I Trained 5000 Hours of Aikido in Japan

Summary

In this video, the creator reflects on their intense 5,000-hour Aikido training in Japan, contrasting it with their background in Karate and Judo. They highlight Aikido's internal logic, emphasizing grappling fundamentals like joint manipulation, back-taking, and controlling an opponent’s head or hips. While appreciating the rigorous training environment, they also critique the lack of live sparring, outdated attacks, and the art’s ambiguity regarding gi/no-gi practice. Despite its flaws, they believe Aikido still holds value and potential for evolution, though it faces significant challenges in adapting to modern martial arts.

Takeaways

• 😀 The speaker trained 5,000 hours of Aikido in Japan, transitioning from a background in Karate and Judo.
• 😀 Aikido has an internal logic that is grounded in reality, focusing on grappling concepts like separating the opponent's elbow from their torso, taking the back, and controlling the head or hips for a takedown.
• 😀 Aikido's joint locks are primarily for balance disruption or setting up other opportunities, not necessarily for takedowns.
• 😀 The training atmosphere in Japan was intense and serious, with 30 hours of training per week and strict expectations for fitness and discipline.
• 😀 The quality of training in Japan emphasized technical perfection and self-driven development, with minimal hand-holding by instructors.
• 😀 Aikido does not have live sparring in the traditional sense, which limits its ability to test techniques in a competitive environment.
• 😀 There is a lack of clarity in Aikido about whether it is a gi or no-gi art, leading to pedagogical confusion about training for gi-specific techniques like grip breaks.
• 😀 Aikido often uses unrealistic attacks, like exaggerated chops and punches, which hinder progression to more realistic, practical training in the intermediate levels.
• 😀 Striking techniques in Aikido are often underdeveloped, despite their importance in the art, and could benefit from more focus on practical striking skills.
• 😀 The absence of foot sweeps, kicks, and other striking techniques is a major drawback, as these could easily complement Aikido's takedown-oriented techniques.
• 😀 Despite its challenges, the speaker believes that Aikido has value and potential, particularly in its core grappling elements, but will need to evolve and address these issues to remain relevant.

Q & A

What is the speaker's background in martial arts before practicing Aikido?

The speaker has a background in Karate (primarily full-contact) and Judo, with some prior experience in Aikido before training in Japan.

Why did the speaker initially view Aikido as their least favorite martial art?

Aikido was initially the speaker's least favorite because it was offered at their dojo as a supplementary class, and they viewed it as just more training, without a deep passion for it.

What are the three major goals of Aikido according to the speaker?

The three major goals of Aikido are: 1) Separating the opponent's elbow from their torso, 2) Taking the opponent's back, and 3) Controlling the head and/or hips for a takedown.

How does the speaker describe Aikido's approach to grappling compared to other martial arts?

The speaker acknowledges that Aikido does share fundamental grappling goals with other martial arts, but approaches them with unconventional methods, primarily focusing on manipulating the opponent's torso and balance rather than posts or center of mass.

What is the significance of the high training intensity in Japan?

Training in Japan was intense and demanding, with approximately 30 hours of training per week, including film study, private lessons, and camps. The focus was on personal responsibility and technical perfection, with no tolerance for slacking.

What is one key difference in the approach to training between Japan and other places, according to the speaker?

In Japan, there was an emphasis on personal development and technical perfection, with little hand-holding. In contrast, other places may focus more on results and have less of an emphasis on the process of technical development.

What is the speaker's opinion on live sparring in Aikido?

The speaker criticizes the lack of live sparring in Aikido and the difficulty of testing Aikido techniques in real-world competition, especially since most competitions either ban Aikido techniques or don't allow for realistic application.

How does the speaker view the competitive aspect of Aikido?

The speaker feels that Aikido struggles to define itself in competitive formats. They appreciate the efforts of Tamiki Aikido but argue that most competitive formats don't properly support Aikido techniques. Aikido would need its own competitive format to really test itself.

What issues does the speaker raise about the pedagogical structure of Aikido?

The speaker highlights several pedagogical problems, including unrealistic and overly stylized attacks (like chops and thrusts), lack of focus on realistic resistance training, and ambiguity over whether Aikido should be a gi or no-gi art.

What does the speaker think about the treatment of striking in Aikido?

The speaker believes Aikido underemphasizes striking. Although striking is mentioned, it isn't adequately practiced. They suggest that more cross-training and a competitive outlet would naturally improve the striking skills of Aikido practitioners.

How does the speaker feel about the lack of foot sweeps and kicks in Aikido?

The speaker feels that Aikido could benefit from incorporating more foot sweeps, kicks, and other martial arts techniques like Muay Thai or Sanda. They argue that these could help with balance and create more opportunities for takedowns.

What is the speaker's final stance on Aikido, despite its flaws?

The speaker acknowledges Aikido's flaws but believes it has a valuable martial core that is worth preserving and evolving. They suggest that Aikido is not beyond saving and that incremental improvements can be made, particularly by fostering more martial-minded practitioners.