Aikido negativity's or positivity's

[TJ-Jitsu]

If the rest of the none Aikido martial artists have strong reservations on the validity of it's style, then how is it that it has such a high rating with public support?

High rating with public support? Most of the poeple I interact with widely accept aikido as the absolutely least effective martial art there is. What high rating and public support are you referring to?

Policeman are known to use Aikido techniques to detain a suspect, would the police be better prepared using BJJ or any other style of ma?

Do the police use Aikido because weapon defence is a part of the Aikodo way, wear as BJJ or other grappling styles are not weapon oriented?

Police use aikido because frankly the people who are in charge of their curriculum have absolutely no idea what they're trying to do. These are politicians who sell their services to the lowest bidder. Happens in corrections, military, and private security. If you saw what they're teaching (or saw one trying to apply it) you'd (hopefully) shake your head in disgust.

[sensei8]

I'm always spouting this...

The practitioner is why the style is ineffective; not the style.

Aikido, and I'm not a Aikidoist at all, in the direct senses, but I believe that Aikido is an effective art. I tend to look at the practitioner first, and the style second.

The fault of ineffectiveness, imho, lies within the practitioner, and in that, the practitioner is the proponent of its ineffectiveness!!

Imho!!

[Alan Armstrong]

Different ma styles attract and drraw people that they feel comfortable with, as birds of a feather stick together. Aikido attracts more peacful people, so does Tai Chi.

Some ma styles are violent and other styles promote peace and harmony.

Success is a matter of opinion and perspective. What seems like success to one style seems like faliure to another.

[sensei8]

My style is Shindokan. It's an effective style. Shindokan's effectiveness lies within me, and not our Soke. If I'm not effective, yet the style is, then I've failed the style, and the fault is mine alone.

Again, imho!!

[TJ-Jitsu]

Some ma styles are violent and other styles promote peace and harmony.

Success is a matter of opinion and perspective. What seems like success to one style seems like faliure to another.

You have a point... but the purpose of "martial arts" is to learn how to fight. In this sense, success is a question of being able to impose that onto someone else effectively.

One may have many other reasons for doing a particular martial art, and thats perfectly fine- but that does not make one a fighter.

[bushido_man96]

The reality is that not all styles are created equal. That said one of the reasons aikido doesn't work very is because its application is flawed. The problem with any of its wrist locks is that it's just too easy to pull your arm away. This raises the question when one wouldn't want to pull their arm away. In the context of weapons that's when it applies the most. Given the combative nature of samurai fighting techniques we start to understand just how aikido has potential to be applied. If one can evade a sword swipe or any other armed attack and grab the wrists, the attacker has reason to not let go and pull away, less he leave his weapon behind. This creates a win win situation for aikido.

As far catching someone's punch and wrapping it up? Not against anyone competent

I see the point you are making, and agree, but in actuality, Aikido wasn't used in this way. It was its predecessor, Aiki-Jujitsu, which had a completely different philosophy in application, that was used. Aikido stemmed from this style, after Morehei Ueshiba had his "epiphany."

I'm sure you were aware of this, but I wanted to address it, as even these two styles have differences in approaches and methods.

[Wado Heretic]

I would say the positives and negatives of Aikido can come down largely to the "style" of Aikido one encounters;

There is the aforementioned Yoshinkan, which places great emphasis on self-defence techniques, and is used by several Japanese police forces, runs the infamous Senshusei course, and has influenced other approaches to civilian self-defence programs. However; should it be judged by the Senshusei course? I would consider it up to debate as intense training will usually produce intense results, plus most police officers train in numerous models of self-defence so the effectiveness of the style should be judged in that context.

There is also Yoseikan Aikido; a system within Yoseikan Budo, which incorporates techniques from Judo, and has a significant body of Atemi-Waza lacking in other Aikido schools. Again though, the question becomes whether it is effective as a stand alone discipline, or whether it should only be studied as an aspect of Yoseikan Budo; this then further blurs the line between how effective the Aikido training is.

Could also add to the discussion the Shodokan style. It incorporates randori against unarmed opponents, and versus an opponent armed with tanto (a rubber one ofcourse). Although the point is to be better prepared for self-defence, rather than as a combat sport, the question remains whether the simple introduction of alive training makes up for any technical deficiencies in Aikido.

