Akido For Lawenforcement Officer? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Akido For Lawenforcement Officer?


Security Office
05-31-2005, 14:12
I am a private security officer now but am going to be a police officer soon. As a private leo I work dagerous sites such as bars. Is Akido a good for of defense? If not what do you reccomend? I rulled out tae kwon do.

Hookkicks
05-31-2005, 14:39
Akido is good if you are willing to put the time in.

gr81disp
05-31-2005, 15:19
Aikido is useful but VERY hard to master and must come close to mastering it to put it to use in a real situation. I would suggest Muay Thai kickboxing, Kali stick fighting, and, as anyone who has read my posts before knows, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (Bjj). That should help you with all ranges, but if you want just one art to study, I would personally suggest Bjj.

MARTIN FISHER
05-31-2005, 17:17
Find a good Judo school. Most of what police officers do is simply moving people who do not want to be moved. Most offenders will not fight an officer until the officer grabs or attemps to grab the suspect. Judo is a good base art, is fairly common and adding strikes and submissions latter on will be simple. And you get to throw people around, which is always fun.

Oh, and spend some money on some real firearms trainining, pulling the trigger on a gun will either be the best choice you ever make as an officer or the worst.

garythenuke
05-31-2005, 18:11
Aikido is an okay art, but as mentioned above, extremely hard to master. You have to hope that you get a decent school. Many of them are so concerned with the ki-of-the-universe-flowing-thorough-you-peace-love-harmony stuff that you get very little uselful information.
Aikido can even become tedious if you let it. The good things about aikido are that it can be a good workout, it does wonders in helping with your body mechanics, and it can be spectacular to watch.
In aikido, regardless of the roots of the "art", the one taking the technique, the uke I believe, knows what is coming from the one doing the technique, the tori I think. It becomes more of a dance with one person following the other's lead.
Even when you get to the randori, everyone knows what is coming, so the techniques really do not get tested. The argument is that the uke has to go with the technique to avoid getting hurt. Well that is fine, but it also helps the tori do the technique because otherwise the technique does not work.
I was very lucky to train with a guy who ran a very traditional dojo. He had trainied with Saito in Japan. My sensei was amazingly good, but he had been doing it for over 30 years. If you have access to this type of direct lineage school and have 30 years to devote to it, then Aikido is the way to go.

Roundeyesamurai
05-31-2005, 22:01
Being an aikidoka myself, I would say, don't get into it unless you intend to make it a long-term study. If your sole intent is to develop a few skills for restraining persons, you'd probably be better served with a police DT course (which will be cheaper, less time-consuming, and more liability-defensible- which ought to be a major concern for a private security company).

Jasestrong
06-03-2005, 12:44
I have to say Judo and Ju Jitsu is what standard police defensive tactics come from. Arm Bars, wrist locks, Transporters, and my favorite chokes. Now we are not suppose to choke the fine citizens when we arrest them but we can place our arm across their chest and as the resist and pull away the arm comes to rest over the airway or the Arteries. I have been in Law enforcement for the past 15 years and i used chokes for those 15 years. Judo and Ju Jitsu are easy styles to pick up and use effectively. you can spend a day/2 hours in the dojo and walk out with 1 to 3 techniques that you can use. of course you must practice

Jason

bunkerbuster
06-05-2005, 23:19
Let me be honest.

Akido/hapkidos are good martial art, but doing steven segal stuff(crap) is just risking it.

Honestly, if i do not have time and have to take akido, i would just rather take those taser classes.

However, if you do have lots of time to train yourself, I would probably do Judo, or wrestling. One day, there will be one time that someone may resist arrest.

9MX
06-10-2005, 17:33
Originally posted by Roundeyesamurai
B...you'd probably be better served with a police DT course (which will be cheaper, less time-consuming, and more liability-defensible- which ought to be a major concern for a private security company).

agree:cool:

robwebbg22
06-16-2005, 12:22
Get your butt in the weight room get strong an learn some basic joint manipulation techniques an solid moves to put the perp on their back or face. I took 6 years of karate an enjoyed it but in a fight I am gonna break the guys lower leg with a LOW kick sweep an a force shot/shove to the neck. An pick up the mess.

Shady
06-17-2005, 03:01
Originally posted by bunkerbuster
Let me be honest.

Akido/hapkidos are good martial art, but doing steven segal stuff(crap) is just risking it.

Honestly, if i do not have time and have to take akido, i would just rather take those taser classes.

However, if you do have lots of time to train yourself, I would probably do Judo, or wrestling. One day, there will be one time that someone may resist arrest.

Hapkido and Aikido are just barely kissing cousins. Think of Hapkido as Korean flavored variety of Jujutsu, which which makes a pretty decent police technique base.

Jujutsu is a combat form of Judo (more correctly, judo is the nice-ified version of Jujutsu). Depending on the style, Jujutsu can be excellent police training. Most incorporate strong atemi (punches and other strikes) with direct physical joint manipulation of the unfriendly kind, with ground fighting and chokes. You're going to spend time and collect plent of bruises to get good at it.

Don't sell short Aikido, for that matter. As Roundeye can affirm, there are styles that aren't so gentle, but not that you're going to be good at inside of a couple years.

Deputydave
06-18-2005, 17:40
Originally posted by Shady
Hapkido and Aikido are just barely kissing cousins. Think of Hapkido as Korean flavored variety of Jujutsu, which which makes a pretty decent police technique base.

Jujutsu is a combat form of Judo (more correctly, judo is the nice-ified version of Jujutsu). Depending on the style, Jujutsu can be excellent police training. Most incorporate strong atemi (punches and other strikes) with direct physical joint manipulation of the unfriendly kind, with ground fighting and chokes. You're going to spend time and collect plent of bruises to get good at it.

Don't sell short Aikido, for that matter. As Roundeye can affirm, there are styles that aren't so gentle, but not that you're going to be good at inside of a couple years.

Correct. To be more specific, Hapkido is Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu and was coined around 1958 as a separate entity. There are various flavors of Hapkido, but that is the original root.

rwojcik
06-24-2005, 11:42
try Eskrima

sport69
07-06-2005, 22:23
find a style that deals with presure point strikes very good in real life conflicts!

Roundeyesamurai
07-06-2005, 22:26
Originally posted by sport69
find a style that deals with presure point strikes very good in real life conflicts!

That's extremely debateable, but is probably better fodder for a thread of its own.

jsbcody
07-11-2005, 14:34
Defensive Tactics Seminars are good for learning or sharpening new skills, but I would recommend studying some form of martial arts.The problem with seminars is you are great doing the techniques for about 3 to 4 weeks and then you start to get sloppy or rusty. Studying a martial art will keep your techniques crisp and in good form. Also you get the benefit of trying techniques against people of different shapes and sizes. Jujutsu, Hapkido, Kenpo, or Kuk Sool Won would be good arts for a security officer or LEO. Even Tae Kwon Do might be good depending on the instructor. My first TKD instructor found out 3 of us in the class were LEOs and after class he would go over joint locks, arm bars, and take downs. Nice basic stuff that is damn near 100% effective. I have always been a firm believer in the KISS Principle (Keep It Simple Stupid).

