# On Aikido: Its Origins and its efficacy



## Samurai-do

On Aikido: its origins and its effectiveness
I hope this might provide something of an insight to those who criticise Aikido for not being prevalent on the MMA scene 
Feedback, comments etc. always appreciated!


----------



## Spinedoc

Samurai-do said:


> On Aikido: its origins and its effectiveness
> I hope this might provide something of an insight to those who criticise Aikido for not being prevalent on the MMA scene
> Feedback, comments etc. always appreciated!




Not bad..however, there are some inconsistencies in the article.

#1 Sokaku Takeda was not some descendant master of Daito Ryu, he was Soke. Daito Ryu in short, means Great Eastern School. He had studied Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage Ryu as well as other arts, including what he claims was Daito Ryu. NOW, it gets a little fuzzy, Takeda claims a lineage extending back 900 years to Minamoto no Yoshimitsu, but there are no records supporting this.

#2 The techniques in both Aikido as well as Daito Ryu are NOT linear, not at all, in fact linear movement is antithetical to Aikido. The movements are circular or spiral.

Much of the rest of it, while leaning dramatic, is at least factually correct.

Mike


----------



## ShawnP

i love your articles, but wish there were more info to read.


----------



## Samurai-do

Spinedoc said:


> Not bad..however, there are some inconsistencies in the article.
> 
> #1 Sokaku Takeda was not some descendant master of Daito Ryu, he was Soke. Daito Ryu in short, means Great Eastern School. He had studied Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage Ryu as well as other arts, including what he claims was Daito Ryu. NOW, it gets a little fuzzy, Takeda claims a lineage extending back 900 years to Minamoto no Yoshimitsu, but there are no records supporting this.
> 
> #2 The techniques in both Aikido as well as Daito Ryu are NOT linear, not at all, in fact linear movement is antithetical to Aikido. The movements are circular or spiral.
> 
> Much of the rest of it, while leaning dramatic, is at least factually correct.
> 
> Mike


Hi Mike,
Thanks for giving the article a look over, I appreciate it! yes I am aware that Sokaku Takeda is generally accepted to be the founder of Daito ryu, certainly as we know it today, my point was simply that this is the master that Ueshiba studied under and thus that Daito ryu is the basis for many aikido techniques.
As regards the difference in  nature of technique between the two. If I implied that Linear movements were a part of aikido, then I must apologise, as this is not at all what I intended, Aikido is of course based on circular technique. I would contend with you on Daito ryu, however. The way that atemi and kuzushi are used in Daito ryu is different to what you would see in Aikido. There is an emphasis in Aikido on keeping Uke moving (hence the circular movements) whereas Daito ryu techniques involve destroying posture using linear atemi and more conservative movements. Similarly there is a much lesser emphasis in Daito ryu on getting off the line of attack, whereas this tai sabaki is THE fundamental technique in Aikido.
Over to you Mike for your rebuttal! 
all the best,
Jack


----------



## drop bear

Plenty of akido in mma. Because it's methods are reflected in wrestling.
So wrist grabs work in mma and even in self defence.

"Take the example of the grabbing of the arm or hand as an attack within aikido. Critics argue that this is unrealistic and, yes, maybe it is in the modern world. In Feudal Japan however, this attack makes a lot of sense. Samurai were often well versed in battojutsu, the art of drawing and killing with the sword in one movement. To avoid getting caught by this move, an attacker would have to restrain the Samurai’s sword arm before delivering his own attack, be it a punch to the face or a knife to the gut. Not so unrealistic in this context."

You just have to be better at setting them up.


----------



## Hanzou

> To say that aikido doesn’t work in MMA, however, is akin to stating that submarines are awful at flying. Putting aikido into the context of a one-on-one cage fight is taking it completely out of the context for which many of the techniques were originally created: the streets and battlefields of feudal Japan. The masters of Daito-ryu aikijujutsu, from which aikido is descended, were not training to deal with an attack from a half-naked man trying to bash their noses in, they were training to deal with fully committed attacks, possibly involving weapons of one sort or another.



This type of silliness is the root of why Aikido is criticized so heavily. We don't live in the streets of feudal Japan, we live in the modern world. In the modern world the chances of someone getting attacked by a half naked man trying to bash their face in is monumentally higher than someone getting attacked by a sword wielding attacker in full samurai armor. Additionally, a person trying to bash your face in is a fully committed attacker, and you need to respond accordingly or you could be seriously injured, crippled or even killed.

Judo and Bjj also have roots from feudal Japanese arts. Why are those arts perfectly fine in a MMA environment yet Aikido is not? Why can a black belt in Judo and Bjj perform their techniques in a variety of situations yet there's a large swath of Aikido black belts who are "just getting the hang of the system"? Instead of concocting excuses, why not go to the root of the problem and figure out why there's so many "bad" Aikidoka out there who are instructor grade yet still can't pull off basic techniques in a live environment.


----------



## Samurai-do

Hanzou said:


> This type of silliness is the root of why Aikido is criticized so heavily. We don't live in the streets of feudal Japan, we live in the modern world. In the modern world the chances of someone getting attacked by a half naked man trying to bash their face in is monumentally higher than someone getting attacked by a sword wielding attacker in full samurai armor. Additionally, a person trying to bash your face in is a fully committed attacker, and you need to respond accordingly or you could be seriously injured, crippled or even killed.
> 
> Judo and Bjj also have roots from feudal Japanese arts. Why are those arts perfectly fine in a MMA environment yet Aikido is not? Why can a black belt in Judo and Bjj perform their techniques in a variety of situations yet there's a large swath of Aikido black belts who are "just getting the hang of the system"? Instead of concocting excuses, why not go to the root of the problem and figure out why there's so many "bad" Aikidoka out there who are instructor grade yet still can't pull off basic techniques in a live environment.


 Hi Hanzou, you seemed to have missed my point, and if that is the case then it is my fault for not articulating myself clearly enough! BJJ and Judo and Aikido all have techniques that work. they could work in any situation, although Judo throws for example are largely designed to work off of the grip of a gi, and BJJ is strongest on the ground. The point is that none of these martial arts systems are analogous to a self-defence system. Even MMA has rules. When we do reality based training, we encourage gouging, clawing biting and anything else that can give you the upper hand. My point is simply that while a common criticism of aikido is that it is very contrived, so are the circumstances in an MMA ring, or a Judo match, or a BJJ tournament. To start with there is the fact that it is limited to a one on one fight as well as the other things already mentioned. Despite this, none of these arts lose their value. Frankly I agree that there are a lot of bad aikido practitioners out there at the minute, whose students throw themselves for fear of being seen as disrespectful. Similarly there are those that can and do practice their techniques against a resisting Uke, (the main difference between aikido and your examples of Judo and BJJ being this practice against a resisting uke). Whenever I am teaching a part of an aikido session (I'm an assistant instructor) we always build in levels of resistance into randori, something many other clubs are unwilling to do. Sure our art can work in the real world, but that doesn't negate the fact that it does draw from its origins in traditional samurai martial arts 
I look forward to your reply and rebuttal!
all the best
Jack


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Samurai-do said:


> Hi Hanzou


He didn't miss your point, he just likes to insult Aikido and will take any chance possible to do so. Doesn't really care what the argument for Aikido is, or how legitimate it might be. Just warning you before you end up in the pointless debates he loves for some reason.


----------



## Hanzou

Samurai-do said:


> Hi Hanzou, you seemed to have missed my point, and if that is the case then it is my fault for not articulating myself clearly enough! BJJ and Judo and Aikido all have techniques that work. they could work in any situation, although Judo throws for example are largely designed to work off of the grip of a gi, and BJJ is strongest on the ground.



Rather narrow view of both Bjj and Judo. There are no-gi modifications to Judo throws that allow it to work without the gi, and gi grips can be modified to work on clothing. Bjj can be just as strong on your feet as it is on the ground if it is properly trained. After all, in order to fight on the ground, you need to get your assailant to the ground.

As for the notion that Aikido like Judo and Bjj can work in any situation, wasn't the basis of that excerpt to make an excuse as to why Aikido doesn't work in MMA?



> The point is that none of these martial arts systems are analogous to a self-defense system.



The exponents of Gjj would disagree with you. The philosophy behind their entire system is self defense and that has been crystalized with the explosion of sport Bjj.



> Even MMA has rules. When we do reality based training, we encourage gouging, clawing biting and anything else that can give you the upper hand. My point is simply that while a common criticism of aikido is that it is very contrived, so are the circumstances in an MMA ring, or a Judo match, or a BJJ tournament. To start with there is the fact that it is limited to a one on one fight as well as the other things already mentioned.



Everyone knows MMA has rules. The reason people believe MMA (or Judo and Bjj) is a better self defense system than Aikido is because when people see street fights they almost uniformly look like rougher versions of MMA fighting. You never see someone perform an Aikido twirl in a street fight, but you'll see plenty of people clinching, wrestling around, mounting someone, and ground and pounding them. Thus I have to disagree that MMA/Judo/Bjj fighting is as contrived at what you see in an Aikido dojo.


----------



## Hanzou

kempodisciple said:


> He didn't miss your point, he just likes to insult Aikido and will take any chance possible to do so. Doesn't really care what the argument for Aikido is, or how legitimate it might be. Just warning you before you end up in the pointless debates he loves for some reason.



Where did I insult Aikido?


----------



## drop bear

Samurai-do said:


> Even MMA has rules. When we do reality based training, we encourage gouging, clawing biting and anything else that can give you the upper hand. My point is simply that while a common criticism of aikido is that it is very contrived, so are the circumstances in an MMA ring, or a Judo match, or a BJJ tournament. T



This would be a factor if you just told however many combatants to just go for it and see what happens. But if you are creating a circumstance where you bite someone so therefore they have to let go allowing you to apply a technique. That is also creating rules.

Which is where the contrived accusations come in.

I usually use rear bear hugs as an example. Escaping a rear bear hug from a person who knows how to put it on is almost impossible. So to train it and not demoralise people we contrive reasons why they won't hang on or respond with just picking you up and dropping you on their head.

Backward elbows and shin kicks and that sort of stuff. 

And so we go from the ideal of no rules to all sorts of strange rules to make the technique viable.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Hanzou said:


> Where did I insult Aikido?


Look in your history, and you'll find it pretty easily. If not, oh well, since I have zero intention of taking your bait.


