# What Style is Best For Real Self Defense?



## macher

I know there are different styles and schools. I visited a school last week and it was all Tai Chi like training for spirituality / health and wasn’t martial focused. 

Is there a style that’s martial focused? Thanks!


----------



## Headhunter

The one that teaches it the best and the one you enjoy most


----------



## Dirty Dog

macher said:


> I know there are different styles and schools. I visited a school last week and it was all Tai Chi like training for spirituality / health and wasn’t martial focused.
> 
> Is there a style that’s martial focused? Thanks!



Only a hundred. Or more...


----------



## pgsmith

It all depends upon what you're after, and what you consider 'real self defense'. Personally, I learned the great majority of my self defense skills years before I ever started doing any martial art.

Before looking at martial art schools, you need to carefully examine just what it is you are looking for "martial focused" is pretty vague. You need to be much more specific by asking yourself questions ... Do you want to spar? Do you want to compete? Do you want to study striking or grappling, or a bit of both? Are you planning a career in law enforcement or protection services? Are you looking for something to provide cardiovascular fitness also? Do you bruise easily?

  These are all questions that can help you to narrow your search. Ultimately, it almost always come down to doing a martial art that you enjoy going to and practicing every day. If you can do that, the rest will come. If you don't like doing that, it won't matter how awesome the art is because you'll end up quitting.


----------



## Kababayan

There are a lot of great martial arts out there, but like pgsmith said it would be good to reflect a little more about what you want to achieve from the martial arts.  Some people come into a dojo looking for balance, fun, confidence, camaraderie, fighting skills, sport, stick-fighting, grappling, stand-up, physical training (kickboxing), want to learn to protect family, etc. It's best to find a dojo that you enjoy because the instructors attitude and/or philosophy makes a huge impact on whether or not you stay involved.  If you are looking for a good all-around martial art, I would suggest any type of Kempo/Kenpo/Kajukenbo.  The art has a little bit of everything.  If you are looking for just personal protection skills, Krav Maga, Tony Blauer's Spear System, or Kick Boxing, or a general MMA school (not just bjj) would work well.  Kickboxing is more sport oriented, but you would learn some very effective self defense skills.  If you would like more in-depth responses, feel free to post the dojos in your area and let people chime-in on their thoughts. Good luck.


----------



## marques

Start one that you enjoy and is convenient, affordable... if you think it is worth the time, effort and money.

No style has all the answers. Specially when the objective is self defence. In combat sports you know what are you training for. In self defence... we can predict very little and skill level is hard to check (no competitions).

Start something. If you are really motivated.


----------



## drop bear

Styles that fight each other. Will better reflect self defence skills.

And. No you may not enjoy the process you might enjoy the result.

I dont enjoy being on a diet. I do enjoy not being fat.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

macher said:


> I know there are different styles and schools. I visited a school last week and it was all Tai Chi like training for spirituality / health and wasn’t martial focused.
> 
> Is there a style that’s martial focused? Thanks!


Training approach is probably more important than style. By that, I mean that style differences can matter, but two schools could teach the same style and get very different results.

I assume you're talking about physical defense (what happens once an attack is imminent, rather than what avoids attacks). For that, decide what you want to be able to defend against, and make sure what you study (single style or collection of them) covers it, in principle.

There are folks who will say competition arts/training isn't good for self-defense. I'm not one of them, though there is some problem with transferring competition skills to a self-defense context. There are other folks who will say competition is a necessary tool for self-defense training. I'm also not one of them, though it can be a useful tool.

I believe self-defense training needs intensity and committed resistance from your partners. The higher their skills at attacking, the better you'll get as you learn to stop them. The closer your drills are to what you're preparing to defend, the better your skills will convert to defending against that.

Personally, I'm a proponent of either cross-training or working out/sparring with folks from other styles (and not the same school). This helps reduce the chance of you getting a false sense of your ability, based on the way folks in your training hall/gym/dojo/dojang move.

IMO, self-defense needs both strikes and grappling (both standing and ground) to be complete, but being really good at either will reduce the risk presented by not having the other.


----------



## macher

gpseymour said:


> Training approach is probably more important than style. By that, I mean that style differences can matter, but two schools could teach the same style and get very different results.
> 
> I assume you're talking about physical defense (what happens once an attack is imminent, rather than what avoids attacks). For that, decide what you want to be able to defend against, and make sure what you study (single style or collection of them) covers it, in principle.
> 
> There are folks who will say competition arts/training isn't good for self-defense. I'm not one of them, though there is some problem with transferring competition skills to a self-defense context. There are other folks who will say competition is a necessary tool for self-defense training. I'm also not one of them, though it can be a useful tool.
> 
> I believe self-defense training needs intensity and committed resistance from your partners. The higher their skills at attacking, the better you'll get as you learn to stop them. The closer your drills are to what you're preparing to defend, the better your skills will convert to defending against that.
> 
> Personally, I'm a proponent of either cross-training or working out/sparring with folks from other styles (and not the same school). This helps reduce the chance of you getting a false sense of your ability, based on the way folks in your training hall/gym/dojo/dojang move.
> 
> IMO, self-defense needs both strikes and grappling (both standing and ground) to be complete, but being really good at either will reduce the risk presented by not having the other.



When I said I visited a school and about different styles I’m referring to Aikido not MA in general.


----------



## Thisposthuman

macher said:


> I know there are different styles and schools. I visited a school last week and it was all Tai Chi like training for spirituality / health and wasn’t martial focused.
> 
> Is there a style that’s martial focused? Thanks!


Sounds like youre looking for Krav Maga


----------



## Gerry Seymour

macher said:


> When I said I visited a school and about different styles I’m referring to Aikido not MA in general.


The same still holds true, though it's a bit easier to identify some styles of Aikido that are more likely to be more SD-oriented. Shioda's Yoshinkan and Tomiki's Shotokan branches are both likely examples within Ueshiba's art. In a related art/style (with less Ki focus), Nihon Goshin Aikido has a lot of  similarities to Shioda's offshoot of Ueshiba's art.


----------



## macher

gpseymour said:


> The same still holds true, though it's a bit easier to identify some styles of Aikido that are more likely to be more SD-oriented. Shioda's Yoshinkan and Tomiki's Shotokan branches are both likely examples within Ueshiba's art. In a related art/style (with less Ki focus), Nihon Goshin Aikido has a lot of  similarities to Shioda's offshoot of Ueshiba's art.



Thanks! I was always interested in Aikido but was always put off by the general ‘wishy washy’ demonstrations of the techniques demonstrated. Then I came across the Rogue Warriors YouTube channel and was like ‘wow’.


----------



## DaveB

Any style so long as you take what you learn and go to people and places that will let you fight them so that you can test and broaden your application skills.


----------



## macher

DaveB said:


> Any style so long as you take what you learn and go to people and places that will let you fight them so that you can test and broaden your application skills.



Thanks. Is it a general consensus that most Aikido dojos don’t promote more of a realistic approach where you can test and broaden applications? Reason I ask is because I visited 3 Aikido dojos and all 3 are wishy washy non realistic attacks. When I watched Rogue Warrior vids they are more realistic like someone pushing you hard.


----------



## drop bear

macher said:


> Thanks! I was always interested in Aikido but was always put off by the general ‘wishy washy’ demonstrations of the techniques demonstrated. Then I came across the Rogue Warriors YouTube channel and was like ‘wow’.



Yeah. I can't see the video. But it can't just be Aikido done fast or hard. Resistance is a different dynamic.


----------



## Martial D

macher said:


> I know there are different styles and schools. I visited a school last week and it was all Tai Chi like training for spirituality / health and wasn’t martial focused.
> 
> Is there a style that’s martial focused? Thanks!


In general, the answer is any style you train hard realistically with resistance that involves copious amounts of alive non cooperative sparring. There are probably aikido schools that do this, but I don't imagine they are in the majority.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

macher said:


> Thanks. Is it a general consensus that most Aikido dojos don’t promote more of a realistic approach where you can test and broaden applications? Reason I ask is because I visited 3 Aikido dojos and all 3 are wishy washy non realistic attacks. When I watched Rogue Warrior vids they are more realistic like someone pushing you hard.


Yes, that's a reasonable generalization of most Aikido schools I've seen. There are exceptions, but they are just that, in my experience.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki

macher said:


> Thanks. Is it a general consensus that most Aikido dojos don’t promote more of a realistic approach where you can test and broaden applications? Reason I ask is because I visited 3 Aikido dojos and all 3 are wishy washy non realistic attacks.



