What's are differences between Judo and Aikido? Which of the two is more practical and lethal on one-on-ones?

Question

And if two highest-level of expertise male martial artists with equal strength, speed, size, weight, skill, talent, looks (like twins), etc were to fight to the death and one would use pure Judo techniques and the other, pure Aikido techniques, who'd win/survive?

Answer 1

I would have to say Judo.  Finishing your opponent goes against the very principals of Aikido "The way of harmony".  As far as who wins, it is completely dependent on their skill.

Answer 2

I practice both Aikido and Judo and I'll tell you this, its all depends on the player, there is no such thing as 2 equally trainned players, however for a girl like you I would recommend Aikido, not that Aikido is a girly sport but only because it does not require physical strength or conditioning while Judo is very tiring and needs as much physical strength as it needs the "art" itself. Aikido is all "art" so I'd say if such thing as 2 equally trainned opponents where to exist the Aikido player would win as he would have had all his trainning in the "art" while the Judo player had half his training in the "art" and the other half in the physical conditioning

Answer 3

Aikido is largely a blend of Judo and traditional Jiu Jutsu, as far as the moves involved.

I would tend to agree with you that an Aikdio master would be a fearsome opponent, due to the nature of Aikido being about countering an attack and how so many of the throws will break something on an opponent if they resist too much.

But that passive nature goes beyond just the moves. The founder of Aikido strictly forbid sparring, and the vast majority of Aikido dojos still do today. This philosohpy is also why Aikido will never become an Olympic sport (The "ruling body" of Aikido would never allow it). At least until you get up into "black belt" territory, you likely won't find an Aikido dojo that allows full-speed training or training where the person being thrown is allowed to resist in the slightest. This means most Aikidoka have no better combat reflexes than the average accountant. Combat really wasn't the intent of Aikido. It's much more art than martial. And the training progresses very slowly, so it requires patience.

So as a form of self-defense, Aikido really isn't very good in general. If you managed to find a dojo that propmoted sparring, then it could work for that.

Answer 4

Two equals ? As someone said probably impossible to find.

KANO said after watching a demo by UESHIBA of AIKIDO "this

is the ideal of JUDO winning by non resistance " but he also knew the ideal rarely happens in a real fight.mostly due to the participants need to win or survive .Nobody is that controlled or calm about dying.

So I would give it to the one who can employ a technique favored by military strategists and some great martial artists and just your everyday thug.The technique of SURPRISE.

Doing the totally unexpected .You didn't specify if they were limited to the technique of just judo or aikido.and it is because of this surprise factor the ideal rarely works.

Answer 5

All styles are perfect.

However, the styles are practiced by people who are human and thus anything but perfect.

That said, no matter how many conditions you apply, you still can't separate the people from the equation.  Styles don't fight each other, people do.

Same answer as always when variations on the same question come up.  Its easily a black and white question, but is never a black and white answer - no matter how much we wish it were so.

Also, what does gender have to do with it?

Last, think of Kano vs. Ueshiba.  Do you honestly think they would fight?  Isn't it easier to imagine the two masters helping each other learn rather than try to 'win'?

I doubt either would have found an opening to exploit in the first place.  This happened to Ueshiba - a sword master challenged Ueshiba wanting to test the value of Aikido.  Ueshiba just stood their and the sword master never attacked but quit exhausted because he couldn't find an opening to exploit.

Answer 6

Wow, a lot of good answers but I would like to add my 2 cents worth.  True Judo trains against resisting opponents and that would give the Judoka the advantage.  My argument is that Aikido could, and should also be trained that way.  With Jyu Waza and Randori.  The only difference between Judo Randori and Aikido randori being that you decie ahead of time who is attacking.  If Aikidoka train in this fassion they could have the advantage as I have never trained against strikes in Judo.  Aikidoka may have the adavntage until the fight goes to the ground anyway.  So I guess my point is if you train Aikido you should apply Judo training methodes to your art, and cross train / incorporate Judo ne waza into your skill set.  If you train in Judo apply Aikido evasion / blocking techniques into your art so you can practice throws against kicks and punches.

Or if you are fortunate enough train in both

As to the question of which of the two is more practical and lethal on one-on-ones?

If you want a leathal martial art , carry a bat or brick with you or a gun for that matter.

Answer 7

Well I guess it depends on how the Aikidoka trained, but still I would put him at a serious disadvantage.

Generally 80% of class time in Judo is spent going full speed against fully resisting opponents. That is a lot of practical, functional, understanding of techniques and how to do them. It is also a lot of ukemi (breakfalling).

Honestly, while some of my answers my seem otherwise, I love Aikido. I did Tomiki Aikido where there was actual sparring, but still under that context, as a competetive Judoka, I destroyed people much higher and more experienced when sparring.

A LOT of Aikido techniques require cooperation between Uke and Tori (Throwee and Thrower) and a ton of Aikidoka are used to this premise, and have a hard time when someone doesn't cooperate. (i.e. instead of allowing them to apply a wrist lock, you pull your wrist away, instead of grabbing a lapel, you grab them behind the neck etc. Instead of allowing them to lead you one way, you stand and keep your balance and don't follow their attempts at directing your momentum). Those that do little to no sparring (as a large percentage of Aikido dojos do not, as they interpret it differently within the art, as in it is harmonious and not requiring the competetion of sparring) are basically useless against any resisting opponent aside from a neat party trick wrist bar or so.

Those that do spar, I feel are still at a disadvantage, especially if it hits the mat. Aikido is like Jujitsu in the fact that while they may have techniques to be finished on the mat (at the end of the throw) they don't really spend time sparring there. So they lack scrambling, they lack the ability to control a guy on the ground, or how to jostle for position, how to maintain positions and get out of bad ones... and most of all, they lack any kind of submission defense.

