A question of style
 

Okay, I get it.
Hard is soft as soft is hard as neither is either as I am he as you are he as you are me as we are all together....
Now that we've gotten the metaphysics out the way, I would appreciate a straightforward answer to a straightforward question.
Which of these two styles is better for strictly self-defense pruposes?
1. Iwama Ryu
2. A style (not sure of the name) heavily influenced by the Vanadis Dojo of Stockholm Sweden under Jan Nevelius.

Thanks,
Ramon

Re: A question of style
 

Depends entirely on the individual instructor. I'm sorry, but that really is the answer.

Re: A question of style
 

Aikido was not created for self-defense purposes. You should search another activity to achieve this goal.

Re: A question of style
 

Really?

Surely the fundamental mechanical purpose of any martial art is self-defence/combat.

Of course Aikido evolves from this basic concept but that's where it starts
(Apologies for the thread drift)

Style doesn't matter - instructor and students attitude does

Re: A question of style
 

Really.
O sensei changed basic mechanics of daito ryu techniques by creating multiple openings to allow developing his spiritual concepts. That's one reason.

Another one, self defense/combat implies real skills in street fighting. No aikido style teach fighting any nature, not even sparring (which should be first step to get real skills in fighting against countering opponent, second would be go to the street and get real fight to test your skills…)

Re: A question of style
 

Well, Daito ryu did not teach fighting either.

Re: A question of style
 

Jan is shihan of the aikikai and a student of Endô Seishiro sensei. There is no "extra style": It's simply aikikai.

Re: A question of style
 

What sort of self-defense situation(s) do you have in mind?

Real world scenarios range from drunk family members all the way up to mentally ill people with assault rifles. Each situation carries different risks and demands different strategies, so the question is pointless unless you tell us what you're defending against.

Katherine

Re: A question of style
 

I hope Nagababa is wrong. Otherwise, why not just take up Ballroom Dancing?

Re: A question of style
 

I think it depends on so many factors.
You asked a "logical" question and you want a "logical" answer, but the real answer must be based on "psychological" basis. All those situations that you have in your mind are "psychological" related things. mix the logical and psychological aspects and find the proper stance.

Re: A question of style
 

You know, this is exactly what I thought would happen. People who've never had a belligerent, red-faced jerk in their face threatening to take their head off. If you are one of these people, please don't bother responding. I've never had a problem dealing with drunk friends or family members, and spare me the condescending scenarios about psychos with assault rifles. I suspect no marial art can stop a bullet. I'll ask the question again? Iwama Ryu or Aikikai for self-defense--and only people who know what physical violence is like need reply.

Re: A question of style
 

I think it's pretty insulting to assume that people you've never met don't know anything just because their responses don't conform to your stereotypes.

A friend of mine was murdered by a drunk family member. Assuming that such are easy to deal with demonstrates just how little *you* know about violence.

Even if we limit ourselves to belligerent jerks, the answer isn't so easy. Are there witnesses? Does he have friends? A weapon?

Katherine

Re: A question of style
 

Then why in God's name did you say that "real world scenarios range from drunken family members
to mentally ill people with assault rifles"? It is clear that you were implying a range with drunken family members being on the low-end of the violence spectrum.

Re: A question of style
 

Anthony,

Now that you've set certain parameters to your question, here's a few thoughts:

Janet was absolutely right - your ability to learn self-defense DOES depend on the teacher and the dojo. It really doesn't matter what art you study, or what style of a particular art. The dojo is the actual key to your quest. If you choose a "dancing hall" type of dojo, you will learn dancing and very little self-defense.

Any "style" of aikido will provide you with a variety of skills for self-defense, but generally speaking, it will take you a long time to become proficient and capable. That is why Robert Koga Sensei took from the aikido curriculum years ago to create what he called "Practical Aikido" and developed what has become the foundation of modern police defensive tactics. The late Koga Sensei understood that aikido worked just fine for those who practiced regularly, but for those who needed to learn something now and apply it, it wasn't the best course of study. Essentially he took all the subtle movement out of the art and made it very simple, direct, and harsh.

So, if you want to be effective at protecting yourself from the proverbial red-faced jerk, plan on training regularly for a considerable period of time with an instructor who is inclined to teach in that direction.

In most dojo you will learn about situational awareness and that the best course of action is to be somewhere other than where the fight is going to take place.

You also need to learn the laws of self-defense for your area. They differ from state to state and what is acceptable in one location is criminal conduct in another. Maybe your instructor will be up to speed on the laws of NOLA, and maybe he won't. It would be in your interest to actually find out or you could find yourself in serious legal trouble.

