8 ms·

A favorite martial art of mine is Aikido. It is quite different from all other martial arts in that it emphasizes disabling your opponent while minimizing harm

A favorite martial art of mine is Aikido. It is quite different from all other martial arts in that it emphasizes disabling your opponent while minimizing harm to them. There are different styles. Here's a demonstration of one such style called Yoshinkan (it is considered one of the rougher/more rigid styles): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugsS2_Z0wpA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugsS2_Z0wpA

trilobitten 11y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXIBi_lszsg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXIBi_lszsg
- itistoday2 11y ago
  Thanks for sharing! That video is worth watching in full, and I wish he had shown Rogen the video I shared above, as that's the best example of "serious Aikido" online that I'm aware of.
atom-morgan 11y ago
I seriously question the practicality of Aikido. It's easy to look good when your opponents play along with your attacks.
- itistoday2 11y ago
  It's worth questioning for sure, but at the same time it's easy to misunderstand Aikido. "opponents playing along" is half-accurate. In Aikido you spend most of your time practicing techniques with a partner, and they do not play the role of an uncooperative opponent for two specific reasons: 1. The goal of Aikido is to, through repetition, build muscle-memory of very specific techniques. These are very different types of techniques than what you'll find in say, karate, where it's basically kicking and punching. These techniques are designed to disable your opponent while minimizing harm. Aikido is also not about kicking and punching, it's about responding to kicks and punches (attacks). There is simply no way to build that muscle memory other than by having repetition with a cooperative partner. To outsiders this may seem like opponents that merely "play along" with your attacks, but that is ultimately a misunderstanding of what's going on. 2. These techniques are painful if you don't cooperate. The reason the "opponent" seems to be "playing along" is because they have to do this over and over for the length of the class session. If you're a poor Uke (the opponent) and are uncooperative, you will end up missing most of your classes due to injuries. A good Uke will be uncooperative to the extent that it helps Nage (the person practicing the technique) learn the technique without seriously injuring themselves.
  - atom-morgan 11y ago
    I don't think the issue of building muscle-memory is exclusive to Aikido. It's a part of nearly any physical activity. Why do you think a martial art such as Aikido is nearly non-existent at the highest level of competition such as the UFC?
    - Riseed 11y ago
      Aikidoka have no place in UFC because it goes against the whole spirit of the art: harmony, self defense, non-competition. Regardless, Aikido techniques (i.e. joint manipulation) violate the rules of the UFC. http://www.ufc.com/discover/sport/rules-and-regulations http://www.ufc.com/discover/sport/rules-and-regulations
      - scott_s 11y ago
        The difficulty with that claim is that it's circular, and it makes it untestable: the effectiveness of Aikido cannot be tested because testing the effectiveness of Aikido goes against the spirit of Aikido.
        Riseed 11y ago
        Not exactly. The question was "Why do you think...?" "Spirit of Aikido" was my thoughts, a conjecture, not a claim as spokesperson on behalf of the Aikido community. :) To rephrase what I said before: If a high-ranking Aikidoka wants to play UFC, they're certainly free to do so. However, I think none have done so because it goes against the spirit of Aikido. (e.g. people attracted to Aikido are not those attracted to UFC, Aikidoka UFC fans don't associate Aikido with UFC)
        scott_s 11y ago
        I've seen others express the same sentiment. Your explanation may be true, but I think a parallel explanation is also probably true: they are unprepared for a fight with a skilled opponent.
- Riseed 11y ago
  That's like questioning the practicality of C because it's an ineffective for web development. Like programming languages, each martial art has strengths and weaknesses. One of Aikido's strengths is its ability to quickly neutralize a situation with minimal harm to all involved parties, just as one of C's strengths is its minimal memory usage compared to higher level languages. Aikido is not the "best" choice in all situations or for all users any more than C is the "best" choice for all programs or for all users. Still, learning C is of great benefit to many programmers, even if they rarely code C itself, because the knowledge and skill spills over into other work. Likewise, learning Aikido is of great benefit to many martial artists, even if they don't rely on Aikido alone, because the knowledge and skill spills over into other work.
