How appliable is aikido for self-defense?

[drop bear]

You base a conclusion on the best evidence you can provide. There are plenty of claims made in science that do not yet have proof, but which have sufficient evidence to make them reasonable. Those are the claims that produce the best research. The same is true in any area. Just because one cannot prove something doesn't mean there's no evidence to support it.

Ok. That is still fine. And why i don't like the specific to self defence, as this general throw away term. There are just too many made up conditions that make or break the viability of an art. Otherwise you base your argument on the evidence you do have.

What evidence do you have?

And by the way. I am not having a discussion on what is or isn't my thing. I would have thought suitable for self defence would be an objective discussion as much as a subjective discussion. Mabye that is the issue.

Striking is much more my thing than wrestling. But there are objectivly holes in the wrestling game.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is right. Agnostic is more precisely a religious term, but this is exactly what I was getting at. So there good aikido? I can guess so, but from the outside, I'm told that if I want to know for sure, I have to join the church.... Err.... I mean, train in the system. It's set up so that the lack of independent evidence is explained away. In the same way I can't prove God doesn't persist, therefore God must exist... At least according to some. And to be clear, good aikido meaning good for self defense, which is the context of this thread.

And this is a reasonable stance when you haven't seen or experienced Aikido that meets that definition. So much of the practice in Ueshiba's art is around pure aiki application (which I've referred to in other posts, in reference to NGA). That type of practice is what makes it into nearly every video I've seen, because it's so iconic and dominates so much of the practice. And those videos don't provide evidence of martial effectiveness.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ok. That is still fine. And why i don't like the specific to self defence, as this general throw away term. There are just too many made up conditions that make or break the viability of an art. Otherwise you base your argument on the evidence you do have.

What evidence do you have?

And by the way. I am not having a discussion on what is or isn't my thing. I would have thought suitable for self defence would be an objective discussion as much as a subjective discussion. Mabye that is the issue.

Striking is much more my thing than wrestling. But there are objectivly holes in the wrestling game.

The evidence I have is from me giving hard, realistic attacks and ending up hitting the ground hard. It's not evidence I can share, obviously, since it's my personal experience. I've only experienced it a few times with Ueshiba's art, but I've only spent small amounts of time training in and around that art, so I'm satisfied that it can be effective for self-defense. I do think most practitioners aren't training it in a way that facilitates that use.

 

[moonhill99]

No. That boxing vs Aikido vid for example is hilarious. The guy is essentially doing Aikido practice in boxing gloves and making a sad attempt at imitating a boxer. Both are wasting their training time with that nonsense.

But that the think than anyone can put up video on the internet and call it Aikido vs xx you would not know if the video is bias or fake or not.

With out some third party, board like sports tournaments or MMA you would not know if the video is fake or not or bias.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But that the think than anyone can put up video on the internet and call it Aikido vs xx you would not know if the video is bias or fake or not.

With out some third party, board like sports tournaments or MMA you would not know if the video is fake or not or bias.

MMA and sports tournaments won't help you figure out if a video is real or fake, though it may help you figure out if a technique can be used in those contexts. And "fake" is not a proper term for the video in question. It's not a fake, it's just apparently not showing good boxing, though they probably think they are.

 

[drop bear]

MMA and sports tournaments won't help you figure out if a video is real or fake, though it may help you figure out if a technique can be used in those contexts. And "fake" is not a proper term for the video in question. It's not a fake, it's just apparently not showing good boxing, though they probably think they are.

Sort of. There are videos designed to look like legitimate self defence situations. At least with a sanctioned bout you can chase up if it ever happened.

 

[drop bear]

The evidence I have is from me giving hard, realistic attacks and ending up hitting the ground hard. It's not evidence I can share, obviously, since it's my personal experience. I've only experienced it a few times with Ueshiba's art, but I've only spent small amounts of time training in and around that art, so I'm satisfied that it can be effective for self-defense. I do think most practitioners aren't training it in a way that facilitates that use.

Because you couldn't video that?

I think there is a culture at play there by the way. Where you dont want to Present as looking foolish. And realism has foolish built in a bit.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sort of. There are videos designed to look like legitimate self defence situations. At least with a sanctioned bout you can chase up if it ever happened.

