martial arts effectiveness?

Your first point, "test" doesn't need to be answered because it takes only common sense to realize that the techniques used during the feudal periods and sooner are effective. (Why else would they still be around today? And they are still being taught by the world's military and militia.)

I, and others who have spent years in living the martial arts lifestyle will have most certainly heard of AikiJuJutsu. Those same people will agree that it is an effective system and explain to you the simple statement you wished to not be said. "It is the practitioner/instructor not the art."

JuJutsu was a broad method of defending oneself until the late 1600's where it began to take on a more formal systematic form, settling into its current status in the late 1800's. This was also the major evolution of the Martial Artist society from just killing to the more esoteric lifestyle of self-improvement in all areas. Judo came from JuJutsu as a sport and yes the more lethal techniques were removed from the system, any person studying Judo would know that and agree. (That does not make Judo ineffective or any less effective than its predecessor to the slightest degree.) Brazilian JuJutsu is just a regional modification of Judo taking aspects its originator (We all know who he is) liked most and employed.

It is senseless to try and argue with the overwhelming mass of keyboard toughguys, and wikipedia/youtube know-it-alls on the point of anything. Your single opinion, quoted facts, or even that of a vocal minority of us serious lifestylists will not make any serious changes to popular belief.

Aikido more than certainly has it's merit. Yes, I've beaten Aikido Students, the same with Goju Ryu, TKD, Wing Chun, Chan Ch'uan, White Crane, Bagua, Bunjinkan Budo Taijutso, Judo, Boxers, and Wrestlers. I have also lost to many of the same systems and different practitioners. You understand the point I'm making here?

Staying where you want me to stay I will tell you that Aikido is an effective system, and yes even to the wily street thug who is high on crack or meth and invincible.

@- The Kitte... Brutal and effective are different and one in the same. That is really an ethics discussion about proper levels of force. I disagree with your last point, but not completely, only slightly.

@- Corey - I understand your opinion and cannot argue with it as it is solely your opinion. However I will have to disagree with the fundamental fact that you don't know much about Aikido and really have an unfounded opinion based on your watching it on youtube, and your friend's dojo (that's what it is called). Having not studied it at all yourself or not being exposed to it other than that leaves you without enough evidence either way to make a properly educated judgement. As you may say the aikido practitioner won't be able to make the perfect throw in a real self defense situation, I challenge you to execute a perfect technique. Your agrument there is void, as even trained professional police and military soldiers miss their mark or intention.

@- Lex - I absolutely agree with you that talking is effective, and in some cases the most effective form of defense. I agree with your statement completely.

Ron and Sheldon both had valid points as well.

more to come...

I know that Daito Ryu Aiki-Jujutsu that Sokaku Takeda Created was definitely a killing art, it was created to be use by samurai when they lose their Katana in battle. then the art of aiki it self being soften by Morihei Ueshiba, he saw that his student getting injured in their training. so he make the style more softer. i discovered that in AikiJujutsu, the tenkan move is perform much smaller then in Aikido.

My opinion about Aikido is that this style is amazing. you could use it very effective. I think that any Style is good, it depends on the user. for me... i think Daito Ryu Aiki-Jujutsu itself is not so deadly, but Sokaku Takeda is.

I personally combined Aiki-Jujutsu with other style that i've learned. Not to created a new much more Deadlier Style... but to have some technique that's really suits me.

regarding real aspect of the training... i think Aikido Training is enough. it depends on the user. many Aikido user get hit when their opponent throws a jab. while the practitioner is insisting on taking that opponent arm or body. i don't think it's the style fault, it's the user fault on insisting to do the arm or wrist lock, by catching his opponent Jabs.

For me Style is just a set of tool box full with tools. you don't need all of it to get the job done. or maybe even add more tools from another box. it doesn't matter as long as the job is done.

I don't think Aikido is a bad or ineffective style, but I do believe that a style is only effective if you train as near to real fighting as you can get.

There is a difference between knowing a technique and actually being able to use it in a real fight. If you did just the kata or forms for 10 years and never sparred with a living breathing opponent then it is not going to be effective. It doesn't matter what the style is. Bad training, bad results.

A good example is driving a car. Most people can drive a car to and from their destination regardless of what type of car they drive, but it does not make them qualified to drive in an auto race at +150 MPH.

I'm not quite sure what exactly you are asking, because there is alot to read. But, I train in BJJ, which I feel is one of the most effective martial arts in the world, if not the most effective. You are right, that BJJ is derived from Judo, and Judo is derived from Japanese Jujutsu. However, no small joint locks or other "dangerous" moves were removed in the creation of BJJ because Judo does not include alot of techniques like that(small joint manipulation, spine manipulation, etc.) In your question, I believe that you said you train in Aikido, and you are wondering about other people's opinions about Aikido. I have seen Aikido videos on Youtube, and I have watched my friend train in person at his Aikido dojo(is it called a dojo? or an academy?) From what I have seen, I do not believe Aikido is effective. I don't think it is effective because it's techniques display perfect, symetrical moves. Street fights are not perfect. Thay are messy, confusing, and awkward. I highly doubt that an Aikido practioner could execute a perfect throw or disarm in a real street fight. I actually did fight my friend who practices Aikido, and beat him. He just did not know what to do once on the ground.

