First a little background: I only studied Taekwondo for about 3 years and I was a senior green belt about to advance in rank. I dropped out due to some serious health issues and I've been out for about 8 years. I live in a cultural dead zone so real martial art schools are few and far between. Most schools around here are McDojos, including the Taekwondo school I went to. My health is back on track and I want to study a more traditional martial art. One that is not treated as a sport. I am less interested in competitions and rank advancements and more interested in proper technique and the core philosophy of the style. There are only two schools around here I know of that don't fall into a McDojo category. My first choice, a Mu Sool Won academy is 45 minutes away and it would be too far for me to drive there more than 2 or 3 days a week. I'd like to devote at least 4 or 5 days to study. The second, is an Aikido dojo and it is only about 15 minutes away. The instructor was very nice and answered a lot of questions and the style did seem more focused on the things I want. However, I cam home and did research on Aikido and found a lot of negative opinions of it on several forums. So many martial artists seem to have a poor opinion of Aikido but they didn't give any really specific answers as to why. I was just wondering, specifically, why Aikido gets such a bad rap? I'd like to hear from people who have actually practiced it. What are it's pros and cons? I am more interested in it as a practice and lifestyle but I would like to be able to use it in self defense if need be. I am also intending to dedicate many years to it. I love martial arts and have since I was a child. I just want to find the right style and school!
Switching from TaeKwondo to Aikido?
- Thread starter Crimson
- Start date
Welcome to MT. :wavey:
Within the martial arts if I was asked to name the two most opposite they would probably be TKD and Aikido. TKD is mainly a sport that predominantly uses feet and Aikido mainly uses hands and is hardly ever sport. But enough of differences. Let's look at Aikido.
Aikido gets a bum wrap from most martial artists who don't learn Aikido because what they see is not 'real' and a lot of people learning Aikido don't train against resisting opponents so their techniques can fail under pressure. Also people watching Aikido training don't understand the purpose of the training and it looks 'wussy'. Before I started Aikido I thought that myself. Aikido is very effective but it takes a lot of training to get to that level. Even with a long MA background I reckon it took me close to six years before I felt confident I could use Aikido in a real life situation.
Let's look first at some of the reasons people bag Aikido and answer those questions.
1. The attacks are unrealistic.
What people generally mean by that is that shomen uchi (downward knife hand strike to the head) is not realistic. In fairness that is the fault of Aikido teachers. If the attack is unrealistic it is that the teacher hasn't taught the students to attack properly. In real life that strike can be lethal. I teach the same strike in Karate and Krav Maga. In Aikido that strike is used because it can't be avoided. If someone throws a punch you can duck and it goes past. With the downward strike, if you move too soon the strike will follow you. This type of strike gives an exercise in timing of your response.
2. Many techniques are trained from a wrist grab.
When the wrist is held firmly it is hard to move. The training is designed to teach you how to move around the strength of the grab to perform whatever technique you are training. It also gives you confidence in the fact that people will not be able to hold your wrist as you can remove their grip at any time.
3. The throws are fake.
Mostly this allegation is true because they aren't really throws. In the Aikido I train there is only one genuine throw and it's not something I would ever be likely to use. The rest are takedowns that are performed slowly enough for your partner to roll out of the technique. Performed quickly there is no roll, just a a crumpled heap on the ground. But the exercise is to go with the technique to learn to 'receive'. Receiving is the art of not clashing physically which then allows the techniques to be reversed when you get to that level of training.
4. Aikido doesn't train techniques against some one really trying to resist.
As above, if you resist the technique neither person learns anything. By not resisting, the person doing the technique learns how to perform the technique and the person receiving the technique learns how to move with their partners energy. In good Aikido you will train against more and more resistance. If you can perform a technique slowly against total resistance you can certainly use it in real life full speed against an attacker not familiar with your technique.
Good Aikido is like any other good martial art. It will be effective for self defence but it will take longer to reach that level. Like other martial arts, a good instructor is essential. To my mind there are no cons with Aikido unless you want to compete in the ring.
Feel free to ask any other question. Good luck with your training.
:asian:
Within the martial arts if I was asked to name the two most opposite they would probably be TKD and Aikido. TKD is mainly a sport that predominantly uses feet and Aikido mainly uses hands and is hardly ever sport. But enough of differences. Let's look at Aikido.
