Have you seen a fight between *top* Judo and Aikido practitioners?

Question

First of all, no disrespect to anyone. I am not trying to get into a discussion of which art is better/faster/more effective/etc... I get that the quality of the fighter is more important than the specific choice of style.

However, I am curious to see some real-life examples of Aikido against Judo just so I can appreciate the differences between the arts. There are a lot of videos online that claim to be "Judo vs. Aikido" but very few videos actually feature reputable practitioners. Thus, it's common to see a master of Judo/Aikido vs a student of the other art.

I am wondering if anyone has come across a video of an actual sparring match between two seriously proficient practitioners so I can observe the differences. Again, I don't care at all about who wins/loses. My objective is to see two good examples of the styles.

Answer 1

Nearly all forms of aikido are predicated on avoiding any possibility of pressure-testing their skills against resisting opponents in free-sparring or competitive environments. Nearly all practitioners stick to demonstration and practice with cooperative partners. From this it naturally follows that few aikidoka will be caught on camera trying to apply their skills against anyone, let alone someone training in uncooperative grappling, for instance a judoka.

Top-level aikidoka in particular seem entirely content with practicing their techniques on unresisting high-level students who can be trusted to know the proper responses, as one would trust a stunt double to flop to the ground dramatically when the sound effects of a sci-fi laser are made. One trusts those students will not resist to even the slightest degree. There are well-corroborated accounts (e.g. in the book Angry White Pyjamas) of elite aikidoka purposefully injuring their students when they didn't sufficiently telegraph their attacks for a demonstration.

I would expect most judo-versus-aikido match-ups to go like this video: the aikidoka trying in vain to apply jointlocks against someone grabbing their gi, the judoka applying their arsenal against someone with no footwork, no gripping strategy for an uncooperative opponent, no throwing ability, and no sense of hip power. This of course would go differently if the aikidoka already had a solid base of judo (or wrestling, or sumo, et cetera) skill to fall back on. This, of course, was the original pipeline for aikido pedagogy: students were already skilled at judo, sumo, or karate, and only then attempted to learn secondary, low-percentage skills like standing armbars or tricking an opponent into throwing themselves.

This is all in addition to the plain facts of modern aikido pedagogy versus the modern judo pipeline. What do each produce, viewed broadly? How does training change the thousands of people who come through each style's dojo? It's fairly reliable that if you examine someone who has done a fair amount of judo, they received from it the ability to safely take a fall, maintain their balance against an opponent, escape bad positions on the ground, and maybe even execute a few foot-sweeps, throws, pins, and chokes. They're probably stronger, more fit, and mentally tougher than when they started, too, especially if they competed a few times. In contrast, what are the reliable effects of aikido on most students? Certainly they will have learned basic rolls and how to fall safely, though not necessarily from rough throws. They may be somewhat more fit. Beyond that it is unclear.

Answer 2

From my own experience, a match between judo/aikido starts at a distance doing Aikido and as soon as the distance closes, switching to judo. I have no link to videos as I never bothered filming any. However, this is what Tomiki found when he started to introduce Judo randori style play into Aikido: his students (who all knew some Judo) would automatically revert to Judo as soon as one closed the gap between the players.

Thus, any match between a judo-ka and aikido-ka will rely on whichever is the best at keeping the other at his distance. So, in grappling Judo wins. At a distance, Aikido wins¹. This to be taken with a metric tonne of salt based on the skill of both players, what they eat that morning, and how long their hair is. ^_~

Tomiki always viewed both arts as complementary. He was a 8th dan in Judo under Kano and 8th dan under Ueshiba. In fact, Kano asked Ueshiba to take Tomiki as a student during the hell dojo year where Ueshiba aikido was brutal. I think that gives Tomiki some authority over both Judo, Aikido, and how they interact.

Tomiki wrote a paper on how ideas from Judo influenced the Aikido system (Shodokan) he created. In it, you can clearly see that the both arts are used at different distances: judo is close by, aikido is further away. Here is a diagram from one of Tomiki sensei papers on the subject. I found it in Nariyama's book which refers to it as The Development of Japanese Budo by Kenji Tomiki (1963) on page 33:

It clearly shows his thinking on the subject. Tomiki's Judo Appendix: Aikido might delve into the matter some more but I have not read the book so cannot comment and it is really expensive!

