Aikido.. The reality?

[Gerry Seymour]

If Aikido labeled itself as a spiritual exercise instead of functional martial art, stuff like this wouldn't be a problem.

If you're doing stuff like this and claiming to be a functional martial art, then yeah that's a problem.

I think the Ki Society does exactly that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Bottom line is Aikido was changed from Daito Ryu to...Aiki Budo.... then Aikido as we know it today. The founder of Aikido wanted it to be spirtiuell & not for real fighting. The only Aikido i really think is of any use to a Caveman like me is Tomiki Aikido.

As I understand it, Yoshinkan is closer to the Daitor-ryu roots.

 

[RagingBull]

I think most Aikido instructors would argue it ignores the striking of pretty much all styles. While some of the early practitioners were competent against other styles (and likely some current ones are, too), I've only ever heard Aikido argued as being designed for an untrained attacker. I think the style is (like many TMA, as I understand them) designed with that idea.

The only Ryu i have tried that uses Atemi waza is Iwama ryu.

 

[RagingBull]

As I understand it, Yoshinkan is closer to the Daitor-ryu roots.

yes & no. Most people i have spoken to say Saito Sensei was more practical than Shioda. Even though Saito Sensei tought a style that was more from 1940s onwards. He learned all the Jo/ Ken suburi from the founder of Aikido, hence why he was givem the Iwama Dojo.

 

[RagingBull]

a lot of Jo/Ken in Iwama ryu.

 

[RagingBull]

you can see the huge difference in say Tendo ryu. a very dynamic sabaki. Saito was very direct & short in his Aikido.
Tendo Ryu i also did & it has a lot of Hip throws as Shimizu Sensei was a high ranking Judoka too. He was a later Uchi Dechi

 

[Hanzou]

yeah I've been saying that all along both in directly through my comments about how important it is to spar, and directly that he wasn't training to fight using Aikido. He was training to be the best student in aikido which isn't the same thing as being good in fighting.

He stated that he got into Aikido because gangs in his home country were running around attacking people, and Aikido was advertised as a viable self defense system. Obviously his goal was always to utilize Aikido in a self defense manner.

 

[Hanzou]

I think most Aikido instructors would argue it ignores the striking of pretty much all styles. While some of the early practitioners were competent against other styles (and likely some current ones are, too), I've only ever heard Aikido argued as being designed for an untrained attacker. I think the style is (like many TMA, as I understand them) designed with that idea.

When I trained in TMAs in my formative years, this argument was never brought up. I think this argument began to pop up as UFC and MMA came to dominate the martial arts scene and some old school instructors were looking to avoid conflict. The legends of many TMAs are of their styles fighting against samurai warriors and Manchu soldiers. In addition, during the age of imperialism, many Kung Fu and Karate stylists eagerly tested their styles against western fighters in a variety of challenge matches, so obviously defeating trained opponents was part of these classical systems at some point.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You are using martial arts logic to determine ability. Which seems to be all preconceptions and other unnecessary junk added to this question.

I don't understand what you mean by martial arts logic

It doesn't matter what camp of Aikido we are discussing so long as they have a definable objective.

It does matter because if your camp isn't interested in learning how to use Aikido then you aren't going to get any fighting ability from that mindset. If your camp is interested then you are going to training with people who are interested in using things that do work. This means that the teacher will most likely separate elements of Aikido into thing that can be used and things that shouldn't be used. We have already seen this play out so we don't have to guess about this.

People interested in application tend to move and look like this.

If I want to learn how to make war, then I can't train in a camp that only cares about making peace.

Then we see if he meets that objective better or worse than anyone else. In a manner that is able to be demonstrated in an experiment.

Actually he reached his objective multiple times. To him being the best student = being the best martial artist. Each time he went for it, he became "the best student." So by what he defined as "the best martial artist" he reached his objective. This is why I keep saying how we define or identify our goals matters. "the best martial artist" to you may mean beating people in competition. This would send you on a different path based on how you define it.

If someone came to me and said the want to be the best martial artist in the world, I would ask "best in doing what? Forms? Weapons, Fighting? Tricks kicks? Breaking? If the teacher can't be honest in these areas and admit when they aren't the best to teach in that area then find a new teacher or train that aspect at a different school while still training at the Aikido school.

When I'm trying to understand Aikido. I'm not trying to look at the peaceful camp because I'm so against that mindset. For me I can and have found peace in fighting. But my definition of peace is not the same as their definition. The Aikido I try to focus on is from the camp that tries to use it. So when I see a video of Aikido I try to first identity which camp made the video.

My understanding of Kohei's Ki Society approach is that it isn't focused at all on fighting application. It is - as the group name implies - about developing ki.

