# Tired of hearing it doesnt work



## angrywhitepajamas

Hello everyone,
  Please pardon my rant but I am tired of hearing the complaint of "Aikido doesn't work".  

      The complaint that "it doesn't work" in aikido usually can be traced back to five issues. The first issue is that aikido techniques require years practice or a specialized training regimen to obtain sufficient grip strength to apply many techniques.  Many dojos do not teach or require a training regimen using Jo or Bokkendo to aid in the development of technique and strength.   This is understandable because both Jodo and Bokkendo take additional time to practice, lots of space which may not be available, and come with significant safety issues which may not be worth the risk of practicing in that particular dojo. Therefore many dojos wait for hand strength to develop as a side effect of years of practice.  

                        The second issue is that Aikido practice is geared in mindset of not causing permanent damage to your partner.  A lot of techniques if done wrong will permanently injure your partner.  This can be a difficult problem with large classes as they are harder to observe in detail as well as manage instruction on correct technique application and performance.  

                  Third is that Aikido is a partner interaction based system.  In the beginning it is a struggle for both the the attacker and the receiver to be able to practice together.  The receiver has the capability of doing permanent harm to the attacking partner if they misapply the technique.  At higher levels your partner giving the attack (the &#8220;uke&#8221; for those non Aikidoka here) has to have a better ability to control his or her fall than the partner receiving the attack (the &#8220;nage&#8221 has to perform the technique.  If the uke cannot ukemi (a break fall or the ability to control their own fall) to the appropriate degree of proficiency then the nage does not have the chance to perform more advanced techniques.  Also the mutual practice between the uke and nage builds trust and competency.  Without the trust, there can be very little skill building; therefore the technique that is being attempted is not effective.  So unlike many striking forms, it is easier to practice aikido with a partner (it looks kinda funny to outsiders when you&#8217;re doing shihonage by yourself).   This is also why you don&#8217;t see many people doing &#8220;rigorous waza&#8221; like Boulder Drop.

     Fourthly there aikido has no kata and is circular in the stepping patterns.  The lack of kata (patterns, forms, poomce&#8230 is a plus an a minus.  I won&#8217;t get into the specifics of each technique and its applicability beyond saying that yes even shihonage can work against a baseball bat.  Each technique has the presentation for, the foreword application, the reverse application, the counter application, kind application, &#8220;hard and nasty&#8221; application&#8230;and so on.  Further complicating this is an additional layer of complexity of neutralization, projection and redirection techniques.  The easiest way to accommodate this, and depending who you talk to the path to least resistance, is the lovely two step (&#8220;ude furi undo&#8221.  Most dojos teach ude furi undo as a two step dance and it works for the most part.   This stepping pattern has the potential to put the practitioner in a more advantageous position (ie &#8220;not meeting force with force, but arranging a date with gravity and the floor&#8221.

     Fifthly there is the philosophical nature of the different Aikido associations.  To my knowledge on the gentle extreme there is the Ki society with their emphasis on soft throws and extreme cooperation, on the other side of the spectrum is the Tomiki groups which have greater emphasis on application.  Most dojo&#8217;s fall in between so the aikido you are talking about may not be the aikido someone else is talking about.  Each group shares most of the same techniques they just practice and apply in vastly different manners.  In addition similar to Shotokan, many aikido dojo&#8217;s try to teach in a manner that results in the fewest possible injuries during practice.

     Finally many people seem to have the opinion that aikido is a &#8220;peace and love art man&#8221;.  Practice in aikido can be painful, mentally complex, and difficult.   Like any other art we try to be careful not to injure our willing vic/partner.  Please consider all this when someone makes the statement that &#8220;Aikido doesn&#8217;t work&#8221;.  Those are some of the difficulties involved, but they are not insurmountable.  They merely require a different perspective in order to be applicable.

Just to mention this, but Aikido was my first martial art and I have used it since grade school and it hasn't let me down yet.


----------



## Drac

Learn to ignore the idiots as I have.. Let them believe what they will..I have heard similiar statements about Karate and Hapkido. If one of these jackwagons ever attacks you they will find out that* IT DOES WORK...*


----------



## Flying Crane

Let everyone THINK it doesn't work.  If you every have to use it, their ignorance works to your advantage.  Keep it in your back pocket.


----------



## bribrius

I know little about it so take my comment for what it is worth (nothing pretty much)

i like any moves in which you can use your opponents own momentum or force against them. Rather than blocking, or stopping, use the energy to your benefit.

I see some of this in it. Grabbing the arm or wrist, is something i actually enjoy for knocking someone backward, dropping the head for a knee to the face or throat. use it while sweeping the legs in a combo and the power that can be had from control over their arm is a wonderful thing. i actually call it " leading" for lack of another term. Because you are doing exactly that to your opponent. Leading them where you want to. Be it from the pain they feel making them succumb to the direction you want them to go or by using their own energy and directing it.

The problem i see with it, is it takes a certain amount of time to get that grip and any leading (my term not yours) you depending on the person reacting, or rather not reacting. In your training you partner aids you, or at least goes along with it so that you can perform the move to completion. This way of course no one gets hurt, you learn. I understand all this i do the same in certain moves. But i wonder if you grabbed someones arm and attempted that flip they would not react. For instance my upper torso goes down, you have my arm twisting. you are counting on me flipping or using that movement, my own weight against me and leverage. Flipping backwards or forward doesn't matter. But what if your opponent does something unexpected? what if when you grab that arm or wrist i come sideways and lock it in? Or i get ahold of that leg on the way and attempt to sweep it out from that same enertia? what if your opponent simply pulls back and strikes down for a break? If your gripping my arm then you are exposed as well. while your doing that what is to stop the strike from landing?

Don't get me wrong. Far as what i know i like it. Definatley worth learning. I wonder of some plausible flaws in it but only wonder, i don't know enough to judge it..I do think the fact you need that partner and that reaction is a hindrance. I am not so sure in a real world sit the person would react the same as your partner. Your also expecting the move to carry out. Real world it may not. You may get stopped half way through or may be caught by surprise.  Alot of moves seem to be that way.  Just take their hand or grab their arm and.......

Start out with the assumption, a. someone is just going to let you grab their arm or b.  someone is going to let you grab their arm AND react according to your plan. Both questionable. course in practice it works great as you have a willing person.  kind of like using the arm to push the face down for that kick. your starting with the premise you have their arm, that your strong enough to hold it and twist it, and they arent reacting.