  - kod 11y ago
    I studied enough aikido to reach 2nd kyu (brown belt equivalent). Your analogy is crap. The only useful thing I learned from Aikido was breakfalling, which could have been taught as an isolated skill in much less time.
    - Riseed 11y ago
      I'm curious. If the only useful thing you learned was break falling, why did you continue until 2nd kyu?
- yodsanklai 11y ago
  > I seriously question the practicality of Aikido Actually, I seriously question the practicality of any martial arts. I practiced judo and thai boxing for 20 years (both sports are considered practical), and I certainly don't see myself in a street fight. Actually, I was mugged once in NYC and "fighting" was the last thing in my mind! I'm not saying that fighting can't have a practical value, but it's so unlikely that it can help, that it doesn't have to be a criteria when choosing a martial art. I'd recommend people to choose a sport that they like, rather than something that they think can be practical. There are endless discussions about which martial art is the most practical for "self defense", but if people are so concerned about their safety, I'm sure it's much more cost effective to invest in a better diet, drive more safely and so on rather than practicing boxing 3/4 times a week for years Also, fighting sports can actually hurt your body in the long run.
  - atom-morgan 11y ago
    I agree with you to an extent here. I've always believed the best form of self-defense is probably a gun. In real life, you're not likely to encounter one person who wants to fight. Chances are they're armed or they have many other people with them. So when I say practical I'm largely referring to its near lack of existence within the world of mixed martial arts.
  - matwood 11y ago
    > Actually, I seriously question the practicality of any martial arts. If in a fight, typical MMA training does work. First, it prepares you to get hit. Most people have never been punched and that first time is such a shock that people freeze. Second, most street fights end up on the ground in some sort of grappling which is what MMA training will teach someone to deal with. So, guard yourself, close distance into the grapple, and throw shots when there are openings. I would advocate to obviously avoid a fight if possible.
    - gaius 11y ago
      MMA is based on the assumption of a single opponent. Going "to the ground" against multiple assailants is suicide. This is why when the USMC needed to teach a martial art to Marines they had to develop their own, because Brazilian Ju Jitsu is only useful for sports. But yeah, the best martial art is to spot trouble in advance and be somewhere else.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  I just found this video, helped me to understand aikido a little better: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fy_a7xLzL6w https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fy_a7xLzL6w
- abritinthebay 11y ago
  Having trained in Aikido, Ju-Jitsu, and Wing Tsun... I agree. Aikido isn't bad but it's not what I'd recommend to someone as a fighting style. Wing Tsun's Lat Sao drills sometimes get derided (by people who don't know any better) as "play fighting" but Aikido is pretty much always trained in that sort of form. Also the minimizing harm to the opponent is the exact opposite you want to end a confrontation.
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    Also the minimizing harm to the opponent is the exact opposite you want to end a confrontation. It really depends. If attacked, my priority is to stop the attack. More often than not an attacker can be halted without escalating the confrontation, once the attacker realizes I have taken his initiative away. Immediately inflicting harm, on the other hand, puts the opponent in a situation of survival anxiety, and someone fired up on Adrenalin is less predictable and thus more dangerous. It's important to recognize a win when it's available to you.
    - abritinthebay 11y ago
      > More often than not an attacker can be halted without escalating the confrontation There's no escalating the confrontation once you are already fighting. It's escalated already. > once the attacker realizes I have taken his initiative away Quite simply: that's not how street fights work.
