Aikido does not work at all in a fight.

I've studied several martial arts, but at a very low level. I wanted to continue with Ju Jitsu, but I had contracted a very painful case of Rhumatoid Arthritis at a very young age and had a very hard time being thrown because it hurt so badly so I had to give it up eventually. Anyway, I have always heard these rumors about Aikido being useless in a fight and have to admit that it would not be my first choice for self defense.
My guess is that a very experienced practitioner could make it work in a fight, but someone who had only studied a few years would probably end up hurting himself more than an attacker.
Someone who is into the whole Aikido philosophy and is willing to study for several decades or someone who is bored of a harder art and wants to go softer, might end up satisfied with the struggle to get better, but most people wouldn't have the patience or motivation.
That's why I find people who choose it so interesting.

Paul Sanderson-Cimino wrote: I guess my two theories at present are: 1) Aikido actually does work in MMA-type situations, at least as a useful complement to judo 2) Aikido is meant for old-style jujutsu scenarios (weapons-containing environment).

Brian Dewey wrote: My thoughts as well. Aikido is not "completely" useless in MMA-type situations. The most basic principle of Aikido is blending/merging/joining with your attacker. Let's not forget that...no matter how it plays out.

To clarify, I don't mean that I think both are true -- I probably should have said "hypotheses" rather than "theories". Still lacking any solid evidence for either, which leaves me at my null hypothesis -- that aikido is crazy nonsense.

Paul Sanderson-Cimino wrote: To clarify, I don't mean that I think both are true -- I probably should have said "hypotheses" rather than "theories". Still lacking any solid evidence for either, which leaves me at my null hypothesis -- that aikido is crazy nonsense.

I've never really been a big MMA fan, so I didn't catch any UFCs when they happened, but one of my training partners in Kali turned me on to the Spike shows that replay old fights. One obvious as all H-E-double toothpicks observations is that when it goes to the ground, the fighter on the bottom can be in extremely serious trouble very quickly. Not that the guy on the bottom doesn't have any choices such as from the guard position and can't win, but it seems like a very bad place to be!

So my hypothesis is that Aikido's place within the ranges of combat (kicking, punching, trapping and grappling) would beto give more options to find some kind of submission while you're still standing up. Yes, I agree, in case you end up on the ground, you should know what to do there. But I also agree it is a situation best avoided in the real world if at all possible; Aikido may provde options for resolving a situation before it gets to a ground-and-pound scenario.

Of course, in most MMA fights, fighters go straight from kickboxing to rolling on the floor, so they blast right by the opportunity for standing submissions. Then again, fights also end in knockouts before they end up on the ground. So having more tools for standing does't seem to be a bad idea.

Yes it does work in a confrontation take it from me a active Police officer,you must establish your entry fast,and go right into a throw/lock and constantly moving and keeping control of the center.Reguarding other arts,all are different and respect is given to all,thats the aiki way,but if trouble comes my way the perp will see aikido at best.

To all, your end result in a fight depends on how hard you train in any martial art.

my favorite thread is back...hello old friend!

Does Aikido work in a fight?
I wouldn't leave home without it. But I don't expect it to look like I am striking a pose while tossing someone who has perfect ukemi.

I plan to start a new thread later...does aikido work for jello wrestling.

Don Magee wrote: I plan to start a new thread later...does aikido work for jello wrestling.

Really. Can this wank get relegated to its own forum? Something like "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or, could Bruce Lee beat up Jean Claude Van Damme", and leave the rest of the site to people who want to talk about aikido (and other martial arts as they relate to aikido).

Mary Malmros wrote: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or, could Bruce Lee beat up Jean Claude Van Damme"

7 and yes.

If Bruce Lee was alive today...what would he be doing?

My vote, trying to use his one inch punch to escape his coffin.

i wonder when the last time joeysola even posted on this site.

He was posting anonymously, so only Jun would know, probably. It is kind of funny that anon started such a long thread...

B,
R

Over 1100 posts about this!!! I would say that at least Aikido can be used in an argument.

Just wanted to point out that Aikido presents plenty of opportunities to hurt an opponent, but we don't do it because it's not taught. For instance, Louis in post # 13 describes how he used Kaitenage against a wrestler shooting for his legs. He could have kneed the wrestler in the face at the same time if he wanted. But that's not what we're taught. Virtually every Aikido move creates an opening or places an opponent in an unsafe position. Aikido simply chooses not to take advantage of the opportunity to strike, maim, or choke.

