Perception of aikido by non-practitioners

[theletch1]

I've had the chance in the last week to meet two different folks who have never studied MA but were interested in talking to me about aikido. The first was completely clueless about aikido and felt that ALL martial arts was the same as Shotokan karate. The second knew enough to know that aikido is more about redirecting energy than striking. Neither of them really understood aikido in the way someone who trains in the art does (obviously). This got me to thinking that perhaps others who have trained in other styles of MA but never aikido may have some ideas about our art that are a little off or need clarifying. What experiences have you that train in the art had that would lead you to believe that other MA practitioners have clouded ideas about our art and for those that read this and don't study the art what would you like to know that would clarify your view of aikido?

I recieved a wonderful PM from another member who feels (as do I) that aikido is very much in the background of the MA world. This site is a great tool for aikido-ka to get our style a little more to the forefront of things. This is an open invitation to ALL to get a good discourse going on our great art.

 

[bignick]

I study two related arts, judo and jujutsu. You could look at jujutsu as a parent art and judo as a bit of a cousin art maybe. All three have the same underlying principles of ju, or aiki as it may be. I think that in terms of this principle the aikido people have done the best at effectively applying this principle. It can be very easy to muscle a judo throw out and it is my feeling that jujutsu sometimes abandons the concept of ju for more direct methods. There's a reason Kano would send people to study aikido with O Sensei, and was once quoted to the effect that aikido is what judo should be in its highest forms.

 

[theletch1]

I It can be very easy to muscle a judo throw out and it is my feeling that jujutsu sometimes abandons the concept of ju for more direct methods.

I've always heard that judo was designed for folks with a good deal of upper body strength as opposed to aikido which is designed not to rely on strength much at all. Is this correct or is it a case of me not understanding the concepts of judo the way my original post described others not understanding aikido? As for the jujutsu taking the more direct approach I have to agree with you. My style of aikido (Nihon Goshin) is often described as being much more direct than other styles of aikido and therefore more closely akin to jujutsu than aikido.

 

[Korppi76]

When in Karate I noticed that most people there thought that Aikido is only joint locks for small joints. They didnt quite get energy directing part or anything else, they just saw joint locks. For some reason this was also quite common in Shorinji Kempo.
In Jujutsu many thought that Aikido is not working version or "inferior" of Jujutsu. This was comment from people who hadnt trained long. Higher belts had quite good idea what Aikido is. Same thing goes to Judo people.
Ofcourse this is only my experiences when I trained those arts. In Judo and Jujutsu I trained in same club so they saw quite much Aikido.

 

[MartialIntent]

Great thread!

During my own travels along the Aikido path, I've noted a couple of very common perceptions of Aikido held particularly by experienced practitioners of other arts:
1. It's the patient man's [or woman's] art - ie. it takes too long to learn and/or too long to be useful to me
2. It's too soft - ie. not enough strikes to do damage, therefore...
3. It's not street-effective ie. Aikido vs a gang of knife-carrying, cracked-up homie muggers? Nope, just wouldn't work.
4. It's got too much "spirituality" - ie. I'm here to fight not to meditate or get enlightened!

1. Any instructor can show you some moves from the get-go that will either impress your colleagues or potentially give you a headstart in a real world situation. Yes, doing Aikido takes patience and discipline in learning to center oneself and develop one's ki, and also requires due diligence in applying those concepts through the physical techniques. But then the path to proficiency in *any* art is long - sure, as a novice Wing Chun student, you'll be chain-punching at speed in no time, but will that confer instant deadly-weapon status upon you? Nope, certainly with practise and dedication yes, but there's seldom any instant gratification in our genuine martial arts.

I'd say it takes the same duration to become proficient in Aikido as in any art. But I think there's a subtle difference in concept. I've had the "learning piano" analogy in my head for a while - hopefully this isn't overly convoluted and you'll see the similarities to acquiring skills in Aikido and non-Aikido arts!!

