Can it be effective though??

Posted by: judderman

Can it be effective though?? - 04/24/03 06:36 PM

Ok I know this has probably been talked about a lot already, but I'm too lazy to go hunting through hundreds of posts.

I get the impression, from the few posts I've read, that classical Aikido is not much use as street effective system, requireing many years to become adapt and having too many flowery movements, but requires adaptation.

Because my knowledge of Aikido or Aiki jutsu or anything of that ilk, is exceptionally limited I would like to ask, how easy is it to adapt, given that complex and/or fine motor movements are difficult to perform whilst under pressure, to a street effective system?

Budo.
Posted by: senseilou

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 04/25/03 02:00 AM

I think it depends on your knowledge of not just Aikido, but other arts. As an example if you would see Small Circle Jujutsu, it looks like Aikido, but the big circles are gone, and this art is street effective. Knowing this and Aikido would make the adaptation easier. If you have no other knowledge than Aikido, you would have to be in a street fight to understand what is necessary to adapt it to the street. It also depends on HOW you perform your art. Many of the old Aiki masters do indeed small circle and its more Jujutsu like. The big problem is in Aikido, the attacks are simulated with guidelines. It can be made to work, but you must practice it that way. If Aikido was studied as a fighting art, adaptation wouldn't be needed as much, but there is more to Aikido than just the physical, so it is not overely concerned about street effectiveness. I think that you can look at it like this. The biggest questions about Aikido's ineffectiveness is based on comparison. People see Aikido and Karate or Jujutsu as being one more effective than the other. Aikido was not meant to defend against a Karate-Ka. So people compare the fighting systems which isn't fair. On the street against an average Joe, Aikido would be realtively effective, agaist a street fighter, a person who knows how to fight but hasn't been trained, and that percentage would decrease, and I would quess a 50-50 proposition. Against a trained Martial Artist, I don't think the art would fair to well, but............its not a fair comparison, as it isn't meant to do so. If Aikido wanted to defend against a martial artist, they would change some of the attacks, so to practice against attacks more common to the genre, say backfist, or hammerfist. Having said that, there are Aiki styles that are more fighting oriented, but they are not the norm. Aikido is very traditional and teaches many lessons, an art form if you will, but to make it applicable it takes a bit of understanding. Remember too, Karate needs to be adapted for sparring or the street. You don't punch from the chamber-fight in horse stance, or keep your hands at your sides. Those are training tools, and fighting needs to be adapted to you, same with Aiki, however it takes a bit more practice if you don't have any other knowledge of the martial arts.
Posted by: Cato

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 04/25/03 08:51 AM

Goodness me, will this question never go away?

First off, I'd be interested to know of an art that doesn't require some adaptation for "street" fighting.


Second, I'm sure very art has it's own idiosyncracies. Things that a person unfamiliar with that style would think complicated and unduly difficult. That's what makes it an art in the first place, for Christ sake!!I also think aikido is less complicated than non aikidoka think. I mean, nikkyo, sankyo, kote gaeshi etc. aren't that difficult to apply are they?

Aiki jutsu and ju jutsu are primarily arts for "real life" fighting, they require only a little adaptation to make them work, because they don't have flowery movements ("Jutsu" as opposed to "Do"). I would say they are more in tune with real fighting than is karate, TKD, kempo etc.

Aikido has always suffered at the hands of non-aikidoka. Probably because there is such a wide variation of aikido styles being taught. Think of it as being like Tai Chi. Combat tai chi is a very, very good martial art, but it is rarely practiced as such. The same is true of aikido. Pre war aiki is extremely effective (Jigoku dojo - You don't get a name like that for flowery movements!!).

As for aikido attcks not being realistic. Do you honestly think karate attacks are? I certainly don't, but then I understand that training is not fighting, there is a reason why attacks are done as they are. The same goes for aiki. The level of compliance drops as you progress through the grades. If you started out resisting aiki techniques as a beginner you would be unable to reach higher grades 'cos your joints wouldn't be able to stand up to the training. I'd call that a strength myself.

Sorry to rant, but I get tired of aikido taking a bashing when it doesn't suffer from any complaint that isn't common to a lot of other, supposedly "street effective" arts.

Budo

PS I've broken my keyboard through hitting the keys too hard, and it's all your fault, Juds. [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/mad.gif[/IMG]
Posted by: raccoon

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 04/25/03 09:55 AM

I can relate to your frustration, Cato. However...

Goodness me, are we every going to stop comparing arts?

Why do we need to put down other arts to feel better about our own?

