Actually, I seriously question the practicality of any martial arts. I practiced judo and thai boxing for 20 years (both sports are considered practical), and I certainly don't see myself in a street fight. Actually, I was mugged once in NYC and "fighting" was the last thing in my mind! I'm not saying that fighting can't have a practical value, but it's so unlikely that it can help, that it doesn't have to be a criteria when choosing a martial art. I'd recommend people to choose a sport that they like, rather than something that they think can be practical.
There are endless discussions about which martial art is the most practical for "self defense", but if people are so concerned about their safety, I'm sure it's much more cost effective to invest in a better diet, drive more safely and so on rather than practicing boxing 3/4 times a week for years Also, fighting sports can actually hurt your body in the long run.
I agree with you to an extent here. I've always believed the best form of self-defense is probably a gun. In real life, you're not likely to encounter one person who wants to fight. Chances are they're armed or they have many other people with them.
So when I say practical I'm largely referring to its near lack of existence within the world of mixed martial arts.
You didn't learn martial arts, you learned how to fight in a ring (which is awesome, don't get me wrong). You learned how to defeat your opponent according to a certain set of rules.
Martial Arts and self defense is about training you how to react in real-life scenario. They are meant to incapacitate and perhaps kill your aggressor by any mean necessary.
> Actually, I seriously question the practicality of any martial arts.
If in a fight, typical MMA training does work. First, it prepares you to get hit. Most people have never been punched and that first time is such a shock that people freeze. Second, most street fights end up on the ground in some sort of grappling which is what MMA training will teach someone to deal with. So, guard yourself, close distance into the grapple, and throw shots when there are openings.
I would advocate to obviously avoid a fight if possible.
MMA is based on the assumption of a single opponent. Going "to the ground" against multiple assailants is suicide. This is why when the USMC needed to teach a martial art to Marines they had to develop their own, because Brazilian Ju Jitsu is only useful for sports.
But yeah, the best martial art is to spot trouble in advance and be somewhere else.
There's a great movie, called "Man on the Train", that I always remember because of a scene where a school teacher and a gangster are in a cafe and they get hassled by a coupe of local punks. The gangster, who is - by cinematic standards - a total, murderous bad-ass, does nothing as they get taunted by a couple of local hoodlums. Afterwards, the schoolteacher is confused and asked the gangster why he didn't react to the couple of punk kids who were bothering them - he says something like "one guy can't take on two, except in the movies."
If you're talking about a gang beating, then nothing is going to protect you. Typically when someone says fight I think a couple people somehow end up a disagreement and confrontation may occur.
Let me start by saying, arguing about martial arts on the internet is beyond cliche, so I'm a touch embarrassed to write this. But I'm a dan ranked aikidoka who has also spent a fair bit of time on jujitsu mats and in boxing rings (though I've never fought competitively) so maybe I can add some context.
You are absolutely right to question the practicality of Aikido, especially as judged by "effectiveness by any of the standard mma rulesets that have evolved in the last 20 years". Quite simply for an aikidoka to be competitive in that sort of violent conflict they must learn the standard techniques of what has evolved into a new martial art. Things like sprawling (and other take down defense), guard/ground work, thai kicks, etc are the most effective form of fighting for non-weapon, similarly sized, time limited 2 person combat sporting events.
Aikido will add nothing to your chance of winning that event, and could potentially increase your chances of losing. This is unsurprising as all of the martial arts have had to adapt in the face of this modern art (including things like thai boxing and bjj). The Aikido community has been particularly bad at taking these lessons to heart and in conjunction with an already high level of ambient mysticism you get a combination that makes a style of practice that is closer to dancing meditation than to a martial practice.
So why do I continue to train in Aikido (in conjunction with other martial arts)? Because violence is a wide subject. To be quit honest, when it comes to violent encounters between 2 largely similarly skilled opponents, the one that is stronger and faster and more willing to commit violence will "win" the encounter more often than not. No amount of nerd wishing that technique can make up for physique will change that and I'm unlikely to actually need to engage in that sort of violence. But multiple attacker scenarios or scenarios where it would be bad for me to inflict physical injury on an attacker are much more likely for my own risk assessment. Good aikido dojo have practice that allows for this sort of training (but many do not).
Finally, I'll say that you can learn most of what you need to know about self defense (assuming its not a part of your profession) in a weekend seminar (IMPACT! for women I highly recommend). But I train in boxing and aikido both regularly because of the physical benefits. I like the dance meditation, just like I like taking a well placed punch. But I'll be training in aikido long after I've had to give up the boxing.
Having trained in Aikido, Ju-Jitsu, and Wing Tsun... I agree.