When you refer to a sanctioned bout, I assume you're referring also to a video of that bout. That's true, though it won't help determine if a video is fake unless it's about that bout. Those videos that are trying to simulate a self-defense situation are the ones that are problematic. Most of the ones I've seen appear to be honestly trying. Most have issues, but those issues are often at least partly due to safety issues. It's damnably difficult to accurately simulate a full-on attack without creating the same safety hazards of the actual attack.

 

[drop bear]

When you refer to a sanctioned bout, I assume you're referring also to a video of that bout. That's true, though it won't help determine if a video is fake unless it's about that bout. Those videos that are trying to simulate a self-defense situation are the ones that are problematic. Most of the ones I've seen appear to be honestly trying. Most have issues, but those issues are often at least partly due to safety issues. It's damnably difficult to accurately simulate a full-on attack without creating the same safety hazards of the actual attack.

Sorry there are ones that are not a demonstration of technique with realism. But an actual attempt at trying to pass as a real self defence.

That chick who gets mugged in the subway is probably one of those. I will try to hunt it down.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Because you couldn't video that?

I think there is a culture at play there by the way. Where you dont want to Present as looking foolish. And realism has foolish built in a bit.

I never said it couldn't be video'd. But it wasn't, so I can't use a video as evidence. I don't train regularly with anyone from that art, so have no real opportunity (nor, frankly, any need) to produce a video of it. If I was so inclined, I could produce some video using NGA if I got together with some other highly-skilled practitioners so we could turn off some of the safety settings for a while. Unfortunately, I never really think about it until right after something really nice happens.

For instance, I visited a friend's dojo a couple of months ago. Only three students attended that day, and all were yellow belts (first colored rank), so class was fairly calm and kept slow and within safe constraints. At the end of class, he called for an attack line (self-defense simulations). When the yellow belts were attacking or defending, the pace was still kept slow and smooth to protect them. Then I got to attack Daniel. I moved in fast and grabbed his lapels with both hands, intending to shove him back toward the back was as hard and fast as I could. I never had a chance to move him - he planted me in the ground hard and fast from my initial move in. I'd love to have video of that one, just to see what he actually did. It was so fast and so well-executed that even I wasn't entirely sure what technique he used.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sorry there are ones that are not a demonstration of technique with realism. But an actual attempt at trying to pass as a real self defence.

That chick who gets mugged in the subway is probably one of those. I will try to hunt it down.

Oh, I definitely agree that there are many out there that fail to be realistic for reasons beyond safety. My point was that safety issues are usually one factor that contribute. An attack can be made more realistic than many I've seen without becoming less safe. You know the usual issues: over-telegraphed, over-committed (in a situation where it doesn't seem likely), slowed at the moment of impact to make time for the technique, attacks with no chance to contact and/or no intent behind them, and no attempt to continue the attack after first contact.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Because you couldn't video that?

I think there is a culture at play there by the way. Where you dont want to Present as looking foolish. And realism has foolish built in a bit.

I forgot to reply to the last bit here. Spot on. I tell my students constantly that our techniques, used in defense, will not look so nice. We take falls in a way that protects us, and that happens to make the defender look really good. The guy on the street will sometimes stumble where we're doing a front roll (just as effective for us, but not very impressive to look at). Where we use a side fall to escape the technique, the attacker will likely fight it (facilitating a destruction) or drop to a knee (putting him in range of a strike) or something else equally unimpressive for video.

Reality doesn't often look cool.

 

[drop bear]

I never said it couldn't be video'd. But it wasn't, so I can't use a video as evidence. I don't train regularly with anyone from that art, so have no real opportunity (nor, frankly, any need) to produce a video of it. If I was so inclined, I could produce some video using NGA if I got together with some other highly-skilled practitioners so we could turn off some of the safety settings for a while. Unfortunately, I never really think about it until right after something really nice happens.

