What do you think about the combat orientated styles?

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: The reality is delivering a clear knee to the groin to a resisting opponent who is actively defending, moving and counterattacking seems an easy task when seen from the outside.

Not when both of you are in the clinch and have each other at point blank position but whatever.

Well, sparring is a very important tool in alive training methods.

Yes I can see, so much that everything in the video was either sparring or drills. The actual "alive" part was even missing at certain points.

Ducking, weaving, footwork and striking until the attacker was knocked out.

And all of which you have done in sparring or competition, if I do remember you competed in Taekwondo.

Igor Vojnović wrote: Yes I can see, so much that everything in the video was either sparring or drills. The actual "alive" part was even missing at certain points.

I think I don't understand you. What is the meaning of "aliveness" for you?

And all of which you have done in sparring or competition, if I do remember you competed in Taekwondo.

Yes, and the combined work of conditioning, kata, drilling, sparring and competition is, IMO, what allowed me to survive.

So slighty back on topic: When I see people promoting Aikido styles as combat effective (like the ones mentioned in the OP) but I do not see in their training methodology a combination of the above mentioned conditioning, kata, drilling, sparring and competition or at least realistic scenario training, I am unable to believe them.

Maciej Jesmanowicz wrote: For many years now I have pointed out that Morihei Ueshiba's art was not created as one of the next martial arts, but it is an unique art of reacting to any direct attack (with or without weapons) from one of 9 directions (3x3 square) - an attack that can not achieve the goal.This is an art without a second chance, where confrontation should be completed immediately. All its techniques, all without exception, they are so thoughtful that they may end up dying of the attacker by his neck break or safe and controlled instant fall on his back. This is due to simple observations. This was the beginning of my 3 cents for discussion. Whatever we have in mind by traditional or innovative styles of aikido, none of them has focused so far on the two basic attributes of Morihei Ueshiba's art. I mean, descending from the line of an attack and speed of techniques. Thus, the whole discussion becomes pointless.

Here, just speaking technically, and doing so because I believe application and the capacity for application is found somewhat outside of technique, I'm not a fan of the idea that Aikido has a uniqueness. This is a common position, that Aikido is unique, among aikidoka. I think it's part of the problem wherein Aikido has come to isolate itself and have very little to say globally on either martial arts or spiritual cultivation. I realize that at some level it is reasonable to say that not everything is Aikido. However, I would suggest that one would be hard pressed to find any aspect of Aikido that could not be found elsewhere. My experience, and this is not me trying to represent you, lends itself to hold that most folks that latch onto Aikido's uniqueness either do not know very many other martial arts or are not well versered on East Asian history. Then, again, I may be, for example, not understanding what you mean by "immediately." A video would be very helpful - if you have one or even a frame by frame analysis comparing Osensei's kihon to Lenny's by which we could see that the latter is not as "immediate" as the former.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: I think I don't understand you. What is the meaning of "aliveness" for you?

The real question is what does mean to you? To me it means being adaptable to any type of condition in a given situation. This would also mean resolving that situation in a manner that is favorable to me within the constraints of said situation. That would be an actual "alive" training. Recognize the situation, adapt if needed, resolve the situation in your favor.

All the dude in video did was present sparring and certain beginner drills as either "alive" or "dead patterns".

Yes, and the combined work of conditioning, kata, drilling, sparring and competition is, IMO, what allowed me to survive.

Was there conditioning and drilling in Iwama when you trained in it? For conditioning I mean any type of physical conditioning like sit ups, push ups, running etc. For drills, doing a specific part of a technique which presents the crucial element of it's effectiveness like when someone grabs you with a strong grab in Katatori and you are supposed to move to the side break his balance.

So slighty back on topic: When I see people promoting Aikido styles as combat effective (like the ones mentioned in the OP) but I do not see in their training methodology a combination of the above mentioned conditioning, kata, drilling, sparring and competition or at least realistic scenario training, I am unable to believe them.