I'm a hypothetical piano teacher. I utilize two methods when teaching piano, the first - let's generalize to the non-Aikido martial arts or "other" method and the second - let's call it the "Aikido" way, create equally competent players but by inherently different methods.

The first way introduces the student to note reading and scales [cf. techniques, kata], once she can read at a reasonable speed I'd include note values, tempo and time signatures [cf. distance, timing]. After diligent practise, she can begin sight reading simple pieces in left hand only or right hand only [cf. single opponent]. Continued application means I can introduce pieces that require simultaneous left and right hand coordination [cf. complicated techniques / multiple attackers]. And once all this begins to gel, I'd want her to be using correct dynamics [cf. ki], that is, expressive pressure on the keys, staccato etc. From then on, it's a matter of tackling increasingly complex pieces.

The second or "Aikido" way will introduce the student with a *very* simple piece of music. Simple though it is, this piece will contain both treble and bass clef, it may well have been written in something other than 4/4 and C Major and it will definitely require the student to apply some dynamic sensitivity to the keys in terms of weightings and accents. A more considerable time will pass until all this gels with the student, but once she is happy, we move onto a more complicated piece again and build and progress this way.

It might seem to the student that progress is not being made as quickly in the "Aikido" method as in the non-Aikido method, but the *end* result will be two pianists who can play a complex piece equally well.

The way chosen will be the best for that student based upon their aptitudes, their goals and expectations. Of course, no two are the ever the same.



​

Funnily I did mention this notion to my piano tutor [yep I been taking lessons for a while] and her reply was that it's often those with the more "mature" outlook on their playing and learning who'd want to take time to study Rondo Alla Turca whilst the kids are happy knowing the first few intro bars from Beyonce or James Blunt.

What's that saying about our martial arts? Hehe...


...I've overrun. If no-one else does, I'll follow up on the rest later.

Respects!

 

[Hand Sword]

I used to hear the disrespect from other artists also : They spend too much time on thier knees, no one grabs a wrist that soft, it takes too long to aquire proficiency, they have the wrong mindset, etc... However, studying a little myself, and working with practitioners of the art, I would say that it is totally legitimate, and worth studying! To me, being able to avoid an attack, tossing them or to immobilize them, without breaking a sweat, sound like the ultimate in self defense. Don't we all wish to attain thjis level, no matter what art we study?

 

[MartialIntent]

...Continued from a previous post.


On the second objection to Aikido...

2. It's too soft - ie. not enough strikes to do damage.

Firstly, although there are many styles of Aikido, most if not all, are primarily defensive in their application, not attacking. Many potential students may be deterred by this, equating it to practicing a "soft" art. And it's unfortunate that often the equation is made between the apparent lack of strikes and lack of effectiveness.

Practising Aikido requires the student to perhaps adopt a different viewpoint from many other arts. The central tenet in resolving an attack is not to quash it with all necessary force but to eventually through diligent training, aspire to the situation where both the Aikidoka and the attacker conclude the altercation unharmed. This is a hard lesson to teach and a harder lesson to learn especially when an attacker is hell bent on your destruction. But there it is; that's Aikido: the Art of Peace.

Aikido is not about greeting an attack headfirst or meeting force with force. This is fortunate as let's face it, we're not always equal in strength to our opponents [which incidentally is why it's more effective than many arts for smaller folk like myself]. Aikido concerns itself with entering and occupying the attacker's space, blending with and redirecting their momentum either back on themselves or to send them spinning away.

There is of course extensive atemi waza in Aikido which are often used as momentary distraction / unbalancing techniques or to leverage the larger technique and naturally through this, an aikidoka can damage as badly as any jujitsu-based or strike-based artist. However, to practice Aikido in that way is to veer somewhat from the original teaching. Of course, that's up to the individual or individual school or club. Your striking / kicking mileage will vary as will distance from Ueshiba's original teachings. What I'm saying is that there's room for many different styles and methodologies under the Aikido umbrella. Have a look at some of your local Aikido dojos to see what I mean.