----------



## Chris Parker

This one might not be short… 



Samurai-do said:


> On Aikido: its origins and its effectiveness
> I hope this might provide something of an insight to those who criticise Aikido for not being prevalent on the MMA scene
> Feedback, comments etc. always appreciated!



Hi Jack.

Like Mike (Spinedoc), I found a number of issues with your article… I appreciate where you're coming from, but there are a range of statements and commentaries that are not so easy to support. In the interests of helping further your study, I'm going to apply kind of a fine-tooth comb approach here… 



			
				Samurai-do Blog said:
			
		

> Daito-ryu was a samurai art, used by disarmed samurai against armed and unarmed opponents in a variety of situations.



Well… that's really going to depend on who you believe… after all, there's no real evidence of Daito Ryu existing during the existence of the samurai themselves… and much of the methodology doesn't exactly match the claimed history… 

Realistically, the evidence all points to Daito Ryu as being the creation of Sokaku Takeda himself… based on a range of influences that he encountered and was trained in.



			
				Samurai-do Blog said:
			
		

> The techniques are linear and incorporate many blows and attacking movements. Many throws and pins in Daito-ryu, end with the practitioner ending the life of his assailant, usually by the use of a knife or short sword, an item always carried by the Samurai of Feudal Japan.



While I'll give you that many Daito Ryu techniques are what I would class as more "direct" than much of Aikido's methodologies, I don't know that I'd classify them as "linear" exactly… all in all, they're about as linear as Aikido's Tenchi Nage. As far as "many throws and pins in Daito Ryu end with the practitioner ending the life of his assailant", well, let me just say that that doesn't really reflect the Daito Ryu I've seen… pins (osae komi waza) may leave the option for such a finish (to-dome), but they aren't as ever present as suggested here. 



			
				Samurai-do Blog said:
			
		

> Ueshiba, whilst a superb martial artist, was also a deeply spiritual and religious man. He was a follower of Omoto-kyo, a newly revived form of traditional Japanese Shinto worship.



Yeah… of course, that connection to the Omoto Kyo only came into it after WWII… which is after you attribute the creation of Aikido… and, of course, post-dates forms of Aikido such as the Yoshinkan (Gozo Shioda), who left to form his branch prior to WWII himself… so, while it can certainly be seen as a large influence on Ueshiba's development, particularly later in his career, it doesn't necessarily factor in all forms of Aikido. Shudokan (Tomiki Aikido) would be another notable example of it's absence.



			
				Samurai-do Blog said:
			
		

> Aikido plays down greatly the traditional emphasis from Jujutsu schools on attacking moves: punches, kicks and so on. Instead an aikido-ka (one who practices aikido) attempts to redirect the force of an aggressor’s attack into a pin or throw.



Well, that really depends on which "Jujutsu school" you're talking about… by and large, while atemi waza was present in most schools, it wasn't highly emphasised in many at all. For example, Asayama Ichiden Ryu Taijutsu features almost no striking in it's waza (there is some, but not a lot), instead focusing primarily on kansetsu waza (gyaku waza… joint locks)… little side note, there are a range of similarities between Asayama Ichiden Ryu and Daito Ryu, leading some to believe that Asayama Ichiden Ryu was a potential reference when Takeda was creating Daito Ryu itself… 

It could also be noted that Daito Ryu itself lessens the emphasis on striking (atemi waza) as the student progresses… with the study moving through three methods of application; Jujutsu, Aikijujutsu, and finally Aiki no jutsu…with striking being less present as you move on. 



			
				Samurai-do Blog said:
			
		

> The admission that there are bad aikido practitioners out there, however, does not necessarily reflect on the art itself. These are, after all, underlying techniques passed down to us from the Samurai, who would not have preserved them if they were not useful.



Again, this is taken entirely on faith… there is no evidence of Daito Ryu being passed down from the samurai… which of course means that they haven't been "preserved" in any such context or for any such reason.



			
				Samurai-do Blog said:
			
		

> To say that aikido doesn’t work in MMA, however, is akin to stating that submarines are awful at flying. Putting aikido into the context of a one-on-one cage fight is taking it completely out of the context for which many of the techniques were originally created: the streets and battlefields of feudal Japan.



I'm in agreement with your first sentence there… however, then you lose me a bit. Aikido was not, in any way, created for "the streets and battlefields of feudal Japan"… being created, as it was, some centuries after such time and context at all. You're right in that it's not created for the context of an MMA fight, but not correct in what it was created for… or, more accurately, what the techniques are created for.



			
				Samurai-do Blog said:
			
		

> The masters of Daito-ryu aikijujutsu, from which aikido is descended, were not training to deal with an attack from a half-naked man trying to bash their noses in, they were training to deal with fully committed attacks, possibly involving weapons of one sort or another.



Again, I get where you're coming from, but you're trying to use the wrong imagery to make your point… mainly as it doesn't help your argument at all.

Let's put it this way… MMA athletes and competitors train to handle a skilled, committed, focused, conditioned, and prepared opponent within the context of an MMA fight… which in itself lends itself to particular technical and tactical approaches. Assuming that a martial art's techniques are aimed at handling the violence of their own context (not always the case, to be honest), then we can say that Daito Ryu practitioners are training to handle a skilled, committed, focused, conditioned, and prepared opponent within the context of classical Japanese higher-society violence (samurai)… which in itself lends itself to particular technical and tactical approaches.

What that means is that you really have to identify the differing cultural contexts which alters the nature of the violence in the first place, which your imagery doesn't do (after all, "half-naked man trying to bash their noses in" could just as easily apply to the sumo influence on classical Japanese Jujutsu systems…). But before that, you need to identify if that even is the context and aim of the techniques in the classical system in the first place… which you might find is not the case.



			
				Samurai-do Blog said:
			
		

> Take the example of the grabbing of the arm or hand as an attack within aikido. Critics argue that this is unrealistic and, yes, maybe it is in the modern world. In Feudal Japan however, this attack makes a lot of sense. Samurai were often well versed in battojutsu, the art of drawing and killing with the sword in one movement. To avoid getting caught by this move, an attacker would have to restrain the Samurai’s sword arm before delivering his own attack, be it a punch to the face or a knife to the gut. Not so unrealistic in this context.



I've heard that explanation a number of times, and, to be honest, it doesn't really ring true with me. I can see the inherent logic at work, but the physical realities and mechanics of the action just don't have that effect. Instead, the reasoning is more to do with understanding principles than an actual, realistic (real world) attack. That doesn't mean, however, that a samurai would deal with a boxer's style attack as in a modern MMA bout… 



			
				Samurai-do Blog said:
			
		

> The fallacy that I am attempting to highlight becomes obvious if one reverses the roles and attempts to situate an MMA fighter in the middle of the battle of Sekigahara, for instance. What good would his kicks and punches be against even an unarmed but fully armoured warrior?



And what would be the odds of him facing such a warrior? Much of the casualties were from firearms… by the same token, put a Daito Ryu practitioner up against machine-guns… or, if you will, put a Daito Ryu practitioner up against your armoured samurai… you may find that much of the syllabus isn't geared towards katchu bujutsu… 



			
				Samurai-do Blog said:
			
		

> The rebuttal I’ve heard time and again consists of saying that people today don’t wear armour, and subsequently situating both mixed martial arts and aikido in self-defense situations.



Well, modern soldiers do wear the equivalent weight in their gear… tactical response police wear similar types of gear as well… so yeah, people today (in certain contexts) do wear armour… but not having armour doesn't, to my mind, situate either MMA nor Aikido in "street self defence" situations.



			
				Samurai-do Blog said:
			
		

> At this point I accept that aikido is not a modern self defence system but guess what, neither is MMA. A street fight has no rules, no referee is going to pause the match for fish hooking or downward pointing elbows. Much as MMA might like to think itself superior, it is not! Sure it provides you with a load of skills that would be useful in a self-defense situation, so does aikido, but neither is teaching you self-defense.



Leaving off for the moment that "no rules" is a fallacy by itself, it might be important to note that while MMA doesn't allow for fish-hooking, or downward elbows to the base of the neck, neither of those are present in Aikido either… but, more importantly, self defence is not really found in the techniques… or, to put it another way, physical fighting techniques, while important, is not really the core of "self defence"… so you're right, neither are really teaching it in and of themselves… 



			
				Samurai-do Blog said:
			
		

> While its techniques are effective under the circumstances for which they were created, aikido is more than a martial art, it is a living embodiment of the non-violent philosophy of Ueshiba. To him, removing the lethal elements from the older jujutsu styles was not making them redundant, it was allowing them to continue to be relevant in modern life as an art of self-perfection rather than self-protection.



This I agree with… of course, understanding the why of the techniques is a journey in and of itself… 



Samurai-do said:


> Hi Mike,
> Thanks for giving the article a look over, I appreciate it! yes I am aware that Sokaku Takeda is generally accepted to be the founder of Daito ryu, certainly as we know it today, my point was simply that this is the master that Ueshiba studied under and thus that Daito ryu is the basis for many aikido techniques.



Just to clarify here, the term "soke" does not, nor did it ever, mean "founder"… 



Samurai-do said:


> As regards the difference in  nature of technique between the two. If I implied that Linear movements were a part of aikido, then I must apologise, as this is not at all what I intended, Aikido is of course based on circular technique. I would contend with you on Daito ryu, however. The way that atemi and kuzushi are used in Daito ryu is different to what you would see in Aikido. There is an emphasis in Aikido on keeping Uke moving (hence the circular movements) whereas Daito ryu techniques involve destroying posture using linear atemi and more conservative movements. Similarly there is a much lesser emphasis in Daito ryu on getting off the line of attack, whereas this tai sabaki is THE fundamental technique in Aikido.



This is largely dependent on the level of Daito Ryu you're training in… at the Jujutsu level, there's some truth to it… in later levels, not so much.



drop bear said:


> Plenty of akido in mma. Because it's methods are reflected in wrestling.
> So wrist grabs work in mma and even in self defence.
> 
> You just have to be better at setting them up.



Do you really think that "wrist grabs" makes something Aikido? Here's a hint… you're looking at entirely the wrong thing. Again.



Hanzou said:


> This type of silliness is the root of why Aikido is criticized so heavily. We don't live in the streets of feudal Japan, we live in the modern world. In the modern world the chances of someone getting attacked by a half naked man trying to bash their face in is monumentally higher than someone getting attacked by a sword wielding attacker in full samurai armor. Additionally, a person trying to bash your face in is a fully committed attacker, and you need to respond accordingly or you could be seriously injured, crippled or even killed.