You specifically asked whether Iwama or Aikikai style is best for self-defense and the answer is truly they are both excellent and they are both worthless for street fighting kinds of situations. I'm confident that you won't be satisfied with this answer, but I believe I've given you an accurate picture, and I did it with far more words than Janet did. Please don't discount the contributors here lightly - some of them know what they are talking about. Yeah, Janet is a Left Coast gal, but she has been doing the art for years, comes from a violent place in the east and has been working with violent and sometimes mentally ill people for a career. She was telling you straight, as I hope I have.

Good luck with your training, whatever you choose.

Re: A question of style
 

See, that's my point, which you still seem to be missing. "Real self defense" is a lot more complicated than some random bozo in a bar, and so there is no one-size-fits-all answer.

Katherine

Re: A question of style
 

Michael,

I had no problem with Janet's response, so if you're still out there, Janet, my remarks were not intended toward you or any others who responded courteously.

Re: A question of style
 

Yeah, Ok. Thanks for your input.

Re: A question of style
 

I'd say it completely depends on the instructor and what the atmosphere of the dojo is. Bottom line is go to a dojo and watch how they do things. There is no good answer regarding a "style", every teacher has a different interpretation on how to apply things. Yoshinkan is a lot more martial and may be the option your looking for. I wish you the best.

Re: A question of style
 

Jan is very competent about using aikidô for self defence. And Vanadis dôjô provides people to really work on that. Also there are people who teach Daitô ryû and Jujutsu to practice with.

Jan does not teach aikidô as a means of self defence.

The question "wich style, i.e. iwama ryû or aikikai ..." doesn't make any sense to me.
It's about the experience of the teacher, about what and how he decides to teach.

But ...
... most of all it is about my/our perception of life. And about developping our personality.
At least that is my experience. And I think there is a whole lot to learn about these two aspects in the specific aikikai dôjô in your town, you ar talking about. ;)
But I think, you might not find there, what you are looking for.

Re: A question of style
 

Hello

The straightforward answer: Iwama style.

Anyway, both styles are very poor as self defense methods. If you are looking for self defense skills, Aikido (doesn't matter which style) is the wrong place to go.

Re: A question of style
 

Dear Demetrio,
Why dont the people asking questions about styles realise the following truths?It is not about styles its about the ability/attitude/fighting spirit of the person.Any guy I ever met who could handle themselves had determination, focus,were mentally tough and prepared for battle[ no plastic warriors].Some trained in judo, karate/aikido, some were natural tough nuts.No system can turn a rabbit into a lion. Even after years of training some people will never be capable fighters.For these people the learning process should be focused on awareness training/defusing potential conflict etc.In fact this option is in many ways much better than resorting to fisticuffs.Better to have a clever quip to defuse tension than to receive a clip on the chin.A punch on the nose does nothing for ones classic profile, methinks.
Cheers, Joe.

Re: A question of style
 

You may call me big bunny.

Training can instill a mental and physical toughness but it has to be geared towards that and as for fighting that only way to get good at it is to do it. And as Joe mentioned natural ability has to be there to draw out.

For the same reason Joe mentioned I have to laugh at those who claim that karate, judo, TKD will produce better fighters. Doing any of those will not make you a fighter - that has to come from within and has to be tested and practiced constantly under conditions as close to fighting as you can get. Want that get yourself to a boxing gym and get into the ring, compete don't just spar.

No style of aikido including the more self defense orientated Yoshinkan offer that. Some dojo do a better job at instilling the mental and physical toughness than others but that is as far as it goes.

Re: A question of style
 

Jeez, you people do have a firm grasp of the obvious. After all, who would have thought that natural ability, toughness, determination, etc. would be important attributes for a fighter?
The problem is no one was speaking of becoming a professional fighter or even vying for the title of Bad Bully on the Block. It was simply a question of the efficacy of Aikido as a means of self-defense, which doesn't seem to much to ask from an activity that calls itself a "martial" art. Then again, maybe you pay your monthly dues and attend classes to work on your clever quips.

Re: A question of style
 

No we foolishly respond to a loaded question. Somehow I am sure you already know the answer.

Find a dojo that trains for self defense. That could easily be an aikido dojo or something else. People gave you good advice for what to look for - and yes its pretty obvious. Why again are you asking?
I mean if its so obvious.

Re: A question of style
 

Apologies, PeterR
You're right.
I think I'll retire from this site before I make an even bigger fool of myself.
Best of luck

Re: A question of style
 

Look how much fun we're all having!

Re: A question of style
 

Hi Anthony,
I do not need to pay monthly subs to polish up my quips witty or otherwise.since I do not pay any dues monthly or weekly.All I have to do is read articles on this forum .i guess you missed the point I was hoping to make, namely its the person not the art which determines whether or not you win the day or not.Cheers, Joe

Re: A question of style
 

Hi Szczepan

I can you give some examples of those openings you mentioned?

