# aikido & teh deadlies



## jarrod (Feb 8, 2009)

this came up on another thread & i thought i'd ask about it.  does aikido contain or emphasize lethal techniques?  it was my understanding that the idea was to control an attacker without killing him, or even causing serious injury if possible.  but i have never studied aikido.

thanks,

jf


----------



## D Dempsey (Feb 8, 2009)

I'm by no means and expert so keep that in mind, but I took a break from BJJ and Judo for a couple of months following a surgery and trained in Aikido.  I probably got hurt more doing that then I ever did doing the other two.  The throws are inherently riskier because you're being thrown against a joint and the falls tend to be awkward and painful.
As far as controlling an attacker without hurting them, I'm not so sure about that.  Almost all of the joint-locks were dynamic and would probably break your joint if you didn't know how to go with it, and the throws would probably really injure someone who didn't know how to fall right.  I saw a guy who didn't really know how to fall properly get thrown off of an elbow lock, face-plant into the ground, and get knocked out cold for a few minutes.  I probably would of stuck with it if I had more time.


----------



## redantstyle (Feb 8, 2009)

you can totally mush someone with aikido.

change the projection angles and add a little underwhip and it's not so peaceful anymore.  

plus if you drop somebody and they dont know ukemi, it's probably not going to work out well. 

*non aikido view*


----------



## jarrod (Feb 8, 2009)

oh i understand that you can seriously jack someone up with aikido.  but are there techniques in aikido that are literally lethal, meaning specifically designed to kill?  

i'd like to train aikido some day & probably will, but i am concerned about all the throwing against the small joints.

jf


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 8, 2009)

Hi,

As I understand it, the whole idea of Aikido being non-lethal, and not injuring your attacker, is very much an idealised philosophy that O-Sensei developed later in his expression of Aikido. Prior to World War 2, the school of Morihei Ueshiba was known as the Jigoku Dojo, or Hell Dojo, and it was a place only for the truly tough. Ueshiba Sensei was an experienced Martial Artist of a number of classical systems, which definately included lethal techniques, and I have little doubt that Ueshiba Sensei incorporated at least some of it into the earlier expressions of his Art.

To find a similar form of Aikido to that of the Jigoku Dojo, I would look to the Yoshinkan organisation, founded by Gozo Shioda, who left the dojo of Ueshiba not long after WWII, as he believed that O-Sensei was unnecessarily "softening" the art, and wanted to preserve the original "Martial" aspect. After WWII, Ueshiba Sensei began re-evaluating his personal art, and his veiws on the concepts of inflicting pain and violence on other human beings, basically deciding that in an ideal world, causing unnecessarily pain was to be avoided. 

The important thing here is the word "unnecessary". If an attacker is assaulting you, and means to do you major harm, or even kill you, it is unrealistic to believe that you should respond without causing any injury, and Ueshiba Sensei would certainly have known that. However, to create an art which sought to deliberately  cause pain, maiming, or even death, was unethichal in the views of Ueshiba Sensei. But sometimes the most ethical and compassionate action you can take is to thoroughly and completely convince an attacker from continuing down their destructive path (and that can mean a truly violent action). 

So, I feel that if you look for them, you will find lethal techniques in Aikido, however, I don't think you will find them commonly taught, and if they are, it will only be at a high level. But I would ask why you would need them? Are you really having that big an arguement wtih your next door neighbours? I hope not.

By the way, any Aikido practitioners, please feel free to correct anything I've gotten wrong here, I'm hoping it's not too much.


----------



## jarrod (Feb 8, 2009)

thanks for another great post, lots of good info.