On the third objection to Aikido...

3. It's not street-effective ie. Aikido vs. a gang of knife-carrying, cracked-up homie muggers? Nope, just wouldn't work.

Well this is a real old chestnut! Let's take two definitions of "the street" in the phrase street-effective.

a. In its most literal description, "the street" is a corner where a gang of muggers congregate, it's a bar that brawlers frequent or it's a dimly-lit alley that women on their own shouldn't walk. The answer to the effectiveness of Aikido in this situation would be the same as that for any other art - ie. disregard the art completely as survival comes down to the effectiveness or proficiency of the practitioner and not the art per se.

Would a similarly experienced or inexperienced follower of Ed Parker or Doshin So be more effective in this situation? Unlikely. Real-world fight experience is what matters in this street-fight. Not the art. A laconic answer yes but I believe it's the only answer.

There is one point I'd like to make though regarding the Aikido concept of not harming our attackers. The application of this core tenet can I believe result in conflict de-escalation. It's something that we seldom think of when faced with a street-fight. We have subconscious faith in those stereotypical Hollywood scenes where the main character thrashes the bad guy and consequently sees the bad guy running off tail-between-legs. Where I'm from – and I’m certain it’s the same all over - it doesn't happen like that. Generally in real life, the two combatants are known to each other. Subsequent to a serious fight [hospitalization] the families can bolster antagonist numbers and the conflict is further worsened by both parties knowing each other's addresses and so it escalates and spirals. My hope is that the Aikido resolution where neither party is seriously harmed - even after the fight - has some potential in reality and that that's the end of the fight and the end of the conflict. This may be naive but I think there's merit in the idea.

b. Actually, I prefer to widen the definition of "the street" to be not the place mentioned above but rather a metaphor for where we live our lives, be that school, at home, in our workplace, in our car or basically, the gamut of real-life situations that might require a defensive strategy and that we're far more likely to find ourselves in than an actual street fight.

By this definition, Aikido is street-effective from the offset. By utilizing centering of the self and the core ideas of blending and redirecting, a myriad situations can be handled effectively by the Aikido practitioner, whether novice or experienced. I have seen Aikido work in bullying situations, in dealing with petty misbehaviours from one's kids, in deflecting stress at work and even in combating road-rage! and all through centering, training to focus on the hara, blending and the concept of sphericity. Aikido contains some big concepts - way bigger than if it were just a system of locks, throws and strikes [and way bigger than my post!]

​

Make no mistake, Aikido is not about avoiding confrontation - although where this is possible it's naturally gonna be in everyone's interest. No, it's about better conflict resolution rather than total avoidance.



On the fourth objection to Aikido...

4. It's got too much "spirituality" - ie. I'm here to fight, not to meditate or get enlightened!

It's true, if you're after a pure fighting art, it might be best advice to seek a boxing club, MT club or train some of the other modern ring-based arts.

Aikidoka do fight differently but fight nonetheless. There's a core philosophy inherent in the art [as there are in most arts] but the philosophy / spirituality in Aikido as the Way of Harmony is taken right through to manifest itself in the application of the physical techniques themselves.

However, I'll conclude briefly... Spirituality [as I have discussed in another thread] is an utterly personal concept. No one can teach you spirituality - you must seek it yourself though any good dojo or instructor will be able to guide you on your path. And as such, "spirituality" is not taught as a concept in Aikido, being an intrinsic part of the art it becomes an implicit part of any Aikido teaching. There is however neither zazen meditation nor should there be any compunction on the part of the student who has no desire for "enlightenment". These concepts and the strength or lack of desire to pursue them are dictated only by the practitioner's outlook and interests.

However, although it is totally possible to practise Aikido without any concept of Ueshiba’s spirituality and his Aikido raison d'etre, it is to an extent missing the point - it's not so much like a martini without the olive, it's more like the whiskey without the barley!

At the end of the day, no martial art is for everyone otherwise, there'd be only one and we'd all be doing it. Aikido is not for everyone but I believe everyone who practices it benefits from it.

