How appliable is aikido for self-defense?

[drop bear]

Yes.



You done what? Overstatement or subduing someone without injury?

Subdued someone without injury.

It is the main component of a lot of systems.

 

[Juany118]

@GreatUniter

I am familiar with Chiba, I also would not dare to say how Aikido is taught in Japan. Here is my thoughts, just based on what I have seen, so it's anecdotal in the extreme.

As I understand Shinshin Aikido was the first one that made its way to the West. Perhaps Shinshin sort of set the tone for the training. You tend to try and fill a "gap" when moving into a new market. So as Aikido spreads they are going to places where there was already judo, jujitsu, BJJ etc. So maybe most Aikido decided to be "softer" to differentiate itself?

Some however couldn't do that as easily due their nature. What makes Yoshinkan different is that in the finer points of the techniques it's really only have a step from Daito. Tomiki Aikido is very focused on the randori etc.

 

[drop bear]

Agreed. I think much of the training I've seen in Aikido (perhaps in all of the aiki arts) forgets/ignores the importance of position, structure, even defense and other fundamentals to make an arm lock available - really, truly a good idea in the moment. I'm far more likely to be using arm and wrist locks after someone is down than when they are standing, excepting the few that contribute to throws and takedowns (wrist throw, perhaps, definitely come along shoulder lock).

They forget it is a fight.

This is generally the example of how you get an arm in to a position so you can actually do something with it.

Of course he then chose the safer option of not trying to lock the arm.

 

[drop bear]

That's why we should be all taught that if one technique doesn't work for somebody, doesn't mean that other technique or even punch or kick won't either. I know that the techniques won't work 100% on everybody (there are more agile, stronger, faster, etc. opponents, even between untrained ones). Single, slight movement from the opponent is enough to block your technique (or make you do wrong movement). What will probably work 100% on the streets from aikido is only the aiki footwork from real, long - time, expertly trained aikido practitioner, with a lot of experience. Aikido is not magic, no - touch knockdown, chi - force martial art, like there are teachers that preach it. There is no 100% perfectly working technique with perfect outcome for the practitioner when there is real combat.

It should be pretty consistent though.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

IMO, all traditional, unarmed martial arts are the same, with the same techniques, only differences in basic techniques, philosophies, preaching, forms (if there are), etc. They all have the same punching/kicking/grappling techniques (yes, we speak for traditional martial arts). Punch is a punch, kick is a kick. To learn to defend, first you must learn to attack, period.

I definitely mostly agree with this. There are only so many ways to hit, kick, choke, lock, and throw a human. Most were discovered long ago. The main differences when the arts remain functional are often overall approach, rather than which techniques. So, the approach to a kote gaeshi is different in Ueshiba's Aikido than in Nihon Goshin Aikido (where it's either Front Wrist Throw or Peel Off), but the basic technique is the same. And the entry to techniques in Judo is different from Daito-ryu, but there are still many similar techniques.

 

[Juany118]

I definitely mostly agree with this. There are only so many ways to hit, kick, choke, lock, and throw a human. Most were discovered long ago. The main differences when the arts remain functional are often overall approach, rather than which techniques. So, the approach to a kote gaeshi is different in Ueshiba's Aikido than in Nihon Goshin Aikido (where it's either Front Wrist Throw or Peel Off), but the basic technique is the same. And the entry to techniques in Judo is different from Daito-ryu, but there are still many similar techniques.

Tbh I always forget about this because I see it as the one essential truth of physical combat, "biomechanics are biomechanics."

Keep forgetting if you haven't watch this yet Gerry, and now @GreatUniter, check out the video in this thread. I focused on the WC similarities between hubud and chi sau but when you get to the take downs and locks later I think you may see things familiar between FMA and Aikido as well. As Ron says "they are the same but different."

An interesting take on "sticky hands."

 

[GreatUniter]

@GreatUniter

I am familiar with Chiba, I also would not dare to say how Aikido is taught in Japan. Here is my thoughts, just based on what I have seen, so it's anecdotal in the extreme.

