What Do You Think Of Akido?

[Uke]

i did aikido for a few months, it was wack. too much traditional bs, too soft for me. all the students were all out of shape. i needed harder contact and hard conditioning so i moved on to judo and then to muay thai and jiu jitsu.

in aikido i was learning how to say all kinds of words in japanese, while in judo i was running back and forth from one side of the building to the other with another person on my shoulders in a firemans carry.

LOL ... that sounds about right for a traditional American Aikido school. But as I said, don't let your experience sour you to Aikido. You've only experienced one interpretation of it.

[DickHardman]

i did aikido for a few months, it was wack. too much traditional bs, too soft for me. all the students were all out of shape. i needed harder contact and hard conditioning so i moved on to judo and then to muay thai and jiu jitsu.

in aikido i was learning how to say all kinds of words in japanese, while in judo i was running back and forth from one side of the building to the other with another person on my shoulders in a firemans carry.

[Uke]

Then it goes on to describe jabs, Jab-crosses, jab-cross-hooks and uppercuts and some ways to defend against them. I'll admit it is anything but comprehensive, but it shows how at least one Aikidoka understands the enemy he will fight, and how that enemy is not just going to dangle an arm out there or grab him by the wrist. It also says in this book that to fight a boxer one must train like one and train with one.

That's what I thought. I never said that they don't attempt to try and find ways to fight boxers, but I know that the art of Aikido itself doesn't prepare a student for the stick and move art of western pugilism.

But then again, I have never seen many fights between a trained boxer and an Aikidoka. I don't know what would take place in a lightning fast exchange in some environment other then a boxing gym, ring or dojo with mats.

I do and I've seen traditional aikidoka get their asses kicked trying to execute tenkans during a match. That's not to say that they were push overs, but the licks that they got in certainly weren't Aikido techniques.

if you read posts on the aikiwebforum, you will see that a lot of Aikidoka worry about boxers as well, but honestly you might be able to say that about any asian martial art.

I've seen karateka beat boxers. Kung Fu stylists as well. Do you know why? Its because these men were aggressive fighters. They didn't always wait for the aggression to be brought to them. They were willing and able to bring the fight to the boxer. So obviously I disagree that you could say that about most asian arts.

But, those guys discuss it and a suprising few have studied BJJ and other MMA's. I think a few would agree that for pure fighting, you must cross train, and Aikido is not the be-all, end-all. However, most take Aikido not to fight others, but to conquer themselves. It's a different attitude that practical minded fighters might not share.

Nothing is the end-all, be-all, but some things are definitely better than others. And BTW, many do not take Aikido to conquer themselves. I know of quite a few schools that teach Aikido, and they can fight like the devil. They are really different in their execution. They are still very graceful. Extremely graceful actually, but they hit like a ton of bricks. The most impressive ones were no taller than 5'9 and under, but they were vicious, even though they kept a pleasant look on their faces the entire time they were executing.

As someone once said its less about the style and more about the way you train in it. Aikido can be vicious if a man shifts some things here and there and gives it and his own attitude a makeover. Pure Aikido I'm not so sure about, but I can take people to schools that are heavily influenced by aikido/aikijutsu and promise you that you'd feel differently after you left.

[Uke]

I have read Aikido books that show a lot of techniques against boxing....

I'd love to see that. Boxing is a NIGHTMARE for aikidoka in that boxing rarely if ever charges in and offers the committed momentum that Aikido requires to blend and break the balance.

I'd be very interested in seeing any aikido technique that is supposedly useful for fighting a boxer. The way ukes attack in aikido is a far stretch from boxing.

Even the people who have modernized their system acknowledge this problem and have gone outside of the Aikido skill set to solve it.

So again, if you would, post anything on aikido effectively defending against a boxer.

If and when you do post something the boxer won't be slow and plodding, and telegraphing his jab and holding back his right hand.

[Tom Yum]

Examples to look at? You mean like Youtube? No.

Even pictures would do.

Seen some combat taiji applications on video -- and was very impressed, since the instructor was always concerned with attack/defense, he pays very close attention to where he is w/ respect to his opponent, his balance, where his enemy will try to attack and how the movements play straight into combat.