Hope this answers some questions...

Respects!

 

[kickcatcher]

I’m one of those people who has never studied Aikido but who has a very low opinion of it. Look away now if you are sensitive. But since we were invited to join the conversation I guessed my view was as welcome as the next persons. And I’ll try to avoid posting outside this thread on the topic.

Anyway, after that stupendous attempt at a qualifying statement, here goes:

I took one Aikido class, Ki-Aikido org if I remember rightly, maybe 10 years ago. I have also trained with Aiki-jitsu people on several occasions which included exchanging techniques and concepts, and much discussion. These have included instructors of Aiki-based law enforcement etc. So what I am going to say applies more to Aiki arts in general and whilst a broad sweep of the brush, is not meant to be 100% true of every club on the planet.

Aiki as a fighting concept

I personally see Aiki as an inferior concept to Ju (as in Judo/Jujitsu) and neither as being the ‘whole’ picture. Aiki is far too accepting of attack, inhibits the use of “pure” strength where it would be advantageous and is fundamentally defensive. People drawn to Aikido seem to be people less likely to get into fights which is no bad thing, but I have grave doubts of the average aikidoka’s ability to defend themselves relative to say the average kickboxer. Aikidoka often cite how badass the god of Aikido was (sorry, he is treated as a deity… ) in his youth as some sort of proof that Aikido works; that’s like saying Taebo is effective in a fight because Billy Banks invented it.

Aiki mentality

Hell of a lot of Aiki people I’ve met, especially on the internet, really have their heads in the sand. There seems to be quite a lot of ‘buy-in’ to cultism and aiki-superiority brainwashing. There seems to be a lot of people who really believe that Aiki is a superior concept for self-defence (because it’s more sophisticated, more subtle etc?) when it is apparent that they make very little attempt to cross-reference that supposition with the real world.

I do not think that the aloofness and false humbleness prevalent in the Aiki community is as positive as it looks at first sight. Rather than enlightened people, I see conceited people. Some graphic examples:

1. I once took part in a cross-training session where people from different arts met to exchange ideas etc. as part of the session we all took turns showing a technique that was typical of our training and everyone practiced it compliantly; Wing Chun, Jujitsu, Taekwondo etc. When it came to my move, I found that some of the people weren’t actually practicing it – I went over to help them and found that they were Aiki practitioners and that they deemed my move “too aggressive” – it involved like a dodge and a few counter-punches to the face, no big deal. That same lady generally seemed to be of the opinion that she was the self-defence authority in the room and shared the wealth of her inexperience with us….

2. I’ve seen on Bullsido recently that an Aikido student was banned from his dojo for expressing skeptical thoughts on Aikiweb. His sensei had insisted that he write three formal apologies for his comments etc. This reminds us of the overly hierarchical mentality of many martial arts where questioning is discouraged.

Aiki techniques and training approach

1. Small joints…Despite what people say on forums about it not all being about wrist locks, that is what I see 99% of the time. It doesn’t matter if move ‘X’ could lead to a rear naked choke, unless you drill that choke it’s not actually in your repertoire. The wrist locks seen are apparently a hang-over from the days of Samuari and trying to prevent someone drawing a sword –i.e. preemptively. As a self-defence toolkit in the modern world, Aikido seems very limited.

2. Atemi is supposedly an integral part of Aikido. I have yet to see any evidence of Aikidoka, particularly those without other MA experience, strike with any degree of proficiency. I have not seen any evidence of credible striking training within an Aiki syllabus. The Atemi I’ve seen was incredibly compliant and just mentioned along the lines of “if it were for real, you’d strike them now” –that seems very prevalent. That is NOT a credible way to entrain effective striking IMO, it is just worthless theorizing. I think it is too much to ask of ourselves to do something “for real” which we have never done even close in training.

3. Compliance – Aiki training tends to be incredibly compliant, which is not good training and is unlikely to produce the results expected of it IMO. Aikido Randori where it exists is obviously an improvement, but from what I’ve seen and a careful look at the competition rules, is still a far cry from anything remotely realistic.

