# How effective is Aikido?



## Tony

I already study Kung Fu but I was thinking of taking up Aikido so that I can supplement my training with more locks, holds and throws! We have already done some of this in Kung Fu but not to any great extent!
I was wondering how effective Aikido could be in a real life or death situation or even as a way of avoiding conflict which I would prefer!
I know one of the famous exponents of Aikido is Steven Seagal who I think is awesome for someone of his build and now I see he is blending Aikido with Kung fu in his latest films! 
But the problem is that most of the classes in my area run on the same nights as my Kung Fu class and I know of one that runs in my area on a Monday and another class aout 15 miles away that also runs on a Monday!


----------



## MisterMike

I would say go check out the school. There's a lot of variants of Aikido. Some teach a more street-style and others more of a "Do" style.

I think it takes longer to become proficient in using Aikido as a self-defense than say a karate style because they do not work with what I would deem realistic attacks until much later, if ever.

I have about 9 years Kenpo Karate experience with about 5 years Aikido/Aiki Jujutsu. I think your cross-training will benefit you more than staying with one style.


----------



## theletch1

Mike is right on the money with the idea that aikido is a very eclectic system. There are styles of aikido that do nothing but meditation all the way up to styles of aikido that should probably be more -jutsu that -do.  Try a couple of different schools out and see which one feels right for you.  As for learning to end a confrontation before it starts the theory and philosophy of aikido regarding redirection of energy will serve you well.  One word of caution (another somewhat parroting of Mike) is that aikido does require a good deal of time to come to fruition both as a self defense and the deeper theory than some other arts.  It's not something you'll pick up with one or two seminars but something that will require a good deal of time.  I'm enjoying my time and am lucky enough to train with some very open minded people who get a kick out of experimenting with new stuff on our off time.  Best of luck.

Mike,
     I'm sure you've done this, but, during multiple attacker randori do you find yourself dealing with one attacker with aikido tech and using kenpo to keep others at a distance until you're ready to deal with them?  I studied kenpo for 2 years before beginning aikido and have found that the two actually work very well together during multiples.


----------



## MisterMike

Hi Jeff,

I have pretty much put down the kenpo now. It was tough to turn off but I try to stick with one or the other. At my new dojo we probably do not do randori quite the same as most Aikido schools, as we are really Aiki-Jutsu. 

Some drills concentrate only on Tai-Sabaki, so there is no real mixing in Kenpo there. What my Sensei keeps focusing on though is that all the arts have a base and when you begin to see it, you can go in and out of your previously learned techniques at will.

Technically there is nothing "wrong" with taking a technique from here and using it over there. But I think some schools will disagree with it. I went to an Aikido school once during college and they started a randori session and I entered into one uke with a heelpalm to the face. (This would take you off your feet at my old school) It really raised some eyebrows there 

The thing is, there is similarity between the heel-palm strike and Irimi with a sword-arm if the footwork and tai-sabaki is right. But yes, to answer your question, I do see a benefit of using my Kenpo knowledge in the Aiki setting. Is it "cheating"? Hehe, well, I say, if it works go for it. I sort of look at Kenpo as a great library of atemi strikes for Aikido now.


----------



## tshadowchaser

It is always a wise idea to go into a new school /system with the mind set of a beginner. It will take time to learn what is expected and how to do what they do. Then it takes more time to learn to do the techs. in a timely and correct mannor. Then after more time you actully learn to do them as they are ment to be done.
Good luck Aikido is going to be fun and a learning experence unlike what you are now doing but both will be helpfull in life


----------



## KyleShort

Pardon me for saying, but you certainly do not need to train in aikido to become skilled at joint locking =)  Most forms of kung fu have extensive training in Chi Na (joint locking and cavity press for control)...check out some Dr. Yang Jwing Ming books on the subject.  If you do not train in this very much then you should consider asking your instructor for some more training in Chi Na.

Actually I have noticed that the Kung Fu schools that I have been exposed to do not put much emphasis on this, but most will recognize that the MA consists of Hand Striking, Kicking, Chi Na (grappling), Wrestling (throws/takedowns).  This is even more interesting when you consider that the police and military tend to have extensive training in seizure and control (Chi Na).

Regarding Aikido,...if you are looking for a philosophy to help you avoid conflict and resolve it in non-physical ways then it is top notch.  If you want a style to quickly train you in the raw combat skills to better survive a violent confrontation, Aikido is not the best choice.  That's not to say that there are not Aikidoka that are skilled at quickly and efficiently eliminating the threat of an armed attacker etc...but that is not the primary focus of the art and such individuals are few and far between (assuming all that they train is "pure" Aikido).


----------



## babaker

KyleShort said:
			
		

> Pardon me for saying, but you certainly do not need to train in aikido to become skilled at joint locking =)  Most forms of kung fu have extensive training in Chi Na (joint locking and cavity press for control)...check out some Dr. Yang, Jwing Ming books on the subject.  If you do not train in this very much then you should consider asking your instructor for some more training in Chi Na...........
> 
> .



Actually, I have found the supplimentary information found in Chin Na books has been very helpful in discovering the cause and effect of many secret techniques that are simply manipulations of the human body.  Whether it is to suppliment Aikido training, Karate training, or whatever you are presently practicing, learning the points of the human body that react should be a primary study of all martial arts practitioners.

I have three or four books  by Dr. Jwing Ming Yang, (Yeah, Yang is his last name), and he was originally recommended by one of my Aikido buddys who teaches self-defense for a living, even though he is teaching Aikido in his spare time also.  Kind of like getting all the notes my first teacher had from his 14 years of training without putting in the time of day after day getting beat to a pulp to learn the hard way.

Anyway .... good reference material, and it does enlighten one to where some of the variations for techniques for Aikido and other arts come from in the study of the human body.

My advice is to do some Grappling, but if you like to respect your body and are intelligent/ old enough to forgo physical beatings that the younger body seems to enjoy, the gentleness of aikido practice will be about the most gentle way to learn joint locks, if you don't already have some jujitsu in your present practice.  Don't get me wrong, I recommend practice in a variety of styles so that one can get a feel for what works for them to assemble the most efficient techniques that work for one.


 %-}  Harrrrr .... give'em the dirty capt'n !!


----------



## MisterMike

I've been to several Aikido schools and have never really heard any teachings about how to avoid conflict. While the art may represent it, I just NEVER had any oral teachings about blending, peace, harmony or how to use it in everyday life.

I just wonder how many aikido schools make it a point in class to talk about the philosophy, or if they just teach technique.

I'm not bashing, just curious.


----------



## Tony

KyleShort said:
			
		

> Pardon me for saying, but you certainly do not need to train in aikido to become skilled at joint locking =)  Most forms of kung fu have extensive training in Chi Na (joint locking and cavity press for control)...check out some Dr. Yang Jwing Ming books on the subject.  If you do not train in this very much then you should consider asking your instructor for some more training in Chi Na.
> 
> Actually I have noticed that the Kung Fu schools that I have been exposed to do not put much emphasis on this, but most will recognize that the MA consists of Hand Striking, Kicking, Chi Na (grappling), Wrestling (throws/takedowns).  This is even more interesting when you consider that the police and military tend to have extensive training in seizure and control (Chi Na).
> 
> Regarding Aikido,...if you are looking for a philosophy to help you avoid conflict and resolve it in non-physical ways then it is top notch.  If you want a style to quickly train you in the raw combat skills to better survive a violent confrontation, Aikido is not the best choice.  That's not to say that there are not Aikidoka that are skilled at quickly and efficiently eliminating the threat of an armed attacker etc...but that is not the primary focus of the art and such individuals are few and far between (assuming all that they train is "pure" Aikido).




Yes you are right Kung Fu does have Chin Na but we don't seem to do enough of that in my class! But who am I to question my Sifu's wisdom with his experience, nonetheless he is a good teacher! There are suppose to chin Na techniques within our forms and it is up to us to work on them enough so that we start to think and use the applicatioins of those forms for self defence! 
I like the fact that Aikido is a peaceful Martial Art, together with its Philosophy and it just looks like such a beautiful Art! I would certainly like to maybe try out a few classes and see what they are like!


----------



## theletch1

Kyle, I don't know that there is anything such as "pure" aikido anymore.  Most have evolved beyond what they originally were. Many have become more jutsu than do but retain the softer suffix while others have done away with most anything other than the meditation and philosophy.  Aikido varies from dojo to dojo even within the same style and styles vary widely.   As for only a few aikido-ka being able to defend themselves with it...well....I suppose that depends on the artist and the situation about as much as it does with any other art.  I've sustained more injuries during aikido training than I did during my kenpo training.  Don't be fooled by a lot of what you hear.  While the "idea" of aikido is that it is a gentle art it can be, when used with intent, a very brutal and devastating art.

Mike, the conflict avoidance training is not something that we in nihon goshin set a pre-determined amount of time aside for during class but we do have the philosophy of conflict avoidance and how blending and redirection of energy in a verbal confrontation sprinkled in anectdotally (sp) and will usually sit seiza during the after training line up while Sensei discusses this aspect of our training for a moment or two.  Nothing formal, I suppose, but training none the less.


----------



## Yari

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I just wonder how many aikido schools make it a point in class to talk about the philosophy, or if they just teach technique.
> 
> I'm not bashing, just curious.


´

Not many in my opionen. But I think a lot of Aikido schools would let you figur it out, rather then pressing there idea on to you ! But try and talk to Aikido people, most won't have an idea, but there are indivuduals (sp?) that really have understood something.

/Yari


----------



## Yari

Tony said:
			
		

> I like the fact that Aikido is a peaceful Martial Art, together with its Philosophy and it just looks like such a beautiful Art! I would certainly like to maybe try out a few classes and see what they are like!



You should try it out. It could work out very good for you!

But one area that could be a problem is how you move into a technique, or out of it. Aikido doesn't base it system on thecniques, but rather on how you move between them. So if the systems "dont fit" the training could clash.

But try, and learn. You'll always learn something, so it can only be good!


/Terje


----------



## CrankyDragon

The Aiki answer to your question would be...
 Aikido is as effective as the Aikido-ka.

 Sorry I didnt get more in depth, but ponder on that as your answer lies within.

 Good luck,
 Andrew


----------



## Hand Sword

When you get good at it, very effective! I've worked with many, beleive me, they can hang with any other style!


----------



## samurai69

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> When you get good at it, very effective!


 
Yep, i agree



			
				Hand Sword said:
			
		

> , they can hang with any other style!


 
True, True


 



:supcool:


----------



## jujutsu_indonesia

Tony said:
			
		

> I already study Kung Fu but I was thinking of taking up Aikido so that I can supplement my training with more locks, holds and throws! We have already done some of this in Kung Fu but not to any great extent!
> I was wondering how effective Aikido could be in a real life or death situation or even as a way of avoiding conflict which I would prefer!
> I know one of the famous exponents of Aikido is Steven Seagal who I think is awesome for someone of his build and now I see he is blending Aikido with Kung fu in his latest films!


 
train some more Kung Fu until you have very good fundamental skills, then learn Aikido, preferably the Tomiki style because they have sparring. Then you see that Aikido is very valuable


----------



## Hand Sword

Aikido doesn't need any help from other styles to be effective. It does fine on it's own when one aquires the skill through practice and time. That goes for anything, Kung Fu included.


----------



## Hand Sword

Please, don't anyone get me wrong. I beleive one should cross train, it has great benefits. However, no system is better than any of the others, and none should be dumped on. They all come down to the practitioner's ability, not the styles, themselves. They all take persistent training and time to aquire the skills necessary. On a personal note, I've worked the security industry with Aikidoka, I can assure you of their effectiveness!


----------



## Yari

Hi

I do agree that Aikido doesn't need "help" from other styles. But it really depends on the instructor. It's not Aikido that can be defined, but the person using it and in what situation.