Re: A question of style
 

As O sensei was able to read intent of attacker, he still allowed attacker to fully deploy physically his attack to display his deep compassion to the attacker. Instead he could simply end interaction immediately, before materialization of the attack. We inherited it as a form (with some noble exceptions in Iwama), where nage somehow is waiting for the attack like a sheep to a wolf attack…

On more mundane level, ikkyo pin was changed in the way there is no more hyperextension of the elbow that leads to breaking it, no more kick into the ribs and no more cutting neck from above, no more legs are used to control structure of attacker…………attackers body, while lying on the floor is aligned differently(his structure is not locked anymore)….all these opening allows attacker(with no martial skills!!!) very easily rolling out of the pin in any moment of control process….because in reality there is no control based on the physical body locking…

All techniques which have throws, where attacker can safely roll out or do high flying break falls…this is a clear opening, again to express compassion and love…shihonage, where instead of breaking attacker elbow on your shoulder, you continue to turn, to fold his arm the way he can safely receive a throw…

These are only very few examples…

Re: A question of style
 

Some groups study how to connect with uke before contact and take his balance before or at contact, but I agree with your general description of the change in the nature of techniques.

I am not sure if it is a side effect, but opening the techniques up as you describe allows for more dynamic execution and allows for safely training without adherence to formal kata - i.e. you can suddenly change techniques and not worry about suddenly killing your training partner.

This more free-form practice that encourages changing technique to changing circumstances is, I think, generally better for self-defense applications. You don't really need to lock someone's body unless you are trying to restrain them, whereas the ability to feel openings and adapt smootly should aid you if you are trying to escape an encounter quickly.

But I don't think Osensei really meant for Aikido to be a "martial art" of the same type as Daito ryu. I think by the time of the Asahi film he already envisioned a modern budo that was more about giving people a way to cultivate a particular type of virtue.

Re: A question of style
 

Hey Joe,
I'd like to extend my apologies to you as well. Me and my big mouth.
Anthony

Re: A question of style
 

The same old discussion gets lost in the same old weeds, and that's unfortunate.... because so often the OP is almost belittled for asking a question that is quite reasonable. For example, if I were to decide to study karate, I'd really want to know if, for example, Shotokan's deep stances would enhance or impair my ability to slip a punch, or if Wado-ryu's jujutsu was actually an effective assemblage of techniques. I've cited the story before, but I remember when a sincere guy asked Nidai Doshu when his father became a pacifist, and Doshu cracked up and said, "My father was never a pacifist," and of all things told a story of himself being beaten up by a much bigger foreign kid from one of the local embassy's and his father coming running out to defend him and slipping in the mud in a fine kimono and hakama . . .
1. First of all, I do not agree with the premise that O-sensei crafted aikido away from self-defense - or that it's so regarded. Doshu, in his historical books, proudly recounts such stalwarts as Shirata taking on all comers. It's well known that Saito-sensei fought a lot as a young man... the list could go on - a number of the 60's 70's generation of Aikikai shihan come to mind. Even in modern times - people came to the Aikikai Honbu with challenges to fight - and they were NOT sent away with a demurral - rather, they were invited up to the fourth floor dojo and they got what they requested. A fight. Which, as far as all the stories I know, the visitors lost. I dunno how things are now, thought.
2. Joe, with respect, I think there is more to this question than the fight is in the man, not the technique. The stories of superior armaments, superior tactics, as well as superior technique permeate the history of war (ask the Romans about the Parthian shot). If one trains incessantly on a methodology with holes in it, all the spirit in the world will not avail against someone with equal spirit. Is it merely the guy with less heart that loses in the boxing ring or MMA . . .or a street fight?
3. There's no doubt that aikido has lots of (self-imposed) limitations, both technical as Szczepan mentions, and methodological (training methods). Still, if one chooses to study a martial art - aikido - and is concerned about it's value for self-defense, isn't it a legitimate question to ask what fighting skills a particular methodology enhances and what fighting skills it may impede? I don't know enough about what Endo sensei is doing nor any of his students these days to offer an opinion. But lets take Iwama aikido, just to show how an evaluation might be made. (without the obvious, like there is no ground technique like BJJ or leg kicks like muay thai).
Positive traits: Power oriented - Iwama practitioners get physically strong and tough. Toughness building - the training methodology, gripping hard, accepting sometimes really painful techniques, withstanding techniques unless the throw or lock is effective make a tough individual, who knows s/he can take some punishment. Wide technical repertoire - a lot of different techniques can make someone well-rounded and adaptable. Negative traits - No really effective freestyle component (randori is often of the tumbling uke variety). Static training - Too many people, including teachers, imitate Saito sensei's teaching style where he broke things down into components, rather than his technical expression where he really did have flow and power in one.
I could continue with this, but I think one can see my point. Yes, we have the meta-questions: psychological disturbance, weapons, cultural traits, etc., which can blur or confuse the original question beyond recovery--but there is still the possibility of a consideration of the basic methodology and how it can enhance the following traits (not inclusive, but off the top of my head): intent, toughness, adaptability, training in combative spacing, hand-eye coordination training, endurance, effective techniques themselves, survival on one's feet and the ground, footwork on rough ground (sure-ashi may not be the best training for "the street"). etc. And as for me as a teacher, such questions should be welcome. Considering the art portion of this martial art, it's like going up to a musician at a club and asking, "Do you know the song "Mack the Knife?" And the answer should be, "I'm not sure, but hum a few bars and we'll see." If nothing else, one will find out the limitations of one's knowledge (or ala Joe, one's spirit).