And this type of thinking everything should match your own personal impressions and values of what martial arts are designed for is why you have such issues understanding anything outside your own small corner of the subject. I've asked this before, and you've never answered, but I'm going to ask one more time… in the hopes that you might actually be open to learning something and broadening your understanding of other martial arts approaches… 

What do you think the techniques of Aikido are designed for? Do you really think they're designed for modern Western street violence? Or for an MMA competition?



Hanzou said:


> Judo and Bjj also have roots from feudal Japanese arts. Why are those arts perfectly fine in a MMA environment yet Aikido is not? Why can a black belt in Judo and Bjj perform their techniques in a variety of situations yet there's a large swath of Aikido black belts who are "just getting the hang of the system"? Instead of concocting excuses, why not go to the root of the problem and figure out why there's so many "bad" Aikidoka out there who are instructor grade yet still can't pull off basic techniques in a live environment.



Or, instead, can you answer my question?



Hanzou said:


> The exponents of Gjj would disagree with you. The philosophy behind their entire system is self defense and that has been crystalized with the explosion of sport Bjj.



And, honestly, I'd disagree with them. I know the rhetoric, but it's not so supported in the methodology… 



drop bear said:


> This would be a factor if you just told however many combatants to just go for it and see what happens. But if you are creating a circumstance where you bite someone so therefore they have to let go allowing you to apply a technique. That is also creating rules.



Er… how is cause and effect "creating a rule"? It's like saying that punching towards someone's head gets them to raise their guard… 



drop bear said:


> Which is where the contrived accusations come in.



You really don't like using actual definitions of words, do you?



drop bear said:


> I usually use rear bear hugs as an example. Escaping a rear bear hug from a person who knows how to put it on is almost impossible. So to train it and not demoralise people we contrive reasons why they won't hang on or respond with just picking you up and dropping you on their head.



Then I recommend you look into actual defences.



drop bear said:


> Backward elbows and shin kicks and that sort of stuff.



Which would be part of a technique… 



drop bear said:


> And so we go from the ideal of no rules to all sorts of strange rules to make the technique viable.



You aren't making any sense… again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Judo and Bjj also have roots from feudal Japanese arts. Why are those arts perfectly fine in a MMA environment yet Aikido is not? Why can a black belt in Judo and Bjj perform their techniques in a variety of situations yet there's a large swath of Aikido black belts who are "just getting the hang of the system"?



I've always found this an interesting argument against Aikido. I don't think there's anything definitively wrong with Ueshiba's art simply because it takes longer to learn. That would be like saying there's something wrong with airliners simply because one must be highly skilled to competently fly them. With Ueshiba's art, so long as someone is either A) competent in something else first, or B) willing to wait longer for combat effectiveness, the art is useful for self-defense (if taught with proper intent, committed attacks, etc.). The same can be said of any art that relies on more complicated/difficult principles. This is why in my own art, we focus less on the "aiki" when we first train students, so we can develop quick effectiveness then add the "aiki" once they have some basic competency.

From my reading and talking with folks who are much more informed of its history, I understand that this likely was the original intention in Ueshiba's art: take competent martial artists and add Aikido to their competency. That path has a much shorter learning curve, in my experience.


----------



## Hanzou

Chris Parker said:


> And this type of thinking everything should match your own personal impressions and values of what martial arts are designed for is why you have such issues understanding anything outside your own small corner of the subject. I've asked this before, and you've never answered, but I'm going to ask one more time… in the hopes that you might actually be open to learning something and broadening your understanding of other martial arts approaches…
> 
> What do you think the techniques of Aikido are designed for? Do you really think they're designed for modern Western street violence? Or for an MMA competition?



I have no idea what Aikido techniques are designed for. On one hand you would think self defense, but then their movements are highly stylized and unrealistic. Further, modern western street violence resembles MMA more so than what you see in an Aikido dojo.



> And, honestly, I'd disagree with them. I know the rhetoric, but it's not so supported in the methodology…



So all of those self defense systems that have incorporated Gjj/Bjj into their curriculums are misguided/misinformed?


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I've always found this an interesting argument against Aikido. I don't think there's anything definitively wrong with Ueshiba's art simply because it takes longer to learn. That would be like saying there's something wrong with airliners simply because one must be highly skilled to competently fly them. With Ueshiba's art, so long as someone is either A) competent in something else first, or B) willing to wait longer for combat effectiveness, the art is useful for self-defense (if taught with proper intent, committed attacks, etc.). The same can be said of any art that relies on more complicated/difficult principles. This is why in my own art, we focus less on the "aiki" when we first train students, so we can develop quick effectiveness then add the "aiki" once they have some basic competency.
> 
> From my reading and talking with folks who are much more informed of its history, I understand that this likely was the original intention in Ueshiba's art: take competent martial artists and add Aikido to their competency. That path has a much shorter learning curve, in my experience.



The problem with this argument is that it only takes 5 -7 years to reach instructor grade in Aikido. That's significantly shorter than the "ten years to get competent in Aikido basics" time frame. For comparisons sake, as a purple belt I'm very good at Bjj fundamentals, and I teach fundamentals to beginner Bjj students. If I was simply competent at Bjj fundamentals, I wouldn't be allowed to teach them, and I'd probably still be a blue belt.

In Aikido we supposedly have people who are incompetent in the fundamentals teaching classes and even opening dojos.

That should be considered a problem.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Do you really think that "wrist grabs" makes something Aikido? Here's a hint… you're looking at entirely the wrong thing. Again.



It was specifically mentioned by the O. P.  Which is why i quoted it. 

Personally i was staying off what is or isnt akido.  I dont really care.  I was focusing on what works.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> r… how is cause and effect "creating a rule"? It's like saying that punching towards someone's head gets them to raise their guard…



No. Again  in a practical sense you have missed the boat.  Punching towards someones head does whatever it does. 

You may plan to have something happen. But in a real situation it may just not work out that way.


----------



## Tez3

Some time ago our MMA fighters and others in the club were invited to a seminar which had several different arts being taught, one of which was Aikido. Now bearing in mind that you don't learn a whole art in a seminar it was nevertheless interesting and our fighters picked up several new techniques which have proved useful in an MMA fight. Some of these were from the Aikido instructors who were more than helpful and were very interested in thinking what could be useful for us and we did swap some ideas with them. It was a fantastic seminar actually, we got to try the Bo as well which we all enjoyed as well as Kendo. Did some work with Kubutans as well. ( No you can't use any of  them in MMA but there's movements which can be useful) All were open minded martial artists keen to expand their knowledge, coffee break times were full of chat about different ways of doing things.

My point is that there are techniques in Aikido that work well in MMA as there are in just about most martial arts, you will never see one style in a fight, it's an amalgam of all styles, ( hint...that's why it's *Mixed* Martial Arts). No one style has been designed for MMA but fighters take what's works from any style they can. Everything can be useful for an MMA fighter, don't discount anything from anywhere.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Then I recommend you look into actual defences.



Well only sort of.  In general your actual defences either dont work or only work against bottom tier guys. I mean if we are to relate to what happens in mma and look at rear bear hugs.  In the last ufc just gone there were examples of rear bear hugs used successfully.  

So to suggest that your defences work when a top fighters doesn't means you dont understand the problem.

Basically they are letting you go to make your defence work. Which is why you have such a high success rate.


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Some time ago our MMA fighters and others in the club were invited to a seminar which had several different arts being taught, one of which was Aikido. Now bearing in mind that you don't learn a whole art in a seminar it was nevertheless interesting and our fighters picked up several new techniques which have proved useful in an MMA fight. Some of these were from the Aikido instructors who were more than helpful and were very interested in thinking what could be useful for us and we did swap some ideas with them. It was a fantastic seminar actually, we got to try the Bo as well which we all enjoyed as well as Kendo. Did some work with Kubutans as well. ( No you can't use any of  them in MMA but there's movements which can be useful) All were open minded martial artists keen to expand their knowledge, coffee break times were full of chat about different ways of doing things.
> 
> My point is that there are techniques in Aikido that work well in MMA as there are in just about most martial arts, you will never see one style in a fight, it's an amalgam of all styles, ( hint...that's why it's *Mixed* Martial Arts). No one style has been designed for MMA but fighters take what's works from any style they can. Everything can be useful for an MMA fighter, don't discount anything from anywhere.



I'm pretty sure Kron Gracie is only using classic Gjj in his fights.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> What do you think the techniques of Aikido are designed for? Do you really think they're designed for modern Western street violence? Or for an MMA competition?



It doesn't really matter unless there is a specific circumstance it applies to.  So a cover to block a punch is not a specific sport technique over grabbing an arm out of mid air.  It is just more reliable at stopping that punch. The reason people do that is because it will stop a fully committed punch and a semi committed combination.

So to suggest akido is dedicated to fighting samurai in armour is fine.  But you also need to look at how to practically fight that samurai. Because akido may not have the best method for that.


----------



## Tgace

drop bear said:


> It doesn't really matter unless there is a specific circumstance it applies to.  So a cover to block a punch is not a specific sport technique over grabbing an arm out of mid air.  It is just more reliable at stopping that punch. The reason people do that is because it will stop a fully committed punch and a semi committed combination.
> 
> So to suggest akido is dedicated to fighting samurai in armour is fine.  But you also need to look at how to practically fight that samurai. Because akido may not have the best method for that.



I have to agree...if we had a time machine I'd wager that a fight between two dismounted Samurai would resemble a brawl more than it would any sort of stylistic martial technique. Any "art" in the melee would most likely be seen like this:


----------



## Steve

kempodisciple said:


> He didn't miss your point, he just likes to insult Aikido and will take any chance possible to do so. Doesn't really care what the argument for Aikido is, or how legitimate it might be. Just warning you before you end up in the pointless debates he loves for some reason.


These particular arguments for aikido....  Your post implies hanzou is the one who is being unreasonable.   I believe any discussion that includes eye gouging is on very shaky ground.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> These particular arguments for aikido....  Your post implies hanzou is the one who is being unreasonable.   I believe any discussion that includes eye gouging is on very shaky ground.


I'm not arguing for or against Aikido, since I've never practiced or witnessed it. Simply stating that any time someone mentions it, he responds. He knows exactly what they mean, he knows exactly why he disagrees, and that the argument will turn out the same way each time. Yet, he continues to do it every time he sees a post about Aikido. Just warning Samurai-do before he got caught in the same cyclical argument.


