# Aiki and the streets?



## Eric Daniel

Hey aiki guys, I have not been in aiki for long and I have a question that I think I may have an answer to but would like other opinions. 

Is aiki street effective? In class your partner does not resist the technique but what if you try the technique on someone who resists the technique? I think that if a guy resist your technique you should hit him, Hitting sounds more like something for the streets, I don't think if you just do a soft aiki technique on the street that it will be effective. 

Another question, how do you know what is effective on the street and what is not? A long time ago in japan the samurai's would try a technique on the battlefield and if it was not effective than they would not do that techniqe again in battle or practice. 

What is the difference in effective techniques than and now? does any one really know? I am not sure but if you have any information that will be helpful please let me know it. 

Later, Eric


----------



## CrankyDragon

Very good questions, which can lead to very long answers.  Ill try to answer a  short one for ya.

 When your uke offers resistance, the whole dynamic of the technique changes.  The principle of Aikido is to use the opponent's energy... Thus to be effective you cannot stumble or you will miss your mark.  If you watch some Steven Segal videos (see our school site for some), you will observe he is lighting fast.  The longer you practice, the faster and more accurate you become, and thus the greater potential you have of being effective with it in real life situations.

 Sometimes in our NGA classes, we "kick it up a notch" as Jeff would say, and it becomes a little bit more combative.  The idea is though, you have a tool box, and each technique is a tool... Suitable for different jobs.  Some more than others, and some can be adapted to a situation.  You dont want to drive a nail with a crecent wrench, but in an emergency you may use it to do so, though its not as effective.  This all means, you do what you know to do, by feflex, if that fails move quicly to something that will suffice for the given situation you find yourself in.

 Again, the longer you train, the more tools you have to work with, the faster you get, the more accurate you become, etc.. etc..  Im only a white belt still, I can can see a big improvment over when I first started.  And to see our Sensei work, I know if he were attacked on the street, someone's going to the hospital ER for sure, and I dont think its gonna be my Sensei!  This is the level of profeciency I strive for.  Not to be perfect in class, but to be proficient with the techniques to make them effective in the real world.  However, the principle of Nihon Goshin Aikido, is just that. Practical self defense, not just to be "pretty", but to be a WORKING tool box!

 BTW, if you visit our site, please feel free to sign the Guestbook (You will find the link in the menu box! Thanx!)

 HTH,
 Andrew


----------



## arnisador

It varies a bit with the style of Aikido, but yes, it can be effective...but it takes longer to develop it as an effective option than it does to develop self-defense skill in, say, Karate.


----------



## CrankyDragon

arnisador said:
			
		

> It varies a bit with the style of Aikido, but yes, it can be effective...but it takes longer to develop it as an effective option than it does to develop self-defense skill in, say, Karate.


I 100% agree... To acheive a level to be able to defend yourself in Aikido does take a lot longer than most MAs.  One reason its called "The patient man's Martial Art". You cant be in a rush or hurry!!

Andrew


----------



## Korppi76

As said earlier, when uke resist then change direction.
And many older Japanese Senseis like to hit atemis and that makes uke move like they like it.
And about those effective techniques now and then, I am not sure but I think that earlier (Before aikido was formalised, not sure about right word) techniques were more "brutal". Nowadays that injury causing part is still there but is it not emphasied. Example in Ikkyo uke shouldnt be attacking shape after cut.


----------



## JAMJTX

Aikido can be very street effective.
One of the "deceptions" is the lack of resistance in class.  What you need to keep in mind is that, in class, if uke resists then you will never learn to apply teh technique properly.  As you increase your skill, uke can "cooperate" less in the application of the technique.

The same kinds of comments about ineffciveness can be said about anymartial art.  People say Aikido does not work because no one is going to stand there and let you put a wrist lock on them.  Well, the same thing can be said about karate, because no one is going to stand there and let you kick them.  Boxing also will not work because no one is going to stand there and let you punch them in the face.

In all martial arts you are learning theory.  It is then up to you to develop the skills to apply the theory.  Aikido requires more skill because it requires less power.

As for hitting, Gozo Shioda said that fighting is 70% striking.  Aikido does uses striking (atemi) just that strikes are not used for the same purposes as arts like karate.  They are used to stun and distract and off balance the attacker.

As far as an attacker "resisting" a technique, of course that is possible.  But the theory behind Aikido of "if attacker pulls, you push / if attacker pushes you pull" requires a quick change of technique to go with his flow.  So, for example, you are going for irimi nage but run into resistance - instead of fighting to get the irimi nage, use the "resisting force" to maybe move into kaiten nage as opposed to being so fixated on the irimi and ending up grappling in a strenght vs strengh situation.

Jim Mc Coy


----------



## JAMJTX

"What is the difference in effective techniques than and now?"

There is no difference.  The human body works the same way now as it did then, so technqiues also work the same.

The emptyhanded battlefield arts were designed with two things in mind.  The Aikijujutsu was designed to use the attackers force against him.  The Jujutsu/grappling arts were designed to exploit weaknesses in the armour - this meant mostly attacking joints.  The armour had to be hinged here in order to allow movements, this left the joingts exposed, thus armlocks, etc could be employed.  I have to believe that a technique designed to disarm and maim a highly trained, armour clad warrior on a battlefield would be even more effective against a street punk not wearing armour.

Jim Mc Coy


----------



## CrankyDragon

Jamjtx,
Thanx much for your post, you were right on target with everything you said, you even presented things in a light that I didnt see before.

Andrew


----------



## Eric Daniel

wow, very interesting answers. I am glad to see all the responses. Aiki takes a long time to get techniques fast and effective? Here is another question guys, What if you add other martial art training you have had (say karate) to your aiki technique on the street will it make the technique more effective?


----------



## arnisador

It would certainly give you more options. Cross-training is often more effective after you get one art down fairly well, though, unless the two arts are very different. So, I have mixed feelings on this! In the long run, yes, but in the short run...maybe. Rather than Karate, if you're just starting at Aikido, I'd add something more flexible, like Jeet Kune Do, that won't impose such specific types of movement on you.

Search on crosstraining/cross-training for lots of discussion of this point.


----------



## CrankyDragon

Eric Daniel said:
			
		

> What if you add other martial art training you have had (say karate) to your aiki technique on the street will it make the technique more effective?


Ive dont Karate, and theres no reason why, in a real world situation, you cant throw a punch or kick in somewhere during the technique.  Im also "studying" Jui-Jitsu at home, some very interesting moves there!!


----------



## JAMJTX

Combining Aikido with other arts can be effective.  But it can also make a mess.

Trying to learn other arts simultaneous with Aikido, although possible, has proven to make both Aikido and the other art more difficult to most people.

If you want to see successful examples look at arts like Kuniba Ryu Goshindo (Yoshinkan Aikido, Shito Ryu Karate, Judo) Yoseikan Budo (Aikido, Judo and other arts).

