Aikido.. The reality?

[jayoliver00]

Fighting is a variable and those variable multiple greatly for each person you have to fight with.

The guy on the right train Aikido. But he also knows other things. Just because he knows and trains Aikido doesn't mean he doesn't know how to fight. If I start training Aikido today, do you really think I'll lose the fighting skills that I have and still train? There's no nitpick. I'm willing to bet there are multiple people in here who have taken more than 1 martial arts and have been in more than one fight (regardless of what they train)

But if you know how to fight, then you know how to fight regardless of how vague that comment is.

Talking about their base MA training and not Mike Tyson dabbling with Aikido; beating dozens of people & suddenly Aikido is the premiere MA.

Yeah I wouldn't know because I've never gone and had fights with fat people. All the fights that I've been in could have gone either way for me. None of them were fat,

Are you talking street fights or gym fights or competition fights?

Not true. If you don't train martial arts for the purpose of using it fight then you get no guarantee that you can beat up "the average joe". The funny thing about your use of phrase "the average Joe" is that you call me out for being vague. But the "the average joe" is so vague that you couldn't possibly define that.

Sure you can. Most Americans are out of shape because the CDC states that, "In the United States, 36.5 percent of adults are obese. Another 32.5 percent of American adults are overweight."... that's 69 percent that can be classified as "fat". Your state of Georgia is #17 on the fattest people list, so chances are, the average joe within your surroundings that you run into for a street fight, are fat.

My next door neighbor is fat and would probably what you would consider the average Joe. You can feel free to fight him. He won't fight you. So it be easy right up to the point where he makes use of that gun that I always carries on him.

When you say "The average Joe" I have no idea of what type of person you are talking about.

That's nice, but we're talking about which MA styles being effective in a fight vs. an average joe and not a gun.

I don't drain Aikido, But I train Kung Fu and the only way I'll let anyone go full power on me without me returning the aggression is if the person is significantly weaker or less skilled than me. Other than that, the rule is "you get with what you give." Hit me hard and I'm going to hit you hard too.

As for the Average Aikido practitioners, my guess is that they would respond in a similar manner. "You get what you give." Even if I trained Aikido that would still be my rule.

Well of course they'd have to be untrained or little trained, that's the whole point about what I said about testing out your skills against untrained people. If you spent years in Aikido and can't let an untrained average joe go full power on you, head to toe, while you only tap or go light back; then your style is seriously suspect. Even bigger guys too, like up to 50 lbs or maybe more.

 

[Hanzou]

My issue about Roka is that he poor performance is everyone else's fault but his own. Even when he sees that he isn't training correctly for learning how to fight, he will still be delusional about his ability. Like when he made the statement that he was a white belt but felt like he could handle most people. Maybe that's what white belts say these days. Or maybe that's just what Roka's say. As far as Rokas goes, I wouldn't look for him as a measurement on any martial arts. Like when he said that he learned that is better to spar wit someone around his skill level or slightly higher because he couldn't learn anything when the person was too good. Most people who spar already know this. We don't need Roka's stamp of approval to enlighten us about that.

Yeah, but the question is where was his poor fighting performance coming from? When he switched over to BJJ and MMA he was far more competent overall. So what changed when he left Aikido?

The methodology of course.

People aren't questioning the effectiveness of Aikido. That would require that we understand what is actually being taught and measured. I used to think Aikido Randori was about multiple attacker scenario but now I don't. Now I see it more as a reaction drill. If it's a reaction drill then there's no need to talk about the effectiveness of it with fighting against multiple people because that's not what it's about or measuring. Even if someone from Aikido told me that it was a multiple attacker scenario. I would tell them that they misunderstood what is actually going on.

Uh, people have been questioning the effectiveness of Aikido for decades. Frankly I would argue that the verdict on the effectiveness of Aikido has already been decided. For example, no one was surprised that Rokas got destroyed by an MMA practitioner, the big surprise was that an experienced Aikidoka actually wanted to publicly test their skills.

