What Style is Best For Real Self Defense?

[Gerry Seymour]

I think that we have different concepts of "aiki". If by "focusing purely on the aiki approach" you mean "focusing only on using momentum and/or the overcommitment of uke" I might agree with you. But that's not the aiki of daito-ryu, nor the aiki of traditional aikido.

Both those arts produced fearsome fighters while excluding muscular contraction from their training.

I'm willing to let that stand - I've yet to find any two people (in any aiki art or branch) who use the same definition for aiki, except when one quotes the other. Kondo (the senior one, I've forgotten his name) of Daito-ryu uses a very simple definition of aiki in one video. I doubt it's his only definition (it's quite simplistic) but it is how he defines the difference between Daito-ryu's Jujutsu and Aikijujutsu - it's mostly about timing. That Daito-ryu has a Jujutsu component (in other words, it is not purely internal, not purely aiki) is part of the reason they produced effective fighters. Most of the early proponents of Aikido had other training, so their Aikido training was likely focused (almost) entirely on aiki, because they already had access to the other tools.

They actually try to but can't. Muscular strength can be beat by clever use of physics.

No, they really don't. They are playing soft in that video - nothing like they'd actually do in randori with someone like themselves. They bring no strength to bear that I can see. @Tony Dismukes and I have discussed this video before.

Yes. I can do that, too. That doesn't work if someone also adds an off-angle movement. It's relatively easy to overcome tricks like that if you know them, and possible to stymie aiki if you know how it works (and sometimes even if you just understand movement and flow). Aiki is not magical - aiki technique is subject to the same limitations as most other technique, and can be overcome by a skilled opponent using all his tools (including strength, properly applied)

 

[O'Malley]

I'm willing to let that stand - I've yet to find any two people (in any aiki art or branch) who use the same definition for aiki, except when one quotes the other. Kondo (the senior one, I've forgotten his name) of Daito-ryu uses a very simple definition of aiki in one video. I doubt it's his only definition (it's quite simplistic) but it is how he defines the difference between Daito-ryu's Jujutsu and Aikijujutsu - it's mostly about timing.

AFAIK, there are quotes from O Sensei explicitly saying that aiki has nothing to do with timing. And the fact that aiki techniques in DR and aikido are done from static positions (think "kokyu ho") where timing is irrelevant prompts me to think that timing (and matching uke's movement) is not aiki. It is possible that Kondo considered timing as a part of aiki, like how Iwama-ryu considers Ki no Nagare as a necessary part of training.

That Daito-ryu has a Jujutsu component (in other words, it is not purely internal, not purely aiki) is part of the reason they produced effective fighters. Most of the early proponents of Aikido had other training, so their Aikido training was likely focused (almost) entirely on aiki, because they already had access to the other tools.

Aikido has a lot of the same jujutsu components. Morihei Ueshiba actually taught it as "daito ryu aikijujutsu" in his first years. The thing about early aikido proponents owing their effectiveness to their previous martial arts background is a myth. Sure, some of them were advanced practitioners of other MA (Shioda, Tohei, K. Abbe, Nishio) but others were not (Saito, Isoyama, Tada, Tadashi Abe who thrashed people left and right in France, Kuroiwa that had only done some boxing in high school but then relied on his trademark aikido koshi nage, etc.)

No, they really don't. They are playing soft in that video - nothing like they'd actually do in randori with someone like themselves. They bring no strength to bear that I can see. @Tony Dismukes and I have discussed this video before.


Yes. I can do that, too. That doesn't work if someone also adds an off-angle movement. It's relatively easy to overcome tricks like that if you know them, and possible to stymie aiki if you know how it works (and sometimes even if you just understand movement and flow). Aiki is not magical - aiki technique is subject to the same limitations as most other technique, and can be overcome by a skilled opponent using all his tools (including strength, properly applied)

Of course, nobody is invincible. The unliftable body trick was an illustration of how physics can give one an advantage over muscular strength.

My point was that if Sokaku Takeda, Morihei Ueshiba or Yukiyoshi Sagawa thrashed bigger and stronger opponents throughout their lives and continued to do so even when their bodies weakened, they were using something different from muscular strength.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

AFAIK, there are quotes from O Sensei explicitly saying that aiki has nothing to do with timing. And the fact that aiki techniques in DR and aikido are done from static positions (think "kokyu ho") where timing is irrelevant prompts me to think that timing (and matching uke's movement) is not aiki. It is possible that Kondo considered timing as a part of aiki, like how Iwama-ryu considers Ki no Nagare as a necessary part of training.

