# Aikido against a boxer



## samurai69

I was teaching in class a couple of days ago and the subject of self defence against a boxer type attack came up. 

We hold a 20 to 30 minute section dealing with SD specifics at the end of class. 

During this, the subject came up of the boxer flying in and out of range and throwing short fast jabs in and out

I wondered what the aiki way of defence would be against this style of attack, where its difficult to respond directly to specific attacks that are designed to wear down the opponent (jabs) and also the fairly fast footwork of a boxer.


----------



## Hand Sword

Have them keep circling, keeping their guard up, and when the cross comes do your stuff!


----------



## Hand Sword

Remember, a boxer probably won't kick, so don't worry about the legs. Also, the fast footwork isn't a factor really, with jabs. All they do is step and flick. If they commit too far, they leave a reference point for you to deal with, as the jab will be slower, and will be more push like, coming off a lead foot. When they move to jab, you move, keep your circle!


----------



## MartialIntent

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> Remember, a boxer probably won't kick, so don't worry about the legs. Also, the fast footwork isn't a factor really, with jabs. All they do is step and flick. If they commit too far, they leave a reference point for you to deal with, as the jab will be slower, and will be more push like, coming off a lead foot. When they move to jab, you move, keep your circle!


Good points... 

Boxers and kickboxers are fast-footed but by the nature of those arts, generally the attacks are cyclical [fast in and fast out]. What I've found that's always helped in cross-art fights is an appreciation of this cyclical pattern and at least some attempt to catch that rhythm.

Likewise the perception and utilization of ma-ai, that is, the maintenance of critical distance to the opponent, is drilled into us aikidoka and never leaves. So combining these two ideas I've found, can become in some form, a strategy.

Rrom there, it's not news: speed is of the utmost essence when an attempt is made to try to close and take the boxer's center. And don't forget their stronger arm when they're jabbing with the weaker arm and vice versa their weaker arm [forward and good for... shihonage maybe?] when they're winding up for a big hit...

Of course that's all theoretical, it'd be naive to think of escape without at least taking a number of hits [and how good at this are we as aikidoka?? Hmmm...] But regardless, we should still be at least *prepared* for unavoidable incoming strikes. Boxers / kickboxers are in no ways as compliant as many aikidoka are accustomed to in routine practise... hehe.

It'd be a hard fight no doubt. I just hate to see Aikido being written off as impotent in the face of striking arts. I think the aikidoka would hold and perhaps gain ground over the boxer. The caveat to that [as always] is that I'm talking about an aikidoka with a decent training duration under his or her belt. The boxer on the other hand can get in -hit- and out as soon as their training begins.

Aikidoka vs boxer? Good thread samurai69.

Respects!


----------



## samurai69

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> Of course that's all theoretical, it'd be naive to think of escape without at least taking a number of hits [and how good at this are we as aikidoka?? Hmmm...] But regardless, we should still be at least *prepared* for unavoidable incoming strikes. Boxers / kickboxers are in no ways as compliant as many aikidoka are accustomed to in routine practise... hehe.
> 
> It'd be a hard fight no doubt. I just hate to see Aikido being written off as impotent in the face of striking arts. I think the aikidoka would hold and perhaps gain ground over the boxer. The caveat to that [as always] is that I'm talking about an aikidoka with a decent training duration under his or her belt. The boxer on the other hand can get in -hit- and out as soon as their training begins.
> 
> Aikidoka vs boxer? Good thread samurai69.
> 
> Respects!


 
These were really the 2 things that struck me when we practiced

I teach SD completely differently from my aikido teaching. When i Talk Self defence at the end of an Aikido session, it is completely from an Aikido perspective..............When i teach/run SD courses there is very little in the way of aikido that i introduce in to them.



> But regardless, we should still be at least *prepared* for unavoidable incoming strikes. Boxers / kickboxers are in no ways as compliant as many aikidoka are accustomed to in routine practise


 
I think this is a valid point, In a lot of classes there is little in the way of the contact you would expect from a striking art...

I also think that a punch thrown in anger (possibly from a brawler) is less likely to be a (in out) jab and will probably be held out a little longer, long enough to take and control.




> The caveat to that [as always] is that I'm talking about an aikidoka with a decent training duration under his or her belt. The boxer on the other hand can get in -hit- and out as soon as their training begins.


 
This, to a degree is why, in my SD classes/courses we dont dwell on aikido techniques


----------



## bladenosh

You need to know how to defend and parry. Like you said, keep the circle and wear them down a bit. When you see an opening, realize you are well versed in small join locks, so that one punch you finally can get a grip  to that wrist, take it into a clench or straight to the ground. A kick boxer would probably win in a clench, but a plain out boxer would be petrified... its against the rules. Of course boxers dont train on the ground at all, so whether you are on the top or bottom, you are at a large advantage on the ground. Work the small join submission and pressure points and you should win.

I dont know much about aikido, but does that sound about right?


----------



## Marginal

bladenosh said:
			
		

> You need to know how to defend and parry. Like you said, keep the circle and wear them down a bit. When you see an opening, realize you are well versed in small join locks, so that one punch you finally can get a grip to that wrist, take it into a clench or straight to the ground. A kick boxer would probably win in a clench, but a plain out boxer would be petrified... its against the rules.


 
That never seems to stop 'em from clinching and even working from there when they're in the ring. In pro fights the ref will break it up eventually and issue warnings etc, but I can't see how it'd be an alien situation to a boxer.


----------



## swiftpete

I don't think I'd be trying to grab a wrist if i was fighting a boxer. I think getting down to the ground asap sounds a good idea though.


----------



## theletch1

One possible strategy is to follow the jab as it retracts in order to take control of the boxers head.  Remember, where the head goes the body will follow.  There's another thread on here somewhere that deals with neck cranks and neck breaks.  Parry the jab and follow it as it retracts.


----------



## Stan

Are we talking about this match up as a thought experiment, or as a potentially real situation?  If it's the latter, comments like, "don't worry about kicks from a boxer" are dangerous.  In a real situation, there isn't "a boxer", nor is there "an aikidoka".  There are two people who have trained to move in certain ways, but can move in any way the physical circumstances allow.  First of all, just because someone displays what looks like boxing, you should not assume that that's all they know.  Second of all, basing your defenses on a narrow strategy, like, letting them wear themselves out with jabs and then getting them on the cross, ("which is more like our traditional tsuki"), is about as un-budo as it gets.  

It really gets me when aikidoka say that they'll just stand there and wait for an attack, and if there's no committed attack, there's no need for a defense.  In the dojo, as a training paradigm, this makes sense.  An obvious feint that is not threatening doesn't have to be dealt with.  But when an attacker shows aggression toward you, you can't wait around playing cat and mouse, hoping that you will tire them out like O Sensein famously did with that Japanese officer in the duel.  

How about some irimi?!  Don't let a boxer play his stick and move game.  Get in there and disrupt him.  If you are threatened, do you wait for him to give his center to you, in which time his friends might show up, or do you TAKE his center?  Maybe he can't kick, but you can.  How does he react to this?  What does it do to his stance?  His center?  

So many martial artists, when asked to deal with a boxer, try to box him.  They lose.  That's his game, and the way most boxers train, it is a game.  That NOT to say that boxing isn't a very effective martial art.  Just that boxing in the ring as our culture envisions it has a goal which is different than neutralizing an attacker.


----------



## jujutsu_indonesia

samurai69 said:
			
		

> I was teaching in class a couple of days ago and the subject of self defence against a boxer type attack came up.
> 
> We hold a 20 to 30 minute section dealing with SD specifics at the end of class.
> 
> During this, the subject came up of the boxer flying in and out of range and throwing short fast jabs in and out
> 
> I wondered what the aiki way of defence would be against this style of attack, where its difficult to respond directly to specific attacks that are designed to wear down the opponent (jabs) and also the fairly fast footwork of a boxer.


 
Aikido or any Aiki arts does not have defense against boxing techniques. None of the waza is called "Jab Punch Ude Osaedori" or "Uppercut Makizume" or "Right Cross Kotezume"   We defend against very different attacks, from very different era, to be used in very different situations, certainly not inside the ring with boxing rules against a heavyweight boxer.

however, the AikidoKA (the person) surely could use the principles of Aiki techniques to deal with boxers.

Such as ducking under the right hook/jab, get a clinch and do your thing.


----------



## samurai69

> I wondered what the aiki way of defence would be against this style of attack, where its difficult to respond directly to specific attacks that are designed to wear down the opponent (jabs) and also the fairly fast footwork of a boxer


 
I suppose i was talking about this point particularly, but it was a generally open question so all answers and view points would be good......Thanks

Its in the aikido section to address the aikidoka in particular, as it will be covered in my aikido class, and as i have said before i like to keep aikido specific in aikido class

If it was of the more street orientated syle i would probably slip the jab/cross and get behind and control from the head 

:jedi1:


----------



## tempus

We have practiced against someone fighting like a boxer.  What we worked on was keeping hands up to block the jabs, follow the jab in and then do something.  We also worked on striking with a kick to the groin or knee.

Standing still and waiting was not a good option.


----------



## Hand Sword

Stan said:
			
		

> Are we talking about this match up as a thought experiment, or as a potentially real situation? If it's the latter, comments like, "don't worry about kicks from a boxer" are dangerous. In a real situation, there isn't "a boxer", nor is there "an aikidoka". There are two people who have trained to move in certain ways, but can move in any way the physical circumstances allow. First of all, just because someone displays what looks like boxing, you should not assume that that's all they know. Second of all, basing your defenses on a narrow strategy, like, letting them wear themselves out with jabs and then getting them on the cross, ("which is more like our traditional tsuki"), is about as un-budo as it gets.
> 
> 
> I was the one who commented on the kicks. For real--You're right, anything goes! However, the original post was asking about jabs in and out, short and quick and dealing with that specific element. Anyone who is going to box you will have their feet wide apart, to give a good base for a punch, jab or otherwise. One can't kick from this position, to do so they have to bring the feet closer together. Therefore, not worrying about kicks from a boxer is valid. Besides, Kicks are much slower, an Aikidoka would pick them up easier, and if they are circling, they won't be a problem. Any attack that's committed to will be dealt with by experienced Aikidoka (I work with some, believe me!).


----------



## BlackSheep

An elimination bout with a dozen boxers fighting against a dozen aikidoka would be cool to watch. The people at MT could place bets and the winners could then brag that they were right all alone. The losers could argue that if their guy was allowed to use deadly techniques then they would have won.


----------



## Hand Sword

BlackSheep said:
			
		

> An elimination bout with a dozen boxers fighting against a dozen aikidoka would be cool to watch. The people at MT could place bets and the winners could then brag that they were right all alone. The losers could argue that if their guy was allowed to use deadly techniques then they would have won.


 


I'd like to see it against any kind of martialartists. Especially those that feel secure in their abilities, inspite of never using them outside the dojo.
(I have seen it numerous times outside, not pretty for the martial artists)


----------



## MartialIntent

Hand Sword said:
			
		

> I'd like to see it against any kind of martialartists. Especially those that feel secure in their abilities, inspite of never using them outside the dojo.
> (I have seen it numerous times outside, not pretty for the martial artists)


Heartily agree with you both.

Again, it comes back to the old chestnut that it's not the art but the artist, still in particular, I think the aikidoka vs boxer would be quite an interesting bout simply because in many of their techniques and underlying philosophies, they're diametrically opposite. 

Having play-fought both boxers and kickboxers I found as an aikidoka that it tested the limits not just of Aikido techniques but also of the integrity of the art. I'd find myself [after some 15+ years of Aikido] still blocking punches instinctively from my old KF training... *purses lips and shakes head*

Hand Sword, your "not pretty" comment is suitably apt in this situation. In a for-real fight, the whole cohesiveness of one's art has a tendency to become muddled in the confusion.

Respects!


----------



## Hand Sword

Yep! Not pretty for their physical profiles either!


----------



## samurai69

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> Having play-fought both boxers and kickboxers *I found as an aikidoka that it tested the limits not just of Aikido techniques but also of the integrity of the art*. I'd find myself [after some 15+ years of Aikido] *still blocking punches instinctively from my old KF training*... *purses lips and shakes head*


 
Yep, this was what i found happening, and wanting to box back (I also studied Muay Thai and other MAs).


.


----------



## Hand Sword

don't try to out box a boxer!


----------



## MartialIntent

samurai69 said:
			
		

> Yep, this was what i found happening, and wanting to box back (I also studied Muay Thai and other MAs).
> 
> 
> .


I live and love Aikido but there's little doubt, it doesn't mirror our most primal of fighting styles ie. striking for offense and having hands up guarding the head for defense. And I think these natural tendencies during unfamiliar non-Aikido bouts is the hardest thing to drill out of ourselves if we've come to Aikido with some understanding of other strike-based arts.

Problem for me is when I practice Aikido, I like to try to maintain something of the integrity of the movements despite my training in other arts and that natural prediliction for _their_ use when sparring non-aikidoka. Sure I know step-through side kicks and whatnot - most of us do - but personally, when I try to lead into a shomen-uchi with a one-knuckle fist [hehe!] I generally end up with neither one thing nor the other, my attack ultimately concluding in a weaker diluted state than what it might have been on sticking to the original.

I think crosss-training and taking multiple arts can only be a good thing but in terms of modifying specific techniques, I feel that's where it has a tendency to go belly-up. But that's just in my personal experience.

For what it's worth, I found that the one element of cross-training that brought me most gains [with specific reference to boxing-type opponents] was speedwork - training to stay up on the balls of the feet so as to maximise forward and retreat movements; practising the side-to-side movements as well as the circular; and my favorite, the repeated stance switches - I enjoy doing this anyway but it adds an extra dimension to your overall defensive proposition when sparring a boxer.

And as I mentioned in a previous post, the very nature of the boxer's in and out style, if picked up upon, can I've found, be utilized with some natural atemi to break his or her balance.

Let me know what works for you - I'm always interested in taking on board useable supplementary training or knowledge!

Oh, and agree with Hand Sword - boxing ain't for the aikidoka! But we have _other _ways and means! Hehe!! 

Respects!


----------



## samurai69

MartialIntent said:
			
		

> I live and love Aikido but there's little doubt, it doesn't mirror our most primal of fighting styles ie. striking for offense and having hands up guarding the head for defense. And I think these natural tendencies during unfamiliar non-Aikido bouts is the hardest thing to drill out of ourselves if we've come to Aikido with some understanding of other strike-based arts.
> !


 
I agree totally, i have 2 new students both with a base in kempo and they are finding it difficult to "drill out" (possibly not the right expression of what i mean) the stances and basic defences from that style.

even when i teach my self defence specific classes this can still be a problem, when you are trying to appear less combative whilst trying to de-escalate a situation.



			
				MartialIntent said:
			
		

> Problem for me is when I practice Aikido, I like to try to maintain something of the integrity of the movements despite my training in other arts and that natural prediliction for _their_ use when sparring non-aikidoka. !


 
Thats really what caused the question to be raised, as i too like to keep my aikido, aikido specific.



			
				MartialIntent said:
			
		

> I think crosss-training and taking multiple arts can only be a good thing but in terms of modifying specific techniques, I feel that's where it has a tendency to go belly-up. But that's just in my personal experience.
> 
> !


 
I agree, modifying specific techniques, can cause some problems.



			
				MartialIntent said:
			
		

> And as I mentioned in a previous post, the very nature of the boxer's in and out style, if picked up upon, can I've found, be utilized with some natural atemi to break his or her balance.
> 
> !


 
Yep, makes sense



			
				MartialIntent said:
			
		

> Let me know what works for you - I'm always interested in taking on board useable supplementary training or knowledge!


 
Will certainly do that



			
				MartialIntent said:
			
		

> Oh, and agree with Hand Sword - boxing ain't for the aikidoka! But we have _other _ways and means! Hehe!!
> !


----------



## Buddha1

I've got a short video of a demonstration which shows an Aikidoist fighting a boxer. Anyone want to see it?


----------



## Hand Sword

Cool! Let's have it.


----------



## samurai69

Buddha1 said:
			
		

> I've got a short video of a demonstration which shows an Aikidoist fighting a boxer. Anyone want to see it?


 

Post it up  :ultracool


----------



## Buddha1

I'll post it up when I get home. It's very short but it emphasises the 'wait for the cross' method that would be essential in a fight between an Aikidoka and a boxer.


----------



## Hand Sword

Thanks. That will be cool to see. Good advice too. The jab moves too fast to try to go into a technique. (not impossible, but very tough to do) In that situation, you probably should wait for the cross.


----------



## Ceicei

Buddha1 said:
			
		

> I'll post it up when I get home. It's very short but it emphasises the 'wait for the cross' method that would be essential in a fight between an Aikidoka and a boxer.



That'll be interesting!  Still waiting... :uhyeah:

- Ceicei


----------



## samurai69

Buddha1 said:
			
		

> I've got a short video of a demonstration which shows an Aikidoist fighting a boxer. Anyone want to see it?


 

Bump for that..........................again


----------



## MartialIntent

I've been scouring the net after I read this but can't find anything like this. Plenty of Aikido vs Karate but we've seen all that before. aikido vs boxer is worth seeing. I'm in suspenders waiting for it, hehe!

Seriously, I'm keen to see what the aikidoka does while he's "waiting" for the cross. I'm also keen to see what he does to evade rapid direct strikes.

Or maybe this footage is just an urban myth. Hehe.

Respects!


----------



## merc

Because of the nature of boxing in general, quick foot movement is essential to this art, thus the ability to root and maintain a strong sense of balance is constantly of utmost demand in combat. If a good Aikido stylist maintains optinum range to his opponent, being a boxer and taking into consideration other possible training they may have had in the past, it is my opinion that he would ulitmately over extend his jab or right cross. A hook or upper cut should never come into play in this scenario since long range is being maintained (street scenario) de-escelation of force and target denial principles. Thus the Aikido stylist should use "irmi" to divert his forward attack off it central line, control his lead hand and maintain control of his head giving the ability to easily throw this person by over power his balance points. 

_"Just do what you have been trained to do, show them what you know, don't wait to find out what they know."_
_MERC_


----------



## AdrenalineJunky

Is the opinion of a boxer welcome?


----------



## Dark

samurai69 said:
			
		

> I wondered what the aiki way of defence would be against this style of attack, where its difficult to respond directly to specific attacks that are designed to wear down the opponent (jabs) and also the fairly fast footwork of a boxer.


 
On Jabs don't worry they aren't their to attack you but feel out your defense, your raction time, reflexes, speed, openings, telegraphs stuff of that nature. As for the in and out style, forget it two easy counters, move around or with and always change your pattern when you attack. Say I step forward step either back or two the side, a real good trick I picked up from a boxer was when they step into strike step back, once, twice and on the third time side step and counter.

You won't beat a boxer unless you can pick up three things, their rythem, their pattern and their angle. The rythem is of course the "bounce rythim" of their foot work, pattern is they strike at you; few boxer strike out hard on the go instead fighting with a 1-1-2 pattern instead of 1-2 (lead-reverse) pattern of hitting. Angle is the hardest to pick up on, it the "tilt" mark, allot of boxers with jab from the front, hook from the sides and then others will try to circle you. A real good boxer will try all three until they find the easiest way to punch you and work that angle.

Once you figure out these three you can watch and wait and when that commited attack comes apply whatever Aikido method seems best.


----------



## spinkick

Luckily I wont be fighting Mike tyson anytime soon, so until I meet a boxer who is actually big and bad enough for me to be really worried about I'll solve this problem by using my legs against his arms... considering their longer and stronger then his arms.. unless he has gorilla arms


----------



## Hand Sword

First, generally, Aikidoka don't really "kick" so that is not releveant to this thread's question. Second, judging by your statement you have never fought with a boxer of any sort before. Believe me, you won't be able to kick fast enough in succession. Also, as boxers are "turtled up", and have fast footwork, kicks alone, stronger or not, won't do.


----------



## Robert Lee

spinkick said:
			
		

> Luckily I wont be fighting Mike tyson anytime soon, so until I meet a boxer who is actually big and bad enough for me to be really worried about I'll solve this problem by using my legs against his arms... considering their longer and stronger then his arms.. unless he has gorilla arms


 Legs are easy to take away when you have good hands As all you do is get inside to the punching range. Far as the boxer. The boxing hands are about the best hands out there. Because they really train them for real use. Far as Aikido a boxer will close the range for sure. If your good enough youmay do ok. if not the boxer will get the hits in. It is about skill NOT art. the better fighter that day allways comes out on top.


----------



## spinkick

sorry I didn't realize that we were limiting ourselves to one art..... I'm a hapkido and Hankido (very similar to aiikido) man..... So Kicking is an integrated part of my training and I didn't even think about it not being in Aikido that owuld just be my reaction.  I didnt say you had to kick him where his hands could block it,  a side kick to the knee would be pretty effective?


----------



## Robert Lee

A low kick can work But agin it is the better fighter that day. And what people do not do because they are in a M/A art they do not give the boxer the credit they deserve. Fact is most boxers are better fighters then many M/A people are . Just because they really learn to use there tools. Plus being a boxer you can still do othere things kick grapple and such if need be. What I am saying Posting what a person can do well its not getting anything done. In any fight its that time you do what you do. Sure other people can see what you can do but You the person can only do what you do. I have known people that have boxed only then decided to go into kick boxing And in just a few short months get in the ring and win over people that have kick boxed for years. Skill and effcetive use of what you know overides any M/A ranking a good white belt that can fight can go out a come out on top of a blackbelt if his fighting skill and heart allows him to out perform the other. Aikido while it works really depends on the higher skill level to go aginst a boxer that has any skill at all. Thats not saying Aikdo does not work. You just have to train it long enough to become very good at it. And understand its never on the streets like it is in the Dojo where poeople work with you.


----------



## tempus

Fighting against a boxer is tough.  Even if you do not want to mention it, I will.  In my NGA class we played around with fighting against a boxer and what we found worked the best was to dive right in on the jab as it goes back, along with parrying the jab if you have to, or a kick to the knee.


----------



## jasonriverajasonrivera

I'm a amateur boxer and I have some close friends who are into Aikido since they were kids. 
We always spar when they visit me at my home. I totally respect their dedication but I must say, it will never work against a boxers who have been in the ring.
They always end up giving up during the fight. All I use against them are quick jobs while circling around. I have a fairly long reach so I don't really have a problem hitting them.
The problem with Aikido practioners is that they're not used to dealing with people who know how to punch really good! They tend to over react even to a very simple feint. This shows that they are very afraid of getting hit. 
And this is usually where my friends end up eating the leather.
One great quality of a boxer is that we already have a plan before we step into the ring and we study our opponents from start to the end of the fight. 
After few hits to their faces their eyes are teary and that's one indication they are already feeling those leather.


----------



## Tez3

I'll ignore for the moment that this thread is 12 years old.



jasonriverajasonrivera said:


> I have some close friends who are into Aikido since they were kids.



'Into' Aikido or actually train it?



jasonriverajasonrivera said:


> They always end up giving up during the fight. Al




Your friends aren't representative of Akidoka in general. What they are demonstrating is their lack of skill not your superiority.



jasonriverajasonrivera said:


> The problem with Aikido practioners is that they're not used to dealing with people who know how to punch really good!



How do you actually know that? 



jasonriverajasonrivera said:


> One great quality of a boxer is that we already have a plan before we step into the ring and we study our opponents from start to the end of the fight.



Yeah everyone has a plan until the battle starts. You can't generalise boxers anymore than you can anyone else. Boxers have tactics for fights where their opponent is chosen and they've has a chance to study how they fight. Boxers tend to be no better than anyone else when attacked randomly by people they don't know.

Welcome to MT by the way.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Yeah everyone has a plan until the battle starts. You can't generalise boxers anymore than you can anyone else. Boxers have tactics for fights where their opponent is chosen and they've has a chance to study how they fight. Boxers tend to be no better than anyone else when attacked randomly by people they don't know.
> 
> Welcome to MT by the way.



Wasn't he an ammy boxer
Because they fight randoms all the time. Look up a golden gloves.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Because they fight ransoms all the time




Pretty sure ammies don't get purses or ransoms..............


Boxers fighting boxers isn't random because of the rules and refs, boxers defending themselves against attackers is random.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Pretty sure ammies don't get purses or ransoms..............
> 
> 
> Boxers fighting boxers isn't random because of the rules and refs, boxers defending themselves against attackers is random.



Against an unknown person. Ammies do that all the time.

Last weekend one of our ammies fought a guy from the crowd.


----------



## jasonriverajasonrivera

Tez3 said:


> 'Into' Aikido or actually train it?


I pretty much say they train 'cause they go to their dojo thing like everyday. Well that's what they say. 



Tez3 said:


> How do you actually know that?


Well there's 3 of them (one on one of course. Not me against 3). All of them are trying to test their skills against someone with different form of combat sports.
I just play them around using successive quick jobs. Whenever I see them planning to do the wrist lock thing I just simply feint with my right then they go into covering their faces. As they do that I'd be out of the pocket.



Tez3 said:


> Your friends aren't representative of Akidoka in general. What they are demonstrating is their lack of skill not your superiority.


They definitely lack any fighting skills I agree. 

Aikido may be effective if they can grab their opponent. But how are you going to deal with someone who has the stamina to fight for long hours? Someone who can circle around you, moving from side to side, jump in and out in short burst. How can you deal with someone who can keep on feinting and throw combinations of punches that's faster than a blink of the eye. Punches that even a jab can know you out. And the moment you realized you've been hit, they'd be out of your range laughing at you. How can you deal to fight someone like that if you're too afraid to even get hit with a light jabs.

Just watch Manny Pacquiao in his prime and see how he throws powerful combinations. The moment his opponents recover he'd be behind them waiting. You can also watch Amir Khan's lightning handspeed. If you can handle these guys then you got our respect.


----------



## macher

Tez3 said:


> I'll ignore for the moment that this thread is 12 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 'Into' Aikido or actually train it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your friends aren't representative of Akidoka in general. What they are demonstrating is their lack of skill not your superiority.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you actually know that?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah everyone has a plan until the battle starts. You can't generalise boxers anymore than you can anyone else. Boxers have tactics for fights where their opponent is chosen and they've has a chance to study how they fight. Boxers tend to be no better than anyone else when attacked randomly by people they don't know.
> 
> Welcome to MT by the way.



Yep everyone has a plan until they get rocked. The difference with a boxer though is boxers spar often and get hit.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Last weekend one of our ammies fought a guy from the crowd.



That was incredibly stupid.



jasonriverajasonrivera said:


> I pretty much say they train 'cause they go to their dojo thing like everyday. Well that's what they say.



'Dojo thing' 

I'm not defending Aikido I don't know enough but it's clear I know more than you. To judge any style ( or anything really) just from something a couple of mates do is a very quick way to be proved wrong.




macher said:


> Yep everyone has a plan until they get rocked. The difference with a boxer though is boxers spar often and get hit.



That doesn't prove however that an Aikidoka couldn't defend themselves against a boxer. 

It's all very nebulous.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> That was incredibly stupid.



Not according to our trainers who are kind of the experts here.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jasonriverajasonrivera said:


> I'm a amateur boxer and I have some close friends who are into Aikido since they were kids.
> We always spar when they visit me at my home. I totally respect their dedication but I must say, it will never work against a boxers who have been in the ring.
> They always end up giving up during the fight. All I use against them are quick jobs while circling around. I have a fairly long reach so I don't really have a problem hitting them.
> The problem with Aikido practioners is that they're not used to dealing with people who know how to punch really good! They tend to over react even to a very simple feint. This shows that they are very afraid of getting hit.
> And this is usually where my friends end up eating the leather.
> One great quality of a boxer is that we already have a plan before we step into the ring and we study our opponents from start to the end of the fight.
> After few hits to their faces their eyes are teary and that's one indication they are already feeling those leather.


It depends how it is taught. I'd tend to agree that someone trying to do much of what I call "dojo Aikido" (stuff that's for flow work, part of the experience, but not directly practical IMO) is likely to get flattened by a good striker. It'd be like you trying to use your speed bag work as direct application in a match. Some schools/branches of Aikido seem to work almost exclusively on dojo Aikido - not an issue if you just want to learn Aikido and have the experience and fun of it. But it's not going to work well (again, just my opinion) against a competent striker like a trained boxer.

