Aikido. Effective?

Robert Cowham wrote: I have had a positive experience of it being effective for me (unexpected and indeed I was a little drunk at the time). ... as a youngster shooting birds (pigeon/pheasant) with a shotgun - I was a better shot when "surprised" and put gun to shoulder and shot immediately than when I saw the bird coming from a long way away and had time to line up (and anticipate it).

Did you really think all that earlier lining up and anticipating was for anything else than to make "surprised" better ??? From personal experience, this is why aikido is dangerous to do in "realistic" training or as a competitive art. If your training has been worth a damn at all, the proverbial "trigger" is pulled before you have a chance to think much about it. I once found myself surprised by a partner with whom I had been demonstrating some "full speed" techniques. I had thought we were done, and was turning away. The first thought I had was about trying to pull my irimi back before my extended hand caused his face and scalp to swap places and succeeded in merely bruising his nose.

That day I found out that "full speed" aikido really means "faster that thought." Not to be toyed with. Most of the training in aikido is not about pulling the "trigger," but about testing the pounds on the pull in an unloaded weapon just up to the point of dry-firing - simply because if you can consistently do THAT, and do it fairly precisely in a dry-fire environment, you can follow through with the rest when the need presents itself in a live-fire situation.

Morgan Wible wrote: Do you believe you could defend yourself using Aikido?

I don't know that people would call it Aikido, but I learned it from an Aikido instructor in an Aikido dojo.

Chris Hein wrote: If trained correctly, you can't "use" Aikido, you become Aikido.

Good one… reminded me of an excellent post from another thread:

Bill Dockery wrote: The "strategy" of Aikido seems to be "Be Kharma". Otherwise we'd call it some other martial art.

We can list our successes and say "aikido is effective" but who doesn't need to improve? And what constitutes effective? If someone else proves it worked for them in one particular incident, it shows their aikido can work. Your aikido is different. Just gotta keep training.

Erick Mead wrote: That day I found out that "full speed" aikido really means "faster that thought."

Aikido is faster than light.

Morgan Wible wrote: I have been wondering lately, because i have seen everywhere (as I am sure many of you have too) people disclaiming Aikido and its effectiveness in combat, how many of you believe that you could use Aikido effectively in a real combat (life or death/ walk away or eat the pavement) situation? Also, while I am asking this question, I would like to input that I whole heartedly believe that I could use what I have been taught in just such a situation. And I don't care how long you have been studying, where you study, how you study, your rank… etc, I'm just looking for a straight up answer. So. Do you believe you could defend yourself using Aikido? Domo, Morgan

Everywhere? Could it be..... Bullshido.net or Sherdog? You should know better than to be strolling onto the DARK-SIDE...

Boon.

Xu Wenfung wrote: Everywhere? Could it be..... Bullshido.net or Sherdog? You should know better than to be strolling onto the DARK-SIDE... Boon.

I wasn't particularly referring to the internet.

Heck I am lucky if I find someone that really knows anything about aikido outside of the practicioners that I study with...and I live in a big metropolitan area these days!

I get my fix from my buds on Bullshido!

I think part of any backbrain decision to "use Aikido" (meaning only Aikido techniques) on an attacker depends on how much you want to avoid damaging them.

In a real combat situation, you might employ some Aikido techniques (Hiji Shime, Irimi Nage, etc.) and you might even employ them vigorously.

Conversely, I remember someone posting once that she had to use some Aikido on her physically abusive teenage stepson. That self defense situation warranted a light takedown and pin, and didn't hurt him or her marriage. But it worked.

If you have any doubts about Aikido's effectiveness, you should consider attending the next Amos Parker Shihan workshop you can get to.

I find these constant "is aikido effective" threads to be quite revealing of a fundamental problem in aikido, and it's not that aikido is "not effective." I think it's obvious to most serious martial artists that the question of effectiveness depends entirely on who's aikido you are talking about, what specific parts of it you are talking about, and what you mean by "effective."

The problem that these threads make clear is that the effectiveness of aikido training, in general, is questionable (see the title of this thread, for example), and that many people within aikido are very much concerned about this question. From what I have seen, aikido is one of few martial arts where this issue is such a common and apparantly intractable dilemma. If there were not serious problems with the expectations and desires for effectiveness of the general student base not being met by the art as a whole then I suspect it would not be such an issue in aikido either.

Given that situation, to me the response that would make the most sense is not to try to more precisely evaluate the effectiveness of aikido as a whole, which I would consider to be a proposition of dubious value anyway, but to look to make changes that would make the art better meet the expectations of effectiveness held by many students. Two possible changes that could be made would be to alter students' expectations of effectiveness and to modify training methods in order to make the average student more effective. I personally would recommend both of these actions. However, simply continuing to debate the issue over and over again without making any substantive changes in training to address the problem seems very unlikely to resolve it.

