How effective is Aikido?

[MartialIntent]

Then if someone asks you if Aikido is effective you'll say, "Hells yes it is!" I've defeated wrestlers, boxers, MMA guys, weapon's experts, all with Aikido, an effective and complete art."

I appreciate what you're saying here I would only say that if your aim in your art is to defeat allcomers or to fight mixed style eg K-1, then yes, you need to practise *against* all those arts and you need to practise sufficiently long and delve sufficiently deeply into the various techniques to do that.

Of course someone doesn't have to cross-spar to prove their MA is complete, but it would prove that the person studying it is complete within it, would it not? (even if only to themselves)

Again I'd tentatively agree with that [I don't want to seem argumentative] but for me Aikido IS a complete art. If I practise it long enough will I become complete within it? Well I can but try to strive for that. But will that necessitate me X-sparring with practitioners from other arts? To this I'd have to say no. My art, yours or anyone's arts are complete and whole intrinsically and need nothing additional to make them complete and by deduction neither do practitioners of those arts. Let me give an analogy - if you play piano, practise and get better daily and do this for a certain number of years until you are virtuoso. Go to the Carnegie for a player in residence position and they turn you away because you've never played with cellists or guitarists or whatever. I think they'd be within their rights to do that but again, I don't think it would either take away from, or give due credit to your virtuoso piano playing.

It makes sense to me.
But hey, I'm just a beginner

No such thing as "just" a beginner my friend and beware of anyone who says that, implies it or takes that attitude with you. Beginners ensure more advanced students do their thing properly, no matter what the art. The response of the beginner is without the jaded affectation that many senior practitioners have. So have worth in your status. Everyone has to begin somewhere. Good luck to you.

Respects!

 

[Robert Lee]

Real truth is NO art is complete. its just the chosen path of training. One art offers that method another this method Neither is complete If 1 art was for sure complte There would not be a need for so many arts. Aikido breaks down from Aikijutsu Which is a harder aspect of training Then Aikido. Now aikijutsu breaks doen from Jujitsu as does Judo. Then would not it be best to say the mother art is Jujitsu. So depending on what you want to be able to apply with any of these arts thats what the training brings. BUT none are complete

 

[Beowulf]

I appreciate what you're saying here I would only say that if your aim in your art is to defeat allcomers or to fight mixed style eg K-1, then yes, you need to practise *against* all those arts and you need to practise sufficiently long and delve sufficiently deeply into the various techniques to do that.

Okay, I suppose that is my aim, besides honor and discipline (to have the proven ability to put up a good fight with all styles) although one has to be realistic.

Again I'd tentatively agree with that [I don't want to seem argumentative] but for me Aikido IS a complete art. If I practise it long enough will I become complete within it? Well I can but try to strive for that. But will that necessitate me X-sparring with practitioners from other arts? To this I'd have to say no. My art, yours or anyone's arts are complete and whole intrinsically and need nothing additional to make them complete and by deduction neither do practitioners of those arts. Let me give an analogy - if you play piano, practise and get better daily and do this for a certain number of years until you are virtuoso. Go to the Carnegie for a player in residence position and they turn you away because you've never played with cellists or guitarists or whatever. I think they'd be within their rights to do that but again, I don't think it would either take away from, or give due credit to your virtuoso piano playing.

Good analogy for MA, and perhaps someone like myself DOES have to train in my art as if I'm going to go play at Carnegie, because otherwise I'd don't train as hard. Of course I'm not really interested in getting my elbow snapped at a UFC event but for me carnegie would be to be a formidable opponent to those who are into that sort of thing.

Only competition sparring would prove that to me. But if you know you are good without competition, the way a good piano player knows they are good without competition, you probably are good and have a lot of knowledge with your art, and I can certainly respect that as a beginner.

No such thing as "just" a beginner my friend and beware of anyone who says that, implies it or takes that attitude with you. Beginners ensure more advanced students do their thing properly, no matter what the art. The response of the beginner is without the jaded affectation that many senior practitioners have. So have worth in your status. Everyone has to begin somewhere. Good luck to you.

Respects!

