The aikido thing

[Gerry Seymour]

Hello

Over the years I have seen more scorn poured on Aikido as a martial art than pretty much any others. This is apart from the qi and kiai masters and macdojos.

It seems that people are always calling the art out for being impractical etc. While other arts, that maybe equally impractical in some ways, escape such criticism.

I guess the criticism may be caused by:

Flashy nature of the techiques.

Personalities like Segal claiming it is effective and/or superiour to other arts.

There is no resistance involved

Again, other arts can be guilty of the above but dont seem to get the flack that Aikido does.

There is also a gentleman who after many years of training in Aikido has created a whole youtube channel about leaving the art to study MMA.

This is one way of dealing with the issue but another would be to look into the underlying issues and try to solve them.

So, if you were asked how would you change Aikido, would you

Change the strikes for more realistic ones?
Introduce some form of resistive training?
Make all the movements smaller?

I know that some practioners have already played around with their aikido and come out with some interesting stuff.

What do you think?

I'm speaking a little out-of-school on this, because my primary art (Nihon Goshin Aikido) is a close cousin to Aikido - but I've had some playtime at Aikido dojos (both classes and seminars), have taught students who came from Aikido, and have a moderate understanding of the art and the issues.

I'd say yes to all three. The stylized strikes are fine as a starting point and for drills where you're working to develop that "aiki feel" that's so much fun. But they need to progress to more realistic strikes. Adding in some resistance will also go a long way to cleaning up the gaps in movement. Both of those will almost certainly lead to smaller movements in a lot of techniques. I believe the purpose of the large movements was to accentuate the need for aiki, taking away some of the shorter movements that work without it. They need those shorter movements back, and need to learn to operate their techniques both with and without aiki - many techniques function on both sides of that.

I'd also get them back into striking more (of all the schools I've been in, I've never seen an instructor teaching strikes, except with weapons). That opens the door for better resistance, and better understanding of how strikes can open the door for their techniques.

Mind you, some of this is also where I went in refining my NGA curriculum, so the problem (as you said) isn't exclusive to Aikido. I see some schools in NGA heading the same way Aikido schools seem to have gone - getting softer, bigger motions, and less emphasis on strikes (which also leads to worse attacks).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Oh boy.... How much time do you have for this one?

I think Aikido would be better off if it positioned itself away from marketing itself as a combative MA into more of a spiritual exercise like Tai Chi, or a dance like Capoeria. You know why Tai Chi and Capoeira don't get any grief? Because you step into those schools and they tell you from the beginning that you're not learning how to fight or defend yourself.

This, from what I understand, is more or less where Shin Shin Toitsu (Tohei's branch of Aikido) went. I think they still maintain that it can eventually get to defensive use, but it's overtly more about the study of ki and aiki.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ultimately Aikido is incomplete.

It needs someone to take it's philosophy and explore how you employ said philosophy against attacks that aren't a guy charging towards you like a bull.

Figure out what to do against non-committal attacks, like jabs.
Figure out how you handle stuff that doesn't go your way, like people resisting throws or locks.

I imagine the end result would look like some combination of wing chin or bagua, judo and bjj as well as Aikido.

Also I would not dispense with the low percentage techniques. Ultimately being able to apply them is a level of mastery that is worth seeking, but it's the everyday stuff that needs work.

I think the answer here is that what we see in most of Aikido should be the advanced work. Get folks to BB (3-5 years, perhaps) with some solid striking and grappling. Include the basics of aiki during that, but don't make it the focus. Once they get to that point, then they can focus on the aiki. Basically, bolt the solid, common basics back onto the beginning of the curriclum.

 

[drop bear]

Hello

Over the years I have seen more scorn poured on Aikido as a martial art than pretty much any others. This is apart from the qi and kiai masters and macdojos.

It seems that people are always calling the art out for being impractical etc. While other arts, that maybe equally impractical in some ways, escape such criticism.

I guess the criticism may be caused by:

Flashy nature of the techiques.

Personalities like Segal claiming it is effective and/or superiour to other arts.

There is no resistance involved

Again, other arts can be guilty of the above but dont seem to get the flack that Aikido does.

There is also a gentleman who after many years of training in Aikido has created a whole youtube channel about leaving the art to study MMA.

This is one way of dealing with the issue but another would be to look into the underlying issues and try to solve them.

So, if you were asked how would you change Aikido, would you

Change the strikes for more realistic ones?
Introduce some form of resistive training?
Make all the movements smaller?

I know that some practioners have already played around with their aikido and come out with some interesting stuff.

What do you think?

Who should we be looking at who makes Aikido work?

Who is your Garry Tonnen?

 

[Flying Crane]

Hello

Over the years I have seen more scorn poured on Aikido as a martial art than pretty much any others. This is apart from the qi and kiai masters and macdojos.