I have trained in 3 styles of Aikido - Aikikai, Kokikai and Yoshinkan.  My experience is that the Yoshinkan bkends better with the other arts of Karate and Judo. If someone were to ask about combinations, I would reccomend Yoshinkan Aikido with either Shito Ryu or Goju Ryu Karate.


----------



## theletch1

In response to the original theme of the thread I have to ask exactly what do you mean by "effective" in the street?  If it's put the guy out to the point that he can't get back up off the ground then, yeah, but not 'til after years of training.  If it's simply getting away from an attacker, leaving him standing there grasping thin air while after you've blended around his attack and (wisely) run away then, yeah, aikido is effective on the street fairly quickly.  Defending yourself simply means not getting killed or seriously injured.  What you do your attacker in the mean time is simply co-incedental to the fact.

As for mixing styles...it's no secret that I have a kenpo background.  As a white belt in aikido the kenpo was almost a handicap.  Instead of blending and redirecting I had a tendency to hard block and counter-strike.  Instead of thinking about which joints will bend which way I constanly thought about where the nerve bundles were to strike.  Once I managed to get a couple of years experience under by obi in the aikido dojo I began to be able to allow a little of the kenpo to sneak back into what I do with my aikido technique.  A good strong grip from an attacker almost makes it mandatory that I know how and where to strike when I use the atemi to break his ki, allowing for my aiki technique to work.  I've heard it said that aikido is not a good first art as it is often times simply an understood idea that the practitioner already understands the dynamics of a punch or kick.  While I understand why atemi is not stressed in the dojo I often find myself frustrated by the lack of understanding that many people have of the basics of attacking.  Blend styles if you want. If WILL help you in one way or another.  As to doing two styles at once though, well, there is as much risk of confusing yourself on the principles as there is possible benefit.  My advice (humbly given) is become adept at one style before going after another.

"You can't ride two horses at the same time."


----------



## Korppi76

I train mostly aikido but other martial arts I train more unfrequently  gives always new viewpoints to my aikido training. 
My old teacher always said that when person gets 1st Dan then he should try some other martial art to get some new perspective to aikido.


----------



## arnisador

Korppi76 said:
			
		

> My old teacher always said that when person gets 1st Dan then he should try some other martial art to get some new perspective to aikido.


This seems like good advice for any system!


----------



## DavidCC

The most itimidating Aikido instructor I ever met is also an instructor in Kyusho Jitsu and Brazilian Jiu jitsu.


----------



## mantis

Eric Daniel said:
			
		

> wow, very interesting answers. I am glad to see all the responses. Aiki takes a long time to get techniques fast and effective? Here is another question guys, What if you add other martial art training you have had (say karate) to your aiki technique on the street will it make the technique more effective?


 i think this balances the hard and the soft for them..
 but then there is no reason for aikido not to be effective. they do not confront energy, rather then redirect it which is a smarter approach than karate itself.


----------



## Yari

Eric Daniel said:
			
		

> Is aiki street effective?


Yes



> In class your partner does not resist the technique but what if you try the technique on someone who resists the technique? I think that if a guy resist your technique you should hit him, Hitting sounds more like something for the streets, I don't think if you just do a soft aiki technique on the street that it will be effective.


Don't agree on that. Atemi (which is nearly the same as hitting) is a natural part of aiki(do). But to put it a bit theoretical, if the attack doesn't have momentum, you dont have a problem. If you have momentum (the attacker moves in some way), then you have a force to use in aiki(do). No problem. But on the street you dont have clean techniques, and to use Aiki(do) at this level you need a bit more pratice than just 2 weeks of pratice (by that I mean at least 3 years of pratice.



> Another question, how do you know what is effective on the street and what is not?


To be honest, you dont and never will. It's a chance you've got to take. You can minimize things by trying things out in near realistic situations, but your never going to be sure. The reason why is that you never know whats going (or when) somethings is going to happen on the street.


> A long time ago in japan the samurai's would try a technique on the battlefield and if it was not effective ......


....they probably would be dead.




> What is the difference in effective techniques than and now? does any one really know? I am not sure but if you have any information that will be helpful please let me know it.





Not sure what your looking for, but sounds like you mean that the old japanese samurai had the best techniques. And that your indoubt that todays modern techniques reflect that.

To be honest, I don't know. The techniques that have be handed done for centuries, have good quality. but as the the saying goes, there is only dead heroes (by this I mean that alot of stuff that had worked probably is lost and goen, but they made all the "stories", and that what you see left is not nesacerly the best).

But you don't have to look at the past to find something that wokrs on the street. But you have to have a critical mind, and an open attitude. And you should know yourself, to see what would fit youself.

/yari


----------



## amir

Eric Daniel said:
			
		

> Hey aiki guys, I have not been in aiki for long and I have a question that I think I may have an answer to but would like other opinions.





			
				Eric Daniel said:
			
		

> Is aiki street effective? In class your partner does not resist the technique but what if you try the technique on someone who resists the technique? I think that if a guy resist your technique you should hit him, Hitting sounds more like something for the streets, I don't think if you just do a soft aiki technique on the street that it will be effective.
> 
> 
> 
> Another question, how do you know what is effective on the street and what is not? A long time ago in japan the samurai's would try a technique on the battlefield and if it was not effective than they would not do that techniqe again in battle or practice.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference in effective techniques than and now? does any one really know? I am not sure but if you have any information that will be helpful please let me know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Later, Eric






First off, lets separate the terms "Aiki" and "Aikido", "Aiki" is a concept, found to be very useful in Koryu -Jujutsu arts long before the inception of "Aikido".



I assume your actual question is with the art, not the concept. To this I would answer it depends: on the teacher and on the person. Some teachers teach Aikido in a path that is difficult for S.D. applicability, others are very S.D. oriented. The same could be said for the student mentality and skills. Those elements are often more important then anything else.





You asked about resistance, the answer for this is quite simple, most teachers don't teach with resistance because it is more dangerous and nearly impossible to teach.

A good Aikido technique should be soft and harmonious. It does not mean the technique is weak, but that the performer (Tori) will flow with the attack on him, blend with it and find Kuzushi (taking out of balance) with minimal force, only then will the technique be applied. You could imagine it as a snare leading to a trap, the trap must close swiftly and at precisely the right moment, keeping Uke (the attacker) unaware of it until then.

When done this way, Uke has hardly any time to resist and his joints are in jeopardy before he realizes. If Uke does resist, he has to use substantial power and movement, this will open him to a different technique instead of the first. Hence, Tori is flowing with Uke, and practically using his power against him.

When this is done correctly, striking should only be used as part of a technique, part of achieving Kuzushi or part of the set up.

Unfortunately, the above description is impossible to be taught for Kata practice. Each Uke will respond differently to a technique, since he will grasp it at a different moment in time. Any pre-knowledge of the technique by Uke, will change his reaction. Further, if Uke resists with force and speed, the technical response to him should be as fast and decisive, hence the risk of injury.