I've studied at four Aikido schools, and they have spanned the gamut. My first dojo had a high-level instructor who had retired from a police department in a major city. This instructor had originally started training in karate, but switched to Aikido because he found karate hard to apply when wearing his full kit. He taught traditional Aikido, but from the perspective of someone who had used it to take perps to the ground many a time. As such, he had the practical knowledge to apply the techniques and principles.

The second school I attended, as well as my most recent school, basically dispensed with any appearance of training for combat, and owned it. In fact, one of my instructors at my most recent school actually seemed a little taken aback when I told her I would be doing training with riot batons and shields at my unit the upcoming weekend. That's not to say the training at these schools was bad, per se`, but you have to take it for what it is: theory and philosophy. The only way training in such an environment is going to prepare you for defense is if you crosstrain or otherwise train with resisting opponents.

The third school I attended was, in my opinion, the worst. That's not to say the instructor was bad (he had trained in Japan and actually was quite technically proficient, but...), however, unlike my first Sensei, this instructor taught traditional Aikido, marketed as a realistic self-defense system, but without the benefit of (to my knowledge) any real experience in violent encounters. That, to me, is the most dangerous school you can attend, because you are learning from someone who does not have firsthand knowledge of what works outside of, as you called it, "wishy washy, nonrealistic attacks."


----------



## Anarax

macher said:


> I know there are different styles and schools. I visited a school last week and it was all Tai Chi like training for spirituality / health and wasn’t martial focused.
> 
> Is there a style that’s martial focused? Thanks!


The training culture of the school is a more important factor than the style itself. Find a school that trains with realistic energy, that's the hard part.

From a personal standpoint, I think styles that have well defined concepts that shape their techniques are the best styles to go with. Styles that shape the way you think and react to threats around you are more beneficial in the long run.


----------



## drop bear

Anarax said:


> The training culture of the school is a more important factor than the style itself. Find a school that trains with realistic energy, that's the hard part.
> 
> From a personal standpoint, I think styles that have well defined concepts that shape their techniques are the best styles to go with. Styles that shape the way you think and react to threats around you are more beneficial in the long run.



Sort of. A sport BJJ school will train as hard as anyone. But will drill concepts that are not as applicable.


----------



## macher

drop bear said:


> Sort of. A sport BJJ school will train as hard as anyone. But will drill concepts that are not as applicable.



True that concepts should be applicable. My take with my experience is the most important concept when faced with an opponent in real life situation is to learn how to parry punches from all different non orthodox angles and how to ‘parry’ when someone is pushing you as an example. If you can get skilled on parrying then what you do after is easy to learn.

Let’s say you’re in a bar and you accidentally bump into someone and he gets offended. He starts confronting you and starts pushing you. You can either perform a concept on the first push or wait for the second one. You don’t necessarily have to try and knock him out but want to know how to parry the push or the punch that he’ll throw first or after the first push. Of course you should try to defuse the situation without any action but sometimes that’s not the case. Maybe a parry and when you step in a leg sweep that will send him on his butt but won’t hurt him.

I visited a Krav Maga school yesterday and man they mean business.


----------



## Buka

macher said:


> True that concepts should be applicable. My take with my experience is the most important concept when faced with an opponent in real life situation is to learn how to parry punches from all different non orthodox angles and how to ‘parry’ when someone is pushing you as an example. If you can get skilled on parrying then what you do after is easy to learn.
> 
> Let’s say you’re in a bar and you accidentally bump into someone and he gets offended. He starts confronting you and starts pushing you. You can either perform a concept on the first push or wait for the second one. You don’t necessarily have to try and knock him out but want to know how to parry the push or the punch that he’ll throw first or after the first push. Of course you should try to defuse the situation without any action but sometimes that’s not the case. Maybe a parry and when you step in a leg sweep that will send him on his butt but won’t hurt him.
> 
> I visited a Krav Maga school yesterday and man they mean business.



What do you mean, please, by "You can either perform a concept on the first push or wait for the second one". I don't know what that means.

[old man, please be patient]


----------



## macher

Buka said:


> What do you mean, please, by "You can either perform a concept on the first push or wait for the second one". I don't know what that means.
> 
> [old man, please be patient]



Sorry I meant technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Sort of. A sport BJJ school will train as hard as anyone. But will drill concepts that are not as applicable.


Still better than a SD-oriented school that doesn't train hard, or lacks all resistance. There will be gaps, but at least they'll be able to apply what they know if the right openings show up.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Still better than a SD-oriented school that doesn't train hard, or lacks all resistance. There will be gaps, but at least they'll be able to apply what they know if the right openings show up.



Also correct.


----------



## Anarax

drop bear said:


> Sort of. A sport BJJ school will train as hard as anyone. But will drill concepts that are not as applicable.


 GP beat me to it, but I'm thinking along the same lines. Training with full resistance in BJJ is more beneficial than training at a lackluster SD or TMA school. If comparing schools with similar training quality, then BJJ wouldn't be my first choice. That goes back to my point about realistic energy and hard training.  



gpseymour said:


> Still better than a SD-oriented school that doesn't train hard, or lacks all resistance. There will be gaps, but at least they'll be able to apply what they know if the right openings show up.


You took the words out of my mouth.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

*What Style is Best For Real Self Defense?*

Whatever the MA style that can protect your head to the maximum and not to be punched will be a good MA style. If your opponent can't punch on your head, you will have

- less fear.
- more courage,
- calm mind,
- ...

your survival rate will be higher.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki

gpseymour said:


> Still better than a SD-oriented school that doesn't train hard, or lacks all resistance. There will be gaps, but at least they'll be able to apply what they know if the right openings show up.



Yeah, one of the Aikido schools I've been to trained like this, and it allows dangerous misperceptions to persist because they are never tested. Training in Aikido in this way without any pretense of training for combat is one thing, but training this way while marketing it as an effective method of self defense puts students at risk.


----------



## IvanTheBrick

It's not really much about style. When you look at every martial art, apart from a couple of exceptions and flashy stuff, it's all the same, it's just what it puts emphasis on; BJJ on groundwork, boxing on striking. It's about the quality of the teaching and whether you are being trained to acting in a fight more reactively than proactively, which is done through sparring. You need to learn how to react to the current situation e.g. a punch is being thrown (reactive), rather than attempt to predict what's going to happen and control the situation (proactive). It's not about the style you train, because on the street, if you're angry or mad enough anything is effective, just don't try that no-touch ********. It's about how well you condition your learning is conditioning you for a fight on the street, as compared to a dojo or a cage.


----------



## drop bear

Ok people are getting kind of lost here and it really isn't complicated.

A good style needs to choose moves thar are applicable from a pool of moves that work. And this has to be done via scientific method. The people doing the testing need to understand the dynamic they are creating.

Then if there are moves that you can't properly test. They have to be variations of moves you can.

Then you take that system and design a training method that gives the individual the best chance of being able to apply the system.

So for self defence fignting. The trainer needs to understand fighting. Then needs to accurately represent fighting in his training. Then needs to test honestly and review not only what he can do but what is achieved by his students in experiments. Then needs to refine his system to create better students that again become part of this test.

Almost nobody gets this right. Mostly because people are just too messed up in the head. And prioritise other things over this basic concept.

This mindset. But with a different end game.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Oni_Kadaki said:


> Yeah, one of the Aikido schools I've been to trained like this, and it allows dangerous misperceptions to persist because they are never tested. Training in Aikido in this way without any pretense of training for combat is one thing, but training this way while marketing it as an effective method of self defense puts students at risk.


I think this comes from the attempt to make everything aiki. Many Aikido schools seem to expect it is possible to always flow. Sometimes things will just turn into a messy fight, which includes things going “hard” and using power and strength to survive.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki

gpseymour said:


> I think this comes from the attempt to make everything aiki. Many Aikido schools seem to expect it is possible to always flow. Sometimes things will just turn into a messy fight, which includes things going “hard” and using power and strength to survive.



You mentioning power and strength reminds me of one interaction that left me particularly angry at an Aikido school I was already not especially happy with. I, with six years of Aikido under my belt, was working with a senior student (I may well have had more time in than him, but it was a moot point because the Sensei didn't recognize my prior training). On this particular technique, I requested my opponent attack me faster and more vigorously, but he refused, saying I wasn't extending my arms enough to make the technique effective. I modified my technique and, after several more repetitions, repeated my request. He again refused, saying that if he attacked me harder he would "break" me. I think the very notion that a single, inefficient strike performed by a man who is older than me and in not as good shape could "break" me showed me just how out of touch that particular senior student was with how the projection of force actually works.


