is aikido a grappling martial art?

[pgsmith]

Mr. Edward, I don't see how you could have possibly practiced a traditional Japanese art under a Japanese sensei for as long as you claim, and have so little understanding of Japanese terminology and thought process. Your ideas and 'understanding' are contrary to everything that I've been exposed to.

 

[JohnEdward]

For curiosity's sake, how would you categorize Hapkido?

To avoid recycling things I have said, I will have to direct the answer to where I talked about the analogy of screws and fasteners. Thanks.

 

[JohnEdward]

Chris, I guess once again I used a term that was confusing and implied something I didn't mean. That was "hybrid." Also I was being a bit tounge and cheek. Still digesting and giving it considerable thought.

 

[MJS]

What is the point of your thread? Are you asking a question or trying to prove a point, trying persuade someone, is there a greater purpose to discuss this, it is lost on me? What is the importance here of terming Aikido as grappling?1) We don't see it in grappling venues, Aikido isn't a duck out of water. It doesn't change Aikido either way. But, Aikido was started with the idea of it not being competitive like Karate, that said, caps the well. There is a hybrid Aikido that does competitions. They hasn't been inducted into main stream fighting venues. Or any other venue outside of its own that it created, nothing wrong with that. I mean I can't for the life of me figure any reason why Aikido being or not being termed as grappling being more than a head scratching conversation. What does it matter if it is or isn't a grappling art? To keep things straight in my head and answer questions without getting all technical, boring people. I say Aikido is a throwing art, it ain't wrestling, because people have a specific picture in their mind what wrestling looks like, and Aikido doesn't fit that.2) Grappling by definition is wrestling, they are inter-changable words. It is weird to say that Jujutsu or Judo is Japanese wrestling, for some ears that sounds odd. Instead we say Jujutsu is Japanese grappling that fits in the ears of many better. When we say Japanese wrestling we think Sumo, as it more closely fits with picture of wrestling. Honestly, it don't matter if you call Jujutsu or Judo wrestling or Aikido grappling. But in my mind, I call it a throwing art, cause you ain't on the ground entangled in a fight struggling to get a submission. It's all just labels to help us talk about it.

1) You're right, we dont see Aikido in a grappling competition, but we do see people grabbing.

2) http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+grapple&qpvt=definition+of+grappling&FORM=DTPDIA

As I've said a few times in this thread.....its all assumption and interpretation. People hear BJJ and assume its all on the ground. I say this because if its only done on the ground, then basically the person is learning an art that only applies to one situation...the ground. Well, what happens if they dont end up on the ground? What happens if the BJJ guy is unable to take the guy down or is in a situation where going down wouldn't be good? Does that mean the art fails?

What about no gi? Obviously stuff has to be modified for no gi, otherwise, a large portion of stuff goes out the window. I know people who grapple and they dont wear a gi outside.

 

[oftheherd1]

To avoid recycling things I have said, I will have to direct the answer to where I talked about the analogy of screws and fasteners. Thanks.

...

Which bring us to an interest point. Screw vs. Fastener. Are they the same? Yes, when the design and function of the object are the same, i.e. cross head screw. Now, the question can be answered as "No" also. Because fastener can be a machine bolt and nut, among other things. Design and function differ and are specific, therefore, a screw identifies a specific object and its function. Relate those ideas to Aikido being established as a popular recognizable name for a specific type of martial art. Then complicate that with terms from another language and meaning, and it gets really confusing as everything becomes indistinguishable.
..

I'm sorry, I still don't get it. Are you then saying Aikido and Hapkido are the same? That both are "fasteners?" Or is one a "nut and bolt?" Is Hapkido then a throwing art? I don't mean to sound contentious, but I really don't get the point of the above, much less how it answers my question of how you categorize Hapkido.

 

[Mark Jordan]

Aikido is considered a grappling art. Aikido techniques are accomplished by blending with the motion of the attacker in order to redirect the force of the attack and oppose it with minimum effort unlike when opposing it directly. It uses various types of throws & joint locks.

 

[oftheherd1]

Aikido is considered a grappling art. Aikido techniques are accomplished by blending with the motion of the attacker in order to redirect the force of the attack and oppose it with minimum effort unlike when opposing it directly. It uses various types of throws & joint locks.

I have yet give an opinion in this thread. Since I don't study Aikido, I can't assure anyone it is a grappling art. However, from having seen demonstrations of it, and from talking to a co-worker, I am inclined to agree it is. It seems similar to the Hapkido I studied in many of its techniques. I think the philosophy may be different, but will leave that to actual Aikido practitioners to agree on or disagree.

