How effective is Aikido?

[Hand Sword]

Because you play both sides of the fence.

Aikido is not effective.. I studied for 20 years...

You're arguing with yourself ! If you can't settle on your own thoughts, how can anyone else?

 

[Yari]

I said arguably! I don't care about history. As far as this argument with you...There is none! You've studied Aikido for twenty years, but you tried to slam it. You can't have it both ways. So, you are obviously just trying to be antagonistic.

As for this last post of yours.. What are you talking about? It's all irrelevant. Dying wasn't discussed or brought up. Maybe you just got out fought, it happens. That doesn't mean that your style wasn't being used for real.

You use argument to drive a point, so what's the wrong for me doing it?

I'm not trying to slam Aikido, but I feel I have a very realistic veiw of Aikido. As in life if you can't talk about the negativ sides of what your doing(praticing/living/studing), then your are in denail. Denail can be good, but openit up might just release a lot of new"energy" and newfound areas.

If you feel that I'm antagonistic, I'm sorry. That's not my intent. I'm trying to argue for at point that is directly against yours. If that's antagonistic in your book, OK I'll live with that.

I can see this isn't going further, so I whish to stop this before it goes to a place nobody whats this thread to go. So I gve you my hand and say stop. Lets just agree on disagreeing.

/Yari

 

[Hand Sword]

Your arguments are all over the map, that's why. You're for and against at the same time. You're stretching into other styles etc.. The topic was about Aikido, and it's effectiveness. You are a practitioner for twenty years. You have a realistic mindset for training, therefore it's been found by you to be effective.

 

[MartialIntent]

I just want to say I respekt everbody for coming forth and discussing this. I love that we disagree, and feel that we at the same time can respect each other. Which in itself is a good sign.

I don't think that we'll be able to change each other, but we might just put at seed of thought in our "brains", or just let others see that a world can be a good place even if you disagree with somebody.

What I'm trying to say now is that I think we know were each other is, and we dont agree, fundenmentaly. So why not just agree on disagreeing?

/Yari

Yari, personally, I can certainly agree to disagree. I only feel the inclination to pipe up and reply because I practice Aikido myself and do grow tired of those who run it down as a valid defensive and combative art when really they should look to themselves for the solution instead of claiming there's no solution within the art due to inherent flaws.

I could argue that Aikido is a perfect art and would be happy to do so [and I would not disagree with anyone telling me that of their art] but it would truly add nothing to this discussion. Any imperfections arise out of the practitioner and their lack of focus or intent.

I'll say it once more for the road. Think of the art as a computer. We often blame our computers for failing to work as expected. However, computer errors are generally attributable to human intervention [hardware malfunctions from flawed circuit design, bad coding or insufficient testing in software]. Computers nonetheless are a fantastic tool and can be used in a huge array of different applications. You get the right piece of software, load it up and off you go.

Respects!

 

[Hand Sword]

Very eloquently put! Thank you Miss! :asian:

 

[Yari]

Yari, personally, I can certainly agree to disagree. I only feel the inclination to pipe up and reply because I practice Aikido myself and do grow tired of those who run it down as a valid defensive and combative art when really they should look to themselves for the solution instead of claiming there's no solution within the art due to inherent flaws.

...
Respects!

OK, a logn way I do agree.

/Yari

 

[Hand Sword]

Yari, I think we all can agree to disagree. If you felt I was attacking you, I wasn't. Just a friendly debate. There are no hostilities felt or given by me.

That aside, I think we agree that Aikido can be and is effective. Don't we?

If so, that's the end of the argument here. I do think you have some kind of thorn about effectiveness and the arts in general. Why don't you start a new thread, in the General Martial arts section, saying what you want to say. That way we can get everyone involved in the discussion.

Respect to you ! :asian:

 

[Yari]

......

That aside, I think we agree that Aikido can be and is effective. Don't we?

.....

Respect to you ! :asian:

Yes we can agree.

/yari

 

[Hand Sword]

:asian:

 

[Jenna]

Reading through this, I'm glad it finished off well!!! There are some super ideas, thoughts and philosophies in here - I'm amazed at the clarity of thought you guys have. I can't add anything except to say you're all very committed to Aikido and the other arts that you practice. It's a big world. Big enough for us all and all our motivations. I feel certain we're all walking in the same direction, even though we're taking different paths.

Well said all. Let's have some more!

Yr most obdt hmble svt,
Jenna

 

[Hand Sword]

Thanks, considering it was done while working the 3rd shift-- LOL!

 

[jujutsu_indonesia]

I mean you are saying within your own art, you can find "techniques that are not 100% perfect for self-defense". I'd say if self-defense is a concern of yours then you either omit those techniques altogether from your fighting repertoire OR you try to own those techniques in the SD arena most likely by using them in suitable combinations. I mean whoever fights with one technique alone? That's akin to a painter using green only [because someone said green was good for landscapes], then complaining that the picture doesn't look quite right and blaming everything on the color green. Not deterred, that painter then throws away all his green and starts using just blue [because someone said blue was good for skies].

It's surely about the combinations of techniques and the subtleties therein. Anyway, I hope that makes some sense.

Respects!

Yes they makes lots of sense, now I understand what you are saying. That is why I said earlier that Kihon is to teach principles, and only after we understand those, we can learn how to apply Kihon in real situations. Off course I am not from the "Bruce Lee" camp which advocates "rejects what is useless", to me the Kihon and Kata will never become "useless", they are part of the system, we learn it and preserve it, because otherwise what we do will no longer be the original system.