As for whether the multiple attacker stuff is a scenario or a reaction drill, why does it matter? Either way it isn't effective by any measurable standard.

The reason Aikido Randori doesn't look like real fighting is because it's not trying to simulate real fighting. I could be wrong, but after watching a bunch of Randori and the fact that it doesn't simulate what real attacks looking like, I would think I'm on the right track.

No body fights like this. The purpose of this drill isn't about fighting with it. It's addressing agility and coordination so your body moves without thinking about what comes next.

Yeah, you're on the wrong track. Think about this for a moment; What other purpose would such a drill serve in a martial art? What are you developing those reflexes for? Why are you supposedly learning coordination while multiple people are "attacking" you? It's obviously for a fighting application, but just because it's for a fighting application and is in a popular MA doesn't mean that it works.

The fallacy here is that you're operating under the belief that if it is contained in a MA then it must be effective or useful for something, when that isn't necessarily true. This training could be in this MA and could be complete and utter nonsense that people simply follow because it's tradition and O'Sensei used to do it.

 

[Hanzou]

This is what I found when I looked up Randori


Randori is looked at differently depending on the system the person trains

The meaning of Randori, you can see in the translation of the Japanese Kanji. It says "Ran" is: chaos, random, at random, and "Dori" as take or grab. So we are dealing with chaotic or random handles or grips. The lump sum can be interpreted as "free practice".

Randori (乱取り), (רנדורי), is a free-style practice or sparring, a Japanese term used in Ninjutsu and other martial arts. The term literally means "chaos against an opponent", and implies leaving the structured reactions dictated at the level of the kata.

Randori may be practiced in various ways. If the object be simply training in the method of attack and defense, the attention should be especially directed to the training in the most efficient ways of throwing, bending or twisting, without special reference to developing the body or to mental and moral culture.

Randori promotes a variety of judo specific aspects, such as:

Decide power; Learning to use situations properly
Variety; Practice with different partners
Willingness to learn; Learn together in opposition
Critical skills; You trains with opponents who are bette
Tolerance; As UKE give in sometimes and let TORI throw

What is Randori?
Randori?

Out of all of the definitions I found for Randori. None of them said anything about fighting.

In Judo and Bjj randori (rolling) is simply free sparring. A place for you to test what you learned and develop your individual "game". It is the source of the effectiveness of those systems, since it forces the individual to develop a high level of skill through rigorous sparring with fully resisting opponents.

Now, with Aikido I do believe their randori is less full contact and random and revolves around more compliance between partners. So I wouldn't be surpirsed if randori is different in Aikido. Of course a randori that revolves more around compliance than resistance is simply an inferior version of randori, and could be an explanation of some of the issues we see in Aikido.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Especially if you didn't bother looking at what Randori means,

Hilarious.

I've never had someone who trains Aikido tell me this. Even in this thread I didn't see any of these statements.. when Aikido Practitioners were interviewed on youtube, they didn't say that either. Are there people out there who thinks like this. Of course there are. Does it means the all Aikido schools think like this, Definitely not. I've already mention that there are 2 camps of Aikido thought.

Who said all Aikido schools think like this? The point is that people make excuses for the lack of visible effectiveness in Aikido. This includes stuff like "Aikido is a spiritual pursuit", or "That person wasn't doing real Aikido", or "You don't understand what Aikido is", and other such nonsense. You've really had no one who trains in Aikido tell you this? Multiple people have linked videos where Aikido instructors say that crap in his very thread.

Heck, you attempted to do it with the nonsense about the multiple attacker randori not being done for fighting purposes, but being done to "develop reflexes" for some unknown purpose.

