Effectiveness of Aikido

Real Fights (over things worth fighting for) don't happen in rings (unless you’re a pro and that’s how you make a living). They also seldom happen empty handed. There is a whole paradigm you are missing.

How much better does even the best empty handed martial art make you at using a weapon. Do you think you'd rather have a weapon if 2 guys were raping your wife?

If you're training for real life practicality, why focus so heavily on unarmed systems? If you want to train for the ring, why not learn ring systems? And if you just want to go around fighting people to prove yourself (why most empty handed fights happen), why are you fighting at all?

Bill Brownlow wrote: If I want to mug/rape you, I'm not going to pop a few light jabs in your face to get you to open up for a combination or takedown. Im going straight for the haymaker, the purse grab, the lapel or bearhug i.e. a committed attack.

I agree with this, i never took up aikido to become a fighter in any way. I learned it to feel more comfortable with my surroundings, and people around me who may be a threat. These people are not going to be professional martial artists training 7 days a week for the most part.

Im talking louts, yobs, brawlers, street fighters punchers. Not UFC, MMA stuff, which i hightly respect. It's hard to explain, even though these guys look sometimes like they are scrapping, its very technical. If someone who trains UFC etc is going to attack me, i see it as im not going to stand a chance regardless...

Aikido for real life situations in my opinion would be very effective...(but heres the important bit) once you are competent. Year and a half in three times a week i dont feel competent, but i feel i could "do something" where before i didn't have a clue. Small advantage maybe but im in a better place than i was a year an half back.

Dalen Johnson wrote: But let me get past this. Lets just say you want, for the fun, to beat the crap out of someone. (Lets say boxing match scenerio...not just a bully type thing). In this situation, how well would aikido work?

It would probably work as well as whatever your fighting ability is without Aikido. People who can fight well with Aikido can fight well without Aikido. People who can't fight won't learn to fight well training in Aikido. So Aikido plus 5 bucks will get you a cup of coffee, in terms of fighting ability.

If your goal is to "have fighting ability", whether you choose to use it or not, Aikido is simply not an efficient means to that end. The man, the techniques, and the training method all matter. Take the man out of the equation, and the techniques and training method of Aikido won't get you anywhere near your potential in your lifetime.

Arts that are effective (efficient in producing real fighting ability, in this definition) do not have popular discussion boards where some variant of "does it really work?" is always on the menu. People have many reasons for training, and saying it is inefficient does not say it can't ever be used well, but you posed a narrow question, and that is the truthful answer. You can draw your own conclusions as to why the question keeps coming up.

Just a couple of thoughts from a relative newbie (sankyu):

I think the previous point of Aikido being more effective against a wild, committed attack is very important. I think that my Aikido would work very well against a bumrush or a haymaker. It wouldn't work so well against someone circling and looking for a opening to take me down, and that's where the philosophical element would come in for me... I'd try to avoid getting into that sort of fight at all, and if I did, my foremost application of my Aikido would be to subdue long enough to escape, rather than "win."

In terms of techniques, etc.... well, yeah, trying to do a picture-perfect shihonage in a real fight is likely to make you look foolish and get you hurt. I think the same can be said for any martial art. For me, the real-life effectiveness of Aikido is in the movement and awareness. Moving from the center, being aware of what is around me, and getting off the line. In my training, as long as I'm doing those three things, it doesn't really matter what else I'm doing. The finer points have, for me, fallen into place once I'm focused on those three things. So, in a fight, instead of using my kick-ass Aikido to beat someone up and get the girl, I'd keep alert, move from the center off of the line of attack, and enter or escape as is appropriate to end the fight as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Justin Azevedo wrote: I think the previous point of Aikido being more effective against a wild, committed attack is very important.

