Karate vs. Aikido
- Thread starter Stalker
- Start date
Depends 1% on the style, 19% on the teacher and 90% on the student. And, yes that does add up to 110% effort.
If gven the choice of only two, I would pick Aikido, but try to find an instructor with a leaning toward martial rather than art.
Definatly stay away from McDojo sport karate.
Aikido gives you more options than decking the guy, but a traditional syllabus needs supplementing with other stuff. I would reccomend combatives like Jim Grover's (aka Kelly McCann) ...
If gven the choice of only two, I would pick Aikido, but try to find an instructor with a leaning toward martial rather than art.
Definatly stay away from McDojo sport karate.
Aikido gives you more options than decking the guy, but a traditional syllabus needs supplementing with other stuff. I would reccomend combatives like Jim Grover's (aka Kelly McCann) ...
First of all, "Karate" and "Aikido" refer to several different systems or schools with different sets of techniques and philosophies.
If the choices were limited to the two, and assuming the most ideal conditions, I would recommend Aikido as a supplement to CCW, which I believe was the original question.
Most Karate disciplines are largely striking systems where as most Aikido systems are stand-up grappling systems. Aikido techniques evolved from Daito-Ryu Aiki-Jujutsu and other "transitional" Japanese Jujutsu systems that were largely based on sword retention and draw prevention. As such, they can work well with another draw weapon like a pistol.
A caveat: most Aikido schools are Aikikai-affiliated and are more interested in the spiritual and meditative expression of the techniques than in actual applications of them in the context I described above.
Bahadur
If the choices were limited to the two, and assuming the most ideal conditions, I would recommend Aikido as a supplement to CCW, which I believe was the original question.
Most Karate disciplines are largely striking systems where as most Aikido systems are stand-up grappling systems. Aikido techniques evolved from Daito-Ryu Aiki-Jujutsu and other "transitional" Japanese Jujutsu systems that were largely based on sword retention and draw prevention. As such, they can work well with another draw weapon like a pistol.
A caveat: most Aikido schools are Aikikai-affiliated and are more interested in the spiritual and meditative expression of the techniques than in actual applications of them in the context I described above.
Bahadur
Of the two, I would choose Aikido. I took Aikido way back in the 70s. It is purely defensive and is more fine tuned for attacks coming from all directions. Also, strength isn't as much a factor as it is in karate. Aikido is fine choice for women and children as well as the husky HE-MAN.
True alot of practice is required and it's nearly impossible to practice without a partner.
True alot of practice is required and it's nearly impossible to practice without a partner.
Aikido: You won't learn offensive techniques in Aikido but you learn principales of hand to hand from the beginning: timing, range, movement. Plus at many schools you will practice with bokkens since techniques are all derived from swordfighting. And as Spectre has mentioned a few times learning to defend against a sword makes defending against empty hand easy. The sword is much FASTER (at the tip) than empty hand (it is a lever) also it takes less force for sword or knife to injure you because it is sharp.
High level CCW/gun schools teach you to get off the line of force/line of attack. This is a key concept of aikido. That you never meet force with force but evade/redirect it. An attack from a gun or knife can not be blocked with naked hand or gun, you need to evade to stay alive and well.
High level CCW/gun schools teach you to get off the line of force/line of attack. This is a key concept of aikido. That you never meet force with force but evade/redirect it. An attack from a gun or knife can not be blocked with naked hand or gun, you need to evade to stay alive and well.
My comment is, if what kind of martial you did master or study is fine. None is so called this martial art is better than that kind.
As for me, I prefer Karate/Hapkido/Stick Fighting as they are the arts I have mastered in my own way.
Yesterday, I am talking to an aikidoist. He told me he like aikido because even we are old already, still it is effective, unlike to a karate only good if you are young having brute force. I did not say negatively but I told him, my martial arts is Karate and Hapkido. We talk more about martial arts we parted good on the end of the conversation.
As for me, I prefer Karate/Hapkido/Stick Fighting as they are the arts I have mastered in my own way.
Yesterday, I am talking to an aikidoist. He told me he like aikido because even we are old already, still it is effective, unlike to a karate only good if you are young having brute force. I did not say negatively but I told him, my martial arts is Karate and Hapkido. We talk more about martial arts we parted good on the end of the conversation.
The primary importance is the instructor.
I learned karate. But my instructor also taught some Akidio for close in, Wing Chun, and Jiujitsu.
I think Akidio is more effective for close in than traditional karate. In fact, I would even go as far to say that about 90% of traditional karate or more is useless in actual fighting.
