Aikido.. The reality?

[Gerry Seymour]

Agree with you 100% there.

In Chinese wrestling, we have a move "float" that look like Aikido technique.

My student can't flip his opponent if his opponent doesn't want to. The reason is simple, he only controls his opponent's wrist joint. His opponent's elbow joint is free. Also both of his opponent's legs are free.

With throws like that - for the reasons you mention - they become highly situational. If the peroson knows what's coming (either because they read the movement or because they know the drill) they're very easy to stymie. During movement, however, if the person doing the throw knows how to feel the structure as they move, it's possible to recognize the opening and use it. They are reliable in a very limited situation - not a high-percentage movement. With someone standing in structure (like in the second clip), they shouldn't even be attempted - he's essentially trying to throw him through his own leg.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I look at speed bag as a conditioning exercise. Which is why you don't have boxing drills where the opponent is doing speed bag movement. The same cannot be said about Aikido. If a boxer demonstrated the same speed bag movement in the context of someone attacking him, then I'm calling it an applicable technique.

But because we don't see things like that movie clip of speed bag techniques in application, we can assume that it's just an exercise or separate it from any attack scenario. But with aikido it is always shown as someone attacking or someone defending. Point is, if it's only an exercise then why put it in an Attack / defense scenario? Against attack movement's that aren't realistic. So basically, you are training using timing that doesn't exist in a fight. To me that doesn't make sense and to spend 10+ years on that makes even less sense. So in my mind there has to be something legit there.

It's put in an attack/defense scenario because it's a grappling movement, intended to practice opposing momentums that shift uke into a throw. Can't practice that nearly as effectively without a partner, and without one it'll never develop the student's feel.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I have found it messes people up. Not from doing ineffective striking but from good uke training. Which then trains them to break structure all the time or assume there eyes will pop out at the slightest pressure.

They get flinchy. Which is a really bad trait for any contested activity.

My experience has been that sparring/randori (the Judo type) negate that pretty easily. Without those, you're entirely correct.

It's like the way people react to pressure points. If you have me stand still and activate the pressure point behind the clavicle, you can drop me to my knees. Try it while we're rolling or whatever, and it's not so effective.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But then you see @0:35 A similar throw against a resisting opponent and it works. This goes back to what I've been saying about understanding what's needed in order for it to work. If you are missing important parts, footwork or in this case shoulder placement, then it's not going to work.

That's not the same kind of throw. In that one, he's throwing across the body. The arm being pulled across the shoulders gives him a hard anchor to contrrol the whole arm. In the version KFW showed, the arm is free-floating, so only things like conjunctive locking and momentum prevent it from being pulled in (which is all it takes to stymie that throw).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I’m guessing here as I know little about aikido. But if they do that chop with very specific attention to details and deliberate movement toward full-body unison, then it isn’t about learning a concept. It is about building and honing and constantly polishing a skill. That is something that one should practice for a lifetime, as a regular piece of training. That is what we do with the torso rotation exercise i showed you. It always requires polishing, we never “graduate” beyond it. It is a staple that we always practice, and I can show how the principle that it develops is incorporated into everything that we do.

But I would never demonstrate the torso rotation alone as a viable defense. The principle developed by our rotation exercise would be found in whatever defensive technique that I might demonstrate, but I wouldn’t demonstrate that rotation alone as the defense.

I think it is possible that with some of these Aikido demonstrations, there is a similar concept going on, but they are failing to understand that an adjustment is necessary if they want to use that drill as an actual combat technique. So there may be a lack of understanding with some aikidoka.

This is pretty much what I was getting at. And I think this is common in what I call "classical" approaches in some Japanese arts. There are "techniques" I know (and still teach) that I don't think have (or everr had) good direct application. One of them is very focused on timing and movement, and I find it much more useful in clinch fighting (so it looks nothing like the classical form). My opinion is that the classical form is training two separate things at once: that movement/feel (which can be used with multiple techniques) and the finishing technique (which can be used in a few situations). They were just linked together because it works well that way in the dril.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

All I'm doing is guessing as well. I'm taking things that holds true for most and using that to help guide me with my guesses with Aikido. Instead of me looking at what's different, I try to find out what's true across the board so I don't get way out there with my guesses or completely dismiss it. If I look at what's different, then I won't be able to get anywhere with this effort. I can't understand a punch by looking at a kick because they are different. But I can compare a variety of punches and identify universal requirements / similarities and use that to help me understand other punches.

Not picking on Drop Bear, but when you look at at his posts you'll see that it's about differences and not about what may be the same. There's a place for that type of thinking, but when trying to figure stuff out, you have to see if there are some universal truths and Drop Bear has not done so, which is why all of comments are about the Differences.

When you look at my comments. I actually throw out the differences because if it's truly functional then there should be some similarities to things that happen in other systems. Like magic chi ball fighter only happens in a magic chi ball system it doesn't happen anywhere else. I don't think Aikido was built in a vacuum with totally new stuff that no one knows about and only Aikido can do it.