There are many different interpitations of Aikido, typically with there own personal slant.

This personal slant can mean that you should cross train for effektivness.

/Yari


----------



## Hand Sword

The moves are what they are, no matter the style. If self defense is your focus, you'll make them work for you, without cross training. That's why there are the variations of styles to begin with. Each made it work for them, and now teach their way.


----------



## Yari

I beg to differ.

Soem styles of Aikido are taught more to the point of self relisatoin(sp?), and not rooted in budo/selfdefence.

Even though the movements might look the same, the intent makes it different.

If you never work with the possiblity that the other arm might hit you, or that you can receive  headbut, your never going to get the selfdefence in place and might get seriiously hurt in a physical confrontation.

/Yari


----------



## Hand Sword

Again as we both stated earlier, It comes down tom the person and their intent not the style. Someone with the self defense mind set will take those points into consideration, in class, or on their own.

Aikido was one way at first and stood alone, without cross training. It dealt with punches, kicks, etc.. just fine. Intent is secondary in self defense for real. Shiho Nage will work regardless of what you do after you do it.


----------



## MartialIntent

Taken as a whole and complete art, I maintain that no art is any more or any less effective than any other. Obviously some arts might be better employed in certain situations but the fact remains that *overall* [not cherry-picking], none can claim superiority.

Although this is an old resurrected thread the question might be: how effective is Aikido _for what_?

One "criticism" I often hear outside our dojo in the evenings is "this is the one where they don't even hit," Hmmmm. Well, setting aside my original background in KF for now, would I be expected to supplement my Aikido with a striking art in order for it to be *fully* effective in real life? Nope. No way - and I have proven this through a variety of tasty scenarios. No, I prefer to look at it like this: imagine I'm a different type of artist - a painter and a poor one at that. I have one good quality, stalwart brush that I acquired a long time ago from my father and I scrupulously maintain. To complete my masterpiece I could choose to add to my brush toolkit but I have no inclination - this for me is the soft "modern" option and what's more, many modern brushes are badly constructed and made as disposable and not for the long haul. Instead [call me foolish] I have to adapt my technique and my style, I have to employ more subtle hand movement to aid brushwork, I have to apply pressure differently to compensate for the single thickness of the brush, I have to be prudent when mixing the colors and adding the turpentine [you get the idea]. 

The question is, is my painting style less effective than other painters? And is my resulting masterpiece less of a work of art? Well, some might say so but personally I believe I'm a better painter for it. Not a better painter than my fellow painters with their whole bunch of modern brushes but simply better *in myself*.

There now.

Respects!


----------



## Yari

I see we agree, but at the same time there is nothing unique with the Aikido techniques. Aikido is definet from the intent, and not technique.

All "aikido techniques" have bee seen/doen before there ever was Aikido.

So Aikido in itself is defined from the intent (ho you use the techniques). So when stating that Aikido can be effektiv, and that Aikido techniques can always be used, you'll have to "slant" towards intent.

Am I making myself clear?

/Yari


----------



## Hand Sword

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> Taken as a whole and complete art, I maintain that no art is any more or any less effective than any other. Obviously some arts might be better employed in certain situations but the fact remains that *overall* [not cherry-picking], none can claim superiority.
> 
> Although this is an old resurrected thread the question might be: how effective is Aikido _for what_?
> 
> One "criticism" I often hear outside our dojo in the evenings is "this is the one where they don't even hit," Hmmmm. Well, setting aside my original background in KF for now, would I be expected to supplement my Aikido with a striking art in order for it to be *fully* effective in real life? Nope. No way - and I have proven this through a variety of tasty scenarios. No, I prefer to look at it like this: imagine I'm a different type of artist - a painter and a poor one at that. I have one good quality, stalwart brush that I acquired a long time ago from my father and I scrupulously maintain. To complete my masterpiece I could choose to add to my brush toolkit but I have no inclination - this for me is the soft "modern" option and what's more, many modern brushes are badly constructed and made as disposable and not for the long haul. Instead [call me foolish] I have to adapt my technique and my style, I have to employ more subtle hand movement to aid brushwork, I have to apply pressure differently to compensate for the single thickness of the brush, I have to be prudent when mixing the colors and adding the turpentine [you get the idea].
> 
> The question is, is my painting style less effective than other painters? And is my resulting masterpiece less of a work of art? Well, some might say so but personally I believe I'm a better painter for it. Not a better painter than my fellow painters with their whole bunch of modern brushes but simply better *in myself*.
> 
> There now.
> 
> Respects!


 
:asian:    Yep!


----------



## Hand Sword

Yari said:
			
		

> I see we agree, but at the same time there is nothing unique with the Aikido techniques. Aikido is definet from the intent, and not technique.
> 
> All "aikido techniques" have bee seen/doen before there ever was Aikido.
> 
> So Aikido in itself is defined from the intent (ho you use the techniques). So when stating that Aikido can be effektiv, and that Aikido techniques can always be used, you'll have to "slant" towards intent.
> 
> Am I making myself clear?
> 
> /Yari


 
Never said that there was. The techniques have been done before, but, Aikidoka have their own flavor, some doing it brutally, some gentally. Don't Discount Aikido by insinuating that it's a copy cat syle. The intent will be a given--self defense, when attacked. Point being, as to the title of the thread, Aikido can be and is effective. Is that Clear?


----------



## MartialIntent

Yari said:
			
		

> All "aikido techniques" have bee seen/doen before there ever was Aikido.


Fair point. But if you're putting that argument, I'd say that all techniques were seen before we catagorized and named ANY art. 

There are a finite set of techniques available to us as humans and these have been practiced since the dawn of time itself long before Bodhidharma crossed India and came down from the hills to Shaolin [or whatever one believes]. Are we saying that because Aikido only came to be in the last century that it's less valid an expression of physicality than the art of the Samurai or some of the earlier JuJitsu techniques for example? Empty handed and armed techniques predate any and all modern martial systems. We've just slapped a name on them and called them our own.

Respects!


----------



## Hand Sword

Again, YEP!   :asian:


----------



## Yari

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> ......... We've just slapped a name on them and called them our own.
> 
> Respects!


 
Yeaps. I do agree. That's why effektivness of an art is really a "stupid" question, because as stated by yourself it depends on the who and where parameters.

But the logik that says "since all arts can't be proven to be effetive, because of peronsal influence and interpitation" therefor are all equally effektiv-  is wrong. And there are many reason to that. For first off you have to define effektivness. What is this? Whould effektivness be to stop the sitation from arissing, or should the result be that the oppnent never gets up after wards, or should we be best buddies after confrontation?
And who doens the effektivness apply for.

And then there is the long term or short term effektivness.  you can do things that are pretty effektiv, but wear down your body when your 40. While other styles you can do until you die.

Another part of the missiing logic is, you have to prove that all arts are equally effektiv. If I can find just one art that isn't, then the logic falls. I belive that I can find many arts that are not effektiv (in the eyes of selfdefence). And some of them are certain Aikido styles.

/yari


----------



## Hand Sword

Again, remember it's not the arts-- it's the people. If they are into for self defense purposes, no matter the style, they will train appropriately. The system is supposed to serve you, not you serve the system.


----------



## MartialIntent

Yari said:
			
		

> Another part of the missiing logic is, you have to prove that all arts are equally effektiv. If I can find just one art that isn't, then the logic falls. I belive that I can find many arts that are not effektiv (in the eyes of selfdefence). And some of them are certain Aikido styles.
> 
> /yari


OK I take your point but I'd have to say to you that if certain Aikido styles are limited in application to SD, then the same goes for *every other art*.

I can work SD techniques using my Aikido and my KF. Both work and both are effective just in different ways. You're correct, mindset and intent are the ultimate differentiating factors in the application of the techniques and through that, I can equally use my Aikido to put someone down _permanently_ or use it as designed, to put them down firmly but safely for both myself and my opponent. The severity of the situation at hand will direct my intent to one or the other.

To be a little less negative, I'd say that NO art need be limited through it's techniques alone. The only limiting factor is the practitioner herself or himself. One can take their art wherever they want if they so desire. There are *no limits* to the martial arts - if limits exist, they exist solely within the practitioner.

In this discussion, one could substitute the term Aikido with any other currently available martial art and the debate would still make the same points.

Respects!


----------



## Hand Sword

"Three times a lady!"  :asian:


----------



## jujutsu_indonesia

Tony said:
			
		

> I already study Kung Fu but I was thinking of taking up Aikido so that I can supplement my training with more locks, holds and throws! We have already done some of this in Kung Fu but not to any great extent!


 
I forgot to add, you must build your fundamental skills in one style of martial arts first (in your case, kung fu) before you venture to train in other style. that way, your basics will not become mixed up & you can enjoy the advantages of both styles.

as an example, Tomiki Kenji sensei already a senior black belt under Prof. Kano before he went to Uyeshiba sensei to learn Aiki Jujutsu (now Aikido). Same goes to Mochizuki sensei (founder of Yoseikan).


----------



## MartialIntent

jujutsu_indonesia said:
			
		

> I forgot to add, you must build your fundamental skills in one style of martial arts first (in your case, kung fu) before you venture to train in other style. that way, your basics will not become mixed up & you can enjoy the advantages of both styles.


I agree! That's a good point - and while this is true for most crossovers, I believe there are varying degrees of confusion depending not only upon 1). the level of the practitioner, 2). the attitude of the practitioner and also 3). upon the overlap of the arts in question.

1). The level of proficiency that the practitioner has attained in their original art seems to a great extent to determine how able they are to compartmentalize the two arts they are simultaneously training.

2). I've noticed there are many who have moved into Aikido with previous martial experience and while many have honest intentions, there are those who begin their Aikido with the attitude [that's often apparent on forums...ahem] of "prove to me your Aikido works as well as my -insert art- or I ain't staying," or "in MY art, we do it like _this_ and give it a bit more of _that_." I'm sure this goes for many crossover situations but it just illustrates a wholly misplaced intent when it comes to working multiple arts.

3). In this similar case to my own [KF > Aikido], I find that there wasn't a great deal of tripping up in the techniques because they're so entirely different in concept and application - and I find this goes for the majority of practitioners of "stand up" strike based arts from MT to TKD who come to Aikido. Where the issues begin is when the student's original art is close enough to Aikido that the techniques present themselves as being the same and matters are made worse if the nomenclature and terminology is also similar or identical [on the superficial level, Karate / JuJitsu / Judo and other JMA share much with Aikido]. Problem here is that although the technique may have the same functionality as the Aikido technique, the Aikido start and end points, required stance and dynamics - not to mention the overarching Aikido intent of harmony - might be a polar opposite.

Nothing new here I know, I just wanted to share my thoughts 

Respects!


----------



## green meanie

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> The only limiting factor is the practitioner herself or himself. One can take their art wherever they want if they so desire. There are *no limits* to the martial arts - if limits exist, they exist solely within the practitioner.


 
I agree. Granted some arts may be better suited than others in a _specific_ situations, overall, I believe all arts provide the tools to do any job given enough time and practice. More often than not, the supposed limitations of an art have more to do with the limitations of the individual practitioner, than the art itself.

My two cents.  :asian:


----------



## Henderson

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> The only limiting factor is the practitioner herself or himself. One can take their art wherever they want if they so desire. There are *no limits* to the martial arts - if limits exist, they exist solely within the practitioner.


 


			
				green meanie said:
			
		

> I agree. Granted some arts may be better suited than others in a _specific_ situations, overall, I believe all arts provide the tools to do any job given enough time and practice. More often than not, the supposed limitations of an art have more to do with the limitations of the individual practitioner, than the art itself.
> 
> My two cents. :asian:


 
I find both of these statements refreshing and encouraging.  I agree wholeheartedly.