Chris Parker said:


> But I would ask why you would need them? Are you really having that big an arguement wtih your next door neighbours? I hope not.


 
not sure if you were being rhetorical or not, but in another thread i was trying to think of so-called self defense styles that were non-lethal.  i had cited aikido as one, someone else disagreed, & i thought i'd come here & ask.

thanks again!

jf


----------



## theletch1 (Feb 8, 2009)

The style of aikido that I study is Nihon Goshin Aikido. It's not an off shoot of Ueshiba's but a creation of Shioda Morita and is closer to DRAJJ, I think, than most of the hombu styles.  The simple answer, at least for NGA, is that yes, there are lethal techniques in aikido.  Those techniques which are considered lethal however generally have a point in the continuum of the technique where you are able to hold an assailant in place rather than continue the technique to the throw and its lethal conclusion.  I think the idea that aikido isn't a lethal art comes from the range of options that most techniques give you.  If I'm going to hit someone I'd better hit them with everything I have or I'm cheating myself.  With aikido joint locks I have an entire spectrum of pain that I am able to use with a single technique that will range from "Ow that hurts a little" all the way to destruction of the joint.  
Chris Parker makes a very cogent point with the observation of the word "unnecessary" in his post.  It's the ability to meter your pain to any given situation that makes me love the art.  I can use the same technique to control Uncle Joe if he gets rowdy at the family reunion that I can use on a mugger at the ATM who's trying to kill me with completely different results.  I've never really had an instructor "focus" on the lethal techniques more than to say "At street level, with someone who doesn't know ukemi this technique would result in a broken neck".  You have a good point, Jarrod, that not knowing ukemi can change the situation a great deal.  

If you're looking for a style to augment your other training or are looking for a different angle from which to view self defense then aikido is certainly worth a try.


----------



## morph4me (Feb 8, 2009)

While aikdoka don't train specifically in lethal techniques, it becomes obvious after you've trained for awhile that the techniques have potential to maim or kill. The extent to which we take a technique depends on the attacker, his intent, and his capacity to understand that it's to his benefit to stop before he gets hurt, or worse.


----------



## Monadnock (Feb 8, 2009)

When someone applies Shiho-nage on you, and drives the back of your head into the mat, you will see it's lethal applications.

Ukemi was designed to let arts be practiced safely. The true techniques have no escape. I think too many hippies got into Aikido when they heard it was a peacful art and skewed it's effectiveness.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 8, 2009)

jarrod said:


> this came up on another thread & i thought i'd ask about it.  does aikido contain or emphasize lethal techniques?  it was my understanding that the idea was to control an attacker without killing him, or even causing serious injury if possible.  but i have never studied aikido.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> jf


Other people (especially Letch and Chris Parker) have covered things well, from my understanding.

Ueshiba had a moment of enlightenment, and changed the focus of his art.  It became more philosophical and more about harmony, and using that harmony to contain and control an attacker.  These ideas resonated strongly with some of the more pacifist/idealistic types out there, and they seized on aikido and aiki as some sort of non-violent ideal.

As a result, there are sort of 2 different faces of aikido.  One face is the violent, very effective, fighting side.  Look at some of Steven Segal's first movies, and you'll see what I mean.   Or look Yoshinkan Aikido.  The other face is the touchy/feely, pacifist, hippy side, whose practitioners are aghast at the idea of actually fighting.  (Yes, that's extreme... but they're out there!)  So a lot depends on what the student is after.

Let me shift styles to make a comparison.  The Bando Monk System is a non-violent system of martial arts; Monk practitioners learn to absorb, contain, and control an aggressor without using damaging strikes or holds.  However, this is often due to target choice or stopping point, not inherent non-lethality.  A Monk will strike the shoulder rather than the spine, or trap and trip to the ground rather than throw the opponent, dumping them on their head.  I think the different approaches to aikido are similar.

(But they aren't helped when the uke gives crappy, ineffective strikes intended only to give tori something to hold onto so that uke can jump into the throw...  And I've seen way too many aikido demos that fit that description.  Of course, the same sort of thing can be seen in a lot of other martial arts demos!)