Respects

 

[theletch1]

It has been my experience that the reasons people begin to train in the arts are not the reasons people continue to train in the arts. Most of us began our training looking for self defense and as such every step along the path has a what if sound to it. Step...What if someone throws a roundhouse? Step...what if they have a weapon? Step...what if they go to the ground? It's part of the natural progression to try to discern whether or not your art is equal (on a physical level) to the other arts out there. The desire to cross train or compete is a part of the "What if" phase of the path. Eventually, the reason you started changes to the reason you continue. "What if" changes to "Also" as you realize that your art can handle all the what if scenarios and that it's simply you that has to make it work. Step...This tech also works against the roundhouse. Step...these techs also work against a weapon. Step...these techs also work on the ground. Not everyone is sitting at the same mile marker along the path. Heck, many take exit ramps for awhile and then jump back on later, better for the excursion. The great part about aikido is that there are enough lanes on the path to handle the traffic and always an entrance ramp to let you back on after you've taken a momentary sight seeing trip somewhere else.

((sorry for the highway analogy...what else do you expect from a truck driver? ))

 

[Beowulf]

Whoa I hope you can tell where I quoted you and where I spoke on that last one, I'm still learning the way to post these

 

[Hand Sword]

I'm all for the dedication to one's art, but, the notion that every art is complete is false. No art is complete, with all the answers. They all have their shortcomings. If the TMA's were complete, than the eclectic styles wouldn't have come into existance, Aikido too, wouldn't be here.

 

[Yari]

It has been my experience that the reasons people begin to train in the arts are not the reasons people continue to train in the arts. Most of us began our training looking for self defense and as such every step along the path has a what if sound to it. Step...What if someone throws a roundhouse? Step...what if they have a weapon? Step...what if they go to the ground? It's part of the natural progression to try to discern whether or not your art is equal (on a physical level) to the other arts out there. The desire to cross train or compete is a part of the "What if" phase of the path. Eventually, the reason you started changes to the reason you continue. "What if" changes to "Also" as you realize that your art can handle all the what if scenarios and that it's simply you that has to make it work. Step...This tech also works against the roundhouse. Step...these techs also work against a weapon. Step...these techs also work on the ground. Not everyone is sitting at the same mile marker along the path. Heck, many take exit ramps for awhile and then jump back on later, better for the excursion. The great part about aikido is that there are enough lanes on the path to handle the traffic and always an entrance ramp to let you back on after you've taken a momentary sight seeing trip somewhere else.

((sorry for the highway analogy...what else do you expect from a truck driver? ))

Nicely put!

/Yari

 

[MartialIntent]

I'm all for the dedication to one's art, but, the notion that every art is complete is false. No art is complete, with all the answers. They all have their shortcomings. If the TMA's were complete, than the eclectic styles wouldn't have come into existance, Aikido too, wouldn't be here.

I'd respectfully disagree. I think you are trying to jump this train head-on rather than running alongside it for a bit first! The shortcomings you mention are only relative to other arts. You seem to be suggesting that the likes of Ueshiba or Kano or Parker designed their art to fill a market niche - that sort of thinking is an understandable reflection of today's market-driven mentality. I think on the contrary most of the best of the "recent" TMAs came to be because their designers wanted to give something unique to the MA community.

I think Aikido came into existence out of DRAJJ *not* because it was something "better" but because of O'Sensei's desire to give us all a unique interpretation. Find me somewhere where there's any mention from Ueshiba of Aikido being "better" than its forerunners and I'll honestly reconsider my position. There's no implication [in my mind at least] that Aiki-JuJitsu is deficient or incomplete because of the existence of Aikido but that's what it sounds like you're suggesting. Aiki-JuJitsu, Aikido and ALL the other TMAs are for me, 100% complete without shortcomings. The only shortcomings are only in the mind and body of the practitioner.

Respects!

 

[Hand Sword]

I'd respectfully disagree. I think you are trying to jump this train head-on rather than running alongside it for a bit first! The shortcomings you mention are only relative to other arts. You seem to be suggesting that the likes of Ueshiba or Kano or Parker designed their art to fill a market niche - that sort of thinking is an understandable reflection of today's market-driven mentality. I think on the contrary most of the best of the "recent" TMAs came to be because their designers wanted to give something unique to the MA community.

I think Aikido came into existence out of DRAJJ *not* because it was something "better" but because of O'Sensei's desire to give us all a unique interpretation. Find me somewhere where there's any mention from Ueshiba of Aikido being "better" than its forerunners and I'll honestly reconsider my position. There's no implication [in my mind at least] that Aiki-JuJitsu is deficient or incomplete because of the existence of Aikido but that's what it sounds like you're suggesting. Aiki-JuJitsu, Aikido and ALL the other TMAs are for me, 100% complete without shortcomings. The only shortcomings are only in the mind and body of the practitioner.

Respects!

The short comings are only relative to the other arts? Sounds like you're suggesting that Aikido is superior to everything else, with a statement like that.

Nothing in my post refers to anything being superior, or the founders thinking that way. I think you jumped on a whole different train altogether, saying that was what I was inferring, with all do respect.