Aikido gets a bum wrap from most martial artists who don't learn Aikido because what they see is not 'real' and a lot of people learning Aikido don't train against resisting opponents so their techniques can fail under pressure. Also people watching Aikido training don't understand the purpose of the training and it looks 'wussy'. Before I started Aikido I thought that myself. Aikido is very effective but it takes a lot of training to get to that level. Even with a long MA background I reckon it took me close to six years before I felt confident I could use Aikido in a real life situation.
Let's look first at some of the reasons people bag Aikido and answer those questions.
1. The attacks are unrealistic.
What people generally mean by that is that shomen uchi (downward knife hand strike to the head) is not realistic. In fairness that is the fault of Aikido teachers. If the attack is unrealistic it is that the teacher hasn't taught the students to attack properly. In real life that strike can be lethal. I teach the same strike in Karate and Krav Maga. In Aikido that strike is used because it can't be avoided. If someone throws a punch you can duck and it goes past. With the downward strike, if you move too soon the strike will follow you. This type of strike gives an exercise in timing of your response.
2. Many techniques are trained from a wrist grab.
When the wrist is held firmly it is hard to move. The training is designed to teach you how to move around the strength of the grab to perform whatever technique you are training. It also gives you confidence in the fact that people will not be able to hold your wrist as you can remove their grip at any time.
3. The throws are fake.
Mostly this allegation is true because they aren't really throws. In the Aikido I train there is only one genuine throw and it's not something I would ever be likely to use. The rest are takedowns that are performed slowly enough for your partner to roll out of the technique. Performed quickly there is no roll, just a a crumpled heap on the ground. But the exercise is to go with the technique to learn to 'receive'. Receiving is the art of not clashing physically which then allows the techniques to be reversed when you get to that level of training.
4. Aikido doesn't train techniques against some one really trying to resist.
As above, if you resist the technique neither person learns anything. By not resisting, the person doing the technique learns how to perform the technique and the person receiving the technique learns how to move with their partners energy. In good Aikido you will train against more and more resistance. If you can perform a technique slowly against total resistance you can certainly use it in real life full speed against an attacker not familiar with your technique.
Good Aikido is like any other good martial art. It will be effective for self defence but it will take longer to reach that level. Like other martial arts, a good instructor is essential. To my mind there are no cons with Aikido unless you want to compete in the ring.
Feel free to ask any other question. Good luck with your training.
:asian:
hoshin1600
Senior Master
hey crimson welcome to the forums. i think for the most part aikido gets a lot of negative opinions because in general they do not strike. proponents of aikido will point out the use of atemi which is aiki's version of striking but this does not constitute an indepth study of strikes and punching. also aikido has a tendency to attract the type of person who wants to learn a movment type art but are not necessarily interested in actual fighting. as you probably know by now that aikido is made up of throws and wrist controlls. the con toward aikido is that few instuctors place any importance on real fighting. yes it is a martial art but the practice is usually more about the art and less about practicality. also there is a major misunderstanding about the part of uke, or the guy who gets thrown. many people both outside and inside the art think that the self defense aspect of the art is to throw. in some instances yes but in most cases the aim is to break the joint and ukemi is a means of not getting your arm broken. another con is that the flow and motion of the techniques are practiced with an unrealistic cadence and a very stylised way of moving. those that train in the system often find it imposible to do aikido against a non aikido or non compliant agressor.
Aikido - Kote Gaeshi - YouTube
if you look at this clip it has some good aikido in it but you will notice the stylised attacks. nage is not really throwing the uke. the uke is throwing himself. so in real combat the attacker will not attack or respond in a maner that the practitioner will be used to.
all that being said the actual techniques are real. if you were to do kotegaishi on someone full force full speed that person would lose their arm or wrist. the technique is there but it would be up to the individual to adjust themselves to the way a real attack might happen.
you will have to ask yourself what your goals in training are. my advise would be to take a look at what your trying to accomplish and see if locks and throws fit into your overall picture. if the answer is yes then watch the class carefully and decide if the dojo meets your needs, does the dojo give you the right vibe.
