Hard and Soft Arts

In the world of martial arts, Aikido is considered a "soft" art. This basically means that aikido uses finesse, flexibility, and suppleness vice speed, power and strength to achieve its objective of controlling an attacker. The "hard" arts, like Muay Thai, all forms of jujitsu, judo, karate, wushu, etc. tend toward the development of speed, power and strength to control, overpower, and ultimately disable an opponent. Finesse, flexibility, and suppleness are also considered, cultivated and applied but only at the intermediate to highest levels of these arts are they given much attention. But what ultimately makes Aikido as a soft art different from hard arts is in its purest form, strength is not used at all in the controlling of an attacker. In fact, the use of strength shows an aikidoka that his aikido technique is weak and flawed. To understand this concept, it is necessary to look at how training pedagogy differs amongst the hard and soft arts.

Humans are animals and are thus susceptible to animalistic actions. The "flight or fight" response is a simple example. Humans, as with all animals, are psychologically hardwired for this response when faced with a mortal threat. They either run away or stand and fight. And if forced to fight, the average (ie. untrained) individual's instinctive reaction is to strike at the threat with as much speed and strength as they can muster.

The pedagogy of hard martial arts capitalizes on this instinctual psychology and initially teaches easily learned and basically executed hard strikes using the fist, elbow, knee, head, etc. This is why through regular repetitive practice the average individual, in a short amount of time, can develop a basic level of proficiency. That individual can strike hard and fast when needed and is afforded a basic level of self-defense skills. So if necessary, they can stand and fight with a some comfort level in their abilities.

But if you ask that same person with no additional amount of training, to use finesse to achieve their objective, they will not be able to do it. For example, ask this person to use a hammer-fist strike to just barely graze the nose of their opponent to provide a warning blow vice a disabling one. They will not be able to do it. The development of this type of strike to such a level of precision takes years to learn.

This "hard" training pedagogy is effective for basic self defense. I have trained under this type of system and have found it very effective at teaching basic self-defense skills to a high level of proficiency in a short period of time. But one must realize that with this system, precision is sacrificed for speed. Hard arts are like teaching a person how to use an axe instead of a scalpel. It doesn't take long to learn how to effectively wield an axe for its intended purpose. But, it takes years of practice to effectively learn how to use a scalpel for its intended purpose.

Continuing with this analogy, imagine if all you had ever used to fight was an axe. It is heavy and takes strength to swing. An because it is heavy and takes strength to swing, it's hard to control. It is great when the target is big, and control and precision are not needed. Then, having been an axe-wielder your whole life, suppose someone handed you a scalpel. Since a scalpel is an instrument of precision and not strength, it would be very difficult for you to learn to use effectively. In fact, using strength with a scalpel is counter-productive. With strength, you could land an axe almost anywhere on your opponent and cause substantial damage, possibly even killing them with one blow. But that would be nearly impossible with a scalpel. You would have to hit very few and very small targets to achieve the same "one shot, one kill" effect as with the axe and the use of strength actually reduces your accuracy with a scalpel. Just ask any surgeon.

So how does all of this relate to "hard" and "soft" arts? Hard arts are an axe whose skills can be developed relatively quickly and can be used for self-defense when regard for the welfare of your opponent is of little consideration. Aikido, being a soft art, is a scalpel and is a better way to control a situation when the welfare of your opponent is a consideration. But, like a surgeon's training, it takes years to develop the proficiency in Aikido needed to accomplish this.

But here is the truly interesting difference between the hard and soft arts. Assuming the same the level of proficiency, practitioners of the soft arts can more easily go hard, if needed, than a practitioner of the hard arts can go soft. In my opinion, this is one of the truly beneficial aspects of soft art training. In aikido, we spend a considerable amount of time trying to undo our body's natural, hard reaction to violence. Though we may succeed to some level at this task, the hard reaction is always there and can be easily called upon if needed. The opposite is not the case.

Understand that no art is better than any other, in my opinion, and this essay is not saying such. All arts have their advantages and disadvantages. But the study of a soft art like Aikido, especially after the study of a harder, more aggressive art, can do nothing but enhance one's overall martial ability and should not be summarily dismissed.