I think the question arises more in aikido than say maybe tai chi is that aikido is more of a middle ground or bridge between external and internal arts than most other internal arts.

I think it tends to attract people that might not otherwise choose to go to "softer" styles or more pure internal styles.

therefore, practitioners seem to have more questions in this area.

The longer I train, the more I see the effectiveness of Aikido, and other martial arts. It seems that this discussion can lead to an endless list of "what ifs." I have been asked several "what would you do if I (punched, kicked, grabbed)?" type of questions, my response would always be, "I don't know, (puch, kick, grab) me and see?"

I read a quote from a sensei that was asked a similar question, his response was, "Aikido works...yours does not, there is a difference."

Just my 2 cents

Giancarlo DiPierro wrote: The problem that these threads make clear is that the effectiveness of aikido training, in general, is questionable (see the title of this thread, for example), and that many people within aikido are very much concerned about this question. From what I have seen, aikido is one of few martial arts where this issue is such a common and apparantly intractable dilemma. If there were not serious problems with the expectations and desires for effectiveness of the general student base not being met by the art as a whole then I suspect it would not be such an issue in aikido either. Given that situation, to me the response that would make the most sense is not to try to more precisely evaluate the effectiveness of aikido as a whole, which I would consider to be a proposition of dubious value anyway, but to look to make changes that would make the art better meet the expectations of effectiveness held by many students.

I'd step even further back than that, and say that the expectations need a good hard look too. Whenever there's a gap between expectations and reality (or perceived reality), it's worth asking the question, "Are these expectations well-defined and reasonable?" before tacking the "problem" of how to bring reality up to snuff. That may not be the problem that you need to solve, after all.

Kevin Leavitt wrote: I think the question arises more in aikido than say maybe tai chi is that aikido is more of a middle ground or bridge between external and internal arts than most other internal arts. I think it tends to attract people that might not otherwise choose to go to "softer" styles or more pure internal styles. therefore, practitioners seem to have more questions in this area.

Fair point. Another way we could put it is that people who choose aikido want to maintain the fantasy of effectiveness without doing the training necessary to get this in more effective arts like judo or BJJ. That said, the taiji I have been exposed to is, at the highest levels, at least as effective as any aikido I have seen, if not more so. However, the level of self-deception (and self-doubt) that I see in aikido is not nearly as prevalent in taiji. In taiji, someone like me who is primarily interested in the martial applications can train right along side someone who is clearly only interested in training for health reasons, each of us knowing why we are training and how we need to practice to get there.

Mary Malmros wrote: I'd step even further back than that, and say that the expectations need a good hard look too. Whenever there's a gap between expectations and reality (or perceived reality), it's worth asking the question, "Are these expectations well-defined and reasonable?" before tacking the "problem" of how to bring reality up to snuff. That may not be the problem that you need to solve, after all.

I mentioned this in my post as well. As I see it, if someone's main goal is effectiveness they should practice one of the arts that is known to be effective. To choose to do an art that has not proven itself in that arena that I think you need to have some other goal for which you are willing to sacrifice effectiveness. In my opinion, aikido does not do a good enough job of identifying this goal and thereby differentiating itself from arts that are primarily interested in effectiveness. Taiji does, but it still does not abandon effectiveness entirely. It simply allows effectiveness to be relegated to a secondary priority that comes into play at a different point and in a different way than in art like BJJ.

The people who I have seen who do clearly differentiate their aikido from other arts often totally disconnect themselves from the reality of effectiveness to do so, and end up taking advantage of the cooperative training in aikido to maintain a fantasy of effectiveness that is even more far-flung than that of the average practitioner. Effectiveness for them has not become a valid but secondary priority but instead something that is not properly understood or addressed at all, and that can be a very dangerous situation. If you want to set aside effectiveness in order to train for something else I think you still need to understand how effectiveness factors into your art so that you remain connected to martial reality and incorporate it into the training where and when it is necessary.

It's not a matter of if Aikido is technically effective...

It is...

All this talk about "newcomer's perceptions" in regard to effectiveness can be solved by simply walking up to the Sensei and having him/her demonstrate to you Aikido's effectiveness by executing a "unscripted" attack...You can have the "new guy" do this with out being a jerk or a butthead in fact We invite such "queries" from time to time and it keeps everybody from Sensei to Sempai honest about thier ability.