Other martial arts also have different camps of thought too. I've heard kung fu people say similar things about systems that are actually functional and valid as a fighting system. It wasn't the system that was flawed, it was the person and his training. Just like some people say Kung Fu is honorable and then say stuff like "A true martial arts master can win a fighting without fighting." Not what I would say. I wouldn't even say Kung fu is honorable. I actually tell people that Kung Fu has a lot of dirty fighting. But because some are "too dangerous to use kung fu." doesn't mean that I buy into the same mentality. From what I can tell tell Aikido is the same way.

One group sees it as a way to peace. The other group sees it as something functional. We have even seen this distinction from Aikido practitioners who have participated in this thread.

Yeah, but they all believe that their martial art is effective at defeating larger/stronger opponents or multiple attackers. Whether they believe that their art is a way of peace, or makes them into the reincarnation of Steven Seagal, they're all operating from the standpoint that they're utilizing a system of fighting.

 

[JowGaWolf]

When he switched over to BJJ and MMA he was far more competent overall. So what changed when he left Aikido?

easy. His training was geared towards fighting where his Aikido training wasn't. He sparred more and did more conditioning in his 2 years of mma than his 15+ years of aikido. He could have done conditioning and sparring in Aikido but he didn't. Everything in his first MMA fight was basic stuff not enough to say that one system was better than the other.

For example, no one was surprised that Rokas got destroyed by an MMA practitioner, the big surprise was that an experienced Aikidoka actually wanted to publicly test their skills

No one was suprised because he spent 15 years without doing any sparring dealing with punches and kicks, then assumed he was going to magically make stuff work. It even showed in how he moved that he never had to evade a good punch or kick. A lot of people test their skills in public regardless of skill level. That's nothing new.

As for whether the multiple attacker stuff is a scenario or a reaction drill, why does it matter? Either way it isn't effective by any measurable standard.

because if it's not meant for fighting then but to train reaction then it shouldn't be evaluated as fight skill. Just like kung fu form shouldn't be evaluated as fighting skills. Kung fu form doesn't teach application. That's not what it's for. Same thing for Randori.

What other purpose would such a drill serve in a martial art? What are you developing those reflexes for?

Developing reflexes is not the same as application. You can develop reflexes until you are an expert at it. It's still not application. I have a kung fu solo drill that teaches students how to do kung fu from any position, but it's only part of the training. One cannot only do that and expect to fight. They would still have to practice application through free sparring. The same way a boxer only punching a heavy bag and working on the speed bag is not the same as the application of skills in sparring.

It's obviously for a fighting application, but just because it's for a fighting application and is in a popular MA doesn't mean that it works.

Fighting application is only when you spar against a resisting opponent outside of your fighting system. Sparring against someone in your system is predictable you are familiar with what will be used against you. Sparring against someone outside of your system is random and requires a deeper understanding of the techniques you train. This is why I was so big in sparring when I was teaching.

The fallacy here is that you're operating under the belief that if it is contained in a MA then it must be effective or useful for something, when that isn't necessarily true.

I don't have a fallacy about which is why I ask about it and share my thoughts about what I think is going on. I don't train Aikido so I can't champion it the same way I do Jow Ga. There are a few mindsets that I don't agree with Aikido and for me that's my biggest issue long before I get into the techniques or effectiveness. Peace in Harmony for me is not the same as what is often presented in Aikido. When I look at and analyze Aikido, I do so without the concept of Peace and Harmony. Which from what I've read is the incorrect approach.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Of course a randori that revolves more around compliance than resistance is simply an inferior version of randori, and could be an explanation of some of the issues we see in Aikido.

I think this way too and I think it may be attached to that peace and harmony concept and the respect for your opponent talk. Like me having respect for my opponent isn't how some Aikido schools see it. For me, respect for my opponent is more about acknowledging the danger that my opponent presents even if I don't think there is any. Respect it like a black widow, don't be foolish are careless around it. Destroy it and be done with it, no fooling around (in a competitive or physical self-defense context). But Aikido seems more like not harming the opponent yet they apply painful joint locks. These are opposites for me so in my mind it cannot exist.

I'll give the Randori concept a try based on what I think I'm seeing to see how that works, that way I'll have a solo and an applications drill based on random strikes. I don't want to call them attacks because in my mind it would seem like identifying key body positions is probably more reliable and easier to track than waiting for a strike to be launched before reacting. My idea of flow is also different so I won't be doing any Aikido flow. Even though I'll have multiple coming at me. I'm going to treat it as various 1 vs 1 situations and not multiple.

What I'm expecting to see is me getting stuck often as I was taught to encourage my opponent to attack me the way I want him to attack. With Randori it seems like a lot of reacting vs leading the fight.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

But Aikido seems more like not harming the opponent yet they apply painful joint locks. These are opposites for me so in my mind it cannot exist.

One way to say, "I want to kill you." is to say, "I'll help you to go to heaven."

When people said, "MA is good for health." When your fist meet your opponent's face, it's not healthy for your hand, it's also not healthy for his face either.

 

[Cynik75]

My issue about Roka is that he poor performance is everyone else's fault but his own

He was promoted to BB by somebody else. Another aikido master-level artis recognized Rokas as skilled enough to be promoted. Is it Rokas fault?

 

[RagingBull]

That link is apparently to a German version of the page.

the book is in German. I can´t find an english translation i saw a while back. never mind, the author suggests a simple programme of

Barbell Squats (working up to at least squatting your bodyweight on the bar)
close grip bench press with a Triceps bar. (parallel grip is used a lot in Wing Tsun)
Incline sit ups / old school on an incline board.

Why no lat work? because he explains in the book that working the Biceps, directly(curls) or indirectly such as lat work (rows, chin ups) will hinder your chain punches or some call then arrow punches in Wing Tsun.

is this correct you decide. I myself train back/lats/biceps.

Triceps bar/ i have one myself.

 

[Hanzou]

easy. His training was geared towards fighting where his Aikido training wasn't. He sparred more and did more conditioning in his 2 years of mma than his 15+ years of aikido. He could have done conditioning and sparring in Aikido but he didn't. Everything in his first MMA fight was basic stuff not enough to say that one system was better than the other.

So if Aikido isn't geared towards fighting, what is it geared towards? How can it make claims that a smaller/weaker person can beat a larger/strong person if it isn't geared towards fighting?

No one was suprised because he spent 15 years without doing any sparring dealing with punches and kicks, then assumed he was going to magically make stuff work. It even showed in how he moved that he never had to evade a good punch or kick. A lot of people test their skills in public regardless of skill level. That's nothing new.

Yeah, so if you don't know how to deal with punches and kicks, yet your system is designed to deal with punches and kicks, what does that say about the system?

because if it's not meant for fighting then but to train reaction then it shouldn't be evaluated as fight skill. Just like kung fu form shouldn't be evaluated as fighting skills. Kung fu form doesn't teach application. That's not what it's for. Same thing for Randori.

What is the purpose of this reaction training? Why are they learning wrist locks, strikes, and throws if the goal isn't for fighting?

Developing reflexes is not the same as application. You can develop reflexes until you are an expert at it. It's still not application. I have a kung fu solo drill that teaches students how to do kung fu from any position, but it's only part of the training. One cannot only do that and expect to fight. They would still have to practice application through free sparring. The same way a boxer only punching a heavy bag and working on the speed bag is not the same as the application of skills in sparring.


Fighting application is only when you spar against a resisting opponent outside of your fighting system. Sparring against someone in your system is predictable you are familiar with what will be used against you. Sparring against someone outside of your system is random and requires a deeper understanding of the techniques you train. This is why I was so big in sparring when I was teaching.

I don't have a fallacy about which is why I ask about it and share my thoughts about what I think is going on. I don't train Aikido so I can't champion it the same way I do Jow Ga. There are a few mindsets that I don't agree with Aikido and for me that's my biggest issue long before I get into the techniques or effectiveness. Peace in Harmony for me is not the same as what is often presented in Aikido. When I look at and analyze Aikido, I do so without the concept of Peace and Harmony. Which from what I've read is the incorrect approach.

Again, then what is the application? If it isn't for fighting purposes then what purpose is this reaction training trying to fulfill?

Ballroom dancing?

They're doing this reaction training alongside wristlocks, strikes, and throws. The purpose of this training should be obvious.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No one in here is bashing Aikido. No one said it is a worthless practice that no one should partake in. People are simply questioning its effectiveness after decades of dubious behavior from the Aikido community at large. Rokas (who you used in your OP) simply renewed the discussion since he had 15 years of Aikido experience yet looked like he had never stepped in a martial school in his life.



This is utter nonsense. The randori is literally called multiple opponent randori, so yes it is practice against fighting multiple opponents. We know this because we have multiple schools believing that their Aikido is effective against multiple attackers.

The reason people create new meaning behind something that is obvious is because it doesn't actually work as intended. Making up esoteric mumbo jumbo about what this is supposed to be or mean is simply a deflection. It's like you fancy yourself as a sword maker, yet every sword you make is deficient and breaks when someone uses it in combat. Instead of simply admitting you're a bad sword maker, and that your process is flawed, you deflect and say that you never intended to make swords for battle in the first place. This is what people are doing with Aikido.

My belief (from the outside, trying to decipher a logical path to what I see now) is that randori seen in Aikido was originally all about movement. That makes sense of the fact that the "attackers" don't really use any significant skill - they're just feeding attacks while using movement to force the subject to work on movement. I don't think that's how it's seen by most of the Aikidoka I've been around, but that's my view of it. And I think it's pretty good for that purpose, and is probably one of the more useful tools for developing movement to control a multiple-opponent scenario (where movement, controlling distance, and keeping as many as possible in front of you are important). If there were also Judo-style randori at other times, I wouldn't have an issue with this drill.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

My issue about Roka is that he poor performance is everyone else's fault but his own. Even when he sees that he isn't training correctly for learning how to fight, he will still be delusional about his ability. Like when he made the statement that he was a white belt but felt like he could handle most people. Maybe that's what white belts say these days. Or maybe that's just what Roka's say. As far as Rokas goes, I wouldn't look for him as a measurement on any martial arts. Like when he said that he learned that is better to spar wit someone around his skill level or slightly higher because he couldn't learn anything when the person was too good. Most people who spar already know this. We don't need Roka's stamp of approval to enlighten us about that.

People aren't questioning the effectiveness of Aikido. That would require that we understand what is actually being taught and measured. I used to think Aikido Randori was about multiple attacker scenario but now I don't. Now I see it more as a reaction drill. If it's a reaction drill then there's no need to talk about the effectiveness of it with fighting against multiple people because that's not what it's about or measuring. Even if someone from Aikido told me that it was a multiple attacker scenario. I would tell them that they misunderstood what is actually going on.

The reason Aikido Randori doesn't look like real fighting is because it's not trying to simulate real fighting. I could be wrong, but after watching a bunch of Randori and the fact that it doesn't simulate what real attacks looking like, I would think I'm on the right track.

No body fights like this. The purpose of this drill isn't about fighting with it. It's addressing agility and coordination so your body moves without thinking about what comes next.

I'd argue that his lack of realistic view of his own skill is a predictable outcome of not having resistive training in the curriculum. If a white belt grapples/rolls/spars with new students, they get a chance to find out some of those folks still give them a lot of trouble. I place responsibility for that lack on the instructor.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah, but the question is where was his poor fighting performance coming from? When he switched over to BJJ and MMA he was far more competent overall. So what changed when he left Aikido?

The methodology of course.

And I think this is part of where the back-and-forth is in this thread. Some folks are talking about the art, while others are talking about the system (my use of the terms, explained below).