I won't get into a history lesson with you, but, in a nut shell, Yes, Parker and O'Sensei did market a certain niche. For one, the Kenpo Seniors on this board will tell you that about Parker, and have done so in their posts. Why was his Kenpo different from Professor Chow's? He found something lacking and added to it, later watering it down to "motion" Kenpo, for the masses. O'sensei too, changed his Aikijutsu, and added what he felt was lacking--more spirituality, less brutality of the opponent, or emphasis of.

Yes, it's always about the practitoner eventually. Explains all of the different versions of Aikido, doesn't it? Each have their own version because the original was lacking something for them, and they changed it. You'll do the same when you do it your way too. Your past posts show a mindset that are not in the Aikido spirit shall we say? I guarantee your version will be much different than O'sensei's. Not a bad thing. It should evolve.

 

[MartialIntent]

Why was his Kenpo different from Professor Chow's? He found something lacking and added to it, later watering it down to "motion" Kenpo, for the masses. O'sensei too, changed his Aikijutsu, and added what he felt was lacking--more spirituality, less brutality of the opponent, or emphasis of.

While I certainly would claim no knowledge of ANY other art except my own to some small extent I think, respectfully, your use of the term "lacking" is narrow minded. You're coming at this suggesting Aikido and Parker's Kenpo [and by extrapolation ALL arts] came to be because of what was "lacking" in what went before. Hmmm. Well, I can only guess that your cup is half empty and not half full...

If I've made any inference that Aikido is superior then I'm evidently not expressing myself very well at all. I can only apologize unreservedly for this and trust as well that you're not trying to put a "spin" on what I'm attempting to say.

For the record I will say again that NO art is superior to any other. And furthermore ALL TMAs are complete. If you see a "lack" then you must look at yourself first.

The simple fact is that Ueshiba, Parker, Bruce Lee, Kano, the Gracies and maybe more recently the five forefathers of Kajukenbo and *all* the other designers of the TMAs [both old and new] were and are visionaries. You're suggesting to me that they dreamt up these arts simply to fill holes in the market? Simply to "better" what went before? Personally I don't practice my art to be "better" than anyone or because it's "better" than any other art.

If this is how you work it yourself then I hope sincerely we can agree to disagree and I won't pick you up on your veiled personal insult.

Respects!

 

[celtic_crippler]

Any art that tailors itself to the individual is effective. It is my understanding that Aikido is such an art. So...if that's the case, then Aikido is effective.
IMHO

 

[Hand Sword]

While I certainly would claim no knowledge of ANY other art except my own to some small extent I think, respectfully, your use of the term "lacking" is narrow minded. You're coming at this suggesting Aikido and Parker's Kenpo [and by extrapolation ALL arts] came to be because of what was "lacking" in what went before. Hmmm. Well, I can only guess that your cup is half empty and not half full...

If I've made any inference that Aikido is superior then I'm evidently not expressing myself very well at all. I can only apologize unreservedly for this and trust as well that you're not trying to put a "spin" on what I'm attempting to say.

For the record I will say again that NO art is superior to any other. And furthermore ALL TMAs are complete. If you see a "lack" then you must look at yourself first.

The simple fact is that Ueshiba, Parker, Bruce Lee, Kano, the Gracies and maybe more recently the five forefathers of Kajukenbo and *all* the other designers of the TMAs [both old and new] were and are visionaries. You're suggesting to me that they dreamt up these arts simply to fill holes in the market? Simply to "better" what went before? Personally I don't practice my art to be "better" than anyone or because it's "better" than any other art.

If this is how you work it yourself then I hope sincerely we can agree to disagree and I won't pick you up on your veiled personal insult.

Respects!

As to your first sentence...I do! I heard Mr. Parker say it live and in person about what was lacking in the kenpo he was taught, and the TMA's, which is what spurred him to develop his own Kenpo. Bruce lee too tossed away Wing Chun and developed his own version. The BlackBelt society and Kajukenbo, Yep! Same thing. The worked out the weaknesses of each style, and formed one comprehensive style.

We all start off trying to copy our instructors. We learn and grow, eventually, doing the art OUR WAY. It was the same for all the visionaries too. If the TMA's were not "lacking" than these visionaries wouldn't have come along. They are known, and have visionary status because they challenged the Idea of the TMA's! Something unheard of in the past. Besides, read all of their stuff, listen to interview, or whatever, and you'll see that they talk of the "lacking" a lot.


