It is quite clear to me that in the original video many of the defences (at least the standing ones) are quite sound - move in early and intercept the attack, then drop the opponent.

I have no doubt many of the techniques shown could be practised realistically and then applied in a "real world" environment. They might require some adjustment in terms of attack interception etc. - but the principles are sound.

Presumably what fileboy etc. find objectionable is the training method of aikido. Taison said it well - the video shows too much compliance for realistic training. However the art of aikido is based on solid principles related to other forms of jujutsu and this must be distinguished from the "intensity" issue.

Here's some aikido done a bit more realistically.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aJv48aVUko

I have no doubt the techniques are capable of being used in reality - maybe not as cleanly as demonstrated, but more or less (at least the majority). I've seen many of the techniques applied (usually in a more limited way) in ring fights (including the kick defences at the end).

That aikido is hard to apply is true. The reason is 2 fold:

First you need to learn fairly refined movement. To learn movements of this refinement requires many years of "non-live" isolation practise. After all, you can't learn a good golf swing unless you do it without pressure. And a golf swing has nothing on an aikido throw, believe me.

To use a better analogy, you couldn't expect to learn a proper baseline or net shot in tennis if you never spent time isolating the movement. If you just go straight into playing full tennis games because "you don't have time for isolated practise - you're too busy returning balls" you'll be wiped off by even a slightly coached player.

Second, once you've learned the technique you need to introduce it gradually into a live environment. While most aikidoka don't do this, it doesn't invalidate the technique, nor make it impossible. Free fighting has many more variables than a game of tennis, which means it is harder environment to apply technique of any kind. Refined technique can be applied in a free fighting environment provided you actually go to the trouble of training to do so.

The fact is that most people who have the inclination and patience to learn aikido aren't minded to train in more live enviroment. It is a matter of natural selection. Are people like fileboy ever going to start aikido? Are people who do aikido the types who might have joined and stayed in a gym like fileboy's?

Criticise the lack of intensity all you like - you're quite right. But as for the art - aikido is a highly skilled discipline with a similar technical base to BJJ or judo - trashing it or its experienced exponents by simplistically focussing on the training method and ignoring the technique shows some other "issues" imo. It is also deeply insulting of the many years of sweat and dedication aikidoka put into the mat.

Dan... you need to appreciate the background context in which fileboy is posting... ever visited Bullshido.net?

Unfortunately, I have.

Quote:

---

Self-defense may not be the only reason to do anything, but it is a major reason people decide to study martial arts. For people intersted in self-defense, a martial art that never tests its techniques under realistic conditions is suspect. Sorry, but that is just common sense skepticism.

---

You could pick just about any art and pick it apart based on it's self defense effectiveness or training methods.

If your mindset is solely self defense then go all the way. Whatever weapons are availiable and legal to carry. In my state I could I could be fully armed to the teeth,legally, how you gonna train for that?

You have to leave out the art to be fully effective imo. Aikido or whatever.

I agree 100% that just about any art can be faulted for lack of realism in some aspect and to some extent. However, that does not mean all arts are equally deficient in this respect. Some arts are more practical than others.

"Practical," I think, really has to be considered from the student’s POV and reasons for study. And those are for him or her to decide. Putting aliveness and resistance to the side for the moment, and just looking at education in general, some folk access instruction differently and will grow and learn better with a differently formatted curriculum. I have also known one person who just couldn’t punch someone in the face, doubtful that boxing would be a good source of instruction for him, but perhaps wrestling would be a better choice. Also, some people like the aesthetics and cultural backdrop of a particular Asian MA and this can help them to learn.

Basically, what I am trying to get across is that certain arts may indeed offer up “tests” and “situations” that offer a higher dose of reality in their training, but it does no good for the person who either doesn’t want it, or who turns away from that instruction because it just doesn’t speak to him on a personal level. Practicality, then, has to be assigned as much by the student as any consideration of just curriculum.

Excellent point Butterfly! I made a post about educational psychologist David Kleb a while ago. He basically said that individuals have certain preferences for learninig. Some people learn in an "hands on" kind of way, whereas some folks learn by using more abstract ideas and relating to the material in different ways.

I like your point about considering what is "practical" in a more holistic sense.

Another factor I have come to regard in my own training is the health risks in certain training. I made another post about how likely it was to get injured doing high contact martial arts. Basically, most folks seem to think, and this has been my experience, that participation in high contact martial arts isn't always a good idea for long term health.

Many arts that don't use the same methods e.g. 100% resistance, full contact sparring etc... are, at least in my experience, a lot less likely to get you injured.

Case in point: My local Shodokan Aikido Association website proudly reports that they have never had a serious injury in reported in any of their classes in their 30 odd year history.

Compare this to the BJJ class I went to where I got injured to the point of having to take time off work, a guy had his arm broken in class, and another guy damaged his knee and couldn't train for several months.

For myself, likelihood of injury is a factor I also consider when it comes to being "practical" about Martial arts!

Sorry if this is a little of topic BTW!

Tell me about it!

By "practical" I meant applicable to a real-life self-defense situation. If someone has some other criteria they want to hang the label "practical" on, that is fine. Though I must say, you make it sound like the word "practical" could mean almost anything, depending on the individual who uses the term. I think using words that broadly muddies rather clarfies things.