I'll try to find a clip of that comment, so you can see what Kondo was saying. It was, in fact, entirely timing. And that includes static starts - he actually uses a static start in his example. It's similar to Stan Pranin's comments about not waiting for the grip to settle before responding.

Aikido has a lot of the same jujutsu components. Morihei Ueshiba actually taught it as "daito ryu aikijujutsu" in his first years. The thing about early aikido proponents owing their effectiveness to their previous martial arts background is a myth. Sure, some of them were advanced practitioners of other MA (Shioda, Tohei, K. Abbe, Nishio) but others were not (Saito, Isoyama, Tada, Tadashi Abe who thrashed people left and right in France, Kuroiwa that had only done some boxing in high school but then relied on his trademark aikido koshi nage, etc.)



Of course, nobody is invincible. The unliftable body trick was an illustration of how physics can give one an advantage over muscular strength.

My point was that if Sokaku Takeda, Morihei Ueshiba or Yukiyoshi Sagawa thrashed bigger and stronger opponents throughout their lives and continued to do so even when their bodies weakened, they were using something different from muscular strength.

I'll argue (absent good evidence, I admit) that "when their bodies weakened" many revered them, and we've all seen instances of people not being willing to cause a revered sensei to lose face, so not really trying to defeat them.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

In aikido, muscular force is what you fall back on because your technique is not good enough. When your technique is good enough, you can overcome the physical disadvantage:

I forgot to add this to my prior post. In that video, Mifune's opponents are not using any strength. If they did, his technique (at his age) would likely not be sufficient to overcome their combination of strength and technique.

Technically, Mifune's randori partners were using some strength. What they weren't doing was using strength the way they would in a real competitive match. They were coming in with direct attacks, making no attempt to contest grips or disrupt Mifune's structure as a setup. This dance-like approach to randori is a useful training method which makes the whole thing a game of timing and footwork, areas in which Mifune excelled. I can guarantee you that none of his randori partners would approach a real tournament match in this same manner.

I think that we have different concepts of "aiki". If by "focusing purely on the aiki approach" you mean "focusing only on using momentum and/or the overcommitment of uke" I might agree with you. But that's not the aiki of daito-ryu, nor the aiki of traditional aikido.

Both those arts produced fearsome fighters while excluding muscular contraction from their training.



They actually try to but can't. Muscular strength can be beat by clever use of physics.

Edit: Mifune's diverting of the force applied to him can actually be seen in the video.

Yes. I can do that, too. That doesn't work if someone also adds an off-angle movement. It's relatively easy to overcome tricks like that if you know them, and possible to stymie aiki if you know how it works (and sometimes even if you just understand movement and flow). Aiki is not magical - aiki technique is subject to the same limitations as most other technique, and can be overcome by a skilled opponent using all his tools (including strength, properly applied)

I was actually showing off some of these "aiki" tricks to some of my students last week.

Per request, I was teaching some grip fighting techniques, specifically releases from wrist grabs. I started them out with the basic wrestling versions of the releases. While watching them drill, I realized that most of them were using excessive effort. They were missing some of the subtle body mechanics and the wrestling application of the movement was small enough that it was hard for them to see the difference.

As an experiment, I taught them an exaggerated "aiki" style version of the releases. Because the movements were larger, it acted as a magnifying glass, allowing them to see and feel the small details easier. To help them feel some of the underlying body mechanics, I taught them the classic Aikido "unbendable arm" trick. I demonstrated how I could let them grab my wrist, then effortlessly tie them in knots if they tried to hold on. (I also demonstrated how I could grab their wrist and tie them in knots when they tried to get away.)

Once they had the feel of the exaggerated Aikido-style escape, I had them go back to the smaller, more realistic application, and try to apply the same feel. I also taught them some basics on how to shut down the escape and then set them to some live drills with competitive hand fighting. I explained that the tricks I was demonstrating on them were exhibitions of principles, but that they wouldn't take that dramatic form in a real contest against a competent opponent.

My point was that if Sokaku Takeda, Morihei Ueshiba or Yukiyoshi Sagawa thrashed bigger and stronger opponents throughout their lives and continued to do so even when their bodies weakened, they were using something different from muscular strength.