Michael
I learned karate. But my instructor also taught some Akidio for close in, Wing Chun, and Jiujitsu.
I think Akidio is more effective for close in than traditional karate. In fact, I would even go as far to say that about 90% of traditional karate or more is useless in actual fighting.
Michael
My vote would go to Jui-Jitsu. A good Jui-Jitsu school has elements of kicking, striking, grappling, throwing, and locks. For self-defense in the short term, I think more people would be able to master some basic techniques more quickly.
Yet, as many people have pointed out both here and in other threads, it's not so much the specific MA, but rather the school, what they can offer and how well they can teach.
Yet, as many people have pointed out both here and in other threads, it's not so much the specific MA, but rather the school, what they can offer and how well they can teach.
CMichael:
What does "Aikido" and "traditional Karate" mean? Is Aikikai Aikido "Aikido"? Is it Yoshinkan? Ki Society? What is "traditional" Karate - Shotokan? Karate is more or less a MODERN (that is post-19th Century) "martial art" as is Aikido. Even Daito-Ryu Aiki-Jujusu is a transitional system at best - that is transitional between Kobujutsu and modern Budo. Kobujutsu was mostly about weapons fighting of the Zi-Samurai.
"90%"(!) of "traditional Karate" is "useless" in "actual" fighting (as opposed to non-actual fighting)? The fact is that the VAST majority of "martial arts" schools do not teach "fighting." Systems such as Tae Kwon Do, Shotokan and Kodokan Judo are today about tournaments and Olympic bouts. Many Aikido schools are delusional about its effectiveness and still teach Kotegaeshi as THE defense against reverse punches to the mid-section (a jab to the head never enters an Aikidoka's mind). "Jujutsu," often referring to Brazilian Jujutsu that descended from Kodokan Judo, can range from sad imitations of Daito-Ryu Aikijujutsu to an evolution of Kodokan Ne-Waza (hardly "fighting" since Ne-Waza was largely developed for contests rather than self-defense). Then there are weapon arts that teach antiquated sword play (Asian or European) or teach knife/stick dueling a la West Side Story. Meanwhile, the grappling craze has passed, and we are now in the midst of the "combatives" craze, of which Krav Maga is a part. Many of these schools offer little except some simplified locking and disarming techniques (many of which cannot be practiced against fully-resistant, non-compliant partners) and some watered-down kickboxing.
My point is NOT that all these are useless. To be sure, there are elements to each "martial art" that can benefit a prospective student who might be interested in learning how to "fight." My point is, rather, that the vast majority of these "arts" is time-inefficient in learning so-called "self-defense." Most people would be better off learning some pointers on situational awareness, verbal and physical cues of dangerous situations and learning to be fit over a lifetime (of course, others like police officers and soldiers can benefit from some training - but such training should be specifically tailored to their job requirements and situations). To actually learn to "fight" using "martial arts" takes a great deal of dedication and learning. To pick up some decent striking skills (say, boxing or Muay Thai) and some ground fighting (BJJ, Shooto or Judo, for example) alone would take signficant time and physical commitments (lots of injuries). And still one would have only covered a fraction of "fighting" (then there are knives, sticks, handguns, etc.).
Yet, most schools advertise "effective self-defense" and other nonsense to people who train 3-4 hours a week and implant delusions of "super-fighting" ability in the minds of their students.
The reality is that, for most people, martial arts should be about fitness and fun (and some testesterone-quenching/spiritual-calming depending on temperament). That is the main reason why *I* train - for fun and physical fitness (weight-lifting 2 hours a day is boring for ME). Even then, for over ten years, I devoted 2-3 hours a DAY training variously in Tae Kwon Do, Kodokan Judo, Aikido, Shooto, Brazilian Jujutsu, Arnis and Muay Thai (some of them for extended periods in Asia). Today I don't quite train 2-3 hours a day, and I concentrate mostly on BJJ, Muay Thai and some Arnis/Kali. But I don't have a shred of fantasy that all this is for "fighting."
At the level of commitment and training we are discussing, it's even more pointless to discuss "Karate vs. Aikido - which is better for fighting" or present similar lines of arguments and statements. To be sure, I put in my two cents about which would be more appropriate as a supplement for CCW (presumably handguns) based on specific orientation of techniques - striking vs. draw prevention and weapon-retention - with serious caveats, but for some to present ideas like "Karate is 90% useless for fighting" is not only unhelpful in addressing the intial question, but also completely misses the point that I present above.
