Evan Schmitt

Thanks to everyone for your replies,

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

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

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

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

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