      - anigbrowl 11y ago
        Well, I have been in a lot of street fights, ranging from random run-ins with drunken louts, to being assaulted by a group, to deadly conflict involving weapons. I am sure you have experience of your own and that your beliefs have worked well for you, but I do not feel any obligation to adopt them based on your say-so. Nor do I expect you to adopt mine, but I will lay them out for your consideration. Of course conflicts can escalate once you are already fighting. A bully's objective may be simply to scare someone, knock them down and administer a few painful blows. Or a mugger's objective might simply be to get whatever cash is in a person's wallet. Knocking such a erson down a few times or slapping them around may be sufficient to get them to take off. One can escalate a conflict by actively trying to hurt someone rather than merely repel them or drive them away, in which case the opponent will be inclined to try to knock the escalator unconscious or inflict a serious, debilitating injury such as breaking someone's arm. There's another level of escalation again in which one person actively attempts to kill the other and makes their intention absolutely clear, such that the other person fully believes their life to be in jeopardy and either begs for mercy or fights to remain alive. You are suggesting that there is no distinction between the different states. This is nonsense. At the international level we are well aware of the differences between skirmishes, limited engagements, limited war, and total war. Conflicts between individuals are similarly nuanced, and the notion of a proportionate response is well established in law; if someone tries to steal your cellphone, say, and slaps you in an attempt to startle/intimidate you into letting go of it, you do not automatically have the right to kill them and you'll need to make a convincing case about being in fear for your life rather than just angry about the prospect of losing your phone. There are certainly situations in which is it appropriate to inflict as much harm as possible. I have been there and done that. But I believe those situations are exceptional and I make no apology for holding back in situations where extreme measures are not warranted. Of course I would not like to be wrong and find myself a victim, but nor would I wish to be wrong and find myself having gone too far.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  I'm into Tai Chi, and Aikido is pretty close to the flavors I've learnt. In my experience it has proved eminently practical in real world situations. One reason it suits me is that for a man, I'm quite small physically (about 5'7", 120 lbs) so I've usually been at a significant weight/strength disadvantage when I've been a target of assault. Being able to redirect an aggressor's strength against them is beneficial in terms of both interrupting the physical attack and regaining the strategic advantage through surprise and confusion; people who make a habit of throwing their weight around tend not to be very sophisticated. Edit: you shouldn't treat this as advice, of course. I come from an abusive background and got bullied a lot growing up, so while I avoid starting fights under any circumstances I'm not beset by fear or panic on the rare occasions where someone tries to make trouble. Petty criminals rely on others' being fearful and usually don't have an alternate strategy.
- kasey_junk 11y ago
  Let me start by saying, arguing about martial arts on the internet is beyond cliche, so I'm a touch embarrassed to write this. But I'm a dan ranked aikidoka who has also spent a fair bit of time on jujitsu mats and in boxing rings (though I've never fought competitively) so maybe I can add some context. You are absolutely right to question the practicality of Aikido, especially as judged by "effectiveness by any of the standard mma rulesets that have evolved in the last 20 years". Quite simply for an aikidoka to be competitive in that sort of violent conflict they must learn the standard techniques of what has evolved into a new martial art. Things like sprawling (and other take down defense), guard/ground work, thai kicks, etc are the most effective form of fighting for non-weapon, similarly sized, time limited 2 person combat sporting events. Aikido will add nothing to your chance of winning that event, and could potentially increase your chances of losing. This is unsurprising as all of the martial arts have had to adapt in the face of this modern art (including things like thai boxing and bjj). The Aikido community has been particularly bad at taking these lessons to heart and in conjunction with an already high level of ambient mysticism you get a combination that makes a style of practice that is closer to dancing meditation than to a martial practice. So why do I continue to train in Aikido (in conjunction with other martial arts)? Because violence is a wide subject. To be quit honest, when it comes to violent encounters between 2 largely similarly skilled opponents, the one that is stronger and faster and more willing to commit violence will "win" the encounter more often than not. No amount of nerd wishing that technique can make up for physique will change that and I'm unlikely to actually need to engage in that sort of violence. But multiple attacker scenarios or scenarios where it would be bad for me to inflict physical injury on an attacker are much more likely for my own risk assessment. Good aikido dojo have practice that allows for this sort of training (but many do not). Finally, I'll say that you can learn most of what you need to know about self defense (assuming its not a part of your profession) in a weekend seminar (IMPACT! for women I highly recommend). But I train in boxing and aikido both regularly because of the physical benefits. I like the dance meditation, just like I like taking a well placed punch. But I'll be training in aikido long after I've had to give up the boxing.
- peatmoss 11y ago
  Regular aikido student here--yeah, I'd agree. Better off learning to rabbit punch a throat or kick someone in the groin. But there are lots of reasons to train a martial art. I like aikido because it's mentally / kinesthetically taxing. I've also trained in judo and danzan ryu jujitsu. DZR probably had the most immediately practical self defense (beyond groin / throat strikes). Judo is also a fantastic choice for self defense in that it shares aikido' removal of lethal / maming techniques, but unlike aikido has "shiai" or full intensity competitive fights. I'm not a very competition oriented person, but traditionally taught judo is, in my opinion, something of a local optima between traditional martial art, practical self defense, and solid fitness. That said, I get less banged up in aikido, which is nice in my mid-thirties :-) Edit: I should also add that martial arts are a last resort option for self defense. If running or screaming or handing over your wallet could work, those are all better options. People get hurt in fights, especially if someone is armed.
  - kasey_junk 11y ago
    > but unlike aikido has "shiai" or full intensity competitive fights. Just for completeness sake, there are aikido dojo that practice shiai. Very much a, your mileage may vary component though.
    - peatmoss 11y ago
      True. Though the Shiai I've seen (Tomiki style) looks very different than judo shiai. What I've seen appeared to be point scoring with brushes. I actually know nothing about Tomiki style beyond that, and the history that Tomiki was a student of both Kano and Ueshiba.
      - kasey_junk 11y ago
        I've practiced Shiai in both the Tomiki style and outside of it. I've also spent a fair amount of time in Judo dojo seeing the variants there. What I'd say is that shiai means lots of different things to lots of different people. What you get out of it is school to school and student to student dependent.
- renox 11y ago
  Aikido and judo both aren't really martial arts: they do provide an advantage in fights but in both case if your opponent knows that you do this sport, he can easily find a way to nullify your advantage. This is much less the case for real martial arts such as ju-jitsu, krav-maga..

trilobitten 11y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXIBi_lszsg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXIBi_lszsg

itistoday2 11y ago
Thanks for sharing! That video is worth watching in full, and I wish he had shown Rogen the video I shared above, as that's the best example of "serious Aikido" online that I'm aware of.

atom-morgan 11y ago

I seriously question the practicality of Aikido. It's easy to look good when your opponents play along with your attacks.

itistoday2 11y ago
It's worth questioning for sure, but at the same time it's easy to misunderstand Aikido. "opponents playing along" is half-accurate. In Aikido you spend most of your time practicing techniques with a partner, and they do not play the role of an uncooperative opponent for two specific reasons: 1. The goal of Aikido is to, through repetition, build muscle-memory of very specific techniques. These are very different types of techniques than what you'll find in say, karate, where it's basically kicking and punching. These techniques are designed to disable your opponent while minimizing harm. Aikido is also not about kicking and punching, it's about responding to kicks and punches (attacks). There is simply no way to build that muscle memory other than by having repetition with a cooperative partner. To outsiders this may seem like opponents that merely "play along" with your attacks, but that is ultimately a misunderstanding of what's going on. 2. These techniques are painful if you don't cooperate. The reason the "opponent" seems to be "playing along" is because they have to do this over and over for the length of the class session. If you're a poor Uke (the opponent) and are uncooperative, you will end up missing most of your classes due to injuries. A good Uke will be uncooperative to the extent that it helps Nage (the person practicing the technique) learn the technique without seriously injuring themselves.
- atom-morgan 11y ago
  I don't think the issue of building muscle-memory is exclusive to Aikido. It's a part of nearly any physical activity. Why do you think a martial art such as Aikido is nearly non-existent at the highest level of competition such as the UFC?
