Did Aikido fail you in "real life"?

Michael Fooks wrote: Boon, where's the falsifiablity in that? In other words, if I were to say that Beer Drinking Do is a fantastic form of self defence, and then said that Beer Drinking Do works, but yours doesn't, is that just as valid?

I am so sorry M. Fooks, I do not understand your first question? Does Beer Drinking-do really exist? I want a Black Belt in it. Answer to question #2: Yes.

Boon.

Great, so I can invent any cockamamie martial art I like and claim it is completely effective , despite no one being able to use it effectively, because it's "the fighter no the art"?

If you are physically attacked and you've only been training in aikido for a short time, aikido is likely to fail you.
If you are attacked and you've been training for much longer in aikido it is likely to be more successfull.
Aikido remains the same, you change.

My only 'scrape' involved a potentially difficult situation where I was surrounded by about 6 people one of whom had just informed me that I was going to "get my f*****g head kicked in". How I got to be in this situation is not really the point, but it involved some kids threatening other kids with a fencing sword, I was giving them a peice of my mind when I found I was the subject of attention from their older siblings/friends. I had recently passed my shodan, so felt that I had some chance of at least of taking a few of them out before being overwhealmed. luckily this was all taking place outside a shop doorway, so I quickly moved out of the slowly contracting circle of bodies and into the shop, I then turned and went back out and went very purposefully up to the main protagonist and gave him my undivided nose to nose attention, and advised him not to threaten me, he was a little taken aback, as I advised him that I would rather we were on the same side? He was a little confused but the tension abated, and I walked off un harmed.
So no aikido in the 'bodily' sense, but without my practice, I would not have had the confidence or spirit to do what I did, ( I probably would have stayed in the shop! )

I my early days of practice, I was in discussion with a very experienced aikidoka, and he was talking about a time that he had been working in a very rough part of London, he had gone into a pub and when a couple of the local hard-cases heard his 'not from around here' accent they started to get really heavy, so his response was to put on the thickest Glaswegian accent he could muster ( He is Scottish and glasgow has a bit or a 'reputation' ) and out heavy the two heavys. I asked him why he didn't just let them start a fight and then flatten them with his aikido. His response was that if he had used aikido to win a fight that could been avoided by using other means, he would have been ashamed of himself. This has stuck in my mind ever since.

I believe aikido provides us with a means to 'defence without destruction of the assailant', and that to win without fighting is the highest form of 'Martial Art' and one we should all aspire to.

just my 2 penneth worth.

regards,
Mark

Mr. Fooks now you are just trying to be contrary... i respect what you are saying and agree with your assertion about "cockamamie" martial arts, but aikido techniques and strategy are martially sound and effective... therefore it is not in that category... but even within any valid martial art there will be some people that will be better at it than others for a variety of reasons... this does not mean that the art they practice is ineffective, rather their personal 'style' of fighting or applying their techniques is simply not at the level required for success... put a GJJ white belt in the octagon against say Chuck Lidell... would you then say that because the white belt could not sucessfully apply his technique that GJJ is a cockamamie martial art? Realize i am agreeing with you... any valid martial art must have techniques that are effective and strategically sound, and people must practice in a manner that gives them the training/skills to apply these techniques in a 'realistic' situation, but individual ability will allways be a factor in these situations... sometimes more so than the particular martial art they practice or apply...

Michael O'Brien wrote: That's like saying if I was in a shootout and I missed the person I was aiming at and I go "the gun failed". No, the gun put the bullet where I was aiming. Perhaps my aim was off, but the failure was with me, and not the gun.

Now, this was perfect!

Michael Fooks wrote: Boon, where's the falsifiablity in that? In other words, if I were to say that Beer Drinking Do is a fantastic form of self defence, and then said that Beer Drinking Do works, but yours doesn't, is that just as valid?

I don't believe that "Aikido works. Your Aikido doesn't. Don't get the two confused," is an argument. It's a statement.

On the question of BeerDrinkingDo being an excellent form of self-defense, the best we can hope for is "I haven't found evidence to support that conclusion."

If you respond "but I've experienced it," then I'd say,"I'm happy that you find so much value in the art. However, I have yet to see the evidence."

Now, if a lot of schools started springing up by individuals that have reached the rank of drunkard-dan and quality of technique slipped considerably across the spectrum of practitioners so much so that, while walking in front of a BeerDrinkingDo seminar, I see one hundred students get whooped by BJJers, I'd say,"Why those individuals likely do not feel the same about that art as the other fellow."

Is there evidence that the Do is not effective? No...Just still an absence of evidence to the contrary.