Take Aikido and add a striking foundation (including sparring, preferably some of which is striking-only), and the story changes a bit, because you get accustomed to dealing with real punches (instead of the stylized non-punches often used as training tools in Aikido, or weak/bad punches used in a lot of self-defense training approaches).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> That was incredibly stupid.


How so?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jasonriverajasonrivera said:


> Whenever I see them planning to do the wrist lock thing I just simply feint with my right then they go into covering their faces. As they do that I'd be out of the pocket.


Here's another issue for the way they've trained - you're seeing them planning for a wrist technique. Interestingly, that's pretty counter to most of what Aikido instructors seem to teach (they're supposed to use what you give, rather than manufacturing a technique).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jasonriverajasonrivera said:


> Aikido may be effective if they can grab their opponent. But how are you going to deal with someone who has the stamina to fight for long hours? Someone who can circle around you, moving from side to side, jump in and out in short burst. How can you deal with someone who can keep on feinting and throw combinations of punches that's faster than a blink of the eye. Punches that even a jab can know you out. And the moment you realized you've been hit, they'd be out of your range laughing at you. How can you deal to fight someone like that if you're too afraid to even get hit with a light jabs.


Nobody is invincible. Other boxers deal with those combinations. Pure grapplers in MMA dealt with those combinations (early MMA, before the boxers also started training grappling). The issue is that those students haven't trained how to handle a competent striker. It's entirely possible to take down a competent striker - but you have to know how to deal with the strikes to get to that.


----------



## pgsmith

gpseymour said:


> Nobody is invincible. Other boxers deal with those combinations. Pure grapplers in MMA dealt with those combinations (early MMA, before the boxers also started training grappling). The issue is that those students haven't trained how to handle a competent striker. It's entirely possible to take down a competent striker - but you have to know how to deal with the strikes to get to that.


  That reminds me of how my boxing career got short circuited. When I was in the Army, I worked with a guy that was a former gold glove champion from Arizona. He kept telling me he would teach me how to box, so I relented and started going to the gym with him. It all went well until I got good enough that we started sparring a bit more seriously. He would eventually tag me hard, and my instincts from my younger days in a bad neighborhood would kick in and I'd kick him between the legs and jump on him to grapple and throw him on the ground. Every time he would tag me hard I would go into automatic and do something similar. He finally said he flat out wasn't going to work with me any more.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> How so?



Fighting complete strangers out of the crowd? do you have to ask? What weight ? what experience? And amateur boxers fighting some stranger out of the crowd, really? i mean what could go wrong?


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> Not according to our trainers who are kind of the experts here.




Trainers in what, letting ammies get beaten up by random strangers?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pgsmith said:


> That reminds me of how my boxing career got short circuited. When I was in the Army, I worked with a guy that was a former gold glove champion from Arizona. He kept telling me he would teach me how to box, so I relented and started going to the gym with him. It all went well until I got good enough that we started sparring a bit more seriously. He would eventually tag me hard, and my instincts from my younger days in a bad neighborhood would kick in and I'd kick him between the legs and jump on him to grapple and throw him on the ground. Every time he would tag me hard I would go into automatic and do something similar. He finally said he flat out wasn't going to work with me any more.


I can't say I blame him. Vary your response, man - you're getting predictable!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> Fighting complete strangers out of the crowd? do you have to ask? What weight ? what experience? And amateur boxers fighting some stranger out of the crowd, really? i mean what could go wrong?


It's boxing. Something can always go wrong. Trained fighters do stupid things sometimes in the ring. I'd assume a person from the stands is a bit less predictable (not trained in the rules, etc.), but they're probably not going to go completely nuts.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It's boxing. Something can always go wrong. Trained fighters do stupid things sometimes in the ring. I'd assume a person from the stands is a bit less predictable (not trained in the rules, etc.), but they're probably not going to go completely nuts.



It is also ammy boxing. The only people in the crowd are other fighters.

Have you watched a golden gloves?

Neither has anyone else.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Trainers in what, letting ammies get beaten up by random strangers?



When you have traveled 300k to fight and the other guy disappears. You find a fight.

Boxing is notorious for flexible weight classes and random strangers.

It is just part of it.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> It's boxing. Something can always go wrong. Trained fighters do stupid things sometimes in the ring. I'd assume a person from the stands is a bit less predictable (not trained in the rules, etc.), but they're probably not going to go completely nuts.



You are a very trusting person.

It's not about being predictable, not sure where that came from, how about quite a few pounds heavier, even a stone or two ( a stone is 14lbs btw), what about being far more experienced than a young amateur boxer, what about being bigger and stronger than a young amateur boxer? It reeks of those old fairground fights, where lads are challenged to get in the ring with a boxer, they win money if they beat him which of course they never do.
If someone is reckless enough to allow a stranger from the crowd to box his fighters, what does it say about his integrity. For sure though taking part in unlicensed fights which this would be is a very quick career  ender even an amateur one. It's a quick way  not to get licensed for amateur and pro fights, so no use thinking about the Olympics, Commonwealth Games, world champs etc etc. You'd be banned from taking part and any good coach would know that, sure do it for fun if you like taking risks but limiting your fighters amateur chances? 

Oh and you'd better hope that if you cut that opponent  he doesn't bleed all over you if you have cuts or grazes etc.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> When you have traveled 300k to fight and the other guy disappears. You find a fight.
> 
> Boxing is notorious for flexible weight classes and random strangers.
> 
> It is just part of it.




You are not selling boxing as being worth doing you know.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> You are not selling boxing as being worth doing you know.



It isn't all glory and no heavy lifting.


----------



## Martial D

jasonriverajasonrivera said:


> I pretty much say they train 'cause they go to their dojo thing like everyday. Well that's what they say.
> 
> 
> Well there's 3 of them (one on one of course. Not me against 3). All of them are trying to test their skills against someone with different form of combat sports.
> I just play them around using successive quick jobs. Whenever I see them planning to do the wrist lock thing I just simply feint with my right then they go into covering their faces. As they do that I'd be out of the pocket.
> 
> 
> They definitely lack any fighting skills I agree.
> 
> Aikido may be effective if they can grab their opponent. But how are you going to deal with someone who has the stamina to fight for long hours? Someone who can circle around you, moving from side to side, jump in and out in short burst. How can you deal with someone who can keep on feinting and throw combinations of punches that's faster than a blink of the eye. Punches that even a jab can know you out. And the moment you realized you've been hit, they'd be out of your range laughing at you. How can you deal to fight someone like that if you're too afraid to even get hit with a light jabs.
> 
> Just watch Manny Pacquiao in his prime and see how he throws powerful combinations. The moment his opponents recover he'd be behind them waiting. You can also watch Amir Khan's lightning handspeed. If you can handle these guys then you got our respect.



Ok so how do you think straight boxers fair against straight bjj men?

Would the fact that most boxers would get their clothes folded while they are still wearing them in this scenario imply that bjj is better?

Is the bread the best part of a PB&j sandwich? Is it the jam? Or is it the PB?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is also ammy boxing. The only people in the crowd are other fighters.
> 
> *Have you watched a golden gloves?*
> 
> Neither has anyone else.


I was going to actually answer that question. Shows how much I know.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Martial D said:


> Ok so how do you think straight boxers fair against straight bjj men?
> 
> Would the fact that most boxers would get their clothes folded while they are still wearing them in this scenario imply that bjj is better?



Would they? I dunno. I think it's a simple matter of exposure. And I think you'd find it difficult to find someone with extensive training in one art that hasn't at least touched on others. Not impossible, but difficult.

Back when I was fighting rapier, I recall a couple encounters with people who were really top notch Olympic style fencers. All I had to do to win was take one step to the side. Or parry with the empty hand.

Similarly, I've sparred people who are purely Olympic style taekwondoin. Punch them in the head and they fall apart.

But in both cases, MOST people are far more adaptable than those examples, and I think most will have at least tried other rule sets. 

[/QUOTE]
Is the bread the best part of a PB&j sandwich? Is it the jam? Or is it the PB?[/QUOTE]

It's the jam. I don't like PB, and since my salivary glands were destroyed by throat surgery and radiation, eating bread really isn't an option. So the jam. Definitely the jam.


----------



## Martial D

Dirty Dog said:


> Would they? I dunno. I think it's a simple matter of exposure. And I think you'd find it difficult to find someone with extensive training in one art that hasn't at least touched on others. Not impossible, but difficult.
> 
> Back when I was fighting rapier, I recall a couple encounters with people who were really top notch Olympic style fencers. All I had to do to win was take one step to the side. Or parry with the empty hand.
> 
> Similarly, I've sparred people who are purely Olympic style taekwondoin. Punch them in the head and they fall apart.
> 
> But in both cases, MOST people are far more adaptable than those examples, and I think most will have at least tried other rule sets.




Well, the world before MMA says they would. They did. The Gracie's ran ham on everyone for a very long time. When bjj finally came to North America with the initial UFC's, for years many people wrote off pure boxing/striking as useless. Now we have people that are proficient in everything, and teachers and examples of striking that are modified and aware of the ground and what to do there. Wider stances, more protected legs, different weight distribution and movement.

And striking is better for it.

Boxing brings an element to fighting, the same as bjj does, but sometimes one pure element can trump another. I do not train aikido, and from what I've seen the vast majority do not train it for sparring or fighting, but I've also been exposed now to some that do. Aikido too, can add an element.

Even if pure boxing beats pure aikido every time, the man that is equally proficient in both will beat the boxer.


----------



## Spinedoc

Okay, having been a boxer back when I was young and in the military, and now being a long term Aikidoka, and BJJ student, I think I might offer some perspective. Aikido isn't designed for sparring. I'm sorry, it just isn't. Here's why. Aikido NEEDS a committed attack. If you are not willing to step into your punch and commit, I can't affect your kuzushi and/or disrupt your center. It's ancestor worked great on the battlefield, where soldiers committed to their attacks (often with weapons). Aikido works well against the guy in the bar who just took a full swing at you with a pool cue....or the guy trying to smash you in the face with a bottle. One on one against a trained fighter? Not the best choice. Here's the thing. NO art is perfect...none. In a one on one sparring/sporting match, BJJ, Judo, Wrestling, Boxing, MMA, are all far, far better choices than Aikido. But how about against multiple attackers? How about against weapons? In Aikido we always, ALWAYS assume 2 things. 1. The attacker has a weapon....it could be a brick, a baseball bat, a knife, etc., we assume they have something. 2. They have friends. It won't be a one on one fight. In those situations, not that they are ideal for ANY martial art, Aikido is probably a better choice than any of the above...why? Because we actually train against multiple attackers, and against weapons all the time. I've been training BJJ for awhile now as well....have never trained for EITHER of those things in BJJ. 

So, if a boxer wanted to probe and throw some jabs....a real Aikido practitioner wouldn't do anything...they would just back up out of range, and wait for the boxer to step in and commit. Which won't work well. It's akin to asking why your championship rally car isn't able to race against formula one cars on a formula one track and win? Different arts with different purposes. YMMV.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I was going to actually answer that question. Shows how much I know.



It is like rocking up to any tournament.


----------



## drop bear

Spinedoc said:


> . Aikido isn't designed for sparring. I'm sorry, it just isn't.



Which is insane considering Aikido is also designed to defend against people without hurting them.


----------



## drop bear

Spinedoc said:


> Okay, having been a boxer back when I was young and in the military, and now being a long term Aikidoka, and BJJ student, I think I might offer some perspective. Aikido isn't designed for sparring. I'm sorry, it just isn't. Here's why. Aikido NEEDS a committed attack. If you are not willing to step into your punch and commit, I can't affect your kuzushi and/or disrupt your center. It's ancestor worked great on the battlefield, where soldiers committed to their attacks (often with weapons). Aikido works well against the guy in the bar who just took a full swing at you with a pool cue....or the guy trying to smash you in the face with a bottle. One on one against a trained fighter? Not the best choice. Here's the thing. NO art is perfect...none. In a one on one sparring/sporting match, BJJ, Judo, Wrestling, Boxing, MMA, are all far, far better choices than Aikido. But how about against multiple attackers? How about against weapons? In Aikido we always, ALWAYS assume 2 things. 1. The attacker has a weapon....it could be a brick, a baseball bat, a knife, etc., we assume they have something. 2. They have friends. It won't be a one on one fight. In those situations, not that they are ideal for ANY martial art, Aikido is probably a better choice than any of the above...why? Because we actually train against multiple attackers, and against weapons all the time. I've been training BJJ for awhile now as well....have never trained for EITHER of those things in BJJ.
> 
> So, if a boxer wanted to probe and throw some jabs....a real Aikido practitioner wouldn't do anything...they would just back up out of range, and wait for the boxer to step in and commit. Which won't work well. It's akin to asking why your championship rally car isn't able to race against formula one cars on a formula one track and win? Different arts with different purposes. YMMV.



OK. Here is my theory. You have 90% of fighting and 10% of fighting.

90% is being able to impose your will on another person. So the BJJer who can grab a boxer and tie him up or the boxer who can KTFO the BJJer. This is the bare essentials of self defence.

The other 10% is multiple attackers, weapons, fighting in a car or on stairs. All that sexy street stuff.

Without that 90% the 10% is useless.

So the idea that while Aikido can't defeat one boxer but will suddenly rise to the challenge of three guys with weapons.

Is pretty ambitious.


----------



## Spinedoc

drop bear said:


> OK. Here is my theory. You have 90% of fighting and 10% of fighting.
> 
> 90% is being able to impose your will on another person. So the BJJer who can grab a boxer and tie him up or the boxer who can KTFO the BJJer. This is the bare essentials of self defence.
> 
> The other 10% is multiple attackers, weapons, fighting in a car or on stairs. All that sexy street stuff.
> 
> Without that 90% the 10% is useless.
> 
> So the idea that while Aikido can't defeat one boxer but will suddenly rise to the challenge of three guys with weapons.
> 
> Is pretty ambitious.



Agreed, which is why I have said for awhile, that Aikido was NEVER designed to be a standalone art....EVER. All of O'Sensei's original students (with a couple of exceptions) had substantial martial arts training already. They came to study Aikido because O'Sensei moved in a way that they had never seen. It was designed to augment what they were already doing. If you were a Judoka, it would make you a better Judoka, if you were a Karateka, it would make you a better Karateka, hell, O'Sensei even had famous Sumo guys coming to train with him. I personally believe Aikido techniques were not designed to be effective, I think they can be, but that was not their primary purpose. Their primary purpose was to act as scaffolding to teach you to move better and differently, to blend with your opponent.....but Aikido was not designed to be a primary art. It was designed to be your PhD after you had already studied something else. That's my thoughts....at least at this point after many years......it could change.


----------



## drop bear

Spinedoc said:


> Agreed, which is why I have said for awhile, that Aikido was NEVER designed to be a standalone art....EVER. All of O'Sensei's original students (with a couple of exceptions) had substantial martial arts training already. They came to study Aikido because O'Sensei moved in a way that they had never seen. It was designed to augment what they were already doing. If you were a Judoka, it would make you a better Judoka, if you were a Karateka, it would make you a better Karateka, hell, O'Sensei even had famous Sumo guys coming to train with him. I personally believe Aikido techniques were not designed to be effective, I think they can be, but that was not their primary purpose. Their primary purpose was to act as scaffolding to teach you to move better and differently, to blend with your opponent.....but Aikido was not designed to be a primary art. It was designed to be your PhD after you had already studied something else. That's my thoughts....at least at this point after many years......it could change.



Its a drill?


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> It isn't all glory and no heavy lifting.



It ain't all macho gypsy fighting either.


----------



## Spinedoc

drop bear said:


> Its a drill?



It's not a drill, the techniques can be effective if used properly, but I don't personally think that was ever the point. It's an entire system of body movement...I will concede that the way it is trained today, leaves a bit to be desired.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Which is insane considering Aikido is also designed to defend against people without hurting them.


I think I've talked about this before. The issue is (for straight Aikido - where the focus is training aiki methods only), if your partner knows how it works (even vaguely), the counters are pretty easy. It all starts with never reaching for the long attack (no overhand right, for instance, which is usually thrown for range). If you bring strikes and some of the Judo-style push-pull (like you see in Shotokan Aikido tournaments), it can adapt to sparring, and to skilled/controlled fighters.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Its a drill?


That would be one way of looking at it. I think Aikido (and any work on "aiki") is heavy on what I call "fiddling". Get two BJJ black belts together and let them share some thoughts, and at some point they probably get around to fiddling with some move or other, to see why one guy's version seems to work better in one situation, and the other guy's is better in a slightly different situation. Fiddling is fun, and actually makes us better (incrementally) at whatever art we are fiddling with. Well, aiki work is mostly fiddling. If you have a strong base already (like Spinedoc is suggesting), that fiddling can improve how you use that base, and make some useful transitions and add options. If you start with the fiddling, it takes a long time to get to competency (a common comment about Aikido), and will have trouble with the stuff that base would have covered.


----------



## _Simon_

OH I was scrolling through the new posts and I thought for a second that the title was "Aikido against a bear", now THAT would make for an interesting discussion! XD

Apologies... carry on!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

_Simon_ said:


> OH I was scrolling through the new posts and I thought for a second that the title was "Aikido against a bear", now THAT would make for an interesting discussion! XD
> 
> Apologies... carry on!


I see I'm not the only one who reads like that. Glad to have company.


----------



## Martial D

_Simon_ said:


> OH I was scrolling through the new posts and I thought for a second that the title was "Aikido against a bear", now THAT would make for an interesting discussion! XD
> 
> Apologies... carry on!


Alternate title "Bears like Japanese food too"


----------



## lianxi

samurai69 said:


> I wondered what the aiki way of defence would be against this style of attack, where its difficult to respond directly to specific attacks that are designed to wear down the opponent (jabs) and also the fairly fast footwork of a boxer.



I posted a similar question about baguazhang on the chinese martial arts forum today - I'm fascinated by internal arts like baguazhang, shimgumdo and aikido that use the core and whole body as a unit, because their practice provides so many health and fitness benefits to mind and body of the practitioner, and the core can generate a lot of focused power. But when it comes down to a real fight, it always seems tough to defend against a skilled boxer.


----------



## Buka

Do not box with a boxer - unless you're the better boxer. 

Ever see a boxer work on sweeps? Ever see a boxer work on throws from a clinch? Ever see boxers work on break falls?  Even a simple break fall?

Keep that in mind when dealing with boxers.

I love boxing, trained it a lot. But I'd never rely on it in a fight. Not by itself.


----------



## lianxi

Buka - OK, you have me interested the way you supported boxing, but seem to consider it incomplete, so what else would you consider using in a real fight?


----------



## Encho

drop bear said:


> OK. Here is my theory. You have 90% of fighting and 10% of fighting.
> 
> 90% is being able to impose your will on another person. So the BJJer who can grab a boxer and tie him up or the boxer who can KTFO the BJJer. This is the bare essentials of self defence.
> 
> The other 10% is multiple attackers, weapons, fighting in a car or on stairs. All that sexy street stuff.
> 
> Without that 90% the 10% is useless.
> 
> So the idea that while Aikido can't defeat one boxer but will suddenly rise to the challenge of three guys with weapons.
> 
> Is pretty ambitious.


Aikido comes from daito ryu, the idea is if a guy comes at you with a sword you can disarm  his sword and stab him and cut his head off. The art was designed to deal with battlefield and historical Japanese period weapons which would make bjj useless in medieval Japan.


----------



## Encho

lianxi said:


> Buka - OK, you have me interested the way you supported boxing, but seem to consider it incomplete, so what else would you consider using in a real fight?


I started off boxing from a golden glove champion it's a great art if you and your opponent are throwing punches, however, against a trained grappler who knows how to close the gap, or a kick boxer who knows how to roundhouse legs or an escrimador who knows how to use a stick it becomes incomplete in that area.


----------



## Buka

Lianxi, I like to rush, closing distance, because it's something that I do well. People don't usually handle being rushed well. And, yes, there's a danger of eating one on the way in - but as I said, I rush well.

I use my head well and my elbows well. Some boxers do that, too, might very well be where I first learned how.

And, again, I love boxing. It teaches you how to fight, but just as a boxer. Translates well to self defense - unless you get swept, grabbed, taken down, thrown, head locked, bear hugged, picked up, mounted etc. Then, not so much.


----------



## drop bear

Spinedoc said:


> It's not a drill, the techniques can be effective if used properly, but I don't personally think that was ever the point. It's an entire system of body movement...I will concede that the way it is trained today, leaves a bit to be desired.



And you are not seeking to companion it with anything? 

So then you could aikido boxers or whatever. If your guys were also boxers.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think I've talked about this before. The issue is (for straight Aikido - where the focus is training aiki methods only), if your partner knows how it works (even vaguely), the counters are pretty easy. It all starts with never reaching for the long attack (no overhand right, for instance, which is usually thrown for range). If you bring strikes and some of the Judo-style push-pull (like you see in Shotokan Aikido tournaments), it can adapt to sparring, and to skilled/controlled fighters.



If you can't spar. You are never even going to see that overhand right. Overextended or otherwise.

You can't actually properly explore the concepts you are trying to develop unless you leave the art and do a different art.

It is the definition of dry land swimming.

Which is fine if you companion it with something. Or drill some other mechanic

But I don't see a lot of aikidokas wrestling.


----------



## drop bear

Encho said:


> Aikido comes from daito ryu, the idea is if a guy comes at you with a sword you can disarm  his sword and stab him and cut his head off. The art was designed to deal with battlefield and historical Japanese period weapons which would make bjj useless in medieval Japan.



Go find a friend and give them a nerf bat. Not a trained martial arts friend,  just anyone.

Tell them to wack you as hard as they can with that bat.

Then take it off them without it even touching you.

There is no style designed to take a sword off a swordsman who wants to kill you with it.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Spinedoc said:


> Okay, having been a boxer back when I was young and in the military, and now being a long term Aikidoka, and BJJ student, I think I might offer some perspective. Aikido isn't designed for sparring. I'm sorry, it just isn't. Here's why. Aikido NEEDS a committed attack. If you are not willing to step into your punch and commit, I can't affect your kuzushi and/or disrupt your center. It's ancestor worked great on the battlefield, where soldiers committed to their attacks (often with weapons). Aikido works well against the guy in the bar who just took a full swing at you with a pool cue....or the guy trying to smash you in the face with a bottle. One on one against a trained fighter? Not the best choice. Here's the thing. NO art is perfect...none. In a one on one sparring/sporting match, BJJ, Judo, Wrestling, Boxing, MMA, are all far, far better choices than Aikido. But how about against multiple attackers? How about against weapons? In Aikido we always, ALWAYS assume 2 things. 1. The attacker has a weapon....it could be a brick, a baseball bat, a knife, etc., we assume they have something. 2. They have friends. It won't be a one on one fight. In those situations, not that they are ideal for ANY martial art, Aikido is probably a better choice than any of the above...why? Because we actually train against multiple attackers, and against weapons all the time. I've been training BJJ for awhile now as well....have never trained for EITHER of those things in BJJ.
> 
> So, if a boxer wanted to probe and throw some jabs....a real Aikido practitioner wouldn't do anything...they would just back up out of range, and wait for the boxer to step in and commit. Which won't work well. It's akin to asking why your championship rally car isn't able to race against formula one cars on a formula one track and win? Different arts with different purposes. YMMV.





drop bear said:


> OK. Here is my theory. You have 90% of fighting and 10% of fighting.
> 
> 90% is being able to impose your will on another person. So the BJJer who can grab a boxer and tie him up or the boxer who can KTFO the BJJer. This is the bare essentials of self defence.
> 
> The other 10% is multiple attackers, weapons, fighting in a car or on stairs. All that sexy street stuff.
> 
> Without that 90% the 10% is useless.
> 
> So the idea that while Aikido can't defeat one boxer but will suddenly rise to the challenge of three guys with weapons.
> 
> Is pretty ambitious.



Drop bear has it. I have practiced using my BJJ against weapons and multiple attackers. I don’t spend a lot of time on it because the fundamentals of being able to control someone are what makes it work. There are some specifics which have to change for weapons and multiples, but the biggest thing is being able to change your tactical mindset.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Drop bear has it. I have practiced using my BJJ against weapons and multiple attackers. I don’t spend a lot of time on it because the fundamentals of being able to control someone are what makes it work. There are some specifics which have to change for weapons and multiples, but the biggest thing is being able to change your tactical mindset.



As a side note about one of the interesting ironies of being tactically prepared for multiple attackers is that your work rate has has to out strip theirs. Because they quite simply are in a more efficient position.

So quite often a fun question to ask a person who trains multiples is "what is your cardio like?"


----------



## Spinedoc

drop bear said:


> And you are not seeking to companion it with anything?
> 
> So then you could aikido boxers or whatever. If your guys were also boxers.



I study BJJ, have studied Judo, boxed, etc. I think Aikido has made all of that better. I'm already progressing faster in my BJJ studies BECAUSE of my Aikido. YMMV.


----------



## Spinedoc

Also, I would add that some of us do spar. It's not common in Aikido, and you have to use atemi extensively, but you can spar, it's just not really built for that and most Aikidoka won't ever do it. Most don't care if they know how to fight or not, and will tell you that is not why they do Aikido. But, some of the other senior students and I will occasionally use the open mat and play around with different attacks, responses, actual full on strikes....the distance and timing get crazy. Just because I said it wasn't designed for sparring, does not mean you cannot or should not spar....just so I make myself clear.


----------



## drop bear

Spinedoc said:


> I study BJJ, have studied Judo, boxed, etc. I think Aikido has made all of that better. I'm already progressing faster in my BJJ studies BECAUSE of my Aikido. YMMV.



Yeah. But you then need at least one other person who can judo or wrestle so that you can practice aikido. Aikido becomes the worst people to train Aikido with.

So I would have thought Aikido plus something else would have to come as standard.

From what you are saying you only seem to be training half of aikido. 

As if say I only wanted to be a blocking specialist. I can't train with other blocking specialists. I have to train with a striker.


----------



## Spinedoc

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But you then need at least one other person who can judo or wrestle so that you can practice aikido. Aikido becomes the worst people to train Aikido with.
> 
> So I would have thought Aikido plus something else would have to come as standard.
> 
> From what you are saying you only seem to be training half of aikido.
> 
> As if say I only wanted to be a blocking specialist. I can't train with other blocking specialists. I have to train with a striker.



I can see your point. The head of my dojo, a godan in Aikido, also has yudansha ranking in Karate. He said he spent more than a decade trying to get Aikidoka to become better strikers and to learn how to strike and kick properly. He finally gave up. Said that none of them have any interest in it, don't care, won't practice it, etc. He says even today that the average Aikido student "can't strike for ****". The only exceptions being some of us who have a background in a striking art. Even then, with the rare exception of a couple of guys, I can't go full speed.....they don't know how to handle it, and would just find someone else to partner up with. That being said, I understand now that the Aikido is a system of movement, designed to make my other skills better. At least, that's where I am at with it.


----------



## drop bear

Spinedoc said:


> Also, I would add that some of us do spar. It's not common in Aikido, and you have to use atemi extensively, but you can spar, it's just not really built for that and most Aikidoka won't ever do it. Most don't care if they know how to fight or not, and will tell you that is not why they do Aikido. But, some of the other senior students and I will occasionally use the open mat and play around with different attacks, responses, actual full on strikes....the distance and timing get crazy. Just because I said it wasn't designed for sparring, does not mean you cannot or should not spar....just so I make myself clear.



It is not so much knowing how to fight as understanding the art you are doing.

Which I have no idea how you could gain any sort of knowledge as to how it works at all.


----------



## Jaeimseu

I don’t know if this has been posted already, but it was pretty interesting. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> Do not box with a boxer - unless you're the better boxer.
> 
> Ever see a boxer work on sweeps? Ever see a boxer work on throws from a clinch? Ever see boxers work on break falls?  Even a simple break fall?
> 
> Keep that in mind when dealing with boxers.
> 
> I love boxing, trained it a lot. But I'd never rely on it in a fight. Not by itself.


