Aikido.. The reality?

[isshinryuronin]

Except this is all coming from the false pretense that Aikido does not in fact work as a practical martial art or that it is not a "combat" martial art. You are mistaking a preponderance of bad schools and training as being the same as a bad system.

I was actually trying to defend aikido from those who think it has no practical value and stated it does offer sound principles and techniques. I agree with the below quote that early aikido was likely more "combat" oriented than commonly practiced today.

90% of what I've seen of aikido shows some weakness in application against resistance as it seems proper "set up" against resisting opponents is missing. Perhaps this was not true 80 years ago and more striking was part of the system. The other 10% of aikido schools may have retained this focus on true combat and these exceptions would be largely exempt from this post. I would like to work out at one of these.

Pre-War Japan was much different than Post War Japan.

As I have mentioned several times in the past, karate also suffered a loss of application technique, so you are right in making a comparison. But because karate is a striking art (and may be said to be less subtle than aikido) it is more direct, less dependent on finesse, so may be employed effectively against resistance at a lower level of expertise. So even if they have no understanding of the true bunkai, it is still usable against resisting opponents. In this light, aikido as commonly practiced today has a systemic weakness as far as actual fighting is concerned, IMO.

I like aikido - it's smooth and has great concepts of directing/redirecting opponent's momentum and has some good locks. I have tried to be fair and objective in my opinions, giving the pros and cons of the current state of the system as I see it. I admit I have no direct experience in aikido other than seeing several live demos, videos, and studying Aikido - The Dynamic Sphere with intermediate aikido practitioners (a long time ago.) Being in MA since the 60's, I feel it is a worthwhile art, but still stand by my comments.

 

[drop bear]

Except this is all coming from the false pretense that Aikido does not in fact work as a practical martial art or that it is not a "combat" martial art. You are mistaking a preponderance of bad schools and training as being the same as a bad system. I can take examples of bad martial artists in any martial art you want to cite,

Wouldn't you show good examples of Aikido to combat the perception that it is mostly bad?

 

[drop bear]

Nice, you grabbed a good video, this guy is excellent with his technique. You do not have to wait until your opponent moves towards you and it does not need to start with grappling. What you are watching is the equivalent of Kata demonstrations in other Japanese martial arts, the object is to show perfect form/delivery not simulate a realistic fight.

The secret to fight choreography is the guy taking the falls is doing all the work.

 

[Shatteredzen]

Wouldn't you show good examples of Aikido to combat the perception that it is mostly bad?

I've spent several posts explaining the reason some people have that perception, with video links and I've been pretty in depth about it. If you want to go back and read you can come back and I can go point by point with you if you have a technical argument.

 

[Shatteredzen]

I was actually trying to defend aikido from those who think it has no practical value and stated it does offer sound principles and techniques. I agree with the below quote that early aikido was likely more "combat" oriented than commonly practiced today.

90% of what I've seen of aikido shows some weakness in application against resistance as it seems proper "set up" against resisting opponents is missing. Perhaps this was not true 80 years ago and more striking was part of the system. The other 10% of aikido schools may have retained this focus on true combat and these exceptions would be largely exempt from this post. I would like to work out at one of these.



As I have mentioned several times in the past, karate also suffered a loss of application technique, so you are right in making a comparison. But because karate is a striking art (and may be said to be less subtle than aikido) it is more direct, less dependent on finesse, so may be employed effectively against resistance at a lower level of expertise. So even if they have no understanding of the true bunkai, it is still usable against resisting opponents. In this light, aikido as commonly practiced today has a systemic weakness as far as actual fighting is concerned, IMO.

I like aikido - it's smooth and has great concepts of directing/redirecting opponent's momentum and has some good locks. I have tried to be fair and objective in my opinions, giving the pros and cons of the current state of the system as I see it. I admit I have no direct experience in aikido other than seeing several live demos, videos, and studying Aikido - The Dynamic Sphere with intermediate aikido practitioners (a long time ago.) Being in MA since the 60's, I feel it is a worthwhile art, but still stand by my comments.