If I couldn't see similarities in Aikido then I would be the first one that says "Nah that stuff is fake." But I don't see that and if GpSeymour grabs my wrist then I'm going to do my best to deny him the ability to do what ever technique he's trying to do. If I had to fight a chi ball master then I probably wouldn't bother to fight. I wouldn't give it the credit of even taking a defensive stance.

If you're looking for function in Aikido, I don't think I'd spend time looking at that chop. I'm far from an expert, but I've not run into a practitioner or instructor for whom that seemed to be a core part of their training. I've referred to how I think their movement drills (and some of ours) can be viewed usefully, and I think some of that applies to the chop (specifically the offline movement part). The strike, itself, I don't think is highly functional. It's possible the purpose in training it is pretty much what @drop bear suggests: it provides a consistent input for formal technique. It may also simply be part of the "do" of the art, in that rigorous training of it to specific detail has its own purpose. Likely, there's some of those, as well as specific body movement they're working at the same time. That latter, I think I spot in some of their techniques, where they do throws in a manner I'm not able to (even allowing for the uke).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is what I don't like about some of those TMA training method. In TMA, there are foundation training. There are also technique training. If I can use one training to achieve both, I'll use that training method.

If a partner training uses a principle, when you do partner training without partner, you will get solo training. This way, you can kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

I have discarded many TMA training method that have no direct combat application. I don't even teach those training to my students.

For example, I don't teach this drill no matter how traditional it may be.

But I teach this partner drill. When my students do partner drill without partner, they have solo drill. Those solo drill is combat application.

In my experience, solo training for grappling causes many students to develop bad habits, because they can't properly use their partner's body as a component. It's good for working "muscle memory" on the movements, but only once the student understands the principles in the movement and is able to imagine the position of their opponent. That latter is harder than I expected for students, and some literally take years to develop it at all.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

How close is this to the Aikdo Chop. I just found it

The first one is similar in concept to a technique we have (and which I believe Aikido also has). The strike they show wouldn't have a lot of power - the actual purpose is to move the head off the structure, which (combined with the momentum) breaks down structure enough for the throw. It's easiest with a heavy weapon (slower and more momentum moving around you), but can be done from a static start if they don't read it.

Or is this concept correct? If this is correct then I'll stop trying understand. All I need to be able to do is run away if this is the concept

This is consistent with what I was told about these strikes being derived from sword movements. (We won't talk about the odd notion of boxers not being able to move and deliver power at the same time.) He is also correct about the distance problem Aikido has, as I see it. NGA shares this issue with 90% of the Classical techniques - it's why I spend so much time working on striking and clinch-distance grappling that isn't in the Classical curriculum.

Or is this the correct way

@6:43. I'm prefer stepping to the outside of punches much safer bu you can see how the strike lands
@:7:40 If you do the same technique on the outside of a jab then you will never get hit. If you do it like he says @7:40 then you will get hit. This is where I have problems. Universally fighting systems says don't enter on the inside of punches like that. But here he says they do it differently. My thoughts is that the reason so many systems don't enter like @7:40 is because it's dangerous to do so, as a universal reality.

Based on what I saw, moving to the inside only works if you can pin the arm against the chest upon the strike. I don't think that's possible as that rear hand is already in a position to defend the strike to the head. I'm more opened to @6:43. and would be scared to try to strike or block someone doing punch combos like is shown @7:40.

This one is looking at use of the strike, itself. The Aikido schools I've seen don't focus as much on application of the strike. (On a side note, even this guy is doing something that I'm sure drives @drop bear crazy - he makes contact and appears to leave uke for a half-beat without doing anything much to him. Maybe there's something subtle going on, but it looks to me like uke could simply step out of the technique after first contact.)
As for the inside/outside question, grapplers tend to work both, even when defending punches. Round strikes are hard to get to the outside of, so we develop entries that move to the inside (sometimes we convert those to outside moves once we're in). Since we have those, we practice using them also against linear strikes, since the muscle memory is there. In general, I'd rather be on the outside. But if I'm inside, that's where I'll work. A clinch (essentially an inside entry) is easier to get from the front than taking the back (essentially an outside movement).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yokomen Uchi is the strike right?

Yes. That's the one to the side of the head (as I know the term). Shomenuchi is to the front of the head, so directly downward in most schools.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That can work as well.

Some foundation training includes technique on a functional level. That can incorporate application more readily.

Some isolates certain foundational concepts and movements in order to focus on those specifically, without being cluttered by application. That is a clue as to how important they are. I appreciate the curriculum structure in isolating those components for focused attention.

There's an important point here. While I enjoy both approaches to training (direct application, and isolated concepts), I find training more interesting when it includes the latter. I enjoy the challenge of working to hone a specific concept or principle for its own sake (smooth flow in classical forms) as much as I enjoy developing a functional skill (the ability to slip a punch).

 

[Martial D]

Is this just a random statement, or is there some reasoned thinking behind it? You provided no details to back it up.

Because your scenarios don't reflect reality. The sorts of things you detailed only happen when you get the sort of martial arts deliberate and slow attacks where the arm is left dangling, but irl good luck with any of that if the other guy has any sort of ability to punch well.