Now, what if...There's secrets to the techniques? Secrets that are only unlocked with a little guidance and a lot of hard work? Secrets that most practitioners do not know until they've surpassed Drunkard-dan? Details that make techniques work?

Well, then you'll probably find that there's a bunch of Drunkard-dans running around and talking it up about something they really don't know anything about...While another group prefers to not talk out the wrong hole and continue just to say,"I don't know if it works or not. I just know that I have yet to see it."

Cheers.

Edwin Neal wrote: Mr. Fooks now you are just trying to be contrary... i respect what you are saying and agree with your assertion about "cockamamie" martial arts, but aikido techniques and strategy are martially sound and effective... therefore it is not in that category... but even within any valid martial art there will be some people that will be better at it than others for a variety of reasons... this does not mean that the art they practice is ineffective, rather their personal 'style' of fighting or applying their techniques is simply not at the level required for success... put a GJJ white belt in the octagon against say Chuck Lidell... would you then say that because the white belt could not sucessfully apply his technique that GJJ is a cockamamie martial art? Realize i am agreeing with you... any valid martial art must have techniques that are effective and strategically sound, and people must practice in a manner that gives them the training/skills to apply these techniques in a 'realistic' situation, but individual ability will allways be a factor in these situations... sometimes more so than the particular martial art they practice or apply...

Hi Edwin. We basically agree. My point is simply this. I'm sick of hearing "it's the artist not the art" being trotted out as a smokescreen to avoid discussing whether particular arts are martially effective. It's generally used to try to shut the discussion down.
And it's nonesense. No you cannot learn much from a GJJ white belt vs chuck. But you might be able to learn something about how the overwhelming number of BJJ Blue belts fare compared to the same number of students with the same time training in another art.

I mean it's a bit like saying "when it comes to lung cancer, it's the smoker not the smoke". Because great uncle Jake smoked every day and lived to be 100. You can't tell heaps by looking at individual cases maybe. But by looking at the general population you can.

I mean I realise Aikido can be martially effective. I love the art. I just wish people would be more honest and say "if it works, it generally takes a long time, and takes a certain sort of training that many schools don't do. If martial effectiveness is all you are after there are better and quicker roads, but Aikido gives you other things beyond that that Aikidoka happen to enjoy"

Rather than "hey it's the artist no the art so lets not talk about it"

Michael Fooks wrote: I mean I realise Aikido can be martially effective. I love the art. I just wish people would be more honest and say "if it works, it generally takes a long time, and takes a certain sort of training that many schools don't do. If martial effectiveness is all you are after there are better and quicker roads, but Aikido gives you other things beyond that that Aikidoka happen to enjoy" Rather than "hey it's the artist no the art so lets not talk about it"

Tsk, tsk, tsk. That answer, although I'd agree with it, does not respond to the question "Did your Aikido fail?"

We're all being honest. You're just misunderstanding the question posed.

When people ask "how long does it take," I've never seen anyone shut that question down. We all agree that it probably takes longer than other arts. Maybe not all of us, but it's what most of us have found.

When someone asks "is it effective," the only people to shut that down are the nay-sayers...all of us who've witnessed it say "it worked for me"...Again, no-one that you refer to shuts it down.

When someone asks about form of training in Aikido, different people report different things...Again, no-one shuts it down because we all know that dojos vary.

There's only one question that gets shut down..."Did Aikido fail?"

Why does it get shut down? Because it's non-sensical. That's all. It just doesn't make sense.

Whoops. One other thing...I don't agree with "better" necessarily. It's too obscure.

Jean de Rochefort wrote: Is there evidence that the Do is not effective? No...Just still an absence of evidence to the contrary. .

It's often interesting to me how people are prepared to suspend your usual good judgement when it comes to talking about martial arts.

Lets say I'm buying a car, and one of my critereon is that it needs to be able to go over 150km/hr. the salesman shows me one and says that it can do that speed. I ask to take it for a test drive and he says "well it will take a lot of training for you to be able to get it to that speed". I ask for a demonstration and he says "well I can't make it do it yet". I ask to see some footage or talk to someone who can make it go over 150km/hr and am told no such person currently exists. But that the car does meet my requirements because "it's the driver not the car"

Technically speaking, I haven't proven that the car can't do that speed (because you can't prove a negative), so perhaps I can only say I haven't seen evidence of it. But the chances of anyone with my criteria buying that car are slim and none and slim just left town right?

Yet we buy a similar argument when it comes to fighting? This seems odd to me "secret"s nt withstanding (didn't O'sensei specifically say there were no secrets).