Aikido - Kote Gaeshi - YouTube
if you look at this clip it has some good aikido in it but you will notice the stylised attacks. nage is not really throwing the uke. the uke is throwing himself. so in real combat the attacker will not attack or respond in a maner that the practitioner will be used to.
all that being said the actual techniques are real. if you were to do kotegaishi on someone full force full speed that person would lose their arm or wrist. the technique is there but it would be up to the individual to adjust themselves to the way a real attack might happen.
you will have to ask yourself what your goals in training are. my advise would be to take a look at what your trying to accomplish and see if locks and throws fit into your overall picture. if the answer is yes then watch the class carefully and decide if the dojo meets your needs, does the dojo give you the right vibe.
Get your TKDBB, then play Aikido. 
hoshin1600
Senior Master
i have to disagree on some of these statements.
the strikes are unrealistic because they are unrealistic. and that means all of them. the term unrealistic means that no one in real combat would attack like that. and its because of the "way" it is done not because it is an overhead attack. i would also argue that all things being equal, i can avoid shomen uchi much much easier than an over hand right or right cross. if you think a boxer cant change angles in the last second you have never faced one. it is much harder to duck than to sidestep. i would say the shomen uchi strike is in aiki because it is an unarmed version of a sword strike coming from jodan posture just like yokomen uchi is an unarmed kesa giri. i dont see how shomen uchi could be lethal. i have been hit square in the head with a boken. i do not see where this strike would do anything more than piss me off, unless there was a sword in hand. i feel the attacks in aiki are better viewed as weapon attacks without the weapon. the yokomen uchi has the elbow in the opposite position as a right hand punch. this has the effect of making almost all aiki techniques null and void against the most common strike there is on the street. if you were to put a knife in the hand of the attacker the elbow does in fact get pulled in and aiki works quite well against this. i will agree that shomen uchi is done in an unrealistic manner but it is because it mimics the sword movment. if you were to use a short range blunt weapon for this, the dynamics change greatly if done in an effective manner and again aiki is almost useless against this but then so are most arts in this case.
the strikes are unrealistic because they are unrealistic. and that means all of them. the term unrealistic means that no one in real combat would attack like that. and its because of the "way" it is done not because it is an overhead attack. i would also argue that all things being equal, i can avoid shomen uchi much much easier than an over hand right or right cross. if you think a boxer cant change angles in the last second you have never faced one. it is much harder to duck than to sidestep. i would say the shomen uchi strike is in aiki because it is an unarmed version of a sword strike coming from jodan posture just like yokomen uchi is an unarmed kesa giri. i dont see how shomen uchi could be lethal. i have been hit square in the head with a boken. i do not see where this strike would do anything more than piss me off, unless there was a sword in hand. i feel the attacks in aiki are better viewed as weapon attacks without the weapon. the yokomen uchi has the elbow in the opposite position as a right hand punch. this has the effect of making almost all aiki techniques null and void against the most common strike there is on the street. if you were to put a knife in the hand of the attacker the elbow does in fact get pulled in and aiki works quite well against this. i will agree that shomen uchi is done in an unrealistic manner but it is because it mimics the sword movment. if you were to use a short range blunt weapon for this, the dynamics change greatly if done in an effective manner and again aiki is almost useless against this but then so are most arts in this case.
Thanks for welcoming me and thank you, everyone, for your answers! I suppose the negativity seemed odd to me mainly because the complaints leveled towards Aikido could be said of many styles. I've not been to a school where they are practicing against resisting opponents. Even when we sparred, there were a great many thing we weren't allowed to do that would likely be used in a real life scenario. Things like neck and groin shots. When we would practice throws, we went along with it. I honestly can not think of an exercise where we received any sort of resistance! Aikido would not have been my first choice but I did like the instructor and the school. Could it be used effectively in combination with Taekwondo? I do not intend to return to Taekwondo to get my black belt. As much as I loved learning it, it was not what I thought a martial art would be, if that makes sense. I do not mean that I disliked the style or that I have not found it useful. Quite the opposite! It was just not traditional enough for me. I took my time advancing in rank because it felt too fast for me. I wasn't sure that I liked the idea that people were able to advance so quickly. There was just so much importance placed on competition and advancing rank, not enough on *proper* technique. I think that matters so much more than getting to the next belt color. That is a huge focus in pretty much every school around here.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Hi Crimson, welcome to the forum.