For instance, I visited a friend's dojo a couple of months ago. Only three students attended that day, and all were yellow belts (first colored rank), so class was fairly calm and kept slow and within safe constraints. At the end of class, he called for an attack line (self-defense simulations). When the yellow belts were attacking or defending, the pace was still kept slow and smooth to protect them. Then I got to attack Daniel. I moved in fast and grabbed his lapels with both hands, intending to shove him back toward the back was as hard and fast as I could. I never had a chance to move him - he planted me in the ground hard and fast from my initial move in. I'd love to have video of that one, just to see what he actually did. It was so fast and so well-executed that even I wasn't entirely sure what technique he used.

Well to very easily defend these anti Akido claims all that really has to happen is people see more of that.

People see truck loads of it in the bjj,s mma,s boxing and so on. It is a convincing argument. That is why new guys roll wrestle and spar experienced guys. to show the stuff works.

I have a video of one of the best martial artists in the country. Doing exactly this to some goober.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well to very easily defend these anti Akido claims all that really has to happen is people see more of that.

People see truck loads of it in the bjj,s mma,s boxing and so on. It is a convincing argument. That is why new guys roll wrestle and spar experienced guys. to show the stuff works.

I have a video of one of the best martial artists in the country. Doing exactly this to some goober.

I think part of the issue is that most folks in the Aikikai don't seem to care too much about the anti-Aikido claims. There are a few who post videos of more realistic scenarios (as opposed to the primary training methods), but they seem to be few. I suspect that those who really want more realistic defensive training are combining their classical Aikido training with other arts, rather than reinventing the training methods for Aikido. And then, of course, if those folks put up a realistic video, it's a mix of arts and looks nothing like what we've come to recognize as Aikido, even though some of the techniques and principles used are from their Aikido training.

Heck, if I did an NGA video with fairly realistic attacks, parts of it would look like Karate (we do a fair amount of striking), some would look like Jujutsu (our base is from Daito-ryu's Jujutsu), and seeing the "aiki" in it would be difficult, even for someone who knows it, because the difference between something being "aiki" or not is mostly in how much force is needed and whether the defender found a spot where the attacker wasn't providing resistance. That's easy to feel (from either side), but hard to see in a video. We need the "feelies" that a sci-fi author wrote about (Piers Anthony, I think, in a quintology I read 20 years ago).

 

[drop bear]

I forgot to reply to the last bit here. Spot on. I tell my students constantly that our techniques, used in defense, will not look so nice. We take falls in a way that protects us, and that happens to make the defender look really good. The guy on the street will sometimes stumble where we're doing a front roll (just as effective for us, but not very impressive to look at). Where we use a side fall to escape the technique, the attacker will likely fight it (facilitating a destruction) or drop to a knee (putting him in range of a strike) or something else equally unimpressive for video.

Reality doesn't often look cool.

This is the example I was thinking of by the way.

The instructor looks eats a shot and looks foolish. And suddenly they are fighting for the realz. Now what that does is creates a culture of letting the instructor win. And that diminishes everyone.

 

[drop bear]

I think part of the issue is that most folks in the Aikikai don't seem to care too much about the anti-Aikido claims. There are a few who post videos of more realistic scenarios (as opposed to the primary training methods), but they seem to be few. I suspect that those who really want more realistic defensive training are combining their classical Aikido training with other arts, rather than reinventing the training methods for Aikido. And then, of course, if those folks put up a realistic video, it's a mix of arts and looks nothing like what we've come to recognize as Aikido, even though some of the techniques and principles used are from their Aikido training.

Heck, if I did an NGA video with fairly realistic attacks, parts of it would look like Karate (we do a fair amount of striking), some would look like Jujutsu (our base is from Daito-ryu's Jujutsu), and seeing the "aiki" in it would be difficult, even for someone who knows it, because the difference between something being "aiki" or not is mostly in how much force is needed and whether the defender found a spot where the attacker wasn't providing resistance. That's easy to feel (from either side), but hard to see in a video. We need the "feelies" that a sci-fi author wrote about (Piers Anthony, I think, in a quintology I read 20 years ago).

See I think Judo does aiki as much as akido does it really. but their training doesn't look so forced all the time.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is the example I was thinking of by the way.

The instructor looks eats a shot and looks foolish. And suddenly they are fighting for the realz. Now what that does is creates a culture of letting the instructor win. And that diminishes everyone.

