How appliable is aikido for self-defense?

[GreatUniter]

That's not only from the uneducated. There are a lot of Aikido instructors - including some with high ranks (5th dan and up) who say that about Aikido. That's part of the problem Aikido is dealing with, IMO.

I have even heard instructors say that in a defensive situation, the aim is to gently subdue with no injury. They seemed to expect it to work like the stylized drills in class.

1. And some of them even say that aikido is a style of japanese tango (on one of seminars that I visited and still regret over the money that I have spent).

2. It's not possible to subdue somebody without injury in a street attack that happens so fast. It's rarity to not hurt the attacker or somebody to not even touch you like many aikidokas preach.

Now I'm really disappointed that when I visit seminars, I rarely see very good aikido practitioners that have indeed good techniques and many quasi - practitioners and instructors out there.

Exactly. I don't know where, when or how it happened but somewhere along the way many in the community started to see Aikido in a way similar to "exercise" Tai Chi. It is seen by them as being for health, fitness and spiritual cultivation through mindfulness.

One time, 4-5 years ago, there was a middle - aged Chinese that rented a flat in my neighborhood in a big house. I personally witnessed how 3 guys tried to break into his flat and before me and my friend can call the police, we hear male screaming and breaking noise from the house and shortly after, 3 injured males running wildly from the house and this short Chinese chasing them. We learned that he was tai chi practitioner and instructor for long period in his hometown. He explain to us that tai chi, even if nowadays it's no longer practiced in martial way, it is rich with martial applications if you know how to use it. I underestimated aikido and tai chi before, laughing on that "dancing - like" moves, but there were people that prove me wrong. So, neither aikido nor tai chi is just "exercise".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

1. And some of them even say that aikido is a style of japanese tango (on one of seminars that I visited and still regret over the money that I have spent).

2. It's not possible to subdue somebody without injury in a street attack that happens so fast. It's rarity to not hurt the attacker or somebody to not even touch you like many aikidokas preach.

Now I'm really disappointed that when I visit seminars, I rarely see very good aikido practitioners that have indeed good techniques and many quasi - practitioners and instructors out there.



One time, 4-5 years ago, there was a middle - aged Chinese that rented a flat in my neighborhood in a big house. I personally witnessed how 3 guys tried to break into his flat and before me and my friend can call the police, we hear male screaming and breaking noise from the house and shortly after, 3 injured males running wildly from the house and this short Chinese chasing them. We learned that he was tai chi practitioner and instructor for long period in his hometown. He explain to us that tai chi, even if nowadays it's no longer practiced in martial way, it is rich with martial applications if you know how to use it. I underestimated aikido and tai chi before, laughing on that "dancing - like" moves, but there were people that prove me wrong. So, neither aikido nor tai chi is just "exercise".

Agreed on that last point, with one caveat. They can be just exercise, and I have no problem with folks using them that way (similar to what Billy Blanks did with Tae Bo). They can be effective for that. But that shouldn't be confused with combat/defensive training. They can overlap, but aren't the same.

 

[Juany118]

1. And some of them even say that aikido is a style of japanese tango (on one of seminars that I visited and still regret over the money that I have spent).

2. It's not possible to subdue somebody without injury in a street attack that happens so fast. It's rarity to not hurt the attacker or somebody to not even touch you like many aikidokas preach.

Now I'm really disappointed that when I visit seminars, I rarely see very good aikido practitioners that have indeed good techniques and many quasi - practitioners and instructors out there.



One time, 4-5 years ago, there was a middle - aged Chinese that rented a flat in my neighborhood in a big house. I personally witnessed how 3 guys tried to break into his flat and before me and my friend can call the police, we hear male screaming and breaking noise from the house and shortly after, 3 injured males running wildly from the house and this short Chinese chasing them. We learned that he was tai chi practitioner and instructor for long period in his hometown. He explain to us that tai chi, even if nowadays it's no longer practiced in martial way, it is rich with martial applications if you know how to use it. I underestimated aikido and tai chi before, laughing on that "dancing - like" moves, but there were people that prove me wrong. So, neither aikido nor tai chi is just "exercise".

Agreed on the last part. Hence why I put "exercise" in front of Tai Chi, and dropped the Chuan. To my mind there is Tai Chi, the mind, body spirit exercise, and Tai Chi Chuan the martial art. A similar dynamic is at play in Aikido

 

[drop bear]

2. It's not possible to subdue somebody without injury in a street attack that happens so fast. It's rarity to not hurt the attacker or somebody to not even touch you like many aikidokas preach.

Really?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Really?

It's overstated in his post, but I think that's because he was contrasting the attitude found in much of Aikido, where the expectation is that every attacker (with and without weapons) can be safely and quickly subdued with no harm to anyone. That belief is the product of too much stylized training, and not enough resistance.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Here's an article written by an NGA instructor who also dabbles in Aikikai training, related to this thread.

