Aikido is effective self-defense

Aikido is effective self-defense because we deal with what is, here, now: not what should be or what could be or what we want it to be.

Aikido helps us cut through the denial, minimization, and rationalization.

Our minds, bodies and spirits come together in the moment.

Maybe later we can talk about what we should have done or what could have happened.

By practicing being here, now, we develop awareness for when something feels off. Our neck hairs may prickle or our ears pick up a strange vibration. Maybe the air smells different or we catch a flash out of the corner of our eye…or maybe we notice a change of tone or nuance of body language.

We learn to believe ourselves.

We pay attention and most importantly we stay, with what is, here, now.

Aikido is effective self-defense because we are awake. We can do what we need to do to stay safe. The situation will provide the details we need to get to resolution and safety.

Playing the devil's advocate i have to say that being awake (literally and figuratively) is a necessary precondition for "doing it", but we still need to know what to do (which strategy to employ).
And of course Aikido has a strategy (which might slightly differ depending on with whom you train) as well. You just didn't mention this part.

Thank you for pointing that out. I did not mention technique because I assumed it was a given...I see now that it is not.

O-Sensei is said to have stated "learn 1000 techniques and then forget them" as technique will be born spontaneously in the moment after having practiced countless hours to develop the aikido mind and body connection. i think this ties in with the last part of Mary's first post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uwO...&frags=pl%2Cwn
a good example of irimi nage and not beating on someone who is done with their assault. maybe he could a bit more efficient, but he got there.

Seriously? Either you know how to fight and react to a situation or there is no self-defense. Plain and simple.

Steven Shimanek wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uwO...&frags=pl%2Cwn a good example of irimi nage and not beating on someone who is done with their assault. maybe he could a bit more efficient, but he got there.

Excellent reaction and timing. Not to mention his hand was going into the guy's bat movement intercepting and parrying it before it gained a sufficient amount of momentum to hurt him. Quite similar to yokomenuchi if not identical in some sense.

Except he applied an RNC, which is not taught in classic Aikido.

Aleksey Nikolaevich wrote: Except he applied an RNC, which is not taught in classic Aikido.

That's not an RNC, at least by what I can see from the video, and it's not the main point of the video. The main point is stopping the bat otherwise everything else is pointless. Define "classical Aikido"?

Igor Vojnović wrote: That's not an RNC, at least by what I can see from the video, and it's not the main point of the video. The main point is stopping the bat otherwise everything else is pointless. Define "classical Aikido"?

I don't want to get stuck on details or create pointless arguments. But if you're implying that what you see in the video is Aikido, there's nothing to support it. The dude did well. But we have no idea if he's an Aikido practitioners, and frankly by his actions, it is not likely.

Aleksey Nikolaevich wrote: I don't want to get stuck on details

The point however IS in the details.

But if you're implying that what you see in the video is Aikido, there's nothing to support it.

I never said "it was Aikido", what I wrote was "his hand was going into the guy's bat movement intercepting and parrying it before it gained a sufficient amount of momentum to hurt him. Quite similar to yokomenuchi if not identical in some sense.".

That's what I wrote. The fact that you don't see it is your problem not mine.

While it is unknown if the defender had studied aikido, it is clear that he had some kind of training from his reactions. My point was that this was a real world example of a threat scenario that many aikido dojo train to respond to, and a demonstration that an effective defense is achievable through training. Your mileage may vary depending on how you train.

Whether or not it was Aikido is irrelevant. The defender kept his wits about him, didn't directly intercept the blow (which was indeed a yokomen type of strike), just stepped inside it and let it go by before trapping the attackers arm. The defenders behavior reflected a lot of Aikido principles and, all in all, he did a fine job. The fact that he was twice the size of the attacker surely didn't hurt. I thought the defender showed a lot of restraint considering the situation. Once he neutralized the attack he could have easily pulverized the attacker and chose not to.

