There is a school of thought in aikido that is almost impossible to miss. You cannot spend any time in an online forum that involves aikido without coming across the statement that aikido \u2018needs to modernise\u2019. This is inevitably met with loud voices claiming the exact opposite, and the infighting is off to the races. After seeing this discussion and listening to both sides for many years I have come to the conclusion that it\u2019s annoying and utterly boring. I also can\u2019t help but notice that both sides are wrong, and both sides are right. C\u2019est la vie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When aikidoka say that aikido needs to modernise what is it that they actually mean? This is a valid question to ask and although this topic comes up frequently very few people can actually answer the question. Any answers pushing for modernisation tend to feature certain consistent elements. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
These generally include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Those are the main themes that crop up during these discussions. On the surface of it you would be forgiven for thinking that aikido either fails in these areas or doesn\u2019t have it to begin with. This is what the proponents of modernisation are claiming. Their detractors usually state that aikido doesn\u2019t need these things, or that the way it does them is just fine. Let\u2019s see why they\u2019re both right and both wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is a really obvious one, it\u2019s why it\u2019s at the top of the list. The attacks in aikido are ridiculous when you look at them. Nobody attacks anybody like that. There is very little point in training in a martial art that doesn\u2019t prepare you to deal with an attack that somebody would use. From this point of view the attacks need to change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Unfortunately, the aikidoka pushing for this change are almost always referring to a double leg takedown. Somehow the idea has arisen that everybody is a semi-professional BJJ competitor just itching to drive in for one of these. There is so much wrong with this idea that I don\u2019t even know where to begin. Suffice to say that performing a double leg takedown takes practice, and not that many people practice martial arts, even fewer that particular technique, and fewer still willing to get into a street fight with you. While the odds of it happening are not zero they are incredibly low.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
At the same time the fact that aikidoka would likely struggle to defend it is a valid point. It is an unfamiliar attack that would take an aikidoka off-guard. That\u2019s only because aikidoka don\u2019t understand the purpose of their attacks though.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This follows on from the attacks one, and is mostly under the same banner. It\u2019s a direct consequence of the exaggerated and often misapplied attacks in aikido. The crux of the argument goes like this – The attacks used in aikido are not realistic, nobody would ever attack like that. We are training to defend against something that would never happen.<\/em> This seems like a perfectly reasonable argument, until you really start to think about it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n People get grabbed all the time during fights, so you can assume the validity of those. Note though that aikido does not include all the grabs that will take place, and many of the counters assume you are wearing sturdy clothing. There are counters to grabs that will not work if you are wearing a t-shirt for instance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What about shomen uchi, yokomen uchi, and tsuki though? Good question. If you watch this video closely (taken a week ago) you will see at least three shomen strikes in this brawl. All made with a bottle, but all valid. More importantly though you will find that a shomen strike turns up everywhere in fighting. Hammer fists, axe kicks, vertical elbows, uppercuts, etc. These all follow the same trajectory as shomen. i.e. vertical. The other strikes in aikido are no different. You find their trajectory in common use in every martial art. Additionally, at about 23 seconds in this video is a yokomen strike.<\/p>\n\n\n\n