----------



## Hanzou

kempodisciple said:


> I'm not arguing for or against Aikido, since I've never practiced or witnessed it. Simply stating that any time someone mentions it, he responds. He knows exactly what they mean, he knows exactly why he disagrees, and that the argument will turn out the same way each time. Yet, he continues to do it every time he sees a post about Aikido. Just warning Samurai-do before he got caught in the same cyclical argument.



If someone mentions Aikido along with MMA, I'm certainly going to respond.


----------



## drop bear

Tgace said:


> I have to agree...if we had a time machine I'd wager that a fight between two dismounted Samurai would resemble a brawl more than it would any sort of stylistic martial technique. Any "art" in the melee would most likely be seen like this:


 Most of those moves are not even style specific. They are just fundamental basics.
If i really wanted to stop someone in armour i couldn't effectively hit. I would be more inclined to do this.





Given the choices available.


----------



## Spinedoc

Hanzou said:


> I have no idea what Aikido techniques are designed for. On one hand you would think self defense, but then their movements are highly stylized and unrealistic. Further, modern western street violence resembles MMA more so than what you see in an Aikido dojo.
> 
> 
> 
> So all of those self defense systems that have incorporated Gjj/Bjj into their curriculums are misguided/misinformed?



And how many Aikido dojos have you actually trained in? I'm asking respectfully, because, while YouTube is interesting, watching Aikido demonstrations does not reflect typical practice.

We practice with progressive resistance to the point where, when you are a higher kyu student, you need to be able to make your technique work against a fair amount of resistance.

Many dojos don't do that. What I will say is a legitimate criticism of Aikido is the extremely varied method of teaching the same techniques. Some dojos are soft, more spiritual, focused more on inner development, others, like mine, are more martial, harder, and focused more on the development of a martial spirit and ability.


----------



## Spinedoc

Hanzou said:


> The problem with this argument is that it only takes 5 -7 years to reach instructor grade in Aikido. That's significantly shorter than the "ten years to get competent in Aikido basics" time frame. For comparisons sake, as a purple belt I'm very good at Bjj fundamentals, and I teach fundamentals to beginner Bjj students. If I was simply competent at Bjj fundamentals, I wouldn't be allowed to teach them, and I'd probably still be a blue belt.
> 
> In Aikido we supposedly have people who are incompetent in the fundamentals teaching classes and even opening dojos.
> 
> That should be considered a problem.



Who said ten years to get competent in the basics? I've said that under USAF guidelines, practicing 10-12 classes per month, it will take about 10 or more years to get to yudansha, but guess what, so does BJJ.

We have brown belts teaching from time to time, and I even help teach ukemi and basics, and in BJJ, I would equivalent to an upper blue/lower purple belt. I'm quite good at the fundamentals.

FWIW, I don't know of ANY teaching Sensei level instructors in the USAF Aikido system doing so after only 5-7 years. My Sensei (dojo-cho) has been practicing 18 years. The head of our main dojo in the cities has been practicing since 1976. The assistant head instructor (my testing/main person for me) has been practicing since 1994.

I'm not sure where you are getting 5-7 years?

Mike


----------



## Spinedoc

Tez3 said:


> Some time ago our MMA fighters and others in the club were invited to a seminar which had several different arts being taught, one of which was Aikido. Now bearing in mind that you don't learn a whole art in a seminar it was nevertheless interesting and our fighters picked up several new techniques which have proved useful in an MMA fight. Some of these were from the Aikido instructors who were more than helpful and were very interested in thinking what could be useful for us and we did swap some ideas with them. It was a fantastic seminar actually, we got to try the Bo as well which we all enjoyed as well as Kendo. Did some work with Kubutans as well. ( No you can't use any of  them in MMA but there's movements which can be useful) All were open minded martial artists keen to expand their knowledge, coffee break times were full of chat about different ways of doing things.
> 
> My point is that there are techniques in Aikido that work well in MMA as there are in just about most martial arts, you will never see one style in a fight, it's an amalgam of all styles, ( hint...that's why it's *Mixed* Martial Arts). No one style has been designed for MMA but fighters take what's works from any style they can. Everything can be useful for an MMA fighter, don't discount anything from anywhere.



LOVE this post, but one question, did you mean jo staff? We don't actually use a bo staff in Aikido.

Mike


----------



## Spinedoc

Samurai-do said:


> Hi Mike,
> Thanks for giving the article a look over, I appreciate it! yes I am aware that Sokaku Takeda is generally accepted to be the founder of Daito ryu, certainly as we know it today, my point was simply that this is the master that Ueshiba studied under and thus that Daito ryu is the basis for many aikido techniques.
> As regards the difference in  nature of technique between the two. If I implied that Linear movements were a part of aikido, then I must apologise, as this is not at all what I intended, Aikido is of course based on circular technique. I would contend with you on Daito ryu, however. The way that atemi and kuzushi are used in Daito ryu is different to what you would see in Aikido. There is an emphasis in Aikido on keeping Uke moving (hence the circular movements) whereas Daito ryu techniques involve destroying posture using linear atemi and more conservative movements. Similarly there is a much lesser emphasis in Daito ryu on getting off the line of attack, whereas this tai sabaki is THE fundamental technique in Aikido.
> Over to you Mike for your rebuttal!
> all the best,
> Jack




Hi Jack,

I would argue that Daito Ryu seems to have started as Chris said, with Takeda himself. The proposed lineage is 900 years, but there is nothing to support that. That being said, Takeda was an INCREDIBLE martial artist and one of the finest swordsman of his generation.

I think there is a misunderstanding regarding linear vs circular with Daito Ryu. It doesn't look like Aikido, therefore, it's not circular, when in fact, it still is. The difference is small circle vs big circle. When you watch Aikido, particularly someone like Tissier Shihan, you notice BIG circular movements, and with most high ranking Aikido people, Isoyama Shihan, etc., the circles are rather apparent.

But Daito Ryu is closer to it's older Japanese jujutsu brethren. Virtually all jujutsu is circular, spiral, but with the older systems, the circles are much, much smaller. IOW, the circles are still there, just smaller, more difficult to recognize.

That's my opinion.

Kindest,

Mike


----------



## Hanzou

Spinedoc said:


> And how many Aikido dojos have you actually trained in? I'm asking respectfully, because, while YouTube is interesting, watching Aikido demonstrations does not reflect typical practice.
> 
> We practice with progressive resistance to the point where, when you are a higher kyu student, you need to be able to make your technique work against a fair amount of resistance.
> 
> Many dojos don't do that. What I will say is a legitimate criticism of Aikido is the extremely varied method of teaching the same techniques. Some dojos are soft, more spiritual, focused more on inner development, others, like mine, are more martial, harder, and focused more on the development of a martial spirit and ability.



Honestly only a couple. A lot of my experience comes from former AIkido students who eventually end up in Bjj and comment about the previous practice, and/or rolling with Aikidoka who are trying to add some practicality to their Aikido practice. To be fair, I've only attended Aikikai schools, and I wasn't really impressed with what I saw. Far too much compliance, and having to do things "exactly right" in order for it to work properly.  

Is it fair to say that the vast majority of Aikido schools are of the soft spiritual variety? After all, isn't this one of the head instructors for the Aikikai, the largest Aikido organization in the world, the school of the founder;






That above would appear to be an evolution of the no-ki stuff that Ueshiba was doing towards the end of his life. Is this something that Aikidoka actually believe? Do you honestly believe you can throw or lock someone down without touching them?



Spinedoc said:


> Who said ten years to get competent in the basics? I've said that under USAF guidelines, practicing 10-12 classes per month, it will take about 10 or more years to get to yudansha, but guess what, so does BJJ.
> 
> We have brown belts teaching from time to time, and I even help teach ukemi and basics, and in BJJ, I would equivalent to an upper blue/lower purple belt. I'm quite good at the fundamentals.
> 
> FWIW, I don't know of ANY teaching Sensei level instructors in the USAF Aikido system doing so after only 5-7 years. My Sensei (dojo-cho) has been practicing 18 years. The head of our main dojo in the cities has been practicing since 1976. The assistant head instructor (my testing/main person for me) has been practicing since 1994.
> 
> I'm not sure where you are getting 5-7 years?
> 
> Mike



"Ten years to get good at the basics", or "ten years to become competent" is what I've heard various times both on this forum and other places. The number certainly varies, but in any case the argument is that it takes multiple years to be able to utilize Aikido effectively.

I'm getting 5-7 years from Aikido school sites such as this;

Frequently Asked Questions | North County Aikikai

According to them, it takes 800 hours to earn a black belt, and the average student trains 12-15 hours a month. That equals about 5-7 years of training, and that isn't the only Aikido location I've seen that states this.


----------



## Spinedoc

Hanzou said:


> Honestly only a couple. A lot of my experience comes from former AIkido students who eventually end up in Bjj and comment about the previous practice, and/or rolling with Aikidoka who are trying to add some practicality to their Aikido practice. To be fair, I've only attended Aikikai schools, and I wasn't really impressed with what I saw. Far too much compliance, and having to do things "exactly right" in order for it to work properly.
> 
> Is it fair to say that the vast majority of Aikido schools are of the soft spiritual variety? After all, isn't this one of the head instructors for the Aikikai, the largest Aikido organization in the world, the school of the founder;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That above would appear to be an evolution of the no-ki stuff that Ueshiba was doing towards the end of his life. Is this something that Aikidoka actually believe? Do you honestly believe you can throw or lock someone down without touching them?
> 
> 
> 
> "Ten years to get good at the basics", or "ten years to become competent" is what I've heard various times both on this forum and other places. The number certainly varies, but in any case the argument is that it takes multiple years to be able to utilize Aikido effectively.
> 
> I'm getting 5-7 years from Aikido school sites such as this;
> 
> Frequently Asked Questions | North County Aikikai
> 
> According to them, it takes 800 hours to earn a black belt, and the average student trains 12-15 hours a month. That equals about 5-7 years of training, and that isn't the only Aikido location I've seen that states this.




Well, to be honest, Watanabe Sensei is kind of considered fringe at best. He's doing something he believes in, but it's not a martial aikido in the least. You also have to be careful just watching that because he is trying to demonstrate something. I've worked with a shihan who doesn't touch you, but you almost fall, because unlike Watanabe, he is throwing a fast, hard atemi at your face when you are unbalanced. You have a choice...get hit, or get out of the way, getting out of the way will make you almost fall (or fall, depending on your balance) and look unbalanced. However, no, you cannot throw someone without touching them.

