03-16-2010, 01:58 PM
Thankfully I have never had to defend my life, with weapons or empty-handed. But it’s actually an interesting question with many parts:

1. It’s not the art, but the practitioner

Ever seen those youtube videos where one style is pitted against another, where one guy was really bad, and people immediately come to the conclusion: such and such art is no good/the other is better? We immediately say, hey, that’s not fair, this guy’s skill is not good enough. In China/Japan, we don’t see as many of this type of comments. When we lose, we usually don’t blame our teacher or their teachings, we usually say “I’m not good enough”. If we’re fighting against someone of similar level of physical conditioning, and we lost, we say, obviously our level of skill is not good enough, we need to train more.

Today, since empty hand martial art skills are not really needed by society, training is a lot more lax. In the old days when you say you practice martial art, at the very least, people expect you to be better conditioned than the average person (strength, endurance, power, speed, balance, reflex, agility, coordination). Today students of many martial arts are less conditioned than the healthy average person of their age. So it’s really bad when they can’t even beat untrained person, unfairly making other people think their art is no good.

2. What can any martial art do for us?

People are often attracted to martial art when they see some high level expert, often older, smaller, beating many younger, stronger opponents. Our common sense tells us this is highly unusual. Usually the stronger, the faster, the more numerous wins. So this is almost like magic. There’s also a very old Chinese expression “there are no number ones in humanities (literature, art, music, etc), there are no number twos in martial art.” Combine these ideas together, there’s a common tendency for people to think: if I study martial art I need to learn from the best (everyone else are just, well, losers), and in doing so I can magically transform to become invincible.

Martial art is a set of training methods. The most any training method can do is to maximize your natural born potential. Training makes a huge difference, just look at the effort vs result of novice vs expert swimmers. So if my potential is 100, and someone much bigger, stronger than me is 150. If as a result of training I get to 90, but him, being untrained, is only using 75. I have a good chance of beating him. But he is as well trained as I am, so now he’s 135, I would have no chance of beating him. For a person to be invincible, all else being equal, he must be born with the best potential. We’re talking about people like Alexander Karalin, Mike Tyson, etc. In the cases of those two, their natural potential is so high, even if wrestling and boxing are not as sophisticated, it doesn’t matter what type of martial art I study, I have no chance of beating them. Here the best fighter I can be is still not as good a fighter as the less than optimal fighters they are now.

So here, even thought it’s used in this favorable context (both person empty handed), it’s not fair to say Aikido has failed me, because no empty hand style can make me exceed their partially realized potential. It’s like asking if any martial art can make a 10 year old beat a 21 year old.

3. Reality of the world we live in

Now we move to a less favorable context – the world we live in today.

One day I was on my way to training with several friends. Just before we get to the studio, a truck, coming out of its parking lot, stop next to us. The driver saw the long weapons we’re carrying, and asked in a friendly manner “are you guys larping?”

This is like the time I ran across the term “historical swordsmanship”. It just hammers home the message that traditional martial art, in terms of fundamental reason for its existence (kill, injure, incapacitate another human being) is obsolete in today’s world. We have much more effective and efficient tools now, one that allows someone with much less physical ability beat us with ease.
If one person has a longer range weapon (say handgun), and another person short range (arms and legs): if the person with longer range weapon use it the way it’s meant to be used, the person with shorter range weapon, in theory, has no chance of winning. No Aikido master, or any traditional empty hand skill master, can defeat a pistol expert standing 20 feet away. I live in a world of high tech weaponry, by comparison empty hand skills are low level (in operating principle) and hopelessly out of date.

Again, here it’s meaningless to say Aikido failed me, because it’s bigger than that – no traditional skill can allow me (or Mike Tyson) to beat modern firearm.

4. Weapons vs empty hand

If you were sent to fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Somalia, you won’t live very long if your gun doesn’t work right? If you’re a police sent to catch armed robbers, murderers, drug dealers, you wouldn’t go into their house empty-handed right? Or, turning the tables around, if you’re a criminal, by definition your activities are highly dangerous, so you won’t go into any of those situation unarmed if you can help it right?