As an increasing fan of the "aikido is about weapons" theory, I'd add that a "wild, committed attack" is also part of that model. If someone's going for a weapon and you're trying to stop them from getting it out, or at least trying to get a hand or two on the drawing arm by the time the weapon comes out, speed is at a major premium for you. If neither of you has any weapons, and knows the other does not, and the area does not contain any weapons (proper or improvised), then a less speed-intensive approach makes far more sense.

Lynn Seiser wrote: The question isn't if Aikido is effective, it is if "your" Aikido is. IMHO, mine is.

So is mine.

This is the only sensible thing someone has said!

Dan Austin wrote: If your goal is to "have fighting ability", whether you choose to use it or not, Aikido is simply not an efficient means to that end. The man, the techniques, and the training method all matter. Take the man out of the equation, and the techniques and training method of Aikido won't get you anywhere near your potential in your lifetime. Arts that are effective (efficient in producing real fighting ability, in this definition) do not have popular discussion boards where some variant of "does it really work?" is always on the menu. People have many reasons for training, and saying it is inefficient does not say it can't ever be used well, but you posed a narrow question, and that is the truthful answer. You can draw your own conclusions as to why the question keeps coming up.

Your objective view is important to the Aikido community. We must remember that the original MMAists were Jigoro Kano and Morihei Ueshiba. Both of these men proved beyond a doubt that their arts were effective, period. What some have done with these arts after their passing is not in line with their teachings. Jigoro Kano was addiment that Judo should not become an Olympic sport. Morihei Ueshiba proved that Aikido was an effective martial art, and he saw this as a means to cultivate peace. But the art none the less was effective. O'Sensei used to say "Aikido wa odori janai desu" Aikido is not a dance. I see lots of people on youtube dancing and saying they are doing Aikido, this is the problem with Aikido. That's not my point of view, it is O'Sensei's, he said it not me.

The reason I am on this board is to answer these sorts of questions, from what some may call miss guided students. Hopefully they can ask there instructor "why are we dancing, O'Sensei said Aikido is not a dance?" Before O'Sensei's death Aikido was a strong art spread around the world by people who had black belts in several arts, especially Judo. It was a requirement of learning Aikido that you had previous experience in a couple of arts. The next generation of people purely came from an Aikido background and the art changed a lot. It is for this reason I think Mochizuki Kancho used to say to his students after they had gotten their black belt in Aikido that they had to go and get a black belt in Judo, then they could continue with Aikido.

Justin Azevedo wrote: In terms of techniques, etc.... well, yeah, trying to do a picture-perfect shihonage in a real fight is likely to make you look foolish and get you hurt. I think the same can be said for any martial art. For me, the real-life effectiveness of Aikido is in the movement and awareness. Moving from the center, being aware of what is around me, and getting off the line. In my training, as long as I'm doing those three things, it doesn't really matter what else I'm doing. The finer points have, for me, fallen into place once I'm focused on those three things. So, in a fight, instead of using my kick-ass Aikido to beat someone up and get the girl, I'd keep alert, move from the center off of the line of attack, and enter or escape as is appropriate to end the fight as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Does no one remember the lessons of O'Sensei, in a real fight Aikido is 90% atemi! A technique like shiho nage should be used only if the opportunity arose. If you are going to do a technique, it should be irimi nage, but as a strong atemi.

Regards,

Dan Austin wrote: It would probably work as well as whatever your fighting ability is without Aikido. People who can fight well with Aikido can fight well without Aikido. People who can't fight won't learn to fight well training in Aikido. So Aikido plus 5 bucks will get you a cup of coffee, in terms of fighting ability.

LOL, I knew I wasn't taking full advantage of Aikido! I love my expensive coffee!
Kidding aside, I disagree. For one thing you have a wide variety of methodology contained in "Aikido." You can't talk about the whole group as if it were a single way of doing things. There are unifying archetypes/principles, but most, if not all of them, can be applied to any number of "martial art," including all the recently popularized MMA stuff. The underlying principles are quite sound and effective.

The man, the techniques, and the training method all matter. Take the man out of the equation, and the techniques and training method of Aikido won't get you anywhere near your potential in your lifetime.