----------



## jarrod (Feb 8, 2009)

thank you all, this fleshes out my understanding of aikido much better.  

jf


----------



## tellner (Feb 8, 2009)

jarrod said:


> this came up on another thread & i thought i'd ask about it.  does aikido contain or emphasize lethal techniques?  it was my understanding that the idea was to control an attacker without killing him, or even causing serious injury if possible.  but i have never studied aikido.



Movement is movement is movement. It's all in your intention and levels of skill and understanding. 

Ueshiba's martial art grew out of Daito Ryu Ju Jitsu, one of the old hard styles as well as his training in traditional weapons technique. In the early pre-WWII days he was a rough, jingoistic guy. He spent a number of years as chief leg-breaker for a violently nationalistic religious cult. During WWII he taught teh nasties and teh d34dl33z in spy school. His early schools were as you'd expect. They were rough, physical and sometimes brutal.

After his Road to Damascus moment and a fair bit of remorse at his wartime activities Ueshiba became a much gentler and more spiritual man. The martial arts he taught from that point on reflected his personal changes. Most of the Aikido factions stress a less combative and less damaging way of doing things. 

Remember what I said about intention? The same root movement, even the same technique can be used in many different ways. Any particular throw or hold can range from redirection to thumping falls to locking out the skeleton and breaking things on the abrupt drop. Most Aikido teachers stress a non-confrontational philosophy from Ueshiba's later years that seeks to control without harm or at most use pain compliance to provide a "teachable moment". Some schools such as the ones that teach police are a lot more rough and tumble. Same technique, different emphasis and application.

The hard fact about not hurting people is that it's difficult. If you aren't a lot bigger, faster, stronger and pain resistant you have to be VERY skilled to control and immobilize a determined attacker without causing damage. 

I don't want to cause unnecessary crap, but I do have to be honest with you. Most of the Aikido practitioners I've met, even ones at the instructor level, don't have that elevated level of skill. And the sort of training at a lot of dojos doesn't prepare them for it. That's a common failing in martial arts schools. It's a bit more of a problem for the Aikidoka. A lot of them - not all, but a big fraction - choose the Art in order to avoid the uglier realities of physical violence. Some are excellent, especially those who came to Aikido after a firm grounding in some other martial art as did Ueshiba and all of his original students.

Personal opinion: Aikido shines brightest as a post-graduate course for the advanced martial artist.


----------



## theletch1 (Feb 8, 2009)

A lot of good points in that post, Tellner.  The last line, though, is a bit of advice that I think needs to be pushed a lot harder than it really gets.  Too many instructors are worried about just getting a student into the dojo regardless of their prior training.  I've always said that aikido is a great second art... once you've gotten a good basis in how to effectively strike.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 8, 2009)

I disagree with Tellner, just a little.  Yes, there are only so many ways to move, and that your intention in how you move plays a big role in the outcome of the event.  But some underlying approaches to solving that question of how to move in alignment with your intentions can be a big factor.

The most pacifist of intentions don't make it real easy to use striking in ways that don't cause harm; aikido's methods of entering and using the opponent's movement against them are much easier to fit into that sort of goal.

I hope I'm being clear; it's kind of a fine line, but I think it's important.


----------



## tellner (Feb 8, 2009)

Jks, that's why I added "skill and understanding" to intention. To make it work the way you want you have to have to know how to do it and have the ability to pull it off.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 8, 2009)

tellner said:


> Jks, that's why I added "skill and understanding" to intention. To make it work the way you want you have to have to know how to do it and have the ability to pull it off.


I guess I wasn't very clear; I was afraid that would happen.