Let’s go back to an earlier era, to say American Civil War, Napoleonic War, Battle of Agincourt, Mongolian invasion, or any of the Warring States periods... In any era, unless the culture is extremely primitive, serious fighting (life and death) always meant weapons fighting. No matter who you are, you are far deadlier with weapons than without. Just look at what an average person can do with a small simple tool here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-QgXsrWxGM). The person in this video can never smash through a car window like this empty-handed. Weapons are called equalizers right? With greater range, speed, and hardness, a less physically talent opponent can kill an unarmed enemy rather easily.

So even we’re talking about the “good olde days”. Aikido, in its empty hand form, is going to fail you in many (actually most) circumstances where deadly force is involved.

Today we laugh at the amount of time people devote to ground wrestling skills. We say: that’s not realistic! It’s a highly specialized skill useful only in a narrow set of circumstances (for example that horrifying scene in Saving Private Ryan). But if we just take one step back, we can see the same can be said of all empty hand skills in general.

The range of circumstances where empty hand skills can play an effective role in determining life or death is getting smaller and smaller by day. We live in a high tech world, where weapons are powered not by strength of human body, but by advanced mechanical, electromagnetic, chemical, even nuclear sources. Compared to that our human powered weapon – the body trained by empty hand skills, is incredibly insignificant.

RED
03-16-2010, 03:54 PM
So in the beginning, you didn't like it... If that boy wasn't there in that club, you wouldn't go back again and again. Aikido would have failed you?

So apart from your boyfriend, what did you want out of Aikido at that moment?
(1)Didn't you want to get yourself defended when attacked on the street? Or (2) did you just do it to get fit?



I at first wanted nothing from Aikido...indifferent. I didn't even know what Aikido was when I went to those first classes back then. If I had no expectations from Aikido, Aikido couldn't fail me. lol I at the time never thought about taking self-defense courses, they never appealed to me, I wasn't much of the warrior type. I didn't do it to get in shape, though I admit it is a nice side-effect. I wasn't athletic or graceful then.

I found a certain magic to Aikido because of this. I jumped into class, accepted what I was learning without argument or preconception(because I had no martial training or understanding, thus no opinion of Aikido at that point.) I asked nothing of Aikido and expected nothing,and the magic of it was it gave me things I didn't know I wanted in return. Quickly I found myself thinking about Aikido when I wasn't at the dojo. I became obsessively in love with Aikido. All I wanted was Aikido, and Aikido gave me Aikido--thus I'm never disappointed or failed, because Aikido provides me access to what I want from Aikido--which is Aikido.
I do Aikido for Aikido's sake.

Peace

Kevin Leavitt
03-16-2010, 06:30 PM
David Ho wrote:

The range of circumstances where empty hand skills can play an effective role in determining life or death is getting smaller and smaller by day. We live in a high tech world, where weapons are powered not by strength of human body, but by advanced mechanical, electromagnetic, chemical, even nuclear sources. Compared to that our human powered weapon -- the body trained by empty hand skills, is incredibly insignificant.


Military thought of the 60's and 70's perpetuated this logic to the point that our great military thinkers had basically relegated the role of the infantryman as obsolete on the battlefield.

While technology does give us some great advantages, we have discovered in the last 10 years just how important the guy on the ground is and that all those basic, basic skills of interacting with human beings upfront and personal are the most important and can affect the greatest change.

As such, it requires us to get close and open up to a point, which is risky.

So, we spend a more time today, than in anytime past with skills such as body language, linquistics, customs, cultures, and all the other stuff that goes with close quarters combat to include empty handed martial arts.

I think it is quite the contrary...this stuff is as important as it ever was today!

wuyizidi
03-16-2010, 10:07 PM
David Ho wrote:

Military thought of the 60's and 70's perpetuated this logic to the point that our great military thinkers had basically relegated the role of the infantryman as obsolete on the battlefield.

