# My theory about the practicality of Aikido



## Mr. President

[h=5]I'm gonna throw a theory out there and you tell me if it makes sense:

Because Aikido is strictly defensive and an Aikido move cannot be initiated unless there's an incoming threat, it seems that the only way Aikido can work is if the Aikidoka works extensively on cutting response time from the moment that a jab (for example) is launched until the moment you respond by moving out of the way. I was wondering if Aikidokas train just specifically on that, just on moving out of the way from very quick attacks, regardless of joint locks and throws. 

Because if you response time isn't short enough, a skilled Muay Thai fighter, for instance, will demolish you with knees and jabs before you get a single joint lock on him. 

Am I wrong?
[/h]


----------



## CuongNhuka

Your mistake, aside from posting that entire thing in bold, is in assuming that Aikido was intended entirely for self defense.


----------



## Mr. President

CuongNhuka said:


> Your mistake, aside from posting that entire thing in bold, is in assuming that Aikido was intended entirely for self defense.



As far as I know, it is the most defense oriented martial art out there. It doesn't have any kicks, punches, knees, elbows, headbutts or any other offensive weapon. But if there's something I'm missing, fill me in.


----------



## Cyriacus

I dont need to be an Aikidoka to know that Aikido isnt hard to use offensively. If i always learn to use an elbow strike after blocking a punch, does this mean that im unable to hit someone with my elbow unless they try to punch me first?




Mr. President said:


> As far as I know, it is the most defense oriented martial art out there. It doesn't have any kicks, punches, knees, elbows, headbutts or any other offensive weapon. But if there's something I'm missing, fill me in.



Try breaking stuff and putting people into positions from which you could do all those things. You dont need to take classes for a year to kick someone in the head if and when it becomes a valid option.


----------



## CuongNhuka

> As far as I know, it is the most defense oriented martial art out there. It doesn't have any kicks, punches, knees, elbows, headbutts or any other offensive weapon. But if there's something I'm missing, fill me in.



You're still focusing too much on combat. Do you think martial arts are only about combat and nothing else?


----------



## Instructor

Well and I suspect a kick to an Aikidoka is little different than a punch.  It's an extension of kinetic energy that get's trapped, blended and the projected on it's way.

In Hapkido we love kickers, they make it easy.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Mr. President said:


> *I'm gonna throw a theory out there and you tell me if it makes sense:
> 
> Because Aikido is strictly defensive and an Aikido move cannot be initiated unless there's an incoming threat, it seems that the only way Aikido can work is if the Aikidoka works extensively on cutting response time from the moment that a jab (for example) is launched until the moment you respond by moving out of the way. I was wondering if Aikidokas train just specifically on that, just on moving out of the way from very quick attacks, regardless of joint locks and throws.
> 
> Because if you response time isn't short enough, a skilled Muay Thai fighter, for instance, will demolish you with knees and jabs before you get a single joint lock on him.
> 
> Am I wrong?
> *



First, do you train Aikido; if not what do you train?

Second, if an Aikido move cannot be initiated unless there's an incoming threat.... then what is the issue? if no incoming threat then no threat exists, so why move at all. Are you asking about the pre-emptive strike capability of Aikido?


----------



## punisher73

Aikido uses "atemit waza" (striking techniques) and Ueshiba in his book "Budo" even states that all technique (in reference to joint locks and throws) is preceded by atemi.  In fact, if you look at the pictures in the book; you will see Ueshiba striking vital points as he does the techniques.

Secondly, "blending" does NOT mean you have to wait for the attack to be executed, or try for that specifc technique to unbalance the attacker (ie: trying for a jab).  Aikido uses the concept of "irimi" or "entering".  There was a time when Shioda Sensei was challenged by a boxer.  Shioda stepped offline to avoid the boxer's jab altogether and move in and then grabbed onto the boxer's right arm and threw him with Shihonage. 

The main problem is finding a school that emphasizes practical application along with the spiritual application.  Too many focus on just the "harmony" and don't apply the techniques as they were designed (against an uncompliant attacker).


----------



## Touch Of Death

Mr. President said:


> *I'm gonna throw a theory out there and you tell me if it makes sense:
> 
> Because Aikido is strictly defensive and an Aikido move cannot be initiated unless there's an incoming threat, it seems that the only way Aikido can work is if the Aikidoka works extensively on cutting response time from the moment that a jab (for example) is launched until the moment you respond by moving out of the way. I was wondering if Aikidokas train just specifically on that, just on moving out of the way from very quick attacks, regardless of joint locks and throws.
> 
> Because if you response time isn't short enough, a skilled Muay Thai fighter, for instance, will demolish you with knees and jabs before you get a single joint lock on him.
> 
> Am I wrong?
> *


First of all, all you need is momentum in your direction. If the fight is on, reaching for so much as a pencil is attack enough to work that against them; so, this whole strictly defensive nonsense is a selling point or at best a misunderstood saying.


----------



## Drasken

Mr. President said:


> As far as I know, it is the most defense oriented martial art out there. It doesn't have any kicks, punches, knees, elbows, headbutts or any other offensive weapon. But if there's something I'm missing, fill me in.



Any style teaching throws, locks etc. has strikes. Aikido doesn't focus on striking but you have to know the basics or you can't practice the techniques responding to said strikes.

That being said, what is the point in being aggressive to someone that isn't throwing an attack to you or someone else?

To answer your original question, yes when learning Aikido you practice getting out of the way of an attack. In actual defense you aren't going to try and counter every move, so deflecting and moving are of course a focus. But that could be said of any martial art. My primary style is Krav Maga and it's the same there as well. Get out of the way and deal with the situation, the approach is obviously different but the goal is the same. Don't get hurt and get away from danger.


