Practicality?

How far does an art have to be practical to be of any use? Aikido is often critised by non aikidoka for being too difficult to use in a real situation. Would anyone agree with that?

I'm sure lots of people would agree with that.

I dont!!

If your mindset is such that you try and apply an 'Aikido technique' when practicality is required then you might well be shafted.

But if you practice Aikido to develop a martial base then translation into something simple and effective is not so hard.

For example ...someone tries to hit you. Get out of the way. Hit them.

Cheers

D

Cato,

Perhaps I am reading your question to be much more general than you intended, but when you say "to be of any use", then I think an art doesn't have to be practical (from a combat point of view) at all to be useful.

There are numerous benefits to training that have nothing to do with combat, although these same benefits might help one fare better in combat than an untrained person would.

For example, aikido develops coordination, relaxation, and concentration. These traits can benefit a person in all aspects of his or her life.

It's hard to make blanket statements about the combat efficacy of aikido, because there are so many different expressions of the art around. I think the combat aspects are definitely in there, as these are the origins of the art. I also think that a large number of people who study aikido fail to grasp the combat essence. But that's OK, as far as I am concerned, because they still get all kinds of other benefits from training.

These other aspects help us all day every day, and also help to reduce the likelihood that we will ever need the combat aspects.

I think this is only a problem when an aikidoka has unrealistic expectations about his or her combat ability. I won't speculate on how often this happens, though.

Cato, I actually went to a Bujinkan Taijutsu seminar over the past weekend and it was great. A lot of the techniques they were doing reminded me of the Yoshinkan Aikido I practiced at Temple. They were teaching technique after technique and I was starting to mix up one with the other...but what I was doing was still working. The instructor explained to me that what I was doing was exactly right...because it was still using the principles effectively and the locks I was getting on were working. I think Aikido is meant to be the same way. You guys may know a million techniques, but it's not like only one technique works against one attack...many different techniques work against many different attacks: it's all about using the principles of your art.

I think that when people see a long, dojo version of a throw that they may get the wrong impression of aikido. One of my sensei was just talking the other day how it is easier to teach someone to shorten up a technique than it is to lengthen the technique. So this leads me to the conclusion that what we learn in the dojo are principles, and that is what would always work in a combat situation (assuming one could adhere to those principles).

I attended a seminar with Koichi Kashiwaya Sensei (8th dan Ki Society) about a month ago. The seminar was attended by aikidoka of several different styles, which I thought was really cool. But apart from how our techniques differed, what I really took away from the seminar was the fact that the principles are what Tohei Sensei at least is trying to teach us. Kashiwaya joked that if we want to be combat effective all the time, we should glue sandpaper to the upper arms of our gi's for kokyunage's, to make sure uke never slips away.

He also placed alot of emphasis on atemi, to my surprise. He was stressing making a fist with the middle knuckle slightly sticking out for atemi to the ribs, most applicable in shihonage I think. The knuckle is supposed to go inbetween the ribs, which makes it more painful for uke but safer too because the knuckle collapses, and makes it less likely that you would break uke's rib.

Ahh, but I digress.

Joe.

if it works, it works.
i dont practice aikido, but have met those who did, and have seen the way they practice, i dont think it's for me but if it works for you, do it.
i'd like to see more striking personally. and more realistic attacks, maybe different "scenario" training..like being jumped from behind, even on the ground...work on ways to get back up to your feet etc.
do you ever practice what to do when you miss your throw? or dont get the lock or pin the way youre supposed to?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kempo_jujitsu:
if it works, it works.
i dont practice aikido, but have met those who did, and have seen the way they practice, i dont think it's for me but if it works for you, do it.
i'd like to see more striking personally. and more realistic attacks, maybe different "scenario" training..like being jumped from behind, even on the ground...work on ways to get back up to your feet etc.
do you ever practice what to do when you miss your throw? or dont get the lock or pin the way youre supposed to?[/QUOTE]

I suspect what you'd like to see is Kempo Ju-Jitsu!

Aikido is by definition a merger of man and ki within the principles of the Tao.

It is manifested through techniques and these techniques are merely tools to express the principles of Aikido (not Aiki...I believe this is not the same thing).

These principles are Kamae , Maai, Shisei, kokyo ho , kokyuho-rokyuho, irimi, atemi, omote and ura to name most of them...

In Aikido there are 4 levels of practice.

Kotai - the solid foundation
Jutai - flowing supple moves
Ki tai - the level of the 'experts' - movement infused with ki
Eki tai - Beyond ki - the level of a master eg O'Sensei - moving and controlling without effort...

Most Aikido people dont get past level 1 - Also this is what people that have seen Aikido base their misguided judgments on.

More striking ?...Fine Aikidoka can hit...Its usually not emphasised because when you hit someone hard they tend to disappear...you certainly wont get the chance to complete your move and therefore lose the opportunity to learn from it. ...

Look at first awase - sword blending. In essence its the same as a counter punch...uke attacks and you get off line and respond..