----------



## theletch1

I'm one of those crossover artists.  Came to aikido from a kenpo background.  When I first began training in aikido I had a hell of a time getting the hard stances and such worked out of me to make the aikido flow.  As a beginner in aikido I'd often think to myself "it's a good thing I've got the kenpo for self defense" with the idea that the aikido was just for self improvement.  As time has passed and I've gotten more at home with the aikido I've found that the kenpo just seems to pop out of me as atemi now and then.  It's taken time but I no longer think of myself as a kenpoist who happens to study aikido.  I think of myself as an aikido-ka who uses kenpo for my strikes.:ultracool Aikido seems to me to be very effective for defense (if the practitioner is up to it) but, man, does it ever take a while to get your head wrapped around a lot of the counter-intuitive stuff that you have to do to get proficient.


----------



## MartialIntent

theletch1 said:
			
		

> Aikido seems to me to be very effective for defense (if the practitioner is up to it) but, man, does it ever take a while to get your head wrapped around a lot of the counter-intuitive stuff that you have to do to get proficient.


...or is it Jeff that Aikido really *is* intuitive, it's just that we've just been doing it all wrong in our previous martial incarnations? Hehe. We come to Aikido and finally learn how to do it the right way, LOL.

Like yourself, I also catch myself intuitively blocking incomings - generally before realizing, hey, if I'm close enough to block, I've taken a wrong turn in the technique somewhere! I remember starting out Aikido after KF, the most difficult thing I found to correct was converting the typical narrow profile leading stance into the more Aikido "straight on", both shoulders facing forwards position...

Respects!


----------



## Yari

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> ......if certain Aikido styles are limited in application to SD, then the same goes for *every other art*.


 
True, and if we agree on this that means that there are arts that won't work in a SD situation.



> I can work SD techniques using my Aikido and my KF. Both work and both are effective just in different ways.


 
I don'tknow KF, but Aikido I've been doing for nearly 20 years, and tried at least 4 - 5 styles (not just one nights practice), and to use the Name Aikido as a a definitiv art isn't correct. There are many arts under the name Aikido. I'll just mention Ki-aikido, and then in the same breath mention SD.....




> To be a little less negative, I'd say that NO art need be limited through it's techniques alone. The only limiting factor is the practitioner herself or himself. One can take their art wherever they want if they so desire. There are *no limits* to the martial arts - if limits exist, they exist solely within the practitioner.


 
Back to the fundamental argument. If I can prove that just one art isn't good for SD, then you are fundamentally wrong. I could mention any MacDojo or how about kiai-jutsu?



> In this discussion, one could substitute the term Aikido with any other currently available martial art and the debate would still make the same points.
> 
> Respects!


 
Try with let's say, kiajutsu.... or some of the more obscure ninja arts.

/yari


----------



## Hand Sword

O.k.  How about.. A robber comes up to you, demanding your money at an atm. You reach for it, then suddenly.......KIAI! He's startled! You then immediately throw a palm heel strike (one learned in a McDojo)to the nose, breaking it, and run away.

I have done this in some form a few times in my life and it worked, everytime!

Point being: Anything can be made to work for you if you want it to. All the arts, maybe watered down now. But, that's just in intensity. The moves, and methods are still what they have always been.


----------



## Hand Sword

Yari said:
			
		

> Try with let's say, kiajutsu.... or some of the more obscure ninja arts.
> 
> /yari


 
The arts of Ninjutsu are pretty self evident. They were used for assasination and worked very well back then. Poison is popison. Killing is killing. Nothing obscure about that.


----------



## Yari

OK, then baseball is a SD art, and so is watching TV. Because you can learn things that can be used as SD. 

This logic syas that everthing can be used if your luckey it would fit the SD situation. And it's the "luckey" part you want to minimize. So yes you could screem the h*ll out our your lungs and hit the guy, but if your training then consists of sitting squat against you oppent (becasue of some achient(sp?) rule), then your dead. In my book that part of the MA got you killed, and therefor not good for selfdefence.

/yari


----------



## Hand Sword

Yeah! A baseball bat works very well--Believe me!

And watching and learning----Don't you do this in training? Did you learn anything? I would suspect so.


----------



## Hand Sword

Luck plays a role sir. Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good. However, I never mentioned luck, nor did any of this thread. It about established systems and training. Doing this makes them work for real if you want them to. 

I don't think if you were smart enough to startle an opponent you would be stupid enough to just sit squat. Let's stay real please.


----------



## Hand Sword

As for the internal systems, which I believe you are referring to. They have self defense. You also use the calming of yourself to think your way out clearly. That's a real application.

It all matters if you want it to. 

Everything can work in one way or another.


----------



## Hand Sword

Let's stay to the subject matter of Aikido and it's effectiveness. You seem to be one of reality training as primary, which I agree with completely! 

You said that you have trained in Aikido for twenty years.

Obviously..it's effective.  (End of your arguing, Thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you!)


----------



## samurai69

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> You said that you have trained in Aikido for twenty years.
> 
> Obviously..it's effective. (End of your arguing, Keep training!)


 

Absolutely


----------



## Yari

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Luck plays a role sir. Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good. However, I never mentioned luck, nor did any of this thread. It about established systems and training. Doing this makes them work for real if you want them to.
> 
> I don't think if you were smart enough to startle an opponent you would be stupid enough to just sit squat. Let's stay real please.


 
I did mention luck. But it's a part of SD no mater how welll you train/pratice. It's a question how much you minimize it, so your in control and no tthe situation. 

The question originally pointed towards Aikido, but what i'm talking about is the logic of the thought. 

You take me litterally (sp?) when I say squat(that was not my intent), but more real I've seen style were you pivit when finished. Thus showing your back. This is a fatal move no matter what. You never should show your back to an opponent. I've seen Aikido sensei move tandem first into a knife fight, becasue the style dictates them to do so. I've seen nijitusu people squat beacse there style says so. These people had learned that this was correct. Logic ditates that going into a knife fight stomach first, your changes of dieing have increased. In my book this is not good SD, no matter how good your hand techniques are or your foot is.

On the other hand we are talkiing about an art, argumentting that ANY art teaches correct SD. this was the sole argument. I'm stating that I can find at least 1 art that isn't SD. But I'm not arguming that there are certain techniques tha could work. But having 1 technique that worlks doesn't qualify the whole art as beeing good for SD.

/Yari


----------



## MartialIntent

Yari said:
			
		

> True, and if we agree on this that means that there are arts that won't work in a SD situation.


Yari, my quote was "......_if certain Aikido styles are limited in application to SD, then the same goes for *every other art*_"

Unfortunately, I'm not actually saying that certain Aikido styles are limited in application at all. Therefore we do not agree on this point.





			
				Yari said:
			
		

> I don'tknow KF, but Aikido I've been doing for nearly 20 years, and tried at least 4 - 5 styles (not just one nights practice), and to use the Name Aikido as a a definitiv art isn't correct. There are many arts under the name Aikido.


I would have to disagree with your assertion that it's wrong to use the name Aikido as a generic term. I too have practiced different styles of Aikido before coming to Shodokan / Tomiki style. I have practised Aikikai [or traditional style] and Yoshinkan style. However, despite the fact that these styles were developed tangentially from the Aikido as designed by Morehei Ueshiba, that doesn't preclude the similarities within them. 

If one wishes to refer to a specific style then that is fine. If one wishes to refer to "Aikido" as a style, then I believe that is an equally valid term.





			
				Yari said:
			
		

> Back to the fundamental argument. If I can prove that just one art isn't good for SD, then you are fundamentally wrong. I could mention any MacDojo or how about kiai-jutsu?


Yari, although it pains me to agree with you  I do agree. So, having said that... now let's see you go ahead and *prove* that just one art isn't good for SD.

Respects!


----------



## MartialIntent

Yari said:
			
		

> You take me litterally (sp?) when I say squat(that was not my intent), but more real I've seen style were you pivit when finished. Thus showing your back. This is a fatal move no matter what. You never should show your back to an opponent. I've seen Aikido sensei move tandem first into a knife fight, becasue the style dictates them to do so. I've seen nijitusu people squat beacse there style says so. These people had learned that this was correct. Logic ditates that going into a knife fight stomach first, your changes of dieing have increased. In my book this is not good SD, no matter how good your hand techniques are or your foot is.


Yari, I am surprised to find an Aikido style that teaches approaching a knife-armed opponent stomach first... For me, in any Aikido I have trained [and any arts I've trained for that matter] maintanence of correct distance is fundamentally important.

All I would say is that what you have experienced or observed above is not flawed Aikido, but rather is highly *flawed interpretation* of the Aikido principles in general and in Ma-Ai [proper distance] in particular.



			
				Yari said:
			
		

> On the other hand we are talkiing about an art, argumentting that ANY art teaches correct SD. this was the sole argument. I'm stating that I can find at least 1 art that isn't SD.


I still believe [and agree with HS above] that ANY art -Aikido included- can be effective for SD simply because the key is in the intent of the practitioner and not in the techniques of the art. I have proven this to myself both inside and outside the Aikido dojo and will take some convincing otherwise. This may be delusion or naivete on my part and therefore, I look forward to your results that disprove that belief.

Respects!


----------



## Yari

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> . I have proven this to myself both inside and outside the Aikido dojo and will take some convincing otherwise. This may be delusion or naivete on my part and therefore, I look forward to your results that disprove that belief.
> 
> Respects!


 
Your logic has closed off my chances of convincing you of other wise.

You state that everything can be used as SD, but agree to that certain techniques could be ineffective, but still maintain that and art is flawless.

You see, no matter what I say youd, just point to your own logic, which is a ring logic (goes in a ring).

Now no matter what I postulate you then can say it's a misinterpertation, and that closes off the possiblity of you being wrong. 

The only way left for me is to apeal to your logical sense, and that is to state the obvise : there is no perfect system in the world, ergo it shouldn't be a problem to find a system that doesn't work in the eyes of SD.

/Yari


----------



## MartialIntent

Yari said:
			
		

> Your logic has closed off my chances of convincing you of other wise.
> 
> You state that everything can be used as SD, but agree to that certain techniques could be ineffective, but still maintain that and art is flawless.
> 
> You see, no matter what I say youd, just point to your own logic, which is a ring logic (goes in a ring).
> 
> Now no matter what I postulate you then can say it's a misinterpertation, and that closes off the possiblity of you being wrong.
> 
> The only way left for me is to apeal to your logical sense, and that is to state the obvise : there is no perfect system in the world, ergo it shouldn't be a problem to find a system that doesn't work in the eyes of SD.
> 
> /Yari


Yari, I'm sincerely sorry if I am not making myself clear enough or if I appear to be obturating your argument. I could argue that Aikido is flawless but I won't. I will instead restate the point that the limitations are not within Aikido - but rather that if limitations exist they do so within the practitioner. I have proved to myself the validity of _my_ Aikido how _I_ do it but am the first to see the imperfections inherent in my own practices. The point is that ANY art, regardless of whether or not we wish to call it a perfect creation can be applied to an SD situation _if that is where the practitioner wishes to work it_. The practitioner must iron out their own flaws first - just like the saying goes I suppose: a bad workman blames his tools.

I mean, using a point raised by *samurai69* on a thread regarding Aikido vs Boxing: 
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32391
... If I train my Aikido relentlessly with the specific intent of beating a boxer then I am 100% convinced I'd be able to do that. 

If I wanted to work my Aikido with the specific intent of generating enough Ki to break concrete slabs with my head then I'm certain I'd be able to do that too with sufficient time and motivation.

My point is that although these concepts are alien to Aikido and likely not mentioned in any of the Aikido books and are furthermore probably not widely practised, that doesn't preclude the ability of any _practitioner_ to achieve those goals if he or she trains for that specific situation. And that goes for any art imHo.

