Thoughts about aikido.

[TSDTexan]

Imagine if you were holding a tanto knife or a wakizatchi shortsword and attacked this man with only that weapon in one hand.
Do you think you would succeed?

I think aikido if it had a weakness is that it was implicitly training for an armed attack.

It was not training to fight a boxer, or a muy thai fighter or even a wrestler. Dispite this,
I feel that an unskilled or low skilled assailant who threw a sloppy punch or kick at this man would have regretted it.

Most of the seniors of O Sensei were men who already had training in unarmed combative fighting art, with the exception of Kendoka or other sword arts.

Even then... the swordsmen styles of jujitsu were more focused on swordsmanship rather than unarmed defense against the katana.

Not aikido as it is today.... but as it was in O Sensei's day... it was a viable art for the niche that it served.

For "Do" training it remains, even today, exemplary method. Why do Do training matter? Because that's the part of martial arts that is the practice of self cultivation and personal improvement.

But the second crucial issue is that he began to blend religion into his art.

I suspect that if he had chosen to focus on a scientific approach, instead, his art would not have devolved into something like a cult.

Specifically the dogmatic assumptions that the art would work for everyone, and the art would have seen the value of pressure testing with stepped progressive resistance.

And they would have developed the modeling legitimate aka "realistic" physical attacks, besides a sword hand strike that is really representing an actual sword.

I may catch some flack for saying this.... but I feel aikido is the most beautiful yet impractical martial art in Japan. I love aikido. I wouldn't depend on it in a fight, Ever.

Yes. my statement is subjective. But I dont think it without merit.

Hopefully, I didn't offend you Gpseymour.

 

[Steve]

I agree that it is impractical. And pretty. Personally, I put it right yhere with xma, parkour, and ninjutsu.

 

[drop bear]

This is the sort of training you would do if you were training for a demonstration. And do that demonstration at an elite level.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Imagine if you were holding a tanto knife or a wakizatchi shortsword and attacked this man with only that weapon in one hand.
Do you think you would succeed?

I think aikido if it had a weakness is that it was implicitly training for an armed attack.

It was not training to fight a boxer, or a muy thai fighter or even a wrestler. Dispite this,
I feel that an unskilled or low skilled assailant who threw a sloppy punch or kick at this man would have regretted it.

Most of the seniors of O Sensei were men who already had training in unarmed combative fighting art, with the exception of Kendoka or other sword arts.

Even then... the swordsmen styles of jujitsu were more focused on swordsmanship rather than unarmed defense against the katana.

Not aikido as it is today.... but as it was in O Sensei's day... it was a viable art for the niche that it served.

For "Do" training it remains, even today, exemplary method. Why do Do training matter? Because that's the part of martial arts that is the practice of self cultivation and personal improvement.

But the second crucial issue is that he began to blend religion into his art.

I suspect that if he had chosen to focus on a scientific approach, instead, his art would not have devolved into something like a cult.

Specifically the dogmatic assumptions that the art would work for everyone, and the art would have seen the value of pressure testing with stepped progressive resistance.

And they would have developed the modeling legitimate aka "realistic" physical attacks, besides a sword hand strike that is really representing an actual sword.

I may catch some flack for saying this.... but I feel aikido is the most beautiful yet impractical martial art in Japan. I love aikido. I wouldn't depend on it in a fight, Ever.

Yes. my statement is subjective. But I dont think it without merit.

Hopefully, I didn't offend you Gpseymour.

It certainly doesn't offend me - you'll find me making some similar statements about Ueshiba's art (which is a cousin to the art I teach).

My view is that what Ueshiba taught was mostly polishing for what people already knew. Mostly, it was a series of drills (as stylized versions of specific techniques) to develop the flow and ease of physical "aiki". It focused on that, rather than specifically on direct application, because most of the folks studying it already had direct application. Several of Kano's top Judoka went to Ueshiba (some at Kano's behest) to learn from him. These guys already knew how to throw a resisting opponent.

Unfortunately, most of what has been replicated from his teaching misses that application factor. And many in Aikido seem to see the training as direct techniques with direct application, rather than training for principles that could be applied to any technique (including strikes).

If you start from the idea that you're learning principles, rather than specific techniques (meaning that some of the techniques might not have direct application), Aikido become more useful, more functional. The idea (and the way I teach "aiki") is that it's an option on top of the more common options. I can do a standard hip throw. I can do a standard hip throw against someone who is trying to stop me from doing that hip throw (if my skill and strength can overcome theirs). I can also do a hip throw "with aiki" when the opportunity presents. You will occasionally see folks from outside the aiki arts do things in a way that (to me) is very aiki. It's possible to learn to do that more often, but it's a fairly slow path, and requires drills that are at least partially cooperative to develop the right "feel". Unfortunately, much of Aikido training is just those drills, so they lack the other options, which means they only have the aiki versions of techniques, so can only use what they know when an aiki version is available to them. Which is not always predictable, nor dependable.