I'm going to break these posts down and see what we've got here...
You haven't mentioned how old you are, or were when you were studying Tae Kwon Do, however I will say that three years, a relatively junior rank, and not having trained for 8 years basically makes me say that the TKD is completely irrelevant. All it's doing here is providing you some baseline to compare and contrast any other art with… which is good… but it's not really that important when taken in light of the rest of your questions and post.
Er… right… uh...
Let's clear a few things up, then. Mu Sool Won is a very new system, primarily taken from a few modern systems, very flashy in parts, with very questionable weaponry and other aspects. Traditional? Nope… pseudo traditional? Sure… Is that the same thing? Not at all.
To be clear, I'm not saying the art is bad (although I wouldn't be found anywhere near it), just that it kinda goes in the opposite direction to what you're asking for.
Why? To be completely blunt, the only time such a schedule is actually needed is if you're training in a competitive system, and need to maintain competition fitness. A number of traditional dojo and systems will train once, twice, maybe three times a week (mine are once a week, in most cases)… some schools, particularly full time ones, will give you more options of when you train, but 4 or 5 days isn't often necessary. Home study, on the other hand, is rather vital… and that isn't limited by any school schedule at all.
Not to disagree with K-Man, but the root cause of the complaints aren't what he's indicated… he's given you some of the more specific complaints, but the real cause of the complaints are that many martial artists, no matter how "open" they feel they are, always use their own system as an initial contrast point… and, as Aikido operates in a completely different context, it quite realistically doesn't match what is expected by a lot of people.
In essence, there's a conflict of context. A big part of it is that people seem to think that all martial arts operate in the same context… and that's simply, and patently, false.
Cool. So far, Aikido sounds like it's the best fit.
Yep.
Resistance is a funny thing… and can be used to refer to a range of different behaviours…
Restrictions on techniques in sparring is really nothing to do with resistance or not. In terms of practicing throws, there are valid reasons to train them like that… and there are (equally valid) ways of training them with varying levels of resistance.
Honestly, this is the most important part.
Uh… yeah… kinda… but not really… and I wouldn't want to be bothered trying. As mentioned, they're kinda opposite to each other… TKD will teach you to stay out, kick, use a particular power-structure, a particular body positioning, a particular movement method, and so on… all of which are the opposite to Aikido… which teaches you to enter, engage, catch, and grapple, with a different power-structure, a different body positioning, a different movement method, and more.
Cool. To be frank, I'd leave TKD out of the equation entirely from this point out.
The focus and emphasis of a particular art, or school, is down to that art or school. Only one form of Aikido has a competitive aspect at all (Tomiki Aikido), so it's not likely to be a focus. Ranking in Aikido tends to be a bit slower as well, so this could easily be your new art. But, as said, the most important thing is that you like the instructor and the school.
All the best with it.
I'm going to break these posts down and see what we've got here...
You haven't mentioned how old you are, or were when you were studying Tae Kwon Do, however I will say that three years, a relatively junior rank, and not having trained for 8 years basically makes me say that the TKD is completely irrelevant. All it's doing here is providing you some baseline to compare and contrast any other art with… which is good… but it's not really that important when taken in light of the rest of your questions and post.
Er… right… uh...
Let's clear a few things up, then. Mu Sool Won is a very new system, primarily taken from a few modern systems, very flashy in parts, with very questionable weaponry and other aspects. Traditional? Nope… pseudo traditional? Sure… Is that the same thing? Not at all.
To be clear, I'm not saying the art is bad (although I wouldn't be found anywhere near it), just that it kinda goes in the opposite direction to what you're asking for.
Why? To be completely blunt, the only time such a schedule is actually needed is if you're training in a competitive system, and need to maintain competition fitness. A number of traditional dojo and systems will train once, twice, maybe three times a week (mine are once a week, in most cases)… some schools, particularly full time ones, will give you more options of when you train, but 4 or 5 days isn't often necessary. Home study, on the other hand, is rather vital… and that isn't limited by any school schedule at all.