It seems that people are always calling the art out for being impractical etc. While other arts, that maybe equally impractical in some ways, escape such criticism.

I guess the criticism may be caused by:

Flashy nature of the techiques.

Personalities like Segal claiming it is effective and/or superiour to other arts.

There is no resistance involved

Again, other arts can be guilty of the above but dont seem to get the flack that Aikido does.

There is also a gentleman who after many years of training in Aikido has created a whole youtube channel about leaving the art to study MMA.

This is one way of dealing with the issue but another would be to look into the underlying issues and try to solve them.

So, if you were asked how would you change Aikido, would you

Change the strikes for more realistic ones?
Introduce some form of resistive training?
Make all the movements smaller?

I know that some practioners have already played around with their aikido and come out with some interesting stuff.

What do you think?

As someone who has never studied aikido, I have no place in talking about how to “fix” it.

Just because some people like to criticize it, along with virtually all else that they themselves do not do, does not mean it needs to be fixed. Don’t believe the hype. Lots of people are idiots.

 

[drop bear]

I think the answer here is that what we see in most of Aikido should be the advanced work. Get folks to BB (3-5 years, perhaps) with some solid striking and grappling. Include the basics of aiki during that, but don't make it the focus. Once they get to that point, then they can focus on the aiki. Basically, bolt the solid, common basics back onto the beginning of the curriclum.

I still don't see how you can train Aiki without resistance.

You are removing the one thing it takes to perform Aiki.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When you apply hip throw on me, if I always sink down to the ground, you will never be able to throw me with hip throw no matter how many times that you have tried it.

That's not what resistive training is, though. Resistive training is sparring (and the grappling equivalent) where I'm trying to throw you and you're trying to throw me. I don't get to just do whatever I want - I have to work past your efforts to get at me and defend yourself.

To train force against force is not the solution. You have to train how to borrow force. The moment that you have detected my sinking force, you change your hip throw into single leg.

That's what resistive training is about.

To use sport to test Aikido skill is number one for me. Wrestle, wrestle, and still wrestle.

Yep. Resistive training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When I push you, if you resist, should I keep pushing, or should I change my pushing into pulling?

Resistance training seems to encourage "force against force" training. IMO, when your opponent resists, it's time for you to change.

We both agree that resistance training is important. But our goal are different.

- You want to make technique A to work even if your opponent resists.
- I want to change technique A into technique B when resistance happen.

Here is an example of resistance -> change.

You're confusing "resistive" with "force on force". If you push me and I just fall down, that's cooperative training. If you push me and I try not to fall down, we've gotten into resistive training. If I try to use that push to knock you down, we're getting deeper into resistive training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's what always got me about this argument. According to the stories, Ueshiba was an ardent dojo stormer who would beat up on other fighters all the time. He seemingly loved to prove his Aikido against other martial artists. Yet for some reason, his modern disciples claim to be above all of that. Interesting paradigm shift if you ask me.

A paradigm shift he created during his lifetime, by most accounts. The result of a religious conversion, apparently.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I still don't see how you can train Aiki without resistance.

You are removing the one thing it takes to perform Aiki.

No. The one thing it needs is an attack with intent. I don't need them to try to stop me from doing what I intend for my throw to work (though it sometimes helps). For training purely for that aiki flow/feel, a lack of resistance actually is useful. The issue is when that's all they do - then they know what it should feel like when it works, but not how to get there.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Resistive training is sparring (and the grappling equivalent) where I'm trying to throw you and you're trying to throw me.

Instead of calling it "resistive training", you should just call it sparring/wrestling. To me, sparring/wrestling is "testing" and not "training".

1. Training (or developing) - your opponent will let you do it.
2. Testing - your opponent won't let you do it.

You have to develop hip throw in "training" before you can "test" your hip throw. Training and testing are different stages.

Aikido has "training (developing)". But Aikido has no "testing".

 

[Hanzou]

I think the answer here is that what we see in most of Aikido should be the advanced work. Get folks to BB (3-5 years, perhaps) with some solid striking and grappling. Include the basics of aiki during that, but don't make it the focus. Once they get to that point, then they can focus on the aiki. Basically, bolt the solid, common basics back onto the beginning of the curriclum.

That's a good point. Ueshiba's earliest students were some of Kano's toughest Judo black belts. Aikido was more of a "master's course" for advanced martial artists in the early days. So that could definitely explain why so many current Aikidoka aren't getting it; They're starting Aikido without that advanced martial background.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Instead of calling it "resistive training", you should just call it sparring/wrestling. To me, sparring/wrestling is "testing" and not "training".

1. Training (or developing) - your opponent will let you do it.
2. Testing - your opponent won't let you do it.

You have to develop hip throw in "training" before you can "test" your hip throw. Training and testing are different stages.

