Can Aikido actually be trained alive?

**kdawgious** · Posted On: 3/12/2012 3:24pm

Why is it that this alive version of Aikido is so downplayed, and all that the general public every really sees is the happy dancing in magic pants? Rhetorical question, really, I just re-read Ignorami's post and saw what he said about the consensus among the Aikido community and what the majority is looking for in their Aikido.

**kdawgious** · Posted On: 3/12/2012 3:25pm

Originally Posted by dougguod

Sure it could. All it would take would be for aikidoka to want to train it live. You answered your own question about harmonizing when you mentioned BJJ and judo; Harmony doesn't have to equal meekness. As for having no attacks, aikido does include strikes (supposedly O-Sensei said "Atemi is 90% of aikido") and, again, aikidoka could choose to strike in a non-half-assed fashion. I suspect, though, that the navel-gazing ki hippy contingent in aikido is so large and so entrenched that it won't ever actually happen.

Could we say that a good step towards aliveness in Aikido would be to teach effective striking before worrying about the grappling and throws?

**kdawgious** · Posted On: 3/12/2012 3:28pm

Originally Posted by Ignorami

If you are concentrating on wrist locks and such as the expression of Aikido, you are missing the point. Alas, loads of Aikidoka do exactly that. I hear it and see it from my own students even, and breaks my spirit.

Based on what I've seen, yes, I suppose the wristlocks and fancy dancing have been my only real exposure to what Aikido "is." On the other hand, seeing the videos posted above I'm getting a different perspective which I'm liking.

Do you teach your students in an alive manner in your school? I'm assuming you do, but I'm more curious about how you go about it. What sparring format would you utilize? The shiai styles in the video, or something different?

Thanks for all the responses guys!

**Ignorami** · Posted On: 3/12/2012 5:34pm

Originally Posted by kdawgious

Do you teach your students in an alive manner in your school? I'm assuming you do, but I'm more curious about how you go about it. What sparring format would you utilize? The shiai styles in the video, or something different?

No, I'm afraid I don't. I'd love to, and hope to, but I can't figure out a good way to do it.

We do a bit of Tomiki-style tanto randori , some normal aikido randori etc. (We used to be a Tomiki club many years ago, when I first joined it).

I advocate cross-training very vocally, and I try hard not to bullshit people on what will and won't work. I also emphasise as often as I can that we are training to use our whole body, and working to beat theirs, not snatching at isolated limbs.

My aim in my class is to make the focus:
• proactive movement
• Blending with the other persons provoked response
• Taking their balance as completely as possible
• finishing technique should just be icing on the cake to the above.

At the end of the day though, we are still an Aikido club, and carry the same baggage as the others.

As you suggest above, teaching effective attacks (not just striking) would go a long way to addressing the combat-effectiveness issues in Aikido at large.

It was probably ok not to when all the people learning it were experienced Judo and karate experts. Its quite a big thing to miss out now that an average new student is Joe Schmoe with no previous experience.

When Yokomen Uchi gets described in class as "like a hook in the street" It makes little baby Jesus cry.

Alas, I cannot make the claim "I haz teh realz Aikido" :-(

Maybe one day...

**dougguod** · Posted On: 3/12/2012 5:46pm

Originally Posted by kdawgious

Could we say that a good step towards aliveness in Aikido would be to teach effective striking before worrying about the grappling and throws?

It needn't be an either/or scenario. In fact, when I took aikido, my instructors told me that the purpose of strikes was to set up the grappling and throws, so I would say for any progress to be made one would have to do both in a live manner. If we try to just do half an art live and leave the other half LARPy, then what progress has really been made?

**kdawgious** · Posted On: 3/12/2012 10:26pm

Originally Posted by Ignorami

No, I'm afraid I don't. I'd love to, and hope to, but I can't figure out a good way to do it.