While technology does give us some great advantages, we have discovered in the last 10 years just how important the guy on the ground is and that all those basic, basic skills of interacting with human beings upfront and personal are the most important and can affect the greatest change.

As such, it requires us to get close and open up to a point, which is risky.

So, we spend a more time today, than in anytime past with skills such as body language, linquistics, customs, cultures, and all the other stuff that goes with close quarters combat to include empty handed martial arts.

I think it is quite the contrary...this stuff is as important as it ever was today!

No one, at this point in history at least, can argue that overall human beings are still the best at receiving, communicating, and processing information.

That is not what I am arguing about. What I am saying here is: at a fundamental level, martial art is about deliver force(s) to an opponent to neutralize him. Previously, that is mostly done with simple tools (edged weapons, staff, our limbs, etc) power and moved by the human body. Today, modern technology has mostly suppleneted these simple tools and human body as the power source and delivery mechanism of that force. Human beings are still the ones deciding what to do, but increasingly, it's technology that carries out that destructive task. What is being devalued these days is not human judgement, but its physical power output. In terms of practical usage, traditional martial art is devalued the same way many other types of manual craftsmanship are devalued because high tech machines can do it much better.

Ryan Seznee
03-17-2010, 07:29 AM
This is an interesting question, and a lot of people have made a lot of attempts to answer it. But I feel it can only be truely answered by someone who has literally mastered all of Aikido. Not to say that Aikido doesn't have weak points techniqually (everything does), but Aikido is so multifacited that every time I go to a class I feel I learn something (a lot of times it is just how a technique doesn't work). You may loose a fight trying to use Aikido, but the world is bigger than your dojo... there is always someone stronger, and sometimes they also happen to practice Aikido (but not always, the world is an interesting place like that).

I also feel that Aikido, like a lot of modern martial arts, is done in a technical void where technique is the only thing given virtue in a fight, but this is not realistic. Strategy, physical conditioning, surroundings, laws, politics, and psychological factors all play a part in the conflict as well. Frankly, if I can beat you in one of the above listed areas, I can get away with being technically not proficient. This is the reason competitive sports such as greco-roman wrestling, judo, boxing, MMA, and BJJ are divided into weight class. A guy that has 100 pounds on you (assuming you have the same physical conditioning) can probably beat you in a ring (or octagon) no mater what kind of training you have. It doesn't mean you are a bad player, but it is not a "fair" fight, that is why these events have rules. A fight is not a good judgment on who well or poorly a martial art works, in my opinion, because there are so many other ways to loose a fight other than poor technique. My favorite example is a friend of mine who fancied himself a boxer lost his first street fight because he got his foot caught in a gopher hole and strained his ankle before the first punch was thrown. It wasn't that boxing failed him so much as he was a big enough dork to not notice a hole.

Aikibu
03-17-2010, 11:21 AM
No one, at this point in history at least, can argue that overall human beings are still the best at receiving, communicating, and processing information.

That is not what I am arguing about. What I am saying here is: at a fundamental level, martial art is about deliver force(s) to an opponent to neutralize him. Previously, that is mostly done with simple tools (edged weapons, staff, our limbs, etc) power and moved by the human body. Today, modern technology has mostly suppleneted these simple tools and human body as the power source and delivery mechanism of that force. Human beings are still the ones deciding what to do, but increasingly, it's technology that carries out that destructive task. What is being devalued these days is not human judgement, but its physical power output. In terms of practical usage, traditional martial art is devalued the same way many other types of manual craftsmanship are devalued because high tech machines can do it much better.

That's one perspective...I would suggest that the first and original purpose for the Martial Arts as Bodhidharma envisioned them was a bit different. Martial Movement and Exercise is a physical "way" to reach a spiritual" state of being." Perhaps in the beginning folks understood they had (and still do under certain circumstances) a practical application on the "battlefield" but it's "spiritual" application has been around for a very long time too...Tai Chi anyone?...

