Is Aikido making a comeback?

As the forum moderator:-

I'm delighted to see some discussion of a martial art that's not Brazilian Jiu Jitsu ... So I'm not going to complain too much that a lot of older threads have been resurrected, and one club is being advertised... I think the more important principle in this forum is that we encourage people to feel free to post. I have suggested to WebDesignIRL via DM to be aware, going forward, that things are better kept current.

I've merged a few of the resurrected threads with the "Is Aikido making a comback?" new thread, but I didn't expect the chronology to be scramble.

Anyway, here is your thread for Aikido discussion, for those interested...

Aikido gets a pretty bad rep online. If people enjoy it, that shouldn't matter. But important to be aware of the issues and decide that it is not an issue for you. But sadly many people are pretty detached from the reality of their training

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058323835/is-aikido-making-a-comeback

That's a great idea. There are quite a few Aikido clubs in Ireland, but they are not coordinated and no one knows what others are doing.

Let me introduce myself. I represent Takemusu Aikido Society, a non-profit Aikido organisation. We have adult classes on Mondays from 18:30 to 20:00 in Ringsend & Irishtown Community Centre and Sundays from 14:15 to 15:45 in Balbriggan. We welcome beginners and people with prior Aikido experience - everybody will find something interesting in our classes.

Once a year we hold a weapons workshop open to everyone - the next workshop will be on 23 June 2024 in Balbriggan.

In September we will hold an International Aikido seminar with Joran Fagerlund sensei, a student of Morihiro Saito who was the longest-serving student of the Aikido Founder. We have more activities but it is better to follow us on Facebook to see all updates.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121490686#Comment_121490686

Unfortunately, people who are doing some nonsense quite often are very good at self-promoting online. Then the public gets the wrong impression about the whole art. Another common question you may see online is the "effectiveness" in "real situation". What does it even mean? Effectiveness is the degree to which something is successful in producing a desired result. So before speaking about the effectiveness of Aikido, we should speak what is the desired result of Aikido practice. The answer will vary from one person to another. What is a "real situation"? Again you will hear many different definitions. As for me, the most real application of martial arts is the skill of safe landing on a hard surface. It saved my health a good few times when I had accidents on my bicycle including a collision with a car. Only this would be enough to prove the effectiveness of Aikido. But the Aikido practice fulfils many other goals which we can also discuss.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122258089#Comment_122258089

Aikido is a martial art, and effectiveness for any martial art should mean that it is an effective system of fighting or self defence. Or a subset of either.

I don’t doubt that aikido allowed you land safely in a real situation, such as falling off a bike. It is very good at that. But if that was the primary goal, one could train break falls directly (like stunt training) rather than include the rest of a martial art.

Many, I dare say most, practitioners will present aikido as an effective form of grappling. I disagree. But it’s possible that it’s only the guy on YouTube and not the guy in the dojo that thinks that.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122258167#Comment_122258167

Sure, that's one of the goals of any martial art. And Aikido provides you with all the necessary means to defend yourself. When I just received my second dan, I had to apply an Aikido technique on the street and was surprised at how smoothly and easily it worked. It was only one technique, after which an intruder did not dare to continue physical aggression, so from my experience Aikido is effective. But don't forget that any martial art is only a tool, the main factor is a person who uses a tool. Some people are determined to defend themself and can do it without any martial arts experience, but others can be great masters, but not able to use their skills outside the mats. But this proves nothing - there are such people in any martial arts or combat sports. However, Aikido has additional goals, which we achieve through practice. In our days, when you may never have to fight, some practitioners can forget that these goals are subsidiary, and then Aikido practice can look like a dance or acrobatic class, which is unfortunate, but again it is not about the art itself rather about flaw in practice method of a given person.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122258279#Comment_122258279

I’d say rather than being one of the goals, it’s the fundamental principle of martial arts.Some become so far removed from they are basically aerobatics or whatever. Which is fine, as long as people don’t fool others that it’s the former.

Aikido is not like the culture extreme stuff obviously. But I’d disagree that it provides all that’s necessary.

I had to apply an Aikido technique on the street and was surprised at how smoothly and easily it worked. It was only one technique, after which an intruder did not dare to continue physical aggression, so from my experience Aikido is effective

What was the technique? What was the guy trying to do.
It’s can be easy to disused some big mouth who bottles it when faced when resistance. I don’t think that proves anything conclusively.

