[peatmoss]

I’d say this is an over-broad generalization. Weapons work is where aikido differs most from lineage to lineage in my experience.

But your point that a style that trains ken exclusively is going to be more effective at ken than a style that trains a mix of ken and open handed techniques is not contested.

On the other hand, I reckon that the worst aikido dojo spends a lot more time on ken than the any BJJ dojo. Point is, it’s what you choose to spend time on.

I was somewhat recently visiting a judo dojo where an instructor recommended that I don’t bother training myself to throw ambidextrously. The rationale was that the opportunity cost of training my non-dominant side was larger than the competitive benefit I’d get from polishing more techniques on my dominant side.

I won’t deny that approach is probably more effective at winning, but it’s also not helping me improve what I want to improve.

Again, when people tell me the “problem” with aikido, I’m open and receptive, because I’ve got my own pet list. But where I start eye-rolling is when I hear people fundamentally misunderstanding why it is that many of us train and what we “should be” optimizing for as part of our own practice.

[riku_iki]

It is not about time spent on training, it is about progress. In Aikido, you practice bokken techniques from 100 years ago, as they were trained in old ryu schools. Kendo is modern competitive martial art, where many old techniques died because they are not efficient in actual fight.

If Aikido schools would adapt even basic but modern kendo footsteps and strikes, Aikido practicioners would have much better view on efficient sword fight.