Aikido does not work at all in a fight.

Matthew Story wrote: I don't doubt that aikido training can have real self-defense benefits. But an aikido student is going to spend a lot of time learning stylized techniques and practicing them against stylized attacks, training with and against obsolete weapons, and trying to preserve O Sensei's tradition. Someone who is only interested in efficient, effective self-defense is going to find a lot of things in the average aikido class that are irrelevant to his interests. That doesn't mean that this theoretical person is wrong for wanting what he wants, or that aikido is wrong for not providing it. I just think the two could find more compatible matches than each other.

I think it depends on how you train. For me and the guys I have trained with Techniques and what we do in class provide a common framework to act as a set of conditional controls to allow us to communicate and bring out in students and ourselves those things that we wish them to learn.

As with anything you do that is worthwhile and in which you wish to improve...you need a framework and structure in order to grow and learn.

For me it is about developing the framework and structure...the foundational base that works if you do the right things ALWAYS. That does not mean you will win every fight, as there are many variables, but if you do get into a situation, hopefully your body, mind and spirit will have been habituated to return to a orientation or framework that allows you to regain what you lost or to respond appropriately.

If you approach or view Aikido (Or any system) as a collection of moves or techniques....then you will almost ALWAYS be behind your opponent as you are either thinking about what you are doing...which means your OODA loop will be very slow. Or you are responding with the wrong thing about 80 percent of the time ....which will mean "Aikido does not work!".

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Hi, welcome to the internet.

fixed

Alex Lawrence wrote: Only if he conceptualises Aikido as a grouping of techniques. In actually fact Aikido is by far the most flexible of all the martial arts because it has no techniques, no set forms.

But you still learn it by training techniques and set forms, right?

Matthew Story wrote: fixed But you still learn it by training techniques and set forms, right?

Yes but that is not the same as learning techniques. I practice Judo also, and when I'm in Judo I learn Judo techniques and I apply them in randori such that it is recogniseable which technique is being used.

When I use Aikido there is no set form to it, there is no recogniseable technique as such, it is just whatever fits with the situation.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Strawman? No, not really.

Well I don't recall Katherine Derbyshire or anyone here explicitly stating that "they don't want martial effectiveness…", so for you to jump to that conclusion would be a logical fallacy.

I think the biggest problem with this thread (and forum), is that despite the fact that most of the people here have not met in person, sometimes huge assumptions (and wrong conclusions) are taken about people's backgrounds, abilities and the value of their training. Another problem is the radical tendency to create two camps -- as far from each other as possible and with no room in between: the "real street effective fighters" vs. the "power rangers, delusional ki masters, aiki spiritual followers, etc." This creates a communication and conceptual breakdown. "Martial" is very broad, "fight" is as real as it is complex and many things -- even aiki -- can work in it (to various degrees and depending on the situation), so given this broadness and complexity I personally don't identify with any camps or anyone in particular, and find myself agreeing and disagreeing with everybody at some point or another.

Chris Evans brings up an excellent point:

Chris Evans wrote: if this thread helps to clear away one person's martial arts delusions then these chronic repetitions maybe of use to one that can "empty their tea cup..."

These are worthy pursuits: Help each individual (individuals, not broad targets like "Aikido") realize what they might be lacking for whatever their martial goals are. And to "empty their cup" in the process of reaching that realization.

One more good point:

Wayne James wrote: As anyone posting opinions on what does and doesn't work actually been in any amount of physical confrontations to know what they are actually giving advice on?

I trust that as sensible adults most people here train in what serves them best for where they live and how they live. If for example someone's reality circles around fist-fighting at bars, then I trust their intelligence to do something that prepares them for that, and I'd welcome their experience-based input. But that's just one personal experience of a "real situation" in one particular area and it might not work somewhere else or for somebody else. In fact that person might not last a week in some other parts of the world without a thorough attitude, tactical and technical adjustment, so it's best to take in multiple opinions rather than discriminate and lecture a bunch of Budo people on what the "real world" is like -- that is extremely presumptuous and short-sighted.