This is understandable. What is your opinion on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDYr0tjKi8k .

Igor Vojnović wrote: This is understandable. What is your opinion on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDYr0tjKi8k .

I think, in agreement with Igor, that there's a difference between kihon waza training and application and that some sort of systematic process is required to bridge or reconcile that difference, which allows for a kind of "aliveness," I tend to look at Kihon Waza from a point of view that is different from a 1:1 attack/defense ration (if/then). So, I don't mind these techniques from that point of view, but Lenny here is positing them as application-worthy while they are nevertheless still happening within a kihon waza. For example, the point of the clinch's anchored elbow is that it is very much muscularly reinforced by its anchoring and that functions as a highly efficient way of controlling another person's height by controlling their head. In other words, structurally, and from the point of view of application, I can only see the lifting of that elbow as functioning on a much weaker person. Even then, artistically, aiming to lift an elbow that is by design wishing to remain un-lifted does not seem very much a harmonizing of yin and yang energies - something central to the art and something central to application on stronger larger attackers.

Also, from the point of view of application, any "pin" that does not directly control the cross lateral arm and/or the hips of the attacker is no pin at all. So-called pain compliance techniques, techniques whereby the person could move but opts not due to the presence of pain, are very low percentage in my application experience. When we face this kind of situation during arrests, you learn real fast that if you do not directly control that cross-lateral arm, the person is going to use it to move, even if it is ever so slightly, and you are thus going to immediately lose whatever pinning architecture you thought you had on the arm/wrist/finger/hand you were holding. This is a simple experiment that anyone can do at home. Have your friend or fellow Aikidoka try any pin they want but have them leave your cross-lateral arm free (i.e. not directly controlled). Then, use that arm to push your body along the surface of the ground in any direction you want or can. You will immediately feel the directly controlled arm regain its available usage. Yes, I understand that pain can be debilitating, but it is a very subjective thing, and it can be easily NOT debilitating via intoxication, medication, adrenaline, and determinedness. Hence, why I say it is low percentage and not as effective in application as direct control.

David Valadez wrote: I say, "To each his own." (see video link below)

Sorry Mr Valadez. But personally, Mr Sly's 24,000 plus youtube views and 823 likes show more validity as opposed to your 178 views with no likes. Actions speak louder than words.

David Valadez wrote: Then, again, I may be, for example, not understanding what you mean by "immediately."

My observations and conclusions, which I shared over the years, made the work of Morihei Ueshiba go beyond the imagination of other martial artists. It is not about the practical demonstration of certain techniques, but about understanding their place in the very idea of a new art. Of course, no one known to me, including the "pupils" of Morihei Ueshiba, did not achieve the level of craftsmanship he presented in the legendary confrontation with the naval officer in 1925. And this was in my opinion a turning point in the history of martial arts. The absurd message of enlightenment and techniques received from God in no way justifies the further message that led to the state of Morihei Ueshiba's art, developed to this day. I can not say why it happened and I do not even try to do it. It is clear to me that without this ability to avoid direct attack, this art does not make sense. This is what makes it unique.

Without going into words game, I answer your question. It is true that the speed of all techniques is decisive in the art of Morihei Ueshiba. The execution of each of them must occur when the striker is confused after losing the goal; time measured in fractions of a second.

Richard Campbell wrote: Sorry Mr Valadez. But personally, Mr Sly's 24,000 plus youtube views and 823 likes show more validity as opposed to your 178 views with no likes. Actions speak louder than words.

Well, then, the ad populum fallacy of logic has truly run amok ...


But, let me not leave the minor snark lingering and just pass on.

Let's unpack the argument in play here, please:
What is a "valid" martial art ?

I suppose that IS the question isn't it ?

Martial arts touch on violence, combat involves violence, and "validity" of an art clearly depends on the nature of relation between these categories in what an art trains to provide a practitioner.