One of my early instructors was a Golden Gloves boxer, and held rank in two grappling arts and one striking art. His primary tenet was not to box with a boxer, nor grapple with a grappler.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> Lianxi, I like to rush, closing distance, because it's something that I do well. People don't usually handle being rushed well. And, yes, there's a danger of eating one on the way in - but as I said, I rush well.
> 
> I use my head well and my elbows well. Some boxers do that, too, might very well be where I first learned how.
> 
> And, again, I love boxing. It teaches you how to fight, but just as a boxer. Translates well to self defense - unless you get swept, grabbed, taken down, thrown, head locked, bear hugged, picked up, mounted etc. Then, not so much.


I think the fighting aspect - getting used to hitting and getting hit, the strategy of boxing, etc. - makes a fantastic foundation to work from. A boxer with something to fill the gaps you mention is a formidable fighter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If you can't spar. You are never even going to see that overhand right. Overextended or otherwise.
> 
> You can't actually properly explore the concepts you are trying to develop unless you leave the art and do a different art.
> 
> It is the definition of dry land swimming.
> 
> Which is fine if you companion it with something. Or drill some other mechanic
> 
> But I don't see a lot of aikidokas wrestling.


Again, as Spinedoc said, I think it was intended to be an add-on, a refinement. If you already spar, already know how to read those punches, Aikido makes a nice new set of tools to work with. Doing it the other way around (leaving Aikido to pick up that foundation) is the long way around, IMO.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> Drop bear has it. I have practiced using my BJJ against weapons and multiple attackers. I don’t spend a lot of time on it because the fundamentals of being able to control someone are what makes it work. There are some specifics which have to change for weapons and multiples, but the biggest thing is being able to change your tactical mindset.


Multiples has some different tactics, but the same fundamentals - just an add-on to the base, as you say. You could train it endlessly, but there's a definite point of diminishing return on it, and perhaps a point of negative return if you're taking time away from fundamentals. Much the same with weapons, though that approach can be integrated more - the training assumption that there's always a weapon causes some subtle changes in approach that are not time-intensive if they are treated as the standard.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Spinedoc said:


> I can see your point. The head of my dojo, a godan in Aikido, also has yudansha ranking in Karate. He said he spent more than a decade trying to get Aikidoka to become better strikers and to learn how to strike and kick properly. He finally gave up. Said that none of them have any interest in it, don't care, won't practice it, etc. He says even today that the average Aikido student "can't strike for ****". The only exceptions being some of us who have a background in a striking art. Even then, with the rare exception of a couple of guys, I can't go full speed.....they don't know how to handle it, and would just find someone else to partner up with. That being said, I understand now that the Aikido is a system of movement, designed to make my other skills better. At least, that's where I am at with it.


I've wondered about that, from what I've seen in Aikido schools I've visited (seminars, guest student, and observer). I think there are a lot of people who train Aikido because they like the look and feel of it, and the philosophy often espoused in the dojo. They're not terribly concerned about the fighting ability - Aikido is a good fit for attracting folks with that mindset, and I can't see why they'd be interested in the striking, etc. I've even seen some of that in NGA, especially at the schools that focus more on the aiki in the art - they actually tend to borrow from Ueshiba's philosophy in those schools (I'm actually not sure some of them understand the lineage of their own art). It bugs me, but it works for them, so...


----------



## drop bear

Spinedoc said:


> I can see your point. The head of my dojo, a godan in Aikido, also has yudansha ranking in Karate. He said he spent more than a decade trying to get Aikidoka to become better strikers and to learn how to strike and kick properly. He finally gave up. Said that none of them have any interest in it, don't care, won't practice it, etc. He says even today that the average Aikido student "can't strike for ****". The only exceptions being some of us who have a background in a striking art. Even then, with the rare exception of a couple of guys, I can't go full speed.....they don't know how to handle it, and would just find someone else to partner up with. That being said, I understand now that the Aikido is a system of movement, designed to make my other skills better. At least, that's where I am at with it.






gpseymour said:


> Again, as Spinedoc said, I think it was intended to be an add-on, a refinement. If you already spar, already know how to read those punches, Aikido makes a nice new set of tools to work with. Doing it the other way around (leaving Aikido to pick up that foundation) is the long way around, IMO.



If we revisit this Aikido vs MMA.

Which of the two exhibits a better understanding of aiki?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is not so much knowing how to fight as understanding the art you are doing.
> 
> Which I have no idea how you could gain any sort of knowledge as to how it works at all.


I think you have to think of Aikido as two different things, depending who's training it.

For folks who are just training it for the aiki philosophy and the movement that goes with it, it only has to work in the dojo. If they are able to complete their throws and locks against the stylized attacks in a typical dojo, they are happy and accomplishing all they came for.

For folks with prior training (what I believe was the original model), they are able to bring the attacks and intensity from their prior training and work together to understand the full application of the system as layer of refinement to their movement. They'll move much the same as the first group in the stylized drills, but likely will actually be better at even those. Up the intensity and vary the attacks, and these folks will be just about the only ones (excepting a gifted few and maybe some very advanced folks in the first group) who can continue to apply the art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If we revisit this Aikido vs MMA.
> 
> Which of the two exhibits a better understanding of aiki?


I don't see application of aiki by either person in that sparring match - at least, as not as I understand the concept.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't see application of aiki by either person in that sparring match - at least, as not as I understand the concept.



Using their energy to create your oportunity?

It is easier to see in their second go. As they are both putting more juice in.






Ironically, as i was looking through one of his training vids he was "weponising " his Aikido for this session. And was practicing an underhook takedown.

Then gets nailed by that takedown.


----------



## drop bear

So this progression is something I find kind of interesting.






The Aikido moves he is trying here. Osotogari, I think a bit of a shoulder throw attempt, That underhook take down.

He got nailed with when he sparred the MMA guy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Using their energy to create your oportunity?
> 
> It is easier to see in their second go. As they are both putting more juice in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironically, as i was looking through one of his training vids he was "weponising " his Aikido for this session. And was practicing an underhook takedown.
> 
> Then gets nailed by that takedown.


His opponent does some good blending when he comes in - not much of what I'd call aiki in the takedowns on either side. Yeah, we're back to my hazy definition of aiki, I know. If I spent more time thinking about it or explaining it, I'd have a better definition for you. It ends up being something I can show in some techniques (here it is, here it isn't), and something I can recognize when I see it. Just hard for me to verbalize.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So this progression is something I find kind of interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Aikido moves he is trying here. Osotogari, I think a bit of a shoulder throw attempt, That underhook take down.
> 
> He got nailed with when he sparred the MMA guy.


Interestingly, even there, he's not trying to get to any of the standard Aikido techniques. He looks like he's been studying some Judo and wrestling/BJJ videos for fodder to work with. His biggest problem in his takedowns is that, even when he gets in position, he still stays "aiki soft" too often. You can't expect to softly execute a single-leg (which is why he kept losing that when the got the MMA guy's leg) - you have to put some push-pull into it.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Interestingly, even there, he's not trying to get to any of the standard Aikido techniques. He looks like he's been studying some Judo and wrestling/BJJ videos for fodder to work with. His biggest problem in his takedowns is that, even when he gets in position, he still stays "aiki soft" too often. You can't expect to softly execute a single-leg (which is why he kept losing that when the got the MMA guy's leg) - you have to put some push-pull into it.



The MMA guy conversely was just surfing away there with his one leg in the air. Which is blending?

Oh and you can. Get a guy in to a really deep stance and they will pop straight over on a single.

It becomes almost an ankle pick.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> you have to put some push-pull into it.


In MMA environment with gloves on, this may be hard to do. But in 100% wrestling environment, this push-pull is very useful. You can push-pull:

1. forward-backward.
2. left-right.
3. clockwise-counter clockwise.

If your opponent

- resits, you borrow his resisting force and apply certain techniques.
- yields, you borrow his yielding force and apply certain techniques.

It's a very good method to group different techniques together.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The MMA guy conversely was just surfing away there with his one leg in the air. Which is blending?


Neither is blending there, though what the MMA guy is doing is closer in concept.



> Oh and you can. Get a guy in to a really deep stance and they will pop straight over on a single.
> 
> It becomes almost an ankle pick.


With a strong entry and good position, a single-leg can be easy. But I don't think the aiki-soft approach the Aikido guy was using will work against someone who kicks (they tend to have pretty good one-leg balance). Mind you, that's coming from me, and my single-leg isn't all that strong. I typically only use it as a defense from the knees, so it's not built on the same entry.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In MMA environment with gloves on, this may be hard to do. But in 100% wrestling environment, this push-pull is very useful. You can push-pull:
> 
> 1. forward-backward.
> 2. left-right.
> 3. clockwise-counter clockwise.
> 
> If your opponent
> 
> - resits, you borrow his resisting force and apply certain techniques.
> - yields, you borrow his yielding force and apply certain techniques.
> 
> It's a very good method to group different techniques together.


That's the majority of what you see going on in Judo competitions. Both players introduce small to moderate amounts of push and pull to see what their opponent does. Then they try to find a gap where the other player over-responds and read it fast enough to take advantage. When they do (especially at a high level) the result is fast and decisive.


----------



## Encho

drop bear said:


> Go find a friend and give them a nerf bat. Not a trained martial arts friend,  just anyone.
> 
> Tell them to wack you as hard as they can with that bat.
> 
> Then take it off them without it even touching you.
> 
> There is no style designed to take a sword off a swordsman who wants to kill you with it.


Swinging a bat is not the same as using a sword!  When two opponents are in armor on the battlefield and you lost your sword and have no other choice but use ippon Dori as found in Daito ryu to stop the blade enough to grab your Dirk that is what you do. 

If you have trained in koryu styles you would know about muto Dori. Do you know why these things are taught? Because the people who actually had to use this on the battlefield in ancient Japan passed it down to the generations.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Martial D said:


> Well, the world before MMA says they would. They did. The Gracie's ran ham on everyone for a very long time. When bjj finally came to North America with the initial UFC's, for years many people wrote off pure boxing/striking as useless. Now we have people that are proficient in everything, and teachers and examples of striking that are modified and aware of the ground and what to do there. Wider stances, more protected legs, different weight distribution and movement.
> 
> And striking is better for it.
> 
> Boxing brings an element to fighting, the same as bjj does, but sometimes one pure element can trump another. I do not train aikido, and from what I've seen the vast majority do not train it for sparring or fighting, but I've also been exposed now to some that do. Aikido too, can add an element.
> 
> Even if pure boxing beats pure aikido every time, the man that is equally proficient in both will beat the boxer.


I've never bought the idea that pre/early mma proves pure grappling beats pure striking. I think it's a matter of what people have experienced. Most grapplers at that point had some experience with striking (either through vale tudo, or general fighting) due to strikings overall popularity. So it's something that they generally know how it works. For strikers at the time, grappling was a completely alien idea, that's a lot less intuitive, so it's natural that they wouldn't have any idea how to handle it.

To me, a better way to sell would have strikers vs grapplers today, when both are aware of the others existence, and neither are underestimating the other (another issue that occurred from strikers not knowing what grappling is)


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I've wondered about that, from what I've seen in Aikido schools I've visited (seminars, guest student, and observer). I think there are a lot of people who train Aikido because they like the look and feel of it, and the philosophy often espoused in the dojo. They're not terribly concerned about the fighting ability - Aikido is a good fit for attracting folks with that mindset, and I can't see why they'd be interested in the striking, etc. I've even seen some of that in NGA, especially at the schools that focus more on the aiki in the art - they actually tend to borrow from Ueshiba's philosophy in those schools (I'm actually not sure some of them understand the lineage of their own art). It bugs me, but it works for them, so...



There is a difference between just pretending something works because it would just be cool if stuff happened that way.

And making something work.

You are suggesting LARP. Which would be a terrible bar to set for a martial arts.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> either is blending there, though what the MMA guy is doing is closer in concept.



Pretty close from what i just looked up.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> a strong entry and good position, a single-leg can be easy. But I don't think the aiki-soft approach the Aikido guy was using will work against someone who kicks (they tend to have pretty good one-leg balance). Mind you, that's coming from me, and my single-leg isn't all that strong. I typically only use it as a defense from the knees, so it's not built on the same entry.



Yeah. If you look at the ankle pick. It has that soft entry.






Single leg has the same sort of motion.


----------



## drop bear

Encho said:


> Swinging a bat is not the same as using a sword!  When two opponents are in armor on the battlefield and you lost your sword and have no other choice but use ippon Dori as found in Daito ryu to stop the blade enough to grab your Dirk that is what you do.
> 
> If you have trained in koryu styles you would know about muto Dori. Do you know why these things are taught? Because the people who actually had to use this on the battlefield in ancient Japan passed it down to the generations.



Good point the fact that a nerf bat is a couple of feet of fuzzyness vs 4 feet of sharp steel would put you at the disadvantage there.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Pretty close from what i just looked up.



There are 2 things wrong in this grab. IMO, there is no value to train a grab counter if that grab is wrong to start with.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> There is a difference between just pretending something works because it would just be cool if stuff happened that way.
> 
> And making something work.
> 
> You are suggesting LARP. Which would be a terrible bar to set for a martial arts.


Yes, I actually am - for folks who have no desire to develop fighting ability. We don't really care if a jazz dancer is able to apply his dance moves in a fight, so if someone isn't interested in learning to use Aikido for fighting, why do we care if he only learns it as a cooperative dance?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Pretty close from what i just looked up.


That's way too philosophical for me. 

Anyway, from a superficial standpoint, I'm with you. Blending - as I learned the term - is a recognizable approach. I didn't see much of it in the MMA guy (and none of it in the Aikido guy). The pivot outside shown in that video is probably the most extreme version. The clearest version I know of is simply this: I punch with a right round, and you step forward with your right (to my left - close to my shoulder), then pivot as my punch causes me to pivot. If you added a technique with that (just think a simple arm drag on my punching arm as you pivot), you'd be blending your movement with mine to accelerate what I do into something I can't easily resist (too much circular/angular momentum). I'm hoping that's a clearer picture than I think it is.

Others may have a different definition of "blending", and might fit better what the MMA guys is doing in the video.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. If you look at the ankle pick. It has that soft entry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Single leg has the same sort of motion.


Yes, I see it in the first bit of that video - he has already broken the structure at the top (with head control). Given that broken structure, it will work with that softness. Since I only work mine from below, I don't get to take head control in it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> so if someone isn't interested in learning to use Aikido for fighting, why do we care if he only learns it as a cooperative dance?


When the communist Chinese government made traditional CMA into modern Wushu dancing, fewer people in China want to train the traditional CMA. The Traditional CMA started to die out. It's much easier to control the Chinese population if all Chinese don't know how to fight.

We don't live in a communist country. We still have free speech here. It's our responsibility to express our opinion even if others may not like to hear it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There are 2 things wrong in this grab. IMO, there is no value to train a grab counter if that grab is wrong to start with.


I disagree, but I think only slightly. There's no "wrong" way to grip. There are more and less effective methods, but pretty much any grip can happen, and you deal with whatever you're given. In that exercise (like many exercises in Aikido practice), they've stylized it, removing the actual attack - the guy's not actually DOING anything with that grip. I've always found that odd, because it means there's really not an attack to work with. It's an okay exercise for "fiddling", but not much direct practical use.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When the communist Chinese government made traditional CMA into modern Wushu dancing, fewer people in China want to train the traditional CMA. The Traditional CMA started to die out.
> 
> We don't live in a communist country. We still have free speech here. It's our responsibility to express our opinion even if others may not like to hear it.


Yes, and my opinion is that if they want to practice Aikido as a movement practice, rather than as combat preparation, that's just fine. Maybe later in my life I'll be interested in that, too - might be more fun than taking up dance.


----------



## Spinedoc

drop bear said:


> Pretty close from what i just looked up.



This is called Tai no Henko Tenkan, and is a fundamental kihon movement in Aikido. I disagree with his explanation, but the basics are there. It's a same side wrist grab, and you tenkan to blend with his forward movement. Think of me holding a sword, and you come in to grab my wrist and your energy is all coming at me. I simply blend and tenkan....it is NOT a technique in and of itself, but can set up many techniques.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yes, and my opinion is that if they want to practice Aikido as a movement practice, rather than as combat preparation, that's just fine. Maybe later in my life I'll be interested in that, too - might be more fun than taking up dance.



Yeah but if the only reason they fall over is because they are trying to be nice. That is also no longer aiki. That is acting.






The core principal is gone.

That would be pretty cruel if you were not upfront about that.

There is a difference between not training to fight and not training anything.


----------



## drop bear

Spinedoc said:


> This is called Tai no Henko Tenkan, and is a fundamental kihon movement in Aikido. I disagree with his explanation, but the basics are there. It's a same side wrist grab, and you tenkan to blend with his forward movement. Think of me holding a sword, and you come in to grab my wrist and your energy is all coming at me. I simply blend and tenkan....it is NOT a technique in and of itself, but can set up many techniques.



It was more the philosophy than that particular move. I grab your leg and lift it and push you back.

You move backwards with me until the movement is no longer pushing you backwards but is bringing you on top of me


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah but if the only reason they fall over is because they are trying to be nice. That is also no longer aiki. That is acting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The core principal is gone.
> 
> That would be pretty cruel if you were not upfront about that.
> 
> There is a difference between not training to fight and not training anything.


They are actually being thrown, though in at least some of the throws, they have to be nice enough to hang around for the throw. Some of the throws done in that environment are quite powerful. The core principle is there, but in some cases that's all that's there (and I think in some cases that's actually the point). And if that's what they want to work on, it doesn't bother me.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not talking about no-touch, so much. There is some legitimate use of that in seeing how uke's movement affects him, but it's not really a throw. But if people understand it for what it actually is (rather than thinking it's effective fighting skill), I still don't have a problem with them doing it.

EDIT EDIT: Okay, I've had coffee, and finally noticed your first sentence. 
You are correct that there's not really aiki in that, IMO. They're down to studying uke's movement and how it affects structure. It can be an interesting "fiddling" exercise, and sometimes can even be useful fiddling, in understanding how structure breaks down without using strength (leaving that in reserve). But it is fiddling, to me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It was more the philosophy than that particular move. I grab your leg and lift it and push you back.
> 
> You move backwards with me until the movement is no longer pushing you backwards but is bringing you on top of me


Philosophically, that's actually pretty close. For me (and again, maybe not to others - maybe not to Aikido), blending adds energy rather than just accepting it. So, accepting that backwards push and adding your body weight into a throw changes it into blending. This type of blending is not uncommon in collegiate and Olympic wrestling. And it's a core principle (expressed a bit differently) you can see in Judo competition.


----------



## Spinedoc

drop bear said:


> Yeah but if the only reason they fall over is because they are trying to be nice. That is also no longer aiki. That is acting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The core principal is gone.
> 
> That would be pretty cruel if you were not upfront about that.
> 
> There is a difference between not training to fight and not training anything.



Yeah, and Watanabe Sensei is not really considered appropriate Aikido by many. Here's Tissier Shihan in an interview. You can tell he's trying to be politically correct and nice, but he basically in so many words says its rubbish.

*Mario Lorenzo – From a technical point of view, which aspect do you think Aikido will gravitate to: physical, speed, or technique?*
_Sensei Tissier : Diversity is the strength of Aikido. There are people who practise Aikido just because it’s not too physical. Many of these people couldn’t practise another sport. There are others that have worked physically before and for them that aim is included in Aikido. I’m almost 60 and I feel a sportsman. I’m not saying I practice a physically demanding Aikido, but I feel like somebody who has done sports his whole life. We are interested in keeping an aspect of the practice based on physical work.

A short time ago I went to Amsterdam with the Doshu, we are the same age. He did an aikido demonstration which was extensive, quick and precise with all the characteristics of a sportsman.
_
*Mario Lorenzo - In South America we can see that those who emphasize too much on the “KI” in their practice are not technically serious. Do you see this in other countries? And what do you think of Watanabe Sensei‘s “no touch Aikido”?*
_Sensei Tissier : They are two different things. On the one hand people who talk about ki, and on the other the ones who practise aikido like Sensei Watanabe. He developed something in which he is especially interested in: it isn’t a ki work but one of anticipation, sensations, whether you like it or not, or whether it works or not. It works when you know the code, but martially it doesn’t work. Being in Japan I worked a lot with him, Watanabe wasn’t like this before. He is a physically solid practicant who wanted to develop something different. I think that if I were head of an examination table I wouldn’t take what he produces.

Now, people who talk and make constant reference on ki around the world are looking for something to justify their lack of technique. Because we all have ki, everything is ki (opening his arms), the problem with ki is its fluency. How does ki flow? When there is no block. When somebody is doing a technique and doesn’t handle it, this person doesn’t have an unblocked body. The objective of the technical aspect of the sport is to unlock every body part where there might exist a block. Someone who performs an exercise with stiff shoulders will not have a real ki flow.

Sensei Christian Tissier visited South America last December, Article, Christian Tissier Shihan 7° Dan Aikïkaï, Aïkido_


----------



## drop bear

Spinedoc said:


> Yeah, and Watanabe Sensei is not really considered appropriate Aikido by many. Here's Tissier Shihan in an interview. You can tell he's trying to be politically correct and nice, but he basically in so many words says its rubbish.
> 
> *Mario Lorenzo – From a technical point of view, which aspect do you think Aikido will gravitate to: physical, speed, or technique?*
> _Sensei Tissier : Diversity is the strength of Aikido. There are people who practise Aikido just because it’s not too physical. Many of these people couldn’t practise another sport. There are others that have worked physically before and for them that aim is included in Aikido. I’m almost 60 and I feel a sportsman. I’m not saying I practice a physically demanding Aikido, but I feel like somebody who has done sports his whole life. We are interested in keeping an aspect of the practice based on physical work.
> 
> A short time ago I went to Amsterdam with the Doshu, we are the same age. He did an aikido demonstration which was extensive, quick and precise with all the characteristics of a sportsman.
> _
> *Mario Lorenzo - In South America we can see that those who emphasize too much on the “KI” in their practice are not technically serious. Do you see this in other countries? And what do you think of Watanabe Sensei‘s “no touch Aikido”?*
> _Sensei Tissier : They are two different things. On the one hand people who talk about ki, and on the other the ones who practise aikido like Sensei Watanabe. He developed something in which he is especially interested in: it isn’t a ki work but one of anticipation, sensations, whether you like it or not, or whether it works or not. It works when you know the code, but martially it doesn’t work. Being in Japan I worked a lot with him, Watanabe wasn’t like this before. He is a physically solid practicant who wanted to develop something different. I think that if I were head of an examination table I wouldn’t take what he produces.
> 
> Now, people who talk and make constant reference on ki around the world are looking for something to justify their lack of technique. Because we all have ki, everything is ki (opening his arms), the problem with ki is its fluency. How does ki flow? When there is no block. When somebody is doing a technique and doesn’t handle it, this person doesn’t have an unblocked body. The objective of the technical aspect of the sport is to unlock every body part where there might exist a block. Someone who performs an exercise with stiff shoulders will not have a real ki flow.
> 
> Sensei Christian Tissier visited South America last December, Article, Christian Tissier Shihan 7° Dan Aikïkaï, Aïkido_



It is also an extreme version of what I see in a demo or a grading though. So where that is noticeable the concept is a lot more common than than people think.

And it becomes not about fighting but about learning the thing you are supposed to be trying to learn.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And it becomes not about fighting but about learning the thing you are supposed to be trying to learn.


That is a real risk with all TMA (and newer arts following the same pattern). It's less a problem if competition is involved, or at least some live sparring - so long as the rules used don't create a similar issue.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That is a real risk with all TMA (and newer arts following the same pattern). It's less a problem if competition is involved, or at least some live sparring - so long as the rules used don't create a similar issue.



A real risk with martial arts in general. Now that I can notice it. Brcause we almost never do it live unless i have completely disregarded the person. It astounds me how often it pops up. Like a huge blind spot.






The fix is simple. If you loose. You loose. If as the defender you get knocked to the ground and subbed. Then that is what happens. There is no shame in that. It is part of the process.

If you only get an inch. Then you have gained that inch.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> A real risk with martial arts in general. Now that I can notice it. Brcause we almost never do it live unless i have completely disregarded the person. It astounds me how often it pops up. Like a huge blind spot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fix is simple. If you loose. You loose. If as the defender you get knocked to the ground and subbed. Then that is what happens. There is no shame in that. It is part of the process.
> 
> If you only get an inch. Then you have gained that inch.


Yeah. This is a problem with a common approach to SD training and testing. At a given rank, it's expected you'll properly defend a given % of the attacks. This is fine for scenario attacks, because the limitations placed on the "attacker" make it harder for them to succeed (rather than them using their whole skill). But if the testing stops there, there's an unrealistic assumption that all defenses are at that level.

I recently participated in a class where a student asked to do a defense line with multiple knife-wielding attackers. We agreed, and we all came at it seriously, and we all got murdered on nearly all attempts - which is really what should happen if people with any skill come at you in a coordinated fashion in that exercise. I could see the students were disturbed by it, so I took a few minutes afterward to discuss it with them. I basically said, "We all sucked at that, because being attacked by two people with knives will always suck." Too often we (those of us in the SD-focused side of MA) stay too long on the beginners' drills and don't visit the full-resistance stuff, even in simulation. The exercise was still a lot of fun - mostly for the attackers.


----------



## oftheherd1

gpseymour said:


> It's boxing. Something can always go wrong. Trained fighters do stupid things sometimes in the ring. I'd assume a person from the stands is a bit less predictable (not trained in the rules, etc.), but they're probably not going to go completely nuts.



Probably not.  Well, unless their name is @pgsmith.


----------



## pgsmith

oftheherd1 said:


> Probably not. Well, unless their name is @pgsmith.





Made me realize how deeply some responses can get ingrained though.


----------



## Ryback

Hello everyone!! 
I would like to share some thoughts with you about the subject of the thread... 
Even though it's pretty clear to me why such a topic is very attractive, I think that such comparisons are a bit hard to make.... 
First of all there is a distinction between a martial art and a combative sport and in this case Aikido is a martial art and Boxing is a sport so it is a comparison between two different things. 
One thing that we should make clear is what do we mean when we say "Aikido vs Boxing"? Is it in a sparring context or in a self defense context. 
Aikido has no sparring (ok, with the Tomiki exception) and there are a lot of reasons for that but if we could gather them all under one phrase it could have been "because it is not a sport"! But if, for argument's sake, we would try to compare Aikido with Boxing is a sparring frame what would we have? 
If the boxer was allowed to use all of his Boxing then the aikidoka should have been allowed to use all of his Aikido in order to make the comparison, and Aikido is not only tai-jutsu. So I would there be any reason to talk about a boxer using short fast jabs or strong punches or whatever against a person with a bokken or a jo? 
Now in the second scenario, when it is a self defense situation and the attacker happens to be a boxer... Well, if it's a real situation, you don't know beforehand that you are gonna be attacked, you don't know what are your attacker's skills and he doesn't know that you are an Aikidoka, so he would not attack thinking how not to be taken into Kote gaeshi or shiho Nage or whatever... He would simply attack with what he has and the aikidoka would defend according to the level of his skill and ability.... 
Still, if there could be an answer to the whole thread I think that if an aikidoka is getting attacked with punches and strikes, he shouldn't try to stay away from them but enter! Dive into the attack, deflecting the strikes and get himself into a position where he can apply an Aikido technique... 
All of the above of course is just my opinion, a reflection of my personal experience, every opinion is respected...


----------



## drop bear

Ryback said:


> Hello everyone!!
> I would like to share some thoughts with you about the subject of the thread...
> Even though it's pretty clear to me why such a topic is very attractive, I think that such comparisons are a bit hard to make....
> First of all there is a distinction between a martial art and a combative sport and in this case Aikido is a martial art and Boxing is a sport so it is a comparison between two different things.
> One thing that we should make clear is what do we mean when we say "Aikido vs Boxing"? Is it in a sparring context or in a self defense context.
> Aikido has no sparring (ok, with the Tomiki exception) and there are a lot of reasons for that but if we could gather them all under one phrase it could have been "because it is not a sport"! But if, for argument's sake, we would try to compare Aikido with Boxing is a sparring frame what would we have?
> If the boxer was allowed to use all of his Boxing then the aikidoka should have been allowed to use all of his Aikido in order to make the comparison, and Aikido is not only tai-jutsu. So I would there be any reason to talk about a boxer using short fast jabs or strong punches or whatever against a person with a bokken or a jo?
> Now in the second scenario, when it is a self defense situation and the attacker happens to be a boxer... Well, if it's a real situation, you don't know beforehand that you are gonna be attacked, you don't know what are your attacker's skills and he doesn't know that you are an Aikidoka, so he would not attack thinking how not to be taken into Kote gaeshi or shiho Nage or whatever... He would simply attack with what he has and the aikidoka would defend according to the level of his skill and ability....
> Still, if there could be an answer to the whole thread I think that if an aikidoka is getting attacked with punches and strikes, he shouldn't try to stay away from them but enter! Dive into the attack, deflecting the strikes and get himself into a position where he can apply an Aikido technique...
> All of the above of course is just my opinion, a reflection of my personal experience, every opinion is respected...