 

[Flying Crane]

There's an important point here. While I enjoy both approaches to training (direct application, and isolated concepts), I find training more interesting when it includes the latter. I enjoy the challenge of working to hone a specific concept or principle for its own sake (smooth flow in classical forms) as much as I enjoy developing a functional skill (the ability to slip a punch).

Especially when that concept or principle then permeates everything that you do. By improving that one foundational concept, you then improve everything all at once.

 

[Flying Crane]

I had a chance to skim through this video and I think it is revealing in terms of how aikido approaches training and application. In short, I really do believe it approaches things rather differently than folks with a Western mindset are typically comfortable with.

We in the West tend to be very direct and expect things to have kind of a straight line to the goal. We expect results and we want to see a logical progression that meets that expectation. I feel that aikido gets results, but takes a different path. It is less direct and approaches things in ways that are surprising to a Western mindset.

It seems to me that aikido trains evasions and deflections and redirections, essentially a physical education with a focus on reading the energy and intent and body-positioning of an enemy. Within that physical education, there exist opportunities to apply decisive throws and joint manipulations and pins, with some strikes as well. But it doesn’t concern itself with a more direct action-and-response that is often found within other systems. There aren’t hardline answers to questions like “how does aikido defend against a punch?”, or “I see THIS movement done in aikido, how is it used?” I think perhaps the philosophy of aikido’s approach just isn’t concerned with that, and anticipates reaching an effective end through a highly attuned awareness of motion and positioning. Application is highly dependent on circumstances, so it is difficult to answer those questions in the abstract, without an engagement unfolding.

For most people, this is probably a difficult road. Perhaps Ueshiba was a truly gifted person who found a unique way that worked extremely well for him, but is not easily passed on to most people. I expect to really be useable requires a high level of skill and long training. But that’s ok, if someone is interested and willing to travel that road. People do what they find interesting even if others object to the method.

I think that people who are interested in a direct road, with a focus on results as quickly as possible, will always be frustrated by the approach that aikido takes. It will seem misguided. It may be that aikido is a good path for a smaller group of people.

I don’t see any problem with any of that.

I’m not sure if I’ve managed to express my thoughts clearly or coherently. I guess I see similar elements within the Chinese methods that I’ve studied. We can deal with application, but ultimately what one does is highly dependent on the circumstances, and response is often spontaneous and creative, depending on the circumstances. I tend to view my own training as a body of physical education that opens the door to infinite possibilities, rather than as a fixed body of techniques that represent the total of my options. But that’s just me.

 

[Shatteredzen]

Hello everyone, I came here researching a totally different topic and happened upon this thread and it made me register to get a reply in. By means of introductions and specifically for the purpose of providing some personal Curriculum Vitae to accompany my response/input to this thread, a little background on me. I've studied Aikido for approximately 17 years of the time I've been practicing martial arts, it was my first black belt and I consider it to be part of the core/center of my personal style and philosophy in Budo. I'm a combat veteran, I spent some time as a cop and I have been in some form of "profession of arms" since I became an adult. I've also had the opportunity to travel and train in multiple styles of martial art, in their parent countries and I have fought competitively in about a dozen professional/paid fights over the years. I'm not listing all this as machismo or to brag, merely to establish that I have qualifying experience in sport/traditional and practical application of what I am talking about and that when I speak as an Aikido practitioner I am doing so from a position of someone who has experienced fighting in its various facets and venues, with training in multiple styles and who can speak from a reliable level of expertise, assuming you take me at my word regarding my experience.

Any Aikido school which traces its lineage back to Japan is practicing post world war 2 Aikido, this is problematic for the "practicality" of the martial art in the west. Morihei Ueshiba was a war hero in the Russo-Japanese war and he won the Japanese equivalent of the medal of honor for single handedly breaking a Russian cavalry charge on his position as a lone rifleman. Once he began establishing Aikido, he was a war hero who was also a leading personality within the nationalist movement of pre world war 2 Japan. Ueshiba developed Aikido based on his experience in Judo, Ju-Jutsu, Ken-Jutsu and other specifically Japanese martial arts as a sort of finishing school for Japanese martial artists and as a proprietary "Japanese only" discipline designed to give the Japanese soldier a supernatural edge and to establish the correct philosophy of what he referred to as "Yamato Damashii" or the true spirit of Japan, but as it was seen and understood under Emperor Hirohito and the Japanese fascists.

Morihei Ueshiba spent the entire war training the Japanese military, along with most of his core apostles/students, using Aikido as a framework to blend practical Budo with a quasi-religious indoctrination into Japanese fascism/nationalism. Post war, Ueshiba became a pacifist and attempted to re-brand Aikido as a sort of national discipline which could encapsulate the new spirit of peace and the end of Japanese militarism. Once Aikido entered its post war phase/rebranding, the curriculum was edited, the teachings were watered down and much like the rest of the individual Japanese martial arts, Aikido became more about the cultivation of personal discipline and character than as an actual pragmatic fighting system.