Any system without resistance is little better than empty forms. BJJ has no strikes, that doesn't stop anyone from using strikes and BJJ. Aikido was taught with striking, I have gone over the whole tegatana thing at length here in this same thread. I won't endorse the robot chop/ spirit sword hands esotericism because I don't think it works, but the softer and lighter use of the open hand which shows up in Daito-Ryu and is occasionally seen in Aikido nowadays (the Aikidoflow videos again) works great with the same principles. That said, there is nothing saying you can't transition a resisting/missed or half applied kotei gaeshi into an elbow strike to the face and/or back. I specifically teach striking alongside the techniques, it doesn't make it "not" Aikido anymore, if anything, it makes it more authentic to the original art. Also, as I said before, Aikido, like any other martial art, is not a "one and done" style and I believe it works best as a central pillar or finishing art to other systems.

When it was originally taught, Aikido was a mix of Judo, Ju-Jitsu, Kendo and Bo-Jutsu, at its height, Ueshiba claimed 3,000 techniques (I think he was BSing that number) within the system, most schools teach sixty or so techniques or less nowadays. I was taught and I continue to teach the Aikido alongside Judo, BJJ and Ju-Jitsu techniques, over the years we have mixed in a bunch of the Filipino martial arts, Muay Thai and random other things cherry picked from different systems into what I would consider "my style" of fighting. I have yet to find a single style that can't be countered by another style, to be a well rounded fighter, you are going to have to expect to study multiple systems, especially in Japanese martial arts. I can say however that I consider Aikido to be the central "core" of my style of fighting and it has informed every other style I have studied. Were we to train together, you would likely see the Aikido peaking out of my explanation of Kali or Muay Thai the same way your core art may flavor your other studies.

 

[O'Malley]

So when I read this I hear exercise not martial arts for actual use in self defense.

It would be interesting to discuss what makes a martial art but that is another topic.

When I read this I see conflict because no where in you statement mention self-defense or applicable use. beyond "Body an Mind." That's the reality of Aikido then people who says it's worthless as a fighting or self-defense system would be correct.

To be more precise, it develops physical and mental attributes that are useful in self defense. This, coupled with alive and intense training (done through sparring sessions after classes) allowed early generations of practitioners to become proficient at fighting and to apply the techniques in real encounters.

I know I lack context, but I've been asking and I haven't gotten any. The most that I've gotten so far pretty much sums it up as a made up Martial Art that is useless for self-defense.

I know, I'm trying to help the best I can but some posts on a forum are peanuts compared to real training.

Again. After seeing the videos and seeing the discussions from Aikido Practitioners "qualified instructor" is going to be almost impossible to find.

In fact, aikido instructors that are interested in functionality, know the why's and don'ts of the system and can fight are almost non existent, although I'd put a penny on guys like Bruce Bookman.

How much history do you need to know about punching?
How much history do you need to know about blocking?
How much history do you need to know about setting in a wrist lock?
How much history do you need to know to throw someone?
How much history do you need to know to evade a punch?

I didn't expect the Spanish inquisition! (Sorry, couldn't resist)

I'll try to illustrate my point with an example. How much history do you have to know to use a fork? If, like me, you're from a working class background but one day you somehow ended up eating at a high-end restaurant, you might have tried to crack the code of "which fork to use for what". Personally, this put my reasoning skills to the test, and although I guessed some things right (the dessert spoon was an easy one) I ended up using the meat knife for fish (or whatever). Now, from a functional perspective, I used the meat knife in a 100% valid manner and it did a great job at cutting the fish. Yet, saying that I understand how to use that knife would be a bit of a stretch.

See this what I'm talking about . No one knows what it is. The qualified instructors are saying that it's not a lateral strike. Some say it's a strike at all. Their words not mine. So it's not me.

Oh I agree with you, it's difficult (and imagine having to do it for the whole art you're trying to study, all the while trying to figure out what's BS and what's good, in light of extremely poor results in cross-style exchanges). That's why I try to apply critical thinking, stick to the most reliable sources and exchange with practitioners of other arts.

If that's the case then none of the Aiko techniques are valid for application as they only work if someone doesn't let go and holds on as if they glued. If that's the case the Aikido should probably get out of sparring and should probably not call itself a Martial arts. I'm only saying this because how you are presenting it, because I know there are others who don't share the same view of Aikido as you.

When uke is unbalanced on contact, he relies on tori for his balance, so his reflex is to keep holding. Otherwise he'll fall. You can see this here at the 1:20 mark:

My personal thought is that this shouldn't be so confusing when all I've looked at was an "Aikido Chop", a response to an "Aikido Chop", and an "Aikodo Stance"

I like the fresh perspective on aikido that you are trying to bring, and I didn't mean to discourage you. My point was no more than a caveat: you might come up with something perfectly valid from a Jow Ga or functionality perspective (as I did with the knife) and you might even guess something right (the dessert spoon). However, it is very different from understanding the movements in light of the core principles and goals of aikido, which I can guarantee you won't. Many martial artists have tried to do so and most of those interpretations don't hold up to the facts (like the weapons retention stuff). They are innovations and while they might actually be very valuable from a practical perspective, they are just different from aikido as it was designed. That being said, I'm actually very curious to see what you'd come up with.