If someone's aikido fundamentally doesn't work. Why would a stick help them. Give two people who can't fight a Jo. And the winner will probably be the most aggressive or athletic guy.

If the Aikido guys Aikido does work then he won't need the stick.

This really is not rocket science.


----------



## Ryback

drop bear said:


> If someone's aikido fundamentally doesn't work. Why would a stick help them. Give two people who can't fight a Jo. And the winner will probably be the most aggressive or athletic guy.
> 
> If the Aikido guys Aikido does work then he won't need the stick.
> 
> This really is not rocket science.


Not really... Weapons are part of Aikido, we don't use them because Aikido doesn't work, Aikido is not only tai-jutsu... 2/3 of Aikido are weapons... There are bokken techniques, there are Jo techniques and also Tai-jutsu and everything in between, bokken against Jo, disarming of the bokken, disarming of the Jo, avoiding being disarmed while you are using a bokken or Jo, you name it. It's all there in Aikido menu, that's why it is a martial art and not a sport. Who says that you use weapons because your other techniques wouldn't work?  You use weapons and anything else because a martial art is about surviving not about "being a fair game"  that's one huge difference between martial arts and sports... 
So if the comparison is between Aikido and Boxing and the boxer is using all of his Boxing skills, then the aikidoka should use all of his Aikido skills or else we are diminishing Aikido into something that it's not. 
And I believe, and that's just my opinion that a boxer would have a hard time fighting against a bokken or Jo...


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> If someone's aikido fundamentally doesn't work. Why would a stick help them. Give two people who can't fight a Jo. And the winner will probably be the most aggressive or athletic guy.
> 
> If the Aikido guys Aikido does work then he won't need the stick.
> 
> This really is not rocket science.


A kali practitioner probably couldn't win against a boxer withoutsome sort of weapon (assuming all other stuff equal etc. etc.),, giving one a stick absolutely would help. If you give both the kali practitioner and the boxer a stick, and my moneys going to be on the kali guy. Not a failing of the system, the system is just focused around the idea that you carry a weapon on you.


----------



## Ryback

kempodisciple said:


> A kali practitioner probably couldn't win against a boxer withoutsome sort of weapon (assuming all other stuff equal etc. etc.),, giving one a stick absolutely would help. If you give both the kali practitioner and the boxer a stick, and my moneys going to be on the kali guy. Not a failing of the system, the system is just focused around the idea that you carry a weapon on you.


I agree with your post.... The only difference is that Aikido has unarmed combat within it anyway, so there is a way for an aikidoka to fight successfully a boxer as long as his skills permit it... But my point is, why should anyone go to face an opponent using less than 100%of what is capable of... And weapons is one of Aikido's great advantages, so why not use them?  
And you see now, adding weapons to the picture, how irrelevant the whole Aikido against boxing issue starts looking... You can't compare a martial art to a sport... 
But that's of course my point of view, I know there are people with different thoughts on the matter..


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> A kali practitioner probably couldn't win against a boxer withoutsome sort of weapon (assuming all other stuff equal etc. etc.),, giving one a stick absolutely would help. If you give both the kali practitioner and the boxer a stick, and my moneys going to be on the kali guy. Not a failing of the system, the system is just focused around the idea that you carry a weapon on you.



Give anybody a stick and they are more likely to win.

My point being if your unarmed doesn't work. Why would you weapon training?


----------



## hoshin1600

kempodisciple said:


> A kali practitioner probably couldn't win against a boxer withoutsome sort of weapon (assuming all other stuff equal etc. etc.),, giving one a stick absolutely would help. If you give both the kali practitioner and the boxer a stick, and my moneys going to be on the kali guy. Not a failing of the system, the system is just focused around the idea that you carry a weapon on you.


But in your example you have changed the dynamic by having the boxer use a stick as well. A boxer with a stick is a hindrance not an advantage. So you double dipped, the Kali guy gets a force multiplier and the boxer gets a handy cap.

To @drop bear  point,  yes the aikido guys art still may have fundamental flaws but depending on the weapon used there will be different levels of multiplied force. A short stick is different from a long stick, a knife is more dangerous than a piece of wood and a gun is effective at distance.  At some point that force multiplier weapon will have enough leverage in the equation to overcome.  But at lower levels your point holds true. If your hand skills suck so will your hand held weapon skills.


----------



## Buka

Style vs style is just so much bullship.

Play that game at your own peril.


----------



## hoshin1600

Buka said:


> Style vs style is just so much bullship.
> 
> Play that game at your own peril.


As long as your not emotionally invested in an outcome, it's pretty much the same as fantasy football.  It's kinda fun and doesnt mean a whole lot in the real world.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ryback said:


> Hello everyone!!
> I would like to share some thoughts with you about the subject of the thread...
> Even though it's pretty clear to me why such a topic is very attractive, I think that such comparisons are a bit hard to make....
> First of all there is a distinction between a martial art and a combative sport and in this case Aikido is a martial art and Boxing is a sport so it is a comparison between two different things.
> One thing that we should make clear is what do we mean when we say "Aikido vs Boxing"? Is it in a sparring context or in a self defense context.
> Aikido has no sparring (ok, with the Tomiki exception) and there are a lot of reasons for that but if we could gather them all under one phrase it could have been "because it is not a sport"! But if, for argument's sake, we would try to compare Aikido with Boxing is a sparring frame what would we have?
> If the boxer was allowed to use all of his Boxing then the aikidoka should have been allowed to use all of his Aikido in order to make the comparison, and Aikido is not only tai-jutsu. So I would there be any reason to talk about a boxer using short fast jabs or strong punches or whatever against a person with a bokken or a jo?
> Now in the second scenario, when it is a self defense situation and the attacker happens to be a boxer... Well, if it's a real situation, you don't know beforehand that you are gonna be attacked, you don't know what are your attacker's skills and he doesn't know that you are an Aikidoka, so he would not attack thinking how not to be taken into Kote gaeshi or shiho Nage or whatever... He would simply attack with what he has and the aikidoka would defend according to the level of his skill and ability....
> Still, if there could be an answer to the whole thread I think that if an aikidoka is getting attacked with punches and strikes, he shouldn't try to stay away from them but enter! Dive into the attack, deflecting the strikes and get himself into a position where he can apply an Aikido technique...
> All of the above of course is just my opinion, a reflection of my personal experience, every opinion is respected...


Saying Aikido has no sparring because it's not a sport, IMO, misses the utility of sparring as a training tool. And drawing a hard distinction between "art" and "sport" misses the utility of sport (competition) as a training tool. I also don't think it's useful to discuss weapons vs empty-hand as if that were equal. A well-trained boxer will demolish someone who can't handle fast, direct, balanced, controlled, straight strikes. Those are not Aikido's strong point. Most Aikido schools don't teach that kind of strike, so their students can't really train against them. It's a limitation of how most Aikido schools train.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If someone's aikido fundamentally doesn't work. Why would a stick help them. Give two people who can't fight a Jo. And the winner will probably be the most aggressive or athletic guy.
> 
> If the Aikido guys Aikido does work then he won't need the stick.
> 
> This really is not rocket science.


I agree, except that someone who's well trained with a jo will probably beat someone who's not well trained with a jo. I'm not familiar enough with Aikido's jowaza to know how it would fare against a competent boxer, but if the boxer doesn't know how to use a jo, he's probably better off ditching it after he uses it as a shield to get inside.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> That's way too philosophical for me.
> 
> Anyway, from a superficial standpoint, I'm with you. Blending - as I learned the term - is a recognizable approach. I didn't see much of it in the MMA guy (and none of it in the Aikido guy). The pivot outside shown in that video is probably the most extreme version. The clearest version I know of is simply this: I punch with a right round, and you step forward with your right (to my left - close to my shoulder), then pivot as my punch causes me to pivot. If you added a technique with that (just think a simple arm drag on my punching arm as you pivot), you'd be blending your movement with mine to accelerate what I do into something I can't easily resist (too much circular/angular momentum). I'm hoping that's a clearer picture than I think it is.
> 
> Others may have a different definition of "blending", and might fit better what the MMA guys is doing in the video.



That guy was a really showing and excercise as opposed to any technique. It would have looked better if he had an actual Aikidoka doing it with him as opposed to a person who doesn't. I know I know and can hear the yells of set up set up staged lol and yup it is staged as it is and excercise for both (uke and nage) not one for both to feel the "blend" if that is what you want to call it lol. 

that was proved in one part when the uke actually came to a right angle with the nage (guy who was doing the talking) and that is not blending lol and what that excercise is for lol . when that happened it created the opening really lol and was not a good example at all imo 

Also ( and I am gonna take issue with that guy over this lol) saying that Aikido has no punches and that you have to wait for an attack ...That is bull crap total bull lol (sorry) there are plenty of atemi in Aikido and from all different places it just they are not usually taught or shown and there are no drills for teaching them (which I will come on to imo why lol) so there is the belief that there are none and I'm sick of telling folks there are lol. Also this bull about having to wait for an attack is that lol... Yes ok it is portrayed as that and jeez has it gone overboard there and been kinda misunderstood. You don't have to bleeding wait at all you can draw an attack as in make your opponent attack and there by create your opening. Think of when you offer your hand for a handshake the other offers his there by you are initiating (to simple lol) well think on this (ok it not an aggressive situation ) if you offer your hand and it is close to you (collapsing in) then he will extend and there by has (maybe unwittingly) gained the advantage however if you extend then just at point of contact very slightly retract then you have gained the advantage (confused ???) lol ...You have in so doing "blended" (musubi) (Aiki) you have his centre (you may not know it but you have) and have created the advantage and just by extending and relaxing. I know a lot will yell and say bull crap but you actually do yes that example is very simple and not in an aggressive environment but it can be applied in that principle to draw an attack as if you move and offer in a certain way you'd be surprised at how another will react lol. 

Ok that may have made no sense at all lol but that is what that and other excercises actually teach lol ...it not just the movement it the feel of the movement


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ryback said:


> I agree with your post.... The only difference is that Aikido has unarmed combat within it anyway, so there is a way for an aikidoka to fight successfully a boxer as long as his skills permit it... But my point is, why should anyone go to face an opponent using less than 100%of what is capable of... And weapons is one of Aikido's great advantages, so why not use them?
> And you see now, adding weapons to the picture, how irrelevant the whole Aikido against boxing issue starts looking... You can't compare a martial art to a sport...
> But that's of course my point of view, I know there are people with different thoughts on the matter..


You used the self-defense rationale earlier - that you wouldn't know you were facing an Aikidoka, so wouldn't be purposely countering the techniques. Well, the Aikidoka probably won't be holding a jo, on the expectation of facing a boxer. It goes both ways.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> there are plenty of atemi in Aikido and from all different places it just they are not usually taught or shown


If they aren't taught or shown in the system, they aren't in the system. They should be (O-sensei said they should), but they aren't. I've been to more than a few Aikido schools, sometimes training there for several days. I've literally never seen a single strike taught. Shioda's and Tomiki's branches would be quite different, and I'm sure there are some schools within the other parts of the art that teach them, but it's not something I've ever run into.



> You don't have to bleeding wait at all you can draw an attack as in make your opponent attack and there by create your opening.


I can do things to make an attack more likely, but I cannot make an attacker do anything. If you need the attack, you have to wait for it. If you need a certain kind of attack (with weight commitment near, at, or beyond the balance point), you have to wait for it.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> If they aren't taught or shown in the system, they aren't in the system. They should be (O-sensei said they should), but they aren't. I've been to more than a few Aikido schools, sometimes training there for several days. I've literally never seen a single strike taught. Shioda's and Tomiki's branches would be quite different, and I'm sure there are some schools within the other parts of the art that teach them, but it's not something I've ever run into.



You are right sir they are rarely taught 

I early on in my training asked why we were not taught them and why there were no drills for same like in Karate for instance (just picking a striking art lol) and I was told that when O'sensei started teaching and developing Aikido the people he taught already knew how to strike etc so he just didn't include drills for that he focused on the techniques etc


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> You are right sir they are rarely taught
> 
> I early on in my training asked why we were not taught them and why there were no drills for same like in Karate for instance (just picking a striking art lol) and I was told that when O'sensei started teaching and developing Aikido the people he taught already knew how to strike etc so he just didn't include drills for that he focused on the techniques etc


That's the same conclusion I came to - largely influenced by Stan Pranin's explanation of it. It also explains some of the holes in Aikido's expression today - those would have been filled by what I'd call "foundation" knowledge - basic throws and takedowns that aren't as "aiki", so wouldn't have been much taught when studying Aikido if all (or perhaps even most) of the students already had them.


----------



## now disabled

Oh I know some will jumpup and down and yell that it a flaw in Aikido and yes in alot of the styles it most certainly is a flaw esp if the person doesn't know how to punch kick etc and has no clue as to where to strike. 

I actually sent my girls to a TKD school to learn that lol


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> That's the same conclusion I came to - largely influenced by Stan Pranin's explanation of it. It also explains some of the holes in Aikido's expression today - those would have been filled by what I'd call "foundation" knowledge - basic throws and takedowns that aren't as "aiki", so wouldn't have been much taught when studying Aikido if all (or perhaps even most) of the students already had them.




I agree with you again 

Pranin was influenced by Saito sensei and he did teach atemi lol it just got lost along the road in other styles 

It probably is the case that it is assumed that people can see the strikes themselves or and know how to execute them, when most often they don't lol. 

I know there are great arguments as to history but I do firmly believe that back when O'sensei was developing/forming/creating he did overlook the future that students might not know how to strike and where to strike and at what point to strike as the people he was teaching etc already knew that.

I would also offer the tentative suggestion that the second doshu had an influence on that to (not denouncing him in anyway as he was the one responsible for Aikido spreading not O'sensei) and that I feel and sense had a lot to do with the post war and getting Aikido out there... He "took out" or avoided call it what you will, the strikes etc to make it more acceptable to the powers that be and enabled him to get permitted to teach there by make a living. I may be totally off beam there just things I was told long time ago lol. 

Also oomoto did have a major effect on O'sensei later in life and some have chosen to follow more that path and offshoots of it and hence Aikido gets the rep it does. 

None of the present Shihan will ever publicly say anything for some did in the past and it caused umm splits but if you ever got the chance to get them privately etc they would ummm well you get the drift lol 

To me the way Aikido is taught in many places is an excellent and very complete Art after you have learned the basics of striking as if you couple the strikes with Aikido then it becomes a different ball game and as I said they drop or better explain this waiting and passive crap lol then it might be viewed differently lol


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> do things to make an attack more likely, but I cannot make an attacker do anything. If you need the attack, you have to wait for it. If you need a certain kind of attack (with weight commitment near, at, or beyond the balance point), you have to wait for it.



I see where you are coming from it maybe a different view that I have or just my wording was confusing.

Your right you cannot make a person do anything (ok you can lol) I guess what I am getting at is your leading him (if that makes sense) and that may be by instigating like I said by the way you put out your hand in the handshake scenario. Waiting yes I get what you are saying, again what I am getting at is the wait is proactive not necessarily reactive. Ok it will not fit every instance just my take. 

A certain kind of attack yes again I get that, what I am saying is that it is possible to influence that attack into where you might want it . Ok this hypothetical but just my thinking. 

for example (again very simplified) 

A guy or (or guys for that matter) face you up on a street, they think you are an easy target . You think ok this gonna get hairy lol... You can't run as that not an option as they are gonna chase you down or your in a part of town you don't know so running could lead to more grief. So it gonna be a confrontation. They are mouthing of and giving the usual crap about what they are going to do etc. They are both in front of you acting the tough guys, you do not know where the first attack is gonna come from or from whom so you take up a fighting stance (that to me is leading and initiating) letting them know ok you want me come get it so to speak and in so doing you have preempted the "fight" leading them to understand that it is going to happen if they want to rob you etc. Even in taking up the stance can be a lead as if you position yourself in a way that one has to go through other to get to you or the lead has then been put in the position he has to lead to me is initiating as you are setting or trying to set the contact. Yes there is waiting but that need not be passive and yes you have to wait for the attack to come but to me that in doing certain things you are being proactive and initiating and leading to your advantage (or hopefully so) 

I know very simple and yes holes can be picked in it but just trying to give an example and no it not a scenario to be oh do this or that it merely to try (probably not well) to illustrate a point or try to lol.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

hoshin1600 said:


> But in your example you have changed the dynamic by having the boxer use a stick as well. A boxer with a stick is a hindrance not an advantage. So you double dipped, the Kali guy gets a force multiplier and the boxer gets a handy cap.
> 
> To @drop bear  point,  yes the aikido guys art still may have fundamental flaws but depending on the weapon used there will be different levels of multiplied force. A short stick is different from a long stick, a knife is more dangerous than a piece of wood and a gun is effective at distance.  At some point that force multiplier weapon will have enough leverage in the equation to overcome.  But at lower levels your point holds true. If your hand skills suck so will your hand held weapon skills.


I gave him a stick because drop bear had assumed whomever had a stick would win. The boxer doesnt need to have a stick, the outcome would probably be the same.
Regarding the hand skill thing-yup! And kali has unarmed as well that is practiced. Its an important part. But im not going to assume that i will be better at something thats probably a quarter of the curriculum for me (as a pure kali guy, ignoring my background) then someone that practices that as 100% of their curriculum.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Give anybody a stick and they are more likely to win.
> 
> My point being if your unarmed doesn't work. Why would you weapon training?


If you always have a weapon on you. I know some people that carry about 4 knives on them at any time, practice drawing it quickly, and practice getting it out under pressure (not nearly as easy as it seems). Like i replied to hoshin, some hand skill is important, but if im pretty sure ill have a knife on me in a confrontation (and im actually willing to pull a knife on someone) then that becomes an important part of an SD conversation.


----------



## Ryback

gpseymour said:


> Saying Aikido has no sparring because it's not a sport, IMO, misses the utility of sparring as a training tool. And drawing a hard distinction between "art" and "sport" misses the utility of sport (competition) as a training tool. I also don't think it's useful to discuss weapons vs empty-hand as if that were equal. A well-trained boxer will demolish someone who can't handle fast, direct, balanced, controlled, straight strikes. Those are not Aikido's strong point. Most Aikido schools don't teach that kind of strike, so their students can't really train against them. It's a limitation of how most Aikido schools train.


Thanks for offering your thoughts, I respect them a lot even though I don't agree. 
Yes it's true, I dismiss sparring or sports as a training tool for martial arts, at least that's my point of view. 
As for the rest of your post, I don't know if there are many Aikido schools that don't teach ways of deflecting strong, fast blows but the way I train we do it all the time. So Aikido as a martial art has the potential of defense against such strikes, and there is also a lot of atemi waza and Keri waza in Aikido, if people don't study it, well...each once of us is making his choice and I respect all of them, but I stick with mine...


----------



## Ryback

gpseymour said:


> You used the self-defense rationale earlier - that you wouldn't know you were facing an Aikidoka, so wouldn't be purposely countering the techniques. Well, the Aikidoka probably won't be holding a jo, on the expectation of facing a boxer. It goes both ways.


Right. In the self defense scenario the aikidoka is not carrying a jo waiting to confront a boxer it all happens randomly. 
But when I said about the weapons I wasn't implying that Aiki tai-jutsu, unarmed techniques wouldn't work against a boxer, they work pretty fine if you know what to do with them. What I meant is that if the aikidoka has a fighting rendezvous with a boxer he shouldn't show up with less than 100% of his skills, and weapons is one skill that he has and the boxer hasn't. 
In the self defense scenario everything is unexpected so you just blend in with the attacker according to your skills and experience... Tai-jutsu techniques, a strategic way of movement, atemi waza, kicks, you name it, you use anything and it's all Aikido, at least the way I practice. 
Now if there are Aikido schools that don't train that way, I respect that too, whatever makes them feel good it's fine with me. But I approach the whole matter from my point of view, not knocking anyone though...


----------



## hoshin1600

Ryback said:


> I don't know if there are many Aikido schools that don't teach ways of deflecting strong, fast blows but the way I train we do it all the


Does this mean you apply your Aikido to a boxers jab, hook, overhand right and uppercut.....or you just do munetsuki, yokomen uchi and shomen uchi and because you think they are done with some power that it's the same.


----------



## Ryback

hoshin1600 said:


> Does this mean you apply your Aikido to a boxers jab, hook, overhand right and uppercut.....or you just do munetsuki, yokomen uchi and shomen uchi and because you think they are done with some power that it's the same.


I don't mean that I train with boxers and when things are getting technical it's not easy to explain verbally.... 
I study and practice in every possible way but it's mostly the approach that matters. It doesn't matter how strong or fast someone attacks or how big he is. The techniques, should they be executed correctly must be able to work against anything since you don't react, you simply become one with what the attacker is giving you, whether it is committed or not, and that's not a theoretical, philosophical mumbo jumbo, it's tangible fighting strategy...


----------



## pdg

Ryback said:


> I don't mean that I train with boxers and when things are getting technical it's not easy to explain verbally....
> I study and practice in every possible way but it's mostly the approach that matters. It doesn't matter how strong or fast someone attacks or how big he is. The techniques, should they be executed correctly must be able to work against anything since you don't react, you simply become one with what the attacker is giving you, whether it is committed or not, and that's not a theoretical, philosophical mumbo jumbo, it's tangible fighting strategy...



If you don't train with boxers and you don't spar then you by definition do not study or practice in every possible way.

And with no disrespect to the art or it's practitioners, the only time I've ever seen the techniques executed correctly enough to work "against anything" is when it's been choreographed...

I've seen plenty of instances where one aikidoka pretends to do what they think are boxing (or any other art) moves and another defends to demonstrate how it works.

Honestly, no word of a lie, I would love to spar against a skilled aikidoka to play with my interpretation of TKD and their aikido, but I don't see it happening.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I agree, except that someone who's well trained with a jo will probably beat someone who's not well trained with a jo. I'm not familiar enough with Aikido's jowaza to know how it would fare against a competent boxer, but if the boxer doesn't know how to use a jo, he's probably better off ditching it after he uses it as a shield to get inside.



Yeah but a way of determining if you are well trained with a Jo is if any of your system works.

So if the unarmed works you could at least assume the weapon system has merit.

That is ultimately how you compare these systems.

(And as a side note boxing gloves and head gear would provide protection against a stick.)


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> If you always have a weapon on you. I know some people that carry about 4 knives on them at any time, practice drawing it quickly, and practice getting it out under pressure (not nearly as easy as it seems). Like i replied to hoshin, some hand skill is important, but if im pretty sure ill have a knife on me in a confrontation (and im actually willing to pull a knife on someone) then that becomes an important part of an SD conversation.



Yeah but weapons are not a reflection on the system. 

I mean OK you have a knife. But I have a gun. But you call the police. But I just move to a nicer neighborhood. So boxing wins?


----------



## hoshin1600

Ryback said:


> It doesn't matter how strong or fast someone attacks or how big he is


Actually it does. But maybe not the way you think.  No offense intended but I have never met an akidoka who new how to punch. A munetsuki is not a punch it's a thrust. They have totally different mechanics.  So it's not the strength or speed that actually matters but rather the mechanics that are created by proper punching with strength and speed.  A munetsuki thrust doesn't come anywhere near the kinetic force generated by a boxers punch. Not even in the same ball park.   Second factor is the speed a good boxers punch will be like a 100 mile an hour fast ball coming at you, combine that with the fact that boxers punch from half (or less ) the distance aikidoka are familiar with and that fast ball punch is going to have hit you and retracted ready to hit again before you even acknowledge that you got hit. Third factor is the angles of a punch VS munetsuki.  If you train against a tsuki the angle will be different, your muscle memory will react to that angle even though this time it's a punch coming from a different angle. Now remember that speed?  Well your eyes will not have time to differentiate that angle.  All this compounds into a very difficult situation for aikidoka.  if you only train  your technique against the three standard aiki strikes.

EDIT: I forgot the biggest factor is boxers (and karate for that matter) train to punch and maintain their center. They are not going to get drawn out and extended.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> Style vs style is just so much bullship.
> 
> Play that game at your own peril.



So no style is better and everyone gets a medal.


----------



## drop bear




----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> A kali practitioner probably couldn't win against a boxer withoutsome sort of weapon (assuming all other stuff equal etc. etc.),, giving one a stick absolutely would help. If you give both the kali practitioner and the boxer a stick, and my moneys going to be on the kali guy. Not a failing of the system, the system is just focused around the idea that you carry a weapon on you.



Sorry just going to re visit this concept.

Even if you do a weapons system there is no reason your unarmed if you do it needs to be a dud.

So if kali train unarmed their unarmed should work. I am  not sure why that would be such a big ask. And absolutely is a fault of the system.

If I trained weapons in MMA then the weapon system should work. And I would test it against other weapon systems.

We are not comparing kendo to bjj here.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah but a way of determining if you are well trained with a Jo is if any of your system works.
> 
> So if the unarmed works you could at least assume the weapon system has merit.
> 
> That is ultimately how you compare these systems.
> 
> (And as a side note boxing gloves and head gear would provide protection against a stick.)


I'm not sure I agree that evaluating one part of a system tells you much about a different part of the system. If my kicks are fantastic, that doesn't mean I've also taught good stickwork. Or did I miss your point?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> Actually it does. But maybe not the way you think.  No offense intended but I have never met an akidoka who new how to punch. A munetsuki is not a punch it's a thrust. They have totally different mechanics.  So it's not the strength or speed that actually matters but rather the mechanics that are created by proper punching with strength and speed.  A munetsuki thrust doesn't come anywhere near the kinetic force generated by a boxers punch. Not even in the same ball park.   Second factor is the speed a good boxers punch will be like a 100 mile an hour fast ball coming at you, combine that with the fact that boxers punch from half (or less ) the distance aikidoka are familiar with and that fast ball punch is going to have hit you and retracted ready to hit again before you even acknowledge that you got hit. Third factor is the angles of a punch VS munetsuki.  If you train against a tsuki the angle will be different, your muscle memory will react to that angle even though this time it's a punch coming from a different angle. Now remember that speed?  Well your eyes will not have time to differentiate that angle.  All this compounds into a very difficult situation for aikidoka.  if you only train  your technique against the three standard aiki strikes.
> 
> EDIT: I forgot the biggest factor is boxers (and karate for that matter) train to punch and maintain their center. They are not going to get drawn out and extended.


Add in that munetsuki also tends to carry weight further forward - over the front leg. That changes what's available.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


>


I didn't watch the whole thing, but I liked the short fight clip and the guy's comments afterward about training methods.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Sorry just going to re visit this concept.
> 
> Even if you do a weapons system there is no reason your unarmed if you do it needs to be a dud.
> 
> So if kali train unarmed their unarmed should work. I am  not sure why that would be such a big ask. And absolutely is a fault of the system.
> 
> If I trained weapons in MMA then the weapon system should work. And I would test it against other weapon systems.
> 
> We are not comparing kendo to bjj here.


I think it's a matter of focus. If you spend only 25% of your training on one area, it will be weaker than someone who spends 100% of their training in that area, all else being equal.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think it's a matter of focus. If you spend only 25% of your training on one area, it will be weaker than someone who spends 100% of their training in that area, all else being equal.



Yes. But that is still the system at fault. If I spent 25% of my time doing weapons. I still judge that of a guy who spends 100%.

That is why we do BJJ competitions. So we can gauge the effectiveness of our grappling.

Not so I can say I would have won if I was allowed to hit people.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure I agree that evaluating one part of a system tells you much about a different part of the system. If my kicks are fantastic, that doesn't mean I've also taught good stickwork. Or did I miss your point?