Not to disagree with K-Man, but the root cause of the complaints aren't what he's indicated… he's given you some of the more specific complaints, but the real cause of the complaints are that many martial artists, no matter how "open" they feel they are, always use their own system as an initial contrast point… and, as Aikido operates in a completely different context, it quite realistically doesn't match what is expected by a lot of people.
In essence, there's a conflict of context. A big part of it is that people seem to think that all martial arts operate in the same context… and that's simply, and patently, false.
Cool. So far, Aikido sounds like it's the best fit.
Yep.
Resistance is a funny thing… and can be used to refer to a range of different behaviours…
Restrictions on techniques in sparring is really nothing to do with resistance or not. In terms of practicing throws, there are valid reasons to train them like that… and there are (equally valid) ways of training them with varying levels of resistance.
Honestly, this is the most important part.
Uh… yeah… kinda… but not really… and I wouldn't want to be bothered trying. As mentioned, they're kinda opposite to each other… TKD will teach you to stay out, kick, use a particular power-structure, a particular body positioning, a particular movement method, and so on… all of which are the opposite to Aikido… which teaches you to enter, engage, catch, and grapple, with a different power-structure, a different body positioning, a different movement method, and more.
Cool. To be frank, I'd leave TKD out of the equation entirely from this point out.
The focus and emphasis of a particular art, or school, is down to that art or school. Only one form of Aikido has a competitive aspect at all (Tomiki Aikido), so it's not likely to be a focus. Ranking in Aikido tends to be a bit slower as well, so this could easily be your new art. But, as said, the most important thing is that you like the instructor and the school.
All the best with it.
ST1Doppelganger
Brown Belt
Welcome to the forum crimson.
I've just started aikido about 2 months ago and have prior exp in Kung fu, tai chi & grappling arts.
I find that the aikido is adding some new techniques and strategies to my other styles which is making it a good complimentary style for my studies.
The main issue that I say Aikido has is it falls in to the same scenario as what allot of tai chi Chuan schools fall in to.
The majority of the Tai Chi Chuan & Aikido schools have been taught more for health benefits and as a mediation rather then the original purpose as a martial art.
Pretty much its very hard to find a martial aikido or tai chi instructor which teaches it in applicable matter. I hope you have found one and enjoy your studies.
I've just started aikido about 2 months ago and have prior exp in Kung fu, tai chi & grappling arts.
I find that the aikido is adding some new techniques and strategies to my other styles which is making it a good complimentary style for my studies.
The main issue that I say Aikido has is it falls in to the same scenario as what allot of tai chi Chuan schools fall in to.
The majority of the Tai Chi Chuan & Aikido schools have been taught more for health benefits and as a mediation rather then the original purpose as a martial art.
Pretty much its very hard to find a martial aikido or tai chi instructor which teaches it in applicable matter. I hope you have found one and enjoy your studies.
Shomen uchi is not unrealistic. That strike targets either the bridge of the nose, nasty enough, or the dim mak points Uto or Seiden, nothing to do with being hit on the crown or even forehead. The strike is not just a downward swing but a heavy hand strike in and down. Then again shomen uchi to the base of the skull is the atemi in Kaiten nage. Yokomen uchi is the same as ura shuto in karate, hardly an ineffective strike. I'm not sure where you get the idea of kesa giri as that is totally different to the movement of yokomen uchi.
As for ducking or sidestepping. I would suggest that deflection is the main defence and that gives the opportunity to move off the line. However with Aikido there is also the option of moving straight in and taking ikkyo etc.
Whether the defence is null and void against the most common attack on the street? Where did that come from? What is the most common attack? I would have thought the push to the chest might be number one followed by the big right hand swinging hook and the shoulder grab and straight punch. Aikido has excellent techniques against those.
I can't understand what you are getting at in your last two sentences.
However, to get back to the main criticism. I still say the attack is only a training tool. I am not advocating shomen uchi as your 'go to' attack.
:asian:
I've done a variety of Japanese martial arts. Of those I've done aikido for around 15 years. I've belonged to the same organization in that time, but travel and visit other dojo extensively. In my experience I would say the biggest issue I have with aikido is a school's environment, and quality control.