Alex Lawrence wrote: Only if he conceptualises Aikido as a grouping of techniques. In actually fact Aikido is by far the most flexible of all the martial arts because it has no techniques, no set forms.

Hi Alex,
If there are no set forms what then is Kihon Waza? Surely in Kihon Waza one learns?the BASIC waza?Of course having hopefully embodied these movements one can than be flexible and do many variations.The Kihon waza is the basic grammar of aikido.Just like the abc at school.Without truly understanding basic grammar could one write a book[not a comic book ?.Or even a comment [such as it is } of mine? Cheers, Joe.

Gerardo Torres wrote: Well I don't recall Katherine Derbyshire or anyone here explicitly stating that "they don't want martial effectiveness…", so for you to jump to that conclusion would be a logical fallacy.

Precisely.

Rather than "martial effectiveness," I prefer the term "martially reasonable." That is, I prefer training in which uke attacks and responds in a centered, intelligent way, and nage responds as the energy of the attack requires. Reversals and atemi are important tools in keeping both sides of the interaction honest. I think those elements are necessary, though not sufficient, for both "good" aikido as I understand it and as a foundation for "real world" applications. My understanding is that both my current and former dojos are well respected, including among martial artists outside the aikido community.

I just don't see ability to win fights as a useful measure of good training, or as an interesting personal objective.

Katherine

Alex Lawrence wrote: Yes but that is not the same as learning techniques. I practice Judo also, and when I'm in Judo I learn Judo techniques and I apply them in randori such that it is recogniseable which technique is being used. When I use Aikido there is no set form to it, there is no recogniseable technique as such, it is just whatever fits with the situation.

Can I ask what you mean by "use aikido" here? When/where/how are you using it? I need some context to make sense of this post.

Gerardo Torres wrote: Well I don't recall Katherine Derbyshire or anyone here explicitly stating that "they don't want martial effectiveness…", so for you to jump to that conclusion would be a logical fallacy.

Or a misunderstanding.

Well, she has just explained what she wants.

Joe Curran wrote: Hi Alex, If there are no set forms what then is Kihon Waza? Surely in Kihon Waza one learns?the BASIC waza?Of course having hopefully embodied these movements one can than be flexible and do many variations.The Kihon waza is the basic grammar of aikido.Just like the abc at school.Without truly understanding basic grammar could one write a book[not a comic book ?.Or even a comment [such as it is } of mine? Cheers, Joe.

The short and dirty answer is that they're Jujutsu not Aikido. It's perfectly possible to master every technique taught in an Aikido dojo and never learn Aikido and end up with only some fairly low to medium level Jujutsu skills.

Aikido is higher level body mechanics that can be expressed through technique and very occasionally taught by technique, but in my experience, it needs someone who can do Aikido and can teach Aikido to lead someone to do Aikido through the Jujutsu techniques rather than just ending up doing Jujutsu.

Matthew Story wrote: Can I ask what you mean by "use aikido" here? When/where/how are you using it? I need some context to make sense of this post.

Sparing, self-defence.

This should say, "Fighting doesn't work at all in Aikido." Problem solve from there.

Jennifer Smith wrote: This should say, "Fighting doesn't work at all in Aikido." Problem solve from there.

Not at all; the statement doesn't address Aikido in fighting.

Alex Lawrence wrote: The short and dirty answer is that they're Jujutsu not Aikido. It's perfectly possible to master every technique taught in an Aikido dojo and never learn Aikido and end up with only some fairly low to medium level Jujutsu skills. Aikido is higher level body mechanics that can be expressed through technique and very occasionally taught by technique, but in my experience, it needs someone who can do Aikido and can teach Aikido to lead someone to do Aikido through the Jujutsu techniques rather than just ending up doing Jujutsu.

To make this point, you're going to have to explain more clearly what "body mechanics" are present in aikido that are not present in jujutsu.

Matthew Story wrote: To make this point, you're going to have to explain more clearly what "body mechanics" are present in aikido that are not present in jujutsu.