I hope this is a little clearer. I'm not being intransigent on this point - far from it. If I can have it shown to me that a specific art with a motivated practitioner cannot cut it in an SD situation then I will happily admit I'm wrong. For me though, I can say that because I don't believe it's possible to prove such a case simply because excellence and pure intent in the practitioner can more than compensate for any perceived limitations in any art - and I'll put my neck on the line and say McDojo styles included.

Respects!


----------



## jujutsu_indonesia

Yari said:
			
		

> find at least 1 art that isn't SD. But I'm not arguming that there are certain techniques tha could work. But having 1 technique that worlks doesn't qualify the whole art as beeing good for SD.
> 
> /Yari


 
I think I understand your way of thinking and agree that within the syllabus of any martial art we can find techniques that may not be the best solution for self-defense. For example I have seen an Aikikai shihan in a official Embu, he does techniques where he twirl his Uke around him like a merry-go-round, for about a minute. Nice for demo, but try that against straatjongens (streetfighters) here in Jakarta, and I am sure the shihan will be introduced to the concept of "early retirement". 

I am a huge fan of Tomiki Aikido, but within the Koryu Goshin no Kata I have seen technique where Tomiki Shihan does a single leg takedown against a knife-wielding opponent without trying to secure the knife hand first. It's a good technique against non-knife-fighters, but against an arnis Master, even Tomiki shihan himself will find himself at a severe disadvantage.

Hell, even in my own Dentokan version of Hakko-ryu, I can find techniques that are not 100% perfect for self-defense. Most of the Aiki Nage type techniques on Shodan-Gi (for example Kubishime Dori and Ushiro Zemi Otoshi) are done without gripping Uke. In the real world, when a straatjongen sensed that we are about to break his balance, he will let go of his grip and punch us in the  head immediately. So, in reality situations I think we have to counter-grip or at least apply atemi before moving to any type of aiki nage.

Having said that, I think the purpose of learning Kihon Waza/basic techniques is primarily to develop understanding of the basic mechanism of the art. Only after we understand the basics, THEN we could learn ohyo, or how to modify/apply the basic techniques in real situations.

I am sure we could all agree with that, rite?


----------



## Hand Sword

All of this debating about all of the fine ponts of arts is useless and off topic. As I said it was about Aikido and effectiveness, or lack there of. 

The big point: It and everything is effective if you work at it, and make it work for you.

All styles need time and effort to accomplish this.


----------



## Hand Sword

Yari said:
			
		

> I did mention luck. But it's a part of SD no mater how welll you train/pratice. It's a question how much you minimize it, so your in control and no tthe situation.
> 
> The question originally pointed towards Aikido, but what i'm talking about is the logic of the thought.
> 
> You take me litterally (sp?) when I say squat(that was not my intent), but more real I've seen style were you pivit when finished. Thus showing your back. This is a fatal move no matter what. You never should show your back to an opponent. I've seen Aikido sensei move tandem first into a knife fight, becasue the style dictates them to do so. I've seen nijitusu people squat beacse there style says so. These people had learned that this was correct. Logic ditates that going into a knife fight stomach first, your changes of dieing have increased. In my book this is not good SD, no matter how good your hand techniques are or your foot is.
> 
> On the other hand we are talkiing about an art, argumentting that ANY art teaches correct SD. this was the sole argument. I'm stating that I can find at least 1 art that isn't SD. But I'm not arguming that there are certain techniques tha could work. But having 1 technique that worlks doesn't qualify the whole art as beeing good for SD.
> 
> /Yari


 
If 1 technique works than the art is applicable. If 1 can work other tech's can work. 


It's not the art! It's about the practitioner!


If you have a self defense mindset in training, no matter the art, you'll make it work.

Think about this: All the arts arguably came from the Chinese systems. Those styles originally were used to build up the spirits of the monks. No aggressive techniques. Then, The temples started getting burned, and presto! Chuan Fa was born. A monk made the system effective!
The rest is history.


----------



## Hand Sword

Yari said:
			
		

> Your logic has closed off my chances of convincing you of other wise.
> 
> You state that everything can be used as SD, but agree to that certain techniques could be ineffective, but still maintain that and art is flawless.
> 
> You see, no matter what I say youd, just point to your own logic, which is a ring logic (goes in a ring).
> 
> Now no matter what I postulate you then can say it's a misinterpertation, and that closes off the possiblity of you being wrong.
> 
> The only way left for me is to apeal to your logical sense, and that is to state the obvise : there is no perfect system in the world, ergo it shouldn't be a problem to find a system that doesn't work in the eyes of SD.
> 
> /Yari


 
Maybe not perfect for you,me, or whoever, but, perfect for the founders of those styles. They made it work for them, that's why those ways exist. You have to find what works for you.


----------



## Yari

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Think about this: All the arts arguably came from the Chinese systems. Those styles originally were used to build up the spirits of the monks. No aggressive techniques. Then, The temples started getting burned, and presto! Chuan Fa was born. A monk made the system effective!
> The rest is history.


 
Your history is wrong... what about Glima? It didn't come from a chinese system.


But your point is that a systems efficiency(sp?) can be defined from if a person can make it wokr or not. But that means it's the person thats stupid if he fails(dies) to do SD with the style(no matter style).

But we can agree on disagreeing. It's OK for me.

/yari


----------



## MartialIntent

jujutsu_indonesia said:
			
		

> I think I understand your way of thinking and agree that within the syllabus of any martial art we can find techniques that may not be the best solution for self-defense. For example I have seen an Aikikai shihan in a official Embu, he does techniques where he twirl his Uke around him like a merry-go-round, for about a minute. Nice for demo, but try that against straatjongens (streetfighters) here in Jakarta, and I am sure the shihan will be introduced to the concept of "early retirement".
> 
> I am a huge fan of Tomiki Aikido, but within the Koryu Goshin no Kata I have seen technique where Tomiki Shihan does a single leg takedown against a knife-wielding opponent without trying to secure the knife hand first. It's a good technique against non-knife-fighters, but against an arnis Master, even Tomiki shihan himself will find himself at a severe disadvantage.
> 
> Hell, even in my own Dentokan version of Hakko-ryu, I can find techniques that are not 100% perfect for self-defense. Most of the Aiki Nage type techniques on Shodan-Gi (for example Kubishime Dori and Ushiro Zemi Otoshi) are done without gripping Uke. In the real world, when a straatjongen sensed that we are about to break his balance, he will let go of his grip and punch us in the head immediately. So, in reality situations I think we have to counter-grip or at least apply atemi before moving to any type of aiki nage.


Denny, while I appreciate what you're saying in these points, I'd still pick up on the point that Hand Sword is making and that's that the points of failure [if that's how you want to look at it] lie squarely with the practitioner. Kenji Tomiki's credentials are not in question - the fact is that I'm nearly certain he hasn't spent a great deal of time mixing it up with the Jakarta streetfighters [yeah I know I'm mixing your examples but it's to make a point]. I think to apply blanket statements on the suitability of an art to a situation are unnecessarily running down individual martial arts in favor of a hotch-potch or combination of all the "best" of everything. 

I mean you are saying within your own art, you can find "techniques that are not 100% perfect for self-defense". I'd say if self-defense is a concern of yours then you either omit those techniques altogether from your fighting repertoire OR you try to own those techniques in the SD arena most likely by using them in suitable combinations. I mean whoever fights with one technique alone? That's akin to a painter using green only [because someone said green was good for landscapes], then complaining that the picture doesn't look quite right and blaming everything on the color green. Not deterred, that painter then throws away all his green and starts using just blue [because someone said blue was good for skies]. 

It's surely about the _combinations_ of techniques and the subtleties therein. Anyway, I hope that makes some sense.

Respects!


----------



## Hand Sword

Yari said:
			
		

> Your history is wrong... what about Glima? It didn't come from a chinese system.
> 
> 
> But your point is that a systems efficiency(sp?) can be defined from if a person can make it wokr or not. But that means it's the person thats stupid if he fails(dies) to do SD with the style(no matter style).
> 
> But we can agree on disagreeing. It's OK for me.
> 
> /yari


 
I said arguably! I don't care about history. As far as this argument with you...There is none!  You've studied Aikido for twenty years, but you tried to slam it. You can't have it both ways. So, you are obviously just trying to be antagonistic.

As for this last post of yours.. What are you talking about? It's all irrelevant. Dying wasn't discussed or brought up. Maybe you just got out fought, it happens. That doesn't mean that your style wasn't being used for real.


----------



## Yari

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> ......
> If I wanted to work my Aikido with the specific intent of generating enough Ki to break concrete slabs with my head then I'm certain I'd be able to do that too with sufficient time and motivation.
> 
> ......
> 
> Respects!


 
I just want to say I respekt everbody for coming forth and discussing this. I love that we disagree, and feel that we at the same time can respect each other. Which in itself is a good sign.

I don't think that we'll be able to change each other, but we might just put at seed of thought in our "brains", or just let others see that a world can be a good place even if you disagree with somebody.

What I'm trying to say now is that I think we know were each other is, and we dont agree, fundenmentaly. So why not just agree on disagreeing?

/Yari


----------



## Hand Sword

Because you play both sides of the fence.

Aikido is not effective..  I studied for 20 years... 

You're arguing with yourself ! If you can't settle on your own thoughts, how can anyone else?


----------



## Yari

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I said arguably! I don't care about history. As far as this argument with you...There is none! You've studied Aikido for twenty years, but you tried to slam it. You can't have it both ways. So, you are obviously just trying to be antagonistic.
> 
> As for this last post of yours.. What are you talking about? It's all irrelevant. Dying wasn't discussed or brought up. Maybe you just got out fought, it happens. That doesn't mean that your style wasn't being used for real.


 
You use argument to drive a point, so what's the wrong for me doing it?

I'm not trying to slam Aikido, but I feel I have a very realistic veiw of Aikido. As in life if you can't talk about the negativ sides of what your doing(praticing/living/studing), then your are in denail. Denail can be good, but openit up might just release a lot of new"energy" and newfound areas.

If you feel that I'm antagonistic, I'm sorry. That's not my intent. I'm trying to argue for at point that is directly against yours. If that's antagonistic in your book, OK I'll live with that. 

I can see this isn't going further, so I whish to stop this before it goes to a place nobody whats this thread to go. So I gve you my hand and say stop. Lets just agree on disagreeing.

/Yari


----------



## Hand Sword

Your arguments are all over the map, that's why. You're for and against at the same time. You're stretching into other styles etc.. The topic was about Aikido, and it's effectiveness. You are a practitioner for twenty years. You have a realistic mindset for training, therefore it's been found by you to be effective.


----------



## MartialIntent

Yari said:
			
		

> I just want to say I respekt everbody for coming forth and discussing this. I love that we disagree, and feel that we at the same time can respect each other. Which in itself is a good sign.
> 
> I don't think that we'll be able to change each other, but we might just put at seed of thought in our "brains", or just let others see that a world can be a good place even if you disagree with somebody.
> 
> What I'm trying to say now is that I think we know were each other is, and we dont agree, fundenmentaly. So why not just agree on disagreeing?
> 
> /Yari


Yari, personally, I can certainly agree to disagree. I only feel the inclination to pipe up and reply because I practice Aikido myself and do grow tired of those who run it down as a valid defensive and combative art when really they should look to themselves for the solution instead of claiming there's no solution within the art due to inherent flaws. 

I could argue that Aikido is a perfect art and would be happy to do so [and I would not disagree with anyone telling me that of their art] but it would truly add nothing to this discussion. Any imperfections arise out of the practitioner and their lack of focus or intent.