Art: the principles, techniques, and traditions.
System: the art, plus the way it is trained.

There's a difference between these, though it's not a clear border between the terms. I think some folks here are saying the art has a lot of merit if trained properly, while others are saying the system is badly flawed. I don't think those positions are necessarily in disagreement.

I also think there's some discussion of the efficiency of training (this is what I think whenever someone starts talking about years-in-service, comparing two arts, as has happened in this thread). Literally everyone I know who is involved in Aikido will readily state that Aikido is the long path (even when done "right", as I would define that). I don't know if it always was, but that's the expectation now. It's part of the identify of the art, I think. Unfortunately, having that view of an art likely removes most incentives to improve on training practices.

 

[RagingBull]

I have never ..ever seen Aikido being used in a real fight.
I wonder why ?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But Aikido seems more like not harming the opponent yet they apply painful joint locks. These are opposites for me so in my mind it cannot exist.

They don't mean "cause pain" they mean "cause serious injury". The idea/ideal is that they'd use pain compliance, rather than a break/tear. I don't think that's the way it was originally taught by Ueshiba, and I certainly don't think that's from the Daito-ryu base.

 

[JowGaWolf]

He was promoted to BB by somebody else. Another aikido master-level artis recognized Rokas as skilled enough to be promoted. Is it Rokas fault?

Promotion has nothing to do with a person's willingness to explore deeper into a system in an effort to get a good understanding. Long before I was an instructor, I would spend time trying to figure the simple techniques from Kung Fu. I always wanted to know how to apply it, when to apply it, what's the best way to apply, what is for. I had a classmate and we would try to figure out what we were taught after class and how many ways we could use it. We did this on our own. After we had a theory, we would test that theory out in sparring. No one told us to do this.

A lot of what Roka is doing now with wondering how Aikido operates and how things work in the context of fighting, is something that he probably did without someone telling him to do so. This is something that he should have been doing on his own long before now.

People who are interested in learning how to use their system in the context of fighting, will explore their system deeper without anyone telling them to do so.

 

[RagingBull]

sorry but this is the truth. you see Gozo Shioda (yoshinkan) at the start.

 

[RagingBull]

I think the most absurd Aikido was from Tohei Koichi . If people believe this they will get badly hurt or killed outside on the streets.

 

[JowGaWolf]

They don't mean "cause pain" they mean "cause serious injury". The idea/ideal is that they'd use pain compliance, rather than a break/tear. I don't think that's the way it was originally taught by Ueshiba, and I certainly don't think that's from the Daito-ryu base.

Other's may be having similar interpretations which is why some schools are headed in one direction and other schools lean more to the meaning you just gave. What you stated makes more sense to me. I'm also wondering if "Peace" is also misinterpreted. I wonder if Peace is more of a state of mind and not an emotion. Peace = Calm mind instead of Peace = not violent in actions.

 

[JowGaWolf]

sorry but this is the truth. you see Gozo Shioda (yoshinkan) at the start.

If a person knows that is not realistic then they should avoid Aikido that claims such things. Instead focus more on the Aikido that doesn't claim those things. Not all Martial Arts Teachers are honest good people. There are plenty that will scam someone and not feel bad about it.

 

[RagingBull]

If a person knows that is not realistic then they should avoid Aikido that claims such things. Instead focus more on the Aikido that doesn't claim those things. Not all Martial Arts Teachers are honest good people. There are plenty that will scam someone and not feel bad about it.

yeah i mean i am not hating on Aikido but anyone who has a brain knows this is just all crap. no way you will use it outside. sure if you like it do it for maybe peace & meditation. not for fighting. I trained years ago with a guy who was in the 60, 70s in Iwama with Saito Sensei. The locks in Iwama ryu are painful but even he said (he was also a high ranking Judoka) that you are better with a real striking system for outside.
try all this KI stuff in a bar & you will get hurt. simple as that.