As I said, I don't want to get into a history lesson. Your cup is apparently too full and overflowing. You said that you didn't have knowledge of these arts, but spoke on them any way, from your own point of view. Pretty narrow minded on your part. Take your own advice that you were accusing me of lacking, and listen and learn from those that do.

As for putting a "spin" on your words, how was this so? I simply quoted what you typed on the screen. They ARE Your WORDS. There was no spin, re-read your post if you doubt it. Saying that is the same as my way is superior. I know you don't feel that way, but, again, you typed what you typed.

Last, to your "veiled personal insult", Are you serious? My post, that started this made a general statement, that all arts lack, none have all the answers. You then opened up with saying the train thing, calling me narrow minded,having a half empty cup, and "lacking" myself. Clearly personal snipes at me! I never sniped at you as you claim.

For the record, If I have anything to say to anyone, I think in the past, I have shown that I will say it! Nothing hidden or "veiled"! I also have never insulted anyone in this forum, even after getting some hurled at me first!

Please let's not let this get any further down this road ! This is a good thread going on.

Respect back to you!

 

[Robert Lee]

Every person is different. Most all Founders of a new style we will use the term style. They were looking they were wondering They were seeing something that best met there needs and veiws. They made changes It worked for them They had people that saw those changes and wanted to learn that way as they felt they indeed was learning something They thought was useful to. THERE IS NO REAL STYLE just you and I and everyone else. NO STYLE will ever be complete It can not be complete It may have met the needs for the person that made they orginal changes. Each person compltes there needs. Its just a path youlearn what it offers you You find what it gives .No one can use all that has been put in that method. Not even its founder We think as we do we find certion levels to the tools that we can use. The others we do not use as well because they all just can not work for every person. They are there to learn then take what is to become yours leave what some one else can use If I new of one so called style that was full and complete that most all people who would come to learn it would become so very good at it I would run to find it and soon all other arts would just disapear . Because this one art had the truth that was looked for by many for a life time. Only you can become some what complete. Rounded in the different aspects of unarmed combat. To say this works means you have tested it in live training for your self. To see some one else do it and see it work. Well that is not you To see how something will work it to is not being able to get it working you have to test your training. Aikido does what randori training It helps to get things working in a safe training mannner. Can it train hard resistive training. only when you go as far to not fully coment the the use but take to where both persons doing it does know it would have worked Then reduce the movement to a lesser stress on the joint being manipluated. To go for completment iF it works aginst several aspect of solid attack defence motions for YOU then its a tool you will be putting in the tool box. Train those strong useful tools for your Akido thats yours Throw the rest away for your self If you teach give those tools you do not find useful back to the student he or she may find in them something they can use. If you or your student sees something outside your art that fits and blends with your personal needs add that for your self only. That is part of your combat needs It may not be AIKIDO but its yours. Isnt that how style came to be by someone finding further needs then others thinking that helped them too.. The answer is you the person A trail can lead to many places that brings you to what you will need and understand. stop to long along that trail you become trapped and can not go forward by your self. M/A its just that path to your own discovery. Nice to put some name on it BUt it really has no name.

 

[jujutsu_indonesia]

I think Aikido came into existence out of DRAJJ *not* because it was something "better" but because of O'Sensei's desire to give us all a unique interpretation.
Respects!

yes indeed, you are very right. aikido, aiki jujutsu, all ultimately came from the same person (Takeda sensei). He gave us a set of "operating principles", then his students (Uyeshiba sensei, Okuyama sensei, Tokimune sensei etc) create "operating systems" to enable us to learn and use those principles. So now we have different "operating systems", and none are "better" than the others, but the operating principles and true origins are the same. so we're all brothers and sisters

 

[zenfrog]

aikido really isn't for me but I've worked out with some people from aikido/jujitsu hybrid styles that are pretty effective, check out every martial art you're interested in you might learn some cool stuff, and at the very least you will have got the experience of checking out a new class

 

[seal]

While I certainly would claim no knowledge of ANY other art except my own to some small extent I think, respectfully, your use of the term "lacking" is narrow minded. You're coming at this suggesting Aikido and Parker's Kenpo [and by extrapolation ALL arts] came to be because of what was "lacking" in what went before. Hmmm. Well, I can only guess that your cup is half empty and not half full...

If I've made any inference that Aikido is superior then I'm evidently not expressing myself very well at all. I can only apologize unreservedly for this and trust as well that you're not trying to put a "spin" on what I'm attempting to say.

For the record I will say again that NO art is superior to any other. And furthermore ALL TMAs are complete. If you see a "lack" then you must look at yourself first.