I think the founders of the Gendai Arts in Japan Funakoshi, Kano, and Ushiba realized that the Japanese versions anyway had to come full circle and focus on something more than just a fighting system...

So lets give our pal Bodhi a little credit...I would like to think he realized although the technical aspects of Martial Movement may not be relevant today from a practical standpoint The goal of Martial Movement is "spiritual development" and that my dear friends is timeless...

Thanks to Shoji Nishio and others I now understand that the only thing I ever plan on cutting with my sword is...

My own bulls*t :D LOL

William Hazen

Kevin Leavitt
03-17-2010, 01:21 PM
No one, at this point in history at least, can argue that overall human beings are still the best at receiving, communicating, and processing information.

That is not what I am arguing about. What I am saying here is: at a fundamental level, martial art is about deliver force(s) to an opponent to neutralize him. Previously, that is mostly done with simple tools (edged weapons, staff, our limbs, etc) power and moved by the human body. Today, modern technology has mostly suppleneted these simple tools and human body as the power source and delivery mechanism of that force. Human beings are still the ones deciding what to do, but increasingly, it's technology that carries out that destructive task. What is being devalued these days is not human judgement, but its physical power output. In terms of practical usage, traditional martial art is devalued the same way many other types of manual craftsmanship are devalued because high tech machines can do it much better.

Technology has it's place for sure and it is a big enabler for sure. However, I would not say that it devalues the human touch and the power that relationships and human spirit bring to a situation.

A good read is "One Tribe at a Time", by MAJ Jim Gant.

It is available at the top of this blog and worth a read.

http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/

I think it does a good job in demonstrating why Firepower and technology, while enablers simply are not the ultimate answer to solving problems. Really since the industrial age, we have taken the view that machines simply can do things better and have used a "industrial/technology centric" strategy to solve our problems.

Lessons learned I think in most conflicts, I think, show that human beings matter and matter big. The reason I am a believer in budo is for this very reason. It is also why I believe you see a resurrgence in empty handed martial arts practices in the military today, to also include the Air Force.

We have to come out from behind the weapons and body armor, take risk if we are ever going to solve problems. When you take those risk, it means that empty handed means matter more than ever!

This is true not only for military, but for all areas in life. Tom Peters back in the 80's in the book "In Search for Excellence" talked about management by walking around (MBWA).

So, while I understand your point of view on technology, I also believe that it has cost us a great deal in terms of solving problems, and I do not agree that it has relegated "human power" to a secondary status. Frankly I believe that this assumption is costing us in a big way as it has produced a risk averse society that is not willing to suffer potential exposure to harm in order to solve problems.

Read the paper above, it outlines this problem very well!

Aikibu
03-17-2010, 01:34 PM
Technology has it's place for sure and it is a big enabler for sure. However, I would not say that it devalues the human touch and the power that relationships and human spirit bring to a situation.

A good read is "One Tribe at a Time", by MAJ Jim Gant.

It is available at the top of this blog and worth a read.

http://blog.stevenpressfield.com/

I think it does a good job in demonstrating why Firepower and technology, while enablers simply are not the ultimate answer to solving problems. Really since the industrial age, we have taken the view that machines simply can do things better and have used a "industrial/technology centric" strategy to solve our problems.

Lessons learned I think in most conflicts, I think, show that human beings matter and matter big. The reason I am a believer in budo is for this very reason. It is also why I believe you see a resurrgence in empty handed martial arts practices in the military today, to also include the Air Force.

We have to come out from behind the weapons and body armor, take risk if we are ever going to solve problems. When you take those risk, it means that empty handed means matter more than ever!

This is true not only for military, but for all areas in life. Tom Peters back in the 80's in the book "In Search for Excellence" talked about management by walking around (MBWA).

So, while I understand your point of view on technology, I also believe that it has cost us a great deal in terms of solving problems, and I do not agree that it has relegated "human power" to a secondary status. Frankly I believe that this assumption is costing us in a big way as it has produced a risk averse society that is not willing to suffer potential exposure to harm in order to solve problems.

Read the paper above, it outlines this problem very well!