----------



## O'Malley

macher said:


> Thanks! I was always interested in Aikido but was always put off by the general ‘wishy washy’ demonstrations of the techniques demonstrated. Then I came across the Rogue Warriors YouTube channel and was like ‘wow’.



Substandard aikido coupled with a lot of grunting and swear words. The real interest of aikido and other internal martial arts is to develop unusual strength by clever use of things such as relaxation, body structure, gravity, momentum and ground reaction force. Trying to make aikido techniques work by adding muscular force to it is like throwing diesel on the sails of a sailing ship.

Softness is actually essential in aikido, even at high intensity:






If you want "martially valid" aikido it's good to stick to older styles such as Yoshinkan or Iwama. Or even Daito-ryu if you can find a good teacher.

Some Aikikai folks have the real stuff because they have followed a decent deshi of the Founder but the problem with Aikikai is that the central dojo is trying to impose its own system across the organization and the model that they use as a reference is not martial. So Aikikai aikido is progressively getting "de-martialized".

There are people that try to counter this phenomenon and try to put the martial side back into aikido. Some of them do like the guys on youtube and look for solutions in modern methods (MMA, BJJ, boxing, etc.) while others try to put the puzzle back together and find out what missing piece made aikido effective in the past. Internal training seems to be a promising idea in order to understand how the sails are supposed to work.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> Substandard aikido coupled with a lot of grunting and swear words. The real interest of aikido and other internal martial arts is to develop unusual strength by clever use of things such as relaxation, body structure, gravity, momentum and ground reaction force. Trying to make aikido techniques work by adding muscular force to it is like throwing diesel on the sails of a sailing ship.


I have to disagree with this. Aikido is often used/taught that way, but that is not everyone's intention in Aikido. It is entirely possible to use muscular force within a flow, for the sake of efficiency and effectiveness. It's not necessary to always go purely with the aiki approach.


----------



## O'Malley

In aikido, muscular force is what you fall back on because your technique is not good enough. When your technique is good enough, you can overcome the physical disadvantage:






So of course it is possible to use muscular force "within a flow" (= using momentum, according to what I believe to be your definition of "aiki") but aikido and daito-ryu aikijujutsu are originally internal arts. And the interest of internal arts is what I have outlined above. And muscular strength (= muscular contraction) is antithetical to internal practice.

One can remove the internal part and add muscular strength to aikido techniques but that objectively means changing the art. I prefer to leave this path to others.


----------



## Martial D

macher said:


> I know there are different styles and schools. I visited a school last week and it was all Tai Chi like training for spirituality / health and wasn’t martial focused.
> 
> Is there a style that’s martial focused? Thanks!


After rethinking, imma go with Parkour.


----------



## macher

O'Malley said:


> In aikido, muscular force is what you fall back on because your technique is not good enough. When your technique is good enough, you can overcome the physical disadvantage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So of course it is possible to use muscular force "within a flow" (= using momentum, according to what I believe to be your definition of "aiki") but aikido and daito-ryu aikijujutsu are originally internal arts. And the interest of internal arts is what I have outlined above. And muscular strength (= muscular contraction) is antithetical to internal practice.
> 
> One can remove the internal part and add muscular strength to aikido techniques but that objectively means changing the art. I prefer to leave this path to others.



Reminds me years ago our teacher took us to a Tai Chi teacher in Baltimore that he trained with (we were from Philly). This Tai Chi teacher was a 75 -80 years old Chinese man and frail looking and small. This man literally would suck you in and spit you out which seemed like no effort. Can’t explain it he was so soft yet hard at the point of impact.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> In aikido, muscular force is what you fall back on because your technique is not good enough. When your technique is good enough, you can overcome the physical disadvantage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So of course it is possible to use muscular force "within a flow" (= using momentum, according to what I believe to be your definition of "aiki") but aikido and daito-ryu aikijujutsu are originally internal arts. And the interest of internal arts is what I have outlined above. And muscular strength (= muscular contraction) is antithetical to internal practice.
> 
> One can remove the internal part and add muscular strength to aikido techniques but that objectively means changing the art. I prefer to leave this path to others.


Those arts can be trained with the purpose of developing effective fighting ability. That's not best done by focusing purely on the aiki approach. There are times when it's simply much easier and more efficient to take what has been presented (which is sometimes an opportunity to use muscular force to end the interaction quickly).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> In aikido, muscular force is what you fall back on because your technique is not good enough. When your technique is good enough, you can overcome the physical disadvantage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So of course it is possible to use muscular force "within a flow" (= using momentum, according to what I believe to be your definition of "aiki") but aikido and daito-ryu aikijujutsu are originally internal arts. And the interest of internal arts is what I have outlined above. And muscular strength (= muscular contraction) is antithetical to internal practice.
> 
> One can remove the internal part and add muscular strength to aikido techniques but that objectively means changing the art. I prefer to leave this path to others.


I forgot to add this to my prior post. In that video, Mifune's opponents are not using any strength. If they did, his technique (at his age) would likely not be sufficient to overcome their combination of strength and technique.


----------



## O'Malley

gpseymour said:


> Those arts can be trained with the purpose of developing effective fighting ability. That's not best done by focusing purely on the aiki approach. There are times when it's simply much easier and more efficient to take what has been presented (which is sometimes an opportunity to use muscular force to end the interaction quickly).



I think that we have different concepts of "aiki". If by "focusing purely on the aiki approach" you mean "focusing only on using momentum and/or the overcommitment of uke" I might agree with you. But that's not the aiki of daito-ryu, nor the aiki of traditional aikido.

Both those arts produced fearsome fighters while excluding muscular contraction from their training.



gpseymour said:


> I forgot to add this to my prior post. In that video, Mifune's opponents are not using any strength. If they did, his technique (at his age) would likely not be sufficient to overcome their combination of strength and technique.



They actually try to but can't. Muscular strength can be beat by clever use of physics.






Edit: Mifune's diverting of the force applied to him can actually be seen in the video.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> I think that we have different concepts of "aiki". If by "focusing purely on the aiki approach" you mean "focusing only on using momentum and/or the overcommitment of uke" I might agree with you. But that's not the aiki of daito-ryu, nor the aiki of traditional aikido.
> 
> Both those arts produced fearsome fighters while excluding muscular contraction from their training.


I'm willing to let that stand - I've yet to find any two people (in any aiki art or branch) who use the same definition for aiki, except when one quotes the other. Kondo (the senior one, I've forgotten his name) of Daito-ryu uses a very simple definition of aiki in one video. I doubt it's his only definition (it's quite simplistic) but it is how he defines the difference between Daito-ryu's Jujutsu and Aikijujutsu - it's mostly about timing. That Daito-ryu has a Jujutsu component (in other words, it is not purely internal, not purely aiki) is part of the reason they produced effective fighters. Most of the early proponents of Aikido had other training, so their Aikido training was likely focused (almost) entirely on aiki, because they already had access to the other tools.



> They actually try to but can't. Muscular strength can be beat by clever use of physics.


No, they really don't. They are playing soft in that video - nothing like they'd actually do in randori with someone like themselves. They bring no strength to bear that I can see. @Tony Dismukes and I have discussed this video before.



>


Yes. I can do that, too. That doesn't work if someone also adds an off-angle movement. It's relatively easy to overcome tricks like that if you know them, and possible to stymie aiki if you know how it works (and sometimes even if you just understand movement and flow). Aiki is not magical - aiki technique is subject to the same limitations as most other technique, and can be overcome by a skilled opponent using all his tools (including strength, properly applied)


----------



## O'Malley

gpseymour said:


> I'm willing to let that stand - I've yet to find any two people (in any aiki art or branch) who use the same definition for aiki, except when one quotes the other. Kondo (the senior one, I've forgotten his name) of Daito-ryu uses a very simple definition of aiki in one video. I doubt it's his only definition (it's quite simplistic) but it is how he defines the difference between Daito-ryu's Jujutsu and Aikijujutsu - it's mostly about timing.



AFAIK, there are quotes from O Sensei explicitly saying that aiki has nothing to do with timing. And the fact that aiki techniques in DR and aikido are done from static positions (think "kokyu ho") where timing is irrelevant prompts me to think that timing (and matching uke's movement) is not aiki. It is possible that Kondo considered timing as a part of aiki, like how Iwama-ryu considers Ki no Nagare as a necessary part of training.