Big Dawg #1triple4

zoobie
07-13-2005, 00:00
I've been an Aikidoist (a.s.u.) for 8 years now and I'm starting to get a handle on Aiki.
Aikido is a very good course of study for leo's as it reinforces compassion and choosing the less harmfull reaction to any basic angle of attack while keeping centered and on one's feet. BJJ on the other hand seeks to go to the ground one on one which often leads to the police officer being dead.

jsbcody
07-13-2005, 08:58
Aikido is a very good course of study for leo's as it reinforces compassion and choosing the less harmfull reaction to any basic angle of attack while keeping centered and on one's feet. BJJ on the other hand seeks to go to the ground one on one which often leads to the police officer being dead.

I'm going to have to disagree based on my 20 year plus experience as a LEO. Being compassionate in the Dojo is one thing, dealing with a cracked up or meth addict trying to kill you is another. Also I am unaware of any BJJ trained officer being killed. I am pretty sure I would have read something as I get all the Street Survival emails on officer deaths. Most officer deaths occur when an officer is too nice and compassionate. A training class I had recently was an analysis of officer deaths and deadly force. Almost all the deceased officers were described as "nice compassionate officers", "friends with everyone".....except the the nut case that killed them.

Big Dawg #1triple4

Roundeyesamurai
07-13-2005, 10:35
Originally posted by jsbcody
Aikido is a very good course of study for leo's as it reinforces compassion and choosing the less harmfull reaction to any basic angle of attack while keeping centered and on one's feet. BJJ on the other hand seeks to go to the ground one on one which often leads to the police officer being dead.

I'm going to have to disagree based on my 20 year plus experience as a LEO. Being compassionate in the Dojo is one thing, dealing with a cracked up or meth addict trying to kill you is another. Also I am unaware of any BJJ trained officer being killed. I am pretty sure I would have read something as I get all the Street Survival emails on officer deaths. Most officer deaths occur when an officer is too nice and compassionate. A training class I had recently was an analysis of officer deaths and deadly force. Almost all the deceased officers were described as "nice compassionate officers", "friends with everyone".....except the the nut case that killed them.

Big Dawg #1triple4

I'm also not familiar with any aikido-trained officer being killed, either. The 'pacifism' (for want of a better word) of aikido is considerably different from what you're describing.

In fact, Yoshinkan aikido is mandatory training for many special police units in Japan, and I wouldn't consider any Japanese cop to be "softies".

jsbcody
07-13-2005, 11:07
With aikido, it is a matter of what you are looking for. Unlike most martial arts, aikido has many faces and styles. Most of the techniques are probably the same but the philosphy behind the techniques is vastly different. I have seen several schools of "soft style" aikido and several "hard style" aikido. Everytime I hear compassion used with aikido I associate it with the soft styles. I trained at hard style school while stationed in Hawaii. Almost all the class was military and civilian cops. It was fantastic! Yes the hard style aikido that the Japanese police are trained in is great for the street and real life situations.

Now having said all that, I do know several instances where officers who were studing soft style aikido (and other soft styled martial arts) were injured when their techniques didn't perform as advertised. I have also seen this happen to hard stylists also. No grappling art or striking art is the end all be all that will solve all problems. No technique is 100% just like no two situations are the same. Doing techniques in the Dojo is not the same as a situation on the street. I have had subjects fighting me in small hallways, in bathrooms, in cars, you name it. For most cases in police work, joint locks, arm bars, take downs are effective but there are those times when you have to rely on other measures, kicking, punching, eye gouges, even biting.

Like a Federal Marshal once told me: "I'm paid to win, not fight fair."

Big Dawg #1triple4

SQUAD
07-22-2005, 00:07
Originally posted by gr81disp
Aikido is useful but VERY hard to master and must come close to mastering it to put it to use in a real situation. I would suggest Muay Thai kickboxing, Kali stick fighting, and, as anyone who has read my posts before knows, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (Bjj). That should help you with all ranges, but if you want just one art to study, I would personally suggest Bjj.


BJJ is predominantly a ground-fighting art, since you're going into LEO I wouldn't suggest BJJ. I wouldn't imagine any LEO would want to end up on the ground with a BG. Ending up on the ground would give the BG the opportunity to easily grap your firearm.

As someone else said, get certified for the taser gun and work out.

fpm
07-22-2005, 08:37
.

gr81disp
07-22-2005, 14:34
Watch a professional fight, 99% of the winning moves are just basics. Also, Bjj is about being able to control yourself and your opponent on the ground. I have yet to see one successful arrest after resistance that DIDN'T end up on the ground.

Mr. Ajax
08-08-2005, 18:58
Originally posted by MARTIN FISHER
Find a good Judo school. Most of what police officers do is simply moving people who do not want to be moved. Most offenders will not fight an officer until the officer grabs or attemps to grab the suspect. Judo is a good base art, is fairly common and adding strikes and submissions latter on will be simple. And you get to throw people around, which is always fun.

Oh, and spend some money on some real firearms trainining, pulling the trigger on a gun will either be the best choice you ever make as an officer or the worst.

I agree with martin on this point. Judo is one of the best martial arts to get into for a few reasons. First off it's just plain fun, I can rondori (spar) for hours on end and only stop when Iím too physically exhausted to continue. This alone will get you to practice more often and will help you become proficient.

Also judo gives you a sense of combat motion like no other marital art I've tried, mastering your balance and knowing your opponents is key in any fight. Eventually this motion will become instinct as opposed to technique and will enhance your HtH skills. In addition you'll learn how to bring the fight to the ground in your favor. I say in your favor because roughly 90% of fights will end up on the ground unless they are severely unbalanced. From these grappling positions you'll learn different holds, choke holds, and arm bars. Just watch a UFC match and you'll see how quick it ends once a good arm bar or choke hold is applied. These guys always seem to have a hard time getting a lock but that's because they're both trained in the same techniques.

It's basically the best place to start from imho. After a couple years I would then recommend kickboxing for striking skills. I've taken a few classes but have not had the chance to pursue it. And on a foot note if ju-jitsu is available in your area it's essentially the same as judo but incorporates some striking and the techniques are more damaging

edit: I would also recomend you stay away from akido, I took classes for 3 months or so and found that the techniques were to "delicate" to use in an actuall fight and during sparing I would always go back to my judo roots and dominate from there.

Mayhem like Me
08-16-2005, 10:01
Being an Aikidoka also I must say that if you are willing to research your school and put in the time to master the skill sets it can be very effective for the street cop.

It flows well into ground fighting as I learned many techniques on my knees to devlop the proper center and flow.