I also don't believe, nor is there any widescale belief in Aikikai that I am aware of, that you can throw someone without touching them. I belong to USAF, which is under Aikikai. I've never seen the current Doshu or Waka Sensei espousing this.

Here's Tissier Shihan's thoughts on Watanabe Sensei.

*Mario Lorenzo - In South America we can see that those who emphasize too much on the “KI” in their practice are not technically serious. Do you see this in other countries? And what do you think of Watanabe Sensei‘s “no touch Aikido”?*
_ 
Sensei Tissier : They are two different things. On the one hand people who talk about ki, and on the other the ones who practise aikido like Sensei Watanabe. He developed something in which he is especially interested in: it isn’t a ki work but one of anticipation, sensations, whether you like it or not, or whether it works or not. It works when you know the code, but martially it doesn’t work. Being in Japan I worked a lot with him, Watanabe wasn’t like this before. He is a physically solid practicant who wanted to develop something different. I think that if I were head of an examination table I wouldn’t take what he produces.


Now, people who talk and make constant reference on ki around the world are looking for something to justify their lack of technique. Because we all have ki, everything is ki (opening his arms), the problem with ki is its fluency. How does ki flow? When there is no block. When somebody is doing a technique and doesn’t handle it, this person doesn’t have an unblocked body. The objective of the technical aspect of the sport is to unlock every body part where there might exist a block. Someone who performs an exercise with stiff shoulders will not have a real ki flow.

_
Okay, well, I can see North County is California Aikido Association. Their testing requirements are different from USAF. We don't count hours, only days. For us, you can practice 4 hours or 1 hour in a day, and it counts the same. For USAF purposes, it takes 1040 practice days to reach 1st dan. Most students practice 2-3 days per week. Which equates to 7-10 years.

Here's the thing. THAT assumes that everyone never misses any classes (not reality) and tests as soon as they have the day requirements, which isn't realistic. We have a student now that has had the day requirements for his test for 3 years. However, he doesn't have the techniques down well enough to test to the next level. He misses quite a few classes, and then struggles still with some of the techniques.

I also know of a few people that have never tested. I know of at least one guy who has practiced Aikido for almost 20 years (and is pretty damn good) that has never taken a test and has already said he doesn't really ever feel the need to do so. 

I also think you are conflating "getting good at the basics" and "competent". Competency requires context. I would say that the average Aikidoka should have a pretty good handle on the basics after 2, maybe 3 years. NOW, competency will vary depending on what context. Handling a drunk in a bar? Probably after 3-4 years, going up in a street fight against a skilled attacker?, probably closer to 6-8 years, getting in a fight with another really skilled martial artist? longer still. Without context, commenting on competency isn't really appropriate. I will say, after doing BJJ for a short while now, that ironically, BJJ and Aikido are the same. One is just on the ground. Principles and movements are very similar. I was told by a GJJ BB out east that had done Aikido for 6 years prior to switching to BJJ that BJJ was simply Aikido on the ground. There is actually more than a little truth to that.


----------



## Tez3

Spinedoc said:


> LOVE this post, but one question, did you mean jo staff? We don't actually use a bo staff in Aikido.
> 
> Mike



It wasn't the Aikido guys who were doing the Bo, they were only one of a few different types of martial arts instructors there. It was a multi style seminar. hence we got to try each other styles.


----------



## Jenna

Samurai-do said:


> On Aikido: its origins and its effectiveness
> I hope this might provide something of an insight to those who criticise Aikido for not being prevalent on the MMA scene
> Feedback, comments etc. always appreciated!


Purest Aikido as you have succinctly appraised it in your ultimate paragraph never has nor ever will bear any relation whatsoever to ring fighting. MMA and competitive martial arts are practiced for their own reasons in their own ways. Therefore any comparative criticism like you outline in your OP it is like criticising an apple because it is not a pear, no?

If you actively pursue the practice of your Aikido then I would like to ask you please why you wish to change the minds of whomever are those folk that criticise Aikido? Can you say why would you have any mind to convince another person that your apple can stand scrutiny among their pears? J


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> The problem with this argument is that it only takes 5 -7 years to reach instructor grade in Aikido. That's significantly shorter than the "ten years to get competent in Aikido basics" time frame. For comparisons sake, as a purple belt I'm very good at Bjj fundamentals, and I teach fundamentals to beginner Bjj students. If I was simply competent at Bjj fundamentals, I wouldn't be allowed to teach them, and I'd probably still be a blue belt.
> 
> In Aikido we supposedly have people who are incompetent in the fundamentals teaching classes and even opening dojos.
> 
> That should be considered a problem.


If those time differentials are accurate to each other (not questioning you, but wondering if they are coming from different sources), then that is a problem. My experience has been that every instructor I've met in that art seems to be quite capable with the principles of the art. Mind you, none were brand new instructors, and they'd be beyond that time differential, so I have no data to either agree or disagree.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Well only sort of.  In general your actual defences either dont work or only work against bottom tier guys. I mean if we are to relate to what happens in mma and look at rear bear hugs.  In the last ufc just gone there were examples of rear bear hugs used successfully.
> 
> So to suggest that your defences work when a top fighters doesn't means you dont understand the problem.
> 
> Basically they are letting you go to make your defence work. Which is why you have such a high success rate.


My experience with these types of defenses suggests there are a few issues at play:

1) most of us would be nearly helpless against a top-tier fighter (certainly with my knees, etc., I'd be no match for a well-trained fighter in his prime who is both conditioned to take a beating and likely has genetically lower response to pain), regardless of our art or background, so I'll leave that be to start with.

2) Every defense - especially those that use "aiki" (sometimes simply described as acting where the low-effort response is available) - require a certain amount of awareness of and "feel" for the exact situation. They can't be made to work, you have to learn to recognize the opportunity when it exists. Someone who understands the physical principles can shut those down. This is why my students learn both the "aiki" and "non-aiki" methods to use our techniques, since sometimes you just don't have time to wait for a great "aiki" opportunity.

3) There are other responses to attacks that don't require that "feel", and most folks will focus on those. If I were training for fighting, I'd eliminate a large portion of what I've studied, and focus on a smaller group. Since aiki principles require more patience, I'd ditch those in favor of things I could "make" work with enough force and skill. (Since I'm not training for fighting, but for defense, I have the leisure of taking the time to keep adding tools once I'm competent for defense.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> According to them, it takes 800 hours to earn a black belt, and the average student trains 12-15 hours a month. That equals about 5-7 years of training, and that isn't the only Aikido location I've seen that states this.


As a note on this, I can't speak for the associations, but I know that some of them don't see shodan as an instructor level. One I spoke to (in Iwama-ryu, I think) said sandan was the starting point for instructors. All of that is based on my highly suspect memory, so take it all with a grain of salt.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> As a note on this, I can't speak for the associations, but I know that some of them don't see shodan as an instructor level. One I spoke to (in Iwama-ryu, I think) said sandan was the starting point for instructors. All of that is based on my highly suspect memory, so take it all with a grain of salt.



I think that we can both agree that a shodan should have a decent command of the fundamentals at the very least.

That said, I have been in Aikido associations where shodans are instructing classes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I think that we can both agree that a shodan should have a decent command of the fundamentals at the very least.
> 
> That said, I have been in Aikido associations where shodans are instructing classes.


Agreed, on the first point, though I've met those who assert that shodan is a starting point that need not include any competency. I think you and I would both cringe at that assertion - I expect a shodan (really anyone with a black belt) to be pretty danged competent at their art. Within NGA, for example, shodan is commonly an instructor rank (not in my curriculum, but that was my choice, and contrary to the rest of the art), so I have no issue with folks using that as an instructor rank, so long as commensurate competence is in evidence.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> My experience with these types of defenses suggests there are a few issues at play:
> 
> 1) most of us would be nearly helpless against a top-tier fighter (certainly with my knees, etc., I'd be no match for a well-trained fighter in his prime who is both conditioned to take a beating and likely has genetically lower response to pain), regardless of our art or background, so I'll leave that be to start with.
> 
> 2) Every defense - especially those that use "aiki" (sometimes simply described as acting where the low-effort response is available) - require a certain amount of awareness of and "feel" for the exact situation. They can't be made to work, you have to learn to recognize the opportunity when it exists. Someone who understands the physical principles can shut those down. This is why my students learn both the "aiki" and "non-aiki" methods to use our techniques, since sometimes you just don't have time to wait for a great "aiki" opportunity.
> 
> 3) There are other responses to attacks that don't require that "feel", and most folks will focus on those. If I were training for fighting, I'd eliminate a large portion of what I've studied, and focus on a smaller group. Since aiki principles require more patience, I'd ditch those in favor of things I could "make" work with enough force and skill. (Since I'm not training for fighting, but for defense, I have the leisure of taking the time to keep adding tools once I'm competent for defense.)



Not really. We are having two different conversations here.  Back control is a dominant position and the way you approach that kind of determines what you are getting out of your martial arts.

So you can either approach it like you are in a bad position that the other guy may realistically win from.

Or you can create a circumstance where you will win regardless.

My point about top tier fighters is that not being able to escape back control is not automatically a product of not having the awesome defence. You are in a crap position. And if you are escaping back control all the time you have a quality control issue with your partner.

Bear hugs are a great test to determine if your training is contrived or not.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Bear hugs are a great test to determine if your training is contrived or not.


Bit unrelated, but going to comment on this point. I disagree in a way. If you're stating that your bear hug defence will work against anyone then yeah. Where I train, however, I dislike our bear hug approaches, so I've learned others. So have my instructors. We've come to the conclusion that against someone much bigger if you let the person lift you in a bear hug you don't have much you can do, so we try to train for the moment they start it, which we also feel is not the best solution.

Even that, with defenses from multiple styles, and very concentrated practice, if you were to use our rear bear hug defense as a way to see if our training is unrealistic, you would almost definitely believe it is.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> Bit unrelated, but going to comment on this point. I disagree in a way. If you're stating that your bear hug defence will work against anyone then yeah. Where I train, however, I dislike our bear hug approaches, so I've learned others. So have my instructors. We've come to the conclusion that against someone much bigger if you let the person lift you in a bear hug you don't have much you can do, so we try to train for the moment they start it, which we also feel is not the best solution.
> 
> Even that, with defenses from multiple styles, and very concentrated practice, if you were to use our rear bear hug defense as a way to see if our training is unrealistic, you would almost definitely believe it is.



Look. When I say realistic. What I am getting at is quite simply can you get out if the guy is committed to hanging on. Now from my experience if they have a dominant position you won't succeed very often.

