How effective is Aikido?

[Yari]

I beg to differ.

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

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

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

/Yari

 

[Hand Sword]

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

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

 

[MartialIntent]

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

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

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

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

There now.

Respects!

 

[Yari]

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

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

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

Am I making myself clear?

/Yari

 

[Hand Sword]

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

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

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

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

There now.

Respects!

:asian: Yep!

 

[Hand Sword]

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

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

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

Am I making myself clear?

/Yari

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

 

[MartialIntent]

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

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

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

Respects!

 

[Hand Sword]

Again, YEP! :asian:

 

[Yari]

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

Respects!

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

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

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

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

/yari

 

[Hand Sword]

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

 

[MartialIntent]

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

/yari

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

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

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

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

Respects!

 

[Hand Sword]

"Three times a lady!" :asian:

 

[jujutsu_indonesia]

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

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

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

 

[MartialIntent]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respects!

 

[green meanie]

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

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

My two cents. :asian:

 

[Henderson]

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

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

My two cents. :asian:

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

 

[theletch1]

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

 

[MartialIntent]

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

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

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

Respects!

 

[Yari]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respects!

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

/yari

 

[Hand Sword]

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

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

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