I can't speak on arts that I have no training in (TKD), but the last time I checked, kempo and karate are both battlefield tested fighting systems. I would say they are no less in tune with real fighting than is aiki jutsu, jujiutsu etc.

Sure, aiki arts suffered more bashing than other arts, even though they all go through the same process in history and turned into "do" from "jutsu". Do we really have to start putting down other systems to make it even?

Sensei Lou reminded me of a Japanese word in an e-mail. "chigau" - different. When Japanese indicate they disagree, they don't tell you you are wrong, they tell you, "chigau" - it's different.

Sure, Karate isn't like aiki. They are different. Does that make the other system wrong? Inferior? Less in tune with "real fighting"?

I am sure you are sick of people putting down aikido. And I assure you I am very sick of people judging other arts as inferior just because they haven't truly engaged themselves into it and therefore do not understand it.

There, I broke my keyboard too. I hope you're paying for it.

-raccoon
Posted by: senseilou

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 04/25/03 03:07 PM

Let's not forget one important point...........Its not the technique, but the technician, its not the art but the artist. So when you view an art or a style or a technique remember who is doing it. Aikido may get a bad rap because of the way a majority of the people practice. The difference not comparing the two but the difference in Aikido training and Karate training, is in most Karate schools you can't go 50%, or even 75%, Karate Sensei, because of image, or how they were taught tend to be harder assed in the Dojo. Having done both, I can tell you my hardest Aikido class, was no where near the average Karate class. And when you sloff off in Karate class, Sensei had your ass, and damn near killed you. Many a night I barely could walk out the dojo. Aikido is not like that, for the most part, and that I think that is why Aikido gets the repetation it does. I in no way feel any art is inferior to another, done with heart and spirit. Many Aikido classes spend time on Ki and energy transfer and it winds up looking like Tai Chi. The participants are getting something out of the training(I think) but the observers don't. I believe its all a matter of perception. I saw an old Aiki student who trained with us last week, and when he saw what we did, he thought we were thugs, criminals and barbarians, there is no need to treat someone in that manner was his reply. What he was seeing is an old Aiki student, not following the Aiki path, not a Jujutsuist who tries to be effective, its all perception.
Posted by: judderman

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 04/25/03 03:20 PM

Oh dear. [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/redface.gif[/IMG]

Perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly. My intention was not to bash Aikido, but to try and understand it more clearly.

As I said, my understanding of the Art is extremely limited.

My angle is this. Many people I come across believe that their striking art is super duper and can do all sorts. Don't worry I learnt the hard way that Karate isn't necassarily street effective [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/biggrin.gif[/IMG]

So since fights tend to end up in grappling, I figured that an attacker has got to move towards you, and will do so at pace.

From my limited understanding of Aikido, you use your attackers momentum to enable the technique, the same principle I believe that is used in Judo, Tai Chi etc.

So from this point, and the understanding that a good majority of Arts will require adaptations to increase their street effectiveness, my question should have been can it be effective easily?

Are there simple priciples that can be transfered onto the street arena?

If so, what are they and where can I learn more?

(sorry about your keyboards [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/biggrin.gif[/IMG])

Budo.
Posted by: Cato

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 04/25/03 04:57 PM

raccoon, I'm not putting down any art, I'm merely making the point that aiki is no different from other arts. My first martial art was Wado Ryu karate so I'm not completely ignorant of the art. I also believe you don't have to be adriving instructor to recognise bad driving. Some karate etc. is just as bad as any aikido. Mcdojo's prevail across the arts, they don't just reside within aiki, although you would soon get that impression from reading these boards.

You may well feel kempo and karate are realistic for street fighting, but that is not an opinion I share. I have only very rarely seen a fight where two people square off and trade punches, in a way that would favour a striking art. Almost without fail a fight will at some point involve grappling. That is why I think grappling arts are more realistic. It has nothing to do with battlefield effectiveness.

I also don't buy into the "my karate would stop them getting close" or "my karate has grappling" line. Why? Because I've never seen either. Karate is, by and large, a contact sport. Kempo is, I think, a different matter, but to find authentic kempo is difficult. Most, if not all, of what I have seen promoted as kempo is in fact ju jutsu with karate style strikes added.

It's funny but I've trained in aikido for quite a while, even hold a dan grade in it, yet I am forever being told what my art is like, what it lacks and why it wont work. Strangely, as soon as I point out it has only the same deficiencies as most other arts, people start to get defensive about what they do.

So what that karate lesson are more rigorous than aikido lessons? Where's the value in that? It is entirely matterless how rock hard anyone's sensei may happen to be, or that they like to prove it at any given opportunity. Bullying is bullying, be it in a dojo or school playground, and personally I would not allow myself to be bullied by anyone.