Our Aikido Cousins Are Having a Crisis of Belief

 

[Juany118]

It's overstated in his post, but I think that's because he was contrasting the attitude found in much of Aikido, where the expectation is that every attacker (with and without weapons) can be safely and quickly subdued with no harm to anyone. That belief is the product of too much stylized training, and not enough resistance.

I actually think that overstatement comes out of the conflict within the Aikido community. One side says "if you injure your opponent you injure yourself so do not hurt them." That attitude doesn't work in real self defense BUT people are often governed by Newton's 3rd Law. The equal and opposite reaction to that is "you can't subdue an opponent without injury."

 

[drop bear]

I actually think that overstatement comes out of the conflict within the Aikido community. One side says "if you injure your opponent you injure yourself so do not hurt them." That attitude doesn't work in real self defense BUT people are often governed by Newton's 3rd Law. The equal and opposite reaction to that is "you can't subdue an opponent without injury."

I have done it heaps of times.

 

[drop bear]

Here's an article written by an NGA instructor who also dabbles in Aikikai training, related to this thread.

Our Aikido Cousins Are Having a Crisis of Belief

You can't just walk up and wristlock someone. Just like I can't just throw an armbar on a guy. I have to understand so many more things than arm locks to do arm locks. It is seriously the last 2 percent of my necessary skill set.

 

[GreatUniter]

Really?

Yes.

I have done it heaps of times.

You done what? Overstatement or subduing someone without injury?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You can't just walk up and wristlock someone. Just like I can't just throw an armbar on a guy. I have to understand so many more things than arm locks to do arm locks. It is seriously the last 2 percent of my necessary skill set.

Agreed. I think much of the training I've seen in Aikido (perhaps in all of the aiki arts) forgets/ignores the importance of position, structure, even defense and other fundamentals to make an arm lock available - really, truly a good idea in the moment. I'm far more likely to be using arm and wrist locks after someone is down than when they are standing, excepting the few that contribute to throws and takedowns (wrist throw, perhaps, definitely come along shoulder lock).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You done what? Overstatement or subduing someone without injury?

Probably both.

 

[Juany118]

I have done it heaps of times.

Agreed, but some people see it as an "either/or" proposition. Hence what Gerry and I were saying. You can't correct a misapprehension until you identify the initial error.

 

[GreatUniter]

Agreed. I think much of the training I've seen in Aikido (perhaps in all of the aiki arts) forgets/ignores the importance of position, structure, even defense and other fundamentals to make an arm lock available - really, truly a good idea in the moment. I'm far more likely to be using arm and wrist locks after someone is down than when they are standing, excepting the few that contribute to throws and takedowns (wrist throw, perhaps, definitely come along shoulder lock).

That's why we should be all taught that if one technique doesn't work for somebody, doesn't mean that other technique or even punch or kick won't either. I know that the techniques won't work 100% on everybody (there are more agile, stronger, faster, etc. opponents, even between untrained ones). Single, slight movement from the opponent is enough to block your technique (or make you do wrong movement). What will probably work 100% on the streets from aikido is only the aiki footwork from real, long - time, expertly trained aikido practitioner, with a lot of experience. Aikido is not magic, no - touch knockdown, chi - force martial art, like there are teachers that preach it. There is no 100% perfectly working technique with perfect outcome for the practitioner when there is real combat.

 

[Juany118]

Agreed. I think much of the training I've seen in Aikido (perhaps in all of the aiki arts) forgets/ignores the importance of position, structure, even defense and other fundamentals to make an arm lock available - really, truly a good idea in the moment. I'm far more likely to be using arm and wrist locks after someone is down than when they are standing, excepting the few that contribute to throws and takedowns (wrist throw, perhaps, definitely come along shoulder lock).

I would absolutely agree with this in a typical "self-defense" situation. Luckily I have, at work, the advantage of authority so 8 times out of 10 the person isn't resisting until I am already half way to a lock before I say "put your hands behind your back". Essentially the authority, and the inate hesitance to resist it, provides an element of surprise. I always tell rookies to "go easy" so they can exploit it vs being aggressive out of the gate which hinders it.

If it's coming from a fight/foot pursuit initiation though, the lock isn't happening until they are "down" or "softened up" by striking though.

 

[Juany118]

That's why we should be all taught that if one technique doesn't work for somebody, doesn't mean that other technique or even punch or kick won't either. I know that the techniques won't work 100% on everybody (there are more agile, stronger, faster, etc. opponents, even between untrained ones). Single, slight movement from the opponent is enough to block your technique (or make you do wrong movement). What will probably work 100% on the streets from aikido is only the aiki footwork from real, long - time, expertly trained aikido practitioner, with a lot of experience. Aikido is not magic, no - touch knockdown, chi - force martial art, like there are teachers that preach it. There is no 100% perfectly working technique with perfect outcome for the practitioner when there is real combat.

