How appliable is aikido for self-defense?

[Flying Crane]

I think you are misinterpreting what I said. What I said was "In my dojo we actually tell new people that Aikido isn't really a self defense course that you can learn quickly and be good at."

That is not the same as saying that Aikido is not a good choice for self defense. Aikido can be very effective, but takes a longer time to really be able to use that way. When I have new students, I tell them that if they want a fast self defense course, which many Americans seem to want, that they are better off buying a handgun.

I'm going to hazard a guess that any comments that aikido isn't meant for fighting really is in reference to attitude. Meaning that people don't train aikido in order to enter combat sports competitions, or it's not the best method for someone who wants to be an aggressive petty thug. But the techniques and methods are intended for fighting and self defense if one finds oneself in need.

Aikido is not simply a physical exercise deliberately devoid of fighting possibilities.

Would you agree with that?

 

[Hanzou]

I think you are misinterpreting what I said. What I said was "In my dojo we actually tell new people that Aikido isn't really a self defense course that you can learn quickly and be good at."

That is not the same as saying that Aikido is not a good choice for self defense. Aikido can be very effective, but takes a longer time to really be able to use that way. When I have new students, I tell them that if they want a fast self defense course, which many Americans seem to want, that they are better off buying a handgun.

Actually I wasn't talking about you when I was talking about experts. I was talking about Roy Dean and other Aikido black belts that I know who have told me that Aikido isn't for self defense.

Interestingly, those admissions tended to come from Aikidoka who have a high amount of experience in other systems.

 

[moonhill99]

Ok, then how, exactly, did you translate my earlier comment about ramping up the training, into throwing an unrealistic punch so the partner can just move as fast as he can?

Did you just fundamentally misunderstand what I had said?

What unrealistic punch or attacks do you speak of? What are you criticizing on the way aikido attacks.

The older aikido just uses lot more strikes than the aikido today. But it not like they don't strike it just downplayed so you don't see many strikes being emphasized.

Wouldn't changing the nature of the attack change the nature of the response? If for example you go from exaggerated sword and spear style attacks to standardized kicks, punches, and grappling, wouldn't that alter the response from the Aikidoka? Wouldn't that also force a large amount of new techniques to be brought into the Aikido curriculum?

Considering that there are people out there who don't view competitive Aikido as "true Aikido", how would something like that be still considered true to the vision of the founder?

Well just look bit more gritty the Aikido.

Bit more gritty like this.

That is pretty much what you see when you see akido. lots of unrealistic stuff. .

What unrealistic stuff? What would you do different what would add or do different?

 

[drop bear]

What unrealistic stuff? What would you do different what would add or do different?

Train against people who are trying to stop me from doing my techniques.

As a start anyway.

 

[marques]

Train against people who are trying to stop me from doing my techniques.
As a start anyway.

When the lock (pain) is already there, the best to do is let it go, actually (in training, at least).

The UKE in the 'attacks' is just exposing himself to the Aikido technique. So the thing here is not only the resistance missing but too much help. I find it ok as a beginner's stage. But it continues the same on the very high grades. It is the habit (rule?) of 'Aikido attack style', it is the respect for the master (don't embarrass him), ...

This flaw can be extended to many other styles, especially where joint pain is involved. It happened to me in a 'ju-jitsu' seminar. We were training 'too fast', and I was just letting it go in order to save my wrist. I was sure the lock was terrible (from a black belt) but what could I do? Resisting in order to show him his technique is useless or risk my wrist in case he put more force or speed to compensate the missing of technique? No... My hand (and job next week) was far more important.

To conclude I understand they are protecting themselves in training, avoiding surprises and let it go as expected. But it would be nice to see something more convincing (and there is).

 

[Hanzou]

Well just look bit more gritty the Aikido.

Bit more gritty like this.

No. That boxing vs Aikido vid for example is hilarious. The guy is essentially doing Aikido practice in boxing gloves and making a sad attempt at imitating a boxer. Both are wasting their training time with that nonsense.

 

[Flying Crane]

What unrealistic punch or attacks do you speak of? What are you criticizing on the way aikido attacks.

The older aikido just uses lot more strikes than the aikido today. But it not like they don't strike it just downplayed so you don't see many strikes being emphasized.




Well just look bit more gritty the Aikido.

Bit more gritty like this.

What unrealistic stuff? What would you do different what would add or do different?

I was not. My comments were in respons to what someone else was saying.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I've never seen anything like a no-touch knockout in an aikido class. Just hands-on, rough-and-tumble.

I have witnessed some classes that I was unimpressed with. But that is an issue with the teacher, not the style.

There are a few techniques I've seen where they expect the uke (attacker) to over-commit so much that they end up chasing a grip for several steps. This is fine for working on timing and such, and is a useful training tool, but is no more realistic than a no-touch throw.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It documents an event. Whether or not that video is truly evidence of anything, other than the event itself, is debatable. Maybe yes, maybe no.

It is evidence of something, inarguably - but of what? The debate should be whether it is valid evidence of a specific point.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is a demonstration of the body mechanics of a technique. The grip is removed from the technique to avoid using strength and weight-dropping. The uke complies to a high level in this kind of drill, by acting like he is actually gripping the wrists (notice his hand positions), so you can see what the movement would do to him. If he actually has that grip, the movement alone (no strength added, no dropping of weight needed) should take him off-balance enough to make him fall.