----------



## Mr. President

> You're still focusing too much on combat. Do you think martial arts are only about combat and nothing else?



No, but that's the part I want to talk about. 



> First, do you train Aikido; if not what do you train?



I used to train in Okinawan Karate and Israeli Krav Maga, but unforeseen life circumstances made me put it aside, at least for now.



> Second, if an Aikido move cannot be initiated unless there's an incoming threat.... then what is the issue?



I'm asking because I want to understand the nuts and bolts of Aikido. Every single martial arts enthusiast has heard about how Aikido is "not effective in real confrontations". I don't believe that's true. After all, the Tokyo metropolitan police department uses it routinely on the streets. Since it's not lethal, it helps them avoid "excessive force" lawsuits. 

But, from what I understand by speaking with a one Aikido instructor who is in a city next to me, Aikido can only be effective if the Aikidoka's response time is incredibly quick. If not, skilled fighters will launch a barrage of strikes against you, pummeling you to the ground before you execute a single joint lock. 

Only by getting out of the way of lightning quick and successive offensive attempts against you, can you recognize the perfect opportunity to blend with the attacker's motion in order to execute an Aikido technique to take him down.

The reason that response time is, IMHO, more important in Aikido than let's say kickboxing, is because implementation of Aikido techniques relies exclusively on a certain offensive move launched against the Aikidoka, while kickboxing has many ways for you to launch at attack yourself, not waiting for your opponent to strike.

Assuming what I'm saying has some merit, I want to know if in Aikido, it is common to practice just on response time, before you even get in to joint locking, grappling, limb manipulation and throws. Is it something they train on at all? Do they make the trainees move their body out of the way of lightning quick attacks from close range?


----------



## jks9199

Aikido can be very effective in self defense.  The Tokyo Riot Police still send a number of their officers to a dedicated, intense program at the Yoshinkan Aikido dojo, as far as I know.  

Aikido does contain striking and techniques to enter an adversary; it's just got an underlying philosophy that's more about harmonizing than offense.

If you really want to know -- I suggest you look into actually taking a class or two, and speaking with actual practitioners.  If you look around, you can find the less new-age approaches.


----------



## Flying Crane

Mr. President said:


> Every single martial arts enthusiast has heard about how Aikido is "not effective in real confrontations".



I hadn't heard that.


----------



## punisher73

Mr. President said:


> I'm asking because I want to understand the nuts and bolts of Aikido. Every single martial arts enthusiast has heard about how Aikido is "not effective in real confrontations". I don't believe that's true. After all, the Tokyo metropolitan police department uses it routinely on the streets. Since it's not lethal, it helps them avoid "excessive force" lawsuits.
> 
> But, from what I understand by speaking with a one Aikido instructor who is in a city next to me, Aikido can only be effective if the Aikidoka's response time is incredibly quick. If not, skilled fighters will launch a barrage of strikes against you, pummeling you to the ground before you execute a single joint lock.
> 
> Only by getting out of the way of lightning quick and successive offensive attempts against you, can you recognize the perfect opportunity to blend with the attacker's motion in order to execute an Aikido technique to take him down.
> 
> The reason that response time is, IMHO, more important in Aikido than let's say kickboxing, is because implementation of Aikido techniques relies exclusively on a certain offensive move launched against the Aikidoka, while kickboxing has many ways for you to launch at attack yourself, not waiting for your opponent to strike.
> 
> Assuming what I'm saying has some merit, I want to know if in Aikido, it is common to practice just on response time, before you even get in to joint locking, grappling, limb manipulation and throws. Is it something they train on at all? Do they make the trainees move their body out of the way of lightning quick attacks from close range?



As always it will vary from school to school and the individual applying it.  As one Aikido master said (sorry can't remember the name) "Your aikido might not work, but mine works fine"

If your instructor is REACTING to the techniques and not fully understanding how to "blend" with the attacker and what that means physically/mentally/emotionally than I would agree that you need VERY fast reflexes.  But, when you understand what Aikido is trying to do in reaching harmony, you will read the attack before it occurs to nullify it.  Think of a person telegraphing their technique.  Also, consider the difference between an attack in anger vs. a contest between two individuals and there is a big difference in how they happen.

Lastly, a quick story about Aikido's effectiveness.  The city I live in has an Aikido instructor, who I have met and he is a very knowledgable instructor.  Some of our deputies have trained with him.  He had one student that had moved into the area, and went to every martial arts school and instructor that he could find (he had done this with every where he had lived as well) and would challenge them to a fight.  This person beat every instructor from every type of style that he met until he showed up at the Aikido dojo and the instructor beat him very easily by staying out of his way until he saw his opening and then took him down.  

It is quicker to learn boxing/kickboxing and easier to apply, but that doesn't mean that if you truely dedicate yourself in a good school that Aikido is not effective.  There are just alot of non-effective students out there (and that goes for all MA's as well).