As long as your focus is on the bases of Aikido you can practice any attacks...who says Aikidoka don't practice scenario training or 'real' attacks? Have you seen every dojo ..every instructor ? no you havent. Nuff said.

Work on ways to get back up to your feet?? no we just lie there like muppets. Of course we do but not all the time. If some 6th kyu is trying to learn a pin then they don't need some slippery sandan jumping up and stopping them learning..

do you ever practice what to do when you miss your throw? or dont get the lock or pin the way youre supposed to? No we always get it exactly right and even if our partners get it wrong we tap out a tune for them...

Get real...I've always been taught that if plan A goes wrong move onto plan B. As for locks and pins...fine they are all good stuff but if they aren't working just because we have Aikidoka on our foreheads does,nt prevent us from following up with strikes.

I believe that fact that Aikido is practiced with control - self control then control of uke leads many people to underrate it and those that practice it.

I'll agree that it isn't out and out ring fighting..that is a whole arena in itself but that doesn't detract from the value of Aikido one jot.

Aikido is what it is - you accept this or not.

D

Dazzler - superb. Only I wish I'd said it. [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG]

Budo

geez..calm down.
if your 6th kyu is learning a pin...then that is what you are focused on...therefore that is not the time to practice getting out of the pin. common sense man.
i said it was probably not my thing...i didnt say it doesnt work.
every time i ask a question to one of you aikidoka you think i am dissin ur art. im just gonna stop asking questions.
a simple YES OR NO would have been sufficient.
have a nice day.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kempo_jujitsu:
geez..calm down.
if your 6th kyu is learning a pin...then that is what you are focused on...therefore that is not the time to practice getting out of the pin. common sense man.
i said it was probably not my thing...i didnt say it doesnt work.
every time i ask a question to one of you aikidoka you think i am dissin ur art. im just gonna stop asking questions.
a simple YES OR NO would have been sufficient.
have a nice day.
[/QUOTE]

Now KJ, dont you worry too much about my strong response...you might have had the balls to pose the questions but I'm sure there are hundres of readers that that get confused by the same things.

So my answer was for them as well as you - this is a great forum with lots of ideas and questions and answers from all sorts of level of people...

I see lots of misunderstandings about aikido and posts like yours give me a chance to address them from my view...may not be everyones but may encourage people to think or get a response that makes me think...either way everyone thats open gets to learn.

Didn't mean to crush your questioning spirit!!

And Yes or No would have been a bit boring!!

Cheers

D

Mikey, do you think the real benefits of aikido, or any MA, actually lie away from their purely martial sides?

Budo

Cato,

Yes. I mean, no.
Well... maybe.

There. Does that clear it up?

But seriously, I think all martial arts can help us to develop as a person. I also think all martial arts can help us develop combat skills.

These dual aspects can be emphasized to a greater or lesser degree depending on how we train, but they are always both present to some extent.

Now, when you said "practical benefit", I think that encompasses both aspects of personal development. It's just that the non-combative aspects of what we learn are available to use for all of our waking hours. The combat aspects, on the other hand, are never used if we are lucky. I'm not saying that we shouldn't emphasize the combat aspects of our respective arts by any means, just that we should not miss the opportunity to develop traits besides higher lethality along the way.

Well thanks, That's a lot clearer now [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/biggrin.gif[/IMG]

What would you say then, mikey, to all the people who train in mixed systems, where the only criteria for a technique is that it works outside the dojo? How would you convince them of the other benefits that come from MA training?

Budo

Why do we need to convince MMA practitioners of anything? If they are training that way, they must be getting something out of it. for some it could simply be the ability to kick a**. Others may like to physical workout... to each their own.

Well, John Kogas is probably the most visible MMA stylist on these boards. You should read what he posted earlier this week about a confrontation (Parking Lot Confrontation, Self Defense Forum) that could have easily been a fight but instead resulted in two strangers exchanging hugs in a parking lot. Some people have tried to fault him for letting things get as far as they did, but in the end it was his verbal deescalation that avoided the fight. He could just as easily have hurt the guy, and I have little doubt that he has put in the mat time to be successful.

His closing thoughts on the matter to me exemplify the spiritual development we all seek, even though he credits a different path than an aikidoka might, the goal is the same.

[QUOTE]
I smiled to myself as I walked inside the building thinking about how what had been a potential fight, turned into two human beings embracing each other and realizing how unnecessary coming to blows was. I believe he was a better man for the situation and I certainly know that I have become so as well.

It reminds me that, if one trains properly, with aliveness and resistance from one's partners, a transcendance of the ego can occur, as it has nowhere to hide in such an environment. If I'd not had such training, there's no telling what the outcome would have been. After participating in such training for such a long time, I have nothing left to prove to myself and certainly no one else. This is what is meant by "learning to fight in order to learn how NOT to fight".
[/QUOTE]


Cato, you often become upset with those who make assumptions about aikido based on generalizations about how aikido is trained. Can you not see that you are guilty of the same when you assume MMA types are only interested in rolling and cracking skulls?