…others can be great masters, but not able to use their skills outside the mats. But this proves nothing - there are such people in any martial arts or combat sports

A technique to be effective needs to work against resistance. If it doesn’t, and needs a compliant partner - it doesn’t actually work imo.
Which combat sports are you suggesting do not work outside the mat, even for great masters?

The issue I see with Aikido (and others), is that it’s rarely if ever trained against resistance. That leads directly to techniques that don’t work.

Aikido has additional goals, which we achieve through practice. In our days, when you may never have to fight, some practitioners can forget that these goals are subsidiary, and then Aikido practice can look like a dance or acrobatic class

What are the additional goals you refer to?

Many martial arts are choreographed displays. By no means easy. They take skills and lots of practise. A perfectly fine sport/hobby. But disingenuous to present them as actually teaching fighting skills.

MrStuffins

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122258279#Comment_122258279

You had to apply a technique in the street to earn a promotion?

This seems entirely bizarre to me. Surely the instructors are not encouraging people to go out onto the street and start fights? Or, worse, encouraging them to purposefully engage with people who are looking for trouble in order to receive a grade?

Sounds a recipe for disaster to me!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122258845#Comment_122258845

No, it just happened a few months after promotion.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122258806#Comment_122258806

Sorry, I can't figure out how to quote part of the post here.

//I don’t think that proves anything conclusively.

That's exactly my point - you can't state anything conclusively. Each case is very individual and depends on many variables in the middle of which is a given person with his flaws and fears.

//A technique to be effective needs to work against resistance. If it doesn’t, and needs a compliant partner - it doesn’t actually work imo.

100% agree with you. If your technique works only on non-resisting partners - you should learn how to do techniques properly

//Which combat sports are you suggesting do not work outside the mat, even for great masters?

Just google "wrestler killed on a street fight" and the first title says: European junior Wrestling champion, Yuri Vlasco killed during street fight. About 10 years ago I read many news like this when fighters from different sports died in stupid street fights.

Does it prove that wrestling is not effective? No it doesn't. But the purpose of wrestling is not a street fight. And when you use your tool for something it wasn't designed you can get unpredictable results. We need very carefully define the goals of a given martial art or sport and discuss effectiveness only within these defined frames. You can't expect a classical boxer to win an MMA fight without adjusting his training goals for this specific purpose - he will need to learn grappling, kicks etc, but this will not give you the right to state that boxing is not effective.

//What are the additional goals you refer to?

These are common for many MA or sports: physical conditioning, discipline, gaining balance, meditation, socialisation, etc. but they are subsidiary goals and generally speaking they should not become the main purposes of practice. It is okay if regular practitioners choose one of them as a main motivation to practise, but it is imperative for instructors to remember the purpose of Aikido as a martial art.

//Many martial arts are choreographed displays.

In traditional martial arts demonstrations and practice in the dojo are two different types of practice. One is to demonstrate the beauty of a technique another to learn how to use it. You can't learn an MA by doing only demonstration type of practice.

That's exactly my point - you can't state anything conclusively. Each case is very individual and depends on many variables in the middle of which is a given person with his flaws and fears.

You can state things many conclusively. We have thousands of competition match of wrestling to study. We can conclusively say that wrestling is effective grappling.

A single instance of aikidoka twisting somebody’s arm in the pub, is not meaningful.

100% agree with you. If your technique works only on non-resisting partners - you should learn how to do techniques properly

Yup, Exactly. And if people are not training or testing with resistance. What are their learning/practising…

Vlasco killed during street fight.
Does it prove that wrestling is not effective? No it doesn't. But the purpose of wrestling is not a street fight. And when you use your tool for something it wasn't designed you can get unpredictable results.

He died because he was stabbed. That has nothing to do with wrestling not being effective in a street fight. And in no way suggest wrestling only works on the mats. That’s a really poor conclusion imo.

We need very carefully define the goals of a given martial art or sport and discuss effectiveness only within these defined frames.

If those frames are the rules of combat for that sport or martial art. That’s fine, as they still fall under the meaning of martial art.

But reframing it as something other than fighting, it’s not longer an effect martial art. Even if it’s effect at the other thing.

You can't expect a classical boxer to win an MMA fight without adjusting his training goals for this specific purpose - he will need to learn grappling, kicks etc, but this will not give you the right to state that boxing is not effective.

Sure. That just proves mma is better than boxing for mma. But the opposite is also the case. Under boxing rules boxing wins. Judo wins under judo rules, and BJJ wins at bjj. Winning a match under a different rule set is not a logical test.

