I understand what you're saying, TS. I understand that it's a demonstration, which is the reason for the compliance. I also know that the ukemi is taken in such motions as to prevent injury to uke from the lock. Still, that's not my main gripe.

I do believe in the possible effectiveness of many of aikido's techniques and concepts. I have learned a decent amount of aikido, sparred against a number of aikidoka, and discussed aikido theory 'til my ears bled, but my real issue is the manner in which aikido is trained. Without real resistance or hard sparring, how can one learn to apply such techniques effectively in a combat or self-defense situation?

If one were to argue that aikido is meant as a philosophy/religion/way of life, and that sparring is contrary to this meaning of aikido, then that's fine, but that means that that version of aikido will continue to be non-functional in a combat/self-defense sense. Otherwise, aikidoka need to spar and train against lots of resistance for aikido to begin to approach any sort of functional use in a true fighting sense.

One example of this is the kote mawashi. (In English this is the inward wrist-turn lock, and anatomically is a pronating lock.) Applied in a compliant setting, it is really nice, and results in a very painful lock that is nearly impossible to escape once a secure grip is established and the rotation is begun. In a sparring setting standing up, it is a bitch to get the proper hold and lock it in, due to its nature as a fine-motor movement (which is known to be difficult because of the loss of such small control due to the effects of adrenaline, as opposed to gross-motor movement, which is relatively amplified), and wrist control in that particular direction and manner almost never occurs when an opponent is punching or pushing with real intent. In addition, with somebody resisting full force, kote mawashi is countered by a number of simple and natural reactions, including sidestepping before the attacker can line up side by side with his opponent, clearing the attacker's grabbing hand with one's own free hand, stepping straight in for an over-under clinch to perform a leg reap a la judo o-soto-gari or ko-soto-gake, re-grabbing the attacker's grabbing hand and arm-dragging a la freestyle wrestling, punching the attacker in the face with the free hand, ripping one's arm free, or any combination of the above. Hell, you could probably use something straight from aikido like kote gaeshi to counter kote mawashi. I'm not saying mawashi will never work, I'm just saying, somebody attempting kote mawashi must be aware of these counters, and be ready to provide a counter-attack should that fail.

Of course, it's easy for somebody to look at what my breakdown of kote mawashi and say, "Oh, well, in that situation, if my opponent resisted my a with b, I would just counter his b with my c," and we can continue on down the road of hypothetical rock-paper-scissors 'til kingdom come. But my point is, I've countered a kote mawashi when somebody has tried to use it against me in a live setting. Hell, I've used mawashi as a gimmick submission hold when grappling on the ground. I'll often attack with it from guard, especially after going for a juji-gatame (straight armbar), when my opponent will counter by turning his elbow sideways so I can't lock in the hold, and I'll grab the wrist, lock in a secure grip, and begin switching my hips as if going for an omoplata to apply pressure. I've found that using this wristlock, as with most wristlocks, is easier on the ground because I have more control over my opponent with my legs wrapped around his body or trapping his arm at the elbow to isolate the limb, controlling his movement, than if we were standing or clinched up, and because I have more time to secure the hold on the wrist than when an opponent can step out or pull his arm out, and because I can use the full rotation of my body immediately to apply the lock. I know this particular setup and attack works (skip 'til the end, the sub flow begins around 30 seconds from the end), just like I know I can counter a standing attack of mawashi reasonably well, because I've pulled it off while fighting with a fully-resisting opponent. And of course aikido has many more counters and re-counters to mawashi than I know. But if one has not actually played this situation out against a fully resisting opponent, how does one know one can do it, and how can one have developed the proper muscle memory and/or reaction without having gone through the real, resistance-included motions? The techniques are all there in aikido, but I feel that many aikidoka are missing out on the point that learning the techniques and combinations isn't everything, they need to learn how to actually apply them.

