Questions on Aikido

[Fu Man]

That being said, I know several individuals who have taken up aikido as a secondary art and gotten a whole new prespective on their defensive outlook. I think that it can be a useful secondary art to study, espically if your primary focus has no joint manipulation integrated. As metntioned ealier, it can teach you to flow and move very well, which is often overlooked in harder styled oriental arts.

For what it's worth, this is my assessment of Aikido as well.

Pretty much all of the very good Aikidoist I know earned black belts in striking systems prior to learning Aikido. The techniques are much easier to apply after the opponent is softened or distracted.

With that stated, I reiterate that this is only my opinion based on my personal experience.

[tallgeese]

I agree with the "soften up" concept. I'd place some sort of stun prior to any type of joint manipuation if at all possible. In fact, I think many are very nearly impossible with out it.

Evade, then stun, then move on to unbalance nad control (which in this case means joint manipulation).

[bushido_man96]

I second the stun/distract methodology; I prefer to call it a destruction; I don't want to be a fly, I want to be an elephant, stampedeing.

In Combat Hapkido, distraction techniques are a part of each set of moves that we do. They usually consist of low-line kicks or palm strikes to the face. It is a good tactic.

[Wa-No-Michi]

There was a posting I'd read (out of many excellent postings; my apologies to the author that I can't give credit), with the opinion that, if someone wanted to learn self-defense, s/he is automatically directed to a school of martial arts. But, the author observed, MA takes a considerable amount of time, especially in that so much of it is art as well as self-defense. The author is right; MA is not a "fast-track" at all to self-defense, and some take much more time to master than others.

I think that this is where the confusion lies. There is a difference between learning effective self-defense, and mastering a Martial Arts style. The latter should take a lifetime; the former should not. Acquiring good, solid self-defense skills, from any MA, should not take years to acquire. It should come in the first 6 months of training, I think, at least. Now, I am not talking about being able to enter a ring and win an MMA match, or being a Master. I am talking about being able to either keep yourself out of a fight, being able to do enough to survive and live another day.

Hmm!

I am with joe on this one.

I accept that learning any MA should go hand in glove with self protection (as this is more about the tactics of avoiding confrontation (and how to manage etc.)), but I would be reluctant to put a time scale on the use of the words "Self Defense" (or level of proficiency for that matter). Many schools are built on systems designed to engender correct foundations (movement, timing, co-ordination etc.), as the key to learning good form.

This often takes a higher priority (in the early stages at least) over techniques or methods that could be viewed as more direct self defense applications. The theory being of course that learn good form, and you will be able to apply it to any technique / situation "instinctively".

I guess it comes down to what you want out of your MA, and thats the great thing about it. I personally feel that you can strike a balance between the two, and most good systems/schools will have it built in to their syllabus' anyway. In addition to this though, is all of the "added value" that comes with the study of an MA and lifelong goals and values that accompany it.

[bushido_man96]

I am all for correct foundations. I personally enjoy the technical aspects of TKD that I have been doing for years now. The challenge of acquiring the technique is great.

But, I think that done the proper way, it is possible to teach good foundations that can transfer easily to self-defense, therefore benefiting the beginner student early on, as opposed to having to wait years to feel confident in defending oneself.

[tallgeese]

I agree.

[Wa-No-Michi]

I am all for correct foundations. I personally enjoy the technical aspects of TKD that I have been doing for years now. The challenge of acquiring the technique is great.

But, I think that done the proper way, it is possible to teach good foundations that can transfer easily to self-defense, therefore benefiting the beginner student early on, as opposed to having to wait years to feel confident in defending oneself.

Take Wado and I dont think the foundations transfer easily. I would say that student would be at about 3rd kyu before they start to get these down.

This would mean training for about 2 years. Does Wado fail in your eyes?

[tallgeese]

I wouldn't say it fails, nor would I assume to speak for bushido man.

I would say that it wouldn't meet my standard for what I wanted, and still want to pass on, out of the ma's. Not to say you shouldn't be training for life, I have been consistantly since I set foot a mat waaaay back when I was 16.

I don't think you should be an expert, in 6 months to a year. Just have an increase in capacity to defend yourself in a signifigant manner. Let's think about it, good sd basics:

princlples that help you survive

a decent stance you can move out of

abilty to turn some power into strikes-

figure eye gouge, a few punch combs, coverage patterns.

maybe a handful of releases from grabs and such

a kick or two (say groin, MT round)

Now, are you an mma stud or a streetwise ninja? Nope, but a good undertstanding of survial in typical situations has started to take hold. You should be able to do this within 6 months.

Now, tack on some knife/club work, ground defense, sprawling and an improvement in the first block and you can be out to a year. Again, no profighter here but one who is very capable of taking care of himself quite a bit IF, and this is a biggie: IF you've trained hard, with intensity and a single minded purpose. Mindset, the biggest weapon we have.

There's no pass or fail here, just what you want to do and the amount of time you're willing to spend to do it.

[Wa-No-Michi]

Yes,

And as I said, a lot of the examples you state, can (and should IMO) be taught along side the ryu-ha (style / school) specific learning objectives / methods.

Its the latter I am referring to when I say that the principles contained within take more than 6 months to absorb, but without them all you are doing imo is no more than practicing a list of self defense techniques.

Which is not a bad thing (and makes it no less an MA).

Its all about striking a good balance, and what you want out of your ma.

[bushido_man96]

I am all for correct foundations. I personally enjoy the technical aspects of TKD that I have been doing for years now. The challenge of acquiring the technique is great.

But, I think that done the proper way, it is possible to teach good foundations that can transfer easily to self-defense, therefore benefiting the beginner student early on, as opposed to having to wait years to feel confident in defending oneself.

Take Wado and I dont think the foundations transfer easily. I would say that student would be at about 3rd kyu before they start to get these down.

This would mean training for about 2 years. Does Wado fail in your eyes?

I think the foundations of the techniques in the style might be different than what is needed for effective self-defense skills. Learning simple strikes like the palm strike, and teaching how to drive power into it from the ground up, along with being able to cover and move can easily become part of the early curriculum of any style. Also, de-escalation ideas and what to do post-fight, as well. If it takes 2 years to cover things like this, then I would like a different approach. I would like to see my school do more things like this, but it doesn't. These are the things that I feel are just as important to instill in students as the material for the next belt test.

Its all about striking a good balance, and what you want out of your ma.

I agree. To me, it just seems like the balance should be implied.