Now you're speaking my language. It's up to the individual to make their art come alive, regardless of what that art is; period.

Arts that are effective (efficient in producing real fighting ability, in this definition) do not have popular discussion boards where some variant of "does it really work?" is always on the menu...You can draw your own conclusions as to why the question keeps coming up.

Oh? Are you really going to tell me that popularity and questions have anything to do with determining effectiveness? I think you were closer to the right track when you spoke about the man, method and means coming together.
Anytime people make absolute statements, they're never right; always.

Funny thing about the “Aikido works fine, but does YOUR Aikido work”, argument. While it’s a very true statement. A system can only work as well in practice as it’s practitioner knows how to use it. It can also be a very misleading statement.

Lets take a look at something abstract for a second so I can clearly make my point.

Lets say I go to school to become a carpenter. I learn the tools and the methods of carpentry. And I call my self a “builder”. Then one day I decide to build something out of metal. My hammers don’t work very well. I can’t drive nails into the steel. My planes won’t shape the steel. It seems my carpentry skills must suck.

I tell other carpenters about how I can’t seem to build anything. I tell them about how I can’t drive the nails, and how I can’t shape anything with my planes. The other carpenters tell me that I must have horrible carpentry skills because they build stuff all the time, and the system of carpentry they learned works great.

In this scenario no matter how long I go to school and no matter how good I get at working wood, I will never learn to work steel.

While it’s true carpentry is a good system of wood working, it’s a poor system of steel working. And no matter if you’re a master carpenter that won’t make you a master steel worker.

Chris Hein wrote: While it's true carpentry is a good system of wood working, it's a poor system of steel working. And no matter if you're a master carpenter that won't make you a master steel worker.

If I understand you correctly, then to master Aikido we must study metallurgy. I guess that makes sense because one of my instructors is a shipbuilder and his Aikido is very powerful.

But it is hard for me to understand, then, why we are using wooden weapons in training? But maybe that is a small point.

Anyways I was watching one of those youtube videos and it said, 'no-one can stand there and let a fighter come at him and not get hit..." something like that. I didn't waste my time commenting on the youtube, but the point of AIkido is to move out of the line of attack. That is its essence, more than any joint lock. And when it is said that Atemi is 90% of a fight, it is when your opponent is a mindless destructive force coming at you that you had better make the most of your sabaki/atemi to the side of his head. The surprise of the blow coupled with his momentum should take some of the steam of his attack, when he has crashed to the ground ten feet from the point of his last recollection. That seems to be the only way one would be able to deal with multiple attackers.

Hello
Well yes, real fight does seldom happens as they do in a ring, and it is true that usually MMA/combat sport people fails top see the context in which they are fighting in is the pinnacle of promoting fairness, which is exact opposite of what and opponent would do in real life.

However, what Traditional martial arts fails to see, is that sport combat develops/puts in evidence the right strategy and tactic to win a real life fight.
Yes, technique and tactics will get adapted to a certain degree to the rules and the finality, but just seing that and dismissing it as something that would not happen in the real life and hence has no value in real life is as narrow minded as not seeing the difference of context in sport and actual fighting.

From medieval fighting treatise to modern MMA coach, it seem to me that they all have the following in common
Entrance =>isolation (which is equate to control/unbalance)=> technique
Technique can be strike, takedown, lock+ throw, lock takedown , lock+ throw down+ immobilisation or another technique that give a better advantage)
When your opponent is coming like a mindless force of destruction, there is no "need" for atemi other than atemi being the technique in itself.
The opponent has given us entrance and isolation.

If he opponent attack properly or if we attack him then we need atemi to gain entrance and create the condition for the isolation.

phil

Chris Hein wrote: Lets take a look at something abstract for a second so I can clearly make my point. Lets say I go to school to become a carpenter....