----------



## Carol

Don't tell Satoko Shinashi....or the people that lost to her in the octagon...that Aikido doesn't work 

[yt]xf9W9luyxHw[/yt]


----------



## Blindside

Carol said:


> Don't tell Satoko Shinashi....or the people that lost to her in the octagon...that Aikido doesn't work
> 
> [yt]xf9W9luyxHw[/yt]



I'm afraid I didn't see much in there that resembled aikido.


----------



## teekin

I think the trouble is not with the Art it'self, it's with finding a Teacher, a studio to learn proper Aikido. I do know people who are very acomplished in the more traditional arts who have taken up Aikido later in life and assure me that once you can master the technical aspects of the locks and throws (and this is no mean feat) they are wonderfully effective tools. I love how spiritual Aikido is and the small glimpses into what technical complexity lies behind the wrist throws makes me want to come back.

lori


----------



## Jenna

angrywhitepajamas said:


> Hello everyone,
> Please pardon my rant but I am tired of hearing the complaint of "Aikido doesn't work".
> 
> The complaint that "it doesn't work" in aikido usually can be traced back to five issues. The first issue is that aikido techniques require years practice or a specialized training regimen to obtain sufficient grip strength to apply many techniques.  Many dojos do not teach or require a training regimen using Jo or Bokkendo to aid in the development of technique and strength.   This is understandable because both Jodo and Bokkendo take additional time to practice, lots of space which may not be available, and come with significant safety issues which may not be worth the risk of practicing in that particular dojo. Therefore many dojos wait for hand strength to develop as a side effect of years of practice.
> 
> The second issue is that Aikido practice is geared in mindset of not causing permanent damage to your partner.  A lot of techniques if done wrong will permanently injure your partner.  This can be a difficult problem with large classes as they are harder to observe in detail as well as manage instruction on correct technique application and performance.
> 
> Third is that Aikido is a partner interaction based system.  In the beginning it is a struggle for both the the attacker and the receiver to be able to practice together.  The receiver has the capability of doing permanent harm to the attacking partner if they misapply the technique.  At higher levels your partner giving the attack (the &#8220;uke&#8221; for those non Aikidoka here) has to have a better ability to control his or her fall than the partner receiving the attack (the &#8220;nage&#8221 has to perform the technique.  If the uke cannot ukemi (a break fall or the ability to control their own fall) to the appropriate degree of proficiency then the nage does not have the chance to perform more advanced techniques.  Also the mutual practice between the uke and nage builds trust and competency.  Without the trust, there can be very little skill building; therefore the technique that is being attempted is not effective.  So unlike many striking forms, it is easier to practice aikido with a partner (it looks kinda funny to outsiders when you&#8217;re doing shihonage by yourself).   This is also why you don&#8217;t see many people doing &#8220;rigorous waza&#8221; like Boulder Drop.
> 
> Fourthly there aikido has no kata and is circular in the stepping patterns.  The lack of kata (patterns, forms, poomce&#8230 is a plus an a minus.  I won&#8217;t get into the specifics of each technique and its applicability beyond saying that yes even shihonage can work against a baseball bat.  Each technique has the presentation for, the foreword application, the reverse application, the counter application, kind application, &#8220;hard and nasty&#8221; application&#8230;and so on.  Further complicating this is an additional layer of complexity of neutralization, projection and redirection techniques.  The easiest way to accommodate this, and depending who you talk to the path to least resistance, is the lovely two step (&#8220;ude furi undo&#8221.  Most dojos teach ude furi undo as a two step dance and it works for the most part.   This stepping pattern has the potential to put the practitioner in a more advantageous position (ie &#8220;not meeting force with force, but arranging a date with gravity and the floor&#8221.
> 
> Fifthly there is the philosophical nature of the different Aikido associations.  To my knowledge on the gentle extreme there is the Ki society with their emphasis on soft throws and extreme cooperation, on the other side of the spectrum is the Tomiki groups which have greater emphasis on application.  Most dojo&#8217;s fall in between so the aikido you are talking about may not be the aikido someone else is talking about.  Each group shares most of the same techniques they just practice and apply in vastly different manners.  In addition similar to Shotokan, many aikido dojo&#8217;s try to teach in a manner that results in the fewest possible injuries during practice.
> 
> Finally many people seem to have the opinion that aikido is a &#8220;peace and love art man&#8221;.  Practice in aikido can be painful, mentally complex, and difficult.   Like any other art we try to be careful not to injure our willing vic/partner.  Please consider all this when someone makes the statement that &#8220;Aikido doesn&#8217;t work&#8221;.  Those are some of the difficulties involved, but they are not insurmountable.  They merely require a different perspective in order to be applicable.
> 
> Just to mention this, but Aikido was my first martial art and I have used it since grade school and it hasn't let me down yet.



Dear *angrywhitepyjamas*, please say why are you so angry about this?  If your Aikido works why are you seeking to prove that to everyone else?

If your Aikido works then the proof will be in your ability to avoid a confrontation or to mitigate the damage to yourself and to your aggressor if that confrontation cannot be calmed.  

You do not have to prove to everyone here that your Aikido works.  For not everyone has that negative viewpoint, yes, even some people that practice other arts.  If people do not want to believe that Aikido works then that is entirely their prerogative.  Everyone here practices their own arts.  They practice their own arts for their own various reasons.  You need not feel you have to execute any mission to prove Aikido to them.  They are happy with their own art. 

For those arguing with you that Aikido does _not _work, why do you care to prove them wrong?  They are speaking from a position of ignorance.  Why do you care to enlighten those that seek no enlightenment and but more often seek only an argument with you?  Is that in itself not poor Aikido on your part to engage?

Anyone that argues that Aikido does not work plainly practices nothing more than youtube-Aikido [which is not even of O'Sensei origin and but is becoming increasingly prevalent].  

I might say that your anger, whilst seeming wholly justified and righteous [which our own anger invariably does] might be better directed into your training, or perhaps better yet into your own mental and philosophical centering, no?