You can't answer that question about "validity" until you answer what a given martial art is FOR. Not all martial arts are FOR the same purposes, even though they occupy some related spaces of knowledge and application. Muay Thai need only be valid as Muay Thai. Aikido need only be valid as Aikido. Taekwondo need only be valid as Taekwondo. MMA, while a composite of elements of many other traditions in confluence, need only be valid as MMA.

And NONE of these are actual combat. They have boundaries and rules that are far short of the existential limits that exist in combat of prevailing, preferably, though not necessarily, while alive at the end.

Actual combat is not an art. It is an event of violence, and in which many arts (or no art) may be applicable or inapplicable, depending. I haven't yet seen the proverbial "Swiss Army knife" of martial arts which has tools for every possible event, and not even Swiss Army knives have tools for every occasion.

The primary goals in combat are to 1) survive an event of violence, and 2) achieve an objective in the context of that violence (which may or may not be consistent with goal #1, depending on circumstance). Winning and surviving are not always mutually inclusive categories in combat. They are in martial arts contests. To save one's child from death by killing the man attacking her, though at the needful cost of one's own life, is martially valid and achieves one goal of combat, though certainly not optimal in failing the second. Sometimes, even not winning and not surviving in combat are still martially valid, because the larger alternatives may yet be worse. (They tend immortalize these people, e.g - Leonidas at Thermopylae.)

An art which trains one in skills, and mental and physical development to meet these goals in some circumstances of violence is a valid art that can call itself martial. A martial art is no less martial for the fact that there are circumstances, often many, of violent events with which it does not, or even cannot, deal with in the terms of its art. One does not bring a knife to the gunfight, for example. Close can count in hand grenades, artillery and nuclear weapons - but not in edged weapons.

One does not criticize the skill with a knife when faced with a gun. One may certainly criticize one whose strategic judgment finds him in that situation, but that is a far larger lesson than any particular martial art, though any decent martial art should teach it to some degree. "To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." "What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy."

So, I simply suggest that constructive discussion focuses on affirming -- and improving -- all martial arts that may be the subject of any discussion on the point, and in their proper context.

Richard Campbell wrote: Sorry Mr Valadez. But personally, Mr Sly's 24,000 plus youtube views and 823 likes show more validity as opposed to your 178 views with no likes. Actions speak louder than words.

Ouch. Yikes 😬

Is my stated view of appreciating what Lenny does also invalid then too? Perhaps you misunderstood the meaning of the phrase, "To each his own"? Since I said it then, and hold it still, and now not at all speaking on Lenny's art, which I already said I like, it is your perogative to attribute some sort of legitimacy or authenticity and even attribute some sort of expertise to social media statistics. For me, in many ways, I hold the opposite view: the masses are generally ignorant.

My own ventures into social media are always a double edge sword to me. I use the platform first and mainly as a way for my own deshi to continue to study in their tutelage when not on the mat. Sometimes, I imagine they serve a secondary role of drawing like-minded practitioners to my dojo and also of keeping differently-minded practitioners on their own path. I am never out to address any sort of larger audience on any sort of larger topic. For that reason, from a publicity perspective, they are extremely boring and I am surprised we get any views at all outside of my own students using them to study. One thing I know I do not do is seek to authenticate my own practice by mass appeal. It is cool with me if you are into that (which really shouldn't even matter to you at all). I'm just saying I am not. I've stated earlier in the thread the arenas (eg. Law enforcement, in my relationships, etc.) where I seek validity for my practice. If my practice is working there, it's all the validity I seek and require.