I teach as a Police DT trainer and have simplified some Aikido traps and throws for street use as takedowns.
The best thing to do is get a good cardio conditioning regime, followed with a strength work out and add the martial skills.

An out of shape physically weak master in any discipline can and will get thier but handed to them in a confrontation.

I use the term "master" loosely after seeing what passes for martial training at some of these soccer mom Tae kwon do palaces that are more interested in the monthly fee than in prorper martial training.

My little neighbor has been going to such a "diploma Mill' For a little over a year and he's testing for his first Black belt this month;Q Oh well.

08-21-2005, 20:31
Originally posted by zoobie
BJJ on the other hand seeks to go to the ground one on one which often leads to the police officer being dead.

As another 20 yr. veteran, I also have to disagree with this statement. Nearly every 1 on 1 situation I have been in has gone to the ground and I'm not even Bjj trained, so I doubt someone who is trained to ground fight is going to be worse off than me. The majority of use of force incidents I review as a supervisor go to the ground, and I have yet to see (or hear of) a resulting death of an officer in my jurisdiction.

I'm curious as to where you get that perception / information??

You can review deaths of officers (and a reasonably comprehensive story behind each death) on this site:

http://www.odmp.org/

It doesn't support your assertion.

Roundeyesamurai
08-21-2005, 20:47
RationalCop, your handle is eminantly appropriate in this case LOL.

Mayhem like Me
08-26-2005, 11:30
Originally posted by RationalCop
As another 20 yr. veteran, I also have to disagree with this statement. Nearly every 1 on 1 situation I have been in has gone to the ground and I'm not even Bjj trained, so I doubt someone who is trained to ground fight is going to be worse off than me. The majority of use of force incidents I review as a supervisor go to the ground, and I have yet to see (or hear of) a resulting death of an officer in my jurisdiction.

I'm curious as to where you get that perception / information??

You can review deaths of officers (and a reasonably comprehensive story behind each death) on this site:

http://www.odmp.org/

It doesn't support your assertion.
+1
I use many BJJ sytled techniques when teaching recruits because just about every LE fight does end up on the ground and we are all the same height when we are laying down.
Developing a good gaurd or advantage position while keeping your sidearm secure is of paramount importance if your going to the ground.
Some of best police DT skills are a quick andf violent takedown to the ground followed by a quick supported joint lock to the shoulder or elbow to imobalize the upper body and get a cuff on for even better leverage and pain compliance.
Think PPCT.

454ThunderGod
08-27-2005, 15:44
These are all good input our thread's author and valued perspectives.

I for one will not suggest to you which style is better for you and which is not. For all styles are effective, but only if trained properly and most importantly, applied effectively. Just become familiar with all styles.

You want to follow the path of the LEO, then it is to your advantage to understand what the requirements are of an LEO in empty hand combat. Then seek to find a style that both appeals to your natural rhythms while maximizing you effectiveness in the ways required of an LEO.

For example, it was posted that most LEOs will be involved in moving people and restraining people. moreso than actual fighting. Find a methodology that maximizes your ability to do exactly that.

for the most part, seek balance. Leave nothing out, instead define the place for everything.

Lastly - Train.....always train. But do not train hard and do not train long....but instead, let long and hard be defined by training best. Sometimes referred to as training smart.

cowboywannabe
09-04-2005, 22:53
jeet kun do is good, especially when you have an ASP in your hand.

09-05-2005, 05:36
It might be worth mentioning that there is an issue involved here which Roundeyesamurai touched on in an earlier post. I realize the original posters primary interest is in survival, but let's not forget the issue of liability.

Depending on the jurisdiction you intend to seek employment with, you may be opening yourself up to a degree of liability if you use force tactics outside of that which you are taught by the police department. Some departments may not back you in a civil suit should you use some martial arts technique that is not part of their defensive tactics training.

Roundeyesamurai
09-05-2005, 07:50
Good point, RationalCop.

Let me expand on something further, as well:

Training for a police officer (for the record, I'm a retired police officer) need not focus on unarmed combat for the purpose of empty-handedly defeating opponents. When I think of the needed skills for police, I come to the conclusion that they are as follows:

1) Training to control persons (to effect arrest);
2) Training to instantaneously react (to fend off a surprise attack, to prevent disarmament, to extricate one's self from a hostile group, etc.);
3) Training for the eventuality that one's firearm may fail, in order to have skills to "fill in the blanks" between the failure of one weapon, and the acquisition of another.

In all three of these circumstances, the ability to a) move immediately and b) seize the opponent and control him (or his weapon) are paramount.

Remember, these skills are intended to do what can't be done with a gun- and (in the case of aikido, judo, and jujutsu) they are descended from skills intended to do those things that couldn't be done with a sword (and Japanese swordsmanship and gunfighting are more alike than most people would imagine).

cowboywannabe
09-05-2005, 08:19
this has got to be one of the most civilized and informative threads on glock talk.


good points made by all without any ego trips or bickering.....^c

DepDuke
09-05-2005, 08:26
If you can invest the time required to become fairly proficient, then do the martial arts route. if you want to learn a bit faster, find an outfit that teaches 'instinctual' type skills. Find a proven 'combatives' outfit such as LFI in New Hampshire, Insights Training out of Seattle, or someone similar. There are many out there, many different costs, and beware: there are a lot of places out there that say they are the best, but cannot prove it. I have spent bad money to train, and I have spent good money. You will know the difference fairly easily. I acutally have been taking classes from Insights Training for a couple years now and out of all the places I have been (some really big, nationally known places) they rank as the best.

Roundeyesamurai
09-05-2005, 09:47
DepDuke:

Hey hometown boy! LOL

The problem with 'combatives' is this: Those rare occasions where a police officer is entitled to "demolish" the opponent, are usually those instances where the gun or baton may be used. 'Combatives', really, is just a substitute (and often a poor one, at that) for these measures.

Skills which expand the capabilities of the individual officer, and which address those circumstances where guns, knives, batons, etc., aren't appropriate or viable, are not addressed in "combatives" courses, and for good reason: "Combatives" isn't intended to train persons in the control of others. Controlling, naturally, is much more difficult than breaking, and can't be taught in a weekend.

I've often recommended that unarmed control and combat skills need to be taught as a part of PT during the police academy, rather than as a "course". An hour or two a day, every day, for months on end, would be a far cry better than the way it is currently taught to most police personnel now.

DepDuke
09-05-2005, 10:16
I was using the 'combatives' term to differentiate from 'martial arts' in that sense. Most of your combatives will work from the very basic avoidance techniques (avoid punch, kick, etc) and get you set for either another attack or get you ready to defend or counter attack. The idea of 'demolishing' the BG obviously is applicable in very few circumstances. Most of the training I have learned and now teach deals with the everyday attacks: punches, grabs, chokes, whatnot. Most of the techniques have been taught to LEO's and I have proof tested them on fellow LEO's myself.
Obviously, people will go to where they feel comfortable and think they will get the best bang for their buck. The truth is that 'most people' do not know of the alternatives out there to going to the Dojo and thinking that they will have immediate results. The martial arts are great, don't get em wrong, but I have worked with many students that could not either commit the time or money, or needed something different.