Due to the above reasons, most Aikido teachers do not often teach against resistance. And even those that do, restrict it to the advanced classes. Instead, the principles of the correct response are being taught in a slow structured manner. Various teachers build their way in different manners, this is one of the greatest difference between styles, much more then the techniques.



Amir



P.S.

The above description is an example of "Aiki", and exists in many other M.A.


----------



## arnisador

"No surprise. Until Aikido sheds its street-brawling, thuggish image, it'll never be mainstream."
 -Don Gwinn

Well, _I_ thought it was funny.


----------



## MA-Caver

Eric Daniel said:
			
		

> Hey aiki guys, I have not been in aiki for long and I have a question that I think I may have an answer to but would like other opinions.
> Is aiki street effective? In class your partner does not resist the technique but what if you try the technique on someone who resists the technique? I think that if a guy resist your technique you should hit him, Hitting sounds more like something for the streets, I don't think if you just do a soft aiki technique on the street that it will be effective.


There are better answers than mine in previous posts... I've only learned a little Aiki but know that it is a very effective art when punching/kicking isn't what you want to do. But I would think about how aiki is designed and what effect it would have if someone resisted. Think broken bones and other highly effective damages to joints, ligaments and so forth. A person would naturally go with it as instinctively they are at that moment of awareness that their arm is about to get broken. Yeah, I'd say it's very effective for the streets and in closed quarters like a public restroom or bar or even in the home.  


			
				Eric Daniel said:
			
		

> Another question, how do you know what is effective on the street and what is not? A long time ago in japan the samurai's would try a technique on the battlefield and if it was not effective than they would not do that techniqe again in battle or practice.


Think also this... if the samurai survived a failed technique long enough to impliment an effective one then yeah they'd learn not to do that in battle.  



			
				Eric Daniel said:
			
		

> What is the difference in effective techniques than and now? does any one really know? I am not sure but if you have any information that will be helpful please let me know it.
> Later, Eric


With ANY Martial Art... the techniques/forms etc. are only as effective as the user. 

:asian:


----------



## RichK

My first Aikido instructor was only about 5". I am 6' (back then about 225pds). He would constantly pull me away from practicing a technique and tell me to attack a certain way and then resist. It was always interesting how much pain I was in when I walked or crawled away after thinking I was gonna have some fun with him and overpower him. So yes, constant redirection is what you are always on the look out for.


----------



## CrankyDragon

I invested 4 months in Aikido myself, and have since changed to BJJ.  My personal observation is for Aiki to be effective, you must be very fast, and very good.  I expect at least 2 years invested before you can be at a level to defend yourself well against an average encounter.

Put a little BJJ, Judo and MTB together, and you can be on top of the game in 8 months, that is street encounter.  Another well trained martial artist, takes a life time. 

Im focusing on BJJ, but our school is MMA, so theres also classes in Judo and MTB, I hope to participate in those also from time to time.  It will feel good to be sparing again!! Thats where you really see how things work with resistance and varying partners!!

And since theres is usually very little or no resistance in Aikido, my complaint is "how will I ever know if it works, or how it will work with resistance??".  If your school doesnt do resistance, then you never will know.  For me, I *need* to know.

My thoughts...
Andrew


----------



## Yari

CrankyDragon said:
			
		

> ....., you must be very fast, and very good. ........
> My thoughts...
> Andrew


 
I believe you don't have to be fast, since it's a question of timing and position.  If you position yourself right, uke will always be "behind" you in timing, and you will feel (as uke) that tori is fast. Whne you get your timing correct you will start to feel that uke is slow and you have all the time in the world.

So usally the need to be fast is a picture of not understanding the corret timing and position.

/Yari


----------



## jujutsu_indonesia

Eric Daniel said:
			
		

> Hey aiki guys, I have not been in aiki for long and I have a question that I think I may have an answer to but would like other opinions.
> 
> Is aiki street effective? In class your partner does not resist the technique but what if you try the technique on someone who resists the technique? I think that if a guy resist your technique you should hit him, Hitting sounds more like something for the streets, I don't think if you just do a soft aiki technique on the street that it will be effective.


 
I agree with you that sometimes we must distract the opponent before applying any Aiki waza to him/her. In most of the old Jujutsu schools, many times the technique calls for striking the opponent first as a distraction before going to actual lock/throws.

I learn some Hakko-ryu Jujutsu and it's based on Daito-ryu Aiki Jujutsu. From what I have experienced none of the techniques are soft, they are all painful. Especially the wrist locks.

Resisting the techniques? That's depend on how the resisting are done. 

I have a guy who is very strong, 200 pounds plus, with iron-like powerful grips. When he grabs a wrist or a lapel, he will absolutely refuse to budge unless a proper Aiki Kuzushi technique is applied. I don't consider this a serious resistance, in fact this is very good for your training.

Maybe you mean resistance by Trying to be a macho man and refuses to tap out when a wristlock is properly set? That would lead into injuries 

Or, how about this..Let's say your partner grab your wrist, and as soon as you try to make your move, he releases the wrist grab and slap your face with the other hand. This is not resistance, this is flat-out disrespectful.

In any case, it is always better to learn the techniques in proper form (no resistance) first, then gradually add more power to it, until you get into the point where you will absolutely not budge unless you are properly unbalanced.

So, tell your partner to grab slowly and loosely at first, then gradually at strength.

Also in striking techniques, ask the partner to hit slowly at first, then gradually add speed and power until he can hit you full force.




> Another question, how do you know what is effective on the street and what is not? A long time ago in japan the samurai's would try a technique on the battlefield and if it was not effective than they would not do that techniqe again in battle or practice.
> 
> What is the difference in effective techniques than and now? does any one really know? I am not sure but if you have any information that will be helpful please let me know it.
> 
> Later, Eric


 
Ancient techniques require adaptation to modern situation to ensure full effectiveness.

I am sure that most of the idori (seated) techniques must be adapted to sitting in chair techniques (because most people outside Japan does not practice knee walking), and the tachidori/sword defenses techniques must be adapted to defenses against long pole, iron pipe and baseball bats (nobody carries swords around anymore these days).

other than that, the principles of aiki techniques itself are timeless.. it is applicable in the year 1930, I am sure it is applicable in 2005 and would still be applicable at least until 2010.

ANYWAY, I remember my teacher always told me: it's never about YOU, it's always about your OPPONENT(s), which means, it's all about who you are facing   So, no matter how high your skill levels are, if you are fighting with a guy (or many guys) who are better than you, then you are dead


----------



## Eric Daniel

Wow,
I have learned a lot of things just by this post. I lerned the meaning of the term Aiki and aikido. And I learned a lot more. Thanks for all your replies and advise.

Sincerely, Eric Daniel


----------



## AdrenalineJunky

arnisador said:
			
		

> "No surprise. Until Aikido sheds its street-brawling, thuggish image, it'll never be mainstream."
> -Don Gwinn
> 
> Well, _I_ thought it was funny.