I like Yoshinkan and Tomiki aikido and similiar substyles of "hard" aikido that practice sparring regularly and have even begun attempting to implement sparring in tournaments, even though I believe their attempts are somewhat misguided. I also respect aikidoka who do not spar but also acknowledge that they are not practicing for self-defense or practical application, but rather for the cultural and spiritual development - I don't understand it, but I respect it. I only take issue with aikidoka (as well any other martial artists) who claim to have effective self-defence and/or combat skills, yet have never pulled a single move off against anybody other than a person whose designation begins with the letter "u" and rhymes with "boo-kay". In those cases, I'll take my judo along with a heaping of resistance, thank ya kindly, and leave the magic pants for others.

None taken rembar. I understand what a lot of you have to say, in one language or another I'm not saying that one art is better than the other here. I did post this as a demonstration to show some of the basis of the aikido art form.

About the effectiveness comment. I personally feel that in the right situation aikido works, however that's not what this art is truly about (just like many others). I stated the techniques are effective to show that the attackers in this video aren't going head over heals just to look cool, it's to save against injury as well.

I agree. I would like to see it in actual practical use. Not that I really want someone to get attacked, but I'd like to see how effective it actually is in a real world scenario instead of one of these demonstrations where no one is ever actually resisting or anything. I'm sure there are many practical concepts in Aikido, but you never get the sense of that in these staged demos.

I'm with Westy on this.

No offense meant to you personally, TS, I'd be willing to upvote this for being a demonstration, but aikido is not exactly well-respected in the application-focused section of the martial arts community for being effective at self-defense.

Baqueta, I'd have to disagree with you in some ways about the style vs. style thing, especially because you're right about the nature of the training is the most important, but again, that's directly related to the style. Look at judo vs. aikido. In judo sparring happens every class, and for much of the class. In aikido, sparring doesn't happen at some dojos, and the ones that do, don't do free sparring.

There IS a reason why some martial arts are represented more heavily in MMA than others, and that reason is that they are better at preparing students to fight. That doesn't mean there's no room for non-mainstream styles, but the point is, alive training is the key. MMA is a testing ground for arts - sure, it's not "the streets", as the cliche is used, but it's the darn closest thing to it that can be trained and fought in safely.

Firstly, One never cuts to cleave an opponent into two pieces! Why? Simple, if in a battle with two or more unarmed opponents, you chance to cleave one of them into to parts, you could lose your sword in the death throws of that opponent. You never ever thrust to the body, because the katana can be broken, by lodging the blade int he ribs, and having the now mortally wounded opponent screaming in agony, and throwing his weight around.

The katana is a strong weapon, but can be broken easily. If a katana is struck from behind, on the opposite side of the cutting edge, it can be broken. In aikido, or kenjutsu there are several grappling techniques for breaking the katana with ones Tabi.

Now, this person completing cuts on ballistics gel, is great, but what about bones? Killing people with a katana is a lot more fine compared to hacking away with a European great sword. Most of the time a person can gain a killing blow on the opponent by cutting with about 5 inches of the blade. You do not stab with any sword lest you have a back up weapon. You cut your opponents you never try to cleave them in half from head to crotch.

Lastly the over head cut that they do is out of date, not all practitioners have to make that over head cut from directly above their heads. They can make the same cut from the side of the head (out of ear distance hehe) and with more power do to the push and pull effect.

The kata that the shirtless guy did in the beginning was flashy and in my opinion disrespectful, there is no need to show a swords prowess, or your prowess by tossing the weapons around with flurries.

In the kenjutsu that i study there is no reason to do any thing that is not practical. If you wouldn't do something like that in a real battle then why waste practice doing it. All the weapons created in ancient time are powerful no matter what they are what matters is the skill level behind the weapon.

Thats why i opt for a mixture of aikido, standard wrestling, but i love the elbow, wrist, and shoulder manipulations that result in massive crunching.

But i don't see the big thing about the GI, i wrestled some one who was wearing a GI, and he ended up with it over his head.

Board breaking uses special wood. You try to break a solid piece of cedar with your head. It wont work, personally i see no reason for any martial artist to practice breaking boards or bricks.