In fact if "it's the artist not the art" were really true in the way people want to use it, why bother training at all?

Michael Fooks wrote: It's often interesting to me how people are prepared to suspend your usual good judgement when it comes to talking about martial arts. Lets say I'm buying a car, and one of my critereon is that it needs to be able to go over 150km/hr. the salesman shows me one and says that it can do that speed. I ask to take it for a test drive and he says "well it will take a lot of training for you to be able to get it to that speed". I ask for a demonstration and he says "well I can't make it do it yet". I ask to see some footage or talk to someone who can make it go over 150km/hr and am told no such person currently exists. But that the car does meet my requirements because "it's the driver not the car"

Nice post. I like this one.

I'd agree. We do suspend it...I guess we exercise a little faith

I'd say that's one reason we see a lot of what I'd consider bad Aikido.

Following that analogy, my experience has been, that when being sold, I was told "if you lose twenty pounds, she'll go that speed." Then, I lost a few pounds and she went a little quicker. A few more, even faster--Not there yet, but a little more.

Michael Fooks wrote: Technically speaking, I haven't proven that the car can't do that speed (because you can't prove a negative), so perhaps I can only say I haven't seen evidence of it. But the chances of anyone with my criteria buying that car are slim and none and slim just left town right?

Depends. If I can spend a hundred bucks on your ten thousand dollar car and use it for a month to sample it--to see if there's any increase in speed--then I say you've still got a chance...That's why there are so many schools out there. Once I develop faith because of slight improvements during the month, I take it on payments. If at any point I decide it's not right for me, I can stop paying on it, return it and suffer no consequence besides the lost time...but I'll still get to keep the benefit that was gained (getting to work those days, to the grocery store, etc. vs. body awareness, exercise, etc)

Michael Fooks wrote: It's Yet we buy a similar argument when it comes to fighting? This seems odd to me "secret"s nt withstanding (didn't O'sensei specifically say there were no secrets).

I think the intent should be considered. It all comes when we're ready. If you're having a hard time with your front strike, you'll never get side-strike. So, although it's just waiting there to be found, it's something of a secret to one who's still trying to figure out front strike.

Michael Fooks wrote: In fact if "it's the artist not the art" were really true in the way people want to use it, why bother training at all?

I see what you're saying. However, in the way it's being used, I believe "art" is somewhat defined--atleast for me.

I know Aikido works. Is there an Aikido technique for all situations? Yes and no. There's missed opportunities for techniques that might lead you into a position where there's not a specifically defined technique (300lbs guy mounted on you...I don't know how to use Aikido there...at that point seems to be nothing but a little technique and a whole lot of brute force), but missing the opportunity is not a failure of Aikido.



In all honesty, I've liked this entire post better than any of them (and I've liked plenty of your posts). Nice.

Michael Fooks wrote: Lets say I'm buying a car, and one of my critereon is that it needs to be able to go over 150km/hr. the salesman shows me one and says that it can do that speed. I ask to take it for a test drive and he says "well it will take a lot of training for you to be able to get it to that speed". I ask for a demonstration and he says "well I can't make it do it yet". I ask to see some footage or talk to someone who can make it go over 150km/hr and am told no such person currently exists. But that the car does meet my requirements because "it's the driver not the car" In fact if "it's the artist not the art" were really true in the way people want to use it, why bother training at all?

Michael,
I think it has been stated multiple times, in not in this forum then in others though that the art works and has worked for people.

So although your car analogy works to a degree it works to prove the other point just as well.

You may want a car that does 150km/hr and the dealer may even sell you that car. Then you are just as likely to try and drive it at 150km/hr the first day you buy it and you kill yourself in it.

Why? Because the driver couldn't handle the capabilites of the car. It was the driver, not the car.

Just like in Aikido it is the artist, not the art.

For a driver to be capable to handling a performance sports car to the full potential of that car requires years of rigorous training.

For a martial artist, in Aikido or any other art, to handle themselves in a life threatening situation can take years of rigorous training.

Seems logical to me anyway.

I take your point Michael, but it falls down a little if the dealer across the road is selling a car that will allow you safely go that speed almost immediately.
to try and wrench this back on topic, my point is simply this. We often hear people talking about times they have used Aikido to successfully defend themselves. I think it would be a valuable exercise to gather stories where people have failed despite their Aikido training. then we can analyse what went wrong. In some cases it may have just have been poor execution. But in many cases there maybe something to learn. What happened that was unexpected? what was it the training didn't prepare the person for. How can we alter the training to take care of that? It's this way an art moves forward. But people have to be ready to admit their failures, and also to move past "well in our dojo we do train for that, it's somebody eles's problem".