This is what I keep bringing up. It makes no sense to compare that to fighting if the purpose of the techniques used isn't about fighting. This is why it's important to identify what is used for fighting and what isn't. It's make no sense to pick something that was never created as a fighting application and to hold that to the application of fighting.

It drives me nuts. That's why at the beginning of this tread I was so intent on trying to understand if that "Aikido chop" was for fighting application or not. If the chop isn't a fighting application then there's no need for me to continue to look at it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

it´s as simple as this a smaller guy can win because he is from nature more aggressive & probably has more fights under his belt. real fights not Dojo dancing. We can talk about physics all day , leverage ..etc but bottom line is a guy like say Gozo Shioda would never beat Mike Tyson in his prime !

Neither would nearly any boxer.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

it´s laughable when some Senseis say ..yeah we take his wrist & do this & that. A knife moves so fast & cuts quickly. look at some of these guys in jails with "shanks" stab a guy 10 times in seconds. people need to realise this !

Stealth attacks and surprise attacks are a different animal. Knives can be defended against. We have some folks on MT who've done it successfully.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that since Rokas is a far more proficient martial artist now after a little under 2 years of BJJ/MMA that there's something significantly wrong with the methodology of Aikido?

The methodology depends on the ideology that you train from.

For example, If you train from the peace camp then the methodology that he train is the right one. If you want to use Aikido to fight then definitely don't train from this camp. That's not what this camp is for. This camp uses the wrong methodology for learning how to fight. So if you are looking for proof that Aikido is functional for fighting then don't waste time looking at the peace camp.

Rokas was clearly part of the Aikido for peace camp (his old schools) which is the clearly the wrong methodology for for fighting.

I'm not dodging the question, I'm just answering your question with the understanding that not all Aikido schools use the same methodology or even have the same idea of what Aikido is and what it isn't. Some schools don't believe in competition and other do.

But for the schools that Rokas learned from, Yes clearly the wrong methodology for fighting. But it was the correct Methodology for the peace focus that they have

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What I'm trying to say is when an Aikido guy gets on the mat, the harmony (Ai), spiritual strength (Ki), peace, and following the Aikido way (Do) just don't exist.

Why?

What would you expect those to look like on the mat?

 

[JowGaWolf]

The only Ryu i have tried that uses Atemi waza is Iwama ryu.

Thanks for sharing this video. I'm going to check out that camp since they are punching people. I'm interested in understanding their approach to Aikido

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that since Rokas is a far more proficient martial artist now after a little under 2 years of BJJ/MMA that there's something significantly wrong with the methodology of Aikido?

If you're referring to the training methodology commonly seen, I'd say definitely yes.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Aikido mostly doesn't have the depth of talent to do wristlocks right.

I think what you're saying here is the pratitioners typically lack the foundation. I agree. What I've seen of Aikido training lacked grappling fundamentals you'd see in wrestling or Judo.

 

[RagingBull]

Thanks for sharing this video. I'm going to check out that camp since they are punching people. I'm interested in understanding their approach to Aikido

His son has taken over as Saito Sensei is dead. Not sure how he trains but as i learned it, it was pretty much as the video showed. As i wrote the Sensei i had trained in Iwama & not just once under saito. he was an older guy but had that mentality. he hated round dancing aikido.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

yes & no. Most people i have spoken to say Saito Sensei was more practical than Shioda. Even though Saito Sensei tought a style that was more from 1940s onwards. He learned all the Jo/ Ken suburi from the founder of Aikido, hence why he was givem the Iwama Dojo.

I'm not sure if I missed something - none of that specifically addresses whether Iwama or Yoshinkan is closer to the Daito roots.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When I trained in TMAs in my formative years, this argument was never brought up. I think this argument began to pop up as UFC and MMA came to dominate the martial arts scene and some old school instructors were looking to avoid conflict. The legends of many TMAs are of their styles fighting against samurai warriors and Manchu soldiers. In addition, during the age of imperialism, many Kung Fu and Karate stylists eagerly tested their styles against western fighters in a variety of challenge matches, so obviously defeating trained opponents was part of these classical systems at some point.

I heard it long before UFC (and MMA) became well known across the community. Someone would ask one of the "what if" questions about an attacker who is a skilled _____ (boxer, karateka, wrestler, etc.), and instructors would often reply that at a high level of skill there were answers to some of that, but that the style was designed around the idea of relatively untrained attackers.

 

[JowGaWolf]

His son has taken over as Saito Sensei is dead. Not sure how he trains but as i learned it, it was pretty much as the video showed. As i wrote the Sensei i had trained in Iwama & not just once under saito. he was an older guy but had that mentality. he hated round dancing aikido.

Are there many schools under that branch?