Working against a resistant opponent is a more logical test. Boxing and MMA both work against resistance, as is clearly shown.

they are subsidiary goals …imperative for instructors to remember the purpose of Aikido as a martial art.

That’s exactly what I’m saying above. If somebody enjoys boxercise for weight loss, that’s fine. But boxercise is not a martial art.
Ditto for demonstration. If something devolves into purely existing for demonstration. It is not a martial art, imo.

This turn of discussion makes me nostalgic for the debates of the late 90s.

I think there are some martial arts that are great, but are better understood as being almost entirely focused on preserving a particular physical culture or set of training practices, rather than being focused on how they can be effectively applied outside of the context of how they are practiced (Whether that means in a limited-rules fighting format, or some kind of self defence situation).

These martial arts might focused on preserving cultural practices and traditions, or have to do with physical fitness and wellbeing, and there might be some legitimate argument to be made that by really delving into this practice, people are physically and mentally developing themselves.

Having practiced Aikido on and off, this is certainly the way I feel about it, and when this criteria is applied to it, there's not much scope for confusion or disappointment. It's a great martial art, if your goal is to study Aikido for its own sake. Rich history, very aesthetic in nature, can lead to some physical and mental development, and so on.

I'd put some kung fu and karate styles into this category also.

Can you use Aikido as a means of defending yourself? Potentially, yes, but I think the techniques used are suboptimal, and the training methods used to develop application of those techniques is also suboptimal. So in terms of being focused on application, it's an uphill struggle. The healthiest thing is that if an Aikido coach has the confidence to acknowledge this and say that it's just not their priority in Aikido practice - and that should be OK!

When I did Aikido I met people on different sides of this. I met a few who, I would argue, were very much in denial about the self defence applicability of the average trainee's Aikido outside the training environment, and ironically they tended to be lower or middle grades. The people who saw Aikido as a physical practice or discipline for its own sake, and just got really good at that, were a lot happier.

An irritation I do have with Aikido is that, for a system so focused on moral development, the way training is set up provides a lot of cover for people who are bad ukes and want to train in a passive-aggressive way. At least in a combat sport like judo or BJJ it is a little harder to get away with it, because ultimately in randori / rolling there is nowhere to hide, and a lot of things tend to be settled one way or the other.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122259801#Comment_122259801

I enjoy these discussion, they are healthy. They used talk place here all the time. Trying to keep the spirit alive. 😉

I think there are some martial arts that are great, but are better understood as being almost entirely focused on preserving a particular physical culture or set of training practices, rather than being focused on how they can be effectively applied outside of the context of how they are practiced (Whether that means in a limited-rules fighting format, or some kind of self defence situation).
These martial arts might focused on preserving cultural practices and traditions, or have to do with physical fitness and wellbeing, and there might be some legitimate argument to be made that by really delving into this practice, people are physically and mentally developing themselves.

I agree. Practising for tradition, rather than martial prowess can be valid. There are various health, physical, mental wellbeing benefits. The issue (for me) that I allude to above, is people not realising it's a traditional representation rather than anything martial. Even more so, when the instructor is actively marketing it as the "ancient, secret, too dangerous for sport" system.

Having practiced Aikido on and off, this is certainly the way I feel about it, and when this criteria is applied to it, there's not much scope for confusion or disappointment. It's a great martial art, if your goal is to study Aikido for its own sake. Rich history, very aesthetic in nature, can lead to some physical and mental development, and so on.

It's clearly extremely technical and aesthetic. But the lack of resistance is a giant question mark/red flag.

I'd put some kung fu and karate styles into this category also.

Kung Fu for sure. At a lot level, its slap hands. At the extreme level it takes years of dedication and performance acrobat levels of strength, flexibility and skill (actually exists as a stage show). But it's definitely a show.

Can you use Aikido as a means of defending yourself? Potentially, yes, but I think the techniques used are suboptimal, and the training methods used to develop application of those techniques is also suboptimal. So in terms of being focused on application, it's an uphill struggle. The healthiest thing is that if an Aikido coach has the confidence to acknowledge this and say that it's just not their priority in Aikido practice - and that should be OK!

I think a lot of physical activates will lend themselves to improving you changes in a self defence situation, even those that are not martial arts at all (eg Rugby). But as you said, sub-optimal.

And totally fine if the coach acknowledges the short comings, and points out it's about tradition not beating a resisting opponent. Again the issue I see is misrepresentation, intentional or otherwise.

An irritation I do have with Aikido is that, for a system so focused on moral development, the way training is set up provides a lot of cover for people who are bad ukes and want to train in a passive-aggressive way.