I am a big advocate of doing resisted drills to a level where you can fail.

A 100% success rate is not a good indicator of a successful scenario.

And this goes back to the idea of contrived. Instead of trying and failing people feel they need to change the game so they succeed.

Gradings are always the worst examples. Because you are never going to be the monster who makes a guy fail his belt because he couldn't get you off him. But I believe it breeds an unhelpful culture should you actually want to stop a guy with martial arts.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


>



Interesting that someone believes that a street attacker is going to come at them with a staff or throwing repeated front kicks with their hands down.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not really. We are having two different conversations here.  Back control is a dominant position and the way you approach that kind of determines what you are getting out of your martial arts.
> 
> So you can either approach it like you are in a bad position that the other guy may realistically win from.
> 
> Or you can create a circumstance where you will win regardless.
> 
> My point about top tier fighters is that not being able to escape back control is not automatically a product of not having the awesome defence. You are in a crap position. And if you are escaping back control all the time you have a quality control issue with your partner.
> 
> Bear hugs are a great test to determine if your training is contrived or not.


Ah, great point - much clearer to me in this post! Yes, my belief is that tests of defensive ability should not come even close to 100% success, unless you are testing against people who are far less skilled. If your attacker is well-trained, then you should expect to fail against them sometimes. You can put some limitations on attacks to keep them realistic (if you've ever trained in a self-defense school, you'll know some students give over-the-top attacks in an attempt to be original), but they shouldn't be set up for the defender to succeed. 

In training, you can set scenarios that limit the attack for learning purposes (if I want a new student to learn to block punches, I should neither come at them with my best, fastest punches, nor tackle them - I should deliver the punches I'm training them to block). In both defensive testing and free-style practice (sparring and the like), putting too much limit on the attacks creates that situation you're talking about.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Look. When I say realistic. What I am getting at is quite simply can you get out if the guy is committed to hanging on. Now from my experience if they have a dominant position you won't succeed very often.
> 
> I am a big advocate of doing resisted drills to a level where you can fail.
> 
> A 100% success rate is not a good indicator of a successful scenario.
> 
> And this goes back to the idea of contrived. Instead of trying and failing people feel they need to change the game so they succeed.
> 
> Gradings are always the worst examples. Because you are never going to be the monster who makes a guy fail his belt because he couldn't get you off him. But I believe it breeds an unhelpful culture should you actually want to stop a guy with martial arts.



That is one of those videos that bothers me. If that was a test, it didn't test much. An acquaintance of mine posted a bit of video from his BB test in NGA. In the part he posted, it's a 2-man attack, with instructions (on an index card - defender doesn't know what's coming) of something like, "Take man down using whatever means you wish." The two attackers tackled him - one high, one low. He maintains balance for a moment, then ends up on the ground doing his ground defense. He deals with one in short order by finding an opening as they are falling. The second does end up giving him a break after they struggle for a bit. To me, this is a decent test. The second attacker gave in, but only after enough time for the instructor to be able to give him some feedback during the review. I'd actually prefer a culture where the attacker stays on the attack until one or the other wins, but that's pretty unrealistic for the number of attacks in that test. Nobody would be able to complete that. The only other resolution I can see that would work for an extended test format like that would be the instructor calling "stop" after a few seconds and counting it "incomplete". As you said, 100% success isn't a good measure of defensive ability.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Interesting that someone believes that a street attacker is going to come at them with a staff or throwing repeated front kicks with their hands down.


The stick, itself, isn't unrealistic for attacks - the manner it was used, however...


----------



## ShawnP

drop bear said:


> Look. When I say realistic. What I am getting at is quite simply can you get out if the guy is committed to hanging on. Now from my experience if they have a dominant position you won't succeed very often.
> 
> I am a big advocate of doing resisted drills to a level where you can fail.
> 
> A 100% success rate is not a good indicator of a successful scenario.
> 
> And this goes back to the idea of contrived. Instead of trying and failing people feel they need to change the game so they succeed.
> 
> Gradings are always the worst examples. Because you are never going to be the monster who makes a guy fail his belt because he couldn't get you off him. But I believe it breeds an unhelpful culture should you actually want to stop a guy with martial arts.


i have a question about this video, after watching how they attacked, it seemed to me they all had designated responses of the defense, almost as if they were expected to fall away, roll away, or just drop off their attack after the defender began his defensive technique, now wouldnt this type of practice build bad habits for both the attacker and the defender?  in a real life situation would the defender would expect his attacker to respond in a predetermined action such as a roll, flip, or drop? and the same if he became the attacker?


----------



## Aiki Lee

Hanzou said:


> Interesting that someone believes that a street attacker is going to come at them with a staff or throwing repeated front kicks with their hands down.



The claim that this video is showing self-defense is a mistake. The video clearly shows a controlled randori in which the aikidoka is attempting to utilize principles of the art. The training of these principles are useful in self-defense, but the attacks in the video are in no way meant to resemble a modern, western style self-defense scenario.


----------



## drop bear

ShawnP said:


> i have a question about this video, after watching how they attacked, it seemed to me they all had designated responses of the defense, almost as if they were expected to fall away, roll away, or just drop off their attack after the defender began his defensive technique, now wouldnt this type of practice build bad habits for both the attacker and the defender?  in a real life situation would the defender would expect his attacker to respond in a predetermined action such as a roll, flip, or drop? and the same if he became the attacker?



Yes. The defender dosent get the full benifit of the experience. The attacker trains to be a collapso tap out monkey.

I have been through both styles of training. And I find that now I can fight out of submissions I would have tapped to before.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That is one of those videos that bothers me. If that was a test, it didn't test much. An acquaintance of mine posted a bit of video from his BB test in NGA. In the part he posted, it's a 2-man attack, with instructions (on an index card - defender doesn't know what's coming) of something like, "Take man down using whatever means you wish." The two attackers tackled him - one high, one low. He maintains balance for a moment, then ends up on the ground doing his ground defense. He deals with one in short order by finding an opening as they are falling. The second does end up giving him a break after they struggle for a bit. To me, this is a decent test. The second attacker gave in, but only after enough time for the instructor to be able to give him some feedback during the review. I'd actually prefer a culture where the attacker stays on the attack until one or the other wins, but that's pretty unrealistic for the number of attacks in that test. Nobody would be able to complete that. The only other resolution I can see that would work for an extended test format like that would be the instructor calling "stop" after a few seconds and counting it "incomplete". As you said, 100% success isn't a good measure of defensive ability.



Yeah. You will notice, for us anyway, we set two goals for any resisted drill. So like the one I just posted in another thread. One goal is to take a guy down. The other is to defend. Both have equal merits in the training. 

I think the idea for me is the attack has equal worth to the defence.

You can attack in quick succession you just need an end point. We do similar when we do a gauntlet drill.


----------



## Aiki Lee

gpseymour said:


> Ah, great point - much clearer to me in this post! Yes, my belief is that tests of defensive ability should not come even close to 100% success, unless you are testing against people who are far less skilled. If your attacker is well-trained, then you should expect to fail against them sometimes. You can put some limitations on attacks to keep them realistic (if you've ever trained in a self-defense school, you'll know some students give over-the-top attacks in an attempt to be original), but *they shouldn't be set up for the defender to succeed*.



That is exactly how you learn a skill, by setting up the scenario for the defender to succeed. I agree that if someone is always having 100% success then they may be experiencing some "dojo-itis" but learning a viable combat skill means that it would have a high chance of success for the situation it was designed for. If you fail the defense, you either did it wrong or the skill being taught is not appropriate for what people think it should be used for.




gpseymour said:


> In training, you can set scenarios that limit the attack for learning purposes (if I want a new student to learn to block punches, I should neither come at them with my best, fastest punches, nor tackle them - I should deliver the punches I'm training them to block). In both defensive testing and free-style practice (sparring and the like), putting too much limit on the attacks creates that situation you're talking about.



I agree here, but a well trained person should be able to set up his/her techniques through appropriate usages of angles, distance, timing, and other tactics or strategies.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Interesting that someone believes that a street attacker is going to come at them with a staff or throwing repeated front kicks with their hands down.



Almost every grading I have ever seen you go easy on the guy.

Kudo is a bit different they go flat knacker. But the tester takes that into account.


----------



## ShawnP

drop bear said:


> Yes. The defender dosent get the full benifit of the experience. The attacker trains to be a collapso tap out monkey.
> 
> I have been through both styles of training. And I find that now I can fight out of submissions I would have tapped to before.


This doesn't seem practical training unless you are learning the very basics of defense. I tried aikido for a few months and never had this kind of slow movements. Is it possible they taught a different kind of aikido than what you are showing here?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Look. When I say realistic. What I am getting at is quite simply can you get out if the guy is committed to hanging on. Now from my experience if they have a dominant position you won't succeed very often.
> 
> I am a big advocate of doing resisted drills to a level where you can fail.
> 
> A 100% success rate is not a good indicator of a successful scenario.
> 
> And this goes back to the idea of contrived. Instead of trying and failing people feel they need to change the game so they succeed.


I'm not arguing with this. I would be a fool to say a technique will always work, and in fact there are a lot fo times when various techniques don't for me. If you purposefully put yourself in a bad position against another fighter there's no reason to assume you will always get out-otherwise that would be a good position. This is true for most SD holds. However, Rear bear hug specifically is one that I have never found a technique that as a small person I can use semi-successfully to get out. Looking for that and using it as a measuring stick of the art seems pointless to me.



> Gradings are always the worst examples. Because you are never going to be the monster who makes a guy fail his belt because he couldn't get you off him. But I believe it breeds an unhelpful culture should you actually want to stop a guy with martial arts.


Two responses to this.

First, I wouldn't suggest a grading is a bad example. The point of a grading (IMO) is to show that they can do the technique. To see that, you need them to be compliant. Otherwise you will almost definitely see a bad technique. A grading is not about testing the technique, it's about testing the person, so I don't see it contributing to the culture.

Second, to the video, I have no clue what is going on there. I pray that is not an average class, if it is I feel bad for those students.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> I'm not arguing with this. I would be a fool to say a technique will always work, and in fact there are a lot fo times when various techniques don't for me. If you purposefully put yourself in a bad position against another fighter there's no reason to assume you will always get out-otherwise that would be a good position. This is true for most SD holds. However, Rear bear hug specifically is one that I have never found a technique that as a small person I can use semi-successfully to get out. Looking for that and using it as a measuring stick of the art seems pointless to me.