Please do not be angry like this *angrywhitepyjamas*, for anger will temper your Aikido in a negative way.  Please consider just being *WHITEPYJAMAS *and be happy being whitepyjamas and practicing your Aikido for you, for your own defence, for your own pleasure, for your own camaraderie, for your own self-confidence, for your own fitness and do not be worried about what anyone else has to say to criticise your choice of martial art.

Aikido works because it works for you.

Jenna xo


----------



## Cirdan

You yourself know the value of Aikido. You`ll just have to respect the fact that many don`t and that some make unfounded statements mainly because of insecurity.

I find that most who make statements like that are either armchair warriors or some fresh student of "the ultimate art" who in all likelyhood will quit within a year. 

Wiser people know to shut up and train.


----------



## Bruno@MT

It's not that it doesn't work, but in many dojo it is taught in a way that really has nothing to do with martial application. 

I've seen aikido demonstrations that were trully horrible. Bad form, no sense for maai, no spirit. Among the participants in a public demo, I saw 1 wristwatch and several piercings, earrings and wedding rings, and the people not actively participating in the demo were sitting with their legs crossed, feet pointing towards the kamidana, chatting with each other and not paying attention. And the punches were no punches, it was the presentation of a hand on a silver platter. It was horrible.

I've thought about that for a while, and while there is room to argue about the importance of etiquette, I think that the real problem of such aikido (or ninpo or whatever) is this: if you don't have to worry about getting hit if you do something wrong, then whatever you are doing loses all meaning and degenerates into something that deserves neither the moniker 'martial' or 'art'.

The same applies to other arts as well, of course, but imo aikido is more vulnerable to this with the whole 'soft' mindset / philosophy behind it.


----------



## l_uk3y

Carol said:


> Don't tell Satoko Shinashi....or the people that lost to her in the octagon...that Aikido doesn't work
> 
> [yt]xf9W9luyxHw[/yt]




Thats an impressive Highlight reel.

On topic.  As always. Its the People involved and the way it is trained that will ultimately say how effective it is. The techniques themselves are highly effective with the only condition of them working is the practitioners ability to "read" the opponent and respond appropriately.

Luke


----------



## zDom

Jenna said:


> Please do not be angry like this *angrywhitepyjamas*, for anger will temper your Aikido in a negative way.  Please consider just being *WHITEPYJAMAS *
> 
> Jenna xo



FWIW, the user name is a reference to a really great book about aikido.

http://www.amazon.com/Angry-White-Pyjamas-Scrawny-Lessons/dp/0688175376

Great book. I read a borrowed copy but I think I need to add it to my collection.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> Let everyone THINK it doesn't work. If you every have to use it, their ignorance works to your advantage. Keep it in your back pocket.


 
What Flying Crane said 


People tell me Taijiquan doesn't work too...and I'm OK with that :EG:


----------



## Tanaka

Well to be honest... those type of people who go around trying to prove other martial art systems don't work. Normally won't be convinced unless you compete in MMA.
Why should anyone have to do this just to prove their system.

I think clips like these are good enough




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biHkZCv_aP4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6lravpr9GU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8heQfCl4Fh8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_LC5ptMR50&feature=related


----------



## MA-Caver

I agree with Drac and Flying Crane, ignore the talkers, pay attention to the walkers. Folks that watch an early Segal video or any other of the masters just-don't-seem-to-get-how-much-training-over-x number-of-years those guys have been doing their chosen art to get to where it looks SO easy or ineffective because their ukes get right back up and charge at them again. 
They (to me) obviously have no sense of real-world, full strength application that can be applied. This goes also for Karate and just about any other MA that is out there. 
When I uked for a Kenpoist I knew that they were only applying marginal strength/power to their kicks and blows on my body. Having been in a LOT of full-power for real fights my own experience told me just how effective that particular art would be if used full strength. I mentally apply that to ANY art (especially Aikido) that I see a demo or training of. 

Case in point with this post. 


Carol said:


> Don't tell Satoko Shinashi....or the people that lost to her in the octagon...that Aikido doesn't work



Mental note... upon meeting her (if ever) do *NOT* make Miss Shinashi mad at me! 
That gal is quick and effective. I loved two things about watching that vid. 1. How she took on that guy that outsized and out weighed her by a factor of 4 or 5 and he looked like *he* was in trouble. 2. That pretty smile of hers at the end of the video that showed she was having fun kicking ***....at full power.


----------



## K-man

Carol said:


> Don't tell Satoko Shinashi....or the people that lost to her in the octagon...that Aikido doesn't work


I couldn't recognise the aikido so checked her out. She started with Judo and added Jujutsu. No mention of Aikido.



> Tanaka ...
> Well to be honest... those type of people who go around trying to prove other martial art systems don't work. Normally won't be convinced unless you compete in MMA.
> Why should anyone have to do this just to prove their system.


Aikido is designed to protect people in their personal environment. It was never intended as sport, nor was it designed to compete against trained martial artists.

Now from a personal point of view, I believe effectiveness depends on how you train, and that applies to any martial art. I have seen karate that 'wouldn't work' on the street, and I've seen aikido that wouldn't work. Any martial art needs to be pressure tested from time to time to ensure that what you are learning will work in the real world. I have no doubt that aikido can be effective or I would not have spent years trying to get it right. What I can say from personal experience is that it is far easier to wack someone with a fist or kick them in the shin than to develop an automatic response ending with an effective joint lock or take down. :asian:


----------



## Laus

Anyone who thinks Aikido doesn't work has obviously never been thrown around by someone who practices it


----------



## MrBigglesworth

The biggest problem with Aikido, if there is one, is how people train.
There is a big difference to someone giving you a commited attack in a more accustomed manner in a confortable environment, and an experienced brawler who intimidates and stalks and messes with your head first to get you out of your comfort zone. Adrenalin surges, your timing is just a little out of whack and what works "all the time" doesn't do much any more.

I trained in Aikido for a number of years, but the first time you get hit with some intent, it's a different story. It's very confronting, even if it is in a familiar setting like training and you know the other guy doesn't have the intention of really hurting you.

This isn't just about Aikido, but panicky Aikido that comes out (like a random attempt at sankkajo or kote gaeshi without some sort of softener or balance break) tends to be less effective than a crude whack that might come out from a striking art applied equally badly.


----------



## K-man

MrBigglesworth said:


> This isn't just about Aikido, but panicky Aikido that comes out (like a random attempt at sankkajo or kote gaeshi without some sort of softener or balance break) tends to be less effective than a crude whack that might come out from a striking art applied equally badly.