----------



## K-man

Mr. President said:


> I'm gonna throw a theory out there and you tell me if it makes sense:
> 
> Because Aikido is strictly defensive and an Aikido move cannot be initiated unless there's an incoming threat, it seems that the only way Aikido can work is if the Aikidoka works extensively on cutting response time from the moment that a jab (for example) is launched until the moment you respond by moving out of the way. I was wondering if Aikidokas train just specifically on that, just on moving out of the way from very quick attacks, regardless of joint locks and throws.
> 
> Aikido is often looked at as defensive but it doesn't have to be. I could initiate an attack, back fist to the head for example, that would elicit a response, raising the arm to protect. That response gives me your arm.  But the main question is why would I want to attack first? I read recently of someone saying that you can have pretty much a perfect defence, but once you attack your defence is no longer in place.  So, apart from a sport scenario, which aikido isn't, why would I attack first?
> 
> Next, let's look at response times. It depends how you train. Aikido teaching is no different here to karate. If you are watching the hands you will probably get hit, and often. If you are watching the total scene, we call it 'peripheral vision', and you are not tense, you rarely get hit and even if the punch arrives it will have lost power by virtue of your interception (not block). You talk of a jab which implies close range. Presumably, if I have allowed an aggressive person to get that close, I am at least aware of the possibility he intends to attack.   So, from a jab you may move your head which is reflex, assuming your hands are up in a fence your hands again will protect by reflex, but you will not have time to step. But again, that is no different to karate or WC.
> 
> Because if you response time isn't short enough, a skilled Muay Thai fighter, for instance, will demolish you with knees and jabs before you get a single joint lock on him.
> 
> The assumption you are making is that I would want to 'get a joint lock on him'.  Unless you were a LEO or working security, where you need control rather than destruction, why would anyone go for a lock as the first line defence. That makes no sense for any style of MA. As a Karate-ka I am likely to hit first and use a lock or hold once I have control of the situation. As an Aikido-ka it is no different. We train with atemi ALL the time. Mostly the atemi is ippon ken to a vital point. Often it is a knee to the head or an elbow. If you attack me, as an Aikido-ka, I will be deflecting your attack and 'gently' applying pressure to one of your sensitive areas with my fist before I threaten to break your arm. If you attack me as a Karate-ka I will do the same, except that my finishing technique will most likely be a kick to the ribs or head.
> 
> Am I wrong?
> 
> Yes, I think so.


So, no .. your theory doesn't make sense!    :asian:


----------



## Mr. President

punisher73 said:


> If your instructor is REACTING to the techniques and not fully understanding how to "blend" with the attacker and what that means physically/mentally/emotionally than I would agree that you need VERY fast reflexes.  But, when you understand what Aikido is trying to do in reaching harmony, you will read the attack before it occurs to nullify it.



Interesting. So you're saying the best Aikidokas are not the ones that react quickly, but the ones that know a specific attack is coming before the attacker thinks of launching it. 

That's great in theory, and I'd imagine that if you're at that level, you'd be unbeatable. How can you theoretically beat someone who already knows how you're going to come at him?

But realistically, what percentage of Aikidokas reach that kind of level? I would think it would take at least 15-20 years of non-stop training. Most people who take up martial arts because of necessity, prefer a somewhat less extended learning curve.

Which also begs the question - If you're taking up martial arts because of necessity rather than a general desire to learn, should Aikido be the method you take up?



> The city I live in has an Aikido instructor, who I have met and he is a very knowledgable instructor. Some of our deputies have trained with him. He had one student that had moved into the area, and went to every martial arts school and instructor that he could find (he had done this with every where he had lived as well) and would challenge them to a fight. This person beat every instructor from every type of style that he met until he showed up at the Aikido dojo and the instructor beat him very easily by staying out of his way until he saw his opening and then took him down.



That's a nice story, but I'd imagine you could replace the line "until he showed up at the Aikido dojo" with any method you want and get the "wow" effect. I'm not saying you're lying, but I am saying that anyone can make up that story. How can I possibly know whether or not it's true?




> instructor beat him very easily by staying out of his way until he saw his opening and then took him down.



Yeah. That's basically what I said before, when I wrote "*Only by getting out of the way of lightning quick and successive offensive attempts against you, can you recognize the perfect opportunity to blend with the attacker's motion in order to execute an Aikido technique to take him down*."




> _I could initiate an attack, back fist to the head for example, that would elicit a response, raising the arm to protect. That response gives me your arm._



Does it? Just because someone raises his arm near his face doesn't mean you get grab it. It takes less than a second.



> _I read recently of someone saying that you can have pretty much a perfect defence, but once you attack your defence is no longer in place. So, apart from a sport scenario, which aikido isn't, why would I attack first?_



Who says you should? I was just asking what kind of training in Aikido is there to focus on reducing response time to an incoming attack or successive attacks.


----------



## K-man

Mr. President said:


> Interesting. So you're saying the best Aikidokas are not the ones that react quickly, but the ones that know a specific attack is coming before the attacker thinks of launching it.
> 
> That's great in theory, and I'd imagine that if you're at that level, you'd be unbeatable. How can you theoretically beat someone who already knows how you're going to come at him?
> 
> &#8203;That is not what *Punisher* said. He said, "you will *read* the attack before it occurs to nullify it." That is not the same as .. "So you're saying the best Aikidokas are not the ones that react quickly, but the ones that *know a specific attack is coming before the attacker thinks of launching it.*"
> 
> But realistically, what percentage of Aikidokas reach that kind of level? I would think it would take at least 15-20 years of non-stop training. Most people who take up martial arts because of necessity, prefer a somewhat less extended learning curve.
> 
> To become proficient in Aikido certainly takes time, but 15-20 years sounds a little excessive.  Ten years should do it. But that wasn't part of the OP. if you want RBSD in a hurry, do something like KM or Muay Thai.
> 
> Which also begs the question - If you're taking up martial arts because of necessity rather than a general desire to learn, should Aikido be the method you take up?
> 
> Possibly not.
> 
> Yeah. That's basically what I said before, when I wrote "*Only by getting out of the way of lightning quick and successive offensive attempts against you, can you recognize the perfect opportunity to blend with the attacker's motion in order to execute an Aikido technique to take him down*."
> 
> Did you read my earlier response? If you trained Okinawan Karate you would understand what I wrote about close range and reflex response.
> 
> Just because someone raises his arm near his face doesn't mean you get grab it. It takes less than a second.
> 
> I suppose it depends on your skill set. The capture of the arm occurs at the same time as the atemi.
> 
> Who says you should? (This is in response to my saying why should I attack first?)
> 
> Your OP stated "_Aikido is strictly defensive and an Aikido move cannot be initiated unless there's an incoming threat." _That is not correct and I gave you *one* example of an attacking move that I might use in either Karate or Aikido. My preferred option in both styles is to respond to a committed attack, not attack first.
> 
> I was just asking what kind of training in Aikido is there to focus on reducing response time to an incoming attack or successive attacks.