 

[drop bear]

It certainly doesn't offend me - you'll find me making some similar statements about Ueshiba's art (which is a cousin to the art I teach).

My view is that what Ueshiba taught was mostly polishing for what people already knew. Mostly, it was a series of drills (as stylized versions of specific techniques) to develop the flow and ease of physical "aiki". It focused on that, rather than specifically on direct application, because most of the folks studying it already had direct application. Several of Kano's top Judoka went to Ueshiba (some at Kano's behest) to learn from him. These guys already knew how to throw a resisting opponent.

Unfortunately, most of what has been replicated from his teaching misses that application factor. And many in Aikido seem to see the training as direct techniques with direct application, rather than training for principles that could be applied to any technique (including strikes).

If you start from the idea that you're learning principles, rather than specific techniques (meaning that some of the techniques might not have direct application), Aikido become more useful, more functional. The idea (and the way I teach "aiki") is that it's an option on top of the more common options. I can do a standard hip throw. I can do a standard hip throw against someone who is trying to stop me from doing that hip throw (if my skill and strength can overcome theirs). I can also do a hip throw "with aiki" when the opportunity presents. You will occasionally see folks from outside the aiki arts do things in a way that (to me) is very aiki. It's possible to learn to do that more often, but it's a fairly slow path, and requires drills that are at least partially cooperative to develop the right "feel". Unfortunately, much of Aikido training is just those drills, so they lack the other options, which means they only have the aiki versions of techniques, so can only use what they know when an aiki version is available to them. Which is not always predictable, nor dependable.

I am surprised they didn't go the chi sau option for that. Which is still stylized but at least has some sort of timing aspect.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I am surprised they didn't go the chi sau option for that. Which is still stylized but at least has some sort of timing aspect.

I am surprised there's not something like that in Aikido. I could see a form of chi sau working in that context, and it might even get them closer to something like a real punch. That said, there is timing involved in many Aikido drills. The issue isn't that timing isn't involved, but that it's too simplified - it eliminates the timing that's controlled by the other guy (because he's cooperating in those drills), which something like chi sau at least would improve on. Frankly, if they just did resistive randori (instead of continuing to play attacker and defender with the stylized strikes), it would change a lot. Oh, and hit each other more. That, too.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I am surprised there's not something like that in Aikido. I could see a form of chi sau working in that context,

If we compare Aikido training and Taiji training, the Aikido training is much more realistic than the Taiji training. You see people get thrown down on the ground in Aikido training. You only see people get pushed back in Taiji training.

You can always use "double hook punches (or double hay-maker, double downward parry)" to obtain clinch. If your opponent also train how to deal with hook punch and avoid the clinch setting, the value of training can be more rewarded than the sticky hand training.

 

[drop bear]

I am surprised there's not something like that in Aikido. I could see a form of chi sau working in that context, and it might even get them closer to something like a real punch. That said, there is timing involved in many Aikido drills. The issue isn't that timing isn't involved, but that it's too simplified - it eliminates the timing that's controlled by the other guy (because he's cooperating in those drills), which something like chi sau at least would improve on. Frankly, if they just did resistive randori (instead of continuing to play attacker and defender with the stylized strikes), it would change a lot. Oh, and hit each other more. That, too.

Even this angola type sparring would add more depth to the practice. So if we removed any fighting practicalities and just wanted to understand how the process works.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Even this angola type sparring would add more depth to the practice. So if we removed any fighting practicalities and just wanted to understand how the process works.

Totally ignore the "arm function" is not proper. The more that you train like this, the less realistic that your fighting skill will be.

The combat should be the guideline for sport and demonstration. It should not be the other way around.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Totally ignore the "arm function" is not proper. The more that you train like this, the less realistic that your fighting skill will be.

The combat should be the guideline for sport and demonstration. It should not be the other way around.

Yes, assuming the point of the training is combat.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Even this angola type sparring would add more depth to the practice. So if we removed any fighting practicalities and just wanted to understand how the process works.

I can’t get that video to play for some reason, so I’m assuming it’s the typical stuff you’d see at a road. And yes, even that - because both are trying to do the techniques - would add a dimension for exploring how aiki flow fits into actual application. It’s distant, but less distant.

 

[drop bear]

Totally ignore the "arm function" is not proper. The more that you train like this, the less realistic that your fighting skill will be.

The combat should be the guideline for sport and demonstration. It should not be the other way around.

Restrictions force you to open up new options to compensate.