> That Daito-ryu has a Jujutsu component (in other words, it is not purely internal, not purely aiki) is part of the reason they produced effective fighters. Most of the early proponents of Aikido had other training, so their Aikido training was likely focused (almost) entirely on aiki, because they already had access to the other tools.



Aikido has a lot of the same jujutsu components. Morihei Ueshiba actually taught it as "daito ryu aikijujutsu" in his first years. The thing about early aikido proponents owing their effectiveness to their previous martial arts background is a myth. Sure, some of them were advanced practitioners of other MA (Shioda, Tohei, K. Abbe, Nishio) but others were not (Saito, Isoyama, Tada, Tadashi Abe who thrashed people left and right in France, Kuroiwa that had only done some boxing in high school but then relied on his trademark aikido koshi nage, etc.)



> No, they really don't. They are playing soft in that video - nothing like they'd actually do in randori with someone like themselves. They bring no strength to bear that I can see. @Tony Dismukes and I have discussed this video before.
> 
> 
> Yes. I can do that, too. That doesn't work if someone also adds an off-angle movement. It's relatively easy to overcome tricks like that if you know them, and possible to stymie aiki if you know how it works (and sometimes even if you just understand movement and flow). Aiki is not magical - aiki technique is subject to the same limitations as most other technique, and can be overcome by a skilled opponent using all his tools (including strength, properly applied)



Of course, nobody is invincible. The unliftable body trick was an illustration of how physics can give one an advantage over muscular strength.

My point was that if Sokaku Takeda, Morihei Ueshiba or Yukiyoshi Sagawa thrashed bigger and stronger opponents throughout their lives and continued to do so even when their bodies weakened, they were using something different from muscular strength.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> AFAIK, there are quotes from O Sensei explicitly saying that aiki has nothing to do with timing. And the fact that aiki techniques in DR and aikido are done from static positions (think "kokyu ho") where timing is irrelevant prompts me to think that timing (and matching uke's movement) is not aiki. It is possible that Kondo considered timing as a part of aiki, like how Iwama-ryu considers Ki no Nagare as a necessary part of training.


I'll try to find a clip of that comment, so you can see what Kondo was saying. It was, in fact, entirely timing. And that includes static starts  - he actually uses a static start in his example. It's similar to Stan Pranin's comments about not waiting for the grip to settle before responding.





> Aikido has a lot of the same jujutsu components. Morihei Ueshiba actually taught it as "daito ryu aikijujutsu" in his first years. The thing about early aikido proponents owing their effectiveness to their previous martial arts background is a myth. Sure, some of them were advanced practitioners of other MA (Shioda, Tohei, K. Abbe, Nishio) but others were not (Saito, Isoyama, Tada, Tadashi Abe who thrashed people left and right in France, Kuroiwa that had only done some boxing in high school but then relied on his trademark aikido koshi nage, etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, nobody is invincible. The unliftable body trick was an illustration of how physics can give one an advantage over muscular strength.
> 
> My point was that if Sokaku Takeda, Morihei Ueshiba or Yukiyoshi Sagawa thrashed bigger and stronger opponents throughout their lives and continued to do so even when their bodies weakened, they were using something different from muscular strength.


I'll argue (absent good evidence, I admit) that "when their bodies weakened" many revered them, and we've all seen instances of people not being willing to cause a revered sensei to lose face, so not really trying to defeat them.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

O'Malley said:


> In aikido, muscular force is what you fall back on because your technique is not good enough. When your technique is good enough, you can overcome the physical disadvantage:





gpseymour said:


> I forgot to add this to my prior post. In that video, Mifune's opponents are not using any strength. If they did, his technique (at his age) would likely not be sufficient to overcome their combination of strength and technique.



Technically, Mifune's randori partners were using some strength. What they weren't doing was using strength the way they would in a real competitive match. They were coming in with direct attacks, making no attempt to contest grips or disrupt Mifune's structure as a setup. This dance-like approach to randori is a useful training method which makes the whole thing a game of timing and footwork, areas in which Mifune excelled. I can guarantee you that none of his randori partners would approach a real tournament match in this same manner.



O'Malley said:


> I think that we have different concepts of "aiki". If by "focusing purely on the aiki approach" you mean "focusing only on using momentum and/or the overcommitment of uke" I might agree with you. But that's not the aiki of daito-ryu, nor the aiki of traditional aikido.
> 
> Both those arts produced fearsome fighters while excluding muscular contraction from their training.
> 
> 
> 
> They actually try to but can't. Muscular strength can be beat by clever use of physics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Mifune's diverting of the force applied to him can actually be seen in the video.





gpseymour said:


> Yes. I can do that, too. That doesn't work if someone also adds an off-angle movement. It's relatively easy to overcome tricks like that if you know them, and possible to stymie aiki if you know how it works (and sometimes even if you just understand movement and flow). Aiki is not magical - aiki technique is subject to the same limitations as most other technique, and can be overcome by a skilled opponent using all his tools (including strength, properly applied)



I was actually showing off some of these "aiki" tricks to some of my students last week.

Per request, I was teaching some grip fighting techniques, specifically releases from wrist grabs. I started them out with the basic wrestling versions of the releases. While watching them drill, I realized that most of them were using excessive effort. They were missing some of the subtle body mechanics and the wrestling application of the movement was small enough that it was hard for them to see the difference.

As an experiment, I taught them an exaggerated "aiki" style version of the releases. Because the movements were larger, it acted as a magnifying glass, allowing them to see and feel the small details easier. To help them feel some of the underlying body mechanics, I taught them the classic Aikido "unbendable arm" trick. I demonstrated how I could let them grab my wrist, then effortlessly tie them in knots if they tried to hold on. (I also demonstrated how I could grab their wrist and tie them in knots when they tried to get away.)

Once they had the feel of the exaggerated Aikido-style escape, I had them go back to the smaller, more realistic application, and try to apply the same feel. I also taught them some basics on how to shut down the escape and then set them to some live drills with competitive hand fighting. I explained that the tricks I was demonstrating on them were exhibitions of principles, but that they wouldn't take that dramatic form in a real contest against a competent opponent.



O'Malley said:


> My point was that if Sokaku Takeda, Morihei Ueshiba or Yukiyoshi Sagawa thrashed bigger and stronger opponents throughout their lives and continued to do so even when their bodies weakened, they were using something different from muscular strength.



Demonstrations on compliant ukes are not the same as beating actual opponents in a real fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> Technically, Mifune's randori partners were using some strength. What they weren't doing was using strength the way they would in a real competitive match. They were coming in with direct attacks, making no attempt to contest grips or disrupt Mifune's structure as a setup. This dance-like approach to randori is a useful training method which makes the whole thing a game of timing and footwork, areas in which Mifune excelled. I can guarantee you that none of his randori partners would approach a real tournament match in this same manner.


A useful distinction. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki

Martial D said:


> After rethinking, imma go with Parkour.



A wise decision, as, unless you are duty-bound to intervene, escape is usually the best option in a confrontation. That being said, learning a martial art never hurts for those times that avoidance or escape is impossible.

Also, O'Malley, I generally agree with you that Aikido techniques, when done well, require virtually no force beyond simple body mechanics to work. That being said, I think gpseymour's point that good technique and the ability to bring force to bear are NOT mutually exclusive is well-taken. One of the reasons I'm strongly considering moving from Aikido to Jiu-Jitsu for my defensive needs (note that I still very much love the philosophy of Aikido and, even if I make the switch, will continue to train every so often just to remain a part of the community) is that Aikido is practiced under extremely controlled, pre-determined conditions which will often not be found in a real life confrontation. As much as I love Aikido, I feel that an art that mixes hard and soft technique, and allows for an escalation of force that the philosophy of Aikido shies away from, may serve better as a basis for self defense.


----------



## Ryan_

For OP - What exactly are you looking to learn?

Different martial arts quite often focus on different types of techniques (locks, strikes etc.) and most would be beneficial for self defense.

What types of techniques would you prefer to learn?


----------



## macher

Ryan_ said:


> For OP - What exactly are you looking to learn?
> 
> Different martial arts quite often focus on different types of techniques (locks, strikes etc.) and most would be beneficial for self defense.
> 
> What types of techniques would you prefer to learn?



I was looking for a style under Aikido that is more combat oriented. The 3 Aikido schools I’ve visited are focused on ‘drinking the koolade’ type of thing.


----------



## Ryan_

macher said:


> I was looking for a style under Aikido that is more combat oriented. The 3 Aikido schools I’ve visited are focused on ‘drinking the koolade’ type of thing.