 
It _is _funny, lol.
Here's my story:

I have been doing Muay Thai since I was about 13/14. In 2000/2001, when I started working as a bouncer, I decided that a little stand up grappling would be a nice addition to my skills; I looked around and settled on a reputable Aikido gym. The lady who ran the place was very good; she had pictures on the wall of her at the Olympics, competing in Judo. From what I saw, I was quite impressed. She had no problem launching me around, and I was a pretty big guy back then. Whenever I join a new school, I don't mention that I have practiced Muay Thai for next to forever; I come as I am, and I come in good faith. 

A few months into the training, I started noticing "flaws." I kept my mouth shut, dismissing it as being naive in the art--which was true. One day, I heard the instructor tell this elaborate story about her patronizing the bar that I worked at (she didn't know I was working there). She concocted a story about some big, bad, drunken, steroid-freak-boxer-run-a-muck, taking out all the bouncers, and cops, to boot. The story ended with the cops (realizing that she was Aikidoka extra-ordinaire) begging her to take this guy down. She went over and did some Steven Segal chuck-fu and submitted the guy, so the cops could restrain him.

I had to call bulls**t. I asked her when this happened, and got an answer that indicated that this took place while I was working there. Then I revealed that I worked there, and it magically became before then. I got pissed, because I smelled poop. Next, I broke down the way she described submitting the guy, and began questioning it's real-life effectiveness against a "boxer." Smelling blood, and an opportunity to show off, she said: "go ahead, try to punch me." She's lucky I pulled my jab. After realizing that she had no answer to free-combinations, she tried setting combinations, so she would know what I was going to throw. This resulted in my slipping her attempts at submitting me and moving in for a knee/elbow (kao drong/sawk sob), which I also pulled. 

When she realized that I was skilled in some form of martial art or another, she simply stated: "I'm not going to spar with you." So, it was all good when she thought she was going to toss some new-kid around for all to see; but when she realized that I had been a training in Muay Thai for about half of my life, suddenly she was too good to demonstrate her techniques. 
​Some will say that she did the right thing. Some will say that should would have ended up hurting me. Well, maybe, but it appeared to be quite the opposite--if there's anything I know it's Muay Thai. In retrospect, however, I wish I wouldn't have done that. Not only was it rude and disrespectful, but I'd actually like to go back and train there now, and I'm simply too ashamed to. That said, it is not in my character to listen to bulls**t. I have frequently run into this problem with various college professors, and it's been a real test of self to hold my tongue. But she was wrong.

Is Aikido effective in the "street?" Against your average idiot, sure. Against a boxer or a Thai boxer; I'm not impressed. It seems like the dynamics are simply different--if that makes any sense. Also, interestingly enough, Steven Segal lived in my area for a while, and actually trained there; although, long before I was ever there. The lady has a bunch of pictures. 

I'm sure this will incite riotous rants against me; but that's my experience. Aikido is cool, and I'd love to train in it, but I do also think that there is a lot of hype surrounding its effectiveness under real-life circumstances. I'm sure many will disagree; and I hope that I have not offended you. 

AJ :asian:


----------



## samurai69

AdrenalineJunky said:
			
		

> It _is _funny, lol.
> Here's my story:
> 
> I have been doing Muay Thai since I was about 13/14. In 2000/2001, when I started working as a bouncer, I decided that a little stand up grappling would be a nice addition to my skills; I looked around and settled on a reputable Aikido gym. The lady who ran the place was very good; she had pictures on the wall of her at the Olympics, competing in Judo. From what I saw, I was quite impressed. She had no problem launching me around, and I was a pretty big guy back then. Whenever I join a new school, I don't mention that I have practiced Muay Thai for next to forever; I come as I am, and I come in good faith.
> 
> A few months into the training, I started noticing "flaws." I kept my mouth shut, dismissing it as being naive in the art--which was true. One day, I heard the instructor tell this elaborate story about her patronizing the bar that I worked at (she didn't know I was working there). She concocted a story about some big, bad, drunken, steroid-freak-boxer-run-a-muck, taking out all the bouncers, and cops, to boot. The story ended with the cops (realizing that she was Aikidoka extra-ordinaire) begging her to take this guy down. She went over and did some Steven Segal chuck-fu and submitted the guy, so the cops could restrain him.
> 
> I had to call bulls**t. I asked her when this happened, and got an answer that indicated that this took place while I was working there. Then I revealed that I worked there, and it magically became before then. I got pissed, because I smelled poop. Next, I broke down the way she described submitting the guy, and began questioning it's real-life effectiveness against a "boxer." Smelling blood, and an opportunity to show off, she said: "go ahead, try to punch me." She's lucky I pulled my jab. After realizing that she had no answer to free-combinations, she tried setting combinations, so she would know what I was going to throw. This resulted in my slipping her attempts at submitting me and moving in for a knee/elbow (kao drong/sawk sob), which I also pulled.
> 
> When she realized that I was skilled in some form of martial art or another, she simply stated: "I'm not going to spar with you." So, it was all good when she thought she was going to toss some new-kid around for all to see; but when she realized that I had been a training in Muay Thai for about half of my life, suddenly she was too good to demonstrate her techniques.
> 
> ​Some will say that she did the right thing. Some will say that should would have ended up hurting me. Well, maybe, but it appeared to be quite the opposite--if there's anything I know it's Muay Thai. In retrospect, however, I wish I wouldn't have done that. Not only was it rude and disrespectful, but I'd actually like to go back and train there now, and I'm simply too ashamed to. That said, it is not in my character to listen to bulls**t. I have frequently run into this problem with various college professors, and it's been a real test of self to hold my tongue. But she was wrong.
> 
> Is Aikido effective in the "street?" Against your average idiot, sure. Against a boxer or a Thai boxer; I'm not impressed. It seems like the dynamics are simply different--if that makes any sense. Also, interestingly enough, Steven Segal lived in my area for a while, and actually trained there; although, long before I was ever there. The lady has a bunch of pictures.
> 
> I'm sure this will incite riotous rants against me; but that's my experience. Aikido is cool, and I'd love to train in it, but I do also think that there is a lot of hype surrounding its effectiveness under real-life circumstances. I'm sure many will disagree; and I hope that I have not offended you.
> 
> AJ :asian:


 
I have to answer this one........If it was my aikido school, I would ask you to remain after class and then, spa without people around. IMO its just as dis respectfull to humiliate a student....if it becam obvious you knew another MA and i was having trouble against it then I/we could work through it
I have studied aikido for some years (and teach it) i also have studied muay thai and wing chun and some other bits and pieces, using aikido techniques only i am pretty sure i could control and subdue a muay thai fighter in a street combative situation (i am sure i would still get hit a fair bit too).....my aikido would change some (more atemi etc) but it could and would work....of course with the knowledge of muay thai then in a street cobative situation i could and would use a variety of techniques from all the arts i have studied


----------



## arnisador

The after class advice is good. But atemi--going strike-to-strike--against a Thai kickboxer? I don't think that's a good diea. Even using it to get a reaction isn't apt to work here. I'd say, stay at a distance, avoid the clinch and round kicks, until you can get to the outside and pull off a technique.