Stay safe and kick A** everyone!!

AiKahrDo
09-22-2005, 12:57
I am so glad I stumbled upon this thread! :D

Namely because it is nice to see that there actually are officers here that recognize the value of Aikido in one's training and take the time to find a good school and train hard. However, it is also dissapointing to read some of the common misconceptions relating to Aikido(some old, some new) and other related arts. I am also pleased to see that this discussion has not deteriorated into an emotional debate, so I will try to offer my two cents while maintaining the integrity of this great thread.

I am a 6 year Aikidoka in Tampa, but I am not in law enforcement. I agree with those that say that it is a difficult and timely art to master, but in the case of law enforcement and it's use as applied "on the street", it needs not be the quality of an 8th Dan Aikido master to be effective. Many times I have seen video clips where an officer was UNABLE to effectively cuff a perp on "cops" the TV show, and in one case in particular(via a clip online dealing with the X26 taser), the officer needed only the basic skill to put even a "vague" ikkyo,nikkyo,sankyo or yonkyo on a drunk driver whom embarrassingly pushed the traffic cop around before simply walking back towards his vehicle, where, at last resort, the officer zaps him REPEATEDLY with his x26 in order to make the arrest. The bottom line is that even moderate training in these skills, and a basic understanding of the principle of unbalancing and some joint manipulation would have resulted in a much easier outcome for both parties, which simply solidifies my general belief that officers, ALL officers, need a lot more martial arts training, (particularly Aikido, Judo, and yes, Muai Tai kickboxing is also useful) than they care to admit. Hey, it your life we're talking about here, and guns and tasers are sometimes, (probably more often than not) more excessive and unnecessary, maybe even more exhausting on the officer's part, than simply applying some basic aikido/judo skill sets.

Having said all of that, I'll add that unless one does research, and devote regular mat time to Aikido training, it is NOT Aikido or any other martial art, it is simply a small basic handful of tactics with minimal understanding of their origins or potential.

Let me also add a few points.

Hapkido is NOT the "korean version of the Diato Ryu Aikijujutsu".
Yes, Hapkido is Korean.

However, Aikido and Judo are pretty much the offspring of the Diato Ryu, but branched out in different directions, though they still share some similarities. BJJ is different still from Judo. As I understand it, Hapkido has some roots in the Diato Ryu, but not nearly as much as Aikido or Judo.

About Aikido, yes there are some schools out there that focus more on the spiritual aspect of it and others more on the martial aspect, but all are Aikido and it really does depend on the preference of the student. Personally, I train in ASU schools and I happen to be lucky enough to train under some of the most powerful aikido teachers around, in martial technique especially, and I can say that despite the misconception that Aikido appears "soft" and "cooperative" and "like dancing", it's either that or sustain serious injury, especially if you train with the intensity that some of the sempai I train with. Personally I am not nearly at that level, probably won't be for some 10 more years, but when I do train with them I had better stay focused or I WILL get hurt, even though they drop it down several notches to match my abilities. Not to "baby" me, because they aren't, they still push me, otherwise I learn nothing, but taking those falls are necessary for self preservation, so that we can continue to train, not because we are trying to make nage "look good". Equally, the importance of Uke to attack with some sincerity is necessary in order to "feel" the distance, timing, speed of attacker. Punching bags do not offer this. In randori training, it is NOT the attacks so much that nage is worried about, it is properly MOVING so that attacks are difused and controlled. It is not the goal to "defeat" multiple attackers or even demolish them. It is simply training to control "where YOU are" in relation to "where THEY are". So specific attacks are not focused upon, which means "knowing what is coming" is irrelevent anyway once the art of randori is more and more understood, since, after all Aikido is really an art devoted to the defense against multiple sword, yari, tanto attacks on the battlefields of Japan, and I'll end with saying that Aikido defense techniques are designed with the idea in mind that these are attacks that are "generalized". i.e., the attack with a baseball bat is generally the same as that of a katana. You still enter or pivot the same general way(without getting too deep into all those variations of attack and ending throws/pins). This is why I agree with the statement that guns and Japanese sword fighting are very alike.

If any police officers are in the Seattle area, please take the time to seek out George Ledyard 6th Dan. He is an incredible Aikidoka and has many years experience training police officers and has (I believe) abbreviated the training time and formalities of Aikido without sacrificing effectiveness of these tactics for law enforcement, he is well respected in this area and regularly teaches seminars around the country. Here is his site: http://www.aikieast.com/


Sorry about the log winded post, but I hope I have offered some good food for thought, while stamping out a few misconceptions about what Aikido is or is not. If I have made any false statements please feel free to correct me. Thanks for reading!!

C. Martin
Tampa, FL

09-22-2005, 14:43
First, thank you for bringing your experienced perspective into the thread.

I do wish to challenge one aspect of you comments though;

Originally posted by AiKahrDo
ALL officers, need a lot more martial arts training, (particularly Aikido, Judo, and yes, Muai Tai kickboxing is also useful) than they care to admit. Hey, it your life we're talking about here, and guns and tasers are sometimes, (probably more often than not) more excessive and unnecessary, maybe even more exhausting on the officer's part, than simply applying some basic aikido/judo skill sets.

Now, I can agree that it would be generally advantageous to the officer to have some proficiency in these skills sets for his/her own survival. However, I'm not convinced that the bad guy would necessarily, or generally, come out any better off if you evaluate the use of martial arts techniques vs. say tazers or pepper spray (especially in the case where either side of the equation might be utilized in excess).

While there is pain involved in pepper spray and/or the use of the tazer, longer lasting actual damage can be done with joint manipulations, strikes and such. Take pepper spray for example; in the vast majority of instances, if an officer applies an excessive amount of pepper spray, it's not really likely to have any longer lasting effect than if he/she applied an appropriate amount. It's effects are pretty much going to go away in basically the same length of time. But if the same officer were to excessively apply a joint manipulation technique, he/she could reasonably often, sprain or break something on the suspect. Striking even moreso.

The problem with excessive force isn't as much tools available as it is the mentality and behavior of the officer.

I can see the plus side to having these skills available, but I think it's important to consider in totality that we might actually see an increase in actual injuries to suspects, not a decrease.

I welcome a critique of my view.

Roundeyesamurai
09-22-2005, 16:35
Hi AiKahrDo:

Nice to see you here.

For the sake of completeness, I will note that I am both a retired police officer, and a 4th Dan Aikido (Yoshinkai).

Let me address your comments individually-

1) The founder of Hapkido, Yong Sul Choi, trained with Takeda Sokaku for nearly thirty years. He had no other (recorded) martial arts training. Hence, the statement "Korean variation of Daito Ryu" is correct (or at least, more correct than any other short statement could be).