Re: A question of style
 

too late to edit - "suri-ashi," not sure-ashi in my last post.

Re: A question of style
 

Whichever style the person sticks with the longest, trains the longest with the bestest, and thinkingest the mostest aboutest.

You get out what you put in.

Re: A question of style
 

Dear Anthony,
Since I was not offended by your comments no need to apologise.For my part I sometimes get a bit fed up when people keep asking whether aikido is martial /effective etc.Some aikidoka are capable of inflicting serious pain if the situation warrants it.Most aikidoka imo are generally people who try to act in a peaceful, friendly manner .Hope you are well, Cheers, Joe

Re: A question of style
 

As usual Ellis puts my point across more eloquently -the arts limitations are through its practitioners and teachers not the art itself.

Re: A question of style
 

It ist said that one should not sacrifice an action for a style.

So why discuss styles? Styles are mostly confused with teaching methodology.
As I understand, in Iwama-ryu the main emphasis is on the technical basics, whereas Endo sensei has the focal point on contact and kuzushi.
To get the whole, there are other important things to learn. Neither by training in traditional Iwama-style nor by following Endo sensei's method you will achieve real fighting skills in the foreseeable future.
But under specific conditions (that means if you have a teacher who understands this things and can explain them to you) you can develop the bodily condition and the technical basics, which are the requirements. This depends on the teacher, not on the "style".
To learn how to fight is another story.

Re: A question of style
 

Philip - I may have been eloquent, but perhaps not clear. Of course, there are problems with the practitioner and with the teacher--but there are problems with the "art" as well. BJJ, which was, for a brief time, almighty in the ring environment, is now "not enough," because strikers and wrestlers have found holes in the art. Given that there is, without a doubt, an "Iwama style," or a "Yamaguchi-style" - or a Yoshinkan, it is legit to look at what they teach and what they don't. And in addition to all the other reasons to do aikido, it's fair to ask if a martial art has martial virtue--and that goes for specific styles. I can think of a number of styles where they teach "atemi," that are not "hitting body" - the body is not integrated to hit, and they do not even line up with the proper angle (and if you do things more correctly from a perspective of good atemi, you are "corrected").

Ellis Amdur

Re: A question of style
 

Did someone steal your magic pants?

Re: A question of style
 

I don’t want to redirect this discussion to purely theoretical level, but what exactly is your definition of ‘self-defense’? From example you provided, looks like you talk here about competitive fight, where two opponents meet at given time and place, then probably with some witnesses proceed to fight, again very probably with some ‘rules’ (i.e. no hidden weapons).

Common sense is telling me that self-defense is processed on the street ( or other not secure environment, certainly not in the dojo) where surprise (time and place) plays major role, as well as lack of any limits regarding i.e. weapons or lethal force…If this is a true, your examples are invalid.

If somebody claims to teach self-defense I’d expect that his methodology is adapted to the reality of not safe environment, where merciless brutality and violence drive motivation for attacks and the techniques are adequately responding to such degree of danger (I mean more dangerous attack is met with higher destructive response). Of course, it must be framed in routine, repetitive practice, such a free sparring, with light or in the night, in different environment (with obstacles around or without, without much space to move etc..) I’ve never heard of any aikido dojo that is able to provide even small fraction of this requirement.

If your examples are true (we don’t really have any credible evidence except of your words) it rather means that aikido training can develop an efficient fighter and not self defense skills.. In this case it is rather unexpected that MMA athletes are looking for skills in BBJ, MT, boxing, wrestling or other competitive sports but never in aikido….

IMO it is not a simple ‘self-imposed limitations; - it is a complete lack of training methodology that leads to develop an efficient fighter And it was not done incidentally, O sensei new exactly what he was doing.