You can be sure that I didn't mean suplexing. See "direct method".

A suplex isn't a bad move if you're in the position to do one. People have this thing for head lock control and if you can suplex, why not?

[Uke]

You're trying to engrain the movement into muscle memory first...

Yeah, that's a part of it.

Can you give us some examples to look at?

Examples to look at? You mean like Youtube? No.

By combat-oriented, do you mean including moves that are more devastating, using more spontaneous randori or both?

You can be sure that I didn't mean suplexing.

See "direct method".

[Tom Yum]

I'd like to address the idea of rote rehearsal first. Some men have written the idea that rote rehearsal of drills are meant for the practitioner to reproduce the drill during combat exactly as its practiced. That simply is not true. Especially not of modern systems, even modern TMA's.

Rote rehearsal in modern systems looks to drill in common angles of attack and mastery of motion. I agree that if any system sought to have its students execute prearranged movements in combat then it would be unwise, but modernized and solid systems have for the most part corrected their misinterpretation of how to use kata, forms and such.

You're trying to engrain the movement into muscle memory first...

Today, rote movements are used to drill in ideas and concepts in the better schools. They are initially used to teach the framework that will eventually free a student from limiting himself to ANY response, giving him limitless ways and variations to respond with. The core of their(Aikido) system which is circular won't change, but the non-aggressive nature has been replaced with a killer instinct that Ueshiba did his best to remove.

Many Aikido and Aikijutsu schools have realized this and have made strides in becoming more combat orientated. That's why more Combat Aikido and Combat Aikijutsu schools are popping up. And some of them that I've encountered are good. They're tough too. .

Can you give us some examples to look at?

By combat-oriented, do you mean including moves that are more devastating, using more spontaneous randori or both?

[Uke]

It could be a fun hobby and way to meet people that will increase your athleticism better than doing nothing or very low intensity activities, such as walking. The underlying philosophy may help you stay calmer in stressful situations. It's application to self defense is very limited and relies on "rote rehearsal." In other words, its applications are situational and would take an inordinate amount of time to perfect to the point of being useful. The amount of time and energy spent training and the risk of injury (albeit relatively low) outweighs the benefits. The investment yields very little increase in overall health or ability to apply as an effective self defense system. A fraction of the time spent training in Aikido could be spent doing non-martial arts activities, such as weight lifting, flag football, softball, or swimming with better health benefits and substantially more increases in self defense ability. Training in non-contact cardio kickboxing would be significantly more beneficial.

You asked. That's what I think.

I'd like to address the idea of rote rehearsal first. Some men have written the idea that rote rehearsal of drills are meant for the practitioner to reproduce the drill during combat exactly as its practiced. That simply is not true. Especially not of modern systems, even modern TMA's.

Rote rehearsal in modern systems looks to drill in common angles of attack and mastery of motion. I agree that if any system sought to have its students execute prearranged movements in combat then it would be unwise, but modernized and solid systems have for the most part corrected their misinterpretation of how to use kata, forms and such.

Today, rote movements are used to drill in ideas and concepts in the better schools. They are initially used to teach the framework that will eventually free a student from limiting himself to ANY response, giving him limitless ways and variations to respond with. The core of their(Aikido) system which is circular won't change, but the non-aggressive nature has been replaced with a killer instinct that Ueshiba did his best to remove.

Many Aikido and Aikijutsu schools have realized this and have made strides in becoming more combat orientated. That's why more Combat Aikido and Combat Aikijutsu schools are popping up. And some of them that I've encountered are good. They're tough too.

I agree that it does take more time to become proficient at using aikido, but that's only because aikido/aikijutsu requires a much deeper understanding of momentum, kazushi, and anatomy. Watching someone who has taken the time to master those principles in combat shows that those skills are not only impressive, but brutally effective.

A lot of people are caught up in thinking that every system that takes time to learn isn't practical simply because of the length of time spent learning. IMO that's ridiculous. I agree that a school should teach a student how to defend himself as quickly as possible in case Murphy's Law shows its face, but that can be done on with two part curriculum. You teach self defense intensively for the first 18-24 months and then offer the more advanced techniques, concepts and attribute development. It works well because even though the intensive SD part is simple and practical, you are still learning to apply the core concepts and put them together so by the time you get to more complicated things you won't even realize that you've already laid the foundation by learning to respond according to the concepts you've drilled.