Erick Mead wrote: Well, then, the ad populum fallacy of logic has truly run amok ... But, let me not leave the minor snark lingering and just pass on. Let's unpack the argument in play here, please: What is a "valid" martial art ? I suppose that IS the question isn't it ? Martial arts touch on violence, combat involves violence, and "validity" of an art clearly depends on the nature of relation between these categories in what an art trains to provide a practitioner. You can't answer that question about "validity" until you answer what a given martial art is FOR. Not all martial arts are FOR the same purposes, even though they occupy some related spaces of knowledge and application. Muay Thai need only be valid as Muay Thai. Aikido need only be valid as Aikido. Taekwondo need only be valid as Taekwondo. MMA, while a composite of elements of many other traditions in confluence, need only be valid as MMA. And NONE of these are actual combat. They have boundaries and rules that are far short of the existential limits that exist in combat of prevailing, preferably, though not necessarily, while alive at the end. Actual combat is not an art. It is an event of violence, and in which many arts (or no art) may be applicable or inapplicable, depending. I haven't yet seen the proverbial "Swiss Army knife" of martial arts which has tools for every possible event, and not even Swiss Army knives have tools for every occasion. The primary goals in combat are to 1) survive an event of violence, and 2) achieve an objective in the context of that violence (which may or may not be consistent with goal #1, depending on circumstance). Winning and surviving are not always mutually inclusive categories in combat. They are in martial arts contests. To save one's child from death by killing the man attacking her, though at the needful cost of one's own life, is martially valid and achieves one goal of combat, though certainly not optimal in failing the second. Sometimes, even not winning and not surviving in combat are still martially valid, because the larger alternatives may yet be worse. (They tend immortalize these people, e.g - Leonidas at Thermopylae.) An art which trains one in skills, and mental and physical development to meet these goals in some circumstances of violence is a valid art that can call itself martial. A martial art is no less martial for the fact that there are circumstances, often many, of violent events with which it does not, or even cannot, deal with in the terms of its art. One does not bring a knife to the gunfight, for example. Close can count in hand grenades, artillery and nuclear weapons - but not in edged weapons. One does not criticize the skill with a knife when faced with a gun. One may certainly criticize one whose strategic judgment finds him in that situation, but that is a far larger lesson than any particular martial art, though any decent martial art should teach it to some degree. "To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." "What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy." So, I simply suggest that constructive discussion focuses on affirming -- and improving -- all martial arts that may be the subject of any discussion on the point, and in their proper context.

Excellent.

I was once a contributor to this site. Back then it was no easy thing to post video. Nowadays, any smart phone can take video and it’s supper easy to post said video on multiple social media sites that could then be linked to any Aikiweb thread. I understand the nostalgic preference for the written word, but with the ease at which video production is now possible, is not that nostalgic preference more suspicious than ever for the charge of contributing to the dissimantion of ignorance and not information? And is this not especially true in a practice such as Aikido, a practice that is to such a high degree not a thing of the intellect but rather a thing of the body - a moving thing? Is priority really to be given to text over truth so much so that video’s exclusion is actually an acceptable way of participating in the discussion? My opinion is that the denouncers, the fallacy users, the experts that have that one thing no one else has, and by which they textually discredit all others or any one person to a total degree, etc., should by the community be held to produce a video, something observable that backs up or supports their claim that they are not ignorant and are have in fact surpassed mediocrity and thus know of which they speak?

There is a truth to the fact that anyone can type about Aikido. There is a truth that anyone can repeat the common discourse on any topic without truly understanding it. There is also a truth that mastery is for the few and that most people suck at any given art, sport, job, career field, etc. Thus, I remain perplexed that this community still, even if it is passively, supports “expert” textual statements without observable supports when the latter is so simple a thing to have and give now. I’m all for discussing things related to Aikido, but many times this site tries to ask and answer the really big or universal questions about the art - things you cannot and really should not pursue outside of your own sensei /deshi relationship, things you should certainly not pursue with a group of often unknown individuals having an always unknown level of skill or lack thereof. But, if you cannot resist, and you have to have those conversations here, then make video a requirement - at least for the “experts” doing any sort of denouncing.

I held this standard on two different occasions, and the video did not at all support the expertise being claimed. Weird.

Igor Vojnović wrote: The real question is what does mean to you? To me it means being adaptable to any type of condition in a given situation. This would also mean resolving that situation in a manner that is favorable to me within the constraints of said situation. That would be an actual "alive" training. Recognize the situation, adapt if needed, resolve the situation in your favor.

