US Army combatives and aikido

Hello all,

Being new to this forum, I've been reading the recent threads with great interest. Here is an interesting perspective that speaks to the recent threads on "combat effectiveness of aikido" and "pressure points".

In case you didn't know, the US Army has many manuals and other publications available on the web. One of them (FM 21-150, "Combatives", http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/at...1-150/toc.htm) describes a basic course in hand-to-hand combat.

I was very interested to see described in the wrist-lock section, a clear (to my 3 months of aikido eyes) kote-gaishi and a nikkyo! Further, the manual emphasizes as basic principles that, in defense, one first moves offline of an attack, then takes the opponents balance, from which position many techniques are possible. I'm sure I've heard almost the exact words from my sensei .

I'm certain that more experienced aikidoka than I would be able to see other parallels. So next time someone says aikido isn't combat effective, you can say that the US Army uses some of its techniques, they must be pretty effective!

The manual also provides a list, with illustrations and descriptions of possible effects and anatomical reasons for their vulnerability, of vital points/nerve points. It would be interesting, I think, to see a comparison between these points and pressure point charts as seen in traditional Asian cultures.

In case this isn't strange enough, apparently the US Army also believes in ki, or at least a "sixth sense" You can read about it in the "Sentry Removal" chapter.

My first post!
willy lee

Welcome to the forum, hope you enjoy your tenure here.

BTW, the US army is behind the Tokyo Riot Police- they've used Aikido for years now... ask one of them if it's "combat effective".

Nick

Thats correct Nick and this June 2001 Im signed up do to the Yoshinkan Tokoyo riot police course for 9 months its gonna be great! Im training hard towards it!



Matt Banks

Richard Heckler (Aikikai) has recently been a part of some military training programs. It was written up in the Wall Street Journal. They ran some 15,000 soldiers through the program. Heckler taught them meditation and flowing love stuff (couldn't resist) and the other guy taught people how to kill and mutilate.

Hello,

I've also read the posts on combat effectiveness and "real life" situations and have been waiting for someone to use the US Army and the Tokyo riot police as examples for Aikido being effective. I would also like to add that the US Navy Seals also utilize techniques which are very similar (if not identical) to some very common Aikido techniques (Kotegaeshi, Ikkyo, Nikyo). The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are taught the basic principles of Yoshinkan Aikido as well. I believe that the combat effectiveness of Aikido has been proven in many instances and those who feel otherwise are basing their judgements on silly competitions that are in no way similar to a "real life" encounter or a combat environment.

Sorry but I guess I am lost. Why in the years that Aikido has been around is the question being raised that Aikido is not combat/street effective? The information in the above post is only a small part of the proof that Aikido is at lest effective enough for military and law enforcement. So why should it be questioned? Being a Police Officer I looked for Aikido for years before I was able to start. I started Aikido because I knew that was an effective form of martial art and it was what I wanted to assist me in my carrier in Law Enforcement. I knew this because of the same information that is listed in the above post and this was before I found Aikido. I now teach Aikido to area Law Enforcement Officers and they are always returning to tell me how well it worked to subdue a violent suspect. The Officers that return to inform me of the success they have had are Officers with no more than a 16 hour, two-day training course. I can and the Officers I have trained can tell you Aikido is combat/street effective.
And I would love to attend the Yoshinkan Tokoyo Riot Police course that Matt Banks mentioned. That would be the ultimate for me.
Thanks

Very interesting as an overview of potential attack types as well.

Ian

[Edited by ian on December 14, 2000 at 05:13am]

Hi Willy Lee!
Thank you for the link. I'm surprised that US Army let us in in there secrets.
I found some jo-dori-like techniques against bayonett and weapon attacks! It's all the same principles, only you can decide your endings yourself. Hard or soft, leathal or non leathal and everything in between.
I'm not even responding any more, to people with other MA-experience who are sceptical and asks question if Aikido is a good MA for self-defense. I say:
-Train it and see for yourself!

I don't think most of them are that secret - also I'm not sure if they are aikido or ju jitsu techniques; but I'm sure we don't want to get into that argument!

Ian

In my experience, it's been the "tough" karateka and sometime jujutsuka that say Aikido is ineffective... My only guess is that they look, see someone attacking, see that same person flying, and don't understand why. If they don't understand why, it must be fake. The myths about Aikido being fake have been around since Americans saw the videos of O'sensei tossing people around a foot taller and a good bit heavier than he... "How he's doing that? He's just a feeble old man... it must be all show."

Etc. Etc... Come train with a few of my sensei, and tell me it doesn't work...

Heh heh.