That is actually true for most people. So we have this position that a lot of people just wont win from. 

How the martial arts handles that determines how they train.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> First, I wouldn't suggest a grading is a bad example. The point of a grading (IMO) is to show that they can do the technique. To see that, you need them to be compliant. Otherwise you will almost definitely see a bad technique. A grading is not about testing the technique, it's about testing the person, so I don't see it contributing to the culture.



You are more likely to see the persons true character when he is loosing


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Aiki Lee said:


> The claim that this video is showing self-defense is a mistake. The video clearly shows a controlled randori in which the aikidoka is attempting to utilize principles of the art. The training of these principles are useful in self-defense, but the attacks in the video are in no way meant to resemble a modern, western style self-defense scenario.


Unfortunately, I don't think this particular video clip is a good example of demonstrating even the principles of the art. I don't know if you can apply aiki in a meaningful way with an uke who feeds a slow motion, unfocused "attack" with no actual intention and then throws himself the moment you give him the signal. It's hard to blend with an attackers energy when he doesn't _have_ any real energy. It's not just that the "attacks" aren't representative of a modern, western self-defense scenario - they aren't representative of attacks in any geographic location or time period.

(None of this is intended as a knock against Aikido in general - just an observation regarding this particular school's approach to randori at that particular grading test on that day.)


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Unfortunately, I don't think this particular video clip is a good example of demonstrating even the principles of the art. I don't know if you can apply aiki in a meaningful way with an uke who feeds a slow motion, unfocused "attack" with no actual intention and then throws himself the moment you give him the signal. It's hard to blend with an attackers energy when he doesn't _have_ any real energy. It's not just that the "attacks" aren't representative of a modern, western self-defense scenario - they aren't representative of attacks in any geographic location or time period.
> 
> (None of this is intended as a knock against Aikido in general - just an observation regarding this particular school's approach to randori at that particular grading test on that day.)



OK competitive randori.

OK. Unarmed vs knife is an exercise in loss. But at least you know where you stand.





Here we go akido actually being effective.


----------



## hoshin1600

After watching the clip I will say this is not aikido self defense at all. This is a training exersize.  There is a list of specific responses that the person is expected to do. The hard part is to get the mind to pull a response from that list for each and every attack with out freezing up for a second and thus missing the timing of the attack.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

ShawnP said:


> i have a question about this video, after watching how they attacked, it seemed to me they all had designated responses of the defense, almost as if they were expected to fall away, roll away, or just drop off their attack after the defender began his defensive technique, now wouldnt this type of practice build bad habits for both the attacker and the defender?  in a real life situation would the defender would expect his attacker to respond in a predetermined action such as a roll, flip, or drop? and the same if he became the attacker?


Yes, it does. I've had partners who did that kind of thing, and I find it aggravating. Don't do me any favors by making me look good - make me work for the result, because the guy on the street certainly will. These sorts of uncommitted attacks and preemptive falls can fool the defender into thinking he's fantastic. I believe this sort of thing is where the "no-touch" guys get their delusions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. You will notice, for us anyway, we set two goals for any resisted drill. So like the one I just posted in another thread. One goal is to take a guy down. The other is to defend. Both have equal merits in the training.
> 
> I think the idea for me is the attack has equal worth to the defence.
> 
> You can attack in quick succession you just need an end point. We do similar when we do a gauntlet drill.


Agreed on the dual purposes. As someone mentioned a few posts ago, giving crappy attacks builds bad habits. If I give you crappy attacks, you don't learn good defense, and I don't learn the intensity needed in a fight. In fact, we both learn exactly the opposite of what we need.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Aiki Lee said:


> That is exactly how you learn a skill, by setting up the scenario for the defender to succeed. I agree that if someone is always having 100% success then they may be experiencing some "dojo-itis" but learning a viable combat skill means that it would have a high chance of success for the situation it was designed for. If you fail the defense, you either did it wrong or the skill being taught is not appropriate for what people think it should be used for.



Research shows that something like a 15% failure rate is optimal for learning. The way our brains are wired, we learn relatively little from successes. It's when the outcome isn't what we expected ("failure") that we most readily learn something new.

Now, when we're ingraining "muscle memory" (neural pathways for habit), we certainly do want to practice with 100% success, but only if the student is actually doing it right enough for that success. If they aren't, we're just helping ingrain a habit of the flaw, which is bad learning.




> I agree here, but a well trained person should be able to set up his/her techniques through appropriate usages of angles, distance, timing, and other tactics or strategies.



Eventually, yes. But that still depends upon the right input. If I want to practice a retreating movement as a response to someone grabbing my shirt and shoving back, I can't do it if they grab and pull in. That's where we set limits on the attack, to force the attacker to give the input needed to practice a given response. In a flowing situation, I can wait it out and maneuver an attacker into the position I want, but that's not what I _should_ do. I should look for the opportunities that exist, rather than trying to maneuver someone into the ones I wish existed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

ShawnP said:


> This doesn't seem practical training unless you are learning the very basics of defense. I tried aikido for a few months and never had this kind of slow movements. Is it possible they taught a different kind of aikido than what you are showing here?



Probably just a better teacher. When I watch that video, I see them violating many of the principles of "aiki" - and that's why the uke's (attackers) are falling without having to. There's no stealing of center, very little kuzushi (unbalancing), no leading beyond intention, no leverage-based over-rotation, etc. The attacker remains in control of himself, rather than being drawn off his center by the defender. This is only one step from no-touch stuff.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

kempodisciple said:


> I'm not arguing with this. I would be a fool to say a technique will always work, and in fact there are a lot fo times when various techniques don't for me. If you purposefully put yourself in a bad position against another fighter there's no reason to assume you will always get out-otherwise that would be a good position. This is true for most SD holds. However, Rear bear hug specifically is one that I have never found a technique that as a small person I can use semi-successfully to get out. Looking for that and using it as a measuring stick of the art seems pointless to me.


I think his point was precisely this. If an art or school shows 100% success in defending a rear bear hug, that's a sign of a problem.



> First, I wouldn't suggest a grading is a bad example. The point of a grading (IMO) is to show that they can do the technique. To see that, you need them to be compliant. Otherwise you will almost definitely see a bad technique. A grading is not about testing the technique, it's about testing the person, so I don't see it contributing to the culture.



I have two thoughts on this, and had to choose between them for my own curriculum.

1) Testing is only a formality. The instructor has already seen all the competence he/she needs to (in randori/sparring, etc.), and just wants to make sure the student can do the formal technique under the stress of a "test".

2) Testing is actual testing. The instructor chooses a student who is probably ready and tests them. In this case, defensive testing should be part of the test - including non-compliant, try-to-beat-him attacks by skilled attackers.

True to my nature, I chose both. I require that students be demonstrably over-prepared for the next rank before I will test them (situation #1, above). Then I really test them (situation #2). I'm not a nice instructor sometimes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> Unfortunately, I don't think this particular video clip is a good example of demonstrating even the principles of the art. I don't know if you can apply aiki in a meaningful way with an uke who feeds a slow motion, unfocused "attack" with no actual intention and then throws himself the moment you give him the signal. It's hard to blend with an attackers energy when he doesn't _have_ any real energy. It's not just that the "attacks" aren't representative of a modern, western self-defense scenario - they aren't representative of attacks in any geographic location or time period.
> 
> (None of this is intended as a knock against Aikido in general - just an observation regarding this particular school's approach to randori at that particular grading test on that day.)


Agreed. I have been known to stand still for attacks like this. I cannot use the principles of my art effectively against a non-attack like that. Moreover, I don't need to.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> OK competitive randori.
> 
> OK. Unarmed vs knife is an exercise in loss. But at least you know where you stand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go akido actually being effective.


That second one is a much better expression of "aiki" than the one posted earlier. Now, add to that some competent strikes (Shotokan Karate, etc.) as another option, and we can see where Aikido fits, and why it doesn't have to fit everything.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> After watching the clip I will say this is not aikido self defense at all. This is a training exersize.  There is a list of specific responses that the person is expected to do. The hard part is to get the mind to pull a response from that list for each and every attack with out freezing up for a second and thus missing the timing of the attack.


I think the biggest fix in this situation - if you really want to have nage use the principles properly - is to slow down the rate of attackers. Not the speed of the attack, but the timing of each attacker. That allows nage to actually execute the technique, rather than moving to the nexdt attacker before he has actually done anything.


----------



## Chris Li

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah… of course, that connection to the Omoto Kyo only came into it after WWII… which is after you attribute the creation of Aikido… and, of course, post-dates forms of Aikido such as the Yoshinkan (Gozo Shioda), who left to form his branch prior to WWII himself… so, while it can certainly be seen as a large influence on Ueshiba's development, particularly later in his career, it doesn't necessarily factor in all forms of Aikido. Shudokan (Tomiki Aikido) would be another notable example of it's absence.



Hmm...Ueshiba's first dojo, opened in 1922, was actually on the grounds of the Omoto compound in Ayabe. That would pre-date both Gozo Shioda and Kenji Tomiki by a number of years. In the earliest known interview that I am aware of the religious language is quite clear - that's 1932. The religious language is also prevalent in Budo Renshu - which was published in 1933, and whose text was probably written in large part by Kenji Tomiki. Gozo Shioda actually used to complain about all the time that Ueshiba spent in prayer when he studied with him before the war, although he did rethink his position somewhat in his later years.

Best,

Chris


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Chris Li said:


> Hmm...Ueshiba's first dojo, opened in 1922, was actually on the grounds of the Omoto compound in Ayabe. That would pre-date both Gozo Shioda and Kenji Tomiki by a number of years. In the earliest known interview that I am aware of the religious language is quite clear - that's 1932. The religious language is also prevalent in Budo Renshu - which was published in 1933, and whose text was probably written in large part by Kenji Tomiki. Gozo Shioda actually used to complain about all the time that Ueshiba spent in prayer when he studied with him before the war, although he did rethink his position somewhat in his later years.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chris


Interesting. It seems the Omoto influence came early, but appears not to have had a profound effect on the art until later. There's an apparently clear progression among Ueshiba's senior students (notably those who formed their own styles or led the mainline style) of more "flow" and less martiality as the years progressed. This could, of course, also be attributed to his personal maturity (perhaps he simply had different aims as he aged), or his own change in skill (some instructors struggle with delivering simple basics once they gain a profound understanding of some deeper principles they find more interesting), or even his own age (by necessity and skill, he became gentler and more flowing, and senior students copied his approach).


