View Single Post
Old 09-15-2005, 10:14 AM   #25
Location: Rotterdam
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 459
Re: Poll: How important is "being martially effective" in your aikido training?

The current poll results say that 75% of the voters think that 'being martially effective' is critically to very important.
I do not believe that the way aikido is trained and taught justifies the 75%. Ok, maybe I haven't been around enough, but still ... Most aikido practice consists of performing aikido techniques on aikido attacks in a highly controlled environment.
So let me ask this question: apart from the already mentioned full-resistance randori, what part, aspect, drill, ... of your aikido traing leads to martial effectiveness in aikido?

About self defence.
Patrick Crane wrote:
So the question is not, "does your iriminage work on the mat?"
The question is, "does your nikkyo work from the passenger seat of your date's Toyota when he decides he's ready to go all the way whether you are or not?"
Problem 1: we train iriminage on the mat and we train nikkyo against wrist grabs; we don't train nikkyo in cars against undecent grabs.
Problem 2: isn't there a lot more to self defence than what is taught in aikido?

About non-physical martial effectiveness.
To the people quoted below: what did you vote (if you don't mind my asking)? Not that I want to start a discussion on the meaning of 'martial effectiveness', I'd just like to know what you think it means.
Robert Coit wrote:
All battles are won or lost in the mind.
This is also why aikido is critically 'martial' in nature.
So aikido is training the martial mind?
Hanna Björk wrote:
From my point of view the art is more about what happens before it comes down to actual combat.
Then why train martial techniques?
Dirk Hanss wrote:
Saotome always says: "The dojo is your battlefield."
So the martial effectiveness of aikido lies in training for the victory over one-self?
Jo Adell wrote:
We, as a group, however, are there for the Other Aspects of aikido. Self defense is a side effect....
Does this mean you mainly want to learn the Other Aspects and that you decided to learn them through aikido is because you like doing aikido and because self defence is a welcome side effect?

About instantenous victory.
Patrick Crane wrote:
Yes, exactly why I chose Aikido over boxing or any of the other arts that use striking as a means of brutally, vindictively punishing an attacker/opponent.
Even with Ali's superior skills, making his opponents look like plodding oafs, it usually took him several rounds to wear them down. That's definitely NOT "street" practical when you've got a guy Foreman's size coming at you with brass knuckles and four of his buddies closing in.
Xu Wenfung wrote:
Instantaneous victory... this was what was said in Gozo Shioda's book (aikido shugyo). This is from the basis of kenjutsu, where one cut is all that it takes to end a fight. My aikido (or rather how i was taught) was never to stand one on one to slug it out. In jiyu waza, we may throw uke over and over again, but each throw represent a fight ending technique... the reason my uke still manage to get up from the mat is because I allow him to.

In this sense, I am in total agreement with Patrick. Aikido is a more efficient way of dealing with a situation. Minimal effort for maximum effect, borrowed from Judo lingo.. but all the same.
First of all, boxing is a sport. What would the Ali-Foreman fight would have looked like not in the ring, whithout gloves and without the rules prohibiting hitting a downed opponent, hitting the kidneys, the back of the neck, below the belt, ...? It would look more like pre-Queensbury rules boxing, but what did that look like? I know too little about boxing to answer that.
Secondly, if you let two of the best heavy-weight boxers of the time fight each other, you should not be surprised if the fight doesn't end in the first round. If you let two of the best aikidokas of today fight each other, do you really think the fight would be over quickly?
I believe the sucess of a technique and thus the amount of time to take someone out is determined by the difference in skill and physical abilities. If the difference is large enough you can have an instanteneous victory. One good punch or one good iriminage, I fail to see the difference.

Last edited by jss : 09-15-2005 at 10:25 AM.
  Reply With Quote