Aikido yardstick (not expecting it to be used gently)
After reading a lot of posts (not all had to take a break and pry eyes from the screen) on bullshido before and after joining as a member I am well aware of the opinions of at least a simple majority of the members here in regards to aikido. I have trained in other arts to lesser degrees so have let's call it a 'working knowledge' of at least other categories of martial arts, striking,grappling. etc...
So what would it take for folks here to acknowledge that aikido could ever possibly be effective? I have seen the aliveness video, I have read the opinions about the nature of the tori/nage paradigm. So more personal thoughts on the subject, is what I am looking for. If you say, no grappling=not effective that is fine but, to what standard of grappling should we aspire to? competency for 80% of the masses or another standard 80% of muay thai fighters? How can this effectiveness be tested, laying aside the options mentioned of a school review and hopefully never an investigation. Are videos going to be enough until the school is developed enough for a review? Not trolling or trying to bait anyone, just trying to gauge the standards, how they can be applied and knowing full well that I may never change anyone's mind at all without competing in a local mma event as proof.
I have been teaching for the last 2 years after a long break for life and currently have 4 students who haven't received their first gradings yet, so a review seems premature and from the criteria I can tell you we are spartan with barely enough mats for members, a limited training schedule due to facility, and no higher ranking students to compare training with. I am stating facts, not making excuses, this is the situation I have to teach in right now.
I don't feel that I am teaching bullshido or a Mcdojo, and hope that no one who trains with me, or visits these forums feels that either.
<dons asbestos underwear to show he is at least THAT hardcore>