Skip forward to Aikido coming to the states, Steven Seagal brings it to Hollywood and it reaches popularity during the big "Karate boom". Half of the schools are claiming Aikido is the ultimate combat martial art like you see in the Seagal movies and the other half are still pushing the post war "fight without fighting" pacifism. The UFC shows up in 1993 and America watches first hand as wave after wave of the countries fast food black belts get punched in the face for the first time or choked out by these super brutal kids from Brazil who have a very distinct style and actual experience in real fights. Hence today, we get a dramatic over-correction from this long search for "the best style" to "nothing but BJJ and MMA works" which is perpetuated by all the celebrity attention the BJJ world has gotten through Joe Rogan and company as well as the tried and true record of the Gracie dynasty which has now produced a long line of incredibly talented world champion level martial artists and all of their students.

The reality however is much different, BJJ is not the end-all-be-all martial art. MMA is not the only way to produce good techniques or fighters and Aikido is not simply a useless discipline that doesn't work. The reality is that we have a slovenly martial arts culture built from instant gratification where many people don't care about anything other than progress to their next belt or getting into the right "camp" to call themselves a cage fighter. While I think things today are much better than the eighties and nineties, I would still hazard an estimate that over three quarters of all martial arts schools in the US are feel good factories charging fifty bucks an hour to give people cool selfies for their instagram or a nice belt to hang on their wall, not schools seeking to train effective warriors. Aikido is simply a victim of both its own post war re-branding as well as our own problems here in the west. For a "bridge" discipline that was always supposed to be partnered with another discipline like Judo or Kendo, the basket of highly technical and situational techniques that aikido brings to the table is simply not useful or practical on its own even if you get lucky enough to find a good teacher who actually knows what the hell they are doing. Aikido is never going to be an all encompassing martial art above all others, but it was never intended to be that, even in its pre-war format that emphasized practicality and lethality, it was always intended to be blended into something else.

Where Aikido shines, where it is practical and useful, is when it is blended into multiple disciplines and like any martial art, when it is used in conjunction with practical training techniques with an active and resistive partner. What makes BJJ so great is its training methods and its consistent demand for students to apply the techniques to an opponent who is resisting. No system is practical if it is missing this type of resistance training, its like weightlifting but only ever using what weight feels comfortable at the time. If we go back to the source material, the writings and understanding of Morihei Ueshiba and his students/associates before the end of World War 2 and once we filter out the right wing Japanese fascism, we see more practical application and theory. There is, also, a surprising amount of good material in the pacifist/koombaya post war Aikido, if you understand the fundamentals of the philosophy and accept the differences as part of the overall duality of man's nature, rather than try to wrist lock your way out of your next MMA match.

Aikido is Ai - harmony, Ki - spirit, Do - way or "the way of the harmonious spirit" as a literal translation, though a better one might be "the way of the tranquil soul" but "harmonious spirit" does fit. Aikido philosophy assumes the student understands the concepts of late Edo period, contemporary views of Bushido and Zen as applied to the martial mind of the Samurai. The ultimate goal and life's work behind Aikido is to produce a truly balanced and harmonious warrior who is not only capable of killing but also of mercy and who has the discipline and expertise to choose the appropriate force to respond to an attack and the expertise to only use exactly that force necessary to achieve the desired result. A true master of Aikido is the same concept as an image of the buddha, a conceptual goal more than an image of a specific person. Through the teachings and principles instilled in the student, the goal is to create a fighter who can do what needs to be done in a war such as efficiently killing an opponent but who has the skill and personal attributes that would also allow them to subdue an armed assailant without hurting them.

So what's a "practical" example of this and how is it applied? Let's look at something like a counter to a punch. Many inexperienced or poorly trained Aikido students will absolutely stand around trying to catch a punch, this is an example of the student not understanding the technique or how to apply it. Aikido traditionally has something like 5 different counters to the traditional "straight punch" or jab, but if you look at each individual technique, it doesn't begin by trying to catch a hand or punch, it starts with the movement of the Aikido practitioner to enter/pass or blend with the opponent and to get a hand in to intercept the joint/limb being used to attack BEFORE the strike is thrown if possible. Take a look at a good explanation of a counter to a punch with a wrist lock here (not an endorsement of the content creator just this one explanation given for this specific technique because it demonstrates the correct targeting and movement):

The Aikido practitioner is learning to recognize the momentum and power in an opponents actions, to understand where that energy is generated and to intercept, redirect, deflect or ground that energy as if it were electricity. This movement and hostile geometry of the Aikido practitioner to both avoid and position the attack and counter attack at the same time is what allows an experienced practitioner to be effective, all you are doing is moving offline from your opponents attack and then attacking in line with any openings given by the opponent. Think of two dueling samurai, they both approach each other and swing their swords as they enter melee range with each other, both are trying to avoid the blow of their opponent and change their position and line of movement enough to get their sword in to an opening, the fighters are not trying to catch the opponents sword, they are attempting to avoid being cut and to cut the opponent first.

So I don't have to "catch" your punch, I have to know how to read you, see your body begin to generate the power in your hips, shoulders, etc to form and perform the punch and then I just need to get to the joint or limb doing the strike before you get the punch going. If I get in early, I can neutralize your punch before it does anything, possibly even gain control of that arm and use it as a handle to do something to you like an arm bar, wrist lock, shoulder throw, etc. This has immediate applications with other martial arts.