 Yes, but with training that crude wack can become a very effective atemi that facilitates your take down or lock.  Unfortunately most aikido I have seen doesn't teach the atemi.   :asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death

angrywhitepajamas said:


> Hello everyone,
> Please pardon my rant but I am tired of hearing the complaint of "Aikido doesn't work".
> 
> The complaint that "it doesn't work" in aikido usually can be traced back to five issues. The first issue is that aikido techniques require years practice or a specialized training regimen to obtain sufficient grip strength to apply many techniques.  Many dojos do not teach or require a training regimen using Jo or Bokkendo to aid in the development of technique and strength.   This is understandable because both Jodo and Bokkendo take additional time to practice, lots of space which may not be available, and come with significant safety issues which may not be worth the risk of practicing in that particular dojo. Therefore many dojos wait for hand strength to develop as a side effect of years of practice.
> 
> The second issue is that Aikido practice is geared in mindset of not causing permanent damage to your partner.  A lot of techniques if done wrong will permanently injure your partner.  This can be a difficult problem with large classes as they are harder to observe in detail as well as manage instruction on correct technique application and performance.
> 
> Third is that Aikido is a partner interaction based system.  In the beginning it is a struggle for both the the attacker and the receiver to be able to practice together.  The receiver has the capability of doing permanent harm to the attacking partner if they misapply the technique.  At higher levels your partner giving the attack (the uke for those non Aikidoka here) has to have a better ability to control his or her fall than the partner receiving the attack (the nage) has to perform the technique.  If the uke cannot ukemi (a break fall or the ability to control their own fall) to the appropriate degree of proficiency then the nage does not have the chance to perform more advanced techniques.  Also the mutual practice between the uke and nage builds trust and competency.  Without the trust, there can be very little skill building; therefore the technique that is being attempted is not effective.  So unlike many striking forms, it is easier to practice aikido with a partner (it looks kinda funny to outsiders when youre doing shihonage by yourself).   This is also why you dont see many people doing rigorous waza like Boulder Drop.
> 
> Fourthly there aikido has no kata and is circular in the stepping patterns.  The lack of kata (patterns, forms, poomce) is a plus an a minus.  I wont get into the specifics of each technique and its applicability beyond saying that yes even shihonage can work against a baseball bat.  Each technique has the presentation for, the foreword application, the reverse application, the counter application, kind application, hard and nasty applicationand so on.  Further complicating this is an additional layer of complexity of neutralization, projection and redirection techniques.  The easiest way to accommodate this, and depending who you talk to the path to least resistance, is the lovely two step (ude furi undo).  Most dojos teach ude furi undo as a two step dance and it works for the most part.   This stepping pattern has the potential to put the practitioner in a more advantageous position (ie not meeting force with force, but arranging a date with gravity and the floor).
> 
> Fifthly there is the philosophical nature of the different Aikido associations.  To my knowledge on the gentle extreme there is the Ki society with their emphasis on soft throws and extreme cooperation, on the other side of the spectrum is the Tomiki groups which have greater emphasis on application.  Most dojos fall in between so the aikido you are talking about may not be the aikido someone else is talking about.  Each group shares most of the same techniques they just practice and apply in vastly different manners.  In addition similar to Shotokan, many aikido dojos try to teach in a manner that results in the fewest possible injuries during practice.
> 
> Finally many people seem to have the opinion that aikido is a peace and love art man.  Practice in aikido can be painful, mentally complex, and difficult.   Like any other art we try to be careful not to injure our willing vic/partner.  Please consider all this when someone makes the statement that Aikido doesnt work.  Those are some of the difficulties involved, but they are not insurmountable.  They merely require a different perspective in order to be applicable.
> 
> Just to mention this, but Aikido was my first martial art and I have used it since grade school and it hasn't let me down yet.


So the art is un-useful for those that don't do the work. 
Sean


----------



## yorkshirelad

No martial art works unless the person practising the art is able and willing. I know people who have trained in MMA for years and with the finest coaches and still can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. On the other hand, I know Aikidoka who are seriously bad ***. It's not the art that is effective, it's the the person.

What do people mean by "works"? I know the arts that I train in work. They have introduced me to fine people. They have contributed to my health. They have given me some great memories. In fact, they have resulted in the betterment of my life in numerous ways. But what about effectiveness on the street? Who care? The majority of street fighters I've known have not been happy people. Most people will never get to test their art in real life , so why not train for the pure joy of it and forget the street fighting?


----------



## Manny

The same I've been told about TKD. "TKD is only kicking and does not work at short ranges" ..... well at short ranges I have my fists to create room to kick.  "TKD high kicks are worthless and easy grabing"  Well in some cases yes, that's why I must aim to the gut and then to the head, and I can go on and on.

The truth is any martial art can be efective in an actual street fight, the most important thing is the mental awarness and the desire to survive the confrontation, afther that no matter if it's aikido, or judo or karate or the silly martial art of TKD.

One must to exell in his/her training and train hard to get tough and always be cool at head and hot at heart.

Manny


----------



## RoninX

> Hello everyone,
> Please pardon my rant but I am tired of hearing the complaint of "Aikido doesn't work".


The problem is that most of the people don´t believe in the theory of "this can´t be done to a resistant opponent in a dojo or ring, but can be done to a resistant opponent in the str33t". If you have no way to prove your art is really effective, then you´re gonna have to deal with all the skepticism. People want to see the proof. Theory was good enough 30 years ago, but now things are different. 

I bet most of you who defend Aikido in this forum never really got to use it in a street fight. Of course, all of you have a story; all of you KNOWS it works. But i wonder how many of you are really telling the truth, and how many of you have ever really put a good number of Aikido techniques into alive application. 


I think Aikido is ineffective. And if you think i´m an "idiot" or an "ignorant", maybe you´re ignoring the possibility of you being the real "ignorant", because there is more people who laugh at Aikido than people who actually believe it works. Every single person that i know with real experience in combat don´t give a damn about Aikido. The only ones i still know that believe in Aikido are nerds who never actually fought, and live from the fantasy of their deadly moves being really effective, when in fact they´re not.