There is no training in Aikido to reduce response times. I'm not sure that is even possible. I repeat what *Punisher* posted.



> "when you understand what Aikido is trying to do in reaching harmony, you will read the attack before it occurs to nullify it."



That doesn't mean _reading minds_, it means _reading body languag_e. Same as for any martial art.    :asian:


----------



## Flying Crane

I think that if Mr. President has doubts about aikido, then he shouldn't train aikido.  He should train in something else that he believes more strongly in.  I'm trying to understand the purpose of this thread, and it escapes me.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> I think that if Mr. President has doubts about aikido, then he shouldn't train aikido. He should train in something else that he believes more strongly in. I'm trying to understand the purpose of this thread, and it escapes me.



I agree...but I have a theory too.... that this thread is not so much about fact finding as it is style bashing


----------



## KenpoDave

Let me preface by saying I enjoy aikido very much, particularly how well the concepts and techniques blend with and enhance my Kenpo.

I think an inherent problem with aikido is that Ueshiba came to it after decades of practice in an art that was not so harmonious.  It seems that often, some who practice aikido are starting at the end rather than the beginning.

I trained one man in particular who was an aikido black belt. Prior to Kenpo, it was his only martial art. His aikido was poor and ineffective. Another that I trained had trained in aikido as well, under the same instructor, but he had trained in judo first. His aikido was clean, crisp, and effective, and by the time he reached black belt in Kenpo, it was difficult to find the line between the 3 styles.

Two men, same instructor, same art, completely different understanding and application of that art.

I have been to seminars and watched black belts under the seminar instructor with the same problems; some are effective and appear to be able to make their techniques devastating, and others of similar rank just...can't.

I can say that of most styles, though, even my own.

It reminds me of Tai Chi. If you don't come in with an understanding of combat application, you may never get it without the right instructor.  


Dave Hopper


----------



## Xue Sheng

KenpoDave said:


> It reminds me of Tai Chi. If you don't come in with an understanding of combat application, you may never get it without the right instructor.
> 
> 
> Dave Hopper




And sometimes if you come to taijiquan with a prior martial art and your understanding of combat is from that prior martial arts point of view, even with the right instructor you will never get it.

BUt I do agree you need the right instructor in either case and as far as taijiquan is concered that is a lot harder to find than it sounds


----------



## K-man

Xue Sheng said:


> And sometimes if you come to taijiquan with a prior martial art and your understanding of combat is from that prior martial arts point of view, even with the right instructor you will never get it.
> /QUOTE]
> And, how much of that is about going to a new style with an empty cup?    :asian:


----------



## Mr. President

> _&#8203;That is not what _*Punisher said. He said, "you will read the attack before it occurs to nullify it." That is not the same as .. "So you're saying the best Aikidokas are not the ones that react quickly, but the ones that know a specific attack is coming before the attacker thinks of launching it."*



Close enough.



> _If you trained Okinawan Karate you would understand what I wrote about close range and reflex response._



I don't know what you're talking about. I was simply saying that he and I said the same thing, just phrasing it differently.



> _Your OP stated "__Aikido is strictly defensive and an Aikido move cannot be initiated unless there's an incoming threat." That is not correct and I gave you *one example of an attacking move that I might use in either Karate or Aikido.*_



All of that doesn't explain why you asked "why should I attack first?", when I never suggested you should.



> _My preferred option in both styles is to respond to a committed attack, not attack first_


_.

__Mine too. That's why I asked about responding quickly to an incoming attack. I never suggested an attack should be initiated.

_


> I'm trying to understand the purpose of this thread, and it escapes me.



Then go back to the OP. I just asked a simple question.



> but I have a theory too.... that this thread is not so much about fact finding as it is style bashing



You should really come up with a new theory.


----------



## Drasken

I believe it is also how you train, just like with any martial art. We would train with traditional methods and strikes in my dojo, but at the end of class we would spar against regular street techniques such as boxing punches, running tackles and other things one would possibly encounter in a real world situation. My Sensei was a Marine and he believed that a traditional foundation was important, but practicing with techniques to make sure you understand them and their applications to many different attacks was important as well.

Aikido is very useful, but this argument is like saying a weapon is not useful in real world scenarios. I would say that some martial arts are straightforward like a gun or knife. You can always get better, but proficiency takes a relatively short amount of time. Aikido is like a whip. It is amazing if you stick with it, but it takes time. And if you don't know what you're doing you could end up hurting yourself as well as your opponent, or just not be effective at all.

Also, O-Sensei did practice other harder styles before developing Aikido. Practicing other styles can help, but can also impede your learning of Aikido. We had a student come in from a Wrestling background. He just couldn't get the concept of not using power and strength to overcome an opponent. His technique was amazing, but he couldn't get the concept of blending with the attack. This resulted in injuries to training partners and himself, as eventually after arguing with him for weeks about it, we just started turning his strength fueled projections back onto him.

Training is key. How you train and also the knowledge of your Instructor and quality of that instruction.

Though I wonder how useful this post will be, I'm starting to wonder if this is all just style bashing or if the OP actually wants info to learn more of this style.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Mr. President said:


> You should really come up with a new theory.