----------



## Chris Li

gpseymour said:


> Interesting. It seems the Omoto influence came early, but appears not to have had a profound effect on the art until later. There's an apparently clear progression among Ueshiba's senior students (notably those who formed their own styles or led the mainline style) of more "flow" and less martiality as the years progressed. This could, of course, also be attributed to his personal maturity (perhaps he simply had different aims as he aged), or his own change in skill (some instructors struggle with delivering simple basics once they gain a profound understanding of some deeper principles they find more interesting), or even his own age (by necessity and skill, he became gentler and more flowing, and senior students copied his approach).



If you compare what he was actually doing in the 1930's with what he was doing in the 1960's (there's a good comparison here), there was actually....very little change. The changes you're thinking about were primarily introduced by Kisshomaru Ueshiba and Koichi Tohei in Tokyo after the war (see “Is O-Sensei Really the Father of Modern Aikido?”).

You might also be interested in "The Ueshiba Legacy, by Mark Murray", a further discussion of the changes that occurred between Morihei and Kisshomaru Ueshiba.

Best,

Chris


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Chris Li said:


> If you compare what he was actually doing in the 1930's with what he was doing in the 1960's (there's a good comparison here), there was actually....very little change. The changes you're thinking about were primarily introduced by Kisshomaru Ueshiba and Koichi Tohei in Tokyo after the war (see “Is O-Sensei Really the Father of Modern Aikido?”).
> 
> You might also be interested in "The Ueshiba Legacy, by Mark Murray", a further discussion of the changes that occurred between Morihei and Kisshomaru Ueshiba.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chris


I was counting Tohei in that progression. Unless I'm mistaken (and I actually might be - I'm going from my rather faulty memory), he was well after Shioda, and I understood that the training he received was "softer" than Shioda's. I am unclear where Kisshomaru's training fits in. If it is accurate that the changes came when Tohei and Kisshomaru had primary influence, then I'd have to wonder where the softer influence came from. They were both taught by Ueshiba, so I'd expect them to have similar approaches to his.

Thanks for the recommendations. I'll add them to my reading list, and might actually get to them some day. So many books, so little reading time.


----------



## Chris Li

Koichi Tohei trained a little bit (a few months) before the war. After the war he was mainly in Tokyo and had only sporadic contact with Morihei Ueshiba. So....the answer is that he really didn't receive that much direct training, although he was talented and quite strong. 

I'm not sure that "softer" is the best division to make, since Daito-ryu itself can often be softer than modern Aikido (see Kodo Horikawa). 

Basically, their goal was to create a type of training that could be popularized and done by the masses - Zumba as opposed to ballet. There's nothing wrong with that - very few people really do ballet because it involves so much work (and pain), whereas millions do Zumba every day, get fit, have fun, and get together with friends. They're just two different things.

Best,

Chris


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Chris Li said:


> Koichi Tohei trained a little bit (a few months) before the war. After the war he was mainly in Tokyo and had only sporadic contact with Morihei Ueshiba. So....the answer is that he really didn't receive that much direct training, although he was talented and quite strong.
> 
> I'm not sure that "softer" is the best division to make, since Daito-ryu itself can often be softer than modern Aikido (see Kodo Horikawa).
> 
> Basically, their goal was to create a type of training that could be popularized and done by the masses - Zumba as opposed to ballet. There's nothing wrong with that - very few people really do ballet because it involves so much work (and pain), whereas millions do Zumba every day, get fit, have fun, and get together with friends. They're just two different things.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chris


I like that analogy. With "softer" I was more referring to Tohei compared to Shioda, to pick one of the widest differences.


----------



## oaktree

Samurai-do said:


> On Aikido: its origins and its effectiveness
> I hope this might provide something of an insight to those who criticise Aikido for not being prevalent on the MMA scene
> Feedback, comments etc. always appreciated!


I remember I was discussing daito ryu and bjj with my teacher and how people want daito ryu to for a specific purpose or to be able to handle ring or street or what ever flavor of the month is, what we came to a census was it is what it is you train in the art because you enjoy the art for what it is, trying to make it more then that or validate it into a conceptual mold or compare it to other modern styles in the end misses the point of training in arts like daito ryu or those descending from it. For me, when I was accepted to train in daito ryu one of the question was why koryu why daito ryu, and my answer had nothing to do with fighting or realistic application. Anyway just my opinion on this squabble.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

oaktree said:


> I remember I was discussing daito ryu and bjj with my teacher and how people want daito ryu to for a specific purpose or to be able to handle ring or street or what ever flavor of the month is, what we came to a census was it is what it is you train in the art because you enjoy the art for what it is, trying to make it more then that or validate it into a conceptual mold or compare it to other modern styles in the end misses the point of training in arts like daito ryu or those descending from it. For me, when I was accepted to train in daito ryu one of the question was why koryu why daito ryu, and my answer had nothing to do with fighting or realistic application. Anyway just my opinion on this squabble.


I don't think a person's intent "misses the point of training in arts like daito ryu". For them, it is the point. If they choose to study it for aesthetic reasons, that's the point for them. If they choose to study it for combat purposes, that's the point. And the best situation is when the instructor's intent aligns with the intent of the student. Just because you have a reason for studying Daito-ryu that has nothing to do with fighting doesn't mean anyone else is missing the point. Nor does it mean that you are - you each have your point.


----------



## oaktree

gpseymour said:


> I don't think a person's intent "misses the point of training in arts like daito ryu". For them, it is the point. If they choose to study it for aesthetic reasons, that's the point for them. If they choose to study it for combat purposes, that's the point. And the best situation is when the instructor's intent aligns with the intent of the student. Just because you have a reason for studying Daito-ryu that has nothing to do with fighting doesn't mean anyone else is missing the point. Nor does it mean that you are - you each have your point.


To train in koryu is because you enjoy the art for what it is, granted yes some people want to learn it for combative reasons or historical or whatever, but most people practicing it are not concerned if it fits into mma or how realistic it is or needs to be for the modern world. That is all I am saying train in it for what it is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

I do understand that, and have considered training in a koryu for that very reason. I also know those who chose a koryu for the effectiveness of the the techniques (knowing the adaptation needed). I even know someone who went from a modern TMA to the original koryu because they felt it was more effective.


----------



## drop bear

oaktree said:


> To train in koryu is because you enjoy the art for what it is, granted yes some people want to learn it for combative reasons or historical or whatever, but most people practicing it are not concerned if it fits into mma or how realistic it is or needs to be for the modern world. That is all I am saying train in it for what it is.



I did capo for the same reason.  But nobody suggests you go and throw cartwheels in a fight.


----------



## oaktree

What I meant to say drop bear, 
Is people who do koryu don't care what mma people think of it because if someone isn't doing koryu they won't get it and though many videos are on YouTube the depth of the system is only given orally. So even taking a class or two won't even give to much of an understanding.


----------



## Spinedoc

Chris Li said:


> If you compare what he was actually doing in the 1930's with what he was doing in the 1960's (there's a good comparison here), there was actually....very little change. The changes you're thinking about were primarily introduced by Kisshomaru Ueshiba and Koichi Tohei in Tokyo after the war (see “Is O-Sensei Really the Father of Modern Aikido?”).
> 
> You might also be interested in "The Ueshiba Legacy, by Mark Murray", a further discussion of the changes that occurred between Morihei and Kisshomaru Ueshiba.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chris




Yes, and there is some other good evidence, presented by Stanley Pranin that Kisshomaru Ueshiba was not a particularly talented Aikidoka, and certainly nowhere near being on the level of martial prowess as his father. Now, we know that Aikido was tempered after the war, but the question is whether it was tempered out of necessity because Kisshomaru was not as good as his father? Or, was it tempered because of the general ban in post-war Japan on all things budo?

I read something not long ago that after the war, O'Sensei basically retired to Iwama and rarely, if ever came to Hombu, and in addition, he was quite vocal and critical of his son's teaching at Hombu, to the point where, he was actually encouraged to stay away. I have no idea how true/not true that is.

Mike


----------



## Spinedoc

The man who shaped modern aikido in his image by Stanley Pranin

Who changed Aikido after the war and what were their motives? by Stanley Pranin

_Kisshomaru’s situation was extremely complex. As the Founder’s son, he was expected to carry on in his father’s footsteps and manage the course of the development of aikido. In terms of martial ability, he was inexperienced and his temperment such that he rejected a rigorous training model in favor of gentler forms of practice that more closely resembled a cardiovascular exercise system._


----------



## Chris Li

Spinedoc said:


> Yes, and there is some other good evidence, presented by Stanley Pranin that Kisshomaru Ueshiba was not a particularly talented Aikidoka, and certainly nowhere near being on the level of martial prowess as his father. Now, we know that Aikido was tempered after the war, but the question is whether it was tempered out of necessity because Kisshomaru was not as good as his father? Or, was it tempered because of the general ban in post-war Japan on all things budo?



There actually was no post-war ban, that's both a myth and a misunderstanding. Basically, budo as pre-war indoctrination was removed from the public school curriculum. There's a good article about that here. However, Kisshomaru (who was there at the time) said that many Japanese were unsure of what the exact rules were and erred on the side of caution.

I trained some with Kisshomaru, and he actually had quite a bit of stuff - but I think that he suffered by comparison with some of the greats. On his own he would have probably been fine. 

Personally, I think it was less a matter of skill than it was a matter of marketing - creating a product that appeals to a wider and casually training audience.



Spinedoc said:


> I read something not long ago that after the war, O'Sensei basically retired to Iwama and rarely, if ever came to Hombu, and in addition, he was quite vocal and critical of his son's teaching at Hombu, to the point where, he was actually encouraged to stay away. I have no idea how true/not true that is.



Morihei retired to Iwama in 1942 and didn't really come back to Tokyo until the mid 1950's. Even after that (until his death) he was only in Tokyo at most a third of the time - he would stay in Iwama or travel to Osaka or Shingu. When he was in Tokyo he was not responsible for the regular teaching schedule and taught only occasionally.

He always supported Kisshomaru, but he was known to gripe to those who knew him. He had quite a temper and could be trying to deal with (not just about Aikido).

Best,

Chris


----------



## drop bear

oaktree said:


> What I meant to say drop bear,
> Is people who do koryu don't care what mma people think of it because if someone isn't doing koryu they won't get it and though many videos are on YouTube the depth of the system is only given orally. So even taking a class or two won't even give to much of an understanding.



So it is an exclusionary art. Which i dont get the point of by the way.


----------