Demonstrations on compliant ukes are not the same as beating actual opponents in a real fight.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Technically, Mifune's randori partners were using some strength. What they weren't doing was using strength the way they would in a real competitive match. They were coming in with direct attacks, making no attempt to contest grips or disrupt Mifune's structure as a setup. This dance-like approach to randori is a useful training method which makes the whole thing a game of timing and footwork, areas in which Mifune excelled. I can guarantee you that none of his randori partners would approach a real tournament match in this same manner.

A useful distinction. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

After rethinking, imma go with Parkour.

A wise decision, as, unless you are duty-bound to intervene, escape is usually the best option in a confrontation. That being said, learning a martial art never hurts for those times that avoidance or escape is impossible.

Also, O'Malley, I generally agree with you that Aikido techniques, when done well, require virtually no force beyond simple body mechanics to work. That being said, I think gpseymour's point that good technique and the ability to bring force to bear are NOT mutually exclusive is well-taken. One of the reasons I'm strongly considering moving from Aikido to Jiu-Jitsu for my defensive needs (note that I still very much love the philosophy of Aikido and, even if I make the switch, will continue to train every so often just to remain a part of the community) is that Aikido is practiced under extremely controlled, pre-determined conditions which will often not be found in a real life confrontation. As much as I love Aikido, I feel that an art that mixes hard and soft technique, and allows for an escalation of force that the philosophy of Aikido shies away from, may serve better as a basis for self defense.

 

[Ryan_]

For OP - What exactly are you looking to learn?

Different martial arts quite often focus on different types of techniques (locks, strikes etc.) and most would be beneficial for self defense.

What types of techniques would you prefer to learn?

 

[macher]

For OP - What exactly are you looking to learn?

Different martial arts quite often focus on different types of techniques (locks, strikes etc.) and most would be beneficial for self defense.

What types of techniques would you prefer to learn?

I was looking for a style under Aikido that is more combat oriented. The 3 Aikido schools I’ve visited are focused on ‘drinking the koolade’ type of thing.

 

[Ryan_]

I was looking for a style under Aikido that is more combat oriented. The 3 Aikido schools I’ve visited are focused on ‘drinking the koolade’ type of thing.

Well can't say I jnow much about aikido - absolutely no personal experience of it. Only what I've read, which in all honesty, hasn't been that great. But like I said, i don't have personal experience to base it on.

 

[macher]

Well can't say I jnow much about aikido - absolutely no personal experience of it. Only what I've read, which in all honesty, hasn't been that great. But like I said, i don't have personal experience to base it on.

My experienced was more of a social club and absolutely no real life applications.

 

[Ryan_]

My experienced was more of a social club and absolutely no real life applications.

Are you absolutely set on an aikido style? Maybe try something else with more real life practices?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Are you absolutely set on an aikido style? Maybe try something else with more real life practices?

And if he wants to stay reasonably close to the Aikido techniques, maybe Hapkido.

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

Seconded. If you want to stay within the Japanese realm, I've found Hapkido (note I only have a few months' experience with Hapkido) and Hakkoryu Jiu Jitsu to be pretty similar both in terms of technique and philosophy.

 

[vince1]

Having studied Southern Mantis Chow Gar ,Tae Kwon do and Hapkido in the past, Hapkido would be a good choice. I have discovered Aiki Jiu Jitsu in the 7 months and found it to be a really good well rounded martial art. If I had to start all over again and go back in time I would choose Aiki Jiu Jitsu given the many martial art influences that contributed making this martial art what it is. Mind you it takes many many years to perfect the techniques and make it to a black belt level. I found it took a shorter amount of time to acquire a high ranking belt in the above mentioned martial arts than the Aiki Jiu Jitsu.

 

[oldwarrior]

Thanks! I was always interested in Aikido but was always put off by the general ‘wishy washy’ demonstrations of the techniques demonstrated. Then I came across the Rogue Warriors YouTube channel and was like ‘wow’.