If you know what this is, then feel free to share your knowledge. About this and what it means.
If you go all ZEN on me then I'll tell you to stop. I have no interest in ZEN, when it comes to people telling me how things work.

"You must know yourself first is not an answer an answer" Because the same people who buy into that are often the people who do not know how to use Aikido on the the most basic level.

Morihei Ueshiba's speeches had multiple layers of interpretation, and technical explanations were done through spiritual imagery (= the guy talked and nobody understood). However, this is a very concrete, physical concept. At its most basic, it involves using visualisations to pull the tissues in your body in opposing directions at the same time (up-down, left-right, front-back, etc.), which creates internal tension that you use to maintain your structure when force is applied to you (this description has probably holes due to my limited understanding of the phenomenon and the limits of written descriptions of physical movements). If you look at the Sunadomari video from 1:10 on, he first shows "normal" movement, then movement under the effects of this internal tension, which is called "aiki". With your CMA background, you might see similarities with Chen Taiji's "pulling silk" or the pile-standing of Xingyi and Yi Quan. Actually, Ueshiba used the exact same formula as the Chinese internal arts as he talked about "unifying heaven, earth and man".

Your statement remind me the 1st day that I started to cross train the Zimen system. The Zimen system has 8 principles.

1. 残 - disabled, cruelty
2. 推 - push
3. 援 - assisted
4. 夺 - seized
5. 牵 - pulled
6. 捺 - pinched
7. 逼 - forced
8. 吸 - sucked

The 1st principle is "残(CAN) - disabled, cruelty". The Zimen teacher said, "Without understanding the meaning of "disabled, cruelty", you will never understand the Zimen system."

Even today, I still don't understand why "disabled, cruelty" is the number 1 important principle in that system.

Which MA style will you take?

Case 1:

A; What's your style?
B: My style teach me how to obtain self-cultivation and inner peace.

Case 2:

A: What's your style?
B: My style teach me how to land my fist on my opponent's face.

I'll take 2 over 1.

Depends on your goals, I guess.

Regarding @O'Malley I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that Ueshiba had no formal training outside of Daito-Ryu

Several authors have thoroughly researched Ueshiba's pre-Daito-Ryu training, including Ellis Amdur and Simone Chierchini:

"This long analysis, therefore, led us to the following conclusions, based on what (little and confused) is known about the life story of the young Morihei: before devoting himself body and soul to Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu under Sokaku Takeda, he had trained for a few months in Tenjin Shinyo-Ryu, he had received occasional teaching in Yagyu Ryu jujutsu, and had practiced Judo for a few months. This was Morihei Ueshiba’s entire martial career outside of Daito, as far as it is currently known. The fact that Morihei has studied, practiced and achieved mastery in a large number of martial disciplines would seem to be a complete fabrication." - Entire essay here: Ueshiba’s Martial Arts Career Before Aikido Was Born

or that he wasn't a pacifist after the war

"At any rate, Morihei Ueshiba was a remarkable guy. He was a force for good, but this simplistic idea that aikido was created to create peace on earth is just not fully informed. Back in the early eighties, a number of us, under the direction of Phil Relnick, created an organization called the Japan Martial Arts Society (JMAS). Four times a year, we’d have great martial artists come and present to non-Japanese living in Japan. Doshu Kisshomaru, O-Sensei’s son, did a presentation, and one very sincere guy raises his hand and through translation says, “When did your father become a pacifist?” Someone translates this to Doshu, and he sort of looks like, “What?” The guy translates it again, and he just cracked up. I mean, there were tears in his eyes, and he said, “My father was never a pacifist.”" - Source: Ellis Amdur: On Aikido – Aikido Journal

and that his son made all the changes to the system.