I'e no direct experience of aikido, but do you mean uke is resisting the drill, or moving badly to screw up the other guy?
That'd be shortly lived at my gym

When I mentioned karate and kung fu, I had in mind that these are really umbrella terms, as you know.

There are kung fu and karate styles out there that are more or less freestyle kickboxing, or some form of knockdown striking. But then you have styles of Okinawan karate and kung fu that are spending a lot of time doing patterns, esoteric internal stuff and body conditioning.

As far as the practical applications of a martial art against someone resist goes, I agree with all your points, really.

I don't think that there are that many people out there, these days, promoting some of their martial arts under false pretences, as being 'good' for self defence. I think in Aikido people usually do tend to qualify it pretty heavily that it's not what they are about, for the most part.

If anything I think the 'self defence training' scene is where most of the bullshit is these days, the chaps in the military fatigues doing the biting and gouging, but still no sparring etc.

An irritation I do have with Aikido is that, for a system so focused on moral development, the way training is set up provides a lot of cover for people who are bad ukes and want to train in a passive-aggressive way.
I've no direct experience of aikido, but do you mean uke is resisting the drill, or moving badly to screw up the other guy?
That'd be shortly lived at my gym

Yes, I'm talking about situations where because Aikido practice is rarely freeform, it's got a tori and an uke, you do tend to occasionally have people who frustrate the process, deliberately or otherwise.

I'm not saying it's common, but you'll meet the odd person who wants to throw people hard, and is full of advice for others, but is a terrible uke themselves, for whatever reason.

I suppose an equivalent would be if you're doing a guard passing drill in BJJ, you might have a situation where someone is actively frustrating the guard pass by introducing counters or gripping really hard, when it's not appropriate in the context of a drill.

in BJJ you'd just say "hey, we're not rolling here, this is drilling", but in Aikido, there is the partner practice but generally not randori in the same way. You're depending on your partner to be a good uke, otherwise the class can be a complete waste of time.

It's not always deliberate, sometimes you have people who don't have good ukemi, or have terrible coordination and footwork, and they're just not aware of where they should be, and aren't able to take a fall safely.

I trained with a chap once, and there is a concept in Aikido of 'entering' / irimi, that's basically a form of circular footwork, and he just could not get his head around the fact that tori used this form of footwork, uke didn't. So there was this comical situation where he would mirror what I was doing, and we'd bump into each other like bumper cars, and he'd look blanky at me. If he had been deliberately trying to neutralise what I was doing, I don't think he could have done a better job.

The thing about this kind of practice is it's not just difficult to pull a practical application from, it's also actually really bloody hard to do well at all, even on its own terms.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122265015#Comment_122265015

// when the instructor is actively marketing it as the "ancient, secret, too dangerous for sport" system.

That’s definitely a red flag. Avoid anyone who tells you about ancient deadly secrets. Modern boxing is more ancient than modern Aikido which was completed in the 1940s.

// But the lack of resistance is a giant question mark/red flag.

I spent a decade training Aikido in Japan, and resistance was always part of the Aikido practice. But in Aikido we adjust the level of resistance to the level of our partner.

If you grab a beginner with full strength he’ll not be able to move and therefore he can’t learn. So we reduce the power once our partner can’t move. If he still can’t do anything – we reduce power until he can reproduce the technique more or less correctly, but always with some resistance. Once his skill increases – we increase the power of the attack more and more. That’s how I learned Aikido and that's how I’m teaching it now. I always go full speed – full power on highly skilled masters. It is simply a sign of disrespect towards your teacher if you do not attack him sincerely during the practice. Everyone must practice at the edge of his abilities including teachers – this is the only way to preserve the meaning of the martial art without competitions.

But as I mentioned before, the demonstrations are a different story. Demonstrations is a show, for which we intentionally reduce the power attack to give a demonstrator a possibility to show his skills and the beauty of the art. I think we can compare Aikido demonstrations to karate kata where we can judge a person’s skill by the precision of his movements. Unfortunately, many people including some high-ranked Aikido teachers do not differentiate between demonstrations and regular practice methods.

// uke is resisting the drill, or moving badly to screw up the other guy?

Due to the prearranged nature of practice, uke always knows what technique is coming. And in such a situation always there is an opportunity to screw up your partner, especially if he is at the beginner’s stage. Experienced people can always read such behaviour and make some technical adjustments, but beginners can’t do anything. And this is the responsibility of the instructor to prevent such unhealthy training and correct the behaviour of his students.