Jean de Rochefort wrote: There's missed opportunities for techniques that might lead you into a position where there's not a specifically defined technique (300lbs guy mounted on you...I don't know how to use Aikido there...at that point seems to be nothing but a little technique and a whole lot of brute force).

Actually, against someone untrained on the ground, you could escape this most of the time with technique.

Michael Fooks wrote: I think it would be a valuable exercise to gather stories where people have failed despite their Aikido training. then we can analyse what went wrong. In some cases it may have just have been poor execution. But in many cases there maybe something to learn. What happened that was unexpected? what was it the training didn't prepare the person for. How can we alter the training to take care of that? It's this way an art moves forward.

Now that statement I like a lot. Sadly, I don't have anything to contribute personally. I haven't had to actually "defend" myself in a physical confrontation since 1990 and I was training for my Shodan test in Tae Kwon Do at the time. The confrontration was over in about 1.5 seconds with 3 well placed blows.

I would love to discuss the concept though and see what interesting training ideas, etc come out of it if we can get this conversation going.

i agree michael, there is alot of denial in some aikidoka... both in the capabilities of aikido and what aikido actually is... how many times do you hear no striking, no violence, no chokes, etc before you realize many folks have some fuzzy idea of what aikido actually is... what theres no ground work in YOUR aikido... how is that possible? when Osensei clearly studied jujutsu? judo? the fact that most schools/sensei's don't teach it does not mean that it is NOT a part... Osensei said aikido is not about the techniques, and if we are to accept the principle of takemusu aiki this must mean any and all techniques, strategies and ranges... so before the anti grappling crew starts about no ground work heres a couple of good pics of ground and chokes...

http://venus.secureguards.com/~aikid...ic&p=1101#1101

aikido or any martial art is about honesty and specifically self honesty... look at what you do... will it work... do you need more practice... do you need to change your training method... what are your goals... denial is very hard to avoid if we blindly follow on "faith", but true faith comes from honesty and cannot be denied...

Welcome Edwin! I was wondering when you were going to jump in on this thread. LOL

Fortunately I have not been in a situation where I had to physically defend myself or someone else. Chances are, at some point I will have to.

I object to the phrase "use Aikido", or use any martial art for that matter. A utilitarian ethic should not be applied to Aikido. I train in two martial arts, and I started Aikido more recently. The other art, Modern Arnis, has some similarities in technique that present a challenge for me when training, lest I should conflate the two arts. When I'm on the mat, at this stage in my training, I'm trying to learn the technique exactly as my Sensei or Guro is showing me. However, principles of motion and anatomy I have learned over the years do come out on the mat when I'm not thinking about them.

What I mean is that if I had to defend myself, I wouldn't be "doing Aikido" or "doing Arnis". I would be moving to keep myself safe and eliminate the threat. I might be successful and I might not.

If I was attacked and I ended up just pummeling the attacker with hook punches, would Aikido have failed me? What if I landed a hook punch and the attacker slipped the second. I moved in and performed Irimi Nage Omote, and then pinned him? Did I "half-use Aikido"? Did Aikido "half-work"?

Unlike some others, I primarily practice Aikido for the physical self-defense aspects. I still find my training very valuable all the time, both on and off the mat. If I practice Aikido my whole life and never have to defend myself, I will not feel that I have been wasting my time. There are so many factors in a fight that no amount of training can eliminate chance, or the "fog of war". I hope I never lose in combat, but to me whether I do is not the test of success or failure for my Aikido.

Stanley Archacki wrote: Fortunately I have not been in a situation where I had to physically defend myself or someone else. Chances are, at some point I will have to. I object to the phrase "use Aikido", or use any martial art for that matter. A utilitarian ethic should not be applied to Aikido. I train in two martial arts, and I started Aikido more recently. The other art, Modern Arnis, has some similarities in technique that present a challenge for me when training, lest I should conflate the two arts. When I'm on the mat, at this stage in my training, I'm trying to learn the technique exactly as my Sensei or Guro is showing me. However, principles of motion and anatomy I have learned over the years do come out on the mat when I'm not thinking about them. What I mean is that if I had to defend myself, I wouldn't be "doing Aikido" or "doing Arnis". I would be moving to keep myself safe and eliminate the threat. I might be successful and I might not. If I was attacked and I ended up just pummeling the attacker with hook punches, would Aikido have failed me? What if I landed a hook punch and the attacker slipped the second. I moved in and performed Irimi Nage Omote, and then pinned him? Did I "half-use Aikido"? Did Aikido "half-work"? Unlike some others, I primarily practice Aikido for the physical self-defense aspects. I still find my training very valuable all the time, both on and off the mat. If I practice Aikido my whole life and never have to defend myself, I will not feel that I have been wasting my time. There are so many factors in a fight that no amount of training can eliminate chance, or the "fog of war". I hope I never lose in combat, but to me whether I do is not the test of success or failure for my Aikido.