This has been recognised by the current Doshu:

“To the spirit of the past Doshu”
by San-Dai Doshu Moriteru Ueshiba

“The techniques and way of Aikido that the founder O-Sensei left us, was not always easily understood by everyone. Doshu, my father, changed these so they would be easily understood, and he gave all of his life to spread this. For that reason he left behind many books that he had written. I grew up watching Doshu return from keiko to study and write for long hours and even with my child’s eyes I could see the importance of this work” - Source: Iwama-Ryu Türkiye

It has also been researched to death: The Ueshiba Legacy, by Mark Murray - Aikido Sangenkai Blog ; Is O-Sensei Really the Father of Modern Aikido?, by Stanley Pranin – Aikido Journal

Ueshiba was an extreme nationalist and the defeat of Imperial Japan and the surrender created a total paradigm shift within him, as it did in much of Japanese society. As far as Aikido being a finishing school for more advanced Budo practitioners, its what the Japanese Army hired him for and what he was doing in Manchuria throughout the war, studying with Ueshiba required being referred from other teachers for a long time and his son is credited as being the one to truly open the martial art up to the world, although Ueshiba shared the same mindset as part of his post war paradigm shift. The same thing is listed under the IMAF description of Aikido :: Aikido ::

Tadashi Abe started training at 16 with no martial background, Rinjiro Shirata at 18, Hiroshi Isoyama at 12 (!), Terry Dobson had studied the lethal art of... American football, and I could name more. The "finishing school" thing is a hoax. The IMAF is an administrative body outside of aikido, they'll publish any brief sent by the Aikikai.

For the hand technique or "Aikido chop" @JowGaWolf - I'm sorry if I have not been clearer in my description, Aikido teaches the idea of tegatana, literally, "hand swords" and emphasizes knife hand techniques. Aikido techniques come from sword fighting and the idea of tegatana comes from this idea of using the knife hand as a kind of "spirit sword".
There's a very rigid posture to the hand and exacting instructions on using it to focus ki and how to block and strike/ etc. Here is a detailed explanation from Kenji Tomiki and its the best one I can easily find. The Three and Six – TOMIKI AIKIDO

I'm not that familiar with what the Tomiki folks do but they tend to have sound ideas.

I may be getting the entire principle wrong but I have always taught the traditional ideas and then told students to dismiss the rigid knife hands and to adopt a more relaxed flow with the hands, similar to the open hands in Kali. This both promotes easier grabbing/grappling it also allows you to use more striking parts of the hand such as the palm or to turn the strike from a knife hand "chop" into a flowing ridge hand over an opponents guard. I try to stress that the tegatana is primarily to intercept the opponents line, not as the classical ki strike karate chop. This is why I link the aikidoflow videos, because he has adopted what looks like the same method, instead of staying with the classical, rigid chopping that you keep seeing. This may be total Aikido heresy, but it has been what I have found works the best when attempting to apply Aikido techniques against resistance and I stay away from teaching martial arts esotericism albeit some is necessary to understand the principles Aikido is teaching. Maybe the old masters really could karate chop the hell out of everyone, in my experience, it screws up and slows down the practitioner, adds rigidity instead of a flowing harmony to the application of techniques and just doesn't work in the way people are trying to use it.

I like that. I also like this:

Notice he stays relaxed and emphasizes a relaxation of the stance and hands to aid the movement and technique. In my opinion, this is someone who understands how to apply the techniques through an opponents resistance, where what you are seeing is the dojo method that stresses perfect posture/rigidity and positioning and is not true "budo" but a more stylized form just like we see in many other Japanese fighting arts where the demonstration of a technique doesn't convey a practical application.

I would have liked to see him do it in sparring, I remember some live training footage on their channel. BTW Sumo does it against resistance:

Why do all Aikido training have to start with grabbing? Can Aikido training start from his opponent's kick or punch?

Also why do you always have to wait for your opponent to move in toward you? How about you move in toward your opponent instead?

See this video from 1:09 onwards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCZ0VizXTfU

Except this is all coming from the false pretense that Aikido does not in fact work as a practical martial art or that it is not a "combat" martial art. You are mistaking a preponderance of bad schools and training as being the same as a bad system. I can take examples of bad martial artists in any martial art you want to cite, the failures of these individuals says nothing about the system itself. Aikido comes from the techniques used to train the Takeda clan samurai, it was used by the Japanese military during the second world war and its techniques are still used in law enforcement and military unarmed techniques the world over. The Japanese police and military still use Aikido in their respective unarmed systems alongside Judo, Karate and other techniques. There is not a need to cherry pick a handful of techniques from Aikido, you simply need a good school/teacher and you need to train to practically apply the techniques.

Do you have good examples of aikido application against resistance? No need for competition footage (you'd only have Tomiki stuff I guess) but a sparring video would be nice, as these are rare to find.