Outstanding Post thanks Kevin.

William Hazen

aikishihan
03-17-2010, 02:16 PM
Never, and Forever.

bulevardi
03-19-2010, 01:22 PM
Interesting article:
http://www.blackbeltmag.com/archives/544

Lau wrote his aikido instructor in Hawaii, asking for answers. The reply came swiftly by phone: “In street combat situations,” his instructor said, “you must use kicking and punching. Aikido alone will not work.”

Don Draeger said, “Uyeshiba's aikido is a highly weakened form of hand-to-hand combat. Aikido is essentially noncombative in nature. Further, the omission of atemi (strikes) from its techniques removes aikido from the category of practical hand-to-hand combat styles.”

Uyeshiba thought aikido should not be used as a system of combat but rather as a path for self- and world improvements. “Aikido is not to defeat the enemy,” he said, “but to make no enemy.”

Aikibu
03-19-2010, 02:03 PM
That's one perspective...I would suggest that the first and original purpose for the Martial Arts as Bodhidharma envisioned them was a bit different. Martial Movement and Exercise is a physical "way" to reach a spiritual" state of being." Perhaps in the beginning folks understood they had (and still do under certain circumstances) a practical application on the "battlefield" but it's "spiritual" application has been around for a very long time too...Tai Chi anyone?...

I think the founders of the Gendai Arts in Japan Funakoshi, Kano, and Ushiba realized that the Japanese versions anyway had to come full circle and focus on something more than just a fighting system...

So lets give our pal Bodhi a little credit...I would like to think he realized although the technical aspects of Martial Movement may not be relevant today from a practical standpoint The goal of Martial Movement is "spiritual development" and that my dear friends is timeless...

Thanks to Shoji Nishio and others I now understand that the only thing I ever plan on cutting with my sword is...

My own bulls*t :D LOL

William Hazen

Considering where this discussion may appear to be going the same old Aikido is not a Martial Art nonsense I would like to add something to this...
If I had to cut something other than my own bulls*t could I using the technical applications within our Aikido with Martial Effectiveness?
The answer is yes....

We're not the only form of Aikido that functions as a Martial Art/Budo. So the question you have to answer with your Aikido is not if it works...But what purpose does it serve in you?
Combat?
"Self" Defense?
Emotional and Spiritual Development?
All of these things?
None of these things?
I believe that the first two must be present on some level in order to fully understand and appreciate the last. It's a process that must incorporate all three to be a Budo...

Whatever works for you right?

I am fully confident my practice will serve me in any Martial "Real Life" situation...

How about you? If the answer is no....then what?

William Hazen

Ketsan
03-19-2010, 10:05 PM
Considering where this discussion may appear to be going the same old Aikido is not a Martial Art nonsense I would like to add something to this...
If I had to cut something other than my own bulls*t could I using the technical applications within our Aikido with Martial Effectiveness?
The answer is yes....

We're not the only form of Aikido that functions as a Martial Art/Budo. So the question you have to answer with your Aikido is not if it works...But what purpose does it serve in you?
Combat?
"Self" Defense?
Emotional and Spiritual Development?
All of these things?
None of these things?
I believe that the first two must be present on some level in order to fully understand and appreciate the last. It's a process that must incorporate all three to be a Budo...

Whatever works for you right?

I am fully confident my practice will serve me in any Martial "Real Life" situation...

How about you? If the answer is no....then what?

William Hazen

I think if the answer is no then you have to answer where the "bu" comes from in your budo.
Personally I'd love to take a couple of years out and tour the world to see just what all these different Aikido styles are doing that is so different from what I'm doing that they can't see, what to me, seem to be obvious martial lessons.

Ketsan
03-19-2010, 10:08 PM
Don Draeger said, "Uyeshiba's aikido is a highly weakened form of hand-to-hand combat. Aikido is essentially noncombative in nature. Further, the omission of atemi (strikes) from its techniques removes aikido from the category of practical hand-to-hand combat styles."