We have to be careful not to confuse drills that work on a single principle with actually teaching no-touch throws/KO's.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

They are less helpful than a lot of people believe. They are helpful within a limited context.

If I show you a video of a BMW with engine problems, do you automatically believe that all BMWs are junky cars, or are you insightful enough to understand that while some may have problems, that doesn't mean the brand as a whole is no good? Even if I saw a dozen or two dozen such videos, I would never jump to the conclusion that BMW sucks.

It's easy to find bad examples. YouTube is filled with them. That doesn't mean it all sucks.

If I can find a dozen different videos showing that kind of trouble with the same engine model, I assume there are probably other problems (and other engines of that model that didn't make it onto videos). So, now I'm more cautious in evaluating the value of a car with that model of engine. I'll do more research to figure out if it's worth the risk.

The same goes for videos of fights, martial arts, etc. They are evidence. It's up to the consumer to dig deeper to find out if that evidence accompanied by enough other evidence to draw a conclusion.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm suggesting that what is posted on YouTube is evidence. It feels a little like you're being intentionally obstinate.

And I'm not sure that, in 2016, it's true that most of what happens is never filmed and out on YouTube. There are something like 300 hours of video being added every minute. Billions of videos are available, and growing exponentially.

10 years ago? Sure. I hear you. But YouTube is pervasive, and the odd of not being able to find at least one example of pretty much anything is pretty low. The odds are that someone, somewhere, has pulled out their phone, tablet, or camera, and recorded it.

That's still not "most". I've put up maybe 10 hours of video on YouTube in the last year. I've experienced a lot more hours than that. I know many people who never put up videos. Much still doesn't make it.

That said, your point is a good one. There is so much on YouTube that any claim for which there isn't support there seems extraordinary, whether it actually is or not.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Again, Nobuyuki Watanabe is a senior instructor at the Aikikai Hombu Dojo in Japan, the largest branch of Aikido in the world, and the branch of the art's founder. This isn't some random clown in a strip mall.

Nonetheless, he isn't representative of the art. He's an off-shoot, and probably should give his branch its own name to properly distinguish it from the mainline of that art.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So. My lazer eyes system of self defence. Is also a viable form of martial arts used by special forces around the world.

The thing is because of its incredible effectiveness it is trained secretly and it has never been documented on you tube.

Luckily not everything has neen documented on you tube. So we have to assume I am legit.

Right?

Point goes to Drop Bear.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm in. Can I buy your DVDs?

No. A DVD would mean the possibility of it ending up on YouTube. What part of "secret" didn't you get??

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In another forum, someone asked people's opinion about this clip.

IMO, the issue of this clip are the following.

- When you use your hand to grab on your opponent's wrist, your opponent twists his arm, puts pressure on your wrist, and you are still "stupid enough" to hold on your grip, you should get a rope, find a quite place, and hang yourself.
- If people are "stupid enough" to assume that people on the street will respond like this, there is big problem in this "training method".

Common sense tells us when you grab on your opponent's wrist and your opponent twist his arm and try to break your grip, you should

- release your wrist grip and move your hand onto his elbow joint, or
- move your hand and meet his face.

My biggest concern is why such kind of "normal" respond are not in the regular training?

Is there any other MA system on earth that students only train throw and never train counter-throw (the counter-throw can be as simple as to release your own wrist grip)?

This sort of thing can be useful in very specific circumstances in training, but should be used VERY sparingly. This might have been a demonstration, in which case it paints an unrealistic portrait of what the art can do.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Can someone find any Aikido "counter-throw" clip online (something like the following clip)?

Amazing counter throw

I can't think of one I've seen online, though I've seen some taught in Aikikai dojos. They weren't nearly this athletic, but were effective counter-throws.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes, Kaeshi Waza or reversals/counters are a cornerstone along with Henka Waza (counter to the counter) at higher level Aikido practice. We don't generally practice these below 2nd kyu, but on most Yudansha tests, especially at Nidan and above, you will be expected to know a fair amount of these....

Here are some basic examples from Nemoto Sensei. Keep in mind, he is teaching these, so they are being done at a lower speed without full resistance.

That's similar to what I've seen in their teaching, as well.

 

[Spinedoc]

That's similar to what I've seen in their teaching, as well.

Yeah, we generally don't practice Kaeshi waza until much more advanced levels because most students below 2nd kyu are still learning how to unbalance their opponent and execute the myriad of basic throws/techniques. Around 2nd, sometimes 3rd kyu you start getting introduce to them, but you won't really be tested on them or expected to really know them until Shodan.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah, we generally don't practice Kaeshi waza until much more advanced levels because most students below 2nd kyu are still learning how to unbalance their opponent and execute the myriad of basic throws/techniques. Around 2nd, sometimes 3rd kyu you start getting introduce to them, but you won't really be tested on them or expected to really know them until Shodan.

This is something I'm experimenting with right now in NGA. I've taught a few counters to white belts, and will continue to increase the number. I'm looking to find the point at which they seem to be actually ready for them. I didn't start picking them up in any quantity until probably ikkyu (brown belt, just before black), and I think they can start earlier. One thing I'm doing is using simple counters (things like putting a foot in a position that makes the technique a bad choice) to make them change techniques mid-stream. Of course, to practice this, they have to practice that simple counter. So, even though I'm not teaching a counter, I'm teaching a counter. Next comes full counter-techniques.