BUDO and CHIGAU
Posted by: Jamoni

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 04/25/03 06:00 PM

Hmmm.
SenseiLou makes an interesting point. He mentions that, in order to make aikido street effective, it takes a deep knowledge of the principles and concepts. He mentioned that the attacks are very conceptualized, so it takes a LOT of training, discipline, insight, and study to use it in a powerful manner. Perhaps this was O'sensei's intention? Obviously, knowing what he knew, he could have churned out a small army of death dealers in a very short time. But he didn't want that. He wanted to develop strong, intelligent, hardworking people who can see the world in a certain light. Not badasses.
Posted by: raccoon

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 04/25/03 07:20 PM

My sincere apologies to everyone. I've spoke disrespectfully.
-Cody

[This message has been edited by raccoon (edited 04-26-2003).]
Posted by: senseilou

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 04/25/03 07:39 PM

Practice like you play! Once again I stress perception. Watch a hard ass Karate workout, and a hard ass Aikido workout, and the perception will be that Karateka are tougher and better, but its perception. Most Karateka can't take the pain of Joint locking but people who watch see people tap, they don't know the about the pain, its perception. And I would disagree about hard classes, not bullying, physically challenging. A hard class challenges your body beyond what you think you can do, and thats training. A walk in the park is not a run, and a run in the park is not a marathon. Practice like you play!!!!
Posted by: Cato

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 04/26/03 09:53 AM

raccoon. You have not spoken disrespectfully to anyone. You are as entitled to voice an opinion as anyone else, and personally I find your opinion helpfull.

If anyone has been disrespectfull, it is me, but you don't see me apologising do you? Because there is no need. please keep posting your opinion honestly and don't feel that you speak out of turn, disrespectfully or whatever. You don't.

Lou, I agree that hard training is fine, but I personally would draw the line at a sensei who thought he/she could bully me into respecting them, or thought it acceptable to call me stupid, send me home or whatever. respect is mutual, and if someone can't respect me merely because I haven't trained as long as they have, then they are undeserving of my respect. I refuse to be browbeaten, bullied or intimidated by anyone. If I allowed myself to be I would need to do a rapid career change!!

Budo
Posted by: senseilou

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 04/27/03 02:33 AM

Cato, I think you are missing my point. I am talking about how people precieve things. Its not a question of someone bullying or asking too much. Its a question of the reaction the observer gets, nothing more. It doesn't matter whether its hard training or not, it is how people view that training which will give us certain responses. I will use another example, Soccer played in Europe and South America, are national games and are not viewed as soft games or sissy games. Here in the states, with football(what we call football) Ice hockey and other contact sports, soccer is not included. We both know there is contact in soccer, but here the perception its what you play if you can't play baseball, football hockey etc. Tough guys don't play soccer. Its a wrong perception, but one none the less. Same is true for Martial training, when you observe a class, and you see different ways of training, certain perceptions arise. We are viewed as mean, nasty and dirty because of some of our techniques. Yet my Kajukembo Professor friend thinks we are soft and easy. He doesn't think we train hard at all, Aikidoka think we train too hard. Its all perception, and I think that Aikido gets the knocks it does because people view the training as soft, but its observation, not participation. But I stick my believe that arts are viewed by how they practice. So its not a question of being intimadated by your Sensei, but more of trying to live up to the level he has set. In Karate, it pushes your body to the limit many times, and that is why most Karateka have the hard training ideals.
Posted by: Cato

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 06/10/03 03:17 PM

Football (soccer) not for tough guys!!! Try telling that to Vinnie Jones.

I think there must be a fundamental difference in the mind set of karateka and aikidoka. I get the impression that karate tests the practitioner at every turn, and encourages them to overcome weaknesses through hardship, rigourous discipline and arduous training. If that is so, I can't help but think that karate training is almost like some kind of punishment and is only really for masochists. Am I right?

Budo
Posted by: joesixpack

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 06/10/03 10:08 PM

Yeah, that's why we keep on coming to the aiki/jutsu/HKD seminars....

Militaristic training is BS for Okinawan kiddies.