Don Draeger should have met Chiba. A quote passed on in our lineage from Chiba is "He said there were no strikes in Aikido, so I hit him again."

Gorgeous George
03-19-2010, 10:09 PM
Interesting article:
http://www.blackbeltmag.com/archives/544

Lau wrote his aikido instructor in Hawaii, asking for answers. The reply came swiftly by phone: "In street combat situations," his instructor said, "you must use kicking and punching. Aikido alone will not work."

Don Draeger said, "Uyeshiba's aikido is a highly weakened form of hand-to-hand combat. Aikido is essentially noncombative in nature. Further, the omission of atemi (strikes) from its techniques removes aikido from the category of practical hand-to-hand combat styles."

Uyeshiba thought aikido should not be used as a system of combat but rather as a path for self- and world improvements. "Aikido is not to defeat the enemy," he said, "but to make no enemy."

Yeah, i read this article in the other thread...just having got back from an aikido class in which i used atemi - quite a lot - i don't see it as being accurate. I've also got a tecnique book by Moriteru Ueshiba, and there is plenty of atemi in it...

And if you can enter/move quick enough - whether you do aikido or aiki-jujutsu - then surely that is what matters?
I mean, there are enough techniques in both to enable you to restrain/harm people, and you can quite easily integrate atemi into aikido techniques - particularly if you actually practice it as a martial art. If you go to perform irimi-nage, for example, you can punch the person in the ribs/the face - there are all these openings...

From what very little i know of aiki-jujutsu (having a technique book, watching various videos...), there are three 'levels': the 1st being largely atemi, the 2nd atemi and some aiki principles, and the 3rd being almost entirely aiki - and it is this 3rd which aikido most resembles.
My view - at this moment: always subject to change, as i know very little, and make no claims whatsoever to the contrary - is that aikido is so tough because you're trying to learn to be of this highest standard, where you rely on technique, rather than brute strength.

I think somebody here has a saying/signature which reads 'Aikido works; your aikido doesn't'.
Perhaps this sums up this man's experience - it certainly doesn't sum up Morihei Ueshiba's, as he apparently took on all comers with his aikido.

Gorgeous George
03-19-2010, 10:12 PM
Don Draeger should have met Chiba. A quote passed on in our lineage from Chiba is "He said there were no strikes in Aikido, so I hit him again."

Haha.
I have read the account of Chiba sensei's trip to England: where he had a man coming at him with a knife, switching it from hand to hand, and he broke his arm if i recall correctly.

wideawakedreamer
03-22-2010, 01:31 AM
"Further, the omission of atemi (strikes) from its techniques removes aikido from the category of practical hand-to-hand combat styles."

"Omission of atemi" my @##.

I include atemi in my techniques. The few times I don't, I'm looking at all the openings I can exploit when I do decide to hit uke.

wideawakedreamer
03-22-2010, 01:33 AM
Don Draeger should have met Chiba. A quote passed on in our lineage from Chiba is "He said there were no strikes in Aikido, so I hit him again."

I love this quote. Was it Chiba who said this?

Michael Douglas
03-22-2010, 01:17 PM
No one, at this point in history at least, can argue that overall human beings are still the best at receiving, communicating, and processing information.
I'll argue that David!
Fully functional and intelligent humans of the same language and culture ARE the best at all that gubbins.
If you're thinking about technological units which are already synchronised then they are the FASTEST at communicating ... but that's cheating. (and they're pretty rubbish at receiving.)

But totally off-topic, sorry Jun.

TreyPrice
06-16-2010, 09:47 AM
I have in the past worked in a school for violent high school students. Keep in mind I am 5'6" at 170 lbs. Most of my students were very much larger. My aikido never failed me. It avoided problems, it resolved problems, it protected me, and it restrained dangerous students. I cannot punch or kick a student, no matter the situation. Aikido is perfect for teachers! You would be amazed at how leading an attacher in a spiral will stop him willingness to attack. Aikido is far more than a set of techniques, it is a process for dealing with life. My $.02.