I'll say it once more for the road. Think of the art as a computer. We often blame our computers for failing to work as expected. However, computer errors are generally attributable to human intervention [hardware malfunctions from flawed circuit design, bad coding or insufficient testing in software]. Computers nonetheless are a fantastic tool and can be used in a huge array of different applications. You get the right piece of software, load it up and off you go.

Respects!


----------



## Hand Sword

Very eloquently put! Thank you Miss! :asian:


----------



## Yari

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> Yari, personally, I can certainly agree to disagree. I only feel the inclination to pipe up and reply because I practice Aikido myself and do grow tired of those who run it down as a valid defensive and combative art when really they should look to themselves for the solution instead of claiming there's no solution within the art due to inherent flaws.
> 
> ...
> Respects!


 
OK, a logn way I do agree.

/Yari


----------



## Hand Sword

Yari, I think we all can agree to disagree. If you felt I was attacking you, I wasn't. Just a friendly debate. There are no hostilities felt or given by me.

That aside, I think we agree that Aikido can be and is effective. Don't we?

If so, that's the end of the argument here. I do think you have some kind of thorn about effectiveness and the arts in general. Why don't you start a new thread, in the General Martial arts section, saying what you want to say. That way we can get everyone involved in the discussion.

Respect to you ! :asian:


----------



## Yari

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> ......
> 
> That aside, I think we agree that Aikido can be and is effective. Don't we?
> 
> .....
> 
> Respect to you ! :asian:


 
Yes we can agree.

/yari


----------



## Hand Sword

:asian:


----------



## Jenna

Reading through this, I'm glad it finished off well!!! There are some super ideas, thoughts and philosophies in here - I'm amazed at the clarity of thought you guys have. I can't add anything except to say you're all very committed to Aikido and the other arts that you practice. It's a big world. Big enough for us all and all our motivations. I feel certain we're all walking in the same direction, even though we're taking different paths.

Well said all. Let's have some more!

Yr most obdt hmble svt,
Jenna


----------



## Hand Sword

Thanks, considering it was done while working the 3rd shift-- LOL!


----------



## jujutsu_indonesia

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> I mean you are saying within your own art, you can find "techniques that are not 100% perfect for self-defense". I'd say if self-defense is a concern of yours then you either omit those techniques altogether from your fighting repertoire OR you try to own those techniques in the SD arena most likely by using them in suitable combinations. I mean whoever fights with one technique alone? That's akin to a painter using green only [because someone said green was good for landscapes], then complaining that the picture doesn't look quite right and blaming everything on the color green. Not deterred, that painter then throws away all his green and starts using just blue [because someone said blue was good for skies].
> 
> It's surely about the _combinations_ of techniques and the subtleties therein. Anyway, I hope that makes some sense.
> 
> Respects!


 
Yes they makes lots of sense, now I understand what you are saying. That is why I said earlier that Kihon is to teach principles, and only after we understand those, we can learn how to apply Kihon in real situations. Off course I am not from the "Bruce Lee" camp which advocates "rejects what is useless", to me the Kihon and Kata will never become "useless", they are part of the system, we learn it and preserve it, because otherwise what we do will no longer be the original system.

I came from the "make strong foundation first" camp, so, even though a kihon waza looks silly, we still do it, because we want to understand the principle. Dojo techniques are meant to be examples, not as a hard-set rule to follow. In real fighting, we must learn to flow and adapt to changing situations. So if we need to paint the sky in green, so be it 

PS: I think that was one of the reasons why Tomiki shihan invented Tanto Randori. He want to keep the "honesty" within his system


----------



## MartialIntent

jujutsu_indonesia said:
			
		

> Off course I am not from the "Bruce Lee" camp which advocates "rejects what is useless", to me the Kihon and Kata will never become "useless", they are part of the system, we learn it and preserve it, because otherwise what we do will no longer be the original system.


jj_i, 
I agree completely with this. I would say that we are often too quick to throw out or reject what is supposedly "useless". I think though that there's a complacency in that attitude. It's tough-talking but not necessarily clever. 

I can understand why someone might think a technique, a kata, a weapon is worthless because they can't see an application to any situation. The thing for me though is that I can never know all the possible situations I might be in and just because I've never found myself in a situation up until now, that counts for nothing.

Personally I think I have - and I think we all have - sufficient memory capacity to retain *everything*. None of us are like the old computers with low memory capacity that required data to be "archived" off to make way for newer stuff. Likewise there is no valid reason that I can see for rejecting an Aikido skill or any martial art skill. Obviously we select specific techniques as the situation demands but this is not to reject the others as useless but rather to be discerning. Far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as a "useless" piece of knowledge in my Aikido or in any other field for that matter. Knowledge is knowledge and to reject it is foolish.

Respects!


----------



## Monadnock

I am not sure the original intent of Aikido was self-defense. At least not the primary.

Even in most "practical" martial arts, the idea of self defense usually takes a back seat after training 10 or more years. That of course is different for everyone.


----------



## MartialIntent

Monadnock said:
			
		

> I am not sure the original intent of Aikido was self-defense. At least not the primary.


That's interesting. An honest question for you is what then do you think *was* the original or primary intent of Aikido?

Respects!


----------



## samurai69

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> That's interesting. An honest question for you is what then do you think *was* the original or primary intent of Aikido?
> 
> Respects!


 

This is an excerpt of an article i was reading this morning........If the interview the writer talks about happened that way then i think O sensai answers that to a degree




> "What is more effective for Self-defense, Aikido or the Parent Art of Aikido, Daito-Ryu Aikijutsu?"
> We do have some of the words and thoughts of Ueshiba Sensei, however, and I have obtained them from an online resource and I believe I can take a few excerpts from this 1957 Interview and this should cast some light on the matter.
> *Ueshiba Sensei was asked several questions, I think from the answers, just looking at them as a commentary, you can see what I mean...*
> *"In my opinion, it [Aikido] can be said to be the true martial art. The reason for this is that it is a martial art based on universal truth. This universe is composed of many different parts, and yet the universe as a whole is united as a family and symbolizes the ultimate state of peace. Holding such a view of the universe, Aikido cannot be anything but a martial art of love. It cannot be a martial art of violence.*
> *...Since I taught martial arts to be used for the purpose of killing others to soldiers during the War, I became deeply troubled after the conflict ended.*
> *...In Aikido, there is absolutely no attack. To attack means that the spirit has already lost. We adhere to the principle of absolute non-resistance, that is to say, we do not oppose the attacker."*




The rest of the article I am in two minds against.....

As an aikido practicioner, i disagree. 

As a Self Defence Instructor , I can see where the writer is coming from

This is not the complete article


----------



## Monadnock

In all honesty, I think Aikido was a spiritual Way for Ueshiba. Now, we are talking about the term "Aikido," which I do not think was coined until a few decades after AikiBudo. But I think we can see physical differenses in the two just by comparing video from the different eras.

Also, if I can backtrack a little, I should not necessaryily use primary, secondary, and such to describe the reasons for Budo, but note that there are many reasons to practice which are all intertwined. Which is more important to you? That may change with time.


----------



## theletch1

I think the original idea for aikido was, indeed, self defense.  The key word being Defense, though, of the self AND the attacker.  I have to think that the omission of aggressive techniques and a reliance on punching or kicking was O'sensei's way of protecting everyone involved.  The article quotes him as saying that it is an art of love not an art of violence.  I agree that it is not an art that allows the practitioner to act violently but attempts to negate the violence offered up by others with a "gentle" (and in a perfect mind, loving) reaction.  That doesn't mean that it can't appear violent in the aftermath of broken bones or destroyed joints, just that when done perfectly it shouldn't have that result.


----------



## Jenna

theletch1 said:
			
		

> I think the original idea for aikido was, indeed, self defense. The key word being Defense, though, of the self AND the attacker. I have to think that the omission of aggressive techniques and a reliance on punching or kicking was O'sensei's way of protecting everyone involved. The article quotes him as saying that it is an art of love not an art of violence. I agree that it is not an art that allows the practitioner to act violently but attempts to negate the violence offered up by others with a "gentle" (and in a perfect mind, loving) reaction. That doesn't mean that it can't appear violent in the aftermath of broken bones or destroyed joints, just that when done perfectly it shouldn't have that result.


Hey Jeff 
Perfect answer to the question I think. Defence of the self AND the attacker says it all. No other art has this principle as a motivation let alone a CORE around which the rest of the art is built. Good, good, good. I like that. Well said. I have a big smile for hearing that answer and being reminded of its importance and uniqueness.

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## matt.m

I am studying Hapkido at Moo Sul Kwan, so I would say that with the relationship hapkido and aikido have it is very effective.  A quick lineage if you will....my father is a hapkido master.  He learned from Lee H. Park, Lee learned from Won-Kwang Wha.  Won-Kwang Wha was classmates with Ji Han Jae, both of these men learned from Choi himself.

There has been a lot of controversy as to if Ueshiba and Choi were classmates together to Takeda.  However, I have read that Choi was giving a demonstration and Ueshiba acknowledged him as a friend.

My pop always regarded Ueshiba with the utmost of respect as well.

Back to point, sorry.  Look, in St. Louis there are a few different Aikido schools, I understand what some of you mean about them.  Hapkido is no different in that respect.  That does not take away the fact that it is a truely effective way of defense.


----------



## kenpohack

I don't mean to insult anyone who studies aikido, but how effective is the art against attacks with less than full commitment? I have studied kenpo, japanese jujitsu, and brazilian jiu-jitsu. I have no experience with aikido save for observing a few classes. Almost all of the techniques that I saw in aikido would only work against someone throwing a hail mary punch or a fully-committed grab or takedown. How would a aikidoist deal with a boxer who jabs, throws combinations, and never fully commits or is off balance? Please complete my understanding.


----------



## matt.m

I study hapkido, it is close enough to answer your question I believe.

Hapkido teaches techniques against a wrist and clothes grab.  However it should be looked at in a way for training purposes.  A person must, must, must get in the reps.  Otherwise no technique is good.  Again, you must look past the training side and look at the technique, as to when how and what makes it effective.

Let's look at kicking shall we?  Is it always the best idea to do a spinning cresent when a perfect front snap kick could be used instead?  That is the point of learning technique.  You start slow and work your way up.


----------



## samurai69

When you talk about effective ness of aikido.....from a purely self defence point of view......as opposed to an organised bout against say a boxer, then the  full element of aikido from O'sensai's ideas/ideals can be felt

I have'nt seen many (if any) street fights where the attacker was throwing less than fully committed attacks......therefore aikido will work

in the ring with someone throwing jabs......as an aikidoka you may get hit, but a boxer still has to throw a  cross (or other more committed attack).......therefore during a bout the aikidoka will practice avoidance techniques and then when an attack is committed he can perform his technique.

When O sensai started teaching aikido all (certaiinly most) were already well versed in other arts..and it was expected that their atemi was from their previous art.....so though there are no attacks specifically in aikido , all those that practiced already were skilled in atemi.


----------



## Nemesis

So basically the game plan of the aikidoist is to dodge until is oponent executs the technique he wants him to do? Is that your whole game plan? How can you expect to be able to do that, for how long and at what cost? I've seen a few Aikido demonstrations and the atacking techniques are always very "clean", very telegrafed, and never in combinations. But a fight is never like that even if it's not a streetfight; a fight in a ring or in a tatami is often messy and more complicated.

There one question that i've always had about Aikido (probably a stupid one but here goes) if Aikido does not teach any atacking techniques such as punchs, kicks, elbows and so on, how can a student learn to evade them so well (because if i understand corretelly, the Aikido game plan requires absolutelly perfect evassive techniques), do you need to have a background of another martial art first, or do you teach these strikes after all.


----------



## Jenna

Nemesis said:
			
		

> There one question that i've always had about Aikido (probably a stupid one but here goes) if Aikido does not teach any atacking techniques such as punchs, kicks, elbows and so on, how can a student learn to evade them so well (because if i understand corretelly, the Aikido game plan requires absolutelly perfect evassive techniques), do you need to have a background of another martial art first, or do you teach these strikes after all.