Although loath to add it due to Seagal's reputation there is also Tenshin Aikido. It practices Randori, and emphasises realistic attacks at speed, and allows the use of punching, kicking, and grabbing at speed. Again, one has to debate effectiveness in context.

From memory I have just listed a few examples of Aikido which might produce results applicable to self-defence. It does also largely come down to the individual with regards to effective self-defence.

As I have said to students; I can teach you the techniques, how to improve them through exercises, and how to in theory apply them. I can drill you with anti-flinching drills, condition you to being hit and fighting a resisting opponent through sparring, and we can do awareness and de-escalation training. However, I will never know nor can I teach someone to be ready to fight; they will sadly only know if they are a natural fighter when they finally get into a fight. Whether they have the mentality to put it all together in reality is up to them, and out of my power.

Saying this, a huge negative in general of Aikido is the lack of alive training and adaptive models of training. Although it is not a magic bullet, reality based training with a high level of aliveness does far improve the chances of a student to apply their skills when needed.

A positive of Aikido is that it will teach you the value of Ukemi-Waza, and will hone your reaction skills, hand speed, and foot work. Also, as unhelpful as anecdotal evidence can be, I have picked up a number of useful passive locks and pins from Aikido; which in the event I ever need to detain someone I would use over any number of the wrestling and jujutsu holds I know.

A main issues I think most Aikidoka find in expanding their arts is two fold;

1. The question of "when am I no longer doing Aikido". The idea of what Aikido is and is not is quite simple but has been rendered complex. To Ueshiba it was a matter of the path of least resistance; to use your opponent's force against him, and to retake the initiative. As the rough translation goes; the majority of aikido is atemi.

2. Where do techniques which take the initiative, such as tackles and means of striking, fall within the scope of Aikido ethos; to not engage in aggression.

Some incorporate many new techniques, and I have seen it more often than not, identify what they are doing as some variety of Gendai Budo Aiki-jujutsu, simply to avoid these questions. Abandon the name Aikido so one does not need to defend one's own interpretation, and do not confront the moral questions by again disregarding them. This I would call the final negative; Aikido is very difficult to navigate.

[vantheman]

As others have mentioned, the effectiveness of an art in a real-life situation depends almost entirely on the instructor and how the style is trained. Certain styles tend to generally have "better" training practices than others, but, once again, I feel with a decent instructor and realistic training, with enough time, people can become combat effective. (The human body only bends and absorbs pain so many different ways: with enough training, you'll find something that works!)

[Alan Armstrong]

Aikido makes more sense to me when introducing swords or knives. Using them in offensive or defensive ways.

It is the empty hand self defence and attacking scenerios that look or seem unrealistic.

Having stand up experience sparring with Aikido practioners (minus weapons) it always seemed very strange.

Strange in the way that they had no stand up fighting ability's with fists and feet or utilizing elbows and knees.

However attack with a knife or sword and they adapt instantly. It seems as if you need to be highly dangerous to get their attention. A mugger in the street with a knife would get their attention!

Fighting or sparring against Akido people needs to be intense because this is how they train. Subtle kick boxing jabs and kicks work against them beautifully, because they are not conditioned to fight this way.

As the samurai is a part of the Aikido way, it is better off being in the hands of a martial artist that promotes peace and harmony than the alternatives.

[LLLEARNER]

Policeman are known to use Aikido techniques to detain a suspect, would the police be better prepared using BJJ or any other style of ma?

Do the police use Aikido because weapon defence is a part of the Aikodo way, wear as BJJ or other grappling styles are not weapon oriented?

Police use Aikido techniques because that was what was integrated into their training curriculum because that is what was chosen decades ago. They also work well. Most of the time police are not going hands on with trained master level martial artists. They can be going against very experienced street fighters. They also like to go in a large enough force to overwhelm the suspect. You also deal with bureaucratic inertia when trying to change ingrained training systems. While I think all Police officers should learn BJJ and striking, most people (politicians) view it as UFC bloody mats. They want to see a softer, gentler way. The vast majority of police officers are given the exact amount of training, on any subject matter, that budgets and minimum training standards require. Many city councils (elected politicians who want to keep getting elected) do not want to ask for more taxes so they can train the police in more combat arts. Unless the Officer seeks additional training on their own they only ever receive the bare minimum.