I would say the common sense is missing. We all know that if you pick up my left leg, you then hook up my right leg, since I have no leg left, I will have to fall.

As a throwing art, does Aikido have technique such as:

- control one of your opponent's leg,
- control his other leg, and
- take him down?

Why can't we train a throwing art just from the "common sense" instead?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEEV-ZzoWgo&t=47s

I was actually trying to defend aikido from those who think it has no practical value and stated it does offer sound principles and techniques. I agree with the below quote that early aikido was likely more "combat" oriented than commonly practiced today.

90% of what I've seen of aikido shows some weakness in application against resistance as it seems proper "set up" against resisting opponents is missing. Perhaps this was not true 80 years ago and more striking was part of the system. The other 10% of aikido schools may have retained this focus on true combat and these exceptions would be largely exempt from this post. I would like to work out at one of these.

As I have mentioned several times in the past, karate also suffered a loss of application technique, so you are right in making a comparison. But because karate is a striking art (and may be said to be less subtle than aikido) it is more direct, less dependent on finesse, so may be employed effectively against resistance at a lower level of expertise. So even if they have no understanding of the true bunkai, it is still usable against resisting opponents. In this light, aikido as commonly practiced today has a systemic weakness as far as actual fighting is concerned, IMO.

I like aikido - it's smooth and has great concepts of directing/redirecting opponent's momentum and has some good locks. I have tried to be fair and objective in my opinions, giving the pros and cons of the current state of the system as I see it. I admit I have no direct experience in aikido other than seeing several live demos, videos, and studying Aikido - The Dynamic Sphere with intermediate aikido practitioners (a long time ago.) Being in MA since the 60's, I feel it is a worthwhile art, but still stand by my comments.

Good points.

When it was originally taught, Aikido was a mix of Judo, Ju-Jitsu, Kendo and Bo-Jutsu, at its height, Ueshiba claimed 3,000 techniques (I think he was BSing that number) within the system, most schools teach sixty or so techniques or less nowadays.

Aikido was Daito-ryu, plain and simple. As I said, Ueshiba didn't really have much training outside of DR (although a hip throw made its way from Yagyu Shingan Ryu to aikido, it's our koshi nage). And he hated judo because its founder supposedly learned it in China. That said, I also think that the 3000 techniques gimmick was to emphasise the fact that one could incorporate anything into aikido, which is about principles, not technical repertoire (in this, Ueshiba was not different from the other top Daito-Ryu instructors, who said the exact same thing). Also, I agree with what you've said about modern aikido: the current repertoire is much more limited now: you've got basically a dozen of techniques done from various attacks (grab, chop, etc.): the pins (5 techniques), shiho nage, tenchi nage, ude kime nage, kote gaeshi, irimi nage, kaiten nage and that's about it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I understand this. This is normal and it's something that will happen often as when trying to discover application beyond what is taught.


I understand this too. This is how the learning experience should work. It's been brought up here a few times about the need for a system to evolve. This is where that evolution comes from. But it only happens when a good foundation and a willingness to explore occurs. I think I have about 10 techniques that I learned on my own that aren't formally taught in Jow Ga. some things that the teacher already knew and some are things that he may not know. Either way they weren't taught in Jow ga and I didn't grab them from the other system.

So at this point I understand what you are describing.

I understand this as well as I have used what I learn in Taiji about relaxing an sensing in my Jow Ga.

i just finished reading your whole post. I understand what you are saying. I personally don't think it's an Aikido thing because I can pull out examples of how those things (similar things) have happened to me. I'm more likely to use a Taiji Concept with my Jow Ga, than a Taiji technique. This is why I can tell how weak or how strong a person's stance is based on how their punch lands on me. But I still have to learn how to deal with attacks. I can't use that concept by itself.

I definitely don't think it's anything unique to the aiki arts. I do think - from my rather shallow analysis - that it's more prevalent in the arts derived from Daito-ryu than I've seen elsewhere. It's part of the reason I think some critiques are misplaced (they don't understand the learning approach), and also a reason I think there are some very valid criticisms (I think there are students and instructors who also don't understand the approach, which makes their outcome problematic).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Why do all Aikido training have to start with grabbing? Can Aikido training start from his opponent's kick or punch?

Also why do you always have to wait for your opponent to move in toward you? How about you move in toward your opponent instead?