4. Adrenaline. Aiki arts place great emphasis on remaining calm in ‘battle’. The general way to (supposedly) develop this is to meditate and blend with your attacker etc etc. I personally have serious doubts as to whether the training is likely to produce someone able to remain calm under real fight pressure. Whilst many more experienced RBSD people are trying to desensitize to Adrenaline through experiencing it, the Aiki approach is to just think about remaining calm…

I’m sure I have more but I guess you’ve heard enough negativity for one day, lol. On a lighter note, here’s some humour to take the edge off my comments:

 

[Andrew Green]

My opinion, Aikido is a really beautiful art form with a lot of spirituality. Kind of like Tai Chi, and like Tai Chi it is not something I would reccomend to someone looking too learn how to fight, but for someone with different goals and more of a pacifist attitude, I think it can be a great fit.

There are some good concepts and good techniques in there, but I think they get overshadowed by the high emphasis on the spiritual aspects and the training methods are ineffiecient at turning those techniques into useable results.

Given enough time will it be effective? Maybe, given enough time you could also write a 2000 word paper in calligraphy. A computer is much more effiecient if the goal is completing the paper though, calligraphy is for those that enjoy it as an artform.

 

[tempus]

I study Nihon Goshin Aikido, but I have never taken any other form of Aikido. The pains of my body tell me it could be street worthy art. We do redirect energy and blend in a circular way, just tighter circles then tradiontional Aikido. Our attack lines consist of people punching you, kicking, grabbing, knife, stick and gun defenses. So we do cover a wide range of attacks.

NGA does practice striking. We use striking to soft up an attacker to perfrom a technique. This is very useful when caught off guard, especially when you out way the other person. I can speak from experince since I am usually the striking bag (I way in a 205 lbs where the average student is about 170 lbs. My wife is only 125 lbs and will strike if I grab her then out me into some sort of luck, etc..)

As for meditation, ki, and sprirtuality; I do not meditate since I have no time, sprituality cannot be taught to you. I feel that is up to you. And Ki to me is not mystical, but the law of physics.

In the end thou you are only as good as you want train to be.

Got a meeting to run to. Talk later.

 

[jujutsu_indonesia]

Nihon Goshin Aikido traced its lineage to Master Morita Shodo, not to Uyeshiba sensei, thus differences in technical executions and "style flavor" are to be expected.

 

[tempus]

Yes. I would expect there to be differences.

As for the comic strip above. Very interesting strip. However, it is assuming that I fall and roll because I am told to. When in reality I fall and roll so I do not get hurt. Believe me when I say I do resist techniques if someone screws up and depending on the belt level will not give in to a fall or roll if the technique is not applied right. This works against me since most of the times the more I resist the more pain that is inflicted on me.

 

[MartialIntent]

3. Compliance – Aiki training tends to be incredibly compliant, which is not good training and is unlikely to produce the results expected of it IMO. Aikido Randori where it exists is obviously an improvement, but from what I’ve seen and a careful look at the competition rules, is still a far cry from anything remotely realistic.

LMAO!! The cartoon's a classic - to quote Homer [Simpson], it's funny because it's true. But let me qualify that a bit... The reasons you might have seen an overly compliant uke are manifold:

Novices fear getting hurt which is of course a valid reaction where a broken wrist is a possibility. Until this fear has been overcome, novice ukes provide little resistance - but we all had to learn somewhere didn't we? Some also feel that providing resistance at the "wrong" time will also get them hurt.

Advanced uke training with novice nage to show them the mechanics of the technique ie. where uke's balance begins to break etc. - it may not be compliancy per se but the fact that a technique [throw in particular] is performed very slowly will no doubt look like it's been choreographed.

I'd maintain that you'll not see full force, full commitment attacks in ANY martial art *training* sessions outside of a competitive bout or a demonstration. I could be wrong though.