Tomiki introduced the tanto in Aikido randori because all his players were old hand at judo and he needed a way to maintain the aikido distance. The other reason was to give tanto a possibility to score thus leading to stronger attacks.

---

1: _{^{As an aside, this is the same way that that kicks/punches wins vs grappling (really biased source) if one player stays at the right distance. But grapling wins close in (yet another really biased source).}}

Answer 3

Though they come from similar bases, Aikido and Judo are designed for entirely different purposes.

Judo was explicitly designed as a competitive grappling sport, grappling against other judo practitioners primarily within a dojo or competition hall, and it's techniques and training have expanded to fill this role.

Aikido was designed to provide a mechanism for self defence in an uncontrolled environment which would not harm an attacker. As such it purportedly handles common types of physical violence you might encounter from untrained attackers.

Applying one to the other will simply show that Judo was designed to deal with other grappling martial artists and Aikido was not.

In criticism of Aikido, as @DaveLiepmann I think validly points out, there is very often a lack of real testing of Aikidoka techniques against realistically resisting opponents. To me this is a more important failing than the design of the martial art against common attack types. It's also a club or philosophy specific failing rather than a problem of the art itself.

In criticism of Judo I would say that while it's a strong grappling combat sport, not all of the techniques are appropriate for use outside the dojo. As an example, virtually all of the sutemi waza should probably be limited to competitive use. Excluding any/all inappropriate techniques, would probably limit it to a far more conservative system, possibly more like the Japanese Ju-Jutsus it's derived from.

Answer 4

Short answer : Yes...and none of them turned out well for the Aikidoka. ...and a few more things...

1. Judo was NOT designed to be a "sport". It was designed to be a jiujitsu that focused on training using modern methods and conditioning. Judo proved it's effectiveness as a combat art in the dojo challenges common in the late 1800's in Japan. Kano's team ANNIHILATED the competition. source: http:judoinfo.com source: http://kodokanjudoinstitute.org/en/doctrine/history/
2. Japanese law enforcement do not use Aikido or any variant thereof. They use a form of Judo at the core of their hand to hand training that is oriented towards "street fighting" and combat in close quarters. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiho_Jutsu

Answer 5

There was this mid-90's PPV MA show called "Fight Zone." It appears to be choreographed 1 vs. 1 fighting ... but the blood and no-holds-barred style appear real. So, I'm not 100% sure what to make of it. Anyhow, they had this "Badd Karma" challenge. This "Badd Karma" fighter was not big at all but was undefeated. They would pick all kinds of fighters around the world with varying concentrations and Badd Karma would defeat them all and make it look easy. His opponents appeared to not be able to handle Badd Karma's Aikido throw and lock techniques. He would wait for his opponent to attack and then parry/catch/throw his opponents to the floor rather hard. His defense was at an incredible advanced level. Then when his opponents weakened from all the throws or holds, then he could strike weakened opponents with great force. His opponents seemed ill-prepared for the defense of Aikido. They were surprised with Badd Karma's defensive techniques. Perhaps they should have studied Aikido to prepare for the Badd Karma challenge. He claimed to be an "underground" fighter who never lost a match.

Answer 6

Aikido techniques will work against judo but, and its a big 'But' they get more dangerous the harder you train them. As noted by the other replies those who practice aikido often get injured if they learn a style (of aikido) that does the techniques hard, see angry white pyjamas. The version learned by the japanese riot police would be effective for example. However the successfully applied aikido technique would result in a broken arm. the point of all the elaborate falling is simply to prevent limbs being broken. for this reason you will not see this done in a training or friendly sparring environment.

many styles of aikido remove this aspect due to these dangers. As a result these versions are much less effective.

judo on the other hand is designed for competition. you can do the techniques safely so long as you are on a matted floor. for this reason judo will usually come of better in a friendly match.