2) RationalCop is correct with regards to the Taser issue.

I will also state (remembering my martial arts credentials) that martial artists are much like many other groups- attorneys wonder why police officers aren't all up to date on every single ruling of the US Supreme Court; gun nuts wonder why police officers aren't all fantastic marksmen; athletes wonder why police officers aren't all physical marvels; martial artists wonder why police officers aren't all yudansha; and so on.

3) Judo isn't descended from Daito Ryu. Jigoro Kano practiced a much different form of jujutsu.

4) I know Ledyard, and I recommend him as well. Also, since you're in FL, have you had occasion to train with Saotome sensei? If not, I highly recommend it.

AiKahrDo
09-22-2005, 17:28
Originally posted by RationalCop
First, thank you for bringing your experienced perspective into the thread.

I do wish to challenge one aspect of you comments though;



Now, I can agree that it would be generally advantageous to the officer to have some proficiency in these skills sets for his/her own survival. However, I'm not convinced that the bad guy would necessarily, or generally, come out any better off if you evaluate the use of martial arts techniques vs. say tazers or pepper spray (especially in the case where either side of the equation might be utilized in excess).

While there is pain involved in pepper spray and/or the use of the tazer, longer lasting actual damage can be done with joint manipulations, strikes and such. Take pepper spray for example; in the vast majority of instances, if an officer applies an excessive amount of pepper spray, it's not really likely to have any longer lasting effect than if he/she applied an appropriate amount. It's effects are pretty much going to go away in basically the same length of time. But if the same officer were to excessively apply a joint manipulation technique, he/she could reasonably often, sprain or break something on the suspect. Striking even moreso.

The problem with excessive force isn't as much tools available as it is the mentality and behavior of the officer.

I can see the plus side to having these skills available, but I think it's important to consider in totality that we might actually see an increase in actual injuries to suspects, not a decrease.

I welcome a critique of my view.

Ahh, but I totally agree with your statement, which is why I stated:

"I'll add that unless one does research, and devote regular mat time to Aikido training, it is NOT Aikido or any other martial art, it is simply a small basic handful of tactics with minimal understanding of their origins or potential."

The techniques I speak of in modern Aikido, Judo, or even the Diato Ryu, were developed on the battlefields of Japan and were definately meant to more than likely mame an attacker by snapping or tearing joints in order to get the upper hand. As we all know, on the battlefield, it is chaos. More time spent wrestling around with one attacker means certain death by his friend. Therefore, the reality in battle is that rendering limbs useless means one's chances of survival become greater.

Now, Aikido has a different objective using the same principles, but we're not just talking about joint manipulation "on demand". We're talking about the attacker doing it to oneself, meaning even less effort on the part of the officer, and compliance will likely occur long before injury- unless the officer is just plain malicious and/or incompetent in the use of said tactics.

(Jeez, every time I try to be brief it ends up becoming a novel, LOL)

Aikido can be thought of as the "resolution of conflict". This might sound like hocus pocus spiritual gobbledegook to many, but this is a true statement.

I'll illustrate this point by using the scenario you offered regarding injury of joints and such being longer lasting than say pepper spray or a taser. The trained martial artist, especially in the arts like Aikido/ Judo/hapkido or any other art known for joint manipulation, will gain control and compliance long before injury, as anyone that has had a proper, ikkyo, nikkyo, sankyo, or yonkyo applied to them will agree that it does not take much pressure or effort before a perp becomes very cooperative. This is also true with the fingers, and the attacker is generally giving you what you need in order to apply these techniques effectively, whether he is attempting a strike or simply reaching for your holster or grabbing your arm or shoulder. Most of the time, any person recieving said techniques, in most cases will recoil away from the pain, which I can assure you is quite sharp enough without the tearing of joints and will generally prevent injury just by instinctive reaction. In the case of resistance even with a moderate, proper application of said basic techniques, if injury does occur, they are doing it to themselves, and is much easier to justify in court than a punch, kick, or any other strike which can cause more injury and pain than any moderate nikkyo(bent wrist), not to mention it's just more exerting to "fight", and you could get hit too, as well as overpowered, or worse yet, your gun or taser taken from you, no matter how much you work out or visit the gun range. Many of these techniques were and still taught in defense of say, someone reaching for your sword. Guess what, the samurai wore their swords in the same area that cops wear their handguns, on their hip, side does not matter, so it's just as effective.

Pepper spray can be just as effective on yourself as it is on the attacker, so make sure the wind is at your back and/or you are not in a closed environment. There is a better foam kind that sticks to the skin and poses no danger to the user.

Tasers, with the exception of the X26, really are not that effective, and I would trust a good nikkyo before I would trust a taser. The X26 paralyzes a target, no matter who they are, but there has been mention of it stopping heartbeats and death occurring, but in rare cases. No knowledge of death ocurring from proper aikido techniques, unless of course those techniques are used to their full potential, which is to mame/cripple/kill, instead of the modern way of controlling and resolving conflict, which is why it is called the art of peace, not because it is a "soft" art.

The bottom line is your own statement, and truer words were never spoken, which are: "The problem with excessive force isn't as much tools available as it is the mentality and behavior of the officer."

Which is why I stick to my belief that law enforcement needs more martial arts training, because it is the limited training on a handful of techniques with little understanding of it's origins, or potential that result in injuries to the perp or worse, the officer. I will also add that joint manipulation is not about applying strength and muscle to the extremities of the human body in the opposite way intended. It is not about the hands. As with all effective aikido techniques, it is about using your CENTER, not your strength. Using too much strength exerts too much energy, and also increases chance of injury and harm to BOTH parties involved.

Again, I do not wish to debate what is a better art, because different people have different needs, I just wanted to dispell any misconceptions about Aikido that I see mentioned by those whom have never really tried it.

(sorry for another long winded answer again)

C. Martin

AiKahrDo
09-22-2005, 17:58
Originally posted by Roundeyesamurai
Hi AiKahrDo:

Nice to see you here.

For the sake of completeness, I will note that I am both a retired police officer, and a 4th Dan Aikido (Yoshinkai).

Let me address your comments individually-

1) The founder of Hapkido, Yong Sul Choi, trained with Takeda Sokaku for nearly thirty years. He had no other (recorded) martial arts training. Hence, the statement "Korean variation of Daito Ryu" is correct (or at least, more correct than any other short statement could be).

2) RationalCop is correct with regards to the Taser issue.

I will also state (remembering my martial arts credentials) that martial artists are much like many other groups- attorneys wonder why police officers aren't all up to date on every single ruling of the US Supreme Court; gun nuts wonder why police officers aren't all fantastic marksmen; athletes wonder why police officers aren't all physical marvels; martial artists wonder why police officers aren't all yudansha; and so on.

3) Judo isn't descended from Daito Ryu. Jigoro Kano practiced a much different form of jujutsu.

4) I know Ledyard, and I recommend him as well. Also, since you're in FL, have you had occasion to train with Saotome sensei? If not, I highly recommend it.