OK, I have a new theory about the brontosaurus...Well, this theory, that I have, that is to say, which is mine,... is mine. This theory, which belongs to me, is as follows... This is how it goes... The next thing that I am about to type is my theory. Ready?

All brontosauruses are thin at one end; much, much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end. That is the theory that I have and which is mine and what it is, too.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Given that your profile lists Aikido as your primary art (but does not indicate a ranking), it seems to me that you really ought to be addressing this question FIRST to your instructor. Have you done so, and if so, what was the reply?


----------



## K-man

Mr. President said:


> As far as I know, it is the most defense oriented martial art out there. *It doesn't have any kicks, punches, knees, elbows, headbutts or any other offensive weapon.* But if there's something I'm missing, fill me in.


Aikido is your listed primary art and you say this? 



			
				Mr. President said:
			
		

> I used to train in Okinawan Karate and Israeli Krav Maga, but unforeseen life circumstances made me put it aside, at least for now.



You say you trained Okinawan Karate and you don't understand close quarter fighting.



> I said, "If you trained Okinawan Karate you would understand what I wrote about close range and reflex response."
> 
> 
> You said, "I don't know what you're talking about."





> I said .... &#8203;That is not what Punisher said. He said, "you will *read the attack before it occurs* to nullify it." That is not the same as .. "So you're saying the best Aikidokas are not the ones that react quickly, but the ones that *know a specific attack is coming before the attacker thinks of launching it*."
> 
> 
> To which you responded ... "Close enough."   Those concepts are poles apart.


I too have a theory.


I doubt you have trained any aikido and you have no concept of Okinawan Karate.  

Am I wrong?

:asian:


----------



## K-man

Mr. President said:


> As far as I know, it is the most defense oriented martial art out there. It doesn't have any kicks, punches, knees, elbows, headbutts or any other offensive weapon. But if there's something I'm missing, fill me in.



Try this for no strikes aikido. This clip is Gozo Shioda, one of Ueshiba's top students.






LOL


----------



## Aiki Lee

Mr. President said:


> Interesting. So you're saying the best Aikidokas are not the ones that react quickly, but the ones that know a specific attack is coming before the attacker thinks of launching it.
> 
> That's great in theory, and I'd imagine that if you're at that level, you'd be unbeatable. How can you theoretically beat someone who already knows how you're going to come at him?



Japanese martial arts have concepts called deai (initial meeting) and sen no sen (before the before), they are timing concepts but are not really about speed of movement but rather how soon you can percieve something. Deai (as taught in my school) focuses on reducing the time between thought and action and looking to reduce hesitation until movement appears to be reflexive (althought it's really not, a choice is still made). Sen no sen (or sen, sen no sen as it is sometimes called), is about getting a read on your opponents intentions. When you train seriously you should be able to feel the pressure from your opponent as if he was actively trying to hurt you. This pressure reaches a peak as someone decides to attack and as you feel that you can move during the space inbetween your oppenet's decision to attack and his actual movement of attack. By using these timing principles and with a developed sense of maai, and recognizing the posture of the opponent and what movement is natural from that posture, one should be able to accurately determine what attack is coming, when it is coming, and from what general direction.

But this doesn't make you unbeatable, it requires a fair deal of control on your part and the moment you lose connection with your opponent or no longer have control of the space then you will not be able to do this.



Mr. President said:


> But realistically, what percentage of Aikidokas reach that kind of level? I would think it would take at least 15-20 years of non-stop training. Most people who take up martial arts because of necessity, prefer a somewhat less extended learning curve.



I have no idea what % of aikidoka reach this. I've just been awarded blue belt and I can do it. Of course I'm a 4th dan in aiki ninjutsu which is where I was taught how to develope this. K-Man was right in that it takes about 10 years. Anyone who seriously persues martial arts should be able to do this if they have a quality teacher.



Mr. President said:


> Which also begs the question - If you're taking up martial arts because of necessity rather than a general desire to learn, should Aikido be the method you take up?



I don't think anyone takes martial arts by necessity. If your threatened daily, buy a gun. If you are looking for quick SD skills, aikido is not for you. Aikido is meant for those who are disciplined enough to devote a good chunk of their life to training (if you want to excel at it).




Mr. President said:


> Does it? Just because someone raises his arm near his face doesn't mean you get grab it. It takes less than a second.



Proper feinting to set up what K-man suggests requires you get mental and physical balance of your opponent. If you hit him (or fient) at the right time, and the correct target then he will be concerned with protecting his face and not whether or not you will grab his arm. This is realitively simple.




Mr. President said:


> I was just asking what kind of training in Aikido is there to focus on reducing response time to an incoming attack or successive attacks.



That depends entirely on how the instructor runs randori I think.


----------



## Cyriacus

K-man said:


> I too have a theory.
> 
> 
> I doubt you have trained any aikido and you have no concept of Okinawan Karate.
> 
> Am I wrong?
> 
> :asian:



I also have a theory - He went to places labelled for each and got god knows what


----------



## Mr. President

Himura Kenshin said:


> Deai (as taught in my school) focuses on reducing the time between thought and action and looking to reduce hesitation until movement appears to be reflexive (althought it's really not, a choice is still made).



There you go. That's what I meant. I asked about that from the beginning and people like k-man went ape **** on me. All they had to do is tell me about deai. 

The reason I ask about it in regards to Aikido is because it's an overwhelmingly defensive art. It's probably the least aggressive method in the world, so that leaves relying quite heavily on response, and more specifically, reducing the time period between the moment an attack is launched and the moment you react. I would imagine that if the response time is lacking, the Aikidoka could get demolished by an aggressive and quick fighter from more offensive minded methods, like Krav Maga, Muay Thai, Taekwondo and MMA, to name a few.

Not that an Aikidoka would have a reason to fight them in the first place. I'm just speaking theoretically.