One of the most important tools I've learned as a student teacher is the idea of continual assessment. I think it ties into the constant training aspect I've heard ascribed to Aikido. So to follow your analogy, if one wants to be the best "builder" they can, they should learn the various mediums and what those mediums are best suited for.
In my mind it's categorized as specialization and generalization. A healthy balance of the two is always needed. If you're not specialized enough (dabble too much) you'll never be that master carpenter. If you're not generalized enough (too much tunnel vision), you're going to try and hammer nails into steel. Balance the two and you're going to be a builder capable of more than a handful of situations.
As it relates to martial arts, most people these days seem to cross-train to achieve this. I don't think it's always necessary, but it's definately a good way to triangulate toward a more enriched understanding of what it means to be a "builder."

Nice post.

Chris Hein wrote: Nice post.

yeah. I thought it was a nice post, also.

I'm still in digestion of the last fews days posts on this forum. I think the turn towards the building metaphor is a 'constructive' one, if you will. It is an example that I personally find cogent because I am literally a builder; a builder of artistic lanscsapes and buildings, among other broader definitions of 'builder' (as in: my dojo, my family, my life). I have to switch mediums at a stunning pace on some days. I go from cement, to carpentry, to plumbing, to metal,to stone, to the planting of natural elements. Everything has to be done in quality and concert, and it has to be an amalgam of my vision, my skills, and the practical requirements of the site and the client. A bit of randori on a creative level. In the midst of all this smoke and mirrror kind of assembly is a personal alchemy and that is where the skills begin to combine into principles and then warp in to Take Musu. When I'm done ,and my crew of amazing helpers and trades-people are also finished, we have to have made a product that is a recognizable form; it has to be the landscape we designed.
From the application of my focus I have learned to 'swing a hammer' at different levels of efficiency in the above skills I mentioned. I'm not a master at any one of them, except the planting elements, but the level of proficiency I have is adequate to support the overall project.
The thing that combines all of this, and the jumping point of my thoughts related to Chris's post about metals etc.... is Alchemy:
the study of element, essence, distillation and vibration. That is how you (one /I) can get it done, maintain aiki principles and be effective. Whatever the application

Thanks for the ear .
jen

Lynn Seiser wrote: Ditto. Yea, what he said. Its the person, not the style. The question isn't if Aikido is effective, it is if "your" Aikido is. IMHO, mine is.

I'm totally ok with you, is the person who made the job, the art is there, so perfect ,so clean,all it's up to you ,
most of people don't understand the real meaning of Martial Art ,
Martial art is not a sport is about life, your life,
I think thats if you have your mind open, and the most important you have to belive in you as a martial artist . if you do that, them you can do a good work .

Nos vemos chamacos

Chris Hein wrote: Funny thing about the "Aikido works fine, but does YOUR Aikido work", argument. While it's a very true statement. A system can only work as well in practice as it's practitioner knows how to use it. It can also be a very misleading statement. Lets take a look at something abstract for a second so I can clearly make my point. Lets say I go to school to become a carpenter. I learn the tools and the methods of carpentry. And I call my self a "builder". Then one day I decide to build something out of metal. My hammers don't work very well. I can't drive nails into the steel. My planes won't shape the steel. It seems my carpentry skills must suck. I tell other carpenters about how I can't seem to build anything. I tell them about how I can't drive the nails, and how I can't shape anything with my planes. The other carpenters tell me that I must have horrible carpentry skills because they build stuff all the time, and the system of carpentry they learned works great. In this scenario no matter how long I go to school and no matter how good I get at working wood, I will never learn to work steel. While it's true carpentry is a good system of wood working, it's a poor system of steel working. And no matter if you're a master carpenter that won't make you a master steel worker.

that's a good point of view, that's why I'm going to learn the methods of carpentery and become a master steel worker ,..
And I will keep learnig new methods ,(time never ends)but me ,,,,

Another way of looking at the carpenter analogy.

