I used to teach it all the time, different sorts of disarms, etc..... I also teach the reality of it..... Take a paintball gun. Disarm the person pointing the paintball gun before he shoots you....
99 out of 100 times.... you got shot....
Yes there is always a possibility it would work, but in reality. Usually imo its foolish. Give em your wallet already.
+1 fully know what you mean. in aikido, that's an example of proper Mai-ai.
Yeah, it depends. I've done it in training vs simunition guns. If someone is dumb enough to press the gun to your head or body (and there are lots of dumb crooks, let's admit) a disarm can be done many times. Most commonly it is effective if the person is not intent on shooting you
immediately; that is, they want to intimidate/rob you, or take you off somewhere private before killing you. Against someone who intends to shoot you at once, it is much more iffy.
I have done it at ranges of up to 20' against a guy reaching for a holstered weapon, similar to the Tueller drill. My success ran about 90%. Granted a well-trained man could stop me
if he was ready for it, but most don't expect you to charge them when they're reaching for a pistol.
On the whole though, I'd prefer diving for cover and then drawing my own pistol.
Ive trained yosinkan, akikai, tawama style. Chiba, ikeda, saotome, yamada, and on and on.... If you found a real world oriented Aikido, its far removed from the Aikido taught by hobu dojo (been there as well. )
That said, let me correct my self, it works great for defending oneself against charging drunks.
Boxers, not so much as there is no momentum to deal with.
exactly, not realistic attacks, too much reliance on momentum of an unlikley scenario.
Against an opponent like a boxer, who strikes from a balanced position and does not overextend, you have to use "aggressive aikido" and enter with a feint or strike, either "blending" to his flank and going for something strong like an armbar, or clinching and going for a hip throw or similar. Since you can't use his momentum and overextension, you have to "create a circle" with a methodology that looks more like judo or Braz-Jits than like classical Aiki. Again, what my instructor taught was called Aikido but the practical side of training didn't look much like what O-Sensei taught. Nor was their anything very pacifistic in the "philosopy". :mrgreen:
This part I agree. As you can tell, I am less than impressed with most "aiki" style teachings as a practical self defense. It has uses, and I do benefit from my years of doing it. But it was the application of other martial arts such as BJJ and boxing that made whatever "aiki" style movements and mind set a reality.... my experience anyway...
Agreed. I also trained in Karate, did some boxing/kickboxing and wrestling, a little Philipino knifework, etc. That and the time I spent in LE gave me some perspective on ways to use my Aiki skills ITRW.
you gotta tell me more about your "aikido" school. While I will trash Aikido relentlessly, I do so from a position of experience, and would love to find a system that proves me wrong.... (I put a lot of years into it. )
I'll PM you. There's a reason why I don't want to mention my instructor by name on the open forum, and the system itself is a small one with only a handful of schools in the US.
Basically it was about 50% classical Aikido technique, but with a lot more "ooph", more pain, and more energy than you see in most Hombu-based Aiki. The other 50% was focused on "how do you actually USE this stuff in the street?" We practiced against forceful attacks, fast attacks, combinations, grabs and takedowns that you actually see in bar-brawls, weapons, etc. We commonly used strikes as a method of stunning the opponent before finishing him with a joint-break or a throw-and-lock. We also did "groundfighting" before groundfighting was "cool".
It drew from Aiki, Judo, Karate, Jujitsu, kickboxing and other styles, rather than being "pure Aiki", also. In a sense it was a "mixed martial art" of sorts back before MMA was "cool". :mrgreen: