Aikido?

[I am...]

I can say from past experience that Aikido taught correctly, worked amazingly well for me. It was the first art that I trained formally, and I trained it a lot, upwards of 20 hours a week on average. I think it is telling that my Aiki teachers were pretty disappointed with most of the stuff out there (although not all of it, they spoke well of some lineages and teachers, but not so well on the "ki approach" types). A couple of things I would add:

1)You start cooperative, you learn to move from the dantien and to keep a calm mind. Doing so allows one to build some confidence, something that is vital if you wish to remain cool under pressure and for using the skillset. Once this is developing however, it was par for the course to up the resistance.

2)There ARE strikes, called atemi, and they are focused at spots on the body that generally induce a protective response . They are not necessarily designed to be used without the rest of the system, but they do a good job of coaxing a response out of a person, creating openings, controlling/influencing intention in another, and familiarizing each of us with the general vectors a strike will take (from up to down, from down to up, thrusting up the middle, diagonal, etc) and gave us body knowledge/muscle memory on how to move into technique from almost any stimulus. One motto was : any attack any response

3)We were taught the "less merciful" methods of handling situations, should you desire to deal with things in a way other than submission. Knowing these made it much easier to trust the submission stuff for what it was, as well as what it was not capable of, or a good fit for.

4)We worked hard and sweated like crazy. Class was generally around 2+ hours. 20-30 minutes were straight ukemi practice on your own, followed by generally, 2 45 minutes portions, each working one technique through rotating partners nonstop. We would finish off with some randori, single and multiple opponent, and then some meditation. If you were Dan grade you stayed after for another hour of weapons and advanced work as well.

In that format, the art works well. I would argue that most arts, if put into a similar template, would achieve pretty decent results out of those that stuck around. Our school generally had 5 or 6 people in class on any given evening, and lost money

After about 3 years, I decided to try out what I knew on an amature boxing buddy of mine that was training for his first pro fight. He threw a jab followed by a lead hook, and I managed to evade the jab, follow him in, and throw him head over heels with the hook. It kind of freaked me out that it worked that well. I have since used aspects of that training working doors on occasion and even subduing a guy on pcp at one point a few years back. As you can probably tell, I am a fan.

I also loathe meeting most people that train Aikido, as we tend to have very little in common.

[edededed]

Some people are good with aikido.

At the least, you will learn to be good at falls, some wrist/elbow locks, ...and knee walking.

Whether you will learn atemi, weapons (jo, bokken, etc.), "internal" mechanics/methods or not will depend on the particular school/lineage. It IS still a mostly peaceful martial art, though, because of its philosophy (which many people like).

[C.J.Wang]

Not all Aikido schools and styles are equal when it comes to realistic training. There are the orthodox schools where every technique begins with a stright punch, overhead chop, or side chop from a mile away; on the other hand, there are some Aikidoists out there who do train with realistic attack/defense.

It really depends on who you run into.

[Walter Joyce]

I think that the bias against co-operatve two person drills is misplaced.

If that is all you ever do and you never add sparring and "live" to use the buzz word training, yes co-operative drills are useless.

BUT, you have to start somewhere, and for beginners co-operative drills is a good starting point.

The more skill and the higher your comfort level with being attacked with real force and real intent, the less co-operative your training becomes, but they have their place.

If you view your training as a movie and not as snapshots its easier to see where, why and how co-operative training fits in.

[middleway]

personally i think you can look at co-operative training in Aikido or traditional JuJutsu schools as 'basics training' ... like Jibengong work in CIMA.

the training teaches structure, recognition and familiarization with lines of force, kazushi, it teaches you to move with their body method.

As has been stated there are then stages after this where the work becomes more difficult, the attacks more realistic, the pressure turned up .... but without that first stage its just two unskilled people scrapping ... not Aikido etc...

The problem in many Aikido Schools is that they develop the co-operative movement and training mindset into what they perceive is combative practice rather than recognizing it as one stage of training.

No different to the Taiji Teacher who picks apart the form motions and creates elaborate 'applications' from it that are not 'realistic' .... rather than finding the principle involved.

