Welcome to Gaia! ::

I have the singular privilege of practicing both of the martial arts cited in your example. Personally, I express a severe distaste for aggression. It is my own opinion that the underlying emotions that tend to fuel aggression are utterly useless in a combative situation. Even when practicing Krav Maga, I prefer a reactive stance rather than an aggressive one (which was pounded into me as a superior way to avoid legal entanglement in a defensive situation). I think that it is a bit incorrect to consider Krav aggressive. Rather, the techniques and tactics we utilize are definitive insofar as the way that they are utilized. The simplest example I can cite is the straight punch to the jaw. With the minimum of effort, the situation can be terminated, resulting in a sore jaw for the offender.

Aikido approaches the situation in a different way, but that way is technically identical in a semantic fashion. When an Aikidoka puts an assailant down, the movement does not generally come across as aggressive (though it may appear spectacular, as I've come to realize). However, the throw executed by the Aikidoka is no less definitive than the straight punch by the Kravist, or for that matter the double-leg by the wrestler, the head kick by the Taekwondo player, the qi strike by the Taijiquan player, or the Meia lua de Compasso by the capoeirista.

I think your argument here stems more from perception of action and the proactive stance of some styles as opposed to others. For instance, some arts are deliberately combative and aggressive. This tends to be the case with battlefield and combat martial arts like Krav Maga, TKD, and Muay Thai. The aggressive stance in the case of these arts is a question of control. A good fighter will always execute specifically controlled aggression, since utter passivity will result in defeat. Arts that are typically considered aggressive are misunderstood in this way. They are no more aggressive than more passive arts, but their level of proactive defense is heightened in comparison. If a guy takes a swing at a Kravist, he can expect to encounter someone who is going to counter that swing with an effective, aggressive strike. That same guy attacking an Aikidoka or a Judoka will receive the same countering action, but performed in an entirely different, far more passive way.

As far as philosophy goes, the two arts are day and night-ish. Krav Maga's philosophy basically boils down to getting the job done. Put down the attacker efficiently with the least risk to yourself, your surrounding passers by, and the person attacking you. Anything goes to do this. Aikido's philosophy is vastly more complex than this. The word Aikido translates roughly to mean "The Way of Combining Forces" though it is typically perceived to mean something more like "The Way of Harmonious Energy". Basically, if because everything is connected on an energetic level, if you harm your attacker you are harming yourself. Therefore, the best way to end an altercation is to do so with a minimum of harm dealt to any involved party. In Aikido, this is done with movements and throws that are very, very specifically designed to act without any sort of harm beyond perhaps a sore wrist or a mildly twisted elbow and a bruised ego. My own Sensei, Dr. Gregory Olsen can throw someone with a motion so subtle that it is hard to detect, and he does so without ever even changing his smile. The person thrown is regularly uninjured due to the nature of the throw.

Summary: Carefully controlled aggression is part of every single martial art in existence. The expression of aggression is what varies in different styles and people, but in the end all techniques have the exact same effect upon the person to whom they are applied, that being a terminal and definitive end to the situation. The outward expression of this may appear to an observer to be "aggressive" or "violent" but this is purely a person and aesthetic choice in nature. Some people prefer to end a situation with a gentle toss and a subtle pin, others prefer to put a boot upside the head. The only difference is perception.

I prefer aggression, Aggression with cardio and technical I believe can break down and wear on any fighter. Cain, Diego were good examples of that last night. If you have the ability to throw alot and be insanely aggressive it works its confused your opponent and throws there pace way outta wack. also talking about surviving the storm thats not usually the case...the storm is something that will be constant and steady with control...only terrible fighters expend there gastank(see Phil baroni) If you control the center of the ring, keep an opponent backing up, make hims stay away from a exchange. taking a few to give a few alot of the time, breaking a opponent mentally.. its all the things you look to do as an aggressive fighter. the negatives are your prone to a hard counter attack and possible cardio issues deep into rounds...not usually the fights every final 30 secs you usually have to survive till the break. overall it all depends on the fighter you cant be aggressive without confidence. well everything needs confidence but more so when you walking into gunfire, overall it depends on what suits the fighters style...if you got a chin, power and cardio..go a more aggressive style...if not and you need to rely on foot work and counters for extra damage go a more laid back style

i believe in a firm balance you need to know when to exercise controle and when to be aggresive.