----------



## theletch1

arnisador said:
			
		

> The after class advice is good. But atemi--going strike-to-strike--against a Thai kickboxer? I don't think that's a good diea. Even using it to get a reaction isn't apt to work here. I'd say, stay at a distance, avoid the clinch and round kicks, until you can get to the outside and pull off a technique.


I'd agree and then I'd say that situations like this are a great example of why people should augment their aikido training with other arts.  At the very least you will gain a bit of insight as to what you may face when dealing with someone of another style.  With the proper timing and a skill level advanced enough to deal with a planted attacker the basics don't change.  This then becomes the age old question "Which style is better?"  

As to the situation with the aikido instructor I can see fault with both parties involved.  As an aikido instructor she should not have felt the need to embellish or outright lie about defending herself.  She should have taken great pride in not having been in any fights at all.  As a martial artist trained in another art I feel that you had a responsibility to inform the instructor that you had prior training and even to share you skills with the rest of the aikido-ka so that they could see how a determined/skilled attacker would react to their techniques.


----------



## samurai69

theletch1 said:
			
		

> As a martial artist trained in another art I feel that you had a responsibility to inform the instructor that you had prior training and even to share you skills with the rest of the aikido-ka so that they could see how a determined/skilled attacker would react to their techniques.


 
Thats a good point.....


----------



## Eric Daniel

MA-Caver said:
			
		

> With ANY Martial Art... the techniques/forms etc. are only as effective as the user.
> 
> :asian:


 
I agree with this statement because if the user knows his stuff, he will take his opponent out but if he does not know his stuff al that well, he might try a technique and it will be ineffective.


----------



## dasgregorian

As I understand it, the Uke doesn't offer resistance so that YOU can learn the technique... up until that point it's not street effective, because once you go up with someone who isn't LETTING you do the technique, the feeling will be very different.  However, once you are comfortable with your own knowledge of the technique, it's good to get a friend to spar with you a little just to find situations where you could pull the technique off, then actually try them full speed.  Once you get to the point where someone throws a punch, and you can turn that into a trap/grapple/throw, you can build whatever situation you need for whatever technique you want to use.

i.e. like any style... it doesn't start out street effective... but once you can do it full speed, and you can recognize when you can pull it off in a real situation, it becomes 'street effective.'


----------



## Yari

I think I understand what your pointing at, but just to clarify. All styles dont start off with 100% resistance, since that means that your oppenent is better then you, and would know how to work against it.

Any person that has trained just a bit can obstruct(spel?) a newcommers techniques. So your parnter has to work along for you to get the idea.

Were Aikido differs (typically) is in the focus on the "flow" in the technique on all levels of Aikido. To understand and use flow you have to pratice it.

What I think your pointing out, is that many Aikido styles ONLY focus on flow. I belive this is an atvantage but it does have the negativ side that it takes longer to leran and handle yourself selfdefences wise.

/Yari


----------



## AdrenalineJunky

samurai69 said:
			
		

> I have to answer this one........If it was my aikido school, I would ask you to remain after class and then, spa without people around. IMO its just as dis respectfull to humiliate a student....if it becam obvious you knew another MA and i was having trouble against it then I/we could work through it
> I have studied aikido for some years (and teach it) i also have studied muay thai and wing chun and some other bits and pieces, using aikido techniques only i am pretty sure i could control and subdue a muay thai fighter in a street combative situation (i am sure i would still get hit a fair bit too).....my aikido would change some (more atemi etc) but it could and would work....of course with the knowledge of muay thai then in a street cobative situation i could and would use a variety of techniques from all the arts i have studied


 
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I spar every weekend (and sometimes during the week), full-contact, round-robin style, in both Muay Thai and boxing, for a total of about 45 minutes. I have sparred with many a martial artist, and have found that few actually have the experience with real-time fighting that one gets in Muay Thai and Boxing. All of Muay Thai and Boxing is sparring; it's built around real-time, real-life application, not theory. Many arts work in theory, but most of the stuff that goes above and beyond basic strikes are simply too low-precentage. I'd have been happy to stick around and spar with her. 

AJ


----------



## AdrenalineJunky

theletch1 said:
			
		

> I'd agree and then I'd say that situations like this are a great example of why people should augment their aikido training with other arts. At the very least you will gain a bit of insight as to what you may face when dealing with someone of another style. With the proper timing and a skill level advanced enough to deal with a planted attacker the basics don't change. This then becomes the age old question "Which style is better?"
> 
> As to the situation with the aikido instructor I can see fault with both parties involved. As an aikido instructor she should not have felt the need to embellish or outright lie about defending herself. She should have taken great pride in not having been in any fights at all. *As a martial artist trained in another art I feel that you had a responsibility to inform the instructor that you had prior training and even to share you skills with the rest of the aikido-ka so that they could see how a determined/skilled attacker would react to their techniques*.


 
The reason I don't tell people that I practice Muay Thai, is because the response, in the past, has not been good. The responses range from people belittling Muay Thai as a "ring only" sport, to immediately "testing" me in an attempt to prove that their art is better. Those were not places I went back to. However, I did become acquainted with students from those schools and spent a great deal of time training with them. 

I trained one of my EPAK buddies for the sparring portion his 1st brown stripe test. His instructor actually got mad at him for winning. I've seen them spar, it looks like American kickboxing, anyway; where's the harm in training Muay Thai? It seemed like the instructor got mad because his student caught him off-guard. It's hard to relate this stuff without sounding like a jerk, and I apologize for that, but it doesn't change the fact that it's the truth. Muay Thai has not always had the respect it currently holds, remember. 

AJ


----------



## Connovar

The training is as important as the technique. There are muliple grappling arts and they all push or pull in one form or another. There are multiple striking arts and they all strike or kick. The issue is the training.

If you are fighting against an opponent on the street you are fighting a fully resisting opponent (unless he is comatose). To learn to fight a fully resistant opponent you need to do it often in practice. There is no way around it.IMO


----------



## theletch1

When a technique is done at street speed there is very little time to become a "full resisting" opponent.  One of my classmates commented the other day that whenever he did a particular technique to me it didn't go exactly as he expected it to even though he was doing the tech properly and I was giving him a full speed attack.  The instructor pointed out to him that a)I knew what was coming and that b)I'm still compensating for a back injury and am subconciously resisting the technique at exactly the right moment to make the fall easier.  The attacker on the street isn't going to know what is coming and since the techniques go WITH the flow of his energy then the "full" resistance everyone seems to be discussing is almost a mute point.  If an attacker is able to stop the momentum of the attack then simply change techniques (ura) into something else that will work.