It seems for you "aliveness" is the end state, for me is the training method aimed to achieve that end state.

Was there conditioning and drilling in Iwama when you trained in it? For conditioning I mean any type of physical conditioning like sit ups, push ups, running etc.

No conditioning worth the name.

For drills, doing a specific part of a technique which presents the crucial element of it's effectiveness like when someone grabs you with a strong grab in Katatori and you are supposed to move to the side break his balance.

LOL, in the club I trained if nage's hand didn't turn purple when wrist grabbed uke was scolded.

Anyway, to clarify, the knife attack I mentioned happened before I started training Aikido. For me at that time Aikido was a form of retirement from combat sports because I was, wrongly, thinking I was too old for them.

This is understandable. What is your opinion on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDYr0tjKi8k .

I don't like Mr. Sly hands positioning in the clinch, I prefer cupping hand in the back of the head, not in the neck. Do not believe uke's structure can be realistically broken pushing his elbow upwards like in the clip. The head positioning in the clip is not very good to avoid being headbutted but good to cultivate cauliflower ears which will make him look more badass.

IMO there are a lot of technical flaws in the clinch, but good 80's action movie aikido.

Personally I consider the 2on1-russian tie a more aikido friendly way to deal with the clinch.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: It seems for you "aliveness" is the end state, for me is the training method aimed to achieve that end state.

And if you fight the way you train, you should train the way you would fight in the specific situation. In other words it's the method and end state. That's the actual goal of "alive" otherwise it's just regular sparring. As Michael Jordan said, paraphrasing, "There were no surprises for me in the game because I would already do everything in the training gym."

No conditioning worth the name.

Interesting.

LOL, in the club I trained if nage's hand didn't turn purple when wrist grabbed uke was scolded.

Good old tanren. Did you do it like that from day one?

I don't like Mr. Sly hands positioning in the clinch, I prefer cupping hand in the back of the head, not in the neck. Do not believe uke's structure can be realistically broken pushing his elbow upwards like in the clip. The head positioning in the clip is not very good to avoid being headbutted but good to cultivate cauliflower ears which will make him look more badass.

I agree with the bold part.

Personally I consider the 2on1-russian tie a more aikido friendly way to deal with the clinch.

Have you heard of nanakyo?

Igor Vojnović wrote: Good old tanren. Did you do it like that from day one?

Yes.

I agree with the bold part.

What about the non bolded part? What's your take on the clip?

Have you heard of nanakyo?

Yes, it has some similarities.

If you throw really hard and have little regard for your uke are you safer? Does a brutal practice make you better able to defend yourself? That is a bunch of hokum. If you are so afraid...go train in Krav Maga or MMA. Train in anything...get off the keyboard and on the mat...you will be better for it.

I am so sick of this kind of discussion...it really makes no sense.

Triggered much?

Unlike other discussion forums, Jun leaves AikiWeb relatively unmoderated. I think it is important to remember this sometimes. Like David Valadez, I used to contribute more to the discussions, but I now prefer to focus on my own research, which sometimes appears as columns. However, I check AikiWeb often and have been following this thread with some interest.

When I was younger, we used to discuss these issues in the dojo -- and these discussions also influenced our training. So much so that our instructor, who trained under K Chiba, would invite experts from other martial arts like karate, judo and kendo, in order to keep us out of our comfort zone. We also had the benefit of training under K Chiba's father-in-law, who practiced a softer and gentler version of aikido that was deceptively effective.

It was K Chiba and his father-in-law who promoted my interest in Japan and I have never regretted the decision to come here. However, I came to Hiroshima and my aikido teacher here was a very young A-bomb victim. He was bombed out in WWII, since his house was only about 200 meters from the hypocenter. He had a dislike of foreigners, especially those from the ‘victor' countries, so I had to ‘steal' very much from him. However, he practiced quite rough aikido and training consisted of much free sparring, where any forms of attack were OK. Since my lineage goes back to K Chiba, this was not unexpected.