If you learn each Aikido technique in a controlled environment, having it applied to you at varying levels of resistance and pressure, you learn how to accurately apply the technique with a varying degree of pressure and intensity to others, as well as recognize how far you can "fight" the technique yourself without injury. If you use that knowledge to promote more resistive and dynamic uke/nage drills, you get that more challenging training against resistance that you need to accurately apply the techniques in the real world.

If you go further, you mix in another style or two like BJJ and boxing, the Aikido will help you recognize and manipulate the same things with momentum and body mechanics in your BJJ techniques. Those openings created by a half executed Aikido technique that slipped or failed, might now give you an exposed head to throw a two or three punch combination into. Work in some elbow techniques from Muay Thai and all of a sudden that almost but didn't work wristlock becomes a crisp flowing transition into an elbow strike to the opponents face from the opposite side as they move to try and protect against the joint manipulation. Any martial art practiced without resistance and practical application is just a collection of pretty postures and empty forms. Aikido is maybe more guilty as an art than others, but conceptually there is still value in that art that is both practical and complimentary to anything else. I believe this is true for all systems, if you train to use the system in a fight, you may throw out individual moves or techniques but you will find valuable tools in every system, provided you are dedicated enough to train for them and open minded enough to be receptive to them.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Because your scenarios don't reflect reality. The sorts of things you detailed only happen when you get the sort of martial arts deliberate and slow attacks where the arm is left dangling, but irl good luck with any of that if the other guy has any sort of ability to punch well.

You basically just reiterated your previous statement, still not describing how the listed scenarios don't reflect reality. They are based on a "real" attack. That's why I emphasized landing strikes and gaining arm control prior to the grab.

From your tone, it seems you do not think that grabbing the opponent's arm or wrist is possible in a fight. Correct? If not, under what circumstance or scenario do you think it's possible? IMO, if you are unable or unwilling to back up your assertions, you should refrain from making them.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The strike they show wouldn't have a lot of power - the actual purpose is to move the head off the structure, which (combined with the momentum) breaks down structure enough for the throw.

I'll have to sit and think about this one as it feels that I'm able to generate a good deal of power. I'm missing something here.

Hello everyone, I came here researching a totally different topic and happened upon this thread and it made me register to get a reply in. By means of introductions and specifically for the purpose of providing some personal Curriculum Vitae to accompany my response/input to this thread, a little background on me. I've studied Aikido for approximately 17 years of the time I've been practicing martial arts, it was my first black belt and I consider it to be part of the core/center of my personal style and philosophy in Budo. I'm a combat veteran, I spent some time as a cop and I have been in some form of "profession of arms" since I became an adult. I've also had the opportunity to travel and train in multiple styles of martial art, in their parent countries and I have fought competitively in about a dozen professional/paid fights over the years. I'm not listing all this as machismo or to brag, merely to establish that I have qualifying experience in sport/traditional and practical application of what I am talking about and that when I speak as an Aikido practitioner I am doing so from a position of someone who has experienced fighting in its various facets and venues, with training in multiple styles and who can speak from a reliable level of expertise, assuming you take me at my word regarding my experience.

Any Aikido school which traces its lineage back to Japan is practicing post world war 2 Aikido, this is problematic for the "practicality" of the martial art in the west. Morihei Ueshiba was a war hero in the Russo-Japanese war and he won the Japanese equivalent of the medal of honor for single handedly breaking a Russian cavalry charge on his position as a lone rifleman. Once he began establishing Aikido, he was a war hero who was also a leading personality within the nationalist movement of pre world war 2 Japan. Ueshiba developed Aikido based on his experience in Judo, Ju-Jutsu, Ken-Jutsu and other specifically Japanese martial arts as a sort of finishing school for Japanese martial artists and as a proprietary "Japanese only" discipline designed to give the Japanese soldier a supernatural edge and to establish the correct philosophy of what he referred to as "Yamato Damashii" or the true spirit of Japan, but as it was seen and understood under Emperor Hirohito and the Japanese fascists.

Morihei Ueshiba spent the entire war training the Japanese military, along with most of his core apostles/students, using Aikido as a framework to blend practical Budo with a quasi-religious indoctrination into Japanese fascism/nationalism. Post war, Ueshiba became a pacifist and attempted to re-brand Aikido as a sort of national discipline which could encapsulate the new spirit of peace and the end of Japanese militarism. Once Aikido entered its post war phase/rebranding, the curriculum was edited, the teachings were watered down and much like the rest of the individual Japanese martial arts, Aikido became more about the cultivation of personal discipline and character than as an actual pragmatic fighting system.