Aikido isn't bad but it's not what I'd recommend to someone as a fighting style. Wing Tsun's Lat Sao drills sometimes get derided (by people who don't know any better) as "play fighting" but Aikido is pretty much always trained in that sort of form.
Also the minimizing harm to the opponent is the exact opposite you want to end a confrontation.
Also the minimizing harm to the opponent is the exact opposite you want to end a confrontation.
It really depends. If attacked, my priority is to stop the attack. More often than not an attacker can be halted without escalating the confrontation, once the attacker realizes I have taken his initiative away.
Immediately inflicting harm, on the other hand, puts the opponent in a situation of survival anxiety, and someone fired up on Adrenalin is less predictable and thus more dangerous. It's important to recognize a win when it's available to you.
Well, I have been in a lot of street fights, ranging from random run-ins with drunken louts, to being assaulted by a group, to deadly conflict involving weapons. I am sure you have experience of your own and that your beliefs have worked well for you, but I do not feel any obligation to adopt them based on your say-so. Nor do I expect you to adopt mine, but I will lay them out for your consideration.
Of course conflicts can escalate once you are already fighting. A bully's objective may be simply to scare someone, knock them down and administer a few painful blows. Or a mugger's objective might simply be to get whatever cash is in a person's wallet. Knocking such a erson down a few times or slapping them around may be sufficient to get them to take off. One can escalate a conflict by actively trying to hurt someone rather than merely repel them or drive them away, in which case the opponent will be inclined to try to knock the escalator unconscious or inflict a serious, debilitating injury such as breaking someone's arm. There's another level of escalation again in which one person actively attempts to kill the other and makes their intention absolutely clear, such that the other person fully believes their life to be in jeopardy and either begs for mercy or fights to remain alive.
You are suggesting that there is no distinction between the different states. This is nonsense. At the international level we are well aware of the differences between skirmishes, limited engagements, limited war, and total war. Conflicts between individuals are similarly nuanced, and the notion of a proportionate response is well established in law; if someone tries to steal your cellphone, say, and slaps you in an attempt to startle/intimidate you into letting go of it, you do not automatically have the right to kill them and you'll need to make a convincing case about being in fear for your life rather than just angry about the prospect of losing your phone.
There are certainly situations in which is it appropriate to inflict as much harm as possible. I have been there and done that. But I believe those situations are exceptional and I make no apology for holding back in situations where extreme measures are not warranted. Of course I would not like to be wrong and find myself a victim, but nor would I wish to be wrong and find myself having gone too far.
> One can escalate a conflict by actively trying to hurt someone rather than merely repel them or drive them away
I'd say this leads to a situation where you are actively trying to give the attacker more situations that they can hurt you.
> You are suggesting that there is no distinction between the different states. This is nonsense.
No, I'm saying assuming they aren't actively trying to hurt you is outright dangerous. Any street fight can kill - all it takes is the wrong fall or a lucky contact and someone is dead. Assuming the attacker is somehow nice and should be scared away is insane in that situation.
That is what you are advocating.
However you have characterized my position (wrongly as):
> inflict as much harm as possible
Which is NOT what I am saying. I am saying the goal is to end the fight. That doesn't mean giving them a chance to get back up and attack you again - it means ending the fight as soon as possible no matter what it takes.
Minimizing harm to your attacker is counter-productive to that. That's not to say that the only alternative is maximizing harm. That's silly, a false dichotomy, and not what I'm suggesting at all.
Of course that is what you are suggesting: That doesn't mean giving them a chance to get back up and attack you again - it means ending the fight as soon as possible no matter what it takes.
You've made it clear that you don't feel safe walking away from a conflict unless your opponent is completely disabled, even if temporarily (but then how do you know they won't come after you later?). I think this is bunk and am quite willing to tolerate the risk that they'll attack again, because I feel confident about my ability to repel such attacks. I have in fact knocked someone down repeatedly, let him get back up, let him attack me again, and and a third time, until he got the message and stayed down.
Yes, this is dangerous, but so are a lot of things. It's dangerous in that it perpetuates a low-level danger in time, but I prefer an ongoing low-level risk to a sudden significant increase in risk. My judgments about risk in real-world situations have so far served me very well. It's true that any given street fight could kill, but it's also true that it probably won't unless you're quite unlucky, so I see no point in altering that probability if I don't need to. This is the same reason I avoid fights in the first place and am indifferent to mere verbal abuse or bluster - it is virtually never in my interest to initiate or escalate a conflict.
Assuming the attacker is somehow nice and should be scared away is insane in that situation.