I think something that contributes to this is the nearly mystical expectation of an instructor in a TMA, at least from the general public. I tell my students I expect to get hit some when we spar - I'm not invincible, so even a white belt has a chance of getting one in on me (heck, I might even let one in if it opens another opportunity for me). If a spectator is watching and I get hit, they don't understand that, and I think many instructors want to protect against that perceived loss of face.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

See I think Judo does aiki as much as akido does it really. but their training doesn't look so forced all the time.

This is where I struggle to define the difference between "ju" and "aiki" as I use the terms (I'm probably not accurate translations, for anyone who knows the actual Japanese usage). Judo uses "ju", which is leverage that makes a technique easier and smoother. It's efficient use of leverage and finding gaps. "Aiki" is a bit harder to define, because it's about feeling a spot where there's no resistance at all. It's part active and part passive. "Ju" is what I use when I don't find an opportunity for "aiki".

As for looking forced (by which, I understand you to refer to the highly compliant training with stylized technique), that's not specifically about aiki, but is common where folks focus a lot on only working purely aiki, since pure aiki opportunities are rarer in realistic scnearios. Last night I was teaching the use of aiki in a realistic scenario: you've just managed to take away a knife (that's the starting point - this doesn't include the take-away), and you're still close enough that the guy is afraid you'll use it and feels like he has a good chance at getting it back. So, he lunges for that hand. It's active, has the opportunity for resistance (though we don't give them time to resist), and isn't stylized. It's also not "cool", because the only result we're likely to get is that they stumble a few steps away, rather than a nice dynamic fall or roll.

I still have a few stylized training methods that students use to study and learn specific principles, but I'm more focused on getting them to technical applications that respond to realistic attacks and reactions from the attacker. There's still plenty of aiki to be found in those scenarios.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

See I think Judo does aiki as much as akido does it really. but their training doesn't look so forced all the time.

This is where I struggle to define the difference between "ju" and "aiki" as I use the terms (I'm probably not accurate translations, for anyone who knows the actual Japanese usage). Judo uses "ju", which is leverage that makes a technique easier and smoother. It's efficient use of leverage and finding gaps. "Aiki" is a bit harder to define, because it's about feeling a spot where there's no resistance at all. It's part active and part passive. "Ju" is what I use when I don't find an opportunity for "aiki".

I think we're on the same page regarding aiki. It's that moment when you feel like your opponent is throwing himself and you're just helping steer where he goes with no effort whatsoever. I've had that happen occasionally in sparring. Generally it's been a moment when my sparring partner comes forward with a little too much commitment and I've been able to blend with his energy while applying a Judo technique like Harai Goshi or Tai Otoshi. It really does feel magical.

The thing about those occurrences is that they are dependent on the other person screwing up and providing that over-committed motion at a moment when you are prepared to take advantage of it. A skilled fighter is not going to provide very many of those opportunities. That's why if you put a master of an aiki based art into a cage fight he'll have to use something else 99.9% of the time.

Presumably an untrained attacker in a street assault would be more likely to provide those opportunities. However I think it is a mistake to train under the assumptions that the option will always be there.

BTW - my theory about the purpose of the Nage no Kata in Judo is to provide a reminder to be ready for that "aiki" moment when the opponent gives you exactly what you need for an effortless throw. In competition a judoka will be facing a skilled opponent who knows how to maintain a solid base and will be unlikely to put himself off-balance. Therefore Judo competition becomes more a game of forcing that off-balanced moment and it's possible to forget about the possibility of an effortless throw being just handed to you on a silver platter.

 

[Hanzou]

But that the think than anyone can put up video on the internet and call it Aikido vs xx you would not know if the video is bias or fake or not.

My issue with that video isn't the Aikido, its the "boxer" not giving the Aikidoka a more realistic boxer response. He's not incorporating the footwork, evasiveness, the flanking, and the rapid punching combinations that a boxer would bring to the table. For example, if an Aikidoka advanced like that on a boxer, the boxer would quickly flank to the side and drop 2-3 punches directly in the Aikidoka's face. A boxer isn't just going to sit there and allow you to grab their arms multiple times.

Thus, that particular exercise is a waste of time.