Trust me, that is key. I can teach you every submission, joint lock, crank, choke in the world, but that doesn't mean you can defend yourself from them, if you don't have to actively defend yourself regularly.

Anyway, I guess my point to all this is that in most likely being of equal rank, size, speed, and strength, etc. A Judoka would most likely be victorious over an Aikido practioner, simply because he spends more time in an alive training environment doing his techniques at full speed, full intensity against resisting opponents who are trying to do the same to him.

As Aikido is much more complex, those places that do spar in Aikido do it much less than Judo, and have to throw out 50 to 60% of what they learn as it is ineffective in sparring.

In my opinion more time sparring = more effective skill and more practical knowledge of what works and when.

As far as "apply a lock and break" Judokas spend a TON of time defending locks, and a ton of time putting them on people, more than likely the person who will end up getting a joint lock of some sort put on them would the be the person who spends less time defending (Aikido more than likely in this case) and therefore would be the one to get something broke.

But more likely the Aikidoka would be choked by his own Gi far before any joint lock would be necessary.

Just my opinion from a practical standpoint having studied both arts.

Sifu Frank: Both rely heavily on kazushi (off balancing) to say Judo doesn't rely on momentum is a little bit wrong. While a Judoka can force his opponent into momentum, he absolutely needs momentum to make the leverage work correctly in his favor. But you are right as in it is not as necessary as it is in Aikido, because Aikido relies HEAVILY on momentum. The difference is a Judoka will pull his opponent off balance and only requires a step, or a lean to do what he needs to do... whereas many Aikidoka require many steps of momentum, then reversing the momentum to make certain techniques work.

Answer 8

ive done my share of both and at low levels judo would win hands down no question. but if it was at a higher level well aikido emphasizes defaeting the opponentwithout doing too much damage while judo is like total grappling fighting with deadly moves removed [that have now almost halfway been restored with all this intrest in mma and learning submissions more] the judoka would put up a good match but the aikidoist would win. however most aikido scjhools have neglected meditation [ud have to do this 4-8 hours a day to be at the highest level of aikido] and this is not true of all aikido masters because not all of them are fast enough to go against an equal level judo guy and like some of these high level aikidoist have other speciaties ki related and can do weird things with their bodies here is an example from the grandmaster of aikido  

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bCjySZuVDkQ

however this is not to say judo s inferior the greatest judoka in my oppinion kimura beat the p**s out of heilio gracie who was the best gracie then and they are supposed to be[amd until recently kimura was the only exception] the best ever in the world so judo did a big deal then

ull learn judo faster still slow though but youll be able to use it decently in a few mounths while decent in aikido takes like intence speed training with 3 years

Answer 9

This is a difficult prediction.......to many depends. Akido is a defensive art relying on the attackers momentum. It does include submissions breaks throws and you can add finishing techniques from any of several other arts. Judo is similar yet does not rely on the attackers energy. As Katana said luck could easily carry the day.

Answer 10

Quite honestly in that context Judo would probably be better, simply because much of Akido relies on using your opponents momentum against them, but a good Judo ka will be able to maintain his balance while attacking. I also agree with the above that Akido's intent is not necessarily to finish an opponent (althoug some of the throws can defnetly do that), it is more for doing what you need to to get out of the situation.

One thing that makes it very difficult to make a 100% prediction is something that not many people take into consideration is luck. One bad break and it could decide the outcome of the fight.

Answer 11

It depends.  Aikidoka don't practice to contest with someone.  So a one-on-one situation would not be good for an aikidoka.  Judoka, on the other hand, practice specifically for one-on-one contests, so +1 point for Judo.

Aikido relies on uke's attack.  So the aikido would have to wait until the Judoka reachs out to grab or take hold of him.  At this point, the Aikidoka has the advantage, because the judoka is off balance or giving his ki to the aikidoka.  The aikidoka could move around and wait for a good point to enter and apply a technique.  The Judoka is at a disadvantage because he has to start the contest.  He can't use the aikidoka's momentum to generate a throw.  +1 for aikido.

Once attacked, the aikidoka would only have one shot to apply a technique.  If he fails, and the judoka takes ahold, it will be easy for the judoka to wrap up and take down the aikidoka.  The judoka could go in, chanage, or release his grip to re-enter.  The judoka has the advantage here. +1 judo.

So, in essense, the real contest between those two would be the moment that the judoka commits to an attack.  The aikidoka would have to execute a good technique in that specific window of time, or risk being tied up with the judoka.  The judoka has planned for one on one competitions, can quickly change a technique once committed, and in this sense, I'd say JUDO wins.

Answer 12

Judo. I can't picture an Aikido expert beating a high caliber judo player, especially when it hits the ground. I'm not sure of the extent of teqhniques Aikido has on the ground, but I know the judo player will have a variety of chokes and locks in his arsenal that could possibly end the confrontation.

Answer 13

Good answer and advice from judomofo.

Personally I'd say it really depends on the individual my own instructor/coach was a 5th dan jiu-jitsu and 4th dan Judo Scottish champion years back and I've never seen anyone like him for speed,strength and endurance even though I only have jiu-jitsu training we done a lot of judo endurance training and in my opinion judoka are on average stronger and have more fitness and endurance than jiu-jitsu although not as many techniques as jiu-jitsu as every throw that judo has and more as far as i know, Aikido does have strikes which possibly help tip the balance and of course locks and evasion as all three are connecting family Jiu-jitsu the father,judo the  son and

Aikido the grandson,but like I said it really depends on the person in the end as styles are just tools to be used,sorry I've ranted on a bit ,but my advice that training in all three would be a great advantage for the street.

Best wishes :)***