There definitely are Aikido responses to both kicks and punches. I've never trained any of their kick responses, but many of their techniques have punch application. As for moving first, that depends how they've trained. Many of the techniques really aren't suited to initial movement. Someone commented earlier about how being an able striker fits with that. The same exists in NGA - if you aren't a good striker, you're pretty much stuck on defense until an opportunity opens, if you want to do most of the classical techniques (there are a few that are close-in techniques - part of our Judo influence). But if you can work with strikes, you can control things to get to the opportunities.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I would say the common sense is missing. We all know that if you pick up my left leg, you then hook up my right leg, since I have no leg left, I will have to fall.

As a throwing art, does Aikido have technique such as:

- control one of your opponent's leg,
- control his other leg, and
- take him down?

Why can't we train a throwing art just from the "common sense" instead?

We could. But that's not what everyone wants. IMO, the aiki arts (at least all the ones I've had a glimpse into, and including those that don't really conform to the more accurate definition of "aiki") have a specific focus, and part of what folks enjoy about them is the challenge of that focus.

 

[O'Malley]

And he hated judo because its founder supposedly learned it in China.

Can't edit, but I meant the founders of Yoshin Ryu and Kito Ryu, which form the basis from which J. Kano synthesised judo.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I wonder if terms like heaven and earth throw people off into the spiritual stuff. If my understanding is correct, they don't mean the same thing in Asian cultures as it means in western cultures.

 

[JowGaWolf]

It would be interesting to discuss what makes a martial art but that is another topic.



To be more precise, it develops physical and mental attributes that are useful in self defense. This, coupled with alive and intense training (done through sparring sessions after classes) allowed early generations of practitioners to become proficient at fighting and to apply the techniques in real encounters.



I know, I'm trying to help the best I can but some posts on a forum are peanuts compared to real training.



In fact, aikido instructors that are interested in functionality, know the why's and don'ts of the system and can fight are almost non existent, although I'd put a penny on guys like Bruce Bookman.



I didn't expect the Spanish inquisition! (Sorry, couldn't resist)

I'll try to illustrate my point with an example. How much history do you have to know to use a fork? If, like me, you're from a working class background but one day you somehow ended up eating at a high-end restaurant, you might have tried to crack the code of "which fork to use for what". Personally, this put my reasoning skills to the test, and although I guessed some things right (the dessert spoon was an easy one) I ended up using the meat knife for fish (or whatever). Now, from a functional perspective, I used the meat knife in a 100% valid manner and it did a great job at cutting the fish. Yet, saying that I understand how to use that knife would be a bit of a stretch.



Oh I agree with you, it's difficult (and imagine having to do it for the whole art you're trying to study, all the while trying to figure out what's BS and what's good, in light of extremely poor results in cross-style exchanges). That's why I try to apply critical thinking, stick to the most reliable sources and exchange with practitioners of other arts.



When uke is unbalanced on contact, he relies on tori for his balance, so his reflex is to keep holding. Otherwise he'll fall. You can see this here at the 1:20 mark:

I like the fresh perspective on aikido that you are trying to bring, and I didn't mean to discourage you. My point was no more than a caveat: you might come up with something perfectly valid from a Jow Ga or functionality perspective (as I did with the knife) and you might even guess something right (the dessert spoon). However, it is very different from understanding the movements in light of the core principles and goals of aikido, which I can guarantee you won't. Many martial artists have tried to do so and most of those interpretations don't hold up to the facts (like the weapons retention stuff). They are innovations and while they might actually be very valuable from a practical perspective, they are just different from aikido as it was designed. That being said, I'm actually very curious to see what you'd come up with.



Morihei Ueshiba's speeches had multiple layers of interpretation, and technical explanations were done through spiritual imagery (= the guy talked and nobody understood). However, this is a very concrete, physical concept. At its most basic, it involves using visualisations to pull the tissues in your body in opposing directions at the same time (up-down, left-right, front-back, etc.), which creates internal tension that you use to maintain your structure when force is applied to you (this description has probably holes due to my limited understanding of the phenomenon and the limits of written descriptions of physical movements). If you look at the Sunadomari video from 1:10 on, he first shows "normal" movement, then movement under the effects of this internal tension, which is called "aiki". With your CMA background, you might see similarities with Chen Taiji's "pulling silk" or the pile-standing of Xingyi and Yi Quan. Actually, Ueshiba used the exact same formula as the Chinese internal arts as he talked about "unifying heaven, earth and man".



Depends on your goals, I guess.