Hey Nemesis san  and now I see your name and I wonder are you nemesis to everyone? I hope not 

Your question is not stupid at all but highly relevant and though I will not speak for anyone else personally I train in a small group of like minded aikidoka who amongst us will simulate attacks from every angle we can conceive and using whichever ideas we have experienced for real or encountered in visiting with other artists. I do not think there is any requirement upon us to know exactly how to do Wing Chun chain punching or TKD step through side kicks as we are not looking to defend specifically against punches or kicks as this tends to draw aikidoka into a mirroring behaviour of hard blocks and counter atemi which is not conducive to the PURE circularity of Aikido. So a background in another art is NOT relevant to Aikido techniques themselves though it is obviously important to have exposure to these if you seek to know how to defend yourself. However PLEASE also bear in mind that the core philisophy af Aikido is not common to many arts and you will have your own philosophy as a kareteka and further I know we sometimes forget that NOT everyone practises Aikido --or ANY art for that matter-- simply as a vehicle for their personal defence! 

Please ask again if this is not overly clear 

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## samurai69

Nemesis said:
			
		

> So basically the game plan of the aikidoist is to dodge until is oponent executs the technique he wants him to do? Is that your whole game plan? How can you expect to be able to do that, for how long and at what cost? I've seen a few Aikido demonstrations and the atacking techniques are always very "clean", very telegrafed, and never in combinations. But a fight is never like that even if it's not a streetfight; a fight in a ring or in a tatami is often messy and more complicated.
> 
> *Firstly aikido in general is not based around fighting in the ring,, so tyhis is a supposition......Karate, Ju Jutsu (various styles) and aikido all use tai sabaki...body movement.....I have had to use some aikido on the street and also use some aikido techniques when i teach my SD classes.*
> 
> *A good boxer will spend a majority of time slipping and avoiding being hit......whilst waiting for an opening *
> 
> *In a street fight, its the principles of aikido, that are the bit that makes it effective*
> 
> *but my aikido in a streetfight is about whats right at the time........dependant on technique or atemi.....size, weight ect of opponent*
> 
> *what you see when i demonstrate my aikido in a class is exactly that..A DEMONSTRATION" and as such is specific moves from specific attacks*
> 
> 
> 
> There one question that i've always had about Aikido (probably a stupid one but here goes) if Aikido does not teach any atacking techniques such as punchs, kicks, elbows and so on, how can a student learn to evade them so well (because if i understand corretelly, the Aikido game plan requires absolutelly perfect evassive techniques), do you need to have a background of another martial art first, or do you teach these strikes after all.
> 
> *This point was also mentioned and covered in my previous post..in the early days of aikido, it was assumed that the students were from other arts and already had kicks/punches etc.....indeed even now i get students from other arts that use different methods of striking.....we learn from these and addapt accordingly*
> 
> *Aikido is a realatively new art based on older methods..it should continue growing and addapting as indeed everything else grows and adapts*
> 
> .


 
I hope this answers the points made


----------



## Nemesis

I would like to see that in action. Are there any videos of Akido being used on non cooperative opponents?


----------



## Nemesis

Jenna said:
			
		

> Hey Nemesis san  and now I see your name and I wonder are you nemesis to everyone? I hope not


 
Yes, to most people, but not to every one. And sometimes the best way for me to learn something is to pretend that i am against it and listen to what the other person has to say. You can't get much out of a conversation if both persons start out agreing with each other, can you?

Now for what you said about learning a martial art without being for self defense. Isn't that dangerous? If you don't focus on the practical view of the techniques they will not work if you really need to use them, but since such a person trains in a martial art he will gain a sense of confidence, a false one of course that will only get him into trouble.
Shouldn't this person seek whatever he is looking for elsewhere. If it is espiritual enlightment, there is meditation, yoga or religion. If it's just to burn calories or for fun there are lots of other sports that can provide that.


----------



## Jenna

Nemesis said:
			
		

> Yes, to most people, but not to every one.


Then I take comfort in the fact I am not most people  


			
				Nemesis said:
			
		

> And sometimes the best way for me to learn something is to pretend that i am against it and listen to what the other person has to say.


Yes I understand this and would not wish criticise you for it because it is a valid method for getting your knowledge. And from this I deduce you are young or younger than me at least and so have many directions open to you in your search but all I might say is that you will gain that knowledge more quickly from people who believe your interest is genuine and not mocking. And yes I am replying to you because I am selfish maybe and believe knowledge can be acquired from every single person provided the mind is open to it 



			
				Nemesis said:
			
		

> You can't get much out of a conversation if both persons start out agreing with each other, can you?


um... I dunno.... should I agree? Or is that a trick question? Ha!



			
				Nemesis said:
			
		

> Now for what you said about learning a martial art without being for self defense. Isn't that dangerous? If you don't focus on the practical view of the techniques they will not work if you really need to use them, but since such a person trains in a martial art he will gain a sense of confidence, a false one of course that will only get him into trouble.


I think your logic holds very well and I will make no argument against that. I was speaking not just as the Devil's advocate for this is not my personal training situation but I had noticed a trend several years ago before I left my last school and hooked up and build our little Aikido training group that there was a tendency yes for students not to have ANY REAL awareness at all of why they were training except to say they wanted to do a martial art. There were also many students who came for the spiritual and philosophical to the exclusion of the physical defensive techniques which is perhaps to miss the point of Aikido as it was designed? As I say this is not me at all but I might argue that all reasons for training are equally valid if the student gets what they want from it.



			
				Nemesis said:
			
		

> Shouldn't this person seek whatever he is looking for elsewhere. If it is espiritual enlightment, there is meditation, yoga or religion. If it's just to burn calories or for fun there are lots of other sports that can provide that.


Well I agree yes there are other possibly better routes to fitness but would you REALLY turn a genuinely interested student away or cut them off from training in your club or class or school because they did not want to become the deadliest fighter there ever was? Of course if you are the proprietor then that is entirely your right and I would not argue.

You be good 
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## Nemesis

Jenna said:
			
		

> Well I agree yes there are other possibly better routes to fitness but would you REALLY turn a genuinely interested student away or cut them off from training in your club or class or school because they did not want to become the deadliest fighter there ever was?


 
Of course not. It's a personal choise so it should not be forced by others. But just because you're not aiming to be "the deadliest fighter" doesn't mean you should overlook the point of what your doing. Martial arts where invented so people could defend themselves and their loved ones against possible attacks, even if that martial art as a more spiritual side too. And yes Jenna, as far as i know, even Aikido fits that profile.


----------



## Robert Lee

Its not just the art its the person that can do the use of the tools in a art that makes something effective The better you can use your method the better that training works for you. Akido is softer then other arts yet it can be effective Not well rounded but it was not intended to be. A skillful person uses what they can If that skill came from Akido training Akido has credit to that persons performance.


----------



## Nemesis

Robert Lee said:
			
		

> Its not just the art its the person that can do the use of the tools in a art that makes something effective The better you can use your method the better that training works for you.


 
I think it's the other way around. The better the training works for you, the better you can use you're method.
But, if that's what you meant, i think you're right. There may be systems with faster results than others, but i think all systems can work IF they are trained properly. My question was how does Aikido use it's skills in a self defense situation? Or in other words, what is Aikido's response to a streetfight?


----------



## Hand Sword

Depends upon the practitioner. If they are aggressive, like a Steven Seagal, then the Aikido will be aggressive, etc... Basically, Aikido's response to a street fight is the same as every other system's -- the protection of one's self, or loved ones.


----------



## Robert Lee

Theres training then you have to be able to use some of it .That is your method. And if you have a method of use Then the training helps no method all the training is for not.  Aikido you will more then likely take a few hits befor you get it working  But the better you get the better you will be. Not like throws in class the person will fall and be injured more readly where in class the throw looks nice and the person rolls over and lands with a break fall. But the streets the person may just chrash right to the ground. One never knows for sure what works until it does that day.


----------



## Hand Sword

Well said. No replacement for real experience.


----------



## Beowulf

It seems from my research that Aikido and Taijutsu have similar broken rythm training method. Good for technique, but bettered for real combat with intense sparring.

Now I'm interested in taking Taijutsu, but I wonder if I should plan on doing intense sparring/randori against other MA practicioners after a few months of technique training to make sure I get to practice my art like the old masters. With some good old-fashioned competition.

I know we're talking about Aikido, but I think it would benefit Aikido practitioners to do the same. Even if your dojo doesn't do intense sparring, go practice your style against someone who does and your game will improve dramatically with this kind of testing.

Am I wrong?


----------



## Hand Sword

No you are not! Excellent mind set!


----------



## MartialIntent

Beowulf said:
			
		

> It seems from my research that Aikido and Taijutsu have similar broken rythm training method. Good for technique, but bettered for real combat with intense sparring.
> 
> Now I'm interested in taking Taijutsu, but I wonder if I should plan on doing intense sparring/randori against other MA practicioners after a few months of technique training to make sure I get to practice my art like the old masters. With some good old-fashioned competition.
> 
> I know we're talking about Aikido, but I think it would benefit Aikido practitioners to do the same. Even if your dojo doesn't do intense sparring, go practice your style against someone who does and your game will improve dramatically with this kind of testing.
> 
> Am I wrong?


 
I'm not sure how you mean by broken rhythm. For me, my Aikido has to flow continuously. If I stop I am a sitting duck target. Maybe I've misinterpreted what you meant though.

I don't want to be disrespectful but I'm a wee bit tired of hearing what arts need added to them to make them right - you said you want to spar with practitioners from other arts. All I can say is that if one feels one's art is lacking then the best place to look is not necessarily in another art or against other practitioners. I'm not planning to confront a White Crane sifu on the street [he'll be too busy living his life and being a good guy to be in a fight] and so I don't need to go study the complexities and intricacies of the CMA but instead I plan to have myself at a level where I can despatch the usual street fare, haymakers, stupid hooks, cheeky jabs, front kicks and where I'm from bottles and knives and all that nonsense. These I am happy to do *within* my Aikido framework. The whole concept of X-training is starting to wear with me I'm afraid. 

So I'd say that whichever direction you want to take your art, SD, competition, fitness, spiritual, whatever then you need to _commit_ to that *within* your art and stop worrying about the wisdom that there is in other arts. 

Respects!


----------



## Hand Sword

I would agree with both points. One should dedicate themselves to training in their art, to the best of their ability. At the same time, an Aikidoka should "spar" using their Aikido against all different sorts, if they are big in self defense. Let's face it Aikidoka in class won't punch like boxers will, kick like a kick boxer, or grapple like a grappler. It would be good to make your Aikido effective against those. It all helps to add to a practitioner's effectiveness-- the flow of trained attacks, and broken rhythym attacks of the street.


----------



## Beowulf

Yes, this is exactly what I meant. Its not your art thats lacking, its just exposure to violence and testing by other styles. 

IMO, it seems best to dedicate yourself fully to your art, and better yourself within your art by testing it with those outside your art.

This doesn't mean your changing your art to their's, just refining your skills within it so that when you come into life situations your body adrenaline and mind will better handle a stressful situation where your art is needed. Thus you have been exposed to violence beforehand while using YOUR MA.

Of course this is not necessary, but from everyone who's done it I've heard it can be produce excellent results. Its not that your art is lacking anything in itself, it is complete. But without this kind of testing, how can you be sure you are complete yet?

Then if someone asks you if Aikido is effective you'll say, "Hells yes it is!" I've defeated wrestlers, boxers, MMA guys, weapon's experts, all with Aikido, an effective and complete art." 