You enter into an intensive apprenticeship studying all the types of wood, the wood tools, fasteners like nails, screws etc, which ones work best for fastening to what types of wood joints etc. You study how to hand make nail less joints...in short you become a master at all the little things and details that you will need as a carpenter.

You graduate.

Then...some one says...okay build a house!

Problem is, you have never built one...only studied the little individual pieces of carpentry that go into building a house.

There is a macroscopic and a microscopic approach to everything.

To me...I see aikido is more concerned with mastering certain aspects of martial arts that enhance those things that O'sensei felt were important.

It ain't all about building being a carpenter, but about studying the small things that might make a carpenter a master of his trade...IF he were indeed a honest to goodness carpenter!

Have noticed that the amount of discussion on these topics is excessive.

It's like some nut-job from a destructive style puts the seed of doubt in our minds and we let ouselves forget all we have learned or are learning. Why waste the ki?

I saw one video on youtube where a fighter (MMA?) breaks someone's arm with a hijijime. He wasn't using it as a control, he just yanked it around as hard as he could, snapped the joint, and then began dancing for joy over his ... victory?

In my opinion, if through Aikido we avoid becoming such individuals, then Aikido has been effective.

- - -

"What technique would you use..." etc. these threads show that our thoughts are straying from Aikido, from what we practice in the dojo... mokuso kamae sabaki zanshin... there can never be presupposition of what technique to use until the other party reacts.
Are you going to flail around trying to do a kotegaeshi, if for example, he has his hands raised over his head? This sort of fantasy is the equivelent of a bad pick-up line.

Let's be mindful of our 'way'.. Aikido... because it is a way and not a way of dominating others.

Perhaps Aikidoka have a higher likelyhood of becoming masters in Aikido because of the nature of our training and lifestyles. The MMA practitioner, if he is violent and combatitive, is going to sustain crippling injuries at some point. In AIkido, if we apply ourselves, we can tune and condition ourselves for the long haul, and in the process each one of us who commits has removed a potential troublemaker from society.

We are not street-brawlers or sensationalists.

And just for the record I have searched Youtube and could not find a video anywhere of any real Aikidoka getting beat in any fight. Nor winning any fight either.

So let's keep it this way. aikiweb for Aikido, youtube for whatever, and who gives a flying ukemi about the trash-talking.

If we present one good example to society, through our actions and expressions, and anyone at all is inspired to emulate us, then we have done more to change the world than all the butt-kicking we could ever dish out.

Arigato gozaimashita.

I'm tired of people talking about what Aikido training gives you as a person vs what MMA gives you. You have no idea what "dishing out butt-kicking" has done to people. Humility, confidence, and a chance to pursue a passion in life. The arts MMA is composed of has made just as many people happy as Aikido did. Aikido isn't rocking the world.

Just try to look past the hype. MMA is commercialized.

Take 5 MMA guys in their 30's and 5 Aikido guys in their 30's. Shave their hair, give them all identical white clothing. Put them in a room and socialize with all of them. Find out what they're all like and what their personalities are like. You'll find you won't be able to tell who the MMA or the Aikidoka guys are.

This question resurfaces from time to time here and while I tend to avoid these posts, I realize some are just seeking an honest answer. I agree with those that state it depends on the person. For me, Aikido is 99% flawless and is logical to me. Therefore it is very effective for me. For those who cannot grasp the logic and are not deicated that need more immediate gratification my do better in karate for example because the more immediate gratification keeps them interested. Aikido is not for everyone and everyone who trains aikido will not be great. Regardless of skill, aikido has something to offer everyone. What is offers is unique to the individual. For those who plant a seed in aikido will find great reward in the study and life long journey in aikido. It takes patience, understanding, hard work, and constanly relearning what you think you already know. One will shave many layers of rough off before the true nature is realized. Understanding that it is a gradual process, one will more likely stick with it long enough to determine if it is right for them. Typically, it should take a person training 3 times a week about 4-5 years to reach shodan on average. We all know that once a person reached shodan, you are then considered a serious student of aikido, not a master. I got a little off topic here but the point is, don't train aikido for a few months and use that to determine your own effectiveness. Once you start to learn some techniques doesn't mean you can apply them unders stress with control. So, effectiveness is compensatory with experience and discipline.