We were invited to share a Dojo with a Goju Ryu Karate Sensei and his students.One is now a student of ours and the others attend class frequently. Some of our students are Sandans and Godans in Karate so they did not fall off the turnip truck last week. All of these Kyu Students are kind enough from time to time to point out weakness in the execution of techniques during practice.

A newcomer has every right to ask if Aikido's effective and to see if that Aikidoka can walk the walk along with talking the talk. If the Aikidoka is honest about thier practice he/she will invite such queries on occasion...

A newcomer on this forum however may find such a query frustrating because there is no way to actually prove Aikido's "effectiveness" without stepping on the tatami.

William Hazen

I think part of the reason this question keeps coming up is because its easier to forget getting up from a really good pin in aikido, then it is to heal from a really big bruise you would get in testing the effectiveness in some other martial arts. I would think this especial true to newcomers.

William Hazen wrote: All this talk about "newcomer's perceptions" in regard to effectiveness can be solved by simply walking up to the Sensei and having him/her demonstrate to you Aikido's effectiveness by executing a "unscripted" attack...You can have the "new guy" do this with out being a jerk or a butthead in fact We invite such "queries" from time to time and it keeps everybody from Sensei to Sempai honest about thier ability.

Whether the chief instructor of a dojo can defeat a brand-new student is only one possible measure of effectiveness, and it's not necessarily the most useful. It really shouldn't be that hard or impressive for a decent martial arts instructor to be able to handle in an unscripted situation a student of similar body type with no previous martial arts training or experience. Much more impressive would be to do the same thing with students with previous training in martial arts.

Personally, I would have at least a certain amount of respect for any dojo that was willing to accommodate a physical challenge, even if I did not otherwise share their vision of martial arts. However, I have only been a member of one aikido dojo where it seemed that such a challenge would have been acceptable. I suspect that in the vast majority of aikido dojos what you suggest would not be tolerated and anyone seeming to challenge the effectiveness of the instructor or art taught at the dojo might even be asked not to train at the dojo at all.

Giancarlo DiPierro wrote: I find these constant "is aikido effective" threads to be quite revealing of a fundamental problem in aikido, and it's not that aikido is "not effective." I think it's obvious to most serious martial artists that the question of effectiveness depends entirely on who's aikido you are talking about, what specific parts of it you are talking about, and what you mean by "effective." The problem that these threads make clear is that the effectiveness of aikido training, in general, is questionable (see the title of this thread, for example), and that many people within aikido are very much concerned about this question. From what I have seen, aikido is one of few martial arts where this issue is such a common and apparantly intractable dilemma. If there were not serious problems with the expectations and desires for effectiveness of the general student base not being met by the art as a whole then I suspect it would not be such an issue in aikido either. Given that situation, to me the response that would make the most sense is not to try to more precisely evaluate the effectiveness of aikido as a whole, which I would consider to be a proposition of dubious value anyway, but to look to make changes that would make the art better meet the expectations of effectiveness held by many students. Two possible changes that could be made would be to alter students' expectations of effectiveness and to modify training methods in order to make the average student more effective. I personally would recommend both of these actions. However, simply continuing to debate the issue over and over again without making any substantive changes in training to address the problem seems very unlikely to resolve it.

No disrespect, but i didn't mean or post this as a "is Aikido effective" question/ debate. I was asking those out there if they believed that THEY could use Aikido effectively. Just to get a general idea of some Aikidoka's opinions, because i posted this from the perspective that i whole-heartedly believe i could use the Aikido that i have been taught for self defence when i need to.

rei,
morgan

One of the 3rd dans at my home dojo started his practice there this way. While he is quite well respected and a valuable member of the dojo, I don't believe that he or the head of the dojo would recommend starting the way he did. And I don't find that strange at all.

Best,
Ron

All Martial Arts have are effective in various degrees I believe. I do feel, however, that until Aikidoka put Aikido into the ring against combatants of other styles,much like the Gracie's have done with Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Aikido's effectiveness will continue to remain nothing more than a mysterious combination of verbal hype & bravado.

I have submitted a fifth Dan in Aikido numerous times within a two minute time frame in grappling, however, in his defense I do not believe he was using Aikido techniques in our match. .

- Tony

Tony Sova wrote: I have submitted a fifth Dan in Aikido numerous times within a two minute time frame in grappling, however, in his defense I do not believe he was using Aikido techniques in our match. .

I'd expect not! I don't know about the other styles, but we don't have many Aikido grappling techniques in Yoshinkan dojos.

Bill,

I think you misunderstaood me. I did not submit him in Aikido or while practicing Aikido techniques. He was participating in our submission wrestling class where we free-sparred in intervals of two minute periods to apply the various techniques learned that day.