Several authors have thoroughly researched Ueshiba's pre-Daito-Ryu training, including Ellis Amdur and Simone Chierchini:

"This long analysis, therefore, led us to the following conclusions, based on what (little and confused) is known about the life story of the young Morihei: before devoting himself body and soul to Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu under Sokaku Takeda, he had trained for a few months in Tenjin Shinyo-Ryu, he had received occasional teaching in Yagyu Ryu jujutsu, and had practiced Judo for a few months. This was Morihei Ueshiba’s entire martial career outside of Daito, as far as it is currently known. The fact that Morihei has studied, practiced and achieved mastery in a large number of martial disciplines would seem to be a complete fabrication." - Entire essay here: Ueshiba’s Martial Arts Career Before Aikido Was Born



"At any rate, Morihei Ueshiba was a remarkable guy. He was a force for good, but this simplistic idea that aikido was created to create peace on earth is just not fully informed. Back in the early eighties, a number of us, under the direction of Phil Relnick, created an organization called the Japan Martial Arts Society (JMAS). Four times a year, we’d have great martial artists come and present to non-Japanese living in Japan. Doshu Kisshomaru, O-Sensei’s son, did a presentation, and one very sincere guy raises his hand and through translation says, “When did your father become a pacifist?” Someone translates this to Doshu, and he sort of looks like, “What?” The guy translates it again, and he just cracked up. I mean, there were tears in his eyes, and he said, “My father was never a pacifist.”" - Source: Ellis Amdur: On Aikido – Aikido Journal



This has been recognised by the current Doshu:

“To the spirit of the past Doshu”
by San-Dai Doshu Moriteru Ueshiba

“The techniques and way of Aikido that the founder O-Sensei left us, was not always easily understood by everyone. Doshu, my father, changed these so they would be easily understood, and he gave all of his life to spread this. For that reason he left behind many books that he had written. I grew up watching Doshu return from keiko to study and write for long hours and even with my child’s eyes I could see the importance of this work” - Source: Iwama-Ryu Türkiye

It has also been researched to death: The Ueshiba Legacy, by Mark Murray - Aikido Sangenkai Blog ; Is O-Sensei Really the Father of Modern Aikido?, by Stanley Pranin – Aikido Journal



Tadashi Abe started training at 16 with no martial background, Rinjiro Shirata at 18, Hiroshi Isoyama at 12 (!), Terry Dobson had studied the lethal art of... American football, and I could name more. The "finishing school" thing is a hoax. The IMAF is an administrative body outside of aikido, they'll publish any brief sent by the Aikikai.



I'm not that familiar with what the Tomiki folks do but they tend to have sound ideas.



I like that. I also like this:

I would have liked to see him do it in sparring, I remember some live training footage on their channel. BTW Sumo does it against resistance:

See this video from 1:09 onwards:

Do you have good examples of aikido application against resistance? No need for competition footage (you'd only have Tomiki stuff I guess) but a sparring video would be nice, as these are rare to find.

Good points.



Aikido was Daito-ryu, plain and simple. As I said, Ueshiba didn't really have much training outside of DR (although a hip throw made its way from Yagyu Shingan Ryu to aikido, it's our koshi nage). And he hated judo because its founder supposedly learned it in China. That said, I also think that the 3000 techniques gimmick was to emphasise the fact that one could incorporate anything into aikido, which is about principles, not technical repertoire (in this, Ueshiba was not different from the other top Daito-Ryu instructors, who said the exact same thing). Also, I agree with what you've said about modern aikido: the current repertoire is much more limited now: you've got basically a dozen of techniques done from various attacks (grab, chop, etc.): the pins (5 techniques), shiho nage, tenchi nage, ude kime nage, kote gaeshi, irimi nage, kaiten nage and that's about it.

Thanks I appreciate the info, your time and patience with this

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

We could. But that's not what everyone wants. IMO, the aiki arts (at least all the ones I've had a glimpse into, and including those that don't really conform to the more accurate definition of "aiki") have a specific focus, and part of what folks enjoy about them is the challenge of that focus.

So what is the "aiki" that focus on?

If we look at 100 different throws, will you be able to category a set of throws that meet the aiki requirement, and another set of throws that doesn't meet the aiki require?

Does the following video (you attack first) meet the aiki requirement"?

 

[isshinryuronin]

So what is the "aiki" that focus on?

If we look at 100 different throws, will you be able to category a set of throws that meet the aiki requirement, and another set of throws that doesn't meet the aiki require?