Well can't say I jnow much about aikido - absolutely no personal experience of it. Only what I've read, which in all honesty, hasn't been that great. But like I said, i don't have personal experience to base it on.


----------



## macher

Ryan_ said:


> Well can't say I jnow much about aikido - absolutely no personal experience of it. Only what I've read, which in all honesty, hasn't been that great. But like I said, i don't have personal experience to base it on.



My experienced was more of a social club and absolutely no real life applications.


----------



## Ryan_

macher said:


> My experienced was more of a social club and absolutely no real life applications.


Are you absolutely set on an aikido style? Maybe try something else with more real life practices?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ryan_ said:


> Are you absolutely set on an aikido style? Maybe try something else with more real life practices?


And if he wants to stay reasonably close to the Aikido techniques, maybe Hapkido.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki

Seconded. If you want to stay within the Japanese realm, I've found Hapkido (note I only have a few months' experience with Hapkido) and Hakkoryu Jiu Jitsu to be pretty similar both in terms of technique and philosophy.


----------



## vince1

Having studied Southern Mantis Chow Gar ,Tae Kwon do and Hapkido in the past, Hapkido would be a good choice. I have discovered Aiki Jiu Jitsu in the 7 months and found it to be a really good well rounded martial art. If I had to start all over again and go back in time I would choose Aiki Jiu Jitsu given the many martial art influences that contributed making this martial art what it is. Mind you it takes many many years to perfect the techniques and make it to a black belt level. I found it took a shorter amount of time to acquire a high ranking belt in the above mentioned martial arts than the Aiki Jiu Jitsu.


----------



## oldwarrior

macher said:


> Thanks! I was always interested in Aikido but was always put off by the general ‘wishy washy’ demonstrations of the techniques demonstrated. Then I came across the Rogue Warriors YouTube channel and was like ‘wow’.



Aikido isn't wishy washy lol... What you are seeing is a demo and that will most likely have been performed more than once lol...Also do bear in mind that if the person being thrown (uke that may be just my Aikido that uses that term there are others) does not actually fall properly or roll properly or fly through the air properly, they may well be very damaged lol eg (and no assumptions made here) if you were on a mat and you received Kotegaeshi then if you don't know how to take it then you be very unhappy as your wrist if not broken would be very very sore and that not including the throw which again if you do not know how to take will hurt (it does even hurt when you do know how to take it ..if you have a very very forceful Nage lol and it was known fairly well which of the old top sensei very ummm forceful lol), if not break other parts of your body. That is not trying to talk up Aikido it is fact as part of Aikido is learning how to take the techniques so you don't get hurt. 

Aikido remember came out of a different age and with different concepts and it was distilled from different other arts ...namely Daito-Ryu and the sword techniques came from (if I can remember and spell it correctly ) Kashima-Shinto  Ryu (others may be able to correct that ) so it was based on the sword (yes even the empty hand is based on the sword) ok the founder was not born in a period where there were any battles  (I mean samurai battles not more modern style warfare)  but the arts he studied before he "created" Aikido (and create I mean refined and added techniques from different arts not made them up) were and one of his teachers that is well recorded was born just before the restoration but his art does have lineage back well before the Edo period to the time when Samurai were actually using those skills  (ok there are always arguments there and I ain't gonna get into that and yes I do and am aware that by the time of Takekada Sokaku it would have changed ) so the skills came from the sword ...Also do bear in mind that even the fist Aikido differs from what is taught today in many styles , WWII did have an effect on that or at least IMO it did ...in short don't be totally fooled that it is wishy washy as it isn't.

What Style that is just your preference there have been posts on that as to if any of those styles are near you I have no clue ... IMO Iwama style (but that may have changed now due to death and a break away ) was maybe the closest to the original pre war style. Yoshinkan is harder and Tomiki is the sport style (that I know of as I have never looked on Aikido as a sport) and the Ki styles well as the name suggests are based on that.

Don't just go and look at any style actually try it and give it a little time then make judgement


----------



## oldwarrior

It seems to be the general rule these days to knock Aikido lol ...

Any art that is performed in a dojo under set conditions can seem very stage managed and it is but that is how most are studied and never in a dojo imo will it relate totally to any street fight


----------



## drop bear

Oni_Kadaki said:


> A wise decision, as, unless you are duty-bound to intervene, escape is usually the best option in a confrontation. That being said, learning a martial art never hurts for those times that avoidance or escape is impossible.
> 
> Also, O'Malley, I generally agree with you that Aikido techniques, when done well, require virtually no force beyond simple body mechanics to work. That being said, I think gpseymour's point that good technique and the ability to bring force to bear are NOT mutually exclusive is well-taken. One of the reasons I'm strongly considering moving from Aikido to Jiu-Jitsu for my defensive needs (note that I still very much love the philosophy of Aikido and, even if I make the switch, will continue to train every so often just to remain a part of the community) is that Aikido is practiced under extremely controlled, pre-determined conditions which will often not be found in a real life confrontation. As much as I love Aikido, I feel that an art that mixes hard and soft technique, and allows for an escalation of force that the philosophy of Aikido shies away from, may serve better as a basis for self defense.



Wrestle don't jits. Wrestling will be about making the core mechanics of grappling work.

If you figure that out you will figure out Aikido.


----------



## oldwarrior

macher said:


> I was looking for a style under Aikido that is more combat oriented. The 3 Aikido schools I’ve visited are focused on ‘drinking the koolade’ type of thing.



I guess that you are saying that because the schools you have seen are not teaching Atemi ...Oh they are there in Aikido just rarely taught


----------



## drop bear

oldwarrior said:


> I guess that you are saying that because the schools you have seen are not teaching Atemi ...Oh they are there in Aikido just rarely taught



Yeah. But we get this a lot. I can find a thousand videos of washy Aikido. I can barely find a video of semi decent Aikido.

But everyone's personal experience of Aikido is that they do the real deal.

I really can't see how if the evidence doesn't match the claim. That the claim is valid.


----------



## oldwarrior

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But we get this a lot. I can find a thousand videos of washy Aikido. I can barely find a video of semi decent Aikido.
> 
> But everyone's personal experience of Aikido is that they do the real deal.
> 
> I really can't see how if the evidence doesn't match the claim. That the claim is valid.


I totally get what you are saying 

I guess it has or at some point someone thought it was a good idea to promote the more flowing and as you say wishy washy 

I would say that if you'd ever experienced Chiba sensei or Saito sensei put you on the floor then umm it was not wishy washy lol....


----------



## drop bear

oldwarrior said:


> I totally get what you are saying
> 
> I guess it has or at some point someone thought it was a good idea to promote the more flowing and as you say wishy washy
> 
> I would say that if you'd ever experienced Chiba sensei or Saito sensei put you on the floor then umm it was not wishy washy lol....



Possibly not. But I also doubt it would be the result of some sort of magic Aiki either.

I have sparred some old judoka. Those guys are made of nails.

The exact opposite of what I see Aikido trying to achieve. And as a side note I am against aiki a bit as I get older. Because aiki in my environment equals scramble. And I just can't out scramble a guy half my age.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Possibly not. But I also doubt it would be the result of some sort of magic Aiki either.
> 
> I have sparred some old judoka. Those guys are made of nails.
> 
> The exact opposite of what I see Aikido trying to achieve. And as a side note I am against aiki a bit as I get older. Because aiki in my environment equals scramble. And I just can't out scramble a guy half my age.


That's an interesting observation. The better I get at what I call aiki (maybe not the same thing you're talking about), the more moments seem to slow down for me. I'm not in the chaos you're sometimes in, though, so that might be a difference, too.


----------



## dvcochran

A lot of good advise. I would start by asking what is your experience(s)? Can you be specific to what you are looking for based on the past or expected future? Can you put in one sentence or paragraph? It is a big question you are asking I think.


----------



## oldwarrior

drop bear said:


> Possibly not. But I also doubt it would be the result of some sort of magic Aiki either.
> 
> I have sparred some old judoka. Those guys are made of nails.
> 
> The exact opposite of what I see Aikido trying to achieve. And as a side note I am against aiki a bit as I get older. Because aiki in my
> environment equals scramble. And I just can't out scramble a guy half my age.



I do accept what you are saying and each has a path that works for them and that is the way of most things in life not just the Martial Arts.

As I think I said Aikido was born from a different age and so some of the "ideas" and the thinking behind them may and do seem strange ... Aikido is more of a whole philosophy than just an Art on it's own and the Aiki or Ki side is a big part of that ...That does come from the founders beliefs and from how he looked towards life and conflict. Also WWII did have an effect on Aikido imo a very big effect but that is just my opinion.