A quote in one of an Aikido book states something like this.
If a student thinks that Kenjutsu is about swinging a stick (or sword) around and banging them together to make loud noises, then they are not a student, but a fool.

All that showman stuff is great when you are demonstrating to get people to come to your Dojo, but although most traditional martial art schools still charge you to learn, most will take a student on if said student has enough determination.

Breaking boards is one thing, accepting the way of the peaceful warrior is another.

Yep, i agree with you on the need to train with resistance. I tend to cross train in boxing, and wrestling. I almost never use the Aikido standing techniques, because they might work, but probably wont because you cant flip a resisting attacking it would result in a stalemate.

But i read in the kung fu magazine with Chen Bing on the cover that many advocates for training see the same stagnation.

I looked for a sparing item for kenjutsu, but i think the closest i can get to that is Last Samurai when Cruise spares with Ujiro.

I understand where you're coming from Nordlich. I mean, historical swordfighting is really neat, and the concept of mortal danger is one that does take away from many training possibilities. However, I really must protest some of your points.

"And we all know that real fights always come down to who wants to live the most, so in the end what you know doesnt matter its what you do in the fight that does."

The whole point of training with aliveness is to be able to use what one knows when it comes time to do so. By training against resisting partners, who are actually trying to whack you, it becomes that much easier to transition into fight mode and use moves when you're no longer sparring, but fighting.

Just like Tai Chi, the separation between the practice and application of the art is one that denotes its stagnation as an effective fighting art. It's a false dichotomy that is not seen in effective arts. In boxing, kyokushin karate, judo, and so many other arts, the practice is so close as to be one with the application.

And the main problem with most aikido is it doesn't work against non-compliant partners. Period. No training against resisting opponents means failure to use such moves when it counts the most. There's a reason why the Tokyo police who train aikido cross-train in a number of other arts, and spar on a regular basis, unlike the typical aikido dojo.

This is a show, a demonstration. Hardly will you ever see a real fight, because real fights are over before they begin.

But i do prize SCA style fighting and was apart of the Barony of the Blue Moon.

Most of the time if you wish to see how the art is used practically you would have to go to the school personally. When i practice with a partner, there is no armor and rattan is very dangerous with out armor. The main thing with Aikido is in order to keep your partner out of the hospital is for it to be a fluid like a dance. If they went on the premise that the bout was for one school or another's pride (old day thinking) then it would be the fight would last less than a second. The nature of the samurai sword is not to bash an opponents armor, hack a leg off. The use of the sword is to slice, and cause massive trauma to weak points on the body and armor. The underarm, the elbow, the back of the knee, the crotch, the upper part of the neck above the gorget(the throat guard i think i spelled it wrong), and the face.

When i was in the SCA i asked if i could use a Japanese style for fighting, and i was denounced, under the premise that i would be obliterated do to the fact that they had shields. The main thing is that when a pair of knights fought each other in duel there was still a chance that both could live at the end, the tradition was in Japan that one of the dueling party had to die. They pride their traditions more than their practice of brute force, and therefore we never really see how the art is used practically.

BUT!!!!! Kendo is As we will get to seeing a real sword fight.

And we all know that real fights always come down to who wants to live the most, so in the end what you know doesnt matter its what you do in the fight that does.

But Rembar i respect your position, and i often find myself wondering the martial arts are so much like a dance between two lovers. Its laughable to watch some of these things, but the first time i told my father about how much Tai Chi was a silly game that only old softies play, he showed me the difference between practicing the art, and its use.

But ill look to see if i can find a situation other than kendo that shows Japanese medieval fighting in the practical way!

Rembar... We've never met, I'm sure. In fact I had never heard of Bullshido until you mentioned it. I just came up with those conclusions myself, because it is common sense.
And I don't even do any martial art. I did a couple of months of plain old Karate when I was a kid, and I did about half a year of Aikido some years ago. And that was it.
My "thing" nowadays is Parkour
And I suppose you're american, from asking me where I train. We're not even on the same continent