How effective is Aikido?

[Hand Sword]

Try with let's say, kiajutsu.... or some of the more obscure ninja arts.

/yari

The arts of Ninjutsu are pretty self evident. They were used for assasination and worked very well back then. Poison is popison. Killing is killing. Nothing obscure about that.

 

[Yari]

OK, then baseball is a SD art, and so is watching TV. Because you can learn things that can be used as SD.

This logic syas that everthing can be used if your luckey it would fit the SD situation. And it's the "luckey" part you want to minimize. So yes you could screem the h*ll out our your lungs and hit the guy, but if your training then consists of sitting squat against you oppent (becasue of some achient(sp?) rule), then your dead. In my book that part of the MA got you killed, and therefor not good for selfdefence.

/yari

 

[Hand Sword]

Yeah! A baseball bat works very well--Believe me!

And watching and learning----Don't you do this in training? Did you learn anything? I would suspect so.

 

[Hand Sword]

Luck plays a role sir. Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good. However, I never mentioned luck, nor did any of this thread. It about established systems and training. Doing this makes them work for real if you want them to.

I don't think if you were smart enough to startle an opponent you would be stupid enough to just sit squat. Let's stay real please.

 

[Hand Sword]

As for the internal systems, which I believe you are referring to. They have self defense. You also use the calming of yourself to think your way out clearly. That's a real application.

It all matters if you want it to.

Everything can work in one way or another.

 

[Hand Sword]

Let's stay to the subject matter of Aikido and it's effectiveness. You seem to be one of reality training as primary, which I agree with completely!

You said that you have trained in Aikido for twenty years.

Obviously..it's effective. (End of your arguing, Thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you!)

 

[samurai69]

You said that you have trained in Aikido for twenty years.

Obviously..it's effective. (End of your arguing, Keep training!)

Absolutely

 

[Yari]

Luck plays a role sir. Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good. However, I never mentioned luck, nor did any of this thread. It about established systems and training. Doing this makes them work for real if you want them to.

I don't think if you were smart enough to startle an opponent you would be stupid enough to just sit squat. Let's stay real please.

I did mention luck. But it's a part of SD no mater how welll you train/pratice. It's a question how much you minimize it, so your in control and no tthe situation.

The question originally pointed towards Aikido, but what i'm talking about is the logic of the thought.

You take me litterally (sp?) when I say squat(that was not my intent), but more real I've seen style were you pivit when finished. Thus showing your back. This is a fatal move no matter what. You never should show your back to an opponent. I've seen Aikido sensei move tandem first into a knife fight, becasue the style dictates them to do so. I've seen nijitusu people squat beacse there style says so. These people had learned that this was correct. Logic ditates that going into a knife fight stomach first, your changes of dieing have increased. In my book this is not good SD, no matter how good your hand techniques are or your foot is.

On the other hand we are talkiing about an art, argumentting that ANY art teaches correct SD. this was the sole argument. I'm stating that I can find at least 1 art that isn't SD. But I'm not arguming that there are certain techniques tha could work. But having 1 technique that worlks doesn't qualify the whole art as beeing good for SD.

/Yari

 

[MartialIntent]

True, and if we agree on this that means that there are arts that won't work in a SD situation.

Yari, my quote was "......if certain Aikido styles are limited in application to SD, then the same goes for every other art"

Unfortunately, I'm not actually saying that certain Aikido styles are limited in application at all. Therefore we do not agree on this point.

I don'tknow KF, but Aikido I've been doing for nearly 20 years, and tried at least 4 - 5 styles (not just one nights practice), and to use the Name Aikido as a a definitiv art isn't correct. There are many arts under the name Aikido.

I would have to disagree with your assertion that it's wrong to use the name Aikido as a generic term. I too have practiced different styles of Aikido before coming to Shodokan / Tomiki style. I have practised Aikikai [or traditional style] and Yoshinkan style. However, despite the fact that these styles were developed tangentially from the Aikido as designed by Morehei Ueshiba, that doesn't preclude the similarities within them.

If one wishes to refer to a specific style then that is fine. If one wishes to refer to "Aikido" as a style, then I believe that is an equally valid term.

Back to the fundamental argument. If I can prove that just one art isn't good for SD, then you are fundamentally wrong. I could mention any MacDojo or how about kiai-jutsu?

