This is a discussion that I was having with FreeForm (aka Cuddles to those in our club) earlier tonight. He felt that it was, while I was of the opinion that it wasn't. I will go into my reasons for holding this point of view later but I want to hear a few views from the rest of you first.
I wouldn't necessarily call it grappling, that always summons up images of wrestling to me. I wouldn't necessarily call it a striking art either though. Maybe something else.
Part Grappling, part striking.... Aikido is basically some of everything. It's basically the same principal as Hapkido with less kicking. Rob
Damn he beat me to it! I was just gonna start a thread about this and what did i find... Hope you don't mind Dave but for the benifit of others (or so we dont have to repeat ourselves) this is how it started... Something like that... Over to the unwashed masses Thanx p.s Tintin, Dave actually gave you a compliment in there somewhere!
Ha ha!! You have much still to learn my young apprentice If that is the case then you would have to say that Wing Chun is a grappling art as several of the techniques that FluffyDoc showed us in Skenfrith involved grabs and pulls (particularly thinking of the one that ended with a yank on the arm that bought you in to a throat strike - my neck is still tender from that!). I assume that other arts (TKD, Karate etc.) also use this method. Waya says that aikido is similar to Hapkido just with less kicking - wouldn't be able to agree or disagree as I have no idea what Hapkido is!!! (Please don't say that it's just like aikido, except with more kicking!). That's true but my understanding of aikido is that as soon as you come within the two arms length then you are liable to be on the receiving end of a rather painful technique. In my limited experience of judo you would often see people within an arms distance of each other with no technique being applied. I tend to agree with ckdstudent when he says that grappling "always summons up images of wrestling". When you consider the fact that there is little groundwork involved in aikido, and what there is tends to be from a traditional kneeling position rather than rolling around on the floor, I think you'll see why I don't think of aikido as a grappling art in the true sense of the word. Thanks for listening, and may YOUR God go with you. Oh by the way, the training exercise I was refering to was tegatana awase (apologies for the spelling and thanks to my right honourable, though not overly tall, sensei, Tintin for reminding me.)
I`d have to say I dont think Aikido is a grappling art, In Shodokhan at least, the majority of techniques should be done with open hand using the hand blades to perform the techniques. From my limited knowledge of grappling Aikido is not contrary enough in its use of energy to be considered a grappling art, there`s too much blending to consider aikido grappling, sorry Martin I call `em as I see `em
Range of techniques Grappling..............................................Striking Judo/wrestling......Aikido.......Karate/Wing Chun...Tkd Hows that work for people. Thanx
From a relative outsiders perspective, most of what is seen of Aikido would justify it being pidgeon holed squarely and fairly as standup grappling, but I think this is unfair, it's not as far down that track as Judo say, but would you then call it a 'striking' art? Wing Chun got a mention there, but from what I know, the grab n pull you refer to is merely a friendly tug to get the target closer for a strike. Can I take a middle line here, and call Aikido a 'low impact' Martial Art?
I've changed my opinion through numerous discussions with Silver and I personally think of Aikido occupying a middle ground. If we could define a definition of grappling that would help.......
How do you define a grappling art? All grappling? ie no striking Judo/wrestling Over 50% grappling? maybe Jujitsu Or some grappling? Nearly all martial arts.
Hmmmmmmm........(stroking beard thoughfully) My current standpoint is that it is a sort of grappling, but not in the judo sense. From my limited knowledge of judo, the grapple occurs, one person has their balkance taken, but the grapple continues to the ground. In Aikido, there may be some grappling if a technique has not been successfully applied in the first instance (as an attack is coming in), but this will end in one of three successful ways, not of which is a continued grapple. (Bear in mind I'm thinking more of a randori shiai context here, where the aim is not to injure/kill an opponent) 1) An atemi is used to distract the opponent, then some technique applied to finish them off. 2) The opponent makes a postural mistake, allowing themselves to be thrown (away, rather than to a grapple on the ground) 3) The opponent wins A bit simplified, but thats just some of my thoughts on the matter.
You could say that grappling them to the ground is when you follow them to the ground and throwing isn't. Does a definitive martial arts dictionary exist?
Actually, I think ppl should think in terms of RANGES rather than TECHNIQUES. What I mean is, instead of thinking, kicking, punching, grappling etc, think of STANDUP, CLINCH, and GROUND(as advocated by Matt Thornton of the Straight blast gym. When I did Budo Taijutsu, my instructor insisted that Taijutsu was a complete martial art. He said it had both striking and grappling in it. But when I asked him how he would fight on the ground he could'nt answer me, as Taijutsu grappling techniques primarily operate in the stand up range. As for Aikido, it is a standup martial art. It does grappling, but it is operated in the standup range of fighting. That's pretty cool to me.
Wahey, somebodys finally kick started the aikido forum again! Cheers for that mild7! Its a fair point about looking at the ranges instead of techniques, although there are still some grey areas. Especially in Randori, one wrist may have been grasped, but there is a relaxed standoff as each person waits to see what the other will do next. This could be an atemi, a counter, or a grip break. This surely puts it somewhere in between ''standup' and 'clinch'? If done cleanly though, Aikido should be at 'standup' range, taking out the opponent before thay can consolidate any attack. Grappling takes away much of the striking possibilites, so is more in keeping with judo techniques. (or other pure grappling arts) That pedantic point aside, I agree with most of what you've said.
Hmm.. I don't know who your instructor was or what his skill level is, but Budo Taijutsu does teach ground fighting (grappling) techniques. Having been taught them and having taught them myself (and used on a few occasions) I'd say they exist. As for aikido being a grappling art, my humble opinion is that it wasn't not intended to be. After all, the fight should be over once you've taken your opponent to the ground, correct? Grapple: 1. wrestle, struggle 2. to grasp. hold (Webster's New Dictionary) So, while we see the grasp and hold in aikido techniques, we seldom see it degenerate into a wrestling match or struggle. My 2 cents worth.
Looks like our opinions are pretty much the same on the original theory of aikido. Sadly though, it does often degenerate into a wrestling match, but this is more a sign of skill rather than anything else. Like any martial art, the more adept you are the cleaner techniques should become to execute. When lower grades take part in randori they generally wrestle. In Japan, I used my mat to clean every inch of the mat as I was effortlessly thrown around by a much more adept player. There was never time for it to get to a grapple.
hi Kurohana, I won't mention my sensei's name for the sake of his privacy, but he is quite notorious. by was 4th dan at the time. I have also attended seminars by Sven-eric Bogsater, that was a great experience. Yes, budo taijutsu does have SOME ground techniques, but you have to be honest. It is underdeveloped especially when compared with Brazilian Jiujitsu or even Judo for that matter. On the ground, it is the understanding of positioning that is important, not merely the finishing techniques. Almost none of the Kihon Happo can be applied effectively on the ground. It is a different matter for TAKING a guy to the ground however. I don't like the whole idea of dissing other styles, mine is better etc and all that rubbish. So I'm hoping this does'nt go down that path. Budo Taijutsu is a great art in its own right. And sorry for deviating from Aikido there Tintin, aikido is great too.
Kurohana, just so that I'm not offending you, I just wanted to say I love the principles in Budo Taijutsu. I really had a great time learning it and am still good friends with my former 'classmates'. I only left it purely because I did'nt have the time!!(I train in a few other things). I also like the streetwise edge the art has. Avoiding the ground is a good principle too, but remember, ground just happens sometimes!! The famous Dog Brothers who spar fullcontact stickfighting can attest to that.