It's different than skill or understanding of the technique.  It goes deeper.  I don't work much with the Monk System, for a simple reason: my mindset is not there.  I'm not happy just pushing someone away, or trapping them.   Even at work...  if you come at me, I want to thump you.  Hard.  If I trip you... you're going down, and I'm probably not going to try to make it a particularly soft landing.  Even though my intent is merely to control -- I'm not going to do it in a gentle way, most likely.  I'm not "non-violent."  (I hope I'm not inappriately violent...)  In a similar vein, aikido functions on two principles, as I understand it: entering into the opponent's attack, then redirecting it.  The opponent's action proves it's own undoing.  My approach is blunt, almost of the HULK SMASH school.  I'll use angles, and deflections, but the odds are real good that if I touch something, it's going to get hurt.  I've seen highly skilled people throw someone without ever touching them...  Fascinating, and it wasn't a case of a person throwing themselves like the infamous no-touch vs MMA video...  It was a matter of perfectly timed removal of the target coupled...

I'm getting at something subtle, in some ways, maybe, and it's definitely possible that we're running into some problems where we're not really using the words the same way.

Maybe a comparison between the Taser and a firearm would be valid:  The Taser can be used to kill (light up someone on a ledge, stab 'em while they're taking the ride, etc.), but it's fundamental intent isn't to kill.  A gun can be used to merely wound... but it's fundamental purpose isn't doing so, and it takes a lot more to merely wound.  Again... I'm not sure the comparison really works, or that it's really getting at the idea... but it's in the neighborhood.


----------



## tellner (Feb 8, 2009)

We're talking past each other but saying the same thing. With correct training and intention Aikido can cause horrible damage. Without those ingredients students won't develop the capability. The principles and motion are perfectly valid. It's a matter or how they are cultivated. Most Aikido schools intentionally avoid those possibilities and train their students accordingly. Some take a less gentle approach and develop people with a greater capacity and willingness to cause harm.


----------



## jarrod (Feb 8, 2009)

i like the line about aikido as post-grad work.  a friend of mine was just telling me tonight about an aikidoka he had read up on who also happened to be a high-level greco-roman wrestler & judoka.  i've heard the same for bagua.

jf


----------



## tempus (Feb 9, 2009)

This is probably off topic, but may fit in.

I would have to say that most of the time when I am teaching.  I teach the technique and as they advance in that technique, I add the "Now if you are on the street and there is no choice..." aspect of the technique.  That way they can see the potential of what you can do with the technique and why you need to be carful and judge the situation.

This leads into my attack lines.  My response to a lower belt messing up a technique compared to higher belt is much different.  One gets whisperig of what to do next, while the other gets the other fist coming at them.  At all levels the point of "never stop" still gets echoed.  If a technique gets missed, strike and go into another.

-Gary (NGA)


----------



## kaizasosei (Feb 9, 2009)

Let's not forget aikiken and aikijo.  Becomes a lot damaging when you strike with a piece of metal or wood.  Technically, injury, destruction and death are simply a matter of force being directed in a certain way.  That is why someone can die from slipping in the shower or can break a leg mountainbiking or get killed in a car accident when someone hurls a television off an overhead bridge.  Martial arts are not a must when it comes to injury and death.

I think that aikido is an art that very directly addresses the issue of intention, movement of the body and awareness of self and others.

This is the core of aikido that is philosophical and airy at worst, but at best it is simply a fairly accurate discription of the world we live in and the physical laws and spiritual rules we can only conform to.

When to people meet, it is aiki.  When a hairdresser does your hair or shaves you it is aiki...When you brake for someone while driving or speed away on the open road, it is aiki.  One must understand that even when you think of someone there is aiki or kiai between you.
mind is present. body is a fact. ki is a fact.  It can also for the sake of making it more tangible encompass things like emotions or feelings, physical and mental energy,
-further, it can encompass a state of mind. for example a bored stated of mind-and excited state of mind. An attitude of deep reverance and respect for all of life equally as well as complete ignorance of self and others.

When a person the has ki as all people have ki, meets another person, there is aiki.  When a person even sees an illusion or hallucinating believing that he is seeing a vicious animal even a subjective illusion can affect ki and cause him to be startled or alarmed.
But if there is truly a horridly vicious animal that confronts a person and that person can somehow controll his feelings and act couragously, then that person has displayed control over himself and his energies to some degree.  So obviously, it is impossible to truly control the ki of others well if one cannot control ones own ki in the face of all the madness,fear and negativity of the world.