I'm not trying to be critical, but why can't you figure out a good way to do it? I know you've trained in Aikido for quite some time now, as well as Muay Thai apparently. I would imagine with this exposure to alive and less-alive training you'd have thought of ways to meld it. Not really making a point here, just a question more than anything else.

What if you taught effective attacks as part of the curriculum, and then changed the structure of randori to be more in line with the tanto randori from the video or something similar utilizing solely unarmed techniques? Granted, I assume it would tend to look more like judo or some watered down MMA, but couldn't that bring the Aikido up a level with terms of aliveness?

Anyway, just a thought.

**kdawgious** · Posted On: 3/12/2012 10:28pm

Originally Posted by dougguod

It needn't be an either/or scenario. In fact, when I took aikido, my instructors told me that the purpose of strikes was to set up the grappling and throws, so I would say for any progress to be made one would have to do both in a live manner. If we try to just do half an art live and leave the other half LARPy, then what progress has really been made?

Naturally, I actually meant that all the techniques, offensive and defensive (grappling, throwing or striking) would and should be done with alive intent. That wans't meant to be an "either/or" kind of thought really.

**Goju - Joe** · Posted On: 3/12/2012 11:00pm

The very nature of aikido is the training methodology of blending with your attacker, the heart of this is the uke / torre (not sure if that;s the correct term) relationship and a certain level of cooperation.

From this you get a sense of rhythm, movement and flow and a syllabus of techniques.

What do you don't get is conditioning of your flight or fight reflexes, adrenaline dump or autonomic responses that you get in free form sparring type of Martial arts where there is no distinction in defender / attacker.

Ueshiba knew this, and that is why he first started only training people who were a black belt in Judo or something comparable because they would have already had this conditioning.

What this means in terms of aliveness is that Aikido doesn't have to be more than it is, Aikidoka as martial artists should look at being better martial artists - assuming effective techniques and conditioning are what they strive for and cross train.

**Ignorami** · Posted On: 3/13/2012 3:30am

Originally Posted by kdawgious

why can't you figure out a good way to do it?

Originally Posted by kdawgious

...be more in line with the tanto randori from the video or something similar utilizing solely unarmed techniques?

As I said, we do a fair bit of this, and it feels like alive training, but one class of a genuinely alive art shows far short it really falls. Compared to some Aikido, there is a measure of aliveness about the way we train, but I'd never use that term in the company we keep here.

Originally Posted by kdawgious

What if you taught effective attacks as part of the curriculum

We have always been blessed at our club in that generally about half of the class is made up of people from other martial arts. In that regard, good (or at least varied) striking is always available. Its fun to practice with/against people from different striking backgrounds once people have grasped a measure of how Aikido is supposed to work.

When dealing with students with no martial arts experience, however, the idea of trying to get them to learn (or even see) these principles from good, tight striking, or violent grappling is just too hard. It usually leads to to the same **** often seen on youtube where the student grabs hold and tries to force a technique on a limb, irrespective of what their opponent is doing with the rest of their body. It's a natural reaction I guess, but not a helpful one.

People here (RockApe I think) have often described Aikido as a super-set, rather than a martial art. A set of principles to be added to someone's existing martial arts experience. While I've done that back to front, I think Aikido has its real value there.

And like Goju-Joe just said...

Originally Posted by Goju - Joe

...in terms of aliveness is that Aikido doesn't have to be more than it is, Aikidoka as martial artists should look at being better martial artists - assuming effective techniques and conditioning are what they strive for and cross train.

I was going to bold bits of that quote for emphasis, but actually each sentence is important.

**kdawgious** · Posted On: 3/13/2012 8:32am

You're definitely lucky with the crop of students that you have. What Rock Ape says about Aikido being a superset makes a lot of sense. I've read from a lot of folks that Aikido really helped them with learning to relax through drops and falls used in Judo and BJJ. As a super-set, I think, the Aikido concepts work best.

Something for me to think about. Thanks for explaining all of that to me.