Oh, yeah, the good old story: "they don´t understand". Yeah, we don´t understand. We don´t know. We are ignorants. Isn´t that something many cults say? Well, i think the lack of brainwashing sessions plus some intelligence made me not believe in Aikido´s effectiveness. 

Does Aikido have something who can really work? Every martial art has; even Tai Chi. But, if i wanted to train for self defense, would i go for Aikido? NOOOO! Why should i do that? 

- Aikido´s techniques are too irrealistic. They look like they´ve been taken from a movie. Most moves only make sense if you assume your opponent wouldn´t fight back. 

- To some of the moves have a chance to work you would have to practice them for dozens of years. Life is too short. Sorry.

- Most of Aikidoka don´t spar, and when they do, is under very limited conditions. Plus, they actually belive you don´t need to spar to make something work. Any real fighter would laugh at you, that´s for sure. Oh, yeah, now you say "Ohhh, what they do is sport, bla, bla, bla". Well, i rather believe in some guy who has actually been in fights, even though they were in the ring, than in a guy who doesn´t even know what is like to punch someone in the face, and the only physical contact with an opponent he ever had was in their Dojo, with compilant training partners.


I know just too many people who have achived high ranks in Aikido and are now training stuff like Judo, Boxing, BJJ and Stick Fighting. Maybe you´re not the one who "knows the truth". Maybe you are not the one right, and maybe we are also not the true ignorants.

Deal with it!


----------



## Manny

RoninX said:


> The problem is that most of the people don´t believe in the theory of "this can´t be done to a resistant opponent in a dojo or ring, but can be done to a resistant opponent in the str33t". If you have no way to prove your art is really effective, then you´re gonna have to deal with all the skepticism. People want to see the proof. Theory was good enough 30 years ago, but now things are different.
> 
> I bet most of you who defend Aikido in this forum never really got to use it in a street fight. Of course, all of you have a story; all of you KNOWS it works. But i wonder how many of you are really telling the truth, and how many of you have ever really put a good number of Aikido techniques into alive application.
> 
> 
> I think Aikido is ineffective. And if you think i´m an "idiot" or an "ignorant", maybe you´re ignoring the possibility of you being the real "ignorant", because there is more people who laugh at Aikido than people who actually believe it works. Every single person that i know with real experience in combat don´t give a damn about Aikido. The only ones i still know that believe in Aikido are nerds who never actually fought, and live from the fantasy of their deadly moves being really effective, when in fact they´re not.
> 
> Oh, yeah, the good old story: "they don´t understand". Yeah, we don´t understand. We don´t know. We are ignorants. Isn´t that something many cults say? Well, i think the lack of brainwashing sessions plus some intelligence made me not believe in Aikido´s effectiveness.
> 
> Does Aikido have something who can really work? Every martial art has; even Tai Chi. But, if i wanted to train for self defense, would i go for Aikido? NOOOO! Why should i do that?
> 
> - Aikido´s techniques are too irrealistic. They look like they´ve been taken from a movie. Most moves only make sense if you assume your opponent wouldn´t fight back.
> 
> - To some of the moves have a chance to work you would have to practice them for dozens of years. Life is too short. Sorry.
> 
> - Most of Aikidoka don´t spar, and when they do, is under very limited conditions. Plus, they actually belive you don´t need to spar to make something work. Any real fighter would laugh at you, that´s for sure. Oh, yeah, now you say "Ohhh, what they do is sport, bla, bla, bla". Well, i rather believe in some guy who has actually been in fights, even though they were in the ring, than in a guy who doesn´t even know what is like to punch someone in the face, and the only physical contact with an opponent he ever had was in their Dojo, with compilant training partners.
> 
> 
> I know just too many people who have achived high ranks in Aikido and are now training stuff like Judo, Boxing, BJJ and Stick Fighting. Maybe you´re not the one who "knows the truth". Maybe you are not the one right, and maybe we are also not the true ignorants.
> 
> Deal with it!



Because of your writing I can asume you are a person who has tremendous experience in street fights, bar fights,etc,etc, and your background in MA is extense, don't get me wrong I am not jocking you, I just asume you are a versed person in self defense and you have many real fights on your back.

Well I have not any experience in real fighting, just a modest background in TKD with some knowledge of Kenpo Karate and a few lessons of aikido and judo, my fighting experience are the few tournaments as a teen.

I think a person with knowledge of any martial art can defend him/her self on the streets, please read CAN what determines if they can survive an atack is the desire to survive, and even persons without any martial art background have a chance to survive.

Yes, some moves in aikido or judo or tkd can be weird, however I think aikido has some good technikes and the diligent aikidoka can master them and can use them sucesfully in a bar fight or even in the street.

We must remeber is not the arrow what kills but the indian who send the arrow.

Personally I hope never have to fight for my life or the life of my beloved ones, this could be like hell, however I would rather train in some martial art that can give me certain edge than sitting in the couch everynight to watch UFC or MMA with a beer and a bowl of chips.

Don't get me wrong, every martial arts desserves respect, maybe I won't like capoeira but this does not mean that I can speak openly and say it does not work because I don't really know.

Thank you for share your point of view here.

Manny


----------



## Aiki Lee

RoninX said:


> The problem is that most of the people don´t believe in the theory of "this can´t be done to a resistant opponent in a dojo or ring, but can be done to a resistant opponent in the str33t". If you have no way to prove your art is really effective, then you´re gonna have to deal with all the skepticism. People want to see the proof. Theory was good enough 30 years ago, but now things are different.


 
My father is a retired police officer. He's been attacked by people before. He used aikido. He was never hurt on the job. What more proof would anyone need?



RoninX said:


> I bet most of you who defend Aikido in this forum never really got to use it in a street fight. Of course, all of you have a story; all of you KNOWS it works. But i wonder how many of you are really telling the truth, and how many of you have ever really put a good number of Aikido techniques into alive application.


 
Aikido is not specifically meant for SD, though its applications can be used for it. Aikido is a philosophical martial art designed to get people in touch with harmony and therefore avoid conflict _which is the most reasonable and effective form of SD in the first place_.




RoninX said:


> I think Aikido is ineffective.


 
Based on what exactly? Your limited view on what self-defense means?



RoninX said:


> And if you think i´m an "idiot" or an "ignorant", maybe you´re ignoring the possibility of you being the real "ignorant", because there is more people who laugh at Aikido than people who actually believe it works.