Thank you for your responses and you make great points. I have always meant to dig deeper into the history of hapkido but I guess I was always satisfied with the notion that aikido was brought to Korea during Japanese occupation, but now I am realising that it was pre-WW2 and therefore must have been Diato Ryu. However, I am surprised that Judo is not descended from that as well, since Judo is so similiar and also Japanese. There has always been much debate over what defines "do" verses "jujutsu", so I've been known to avoid that study as well LOL. I just train and let what is, IS.

As for training with Saotome, I am ASU and have been to a couple of weapons seminars of his and I will be attending one in November in St.Petersburg. I train regularly under John Messores 6th Dan in Largo, and if you know George Ledyard then you likely know Messores Sensei as well.

Here is the website for our dojo:

http://www.theaikidodojo.com

You might find the PDF flyer for the weapons seminar at the seminars link. Recently I attended a seminar with Patty Saotome in Orlando, among Messores, PeeWee Jones, and Dennis Hooker.

I also train under Guy Hagen Sensei 3rd Dan at USF, whom is one of the guys I wrote about whom train with so much intensity. Always a great time to train with these guys.

I am currently still 2nd Kyu, but I think I've seen and felt a lot of good aikido at this point to know that law enforcement is still doing themselves a disservice by passing it up for "tasers and working out a lot".

I can only see it as benificial.

Nice to meet you, and maybe we'll meet on the mat one day! ;D

Roundeyesamurai
09-22-2005, 18:13
AiKahrDo-

Yup, I do indeed know most of those instructors. The mat meeting would be cool ;)

With regards to jujutsu, remember that there were literally hundreds of schools of jujutsu. Most are now extinct, largely because they were either absorbed into the Judo movement, or because they were absorbed into the Japanese military or police as training academies, and abolished by the MacArthur doctrine at the end of WW2.

Out of those hundreds, there were really only two aikijujutsu schools- Daito Ryu and Yanagi Ryu. Yanagi Ryu was functionally extinct until inherited by Don Angier. There are a few more schools which could be described as 'aiki' jujutsu, but have opted not to use the term 'aiki', or have only recently adopted it.

As far as the Taser, I have to agree with RationalCop- it's far less injurious than all but the most delicately-applied physical restraint- and this is specifically the reason most police departments who use it, have placed it below physical restraint and pepper spray in the use-of-force continuum.

montrose1911
09-23-2005, 00:10
Thought I would throw my .02 in. I went to College in inner city Denver and worked for Denver General Hospital (Knife and Gunclub) for 5 years as a Security Officer. I also had the chance to study Aikido at a Dojo in the neighborhood. The Aikido training was some of the best training that I ever had. I was in numerous physical confrontations in the ER and surrounding areas of the hospital. The Aikido does take time to learn but it is very efficient. I later became a Parole Officer and really never had to use it that much again. I am now studying the Tony Blauer Spear System and I think it is a great system for anybody. Google Tony Blauer and see for yourself.

caz223
09-29-2005, 14:08
I think a well rounded approach would be sufficient.
There are schools in my area that specialize in the self defense aspect of it, to the exclusion of kata, etc.
There are also traditional styles.
If you found a school that teaches both striking/parrying arts and grappling arts AND specialized in self defense, I think that would be an efficient use of your training time budget.

Chad Landry
10-03-2005, 19:56
I've never come to this forum before. Frankly, it's because when I first started online many years ago, I participated in martial arts forums, and they were mostly full of useless ego trippers. The "My art rules and yours sucks!" crowd.

It's refreshing to see so many pleasant threads here.

I practiced Aikido daily for nearly 15 years. I've only been to a dojo a few times since my son was born, six years ago. Life's priorities changed quite a bit.

The style I practiced (and taught) was a "soft style" by most definitions. Lots of ukemi, and lots of endless practicing the same techniques over and over and over with an uke.

I also practiced Judo and Jodo during those years, but Aikido was always my primary art.

I have been fortunate (some would say "unfortunate") over the years to have had opportunities to physically use my Aikido training in real life situations. Once I hurt someone (broken arm), and I consider that one unfortunate (I still try to think of something that I could have done differently). The other two times I was able to control the attacker and talk him out of "continuing this discussion".

One of these situations happened just two years ago, after not training for a few years. The technique was there for me as though I'd never stopped training. And this was one of the "talked him out of it" events.

I met my wife at an Aikido seminar in Houston. She was pretty good too, though she has never thought so. She's more of a "Peace, Love, and Understanding" kind of person.

Now that I'm done with the introduction, back to the topic at hand:

We had several LEO's in our classes, and they learned crude techniques fairly quickly (with repitition). Many quit before addressing any of the finer aspects of control (of self and uke), but I don't feel that they wasted the few months that they devoted to learning some basic skills.

Some were ranked in other arts, Shotokan, Isshyn Ryu, TKD, etc. And just came to our school to pick up some submission holds.

The thing that concerns me is training in too many disciplines and ending up with too many answers to the same question. Sure, you have to have more than one answer. But if you have too many, might you "freeze up" for an instant while your mind mulls over the available options?

For example, do you stand your ground and block (as with more mainstream "martial arts" (tournament sports), or do you evade and blend?

For me, it's an automatic reaction. The times I've used it, it's been like a car accident. You don't have time to think, only time to act. Your foot is on the brake and your hands are steering where you need to go before you can think anything through. When it's over, you don't remember anything but the ending (if you're lucky). So I practiced without overcomplicating things. I only hope I don't hit the brake when the accelerator would be the better choice.

Roundeyesamurai
10-03-2005, 20:08
Hey cjlandry, nice to see you over here!

Re: "Too many options"- one of the things to try to explain to people, is that there are really only a few dozen techniques (depending upon your style). The fact that there are hundreds of technique names is what makes that fact confusing- the Japanese organizational need to list every single variation of those essential techniques.

Hence, when a boxer describes a jab and he says "I might jab like this, or I might jab like that...", it's a jab, the variations are unimportant. On the other hand, to the Japanese, every variation of a technique has its own name, and remembering all the names is what creates confusion, as it starts to give the student the impression that they are distinct techniques, rather than variations of the same theme.

To prevent this, I teach the essential techniques- and although I may use the names of each variation occasionally, as a rule I don't use them. I'll say "here's one way to do irimi nage... here's another way to do irimi nage..." and so forth.

Chad Landry
10-03-2005, 20:48
Well, I wasn't referring to variations on a basic, more on avoiding contradictory arts. Like Block/Punch/Kick/Strike vs. Evade/Push/Pull/Guide (aka "Hard" vs. "Soft").

The style of Aikido I trained in was an offshoot of Tomiki Ryu. Everyone instantly associates Tomiki with "that BS competition stuff", but there was another branch that didn't focus on competition.