As I understand Shinshin Aikido was the first one that made its way to the West. Perhaps Shinshin sort of set the tone for the training. You tend to try and fill a "gap" when moving into a new market. So as Aikido spreads they are going to places where there was already judo, jujitsu, BJJ etc. So maybe most Aikido decided to be "softer" to differentiate itself?

Some however couldn't do that as easily due their nature. What makes Yoshinkan different is that in the finer points of the techniques it's really only have a step from Daito. Tomiki Aikido is very focused on the randori etc.

But then again, there are few questions: what is the difference between Yoshinkan, Tomiki and some other "style" of aikido, except the names of the techniques? Are you familiar with a something that is called real aikido? Or something that is called applied aikido (modern variant from real aikido)? Or something that is called combat ("black", "street") aikido?

As I have heard, been taught and read a few books, there was only one thing first, Daito (when we speak of aikido origin). Then from Daito, it's aikido. Then from aikido is all "sub-styles" that really doesn't have differences, only personal "touch" from masters of those styles (adding other martial arts or subtract some techniques) and voila, there is "new martial art" (there are still teachers that preach that they are founders of something "new". They commercialized the "new" and "modernized" concept and there is like I said, "new aikido". Everybody that trains aikido (or other martial art), have unique way of interpretation. There are many martial art styles, but the sub - styles are not that different, even so there is some differences in training or philosophy or don't know, more practical or more complex way of doing techniques. Even between practitioners of one single sub - style have many differences in doing the techniques, but that doesn't mean it is wrong way of doing martial arts. You can't invent hot water, because there are many types of boilers already invented. Many types of water - heaters, warmers etc., but they only have one function - to warm the water. This is also with aikido, or any martial art that have sub - styles. You have the core concept, you can "invent" only the school, even though it doesn't matter what is the name (Aikikai, Tomiki, Yoshinkan...). The name is for popularization only, to offer something "new" to the audience, something not that typical. You can take as an example the new martial art systems that are popping up almost everyday.

 

[Juany118]

But then again, there are few questions: what is the difference between Yoshinkan, Tomiki and some other "style" of aikido, except the names of the techniques? Are you familiar with a something that is called real aikido? Or something that is called applied aikido (modern variant from real aikido)? Or something that is called combat ("black", "street") aikido?

As I have heard, been taught and read a few books, there was only one thing first, Daito (when we speak of aikido origin). Then from Daito, it's aikido. Then from aikido is all "sub-styles" that really doesn't have differences, only personal "touch" from masters of those styles (adding other martial arts or subtract some techniques) and voila, there is "new martial art" (there are still teachers that preach that they are founders of something "new". They commercialized the "new" and "modernized" concept and there is like I said, "new aikido". Everybody that trains aikido (or other martial art), have unique way of interpretation. There are many martial art styles, but the sub - styles are not that different, even so there is some differences in training or philosophy or don't know, more practical or more complex way of doing techniques. Even between practitioners of one single sub - style have many differences in doing the techniques, but that doesn't mean it is wrong way of doing martial arts. You can't invent hot water, because there are many types of boilers already invented. Many types of water - heaters, warmers etc., but they only have one function - to warm the water. This is also with aikido, or any martial art that have sub - styles. You have the core concept, you can "invent" only the school, even though it doesn't matter what is the name (Aikikai, Tomiki, Yoshinkan...). The name is for popularization only, to offer something "new" to the audience, something not that typical. You can take as an example the new martial art systems that are popping up almost everyday.

I did study under the Aikikia umbrella for sometime. What I thibk the difference is based on is this.

For Tomiki has built into it competition. That's why sometimes it's call Shotokan Aikido. If you are going to have competitions like that, it can't really soften.

Yoshinkan is different, in my mind, because of where it came from. First, closer to the orginial Daito roots, which were then "hardened" by Shioda Sensei's wartime experience. Not much room for softness there.