One thing Aikido can and does offer is how to blend and use your own "body mechanics" and that of your opponents to your advantage and it will over many many many years of study enhance spacial awareness. That said for a straight out off the bat self defense system no it is not the best and never will be.


----------



## oldwarrior

gpseymour said:


> That's an interesting observation. The better I get at what I call aiki (maybe not the same thing you're talking about), the more moments seem to slow down for me. I'm not in the chaos you're sometimes in, though, so that might be a difference, too.




Very interesting as I too feel the more I immerse myself in Aikido the more Intune I feel with that around and yes things do seem to slow down and become less of a struggle and more of a flow (there again I may be on a different page to what you are meaning) 

But still interesting to see other students of the Arts observations and thoughts as all is relevant


----------



## oftheherd1

gpseymour said:


> And if he wants to stay reasonably close to the Aikido techniques, maybe Hapkido.



As I read the OP, he was looking for a Tai Chi school that was combat oriented.  Perhaps he changed that along the way.

As to your comment, I have never studied Aikido so it is difficult for me to say anything about it with any real knowledge.  But I have always thought that Aikido was more focused on joint manipulation into throws.  It was not interested in hurting you, but if it did that was on the person who started a confrontation.  If you got tired of being thrown about and left, that was fine.  That was the goal.  Hapkido is also defensive in philosophy.  However, Hapkido figures they don't want to fight.  If you force an issue, Hapkido doesn't want to have to do it again.  Therefore, pain and damage to the opponent is to ensure they don't have to do it again.  Hapkido will use anything that presents itself as a defense; joint manipulation, joint dislocations, throws, kicks, strikes, pressure points.  Any one of those or a combination.

I say that to ask if you really think the techniques in Hapkido and Aikido are similar?  Sometimes I have thought so, and other times I think they are very different.  I once mentioned to my GM that I thought Hapkido and Aikido about the same.  He was quite succinct but emphatic that they were not.


----------



## Ryback

First of all hello everyone, I just joined the forum a few days ago and I've been scrolling through some very interesting threads.
Since this is a thread about self defense, I thought I would state my opinion and....introduce myself.
Well, according to my experience of course, Aikido is a martial art that can be used for self defense, if the practitioner is studying it in such way... It's probably more of an approach matter than a specific school or style (though I don't really like the word "style" in reference to Aikido).
It's true that schools under specific teachers are more concerned about the martial aspect of the art than others (e.g Shioda Sensei, Seagal Sensei and more) but I think that if one is to learn the basic principles and the techniques of the art he could work his way to practical application anyway...
Well, that is my opinion of course, I hope it is a helpful contribution to the discussion...


----------



## now disabled

Ryback said:


> First of all hello everyone, I just joined the forum a few days ago and I've been scrolling through some very interesting threads.
> Since this is a thread about self defense, I thought I would state my opinion and....introduce myself.
> Well, according to my experience of course, Aikido is a martial art that can be used for self defense, if the practitioner is studying it in such way... It's probably more of an approach matter than a specific school or style (though I don't really like the word "style" in reference to Aikido).
> It's true that schools under specific teachers are more concerned about the martial aspect of the art than others (e.g Shioda Sensei, Seagal Sensei and more) but I think that if one is to learn the basic principles and the techniques of the art he could work his way to practical application anyway...
> Well, that is my opinion of course, I hope it is a helpful contribution to the discussion...




Welcome 

I get where you are coming from totally 

Aikido does get a bad rap in certain circles for sure lol. 

I know what you are saying regarding Seagal and Shioda however do bear in mind that the later did leave before the last war from Ueshiba's teaching (yes ok he did go back briefly and he never really severed links totally as his last ranking was awarded to him by Ueshiba and that was after he had formed the Yoshinkan and if memory serves he had already started the Senshusei course (ok for the police at that point) so his Aikido was different as it was the pre war Aikido) The former I don't know where he actually developed his style from, yes he did study Aikikai at the honbu but not under the founder (that is a myth he kinda put out - sorry but it it not true-) He was the real deal at one time and yes he does hold the rank he claims with out doubt, I just have a few issues with who he says taught him ( imo it not the second doshu style and Shioda shihan was long gone) I just am not sure where his Tenshin ryu came from unless it was his own personal studies that took it there, which is uite possible as he did teach in Japan tho of the vids I have seen it was slightly different to what he latterly taught but that my opinion.

Now he needs to lose a truck load of weight as if he took ukemi now he'd kinda ummm go through the dojo floor (sorry but jeez he is seriously big now) and the last I saw him trying to teach it was not good at all as he couldn't even get into seiza or move properly


----------



## Ryback

now disabled said:


> Welcome
> 
> I get where you are coming from totally
> 
> Aikido does get a bad rap in certain circles for sure lol.
> 
> I know what you are saying regarding Seagal and Shioda however do bear in mind that the later did leave before the last war from Ueshiba's teaching (yes ok he did go back briefly and he never really severed links totally as his last ranking was awarded to him by Ueshiba and that was after he had formed the Yoshinkan and if memory serves he had already started the Senshusei course (ok for the police at that point) so his Aikido was different as it was the pre war Aikido) The former I don't know where he actually developed his style from, yes he did study Aikikai at the honbu but not under the founder (that is a myth he kinda put out - sorry but it it not true-) He was the real deal at one time and yes he does hold the rank he claims with out doubt, I just have a few issues with who he says taught him ( imo it not the second doshu style and Shioda shihan was long gone) I just am not sure where his Tenshin ryu came from unless it was his own personal studies that took it there, which is uite possible as he did teach in Japan tho of the vids I have seen it was slightly different to what he latterly taught but that my opinion.
> 
> Now he needs to lose a truck load of weight as if he took ukemi now he'd kinda ummm go through the dojo floor (sorry but jeez he is seriously big now) and the last I saw him trying to teach it was not good at all as he couldn't even get into seiza or move properly



I totally agree with your post.... Shioda left o'sensei early on but that doesn't really mean anything to me because I believe Aikido is not only what happened after the war, it begins long before it was even called Aikido, through a huge chain of warriors before O'sensei... Minamoto No Yoshimitsu, Sokaku Takeda, O'sensei himself were very important links of the chain but none of them was more important than the art itself... So I don't believe that Aikido should be considered as founded by o'sensei... He was just one of the most recent links, a great warrior perhaps but no single person should be considered as a founder of any martial art... So, Takeda, Shioda, Obata...are Aikido related persons, at least for me. 
As for Steven Seagal Sensei... Well, what can I say, you are absolutely right... That's why he will always be my biggest inspiration apart from my own Sensei who is my main inspiration... Because Seagal Sensei is clearly showing to us that even the greatest can fall back if he gets too comfortable. 
That's why I always try to copy his earlier technical skills (as much as I can) and avoid his later mistakes... 
As for Seagal Sensei's background :
He was in and out of Japan while o'sensei was alive, he has seen him teach, he was never taught directly by him,he doesn't lie it's a misunderstanding that he has clarified many times. 
He was an inside student at Hombu Dojo back in the days of Kishomaru that's true and he was a student of Tohei Sensei but they parted ways when Tohei created his own organization... In the early days of Tenshin dojo he was merely teaching a ki-aikido kind of approach, same as Tohei, but he worked his way through a practical approach by studying and modifying the techniques further, there are witnesses to that, one of them is Haruo Matsuoka Sensei who has been his first Uke for years.... 
His first contact with Aikido had been made in the states prior to all that at Orange Aikikai under Harry Kiyoshi Ishisaka Sensei, but he was in Japan when he says he was and he was the first westerner to open a dojo in Japan, in Osaka. 
Although he could have used his Hollywood fame to sell his Aikido as his own Ryu he is maintaining until now that there is no Tenshin Aikido, he is under Aikikai. Tenshin is the name of his dojo but many of his students used as a style name to advertise themselves while he is refusing to do so... 
Sorry for the long and a bit off topic post...