See unless we test a system we don't know if it works.

Now if we test part of a system and it doesn't work and haven't tested another part. Because I assume Aikidokas are not winning sword fights any time soon. My assumption would be that doesn't work until I tested it either.

Now if you are cleaning house in sword fights different story.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> So if kali train unarmed their unarmed should work. I am not sure why that would be such a big ask. And absolutely is a fault of the system.


While I appreciate the general concept you are trying to put forth here ...

Most forms of Kali (and most other FMAs) are _primarily_ weapons based systems. Empty hand techniques typically make up only a very small percentage of training time. Based on that alone, you wouldn't expect a pure Kali practitioner to be evenly matched against an equally trained pure boxer in a fist fight.

Fortunately, there is plenty of evidence that Kali can work very well in a weapons context, so we don't need to evaluate their weapons work based on their unarmed curriculum.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yes. But that is still the system at fault. If I spent 25% of my time doing weapons. I still judge that of a guy who spends 100%.
> 
> That is why we do BJJ competitions. So we can gauge the effectiveness of our grappling.
> 
> Not so I can say I would have won if I was allowed to hit people.


I don't think it's a flaw, if the system is intended to be that way. So, for instance, I spend maybe 10% (that's probably a gross exaggeration) of my time teaching anything weapon-related. Compare that to Kali, and none of my students (nor me) would fare well against almost any of them with weapons. But that's not a flaw of my approach - it's the intent. Mine is intended to be empty-hand focused, with some rudimentary weapons work to give a base for using them. It's not intended to create experts - I don't have the time to teach to that level (even if I was at that level, myself). Same for the groundwork I teach. If someone wants to develop expertise in groundwork, I'd suggest they add BJJ or wrestling to their training. If they want expertise in weapons, they need to train someplace that focuses much more on weapons.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> While I appreciate the general concept you are trying to put forth here ...
> 
> Most forms of Kali (and most other FMAs) are _primarily_ weapons based systems. Empty hand techniques typically make up only a very small percentage of training time. Based on that alone, you wouldn't expect a pure Kali practitioner to be evenly matched against an equally trained pure boxer in a fist fight.
> 
> Fortunately, there is plenty of evidence that Kali can work very well in a weapons context, so we don't need to evaluate their weapons work based on their unarmed curriculum.



Which if there is evidence of skills in that area the statement can be made. 

I don't think it can be made as some sort of hypothetical 1 up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> See unless we test a system we don't know if it works.
> 
> Now if we test part of a system and it doesn't work and haven't tested another part. Because I assume Aikidokas are not winning sword fights any time soon. My assumption would be that doesn't work until I tested it either.
> 
> Now if you are cleaning house in sword fights different story.


I agree with the first sentence. I'm not sure how that relates to one part of a system proving another part. I mean, I see your point about making a working assumption from one part. That's a useful place to start from until you have better info. But if you assessed my striking ability based on my groundwork, the resulting assumption would be highly flawed.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't think it's a flaw, if the system is intended to be that way. So, for instance, I spend maybe 10% (that's probably a gross exaggeration) of my time teaching anything weapon-related. Compare that to Kali, and none of my students (nor me) would fare well against almost any of them with weapons. But that's not a flaw of my approach - it's the intent. Mine is intended to be empty-hand focused, with some rudimentary weapons work to give a base for using them. It's not intended to create experts - I don't have the time to teach to that level (even if I was at that level, myself). Same for the groundwork I teach. If someone wants to develop expertise in groundwork, I'd suggest they add BJJ or wrestling to their training. If they want expertise in weapons, they need to train someplace that focuses much more on weapons.



Same thing pretty much. When we are comparing systems and trying to work out advantages and weaknesses.

If a boxer can flog you and you don't want them to. You need to realize that and address it.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I agree with the first sentence. I'm not sure how that relates to one part of a system proving another part. I mean, I see your point about making a working assumption from one part. That's a useful place to start from until you have better info. But if you assessed my striking ability based on my groundwork, the resulting assumption would be highly flawed.



I am addressing the whole system by the parts I can prove.


----------



## Martial D

Ryback said:


> I don't mean that I train with boxers and when things are getting technical it's not easy to explain verbally....
> I study and practice in every possible way but it's mostly the approach that matters. It doesn't matter how strong or fast someone attacks or how big he is. The techniques, should they be executed correctly must be able to work against anything since you don't react, you simply become one with what the attacker is giving you, whether it is committed or not, and that's not a theoretical, philosophical mumbo jumbo, it's tangible fighting strategy...


Strategy is only tangible if and when it can be executed.

Till then, it's talk.


----------



## Ryback

pdg said:


> If you don't train with boxers and you don't spar then you by definition do not study or practice in every possible way.
> 
> And with no disrespect to the art or it's practitioners, the only time I've ever seen the techniques executed correctly enough to work "against anything" is when it's been choreographed...
> 
> I've seen plenty of instances where one aikidoka pretends to do what they think are boxing (or any other art) moves and another defends to demonstrate how it works.
> 
> Honestly, no word of a lie, I would love to spar against a skilled aikidoka to play with my interpretation of TKD and their aikido, but I don't see it happening.


Have you ever studied Aikido?? Or is your experience only what you think you understand watching YouTube videos? 
I don't like choreographed techniques and you don't have to study with boxers in order to be effective... Every attacker is unique, there are differences in the training people may have, their size, strength, agility... So, do you have to train with every person all around the world? 
In Martial arts you are sharpening your skills and by studying your art, not everyone else's... And if it's done right, it should work. Any failure is not a failure of the art, it's a personal failure of the practitioner and that's as far as we can prove. 
Even if I would spar with you and lost that wouldn't mean that Aikido doesn't work against your training, only that my Aikido skills are not enough to beat you...


----------



## Ryback

hoshin1600 said:


> Actually it does. But maybe not the way you think.  No offense intended but I have never met an akidoka who new how to punch. A munetsuki is not a punch it's a thrust. They have totally different mechanics.  So it's not the strength or speed that actually matters but rather the mechanics that are created by proper punching with strength and speed.  A munetsuki thrust doesn't come anywhere near the kinetic force generated by a boxers punch. Not even in the same ball park.   Second factor is the speed a good boxers punch will be like a 100 mile an hour fast ball coming at you, combine that with the fact that boxers punch from half (or less ) the distance aikidoka are familiar with and that fast ball punch is going to have hit you and retracted ready to hit again before you even acknowledge that you got hit. Third factor is the angles of a punch VS munetsuki.  If you train against a tsuki the angle will be different, your muscle memory will react to that angle even though this time it's a punch coming from a different angle. Now remember that speed?  Well your eyes will not have time to differentiate that angle.  All this compounds into a very difficult situation for aikidoka.  if you only train  your technique against the three standard aiki strikes.
> 
> EDIT: I forgot the biggest factor is boxers (and karate for that matter) train to punch and maintain their center. They are not going to get drawn out and extended.


I have met many aikidoka who can punch and kick very effectively. We do that in Aikido. Nice, big, circular moves after a munetsuki that stays in mid air forever in order for the Tori to apply technique to it may be common in Aikido but it's not the way every aikidoka studies his art. 
And even though Aikido atemi or Keri waza is certainly not what you are watching on most Aikido demos on YouTube, I still insist that speed, strength, intensity or any other aspect of the attack doesn't matter at all. 
That is, in my opinion at least, what the Aikido blending and harmony is all about. Moving in accord with any attack, now matter how strong or fast, becoming "one" with the attacker regardless of his skills, size or strength or agility. 
That is according to my experience the basic Aiki principle and that's how I study the art. 
Does every aikidoka study that way? Well probably not, and I don't say that my way is the only way. Everyone is making their own choices.  And that goes for every martial art or any other aspect of life...


----------



## Ryback

Martial D said:


> Strategy is only tangible if and when it can be executed.
> 
> Till then, it's talk.


I agree but that's what a forum is about, talking. The rest happens on the mat and that applies to everyone I think...


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Which if there is evidence of skills in that area the statement can be made.
> 
> I don't think it can be made as some sort of hypothetical 1 up.


Tonys statement was to what i was getting at. Its fairly accepted that kali is legitimate and effective, when it comes to weapons. But i would not bet on a kali guy over a boxer in a ring, with no weapons. Its a different focus. Now, if they had weapons available, i would bet on the kali guy.

That said, i have no evidence that aikido armed works (no evidence it doesnt, but have never seen it effective for weapons). Just pointi ng out a system that does show the difference.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> Tonys statement was to what i was getting at. Its fairly accepted that kali is legitimate and effective, when it comes to weapons. But i would not bet on a kali guy over a boxer in a ring, with no weapons. Its a different focus. Now, if they had weapons available, i would bet on the kali guy.
> 
> That said, i have no evidence that aikido armed works (no evidence it doesnt, but have never seen it effective for weapons). Just pointing out a system that does show the difference.



The idea that you have to go by the evidence you have. Not the evidence you don't have took me a little while to get to. But is ultimately my point.

Have you seen a stick fighting competition by the way? That is about 2% of what Kali trains. And having done stick training you really don't need to focus on the other 98%

It was a rude shock to me every time I went live with a weapon in sparring that a whole bunch of different factors become dominant.






I mean a serious gas tank and your ability to move your arms quickly looks like a deciding factor here.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I am addressing the whole system by the parts I can prove.


Again, while that's a reasonable "best guess" starting point, it is as flawed as you'd expect. Still better than a guess or just optimism without reason. But you could be using the best part of a system as proof for the worst part (my striking for my stickwork, perhaps). Or you could be doing the opposite (using proof of my stickwork to evaluate my striking). In both cases, you'd be wrong, but it's still a better starting point that a guess.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ryback said:


> Have you ever studied Aikido?? Or is your experience only what you think you understand watching YouTube videos?
> I don't like choreographed techniques and you don't have to study with boxers in order to be effective... Every attacker is unique, there are differences in the training people may have, their size, strength, agility... So, do you have to train with every person all around the world?
> In Martial arts you are sharpening your skills and by studying your art, not everyone else's... And if it's done right, it should work. Any failure is not a failure of the art, it's a personal failure of the practitioner and that's as far as we can prove.
> Even if I would spar with you and lost that wouldn't mean that Aikido doesn't work against your training, only that my Aikido skills are not enough to beat you...


His point about training with boxers is that most Aikidoka won't punch like a boxer. If they attempt to - without training in boxing strikes - they are likely to deliver what looks (to other Aikidoka) like a boxer's punch, but isn't, and doesn't have the speed and power of an experienced boxer. That's not unique to Aikido, by any stretch. My students - even with some boxing-influenced punches in my curriculum - don't punch like boxers. Nor do most Karateka. That doesn't mean we can't adapt to that punch, but if none of us train with and against boxers, we don't really have the input we need to make those adaptations. If there's anything we've learned from MMA, it's that lots of adaptation is possible but doesn't happen until you consciously adapt with real input.

The "failure of the practitioner, not the art" is a specious argument, in my opinion. We can use that on both positive and negative sides in any argument to nullify any counter. If an MMA fighter defends himself in a mugging, it's because he's a special MMA fighter. If he fails, it's because he failed to develop his MMA skills to handle that situation. But aren't both of those actually ignoring whether the MMA system he trains in happens to be any good at developing those skills? Now change all those "MMA" to "Aikido" and you'll see the point. We can't just dismiss failures by attributing them to the practitioner, unless those failures are unusual for someone of their level. Nor can we attribute successes to the system, unless similar successes are common (relative to available incidences) for practitioners of similar skill.

This is an advantage competition systems have over SD systems, in gauging fighting ability. They have a place where they can at least say, "It tends to be effective in that sport context." Those of us who don't use competition don't have that, which IMO puts an onus upon us to look more skeptically at our own work.


----------



## Martial D

Ryback said:


> I agree but that's what a forum is about, talking. The rest happens on the mat and that applies to everyone I think...


If you are doing aikido training that employs real resistance and full on sparring with fully resisting opponents, then never leave that school, because you have found a unicorn.

However, if you are throwing around compliant Aki's (or..getting them to throw themselves as it were) ala traditional aikido and think that will help you much in actual fighting, you have been mislead.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> If you are doing aikido training that employs real resistance and full on sparring with fully resisting opponents, then never leave that school, because you have found a unicorn.
> 
> However, if you are throwing around compliant Aki's (or..getting them to throw themselves as it were) ala traditional aikido and think that will help you much in actual fighting, you have been mislead.


The term "full resisting opponent" can be a 2 edges sword.

If the moment that you try to use hip throw on your opponent, the moment that he sits down to the ground, You can wrestle with him for 20 years, you still cannot develop your hip throw. What's good if your opponent can not help you to develop MA skill?

A full resisting opponent can help you to develop combo (use one move to set up next move). He won't be able to help you to develop the first move.


----------



## hoshin1600

Ryback said:


> I still insist that speed, strength, intensity or any other aspect of the attack doesn't matter at all.


So then that's your story and your stickin to it....so the country song says...no need for me to continue the debate.



Ryback said:


> That is, in my opinion at least, what the Aikido blending and harmony is all about.


You should try " blending"  with a boxer some time.  I think it will be an eye opener for you.


----------



## hoshin1600

@gpseymour 
I have to say I'm impressed with your openness about this topic. That's not to say you have given me any other impression over time with your posts. It's just rare to find people who can see their own systems short comings and also try to address them.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> His point about training with boxers is that most Aikidoka won't punch like a boxer. If they attempt to - without training in boxing strikes - they are likely to deliver what looks (to other Aikidoka) like a boxer's punch, but isn't, and doesn't have the speed and power of an experienced boxer. That's not unique to Aikido, by any stretch. My students - even with some boxing-influenced punches in my curriculum



May have found the trick to this by the way. I was sparring a 16 year old the other day who just lost his cool and justs started trying to take my head off.

So I was recieving strikes that were 100% speed and intensity without the weight behind them to do any real damage.

So you could do that and see if you can blend with shots coming at you fast.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> If you are doing aikido training that employs real resistance and full on sparring with fully resisting opponents, then never leave that school, because you have found a unicorn.
> 
> However, if you are throwing around compliant Aki's (or..getting them to throw themselves as it were) ala traditional aikido and think that will help you much in actual fighting, you have been mislead.



I ain't going to get into an argument with you but it fairly obvious you have issues with Aikido 

If you think that all Aikidoka are thrown by them anticipating then I do have an issue with that it may look that way and yes some of the breakfalls look very good but they are being done in a way to make that happen. Don't lump that in with compliance totally


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> I ain't going to get into an argument with you but it fairly obvious you have issues with Aikido
> 
> If you think that all Aikidoka are thrown by them anticipating then I do have an issue with that it may look that way and yes some of the breakfalls look very good but they are being done in a way to make that happen. Don't lump that in with compliance totally


Nope, no issues;I'm just being straight. Have you ever worked with aikido guys? How familiar are you exactly with what they do, what it is, or the philosophy behind it? You won't find any violence in an aikido studio because that runs purely against the grain of what aikido is.

It's a suplimental system for people that ALREADY know how to fight, something their O'Sensei made quite clear.

In that regard I've seen it 'work', but those that have only aikido are honestly worse off than someone that is completely untrained. There is mountains of evidence to support this.


----------



## Martial D

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The term "full resisting opponent" can be a 2 edges sword.
> 
> If the moment that you try to use hip throw on your opponent, the moment that he sits down to the ground, You can wrestle with him for 20 years, you still cannot develop your hip throw. What's good if your opponent can not help you to develop MA skill?
> 
> A full resisting opponent can help you to develop combo (use one move to set up next move). He won't be able to help you to develop the first move.


I don't disagree. It's not like I'm saying skip everything but sparring, far from it. We do drills like the ones your always talking about also, and in mass volume.

But there comes a time that you need to fire up the engine and see if the thing actually runs, dig?

It's like the story of the three traditional martial artists and the pen. Ever heard that one?


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> Nope, no issues;I'm just being straight. Have you ever worked with aikido guys? How familiar are you exactly with what they do, what it is, or the philosophy behind it? You won't find any violence in an aikido studio because that runs purely against the grain of what aikido is.
> 
> It's a suplimental system for people that ALREADY know how to fight, something their O'Sensei made quite clear.
> 
> In that regard I've seen it 'work', but those that have only aikido are honestly worse off than someone that is completely untrained. There is mountains of evelidence to support this.



Yes I have worked with Aikido guys lol ( I can't now ) 

The philosophy thing that is and had been misunderstood and kinda twisted lol and well that is as maybe but to say there no violence that I guess is down to your definition. I do grant you that it is viewed as being very stage managed etc and in a load of cases it is.

Yes I agree that Aikido is a supplementary system and it always has been. If you look at where it came from then that was how it was done so to speak. To become a "warrior" you did not just study one thing you studied many.

Ueshiba did himself as did most if not all of his deshi. Even his main influence did (Takeda) it was how it was done. 

It is a very modern concept to only go to one place and then think that it is a fix all cover all. 

Aikido lacks in areas for sure but that is then as it always has been for the individual to know that and in the past they did lol , it is now that folks don't 

I sent my girls to a TKD school to learn to punch and kick. I taught them Aikido and to a certain extent the sword.

From Aikido they got the feeling and the movement etc etc the different mind set but from the others they got what I felt they lacked


----------



## now disabled

Do bear in mind that if you fire up the engine as you say and fully apply things like Kotegaeshi and do a full on full force irimi nage or fully applied hiji waza then things will break lol 

I am not in any way calling your skills in to doubt however if I (and I can't now lol) fully fired up Kotegaeshi then your wrist would break lol 

That may be why you think that it all "soft" so to speak and compliant as if the uke doesn't take it then he /she gets hurt 

It is and always has been a problem of how to "cover all " in training and there is no answer really that fits all.

Ok going back in time (way back) they could test out things lol... find a criminal or a person of low class and do the "business" but those days are long gone so we have what we have and will always struggle to agree on the how to


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> Do bear in mind that if you fire up the engine as you say and fully apply things like Kotegaeshi and do a full on full force irimi nage or fully applied hiji waza then things will break lol
> 
> I am not in any way calling your skills in to doubt however if I (and I can't now lol) fully fired up Kotegaeshi then your wrist would break lol



In theory. There is no evidence Ive ever seen that is the case though. In my experience (Ive worked with and even sparred with more than a few aikido trained guys) those wristlock throws only ever work if the other guy is co-operating. Show me a counter example? Can you honestly say you've ever done it to a guy that is fully fighting back? 

Ever wonder why it's never happened in a cage? Oh yes, wristlocks are perfectly legal in MMA. The entire Aikido syllabus is.( the 'small joint manipulation' foul in mma only applies to two or less fingers, wrists are fair game) Yet nobody uses it. Do you not wonder why that might be?

Again, I'm not saying aikido is 'useless' persay, but you seem to have some untested beliefs at play here.


----------



## Martial D

Look, let's come at it from another angle.

Me, at 21 years old. Training Wing Chun since age 16… moved. Needed new place to train.

Joined a place called the world kickboxing accademy. 2 nights a week doing Mui Thai, 2 night doing bjj. The word MMA didn't exist yet, but you could call it a proto MMA gym I guess. Everything was separate though, nobody was mixing the two things, and there were other classes as well like Arnis and boxing, at different times. Anyway I digress.

First night, show up. Much harder workout than I was used to!  NBD though, 21 year old me had great cardio. End of class, sparring time. Time to show these suckers the true power of Wing Chun. I was good. Fast. Chi Sau wizard and fast as lightning. At least, that's how the younger, dumber, and cockier me saw the situation.

Needless to say things didn't go as planned. I really believed in my WC, and I would have argued for it how you are arguing for aikido. No two other arts get the **** that WC and aikido do, but there is a reason for that.

Now, more than 20 years later, my WC is a huge asset to me.

But this became so only AFTER I learned how to fight.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Martial D said:


> In theory. There is no evidence Ive ever seen that is the case though. In my experience (Ive worked with and even sparred with more than a few aikido trained guys) those wristlock throws only ever work if the other guy is co-operating. Show me a counter example? Can you honestly say you've ever done it to a guy that is fully fighting back?



Yes. I have. Many times. As recently as 20 minutes ago, as a matter of fact. Nothing works every time, but wrist locks do work.


----------



## now disabled

Dirty Dog said:


> Yes. I have. Many times. As recently as 20 minutes ago, as a matter of fact. Nothing works every time, but wrist locks do work.



Yes they do lol


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> Look, let's come at it from another angle.
> 
> Me, at 21 years old. Training Wing Chun since age 16… moved. Needed new place to train.
> 
> Joined a place called the world kickboxing accademy. 2 nights a week doing Mui Thai, 2 night doing bjj. The word MMA didn't exist yet, but you could call it a proto MMA gym I guess. Everything was separate though, nobody was mixing the two things, and there were other classes as well like Arnis and boxing, at different times. Anyway I digress.
> 
> First night, show up. Much harder workout than I was used to!  NBD though, 21 year old me had great cardio. End of class, sparring time. Time to show these suckers the true power of Wing Chun. I was good. Fast. Chi Sau wizard and fast as lightning. At least, that's how the younger, dumber, and cockier me saw the situation.
> 
> Needless to say things didn't go as planned. I really believed in my WC, and I would have argued for it how you are arguing for aikido. No two other arts get the **** that WC and aikido do, but there is a reason for that.
> 
> Now, more than 20 years later, my WC is a huge asset to me.
> 
> But this became so only AFTER I learned how to fight.




That is your opinion and I respect it 

I don't fully agree with you but I do agree Aikido has flaws and I agree that it is not a complete all covering art but I don't agree that a person is better without it as with it.

Your focus is different to mine and that is fine 

Yes I have used wrist locks and other things and they do work as DD says not all will work everytime.


----------



## Ryback

gpseymour said:


> His point about training with boxers is that most Aikidoka won't punch like a boxer. If they attempt to - without training in boxing strikes - they are likely to deliver what looks (to other Aikidoka) like a boxer's punch, but isn't, and doesn't have the speed and power of an experienced boxer. That's not unique to Aikido, by any stretch. My students - even with some boxing-influenced punches in my curriculum - don't punch like boxers. Nor do most Karateka. That doesn't mean we can't adapt to that punch, but if none of us train with and against boxers, we don't really have the input we need to make those adaptations. If there's anything we've learned from MMA, it's that lots of adaptation is possible but doesn't happen until you consciously adapt with real input.
> 
> The "failure of the practitioner, not the art" is a specious argument, in my opinion. We can use that on both positive and negative sides in any argument to nullify any counter. If an MMA fighter defends himself in a mugging, it's because he's a special MMA fighter. If he fails, it's because he failed to develop his MMA skills to handle that situation. But aren't both of those actually ignoring whether the MMA system he trains in happens to be any good at developing those skills? Now change all those "MMA" to "Aikido" and you'll see the point. We can't just dismiss failures by attributing them to the practitioner, unless those failures are unusual for someone of their level. Nor can we attribute successes to the system, unless similar successes are common (relative to available incidences) for practitioners of similar skill.
> 
> This is an advantage competition systems have over SD systems, in gauging fighting ability. They have a place where they can at least say, "It tends to be effective in that sport context." Those of us who don't use competition don't have that, which IMO puts an onus upon us to look more skeptically at our own work.





gpseymour said:


> His point about training with boxers is that most Aikidoka won't punch like a boxer. If they attempt to - without training in boxing strikes - they are likely to deliver what looks (to other Aikidoka) like a boxer's punch, but isn't, and doesn't have the speed and power of an experienced boxer. That's not unique to Aikido, by any stretch. My students - even with some boxing-influenced punches in my curriculum - don't punch like boxers. Nor do most Karateka. That doesn't mean we can't adapt to that punch, but if none of us train with and against boxers, we don't really have the input we need to make those adaptations. If there's anything we've learned from MMA, it's that lots of adaptation is possible but doesn't happen until you consciously adapt with real input.
> 
> The "failure of the practitioner, not the art" is a specious argument, in my opinion. We can use that on both positive and negative sides in any argument to nullify any counter. If an MMA fighter defends himself in a mugging, it's because he's a special MMA fighter. If he fails, it's because he failed to develop his MMA skills to handle that situation. But aren't both of those actually ignoring whether the MMA system he trains in happens to be any good at developing those skills? Now change all those "MMA" to "Aikido" and you'll see the point. We can't just dismiss failures by attributing them to the practitioner, unless those failures are unusual for someone of their level. Nor can we attribute successes to the system, unless similar successes are common (relative to available incidences) for practitioners of similar skill.
> 
> This is an advantage competition systems have over SD systems, in gauging fighting ability. They have a place where they can at least say, "It tends to be effective in that sport context." Those of us who don't use competition don't have that, which IMO puts an onus upon us to look more skeptically at our own work.


Well I see your point clearly but on the other hand if the majority of aikidoka train in such a way that would lead them to failure against a boxer it doesn't mean that the art itself doesn't provide the means and techniques to potentially beat a boxer. But you have to study those aspects of the art. 
They have always been there but they are mostly neglected... 
Also I don't know many boxers who can counter an Aikido joint lock or learn how to absorb a dynamic Irimi Nage for example. Or can defend themselves against an ushiro Kubi shime choke technique or a fast gedan (low level) Mae geri kick...


----------



## Ryback

Martial D said:


> If you are doing aikido training that employs real resistance and full on sparring with fully resisting opponents, then never leave that school, because you have found a unicorn.
> 
> However, if you are throwing around compliant Aki's (or..getting them to throw themselves as it were) ala traditional aikido and think that will help you much in actual fighting, you have been mislead.


Sparring is not a tool for learning a martial art at least not in my opinion. 
As for resistance, believe me every time we use more resistance in the attacks it's easier to control the Uke, what is difficult is to control a relaxed fast Uke who instead of resisting he is trying to counter you, if that's what you mean then, yeah we do that. 
As for Uke jumping around in ukemi on their own... Well if my technique doesn't work I find my Uke still standing attacking me or choking me with his other hand. It has happened many times in the past and it's still happening some time because even after being 20 years in Aikido there are 2people in the Dojo more experienced than me and we hunt each other like hell. 
But anyway, this is not about me, Aikido has that potential if anyone would train seriously, with practical application in mind he can make it work!


----------



## pdg

Ryback said:


> Have you ever studied Aikido?? Or is your experience only what you think you understand watching YouTube videos?
> I don't like choreographed techniques and you don't have to study with boxers in order to be effective... Every attacker is unique, there are differences in the training people may have, their size, strength, agility... So, do you have to train with every person all around the world?
> In Martial arts you are sharpening your skills and by studying your art, not everyone else's... And if it's done right, it should work. Any failure is not a failure of the art, it's a personal failure of the practitioner and that's as far as we can prove.
> Even if I would spar with you and lost that wouldn't mean that Aikido doesn't work against your training, only that my Aikido skills are not enough to beat you...



Ok, so first off I feel I have to explain the concept of sparring...

It's not about win or lose, it's not about which art is better - it's about working together to find your own way.

My last sparring night, probably 10 partners - did I win? Did I lose? Nobody kept score... Because it's not about winning or losing.

Now to the 'no need to train with a boxer' - ok, if you say so.

I do TKD and I do kickboxing. In the kickboxing group there are a few that came from a pure boxing background.

I can go up against a taekwondoin "doing boxing moves" and not feel challenged at all. What they're doing looks like boxing moves and I can say my defences work against boxing.

Now I do the same against one of the boxing guys and what happens? I get hit much more. It's totally different.

Now get a kickboxer to "do TKD moves". Another kickboxer defends and says what they do works against TKD. Then they use those defences against me and get kicked in the head. It's totally different.

So, I can sharpen my TKD against other taekwondoin as much as I like, but until I go against someone with actual skill in another art there's really no way I can say if it will work.

I can say that it should work in theory, because the shape looks similar.

In this, I'm not 'blaming' the art, but my interpretation of it. And that I can't develop my interpretation without live testing.


And I haven't studied aikido, I have very little exposure to it. But there are parts of it that look superficially very similar to certain applications of some TKD techniques - I'd like to work with someone who has actually studied these things so that I can develop my own interpretation.


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> And I haven't studied aikido, I have very little exposure to it. But there are parts of it that look superficially very similar to certain applications of some TKD techniques - I'd like to work with someone who has actually studied these things so that I can develop my own interpretation.