Modern Aikido/Aikijutsu are doing this nowadays. Its important to make the distinction between traditional Aikido and modern combat Aikido. Traditional Aikido is supposed avoid and be passive with violence. The brutality of the arts Ueshiba learned had been taken out. Modern Aikido makes a point to get the job done without all the artsy stuff.

There are other styles that have taken a similar approach like karate and jujitsu. They're modernizing for practicality in today's world.

So, what do I think of Modern Combat Aikido? Like with most good things I think its the real deal if you spend the time learning it.

[Shoot]

It could be a fun hobby and way to meet people that will increase your athleticism better than doing nothing or very low intensity activities, such as walking. The underlying philosophy may help you stay calmer in stressful situations. It's application to self defense is very limited and relies on "rote rehearsal." In other words, its applications are situational and would take an inordinate amount of time to perfect to the point of being useful. The amount of time and energy spent training and the risk of injury (albeit relatively low) outweighs the benefits. The investment yields very little increase in overall health or ability to apply as an effective self defense system. A fraction of the time spent training in Aikido could be spent doing non-martial arts activities, such as weight lifting, flag football, softball, or swimming with better health benefits and substantially more increases in self defense ability. Training in non-contact cardio kickboxing would be significantly more beneficial.

You asked. That's what I think.

[Tom Yum]

Aikido has the least amount of "McDojo's, compared to some other arts. My dojo is a pay every month place, with no contracts, and no "Black belt" programs. In fact, they almost guarantee you won't be a black belt before 5 years. It is also non-profit.

I am impressed by the seriousness of the whole thing.

I just read a book about bouncers and barroom brawling, and the author (A biker) speaks very highly of Aikido, and the Aikido mind-set.

I'm more impressed with Yoshinkan Aikido. I believe that's the style you were telling me about that the Japanese police force use.

[tntma]

Aikido would do very well in a self defense situation, whether against one or multiple opponents. It focuses highly on defense (pins, throws, takedowns, evading). And just because aikido doesnt focus on strikes, we do learn how to strike and where to strike effectively. We dont focus on strikes because we are predominately deffensive, but because of that, if you run up agains an accomplished aikidoka, and attack him, chances are good you will end up on the ground.

With its high focus on randori (one against many) excersises, aikido is very usefull against multiple opponents. To get your black belt in many aikido schools, you must complete a randori of anywhere between 3 and 5 attackers. Most that I have see, you have to defend yourself using throws, pins, locks, evading, takedowns.

As I said before, it does take a very long time to get really good at aikido, but once you reach that point, there isnt really much that you cant defend against.

[TKD Student]

Well, that could be true for just about anything. A TKD student who only practices TKD, and nothing else, for example. Or a boxer that does not know how to grapple.

Honestly... I think one would stand a better chance with TKD or Boxing in a fight, than using Aikido. The fact that Aikido has no punches or anything is a great weakness, I would say. Sure... it might work against 1 or 2 in a street fight if you're good, but I think it would be darn difficult. Not saying that it would be easy with another martial art either, of course. Everything depends on the students skills and experience.

[TKD Student]

My personal thought of Aikido is that it looks so... unreal! Every "counter attack" makes the opponent make 100 summersault's (spelling??) in the air before landing on the street. I think an Aikidoka would not stand a chance against martial arts that have kicks and punches, if he or she doesn't know anything else than Aikido.

[ScottUK]

That said, there are only so many ways to move your body - it is not surprising that aiki has 'sword movements' in it because the human skeleton has limitations...

[tntma]

I find it so amusing how people can make fun of things (styles) that they dont understand or know much about, lol. And the whole thing about the boxer and the aikidoist, lol, come on now, you cant be serious.

Dont get me wrong, I agree that boxing is great, as well as any other form of martial art, if used right. But to just assume that one art would take out another is a bit crazy. There are a lot of factors to consider. I also understand peoples pride in there art, thinking that thier art is superior.

Just because an art isnt for you doesnt mean that it isnt effective.

As far as the similarities of Aikido and Samurai, Jeff5, very well said.