Bahadur
This is the kind of broad-brush statements to which I object.
What does "Aikido" and "traditional Karate" mean? Is Aikikai Aikido "Aikido"? Is it Yoshinkan? Ki Society? What is "traditional" Karate - Shotokan? Karate is more or less a MODERN (that is post-19th Century) "martial art" as is Aikido. Even Daito-Ryu Aiki-Jujusu is a transitional system at best - that is transitional between Kobujutsu and modern Budo. Kobujutsu was mostly about weapons fighting of the Zi-Samurai.
"90%"(!) of "traditional Karate" is "useless" in "actual" fighting (as opposed to non-actual fighting)? The fact is that the VAST majority of "martial arts" schools do not teach "fighting." Systems such as Tae Kwon Do, Shotokan and Kodokan Judo are today about tournaments and Olympic bouts. Many Aikido schools are delusional about its effectiveness and still teach Kotegaeshi as THE defense against reverse punches to the mid-section (a jab to the head never enters an Aikidoka's mind). "Jujutsu," often referring to Brazilian Jujutsu that descended from Kodokan Judo, can range from sad imitations of Daito-Ryu Aikijujutsu to an evolution of Kodokan Ne-Waza (hardly "fighting" since Ne-Waza was largely developed for contests rather than self-defense). Then there are weapon arts that teach antiquated sword play (Asian or European) or teach knife/stick dueling a la West Side Story. Meanwhile, the grappling craze has passed, and we are now in the midst of the "combatives" craze, of which Krav Maga is a part. Many of these schools offer little except some simplified locking and disarming techniques (many of which cannot be practiced against fully-resistant, non-compliant partners) and some watered-down kickboxing.
My point is NOT that all these are useless. To be sure, there are elements to each "martial art" that can benefit a prospective student who might be interested in learning how to "fight." My point is, rather, that the vast majority of these "arts" is time-inefficient in learning so-called "self-defense." Most people would be better off learning some pointers on situational awareness, verbal and physical cues of dangerous situations and learning to be fit over a lifetime (of course, others like police officers and soldiers can benefit from some training - but such training should be specifically tailored to their job requirements and situations). To actually learn to "fight" using "martial arts" takes a great deal of dedication and learning. To pick up some decent striking skills (say, boxing or Muay Thai) and some ground fighting (BJJ, Shooto or Judo, for example) alone would take signficant time and physical commitments (lots of injuries). And still one would have only covered a fraction of "fighting" (then there are knives, sticks, handguns, etc.).
Yet, most schools advertise "effective self-defense" and other nonsense to people who train 3-4 hours a week and implant delusions of "super-fighting" ability in the minds of their students.
The reality is that, for most people, martial arts should be about fitness and fun (and some testesterone-quenching/spiritual-calming depending on temperament). That is the main reason why *I* train - for fun and physical fitness (weight-lifting 2 hours a day is boring for ME). Even then, for over ten years, I devoted 2-3 hours a DAY training variously in Tae Kwon Do, Kodokan Judo, Aikido, Shooto, Brazilian Jujutsu, Arnis and Muay Thai (some of them for extended periods in Asia). Today I don't quite train 2-3 hours a day, and I concentrate mostly on BJJ, Muay Thai and some Arnis/Kali. But I don't have a shred of fantasy that all this is for "fighting."
At the level of commitment and training we are discussing, it's even more pointless to discuss "Karate vs. Aikido - which is better for fighting" or present similar lines of arguments and statements. To be sure, I put in my two cents about which would be more appropriate as a supplement for CCW (presumably handguns) based on specific orientation of techniques - striking vs. draw prevention and weapon-retention - with serious caveats, but for some to present ideas like "Karate is 90% useless for fighting" is not only unhelpful in addressing the intial question, but also completely misses the point that I present above.
Bahadur
To answer your question Bahadur being in a deep horse back riding stance while practiciing reverse punches has zero benefit in real combat. It's good for increasing spirit and stamina, but as far as practical actual fighting -- I don't think so.
Most of karate are deep stances. This doesn't help in actual fighting.
Also, most karate when they practice sparring don't actually hit each other and if they do it's on a point system. Once again it has little to do with actual fighting. When you fight you are fighting two fights at one time, you against the opponent while the opponent is fighting against you. This makes it complex.
The way to practice and learn fighting is to actually fight. Very little of karate actually does this.
Most actual fighting is close in and often leads to people on the ground pretty fast. If someone only learns karate once they are on the ground they are finished.