I think the problem lies here. The Aikido I studied is like this video, that I shared on another thread.

The problem is most Aikido (at least in my area) is taught like this

Without pressure, any system fails. This I feel is more important with Aikido than say a striking art because the concept of pressure is immediately understood (though perhaps not experienced) when you picture punching someone. When trying to control someone though you need pressure, to "tap out" in order to truly understand what's going on.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's why we should be all taught that if one technique doesn't work for somebody, doesn't mean that other technique or even punch or kick won't either. I know that the techniques won't work 100% on everybody (there are more agile, stronger, faster, etc. opponents, even between untrained ones). Single, slight movement from the opponent is enough to block your technique (or make you do wrong movement). What will probably work 100% on the streets from aikido is only the aiki footwork from real, long - time, expertly trained aikido practitioner, with a lot of experience. Aikido is not magic, no - touch knockdown, chi - force martial art, like there are teachers that preach it. There is no 100% perfectly working technique with perfect outcome for the practitioner when there is real combat.

IMO, one of the biggest factors that's often missing in Aikido training (and this isn't unique to Aikido training) is an understanding of a technique's availability. The drills shouldn't just teach how to perform the technique, but should be used to understand what will make that technique unavailable. The more "aiki" a technique or application is, the more important this becomes. Working with a resisting partner goes a long way to point out this problem.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I would absolutely agree with this in a typical "self-defense" situation. Luckily I have, at work, the advantage of authority so 8 times out of 10 the person isn't resisting until I am already half way to a lock before I say "put your hands behind your back". Essentially the authority, and the inate hesitance to resist it, provides an element of surprise. I always tell rookies to "go easy" so they can exploit it vs being aggressive out of the gate which hinders it.

If it's coming from a fight/foot pursuit initiation though, the lock isn't happening until they are "down" or "softened up" by striking though.

Yep. You're already getting position and structure before they resist, in most cases. That was the main point, and something that's not always covered well in Aikido.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think the problem lies here. The Aikido I studied is like this video, that I shared on another thread.

The problem is most Aikido (at least in my area) is taught like this

Without pressure, any system fails. This I feel is more important with Aikido than say a striking art because the concept of pressure is immediately understood (though perhaps not experienced) when you picture punching someone. When trying to control someone though you need pressure, to "tap out" in order to truly understand what's going on.

Shinshin Toitsu, as I understand it, is more about cultivation of ki/aiki, than about martial effectiveness. If that's a correct understanding (and is understood as such by practitioners), I have no problem with what I see there. But you're right that I see similar approaches outside that branch of the art.

 

[GreatUniter]

I think the problem lies here. The Aikido I studied is like this video, that I shared on another thread.

The problem is most Aikido (at least in my area) is taught like this

Without pressure, any system fails. This I feel is more important with Aikido than say a striking art because the concept of pressure is immediately understood (though perhaps not experienced) when you picture punching someone. When trying to control someone though you need pressure, to "tap out" in order to truly understand what's going on.

Do you know master Kazuo Chiba (may he rest in peace)? Not sure if there is videos on youtube on this subject, but I have seen old videos from him by teachers that went to his seminars (I have never visited any of his seminars), where he uses kicks and punches with explanation on low and high atemi. I have never seen an aikidoka that uses kicks like atemi (apart from my teachers). Master Toshiro Suga, when there is seminars here, always say that aikido (like all traditional martial arts) is for killing people, but in modern times we strive not for killing, but for self - cultivation and if we are attacked, we probably will injure the opponent, because street is not the same like the dojo and aikido for demonstrations is way different from real life aikido (on demos, usually there are kihon techniques and variations shown). He always preach that we must be good people and all that philosophy stuff, but always say that if we are attacked hard and fast, we respond the same, no questions asked. When I saw masters Isoyama, Chiba, Saito, Tissier and other very skilled masters (only from videos, I don't have any luck to meet them in real life), I thought that all aikido instructors are like that. But there is real life, way different from videos.

Overall, aikido lost popularity real fast, though maybe the real reason are many youtube videos with a lot of flying and nonsensical demonstrations (still, there are really good ones) and there are quasi - teachers and self - declared masters. Still, there are many real good masters that are not so well known. Even on this forum, I'm sure there are really good martial artists that have rich experience. IMO, all traditional, unarmed martial arts are the same, with the same techniques, only differences in basic techniques, philosophies, preaching, forms (if there are), etc. They all have the same punching/kicking/grappling techniques (yes, we speak for traditional martial arts). Punch is a punch, kick is a kick. To learn to defend, first you must learn to attack, period.