Nick

the army hasn't really used that TM for quite a while, we are moving to Gracie Jujutsu not becasue it is a better MA per se, but think of what is required on the battlefield for a combat soldier, Aikido is the wrong MA, for the task at hand, Personnally I think so is Gracie JJ. But, I have spoken at great length with the people who have made this policy and they made it for the following reasons, first they broke Gracie JJ down to 13 core moves
like the mount, the guard, passing the guard, some standard chokes, and and arm bars, second, using these core moves it is easier to teach a large group of people without having the personalized instruction of a dojo, which makes retention simpler and review simpler, as most infantry soldiers probably wrestled in High school vs. those that did TKD or Aikido, Im not saying this is the correct decision, Im saying this was the decision, Aikido while producing many agreat individual does not produce great fighters by army standards

Wakasensei wrote: the army hasn't really used that TM for quite a while, we are moving to Gracie Jujutsu not becasue it is a better MA per se, but think of what is required on the battlefield for a combat soldier, Aikido is the wrong MA, for the task at hand, Personnally I think so is Gracie JJ. But, I have spoken at great length with the people who have made this policy and they made it for the following reasons, first they broke Gracie JJ down to 13 core moves...

Good to know, but I didn't mean to imply that the Army TM actually taught Aikido. I simply meant that you could find some of the same techniques there, with somewhat different emphasis.

I wonder how much of the policy move to Gracie JJ had to do with humongous amounts of recent publicity in the wake of UFC?

The reasons you've given for the policy change, as you imply, seem a little weak. The existing TM seems to do pretty well. Can't really say without seeing what they replace it with (doubt I'll be able to see it until they're ready to replace it with another again).

=willy

Wakasensei wrote: the army hasn't really used that TM for quite a while, we are moving to Gracie Jujutsu

Why not Krav Maga? I've seen people train in it, it looked excellent, and the main focus in it's formulation was speed of learning. I read on some KM site that they just took the most effective, quick to learn techniques from Judo, Karate, Aikido etc and made KM out of it.
andrew

Wakasensei wrote: ...think of what is required on the battlefield for a combat soldier, Aikido is the wrong MA, for the task at hand

Your right, Aikido, is probably the wrong MA for a battlefield, since O-sensei evolved it to be an art of love not of war, but the precursor of Aikido is Daito Ryu Aikijutsu and that MA is indeed developed on the battlefield for the battlefield, and remember, the men in Japan 400 years ago were far more often, than modern armies, fighting close quarters. So D.R aikijutju workes, and that's why the techniqes you see e.i in US-army are similar to them, I mean they all want thiere troops to have the best chance of surviving and win a man to man encounter.

On the other hand, to use e.i D.R aikijutsu in the battlefield takes several years of practice, since you have to integrate the techniqes as second nature in your body and that includes the Aiki-techniqes (the ones O-sensei evolved to Aikido). And soldiers today don't have enough time to learn the hole system, only as you say the core of it, and then they might loose parts that actually makes the rest work. As Bruce Klickstein wrote - If you cut a coin into half it will no longer be worth half of the original coins value, and the same goes for Aiki in Aikijutju(do). (Or something like that!)
Anyway I hope that made sense.

Jakob B

Why not Krav Maga? I don't know, originally what had happened was that one of the combatives instructors for the Rangers was big into Russian Sambo, and Jujutsu, hence the Gracie connection. He managed to convince the battalion commander of the 2/75 rangers to make it battalion policy which in turn when he became Regimental Commander it became Regimental policy, slowly but surely it is becoming Army Policy. The army is also a little hesitant to teach really deadly skills to the majority of its soldiers, for the fear of "bar room brawlers" and civilian reprecussions. Gracie JJ also helps teach aggresiveness and teaches a lot of soldiers who have spent years on the sega and playstation what it is to be in a violent confrontation. And can show everyone else who is going to give up and who will fight. Personnally I think Gracie JJ is as worthless on the battle field as Aikido, wrong art for the circumstances. I hope this clarifies things a little, also the army has a lot of TM's that aren't current as the technology and army changes pace quite quickly

I was watching something on tv a couple of months back about MA. They did an interview with the guy that teaches Gracie-JJ in the army. The jist of his comments were that no martial art is really usefull since wars are fought with guns and bombs and whatnot, they teach them for the qualities that they(MA) develop. I think their choice of art is greatly influenced by popular opinion and simplicity of the art.
Matt Chavez

I would say from a family of people in the forces. And I used to do GJJ that Aikido is far more suited to a battlefield. As Im sure you know GJJ and BJJ mainly deals with 1v1 which rarely happens in attack situations its usually 1v 2+. I would not like to me in a mount or guard position on a battlefield. I d rather be on my feet. And there is hardly any talk of defende against weapons in GJJ wearas there is lots in AIkido. In the yoshinkan as Im sure with any other style we deal with alsorts of dynamic multiple attacks physcological speaking body language etc for real life situations unlike GJJ.
It's the fake environment of the UFC which has caused organisations to adopt GJJ. Another thing ive noticed is how some styles of Aikido make this big distinction between Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu and Aikido. In the Yoshinkan it depends oon the format of the training. Aikido is just a name osensei gave the art towards the end of his life. We encompose everything from Daito Ryu into the yoshinkan including improving our spirit which I feel is left out in some Aikido which leads to the art being refered to a dance rather than an effective martial art. Insidently I know of many Yoshinkan instructors of Yoshinkan who have been awarded high dan grades in Aikijujutsu just through their study of ''Yoshinkan Aikido''. The only difference is in the name. Some schools of Daito Ryu are really flowwy. Osensei encompossed his spiritualaity with many many many other things to evolve Daito Ryu into Aikido. I like that because Aikido has a ''do'' on the end that outsiders think that Aikido has taken the same steps from Jujutsu to judo kenjutsu to kendo etc etc. It hasnt Aikidoo isnt a sport osensei never approved of tomiki aikido and he was thrown out. Daito to Aikido was an evolution not a sport induced dilution. Although im not saying sport martial arts dont have their place.