I eventually became independent, with my Hiroshima teacher's grudging acquiescence. My dojo has a foreign-born yudansha, now 4th dan, who does not believe that much of the postwar aikido he sees really works. But he still keeps coming and brings his son as well.

I agree with the points that Mr Valadez makes, with one exception. I do not have much time or inclination to make videos. We do not advertise very much and if people find the dojo, fine; if they do not, fine. I am quite happy with the students I have, who include whole families. It is very good to see little kids running wild around the dojo and to watch them grow and gradually become more than a match for their parents. They also keep me on my toes.

Mary Eastland wrote: If you throw really hard and have little regard for your uke are you safer? Does a brutal practice make you better able to defend yourself? That is a bunch of hokum. If you are so afraid...go train in Krav Maga or MMA. Train in anything...get off the keyboard and on the mat...you will be better for it. I am so sick of this kind of discussion...it really makes no sense.

It flows from a false sense that training that tries to emulate combat is therefore more combat effective. The problems with this are many:

1) Example - you are in a dojo with, say, with tameshigiri shinken hanging on the wall and performing empty handed techniques - combat perspective says you immediately find the most effective weapon to hand, and use it; ergo no empty hand training unless you sanitize even all the sticks from the walls, plus no folding chairs;
2) Metsubushi -- eye attacks are easy (sand, uchiko powder, fingers, etc.) - blinded people can't attack well and are easier to incapacitate;
3) Leave no enemy behind you -- combat does not conscience leaving a living opponent in ANY short-term recoverable condition -- e.g. -- bye-bye joints and mere submissions.

I try to make my essential point this way to students: Done properly-- in Aikido the mistakes are more dangerous than the "techniques." We strive to become capable of acting safely in circumstances of greater and greater possible "mistakes."

The closer to the lines of these things you try to go and SAFELY -- the better you become. This applies to both uke and nage roles. This is the case in any arbitrary engagement on the part of uke. It is the case of being better disposed to CHOOSE the paths of safety on the part of nage, and ultimately of uke in the same mode once we incorporate henka, in the manner of "combat" progression. Knowing the paths of safety very well and to an increasingly high level, the better trained both are to recognize the paths of safety -- and with that comes the increased recognition and familiarity of the terrains of rough dangers surrounding those paths.

In this environment then, when it comes to a combat situation -- it is the "errors" in performing Aikido -- in either role - that become dangerous to the opponent. Nage does not feel in combat bound to follow the paths of safety, and the attacker is in immediate jeopardy with little tolerance -- if we train to always seek to be close to that line of tolerance, even though in a cooperative manner on the mat. And that line of tolerance varies immensely depending on the ability and fitness of the partner. Hence, we simultaneously train in this using this mode to have adaptive kinesthetic sensitivity in action to adapt ourselve to the opponent and modulate our OWN criticality accordingly. That sensitivity can also err - upward or downward. One does not respond - even to real attacks - to a petulant 12 year-old flailing his fists as one does a 6'4" trucker with a tire thumper.

The present criticism of training being made is that Aikido mat training too much errs downward. But really, we want neither manner of error on the mat -- and the critique commits the inverse error.

What we want is perfect criticality. And we approach it from the base of skill to the peak. We have the time and space to work and to refine the closeness of tolerance for every student, and we certainly should do that. Playing "king of the mountain" and calling that "training" is a lazy, coarse and brutal 'survivor' mode of training that isineffective in my view for what Aikido seeks to train -- if for no other reason than there are nearly always sticks and swords on the wall or folding chairs -- for crying out loud. That does not mean that pressing and encouraging good shugyo has no place, but stairs have steps too, and for a reason, if you please.

