Aikido vs. Shaolin Kung Fu

9/11/91

Mark J. Norton


In the June 1991 issue of Black Belt magazine there appeared an article titled "Aikido vs. Shaolin Kung Fu" by Audrey Reineohl. It reports on a criticism of Aikido by Don Niam who teachs Shaolin Hung Fut. Mr. Niam indicates in the article that Aikido is ineffective as a martial because it is,
  1. defensive in nature,
  2. relies on a wide stance,
  3. has a poor 'fighting distance',
  4. locks are ineffective, etc.
Hung Fut is superior because it is
  1. agressively offensive,
  2. fast,
  3. devestating,
  4. narrow in stance,
  5. relies on elbow and knee strikes,
  6. uses combination strikes to good advantage.


    7. Lets examine some of the points in more detail. Mr. Niam accuses Aikido as being purely defensive, while Hung Fut is almost purely offensive. There is no argument about this assessment, but rather in the effectiveness and appropriateness of offensive vs. defensive. In terms of effectiveness, seizing the initiative is often the best approach to controlling a situation. Aikido does not teach us to use intiative to promote violence, however. Appropriate initiative as taught in Aikido would be to assume a non-threatening stance, using calm words to defuse a conflict, or to 'invite' a particular attack. O-Sensei stressed in his teachings that violence is never a good solution to a problem. I had not heard that Kung Fu was a system which promoted unprovoked violence, but Hung Fut might be a deviation from the more popular norm.

    Stance is an interesting question in the article. Don Niam asserts that the 'wide' stance of Aikido does not allow for rapid reaction to an attack. First, classic Aikido does not stress a wide stance, but rather a natural, centered one. Second, in every single picture associated with the article, Mr. Niam assumes a wider stance that his Aikido opponent. Advanced training in Aikido shows us defenses against attacks in a variety of stances: same, opposite, neutral, etc. Research into and understanding of Aikido seems to be lacking here.

    Aikido has a poor fighting distance. The article mentions a 'neutral zone' that Aikidoka stand in, waiting for the attack to come. Certainly proper distance is important. What Sifu Niam misses is that this distance is dynamic. With proper blending, distance from the attacker is maintained until his attack is neutralized. The article states that Aikido relies on 'redirecting techniques' which is accomplished by side-stepping or catching the attacking limb. Personally, I can't remember a single instructor who advocated catching or blocking an attack. This is a sublty that is unlikely to be learned by watching a movie. Aikido teaches anticipation of what is likely to happen. It teaches fast response to aggressive attack by being in tune with the attacker's mental and emotional state. The close distance advocated by Hung Fut is another instance of its overly aggressive approach, which many people would find quite threatening.

    Mr. Niam states that grabbing and trapping a limb is difficult against a fast opponent and is best employed against 'novice fighters'. Clearly, he has never been exposed to a skilled Aikidoist. I have seen many skilled praticioners who were easily as fast as any Karateka. He indicates that locks can be used to break or severly damage joints. By doing so, he completely misses the point of Aikido techniques: they are not used to damage the attacker, but rather to control him or to divert his energy harmlessly aside. In the article, Mr. Niam mentions that if grabbed, he would execute a fast strike with the other arm, followed up with a knee strike. This might be effective against a novice Aikidoist, but certainly a well trained one would have the Hung Fut attacker so off-balance that any kind of counterstrike would be quite difficult.

    Interestingly, Mr. Niam seems completely unaware of Aikido atemi-waza. Aikido can be practiced in a pre-emptive fashion with strikes, faints, etc. He seems equally unaware of techniques other than joint locks. A quickly executed Irimi-nage throw would likely catch him completely off-guard. Irimi-nage tends to be effective against people who snap-punch, since there is energy involved in the return snap. I suspect the upper-cut variation would also prove quite effective against an elbow strike. What kind of defence does Hung Fut advocate when one is five feet off the ground, upside down?

    It should be noted, however, that some of Mr. Niam's criticism may be quite valid. How does Aikido handle rapid knee or elbow strikes? What about fast jabs to the face? Defences against combination attacks are not taught regularly. Indeed, kick defenses are rarely taught. Rapid combination attacks are difficult to deal with, how should we handle these? These are questions which are raised by Mr. Niam's article which do deserve study. Contrary to the tone of the article which suggests that Aikido is useless in practice, I feel that there are answers to these questions within the art.

    In part, there is a question of comparison at appropriate levels. Don Niam suggests that Aikido may be best emloyed against novice fighters, but quite clearly in the article compares his own art (Hung Fut) to novice Aikido. Mr. Niam also compares his art to Steven Segal's demonstrations of Aikido in his movies. Separating fact from fiction based on entertainment is clearly difficult for him. It would be interesting to see him square off against Saito-sensei or Lou-sensei, not to mention O-Sensei.

    Finally, we must question the value of comparison at all. How can an aggressive, offensive art be compared to a peaceful, defensive one at all? The intent in the two arts seem to be completely different, so why should they be the same? Underlying this article is sensationalism. Ms. Reineohl and Mr. Niam have deliberately made provocative statements to call attention to their (rather obscure) art. Aikidoists are not encouraged to compete even amongst themselves, much less against other styles. There are no tournaments or sport elements (at least in Honbu-style Aikido). Early in his career, O-Sensei would invite men of other styles to attack him as they would. In virtually all instances, he emerged the victor. I like to think that O-Sensei was testing himself against these strong men, rather than trying to show that another art was ineffective. Let us therefore accept Mr. Niam's criticisms and ask ourselves how they can make our art better, both personally and as a whole.