Yari, although it pains me to agree with you I do agree. So, having said that... now let's see you go ahead and prove that just one art isn't good for SD.

Respects!

 

[MartialIntent]

You take me litterally (sp?) when I say squat(that was not my intent), but more real I've seen style were you pivit when finished. Thus showing your back. This is a fatal move no matter what. You never should show your back to an opponent. I've seen Aikido sensei move tandem first into a knife fight, becasue the style dictates them to do so. I've seen nijitusu people squat beacse there style says so. These people had learned that this was correct. Logic ditates that going into a knife fight stomach first, your changes of dieing have increased. In my book this is not good SD, no matter how good your hand techniques are or your foot is.

Yari, I am surprised to find an Aikido style that teaches approaching a knife-armed opponent stomach first... For me, in any Aikido I have trained [and any arts I've trained for that matter] maintanence of correct distance is fundamentally important.

All I would say is that what you have experienced or observed above is not flawed Aikido, but rather is highly flawed interpretation of the Aikido principles in general and in Ma-Ai [proper distance] in particular.

On the other hand we are talkiing about an art, argumentting that ANY art teaches correct SD. this was the sole argument. I'm stating that I can find at least 1 art that isn't SD.

I still believe [and agree with HS above] that ANY art -Aikido included- can be effective for SD simply because the key is in the intent of the practitioner and not in the techniques of the art. I have proven this to myself both inside and outside the Aikido dojo and will take some convincing otherwise. This may be delusion or naivete on my part and therefore, I look forward to your results that disprove that belief.

Respects!

 

[Yari]

. I have proven this to myself both inside and outside the Aikido dojo and will take some convincing otherwise. This may be delusion or naivete on my part and therefore, I look forward to your results that disprove that belief.

Respects!

Your logic has closed off my chances of convincing you of other wise.

You state that everything can be used as SD, but agree to that certain techniques could be ineffective, but still maintain that and art is flawless.

You see, no matter what I say youd, just point to your own logic, which is a ring logic (goes in a ring).

Now no matter what I postulate you then can say it's a misinterpertation, and that closes off the possiblity of you being wrong.

The only way left for me is to apeal to your logical sense, and that is to state the obvise : there is no perfect system in the world, ergo it shouldn't be a problem to find a system that doesn't work in the eyes of SD.

/Yari

 

[MartialIntent]

Your logic has closed off my chances of convincing you of other wise.

You state that everything can be used as SD, but agree to that certain techniques could be ineffective, but still maintain that and art is flawless.

You see, no matter what I say youd, just point to your own logic, which is a ring logic (goes in a ring).

Now no matter what I postulate you then can say it's a misinterpertation, and that closes off the possiblity of you being wrong.

The only way left for me is to apeal to your logical sense, and that is to state the obvise : there is no perfect system in the world, ergo it shouldn't be a problem to find a system that doesn't work in the eyes of SD.

/Yari

Yari, I'm sincerely sorry if I am not making myself clear enough or if I appear to be obturating your argument. I could argue that Aikido is flawless but I won't. I will instead restate the point that the limitations are not within Aikido - but rather that if limitations exist they do so within the practitioner. I have proved to myself the validity of my Aikido how I do it but am the first to see the imperfections inherent in my own practices. The point is that ANY art, regardless of whether or not we wish to call it a perfect creation can be applied to an SD situation if that is where the practitioner wishes to work it. The practitioner must iron out their own flaws first - just like the saying goes I suppose: a bad workman blames his tools.

I mean, using a point raised by samurai69 on a thread regarding Aikido vs Boxing:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32391
... If I train my Aikido relentlessly with the specific intent of beating a boxer then I am 100% convinced I'd be able to do that.

If I wanted to work my Aikido with the specific intent of generating enough Ki to break concrete slabs with my head then I'm certain I'd be able to do that too with sufficient time and motivation.

My point is that although these concepts are alien to Aikido and likely not mentioned in any of the Aikido books and are furthermore probably not widely practised, that doesn't preclude the ability of any practitioner to achieve those goals if he or she trains for that specific situation. And that goes for any art imHo.

I hope this is a little clearer. I'm not being intransigent on this point - far from it. If I can have it shown to me that a specific art with a motivated practitioner cannot cut it in an SD situation then I will happily admit I'm wrong. For me though, I can say that because I don't believe it's possible to prove such a case simply because excellence and pure intent in the practitioner can more than compensate for any perceived limitations in any art - and I'll put my neck on the line and say McDojo styles included.