Does the following video (you attack first) meet the aiki requirement"?

This is a good example of aggressive defense. The guy on the left has his arm out, so I'm supposing it was some kind of attack or feint. The guy on the right moves in and attacks the arm, setting up the sweep, leg grab and takedown. The latter part of this compound attack may not have succeeded if the attacks on the arm did not set it up. It accomplished this by blocking the punch, working up on the arm to keep it out of play, all the while closing the distance and distracting the opponent which allowed the sweep, which in turn set up the takedown. This may have been a staged demo, but nevertheless, was very well executed.

 

[drop bear]

I've spent several posts explaining the reason some people have that perception, with video links and I've been pretty in depth about it. If you want to go back and read you can come back and I can go point by point with you if you have a technical argument.

Ok here is my technical argument. If someone said there is no good mma or there are no nice mma schools or it doesn't work on the street. Or virtually any criticism that is put on a martial arts school I could find video countering that.

And then i could support a claim that it is not the system because this school does this thing.

Arguing that some other school does some bad thing does not support an argument that my school does a good thing.

So the argument is Aikido has enough evidence of compliant training and not enough evidence of non compliance to suggest that in this case it really is the system.

So for example. This is Lachlan Giles. And he sells a system. And to show his system works he employs it with resistance against everyone at his seminar.

So you can say there is evidence his system works. You don't even have to understand how the system works so long as you understand the guy who taps is the guy who has lost.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

So the argument is Aikido has enough evidence of compliant training and not enough evidence of non compliance to suggest that in this case it really is the system.

Do we have any Aikido clip that 2 persons wrestle against each other?

 

[isshinryuronin]

(Zimen principles)
1. 残 - disabled, cruelty
2. 推 - push
3. 援 - assisted
4. 夺 - seized
5. 牵 - pulled
6. 捺 - pinched
7. 逼 - forced
8. 吸 - sucked

While I am not a kung fu practitioner, these principles seem a lot like something I have read about, called the "Eight Gates" of kung fu:
1. Peng - to ward off, gather then give back
2. Lu - roll back, absorb then redirect
3. Chi - press, stop hit
4. An - push down
5. Tsai - pull down
6. Leih - split the joints
7. Chou - quick strike
8. Kao - full body strike
The first four of these being called "the 4 laws of quan fa," and were respectively referred to as: float, swallow, spit and sink. Are your Zimen principles a variation/adaptation of these 8 gates, do you think? And do they represent the basic concepts/types of technique taught in CMA?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So what is the "aiki" that focus on?

If we look at 100 different throws, will you be able to category a set of throws that meet the aiki requirement, and another set of throws that doesn't meet the aiki require?

Does the following video (you attack first) meet the aiki requirement"?

Using my own understanding of the term (which isn't the classical definition), I certainly could, though I'd be putting things in two groups. There's one I call "pure aiki", and very few live applications make it into that group (I see it as a training pursuit more than an application pursuit). But to me, that clip would't fall into either aiki category because of a lack of body involvement, opposing forces (a short name I sometimes use for a more complicated concept - hard to describe in a short comment), and stability when the first leg is attacked (the footwork favors mobility more). That's a first-blush reaction, and feeling the same throw I might change my mind.

But, again, my view is not likely to line up with folks in Aikido. NGA's approach to aiki is quite different from what I've seen in Aikido circles. And my view is a minority view in NGA.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

While I am not a kung fu practitioner, these principles seem a lot like something I have read about, called the "Eight Gates" of kung fu:
1. Peng - to ward off, gather then give back
2. Lu - roll back, absorb then redirect
3. Chi - press, stop hit
4. An - push down
5. Tsai - pull down
6. Leih - split the joints
7. Chou - quick strike
8. Kao - full body strike
The first four of these being called "the 4 laws of quan fa," and were respectively referred to as: float, swallow, spit and sink. Are your Zimen principles a variation/adaptation of these 8 gates, do you think? And do they represent the basic concepts/types of technique taught in CMA?

You are talking about the Taiji system 13 postures.

1. Peng (ward-off)
2. Lu (roll-back)
3. Chi (press)
4. An (push)
5. Tsai (pull-down)
6. Lieh (split)
7. Chou (elbow strike)
8. Kao (shoulder strike)
9. Chin (advance)
10. Tui (retreat)
11. Ku (look left)
12. Pan (look right)
13. Ting (center)

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

There's one I call "pure aiki",

Will you consider this throw to be more aiki like?