----------



## now disabled

Ryback said:


> I totally agree with your post.... Shioda left o'sensei early on but that doesn't really mean anything to me because I believe Aikido is not only what happened after the war, it begins long before it was even called Aikido, through a huge chain of warriors before O'sensei... Minamoto No Yoshimitsu, Sokaku Takeda, O'sensei himself were very important links of the chain but none of them was more important than the art itself... So I don't believe that Aikido should be considered as founded by o'sensei... He was just one of the most recent links, a great warrior perhaps but no single person should be considered as a founder of any martial art... So, Takeda, Shioda, Obata...are Aikido related persons, at least for me.
> As for Steven Seagal Sensei... Well, what can I say, you are absolutely right... That's why he will always be my biggest inspiration apart from my own Sensei who is my main inspiration... Because Seagal Sensei is clearly showing to us that even the greatest can fall back if he gets too comfortable.
> That's why I always try to copy his earlier technical skills (as much as I can) and avoid his later mistakes...
> As for Seagal Sensei's background :
> He was in and out of Japan while o'sensei was alive, he has seen him teach, he was never taught directly by him,he doesn't lie it's a misunderstanding that he has clarified many times.
> He was an inside student at Hombu Dojo back in the days of Kishomaru that's true and he was a student of Tohei Sensei but they parted ways when Tohei created his own organization... In the early days of Tenshin dojo he was merely teaching a ki-aikido kind of approach, same as Tohei, but he worked his way through a practical approach by studying and modifying the techniques further, there are witnesses to that, one of them is Haruo Matsuoka Sensei who has been his first Uke for years....
> His first contact with Aikido had been made in the states prior to all that at Orange Aikikai under Harry Kiyoshi Ishisaka Sensei, but he was in Japan when he says he was and he was the first westerner to open a dojo in Japan, in Osaka.
> Although he could have used his Hollywood fame to sell his Aikido as his own Ryu he is maintaining until now that there is no Tenshin Aikido, he is under Aikikai. Tenshin is the name of his dojo but many of his students used as a style name to advertise themselves while he is refusing to do so...
> Sorry for the long and a bit off topic post...



Your going back a bit lol with Minamoto No Yoshimitsu  

I agree and never will doubt that Seagal was at one time the real deal 

I doubt if the second Doshu had much effect on him as his style is very different


----------



## Ryback

now disabled said:


> Your going back a bit lol with Minamoto No Yoshimitsu
> 
> I agree and never will doubt that Seagal was at one time the real deal
> 
> I doubt if the second Doshu had much effect on him as his style is very different


Hahaha, you are right I'm going a bit back but he had contributed a lot to the concept of Aiki... 
Oh, of course, the second Doshu has absolutely nothing to do with Seagal's style, what I meant was that Seagal was there during Kishomaru's "leadership" of the Hombu Dojo but I agree that he had no effect on Seagal's style.... It's a very different approach to the art.


----------



## now disabled

Ryback said:


> Hahaha, you are right I'm going a bit back but he had contributed a lot to the concept of Aiki...
> Oh, of course, the second Doshu has absolutely nothing to do with Seagal's style, what I meant was that Seagal was there during Kishomaru's "leadership" of the Hombu Dojo but I agree that he had no effect on Seagal's style.... It's a very different approach to the art.



I don't know if I can make the stretch back to Minamoto-no-Yoshimitsu. I am not knocking you btw as I'm just a bit on the fence as far as that.


----------



## hoshin1600

Ryback said:


> He was in and out of Japan while o'sensei was alive, he has seen him teach, he was never taught directly by him,he doesn't lie it's a misunderstanding that he has clarified many times.
> He was an inside student at Hombu Dojo back in the days of Kishomaru that's true and he was a student of Tohei Sensei but they parted ways when Tohei created his own organization... In the early days of Tenshin dojo he was merely teaching a ki-aikido kind of approach, same as Tohei, but he worked his way through a practical approach by studying and modifying the techniques further, there are witnesses to that, one of them is Haruo Matsuoka Sensei who has been his first Uke for years....
> His first contact with Aikido had been made in the states prior to all that at Orange Aikikai under Harry Kiyoshi Ishisaka Sensei, but he was in Japan when he says he was and he was the first westerner to open a dojo in Japan, in Osaka.



you say Seagal is your hero of sorts..
so i wont bust your bubble to hard but your history and my history dont match.  i was a big fan of his way back he was one of the reasons i looked into Aikido.  then i started training, i got a lot of inside stories from seniors and ...well...i was very disappointed.  Seagals actions speak of his character.  Google can provide pages of news articles on him.  i dont need to address them, but his character, actions and the history about himself that he tells has left me ....disappointed to say the least.


----------



## Ryback

hoshin1600 said:


> you say Seagal is your hero of sorts..
> so i wont bust your bubble to hard but your history and my history dont match.  i was a big fan of his way back he was one of the reasons i looked into Aikido.  then i started training, i got a lot of inside stories from seniors and ...well...i was very disappointed.  Seagals actions speak of his character.  Google can provide pages of news articles on him.  i dont need to address them, but his character, actions and the history about himself that he tells has left me ....disappointed to say the least.


Well, don't worry it's not about busting my bubble.... I'm studying Aikido for the last 20 years so it's not like I'm an overenthousiastic fan of Seagal because of his action films persona... So anyone is free to state his opinion, experience and point of view. 
I understand what you mean about his character and actions I've heard some rumours too but as far as I know, many students who have been with him in the past would follow him again if they had to choose today... And one of them has told me in person... By the way, I have become the reason the thread has gone way off topic, so please forgive me for that...


----------



## Ryback

now disabled said:


> I don't know if I can make the stretch back to Minamoto-no-Yoshimitsu. I am not knocking you btw as I'm just a bit on the fence as far as that.


I would never think you are knocking me simply because you speak your mind and you say your opinion, it's welcome of course!!


----------



## Buka

Welcome to MartialTalk, Ryback.


----------



## hoshin1600

Ryback said:


> He was in and out of Japan while o'sensei was alive, he has seen him teach, he was never taught directly by him,he doesn't lie it's a misunderstanding that he has clarified many times.



so here is the problem with that...
in order for Seagal to have even seen O Sensei he would have had to move to Japan before he graduated from high school, never mind the year he spent in Fullerton college.  
My teacher was  Fumio Toyoda who was assistant instructor and Uchideshi at hombu dojo at that time and he had told me Seagal was never there at that time.


----------



## Ryback

Buka said:


> Welcome to MartialTalk, Ryback.


Thanks a lot, it's nice to share my thoughts here and read all the other members opinions, thoughts and experiences!!


----------



## Ryback

hoshin1600 said:


> so here is the problem with that...
> in order for Seagal to have even seen O Sensei he would have had to move to Japan before he graduated from high school, never mind the year he spent in Fullerton college.
> My teacher was  Fumio Toyoda who was assistant instructor and Uchideshi at hombu dojo at that time and he had told me Seagal was never there at that time.


Seagal's father was traveling a lot to Japan back then and he was taking his son with him sometimes... You are correct, he was probably still very young but he was already studying Aikido with Ishisaka Sensei in Orange Aikikai and during his short travels to Japan he had been at some of o'sensei's teachings but o'sensei was already very Ill, it was just before he retired and then died, so this must have been around 1968 or something. Since Steven Seagal was born in 1952 he was about 16 years old at the time. Of course, it is natural I guess that Fumio Toyoda Sensei, who was already a teacher by then, wouldn't have noticed a young visiting beginner such as Seagal was back then... It was later that he moved in Japan for good to become an inside student and for that there are a lot of witnesses, even some that remember he used to be playing the guitar already in the early to mid 70s... 
I'm not taking anyone's side, I'm merely stating the facts as I know them, but of course I wasn't there...


----------



## now disabled

Ryback said:


> Seagal's father was traveling a lot to Japan back then and he was taking his son with him sometimes... You are correct, he was probably still very young but he was already studying Aikido with Ishisaka Sensei in Orange Aikikai and during his short travels to Japan he had been at some of o'sensei's teachings but o'sensei was already very Ill, it was just before he retired and then died, so this must have been around 1968 or something. Since Steven Seagal was born in 1952 he was about 16 years old at the time. Of course, it is natural I guess that Fumio Toyoda Sensei, who was already a teacher by then, wouldn't have noticed a young visiting beginner such as Seagal was back then... It was later that he moved in Japan for good to become an inside student and for that there are a lot of witnesses, even some that remember he used to be playing the guitar already in the early to mid 70s...
> I'm not taking anyone's side, I'm merely stating the facts as I know them, but of course I wasn't there...




I don't want to upset more but there are other Sensei who dispute Seagal's claims. One has gone on record saying that he was at the Honbu yes but he was not there when he claims. 

O'sensei died April 1969 in Iwama,


----------



## Ryback

now disabled said:


> I don't want to upset more but there are other Sensei who dispute Seagal's claims. One has gone on record saying that he was at the Honbu yes but he was not there when he claims.
> 
> O'sensei died April 1969 in Iwama,


Yeah well, as I said I wasn't there... Anything could be true, after all I admire Seagal Sensei's early technique skill level, as for his stories...I don't know. 
I mentioned him here mainly because I think that he is one of the teachers that emphasizes the self defense aspect of Aikido, as well as others of course. 
There is also that guy named Nenad Ikras he was in Serbia I think but now he is living and teaching Aikido in Barcelona, he has quite a dynamic approach to the art...