Yes, these people believe in pressure testing everything. Yes, I think it is safe to say that nothing is sacred and certainly they will accept a technique that can be proven without regard for its origins. But you cannot say they don't share the same goals that all good martial artists share, including spiritual development. Let's face it, the heat of combat is what led Osensei to many of his revelations, and helped forge the beliefs that gave birth to aikido.

I've just posted something similar on another thread, but let me state once and for all that I am posing questions to stimulate debate, not to put my opinion across. I don't necessarily agree with the points I make myself!!

My question was intended to open up a discussion on the spiritual side of the arts, not to slag off MMA. God knows we've been down that road so many times now we've worn a rut [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG] I'm interested to learn what other people think the benefits of MA are, aside from the obvious, that's all. It helps me learn [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG]

Budo

Cato,

Let me take the opportunity to say that I have enjoyed all of the online discussions we have had, and I don't question your motivations or presume to know what your beliefs are at all. I do think you're one of the "good guys", though.

That said, if it is expedient to expressing my point, I won't hesitate to make outlandish assumptions about your core beliefs or twist the words of your posts to suit my meaning-- all in the name of stimulating further discussion.

I have learned a lot from what you have to say, and if pushing your buttons to get you to keep saying it has offended you in any way please accept my apology.

Otherwise, or in spite of that, let the games continue! I think it's good for all of us to search for truths we can resonate with.

[IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG]

Absolutely no offence taken, mikey. I just felt the need to reassert my "good guy" side [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/biggrin.gif[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/biggrin.gif[/IMG]

I too have learnt a great deal from our exchanges, and I hope it will continue.

Let me re-phrase my question in a less presumptuous manner: Suppose a purely hypothethetical person approached you and said that they had heard martial arts were good for developing the soul, and their soul was in desperate need of development but they were totally opposed to violence and had no desire to learn how to fight. Would you tell them to study MA or not? If so, which ones and why?

Budo

I'd refer them to some sort of spiritual leader outside of of the MA's, maybe Zen would be good for them.

However, if there is a martial art for this type of person it would have to be aikido, if any, though maybe tai chi chuan would be good too. At my school we have alot of meditation, ki, and ki breathing classes, so you could go to my school and learn alot and grow spiritually without learning a single martial technique.

Joe

Interesting question, Cato.

I have been in aikido dojos where this hypothetical person would be completely comfortable, and I have been in dojos where he would not be comfortable.

I might steer him towards tai chi, qi gong, yoga, kyudo, iaido, or the tea ceremony. I think even judo might be an option, because it is non-violent in spite of being very competitive.

In all seriousness, though, if someone close enough to me to solicit my advice confided in me that he or she was not comfortable with violence, I think I would explore why that is with him or her. My hope would be to convince him or her of the vital role violence and the implied threat of it have to play in keeping society organized and functioning well.

Now that I think about it, maybe you're asking me if there are activities outside of martial arts which provide the same breadth and depth of spiritual development. Certainly Zen and other activities that have a zen component can foster a great deal of spiritual development. Still, I think martial arts provide something subtly different, and that something is born from violence or at least the threat of it.

It's one thing to know that it is wrong to hurt someone. It is another thing entirely to be perfectly capable of hurting someone and decide not to do it. Do you understand where I am headed with that thought, or should I try to figure out some other way to say it?

if ALL you want is spiritual teaching and guidance(no physical activity or contact)....go to a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple.
however if you would like a "vehicle" to express your spirituality...aikido, taichi, and many other "traditional" martial arts would be a good bet.(and in such cases you will inadvertantly be learning about self defense as well)
if you simply want to learn to fight...find a modern art that specializes in this area.
one good reason for these arts...neglecting to teach the esoteric and spiritual sides to their arts is the fact that most people who train for SELF DEFENSE have children, jobs, and lives that take up way too much time...its surprising they can find the time to practice martial arts for an hour twice a week...in such cases they should forgo anything not directly related to self defense (again...if that is their goal)...sorry to get off topic...ignore me lol

The "hardest" part of Aikido is the ukemi and the 'un-learning' of the art. By un-learning I mean the resistance of force to force contact, etc. To an outsider this seems impossible to learn. Aikido requires passive resistance and to many it isn't macho enough (too passive and easy?) and they aren't putting the amount of physical strength behind a technique that they want to or are used to.

I personally find much of Aikido to be practical, working in law enforcement. Handcuffing is easier and control of a violent offender is easier. Easy is practical.

Just my two feathers worth.

Most of the basic techniques and movements are based on human anatomy than anything else and this leads to fluidity in motion and the manipulation of an attacker.

The US Marine Corps used something called LINE hand to hand combat, exclusively, from WWII until 1998. The first things one would learn in LINE is a set of defenses for grabs to the chest/throat/neck/shoulders. The tactic is based on Aikido, the outcome is a wristlock that allows the Marine to use as much force as needed. The principles of LINE were based on Aikido, only not quite as passive (less circular motions of footwork, etc.) and the ease of the techniques allows for a recruit to learn them in minimal time. The steps to LINE become natural reactions, enter mushin!