It would also be helpful to explain *which* aikido and *which* jujutsu you have in mind.

Katherine

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: It would also be helpful to explain *which* aikido and *which* jujutsu you have in mind. Katherine

I took it as a reference to Daito-Ryu's Jujutsu vs. Aiki no Jujtsu.

wrote: I have competed in both boxing and wrestling and I am now training in brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. I have watched many No Holds Barred competitions, like the UFC, and it is clear to me that Aikido and it's techniques and it's way of training do not prepare anyone to actually fight. I know that Aikido practitioners talk a lot about concepts like spirituality, harmony...etc. but I also hear people talk about how it is a pratical means of self defense. Aikido does not have practical striking techniques or any REAL matwork at all. I would like to know how Aikido can be used as self defense if you cannot grapple or strike.

Everybody knows there are no guarantees who will come out a winner in a fight. In a real life threatening situation there are no rules. As a aikidoka am I only allowed to use aikido techniques or can I use whatever at hand? Competitive fights are ruled and limited in whats legal. Even though the cage fighters are probably the most ferocious animals out there who tear my head off the second I step into the ring, but on the street anything goes.

In the dojo we do not train combat survival but train to understand a dynamic relationship that will enable us to deal with multiple situations, whether they be life threatening or not. Aiki are principles that need to be discovered, learned and honed through ceaseless practice.

Ki or kokyu are tools we use in many different ways for strengthening and aligning our bodies and minds for purposeful effect.

Torbjorn Saw wrote: Even though the cage fighters are probably the most ferocious animals out there who tear my head off the second I step into the ring, but on the street anything goes.

And they eat babies too.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: And they eat babies too.

No, no. You think of the most ferocios animal on the streets: The chimpanzee

Richard Stevens wrote: I took it as a reference to Daito-Ryu's Jujutsu vs. Aiki no Jujtsu.

Yeah pretty much.

Alex Lawrence wrote: Yeah pretty much.

Have you done alot of Daito Ryu, or are this your own interpretations based on interviews, textbooks etc?

Torbjorn Saw wrote: Ki or kokyu are tools we use in many different ways for strengthening and aligning our bodies and minds for purposeful effect.

Rings very true to me... especially the selection of the word "tools".

Regards,
Anthony

Peter Gröndahl wrote: No, no. You think of the most ferocios animal on the streets: The chimpanzee

Um... hello, that is why we keep them in cages and stare!

Let the zoo keepers deal with them!

Maybe the keeper was into err... how to say it?

Peter Gröndahl wrote: Have you done alot of Daito Ryu, or are this your own interpretations based on interviews, textbooks etc?

No it's just a useful analogy which fits in with the way I've learned Aikido. You know how we say "Aikido is about using uke's weight and momentum against them" well we all kind know that by the definition of Aiki that the definition used to describe Aikido can't possibly be true or at best only half of the story. Note also that it's practically word for word the same as how Judo or Jujutsu is explained. Have you ever seen a Judoka using any of the body skills Aikidoka use? Nope.

If we're working from static we're really not using uke's weight and momentum; what we're doing is using our energy to disturb his centre; this is Aikido. When you're working with an energetic uke and working on keeping their energy moving and redirecting their momentum to produce a throw that's Jujutsu; that's no different from what a Judoka does.

Alex Lawrence wrote: If we're working from static we're really not using uke's weight and momentum; what we're doing is using our energy to disturb his centre; this is Aikido. When you're working with an energetic uke and working on keeping their energy moving and redirecting their momentum to produce a throw that's Jujutsu; that's no different from what a Judoka does.

Olympic judo is really pretty boring to watch, because the two competitors grab each others lapels and ground out, refusing to give any energy that could be used to throw them. (And then after awhile the referee breaks it up, awards a delay penalty to one side or the other, and they start over again...) When throws do occur, they seem to have much more to do with "disturbing his center" than with "redirecting momentum," simply because there isn't any momentum to redirect.

Katherine