In our dojo, we do fight very hard sometimes, but sometimes it is very technical, throws, locks and bunaki, but those sessions are jsut as tiring, and the groundwork is tougher than a session of weights.
Posted by: kempo_jujitsu

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 06/15/03 07:34 AM

my teachers always said its not the art thats important, its the person practicing that art. and how well the style fits you, body weight, height, agility, etc.
any art can be "deadly" if its taught in that manor.
karate....well we run into the jutsu/do thing again...karate jutsu (fairly rare) like ryukyu kempo karate jutsu for instance is very effective and has just as many locking techniques and throws as any other system if you know where to looke for them (kata)...karate do, was developed to be taught to school children, therefore the sensei's would leave out the "inner secrets" and the lethal techniques (these techniques are still present in the kata though if looked for albeit slightly different), this new karate is also what was taught as the intro of karate to japan by gichin funakoshi (to become shotokan which led into wado ryu, but even the shotokan today isnt the same as what funakoshi actually taught they say)this (forgive me) "watered down karate" is what became the basis of all japanese styles of karate, which is actually quite different than okinawan karate, the secrets are still there just werent openly taught. some of the differences (jutsu/do)are easily seen, karate do is more worried about how the kata looks...when you do a knife hand you can place a teacup on your palm..very linear and flat, the punch is thrown from the center of YOUR body and lands in alignment with the center of YOUR body (fairly weak punch to me). karate jutsu works from angles and curves (the human body isnt made up of straight lines) and the punch is not rotated to a complete palm down position, only 3/4 maximum and some use a verticle punch, this punch is much stronger (test it) and safer for the practitioner (bone alignment), it is aligned just inside the elbow as opposed to the center of your body (stronger) watch someone punch a makiwara..you will probably find they align their punch in this manor. karate do has bigger movements and they use a full twist punch for asthetic purposes as well as for more exercise for the body part being used. the same can be said of juDO and juJUTSU, kenDO and kenJUTSU, aikiDO and aikiJUTSU. the main differences are the time period, the goal of the practitioners and teachers, and the teaching method. but for the record if morihei ueshiba, funakoshi, or kano (sp?) were still alive... i sure wouldnt mess with them!! of course then someone would say that is so because they studied jutsu arts before developing the do counterparts...and on and on it goes.
my question to everyone is this...why cant an art have both...juJUTSU has esoteric principles, moral value, teaches confidence and self esteem as well as effective fighting. and i have also seen many aikiDO and karate DO practitioners who could really tear it up when the situation called for it!
personally i think that one of the greatest lessons in martial arts is this: there are wayyyy more similarities in the different styles than there are differences between them. "there are many paths to the top of the mountain, yet we can all see the moon when we get there" i think were all going to the same place, we just take different paths to that destination, we should all find our own path and follow it.
just my two cents...(ok it is more like a buck fifty) [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/biggrin.gif[/IMG]
Posted by: kempo_jujitsu

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 06/15/03 07:43 AM

i would agree with senseilou, instead of just learning techniques and memorizing them, concentrate on the principles behind them, the reason WHY they work the way they do. a kung fu practitioner once told me that standardized teaching is just to teach beginners the principles anyhow. from there when he has a basic understanding of the technique he can adjust it to work better for him (or her...sorry ladies). and infact i think that aikido has an excellent way of teaching its principles. ikkyo nikkyo kote gaeshi etc...these are not techniques, but a (way of doing many techniques).
Posted by: Hepmerria

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 06/15/03 06:49 PM

The threads in this piece are pretty interesting. Speaking to Aikidos practicalness, all I have to say is this: in class one day, I saw two aiki students fresstyle practicing where they simulated street attacks and responded with Aikido moves, and one guy particualrly, was phenomenal. I mean I am less than one month into the art, but I can say that this guys foot work was tremendous. When the other guy attacked, he was all behind him tripping him up striking, inpositions to kill him if he so chose etc.

In this context, I think it is quite obvious that Aikido's philosophy is differnt than more traditional combat orientated martial arts, however, based on my observations, and musings, one can take from it and use it quite effectively.

Imgaine aikido moves translated into speech, we have engaged conflict resolution, thus avoiding an attack. Again It is up to the students, because it is there, albeit it tacit; keeping in mind Aikido's jujitsu roots.
Posted by: senseilou

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 06/16/03 01:22 AM

I was not there to witness what you saw with the 2 Aikido students. They may have both been very good and both been very street worthy. My experience though is this, most students of Aikido do not know how to properly attack, punch or kick as is done on the street. These may have I don't know. But since most Aiki students don't practice kicks, there kicks can't be but so good, so when you defend against a kick by an Aikidoka, its not the same as a Karateka. Same is true with punching combinations, most Aikidoka don't practice combination striking so there striking is basic punching and they leave the arm out, compared to a jab of karate in boxing. My point here is its easy to look good against another Aikidoka, try going outside the art and try the techniques. I always practice my kicking defenses against a Karate student so I am sure the kicks are genuine. A Sensei once told me that if a technique looked good, chances were it was uneffective. The best techniques are those that look like an accident, not pretty and certainly not set.
Posted by: Cato

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 06/17/03 03:38 AM

Oooh, we're getting close to one of my favourite rants here, Lou. 99.9% of the people you meet in the street fight will not be high grade karateka and will not punch as would a karateka. So what would be the point in learning to defend against karate's highly stylised way of punching and kicks? Most people don't do them.