That is actually a martial approach and a rounded opinion


----------



## now disabled

kempodisciple said:


> That said, i have no evidence that aikido armed works (no evidence it doesnt, but have never seen it effective for weapons). Just pointi ng out a system that does show the difference.



Imo the weapons that Aikido uses are not a complete discipline ie it is not Kenjustsu nor Jojutsu it is a way to understand how some of the principles work or where there came from. 

Put an Aikidoka up against a practitioner of Kenjutsu and he will most likely lose in sword skills as the Aikidoka is not a swordsman.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The term "full resisting opponent" can be a 2 edges sword.
> 
> If the moment that you try to use hip throw on your opponent, the moment that he sits down to the ground, You can wrestle with him for 20 years, you still cannot develop your hip throw. What's good if your opponent can not help you to develop MA skill?
> 
> A full resisting opponent can help you to develop combo (use one move to set up next move). He won't be able to help you to develop the first move.


Agreed, assuming "full resisting" is something they don't know how to turn off.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> @gpseymour
> I have to say I'm impressed with your openness about this topic. That's not to say you have given me any other impression over time with your posts. It's just rare to find people who can see their own systems short comings and also try to address them.


Remember that Aikido (the style created by Ueshiba) isn't my style, but my primary style (NGA) is a cousin, and shares some of the problems. If NGA is taught with too much focus on aiki, it has all the issues I point out. I am much more punch-happy than most NGA instructors and practitioners, because I see these issues. In some ways I see a very real possibility of NGA (mainline) getting to this same point in a generation or two. @drop bear and i have had some lively discussions about some of the issues with trying to pull of full-aiki techniques against balanced fighters.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> May have found the trick to this by the way. I was sparring a 16 year old the other day who just lost his cool and justs started trying to take my head off.
> 
> So I was recieving strikes that were 100% speed and intensity without the weight behind them to do any real damage.
> 
> So you could do that and see if you can blend with shots coming at you fast.


Those, in fact, are easier to blend with than a controlled, powerful punch. If there's no weight behind them, it takes a bunch of the aiki techniques off the table, but there are enough left to work with. Good focus and control is what best limits the availability of Aikido techniques (and many of the NGA ones, too).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Nope, no issues;I'm just being straight. Have you ever worked with aikido guys? How familiar are you exactly with what they do, what it is, or the philosophy behind it? You won't find any violence in an aikido studio because that runs purely against the grain of what aikido is.
> 
> It's a suplimental system for people that ALREADY know how to fight, something their O'Sensei made quite clear.
> 
> In that regard I've seen it 'work', but those that have only aikido are honestly worse off than someone that is completely untrained. There is mountains of evidence to support this.


I don't agree with the last statement, unless you're talking about having a false perception of ability.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Do bear in mind that if you fire up the engine as you say and fully apply things like Kotegaeshi and do a full on full force irimi nage or fully applied hiji waza then things will break lol
> 
> I am not in any way calling your skills in to doubt however if I (and I can't now lol) fully fired up Kotegaeshi then your wrist would break lol
> 
> That may be why you think that it all "soft" so to speak and compliant as if the uke doesn't take it then he /she gets hurt
> 
> It is and always has been a problem of how to "cover all " in training and there is no answer really that fits all.
> 
> Ok going back in time (way back) they could test out things lol... find a criminal or a person of low class and do the "business" but those days are long gone so we have what we have and will always struggle to agree on the how to


The challenge isn't putting full force into the application, but having a partner who tries to stop you from applying. There's no technique I know of that cannot be countered if you see it coming. A good Aikidoka should be as effective at stopping Aikido techniques from being performed on them as they are at doing Aikido technqiues. Actually, they should be better at counters, because they're easier to do.


----------



## pdg

now disabled said:


> That is actually a martial approach and a rounded opinion



It's the only way imo.

Let's say I take a few TKD moves and do them by the book - hooking block, low hook kick, elbow, low block. Against one person I'd be relying on them being at the right range, at the right time or nothing works.

Now let's ignore the book application (blocks might not be blocks, strikes might not be strikes) and dig a bit, do them quickly enough so it's pretty much one fluid movement.

Another person could look at that and give it a name...

Say, hip throw.

But wait, a hip throw "isn't TKD"...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> In theory. There is no evidence Ive ever seen that is the case though. In my experience (Ive worked with and even sparred with more than a few aikido trained guys) those wristlock throws only ever work if the other guy is co-operating. Show me a counter example? Can you honestly say you've ever done it to a guy that is fully fighting back?
> 
> Ever wonder why it's never happened in a cage? Oh yes, wristlocks are perfectly legal in MMA. The entire Aikido syllabus is.( the 'small joint manipulation' foul in mma only applies to two or less fingers, wrists are fair game) Yet nobody uses it. Do you not wonder why that might be?
> 
> Again, I'm not saying aikido is 'useless' persay, but you seem to have some untested beliefs at play here.


Someone recently posted a video (Drop Bear, I think) that showed a kotegaeshi done in a fight by an Aikidoka. They do work, though they aren't as prone to breaking things as they feel like in practice. Some joint throws have a pretty high potential for destruction, though, if the person being thrown doesn't give in to them. We have one that's taught as a throw, but really isn't - the breakfall is actually an escape from the lock, so it would be unlikely to end as a throw "on the street".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> Yes. I have. Many times. As recently as 20 minutes ago, as a matter of fact. Nothing works every time, but wrist locks do work.


I'm curious DD, do you use wristlock throws, too?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ryback said:


> Well I see your point clearly but on the other hand if the majority of aikidoka train in such a way that would lead them to failure against a boxer it doesn't mean that the art itself doesn't provide the means and techniques to potentially beat a boxer. But you have to study those aspects of the art.
> They have always been there but they are mostly neglected...
> Also I don't know many boxers who can counter an Aikido joint lock or learn how to absorb a dynamic Irimi Nage for example. Or can defend themselves against an ushiro Kubi shime choke technique or a fast gedan (low level) Mae geri kick...


I'll argue that if they are there, they aren't going to be there much longer. What isn't trained in a system gets lost. If only a few places teach good strikes, then students by and large aren't training against good strikes. Give that a couple of generations (literally, two is usually sufficient) without remediation and all the students of that third generation will have ineffective strikes and techniques that generally fail against effective strikes.

An easy solution is a bit of cross-training with friends from other arts. If 5% of Aikidoka did this, and sparred while doing so, then brought the information they gained back to their personal Aikido training, that would reverse the trend. It might take only the same 2 generations.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ryback said:


> Sparring is not a tool for learning a martial art at least not in my opinion.
> As for resistance, believe me every time we use more resistance in the attacks it's easier to control the Uke, what is difficult is to control a relaxed fast Uke who instead of resisting he is trying to counter you, if that's what you mean then, yeah we do that.
> As for Uke jumping around in ukemi on their own... Well if my technique doesn't work I find my Uke still standing attacking me or choking me with his other hand. It has happened many times in the past and it's still happening some time because even after being 20 years in Aikido there are 2people in the Dojo more experienced than me and we hunt each other like hell.
> But anyway, this is not about me, Aikido has that potential if anyone would train seriously, with practical application in mind he can make it work!


Counters are resistance. Resistance does not mean the same thing as tension. Resistance is the thing you need in your training, and relaxation and counters are part of how we resist aiki techniques. As is controlling our weight transfers and keeping center and structure. Have your partner do those things and find out what causes problems. That's training with resistance.


----------



## pdg

pdg said:


> It's the only way imo.
> 
> Let's say I take a few TKD moves and do them by the book - hooking block, low hook kick, elbow, low block. Against one person I'd be relying on them being at the right range, at the right time or nothing works.
> 
> Now let's ignore the book application (blocks might not be blocks, strikes might not be strikes) and dig a bit, do them quickly enough so it's pretty much one fluid movement.
> 
> Another person could look at that and give it a name...
> 
> Say, hip throw.
> 
> But wait, a hip throw "isn't TKD"...



I've just noticed I've blended some threads 

I'd like to do more reinterpretation of application in class.

Rigidly sticking to the dogma of "move A is for situation Y" is an issue in a lot of TMA training.

Style (aikido) against style (boxing) is worthwhile.


Oh, and there's no such thing as MMA - it's all just TKD/WC/karate/judo/aikido done a bit differently


----------



## Dirty Dog

gpseymour said:


> I'm curious DD, do you use wristlock throws, too?



Sure. You don't really see the feet-over-head demo stuff, but the guy tonight landed on a bed about 3 feet from where he started.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Ok, so first off I feel I have to explain the concept of sparring...
> 
> It's not about win or lose, it's not about which art is better - it's about working together to find your own way.
> 
> My last sparring night, probably 10 partners - did I win? Did I lose? Nobody kept score... Because it's not about winning or losing.
> 
> Now to the 'no need to train with a boxer' - ok, if you say so.
> 
> I do TKD and I do kickboxing. In the kickboxing group there are a few that came from a pure boxing background.
> 
> I can go up against a taekwondoin "doing boxing moves" and not feel challenged at all. What they're doing looks like boxing moves and I can say my defences work against boxing.
> 
> Now I do the same against one of the boxing guys and what happens? I get hit much more. It's totally different.
> 
> Now get a kickboxer to "do TKD moves". Another kickboxer defends and says what they do works against TKD. Then they use those defences against me and get kicked in the head. It's totally different.
> 
> So, I can sharpen my TKD against other taekwondoin as much as I like, but until I go against someone with actual skill in another art there's really no way I can say if it will work.
> 
> I can say that it should work in theory, because the shape looks similar.
> 
> In this, I'm not 'blaming' the art, but my interpretation of it. And that I can't develop my interpretation without live testing.
> 
> 
> And I haven't studied aikido, I have very little exposure to it. But there are parts of it that look superficially very similar to certain applications of some TKD techniques - I'd like to work with someone who has actually studied these things so that I can develop my own interpretation.


Excellent post. Working against taekwondoin (wow, that's hard to type) acting like boxers is good for practicing stuff you've found worked against actual boxers - because those taekwondoin are handy to train with. Still gotta get back and test from time to time against the boxers to find out if the training results are what you wanted. Now, once you work that out, you can teach those boxer-decapitating moves to other taekwondoin in TKD classes, using just taekwondoin, and probably get some reasonable results, because you know what you're doing. The next generation probably can't, though - they'll need to go back and work with boxers so they truly understand the whats and whys of your approach.

Unfortunately, in many cases that either skips the whole idea of working with actual proponents of the system in question, or it goes several generations without visiting back to that concept. Then we get a bunch of taekwondoin (or NGAikidoka) who have learned very well something that's not quite what it used to be.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> Sure. You don't really see the feet-over-head demo stuff, but the guy tonight landed on a bed about 3 feet from where he started.


Nice. I asked because when I talk to folks, I find use of locks and shoulder takedowns a lot, but less use of wristy throws. I suspect that's because they've missed the control necessary to get to those.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> The challenge isn't putting full force into the application, but having a partner who tries to stop you from applying. There's no technique I know of that cannot be countered if you see it coming. A good Aikidoka should be as effective at stopping Aikido techniques from being performed on them as they are at doing Aikido technqiues. Actually, they should be better at counters, because they're easier to do.



Oh I agree with you if you know what is coming then countering isn't necessarily problematic 

I meant by going at full force leaving out the big circle and going for the smaller circle and the speed at which it done. No Aikido tech should really involve putting force into it using speed tech and the ukes force if that makes sense as if the nage tries to use force he will tighten up force the tech not reallt be using the uke and ultimately fail 

just my opinion tho


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> It's the only way imo.
> 
> Let's say I take a few TKD moves and do them by the book - hooking block, low hook kick, elbow, low block. Against one person I'd be relying on them being at the right range, at the right time or nothing works.
> 
> Now let's ignore the book application (blocks might not be blocks, strikes might not be strikes) and dig a bit, do them quickly enough so it's pretty much one fluid movement.
> 
> Another person could look at that and give it a name...
> 
> Say, hip throw.
> 
> But wait, a hip throw "isn't TKD"...



I get your thinking possibly are you saying that by working with say Aikido guys you could tweak moves you already know and expand them further for example using your ability to strike effectively and follow it up with a throw and possible pin ? or again use your strikes and follow up with say a choke ? then yes if that is your thinking it would work ... personally if you want to do that tho I'd look for guys that are from Daito ryu they may be more ummm likely to accommodate as many Aikidoka can be somewhat well I shall not say but you get the drift lol


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> I've just noticed I've blended some threads
> 
> I'd like to do more reinterpretation of application in class.
> 
> Rigidly sticking to the dogma of "move A is for situation Y" is an issue in a lot of TMA training.
> 
> Style (aikido) against style (boxing) is worthwhile.
> 
> 
> Oh, and there's no such thing as MMA - it's all just TKD/WC/karate/judo/aikido done a bit differently



lol 

ummm but don't class Aikido as TMA as it isn't ...it may have grown from that but it itself is not .....Boxing well I dunno as different periods and timescales are used there to classify lol

sorry just winding ya up lol


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Someone recently posted a video (Drop Bear, I think) that showed a kotegaeshi done in a fight by an Aikidoka. They do work, though they aren't as prone to breaking things as they feel like in practice. Some joint throws have a pretty high potential for destruction, though, if the person being thrown doesn't give in to them. We have one that's taught as a throw, but really isn't - the breakfall is actually an escape from the lock, so it would be unlikely to end as a throw "on the street".




Kotegaeshi isn't necessarily a throw it can be made to look like one and it often is when big flowing circles are used but it don't need to be. 

I watched the vid and the guy took him down thankfully he didn't follow up with the full pin 

yeah I know what you mean the wrist can take more than you think it can but one thing is sure it does hurt like hell if it done properly. 

The elbow techs in my opinion are the ones in training you have to be careful with as they can be badly damaged


----------



## pdg

now disabled said:


> I get your thinking possibly are you saying that by working with say Aikido guys you could tweak moves you already know and expand them further for example using your ability to strike effectively and follow it up with a throw and possible pin ? or again use your strikes and follow up with say a choke ? then yes if that is your thinking it would work ... personally if you want to do that tho I'd look for guys that are from Daito ryu they may be more ummm likely to accommodate as many Aikidoka can be somewhat well I shall not say but you get the drift lol



Yes, kind of like that.

But, I don't view TKD as a purely striking art in the first place - everything is in there if you care to dig deep enough and think outside the dogmatic box...

The problem is, I can't really work on much of this with my fellow students "because it's not TKD", and I imagine that as soon as I mention it to most practitioners of other arts it's instantly taken as an art vs art challenge and that I'm trying to prove something.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Counters are resistance. Resistance does not mean the same thing as tension. Resistance is the thing you need in your training, and relaxation and counters are part of how we resist aiki techniques. As is controlling our weight transfers and keeping center and structure. Have your partner do those things and find out what causes problems. That's training with resistance.



well pointed out 

resistance does not necessarily mean force (strength etc) and a smart uke can if the nage not totally on the ball return the tech and that is how it should be (well not at complete beginner but def by the time they reach 3rd/4th kyu ) as it provides a wake up call not to be sloppy and or your not doing it properly. My fav for that is actually kotegaeshi (yes that one again ) as if they get the tech wrong it easy to return it or if they pull you to far around ya land one square on their chin ...that usually gets the message thru


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> Yes, kind of like that.
> 
> But, I don't view TKD as a purely striking art in the first place - everything is in there if you care to dig deep enough and think outside the dogmatic box...
> 
> The problem is, I can't really work on much of this with my fellow students "because it's not TKD", and I imagine that as soon as I mention it to most practitioners of other arts it's instantly taken as an art vs art challenge and that I'm trying to prove something.




I get that totally.

Really there should be no challenge as arts can learn from the other and in a way it can be looked upon as you improving yourself on your path in the search for more (part of the DO concept ?)


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> Yes, kind of like that.
> 
> But, I don't view TKD as a purely striking art in the first place - everything is in there if you care to dig deep enough and think outside the dogmatic box...
> 
> The problem is, I can't really work on much of this with my fellow students "because it's not TKD", and I imagine that as soon as I mention it to most practitioners of other arts it's instantly taken as an art vs art challenge and that I'm trying to prove something.




The biggest thing I would say (just my opinion) is to get the TKD guys to relax and flow if that makes sense and to try and use the opponents power or dynamics against them (dunno if that makes sense)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Oh I agree with you if you know what is coming then countering isn't necessarily problematic
> 
> I meant by going at full force leaving out the big circle and going for the smaller circle and the speed at which it done. No Aikido tech should really involve putting force into it using speed tech and the ukes force if that makes sense as if the nage tries to use force he will tighten up force the tech not reallt be using the uke and ultimately fail
> 
> just my opinion tho


Something I've learned about aiki techniques is that you can, in fact, add strength and force to them. If you add it wrong, they fail. If you add it right, they work some places where they won't work without it - on those edges where pure flow doesn't make the technique quite available. Watch some videos of Shioda's technique in his younger days (I'm guessing early 30's), and you'll see him dropping full bodyweight into some technqiues with great effect. Anyplace bodyweight works, the right direction of strength can also work, but takes more effort.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> An easy solution is a bit of cross-training with friends from other arts. If 5% of Aikidoka did this, and sparred while doing so, then brought the information they gained back to their personal Aikido training, that would reverse the trend. It might take only the same 2 generations.



The real problem faced there is actually convincing people to do that and in effect almost pointing out to them that it is and always was part of Aikido I wouldn't say it was lost it just rarely taught and some will start yelling that it is not part of the training and not taught as they have this ingrained thing that Aikido is all peace and love


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> lol
> 
> ummm but don't class Aikido as TMA as it isn't ...it may have grown from that but it itself is not .....Boxing well I dunno as different periods and timescales are used there to classify lol
> 
> sorry just winding ya up lol


That gets back to the whole question of what's "traditional". Aikido definitely fits my usage of that term. Basically, to me, any art that has "the X way" of doing things (that excludes stuff because it's just not correct to the art) is "traditional". I teach a specific round kick. If a student joins with a different round kick at a functional level, I don't teach them mine unless they want it. All I need is them to have a functional round kick. If they become instructors and want to teach the TKD or Muay Thai kick they brought in, that's fine. But most NGA instructors would disagree - they'd say "That's not the NGA round kick, and they need to learn the right one for testing." So, I'd classify NGA as "traditional", though it's arguably newer than Ueshiba's Aikido.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Kotegaeshi isn't necessarily a throw it can be made to look like one and it often is when big flowing circles are used but it don't need to be.
> 
> I watched the vid and the guy took him down thankfully he didn't follow up with the full pin
> 
> yeah I know what you mean the wrist can take more than you think it can but one thing is sure it does hurt like hell if it done properly.
> 
> The elbow techs in my opinion are the ones in training you have to be careful with as they can be badly damaged


Agreed. Any full lock has potential for destruction. Those that use a rotational lock (as elbow locks will) are the worst. If I overextend a kotegaeshi (as we do it, a bit less "outside" than is typical in Aikido), there's little real risk, because we're really talking about "pulls" or small tears, not destruction. If we turn it out (where it gets crossed up with our "Peel Off"), the elbow and even the shoulder can be exposed, and it's more likely to cause damage.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Something I've learned about aiki techniques is that you can, in fact, add strength and force to them. If you add it wrong, they fail. If you add it right, they work some places where they won't work without it - on those edges where pure flow doesn't make the technique quite available. Watch some videos of Shioda's technique in his younger days (I'm guessing early 30's), and you'll see him dropping full bodyweight into some technqiues with great effect. Anyplace bodyweight works, the right direction of strength can also work, but takes more effort.




Oh sir you have just revealed yourself lol you can see the nuances and the where to and that takes years of training and you are right 

Yes Shioda was one of the best the interesting thing is that although he set up his own style he never really broke from Ueshiba as his 10th dan was awarded to him by Ueshiba and that was after the Yoshinkan was well set up ... That should say something unfortunately it normally glossed over


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> That gets back to the whole question of what's "traditional". Aikido definitely fits my usage of that term. Basically, to me, any art that has "the X way" of doing things (that excludes stuff because it's just not correct to the art) is "traditional". I teach a specific round kick. If a student joins with a different round kick at a functional level, I don't teach them mine unless they want it. All I need is them to have a functional round kick. If they become instructors and want to teach the TKD or Muay Thai kick they brought in, that's fine. But most NGA instructors would disagree - they'd say "That's not the NGA round kick, and they need to learn the right one for testing." So, I'd classify NGA as "traditional", though it's arguably newer than Ueshiba's Aikido.




A but I would add that you are being adaptable in that if they have a thing why dismantle it if it works that t me is counter productive


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> well pointed out
> 
> resistance does not necessarily mean force (strength etc) and a smart uke can if the nage not totally on the ball return the tech and that is how it should be (well not at complete beginner but def by the time they reach 3rd/4th kyu ) as it provides a wake up call not to be sloppy and or your not doing it properly. My fav for that is actually kotegaeshi (yes that one again ) as if they get the tech wrong it easy to return it or if they pull you to far around ya land one square on their chin ...that usually gets the message thru


I like that. I'll add that it doesn't require nage to do anything wrong. I'm pretty good at recognizing/feeling what is exposed, and taking it away (in the realm of the techniques I know). I actually teach this to students - they are tested on it every next test (so kotegaeshi is tested at yellow belt, and the counter is tested at blue). I think it's that important. I only require they demonstrate one effective counter, and it's to the technique's form (think of how Daito-ryu teaches techniques) rather than the application, but it builds a base for recognizing and thwarting techniques. Real skill comes in recognizing what's available, and that includes recognizing when someone counters a technique so you can move to whatever they've just made available.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. Any full lock has potential for destruction. Those that use a rotational lock (as elbow locks will) are the worst. If I overextend a kotegaeshi (as we do it, a bit less "outside" than is typical in Aikido), there's little real risk, because we're really talking about "pulls" or small tears, not destruction. If we turn it out (where it gets crossed up with our "Peel Off"), the elbow and even the shoulder can be exposed, and it's more likely to cause damage.




I follow you 

I'd explain it my way as diff between big and small circles and the diff between making it look good and being effective in real time


----------



## pdg

now disabled said:


> lol
> 
> ummm but don't class Aikido as TMA as it isn't ...it may have grown from that but it itself is not .....Boxing well I dunno as different periods and timescales are used there to classify lol
> 
> sorry just winding ya up lol



The definition of the word can only ever be that view of the definer...

An analogy, I'll use houses...

Around here, some of the oldest houses are wood framed with knapped flint and chalk infils and thatched roofs.

Newer ones dispense with the wooden frame.

Yet newer get slate roofs.

From say the early to mid 1900s brick and engineered blockwork took over, as you get more recent you find more and more that it's a blockwork shell with stud walls (plasterboard (sheetrock?) over a wooden or metal).

Go ask a mortgage company for a loan, one of the questions is "is it traditional construction?" - and this is where you discover that lime render and thatch aren't traditional...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> The real problem faced there is actually convincing people to do that and in effect almost pointing out to them that it is and always was part of Aikido I wouldn't say it was lost it just rarely taught and some will start yelling that it is not part of the training and not taught as they have this ingrained thing that Aikido is all peace and love


I'll reassert that it not being taught means it has been lost in those branches where it's not taught. And I do think there are entire branches that are not teaching these aspects.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> I follow you
> 
> I'd explain it my way as diff between big and small circles and the diff between making it look good and being effective in real time


I missed something - I don't see how that responds to what I said. Did I miscommunicate something in that post?


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> I like that. I'll add that it doesn't require nage to do anything wrong. I'm pretty good at recognizing/feeling what is exposed, and taking it away (in the realm of the techniques I know). I actually teach this to students - they are tested on it every next test (so kotegaeshi is tested at yellow belt, and the counter is tested at blue). I think it's that important. I only require they demonstrate one effective counter, and it's to the technique's form (think of how Daito-ryu teaches techniques) rather than the application, but it builds a base for recognizing and thwarting techniques. Real skill comes in recognizing what's available, and that includes recognizing when someone counters a technique so you can move to whatever they've just made available.



Exactly 

if a counter is made then you have to be switched on to that and counter the counter be adaptable and not "Oh crap what I do now it went wrong" and even if it did go wrong actually work out why it did and try to make sure if it was a gap in your own tech it gets closed


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> I'll reassert that it not being taught means it has been lost in those branches where it's not taught. And I do think there are entire branches that are not teaching these aspects.



Oh that the truth ya just need to read on here and you will see that and the rep Aikido gets because of that


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> I missed something - I don't see how that responds to what I said. Did I miscommunicate something in that post?




not you me 

When you described kotegaeshi etc ...I describe the difference  in the ways I do it as big circle flowing and nice big breakfall and small circle fast and direct little or no breakfall just a take down


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Exactly
> 
> if a counter is made then you have to be switched on to that and counter the counter be adaptable and not "Oh crap what I do now it went wrong" and even if it did go wrong actually work out why it did and try to make sure if it was a gap in your own tech it gets closed


One of the most ironic things I see in NGA - an "aiki" art - is a student trying to "fix" an arm bar that's not working in the moment of application. I teach my students that the answer to that is "do something else - if you don't know what else to do, punch them".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> not you me
> 
> When you described kotegaeshi etc ...I describe the difference  in the ways I do it as big circle flowing and nice big breakfall and small circle fast and direct little or no breakfall just a take down


Gotcha. I didn't think back to your post when reading that. The "big" version pretty much requires a big breakfall if it is applied well. The "small" version is closer to ours, and you can almost sit out of it rather than doing a full breakfall.


----------



## Ryback

gpseymour said:


> I'll argue that if they are there, they aren't going to be there much longer. What isn't trained in a system gets lost. If only a few places teach good strikes, then students by and large aren't training against good strikes. Give that a couple of generations (literally, two is usually sufficient) without remediation and all the students of that third generation will have ineffective strikes and techniques that generally fail against effective strikes.
> 
> An easy solution is a bit of cross-training with friends from other arts. If 5% of Aikidoka did this, and sparred while doing so, then brought the information they gained back to their personal Aikido training, that would reverse the trend. It might take only the same 2 generations.


I agree completely with the first part of your post. It's obvious that in some years from now most of Aikido will be just a philosophical harmonious mumbo jumbo with no martial effectiveness at all if that hasn't already happened... 
That's what is really worrying me!! 
I can see that and I can clearly see that our dojo and other dojos I know of that are training more or less in the same manner we do are an exception but I don't say that with pride, believe me I'm very honest about that. 
To me it's very sad! I wish Aikido could stay as a martial art inside the path of practical application, it wouldn't cost the art neither its harmony, nor its non violent philosophy, on the contrary... 
But I can do nothing about it, the only thing I can do is forge my skills to the best of my ability, try to pass it on to any student who is interested, while being aware that I, myself have a long way to go in Aikido skills, even after 20 years on the mat, so I need to study harder, I got a lot of work to do ahead of me. 
As for the rest of your post... I have nothing theoretically against others cross training but it's not my cup of tea. I have seen some examples where it causes more confusion but it may be working for other people, I can't really say... 
At the end of the day, the only practice that really matters for each one of us is the one that any of us is actually doing. It's the one that is having an effect on his martial arts study, any direction he has chosen.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> One of the most ironic things I see in NGA - an "aiki" art - is a student trying to "fix" an arm bar that's not working in the moment of application. I teach my students that the answer to that is "do something else - if you don't know what else to do, punch them".



I agree as keeping on with something you know isn't working is pointless and really is gonna get you knocked on ya behind or worse 

The worst thing is in my mind going into a tech with your mind so rigidly fixed that this is what I am doing and that it ... To me that is really counter to things as there is no flow there no nothing 

Aiki can go so far but it is not the be all and end all


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Gotcha. I didn't think back to your post when reading that. The "big" version pretty much requires a big breakfall if it is applied well. The "small" version is closer to ours, and you can almost sit out of it rather than doing a full breakfall.


yup 
and it is the more effective as the big one actually leaves you open but don't tell folks that it kinda a secret lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ryback said:


> I agree completely with the first part of your post. It's obvious that in some years from now most of Aikido will be just a philosophical harmonious mumbo jumbo with no martial effectiveness at all if that hasn't already happened...
> That's what is really worrying me!!
> I can see that and I can clearly see that our dojo and other dojos I know of that are training more or less in the same manner we do are an exception but I don't say that with pride, believe me I'm very honest about that.
> To me it's very sad! I wish Aikido could stay as a martial art inside the path of practical application, it wouldn't cost the art neither its harmony, nor its non violent philosophy, on the contrary...
> But I can do nothing about it, the only thing I can do is forge my skills to the best of my ability, try to pass it on to any student who is interested, while being aware that I, myself have a long way to go in Aikido skills, even after 20 years on the mat, so I need to study harder, I got a lot of work to do ahead of me.
> As for the rest of your post... I have nothing theoretically against others cross training but it's not my cup of tea. I have seen some examples where it causes more confusion but it may be working for other people, I can't really say...
> At the end of the day, the only practice that really matters for each one of us is the one that any of us is actually doing. It's the one that is having an effect on his martial arts study, any direction he has chosen.