Hello, I am new to the forum, and have only been training for about six years, but in my experience Aikido is irreplaceable in learning how to handle a fight. One of the problems is that no one will realize what they know without leaving their dojo once in a while. Recently I started working on a demonstration with a 3rd dan Tai Kwan Do practitioner that can strike as well as anyone you might run into on the street. Obviously he was not going all out while we practiced for a demo, but there wasn't anything he threw at me that I didn't think was easily manageable to deal with. One of my biggest problems in Aikido training can be waiting for the other person to move between the beats as it were, so the more intense an attack and a fight, the more easy it might be for a lot of even mid-level aikidoka to use that energy since it won't be broken with allowing the attack to end. The simplest and most effective principles aikido teaches should be the most useful in a real fight. I don't mean trying to put someone into Ikkyo, but more having faith in your movements and substance to your position. When you own the area, it doesn't matter if someone wants to enter it, no matter their intention, you have the upper hand.

this is not a good sign.

Don Magee wrote: If Bruce Lee was alive today...what would he be doing? My vote, trying to use his one inch punch to escape his coffin.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: my favorite thread is back...hello old friend!

This thread is like a zombie....the only way it'll die is if you destroy the brain and/or sever the head....if not, it just keeps coming back!

To better explain my last post. I wrote it to simply answer the question of would Aikido work in a fight if you were attacked. The answer seems simple that it would. I am not trying to get into what constitutes a fight. What allows Aikido to work in my mind is that you are never in a fight, but the opponent is. If you take that idea with you from Aikido, it has worked.
P.S. There's no reason for a forum like this to end, if it ends it means there are no new people coming to Aikido!

The question here is: What "kind" of fight are we talking about?
If we are referring to a fight inside the octagon/ring (UFC/MMA), Aikido might work or might not. Two points. First, Aikido is not designed to compete. Is developed to resolve conflict without harming the attacker as much as possible. O'Sensei said "The Art of Peace is the principle of nonresistance. Because it is nonresistant, it is victorious from the beginning. Those with evil intentions or contentious thoughts are instantly vanquished. The Art of Peace is invincible because it contends with nothing". I know it may sound so philosophical to non-practioners, but this maxim sets the reason why Aikido doesn't compete. Do we train just for gold and glory? I guess not. We train so when the inevitable comes (life and death situation), we know our chances to live is high.

Second, if you try to review the rules set by UFC, many aikido techniques wouldn't be allowed. Aikido works best on joint locks (big and small joints) and atemi (strikes) including to the groin which is not allowed by UFC. Even if we disregard the above dictum by the Founder, clearly, Aikido doesn't fit inside the octagon. But this is not to say that Aikido is superior to other forms of Martial Arts. Only that she is not designed to compete.

O'Sensei furhter said, "There are no contests in the Art of Peace. A true warrior is invincible because he or she contests with nothing. Defeat means to defeat the mind of contention that we harbor within....To injure an opponent is to injure yourself. To control aggression without inflicting injury is the Art of Peace. "

On the other hand, if we are referring to the fight in the street, Aikido will definitely work. Why? Most fights in this environment are non-competetive in nature, but are barbaric, physical, and survival. Fights would be in disproportionate number of people involve, usually one against many. It seldom happens a one is to one fight unless there is a consensus to both party specially if they want to put on a show of their ego. Aikido is designed to deal with multiple attackers, both armed and unarmed. Again, comparing a fight inside the ocatagon, which usually involves grappling, which I say works on a 1-1 situation, to a fight in the street which requires techniques to dodge and survive against more dangerous and more numerous opponents would show us that Aikido would indeed work in a fight.

I really do love this thread and do agree with Nelson that it does mean that new people are coming on line here with the same age old questions!

A couple of thoughts.

Nelson wrote:

What allows Aikido to work in my mind is that you are never in a fight, but the opponent is.

I understand what you are saying philosophically, but if you are in a fight, you are in a fight...you can think what you want about it, reframe it a million ways, but someone hitting you, stabbing you, or what not is what it is, you must recognize the reality of the situation and deal with it appropriately.

How you define appropriately may vary. For instance, you may do a "Ghandi" and choose non-violence committing yourself to a greater purpose than return violence.

You may decide to use violence and determine that it is better to do that than to choose non-violence.

Oliver wrote:

Second, if you try to review the rules set by UFC, many aikido techniques wouldn't be allowed. Aikido works best on joint locks (big and small joints) and atemi (strikes) including to the groin which is not allowed by UFC. Even if we disregard the above dictum by the Founder, clearly, Aikido doesn't fit inside the octagon. But this is not to say that Aikido is superior to other forms of Martial Arts. Only that she is not designed to compete.

We've been down this road a million times before. I'd buy into the whole "not designed to compete/aikido is an allegory for philosophy" argument. However, you mixed that with "besides we do things that are not allowed in the UFC". That causes an issue for me.

Groin Strikes, Wrist locks, etc...go ahead, find a UFC fighter, and as an aikidoka, challenge him to play by your rules that allow those things....I am betting he would accept your offer to fight...i'd like to see that!

Anyway, fighting is complex. I agree with most of your statements. Just be careful about confusing the issue when bring the UFC argument up. It is apples to oranges and an illogical comparision when bring aikido into the mix. It's like trying to compare COBOL against C++ or something like that!