- Tony

Morgan Wible wrote: No disrespect, but i didn't mean or post this as a "is Aikido effective" question/ debate. I was asking those out there if they believed that THEY could use Aikido effectively. Just to get a general idea of some Aikidoka's opinions, because i posted this from the perspective that i whole-heartedly believe i could use the Aikido that i have been taught for self defence when i need to.

If you "whole-heartedly believe" that you could use aikido to defend yourself then why do you need anyone else's opinion about what they can do? Could you imagine the same thread on an MMA forum about an art like BJJ? Why would people who have actually tested the effectiveness of their art for themselves need to start a thread announcing that to everyone? Why would they care about anyone else's opinion on the matter, other than that of their teachers and hands-on training partners?

Ron Tisdale wrote: One of the 3rd dans at my home dojo started his practice there this way. While he is quite well respected and a valuable member of the dojo, I don't believe that he or the head of the dojo would recommend starting the way he did. And I don't find that strange at all.

I wouldn't recommend the type of challenge suggested either, but I do respect a dojo that is willing to accommodate it. That said, I think there has to be some room to question the effectiveness of any art or teacher in the context of learning that art, and I have had no problem finding this space in the other arts I have studied. It is only in aikido where this natural and essential exploratory process seems to be so problematic, and in a nutshell I think that encapsulates everything that is wrong with the art.

Giancarlo DiPierro wrote: If you "whole-heartedly believe" that you could use aikido to defend yourself then why do you need anyone else's opinion about what they can do? Could you imagine the same thread on an MMA forum about an art like BJJ? Why would people who have actually tested the effectiveness of their art for themselves need to start a thread announcing that to everyone? Why would they care about anyone else's opinion on the matter, other than that of their teachers and hands-on training partners? I wouldn't recommend the type of challenge suggested either, but I do respect a dojo that is willing to accommodate it. That said, I think there has to be some room to question the effectiveness of any art or teacher in the context of learning that art, and I have had no problem finding this space in the other arts I have studied. It is only in aikido where this natural and essential exploratory process seems to be so problematic, and in a nutshell I think that encapsulates everything that is wrong with the art.

Why not ask the question? Why is it important for you to know my reasons for asking? Why do you question that i even ask?
What's so wrong in wondering about other fellow-Aikidoka's opinions? I'd like to think nothing is wrong with that.

Tony Sova wrote:

All Martial Arts have are effective in various degrees I believe. I do feel, however, that until Aikidoka put Aikido into the ring against combatants of other styles,much like the Gracie's have done with Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Aikido's effectiveness will continue to remain nothing more than a mysterious combination of verbal hype & bravado. I have submitted a fifth Dan in Aikido numerous times within a two minute time frame in grappling, however, in his defense I do not believe he was using Aikido techniques in our match. .

How many more BJJ tournaments do I need to compete in before this happens? How 'bout Don Magee, or Roy Dean?

Not to put words in their mouths, but I believe all three of us will tell you that we use the principles that aikido teaches all the time.

How do you define effective? What parameters to you want to restrict the fight or competition to?

Morgan Wible wrote: Why not ask the question? Why is it important for you to know my reasons for asking? Why do you question that i even ask? What's so wrong in wondering about other fellow-Aikidoka's opinions? I'd like to think nothing is wrong with that.

Actually, the questions were rhetorical. I don't really care to discuss your reasons for starting this thread, although I certainly have my own opinions based on having read your posts. The point I was trying to make is that the existence this thread and many others like it demonstrates that the effectiveness of aikido is questionable, regardless of how strongly you happen to believe in the effectiveness of your own aikido.

There is a difference between belief and evidence, and in arts where people have extensive, precise, first-hand evidence of their effectiveness you don't see these same kinds of discussions about whether the art is effective. People in those arts know far more about ways in which their art is and is not effective because these things are routinely taught and tested in the course of everyday training. In aikido, to the extent that these things are explicitly taught, the instruction is often more a reflection of unrealistic theories and fantasy passed from teacher to student than of tested martial realities.

Many aikido students have little or even no useful information about their own effectiveness, and hence they have to resort to belief, speculation, theory, and internet guesswork to try to figure out whether they and their art are effective. To me, this makes no sense. If you don't have a good idea of how effective you are as a martial artist then I would suggest changing how and with whom you train rather than looking for answers and affirmations on the internet.

Ron and G P,

There is a BIG difference between accomodating a newcomers (to Aikido experianced in other Martial Arts or otherwise) query about Aikido's effectiveness and challenging Sensei/Sempai to a fight....

I thought I made that obvious in my post but perhaps I should have clarified it better.

William Hazen