In your situation, cross training is how you tune your Aikido to include what you feel belongs there but wasn't taught. It can cause confusion, but the best martial artists I know in any art are all cross-trained. They improved their ability in each art by the wider understanding from other arts. I apply NGA techniques on the ground differently from most NGA folks, because I have some Judo groundwork training. I'm still doing NGA on the ground.

As for influencing, if you ever had your own classes/school, you absolutely have influence there. You could teach exactly as you are taught, or you could teach exactly as you are taught PLUS teaching some effective strikes and teaching students to work against those strikes. It's a small change - maybe 10% of the curriculum, at most, but would have a profound effect. Same goes for introducing some resistive sparring (think single-man randori, but the other guy is using his Aikido, too). Small changes can change a lot. And if you don't ever have your own classes, you might still be able to influence some current students with that understanding, and maybe one of them goes on to implement those changes when they have their own classes.


----------



## Ryback

gpseymour said:


> Counters are resistance. Resistance does not mean the same thing as tension. Resistance is the thing you need in your training, and relaxation and counters are part of how we resist aiki techniques. As is controlling our weight transfers and keeping center and structure. Have your partner do those things and find out what causes problems. That's training with resistance.


We agree then. If by resistance you mean being relaxed in order to be able to counter the techniques and re-attack then yes, that's part of our practice, an everyday part. 
I had my nose badly wounded some years ago when my Uke kept hunting me with continues fast strikes because I was deflecting his strikes but couldn't find any moment to apply the technique before his next strike hit my face. 
I finally decided to take my chances and try to apply a technique even though I thought I had no time. And I ended up being struck right on my nose with a broken bone inside of it, the only thing saving me from worst injury being that I absorbed some of the strike's force by falling on my back at the moment I was hit. 
The lesson of the day was that I had to study harder in order to be able to be more effective but it felt good to know that my Uke wasn't holding back. 
Almost 8years later from that incident I'm much better at that but still have a long way to go. Actually there will always be a long way to go and things to learn in Aikido, so practice, practice, practice is my answer... 
If I want my nose intact! Hahaha!


----------



## now disabled

Ryback said:


> I agree completely with the first part of your post. It's obvious that in some years from now most of Aikido will be just a philosophical harmonious mumbo jumbo with no martial effectiveness at all if that hasn't already happened...
> That's what is really worrying me!!
> I can see that and I can clearly see that our dojo and other dojos I know of that are training more or less in the same manner we do are an exception but I don't say that with pride, believe me I'm very honest about that.
> To me it's very sad! I wish Aikido could stay as a martial art inside the path of practical application, it wouldn't cost the art neither its harmony, nor its non violent philosophy, on the contrary...
> But I can do nothing about it, the only thing I can do is forge my skills to the best of my ability, try to pass it on to any student who is interested, while being aware that I, myself have a long way to go in Aikido skills, even after 20 years on the mat, so I need to study harder, I got a lot of work to do ahead of me.
> As for the rest of your post... I have nothing theoretically against others cross training but it's not my cup of tea. I have seen some examples where it causes more confusion but it may be working for other people, I can't really say...
> At the end of the day, the only practice that really matters for each one of us is the one that any of us is actually doing. It's the one that is having an effect on his martial arts study, any direction he has chosen.




This non violent philosophy hmmmm that kinda got lost in translation a bit imo and honestly Ueshiba latterly did go very much toward the Oomoto in his teachings.

One thing I would guess you have his book Budo you do realize that originally that book was a manual given to the Imperial army and navy and that Ueshiba taught them during the war !!! so all the peace and love bit is imo lost in the sense it was actually meant and or it came from his latter years as his formative ones in Daito ryu most certainly were not peace and love


----------



## pdg

Ryback said:


> As for the rest of your post... I have nothing theoretically against others cross training but it's not my cup of tea. I have seen some examples where it causes more confusion but it may be working for other people, I can't really say...
> At the end of the day, the only practice that really matters for each one of us is the one that any of us is actually doing. It's the one that is having an effect on his martial arts study, any direction he has chosen.



I think there's another bit you're not understanding here too.

Cross training, in this context.

The mention I've made could be interpreted in the same way as I've interpreted what @gpseymour has said.

I'm (we're?) not talking about cross training as in going and training another art in an attempt to augment or change your own art.

What I'm (we're?) on about is using your art against different techniques that you'll never see from your usual training partners.

You're not taking techniques from other arts, you're exploring how to apply your own techniques against someone who doesn't also know them.

You're also looking into what happens when the rules change - how does what you know hold up?

For me, can I take my TKD techniques and make them work under different restrictions? Sure, I can get a spinning heel against a boxer, but can I use the appropriate parts of my TKD under boxing rules?

Can I use the TKD techniques I know under judo rules? If I'm not allowed to kick, can I reapply a block or strike as a grab and takedown instead?

Also, can I look at, say, judo moves and identify things that I know from TKD and see "new" ways to use them?

Quite honestly, I think you're too programmed into the dogma of sparring being bad and cross training diluting your art to have an open enough mind to see the massive possibilities that could become available.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> In your situation, cross training is how you tune your Aikido to include what you feel belongs there but wasn't taught. It can cause confusion, but the best martial artists I know in any art are all cross-trained. They improved their ability in each art by the wider understanding from other arts. I apply NGA techniques on the ground differently from most NGA folks, because I have some Judo groundwork training. I'm still doing NGA on the ground.
> 
> As for influencing, if you ever had your own classes/school, you absolutely have influence there. You could teach exactly as you are taught, or you could teach exactly as you are taught PLUS teaching some effective strikes and teaching students to work against those strikes. It's a small change - maybe 10% of the curriculum, at most, but would have a profound effect. Same goes for introducing some resistive sparring (think single-man randori, but the other guy is using his Aikido, too). Small changes can change a lot. And if you don't ever have your own classes, you might still be able to influence some current students with that understanding, and maybe one of them goes on to implement those changes when they have their own classes.




Ueshiba was cross trained and not in just one discipline he may have left out bits however he still knew them.

His original Deshi all did too so @gpseymour has a very valid point


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> I think there's another bit you're not understanding here too.
> 
> Cross training, in this context.
> 
> The mention I've made could be interpreted in the same way as I've interpreted what @gpseymour has said.
> 
> I'm (we're?) not talking about cross training as in going and training another art in an attempt to augment or change your own art.
> 
> What I'm (we're?) on about is using your art against different techniques that you'll never see from your usual training partners.
> 
> You're not taking techniques from other arts, you're exploring how to apply your own techniques against someone who doesn't also know them.
> 
> You're also looking into what happens when the rules change - how does what you know hold up?
> 
> For me, can I take my TKD techniques and make them work under different restrictions? Sure, I can get a spinning heel against a boxer, but can I use the appropriate parts of my TKD under boxing rules?
> 
> Can I use the TKD techniques I know under judo rules? If I'm not allowed to kick, can I reapply a block or strike as a grab and takedown instead?
> 
> Also, can I look at, say, judo moves and identify things that I know from TKD and see "new" ways to use them?
> 
> Quite honestly, I think you're too programmed into the dogma of sparring being bad and cross training diluting your art to have an open enough mind to see the massive possibilities that could become available.



Actually @Ryback does probably spar only he may call it and look on it in a different light 

I assume he does Randori although not technically sparring as you might call it but it is there or should be


----------



## pdg

now disabled said:


> Actually @Ryback does probably spar only he may call it and look on it in a different light
> 
> I assume he does Randori although not technically sparring as you might call it but it is there or should be



From my understanding of the concept of randori, it is what I would term free sparring.


----------



## now disabled

Also Ueshiba did a far bit of that (randori) as did I think Kano (judo) @gpseymour may correct me on that as he has judo experience and if memory serves Kano did send students of his to Ueshiba to study their names I cannot remember and it was before the name Aikido was used I can't remember if it was when he was still with Takeda or just after (I don't mean in Hokkaido)  so they cross trained ... they didn't give up there art just learned from another so cross training is no evil and it has gone on for years it just gets glossed over mostly


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> From my understanding of the concept of randori, it is what I would term free sparring.



Yes in essence it is and can be one on one or multiple on one but the essence of having to apply techs is there and to flow and be adaptable as you should not know what coming (ok take out the demos as they are or mostly are prearranged lol)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Actually @Ryback does probably spar only he may call it and look on it in a different light
> 
> I assume he does Randori although not technically sparring as you might call it but it is there or should be


The way some (maybe most - I'm not sure) Aikido schools do randori, it's not sparring, because the "attackers" aren't allowed to use their Aikido. If it is randori like Judo does randori, then it's really free-sparring for grapplers. That's something Aikido students need. I can tell pretty quickly if an Aikido student (of any level) has done true free randori, because if they have, they won't be grabbing for wrists - they'll know that doesn't work when you go grabbing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Also Ueshiba did a far bit of that (randori) as did I think Kano (judo) @gpseymour may correct me on that as he has judo experience and if memory serves Kano did send students of his to Ueshiba to study their names I cannot remember and it was before the name Aikido was used I can't remember if it was when he was still with Takeda or just after (I don't mean in Hokkaido)  so they cross trained ... they didn't give up there art just learned from another so cross training is no evil and it has gone on for years it just gets glossed over mostly


There are others here with far more Judo experience than I have, but randori is a common part of Judo training. We started doing it after our first technique or two. Randori (in Judo) is two players trying to throw each other, and it really sharpens the grappling game and makes obvious what doesn't work in that context.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> The way some (maybe most - I'm not sure) Aikido schools do randori, it's not sparring, because the "attackers" aren't allowed to use their Aikido. If it is randori like Judo does randori, then it's really free-sparring for grapplers. That's something Aikido students need. I can tell pretty quickly if an Aikido student (of any level) has done true free randori, because if they have, they won't be grabbing for wrists - they'll know that doesn't work when you go grabbing.



I get your point 

and the bit about wrist grabs is true the minute anyone tries that then the door is open and well it open.

I have done randori and it was expected that i would use anything I wanted as uke be it Aikido or not 

Yes a lot of schools it basically run at the nage and act like your a dumbass lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> act like your a dumbass


I do that, too, but usually not inside the dojo.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> I do that, too, but usually not inside the dojo.




Umm don't we all ....my excuse it comes with age and to many whacks on the head


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Agreed, assuming "full resisting" is something they don't know how to turn off.


The key word is "don't know how to turn off".

From a wrestler's point of view, I love to deal with "full resisting" opponent. I will know that my opponent will resist against everything that I try to do on him. When I pull, he will pull too. When I push, he will also push.

Comparing a "full resisting" opponent with a "full yielding" opponent, the "full yielding" opponent may give me more trouble. When I pull, he will push. When I push, he will pull.

I can take advantage on both "full resisting" and "full yielding' opponent.

The most difficult opponent to deal with is those who can "vibrate his body". No matter what you do on him, his body vibration can cancel out all your force.


----------



## Ryback

pdg said:


> I think there's another bit you're not understanding here too.
> 
> Cross training, in this context.
> 
> The mention I've made could be interpreted in the same way as I've interpreted what @gpseymour has said.
> 
> I'm (we're?) not talking about cross training as in going and training another art in an attempt to augment or change your own art.
> 
> What I'm (we're?) on about is using your art against different techniques that you'll never see from your usual training partners.
> 
> You're not taking techniques from other arts, you're exploring how to apply your own techniques against someone who doesn't also know them.
> 
> You're also looking into what happens when the rules change - how does what you know hold up?
> 
> For me, can I take my TKD techniques and make them work under different restrictions? Sure, I can get a spinning heel against a boxer, but can I use the appropriate parts of my TKD under boxing rules?
> 
> Can I use the TKD techniques I know under judo rules? If I'm not allowed to kick, can I reapply a block or strike as a grab and takedown instead?
> 
> Also, can I look at, say, judo moves and identify things that I know from TKD and see "new" ways to use them?
> 
> Quite honestly, I think you're too programmed into the dogma of sparring being bad and cross training diluting your art to have an open enough mind to see the massive possibilities that could become available.


I see your point and it's interesting. But wouldn't it be dangerous to try to apply techniques to persons who don't know how to receive them?
I mean, one advantage of applying Aikido techniques to Aikido people is that they can use their ukemi skills in order to avoid injury. 
Many people think that ukemi is like falling on your own but it's not. Ukemi waza is an escape technique, meaning that you fall (only after feeling the real effect of the technique)in order to avoid broken bones, joint dislocations and other injuries... So in that sense, I can apply full force Aikido techniques because I know that the Uke can take it. 
Now, if I tried to do that to a Karate guy for instance, he could strike fast and strong but would he be able to take the effect of my technique without getting injured? That would make me hold back on my technique rendering the whole practice fake in my opinion...


----------



## Ryback

now disabled said:


> Actually @Ryback does probably spar only he may call it and look on it in a different light
> 
> I assume he does Randori although not technically sparring as you might call it but it is there or should be


You are correct, I practice in a randori mode but I don't call it sparring because to me sparring is like kumite... So it's just a different term. But I am practicing with free attacks with strikes, kicks and knife and on a previous post I already mentioned how I had my nose injured badly, since the Uke is always sincere and true while attacking. 
The way we practice in our dojo the Uke is really trying to get you, if you deflect he can keep coming at you,if your technique is not effective or fast enough you get hit and even if you apply technique he will counter it if he can find a gap in it. 
Of course, this is not our only practice, we practice basics anyway and you can't start a beginner with randori anyway...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Aikido may pay too much emphasize on the wrist lock. You can counter a wrist lock by

- raising your elbow, or
- turning your body.

The head lock, shoulder lock, elbow lock are much more difficult to counter.

There are

- wrist gate,
- elbow gate,
- shoulder gate.

Since the wrist gate is so far away from your body. When you apply the wrist gate lock/throw, you may give your opponent too much free space to counter.

As far as the efficiency,

shoulder lock > elbow lock > wrist lock


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Aikido may pay too much emphasize on the wrist lock. You can counter a wrist lock by
> 
> - raising your elbow, or
> - turning your body.
> 
> The head lock, shoulder lock, elbow lock are much more difficult to counter.
> 
> There are
> 
> - wrist gate,
> - elbow gate,
> - shoulder gate.
> 
> Since the wrist gate is so far away from your body. When you apply the wrist gate lock/throw, you may give your opponent too much free space to counter.
> 
> As far as the efficiency,
> 
> shoulder lock > elbow lock > wrist lock




That may be my fault giving that impression keeping mentioning Kotegaeshi


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> I don't agree with the last statement, unless you're talking about having a false perception of ability.


I'm saying you are more likely to beat a man with haymakers than to beat him if you think a real life opponent will behave anything like this:







Again, I don't think aikido is useless as a whole(for fighting), just as commonly trained. Real people don't run at you chin first with their arms permanently outstretched. If that's how you train, thats what your mind and body are conditioned to.My money would be on the haymaker guy.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

now disabled said:


> That may be my fault giving that impression keeping mentioning Kotegaeshi


In the following clip, one wrong assumption has been made. When A grabs on B's wrist, A should have a plan. The moment that B tries to deal with A's wrist grab, A should move to his next step. In other words, when A grabs on B, A is 1 step ahead of B. To assume that B can counter A before A can execute his plan can be unrealistic.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> Someone recently posted a video (Drop Bear, I think) that showed a kotegaeshi done in a fight by an Aikidoka. They do work, though they aren't as prone to breaking things as they feel like in practice. Some joint throws have a pretty high potential for destruction, though, if the person being thrown doesn't give in to them. We have one that's taught as a throw, but really isn't - the breakfall is actually an escape from the lock, so it would be unlikely to end as a throw "on the street".



That's just it, I've seen what can happen when you give a guy that knows/understands timing and distance some aikido. It's a very rare bird(at least evidence wise) just as it is with Wing Chun.

It just doesn't matter what you train. If you don't do it realistically, the end result will reflect that.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> I'm saying you are more likely to beat a man with haymakers than to beat him if you think a real life opponent will behave anything like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't think aikido is useless as a whole(for fighting), just as commonly trained. Real people don't run at you chin first with their arms permanently outstretched. If that's how you train, thats what your mind and body are conditioned to.My money would be on the haymaker guy.



if your meaning that wasn't a street fight then yup 

that was a demo 

I really don't know what is gonna satisfy you lol you want a mass brawl or to see a cage fight with an Aikidoka (that I doubt will ever happen). 

I think no matter what is shown your still gonna shoot holes and say your way best


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> It just doesn't matter what you train. If you don't do it realistically, the end result will reflect that.


Agree! To assume that A grabs on B's wrist without a "plan" is unrealistic.

Here is an example. When A grabs on B's wrist, A's "plan" is to

- guide B's arm away from A's entering path,
- so A can reach to B's head.

There will be no time for B to react. No matter what B may try to counter, A already release that wrist grab and moves to the head.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> That's just it, I've seen what can happen when you give a guy that knows/understands timing and distance some aikido. It's a very rare bird(at least evidence wise) just as it is with Wing Chun.
> 
> It just doesn't matter what you train. If you don't do it realistically, the end result will reflect that.



Umm he did put the guy down it wasn't classic but the wrist tech worked


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the following clip, one wrong assumption has been made. When A grabs on B's wrist, A should have a plan. The moment that B tries to deal with A's wrist grab, A should move to his next step. In other words, when A grabs on B, A is 1 step ahead of B. To assume that B can counter A before A can execute his plan can be unrealistic.



That is a demo lol and purely that


----------



## pdg

Ryback said:


> I see your point and it's interesting. But wouldn't it be dangerous to try to apply techniques to persons who don't know how to receive them?
> I mean, one advantage of applying Aikido techniques to Aikido people is that they can use their ukemi skills in order to avoid injury.
> Many people think that ukemi is like falling on your own but it's not. Ukemi waza is an escape technique, meaning that you fall (only after feeling the real effect of the technique)in order to avoid broken bones, joint dislocations and other injuries... So in that sense, I can apply full force Aikido techniques because I know that the Uke can take it.
> Now, if I tried to do that to a Karate guy for instance, he could strike fast and strong but would he be able to take the effect of my technique without getting injured? That would make me hold back on my technique rendering the whole practice fake in my opinion...



Well, that really depends on how much you've bought into the "lethal moves" myth and how much control you have.

Power is nothing without control, and if you can't control it then you have no business practicing it. You might as well just carry a hammer and be done.

I can kick through (at least) a 4" concrete block - I can kick a person with the same technique at the same speed but with control and while they know they've been tagged it probably won't leave a mark.

That's not because they've magically trained their bones or skull to not fracture...

That's why it's called sparring and not just fighting.

If you can't stop (or at least seriously reduce) a technique at any point during it's application you choose, then imo you don't fully know that technique.

This is also where partners that are too compliant (or only resist in the right way) lead to false confidence in the moves and perpetuate the myth.

If someone gets told "if you don't react in this certain way then this move will break your wrist" then they'll react in that way. They'll resist as they're instructed for fear of damage.

But what if someone knows how to resist differently and can shut down that move every single time? What if they actually analyse it and come up with a better working defence? They get told they're not doing it right...

So, the only danger involved is from someone being so used to a certain reaction from "someone who knows how to receive" getting frustrated at their move suddenly not working and losing control.

Let's say a wrist lock - if I'm in a wrist lock and don't comply, it has the potential to seriously damage my wrist.

And if I choose to not let it get applied?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

now disabled said:


> That is a demo lol and purely that


Are there any Aikido clips that show

- A grabs on B's wrist.
- B tries to do something.
- A releases his wrist grab and does something else (such as a punch to B's face)?

Why don't we see any Aikido clip like this?


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> if your meaning that wasn't a street fight then yup
> 
> that was a demo
> 
> I really don't know what is gonna satisfy you lol you want a mass brawl or to see a cage fight with an Aikidoka (that I doubt will ever happen).
> 
> I think no matter what is shown your still gonna shoot holes and say your way best



So, you are going to ignore what I actually said and instead make some predictions as if you know the first thing about me? Righto then.

You are right about the cage fight thing though, even though everything in the aikido syllabus is legal in there.  You won't see it because it doesn't work.


----------



## pdg

pdg said:


> Well, that really depends on how much you've bought into the "lethal moves" myth and how much control you have.
> 
> Power is nothing without control, and if you can't control it then you have no business practicing it. You might as well just carry a hammer and be done.
> 
> I can kick through (at least) a 4" concrete block - I can kick a person with the same technique at the same speed but with control and while they know they've been tagged it probably won't leave a mark.
> 
> That's not because they've magically trained their bones or skull to not fracture...
> 
> That's why it's called sparring and not just fighting.
> 
> If you can't stop (or at least seriously reduce) a technique at any point during it's application you choose, then imo you don't fully know that technique.
> 
> This is also where partners that are too compliant (or only resist in the right way) lead to false confidence in the moves and perpetuate the myth.
> 
> If someone gets told "if you don't react in this certain way then this move will break your wrist" then they'll react in that way. They'll resist as they're instructed for fear of damage.
> 
> But what if someone knows how to resist differently and can shut down that move every single time? What if they actually analyse it and come up with a better working defence? They get told they're not doing it right...
> 
> So, the only danger involved is from someone being so used to a certain reaction from "someone who knows how to receive" getting frustrated at their move suddenly not working and losing control.
> 
> Let's say a wrist lock - if I'm in a wrist lock and don't comply, it has the potential to seriously damage my wrist.
> 
> And if I choose to not let it get applied?



By the way, I'm not singling out any specific art in this - I've personally had someone tell me that I wasn't doing it right because the punch I used 'live' was different to how it was drilled so they couldn't defend against it...


----------



## Martial D

pdg said:


> Well, that really depends on how much you've bought into the "lethal moves" myth and how much control you have.
> 
> Power is nothing without control, and if you can't control it then you have no business practicing it. You might as well just carry a hammer and be done.
> 
> I can kick through (at least) a 4" concrete block - I can kick a person with the same technique at the same speed but with control and while they know they've been tagged it probably won't leave a mark.
> 
> That's not because they've magically trained their bones or skull to not fracture...
> 
> That's why it's called sparring and not just fighting.
> 
> If you can't stop (or at least seriously reduce) a technique at any point during it's application you choose, then imo you don't fully know that technique.
> 
> This is also where partners that are too compliant (or only resist in the right way) lead to false confidence in the moves and perpetuate the myth.
> 
> If someone gets told "if you don't react in this certain way then this move will break your wrist" then they'll react in that way. They'll resist as they're instructed for fear of damage.
> 
> But what if someone knows how to resist differently and can shut down that move every single time? What if they actually analyse it and come up with a better working defence? They get told they're not doing it right...
> 
> So, the only danger involved is from someone being so used to a certain reaction from "someone who knows how to receive" getting frustrated at their move suddenly not working and losing control.
> 
> Let's say a wrist lock - if I'm in a wrist lock and don't comply, it has the potential to seriously damage my wrist.
> 
> And if I choose to not let it get applied?



Exactly this. Nobody is giving up their wrists like that. I've got thousands of hours of sparring against any style you can name, and it just doesn't happen, like ever.


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> Well, that really depends on how much you've bought into the "lethal moves" myth and how much control you have.
> 
> Power is nothing without control, and if you can't control it then you have no business practicing it. You might as well just carry a hammer and be done.
> 
> I can kick through (at least) a 4" concrete block - I can kick a person with the same technique at the same speed but with control and while they know they've been tagged it probably won't leave a mark.
> 
> That's not because they've magically trained their bones or skull to not fracture...
> 
> That's why it's called sparring and not just fighting.
> 
> If you can't stop (or at least seriously reduce) a technique at any point during it's application you choose, then imo you don't fully know that technique.
> 
> This is also where partners that are too compliant (or only resist in the right way) lead to false confidence in the moves and perpetuate the myth.
> 
> If someone gets told "if you don't react in this certain way then this move will break your wrist" then they'll react in that way. They'll resist as they're instructed for fear of damage.
> 
> But what if someone knows how to resist differently and can shut down that move every single time? What if they actually analyse it and come up with a better working defence? They get told they're not doing it right...
> 
> So, the only danger involved is from someone being so used to a certain reaction from "someone who knows how to receive" getting frustrated at their move suddenly not working and losing control.
> 
> Let's say a wrist lock - if I'm in a wrist lock and don't comply, it has the potential to seriously damage my wrist.
> 
> And if I choose to not let it get applied?




I think I know what he was meaning he wasn't trying to say lethal moves etc all he was trying to say was that if a person des not know how to breakfall then the potential to get hurt is high.

Yes you can resist 

It my ault fr keeping mentioning Kotegaeshi but that was to illustrate a point to another who understands the mechanics of that tech 

Ok then you don't know how to take ukemi from elbow  techs and you will get hurt and ukemi is not breakfalling ukemi is receiving a tech and it not just a case of him controlling as if you do attempt to resist and you can't take it then accidents can happen 

I'm not having a go 

Even the first tech ikkyo if you really resist it could cause you injury as that again is the elbow and a pin and if your in the pin and you try then your elbow is at risk 

don't base all things on kotegaeshi it just one of many techs and by no means is it the most destructive it just one I used to try and illustrate a point


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Are there any Aikido clips that show
> 
> - A grabs on B's wrist.
> - B tries to do something.
> - A releases his wrist grab and does something else (such as a punch to B's face)?
> 
> Why don't we see any Aikido clip like this?



Most of the vids you see are demos or seminars if I come across any I will post them ...I doubt your gonna get any with the punch to the face tho. I can see where it could happen if the tech no applied properly but that just cause I got a rough idea of what they are doing and why they could get clocked


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> So, you are going to ignore what I actually said and instead make some predictions as if you know the first thing about me? Righto then.
> 
> You are right about the cage fight thing though, even though everything in the aikido syllabus is legal in there.  You won't see it because it doesn't work.




I am not making any accusations against you at all 

I have read all your posts and no matter what is said it bam bam Aikido is crap and this is wrong that is wrong the next is wrong ...I agreed with you on some things but jeez unless it basically happens in a cage fight and you can then pick the Aikido guy as a loser you are not going to be happy 

If your a total fighter then cool that is your business but jeex you pick holes in everything 

Have you ever taken ukemi from a high rank Aikidoka? and I don't mean just a BB I mean godan and above ?


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> Exactly this. Nobody is giving up their wrists like that. I've got thousands of hours of sparring against any style you can name, and it just doesn't happen, like ever.




Look you are just not getting Aikido at all you basically are trashing every tech saying no that doesn't work and this don't work but you know all the answers 

Your going on as if MMA is the ultimate art that cannot be defeated as it used in a cage. So what if every Aikido tech is legal (I dunno as I never really paid that much attention to cage fights or competition (at least not for 25 years) ) 

All I know is the techs do work yes there is flaws and it by no means the complete system but I am sure you will manage to find more fault


----------



## pdg

now disabled said:


> I think I know what he was meaning he wasn't trying to say lethal moves etc all he was trying to say was that if a person des not know how to breakfall then the potential to get hurt is high



Do it on pads then.

All the regular training I do is on solid floors - lino over concrete, wood over concrete, that sort of thing. I fall over pretty regularly because I'm willing to push the envelope a bit and do things I'm not capable of until I'm capable of them.

First maybe 5 times I tried a jumping reverse turning kick (spinning heel?) I fell on my **** (well, my arm too). Nothing broke and I'm still breathing.

If I couldn't fall I wouldn't ask someone to try putting me on the floor. Maybe it's not something I'm saying everyone should do, but I'm not everyone.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

now disabled said:


> it by no means the complete system ...