Furthermore many styles, including my own Shodokan [or Tomiki] do practise randori every session using multiple attackers showing committed intent with attacks.

However, I'd concede that whilst it invariably does happen, two proficient practitioners of Aikido outside of all the above scenarios should not be compliant in techniques. After all, why perform a complicated throw if a simple step back from a half-assed attack will do and likewise, why leave your fist in nage's chest awaiting a grab and a technique [unless you're looking to practise your own ukemi]?

If you've seen this you've unfortunately seen somewhat bad Aikido practice. We're not all to be tarred with that brush though!!

Respects!

 

[tempus]

I would have to say the hardest part of the Aikido is being a good Uke. I would say that the best Uke's I have seen turn out to the best Aikido Nage's. I try to always give a full committed attack, but rarly do we go full speed, but when we do and they blend I usally end up on face.

 

[kickcatcher]

LMAO!! The cartoon's a classic - to quote Homer [Simpson], it's funny because it's true. But let me qualify that a bit... The reasons you might have seen an overly compliant uke are manifold:

Novices fear getting hurt which is of course a valid reaction where a broken wrist is a possibility. Until this fear has been overcome, novice ukes provide little resistance - but we all had to learn somewhere didn't we? Some also feel that providing resistance at the "wrong" time will also get them hurt.

Advanced uke training with novice nage to show them the mechanics of the technique ie. where uke's balance begins to break etc. - it may not be compliancy per se but the fact that a technique [throw in particular] is performed very slowly will no doubt look like it's been choreographed.

I'd maintain that you'll not see full force, full commitment attacks in ANY martial art *training* sessions outside of a competitive bout or a demonstration. I could be wrong though.

Furthermore many styles, including my own Shodokan [or Tomiki] do practise randori every session using multiple attackers showing committed intent with attacks.

However, I'd concede that whilst it invariably does happen, two proficient practitioners of Aikido outside of all the above scenarios should not be compliant in techniques. After all, why perform a complicated throw if a simple step back from a half-assed attack will do and likewise, why leave your fist in nage's chest awaiting a grab and a technique [unless you're looking to practise your own ukemi]?

If you've seen this you've unfortunately seen somewhat bad Aikido practice. We're not all to be tarred with that brush though!!

Respects!

I understand that within some Aikido circles it is not considered good etiquette to 'beat' or even 'challenge' your seniors. I have seen this on the somewhat modest "Deadly Arts" program (Discovery channel, think French lady traveling the world meeting MA masters) where the presenter trained at the Hombu dojo in Japan directly with, I think, Moriteru Ueshiba... I have also heard it said by regular aikidoka. This attitude of not (objectively) questioning the art, to the extent of not even resisting a throw, is not conducive to efficient learning IMO.

There is also the notion of “committed attack” which seems to differ greatly between Aikido and the real world (sorry). From what I’ve seen of Aikido, including the above program which showed training at the world headquarters of the most ‘official’ lineage, in Aikido a committed attack consists of someone running at you from half a mile away and throwing some sort of lunge whilst off-balance.

Forgive me for being rude but that is pretty unrealistic and shouldn’t be confused with someone really trying to beat you in a natural/logical way.

Even Tomiki competition rules list discrete acceptable ways of the uke attacking. Given that aikido practice tends to focus on defence against an edged weapon – one has to question the logic of emphasizing, even requiring, a “committed attack”. You do not need to commit significant body weight to have lethal effect with a blade, arm power alone is more than enough.

Yet another training gripe, generally universally applicable but to Aikido more than most, is the theoretical extrapolation of ability to defend against attacks not actually trained. For example, what is the Aikido defence against someone who is arguing with you in your face then headbutts you? –very real world attack, especially in some places. We can hypothesize how aiki principles could be applied, but unless you actually train some form of defence, it’s all just talk.

 

[tempus]

I cannot talk for other traditional Aikido ways. In my school we practice defense against round house, hook, jab, kicks, straight punch, upper cut, lunge, various grabs, knife, stick and gun techniques.