  - Riseed 11y ago
    Aikidoka have no place in UFC because it goes against the whole spirit of the art: harmony, self defense, non-competition. Regardless, Aikido techniques (i.e. joint manipulation) violate the rules of the UFC. http://www.ufc.com/discover/sport/rules-and-regulations http://www.ufc.com/discover/sport/rules-and-regulations
    - scott_s 11y ago
      The difficulty with that claim is that it's circular, and it makes it untestable: the effectiveness of Aikido cannot be tested because testing the effectiveness of Aikido goes against the spirit of Aikido.
      - Riseed 11y ago
        Not exactly. The question was "Why do you think...?" "Spirit of Aikido" was my thoughts, a conjecture, not a claim as spokesperson on behalf of the Aikido community. :) To rephrase what I said before: If a high-ranking Aikidoka wants to play UFC, they're certainly free to do so. However, I think none have done so because it goes against the spirit of Aikido. (e.g. people attracted to Aikido are not those attracted to UFC, Aikidoka UFC fans don't associate Aikido with UFC)
        scott_s 11y ago
        I've seen others express the same sentiment. Your explanation may be true, but I think a parallel explanation is also probably true: they are unprepared for a fight with a skilled opponent.
Riseed 11y ago
That's like questioning the practicality of C because it's an ineffective for web development. Like programming languages, each martial art has strengths and weaknesses. One of Aikido's strengths is its ability to quickly neutralize a situation with minimal harm to all involved parties, just as one of C's strengths is its minimal memory usage compared to higher level languages. Aikido is not the "best" choice in all situations or for all users any more than C is the "best" choice for all programs or for all users. Still, learning C is of great benefit to many programmers, even if they rarely code C itself, because the knowledge and skill spills over into other work. Likewise, learning Aikido is of great benefit to many martial artists, even if they don't rely on Aikido alone, because the knowledge and skill spills over into other work.
- kod 11y ago
  I studied enough aikido to reach 2nd kyu (brown belt equivalent). Your analogy is crap. The only useful thing I learned from Aikido was breakfalling, which could have been taught as an isolated skill in much less time.
  - Riseed 11y ago
    I'm curious. If the only useful thing you learned was break falling, why did you continue until 2nd kyu?
yodsanklai 11y ago
> I seriously question the practicality of Aikido Actually, I seriously question the practicality of any martial arts. I practiced judo and thai boxing for 20 years (both sports are considered practical), and I certainly don't see myself in a street fight. Actually, I was mugged once in NYC and "fighting" was the last thing in my mind! I'm not saying that fighting can't have a practical value, but it's so unlikely that it can help, that it doesn't have to be a criteria when choosing a martial art. I'd recommend people to choose a sport that they like, rather than something that they think can be practical. There are endless discussions about which martial art is the most practical for "self defense", but if people are so concerned about their safety, I'm sure it's much more cost effective to invest in a better diet, drive more safely and so on rather than practicing boxing 3/4 times a week for years Also, fighting sports can actually hurt your body in the long run.
- atom-morgan 11y ago
  I agree with you to an extent here. I've always believed the best form of self-defense is probably a gun. In real life, you're not likely to encounter one person who wants to fight. Chances are they're armed or they have many other people with them. So when I say practical I'm largely referring to its near lack of existence within the world of mixed martial arts.
- matwood 11y ago
  > Actually, I seriously question the practicality of any martial arts. If in a fight, typical MMA training does work. First, it prepares you to get hit. Most people have never been punched and that first time is such a shock that people freeze. Second, most street fights end up on the ground in some sort of grappling which is what MMA training will teach someone to deal with. So, guard yourself, close distance into the grapple, and throw shots when there are openings. I would advocate to obviously avoid a fight if possible.
  - gaius 11y ago
    MMA is based on the assumption of a single opponent. Going "to the ground" against multiple assailants is suicide. This is why when the USMC needed to teach a martial art to Marines they had to develop their own, because Brazilian Ju Jitsu is only useful for sports. But yeah, the best martial art is to spot trouble in advance and be somewhere else.