Respects!

 

[jujutsu_indonesia]

find at least 1 art that isn't SD. But I'm not arguming that there are certain techniques tha could work. But having 1 technique that worlks doesn't qualify the whole art as beeing good for SD.

/Yari

I think I understand your way of thinking and agree that within the syllabus of any martial art we can find techniques that may not be the best solution for self-defense. For example I have seen an Aikikai shihan in a official Embu, he does techniques where he twirl his Uke around him like a merry-go-round, for about a minute. Nice for demo, but try that against straatjongens (streetfighters) here in Jakarta, and I am sure the shihan will be introduced to the concept of "early retirement".

I am a huge fan of Tomiki Aikido, but within the Koryu Goshin no Kata I have seen technique where Tomiki Shihan does a single leg takedown against a knife-wielding opponent without trying to secure the knife hand first. It's a good technique against non-knife-fighters, but against an arnis Master, even Tomiki shihan himself will find himself at a severe disadvantage.

Hell, even in my own Dentokan version of Hakko-ryu, I can find techniques that are not 100% perfect for self-defense. Most of the Aiki Nage type techniques on Shodan-Gi (for example Kubishime Dori and Ushiro Zemi Otoshi) are done without gripping Uke. In the real world, when a straatjongen sensed that we are about to break his balance, he will let go of his grip and punch us in the head immediately. So, in reality situations I think we have to counter-grip or at least apply atemi before moving to any type of aiki nage.

Having said that, I think the purpose of learning Kihon Waza/basic techniques is primarily to develop understanding of the basic mechanism of the art. Only after we understand the basics, THEN we could learn ohyo, or how to modify/apply the basic techniques in real situations.

I am sure we could all agree with that, rite?

 

[Hand Sword]

All of this debating about all of the fine ponts of arts is useless and off topic. As I said it was about Aikido and effectiveness, or lack there of.

The big point: It and everything is effective if you work at it, and make it work for you.

All styles need time and effort to accomplish this.

 

[Hand Sword]

I did mention luck. But it's a part of SD no mater how welll you train/pratice. It's a question how much you minimize it, so your in control and no tthe situation.

The question originally pointed towards Aikido, but what i'm talking about is the logic of the thought.

You take me litterally (sp?) when I say squat(that was not my intent), but more real I've seen style were you pivit when finished. Thus showing your back. This is a fatal move no matter what. You never should show your back to an opponent. I've seen Aikido sensei move tandem first into a knife fight, becasue the style dictates them to do so. I've seen nijitusu people squat beacse there style says so. These people had learned that this was correct. Logic ditates that going into a knife fight stomach first, your changes of dieing have increased. In my book this is not good SD, no matter how good your hand techniques are or your foot is.

On the other hand we are talkiing about an art, argumentting that ANY art teaches correct SD. this was the sole argument. I'm stating that I can find at least 1 art that isn't SD. But I'm not arguming that there are certain techniques tha could work. But having 1 technique that worlks doesn't qualify the whole art as beeing good for SD.

/Yari

If 1 technique works than the art is applicable. If 1 can work other tech's can work.


It's not the art! It's about the practitioner!


If you have a self defense mindset in training, no matter the art, you'll make it work.

Think about this: All the arts arguably came from the Chinese systems. Those styles originally were used to build up the spirits of the monks. No aggressive techniques. Then, The temples started getting burned, and presto! Chuan Fa was born. A monk made the system effective!
The rest is history.

 

[Hand Sword]

Your logic has closed off my chances of convincing you of other wise.

You state that everything can be used as SD, but agree to that certain techniques could be ineffective, but still maintain that and art is flawless.

You see, no matter what I say youd, just point to your own logic, which is a ring logic (goes in a ring).

Now no matter what I postulate you then can say it's a misinterpertation, and that closes off the possiblity of you being wrong.

The only way left for me is to apeal to your logical sense, and that is to state the obvise : there is no perfect system in the world, ergo it shouldn't be a problem to find a system that doesn't work in the eyes of SD.

/Yari

Maybe not perfect for you,me, or whoever, but, perfect for the founders of those styles. They made it work for them, that's why those ways exist. You have to find what works for you.