To me the hardest fight would be agaisnt a boxer since his punches are short and powerful. That is why a kick to the knee and then a technique would attempted, if I could not make a break for the door.

Your example of a somone head butting you is kind out of there thou. It may be a real world thing that happens, but it should not matter what martial study. If you get sucker punched you defend yourself the best way you can.

That is why we train to put our hands up in a non threating way and back up a little. Someone should never get that close to you. Just my opinion.

Not sure about your committed attack vs. real world. When training the speed of punch is based on the ranking of the Uke. I can swing to tear my Sensei's head off, but if I did that against a lower ranking they could get hurt. You need to learn the technique before applying it.

 

[MartialIntent]

in Aikido a committed attack consists of someone running at you from half a mile away and throwing some sort of lunge whilst off-balance.

Dude, those little insights are cracking me up - that one reminds me of a scene from Kung Fu Hustle or something! Anyway, you're right, this is the truth how many folk imagine Aikido, no doubt.

OK, I get a picture of the sources of inspiration for the cartoons. The fact that these peculiar situations do occur in the Aikido fraternity doesn't preclude the notion that they're perhaps not reflective of what happens in *everyday* Aikido dojos around the world and are only reinforcing of misconceptions that many martial artists experienced in other arts have of Aikido. But that's by the bye.

It's unfortunate that whilst undoubtedly Aikido has its share of martial monkeys and morons who pay mere lipservice to the fundamentals of the art, train for a laugh, practise for show and forget it all outside in the real world, most genuine schools and committed practitioners really aren't like that. We train techniques that as far as we know without ever proving them [a bit like a pilot in a crash simulation] will work. As uke, we attack in the dojo with the intent of the strike / training knife or gun / staff or whatever connecting with the target and as nage we attempt to counter in a forceful manner [by circularity not strength] to neutralize the attack.

I'm not on any Aikido crusade to correct or address stereotypes - all arts have them in one form or another [look at what's happened to the fantastically capable art of Ninjutsu in recent years]. What I would say is that while it would reduce the mileage gained from your cartoons, popping into any of your local Aikido dojos would likely reveal the art in a truer light.

fwiw, I like the toons though!

Btw, apologies if I missed it - which art do you practise? I'm wondering do you train headbutt defense specifically? If so, do you also train Tazer or canine defense? Football hooligans? [I'm guessing you're UK-based]

Respects!

 

[Carol]

If so, do you also train Tazer or canine defense? Football hooligans?
Respects!

:LOL: Proper Kata for defense against the ... Burberry? (Just Kidding!)

 

[theletch1]

A great deal of aikido training does indeed consider that the attack is committed AND off balance. That does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that the techniques will not work with/against someone who has planted themselves for a punch. One of the finer points of the art that is missed by folks that don't train in the art is that there are ways to make uke move once he has planted. Let's take the front wrist throw from a back hand attack since it most easily demonstrates my point here. Uke throws the backhand, nage steps to the outside of the attacking arm, takes control of the offending wrist and uke simply plants. Nage now has the attackers elbow resting along his floating ribs. This is the perfect position for an armbar of sorts using ukes elbow against your ribs as the fulcrum, forcing uke to continue to move or lose the elbow. His motion continues, the technique takes place as planned. Off balance or not the techniques work you just have to gain the proficiency to make it happen.

As for the distance between uke and nage, in our dojo once you reach san-kyu level and above we train often at half ma-ai. I don't know that just dropping by a dojo would fix any deep seeded bias some one has against the art but perhaps joining one and actually training the art may. As for the rest that don't really have a feeling one way or the other but are skeptical about the efficiency of the art maybe a free trial class would help. My dojo doors are always open.

 

[kickcatcher]

lol, the thread asks for opinions, good or bad, and someone has neg repped me for answering with my honest opinions. lol. I'm not whinging about the rep system - that doesn't bother me, I'm just amused at how moronic some people can be with the way they use it. Lol@person who neg repped me.