Of course someone doesn't have to cross-spar to prove their MA is complete, but it would prove that the person studying it is complete within it, would it not? (even if only to themselves) 

Now if you have street experience using it successfully, IMO that would prove you are adept as well.

It makes sense to me.
But hey, I'm just a beginner, so don't take my word for it (But didn't the old masters do this too? I know the Taijutsu guys used to be real intense with sparring, even injuries, in practice, until it was realized that for the art to spread accross the world training would need to be toned down. But I, and I think many others today still want to be warriors in their art. So why not battle and do so?)

So far I haven't heard been convinced otherwise.


----------



## MartialIntent

Beowulf said:
			
		

> Then if someone asks you if Aikido is effective you'll say, "Hells yes it is!" I've defeated wrestlers, boxers, MMA guys, weapon's experts, all with Aikido, an effective and complete art."


I appreciate what you're saying here I would only say that if your aim in your art is to defeat allcomers or to fight mixed style eg K-1, then yes, you need to practise *against* all those arts and you need to practise sufficiently long and delve sufficiently deeply into the various techniques to do that. 



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> Of course someone doesn't have to cross-spar to prove their MA is complete, but it would prove that the person studying it is complete within it, would it not? (even if only to themselves)


Again I'd tentatively agree with that [I don't want to seem argumentative] but for me Aikido IS a complete art. If I practise it long enough will I become complete within it? Well I can but try to strive for that. But will that necessitate me X-sparring with practitioners from other arts? To this I'd have to say no. My art, yours or anyone's arts are complete and whole intrinsically and need nothing additional to make them complete and by deduction neither do practitioners of those arts. Let me give an analogy - if you play piano, practise and get better daily and do this for a certain number of years until you are virtuoso. Go to the Carnegie for a player in residence position and they turn you away because you've never played with cellists or guitarists or whatever. I think they'd be within their rights to do that but again, I don't think it would either take away from, or give due credit to your virtuoso piano playing.



			
				Beowulf said:
			
		

> It makes sense to me.
> But hey, I'm just a beginner


No such thing as "just" a beginner my friend and beware of anyone who says that, implies it or takes that attitude with you. Beginners ensure more advanced students do their thing properly, no matter what the art. The response of the beginner is without the jaded affectation that many senior practitioners have. So have worth in your status. Everyone has to begin somewhere. Good luck to you.

Respects!


----------



## Robert Lee

Real truth is NO art is complete. its just the chosen path of training. One art offers that method another this method Neither is complete If 1 art was for sure complte There would not be a need for so many arts. Aikido breaks down from Aikijutsu Which is a harder aspect of training Then Aikido. Now aikijutsu breaks doen from Jujitsu as does Judo.  Then would not it be best to say the mother art is Jujitsu.  So depending on what you want to be able to apply with any of these arts thats what the training brings. BUT none are complete


----------



## Beowulf

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> I appreciate what you're saying here I would only say that if your aim in your art is to defeat allcomers or to fight mixed style eg K-1, then yes, you need to practise *against* all those arts and you need to practise sufficiently long and delve sufficiently deeply into the various techniques to do that.
> 
> Okay, I suppose that is my aim, besides honor and discipline (to have the proven ability to put up a good fight with all styles) although one has to be realistic.
> 
> Again I'd tentatively agree with that [I don't want to seem argumentative] but for me Aikido IS a complete art. If I practise it long enough will I become complete within it? Well I can but try to strive for that. But will that necessitate me X-sparring with practitioners from other arts? To this I'd have to say no. My art, yours or anyone's arts are complete and whole intrinsically and need nothing additional to make them complete and by deduction neither do practitioners of those arts. Let me give an analogy - if you play piano, practise and get better daily and do this for a certain number of years until you are virtuoso. Go to the Carnegie for a player in residence position and they turn you away because you've never played with cellists or guitarists or whatever. I think they'd be within their rights to do that but again, I don't think it would either take away from, or give due credit to your virtuoso piano playing.
> 
> Good analogy for MA, and perhaps someone like myself DOES have to train in my art as if I'm going to go play at Carnegie, because otherwise I'd don't train as hard. Of course I'm not really interested in getting my elbow snapped at a UFC event but for me carnegie would be to be a formidable opponent to those who are into that sort of thing.
> 
> Only competition sparring would prove that to me. But if you know you are good without competition, the way a good piano player knows they are good without competition, you probably are good and have a lot of knowledge with your art, and I can certainly respect that as a beginner.
> 
> No such thing as "just" a beginner my friend and beware of anyone who says that, implies it or takes that attitude with you. Beginners ensure more advanced students do their thing properly, no matter what the art. The response of the beginner is without the jaded affectation that many senior practitioners have. So have worth in your status. Everyone has to begin somewhere. Good luck to you.
> 
> Respects!


 
Respects


----------



## theletch1

It has been my experience that the reasons people begin to train in the arts are not the reasons people continue to train in the arts.  Most of us began our training looking for self defense and as such every step along the path has a what if sound to it.  Step...What if someone throws a roundhouse? Step...what if they have a weapon? Step...what if they go to the ground?  It's part of the natural progression to try to discern whether or not your art is equal (on a physical level) to the other arts out there.  The desire to cross train or compete is a part of the "What if" phase of the path.  Eventually, the reason you started changes to the reason you continue.  "What if" changes to "Also" as you realize that your art can handle all the what if scenarios and that it's simply you that has to make it work.  Step...This tech also works against the roundhouse.  Step...these techs also work against a weapon. Step...these techs also work on the ground.  Not everyone is sitting at the same mile marker along the path.  Heck, many take exit ramps for awhile and then jump back on later, better for the excursion.  The great part about aikido is that there are enough lanes on the path to handle the traffic and always an entrance ramp to let you back on after you've taken a momentary sight seeing trip somewhere else.

((sorry for the highway analogy...what else do you expect from a truck driver? ))


----------



## Beowulf

Whoa I hope you can tell where I quoted you and where I spoke on that last one, I'm still learning the way to post these


----------



## Hand Sword

I'm all for the dedication to one's art, but, the notion that every art is complete is false. No art is complete, with all the answers. They all have their shortcomings. If the TMA's were complete, than the eclectic styles wouldn't have come into existance, Aikido too, wouldn't be here.


----------



## Yari

theletch1 said:
			
		

> It has been my experience that the reasons people begin to train in the arts are not the reasons people continue to train in the arts. Most of us began our training looking for self defense and as such every step along the path has a what if sound to it. Step...What if someone throws a roundhouse? Step...what if they have a weapon? Step...what if they go to the ground? It's part of the natural progression to try to discern whether or not your art is equal (on a physical level) to the other arts out there. The desire to cross train or compete is a part of the "What if" phase of the path. Eventually, the reason you started changes to the reason you continue. "What if" changes to "Also" as you realize that your art can handle all the what if scenarios and that it's simply you that has to make it work. Step...This tech also works against the roundhouse. Step...these techs also work against a weapon. Step...these techs also work on the ground. Not everyone is sitting at the same mile marker along the path. Heck, many take exit ramps for awhile and then jump back on later, better for the excursion. The great part about aikido is that there are enough lanes on the path to handle the traffic and always an entrance ramp to let you back on after you've taken a momentary sight seeing trip somewhere else.
> 
> ((sorry for the highway analogy...what else do you expect from a truck driver? ))


 
Nicely put!

/Yari


----------



## MartialIntent

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I'm all for the dedication to one's art, but, the notion that every art is complete is false. No art is complete, with all the answers. They all have their shortcomings. If the TMA's were complete, than the eclectic styles wouldn't have come into existance, Aikido too, wouldn't be here.


I'd respectfully disagree. I think you are trying to jump this train head-on rather than running alongside it for a bit first! The shortcomings you mention are only relative to other arts. You seem to be suggesting that the likes of Ueshiba or Kano or Parker designed their art to fill a market niche - that sort of thinking is an understandable reflection of today's market-driven mentality. I think on the contrary most of the best of the "recent" TMAs came to be because their designers wanted to give something unique to the MA community.

I think Aikido came into existence out of DRAJJ *not* because it was something "better" but because of O'Sensei's desire to give us all a unique interpretation. Find me somewhere where there's any mention from Ueshiba of Aikido being "better" than its forerunners and I'll honestly reconsider my position. There's no implication [in my mind at least] that Aiki-JuJitsu is deficient or incomplete because of the existence of Aikido but that's what it sounds like you're suggesting. Aiki-JuJitsu, Aikido and ALL the other TMAs are for me, 100% *complete* without shortcomings. The only shortcomings are only in the mind and body of the practitioner.

Respects!


----------



## Hand Sword

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> I'd respectfully disagree. I think you are trying to jump this train head-on rather than running alongside it for a bit first! The shortcomings you mention are only relative to other arts. You seem to be suggesting that the likes of Ueshiba or Kano or Parker designed their art to fill a market niche - that sort of thinking is an understandable reflection of today's market-driven mentality. I think on the contrary most of the best of the "recent" TMAs came to be because their designers wanted to give something unique to the MA community.
> 
> I think Aikido came into existence out of DRAJJ *not* because it was something "better" but because of O'Sensei's desire to give us all a unique interpretation. Find me somewhere where there's any mention from Ueshiba of Aikido being "better" than its forerunners and I'll honestly reconsider my position. There's no implication [in my mind at least] that Aiki-JuJitsu is deficient or incomplete because of the existence of Aikido but that's what it sounds like you're suggesting. Aiki-JuJitsu, Aikido and ALL the other TMAs are for me, 100% *complete* without shortcomings. The only shortcomings are only in the mind and body of the practitioner.
> 
> Respects!


 
The short comings are only relative to the other arts? Sounds like you're suggesting that Aikido is superior to everything else, with a statement like that. 

Nothing in my post refers to anything being superior, or the founders thinking that way. I think you jumped on a whole different train altogether, saying that was what I was inferring, with all do respect. 

I won't get into a history lesson with you, but, in a nut shell, Yes, Parker and O'Sensei did market a certain niche. For one, the Kenpo Seniors on this board will tell you that about Parker, and have done so in their posts. Why was his Kenpo different from Professor Chow's? He found something lacking and added to it, later watering it down to "motion" Kenpo, for the masses. O'sensei too, changed his Aikijutsu, and added what he felt was lacking--more spirituality, less brutality of the opponent, or emphasis of.

Yes, it's always about the practitoner eventually. Explains all of the different versions of Aikido, doesn't it? Each have their own version because the original was lacking something for them, and they changed it. You'll do the same when you do it your way too. Your past posts show a mindset that are not in the Aikido spirit shall we say? I guarantee your version will be much different than O'sensei's. Not a bad thing. It should evolve.


----------



## MartialIntent

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Why was his Kenpo different from Professor Chow's? He found something lacking and added to it, later watering it down to "motion" Kenpo, for the masses. O'sensei too, changed his Aikijutsu, and added what he felt was lacking--more spirituality, less brutality of the opponent, or emphasis of.


While I certainly would claim no knowledge of ANY other art except my own to some small extent I think, respectfully, your use of the term "lacking" is narrow minded. You're coming at this suggesting Aikido and Parker's Kenpo [and by extrapolation ALL arts] came to be because of what was "lacking" in what went before. Hmmm. Well, I can only guess that your cup is half empty and not half full...

If I've made any inference that Aikido is superior then I'm evidently not expressing myself very well at all. I can only apologize unreservedly for this and trust as well that you're not trying to put a "spin" on what I'm attempting to say.

For the record I will say again that NO art is superior to any other. And furthermore ALL TMAs are complete. If you see a "lack" then you must look at yourself first.

The simple fact is that Ueshiba, Parker, Bruce Lee, Kano, the Gracies and maybe more recently the five forefathers of Kajukenbo and *all* the other designers of the TMAs [both old and new] were and are visionaries. You're suggesting to me that they dreamt up these arts simply to fill holes in the market? Simply to "better" what went before? Personally I don't practice my art to be "better" than anyone or because it's "better" than any other art. 