However other forms, have the room to go soft. Especially if you read the later writings of O'Sensei Ueshiba, and then where is son took it, there is A LOT more waxing on the metaphysical aspects. Shioda Sensei even said he went off on his own BEFORE O'Sensei started focusing on the metaphysical aspects. Many people believe this is why Yoshinkan still has a good relationship with Aikika. Where say Tomiki is seen as going against some/many of the metaphysical aspects he was actually taught or Shinshin claims that everyone else lost O'Sensei's thoughts on Ki cultivation, Yoshinkan just says "hey this is what I was taught, I left before O'Sensei added to it."

I think it is the focus on the metaphysical that O'Sensei added post WWII that allows some branches to take a "softer" less combative route. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree because I see fundamental differences in mindset between more than a couple of the Aikido organizations. I don't think O'Sensei intended it, but it happened. It happens with all Martial Arts. It's why I wasn't shocked to see ideological pissing matches when I started studying one of the sub-Lineages of Yip Man Wing Chun and these pissing matches have actually led to different approaches to strategy, even forms.

tl;dr .Martial arts are not about a set of given techniques alone. They are also governed by the mindset and philosphy that underpin them and there are significant differences in mindset behind many of the Aikido organizations.

 

[GreatUniter]

Subdued someone without injury.

It is the main component of a lot of systems.

We talk about street attack that is dirty and full - force, or from bigger, stronger or faster opponent, not some drunkard that doesn't know how to walk when he's drunk. Anybody with some training can and probably will subdue somebody without a injury when there is pure 1 on 1 fight or if you surprise your opponent. But we talk about streets. There are low chances (still have some) that you'd be attacked from one attacker without weapon. Usually there are 2 or more against 1, or 1 attacker behind your back and other situations that you will need luck to not injure anybody or scratch yourself. There can't be perfect situation that you can do perfect throw for example and the attacker will know how to fall without injuring himself. Or where you can do perfect lock with compliant opponent. There are possibilities, let's say 1 in 100. Don't get me wrong, I don't laugh at you, because I really believe that you subdued someone without injury. I have seen few people from our police that really have subdued someone without injuring him (1 on 1).

Right now can't find an old video that I have seen long ago. Probably you won't find it on youtube either (I couldn't) and I doesn't remember where I saw it. There, an ex street fighter and I think he was also a football player talked about street fights (I think they called him Bulletman or something like that). He challenged around 10 black belts on the stage to subdue him, one at a time (he was very big and scary looking gorilla - like person). No one dared to go near him, they were all afraid. He talked about size, strength, fear, speed, adrenaline rush, body - freezing and other useful things and why martial artists doesn't look good on the streets. I'm really sorry that I can't show you the video, I searched for it for some days now but can't remember where I have seen it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Tbh I always forget about this because I see it as the one essential truth of physical combat, "biomechanics are biomechanics."

Keep forgetting if you haven't watch this yet Gerry, and now @GreatUniter, check out the video in this thread. I focused on the WC similarities between hubud and chi sau but when you get to the take downs and locks later I think you may see things familiar between FMA and Aikido as well. As Ron says "they are the same but different."

An interesting take on "sticky hands."

I definitely see some of the techniques I know. Different entry to them, and some different distancing (the leg sweep's a good example of the latter - I teach it mostly as clinch distance), but definitely recognizable.

 

[GreatUniter]

I did study under the Aikikia umbrella for sometime. What I thibk the difference is based on is this.

For Tomiki has built into it competition. That's why sometimes it's call Shotokan Aikido. If you are going to have competitions like that, it can't really soften.

Yoshinkan is different, in my mind, because of where it came from. First, closer to the orginial Daito roots, which were then "hardened" by Shioda Sensei's wartime experience. Not much room for softness there.

However other forms, have the room to go soft. Especially if you read the later writings of O'Sensei Ueshiba, and then where is son took it, there is A LOT more waxing on the metaphysical aspects. Shioda Sensei even said he went off on his own BEFORE O'Sensei started focusing on the metaphysical aspects. Many people believe this is why Yoshinkan still has a good relationship with Aikika. Where say Tomiki is seen as going against some/many of the metaphysical aspects he was actually taught or Shinshin claims that everyone else lost O'Sensei's thoughts on Ki cultivation, Yoshinkan just says "hey this is what I was taught, I left before O'Sensei added to it."