In short, I do not believe Aikido has it's merit, and I do not believe it is an effective martial art. I think that BJJ is much more effective that Aikido(by a long shot).

First of all, the first 2 questions in your test has nothing to do with Aikido. Being in use over a thousand years alone is not enough validation for an art's effectivity. The practice of mysticism and use of amulets during battles for example has been around for a thousand years, does it mean you really can't effectively be hurt by bullets if you practice these arts today? I doubt it. Besides anything developed solely for war, usually involves the use of weapons and group tactics. Most of the present day martial arts where one on one fights are the focus were developed during peaceful times when warriors had nothing else to do since there were no wars, so they ended up focusing more on empty hand training and character development to prepare them for the time when they finally need to defend themselves. Aikido was one of these arts. I have trained in Aikido and have stuck with it not because I found other arts ineffective, but because I found a good teacher who challenged me to learn more about myself and see beyond the usual philosophy of aggression and blood lust found in most martial arts. Is it effective for me? Yes. Would it be effective for you? Only you can answer that. We all have different goals, so we all need different methods of achieving them, if all the problems in the world can be solved by just one art, then what would be the need to create others? As for other people thinking it's ineffective, it doesn't really matter. As my Sensei used to say, "Keep your mind on your training and don't mind what other people say, as long as you don't mind, they won't matter."

Practicality and effectiveness to do what? Too protect yourself against a mugger in an elevator? To become a super star in fighting televised caged matches? To defend against a gang attack on the street? Most people on the UFC bandwagon will say whatever martial arts they see most on TV. But what works on TV in a ring with referees and well defined rules doesn't necessarily work in all situations.

I feel that Aikido can be very effective if taken as a life practice, and you truly dedicate yourself to it. However any type of serious training that you practice for this amount of time is probably going to be effective no matter what. I think the reason that people think Aikido is in effective is because very few people ever get close to "mastering" (I don't believe you can ever truly master a martial art) it. And from my experience it isn't that effective with a small amount of training.

Deciphering which style is better than the next is a very subjective question. The answer always depends on the intent of your training and what your personal goals are. Many people who claim to be knowledgeable about martial arts gained their 'knowledge' from watching others fight. Currently the most notorious organization of 'professional martial artists' is the UFC. The UFC and other forms of sport combat are just that, sports. True martial arts are much more than simple sporting competitions. When we talk about tradition, etiquette, honor, discipline, self-exploration and personal development martial arts is revealed as what it really is and was intended to be: a way of life. That is literally the translation of the suffix 'do' used in many martial arts.

If your personal martial arts goals are more practical and less spiritual, the answers are a little easier, but not much. Contrary to popular opinion, if you train for self defense, you should seek a traditional style. Modern styles tend to teach watered-down techniqes which have been specifically selected for sport competition. Don't get me wrong, you could survive a self-defense scenario by throwing a round house to the head, but it's much more practical to throw a thrust kick to the knee. Sport styles rarely teach these techniques because 1) they are illegal in a sport venue and 2) sport instructors may not understand the 'true' application of the techniques.

I am not saying that sport training is without value, but if you train for self-defense keep this in mind: We do not live in a padded world. I don't care what style you study, if a technique isn't safe to use when you need it, it's not safe, period. I live in Wisconsin, where we have ice and snow for 7 months of the year. I cannot expect to be able to spin and jump when I'm standing on ice. Let alone kick head level with a 2 lb snow boot on my foot. I also have no desire to roll around on a tavern floor covered in broken glass and spilled beer trying to submit the guy who just blind-sided me. I know I could break his arm with an arm-bar, but I'd rather break his jaw.

As far as Aiki-do, I consider it a valid art form. It may look like choreography to a layman, but experienced artists will realize the value in deflecting and evading attacks. Avoiding attack, redirecting energy and decentralizing opponents-sounds pretty effective to me.

Feel free to disagree, but this is my opinion.

For the most part, all these arguments about style are silly.

In my experience, they come mostly from people who like to view martial arts from a couch. Practitioners aren't really that bothered with what other people are doing, as a general rule.

Also, there is a difference between brutal and effective. Not everybody expects the same result from techniques. Nor is there anything wrong with learning a martial art for its more formal aspects.

And of course, a "weaker" art well learned and deeply practiced, beats a "stronger" art badly taught and practiced on the surface any day of the week.

I think a lot of people are very confused. As said before they confuse brutality with effectiveness. In reality, talking can be an effective self defense on certain occasions. The police certainly think so as they use it as often as possible especially with hostage situations. On some occasions it isn't, which is why the police also carry guns.

Sometimes landing a guy on his butt is all you need to win the fight. Sometimes however, you need to gauge his eyes out.

I think what's really the big thing is not to be caught up in "Most effective." Obsession over the suplurative (good, better, best) only puts limits on your training.