Aikido has "training (developing)". But Aikido has no "testing".

Sparring/wrestling is part of resistive training. But not all of it. As another poster stated, it also includes simply not falling down until actually made to (I classify this as "passive resistance"). And sometimes, it's just a little added resistance within a drill. So, if a student (beyond the beginners) starts to throw me and doesn't take my balance away on their first movement, nothing they do after that point will work. I give them an opportunity to take that structure, and if they waste it, they may as well start over.

So, some training is resistive. I don't consider that testing, but giving the proper feedback for the technique, which is part of training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's a good point. Ueshiba's earliest students were some of Kano's toughest Judo black belts. Aikido was more of a "master's course" for advanced martial artists in the early days. So that could definitely explain why so many current Aikidoka aren't getting it; They're starting Aikido without that advanced martial background.

Yep. There have been some folks who have suggested otherwise, but most of what I've seen (both history and the result over time) says that's how the curriculum mostly worked and has developed. And most of the folks I've talked to who have significant experience both within and outside of Aikido say their other training makes their Aikido work more realistically.

 

[drop bear]

No. The one thing it needs is an attack with intent. I don't need them to try to stop me from doing what I intend for my throw to work (though it sometimes helps). For training purely for that aiki flow/feel, a lack of resistance actually is useful. The issue is when that's all they do - then they know what it should feel like when it works, but not how to get there.

That would still only be an understanding of Aiki from a rank beginner's level.

If you were comparing just the understanding of the concept. You would be maby at blue belt.
Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Belts and Meaning | Marcus Soares BJJ

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

IMO, there are some weakness in the Aikido system.

1. Over emphasize on the wrist control - If you control your opponent wrist, not only his elbow joint is still free, the distance between you and him is too far. It gives your opponent too much space to counter you.

2. The lacking of leg skill - If you just block your opponent's leg, he can step over. If you scoop, sweep, hook, lift, ... your opponent's leg, it will be much harder for him to escape.

3. The lacking of "give before take" - You can't always wait for your opponent to attack you. You have to train how to attack your opponent too. You need to train how to step in, set up, and ...

4. ...

 

[Finlay]

Instead of calling it "resistive training", you should just call it sparring/wrestling. To me, sparring/wrestling is "testing" and not "training".

1. Training (or developing) - your opponent will let you do it.
2. Testing - your opponent won't let you do it.

You have to develop hip throw in "training" before you can "test" your hip throw. Training and testing are different stages.

Aikido has "training (developing)". But Aikido has no "testing".

Perhaps a better term would be 'unco-operative training'

When you push i can resist and push back, or I can pull, or move in any number of ways to stop you doing the technique that you initially want.

The level of unco-operativeness wpuld depend on the stage of training and the aim of the drill

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That would still only be an understanding of Aiki from a rank beginner's level.

If you were comparing just the understanding of the concept. You would be maby at blue belt.
Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Belts and Meaning | Marcus Soares BJJ

I tend to agree with that. To me, it's mostly a beginner's exercise. It can also be useful at advanced levels for exploring and tweaking, but shouldn't be an emphasis except with new techniques and low-level students. I mean, if you do those drills long enough, it can develop higher levels of skill, but I think there would be more benefit even in aiki development - after the beginner level - in one year of training with resistance than 3-4 years of repeating those drills.

Others have pointed out that there were more internal exercises in Daito-ryu, and that when those were included the art was more potent. I can't speak to that, except from some discussions I've had with a Daito-ryu instructor who trained to BB in NGA, which isn't really a comparison to Aikido (don't think he's ever trained in Ueshiba's Aikido).

 

[jobo]

It has nothing to do with superiority, it's all about the proper classification and purpose of the art form. Aikido simply isn't a combat art. A self-preservation/improvement art, perhaps, but a combat art? Not even close. Certainly there's some spill over, but saying that Aikido is something akin to Judo, Bjj, Muay Thai, Boxing, etc. is simply a mis-classification. Once Aikido is classified correctly, all the malice towards it will be avoided.

As for Ki, hey, whatever you want to believe in. I once believed in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, so it's all good.

if he is only using qi for fighting he is missing out big time, my ki gets me served first in bars, stops traffic on busy roads so I can cross and a reasonably constant supply of girls young enough to be my daughter, ( note I am nearly 60 so not that young) if that doesn't happen to you you need more chi in your life

 

[Hanzou]

if he is only using qi for fighting he is missing out big time, my ki gets me served first in bars, stops traffic on busy roads so I can cross and a reasonably constant supply of girls young enough to be my daughter, ( note I am nearly 60 so not that young) if that doesn't happen to you you need more chi in your life

I dont drink and I'm happily married, so I'm good.