I think it is the focus on the metaphysical that O'Sensei added post WWII that allows some branches to take a "softer" less combative route. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree because I see fundamental differences in mindset between more than a couple of the Aikido organizations. I don't think O'Sensei intended it, but it happened. It happens with all Martial Arts. It's why I wasn't shocked to see ideological pissing matches when I started studying one of the sub-Lineages of You Man Wing Chun and these pissing matches have actually led to different approaches to strategy, even forms.

tl;dr .Martial arts are not about a set of given techniques alone. They are also governed by the mindset and philosphy that underpin them and there are significant differences in mindset behind many of the Aikido organizations.

It's a fact that aikido nowadays is raped like nothing else. It's really true with all that philosophical change in O'sensei's thinking. But I learn from other people's experiences and thing that they say when there are martial arts, not only by the books from masters. That's why I told you about differences that I think doesn't exist except minor changes. I learned that even that O'sensei changed his looks on the things, with all metaphysical things, he still had very brutal and hard aikido techniques in his older years (not as hard as when he were younger, but still very hard and demanding teacher). This was told by sensei Suga that is one of O'sensei's last uchi - deshi.

 

[Juany118]

I definitely see some of the techniques I know. Different entry to them, and some different distancing (the leg sweep's a good example of the latter - I teach it mostly as clinch distance), but definitely recognizable.

I think the main reason for the differences is that the grappling was designed around weapons. You don't want to "clinch" for a sweep if your opponent has a blade, it might get you stabbed. I think you see it in some of the locks as well, legs being used in a kneeling position, one hand often free, so you can transition to a weapon to finish or defend against another warrior coming on the battlefield with your weapon.

I tend to use the following adjectives to draw a general line. I picture martial arts as a series of concentric circles. There are "warrior arts" where the inner circle is weapons. The circles that build upon are thus very much influenced by those weapons. There are then "fighting arts" where the inner circle starts with the empty hand and this influences the circles built upon it as well.

 

[GreatUniter]

Tbh I always forget about this because I see it as the one essential truth of physical combat, "biomechanics are biomechanics."

Keep forgetting if you haven't watch this yet Gerry, and now @GreatUniter, check out the video in this thread. I focused on the WC similarities between hubud and chi sau but when you get to the take downs and locks later I think you may see things familiar between FMA and Aikido as well. As Ron says "they are the same but different."

An interesting take on "sticky hands."

The video is great, thank you. Really useful stuff.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I did study under the Aikikia umbrella for sometime. What I thibk the difference is based on is this.

For Tomiki has built into it competition. That's why sometimes it's call Shotokan Aikido. If you are going to have competitions like that, it can't really soften.

Yoshinkan is different, in my mind, because of where it came from. First, closer to the orginial Daito roots, which were then "hardened" by Shioda Sensei's wartime experience. Not much room for softness there.

However other forms, have the room to go soft. Especially if you read the later writings of O'Sensei Ueshiba, and then where is son took it, there is A LOT more waxing on the metaphysical aspects. Shioda Sensei even said he went off on his own BEFORE O'Sensei started focusing on the metaphysical aspects. Many people believe this is why Yoshinkan still has a good relationship with Aikika. Where say Tomiki is seen as going against some/many of the metaphysical aspects he was actually taught or Shinshin claims that everyone else lost O'Sensei's thoughts on Ki cultivation, Yoshinkan just says "hey this is what I was taught, I left before O'Sensei added to it."

I think it is the focus on the metaphysical that O'Sensei added post WWII that allows some branches to take a "softer" less combative route. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree because I see fundamental differences in mindset between more than a couple of the Aikido organizations. I don't think O'Sensei intended it, but it happened. It happens with all Martial Arts. It's why I wasn't shocked to see ideological pissing matches when I started studying one of the sub-Lineages of Yip Man Wing Chun and these pissing matches have actually led to different approaches to strategy, even forms.

tl;dr .Martial arts are not about a set of given techniques alone. They are also governed by the mindset and philosphy that underpin them and there are significant differences in mindset behind many of the Aikido organizations.