I don't assume they're nice, in fact I make a habit of avoiding value judgments about people because they can so easily be misleading. My experience is that many assailants are cowardly (not nice) and can in fact be scared away with minimal retaliation. It's both risky and wasteful to inflict more harm than is required; I do not, for example, want to become the subject of a police investigation. How you got the idea that I think those who would attack someone else on the street might be nice people underneath their criminal exterior is beyond me.
Regular aikido student here--yeah, I'd agree. Better off learning to rabbit punch a throat or kick someone in the groin. But there are lots of reasons to train a martial art. I like aikido because it's mentally / kinesthetically taxing.
I've also trained in judo and danzan ryu jujitsu. DZR probably had the most immediately practical self defense (beyond groin / throat strikes). Judo is also a fantastic choice for self defense in that it shares aikido' removal of lethal / maming techniques, but unlike aikido has "shiai" or full intensity competitive fights. I'm not a very competition oriented person, but traditionally taught judo is, in my opinion, something of a local optima between traditional martial art, practical self defense, and solid fitness. That said, I get less banged up in aikido, which is nice in my mid-thirties :-)
Edit: I should also add that martial arts are a last resort option for self defense. If running or screaming or handing over your wallet could work, those are all better options. People get hurt in fights, especially if someone is armed.
True. Though the Shiai I've seen (Tomiki style) looks very different than judo shiai. What I've seen appeared to be point scoring with brushes. I actually know nothing about Tomiki style beyond that, and the history that Tomiki was a student of both Kano and Ueshiba.
I've practiced Shiai in both the Tomiki style and outside of it. I've also spent a fair amount of time in Judo dojo seeing the variants there.
What I'd say is that shiai means lots of different things to lots of different people. What you get out of it is school to school and student to student dependent.
I'm into Tai Chi, and Aikido is pretty close to the flavors I've learnt. In my experience it has proved eminently practical in real world situations. One reason it suits me is that for a man, I'm quite small physically (about 5'7", 120 lbs) so I've usually been at a significant weight/strength disadvantage when I've been a target of assault. Being able to redirect an aggressor's strength against them is beneficial in terms of both interrupting the physical attack and regaining the strategic advantage through surprise and confusion; people who make a habit of throwing their weight around tend not to be very sophisticated.
Edit: you shouldn't treat this as advice, of course. I come from an abusive background and got bullied a lot growing up, so while I avoid starting fights under any circumstances I'm not beset by fear or panic on the rare occasions where someone tries to make trouble. Petty criminals rely on others' being fearful and usually don't have an alternate strategy.
Aikido and judo both aren't really martial arts: they do provide an advantage in fights but in both case if your opponent knows that you do this sport, he can easily find a way to nullify your advantage.
This is much less the case for real martial arts such as ju-jitsu, krav-maga..
That's like questioning the practicality of C because it's an ineffective for web development.
Like programming languages, each martial art has strengths and weaknesses. One of Aikido's strengths is its ability to quickly neutralize a situation with minimal harm to all involved parties, just as one of C's strengths is its minimal memory usage compared to higher level languages. Aikido is not the "best" choice in all situations or for all users any more than C is the "best" choice for all programs or for all users.
Still, learning C is of great benefit to many programmers, even if they rarely code C itself, because the knowledge and skill spills over into other work. Likewise, learning Aikido is of great benefit to many martial artists, even if they don't rely on Aikido alone, because the knowledge and skill spills over into other work.
It's worth questioning for sure, but at the same time it's easy to misunderstand Aikido.
"opponents playing along" is half-accurate. In Aikido you spend most of your time practicing techniques with a partner, and they do not play the role of an uncooperative opponent for two specific reasons:
1. The goal of Aikido is to, through repetition, build muscle-memory of very specific techniques. These are very different types of techniques than what you'll find in say, karate, where it's basically kicking and punching. These techniques are designed to disable your opponent while minimizing harm. Aikido is also not about kicking and punching, it's about responding to kicks and punches (attacks).
There is simply no way to build that muscle memory other than by having repetition with a cooperative partner. To outsiders this may seem like opponents that merely "play along" with your attacks, but that is ultimately a misunderstanding of what's going on.
2. These techniques are painful if you don't cooperate. The reason the "opponent" seems to be "playing along" is because they have to do this over and over for the length of the class session. If you're a poor Uke (the opponent) and are uncooperative, you will end up missing most of your classes due to injuries. A good Uke will be uncooperative to the extent that it helps Nage (the person practicing the technique) learn the technique without seriously injuring themselves.
The difficulty with that claim is that it's circular, and it makes it untestable: the effectiveness of Aikido cannot be tested because testing the effectiveness of Aikido goes against the spirit of Aikido.