----------



## Connovar

At full speed you can fully resist. Its done all the time in full contact events etc. We are not talking about one person throwing a predetermined attack. We are talking about working with an opponent who is trying to defeat you when you are trying to defeat him. aka "fighting"


----------



## theletch1

Connovar said:
			
		

> At full speed you can fully resist. Its done all the time in full contact events etc. We are not talking about one person throwing a predetermined attack. We are talking about working with an opponent who is trying to defeat you when you are trying to defeat him. aka "fighting"


In a full contact EVENT it is understood that the opponent will have at least some of the same training and be familiar with some of the same techniques which you will be using.  The thread was about aikido and the street and my assumption was that we were discussing the run of the mill thug who has no idea that the aikido-ka is allowing the thugs energy to flow freely in order to apply a technique.  Sure, if it's a MMA situation then resistance can be applied but I still contend that someone completely untrained in aikido is not going to know when to resist a technique to stop it or even that a technique is being set up.


----------



## samurai69

theletch1 said:
			
		

> In a full contact EVENT it is understood that the opponent will have at least some of the same training and be familiar with some of the same techniques which you will be using. The thread was about aikido and the street and my assumption was that we were discussing the run of the mill thug who has no idea that the aikido-ka is allowing the thugs energy to flow freely in order to apply a technique. Sure, if it's a MMA situation then resistance can be applied but I still contend that someone completely untrained in aikido is not going to know when to resist a technique to stop it or even that a technique is being set up.


 

Man you are so right, i was going to comment earlier, but you seem to have it in the bag

I teach aikido, but over the last year have started to teach RBSD and in a situation where the attacker is not expecting a styalised defence (or specific type of defence ) then aikido techniques work perfectly well,the only disadvantage is the length of time it takes to teach proper and performable techniques to SD students.

To re answer the origional questioon, if the student is at a reasonable level then aiki techniques are as good as (or better than ) many other techniques from many MA's that i have trained in


----------



## Connovar

Thats ok to assume that as long as the "thug" makes some wild swinging attack with very little balance etc. That hasnt been my experience on   generally on the street and if they were that bad who needs the martial arts to beat them.

So just get in a ring and see how you do. Losing is part of learning and so is winning. Taking the occasional bell ringer also helps.  If you want to learn to swim you have to get in the water and if you want to learn to fight then you just have to fight.


----------



## samurai69

Connovar said:
			
		

> Thats ok to assume that as long as the "thug" makes some wild swinging attack with very little balance etc. That hasnt been my experience on generally on the street and if they were that bad who needs the martial arts to beat them.
> 
> So just get in a ring and see how you do. Losing is part of learning and so is winning. Taking the occasional bell ringer also helps. If you want to learn to swim you have to get in the water and if you want to learn to fight then you just have to fight.


 

I trained in muay thai (properly) for 2 years and had a couple of fights in the ring, i have also seen some fights in the street and would have to disagree, most street altercations have been fairly uncontrolled hits (off balance enough, even when they look balanced) and a rush to grapple -mostly to stop being hit (again mildly off balance)...........also when i train i throw in muay thai type punches and kicks and have still found aiki techniques to be effective enough


----------



## green meanie

theletch1 said:
			
		

> In a full contact EVENT it is understood that the opponent will have at least some of the same training and be familiar with some of the same techniques which you will be using. The thread was about aikido and the street and my assumption was that we were discussing the run of the mill thug who has no idea that the aikido-ka is allowing the thugs energy to flow freely in order to apply a technique. Sure, if it's a MMA situation then resistance can be applied but I still contend that someone completely untrained in aikido is not going to know when to resist a technique to stop it or even that a technique is being set up.


 
No offense because I think I understand what you're saying, but I would look at the fact that you feel you need a 'run of the mill thug' who has no idea what's going on in order for these techniques to work to be an admission that aiki isn't very effective on the streets. Or lets put it this way, I'd rather study an art that you believe would be effective against a skilled fighter than one that isn't.


----------



## Henderson

I have a few problems with some comments made in this thread. I do not mean to find fault with one individual, it's just that the quote below was rather frank and to the point, which is a good thing.




			
				Connovar said:
			
		

> So just get in a ring and see how you do......and if you want to learn to fight then you just have to fight.


I believe this thread was created to discuss the street effectiveness of a particular art. People equate sparring and ring fighting with street fighting...again. They are not the same, they're not even close. You cannot train for a full-blown street altercation by putting on sparring gear and going a few rounds. It will not prepare you. The only way to truly train for the street and actually test your skills would be to really fight, without rules, without judges, with the real possibility of injury.


Respects,

Frank


----------



## Connovar

> I believe this thread was created to discuss the street effectiveness of a particular art. People equate sparring and ring fighting with street fighting...again. They are not the same, they're not even close. You cannot train for a full-blown street altercation by putting on sparring gear and going a few rounds. It will not prepare you. The only way to truly train for the street and actually test your skills would be to really fight, without rules, without judges, with the real possibility of injury.


 
Technically the only way a soldier can experience warfare is to get in a real firefight. So does that mean the military should not force on force training to prepare its soldiers and instead just have them practice shooting at stationary targets.

Granted full contact sport is not identical to street but it is a whole lot closer than drilling against non resisting opponents. Even your competitive MMA is not fully prepared for the streets. They dont deal with weapons or multiples for example.

IMO the best answer for the aikidoka who doesnt spar is not to worry about using his/her aikido for self defense. Use for it attribute development, fitness etc. Do some short course's such as F.A.S.T. etc and periodically review them your self defense needs. There is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Henderson

I agree.


----------



## dianhsuhe

"Master Ueshiba concluded that the true spirit of Budo is not to be found in a competetive and combative atmosphere where brute strength dominates and victory at any cost is the paramount objective.  He concluded that it is to be realized in the quest for perfection as a human being, both in mind and body"

This is a blurb from "The Spirit of Aikido" (Kisshomaru Ueshiba)

As mentioned, Aikido can be made effective for the streets but there is a LOT more to Aikido than that...If your primary objective is to prepare yourself for  the streets, it'll be awhile for ya.

For example, in Kara-Ho Kempo we utilize KI principles and learn a few Aikido techniques as well.  I trained for a little over 1 year (read: no expert at all) in Aikido separately and I loved it!  In those classes it seemed that if I resisted my limbs would most certainly be broken...


----------



## green meanie

dianhsuhe said:
			
		

> "Master Ueshiba concluded that the true spirit of Budo is not to be found in a competetive and combative atmosphere where brute strength dominates and victory at any cost is the paramount objective. He concluded that it is to be realized in the quest for perfection as a human being, both in mind and body"
> 
> This is a blurb from "The Spirit of Aikido" (Kisshomaru Ueshiba)


 
No offense intended to the late O-Sensei or to the practitioners of his art but this quote raises the question: Does brute strength have to dominate in a competitive and combative atmosphere? Isn't the reason we all practice is because we believe superior technique will defeat brute strength?