My experience of karateka is that they have no idea how to avoid anything, and leave themselves wide open to aiki style counters if their techniques misses or fails to end the fight there and then.

Budo
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 05/24/04 01:34 PM

Every martial art has advantages, disadvantages, limitations, and assumed premises. I don't think it's bad to question the assumption each art makes and examine its shortcomings. Not doing so could get you hurt.
E.g., if I'm practicing Judo-- do I need my opponent to be wearing a "gi" to execute a technique? What if he's wearing a tank top and his arms are sweaty and slippery? If I learn western boxing-- why do I assume a referee will separate my opponent if we get into a clinch, or give me a standing 8 count if I get woozy from a punch? If I'm a wrestler, why do I assume the fight is over when I'm pinned on my back? If I practice aikido-- why do I assume that most attacks will be precipituous lunges whose momentum I'll be able to capitalize on, insted of a short, fast jabs with a sharp object?
Martial artists invest years of blood, sweat and tears, not to mention money into their arts. Why shouldn't they, respect-fully and in the appropriate time and place, question the effectiveness of what they're taught? It's our time, our money and our safety. I say we SHOULD question it.
I dislike strongly when martial artists say "Oh, yeah, my style might not effective, but it's about the philosophy, not just the fighting." I respect philosphical ideals on many levels. Most "do" fighting styles are based on a particular philosophy. But If I want to learn philosophy, I can go learn philosophy I don't need someone to tell me they're teaching me self defense, and then tell me it's all about philosophy when I find out what they have to teach doesn't work. Not to mention that by definition, martial arts are fighting arts.
Also-- Some arts compliment each other. My old ju-jutsu teacher was a shihan in ju-jutsu, but he was also a godan in Judo and Goju-Ryu and Shotokan Karate. If he missed a wrist while executing a ju-jutsu technique-- and it happened about 10% of the time for a 7th degree blackbelt-- he would quickly compensate with a judo throw and neutralize the attack. If he was too far away to execute a ju-jitsu or judo technique, he could use a karate block and a counterstrike, then close the gap to execute a grappling technique. In that regard, I think most great martial artists recognize those areas where they need improvement and usually learn more than one art.
Still-- the question of whether aikido is practical or effective is one I'm still asking myself. It's a fascinating art. But does it work?


[QUOTE]Originally posted by judderman:
Ok I know this has probably been talked about a lot already, but I'm too lazy to go hunting through hundreds of posts.

I get the impression, from the few posts I've read, that classical Aikido is not much use as street effective system, requireing many years to become adapt and having too many flowery movements, but requires adaptation.

Because my knowledge of Aikido or Aiki jutsu or anything of that ilk, is exceptionally limited I would like to ask, how easy is it to adapt, given that complex and/or fine motor movements are difficult to perform whilst under pressure, to a street effective system?

Budo.
[/QUOTE]
Posted by: russman167

Re: Can it be effective though?? - 06/08/04 10:36 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by judderman:
Oh dear. [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/redface.gif[/IMG]

Perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly. My intention was not to bash Aikido, but to try and understand it more clearly.

snip...
Budo.
[/QUOTE]

Hey Judderman,

I don't think that you were unclear at all, and I don't even think that Cato meant for it to sound that way. He was just expressing a little frustration at seeing the art that he loves some much not being universally recognized for it's potential greatness.

We sometimes forget to realize that Aikido as martial arts go, is in its infancy. No one has to question the effectiveness of Ju Jitsu because it has been around for over 700, years. If it didn't work it would have died out years ago. Aikido is constantly have to answer verbal challenges because unlike say "Brazilian Jiu Jitsu" which is also fairly new, no one is entering open fight contest to "prove" its effectiveness.

Judo, which is only about twice as old as, Aikido, goes through the same thing. However as with BJJ they had their fare share of challenge fights early on, to make Judo's reputation in the MA community.

However it seems that the challenge fight would kind of fly in the face of O'Senseis beliefs in what the spirit of Aikido should be. As a result the verbal challenges will continue, and Cato will keep breaking keyboards. [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG]

Incidentally I don't know where you are located, but if you can find a Tenshin affiliated school, you will be treated to some very obviously street effective Aikido training.

Good Luck.

-Russ (The Judo Guy)
The JudoGi Store www.judogis.com

May Your Way Be Gentle.