Another thing of note is that the man who brought this branch of Tomiki Ryu from Japan to the U.S. is known as a major egomaniac in many circles. I never personally had a problem with him, but I've seen him go off on people, and it was never pretty. Definitely not the guy to learn anything "spiritual" from.

Tomiki was a Judoka, and he introduced competition in Aikido to try and attract students. It backfired, and gave his school a black eye.

Our school focused on his Ju Nana Hon Kata(17 basic techniques) and "wrist releases" (ikkyo, nikkyo, etc.), and later went into many more advanced kata once Dan ranks were achieved. It seems far removed from Ueshiba's teachings until you gain some experience and work out with some traditional "Ueshiba-style" students.

So it teaches the same thing, but uses a much different "cirriculum" to teach. We found that students learn technique faster, but the subtleties still take many years to even begin to master. Everyone always comments that "I thought I knew something until I got my Shodan. Now I'm beginning to realize how little I know."

Sorry for the hijack. I just didn't feel that starting a new thread would be appropriate for my first post in this forum.

Roundeyesamurai
10-03-2005, 21:16
I'm more than familiar with Tomiki (and I'm pretty sure I know who you're referring to specifically).

Part of the disparities amongst the various styles of aikido comes from the fact that their originators all believe they're conveying aikido as they learned it from O'sensei. Some might say this is because of the breadth and depth of aiki; some might say it's because O'sensei changed his teachings like he changed his underwear. I tend to believe it's some of both (and that's not a criticism, either).

As far as "hard" vs. "soft" styles- I really don't think there's the huge dichotomy between them that others see. I think the dichotomy is solely the result of mentality- "I *must* do it this way", "*This* is the perfect way", so on.

Successful hybrids, such as Yoseikan Budo, are proof that once one thinks in terms of "the right tool for the right job", everything comes together nicely. Much of what I teach in my dojo is the same.

All of this, naturally, is trees; the forest is the aiki concept itself. When one genuinely understands the concept of aiki, it can be applied to anything. From that standpoint, the purpose of the aiki techniques is primarily to viscerally teach the concept.

Feel free to start threads whenever you like, man; the folks here don't pull "seniority" on newbies (usually... ;f ).

10-04-2005, 12:08
Originally posted by cjlandry
When it's over, you don't remember anything but the ending (if you're lucky). So I practiced without overcomplicating things. I only hope I don't hit the brake when the accelerator would be the better choice.

It is true that we will act as we have trained (for the most part). For law enforcement purposes, however, it is not "lucky" (read good) to not remember what happened after the conflict. Speaking for my department, we pretty much have to remember blow by blow what force we used to gain control and compliance of a suspect, AND why that force was necessary. It can be very dangerous for an LEO to be on autopilot. Unfortunately, I have seen too many LEO's not be able to remember the force they used, why the used, and were incapable of explaining those actions in documentation.

I think the "too many options" thing is a matter of individual perspective and training. One must know one's limitations. Some folks are better than others in quickly evaluating and then responding to the context of a situation, generally picking the best of many different solutions each time. Others perform better when not cluttered with variety.

Chad Landry
10-04-2005, 19:51
By "lucky", I meant that you may be lucky to be alive to "not remember".

Good point on the differences in people's ability to weigh the options within milliseconds.

10-04-2005, 21:16
Originally posted by cjlandry
By "lucky", I meant that you may be lucky to be alive to "not remember".

Ahh, thanks for the clarification.

Fedaykin
10-10-2005, 02:19
Aloha!

If you are interested in self-defense, Aikido is not a bad martial art, provided it is not the only martial art you study. Here is why I say this...

(1) I used to teach Aikido, I have a purple belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and I hold two Instructor's ratings in JKD, so I'm not judging Aikido or BJJ from an "outsider's perspective" (I'm not trying to be egotistical here by giving a resume; I just want to head off any objections about my knowledge of Aikido at the proverbial pass). I have also had many students who were in either law enforcement or the military, so I am familiar with the kinds of training that is typically requested by LEO's.

(2) It takes a long time to learn how to perform Aikido effectively against resistance. Police officers need something that will work ASAP against the dangerous felons they encounter on a daily basis. It would be best to learn something like jujitsu first, which will give an LEO some practical skills for the time being. After a few years of jujitsu, taking Aikido can help to round out your arsenal of "control" techniques for restraining violent perps without hurting them.

(3) Many Aikido schools don't teach you how to kickbox or grapple offensively, so the attacks you practice against aren't very realistic. Also, randori is typically performed with little or no resistence, which leads to a false sense of security about one's ability to perform a technique in a real fight. Granted, not all Aikido schools are like this. I had one Aikido sensei who was a 3rd dan in jujitsu and an ex-kickboxer, but these instructors are unfortunately few and far between. Training in some kickboxing and grappling will give you an intimate knowledge of the kind of attacks you are likely to face from a skilled opponent so that when you later begin to study Aikido, you will be able to train realistically (e.g. you can practice your kuchi-tsuki kote-gaeshi against a boxer's cross rather than a lunge punch). I haven't set foot in an Aikido dojo in five years, but I think my resistence training in JKD and BJJ has made me a better Aikidoka when it comes to practical application.

So... I would suggest signing up for both Aikido and BJJ (or JKD or something similar) to maximize the effectiveness of your control techniques.

Temet nosce,
Fedaykin

Roundeyesamurai
10-10-2005, 02:45
Fedaykin:

There's a defining point which you're getting toward, but not quite hitting (and you're not alone in this, most aikidoka don't realize it either):

Aikido is not, has not been, and should not be, a beginner's martial art. It should not be the first martial art a person trains, nor should it be trained simultaneously with another martial art.

The first students of O'sensei (and the preponderance of his students at any time) already had prior martial arts experience, or some similar experience (such as military combat service).

The reason for this is simple: one must have experience in order to really understand aikido. O'sensei originally intended aikido to be practiced by war veterans, to provide them a venue for dealing with the trauma of combat service.

The best way to get in to aikido, is to have similar experience. Train several years of karate, or judo, or boxing, or BJJ, or whatever; get some actual life experience under your belt; and then get into aikido.

As for training multiple styles at once, forget it. You'll be too busy trying to remember all the technical information presented by multiple instructors, and won't have enough time or memory to do any actual learning.

Fedaykin
10-10-2005, 05:02
Aloha, Roundeyesamurai:

I certainly agree that Aikido is not an art for beginners. If I ever went back to teaching Aikido, I think I would insist that anyone who approached me for lessons had at least four years experience in another martial art. I have heard that there is an Aikido sensei in South Carolina who makes all of his students learn boxing and judo before he will teach them Aikido.

As for the effectiveness of training simultaneously in two arts, I think it depends on the arts and on the experience level of the practitioner. A beginner should probably stick to one art since he/she will be learning the fundamentals and doesn't want to get overwhealmed (as you mention above). A more advanced student can benefit from cross training, I think, provided he/she doesn't train in two arts that contradict each other (e.g. karate and boxing have markedly different punching structures).