 
People often mock what they do not understand.



RoninX said:


> Every single person that i know with real experience in combat don´t give a damn about Aikido. The only ones i still know that believe in Aikido are nerds who never actually fought, and live from the fantasy of their deadly moves being really effective, when in fact they´re not..


 
Aikido is not designed for fighting. It is designed to avoid conflict. SD applications of aiki based techniques redirect aggressive momentum. You would not use it against a "cagey" person or someone coming at you with a boxing mentality of jabbing at you. An aikidoka would not put up with this nonsense as such a display is not aggressive enough to be considered a threat worth defending against and are not presented in real world scenarios unless you are a brawler. Aikidoka do not get into fights. If an aggresive person attacks, they redirect the aggression.



RoninX said:


> Oh, yeah, the good old story: "they don´t understand". Yeah, we don´t understand. We don´t know. We are ignorants. Isn´t that something many cults say? Well, i think the lack of brainwashing sessions plus some intelligence made me not believe in Aikido´s effectiveness.


 
Of course you don't understand it. You have no experience with it.



RoninX said:


> Does Aikido have something who can really work? Every martial art has; even Tai Chi. But, if i wanted to train for self defense, would i go for Aikido? NOOOO! Why should i do that? .


 
You shouldn't. Aikido is not primarily practiced for SD, though its teachings have SD applications like other arts. If someone wanted to do aikido for SD they would need to alter a few training methodologies.



RoninX said:


> Aikido´s techniques are too irrealistic. They look like they´ve been taken from a movie. Most moves only make sense if you assume your opponent wouldn´t fight back. .


 
I can vouch from experience that they are not *un*realistic. It depends on who is teaching you. As I already stated aikido on its own is not designed for SD. And aiki techniques _require_ the opponent to keep coming after you, so the last sentence in the quote above cements that fact that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.



RoninX said:


> To some of the moves have a chance to work you would have to practice them for dozens of years. Life is too short. Sorry.


 
Aikido and other martial arts should offer training that is meant to last an entire lifetime. Practicing these skills diligently in the correct atmosphere will help you use them in SD situations, but the do take time to learn which is why if you only care about learning how to defend yourself fast this is not the approach you should take.



RoninX said:


> Most of Aikidoka don´t spar, and when they do, is under very limited conditions. Plus, they actually belive you don´t need to spar to make something work. Any real fighter would laugh at you, that´s for sure. Oh, yeah, now you say "Ohhh, what they do is sport, bla, bla, bla". Well, i rather believe in some guy who has actually been in fights, even though they were in the ring, than in a guy who doesn´t even know what is like to punch someone in the face, and the only physical contact with an opponent he ever had was in their Dojo, with compilant training partners.


 
*sigh*
Sparring is a sport oriented concept. Randori is a training concept common in traditional Japanese martial arts. Aikidoka do not get into fights. Fighting is contratry to the teachnings of aikido. If you go your whole life without ever fighting anyone, congratulations, you have internalized the teachings of the art and it has served you well.
Sport fighting and fighting to protect yourself are completely different. In aikido the goal in SD is to avoid injury not beat the other guy up. Your concept of what is SD and what make a martial art useful or "correct" is juvenile and based on nothing more than your own limited definitions of self defense and what it means to be effective.




RoninX said:


> I know just too many people who have achived high ranks in Aikido and are now training stuff like Judo, Boxing, BJJ and Stick Fighting. Maybe you´re not the one who "knows the truth". Maybe you are not the one right, and maybe we are also not the true ignorants..


 
What do you consider high rank? How many aikidoka do you know? How long did they study? How old are they? Why did they switch arts? Did they tell you or are you guessing?

By the way "ignorant" is an adjective not a noun. Learn some grammar for God's sake.



RoninX said:


> Deal with it!


 
It is one thing to have a different opinion about why a person should or shouldn't study aikido. It is another thing to bash aikidoka and claim they don't know what their own art is supposed to be teaching them.

You are a troll. Get out.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Oh, he's been banned.

Good. If I ever meet the mods in person I will buy you guys a drink.


----------



## K-man

Himura Kenshin said:


> Oh, he's been banned.
> 
> Good. If I ever meet the mods in person I will buy you guys a drink.


Couldn't agree more.  The problem in giving guys like that air is that they drive a lot of good people away and certainly we seem to be losing our aikido fraternity.  There are instructors from all the major disciplines such as TKD, Karate, WC etc but unfortunately Aikido seems to be under represented from the technical perspective.  That's really sad because it detracts from the quality of the whole forum.  

My thanks too, to whoever closed the guy down.   :asian:


----------



## Aiki Lee

I agree. I like this forum because there are so many individuals who understand different arts.

I will likely start posting here more often, as our dojo has brought in Johnny Tenegra to teach us aikido. The main purpose of this is to improve our understanding of aiki for our art of aiki ninjutsu, but learning aikido as a seperate art is pretty cool too.

Sadly my second class with him was saturday and I screwed up my shoulder by messing up a rather basic ukemi. How embarrassing. I'm probably out for a week or two and just on the sidelines watching or doing  limited practice.


----------



## fangjian

Himura Kenshin said:


> In aikido the goal in SD is to avoid injury not beat the other guy up.



This is a concept that I have heard frequently, I suppose, most associated with Aikido. When I teach martial arts, I teach to basically to attack until you are sure you have neutralized the threat. Wether it is buy headbutts to their nose, downward elbow on their neck if they try to tackle etc. You know, things that will _hurt_ them. It's not that I am saying 'overkill' either. If your lucky enough to disarm someone you don't go and stab  them 20 times. 

I've heard some other Aikidoka here mention they also train these techniques too ( headbutting, fish hooking etc. ). It seems counter to the 'not trying to beat the other guy up' mentality. 

Could someone shed some light on this?


----------



## Aiki Lee

The headbutts, throws, stikes, and joint destructions are the result of the attack continuing to pursue his target. Aikidoka do not attack people, they put their head, arms, legs, and hips in the wa of a person continung his momentum. The attacker beats himself up, because he doesn't stop attacking.

If i perform irimi nage (which resembles something like a clothesline to the neck if you are unfamiliar with it), i deflect the oppoent's initial attack and get to his dead space behind him, I place my hands on his neck and elbow and spiral down towards the ground. If the opponent continues to resist (which he will), pressure is relieved on my part and so he springs back up into the crux of my elbow where I throw him by the neck. He likely takes injury from the hit to the neck and the fall. 