----------



## K-man

Mr. President said:


> There you go. That's what I meant. I asked about that from the beginning and people like k-man went ape **** on me. All they had to do is tell me about deai.
> 
> If I had heard of 'deai' I would have been the first to let you know.    Certainly in our Aikido we have nothing along those lines. However, in karate we have 'sensen no sen' which means to attack when your opponent's intent to attack is first perceived, pre-empting your opponent's attack. *Himura Kenshin*'s description of deai seems pretty much the same. But we don't train it as such. It develops with your overall development as a martial artist.
> 
> 
> (And, for what it is worth, this is ape ***t    :tantrum:  and this is respect  :asian: )
> 
> The reason I ask about it in regards to Aikido is because it's an overwhelmingly defensive art. It's probably the least aggressive method in the world, so that leaves relying quite heavily on response, and more specifically, reducing the time period between the moment an attack is launched and the moment you react. I would imagine that if the response time is lacking, the Aikidoka could get demolished by an aggressive and quick fighter from more offensive minded methods, like Krav Maga, Muay Thai, Taekwondo and MMA, to name a few.
> 
> Not that an Aikidoka would have a reason to fight them in the first place. I'm just speaking theoretically.


You say that Aikido is probably the least aggressive method in the world.  On what experience do you base that?  My experience is just the opposite.  Where I train the Aikido is potentially totally destructive, if you wanted to go down that track. I have posted a couple of links on striking but you seem to have ignored them. 



> It is interesting to note that O-Sensei, the founder of Aikido has often been quoted to say,
> 
> 
> *&#8220;My technique is 70 percent atemi (striking) and 30 percent nage (throwing).&#8221;
> 
> *http://seishinkanaikido.com/?p=301


The fact that some instructors do not teach the atemi is not the fault of Aikido, it is the instruction. But even having said that, I think it may have been Gozo Shioda I read about in an article where he stated that striking was taught at 5th Dan level in the earlier times.     :asian:


----------



## blindsage

I think there are methods in Aikido that you don't understand until you experience them first hand.  I think that is where you're misunderstanding Mr. President.  You're preconceptions are interfering with you comprehending the answers being provided.  Go find a good Aikido instructor with an empty cup and learn.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Mr. President said:


> The reason I ask about it in regards to Aikido is because it's an overwhelmingly defensive art. It's probably the least aggressive method in the world, so that leaves relying quite heavily on response, and more specifically, reducing the time period between the moment an attack is launched and the moment you react. I would imagine that if the response time is lacking, the Aikidoka could get demolished by an aggressive and quick fighter from more offensive minded methods, like Krav Maga, Muay Thai, Taekwondo and MMA, to name a few.
> 
> Not that an Aikidoka would have a reason to fight them in the first place. I'm just speaking theoretically.



Least aggressive? Maybe, but aikido is often erroneously seen as reacting to an attackers physical movement. This is only at the basic level though as you improve and experience sen sen no sen consistently you learn that aikido in actual confrontations require you to take the initiative. Proper use of distance and timing and positioning allow one to bait certain attacks from someone who has committed to harming you but has not made any action yet.
 For example, if I were having a heated argument with someone and I recognized he was about to attack me I can raise my hands into what appears to be a defensive " I don't want to fight" posture. What I'm actually doing is giving him a target to attack. If set up properly he will likely try to grab my hands to prevent me from blocking his punch to my head. Knowing what kind of attack (a wide swing or a linear attack) is most probable, you can set up a technique like a wrist lock.

if the attack is something completely unexpected then that's where randori training comes in. But the important part here is knowing when the attack is coming.


----------



## Chris Li

K-man said:


> Try this for no strikes aikido. This clip is Gozo Shioda, one of Ueshiba's top students.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL



Actually, that's Yasuo Kobayashi, not Gozo Shioda.  Here are some clips of Shioda:

 [video=youtube_share;XxPlQGxvoy0]http://youtu.be/XxPlQGxvoy0[/video]

Best,

Chris


----------



## K-man

Chris Li said:


> Actually, that's Yasuo Kobayashi, not Gozo Shioda.  Here are some clips of Shioda:
> 
> [video=youtube_share;XxPlQGxvoy0]http://youtu.be/XxPlQGxvoy0[/video]
> 
> Best,
> 
> Chris


Thank you for the correction. I don't know how that mistake came about. I had just quoted Shioda on another thread. :asian:


----------



## oftheherd1

Mr. President said:


> *I'm gonna throw a theory out there and you tell me if it makes sense:
> 
> Because Aikido is strictly defensive and an Aikido move cannot be initiated unless there's an incoming threat, it seems that the only way Aikido can work is if the Aikidoka works extensively on cutting response time from the moment that a jab (for example) is launched until the moment you respond by moving out of the way. I was wondering if Aikidokas train just specifically on that, just on moving out of the way from very quick attacks, regardless of joint locks and throws.
> 
> Because if you response time isn't short enough, a skilled Muay Thai fighter, for instance, will demolish you with knees and jabs before you get a single joint lock on him.
> 
> Am I wrong?
> *



I do not, nor have I ever studied Aikido.  The only art I am belted in is Hapkido.  In Hapkido, speed and accuracy are indeed important.  I am sure they are in Aikido as well.  Oh, btw, in all martial arts I have seen, speed and accuracy seem important.

In Hapkido, we are defensive as well.  Just from what I have seen, more devastating from the git-go.  However, in the Hapkido I was taught, just before 1st and 2nd dan black belt testing, the last gup concerns offense.  Many defensive techniques can be adapted to offense very easily.  I would presume at some point Aikido practitioners are taught that.