Aikido isn't wishy washy lol... What you are seeing is a demo and that will most likely have been performed more than once lol...Also do bear in mind that if the person being thrown (uke that may be just my Aikido that uses that term there are others) does not actually fall properly or roll properly or fly through the air properly, they may well be very damaged lol eg (and no assumptions made here) if you were on a mat and you received Kotegaeshi then if you don't know how to take it then you be very unhappy as your wrist if not broken would be very very sore and that not including the throw which again if you do not know how to take will hurt (it does even hurt when you do know how to take it ..if you have a very very forceful Nage lol and it was known fairly well which of the old top sensei very ummm forceful lol), if not break other parts of your body. That is not trying to talk up Aikido it is fact as part of Aikido is learning how to take the techniques so you don't get hurt.

Aikido remember came out of a different age and with different concepts and it was distilled from different other arts ...namely Daito-Ryu and the sword techniques came from (if I can remember and spell it correctly ) Kashima-Shinto Ryu (others may be able to correct that ) so it was based on the sword (yes even the empty hand is based on the sword) ok the founder was not born in a period where there were any battles (I mean samurai battles not more modern style warfare) but the arts he studied before he "created" Aikido (and create I mean refined and added techniques from different arts not made them up) were and one of his teachers that is well recorded was born just before the restoration but his art does have lineage back well before the Edo period to the time when Samurai were actually using those skills (ok there are always arguments there and I ain't gonna get into that and yes I do and am aware that by the time of Takekada Sokaku it would have changed ) so the skills came from the sword ...Also do bear in mind that even the fist Aikido differs from what is taught today in many styles , WWII did have an effect on that or at least IMO it did ...in short don't be totally fooled that it is wishy washy as it isn't.

What Style that is just your preference there have been posts on that as to if any of those styles are near you I have no clue ... IMO Iwama style (but that may have changed now due to death and a break away ) was maybe the closest to the original pre war style. Yoshinkan is harder and Tomiki is the sport style (that I know of as I have never looked on Aikido as a sport) and the Ki styles well as the name suggests are based on that.

Don't just go and look at any style actually try it and give it a little time then make judgement

 

[oldwarrior]

It seems to be the general rule these days to knock Aikido lol ...

Any art that is performed in a dojo under set conditions can seem very stage managed and it is but that is how most are studied and never in a dojo imo will it relate totally to any street fight

 

[drop bear]

A wise decision, as, unless you are duty-bound to intervene, escape is usually the best option in a confrontation. That being said, learning a martial art never hurts for those times that avoidance or escape is impossible.

Also, O'Malley, I generally agree with you that Aikido techniques, when done well, require virtually no force beyond simple body mechanics to work. That being said, I think gpseymour's point that good technique and the ability to bring force to bear are NOT mutually exclusive is well-taken. One of the reasons I'm strongly considering moving from Aikido to Jiu-Jitsu for my defensive needs (note that I still very much love the philosophy of Aikido and, even if I make the switch, will continue to train every so often just to remain a part of the community) is that Aikido is practiced under extremely controlled, pre-determined conditions which will often not be found in a real life confrontation. As much as I love Aikido, I feel that an art that mixes hard and soft technique, and allows for an escalation of force that the philosophy of Aikido shies away from, may serve better as a basis for self defense.

Wrestle don't jits. Wrestling will be about making the core mechanics of grappling work.

If you figure that out you will figure out Aikido.

 

[oldwarrior]

I was looking for a style under Aikido that is more combat oriented. The 3 Aikido schools I’ve visited are focused on ‘drinking the koolade’ type of thing.

I guess that you are saying that because the schools you have seen are not teaching Atemi ...Oh they are there in Aikido just rarely taught

 

[drop bear]

I guess that you are saying that because the schools you have seen are not teaching Atemi ...Oh they are there in Aikido just rarely taught

Yeah. But we get this a lot. I can find a thousand videos of washy Aikido. I can barely find a video of semi decent Aikido.

But everyone's personal experience of Aikido is that they do the real deal.

I really can't see how if the evidence doesn't match the claim. That the claim is valid.

 

[oldwarrior]

Yeah. But we get this a lot. I can find a thousand videos of washy Aikido. I can barely find a video of semi decent Aikido.

But everyone's personal experience of Aikido is that they do the real deal.

I really can't see how if the evidence doesn't match the claim. That the claim is valid.

I totally get what you are saying

I guess it has or at some point someone thought it was a good idea to promote the more flowing and as you say wishy washy

I would say that if you'd ever experienced Chiba sensei or Saito sensei put you on the floor then umm it was not wishy washy lol....