Aikido is an art that introduces many people to concepts like love,fairness, tollerance, brightness or pureness of intentions.

I have heard shiatsu being compared to the heart or the touch of a mother- so i venture to say that aikido should be like the force of the father, which is an extremely wellmeaning and cautious force but nevertheless one to be reckoned with.

j


----------



## K-man (Feb 9, 2009)

tellner said:


> Remember what I said about intention? The same root movement, even the same technique can be used in many different ways. Any particular throw or hold can range from redirection to thumping falls to locking out the skeleton and breaking things on the abrupt drop. Most Aikido teachers stress a non-confrontational philosophy from Ueshiba's later years that seeks to control without harm or at most use pain compliance to provide a "teachable moment". Some schools such as the ones that teach police are a lot more rough and tumble. Same technique, different emphasis and application.
> 
> 
> Personal opinion: Aikido shines brightest as a post-graduate course for the advanced martial artist.


 
In the application of all the aikido techniques there is the opportunity to add the atemi. The Aikido class I attend is composed mainly of high level karateka which is exactly the point you were making at the end of your post. I am learning the aikido to fill in the gaps not taught in the traditional karate schools. 

The other point you made:



> I don't want to cause unnecessary crap, but I do have to be honest with you. Most of the Aikido practitioners I've met, even ones at the instructor level, don't have that elevated level of skill. And the sort of training at a lot of dojos doesn't prepare them for it. That's a common failing in martial arts schools. It's a bit more of a problem for the Aikidoka. A lot of them - not all, but a big fraction - choose the Art in order to avoid the uglier realities of physical violence. Some are excellent, especially those who came to Aikido after a firm grounding in some other martial art as did Ueshiba and all of his original students.


 
Most aikido practitioners work with compliant partners. Their techniques are unlikely to work in the real world unless they use an atemi to distract the attacker. As you quite rightly say, this is not trained in most schools.
:asian:


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 9, 2009)

I was told by the Sensei I cross trained with that O Sensei said that Atemi was the heart of Aikido.  After adding many techniques from it, I can believe it.


----------



## Korppi76 (Feb 10, 2009)

I noticed that when I started karate and jujutsu I had very bad habits from aikido, example  strikes to throat which comes form atemis and irimi and tenchinage. So I think those might be deadly. Also in jujutsu I did have bad habit to throw people that way that they had problems to come down (but I think reason was that they didnt train so much throws, in other dojos I didnt have same problem)

And about techniques. I just was last weekend Endo Shihans seminar and he teaches that techniques as done in kata is always just beginning and when you do aikido you just keep "calm mind" that you are ready to move or do anything.
 He teaches that most important is ... (hard to say in english) to be aware where everyone is and move naturally and easily, breath, be relaxed and to be in right position to ukes. Techniques which you use to end uke is not so important.

But as said earlier most dont know how to use techniques that way that they do harm. When I teach how to use techniques to cause real harm most our trainers think I teach different aikido than others, except my own sensei who teaches also who aikido works in real life since he have to use it for his work.

(Sorry I little bit wandered out of topic.)


----------



## theletch1 (Feb 10, 2009)

Many aikido schools don't teach techniques as "deadly" because the mindset that most new aikido students have is one of "I just want a purely defensive art" without realizing that a truly effective defense MUST have the ability to be deadly.  As someone else said, it's the "hippie" mindset.  These folks make sho-dan and become instructors and pass that along.  Sadly, many aikido schools are so far removed from the deadly side of aikido that those sub-styles will never be truly effective.  Even within a dojo that does teach a technique through to it's fatal conclusion there are students who simply don't... have the desire really isn't the word I'm looking for... have the real world understanding of what true defense may demand and just don't look at a technique from the idea that they may use it to take a life.


----------