As to the reason, much of what I learned in Hapkido, and I see in Aikido, is defense against grabs to the body somewhere. That sounds like a "grapple" defense, hence I believe it is a grappling art. Pressure points, joint locks, throws, all are in the arsenal as part of the grab defense. But I don't think throws define Hapkido. Aikidoist can come in here and tell us if throws define Aikido to the point they are no longer a grappling art. That is assuming they agree Aikido is a grappling art.

But it would seem from the discussions in this thread that many wish to define grapple as mostly a ground based art. If that is the definition, then certainly Aikido and Hapkido are not grappling arts. That is not the way I understand grappling defense.

Maybe Hapkido, Aikido, BJJ, wrestling, are all "fasteners?" But from what I see of BJJ and wrestling, at least the competition side, I find that comparison difficult. Maybe I just need to get out more?

 

[punisher73]

Okay, this'll take a bit. Sorry bout that...



Just a heads up, but you may want to go back and re-read what I've posted over the last few pages, perhaps a few times, before coming back to this. Yes, there's a fair bit to digest, but a lot is repeated, and the message is consistent.



Hmm, I really don't get what you mean by "old school thinking... traditional views" etc when you're actually flying in the face of the traditional (old) interpretations and definitions of the terms we're talking about here. And, for the record, you'll actually be hard pressed to find a more "old school" person here than me. Gotta say.



John, your own definition of grappling as a noun is that it is "the act of grappling", with your supplied definition of grappling being "seize hold of (someone)", so I really don't see any support for your contention that Aikido isn't grappling. In fact, your own supplied definitions, as well as the dictionary definition I supplied, categorically put Aikido in the grappling realm, whether you agree with it by understanding what the term means or not.



John, throwing is one aspect of grappling, they are not separate. If it is throwing, it is grappling. Your reading into the idea of "a struggle" is not relevant, honestly, and is only one word in part of a definition as an example (not the definition itself by any means). Okay?



Well, the main reason that Ueshiba Sensei didn't call Aikido "grappling" is that he didn't speak English.... but you really need to understand that "Jujutsu" doesn't mean "grappling", if we were to use a Japanese term as a translation of "grappling", it would be "torite". Interestingly, this is term used in some systems, but we'll come back to an example of that.



Firstly, Aikido can put the hurt on plenty. Second, Jujutsu is not the Japanese word for grappling (as stated). Third, that is not the defining aspect of Japanese Jujutsu. I would say that your understanding and experience of the breadth of Japanese Jujutsu systems is relatively limited.

For example, Yagyu Shingan Ryu has four diffferent categorisations for it's unarmed tactics and methods, including methods they describe as Torite (literally "capturing, or seizing hands", as close a translation for grappling as you'll find), which is designed for protection of another, and in a range of it's methods, are designed to not injure unduly.



These are not the "latest labels or definitions", though. It is actually quite the opposite. Grappling is an old term, and is being applied correctly here. And, just to make absolutely sure here, there really isn't any other layer to describing Aikido as a "grappling art" than to look at if it grapples. Which it does (grappling being the act of seizing and holding, particularly in a martial or combative sense).

The use of an English word to categorise Aikido has absolutely nothing to do with the Japanese being complicated or complex people, really.



I have to say, John, that this entire paragraph here is badly skewed and misinformed. There is nothing in the definition that means that it is inherently offensive. And when it comes to your sporting analogy, that really makes no sense whatsoever. In that regard, grappling would be used the same way "kick" would (for example, football is a "kicking" game), Aikido is used the way the different games themselves are used (football, rather than baseball to identify a game itself).



John, I've said before that Tomiki Aikido is not a hybrid. Tomiki Sensei, when Ueshiba moved from a Menkyo licencing system to a Kyu/Dan ranking system, had his Menkyo Kaiden converted to 8th Dan (same with other Menkyo Kaiden holders), and was, along with the other senior members, to "go and find his own Aikido". He brought across some training approaches from Judo, but the core of the art remained (and remains) Aikido, not a hybrid with Judo.

And really, you'll find things like a fireman's carry (slightly different, but still there) in Aikido, but I really have to say that the presence of a leg-pick or not in no way makes it more or less grappling. At all. And in regard to it being "still a Jujutsu" pre-WWII, it still is one. We could go through things like Asayama Ichiden Ryu Taijutsu (very much an "old school" Jujutsu system) and see many things that exist in modern Aikido. Once again, your take on what makes something Jujutsu or not seems a bit lacking, honestly.



Ha, hate to tell you this, Punisher, but I've mentioned "pins" as a major part of Aikido at least 5 or 6 times now.... starting with my first post in this thread! Also brought up the "Jigoku Dojo" moniker as well. That said, agree completely!

I hadn't read through all of the posts and posted that comment where it was said in time, I have seen you mention them after the fact of me posting that.