I came from the "make strong foundation first" camp, so, even though a kihon waza looks silly, we still do it, because we want to understand the principle. Dojo techniques are meant to be examples, not as a hard-set rule to follow. In real fighting, we must learn to flow and adapt to changing situations. So if we need to paint the sky in green, so be it

PS: I think that was one of the reasons why Tomiki shihan invented Tanto Randori. He want to keep the "honesty" within his system

 

[MartialIntent]

Off course I am not from the "Bruce Lee" camp which advocates "rejects what is useless", to me the Kihon and Kata will never become "useless", they are part of the system, we learn it and preserve it, because otherwise what we do will no longer be the original system.

jj_i,
I agree completely with this. I would say that we are often too quick to throw out or reject what is supposedly "useless". I think though that there's a complacency in that attitude. It's tough-talking but not necessarily clever.

I can understand why someone might think a technique, a kata, a weapon is worthless because they can't see an application to any situation. The thing for me though is that I can never know all the possible situations I might be in and just because I've never found myself in a situation up until now, that counts for nothing.

Personally I think I have - and I think we all have - sufficient memory capacity to retain everything. None of us are like the old computers with low memory capacity that required data to be "archived" off to make way for newer stuff. Likewise there is no valid reason that I can see for rejecting an Aikido skill or any martial art skill. Obviously we select specific techniques as the situation demands but this is not to reject the others as useless but rather to be discerning. Far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as a "useless" piece of knowledge in my Aikido or in any other field for that matter. Knowledge is knowledge and to reject it is foolish.

Respects!

 

[Monadnock]

I am not sure the original intent of Aikido was self-defense. At least not the primary.

Even in most "practical" martial arts, the idea of self defense usually takes a back seat after training 10 or more years. That of course is different for everyone.

 

[MartialIntent]

I am not sure the original intent of Aikido was self-defense. At least not the primary.

That's interesting. An honest question for you is what then do you think was the original or primary intent of Aikido?

Respects!

 

[samurai69]

That's interesting. An honest question for you is what then do you think was the original or primary intent of Aikido?

Respects!

This is an excerpt of an article i was reading this morning........If the interview the writer talks about happened that way then i think O sensai answers that to a degree

"What is more effective for Self-defense, Aikido or the Parent Art of Aikido, Daito-Ryu Aikijutsu?"
We do have some of the words and thoughts of Ueshiba Sensei, however, and I have obtained them from an online resource and I believe I can take a few excerpts from this 1957 Interview and this should cast some light on the matter.
Ueshiba Sensei was asked several questions, I think from the answers, just looking at them as a commentary, you can see what I mean...
"In my opinion, it [Aikido] can be said to be the true martial art. The reason for this is that it is a martial art based on universal truth. This universe is composed of many different parts, and yet the universe as a whole is united as a family and symbolizes the ultimate state of peace. Holding such a view of the universe, Aikido cannot be anything but a martial art of love. It cannot be a martial art of violence.
...Since I taught martial arts to be used for the purpose of killing others to soldiers during the War, I became deeply troubled after the conflict ended.
...In Aikido, there is absolutely no attack. To attack means that the spirit has already lost. We adhere to the principle of absolute non-resistance, that is to say, we do not oppose the attacker."

The rest of the article I am in two minds against.....

As an aikido practicioner, i disagree.

As a Self Defence Instructor , I can see where the writer is coming from

This is not the complete article

 

[Monadnock]

In all honesty, I think Aikido was a spiritual Way for Ueshiba. Now, we are talking about the term "Aikido," which I do not think was coined until a few decades after AikiBudo. But I think we can see physical differenses in the two just by comparing video from the different eras.

Also, if I can backtrack a little, I should not necessaryily use primary, secondary, and such to describe the reasons for Budo, but note that there are many reasons to practice which are all intertwined. Which is more important to you? That may change with time.

 

[theletch1]

I think the original idea for aikido was, indeed, self defense. The key word being Defense, though, of the self AND the attacker. I have to think that the omission of aggressive techniques and a reliance on punching or kicking was O'sensei's way of protecting everyone involved. The article quotes him as saying that it is an art of love not an art of violence. I agree that it is not an art that allows the practitioner to act violently but attempts to negate the violence offered up by others with a "gentle" (and in a perfect mind, loving) reaction. That doesn't mean that it can't appear violent in the aftermath of broken bones or destroyed joints, just that when done perfectly it shouldn't have that result.

 

[Jenna]

I think the original idea for aikido was, indeed, self defense. The key word being Defense, though, of the self AND the attacker. I have to think that the omission of aggressive techniques and a reliance on punching or kicking was O'sensei's way of protecting everyone involved. The article quotes him as saying that it is an art of love not an art of violence. I agree that it is not an art that allows the practitioner to act violently but attempts to negate the violence offered up by others with a "gentle" (and in a perfect mind, loving) reaction. That doesn't mean that it can't appear violent in the aftermath of broken bones or destroyed joints, just that when done perfectly it shouldn't have that result.

Hey Jeff
Perfect answer to the question I think. Defence of the self AND the attacker says it all. No other art has this principle as a motivation let alone a CORE around which the rest of the art is built. Good, good, good. I like that. Well said. I have a big smile for hearing that answer and being reminded of its importance and uniqueness.

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[matt.m]

I am studying Hapkido at Moo Sul Kwan, so I would say that with the relationship hapkido and aikido have it is very effective. A quick lineage if you will....my father is a hapkido master. He learned from Lee H. Park, Lee learned from Won-Kwang Wha. Won-Kwang Wha was classmates with Ji Han Jae, both of these men learned from Choi himself.

There has been a lot of controversy as to if Ueshiba and Choi were classmates together to Takeda. However, I have read that Choi was giving a demonstration and Ueshiba acknowledged him as a friend.

My pop always regarded Ueshiba with the utmost of respect as well.

Back to point, sorry. Look, in St. Louis there are a few different Aikido schools, I understand what some of you mean about them. Hapkido is no different in that respect. That does not take away the fact that it is a truely effective way of defense.