Not exactly. The question was "Why do you think...?"
"Spirit of Aikido" was my thoughts, a conjecture, not a claim as spokesperson on behalf of the Aikido community. :)
To rephrase what I said before:
If a high-ranking Aikidoka wants to play UFC, they're certainly free to do so. However, I think none have done so because it goes against the spirit of Aikido. (e.g. people attracted to Aikido are not those attracted to UFC, Aikidoka UFC fans don't associate Aikido with UFC)
I've seen others express the same sentiment. Your explanation may be true, but I think a parallel explanation is also probably true: they are unprepared for a fight with a skilled opponent.
I agree that "unprepared for a fight with a skilled opponent" is true for many Aikidoka (perhaps they are more self-aware of their limitations than students of other arts?), but it's also true of Cat Zingano ;)
My point, made in jest, was that even the most seemingly prepared, skilled, and qualified person can be unprepared for a skilled opponent. I was aware of her record, hence the example. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?
She's demonstrably prepared for a fight with a skilled opponent. She's just not prepared for the most skilled opponent - but right now, it appears that no other woman on the planet is. Surely our bar for "skilled opponent" in this discussion has not been Ronda Rousey, a bronze medalist in Judo and the most dominant female MMA champion, ever.
There's also something else to consider. If Aikido is effective, why aren't current UFC fighters training Aikido? There are plenty of fighters who pick up new martial arts as they progress through their career but I haven't heard of one single fighter who has added Aikido into their training.
I'm not a UFC expert. I was told Aikido wrist and hand techniques qualified as "small joint manipulation." If they don't, I apologize for my mistake in repeating misinformation.
Wrist locks are allowed, but I don't think I've ever seen an MMA fight end via wrist lock. Small joint manipulation (individual fingers, individual toes) is not allowed. All other joints - neck, elbows, knees, ankles, wrists - are allowed.
It seems the goal is to prevent broken fingers and toes. Would manipulating 4 fingers simultaneously (to achieve wrist/elbow/shoulder lock) violate the small joint manipulation rule?
That's valid, as that's seen as manipulating the hand. For example, to defend a rear choke attempt, people will grab the meat of the hand. Grabbing an individual finger would not be okay. However, if you're going for another kind of lock, and the only control you have is the four fingers (no thumb, not applying pressure at base of hand), you're probably not going to succeed.
Those techniques are for armed fights where you cannot afford to let the other person wield their knife/sword freely. (It also shows you how to get rid of people trying to stop you from using your knife.)
As training, they teach you the basics. You can do it without the grabbing, and you can do the grabbing if you want to throw too, it's just far harder.
Simple- Aikido is very difficult to use effectively against a trained striking opponent, even harder to use against someone not wearing a gi, and almost impossible to use against someone not wearing a gi who is also drenched in sweat.
The same can be said about wrestling. Many take-downs are practiced against people who will, quite literally, throw their weight a little early to help the takedown. Why? Because it hurts like hell not to!
Fact of the matter is: you cannot resist this. You will fall. Resisting will twist your leg sideways putting strain on your knee. That hurts like hell. Once it hurts, you'll allow yourself to fall. You learn very quickly to not resist at all and to fall before the pain happens. This can look a lot like "throwing yourself" instead of being "taken down" and that's because, to some degree, it is. But in practice - you'd be able to take down anyone like this (so long as you have the strength to raise their leg).
While you wouldn't be using wrestling moves in an actual fight (at least, most of them...) - they will all effectively take down an opponent. The same can be said about Aikido. In practice, it looks impractical and "likely wouldn't work". In reality - your opponents will be taken out.
Now the practicality of the moves is something to be question. In an actual fight, chances are you'd be unable to perform a single leg sweep with someone pounding the back of your head in or kneeing you in the face when you put your head so conveniently near their knee. But if you got into that position - you'd easily have your opponent on the ground. Which is where you want them.
That is where Aikido is being criticized. To get into a position for many of the takedowns is impractical.
Yes you're right. The same can be said about wrestling. You do give a bit to avoid injury. However, there's a huge difference between wrestling and Aikido in practice.
Watch Division 1 wrestling and you see guys really going at it. It's brutal stuff. Meanwhile every single Aikido video I've seen looks like it's a choreographed set of moves for a movie.
I think that people from outside of the grappling and MMA world seriously underestimate the effectiveness of wrestling as both self defense and a "martial art".
I wrestled all four years of High School. My point was to conflate it with Aikido in that some parts don't look practical or "only work if someone is working with you to make it work" when, in reality, they work. Although some are genuinely impractical. I would never go for a single leg sweep in a street fight, unless I managed to catch a poor kick, but most people don't try and kick that high. Or when their opponent isn't already on the ground.