Ron

Ron Ragusa wrote: Whether or not it was Aikido is irrelevant. The defender kept his wits about him, didn't directly intercept the blow (which was indeed a yokomen type of strike), just stepped inside it and let it go by before trapping the attackers arm. The defenders behavior reflected a lot of Aikido principles and, all in all, he did a fine job. The fact that he was twice the size of the attacker surely didn't hurt. I thought the defender showed a lot of restraint considering the situation. Once he neutralized the attack he could have easily pulverized the attacker and chose not to. Ron

You mean he didn't block it?

Igor Vojnović wrote: You mean he didn't block it?

That's what I mean. The blow goes by him as he enters and then he traps the attackers arm.

Ron

Steven Shimanek wrote: this was a real world example of a threat scenario that many aikido dojo train to respond to

It was an example of successful yokomen entry timing and that's it. As you can see in the video, the entry alone was not enough to deal with the attacker.

It seems to me that we may need to define the difference between self-defence and fighting. I believe that it is not the same, but people seem to discuss one measured by the standard of the other quite often.

Jørgen Jakob Friis wrote: It seems to me that we may need to define the difference between self-defence and fighting. I believe that it is not the same, but people seem to discuss one measured by the standard of the other quite often.

There's a guy named Iain Abernathy in the UK who teaches Karate. He's spoken a lot about context when it comes to martial arts. I don't want to put my words in his mouth, but I suggest checking out his webpage (plenty of vids on Youtube as well): https://iainabernethy.co.uk/

Jørgen Jakob Friis wrote: It seems to me that we may need to define the difference between self-defence and fighting. I believe that it is not the same, but people seem to discuss one measured by the standard of the other quite often.

When self-defense stops, fighting occurs. That's why you'd better know both. Aikido, at least by Ueshiba, isn't a self-defense martial art.

Igor Vojnović wrote: When self-defense stops, fighting occurs. That's why you'd better know both. Aikido, at least by Ueshiba, isn't a self-defense martial art.

Can you cite where Osensei said when not to use Aikido for self defense?

dps

David Skaggs wrote: Can you cite where Osensei said when not to use Aikido for self defense? dps

The point here isn't whether he used it or not for self-defense, the point is Aikido is not a self-defense martial art. Can you cite him somewhere where he said it was a "self-defense martial art", or any of the people who trained with him who heard him speak those words?

Igor Vojnović wrote: ....... Aikido, at least by Ueshiba, isn't a self-defense martial art.

Where does Osensei say this?

dps

David Skaggs wrote: Where does Osensei say this? dps

Nowhere specifically, but you have numerous other quotes which clearly state that his martial art wasn't a self-defense one.

Igor Vojnović wrote: Nowhere specifically, but you have numerous other quotes which clearly state that his martial art wasn't a self-defense one.

References please.

Since it seems no one is rushing to their bookshelves to pull a quote, I'll put this one out there in the spirit of keeping things friendly.

"I had an official position in the government and instructed at several military academies. The training at those academies was purely technical, focusing on the means of victory in battle. The guiding principle was "killing the enemy with one blow." Unfortunately, very few of those military men truly understood the concepts of loyalty and sincerity. Of course, there were some noble and brave officers who made great sacrifices for their country. However, the purpose of Aikido is to avoid killing another human being at all cost. It is never to be used for fighting and contention."

(The Heart of Aikido, p 99. Kodansha USA, 2013. Original Japanese title Takemusu Aikido, translated by John Stevens.)

Interestingly, something I've found in my research into Kobu/Aikibudo of the 1930s is the seeming separation (or a recognition of the separate yet overlapping nature) of Ueshiba's aikibudo from his goshinjutsu (self defense arts).

We have the above quote where he flat out states (or if you prefer is quoted as stating) "It (Aikido) is never to be used for fighting or contention." As a quoted statement of personal philosophy we can, for our purposes, call this data point one. Now, considering that Ueshiba lived a long and storied life I'm certain we can find quotes from him seeming to contradict this statement. I'm curious to see what everyone else can uncover.