The simple fact is that Ueshiba, Parker, Bruce Lee, Kano, the Gracies and maybe more recently the five forefathers of Kajukenbo and *all* the other designers of the TMAs [both old and new] were and are visionaries. You're suggesting to me that they dreamt up these arts simply to fill holes in the market? Simply to "better" what went before? Personally I don't practice my art to be "better" than anyone or because it's "better" than any other art.

If this is how you work it yourself then I hope sincerely we can agree to disagree and I won't pick you up on your veiled personal insult.

Respects!

Wow I totally disagree with that.

 

[Stan]

I'd respectfully disagree. I think you are trying to jump this train head-on rather than running alongside it for a bit first! The shortcomings you mention are only relative to other arts. You seem to be suggesting that the likes of Ueshiba or Kano or Parker designed their art to fill a market niche - that sort of thinking is an understandable reflection of today's market-driven mentality. I think on the contrary most of the best of the "recent" TMAs came to be because their designers wanted to give something unique to the MA community.

I think Aikido came into existence out of DRAJJ *not* because it was something "better" but because of O'Sensei's desire to give us all a unique interpretation. Find me somewhere where there's any mention from Ueshiba of Aikido being "better" than its forerunners and I'll honestly reconsider my position. There's no implication [in my mind at least] that Aiki-JuJitsu is deficient or incomplete because of the existence of Aikido but that's what it sounds like you're suggesting. Aiki-JuJitsu, Aikido and ALL the other TMAs are for me, 100% complete without shortcomings. The only shortcomings are only in the mind and body of the practitioner.

Respects!

That's like the old falacy that if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys!

 

[KOROHO]

I would say that Aikido can be effective. It depends on how the teaching and training is approached.

My Aikido style is Doshinkan (essentially Yoshinkan), which is very effective. Yoshinkan is widely utilized by the Police in Tokyo and other areas. I trained in Shin Shin Toitsu (Ki Society) and found that be to esoteric. I learned some AAA/Toyoda style from a retired police officer who used it in his line of work. That was highly effective, but I never trained with Toyoda Shihan so I don't know how much my teacher changed it.

One of the other teachers in the school was Deputy Sheriff. He said in class once that anyone that says Aikido does not work never saw the surprised look on a suspects face when he tries to fight back and can't.

Although it was unintentional, I ended up training with a number of police officers and people who taught at police academies. I learned to go with what the police are saying works for them. And they say Aikido works.

Yoshinkan is my preferred style for self defense. But check out the other classes by you and see what you think.

 

[DANNY]

I'm practising Aikikai Aikido. The ultimate aim of aikido (and probably most martial arts) is not winning or losing but perfection of the character, but Aikido is effective martial arts. My sensei have ever been attacked by several men. He was a undergraduate student at that time. Since the attacker was his senior, so he didn't attack back. He's just avoid the attack n did some projection technique. Of course he also got some punch but didn't make him felt down, maybe just light punch.
After that accident, aikido club was established and some of the attacker also join the aikido club.

 

[Rook]

While I certainly would claim no knowledge of ANY other art except my own to some small extent I think, respectfully, your use of the term "lacking" is narrow minded.

I think your confidence is misplaced.

You're coming at this suggesting Aikido and Parker's Kenpo [and by extrapolation ALL arts] came to be because of what was "lacking" in what went before. Hmmm. Well, I can only guess that your cup is half empty and not half full...

If what came before suited them perfectly, they wouldn't have changed it.

For the record I will say again that NO art is superior to any other. And furthermore ALL TMAs are complete. If you see a "lack" then you must look at yourself first.

Only part of the strengths and weaknesses are those of the individual practitioner. Instructors also have strengths and weaknesses (as well as focuses and specializations). So do entire arts. No art does everything. Even arts that do the exact same technique the same way in the same or similar contexts don't always train it the same way.

If the art has no bearing on performance, then what art is studied wouldn't make any differance at all. I could do Viking swordplay using TKD. I could fight point-sparring tournaments using iado. I could wrestle from Northern Longfist Kung Fu and throw knives using Judo. It just doesn't work like that.

The simple fact is that Ueshiba, Parker, Bruce Lee, Kano, the Gracies and maybe more recently the five forefathers of Kajukenbo and *all* the other designers of the TMAs [both old and new] were and are visionaries. You're suggesting to me that they dreamt up these arts simply to fill holes in the market?

No one suggested that.

Simply to "better" what went before? Personally I don't practice my art to be "better" than anyone or because it's "better" than any other art.

More like better suited for what they wanted to do with their martial art. No art is best at everything. Every art has its own specialties and focuses. They are "better" at some aspects and "worse" at others.