Because I'm getting reply limited...
@atom-morgan
>Watch Division 1 wrestling and you see guys really going at it.
The difference there is it is a competition between two people trying to take each other down and pin. Aikido is not a competition between two people trying to take the other down - thus looks more demonstrative.
Demonstrative stuff looks fake and impractical, because it looks like a demonstration. :)
But imagine if your years of wrestling had no competitions, and no live wrestling during practices. Just four years of technique. That's the point myself and atom-morgan are making.
I'm not refuting that many of the takedowns are impractical. They involve "first get into this position" but offer no practical methodology of "getting to that position". While the impractical wrestling example I gave has a method of "get to the position you are holding your opponents leg up" it doesn't necessarily make it any more practical because getting to that position in an actual fight isn't well... practical. It's only practical within the rules of wrestling. There are takedowns I can cite that are practical in street fight scenarios, and I'm sure I could find Aikido ones that are equally practical.
I don't practice Aikido and I'm not overly familiar outside of what few videos I've seen of it. So I won't try and argue "X and Y move would be practical!" just that "looking impractical and being impractical are two different things".
I shared your criticism and pointed it out near the end of my original response:
>That is where Aikido is being criticized. To get into a position for many of the takedowns is impractical.
The body doesn't bend certain ways and using your own or your opponents body weight is effective regardless of how much they appear to be "allowing you to". Any criticism needs to be directed towards "you could not practically get into that position during a fight" which isn't as readily proved.
Although you are correct, that if it were more practical you would see more MMA/UFC fighters using Aikido and that can be used for a supporting claim of the impracticality of such positions.
I mostly responded because "looking impractical and being impractical aren't the same" because a lot of wrestling looks impractical, but people know it works.
Another tangent/example:
This is a big issue within Krav Maga, specifically the tactics for disarming knife-wielding opponents. A lot of it is battle-proven and works and has saved lives of field operators. But while being practiced it looks impractical or "the other person is letting you" and so people readily dismiss it ("Krap Maga")
I'm making a different point, which is that you are only good at what you have trained. And in the context of fighting, the training that matters most is against a live opponent.
Oh lord, Krav Maga and their knife disarms. You know what happens when an unarmed guy tries to fight a guy who is armed with a knife? He loses. Period.
Learning how to fall is just as important as any other aspects of learning how to fight. It's the difference between rolling into a defensive stance and falling flat on your back and absorbing the last of the impact with the back of your head.
> That is where Aikido is being criticized. To get into a position for many of the takedowns is impractical.
Sure, but didn't you just criticize wrestling along the same lines?
I'm not claiming Aikido is "the best" martial art (I don't think that's a meaningful thing to say), I just said it was a favorite.
Many techniques are very practical and naturally flow in response to the actions of your opponent (like what to do if someone grabs or pushes you). Others could be less practical, I agree (at least less practical for someone like me).
> didn't you just criticize wrestling along the same lines?
No-one is marketing wrestling as a practical fighting style (though it is of course useful to incorporate ideas from it). That's the difference. Aikido proponents act like it's actually useful in general fighting.
I think that any "martial art", to have transfer to anything like a real fight, has to incorporate live sparring. I do Brazilian jiu jitsu, and we also have "technique" periods where we have a cooperating opponent. But that's just for getting the movement and ideas. It's only when you can do something during live sparring that you actually know it, and can realistically reproduce it in anything like a real fight.
I can't speak to Aikido specifically, but a comment on this:
> Then how are you supposed to minimize harm? Your real-life opponents are unlikely to know Aikido, so they won't know that they should cooperate. [emphasis added]
In relation to this:
>> These techniques are painful if you don't cooperate [emphasis added]
Pain and harm are distinct things. Something is painful because signals are going from a point of the body (caused by pressure, heat, twisting, something) to nerves to your brain. Someone can cause you pain by twisting your arm, and it may be excruciating, but won't actually cause you (physical) harm so long as they don't cross a critical threshold. This is how many submission holds work, in fact. Ever had someone grab your arm and hold it behind your back? If they really go too far they may injure your elbow or shoulder, but they don't have to take it anywhere near that point to cause you enough pain to cry uncle.
Minimizing harm does not mean not causing pain. With the help of Uke, the idea is that through years of repetition you'll learn how to respond correctly in a way that disables Uke while minimizing harm.
It's the difference between: do I punch you in the face and break your nose to disable you, versus, do I respond to an attack coming from you in a way that you find yourself suddenly on the floor, incapable of moving.