Given that NGA is directly derived from Daito-ryu, and Shiota's branch is the most similar to NGA, I do think it is the one that stayed closest to Daito-ryu. The progression of Ueshiba's approach - both his philosophy and its impact on his teaching of Aikido - is pretty well recognized. For the most part, it's reflected in the progression of off-shoots from students of his. The earlier students tended to produce more "martial" branches.

 

[GreatUniter]

Given that NGA is directly derived from Daito-ryu, and Shiota's branch is the most similar to NGA, I do think it is the one that stayed closest to Daito-ryu. The progression of Ueshiba's approach - both his philosophy and its impact on his teaching of Aikido - is pretty well recognized. For the most part, it's reflected in the progression of off-shoots from students of his. The earlier students tended to produce more "martial" branches.

Can you send me some links from videos of NGA? I'm afraid that I found something on the subject, but I feel it's not what I was looking for. Books or articles are also welcomed.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There are low chances (still have some) that you'd be attacked from one attacker without weapon. Usually there are 2 or more against 1, or 1 attacker behind your back and other situations that you will need luck to not injure anybody or scratch yourself.

While those do happen, what is more usual depends on how you define "attack". Altercations between people seem to most often produce 1-1 situations, including the posturing and "monkey dance". Predators seem to most often work singly. The most common "multiple" situations are when a second person steps in, or when an altercation draws the ire of more than one at a time.

But 1-1 situations aren't all that unlikely. More so, in some situations - and Drop Bear has put a fair amount of time in dealing with them, from what I understand.

 

[Juany118]

We talk about street attack that is dirty and full - force, or from bigger, stronger or faster opponent, not some drunkard that doesn't know how to walk when he's drunk. Anybody with some training can and probably will subdue somebody without a injury when there is pure 1 on 1 fight or if you surprise your opponent. But we talk about streets. There are low chances (still have some) that you'd be attacked from one attacker without weapon. Usually there are 2 or more against 1, or 1 attacker behind your back and other situations that you will need luck to not injure anybody or scratch yourself. There can't be perfect situation that you can do perfect throw for example and the attacker will know how to fall without injuring himself. Or where you can do perfect lock with compliant opponent. There are possibilities, let's say 1 in 100. Don't get me wrong, I don't laugh at you, because I really believe that you subdued someone without injury. I have seen few people from our police that really have subdued someone without injuring him (1 on 1).

Right now can't find an old video that I have seen long ago. Probably you won't find it on youtube either (I couldn't) and I doesn't remember where I saw it. There, an ex street fighter and I think he was also a football player talked about street fights (I think they called him Bulletman or something like that). He challenged around 10 black belts on the stage to subdue him, one at a time (he was very big and scary looking gorilla - like person). No one dared to go near him, they were all afraid. He talked about size, strength, fear, speed, adrenaline rush, body - freezing and other useful things and why martial artists doesn't look good on the streets. I'm really sorry that I can't show you the video, I searched for it for some days now but can't remember where I have seen it.

I would just say that it is determined by how you define "attack.". The following is based on 20 years (officially this month, damn I am getting old) as a police officer in a small City with a per capita crime rate = Philadelphia and Chicago in everything but homicides (thank God for small favors).

Strongarm Robberies, Domestic Assaults, street fights, sexual assaults. These are usually 1 v 1. Yes you will have the retaliation for the street fight where the previous loser shows up with friends, or the bar fight where one, or both, participants have friends but in my anecdotal experience it's largely 1 v 1.

I have trained in many Martial Arts over the years and what I have found that makes Martial Arts not look good on street is a product of HOW the art is trained. Sadly for many teachers it is simply a business, sometimes their only business. Because of this they want to keep students, so the credit card keeps getting debited each month. That means little, if any pressure testing. As an example I have a Gracie school that teaches BJJ and Muay Thai near me. You would think that school would be awesome due to the reputation of the name. They specifically say on the web site they don't do full Muay Thai sparring because of the risk of injury. The you go to my not for profit school (because my Sifu/Mataw Guro simply rents extra space at a discount from the same land lord as his private business) and we full spar not just with gloves but training knives and sticks in WC in FMA.