In spite of all the shitty Taiji teachers out there teaching hippy crap and ridiculous applications we, in the main, still do accept that there ARE some very very good fighters out there from the system. The same is true of Aikido IMHO.

cheers
Chris

[signet]

I've been listening to all of your words, and again maintain - you are a bunch of dedicated, classy people.

I've done some homework, and it seems as though the people that run this school are full time law-enforcement, so their approach may be pretty realistic. As for the cardio/fitness thing, I don't work a desk job, but do work my heavy bag - so I'm probablly not too bad off on that realm. I do know enough to listen to Mr. Wang, so I will go back to jumping rope. Hsing-I is looking pretty enticing really....

Again, thank you all for your terrific input. I hope your holiday is simply terrific.

[klonk]

Well! If this is cops doing aikido, it's probably not a wuss school. Cops need to subdue people, and even the cops that don't do MA tend to like wrist locks (an aikido specialty), so on the whole this sounds promising. But when you check it out, go in with your crap detector turned up to high sensitivity. There is a lot of BS martial arts out there--no matter what system or nationality.

[WVMark]

In my opinion there is a lot to be gained by Aikido training. Although not as combat focused as Chinese martial arts, all of the principles and much of the body training is in accordance with internal methods as I understand them.

I don't know Bagua from Kimchee, but I've studied in several aikido schools, attended various seminars, and trained in a few dojos. Having my eyes opened to what I call, true internal martial skills, I have definitely come away with the attitude that 99% of aikido training currently is *NOT* in accordance with internal methods. At all. Some of the outward physical form is there, but it's a hollow shell, devoid of anything important.

Many of Ba Gua's throws are to be found in Aikido and I could see Aikido as a great foundation for later Ba Gua training.

One great aspect is the emphasis on tactile sensitivity and interaction. Everything is done two person, which is something that many kung fu systems lack due to forms training.

Personally I like the cooperative training, I think it helps you learn how to use your body in a more relaxed, comfortable way. Of course later you'll need to do non-cooperative work as well, but Aikido can be a really fun and interesting way to learn martial arts.

In regards to what I've seen for training in aikido with sensitivity, interaction, and cooperative training -- well, IMO, the aikido world would do itself a favor to toss most of that out. Looking back, neither Ueshiba, Shioda, or Tomiki ever really needed people to "fall for them". I look at vids like this one below and just shake my head. Sadly, if you want martial viability, aikido isn't it. Instead of learning how to "breakfall", how about learning how to internally negate/change/receive the force and hold true to the definition of ukemi.

Ueshiba needed no cooperative partners and was tested by very skilled budo men of the times. It's a testament of how far aikido has fallen that there are no more Ueshibas, Shiodas, Tomikis, etc. There are very direct methods that these men learned that hasn't been passed on. Anyone doubting that can look at just how long each of these greats trained and got very, very good. Then look at how long most aikido people have trained today and aren't even close. Do more research and find those that still have the skills (although not in aikido) and train with them. It's a world of difference.

[WVMark]

I'm not an aikidoka and I don't play one on the Internet. I've a couple friends who do aikido and have shared this or that aspect with me.

I wonder if the situation vis a vis fighting aikdo is not somewhat similar to what we see in taijiquan. The technical basis of taiji makes perfect sense, but it is unusual to see someone who really kicks ass with taiji. Could the reason be similar in both cases?

Considering that, IMO, the basis for taijiquan and aikido is the internal skills, then, yeah, you're probably right. Course, you'd have to understand the internal skills.

And what is the reason? In the case of taijiquan, I think the problem is this, the way it works is so counterintuitive that few people trust it. To stick and yield, hampering the opponent, trusting that this will bring you an opportunity to counterattack, goes against instinct. You can understand intellectually that the sticky defense puts the brakes on whatever the opponent is trying to do, giving you an extra tick of time, but the innate tendency is to pop him one instead.

Likewise the aikido thing of yielding out of the way while looking for a timing and balance solution (kokyu nage) or a joint lock solution must be hard to do when the aggression juices are flowing and someone is trying to beat your head in.

