Taking 2 different martial arts

Must have done something wrong. I thought I send in my opinion but did not see it. So here it goes again.

I would suggest you consider I Liq Chuan (ILC). The Sifu's name is Sam Chin, resides in New York but gives seminars around the country and other foreign lands.

ILC's principles of yin and yang, ground path, awareness, ki etc coincides with what O-Sensei's main focus was in teaching Aikido. O-Sensei has said that without those same principles, you are not learning Aikido. Unfortunately most modern day Aikido senseis and students only practice Ai-Do which in essence ..... useless against anyone who is bigger, stronger or knows a bit of "something".

Do whatever you think you'd most dislike to fight as. Fighting in situations where you're totally comfortable isn't something that takes much practising.

Personally I'd recommend boxing or muay thai, something like that. What they do isn't pretty - the latter's become virtually synonymous with brutality - but the experience of things being a total mess and having to keep going is well worth getting.

You try some of this - you try some of that and then one day you find what you really want to do and concentrate on that. Then after a few years you add in something else to help you understand your choice a bit better.

Observations.

You may end up in an art far different from what you would have thought.

The teacher is far more important than the art. Its inspiration coupled with the ability to transmit.

No teacher of any worth studied only one thing.

Harvey Roberts wrote: Hey guys, thanks for the input. But I wasn't meaning trying to take them both at the same time. I don't really have time to do that. Just an idea of what other kind of style to take in the future. The other factor is I don't really like to use weapons. I like the thought of just using my body, hands, legs, etc... With Aikido You can take down an attacker very quickly and break bones at the same time. As far as an attacker goes, I want to take them down as quickly as possible, break bones and make a quick shot to the nose all in one type of motion. I know this sound bad, but if someone wants to attack someone to hurt, still, or kill them, than I want them to fill pain and to think twice about ever attacking anyone again. I like Aikido and will take that style, but would like to take an other style to add the attack style into Aikido.

If you're interested in real-life self-defence, as opposed to the likes of karate, taekwondo, aikido, and - to an extent: judo - I recommend you check out the Gracie Challenge stuff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDdVT...layer_embedded

I think the determination is that clinching/grappling is where most fights end up, hence striking is - literally - quite hit and miss. Grappling allows you to save energy, and safely subdue an aggressor; whereas smashing someone up is quite energy inefficient, and quite possibly illegal.

...but as you don't want to 'roll around', i'd say judo fits your criteria for 'taking an attacker down very quickly and breaking their bones'.
As you'll spar with resisting opponents, by the time you come up against someone 'on the street' (quite possibly never), you'll find it child's play to put them on the ground.

But after a few months/years, you'll quite possibly find yourself asking if all the training is for the sake of such imaginary encounters - or whether you're training for some other reason.
It's a hell of a lot of time and effort you'll spend to become 'street lethal'...you might want to get something else out of it - and after a relatively brief period of training, you will probably have no further need to train to overcome bums in the street: then you'll ask yourself why you should bother training any longer...

And if you're thinking of self-defence: for the love of God, don't think of aikido - or anything that lacks sparring/randori.