I don't beat him up, he beats up himself. If he stopped attacking me, the throw does not present itself. If there is no aggressive energy on behalf of the attacker then he is not attacking. There is no fight if there is no aggressor, there is no aiki if there is no energy.


----------



## Manny

What I know of aikido is to avoid conflict if this is not possible then use the force of the agresor to put him/her down, if he still resists the use of points of presure,joint locks, dislocate or break a limb.

Using aikido to deflect and redirectione the bad ki the bad guy is using can cause tremendous pain even concusion.

Manny


----------



## fangjian

Himura Kenshin said:


> The headbutts, throws, stikes, and joint destructions are the result of the attack continuing to pursue his target. Aikidoka do not attack people, they put their head, arms, legs, and hips in the wa of a person continung his momentum. The attacker beats himself up, because he doesn't stop attacking.
> 
> If i perform irimi nage (which resembles something like a clothesline to the neck if you are unfamiliar with it), i deflect the oppoent's initial attack and get to his dead space behind him, I place my hands on his neck and elbow and spiral down towards the ground. If the opponent continues to resist (which he will), pressure is relieved on my part and so he springs back up into the crux of my elbow where I throw him by the neck. He likely takes injury from the hit to the neck and the fall.
> 
> I don't beat him up, he beats up himself. If he stopped attacking me, the throw does not present itself. If there is no aggressive energy on behalf of the attacker then he is not attacking. There is no fight if there is no aggressor, there is no aiki if there is no energy.


I am familiar with Irimi nage. It is a very useful technique/concept. 

Hypothetically speaking:
Ok. Someone attacks, you get into the clinch. You begin Irimi nage because of his forward intent. In the middle of the movement, he stops attacking, because his ukemi sucks and he lost balance.   You say the 'throw' doesn't present itself. So then what do you do?
Don't you take advantage of his loss of balance and begin beating the crap out of him?

In the Aikido community I always here things like ' In this style we take care of our enemy, and try not to hurt him', kind of attitude. As if an 8 year old picked a fight with you, and you're doing your best just to 'blend 'with their energy and such, and doing the absolute minimum without hurting the person.
 This mindset seems silly if one were training self defense techniques to use on an adult assailant.


----------



## Aiki Lee

Would I beat the crap out of him? Maybe.
If he stays on the ground and doesn't struggle then no I would either leave or subdue him if it was necessary.

If he goes down and struggles then I will follow through with a different aiki technique (which is probably what a more experienced aikidoka would do), I would probably stomp him though since I mainly practice aiki ninjutsu.

If he tries to get back up then I apply irimi nage.

I don't think aikido _by itself_ is ideal for self defense, that's why I don't only practice aikido.


----------



## pgsmith

> This mindset seems silly if one were training self defense techniques to use on an adult assailant.


This, I believe, is at the crux of the problem that many people have with aikido. A great many people believe that aikido is practicing and learning 'techniques' to use against an agressor, but it isn't. Aikido is taught in very much the same way that the Japanese koryu arts are taught. That being that you learn a method of thinking and movement, rather than individual 'techniques'. Sure there are names for individual movements such as irime nage or kote gaeshi, but those techniques, and the practices that go with them, are meant to train you how to move your body in relation to that of your opponent. The names and individual movements are only for training. When faced with an aggressor, an experienced aikidoka does not think "ah, he's moving this way so perhaps I'll try irime nage." An experienced aikidoka will simply move and blend with his opponent as he's been taught, and there may not be any recognizeable technique that he ever actually practiced in his aikido class. 

Because of this method of training, many people look at video from an aikido class and complain about how there is no resistance, and what they are practicing wouldn't work in the real world. This is absolutely true, but it is how the underlying method of thought and movement is taught, and is quite effective in the end. As in the koryu arts that it came from, aikido is difficult and takes a long time to learn well. This is why not everyone is suited for it. 

Just like the koryu arts, there will be a lot of people that don't believe that aikido is worth the effort, and that's OK. As long as a person is enjoying their training, then it doesn't really matter what others think of it as in the end, we are only training for ourselves.


----------



## fangjian

Himura Kenshin said:


> I don't think aikido _by itself_ is ideal for self defense, that's why I don't only practice aikido.



Why do you say that?  This seems counter to what you and everyone was saying to me in other threads. 

Btw, I'm not an Aikido hater or anything. I see its value, which is why I will begin training it again soon.  I want that 'root' that some in the internal styles have. I don't want to have to sprawl so much anymore. I want wrestlers to hit that double leg and bounce right off of me 



> This, I believe, is at the crux of the problem that many people have with aikido. A great many people believe that aikido is practicing and learning 'techniques' to use against an agressor, but it isn't. Aikido is taught in very much the same way that the Japanese koryu arts are taught. That being that you learn a method of thinking and movement, rather than individual 'techniques'. Sure there are names for individual movements such as irime nage or kote gaeshi, but those techniques, and the practices that go with them, are meant to train you how to move your body in relation to that of your opponent. The names and individual movements are only for training. When faced with an aggressor, an experienced aikidoka does not think "ah, he's moving this way so perhaps I'll try irime nage." An experienced aikidoka will simply move and blend with his opponent as he's been taught, and there may not be any recognizeable technique that he ever actually practiced in his aikido class.


 Is this not true of most styles?  It's all about muscle memory and drilling things so you don't have to think about it while sparring or in combat. How is Aikido different from any other in that regard?


----------



## pgsmith

> Is this not true of most styles? It's all about muscle memory and drilling things so you don't have to think about it while sparring or in combat.


Not the same thing. Most martial arts teach counters. If someone does X, you do Y. You practice these counters until they are in your muscle memory and they occur automatically. The problem comes in when someone does something that you've not practiced a counter for. This was why BJJ was so effective when introduced into MMA fighting, it was something different that no one had practiced counters for. Aikido is a system of thought and movement rather than a collection of counters. At the higher levels, it doesn't matter what an aggressor does as your body will automatically blend and move with them and add your energy to theirs. That is the aiki portion of the art. 