Temet nosce,
Fedaykin

Roundeyesamurai
10-10-2005, 05:13
Originally posted by Fedaykin
As for the effectiveness of training simultaneously in two arts, I think it depends on the arts and on the experience level of the practitioner. A beginner should probably stick to one art since he/she will be learning the fundamentals and doesn't want to get overwhealmed (as you mention above). A more advanced student can benefit from cross training, I think, provided he/she doesn't train in two arts that contradict each other (e.g. karate and boxing have markedly different punching structures).

I think you kinda missed my point re: crosstraining.

I maintain that crosstraining in two different martial arts is a bad idea- it is not dependant on the student's level of ability. The reason I maintain it is a bad idea, is because one becomes too wrapped up in the technicalities (an example being your example of the difference between karate and boxing).

Technical training is the lowest common denominator of martial arts. The individual technical skills, once learned, should be left alone in favor of higher forms of development (tactical, strategic, social, emotional, etc.). To enter into one martial art as a beginner, learn only the technical skills, then adopt more styles in order to solely learn their technical skills, dilutes the technical abilities already learned, and prevents further development beyond the merely technical.

Therein lies the reason aikido isn't for beginners- it isn't a technical method. The technical skills are learned in extremely short order- and then one spends years developing beyond these technical means. Thus, entering into aikido with an already-established body of technical skills (and, preferrably, experience at applying those technical skills) better prepares the student to more rapidly and confidently transcend the extremely finite technical realm (a realm most practicioners never leave).

Fedaykin
10-10-2005, 23:52
Aloha, Roundeyesamurai:

Thank you for your intriguing response.

I certainly agree that the self-cultivation pursued in martial arts should not be limited to the purely technical. The term "martial art" (or budo) implies (1) effective self-defense skills and (2) the philosophical cultivation of one's character. Also, I agree that within the martial aspect of one's training, one should not focus on the purely technical, since one's effectiveness in a fight is determined by strategy and attributes, as well as techniques.

However, it still seems to me that one can cross train effectively in two different martial arts without sacrificing strategy or self-cultivation, provided that (1) the arts don't contradict each other technically (as per the earlier karate vs. boxing example) or philosophically, and (2) one takes the time to spar using techniques from both arts together so that one can integrate them into a coherent, systematic whole.

Take, for example, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (I tend to prefer the traditional spelling of "jujitsu") and Aikido. Speaking generally, these arts have a lot in common. Both are grappling arts. Both use the principle of ju (suppleness) to take the energy given by an attacker and redirect it via a throw or joint lock. Both agree that it is best to use the minimum amount of force necessary to overcome an assailant (ideally without injury to either the attacker or the defender). The difference in the two approaches is where I believe they can help each other the most. Aikido teaches relaxation and centering, while jujitsu emphasizes leverage and base. Aikido is at its strongest when standing while BJJ is strongest on the ground. Aikido is effective at small joint manipulation and kokyu-style throws, while jujitsu favors takedowns, hip-throws, reaps, and gross-motor movements.

By integrating the strengths of each art into a single method of fighting, it is possible to broaden one's own technical and strategic arsenal. This also helps one to develop one's own, unique method of self-expression through the martial arts (in the sense that Bruce Lee discussed). I certainly don't encourage anyone to cross-train in a panorama of different arts, training in each one for only a couple of years and then moving on to a new one. Such an approach would create a chaotic mess with no practical benefits. But if someone finds a couple of compatible arts, I believe that the two approaches can benefit one another if properly integrated with a common goal in mind.

Temet nosce,
Fedaykin

Roundeyesamurai
10-11-2005, 00:19
Hey Fedaykin;

Re: Your Bjj/Aikido example- yes, they do have complimentary technical skills- however, the personal(ity) traits of the two arts are, for beginners, incompatible. Aikido espouses non-confrontationalism, non-competition, and non-injury; whereas BJJ gave rise to Ultimate Fighting. The respective arts have these respective mentalities, not out of any form of idealism, but because they are methods which were developed in order to suit persons of those respective dispositions.

One can definitely find common ground between those two, but finding that common ground is a personal endeavor.

Injecting non-confrontationalism into BJJ would obviously neuter it; whereas, injecting competitiveness into Aikido has been tried, unsuccessfully (Tomiki-ryu).

I would say the best advice (and the advice I give to all persons looking for training) is to find an instructor one likes, and train whatever he teaches. It is far more productive to obtain the benefits of hybridism from someone who has successfully made the hybrid.

Yoseikan budo is an excellent example of this- Mochizuki sensei spent decades mastering first karate, then judo, then aikido- and then started teaching his particular synthesis of same to his students. It became its own "art" only after he died- while he was alive, it was simply "budo", as taught at the Yoseikan (the name of his dojo). he was a perfect example of an instructor who made the personal discovery of synthesis, and then taught the benefits of that synthesis to his students.

Now, understanding that Yoseikan budo and Tomiki aikido came from common roots (Kodokan judo learned from Jigoro Kano, and aikido learned from Ueshiba Morihei), why is one a success and the other a failure? It's not the technical skills, because those skills are nearly identical (except that Yoseikan also includes some karate striking). The difference between the two, is the higher areas of development- higher development is non-existant in Tomiki, since it is wholly a sport (and an ill-conceieved one, at that), whereas higher development is what Yoseikan is all about.

In other words, in Tomiki's case, the synthesis of the teachings of multiple masters had never occurred, and the result was Tomiki sensei's own ill-advised, shoddy attempt to put the two together (something he did, incidentally, while spending three years imprisoned in solitary confinement- it may very well be that some mental illness stemming from this confinement contributed to the schizophrenic nature of Tomiki aikido).

Mochizuki's synthesis, on the other hand, stemmed from decades of learning, practicing, and most importantly USING, what he had learned. The seamlessness of Yoseikan budo stems from this- rather than being a piecemeal assemblage of trivial technical skills, it is the product of Mochizuki's lifelong pursuit of "the bigger fish".

Fedaykin
10-12-2005, 19:21
Aloha, Roundeyesamurai:

I agree with the point that Aikido, as a non-competitive art, is philosophically incompatible with the competitive aspect of BJJ. However, it is important to note that many people train in BJJ with no interest whatsoever in sport competition. I personally train jujitsu for self-defense and self-cultivation and have no desire to compete in grappling or MMA tournaments. It is because of this approach to my BJJ training that I find it compatible with the non-confrontational spirit that I believe should be one of the goals of all bushido training.

Also, I believe the case of Mochizuki Sensei that you mention is an excellent example of the proper use of cross-training. First, it is essential that one practices for an extended period of time, doing one's best to master the respective arts rather than learning a hodge-podge of basic techniques. Second, one must integrate, through practice (including sparring/randori), the different arts into a coherent and systematic whole. Third, the purpose of this integration is always the cultivation of one's character through the practice of bushido.

Temet nosce,
Fedaykin