Like judo or jujitsu, aikido is taught in a compliant manner. Unlike those arts, competition isn't prevalent and I feel this leads to ego tripping instructors and lazy training. If you aren't pushing your training, something made simple through competition, you tend to plateau. Pay attention to the dojo - do students seem to progress only when they are partnered with better Uke?
I'll just leave the ego thing there, pretty self explanatory. I've seen plenty of it in karate as well.
QC. For whatever reason, it seems aikido tends to have instructors open their own dojo as early as shodan, and often Nidan. On average, that's like six years of training twice a week. That's just not mat hours to become proficient at teaching. Just be careful they actually know how and why a technique works. Too many people go through the ranks via "monkey see, monkey do," instead of actually coaching techniques. A warning sign would be an instructor who can't show you non-kihon applications of techniques (ie no-GI, or against non traditional attacks).
Dojo atmosphere. Pay attention for arrogant LARPer types. Because of it's compliant nature, people who tend to allow themselves to be stepped all over in life find their way to the dojo. Aikido allows them to feel powerful, throwing people around for an hour a night. This can go to their head.
Aikido assumes the practitioner is familiar with basic strikes and kicks. There's so much minutiae with aikido techniques to worry about, sometimes proper striking kihon gets pushed to the side. If you feel it's an issue, ask the teacher to focus on strikes for the night, or take private lessons.
Well that's the bad, as I've experienced it. All the details about this attack vs this defense is its own thread, so I won't go down that road. I didn't list any of the good because that would take far too long. Aikido is my favorite martial art, and it's not the one I started in either. If trained right, it can be of huge benefit to your life.
Like judo or jujitsu, aikido is taught in a compliant manner. Unlike those arts, competition isn't prevalent and I feel this leads to ego tripping instructors and lazy training. If you aren't pushing your training, something made simple through competition, you tend to plateau. Pay attention to the dojo - do students seem to progress only when they are partnered with better Uke?
I'll just leave the ego thing there, pretty self explanatory. I've seen plenty of it in karate as well.
QC. For whatever reason, it seems aikido tends to have instructors open their own dojo as early as shodan, and often Nidan. On average, that's like six years of training twice a week. That's just not mat hours to become proficient at teaching. Just be careful they actually know how and why a technique works. Too many people go through the ranks via "monkey see, monkey do," instead of actually coaching techniques. A warning sign would be an instructor who can't show you non-kihon applications of techniques (ie no-GI, or against non traditional attacks).
Dojo atmosphere. Pay attention for arrogant LARPer types. Because of it's compliant nature, people who tend to allow themselves to be stepped all over in life find their way to the dojo. Aikido allows them to feel powerful, throwing people around for an hour a night. This can go to their head.
Aikido assumes the practitioner is familiar with basic strikes and kicks. There's so much minutiae with aikido techniques to worry about, sometimes proper striking kihon gets pushed to the side. If you feel it's an issue, ask the teacher to focus on strikes for the night, or take private lessons.
Well that's the bad, as I've experienced it. All the details about this attack vs this defense is its own thread, so I won't go down that road. I didn't list any of the good because that would take far too long. Aikido is my favorite martial art, and it's not the one I started in either. If trained right, it can be of huge benefit to your life.
hoshin1600
Senior Master
exactly,, that was what i was refering to "a big right hand". i said....
if you look at this clip you see some basic yokomen uchi techniques. notice how the nage steps in and controlls uke's attacking arm. for this to work the dynamics of the elbow needs to be in the oposite relationship to the hand and body than a boxers or street fighters right punch.
look at the first clip of the yokomen and notice the elbow.. then look at the second clip of the boxer and at 0:10 to 0:20 seconds in he explains the elbow postion for a right hand punch.
Aikido - Yokomen Uchi Ikkyo & Nikkyo Waza - YouTube
How to Throw a Straight Right (like a pro boxer) - YouTube
if you try to apply a yokomenuchi defense to either a right cross or a right hook you are going to get clocked in the head. if it does work for you, then your uke is punching in an unnatural way to allow nage to block it or maybe you have modified the technique in someway and you have got it to work for you, in that case i wouldnt be familiar with it so i cant comment.
to my knowledge kesa giri is a cut that would follow the Gi line from shoulder to hip. yokomen uchi is on the same tragectory path. it is not thrown like a karate shuto which typicaly comes from the ear or behind the head with the elbow sticking out in the "cocked" position. the way i learned yokomen is to lift the hand up infront of the body just like raising a bokken then striking down on a slight angle, just like a bokken.
i am unfamiliar with these points can you explain?