If this is how you work it yourself then I hope sincerely we can agree to disagree and I won't pick you up on your veiled personal insult.

Respects!


----------



## celtic_crippler

Any art that tailors itself to the individual is effective. It is my understanding that Aikido is such an art. So...if that's the case, then Aikido is effective. 
IMHO


----------



## Hand Sword

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> While I certainly would claim no knowledge of ANY other art except my own to some small extent I think, respectfully, your use of the term "lacking" is narrow minded. You're coming at this suggesting Aikido and Parker's Kenpo [and by extrapolation ALL arts] came to be because of what was "lacking" in what went before. Hmmm. Well, I can only guess that your cup is half empty and not half full...
> 
> If I've made any inference that Aikido is superior then I'm evidently not expressing myself very well at all. I can only apologize unreservedly for this and trust as well that you're not trying to put a "spin" on what I'm attempting to say.
> 
> For the record I will say again that NO art is superior to any other. And furthermore ALL TMAs are complete. If you see a "lack" then you must look at yourself first.
> 
> The simple fact is that Ueshiba, Parker, Bruce Lee, Kano, the Gracies and maybe more recently the five forefathers of Kajukenbo and *all* the other designers of the TMAs [both old and new] were and are visionaries. You're suggesting to me that they dreamt up these arts simply to fill holes in the market? Simply to "better" what went before? Personally I don't practice my art to be "better" than anyone or because it's "better" than any other art.
> 
> If this is how you work it yourself then I hope sincerely we can agree to disagree and I won't pick you up on your veiled personal insult.
> 
> Respects!


 
As to your first sentence...I do! I heard Mr. Parker say it live and in person about what was lacking in the kenpo he was taught, and the TMA's, which is what spurred him to develop his own Kenpo. Bruce lee too tossed away Wing Chun and developed his own version. The BlackBelt society and Kajukenbo, Yep! Same thing. The worked out the weaknesses of each style, and formed one comprehensive style.

We all start off trying to copy our instructors. We learn and grow, eventually, doing the art OUR WAY. It was the same for all the visionaries too. If the TMA's were not "lacking" than these visionaries wouldn't have come along. They are known, and have visionary status because they challenged the Idea of the TMA's! Something unheard of in the past.  Besides, read all of their stuff, listen to interview, or whatever, and you'll see that they talk of the "lacking" a lot.


As I said, I don't want to get into a history lesson. Your cup is apparently too full and overflowing. You said that you didn't have knowledge of these arts, but spoke on them any way, from your own point of view. Pretty narrow minded on your part. Take your own advice that you were accusing me of lacking, and  listen and learn from those that do.

As for putting a "spin" on your words, how was this so? I simply quoted what you typed on the screen. They ARE Your WORDS. There was no spin, re-read your post if you doubt it. Saying that is the same as my way is superior. I know you don't feel that way, but, again, you typed what you typed.

Last, to your "veiled personal insult", Are you serious? My post, that started this made a general statement, that all arts lack, none have all the answers. You then opened up with saying the train thing, calling me narrow minded,having a half empty cup, and "lacking" myself. Clearly personal snipes at me! I never sniped at you as you claim. 

For the record, If I have anything to say to anyone, I think in the past, I have shown that I will say it! Nothing hidden or "veiled"! I also have never insulted anyone in this forum, even after getting some hurled at me first!

 Please let's not let this get any further down this road !  This is a good thread going on.

Respect back to you!


----------



## Robert Lee

Every person is different. Most all Founders of a new style we will use the term style. They were looking they were wondering  They were seeing something that best met there needs and veiws. They made changes It worked for them They had people that saw those changes and wanted to learn that way as they felt they indeed was learning something They thought was useful to. THERE IS NO REAL STYLE just you and I and everyone else. NO STYLE will ever be complete It can not be complete It may have met the needs for the person that made they orginal changes. Each person compltes there needs. Its just a path youlearn what it offers you  You find what it gives .No one can use all that has been put in that method. Not even its founder We think as we do we find certion levels to the tools that we can use. The others we do not use as well because they all just can not work for every person. They are there to learn then take what is to become yours leave what some one else can use If I new of one so called style that was full and complete that most all people who would come to learn it would become so very good at it I would run to find it and soon all other arts would just disapear . Because this one art had the truth that was looked for by many for a life time. Only you can become some what complete. Rounded in the different aspects of unarmed combat. To say this works means you have tested it in live training for your self. To see some one else do it and see it work. Well that is not you To see how something will work it to is not being able to get it working you have to test your training. Aikido does what randori training It helps to get things working in a safe training mannner. Can it train hard resistive training. only when you go as far to not fully coment the the use but take to where both persons doing it does know it would have worked Then reduce the movement to a lesser stress on the joint being manipluated. To go for completment iF it works aginst several aspect of solid attack defence motions for YOU then its a tool you will be putting in the tool box. Train those strong useful tools for your Akido thats yours Throw the rest away for your self If you teach give those tools you do not find useful back to the student he or she may find in them something they can use. If you or your student sees something outside your art that fits and blends with your personal needs add that for your self only. That is part of your combat needs It may not be AIKIDO but its yours. Isnt that how style came to be by someone finding further needs then others thinking that helped them too.. The answer is  you the person A trail can lead to many places that brings you to what you will need and understand. stop to long along that trail you become trapped and can not go forward by your self. M/A its just that path to your own discovery. Nice to put some name on it BUt it really has no name.


----------



## jujutsu_indonesia

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> I think Aikido came into existence out of DRAJJ *not* because it was something "better" but because of O'Sensei's desire to give us all a unique interpretation.
> Respects!


 
yes indeed, you are very right. aikido, aiki jujutsu, all ultimately came from the same person (Takeda sensei). He gave us a set of "operating principles", then his students (Uyeshiba sensei, Okuyama sensei, Tokimune sensei etc) create "operating systems" to enable us to learn and use those principles. So now we have different "operating systems", and none are "better" than the others, but the operating principles and true origins are the same. so we're all brothers and sisters


----------



## zenfrog

aikido really isn't for me but I've worked out with some people from aikido/jujitsu hybrid styles that are pretty effective, check out every martial art you're interested in you might learn some cool stuff, and at the very least you will have  got the experience of checking out a new class


----------



## seal

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> While I certainly would claim no knowledge of ANY other art except my own to some small extent I think, respectfully, your use of the term "lacking" is narrow minded. You're coming at this suggesting Aikido and Parker's Kenpo [and by extrapolation ALL arts] came to be because of what was "lacking" in what went before. Hmmm. Well, I can only guess that your cup is half empty and not half full...
> 
> If I've made any inference that Aikido is superior then I'm evidently not expressing myself very well at all. I can only apologize unreservedly for this and trust as well that you're not trying to put a "spin" on what I'm attempting to say.
> 
> For the record I will say again that NO art is superior to any other. And furthermore ALL TMAs are complete. If you see a "lack" then you must look at yourself first.
> 
> The simple fact is that Ueshiba, Parker, Bruce Lee, Kano, the Gracies and maybe more recently the five forefathers of Kajukenbo and *all* the other designers of the TMAs [both old and new] were and are visionaries. You're suggesting to me that they dreamt up these arts simply to fill holes in the market? Simply to "better" what went before? Personally I don't practice my art to be "better" than anyone or because it's "better" than any other art.
> 
> If this is how you work it yourself then I hope sincerely we can agree to disagree and I won't pick you up on your veiled personal insult.
> 
> Respects!



Wow I totally disagree with that.


----------



## Stan

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> I'd respectfully disagree. I think you are trying to jump this train head-on rather than running alongside it for a bit first! The shortcomings you mention are only relative to other arts. You seem to be suggesting that the likes of Ueshiba or Kano or Parker designed their art to fill a market niche - that sort of thinking is an understandable reflection of today's market-driven mentality. I think on the contrary most of the best of the "recent" TMAs came to be because their designers wanted to give something unique to the MA community.
> 
> I think Aikido came into existence out of DRAJJ *not* because it was something "better" but because of O'Sensei's desire to give us all a unique interpretation. Find me somewhere where there's any mention from Ueshiba of Aikido being "better" than its forerunners and I'll honestly reconsider my position. There's no implication [in my mind at least] that Aiki-JuJitsu is deficient or incomplete because of the existence of Aikido but that's what it sounds like you're suggesting. Aiki-JuJitsu, Aikido and ALL the other TMAs are for me, 100% *complete* without shortcomings. The only shortcomings are only in the mind and body of the practitioner.
> 
> Respects!


 

That's like the old falacy that if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys!


----------



## KOROHO

I would say that Aikido can be effective.  It depends on how the teaching and training is approached.

My Aikido style is Doshinkan (essentially Yoshinkan), which is very effective.  Yoshinkan is widely utilized by the Police in Tokyo and other areas.  I trained in Shin Shin Toitsu (Ki Society) and found that be to esoteric.  I learned some AAA/Toyoda style from a retired police officer who used it in his line of work.  That was highly effective, but I never trained with Toyoda Shihan so I don't know how much my teacher changed it.

One of the other teachers in the school was Deputy Sheriff.  He said in class once that anyone that says Aikido does not work never saw the surprised look on a suspects face when he tries to fight back and can't.

Although it was unintentional, I ended up training with a number of police officers and people who taught at police academies.  I learned to go with what the police are saying works for them.  And they say Aikido works.

Yoshinkan is my preferred style for self defense.  But check out the other classes by you and see what you think.


----------



## DANNY

I'm practising Aikikai Aikido. The ultimate aim of aikido (and probably most martial arts) is not winning or losing but perfection of the character, but Aikido is effective martial arts. My sensei have ever been attacked by several men. He was a undergraduate student at that time. Since the attacker was his senior, so he didn't attack back. He's just avoid the attack n did some projection technique. Of course he also got some punch but didn't make him felt down, maybe just light punch.
After that accident, aikido club was established and some of the attacker also join the aikido club.


----------



## Rook

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> While I certainly would claim no knowledge of ANY other art except my own to some small extent I think, respectfully, your use of the term "lacking" is narrow minded.


 
I think your confidence is misplaced.  



> You're coming at this suggesting Aikido and Parker's Kenpo [and by extrapolation ALL arts] came to be because of what was "lacking" in what went before. Hmmm. Well, I can only guess that your cup is half empty and not half full...


 
If what came before suited them perfectly, they wouldn't have changed it.  



> For the record I will say again that NO art is superior to any other. And furthermore ALL TMAs are complete. If you see a "lack" then you must look at yourself first.


 
Only part of the strengths and weaknesses are those of the individual practitioner.  Instructors also have strengths and weaknesses (as well as focuses and specializations).  So do entire arts.  No art does everything.  Even arts that do the exact same technique the same way in the same or similar contexts don't always train it the same way.  

If the art has no bearing on performance, then what art is studied wouldn't make any differance at all.  I could do Viking swordplay using TKD.  I could fight point-sparring tournaments using iado.  I could wrestle from Northern Longfist Kung Fu and throw knives using Judo.  It just doesn't work like that.  



> The simple fact is that Ueshiba, Parker, Bruce Lee, Kano, the Gracies and maybe more recently the five forefathers of Kajukenbo and *all* the other designers of the TMAs [both old and new] were and are visionaries. You're suggesting to me that they dreamt up these arts simply to fill holes in the market?


 
No one suggested that.  



> Simply to "better" what went before? Personally I don't practice my art to be "better" than anyone or because it's "better" than any other art.


 
More like better suited for what they wanted to do with their martial art.  No art is best at everything.  Every art has its own specialties and focuses.  They are "better" at some aspects and "worse" at others.


----------

