Aikido Question, yes?

[Tanulis]

I have been considering training in Aikido, prefferably the hard style Yoshinkan. I have been reading tons of bashing on Aikido and how its not ''street realistic''. However, at every point Ive ever seen most people bash it, they add in the small tidbit ''it takes around 6 or 7 years to get any good, compared to other martial arts which take much less time''(EDIT: Ive seen this in another forum, i dont think it was this one).

My question: If someone was dedicated enough and actually spent that much time working at the art and really focused on perfecting themselves, could it be great? or even semi-great?

I guess the old saying, ''There are no great martial arts, only great martial artists'' would be the main quote im attributing to this question.

Thanks guys.

[cyrijl]

No, because even after 6-7 years they will be training in the same outdated, impractical training methodologies.

[1point2]

No. First, this should really be in newbietown, but it's OK.

I'll tell you why aikido will not work, even if you try really hard, eat your vegetables, and train for 10 years: if you want to get good at fighting, you need to fight. Aikido does not, in 999 out of a thousand schools, involve fighting.

It can be interesting, it can be useful, but it simply, plainly does not provide any experience or instruction in fighting. For that, you need to fight. By which I mean, spar hard at standup, clinch, and ground.

The people who do aikido on this site, to my eye, generally either A) recognize its shortcomings, B) cross-train heavily, often in judo, military combatives or BJJ, or C) do both A and B.

There's also Chris Hein, who, under some substantial criticism, is looking into aikido as a method of weapons retention and defense, ie, working with unmatched encounters involving knives and short sticks. I'd say he falls under C, plus he's researching whether it can be made to work for something else.

[Rock Ape]

There's also Chris Hein, who, under some substantial criticism, is looking into aikido as a method of weapons retention and defense, ie, working with unmatched encounters involving knives and short sticks. I'd say he falls under C, plus he's researching whether it can be made to work for something else.

And has never provided a shred of evidence either factually or physically that substantiates his theory.

[lostitagain]

I have been training Aikido for a little over two years now and have learned quite a bit about how to manipulate the skeleton and how to control a persons center. After a while you learn that many of the movements are based on the attacker and/or defender wielding weapons and many of the techniques do not work well against someone who is not focused on maintaining control of a weapon.

The principles of the art are sound, however it does take a long time to gain enough proficiency in the techniques before you can practice them with aliveness. On the rare occasion that I and my sensei are the only people at practice we will sometimes spar, him drawing on his karate background and I on my judo background. The Aikido that comes out of these sessions looks nothing like what you'll see in the videos of demonstrations and it tends to be the same few techniques: Iriminage, kokyunage, kaiteinage, ude-osae, ikkyo, nikkyo, and sankyo. It also takes some atemi (striking) to create openings for the techniques.

Many of the people who practice aikido misinterpret the philosophic side of it and believe it means that it doesn't matter if the techniques are effective as long as everyone is blending and harmonizing. Many of these people also think that atemi has no place in aikido. I think this problem arises from people who come to aikido with no other experience in other martial arts.

If you want to do aikido I highly recommend supplementing it with judo or a striking art.

[MAMAs_Boy]

I tend to think Aikido is good as a supplemental art to something else. I trained in it only briefly, but I did once use a ikkyo... I also tend to think of it as a system that teaches principles, rather than fighting. To me, it looks like you would learn a lot about an opponents energy and redirect it, but not using it alone. Aikido supplementing Judo for sure.

You definitely won't get any good at fighting. Would you be able to protect yourself from an attack? Maybe. And only if he was drunk...and was swinging a sledgehammer...slowly...

*As a side note: The one time I had to use an ikkyo was on a drunk guy in the drunk tank. I'll spare the disgusting details. Suffise it to say we were both glad he was too drunk to remember it when he got booked.*

[Tanulis]

I really appreciate the respectful replies. I was hoping to dodge some flaming, and I was successful (for being outside the newbietown board, thats pretty good? lol). I will consider cross training in another striking art. Sounds logical enough. Now I just need to research a good one! lol Thanks again

[Vorpal]

Basically most of Aikido training involves compliant drills. Many of the drills are complicated responses to unrealistic attacks. If I told you it was going to take seven years for me to teach you how to swim and that we were never going to go in or near the water, would you train with me? Or would you go to the school down the street that has you in the water on day one, has a swim team and has won nationally recognized competitions?

[MMAMickey]

i highly recommend you suppliment aikido with not doing aikido

[mike321]

i highly recommend you suppliment aikido with not doing aikido

Ironic, you have the type of MA background that could actually use the supplement.

[MMAMickey]

Ironic, you have the type of MA background that could actually use the supplement.

er.. what? I'm pretty confident wrestling and judo don't need aikido as a suppliment.

[Meex]

Aikido. . .
*sigh*

I agree with each poster, thus far.
That said, much of the problem is
due to the martial aspect of aikido
being left out of the curriculum in
most cases. Then, laugh at all the
new-age & hippie craptacular ideas
that get added on here and there,
and viola! Crap!

Aikido does not take years to learn.
Does not.
If you find the right teacher.
This is the problem.

For all intents and purposes,
aikido may as well be thought
of an extinct martial art.

`~/

[mike321]

er.. what? I'm pretty confident wrestling and judo don't need aikido as a suppliment.

I meant you could use the training not that those arts need it. (Nor do you have a critical need for aikido.) If anything, aikido needs those arts to be used. The point is that you could use the techniques as an interesting addition since you have styles that teach actual fighting already. Most sensible aikido types seem to like your training background.

[Meex]

i highly recommend you suppliment aikido with not doing aikido

ROFL!
Sad, but, true. . .

Ironic, you have the type of MA background that could actually use the supplement.

"Use" not as in need, but, as in "implement."

er.. what? I'm pretty confident wrestling and judo don't need aikido as a suppliment.

Actually,
if you could find a worthwhile aikido teacher
(a fictional character -lol), aikido would help
to properly link your current technique ranges.

It would probably be a very short time-frame,
especially if you are fairly proficient at one of
your styles. . .smoother transitions and direct
linking stand-up to ground, stand up to clinch,
clinch to ground, ground to stand up.

`~/

btw - that is, IF you can find a teacher.

[DCS]

I have been considering training in Aikido, prefferably the hard style Yoshinkan.

What do you want to obtain from Aikido? what's your martial background?