The same can be said about wrestling. Many take-downs are practiced against people who will, quite literally, throw their weight a little early to help the takedown. Why? Because it hurts like hell not to!
Fact of the matter is: you cannot resist this. You will fall. Resisting will twist your leg sideways putting strain on your knee. That hurts like hell. Once it hurts, you'll allow yourself to fall. You learn very quickly to not resist at all and to fall before the pain happens. This can look a lot like "throwing yourself" instead of being "taken down" and that's because, to some degree, it is. But in practice - you'd be able to take down anyone like this (so long as you have the strength to raise their leg).
While you wouldn't be using wrestling moves in an actual fight (at least, most of them...) - they will all effectively take down an opponent. The same can be said about Aikido. In practice, it looks impractical and "likely wouldn't work". In reality - your opponents will be taken out.
Now the practicality of the moves is something to be question. In an actual fight, chances are you'd be unable to perform a single leg sweep with someone pounding the back of your head in or kneeing you in the face when you put your head so conveniently near their knee. But if you got into that position - you'd easily have your opponent on the ground. Which is where you want them.
That is where Aikido is being criticized. To get into a position for many of the takedowns is impractical.
Yes you're right. The same can be said about wrestling. You do give a bit to avoid injury. However, there's a huge difference between wrestling and Aikido in practice.
Watch Division 1 wrestling and you see guys really going at it. It's brutal stuff. Meanwhile every single Aikido video I've seen looks like it's a choreographed set of moves for a movie.
I think that people from outside of the grappling and MMA world seriously underestimate the effectiveness of wrestling as both self defense and a "martial art".
I wrestled all four years of High School. My point was to conflate it with Aikido in that some parts don't look practical or "only work if someone is working with you to make it work" when, in reality, they work. Although some are genuinely impractical. I would never go for a single leg sweep in a street fight, unless I managed to catch a poor kick, but most people don't try and kick that high. Or when their opponent isn't already on the ground.
Because I'm getting reply limited...
@atom-morgan
>Watch Division 1 wrestling and you see guys really going at it.
The difference there is it is a competition between two people trying to take each other down and pin. Aikido is not a competition between two people trying to take the other down - thus looks more demonstrative.
Demonstrative stuff looks fake and impractical, because it looks like a demonstration. :)
But imagine if your years of wrestling had no competitions, and no live wrestling during practices. Just four years of technique. That's the point myself and atom-morgan are making.
I'm not refuting that many of the takedowns are impractical. They involve "first get into this position" but offer no practical methodology of "getting to that position". While the impractical wrestling example I gave has a method of "get to the position you are holding your opponents leg up" it doesn't necessarily make it any more practical because getting to that position in an actual fight isn't well... practical. It's only practical within the rules of wrestling. There are takedowns I can cite that are practical in street fight scenarios, and I'm sure I could find Aikido ones that are equally practical.
I don't practice Aikido and I'm not overly familiar outside of what few videos I've seen of it. So I won't try and argue "X and Y move would be practical!" just that "looking impractical and being impractical are two different things".
I shared your criticism and pointed it out near the end of my original response:
>That is where Aikido is being criticized. To get into a position for many of the takedowns is impractical.
The body doesn't bend certain ways and using your own or your opponents body weight is effective regardless of how much they appear to be "allowing you to". Any criticism needs to be directed towards "you could not practically get into that position during a fight" which isn't as readily proved.
Although you are correct, that if it were more practical you would see more MMA/UFC fighters using Aikido and that can be used for a supporting claim of the impracticality of such positions.
I mostly responded because "looking impractical and being impractical aren't the same" because a lot of wrestling looks impractical, but people know it works.
Another tangent/example:
This is a big issue within Krav Maga, specifically the tactics for disarming knife-wielding opponents. A lot of it is battle-proven and works and has saved lives of field operators. But while being practiced it looks impractical or "the other person is letting you" and so people readily dismiss it ("Krap Maga")
I'm making a different point, which is that you are only good at what you have trained. And in the context of fighting, the training that matters most is against a live opponent.
Oh lord, Krav Maga and their knife disarms. You know what happens when an unarmed guy tries to fight a guy who is armed with a knife? He loses. Period.
Learning how to fall is just as important as any other aspects of learning how to fight. It's the difference between rolling into a defensive stance and falling flat on your back and absorbing the last of the impact with the back of your head.
> That is where Aikido is being criticized. To get into a position for many of the takedowns is impractical.
Sure, but didn't you just criticize wrestling along the same lines?
I'm not claiming Aikido is "the best" martial art (I don't think that's a meaningful thing to say), I just said it was a favorite.
Many techniques are very practical and naturally flow in response to the actions of your opponent (like what to do if someone grabs or pushes you). Others could be less practical, I agree (at least less practical for someone like me).
> didn't you just criticize wrestling along the same lines?
No-one is marketing wrestling as a practical fighting style (though it is of course useful to incorporate ideas from it). That's the difference. Aikido proponents act like it's actually useful in general fighting.
The single leg sweep is one of the most basic takedowns taught: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Vyuf2Ji3ZM
Fact of the matter is: you cannot resist this. You will fall. Resisting will twist your leg sideways putting strain on your knee. That hurts like hell. Once it hurts, you'll allow yourself to fall. You learn very quickly to not resist at all and to fall before the pain happens. This can look a lot like "throwing yourself" instead of being "taken down" and that's because, to some degree, it is. But in practice - you'd be able to take down anyone like this (so long as you have the strength to raise their leg).
While you wouldn't be using wrestling moves in an actual fight (at least, most of them...) - they will all effectively take down an opponent. The same can be said about Aikido. In practice, it looks impractical and "likely wouldn't work". In reality - your opponents will be taken out.
Now the practicality of the moves is something to be question. In an actual fight, chances are you'd be unable to perform a single leg sweep with someone pounding the back of your head in or kneeing you in the face when you put your head so conveniently near their knee. But if you got into that position - you'd easily have your opponent on the ground. Which is where you want them.
That is where Aikido is being criticized. To get into a position for many of the takedowns is impractical.