Stanley,
Very interesting concept and something I'll have to consider further and elaborate on more as this conversation develops.

Like you, I have a mixed martial arts background. I have found that Aikido has definitely helped me in my other martial arts with the concepts of moving and closing, avoiding the initial attack as opposed to meeting it with a forceful block, etc.

I also am intrigued by the concept of "half using Aikido" as you put it. In my Tae Kwon Do training our concept of "self-defense" on the street was using whatever was necessary to win. If that meant picking up a garbage can and bashing someone with it then that was fine. LOL However, that seems very un-Aikido-like to say the least.

I'll definitely come back and see what others have to say and post more on this later.

Michael Fooks wrote: Actually, against someone untrained on the ground, you could escape this most of the time with technique.

LOL. Can't lead a horse that doesn't want to follow.


But on your last rant about those of us who'll not discuss how Aikido failed, reread some of my stuff. I've divulged before that I've had an occasion where I failed to implement technique.

Mike,
In principle, I like the idea of "using whatever was necessary to win". One of the reasons I chose Aikido is because I think it has much of what is necessary. I think what I'm trying to say is that as a "do", the success or failiure of Aikido cannot be judged by a single physical confrontation. But in a fight, for any of us, Aikido will be only one factor determining how we move, and how we move will be only one factor determining the outcome.

Aikido is not a "make it your own" art like Modern Arnis or Jeet Kune Do. We all strive follow O Sensei in the do, including following his physical technique. There is only one Aikido. But all Aikidoka should remember that his or her own technique will never actually be exaclty like O Sensei's, or anyone elses.

I am 6' tall, of slim build, 27 years old. My right arm is about 2" longer than my left. I grew up in a culture where boxing is the first conception of "fighting" generally learned. I've studied Modern Arnis for almost five cumulative years. I live in Chicago, thus wearing a heavy coat in the winter. Laws prevent me from carrying large knives or firearms. Custom prevents me from carrying a walking stick or staff. These factors just begin to influence how I might behave in a fight. I have confidence that even after less than a year of studying Aikido, the time I've spent in my dojo has added to my ability.

thanks you Mr. O'Brien... i just like to explore new ideas and perspectives... these kind of discussions usually rouse a lot of passions... hopefully they will not cloud simple reason... and devolve into arguments...

Stanley i think arnis is a wonderful complement to aikido, i have trained a little in modern arnis and i found that the techniques and principles are amazingly similar... i was extremely impressed and honored to receive instruction from the late Remy Presas and i must say his arnis was very aikido... truly a wonderful man and a gifted teacher...

Stanley Archacki wrote: Aikido is not a "make it your own" art like Modern Arnis or Jeet Kune Do. We all strive follow O Sensei in the do, including following his physical technique. There is only one Aikido. But all Aikidoka should remember that his or her own technique will never actually be exaclty like O Sensei's, or anyone elses.

Interestingly enough I have heard just the opposite regularly. My Sensei often says that "As you train you will find what works for you and the best way to make it work for you and you will make 'your Aikido'"

I understand exactly what you are saying though. Maybe we are just looking at the elephant from opposite ends?

Stanley Archacki wrote: I have confidence that even after less than a year of studying Aikido, the time I've spent in my dojo has added to my ability.

This I agree with wholeheartedly. I have about a year of Aikido total training time so far broken into 2 segments of about 9-10 months and 2 months and I have seen ways that it has helped already.

takemusu aiki must by definition include all techniques, strategies and ranges... for Stanley... hook punch = atemi waza = aikido... and i agree michael aikido is an all inclusive art... it is not the technique, but how and with what intent you apply it...

I have effectively applied ikkyo, sankyo, (soft)kotegashi, and (soft)irimi nage on friends I was play fighting with. Not exactly self defense situations, but still a lot more resistance than I normally encounter in the dojo.

As far as "real life", it has never failed me because I am fortunate enough to have not had to fight for real since my highschool years. If that ever changes in the near future, I will get back to you on this one.

Mark Chalmers wrote: As far as "real life", it has never failed me because I am fortunate enough to have not had to fight for real since my highschool years. If that ever changes in the near future, I will get back to you on this one.

let's hope you never have to