Yielding out of the way while looking for timing and balance isn't aikido. It might be considered good jujutsu, but it ain't aiki. It isn't what Ueshiba had as a skill. Move, not move, timing, no timing didn't matter to Ueshiba. He is quoted as saying that timing didn't matter. He is filmed being pushed on by people and not being pushed over. It's documented that his skills are from Daito ryu. His way of using those skills -- the way of aiki -- is certainly different from other students of Takeda, but make no mistake, Ueshiba had Daito ryu aiki. And it wasn't the same "aiki" that 99% of the aikido world practices now. If you think it is, then go to any aikido school and have the aikidoka stand there while you push them with all your force. Have them sit and you push on their head with all your force. If they don't move, hey, they can reproduce a couple of Ueshiba's skills. Have them hold out a hand or both and you get to try any judo/bjj throw and see if they negate it. If so, they've reproduced another (one, btw, that Tomiki could do). If they say they have to move and blend ... not true aiki. If they offer some excuse about it taking 20 years to start getting good, then research and show them that Ueshiba, Shioda, Tomiki, etc did it in about 10. Tohei far less.

[klonk]

What sorts of training and practice lead to the real deal aiki?

[Interloper]

"Aiki" is just the Japanese term for the same set of internal skills that the authentic CIMAs possess. It's a very specific skillset. Direct training for internal skills includes solo (mostly) and partner (for feedback) drills and exercises specifically focused on training body structure and power generation (using the legs, center/dan tien and spine, specialized breath-control and breathing, connective tissues and mental intent). Word has it that a curriculum of these exercises/drills once existed, but now is rarely if ever taught to anyone (Daito-ryu's inheritor and innovator, Sokaku Takeda, was reputed to have taught a verrry few tippy-top students and told them not to teach it to anyone else), and just who has what nowadays is a bit of a mystery. Some conscientious practitioners have pieced together equivalent drills from various sources to restore a comprehensive training curriculum, but I don't think that there is an authentic set of original (meaning, dating to Takeda) exercises available now.

Most students of Daito-ryu and certain koryu seem to learn aiki by kata-type exercises with partners, intuitively learning to "feel" what to do by being uke for their teacher and being shown the aiki pathways, hands-on. However, apparently some people get taught more than others, so it's a very uneven meting out of aiki knowledge.

Aiki application in JIMA, notably certain non-mainline Daito-ryu systems, has a different "flavor" than the CIMAs; yet, they are essentially the same body skills. The skillset itself is not proprietary to any single art. It's a universal body knowledge that can be applied to any art, be used to create an art, or can stand alone artlessly. In the case of the latter -- artless method, applicable to whatever art you like -- there's a handful of men in the U.S., China and Japan who teach the direct methods relatively openly. Each has a somewhat different approach, and IMO one or two of them have a more effective (again, IMO) set of methods, but overall they all lead to the same summit.

IMO, it would be more productive to study with one of those adepts than to join an "official" system/school such as one of the Daito-ryu branches or CIMAs. You'd learn the core body skills without being encumbered by having to learn an entire martial system around it, with its accompanying flavor. And, you wouldn't have to worry that your teacher was withholding important methods and knowledge from you. Then, you can take the skills and apply them to the art of your choice, or in whatever manner you wish.

[Daniel]

Edited for brevity.

D.

Sarcasm. Oh yeah, like that´ll work.

[CaliG]

Hi Daniel,

Can you post an overview of what Kumar said here?

It's not an aikido board and he's pretty much already gone public with his views on aikido coming from CIMA so I don't think it would step on anyone's toes to post it here.

It is what it is, one person's point of view.

I'm sure I'm not the only one curious. He used to talk about it a lot in his bay area classes, but what kind of things did he discuss over a full hour?

[GrahamB]

I also loathe meeting most people that train Aikido, as we tend to have very little in common.

That's brilliant - I have the same thing with most Tai Chi people

I quite like this guy:



Not all his stuff - especially not his clips with the words "advanced" in the title (please don't even look at them!)- but the "basics" series ain't too bad for basic locks and throws.