ZenoArrow 11y ago
I just found this video, helped me to understand aikido a little better: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fy_a7xLzL6w https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fy_a7xLzL6w
abritinthebay 11y ago
Having trained in Aikido, Ju-Jitsu, and Wing Tsun... I agree. Aikido isn't bad but it's not what I'd recommend to someone as a fighting style. Wing Tsun's Lat Sao drills sometimes get derided (by people who don't know any better) as "play fighting" but Aikido is pretty much always trained in that sort of form. Also the minimizing harm to the opponent is the exact opposite you want to end a confrontation.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  Also the minimizing harm to the opponent is the exact opposite you want to end a confrontation. It really depends. If attacked, my priority is to stop the attack. More often than not an attacker can be halted without escalating the confrontation, once the attacker realizes I have taken his initiative away. Immediately inflicting harm, on the other hand, puts the opponent in a situation of survival anxiety, and someone fired up on Adrenalin is less predictable and thus more dangerous. It's important to recognize a win when it's available to you.
  - abritinthebay 11y ago
    > More often than not an attacker can be halted without escalating the confrontation There's no escalating the confrontation once you are already fighting. It's escalated already. > once the attacker realizes I have taken his initiative away Quite simply: that's not how street fights work.
    - anigbrowl 11y ago
      Well, I have been in a lot of street fights, ranging from random run-ins with drunken louts, to being assaulted by a group, to deadly conflict involving weapons. I am sure you have experience of your own and that your beliefs have worked well for you, but I do not feel any obligation to adopt them based on your say-so. Nor do I expect you to adopt mine, but I will lay them out for your consideration. Of course conflicts can escalate once you are already fighting. A bully's objective may be simply to scare someone, knock them down and administer a few painful blows. Or a mugger's objective might simply be to get whatever cash is in a person's wallet. Knocking such a erson down a few times or slapping them around may be sufficient to get them to take off. One can escalate a conflict by actively trying to hurt someone rather than merely repel them or drive them away, in which case the opponent will be inclined to try to knock the escalator unconscious or inflict a serious, debilitating injury such as breaking someone's arm. There's another level of escalation again in which one person actively attempts to kill the other and makes their intention absolutely clear, such that the other person fully believes their life to be in jeopardy and either begs for mercy or fights to remain alive. You are suggesting that there is no distinction between the different states. This is nonsense. At the international level we are well aware of the differences between skirmishes, limited engagements, limited war, and total war. Conflicts between individuals are similarly nuanced, and the notion of a proportionate response is well established in law; if someone tries to steal your cellphone, say, and slaps you in an attempt to startle/intimidate you into letting go of it, you do not automatically have the right to kill them and you'll need to make a convincing case about being in fear for your life rather than just angry about the prospect of losing your phone. There are certainly situations in which is it appropriate to inflict as much harm as possible. I have been there and done that. But I believe those situations are exceptional and I make no apology for holding back in situations where extreme measures are not warranted. Of course I would not like to be wrong and find myself a victim, but nor would I wish to be wrong and find myself having gone too far.
anigbrowl 11y ago
I'm into Tai Chi, and Aikido is pretty close to the flavors I've learnt. In my experience it has proved eminently practical in real world situations. One reason it suits me is that for a man, I'm quite small physically (about 5'7", 120 lbs) so I've usually been at a significant weight/strength disadvantage when I've been a target of assault. Being able to redirect an aggressor's strength against them is beneficial in terms of both interrupting the physical attack and regaining the strategic advantage through surprise and confusion; people who make a habit of throwing their weight around tend not to be very sophisticated. Edit: you shouldn't treat this as advice, of course. I come from an abusive background and got bullied a lot growing up, so while I avoid starting fights under any circumstances I'm not beset by fear or panic on the rare occasions where someone tries to make trouble. Petty criminals rely on others' being fearful and usually don't have an alternate strategy.