----------



## madfrank

Hi

Ask any LEO, bouncer, cop, street thug, what works in the street and they MA with experience.

And they will tell you it is gross motor responses and being pre-emptive.

Action beats reaction.

Stress makes it impossible to utilise fine motor skills.

Most so called MA attacks will never happen in the street; stepping punches, wrist grabs, spinning back kicks, over head knife hand strikes etc or very rarely at least.

Does your MAS practice the above?

And what film stars make work after choreography and re-takes with fellow actors has no rellevence to the street.


MF


----------



## Henderson

green meanie said:
			
		

> Does brute strength have to dominate in a competitive and combative atmosphere?


No, it does not.



			
				green meanie said:
			
		

> Isn't the reason we all practice is because we believe superior technique will defeat brute strength?


Why, yes...it is.

Good points, Denny.


----------



## Yari

I'm not sure that I agree. 

I do belive that the correct technique will optimize the changes for the outcome to be what fits me, but, but, but..........

What is brute force, and which criteria will define my success compared to it?

I think it's wrong to think that just because I'm praticing af "finer art" I will be able to handle brute force.  And concidering SD, how much is needed in the finer art to handle brute force? A little girl will not stand much of a chance against a very large man using brute force. 

So I'm no sure....

/yari


----------



## Connovar

You need a combination of strength and technique in general for a technique to work against a skill resisting opponent. Fine motor skills break down under stress so strength to some degree will be needed. Does it mean you to need to be a body builder? No! However you will need some to compensate for the unknowns and unexpected actions during combat


----------



## amir

*Connovar*,

Did you ever learn any style of Aikido?
I have not seen you write anything on Aiki, instead, you are trying to prove your private point of view on the right way to practice for "the street".

Personally, the style I learn has free-play (Randori) as part of it's foundations, the free-play section is included to all forms of practice, including the armed practice (Jo, Boken, Wakizashi, Tanto, Bo etc. and the mixes) and has no technical limitations. However,* I would not call Randori sparring*. When I was younger, I often let the Randori deteriorate into a sparring contest, to the dismay of my teacher. Today, I know better, I use the* Randori for learing skill*, rather then as a test. I know the techniques work, I don't need to test them. I *do* need to learn, and mostly improve my movement (especially the hip/waist), become softer and more sensitive and improve my timing, particularly for the less expected moves.
I recently met a friend who is learning Tomiki Aikido. This is a style of Aikido whose path is much closer to Judo. They hold Shiai (competition sparring) and work "full force and speed". I enjoyed working with him and practicing Randori. We did find out his style has modified the techniques they allow in Rnadori to prevent injury when working full force. For me, this modification is actually a deformation - the techniques no longer work and can be easily pose a threat of injury and can be evaded until a later stage by being softer. This is a general problem *Aikido techniques* *should break joints without much force, *when applied properly (i.e. in aiki way - smooth small move, short duration, surprising, correct timing, good kuzushi), this is the way I learn, I know other places teach other ways. I have felt the danger more then once in Randori. Therefore, I rather keep my practice slow and correct instead of getting used to full force and speed but incorrect technique. This is my choice, others can make another. 




*madfrank*

Generally, you are correct. When attacked by surprise, the adrenalin has a tendency to rise and it is difficult to perform anything fine, only gross moves are possible. 

Some M.A. will accept this and teach you gross moves. This is more common among modern M.A. 
Other M.A. decide to fight the source of the problem - the fighter himself. Try to teach him to remain calm under duress, and perform as well and better then normal. This concept is quite common among the Japanese M.A. including the Koryu styles that were invented at times of internal war.

One could look at this as styles that were originally only meant for the best. Just like the great basketball players are those that keep their calm in the storm, think and act, so are the best fighters. Those were the fighters that survived the fights and developed Japanese Martial Arts. Those fighters were the ones who promoted the idea of Aiki, long before the 20th century and the birth of any Aikido style.

If you look at the Aikido techniques, non of them was invented by Aikido, they all originate from older styles (this is true for all the styles of Aikido I know of). The difference is that Aikido is taught to everyone who wishes to learn. Now days, to get to the level where one could remain calm under duress, one should practice in a serious manner with a great teacher and for a long time or - experience enough stressful situations to get used to it (someone I know told me about the latter - from his personal experience).



Amir


----------



## Connovar

amir said:
			
		

> *Connovar*,
> 
> Did you ever learn any style of Aikido?
> I have not seen you write anything on Aiki, instead, you are trying to prove your private point of view on the right way to practice for "the street".
> 
> Personally, the style I learn has free-play (Randori) as part of it's foundations, the free-play section is included to all forms of practice, including the armed practice (Jo, Boken, Wakizashi, Tanto, Bo etc. and the mixes) and has no technical limitations. However,* I would not call Randori sparring*. When I was younger, I often let the Randori deteriorate into a sparring contest, to the dismay of my teacher. Today, I know better, I use the* Randori for learing skill*, rather then as a test. I know the techniques work, I don't need to test them. I *do* need to learn, and mostly improve my movement (especially the hip/waist), become softer and more sensitive and improve my timing, particularly for the less expected moves.
> I recently met a friend who is learning Tomiki Aikido. This is a style of Aikido whose path is much closer to Judo. They hold Shiai (competition sparring) and work "full force and speed". I enjoyed working with him and practicing Randori. We did find out his style has modified the techniques they allow in Rnadori to prevent injury when working full force. For me, this modification is actually a deformation - the techniques no longer work and can be easily pose a threat of injury and can be evaded until a later stage by being softer. This is a general problem *Aikido techniques* *should break joints without much force, *when applied properly (i.e. in aiki way - smooth small move, short duration, surprising, correct timing, good kuzushi), this is the way I learn, I know other places teach other ways. I have felt the danger more then once in Randori. Therefore, I rather keep my practice slow and correct instead of getting used to full force and speed but incorrect technique. This is my choice, others can make another.




Yes I have done some aikido. More importantly I have fought against people trying to use. In my experience they have been the easiest to defeat. The overrelance upon "blending" with the attack leaves them essentially helpless against feints and combinations. However this discussion was about aikido and the streets. IMO aikido is fine for attribute development but the way it is usually practiced with non resistive partners is generally inadequate alone for the street. There is nothing wrong with doing aikido for its physical, mental and emotional benefits. Its just not a very good way to train for self defense. You wouldnt drag race with a bulldozer and you wouldnt clear a field with a dragracer. Different tools for different needs. The error is trying to make one size fit all. You may not like my opinion and that is ok. We will just disagree.


----------



## jujutsu_indonesia

my sensei once said that aikido was NOT designed by Uyeshiba O-sensei as a war art/battlefield art. In fact, it was designed as a vehicle to teach love and harmony. To use aikido for the battlefield is very possible, but it was not the intention of the founder.

all the great aikido masters such as Tomiki, Mochizuki, Tohei, Shioda and off course O-Sensei himself were already great masters of Judo and Jujutsu before they learn the aiki arts. So they already mastered self-defense. But they stick with aikido because they want to learn self-mastery and self-improvements, which, ultimately, are more important than just self-defense.

however, sensei also said that if you have already good grounding/foundation in an art designed for self-defense, then by adding aikido or other aiki arts into it, you will see your techniques becoming supercharged, becoming more effective.