[meeks]

I just spent the last few years training aikido at a school where they throw as hard as you're capable of receiving. I thought it would compliment my bagua, but quickly found out they were so stuck on rank and 'connect the dot training' (step 1, do this. step 2, do this. step 3, do this) that getting them to flow in a way that was natural was next to impossible. the rank thing is fukt by the way. they so caught up in ceremony they lose a lot of good information or training. I had to laugh - 25+ years in martial arts, 20 of that being chinese, and because I don't hold a rank in a Japanese style (karate, judo etc...) any insight I provided was instantly ignored (I wouldn't do this during class of course) unless another 3rd degree or higher actually understood the depth of what I said, agreed and jumped into the conversation...then there'd be a huge reverence toward the black belt and the information was lost the moment the conversation was over.

those were my personal issues. the big issue I found was the were so worried about 'move from the hip' that they forgot their hips were situated over their legs and robbed themselves of all power. Sure the hip moved. Sure the hip pushed through the arms, but that was the extent of it. No root. Even the 6th degree I was training under sometimes (often) lost his balance trying to throw someone because he didn't have the opponent's root (just their balance). oh that's another thing about rank - it's about 'time in trade' rather than actual real depth of skill, once they reach 'black belt'. Demonstrate you can do throw #xxx and that's good enough. No need to really show martial depth.

Even the guy who was my sensei (6th dan) would have been no more than a 2nd dan in my books simply because he had no understanding of root and 'da gen' (attacking the root of the opponent). All he had was a plethora of techniques that he could apply, and in some cases, without getting the uke's root he'd simply lose control of the uke and they'd 'slip off' or he'd push himself off of them, falling backwards slightly. His response? To get angry at his Uke (fucking idiot). In my opinion, getting control of the person's root (rather than simply offset their balance) should be worked on since day 1, and by about 1 year in, they should be able to p0wn anyone that (as a training partner) feeds them any sort of attack to respond to.

There was a Japanese sensei (Ishiyama) that DID have all of that, that I trained with during the last few months of training. He was f***ing amazing and I truly admire his martial ability. In fact, EVERYTHING he did looked exactly like most of our bagua techniques, very circular and used his circles to attack and maintain control of his opponent's root. All the other senseis were simply doing linear moves with circular footwork, and I usually found I had to 'move with them' or they'd get upset that I wasn't cooperating despite the fact this was a 'full contact' school. You could CLEARLY see that ten shin na ge (heaven/earth throw) was brush knee push, while before that, I just saw 'twist left, twist right, 1 arm up, 1 arm down...
He used his whole body in unison (shen fa) but everyone else was simply 'push your hip forward' and the rest of the body was robotic.

as a positive, I DID learn some new techniques that I'd never seen or been shown in some of the bagua movements (while I'd been taught perhaps a lock or strike they only saw a unique throw) which opened my eyes to some new way of looking at things. But for the most part I was frustrated by all the openings they had in their training, and their utemi was literally counterproductive - if you have to actually stop and hit someone in the middle of a 'flow'...you're not only doing it wrong, you're most likely going to get fucking nailed. I don't think I ever saw a single utemi that was 'slipped in' silently along the way - it was all against the grain of the flow. The only one (again) that did have good utemi was Ishiyama, and when he did it even the higher black belts went 'wow....' and I'd be thinking they should have seen the opening for that by about 6 months of training (rather than 10 years).

I did think that learning proper Ukemi (falling) was brutally important - the harder I can take a fall, the harder my partner can practise throwing me. That's a downside in a lot of training - no one wants to take a good fall for the sake of the partner's practice. I'm making sure all of my students that I'm gathering 'welcome the ground' and feel comfortable with themself going to the ground. That way they can welcome a good throw on behalf of their partner.

Other things come to mind - things like "there's no time to grab...always use the blade of your hand" (referring to reacting to a punch or lunge). Then they'd demonstrate how it's 'impossible' to grab something in mid-air. Then I'd demonstrate how simple it is to grab something traveling toward me in mid air and get some total pwnage on the attacker. But simply because they didn't do proper interception drills even the guys with more years in Aikido than me in Chinese styles couldn't accept the idea of grasping a moving object. Again, it's that stupid rank thing getting in the way of good training.