Skip forward to Aikido coming to the states, Steven Seagal brings it to Hollywood and it reaches popularity during the big "Karate boom". Half of the schools are claiming Aikido is the ultimate combat martial art like you see in the Seagal movies and the other half are still pushing the post war "fight without fighting" pacifism. The UFC shows up in 1993 and America watches first hand as wave after wave of the countries fast food black belts get punched in the face for the first time or choked out by these super brutal kids from Brazil who have a very distinct style and actual experience in real fights. Hence today, we get a dramatic over-correction from this long search for "the best style" to "nothing but BJJ and MMA works" which is perpetuated by all the celebrity attention the BJJ world has gotten through Joe Rogan and company as well as the tried and true record of the Gracie dynasty which has now produced a long line of incredibly talented world champion level martial artists and all of their students.

The reality however is much different, BJJ is not the end-all-be-all martial art. MMA is not the only way to produce good techniques or fighters and Aikido is not simply a useless discipline that doesn't work. The reality is that we have a slovenly martial arts culture built from instant gratification where many people don't care about anything other than progress to their next belt or getting into the right "camp" to call themselves a cage fighter. While I think things today are much better than the eighties and nineties, I would still hazard an estimate that over three quarters of all martial arts schools in the US are feel good factories charging fifty bucks an hour to give people cool selfies for their instagram or a nice belt to hang on their wall, not schools seeking to train effective warriors. Aikido is simply a victim of both its own post war re-branding as well as our own problems here in the west. For a "bridge" discipline that was always supposed to be partnered with another discipline like Judo or Kendo, the basket of highly technical and situational techniques that aikido brings to the table is simply not useful or practical on its own even if you get lucky enough to find a good teacher who actually knows what the hell they are doing. Aikido is never going to be an all encompassing martial art above all others, but it was never intended to be that, even in its pre-war format that emphasized practicality and lethality, it was always intended to be blended into something else.

Where Aikido shines, where it is practical and useful, is when it is blended into multiple disciplines and like any martial art, when it is used in conjunction with practical training techniques with an active and resistive partner. What makes BJJ so great is its training methods and its consistent demand for students to apply the techniques to an opponent who is resisting. No system is practical if it is missing this type of resistance training, its like weightlifting but only ever using what weight feels comfortable at the time. If we go back to the source material, the writings and understanding of Morihei Ueshiba and his students/associates before the end of World War 2 and once we filter out the right wing Japanese fascism, we see more practical application and theory. There is, also, a surprising amount of good material in the pacifist/koombaya post war Aikido, if you understand the fundamentals of the philosophy and accept the differences as part of the overall duality of man's nature, rather than try to wrist lock your way out of your next MMA match.

Aikido is Ai - harmony, Ki - spirit, Do - way or "the way of the harmonious spirit" as a literal translation, though a better one might be "the way of the tranquil soul" but "harmonious spirit" does fit. Aikido philosophy assumes the student understands the concepts of late Edo period, contemporary views of Bushido and Zen as applied to the martial mind of the Samurai. The ultimate goal and life's work behind Aikido is to produce a truly balanced and harmonious warrior who is not only capable of killing but also of mercy and who has the discipline and expertise to choose the appropriate force to respond to an attack and the expertise to only use exactly that force necessary to achieve the desired result. A true master of Aikido is the same concept as an image of the buddha, a conceptual goal more than an image of a specific person. Through the teachings and principles instilled in the student, the goal is to create a fighter who can do what needs to be done in a war such as efficiently killing an opponent but who has the skill and personal attributes that would also allow them to subdue an armed assailant without hurting them.

So what's a "practical" example of this and how is it applied? Let's look at something like a counter to a punch. Many inexperienced or poorly trained Aikido students will absolutely stand around trying to catch a punch, this is an example of the student not understanding the technique or how to apply it. Aikido traditionally has something like 5 different counters to the traditional "straight punch" or jab, but if you look at each individual technique, it doesn't begin by trying to catch a hand or punch, it starts with the movement of the Aikido practitioner to enter/pass or blend with the opponent and to get a hand in to intercept the joint/limb being used to attack BEFORE the strike is thrown if possible. Take a look at a good explanation of a counter to a punch with a wrist lock here (not an endorsement of the content creator just this one explanation given for this specific technique because it demonstrates the correct targeting and movement):

The Aikido practitioner is learning to recognize the momentum and power in an opponents actions, to understand where that energy is generated and to intercept, redirect, deflect or ground that energy as if it were electricity. This movement and hostile geometry of the Aikido practitioner to both avoid and position the attack and counter attack at the same time is what allows an experienced practitioner to be effective, all you are doing is moving offline from your opponents attack and then attacking in line with any openings given by the opponent. Think of two dueling samurai, they both approach each other and swing their swords as they enter melee range with each other, both are trying to avoid the blow of their opponent and change their position and line of movement enough to get their sword in to an opening, the fighters are not trying to catch the opponents sword, they are attempting to avoid being cut and to cut the opponent first.

So I don't have to "catch" your punch, I have to know how to read you, see your body begin to generate the power in your hips, shoulders, etc to form and perform the punch and then I just need to get to the joint or limb doing the strike before you get the punch going. If I get in early, I can neutralize your punch before it does anything, possibly even gain control of that arm and use it as a handle to do something to you like an arm bar, wrist lock, shoulder throw, etc. This has immediate applications with other martial arts.