----------



## now disabled

Ryback said:


> Yeah well, as I said I wasn't there... Anything could be true, after all I admire Seagal Sensei's early technique skill level, as for his stories...I don't know.
> I mentioned him here mainly because I think that he is one of the teachers that emphasizes the self defense aspect of Aikido, as well as others of course.
> There is also that guy named Nenad Ikras he was in Serbia I think but now he is living and teaching Aikido in Barcelona, he has quite a dynamic approach to the art...




He is offering online teaching ... I'm afraid anyone that does that kinda gets a nope I will refrain from saying it lol.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> He is offering online teaching ... I'm afraid anyone that does that kinda gets a nope I will refrain from saying it lol.


Online training isn't inherently evil.


----------



## Ryback

now disabled said:


> He is offering online teaching ... I'm afraid anyone that does that kinda gets a nope I will refrain from saying it lol.


Oh yes, I absolutely agree with you....


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Online training isn't inherently evil.



Not evil per se just I feel dangerous


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Not evil per se just I feel dangerous


Used properly, it’s a good tool. Like most tools, used improperly, it doesn’t work well.


----------



## pgsmith

I can't imagine trying to learn aikido on-line. I just can't picture how it would be possible.


----------



## now disabled

pgsmith said:


> I can't imagine trying to learn aikido on-line. I just can't picture how it would be possible.



It isn't lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pgsmith said:


> I can't imagine trying to learn aikido on-line. I just can't picture how it would be possible.


No, but for someone who already studies it or a related art, online material can be useful for exploration.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> No, but for someone who already studies it or a related art, online material can be useful for exploration.



Oh I do agree there fully. 

But by that time you are looking for the nuances and the finer points and watching different shihan doing the same thing can be very informative indeed


----------



## pgsmith

gpseymour said:


> No, but for someone who already studies it or a related art, online material can be useful for exploration.



  True that. I had in my head Joe-Bob and his brother Earl watching an on-line video and trying to figure it out.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pgsmith said:


> True that. I had in my head Joe-Bob and his brother Earl watching an on-line video and trying to figure it out.


I grew up next to Joe Bob and had an Uncle Earl. I can't imagine either of them actually watching an Aikido video.


----------



## TSDTexan

IvanTheBrick said:


> It's not really much about style. When you look at every martial art, apart from a couple of exceptions and flashy stuff, it's all the same, it's just what it puts emphasis on; BJJ on groundwork, boxing on striking. It's about the quality of the teaching and whether you are being trained to acting in a fight more reactively than proactively, which is done through sparring. You need to learn how to react to the current situation e.g. a punch is being thrown (reactive), rather than attempt to predict what's going to happen and control the situation (proactive). It's not about the style you train, because on the street, if you're angry or mad enough anything is effective, just don't try that no-touch ********. It's about how well you condition your learning is conditioning you for a fight on the street, as compared to a dojo or a cage.



So much this Ivan.
Every art has a gap... the gold standard should be a well rounded fighter. 

Learn where your current arts has gaps. Next, find something else to plug in and address it.

A bjj player lacks the mobility to handle multiple assailants.... but most striking schools don't train for multiple (exceptions exist some train 1 v 3 or 1 v 2), But a striking school that spars, but dosen't simulate 3 on 1 or higher never mentally prepares them for a real world fight, in exactly the same way.

A young flexible man or woman could supplement BJJ with Track running and or Parkour.

Old Tang Soo Do encouraged finding a nearby doorway to defend yourself in, as the building channels the numbers into a better situation. 

[They cannot circle around you, they are in each others way. And each defeat hurts mob morale.]

I have had every students of mine spar in a doorway, and asked them to think and find other spots that would be advantageous. 

Proactive measures are prefight measures.


----------



## TSDTexan

oftheherd1 said:


> As I read the OP, he was looking for a Tai Chi school that was combat oriented.  Perhaps he changed that along the way.
> 
> As to your comment, I have never studied Aikido so it is difficult for me to say anything about it with any real knowledge.  But I have always thought that Aikido was more focused on joint manipulation into throws.  It was not interested in hurting you, but if it did that was on the person who started a confrontation.  If you got tired of being thrown about and left, that was fine.  That was the goal.  Hapkido is also defensive in philosophy.  However, Hapkido figures they don't want to fight.  If you force an issue, Hapkido doesn't want to have to do it again.  Therefore, pain and damage to the opponent is to ensure they don't have to do it again.  Hapkido will use anything that presents itself as a defense; joint manipulation, joint dislocations, throws, kicks, strikes, pressure points.  Any one of those or a combination.
> 
> I say that to ask if you really think the techniques in Hapkido and Aikido are similar?  Sometimes I have thought so, and other times I think they are very different.  I once mentioned to my GM that I thought Hapkido and Aikido about the same.  He was quite succinct but emphatic that they were not.



Very similar, very different and a lot of common principles but the method of application is varied.

Hapkido is far more aggressive, aikido is passive and waiting.

Hapkido has far more attacks, kicks and hand strikes. and a lot more weapons.

Aikido uses two Bokken, and Jo (short staff)

Both are directly derived from DRJJ, but Hapkido's founder crosstrained and brought some Judo, and several striking arts into it, and then there were new Happkido techniques that were created instead of learned by transmission from other arts.

Some techniques were created to counter judo techniques. Some were created to counter Karate or TKD type kicks.

Here is a Hopkidoin, and an Aikidoka roughhousing freestyle, without actually accidentally hurting each other.


----------



## now disabled

TSDTexan said:


> Aikido uses two Bokken,



I only know of one school that uses two sword style _Saotome Mitsugi , Aikido schools of Ueshiba, _

Aiki-ken and Aiki-jo are taught but not every shcool does that but the two sword style isn't  An Aikido subject (I stand to be corrected but it certainly not at the Aikikai or Iwama )


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> I only know of one school that uses two sword style _Saotome Mitsugi , Aikido schools of Ueshiba, _
> 
> Aiki-ken and Aiki-jo are taught but not every shcool does that but the two sword style isn't  An Aikido subject (I stand to be corrected but it certainly not at the Aikikai or Iwama )


I read his post as, "Aikido uses two: bokken and jo."


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> I read his post as, "Aikido uses two: bokken and jo."



Ok I read it differently. I am not having a go as there is one but only one I know of however there may be others


----------



## now disabled

I really was not having a go at all there are a few Aikido sensei and well known ones (deshi of O'sensei) that did drift towards introducing sword as more that say Saito sensei as it more towards the actual use of the sword if that makes sense lol


----------



## TSDTexan

now disabled said:


> I only know of one school that uses two sword style _Saotome Mitsugi , Aikido schools of Ueshiba, _
> 
> Aiki-ken and Aiki-jo are taught but not every shcool does that but the two sword style isn't  An Aikido subject (I stand to be corrected but it certainly not at the Aikikai or Iwama )



Maybe I should have wrote that clearer.
Improper punctuation!!!

Not this!









That isn't what I meant.

what I meant was in contrast to Happkido using a multitude of weapons...
Aikido uses just two weapons, the bokken and and the Jo. I didn't mean to say that it used a two bokken as dual wielding users.

But from you I learned that there is a school of aikido that has dual wielding.
_Saotome Mitsugi , Aikido schools of Ueshiba, _


----------



## now disabled

TSDTexan said:


> Maybe I should have wrote that clearer.
> Improper punctuation!!!
> 
> Not this!
> 
> View attachment 21617
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I meant.
> 
> what I meant was in contrast to Happkido using a multitude of weapons...
> Aikido uses just two weapons, the bokken and and the Jo. I didn't mean to say that it used a two bokken as dual wielding users.
> 
> But from you I learned that there is a school of aikido that has dual wielding.
> _Saotome Mitsugi , Aikido schools of Ueshiba, _




no the fault was mine and I wasn't having a go 

I don't know if the school still teaches that. He was a deshi of O'sensei


----------



## TSDTexan

now disabled said:


> no the fault was mine and I wasn't having a go
> 
> I don't know if the school still teaches that. He was a deshi of O'sensei



No, I never felt like you were having a go at me, and I truely do appreciate correction, at least, from people who are not smarmy arrogant blowhards.

And you my friend are none of the that.


----------