You have to be careful not to over generalize UFC types about the whole 1-1 thing offering up aikido as being superior in that area. I think not.

It is not about working or not working in a fight. It is the fighter that fights..not the art.

Oliver Fernandez wrote: The question here is: What "kind" of fight are we talking about? If we are referring to a fight inside the octagon/ring (UFC/MMA), Aikido might work or might not. Two points. First, Aikido is not designed to compete. Is developed to resolve conflict without harming the attacker as much as possible. O'Sensei said "The Art of Peace is the principle of nonresistance. Because it is nonresistant, it is victorious from the beginning. Those with evil intentions or contentious thoughts are instantly vanquished. The Art of Peace is invincible because it contends with nothing". I know it may sound so philosophical to non-practioners, but this maxim sets the reason why Aikido doesn't compete. Do we train just for gold and glory? I guess not. We train so when the inevitable comes (life and death situation), we know our chances to live is high. Second, if you try to review the rules set by UFC, many aikido techniques wouldn't be allowed. Aikido works best on joint locks (big and small joints) and atemi (strikes) including to the groin which is not allowed by UFC. Even if we disregard the above dictum by the Founder, clearly, Aikido doesn't fit inside the octagon. But this is not to say that Aikido is superior to other forms of Martial Arts. Only that she is not designed to compete. O'Sensei furhter said, "There are no contests in the Art of Peace. A true warrior is invincible because he or she contests with nothing. Defeat means to defeat the mind of contention that we harbor within....To injure an opponent is to injure yourself. To control aggression without inflicting injury is the Art of Peace. " On the other hand, if we are referring to the fight in the street, Aikido will definitely work. Why? Most fights in this environment are non-competetive in nature, but are barbaric, physical, and survival. Fights would be in disproportionate number of people involve, usually one against many. It seldom happens a one is to one fight unless there is a consensus to both party specially if they want to put on a show of their ego. Aikido is designed to deal with multiple attackers, both armed and unarmed. Again, comparing a fight inside the ocatagon, which usually involves grappling, which I say works on a 1-1 situation, to a fight in the street which requires techniques to dodge and survive against more dangerous and more numerous opponents would show us that Aikido would indeed work in a fight.

It's not the rules per se. It's the format. Sport fighting is unique in that trained fighters tend to employ a rather siege like strategy. They spend minutes, let me repeat that, minutes circling and putting attacks in that are not intended to end the fight outright. A jab isn't for knocking out your opponent, it's for grinding him down and sussing him out. At some point when one fighter believes that he has ground down his opponent enough to create an opening then he will move in to finish off the opponent.
If a boxer gets knocked down it's virtually certain that his opponent will charge in with a flurry of punches as soon as the ref will allow him to in an attempt to end the fight before his opponent can recover.
Things in the UFC are a little different, the knock out has largely been replaced by a shoot for the legs, but the principle is the same, you grind down your opponent, find his weaknesses then end it. It's a long slow relatively safe process which is more about not loosing the fight than winning it.

"Real" fights (TM) are more like an ambush. An ideal ambush is when your enemy, oblivious to your presence, wanders into a pre-prepared area and you annihilate them in seconds with overwhelming fire power. Ideally the experience for the enemy is walking along and then suddenly appearing at the pearly gates in much confusion. Most 13 year olds that play too many computer games know this.

Now physically ambushing someone in a bar or out in the street isn't easy so what tends to happen is a psychological ambush. The attacker keeps his intentions hidden, creates confusion and uses intimidation to suss out and create openings.
Once an opening is found the attacker launches into an all out assault, not allowing the defender to respond.
So the experience for the defender is of being in an argument or being asked the time one second and in intensive care the next.

The level of violence used in MMA is often much lower than in "reality" because the fighters are prepared to fight for a vastly greater time period than attackers can afford.

All this we know.

So IMHO if you want to see Aikido do well you need to change the competition a bit. First of all place the fighters about an arms length apart before the fight starts. Second, reduce the time limit to thirty seconds to a minute. Third make the victory condition a KO or submission only, no points, no judges. Fourth, fighters have to wear clothes, like normal people do.

What this would produce is a short and exceptionally violent fight, any technique that didn't have the power to KO or take down an opponent immediately would probably be dropped.

Alex,

You bring up some interesting points. I agree with your perspective for sure!

This is one thing I try to drive home to the soldiers I train. We will vary the goals (end state) of the situation when we train. I will do things like give them 5 minutes to fight and keep points or enforce rules (constraints). I will also then give them 30 seconds and say who ever is on top at the end of 30 seconds is the winner.

It is interesting to see how the level of intensity, the difference in strategy, technique etc play into it when you change these conditions.

I agree, it isn't the rules (implied or specified) but the other things such as time and desired endstate that makes the biggest difference.

good points.

Oh yeah rule 5, no gloves, no hand wrapping.