Let's look at yokomen uchi first. Aikido is not teaching yokomen uchi as a strike to be used as an attack that you would actually do in real life. It is used to teach a technique that could be used against a round house swinging punch to the head or a weapon attach such as a knife, short stick, etc. that has a similar trajectory to the yokomen attack. Don't forget that the first response to this attack is the atemi to the face. The actual technique only comes into play as the sequel to your failed strike to the head. As such the first part of the response is almost the same as I teach in Krav Maga to that type of attack. And, of course, that is not the way you would deal with a right cross or a right hook.
Now to the clips. The Aikido clip is very good technique. That doesn't mean that it would work that way in a real attack. The way I teach is 'learn the technique, own the technique, forget the technique'. You can't go into a fight expecting to use any one technique. You use what you are given by your opponent. As to whether the boxing clip is good technique, I will leave that up to boxers to decide. My last boxing bout was decades ago, but I certainly wasn't taught to punch a straight right that way. There is absolutely no way I would be lifting my elbow like that. This is pretty much how I teach it in Krav ... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IJIBBBQVIMw
Not that I can claim any great knowledge of sword but I thought kesa giri was an upward slash from the drawing of the sword followed by the diagonal downward slash. As to shuto, you are correct but I wasn't describing shuto. I was describing ura shuto. In ura Shuto the palm is up and the elbow is tucked. The angle of delivery is dictated by the target.
Dim Mak point Uto is centre of head, just above the eye line. Seiden is joining two points across the eye socket, also likely to fracture the bone.
:asian:
hoshin1600
Senior Master
K-man i like the clip but i am not sure if you are not seeing my point or disagree with it. if you watch your clip again, stop it at exactly 2:17 were he has his punch extended. you will notice the outward pointing direction of the elbow,(the elbow is pointing away from his body) and the hand is held in a fist palm facing the floor (albeit on a slight angle). now this is in contrast to a yokomen uchi go back to the clip i posted and stop at 0:24 and you will see the hand is on an arch with the palm up facing the sky and the elbow is pronated inward torward the body. with this arch and angle of attack the nage is able to do his technique but with the normal western punch from your clip, one of two things will happen, one..the punch will be in a very direct path to the face or two..there will be an arch, either more like a hook punch or an over the top angle (over hand right) this elbow position is critical for the success or failure of the aiki technique becuse without the pronated elbow the arm is allowed to hing over the nages defense and still strike him full force. part of my point was that in a non weapon strike the elbow will be in the outward punch position and while holding a weapon like a club or knife the elbow will be in the pronated postion. this very small and seemingly insignificant detail changes the dynamics of a strike drasticly and may cause the aiki technique to fail.
one more thought to explain and prove my point , extend your arm out infront of yourself with your plam facing the floor. then rotate your palm to face the sky. what happens to your elbow?
one more thought to explain and prove my point , extend your arm out infront of yourself with your plam facing the floor. then rotate your palm to face the sky. what happens to your elbow?
I don't think we are disagreeing. I think we are looking at it from two different angles. In my clip it is a proper punch delivered as I would punch. In your clip the yokomen uchi is not a 'real' strike. It is a training method to develop a defence against an attack on that plane. Whether the elbow is out or in makes no difference from my perspective. In aikido after the atemi is the capture and lock. In Krav the right hand atemi is face, neck or upper arm depending on the attack and going in for a clinch with the arm trapped. Two different martial arts at opposite ends of the spectrum yet both utilising the same principles.
:asian:
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure if I've got this right but my line was a common criticism of Aikido, not what I believe. However if you are posting this in support of my position that Aikido can be very effective, I thank you very much.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure if I've got this right but my line was a common criticism of Aikido, not what I believe. However if you are posting this in support of my position that Aikido can be very effective, I thank you very much.
I am and you're welcome.
Latest Discussions
-
-
Why Wouldn't A Good Athlete Be Good In The Martial Arts
- Latest: Same Trick
-
-
-
-