One school taught to pay the mortgage, the other taught simply for the passion of teaching martial arts. I think this makes a big difference.

 

[GreatUniter]

While those do happen, what is more usual depends on how you define "attack". Altercations between people seem to most often produce 1-1 situations, including the posturing and "monkey dance". Predators seem to most often work singly. The most common "multiple" situations are when a second person steps in, or when an altercation draws the ire of more than one at a time.

But 1-1 situations aren't all that unlikely. More so, in some situations - and Drop Bear has put a fair amount of time in dealing with them, from what I understand.

Usually when you subdue a person, he will give up his desire to fight if he feels pain. Most of people will. Still, there are people that won't give up even when there is big pain or bad injury (for example junkers or alcoholics under heavy influences, usually they don't feel the pain at first if it's not too late for them).

And I'm not denying what you talk about Drop Bear, I really believe that he has put a good amount of time subduing people without injury. There are many skilled people. Like I said before, I learn from other experiences aside from mine. Don't know there, but here, you are most likely to be attacked by 2 people minimum on the streets, be attacked from behind or if there is one attacker - to be attacked with a weapon, but a rarity to be attacked 1 on 1 from unarmed attacker.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think the main reason for the differences is that the grappling was designed around weapons. You don't want to "clinch" for a sweep if your opponent has a blade, it might get you stabbed. I think you see it in some of the locks as well, legs being used in a kneeling position, one hand often free, so you can transition to a weapon to finish or defend against another warrior coming on the battlefield with your weapon.

I tend to use the following adjectives to draw a general line. I picture martial arts as a series of concentric circles. There are "warrior arts" where the inner circle is weapons. The circles that build upon are thus very much influenced by those weapons. There are then "fighting arts" where the inner circle starts with the empty hand and this influences the circles built upon it as well.

I tend to look at techniques as what we use when we are in a position, rather than what position we go to in order to access them. It's a distinction that works for me, because I wouldn't go into a clinch if I know there's a blade involved, but quite like it when I'm reasonably sure one is not yet. Since I favor a Judo-style leg sweep, I'd most likely use other tools at the distance of the sweep in that video.

 

[GreatUniter]

I would just say that it is determined by how you define "attack.". The following is based on 20 years (officially this month, damn I am getting old) as a police officer in a small City with a per capita crime rate = Philadelphia and Chicago in everything but homicides (thank God for small favors).

Strongarm Robberies, Domestic Assaults, street fights, sexual assaults. These are usually 1 v 1. Yes you will have the retaliation for the street fight where the previous loser shows up with friends, or the bar fight where one, or both, participants have friends but in my anecdotal experience it's largely 1 v 1.

I have trained in many Martial Arts over the years and what I have found that makes Martial Arts not look good on street is a product of HOW the art is trained. Sadly for many teachers it is simply a business, sometimes their only business. Because of this they want to keep students, so the credit card keeps getting debited each month. That means little, if any pressure testing. As an example I have a Gracie school that teaches BJJ and Muay Thai near me. You would think that school would be awesome due to the reputation of the name. They specifically say on the web site they don't do full Muay Thai sparring because of the risk of injury. The you go to my not for profit school (because my Sifu/Mataw Guro simply rents extra space at a discount from the same land lord as his private business) and we full spar not just with gloves but training knives and sticks in WC in FMA.

One school taught to pay the mortgage, the other taught simply for the passion of teaching martial arts. I think this makes a big difference.

I absolutely agree with your point there. Only one difference is remaining: there is usually 1 on 1 fight where you live, here is most unlikely that you will be attacked 1 on 1, and if attacked by one, usually it will be from one that will provoke you and his group from 2 to 3 minimum will jump from the back and will attack you (or just scare you).