If you learn each Aikido technique in a controlled environment, having it applied to you at varying levels of resistance and pressure, you learn how to accurately apply the technique with a varying degree of pressure and intensity to others, as well as recognize how far you can "fight" the technique yourself without injury. If you use that knowledge to promote more resistive and dynamic uke/nage drills, you get that more challenging training against resistance that you need to accurately apply the techniques in the real world.

If you go further, you mix in another style or two like BJJ and boxing, the Aikido will help you recognize and manipulate the same things with momentum and body mechanics in your BJJ techniques. Those openings created by a half executed Aikido technique that slipped or failed, might now give you an exposed head to throw a two or three punch combination into. Work in some elbow techniques from Muay Thai and all of a sudden that almost but didn't work wristlock becomes a crisp flowing transition into an elbow strike to the opponents face from the opposite side as they move to try and protect against the joint manipulation. Any martial art practiced without resistance and practical application is just a collection of pretty postures and empty forms. Aikido is maybe more guilty as an art than others, but conceptually there is still value in that art that is both practical and complimentary to anything else. I believe this is true for all systems, if you train to use the system in a fight, you may throw out individual moves or techniques but you will find valuable tools in every system, provided you are dedicated enough to train for them and open minded enough to be receptive to them.

This pretty much drops it into the same category as Chin Na

 

[Brian King]

@Shatteredzen
Great first post. Looking forward to more. Welcome to the forum
Regards
Brian King

 

[drop bear]

You basically just reiterated your previous statement, still not describing how the listed scenarios don't reflect reality. They are based on a "real" attack. That's why I emphasized landing strikes and gaining arm control prior to the grab.

From your tone, it seems you do not think that grabbing the opponent's arm or wrist is possible in a fight. Correct? If not, under what circumstance or scenario do you think it's possible? IMO, if you are unable or unwilling to back up your assertions, you should refrain from making them.

You basically can't see punches Coming at you at speed. Which is an issue if your defence relies on blocking them, catching them and doing cool stuff with them.

Look at a fight. Any fight where a guy gets knocked out. Now all he had to do to avoid that would be to move his head a fists width to the left or right and he would have been fine. But he didn't have time to do that.

If people are struggling to perform that simple action . What hope do they have to try some multi step catch and redirect.

 

[Shatteredzen]

If you're looking for function in Aikido, I don't think I'd spend time looking at that chop. I'm far from an expert, but I've not run into a practitioner or instructor for whom that seemed to be a core part of their training. I've referred to how I think their movement drills (and some of ours) can be viewed usefully, and I think some of that applies to the chop (specifically the offline movement part). The strike, itself, I don't think is highly functional. It's possible the purpose in training it is pretty much what @drop bear suggests: it provides a consistent input for formal technique. It may also simply be part of the "do" of the art, in that rigorous training of it to specific detail has its own purpose. Likely, there's some of those, as well as specific body movement they're working at the same time. That latter, I think I spot in some of their techniques, where they do throws in a manner I'm not able to (even allowing for the uke).

Regarding the knife hand in Aikido. I have seen traditional schools teach this as a chop/knife hand style strike to aide the attack/manipulation to a joint or soft part of the opponent as a softening blow or even as an "attack". There is a concept discussed by Morihei Ueshiba that the hands are "te-gatana" or hand swords and should be viewed as such, going so far as to suggest that an aikido practitioner should be able to use their hands in a similar manner to strike/damage and devastate an opponent by attacking with the bladed part of the hand. I personally feel that this falls into the "esoteric" side of Aikido and confuses the student into thinking they need to swing a bunch of knife hands and karate chops like a wierdo. Situationally, yes, you can land an effective strike like this when attacking or blocking, but I don't believe anyone should get hung up on this and try fighting with crab hands. You can see in most Aikido videos that this practice long ago fell into the "going through the motions" part of the technique and most Aikido practitioners kind of just sloppily chop to get their hand in to a position to manipulate the joint acting as a fulcrum or hinge point.

The way I was taught and have used the "knife hand" is as a penetrating thrust to enter the opponents guard and swim/snake around limbs to get to the contact point I am trying to reach. I'm launching the strike to get my hand to the body quickly, simply to intercept the shoulder, foot, arm, etc before it can continue its movement and generate power. If you get inside an opponents range of movement it takes very little strength to defuse a strike, knock someone off balance or simply grip a joint. Take a high kick to the head for example, a TKD favorite, it's chugging along at most likely over a thousand foot pounds of energy, if it hits you in the head its going to connect like a car accident and send you to the moon, but if I move out of the way, get below the leg and softly tap the kicker in their groin or just push on their supporting leg, the whole thing falls apart and the kicker ends up on the ground. If I sweep my arms from both sides to catch and follow the foot, I can simply pull the foot towards me as I turn and that same force is redirected to continue past me, causing the kicker to fall and the technique to fail. If I intercept the kicker after redirecting them, I can execute a throw to ground all of that momentum, at very little cost or effort on my part. If you watch the infamous Kali "flow" or the way a wing chun fighter will work through an opponents guard on the wooden dummy, that's how I was taught and feel that the Aikido "chop" or "knife hand" is best used.