----------



## punisher73

Mr. President said:


> Interesting. So you're saying the best Aikidokas are not the ones that react quickly, but the ones that know a specific attack is coming before the attacker thinks of launching it.
> 
> That's great in theory, and I'd imagine that if you're at that level, you'd be unbeatable. How can you theoretically beat someone who already knows how you're going to come at him?
> 
> But realistically, what percentage of Aikidokas reach that kind of level? I would think it would take at least 15-20 years of non-stop training. Most people who take up martial arts because of necessity, prefer a somewhat less extended learning curve.
> 
> Which also begs the question - If you're taking up martial arts because of necessity rather than a general desire to learn, should Aikido be the method you take up?
> 
> 
> 
> That's a nice story, but I'd imagine you could replace the line "until he showed up at the Aikido dojo" with any method you want and get the "wow" effect. I'm not saying you're lying, but I am saying that anyone can make up that story. How can I possibly know whether or not it's true?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. That's basically what I said before, when I wrote "*Only by getting out of the way of lightning quick and successive offensive attempts against you, can you recognize the perfect opportunity to blend with the attacker's motion in order to execute an Aikido technique to take him down*."
> 
> 
> 
> Does it? Just because someone raises his arm near his face doesn't mean you get grab it. It takes less than a second.
> 
> 
> 
> Who says you should? I was just asking what kind of training in Aikido is there to focus on reducing response time to an incoming attack or successive attacks.



Yep, you probably could replace my story about Aikido with any other martial art.  The point of the story was that people can apply and use it as a means to self-defense.

Look at ANY successful martial artist (even in the combat sports realm) and you will see that they read body language.  It doesn't mean that you can read EVERY attack, but there are ALOT of physical and verbal "tells" in a self-defense situation.  Three things that Aikido really works on: 1) Understanding yourself and finding your emotional center so you can de-escalate the situation if possible. 2) Ma-Ai or combat distance, you stay well out of his "sphere" so that if he wants to attack he has to move to get to you which gives you reaction time and a clue before he gets to your sphere. 3) Understanding body cues so that you aren't reading the SPECIFIC attack, but are reading the energy that is coming to you.  Have your partner practice going to grab your lapel or push you, it is the same initial motion.  Other martial arts do this as well, but we are talking about Aikido.

As to the conversation about getting the opponent to react and then applying your technique.  True story from my personal experience (take it or leave it).  The style I study has a move that is the same as Aikido's Ikkyu technique.  While working in the jail we were getting to ready to do a cell extraction on an uncooperative inmate.  I went through the door first and as I was closing in, the inmate raised his hands up in a boxer's guard.  I off angled to his left side and grabbed onto his left arm and did ikkyu and took him straight down.  No fuss, no injuries.  So, YES you do have that chance when you recognize the positions and capitalize on it.  What if he would moved it or done something else?  I don't know, I would have responded accordingly.

I only studied Aikido for a short time, but found lots of value in it (just wasn't my primary art and schedule didn't allow the time to do both).  But, as my primary instructor always says.  If you don't have faith in what you do, then it will never work for you.  That applies to whatever you do in life or the martial arts.


----------



## K-man

oftheherd1 said:


> .In Hapkido, we are defensive as well.  Just from what I have seen, more devastating from the git-go.  However, in the Hapkido I was taught, just before 1st and 2nd dan black belt testing, the last gup concerns offense.  Many defensive techniques can be adapted to offense very easily.  I would presume at some point Aikido practitioners are taught that.


We train 'irimi' or entering from an early stage. Although most training comes from a wrist grab, the wrist grab is not what non-practitioners think. (If I was to be shouted a drink every time someone said the wrist grab in aikido is BS I would never be sober!  )  The wrist grab represents an impediment to entering. If you think about the wrist grab you will be obstructed. When you learn to ignore the wrist grab, you can enter. The gripping is a training tool where we learn to move around another person's strength. In reality the grip isn't there and you just move in. It doesn't matter if there has been a 'first move' by your opponent.   :asian:


----------



## K-man

I just found this in today's email from Stanley Pranin's Aikido Journal.



> Atemi
> 
> The Founder can be seen applying atemi or preemptive strikes right up until the end of his life. But today, atemi have fallen into disuse in aikido. I believe this is due to a misunderstanding of its purpose. Atemi is an action used to preempt ukes aggressive intent through a distractionary manouever in the form of a strike. The use of atemi is not for the purpose of hitting or softening up uke prior to performing a technique. Its role is similar to that of the kiai in that it disrupts ukes concentration.
> 
> 
> Beyond Sensen no Sen
> 
> A traditional explanation of strategies in a Japanese martial arts context often involves a discussion of three levels of combat initiative: go no sen, sen no sen, and sensen no sen. These strategies are defined as follows: Go no sen, meaning late attack involves a defensive or counter movement in response to an attack; sen no sen, a defensive initiative launched simultaneously with the attack of the opponent; and sensen no sen, an initiative launched in anticipation of an attack where the opponent is fully committed to his attack and thus psychologically beyond the point of no return. The latter strategy is generally considered to be the highest level in the classical martial arts scenario.
> http://store.aikidojournal.com/the-...-art-hidden-in-plain-sight-by-stanley-pranin/



:asian:


----------



## Aiki Lee

K-man said:


> I just found this in today's email from Stanley Pranin's Aikido Journal.
> 
> "Atemi
> 
> The Founder can be seen applying atemi or &#8220;preemptive strikes&#8221; right up until the end of his life. But today, atemi have fallen into disuse in aikido. I believe this is due to a misunderstanding of its purpose. Atemi is an action used to preempt uke&#8217;s aggressive intent through a distractionary manouever in the form of a strike. The use of atemi is not for the purpose of hitting or &#8220;softening up&#8221; uke prior to performing a technique. Its role is similar to that of the kiai in that it disrupts uke&#8217;s concentration.
> 
> 
> Beyond &#8220;Sensen no Sen&#8221;
> 
> A traditional explanation of strategies in a Japanese martial arts context often involves a discussion of three levels of combat initiative: &#8220;go no sen,&#8221; &#8220;sen no sen,&#8221; and &#8220;sensen no sen.&#8221; These strategies are defined as follows: &#8220;Go no sen,&#8221; meaning &#8220;late attack&#8221; involves a defensive or counter movement in response to an attack; &#8220;sen no sen,&#8221; a defensive initiative launched simultaneously with the attack of the opponent; and &#8220;sensen no sen,&#8221; an initiative launched in anticipation of an attack where the opponent is fully committed to his attack and thus psychologically beyond the point of no return. The latter strategy is generally considered to be the highest level in the classical martial arts scenario.
> http://store.aikidojournal.com/the-s...tanley-pranin/"
> 
> :asian:



Good quote. I should clairify my mentioning of deai and sen sen no sen earlier now that you psted this. In aiki ninjutsu we use all these concepts but name them differently in some cases. Sen no sen as described above is the Banzenkan's conception of deai, it has a defferent name so as not to confuse students between sen no sen and sen sen no sen. Sen sen no sen for us is exactly as described above. Go no sen is different for us however. While we understand the concept of go no sen as the response to the physical attack, we refer to go no sen as manipulation of of the opponent's sen sen no sen.  For us, go no sen requires us to move to a position where we bait the attacker, he then makes the commitment to the attack and we move to a superior position after the attack is decided upon but before it is thrown. It gives one the feeling of fight a ghost in my opinion. You know there is something there so you attack it, but it doesn't connect. It leaves one feeling stupified.

Another way we illustrate the point is deai (or sen no sen) is like going to a party and getting there right on time. Sen sen no sen, is getting to the party early and they are still setting up decorations and are surprised to see you there. Go no sen (in the Banzenkan) is giving directions to the party but purposefully giving the wrong address, so the guy shows up on time (attacks when he realistically should), but goes to the wrong place (attacks a target that really doesn't exist anymore).

Hopefully I made some sense to anyone who cares to read my poorly worded explanations.


----------



## TheArtofDave

Happy I came across this thread. I'm considering diving head first into Aikido. It's an art I've always wanted to train in but didn't know if the area I was in offered it. Pleased to tell everybody that the Memphis area does in indeed offer training. And even though I might have to go a little out of my way it will be well worth it. I'm planning in either July or some time a couple of months after to go try out a class or two. I'm working on my own physical therapy with some strength and endurance training just so my body will be a little more fit when under taking a new area. Very excited for what the future holds.


----------



## KenpoDave

> And, how much of that is about going to a new style with an empty cup?    :asian:



All of it. There are two ways to empty a cup.  Pour it out...or drink it.


Dave Hopper


----------



## Cyriacus

KenpoDave said:


> All of it. There are two ways to empty a cup.  Pour it out...or drink it.
> 
> 
> Dave Hopper



Or, someone else can set it on fire and evaporate it.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Or set it aside and get a new cup.


----------



## WingChun

It does have Punches and Kicks, dont know about knees and elbows, depends on the style.


----------



## Shinjuku Kid

good discussion point but wrong.   Study go no sen. sen no sen. sen sen no sen.  Aikido, contrary to popular and mistaken belief is not merely a go no sen art.
 I used to think similarly to you ... then a friend gave me this book.  *Aikido in Japan and The Way Less Traveled.*  300+ pages, 600+ footnotes. 
I started out skeptical and ended up impressed.  My thinking has changed.  I read a chapter in the Epilogue.  Wrestling with Aikido?   amazing explanation of the art .... 

great stuff about training in Japan ....


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

I'll start off by saying im an aikido noob that is studying aikido with about a month of aikido instruction under my belt. 

I've studied other styles ranging from MMA to Tai Chi Chuan and will say aikido can be an effective art but might take a pure aikido practitioner some time (3 or more years, most likely 5-20) to get proficient at applying it in a self defense scenario. 

I'm actually loving aikido since I love joint locks and throws and have found that aikido teaches some advanced joint lock throws and concepts that I can add to my prior styles strategies or techniques. 

As for the statement of it not teaching any offensive movements I guess that depends on the individual martial artist or dojo to realize it or teach it. 

For instance the aikido im learning has people striking, pushing or grabbing at me so I can apply the lock or throw. 

The person that is doing the striking pushing or grabbing ofcourse does it with less intent so you can learn the drill then starts moving up the intent and power to near or at full speed and power. 

The reason why I mention this is because technically they are teaching some basic offensive movements but I guess that is up to the individual practitioner to realize this and/or the dojo to teach the attacker to use intention while throwing the strikes grabs and pushes.


----------



## Shinjuku Kid

Cyriacus said:


> I dont need to be an Aikidoka to know that Aikido isnt hard to use offensively. If i always learn to use an elbow strike after blocking a punch, does this mean that im unable to hit someone with my elbow unless they try to punch me first?
> 
> Try breaking stuff and putting people into positions from which you could do all those things. You dont need to take classes for a year to kick someone in the head if and when it becomes a valid option.



well said.  "atemi" (fist, back fist, elbow, knee, foot, head) is the EASY part of Aikido .... They teach it.  But not every dojo is the same.
Amazing the many misconceptions and disinformation about Aikido.  
I started studying recently and it's great - especially.  of course FINDING a qualified teacher is vital.


----------



## hussaf

Our teacher was having us do defense against knee strikes in a clinch and I was running sparring sessions with aikido finishes last class.  It all depends what you train for.


----------