----------



## arnisador

I agree that adding a bit of aikido training can be a help. It improves your locks and your ability to get to where you can apply them, obviously, but I found it esp. helpful for adding big, sweeping movements that occasionally are helpful--like when trying to dodge two or three opponents at once, or when you _really _need to get to the side or rear of your opponent. I didn't do it for long, but I did take some things away from it.


----------



## Connovar

I agree, aikido can help definitely be helpfull with development with attributes that are usefull in self defense.

IMO there are few systems out there that are really good for self defense. I base this on 35+years of MA including dan rankings in multiple systems. Ever system has it weakness. Currently I mainly do boxing and bjj, but they would not be my first choice for self defense. A good self defense system needs striking and grappling, standing and ground, multiple and single opponent training and training against weapons. Few systems do that and that is ok.  They would also have to practice these against full resistance. For me I train in what I enjoy and what provides me health and fitness. If I had to fight against multiples or an armed opponent then thats why I legally carry a concealed handgun.


----------



## Satori

dianhsuhe said:
			
		

> As mentioned, Aikido can be made effective for the streets but there is a LOT more to Aikido than that...If your primary objective is to prepare yourself for the streets, it'll be awhile for ya.


 
I think this really explains a lot of it.  

I put Aikido in the same category as certain styles of Tai Chi.  Sure, if you train hard enough ANY martial art can be effective on "The Street (TM)"...but I don't believe Morihei Ueshiba planned on creating "The Ultimate Street Self Defense"...he had far different goals in mind.

If you're looking for "The Ultimate Street Self Defense", then I think you'll be sorely disappointed with Aikido and the length of time required to utilize it properly.


----------



## Fightfan00

Just like any other martial art theres techniques that you pick from and try that will be effective and some that wont be even close.I do belive if a technique gets botched up in an altercation that you should strike as much as you possibly can.Its the street right?So you have to do anything you possibly can to survive.


----------



## amir

Fightfan00 said:
			
		

> Just like any other martial art theres techniques that you pick from and try that will be effective and some that wont be even close.I do belive if a technique gets botched up in an altercation that you should strike as much as you possibly can.Its the street right?So you have to do anything you possibly can to survive.


 

You can try and look at seperat techniques and examine their usefulness in various situations. But that would not be Aikido, because you are missing the most important aspect of this discussion - Aiki.

Amir


----------



## Yari

amir said:
			
		

> You can try and look at seperat techniques and examine their usefulness in various situations. But that would not be Aikido, because you are missing the most important aspect of this discussion - Aiki.
> 
> Amir


 
Wouldn't you mean that you lose a part fo the concept Aiki? For Aiki can't be taken out the technique, for if it could there wouldn't be a need for the technique.

/yari


----------



## samurai69

Yari said:
			
		

> For Aiki can't be taken out the technique, *for if it could there wouldn't be a need for the technique.*
> 
> /yari


 

Isnt that the whole point


----------



## Yari

samurai69 said:
			
		

> Isnt that the whole point


 
I wasn't that clear. I mean that there wouldn't be any reason to learn Aiki by usign these sepcified techniques. There is a reason that these techniques(aikido) are used to learn both selfdefense but also Aiki.

So I belive that saying that just looking at techniques you'll miss Aiki is wrong. You might mis the whole picture, but you'll stille be getting some Aiki because it's a part of the techniques.

Was I clearer?

/yari


----------



## amir

> So I believe that saying that just looking at techniques you'll miss Aiki is wrong. You might miss the whole picture, but you'll still be getting some Aiki because it's a part of the techniques.


 
Aiki is mostly beyond or between the techniques: Moving in front of an attack so it will be difficult to hit you, getting an opportunity to perform some technique. And then selecting the right technique to use - those are fundamental parts of Aiki. These are at least as important as the technique itself.

You can perform most "Aikido joint locks" based on superior force and/or stunning your opponent with strikes. In my view, that would not be Aiki nor Aikido at all - but a crude form of low quality Ju-Jutsu. Aikido (and Aiki-M.A. and Ju-M.A.) are not about the technique, but rather about correct movement.

When I read statement of Jigoro Kano, the founder of Judo, and senior students of his; when I read technical statements (not bravado) of members of the Gracy family; and when I read statements from other senior M.A. exponents; I find those same principles everywhere:
* Learn to adjust yourself to the situation - be sensitive. In Aiki - we call this soft.
* Learn to use the opponent power, movement and intention. In Aiki - this is part of harmony.
* Learn to use superior positioning rather then force. Technical means to achieve the above.

Need I continue ?

Amir


----------



## Yari

amir said:
			
		

> .......
> 
> Need I continue ?
> 
> Amir


 
Nope, I'm just stating more or less the same as you. But trying to emphesize that Aikido is both technique and movement and filosofi. Beacuse you'll have no Aiki if you dont have movement or technique. But focusing on just one of the areas is not the whole picture, in my opion(sp?).

/Yari


----------



## scottcatchot

Great discussions. I will add my experience. I train in Aikido. I have always had a problem with being a little too honest with my instructor and I would tell him when I did not see how a technique would work when someone was really trying to fight it. He never would explained he wanted to "show me" so I would resist and then get thrown, slammed, or bowing to Sensei due to Nykkio. The techniques do work. The problem with "street application" is the same faced with all real fights, you don't know what is going to happen next so alot depends on your own experience. I worked at a maximum security prison in Texas for 2 1/2 years as a corrctional officer. I was involved in several uses of force during that time. In some my Aikido worked exactly as it did in the dojo, other times unexpected counters or circumstances causewd something not to go right. But my training and experience helped me maintain focus, not freak out and continue to fight. The point, nothing works perfect all the time.


----------



## AlwaysTraining

scottcatchot said:
			
		

> Great discussions. I will add my experience. I train in Aikido. I have always had a problem with being a little too honest with my instructor and I would tell him when I did not see how a technique would work when someone was really trying to fight it. He never would explained he wanted to "show me" so I would resist and then get thrown, slammed, or bowing to Sensei due to Nykkio. The techniques do work. The problem with "street application" is the same faced with all real fights, you don't know what is going to happen next so alot depends on your own experience. I worked at a maximum security prison in Texas for 2 1/2 years as a corrctional officer. I was involved in several uses of force during that time. In some my Aikido worked exactly as it did in the dojo, other times unexpected counters or circumstances causewd something not to go right. But my training and experience helped me maintain focus, not freak out and continue to fight. The point, nothing works perfect all the time.


I'd say that's where training comes in.  The better you are, the more likely it is to work exactly as it does in the dojo.


----------