Unfortunately there are quite a number of people that have learned the basics and rushed out to start their own schools without learning everything that is taught below the surface. This leads to people dancing rather than training. However, this is true of all martial arts though. Caveat Emptor.


----------



## fangjian

pgsmith said:


> Not the same thing. Most martial arts teach counters. If someone does X, you do Y. You practice these counters until they are in your muscle memory and they occur automatically. The problem comes in when someone does something that you've not practiced a counter for.



I teach a class for a college. The students are always quick to ask me questions on all of the what ifs. What if I grab you like this? WHat if the attacker does that? What if............?

I always have an answer. From my experience, my body moves a certain way to deal with the attack. I assume my body will counter in a way that is reminiscent of an attack I've seen before. If sparring, no one has ever attacked me with a forearm strike. I would likely treat it as if it is a 'punch' as my body is use to dealing with that. When I am bear hugged a different way, my body will deal with those 'different' (say, sideways trapping one arm) types of bear hugs in a way it is use to dealing with them. 

I would imagine that if you are high level Aikido, or high level Bjj, or high level TKD, it doesn't matter how awesome your awareness and such are. You will be hit by something you have never imagined before. 

Aikido trains a mindset of......... let's just say, 'blending' or 'reacting'. I don't see how that's different from whatever art. Let's say, 'freestyle wrestling'. If someone is a master wrestler, you attack them however you wish, they will 'blend' with your movements etc    No?


----------



## Manny

fangjian said:


> I teach a class for a college. The students are always quick to ask me questions on all of the what ifs. What if I grab you like this? WHat if the attacker does that? What if............?
> 
> I always have an answer. From my experience, my body moves a certain way to deal with the attack. I assume my body will counter in a way that is reminiscent of an attack I've seen before. If sparring, no one has ever attacked me with a forearm strike. I would likely treat it as if it is a 'punch' as my body is use to dealing with that. When I am bear hugged a different way, my body will deal with those 'different' (say, sideways trapping one arm) types of bear hugs in a way it is use to dealing with them.



What martial art do you teach? or what martial arts do you know?

Maybe I am wrong but are you a striker/kicker? or some kind of wrestler?

Thank you in advance.

Manny


----------



## K-man

fangjian said:


> I teach a class for a college. The students are always quick to ask me questions on all of the what ifs. What if I grab you like this? WHat if the attacker does that? What if............?
> ......
> 
> I would imagine that if you are high level Aikido, or high level Bjj, or high level TKD, it doesn't matter how awesome your awareness and such are. You will be hit by something you have never imagined before.
> 
> Aikido trains a mindset of......... let's just say, 'blending' or 'reacting'. I don't see how that's different from whatever art. Let's say, 'freestyle wrestling'. If someone is a master wrestler, you attack them however you wish, they will 'blend' with your movements etc No?


I believe what Paul is saying is that we learn the different techniques until we can perform them without thinking. in karate we call that 'kihon'. Once the basics are mastered we relax a little and make subtle changes to the basics so they work better for us at an individual level. 

Underneath all that we are not waiting for an attack, recognising it then responding. That is the beginner level. Unfortunately many schools teach this right the way to the top grades and never actually progress to the next level. 

What good schools do is to train a system that can cope with any technique whether or not we have seen it before. The response becomes instinctive.

Therefore we don't actually identify an attack, we just instinctively respond to the movement. We don't consciously decide to perform technique a, b or c ... it just happens.

At the highest level I believe all the traditional MAs blend into one where the complete story against any attack is _"enter with irimi, hit with kokyu"._ The technique itself is no longer relevent.     :asian:


----------



## fangjian

Manny said:


> What martial art do you teach? or what martial arts do you know?
> 
> Maybe I am wrong but are you a striker/kicker? or some kind of wrestler?
> 
> Thank you in advance.
> 
> Manny



I actively teach:

Balintawak 

Wushu

I also teach kickboxing/grappling from experience in:
Bjj
High school wrestling
Sanda
Muay Thai
Aikido

I guess I would consider myself most comfortable in the clinch.


----------



## Aiki Lee

fangjian said:


> Why do you say that? This seems counter to what you and everyone was saying to me in other threads


. 

What I mean is that aikido on its own is not always self-defense oriented. Many schools I've seen don't practice atemi, but even if all the training is well done and ideal, aikido is an art that that teaches you to go against the natural instinct to push back. Its a normal respons when someone grabs you and shoves you to resist it. Aikido teaches you to not to resist and go with it. Aikido requires that you train long enough and diligently enough to make such movements second nature.

Because of the dedication it takes to train in aikido, i wouldn't recomend it to someone only looking for self-defense. I would recomend it to anyone willing to take the time to study martial arts. If i didn't think it was effective, it wouldn't make up such an intregal part of my school's system.

Its not that it can't be used alone, I just think it is extremely difficult. 



fangjian said:


> Is this not true of most styles? It's all about muscle memory and drilling things so you don't have to think about it while sparring or in combat. How is Aikido different from any other in that regard?


 
I think muscle memory is very important, but as a person becomes more skilled I think initiative takes place of reaction. I agree that you shouldn't have to think about the details of a technique, but i think people can take that too far sometimes and take their brain completely out of the equation.


----------



## pgsmith

> I teach a class for a college. The students are always quick to ask me questions on all of the what ifs. What if I grab you like this? WHat if the attacker does that? What if............?
> 
> I always have an answer.


I have run a Japanese sword arts dojo for a number of years, and I hear the 'what ifs' quite a bit also. The difference is that I never have an answer. I tell them that the kata are taught in a particular manner. You perform them in that manner without any 'what ifs'. If they stick with it long enough, they learn that 'what if' is an irrelevant question. Aikido is taught in the same manner as the sword arts. Anyone that has taken aikido classes has heard that 'aikido comes from the sword'. This is in the manner of training. 



> I would imagine that if you are high level Aikido, or high level Bjj, or high level TKD, it doesn't matter how awesome your awareness and such are. You will be hit by something you have never imagined before.


The sword arts, and aikido since that is where it came from, are taught in such a way that once you are at a high level, you are never hit by anything. When your opponent has a sword, to be hit is to die. That's the idea anyway.


----------



## Aiki Lee

The principle of mushin should do away with what ifs. The reason for that is when you learn the principles of the art and integrate them into your movement naturally then you start to instinctly udnerstand where you should move to when new situations present themselves.


----------