 

[Yari]

...

Think about this: All the arts arguably came from the Chinese systems. Those styles originally were used to build up the spirits of the monks. No aggressive techniques. Then, The temples started getting burned, and presto! Chuan Fa was born. A monk made the system effective!
The rest is history.

Your history is wrong... what about Glima? It didn't come from a chinese system.


But your point is that a systems efficiency(sp?) can be defined from if a person can make it wokr or not. But that means it's the person thats stupid if he fails(dies) to do SD with the style(no matter style).

But we can agree on disagreeing. It's OK for me.

/yari

 

[MartialIntent]

I think I understand your way of thinking and agree that within the syllabus of any martial art we can find techniques that may not be the best solution for self-defense. For example I have seen an Aikikai shihan in a official Embu, he does techniques where he twirl his Uke around him like a merry-go-round, for about a minute. Nice for demo, but try that against straatjongens (streetfighters) here in Jakarta, and I am sure the shihan will be introduced to the concept of "early retirement".

I am a huge fan of Tomiki Aikido, but within the Koryu Goshin no Kata I have seen technique where Tomiki Shihan does a single leg takedown against a knife-wielding opponent without trying to secure the knife hand first. It's a good technique against non-knife-fighters, but against an arnis Master, even Tomiki shihan himself will find himself at a severe disadvantage.

Hell, even in my own Dentokan version of Hakko-ryu, I can find techniques that are not 100% perfect for self-defense. Most of the Aiki Nage type techniques on Shodan-Gi (for example Kubishime Dori and Ushiro Zemi Otoshi) are done without gripping Uke. In the real world, when a straatjongen sensed that we are about to break his balance, he will let go of his grip and punch us in the head immediately. So, in reality situations I think we have to counter-grip or at least apply atemi before moving to any type of aiki nage.

Denny, while I appreciate what you're saying in these points, I'd still pick up on the point that Hand Sword is making and that's that the points of failure [if that's how you want to look at it] lie squarely with the practitioner. Kenji Tomiki's credentials are not in question - the fact is that I'm nearly certain he hasn't spent a great deal of time mixing it up with the Jakarta streetfighters [yeah I know I'm mixing your examples but it's to make a point]. I think to apply blanket statements on the suitability of an art to a situation are unnecessarily running down individual martial arts in favor of a hotch-potch or combination of all the "best" of everything.

I mean you are saying within your own art, you can find "techniques that are not 100% perfect for self-defense". I'd say if self-defense is a concern of yours then you either omit those techniques altogether from your fighting repertoire OR you try to own those techniques in the SD arena most likely by using them in suitable combinations. I mean whoever fights with one technique alone? That's akin to a painter using green only [because someone said green was good for landscapes], then complaining that the picture doesn't look quite right and blaming everything on the color green. Not deterred, that painter then throws away all his green and starts using just blue [because someone said blue was good for skies].

It's surely about the combinations of techniques and the subtleties therein. Anyway, I hope that makes some sense.

Respects!

 

[Hand Sword]

Your history is wrong... what about Glima? It didn't come from a chinese system.


But your point is that a systems efficiency(sp?) can be defined from if a person can make it wokr or not. But that means it's the person thats stupid if he fails(dies) to do SD with the style(no matter style).

But we can agree on disagreeing. It's OK for me.

/yari

I said arguably! I don't care about history. As far as this argument with you...There is none! You've studied Aikido for twenty years, but you tried to slam it. You can't have it both ways. So, you are obviously just trying to be antagonistic.

As for this last post of yours.. What are you talking about? It's all irrelevant. Dying wasn't discussed or brought up. Maybe you just got out fought, it happens. That doesn't mean that your style wasn't being used for real.

 

[Yari]

......
If I wanted to work my Aikido with the specific intent of generating enough Ki to break concrete slabs with my head then I'm certain I'd be able to do that too with sufficient time and motivation.

......

Respects!

I just want to say I respekt everbody for coming forth and discussing this. I love that we disagree, and feel that we at the same time can respect each other. Which in itself is a good sign.

I don't think that we'll be able to change each other, but we might just put at seed of thought in our "brains", or just let others see that a world can be a good place even if you disagree with somebody.

What I'm trying to say now is that I think we know were each other is, and we dont agree, fundenmentaly. So why not just agree on disagreeing?

/Yari