I had the best of all worlds. I learned kickboxing for distance, akidio for short distance, and some jiujitsu for grappeling techniques.
I think akidio is more effective than karate because it's better suited for close in fighting which is most of fighting.
Most of karate are deep stances. This doesn't help in actual fighting.
Also, most karate when they practice sparring don't actually hit each other and if they do it's on a point system. Once again it has little to do with actual fighting. When you fight you are fighting two fights at one time, you against the opponent while the opponent is fighting against you. This makes it complex.
The way to practice and learn fighting is to actually fight. Very little of karate actually does this.
Most actual fighting is close in and often leads to people on the ground pretty fast. If someone only learns karate once they are on the ground they are finished.
I had the best of all worlds. I learned kickboxing for distance, akidio for short distance, and some jiujitsu for grappeling techniques.
I think akidio is more effective than karate because it's better suited for close in fighting which is most of fighting.
Toadlicker
New member
The one thing that comes to mind as to why I'd lean immediately towards learning aikido is the emphasis on learning how to fall properly.
I haven't gotten into many fights, especially after I gave up hanging out in bars and bad neighborhoods, but I've slipped and fallen on my fanny many times, every time without serious injury, in part because I know how to fall.
When I was attending a western martial arts seminar in Michigan, I noticed that my partner was suffering quite a bit of abuse from getting thrown during some of the drills. It finally dawned on me to ask him if he knew how to perform a proper breakfall. He did not, and was getting the wind jarred out of him every time he hit the ground. Less than 5 minutes of instruction left him with the basics of proper falling and he was able to continue the seminar with a lot more enjoyment.
I haven't gotten into many fights, especially after I gave up hanging out in bars and bad neighborhoods, but I've slipped and fallen on my fanny many times, every time without serious injury, in part because I know how to fall.
When I was attending a western martial arts seminar in Michigan, I noticed that my partner was suffering quite a bit of abuse from getting thrown during some of the drills. It finally dawned on me to ask him if he knew how to perform a proper breakfall. He did not, and was getting the wind jarred out of him every time he hit the ground. Less than 5 minutes of instruction left him with the basics of proper falling and he was able to continue the seminar with a lot more enjoyment.
CMichael:
Tomiki tried to remedy this by introducing the Judo concept of Randori to Aikido (thus Tomiki Aikido is the only system of Aikido with Randori), but even then the result was awkward at best.
Toadlicker:
Most Aikido schools or clubs I know emphasize Ukemi considerably, which I think is excellent. A Japanese Aikido Shihan once told me in jest "in Japan, when you learn Aikido, it's Ukemi only for three years. In the US, when you say Ukemi for three years only, the student says 'bye bye.'"
Bahadur
Gee, that's funny, because very little of Aikido actually does what you described in the first sentence. One of Aikido's great failings is that because almost every technique is "too dangerous" to practice in a non-compliant, resistant manner (meaning, no sparring), the students do not easily develop the ability to pull off the techniques under actual conditions.
Tomiki tried to remedy this by introducing the Judo concept of Randori to Aikido (thus Tomiki Aikido is the only system of Aikido with Randori), but even then the result was awkward at best.
Toadlicker:
Most Aikido schools or clubs I know emphasize Ukemi considerably, which I think is excellent. A Japanese Aikido Shihan once told me in jest "in Japan, when you learn Aikido, it's Ukemi only for three years. In the US, when you say Ukemi for three years only, the student says 'bye bye.'"
Bahadur
I agree with what Bahadur has said for the most part. I have 10 years of Shotokan, 5 years of BJJ, and 3 weeks of Aikido. I think it is very safe to say that no one martial art fully prepares you for real fighting.
It is funny. After 3 weeks in Aikido, I am already seeing some of my misconceptions disappear. Many people, myself included, misunderstand arts that they do not train in. For fighting purposes, I think the best advice is to plan to make the martial arts a lifetime adventure. Spend several years in each art and move on to the next. My personal opinion is that I would rather be a "B" level fighter in 7 martial arts than an "A" fighter in just one.
Dave
It is funny. After 3 weeks in Aikido, I am already seeing some of my misconceptions disappear. Many people, myself included, misunderstand arts that they do not train in. For fighting purposes, I think the best advice is to plan to make the martial arts a lifetime adventure. Spend several years in each art and move on to the next. My personal opinion is that I would rather be a "B" level fighter in 7 martial arts than an "A" fighter in just one.
Dave