Matt Banks

[quote]Aikilove wrote:

[i], and remember, the men in Japan 400 years ago were far more often, than modern armies, fighting close quarters.

Wasn't the Daito-Ryu a family secret of Takedas that was thoguth to pretty much nobody?

andrew

Matt wrote: I was watching something on tv a couple of months back about MA. They did an interview with the guy that teaches Gracie-JJ in the army. The jist of his comments were that no martial art is really usefull since wars are fought with guns and bombs and whatnot, they teach them for the qualities that they(MA) develop. I think their choice of art is greatly influenced by popular opinion and simplicity of the art. Matt Chavez

You basically hit the nail on the head, becasue One guy liked it he managed to convince the right people that this was the way to go. His Name is SSG Matt Larson. I know him and have talked with him about his decision and the various merits and demerits of the arts. And for what he was trying to accomplish GJJ seemed the appropriate fit.

andrew wrote: Wasn't the Daito-Ryu a family secret of Takedas that was thoguth to pretty much nobody?

Your right about that the art was a secret in the sence that they didn't have big school were they learned every ronin that came over. But instead during the big battles from 1500 to 1600, in which the art came to big use, before it was named Daito Ryu, it was used by the clan Takeda and later incorporated at the son's of the 2:nd Tokugawa shogun palace as the lifeguards MA there. This becaus it had showd it's effiectivness on the battlefield. Check out http://www.daito-ryu.org/index.html

Jakob B

I read a short item that said that the Marines evaluated aikido for use in combatives training in their last revision, but decided to adopt something else. Does anyone know more detail about why the Marines decided against aikido? The cover of the latest manual is visible on the Marines' doctrine site, but unlike the Army manual is not downloadable.

Remember that this talk of "aikido techniques" is really quite arbitrary. It would be more accurate to speak of them as "martial techniques." The techniques themselves are based on study of the human body and its physiology. What each style brings to bear is a different philosophy on the application of these principles.

Just a tangent.

Matt wrote: I was watching something on tv a couple of months back about MA. They did an interview with the guy that teaches Gracie-JJ in the army. The jist of his comments were that no martial art is really usefull since wars are fought with guns and bombs and whatnot, they teach them for the qualities that they(MA) develop. I think their choice of art is greatly influenced by popular opinion and simplicity of the art. Matt Chavez

BJJ is a total art. There is much more to it than just ground fighting. Obviously those who are writing negative things about it know very little about the art and are basing their oppinons on sport juijitsu.

Soldiers need to be tought techniques that are easy to use. They need to be able to fight in any environment, situation and range.

Most combat instructors have experience in several arts. Drawing techniques from aikido, karate, kung fu, JKD, kali, ecrima etc.

Interestingly, when Minoru Mochizuki went to France he was challenged by fencers, savate, wrestlers and boxers. He realized that Daito Ryu Aiki jujitsu was useless. So he changed to judo and kendo techniques and won easily. This is why he has added many judo and karate techniques to aikido. Upon returning to Japan he suggested to Ueshiba that he change aikido but he wasn't interested.

darin wrote: Interestingly, when Minoru Mochizuki went to France he was challenged by fencers, savate, wrestlers and boxers. He realized that Daito Ryu Aiki jujitsu was useless. So he changed to judo and kendo techniques and won easily. This is why he has added many judo and karate techniques to aikido. Upon returning to Japan he suggested to Ueshiba that he change aikido but he wasn't interested.

Yes but remember that Ueshiba himself came in contact with Daito Ryu Aiki jiujiutsu, when he challenged Takeda and was totally dominated by him, by his Daito Ryu techniques. And before this event Ueshiba was renowned as highly skilled and unbeaten practiser of MA. I'm not sure how well Mochizuki mastered Daito Ryu compared to O-senseis Aikido, but Daito Ryu is a complete MA and probably takes even longer to master that Aikido (if that's possible).

I really hate these divisions between different martial arts. To me you use what is appropriate. The ideal martial artist should be able to strike, throw, pin, grapple and also run away very fast ('cos no-one is unbeatable in all situations). I would agree with Jakob (above) in that Daito-ryu covers more stuff. However I feel Ueshiba took the best of daito-ryu and made it into a simple system, so that you could defend from various attacks with an appropriate technique but still had the opportunity to practise one technique enough that it became instinctive.

I think aikido is a good martial art to base everything else on i.e. learn aikido, then learn extra bits from other martial arts.

The extensive use of aikido/jitsu in the forces and services is probably for several reasons:
1. ability to brake limbs/kill people (rather than just trying to beat them to death with your fists)
2. ability to pin/control people (capture/arrest)
3. ability to fight armed people (inc. bayonets)

These are also reasons why there is a difference between a martial art and a sport.

Ian