kasey_junk 11y ago
Let me start by saying, arguing about martial arts on the internet is beyond cliche, so I'm a touch embarrassed to write this. But I'm a dan ranked aikidoka who has also spent a fair bit of time on jujitsu mats and in boxing rings (though I've never fought competitively) so maybe I can add some context. You are absolutely right to question the practicality of Aikido, especially as judged by "effectiveness by any of the standard mma rulesets that have evolved in the last 20 years". Quite simply for an aikidoka to be competitive in that sort of violent conflict they must learn the standard techniques of what has evolved into a new martial art. Things like sprawling (and other take down defense), guard/ground work, thai kicks, etc are the most effective form of fighting for non-weapon, similarly sized, time limited 2 person combat sporting events. Aikido will add nothing to your chance of winning that event, and could potentially increase your chances of losing. This is unsurprising as all of the martial arts have had to adapt in the face of this modern art (including things like thai boxing and bjj). The Aikido community has been particularly bad at taking these lessons to heart and in conjunction with an already high level of ambient mysticism you get a combination that makes a style of practice that is closer to dancing meditation than to a martial practice. So why do I continue to train in Aikido (in conjunction with other martial arts)? Because violence is a wide subject. To be quit honest, when it comes to violent encounters between 2 largely similarly skilled opponents, the one that is stronger and faster and more willing to commit violence will "win" the encounter more often than not. No amount of nerd wishing that technique can make up for physique will change that and I'm unlikely to actually need to engage in that sort of violence. But multiple attacker scenarios or scenarios where it would be bad for me to inflict physical injury on an attacker are much more likely for my own risk assessment. Good aikido dojo have practice that allows for this sort of training (but many do not). Finally, I'll say that you can learn most of what you need to know about self defense (assuming its not a part of your profession) in a weekend seminar (IMPACT! for women I highly recommend). But I train in boxing and aikido both regularly because of the physical benefits. I like the dance meditation, just like I like taking a well placed punch. But I'll be training in aikido long after I've had to give up the boxing.
peatmoss 11y ago
Regular aikido student here--yeah, I'd agree. Better off learning to rabbit punch a throat or kick someone in the groin. But there are lots of reasons to train a martial art. I like aikido because it's mentally / kinesthetically taxing. I've also trained in judo and danzan ryu jujitsu. DZR probably had the most immediately practical self defense (beyond groin / throat strikes). Judo is also a fantastic choice for self defense in that it shares aikido' removal of lethal / maming techniques, but unlike aikido has "shiai" or full intensity competitive fights. I'm not a very competition oriented person, but traditionally taught judo is, in my opinion, something of a local optima between traditional martial art, practical self defense, and solid fitness. That said, I get less banged up in aikido, which is nice in my mid-thirties :-) Edit: I should also add that martial arts are a last resort option for self defense. If running or screaming or handing over your wallet could work, those are all better options. People get hurt in fights, especially if someone is armed.
- kasey_junk 11y ago
  > but unlike aikido has "shiai" or full intensity competitive fights. Just for completeness sake, there are aikido dojo that practice shiai. Very much a, your mileage may vary component though.
  - peatmoss 11y ago
    True. Though the Shiai I've seen (Tomiki style) looks very different than judo shiai. What I've seen appeared to be point scoring with brushes. I actually know nothing about Tomiki style beyond that, and the history that Tomiki was a student of both Kano and Ueshiba.
    - kasey_junk 11y ago
      I've practiced Shiai in both the Tomiki style and outside of it. I've also spent a fair amount of time in Judo dojo seeing the variants there. What I'd say is that shiai means lots of different things to lots of different people. What you get out of it is school to school and student to student dependent.
renox 11y ago
Aikido and judo both aren't really martial arts: they do provide an advantage in fights but in both case if your opponent knows that you do this sport, he can easily find a way to nullify your advantage. This is much less the case for real martial arts such as ju-jitsu, krav-maga..