That's some very good training demonstrated there. I think what you are presenting is a good example of how you can take aikido principles and by training them in realistic scenario based exercises with committed high energy attacks, you end up developing skills that are very effective in real world self defense. Nice stuff!
This is pretty much in line with my own thinking: "you can take aikido principles and by training them in realistic scenario based exercises with committed high energy attacks, you end up developing skills that are very effective in real world self defense." For me, it just makes no sense to see Aikido training in any other way. I'm not saying this because I am looking for an "evolution" of the art. Nor am I looking for a "modern" application of the art. For me, the art is principle-based in terms of its training. It is therefore principle-based in terms of its application. AND, if those principles are universal - as Osensei says they are (and I agree) - then one is supposed to be able to apply Aikido principle in everything, all the time, for forever.
The point of training then is to apply principle, not ikkyo, nikyo, sankyo, irimi nage, etc. Sure, you might apply these technique, but that is simply the tactical coincidence of a multitude of situational elements that can occur because these techniques can be used to carry principles (like a vessel carries a liquid) to the student of the art. In other words, it's not really a matter of Aikido technique being effective, for this or that, for police work, it's if one's understanding of the art allows for one to move beyond it's pedagogical idealizations (techniques, its prescribed attacks, etc.) or not. This is a vital point to understand, BECAUSE idealizations are only idealizations because they are NOT universals. That means, at a profound philosophical level, techniques like shomenuchi irimi nage CANNOT possibly be Aikido.
For me, every time I hear someone ask or state something on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Aikido, they are always talking about technique or training methods. This is a very limited understanding of the art - in my opinion. It's similar to mistaking the map for the territory. Now, of course, most dojo, at least all the ones I have ever been to, go ahead and tell their practitioners, either directly or indirectly ("Do this and only this if you want to get good at Aikido" or "Don't do that if you want to be good at Aikido"), or by way of negative or positive statements (e.g. "Aikido is not about fighting," "Aikido techniques do to work in a fight."), that technique and training method is all there is, all that counts, etc. - that they should all be very satisfied with the map. So what is someone to do? Because that is one uphill battle - one a person wages with him/herself, or not at all.
I'll get to the other replies as soon as I can - please forgive.