I also dislike the notion that studying aikido instead of mma somehow automatically makes you a better human being. I think that's hogwash and basically a thinly veiled ingroup/outgroup division built on a house of cards when, frankly, there's things that people from both camps can learn from each other.

Think of it this way, it's best to not be like the guy that goes to church who therefore feels like they then are entitled to be an arse the rest of the time. Just training in aikido doesn't mean that 1) You are spiritually superior to anybody. 2) You can use your skills in real self-defense situations (i.e. Steven Seagal movies are just movies) 3) You get any kind of free pass to speak in flowery language/metaphor and expect anyone to understand you.

I enjoy training aikido, but honestly examining what you're training for and the subsequent results that the training yields is also a worthwhile endeavor (and no falling back on "My sensei says", either -- at some point you need to work it out for yourself).

Okay, so it's Monday morning, I'm cranky and I haven't had my coffee . . .

Budd Yuhasz wrote: Okay, so it's Monday morning, I'm cranky and I haven't had my coffee . . .

lol. So it would seem.
Go grab yourself a cup of coffee, but don't forget to serve the aikidoka first.

Lynn Seiser wrote: Ditto. Yea, what he said. Its the person, not the style. The question isn't if Aikido is effective, it is if "your" Aikido is. IMHO, mine is.

I would concur everytime with the statement that Lynn puts across, in other words.... The martial art is only as good as the person who practises it.... period !!

All the whys and what fors will not change that..... For goodness sake if you do not think aikido is effective then do something else .... there is plenty to choose from..... this same thing crops up time and time again !! Its very simple really either you do mock combat (ie kata or dance in some circles) only, pun not intended, or you get on the mat and do hard randori with a noncompliant uke.... that's it.... you'll soon find out !!

Tony

Nice aikido demos. Don't think the guy at the end could ever use that hand again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fWKRpyTCbE

Salim Shaw wrote: I suggest you read the history of Aikido, before the heavy influence of the Shinto religion, which is it's philosophical bases today. Aikido post WWII was very combat ready, originally called Aikibudo. Perhaps visiting some of the local dojos from the Yoseikan and Yoshinkan organizations will give you the perspective for effectiveness that you are looking for. The Aikikai and Ki organizations are not heavily advocates for self defense. If self defense is what you are looking for from your Aikido, then Yoseikan or Yoshinkan Aikido maybe a better alternative. If peace, love and happiness is you focus, then you have the right organization, Ki. Your Aikido is are ready working for you, instead of fighting, love someone.

That's funny... We're part of the Aikikai and our Aikido is just as Martial as Yoshinkan (if not more LOL) and has all the lovely fluffy bunny stuff too...

Perhaps you should do some further research as well. By "Aikikai" do you mean Hombu, Iwama, Nishio, Kobyashi, and the dozens of other flavors???

I can't speak for the Ki society but why is it some folks disrespect Aikido by misrepresenting it with such broad generalizations?

Thank God for Stan Pranin, Ellis Amdur, Professor Peter Goldsbury and others who have sought to preserve and expand the entire History of Aikido...

William Hazen

Think of it this way, it's best to not be like the guy that goes to church who therefore feels like they then are entitled to be an arse the rest of the time. Just training in aikido doesn't mean that 1) You are spiritually superior to anybody. 2) You can use your skills in real self-defense situations (i.e. Steven Seagal movies are just movies) 3) You get any kind of free pass to speak in flowery language/metaphor and expect anyone to understand you.

:lol. Reminds me of someone I knew once who kind of went on a lot about how non-judgmental and in tune with other people's feelings she was, and how unlike many people that was, and how she just couldn't stand people who were less tolerant than her... (she had lots of good qualities too, but...)