Here is a great video explaining the Kali process of empty hand striking, their explanation of "gunting" would be how I would view the choice of whether or not to "strike" or simply intercept/snake past with the knife hand.

To put it all together, here is a video from Aikidoflow, a youtuber who I would fully endorse as being authoritative on practical usage of mostly vanilla/classical, Aikido. The way he uses the knife hand in this video is how I was trained, he uses it to move through the opponents attack or guard to the source of the movement, to deflect/neutralize, etc. He is using the entire range of movement in his body, his positioning, etc to execute the techniques and he is advocating to move and act aggressively. Notice how he does not act/react, he talks about entering the opponents attack with his own, like a sword fight.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Regarding the knife hand in Aikido. I have seen traditional schools teach this as a chop/knife hand style strike to aide the attack/manipulation to a joint or soft part of the opponent as a softening blow or even as an "attack". There is a concept discussed by Morihei Ueshiba that the hands are "te-gatana" or hand swords and should be viewed as such, going so far as to suggest that an aikido practitioner should be able to use their hands in a similar manner to strike/damage and devastate an opponent by attacking with the bladed part of the hand. I personally feel that this falls into the "esoteric" side of Aikido and confuses the student into thinking they need to swing a bunch of knife hands and karate chops like a wierdo. Situationally, yes, you can land an effective strike like this when attacking or blocking, but I don't believe anyone should get hung up on this and try fighting with crab hands. You can see in most Aikido videos that this practice long ago fell into the "going through the motions" part of the technique and most Aikido practitioners kind of just sloppily chop to get their hand in to a position to manipulate the joint acting as a fulcrum or hinge point.

The way I was taught and have used the "knife hand" is as a penetrating thrust to enter the opponents guard and swim/snake around limbs to get to the contact point I am trying to reach. I'm launching the strike to get my hand to the body quickly, simply to intercept the shoulder, foot, arm, etc before it can continue its movement and generate power. If you get inside an opponents range of movement it takes very little strength to defuse a strike, knock someone off balance or simply grip a joint. Take a high kick to the head for example, a TKD favorite, it's chugging along at most likely over a thousand foot pounds of energy, if it hits you in the head its going to connect like a car accident and send you to the moon, but if I move out of the way, get below the leg and softly tap the kicker in their groin or just push on their supporting leg, the whole thing falls apart and the kicker ends up on the ground. If I sweep my arms from both sides to catch and follow the foot, I can simply pull the foot towards me as I turn and that same force is redirected to continue past me, causing the kicker to fall and the technique to fail. If I intercept the kicker after redirecting them, I can execute a throw to ground all of that momentum, at very little cost or effort on my part. If you watch the infamous Kali "flow" or the way a wing chun fighter will work through an opponents guard on the wooden dummy, that's how I was taught and feel that the Aikido "chop" or "knife hand" is best used.

Here is a great video explaining the Kali process of empty hand striking, their explanation of "gunting" would be how I would view the choice of whether or not to "strike" or simply intercept/snake past with the knife hand.

To put it all together, here is a video from Aikidoflow, a youtuber who I would fully endorse as being authoritative on practical usage of mostly vanilla/classical, Aikido. The way he uses the knife hand in this video is how I was trained, he uses it to move through the opponents attack or guard to the source of the movement, to deflect/neutralize, etc. He is using the entire range of movement in his body, his positioning, etc to execute the techniques and he is advocating to move and act aggressively. Notice how he does not act/react, he talks about entering the opponents attack with his own, like a sword fight.

I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying but I'm not sure we are looking at same thing in terms of that chop. Just over all, I don't discard Jow Ga techniques because of the quote below.

I personally feel that this falls into the "esoteric" side of Aikido and confuses the student into thinking they need to swing a bunch of knife hands and karate chops like a wierdo.

I understand this is you personally, so in return what I'm saying is just my perspective.
Here's what I see.

• People drilling a chop not a entry. In this case an entry would be more linear and less hammer like. I understand the entry part because I've used it in sparring and it didn't have a hammering feel to it.
• People drilling to flow with a chopping motion not an entry motion.

What you are presenting are "ways that it can be used" which I don't disagree with. But I don't want to get far from the Chopping motion or the reaction to the chopping motion. The frequency that a technique is done is of minor concern. Tornado kicks aren't that frequently done in MMA but they have been done. A chop may be similar. It's not the common thing, but a thing. Like that tool in the tool box that you only use every 2 or 3 years.

What you have written is what I would say to student to help them see beyond that a single technique. Instead of thinking "that's all there is" they would learn to see things that can it can be used for. For me. I'm just focusing on that 1 technique and that 1 reaction to it. Unfortunately, I'm at a huge disadvantage because I don't train Aikido and I'm currently not in a position where I can test this against a variety of chopping like attacks and entries that are actually used.

My biggest hang up is the idea of training of flow against a movement that doesn't exist in fighting. That doesn't make sense to me. I can't learn the flow of swimming by training the flow of running, because the running movement doesn't exist in swimming. So to train flow on an attack or movement that doesn't exist is difficult for me to understand the logic of.