Tolerance just as easily can err upward when pressed in an unanticipated attack. This is what occurs in combat -- and OUGHT to occur in combat. Similarly, Uke's role after the initial attack is no different, and "erring" into variation brings henka or outright reversalsand in combat these do not follow the paths of safety and the attacker is exposed to immediate danger - as he should be. We should push to train to test the tolerance of critical boundaries upward for every student, (and ourselves as instructors) in every training encounter, but not simply "go to eleven." No one gets anything out of "going to eleven." Even in the movie it was and is a meaningless and mindless mockery of real advancement.

That headlong rush to "upward" modes is NOT good training. Analogizing, nosing the plane directy into the end of the runway is not the same as learning the CONTROL and the finer physical senses necessary to pilot a glide slope to a safe touchdown there. That control can lead to close formation flight. Ultimately, it leads to ability to fly precision bombing profiles, and strafing runs That keen criticality -- that cusp of action -- that sensitivity and that control are what we properly train to achieve. Then we have them both acting for us -- even when we have good cause let their "nice" tolerances off the leash.

Mary Eastland wrote: I am so sick of this kind of discussion...it really makes no sense.

... but it has a certain social dynamic structure. The same applies here, rightly or wrongly, depending.

First rule of fixing things; become aware that something broke.

Better to light a candle than curse the darkness...

Interesting, I really have a lot to learn....thank you.

Igor, are you still around?

There's a question I'm waiting for you to answer.

Edward Matthews wrote: Hi Aikiweb, So apart from reading a lot about Yoshinkan, I also enjoy researching the Eastern European style of "real aikido", however there isn't a heap of information out there about it. My favourite combat style of Aikido to research is Lenny Sly Sensei of Tenshin Aikido, he has a YouTube channel called something like "the rogue warriors". He is extremely pragmatic and street orientated. He is not afraid to show street defence applications of aikido and I really enjoy and appreciate his work. Some argue that Aikido is a spiritual art but it also truly is an effective martial art, as some people demonstrate. I think there is nothing wrong with focusing on the combat element of aikido (among other elements) because self defence and freedom from sudden unwelcome violence is a human right. Sometimes one can't avoid a fight, sometimes one can be attacked in the street - aikido is perfect for these situations. I believe more so than other martial arts. What are your thoughts about the combat orientated styles of aikido out there? (or one could argue, just different interpretations of classic Aikido)

Aikido is made for combat, O'sensei fought, his disciple's fought and in the present day, there are Aikidoka who have managed to apply their techniques in violent situations; either technically, or mentally. Aikido is meant for fighting, and yes, as Aikidoka, we should look towards developing our aikido to the point where one could, confidently, say; 'If a knife was presented to my throat, I can deal with it.'

However, if someone needs to paste 'real', 'combative', or any such word before 'Aikido.' It is likely that that person does not fully understand Aikido. After all, Aikido itself is already real, practical, and effectively a complete bujutsu.

Stanley Pranin sensei, John Hay sensei, Senshione Aikido youtube channel. These are better sources to developing the practical aspects of aikido than Lenny Sly sensei or Real Aikido.

Hansel Wong wrote: as Aikidoka, we should look towards developing our aikido to the point where one could, confidently, say; 'If a knife was presented to my throat, I can deal with it.'

That reminded me of this post.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: What about the non bolded part?

I don't like cupping the back of the head in general because I don't feel like I have enough control over the opponent. Even Thai fighters when entering the clinch first grab the neck, then cup the back of the head with both hands. Many of them tend to keep the control of the neck rather than cupping and some of them like JWP even gable grip the neck.

As for headbutts there is no foolproof way of protecting oneself against them. In general keeping his head close as possible to yours is the best solution. There are variations as to how to do it like keeping it eat to ear or jamming his head into your trap but again if he's capable he can pull it out enough to headbutt you at least slightly.

What's your take on the clip?

Essentially he's giving the people what they wanted to see, Aikido against a "modern attack". But like all Aikido instructors he's keeping certain things to himself. He did mention in a video or in a comment or in both that he trained in other art as well.

Mary Eastland wrote: If you throw really hard and have little regard for your uke are you safer?

How about a little girl knocking the teeth of an attacker down his throat? Would you consider her being safer?