If you ask someone how he will use his MA style to deal with punch, kick, single leg, ..., he may tell you exactly what those strategies/counters are.

What are the Aikido strategies/counters to punch, kick, single leg, and ...?


----------



## Ryback

pdg said:


> Well, that really depends on how much you've bought into the "lethal moves" myth and how much control you have.
> 
> Power is nothing without control, and if you can't control it then you have no business practicing it. You might as well just carry a hammer and be done.
> 
> I can kick through (at least) a 4" concrete block - I can kick a person with the same technique at the same speed but with control and while they know they've been tagged it probably won't leave a mark.
> 
> That's not because they've magically trained their bones or skull to not fracture...
> 
> That's why it's called sparring and not just fighting.
> 
> If you can't stop (or at least seriously reduce) a technique at any point during it's application you choose, then imo you don't fully know that technique.
> 
> This is also where partners that are too compliant (or only resist in the right way) lead to false confidence in the moves and perpetuate the myth.
> 
> If someone gets told "if you don't react in this certain way then this move will break your wrist" then they'll react in that way. They'll resist as they're instructed for fear of damage.
> 
> But what if someone knows how to resist differently and can shut down that move every single time? What if they actually analyse it and come up with a better working defence? They get told they're not doing it right...
> 
> So, the only danger involved is from someone being so used to a certain reaction from "someone who knows how to receive" getting frustrated at their move suddenly not working and losing control.
> 
> Let's say a wrist lock - if I'm in a wrist lock and don't comply, it has the potential to seriously damage my wrist.
> 
> And if I choose to not let it get applied?


It's not a myth, it's true. Aikido techniques can be lethal and dangerous for the person at the receiving end. And sure, the Uke will get hurt if he doesn't know how to receive it, that's not an excuse for him to be compliant, the techniques are designed in order to hurt people, so we must know how to react in order to avoid injury while the technique is being applied full force. 
If someone decides to stop a technique from being applied, he can either try to counter it using another technique or try to tense up physically and try to outmuscle the technique. 
The first scenario is good because it gives both practitioners a ground of working and refining their skills. The second, I wouldn't recommend for anyone, it can result in major injury, Aikido techniques work and if they are done correctly can be destructive. I have seen my fair share of people getting injured because of ego, and because they thought they can resist an Aikido technique and it's not nice... 
Aikido's harmony is a technical skill, not a brainwashing philosophy. It means that we are relaxed, we blend with the attacker instead of colliding with him, for the simple reason that the way Aikido works, if done right, it's a more effective strategy than facing the opponent's power head on.
We are relaxed but not dead. We are soft but not weak. We are not brutal but we can have pretty brutal result for the attacker. And if one practices Aikido having practical application in mind, after spending some serious time studying the art he may unlock the truth behind Steven Seagal Sensei's words "the soft is the most severe".


----------



## now disabled

A vid from Tenshin Style


----------



## drop bear

Ryback said:


> I see your point and it's interesting. But wouldn't it be dangerous to try to apply techniques to persons who don't know how to receive them?
> I mean, one advantage of applying Aikido techniques to Aikido people is that they can use their ukemi skills in order to avoid injury.
> Many people think that ukemi is like falling on your own but it's not. Ukemi waza is an escape technique, meaning that you fall (only after feeling the real effect of the technique)in order to avoid broken bones, joint dislocations and other injuries... So in that sense, I can apply full force Aikido techniques because I know that the Uke can take it.
> Now, if I tried to do that to a Karate guy for instance, he could strike fast and strong but would he be able to take the effect of my technique without getting injured? That would make me hold back on my technique rendering the whole practice fake in my opinion...



You don't grind the technique on like a spaz.

You use some finesse.


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> Exactly this. Nobody is giving up their wrists like that. I've got thousands of hours of sparring against any style you can name, and it just doesn't happen, like ever.



It is low percentage.


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> It is low percentage.


Like getting hit by lightning while golfing low.


----------



## now disabled

you asked for Kaeshi waza  again they demos


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> I am not making any accusations against you at all
> 
> I have read all your posts and no matter what is said it bam bam Aikido is crap and this is wrong that is wrong the next is wrong ...I agreed with you on some things but jeez unless it basically happens in a cage fight and you can then pick the Aikido guy as a loser you are not going to be happy
> 
> If your a total fighter then cool that is your business but jeex you pick holes in everything
> 
> Have you ever taken ukemi from a high rank Aikidoka? and I don't mean just a BB I mean godan and above ?



Yes we have had several aikido BB of various ranks over the years, in fact there is one that comes by every tuesday. He would be the first to tell you you need a very special setup to get a wrist lock, much less a wristlock throw. They are super easy to defend.

And ya, ive let him throw me around, emphasis on let.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> Yes we have had several aikido BB of various ranks over the years, in fact there is one that comes by every tuesday. He would be the first to tell you you need a very special setup to get a wrist lock, much less a wristlock throw. They are super easy to defend.
> 
> And ya, ive let him throw me around, emphasis on let.




you are fixated on wrist locks lol 

good you let him fair enough you win ok your the complete warrior I bow to your superior skills and your knowledge


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Ryback said:


> "Aikido's harmony is a technical skill ...the soft is the most severe".


Can you still be soft if your opponent shakes you? Your softness just make your opponent's shaking works better for him.

Does Aikido use any "vibration force" that can be used to interrupt opponent's force?

The concept of "harmony" bother me. Why do you want your opponent to be harmony with you? The more that you can make your opponent feel uncomfortable (enharmonic), the better will be for yourself.


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> you are fixated on wrist locks lol
> 
> good you let him fair enough you win ok your the complete warrior I bow to your superior skills and your knowledge



I will conclude this discussion by referring you to the words of Mr Musashi in my sig. Believe as you will.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> I will conclude this discussion by referring you to the words of Mr Musashi in my sig. Believe as you will.



Don't you dare quote that at me are you now claiming your a sword saint too ???????????????? and going to shoot holes there


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Can you still be soft if your opponent shakes you? Your softness just make your opponent's shaking works better for him.
> 
> Does Aikido use any "vibration force" that can be used to interrupt opponent's force?



Not that I know of


----------



## pdg

Ryback said:


> It's not a myth, it's true. Aikido techniques can be lethal and dangerous for the person at the receiving end. And sure, the Uke will get hurt if he doesn't know how to receive it, that's not an excuse for him to be compliant, the techniques are designed in order to hurt people, so we must know how to react in order to avoid injury while the technique is being applied full force.
> If someone decides to stop a technique from being applied, he can either try to counter it using another technique or try to tense up physically and try to outmuscle the technique.
> The first scenario is good because it gives both practitioners a ground of working and refining their skills. The second, I wouldn't recommend for anyone, it can result in major injury, Aikido techniques work and if they are done correctly can be destructive. I have seen my fair share of people getting injured because of ego, and because they thought they can resist an Aikido technique and it's not nice...
> Aikido's harmony is a technical skill, not a brainwashing philosophy. It means that we are relaxed, we blend with the attacker instead of colliding with him, for the simple reason that the way Aikido works, if done right, it's a more effective strategy than facing the opponent's power head on.
> We are relaxed but not dead. We are soft but not weak. We are not brutal but we can have pretty brutal result for the attacker. And if one practices Aikido having practical application in mind, after spending some serious time studying the art he may unlock the truth behind Steven Seagal Sensei's words "the soft is the most severe".



See the way I read that is you saying that only aikido can work against aikido, anything else is ego and attempt at muscle.

Can you, in any way, accept that other techniques and skill sets can work against aikido and that I'm not coming from an ego perspective?

If you can't, then I'm afraid I have no choice but to label you as one of the brainwashed...

Say I punch and you flow with that, but then I'm able to redirect your energy, which was already added to my initial energy in a direction you're not expecting.

That is of course assuming you're able to flow with my style of punching in the first place, which neither of us actually know.

You won't be able to use my over commitment for a start, because that doesn't happen.

Maybe you can work with me retracting my hand, but that could bring you straight into my elbow.

And if that misses, I bet you didn't even notice my knee looking sternly at your solar plexus...

Thing is, I don't know if that would work against you, and you sure as shinola don't know if you can work against me.

But, judging your previous comments about working with other arts, I bet you can confidently state that you could, because you've had someone pretend to do something similar (even though they don't actually know what they're doing).


----------



## now disabled

Yoshinkan Aikido


----------



## now disabled

Yeah he was the one that made RFK's bodyguard lget a red face back in the 60's


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> Yoshinkan Aikido



Those two guys in the Gi's deserve an oscar;or at least a job interview with Vince McMahon


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> Those two guys in the Gi's deserve an oscar;or at least a job interview with Vince McMahon



That says it all you now disrespecting Shioda ... well I wish you the best as that really says it all


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> That says it all you now disrespecting Shioda ... well I wish you the best as that really says it all



That clip is only a hairs breadth away from no touch knockouts and chi balls. Call it disrespect if you like, because no, I don't respect fakery. Not one bit.

I have a D word for you too.

Duped.


----------



## pdg

@now disabled 

Those videos you posted, there are "TKD" techniques littered through them...

Tenshin - yep, those are valid TKD blocks. I know they work, because I use them. If really necessary (and if I feel like it) I could put a name to each time stamp. Except for the thumb/finger grabbing - you'll not be finding me giving those to you. But for fun, let's say you get them and try to bend them back. I'll be having that wrist and going backwards with your bend, and I'll be getting a kick toward the back of your head.

The Kaeshi waza demo - nope, sorry, I in no way attack or react like that. Anyone wants me to believe that works is going to have to do it to me. I'll sign a disclaimer and everything.

Yoshinkan - well, I've seen other videos with it being performed in a way that I can believe works. That video is not one of them, by a very long chalk. Based on that video taken in total isolation, I want to call him George...


----------



## Martial D

pdg said:


> @now disabled
> 
> Those videos you posted, there are "TKD" techniques littered through them...
> 
> Tenshin - yep, those are valid TKD blocks. I know they work, because I use them. If really necessary (and if I feel like it) I could put a name to each time stamp. Except for the thumb/finger grabbing - you'll not be finding me giving those to you. But for fun, let's say you get them and try to bend them back. I'll be having that wrist and going backwards with your bend, and I'll be getting a kick toward the back of your head.
> 
> The Kaeshi waza demo - nope, sorry, I in no way attack or react like that. Anyone wants me to believe that works is going to have to do it to me. I'll sign a disclaimer and everything.
> 
> Yoshinkan - well, I've seen other videos with it being performed in a way that I can believe works. That video is not one of them, by a very long chalk. Based on that video taken in total isolation, I want to call him George...


I know right? There are literally parts of that video where the Aki guys are flipping themselves around while the sensei isnt even touching them. Belief is a hellofa drug.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> That clip is only a hairs breadth away from no touch knockouts and chi balls. Call it disrespect if you like, because no, I don't respect fakery. Not one bit.
> 
> I have a D word for you too.
> 
> Duped.



Well I shall avividly watch for you to reach the heights that Shioda did and then and only then sir will you have gained the right to show that kind of disrespect as that is what it is


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> Well I shall avividly watch for you to reach the heights that Shioda did and then and only then sir will you have gained the right to show that kind of disrespect as that is what it is


But I'm not in the showmanship business, so that will never happen. In terms of martial arts I only care what works, and I train diligently to that effect every single day. I spar with live opponents every single day. I would have 0 interest in having a bunch of guys throw themselves around as i dont even touch them to make me look like a superhero.


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> @now disabled
> 
> Those videos you posted, there are "TKD" techniques littered through them...
> 
> Tenshin - yep, those are valid TKD blocks. I know they work, because I use them. If really necessary (and if I feel like it) I could put a name to each time stamp. Except for the thumb/finger grabbing - you'll not be finding me giving those to you. But for fun, let's say you get them and try to bend them back. I'll be having that wrist and going backwards with your bend, and I'll be getting a kick toward the back of your head.
> 
> The Kaeshi waza demo - nope, sorry, I in no way attack or react like that. Anyone wants me to believe that works is going to have to do it to me. I'll sign a disclaimer and everything.
> 
> Yoshinkan - well, I've seen other videos with it being performed in a way that I can believe works. That video is not one of them, by a very long chalk. Based on that video taken in total isolation, I want to call him George...




It was the first one I came across 

Kaeshi waza vids ok I accept your view point 

I am sure that yo can see the blocks


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

now disabled said:


> That says it all you now disrespecting Shioda ... well I wish you the best as that really says it all


When my long fist teacher's teacher used Samarra sword to cut on his face without bleeding, people dis-respect him for doing that fake demo. It has nothing to do with his MA skill.

If I put up this clip, will you respect this person?


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> But I'm not in the showmanship business, so that will never happen. In terms of martial arts I only care what works, and I train diligently to that effect every single day. I spar with live opponents every single day. I would have 0 interest in having a bunch of guys throw themselves around as i dont even touch them to make me look like a superhero.



Oh grow up your as I said the super warrior you got the title you won lol


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When my long fist teacher's teacher used Samarra sword to cut on his face without bleeding, people dis-respect him for doing that fake demo. It has nothing to do with his MA skill.
> 
> If I put up this clip, will you respect this person?




I did not say you disrespected anyone my apologies if you think I said that


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> Those two guys in the Gi's deserve an oscar;or at least a job interview with Vince McMahon


Trying to demo more that one can truly do is the problem.

A demo is 1/2 fake and 1/2 real. The 1/2 fake part is your opponent will intentionally give you that opportunity. The 1/2 real part is you have to finish yourself. If your opponent help you to finish, that by definition is 100% fake demo. At 2.18 of that clip, both of his opponents can release their grips if they want to. By definition, that part of demo is 100% fake.


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> Oh grow up your as I said the super warrior you got the title you won lol


Hey man, you're the one focusing on me rather than what I'm saying. The whole 'maturity' angle isn't boding well for you.

SO lets try that. Are you claiming there are not points in that video you posted where guys are flipping without even being touched? And if those points exist, what does that tell you about what is going on in that video?


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Trying to demo more that one can truly do is the problem.



Shioda Gozo is no fake


----------



## Martial D

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Trying to demo more that one can truly do is the problem.
> 
> A demo is 1/2 fake and 1/2 real. The 1/2 fake part is your opponent will intentionally give you that opportunity. The 1/2 real part is you have to finish yourself. If your opponent help you to finish, that by definition is 100% fake demo. At 2.18 of that clip, both of his opponents can release their grips if they want to. By definition, that part of demo is 100% fake.


I agree. But what of the parts where the man demonstrating neither begins nor ends a technique, like say  as just one example near the end of that vid where he is on all fours, and his students are running at him flipping over his back. The guy doesn't even move. Does that count as finishing a technique?


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> Hey man, you're the one focusing on me rather than what I'm saying. The whole 'maturity' angle isn't boding well for you.
> 
> SO lets try that. Are you claiming there are not points in that video you posted where guys are flipping without even being touched? And if those points exist, what does that tell you about what is going on in that video?



Sir I am not focusing on you at all you are entitled to believe as you will and want and let us leave it there ok


----------



## pdg

now disabled said:


> It was the first one I came across
> 
> Kaeshi waza vids ok I accept your view point
> 
> I am sure that yo can see the blocks



This is the thing, I've never said that the art can't work.

I've never said any art doesn't work (except no touch knockout style, I mean, really).

The problem is there's so much pure crap around many arts that it's difficult for some people to see the wood for the trees.

As an example, I saw a guy on the beach while I was on holiday doing the 'health' tai chi thing. So I stole something...

My instructor asked what it was I did when I was suddenly getting a load of head strikes in - so I offered a choice.

"I can tell the truth and tell you I'm using a tai chi move, or I can say I decided to try a combo of jab - down parry to drop their guard - circular backfist..."

There can be value in almost anything if you're willing to see it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

If we compare the following 2 clips (different throwing art systems), which demo will look more realistic? Why?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

now disabled said:


> Shioda Gozo is no fake


I'm not saying his MA skill is fake. I'm saying his demo is fake. Should a good MA person give a fake demo? IMO, he should not.

The moment that someone puts "empty force - no touch throw" label on you, your lifetime reputation will be ruined and there will be no recovery after that.


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> This is the thing, I've never said that the art can't work.
> 
> I've never said any art doesn't work (except no touch knockout style, I mean, really).
> 
> The problem is there's so much pure crap around many arts that it's difficult for some people to see the wood for the trees.
> 
> As an example, I saw a guy on the beach while I was on holiday doing the 'health' tai chi thing. So I stole something...
> 
> My instructor asked what it was I did when I was suddenly getting a load of head strikes in - so I offered a choice.
> 
> "I can tell the truth and tell you I'm using a tai chi move, or I can say I decided to try a combo of jab - down parry to drop their guard - circular backfist..."
> 
> There can be value in almost anything if you're willing to see it.



I never thought you did say it didn't work lol

Yeah the no touch thing as you call it is what does get people talking lol it a concept I think is the best way of describing it some go that route others don't actually the bit before his uke did the break fall and yes he did do the flip was actually the exercise the flip was done in my estimatio out o respect or his master and I guess his presence 

I studied two styles o Aikido and I did the senshusei course and believe me that was no walk in the park


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The moment that someone puts "empty force - no touch throw" label on you, your lifetime reputation will be ruined and there will be no recovery after that



That is you sir that is placing that label and his reputation is very much intact and he passed on in 1994


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> Like getting hit by lightning while golfing low.



Like there is always something better. I mean if I want to break stuff. It is generally easier just to elbow them in the face and be done with it.

If I want to holistically subdue an attacker without harming him  using his force against him. I wrestle.


----------



## now disabled

drop bear said:


> Like there is always something better. I mean if I want to break stuff. It is generally easier just to elbow them in the face and be done with it.
> 
> If I want to holistically subdue an attacker without harming him  using his force against him. I wrestle.



I ain't gonna start an argument but where in Aikido does it say that as you put it an elbow to the face is not permitted ? 

This peace and love and non violent thing that seems to run and run is really not true it is wholly misinterpreted imo


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

now disabled said:


> That is you sir that is placing that label and his reputation is very much intact and he passed on in 1994


Nobody forced him to give "no touch throw" demo. He put that label on himself.

From 0.04 - 0.22.


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Nobody forced him to give "no touch throw" demo. He put that label on himself.



You are missing the point of that part and unless you know the ins and outs then it best left 

and as he has passed on then history will judge him like it will us all


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The key word is "don't know how to turn off".
> 
> From a wrestler's point of view, I love to deal with "full resisting" opponent. I will know that my opponent will resist against everything that I try to do on him. When I pull, he will pull too. When I push, he will also push.
> 
> Comparing a "full resisting" opponent with a "full yielding" opponent, the "full yielding" opponent may give me more trouble. When I pull, he will push. When I push, he will pull.
> 
> I can take advantage on both "full resisting" and "full yielding' opponent.
> 
> The most difficult opponent to deal with is those who can "vibrate his body". No matter what you do on him, his body vibration can cancel out all your force.


That's not how I'd define "fully resisting". Fully resisting is just using all your tools to stop the other person. Sometimes that means pushing against a push, sometimes it means pushing against a pull.


----------



## pdg

now disabled said:


> the bit before his uke did the break fall and yes he did do the flip was actually the exercise the flip was done in my estimatio out o respect or his master and I guess his presence



The part that really got me was where he stood on the other guy's foot and completely disabled him.

Yeah, like no.

A person has a weight, that weight is their mass being acted on by gravity. That cannot be changed at will. Expecting me to believe that is akin to asking me to believe in fairy magic. If I can lift someone, I can lift them. They can possibly make getting a grip harder with body positioning and the like, but they can't change their weight. Someone that size stands on my foot I'll either just take my foot from under them or simply pick them up by the ears and put them elsewhere.

Oh, and I don't buy the (possible) explanation of him targeting a nerve cluster either - for a few reasons.

One of them is I had that nerve cluster moved following a plasma mortar attack during the battle at owyab'stard valley in 3163.

Another is - I live somewhat near Salisbury - I haven't survived this long by having such susceptible nerves...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ryback said:


> I see your point and it's interesting. But wouldn't it be dangerous to try to apply techniques to persons who don't know how to receive them?
> I mean, one advantage of applying Aikido techniques to Aikido people is that they can use their ukemi skills in order to avoid injury.
> Many people think that ukemi is like falling on your own but it's not. Ukemi waza is an escape technique, meaning that you fall (only after feeling the real effect of the technique)in order to avoid broken bones, joint dislocations and other injuries... So in that sense, I can apply full force Aikido techniques because I know that the Uke can take it.
> Now, if I tried to do that to a Karate guy for instance, he could strike fast and strong but would he be able to take the effect of my technique without getting injured? That would make me hold back on my technique rendering the whole practice fake in my opinion...


Not nearly so dangerous as generally thought. There are some you'd have to abandon because you'd feel them locking up with no "uke give" happening. But that'd be useful feedback for you. Some of the ones you expect to be dangerous you'll find awfully hard to get to, and others you'll find almost anyone can manage some kind of useful ukemi from them if you are controlled in your application. The idea isn't that you go in at 100% speed and intensity - I have rarely done that. It's often quite useful to go in and do what I call "light, technical" sparring against folks from other styles. Everybody keeps it under 75% speed (sometimes under 50% speed), and nobody applies anything fully, even strikes. You'll still learn a ton if you really pay attention and don't get caught up in the "I hit you! No you didn't!" arguments.


----------



## pdg

now disabled said:


> and as he has passed on then history will judge him like it will us all



I'm not interesting enough to be judged by history - it's now or never


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> Like there is always something better. I mean if I want to break stuff. It is generally easier just to elbow them in the face and be done with it.
> 
> If I want to holistically subdue an attacker without harming him  using his force against him. I wrestle.


Or jitz them. Nothing like getting a dude in a mounted crucifix and just letting them squirm around helplessly a bit.


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> The part that really got me was where he stood on the other guy's foot and completely disabled him



That is actually not a lie lol it hurts like hell trust me and it a really good way of opening


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

now disabled said:


> You are missing the point of that part and unless you know the ins and outs then it best left
> 
> and as he has passed on then history will judge him like it will us all


What did I miss?

I'll pay $10,000 to anybody who can do that to me (But that person has to pay me $1000 if he can't move me without touching).


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What did I miss?
> 
> I'll pay $10,000 to anybody who can do that to me.



You missed Aikido and some of the philosophy behind it and I am not explaining just to get shot down again and again


----------



## pdg

now disabled said:


> That is actually not a lie lol it hurts like hell trust me and it a really good way of opening



Until someone can prove that to me by actually doing it I'll have to respectfully disagree.

I've had a horse stand on my foot - it hurt, but I didn't spaz out like the guy in the video.

I've had a long wheelbase land rover roll over my foot, honestly didn't hurt much at all, but I couldn't move my foot.

A (any?) person standing on my foot? It might induce a momentary stumble, I really can't see it doing more.


----------



## Martial D




----------



## Kung Fu Wang

now disabled said:


> You missed Aikido and some of the philosophy behind it and I am not explaining just to get shot down again and again


I truly don't care what philosophy that Aikido may use, fake is still fake. All MA styles have fake demo. It's very sad indeed.


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I truly don't care what philosophy that Aikido may use, fake is still fake.



your entitled to your view as is the next person


----------



## Martial D

pdg said:


> Until someone can prove that to me by actually doing it I'll have to respectfully disagree.
> 
> I've had a horse stand on my foot - it hurt, but I didn't spaz out like the guy in the video.
> 
> I've had a long wheelbase land rover roll over my foot, honestly didn't hurt much at all, but I couldn't move my foot.
> 
> A (any?) person standing on my foot? It might induce a momentary stumble, I really can't see it doing more.


People try to stand on my foot every day. When you're in close it's a good way to land hooks and uppercuts,(pinning their lead foot) but it doesn't hurt. Even foot stomps aren't going to stop anyone, although they do hurt a bit.


----------



## pdg

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I truly don't care what philosophy that Aikido may use, fake is still fake. All MA styles have fake demo. It's very sad indeed.



What the hell did I just watch part of???


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Aikido may pay too much emphasize on the wrist lock. You can counter a wrist lock by
> 
> - raising your elbow, or
> - turning your body.
> 
> The head lock, shoulder lock, elbow lock are much more difficult to counter.
> 
> There are
> 
> - wrist gate,
> - elbow gate,
> - shoulder gate.
> 
> Since the wrist gate is so far away from your body. When you apply the wrist gate lock/throw, you may give your opponent too much free space to counter.
> 
> As far as the efficiency,
> 
> shoulder lock > elbow lock > wrist lock


In my experience, most Aikido schools don't put undue emphasis on wrist gate. They tend to work all three, perhaps the least emphasis at elbow gate, as I understand it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> I'm saying you are more likely to beat a man with haymakers than to beat him if you think a real life opponent will behave anything like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't think aikido is useless as a whole(for fighting), just as commonly trained. Real people don't run at you chin first with their arms permanently outstretched. If that's how you train, thats what your mind and body are conditioned to.My money would be on the haymaker guy.


And I agree with you. The aiki techniques I know (some of which, at least, are also in Aikido) don't require that - it's the way to train the "purest" versions of those techniques, but only that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In the following clip, one wrong assumption has been made. When A grabs on B's wrist, A should have a plan. The moment that B tries to deal with A's wrist grab, A should move to his next step. In other words, when A grabs on B, A is 1 step ahead of B. To assume that B can counter A before A can execute his plan can be unrealistic.


I didn't see anything in that video that is contrary to your assertion. It's the basic version of the technique. You don't teach single-leg by teaching what to do when they counter single-leg. You teach single-leg, then teach what to do when they counter it. In the Aikido mindset, you start your technique when it is available - when they give you what you need for it. If they change that, you proceed to the next available technique. As for being able to counter before he completes his plan, that happens all the time, in all arts. That's what counters are.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! To assume that A grabs on B's wrist without a "plan" is unrealistic.
> 
> Here is an example. When A grabs on B's wrist, A's "plan" is to
> 
> - guide B's arm away from A's entering path,
> - so A can reach to B's head.
> 
> There will be no time for B to react. No matter what B may try to counter, A already release that wrist grab and moves to the head.


So, you're saying there's no way to counter a plan? I find that difficult to reconcile with experience.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> So, you are going to ignore what I actually said and instead make some predictions as if you know the first thing about me? Righto then.
> 
> You are right about the cage fight thing though, even though everything in the aikido syllabus is legal in there.  You won't see it because it doesn't work.


Someone actually posted a video from an MMA fight that included a very nice example of an Aikido technique. Unfortunately, I don't know the Japanese name (in NGA, we'd call it an inside 2-Hand Wheel Throw, but nobody else does).


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> So, you're saying there's no way to counter a plan? I find that difficult to reconcile with experience.



I agree with this, especially in the context of that video.

If someone grabs my left wrist, then whatever their plan I'm doing something with my right arm, or a leg.

They've essentially just tied up both their arms and one of mine - I could even go in for a headbutt there and them planning to wrap my neck isn't stopping that.

Even if they're only grabbing with the intent to release, I'm not going to stand around and wait to see what happens next before deciding on a counter - I'll take what's open.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Do it on pads then.
> 
> All the regular training I do is on solid floors - lino over concrete, wood over concrete, that sort of thing. I fall over pretty regularly because I'm willing to push the envelope a bit and do things I'm not capable of until I'm capable of them.
> 
> First maybe 5 times I tried a jumping reverse turning kick (spinning heel?) I fell on my **** (well, my arm too). Nothing broke and I'm still breathing.
> 
> If I couldn't fall I wouldn't ask someone to try putting me on the floor. Maybe it's not something I'm saying everyone should do, but I'm not everyone.


It's not about the surface. Part of ukemi is using the fall to escape the lock of a technique as nage proceeds with the motion. If nage continues (without change) and uke doesn't do the escape (usually in the form of a breakfall) there can be damage. Of course, nage - especially high-ranking ones - can tell pretty quickly their uke isn't escaping and can make the necessary adjustment to avoid that.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> And I agree with you. The aiki techniques I know (some of which, at least, are also in Aikido) don't require that - it's the way to train the "purest" versions of those techniques, but only that.


 I get that. Again, as you know, I don't take issue with the style, just the way it's trained...and that applies to all arts and styles, not just this one. Hell not just styles, but almost any activity. You just can't learn how to do something without experiencing it in realistic conditions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you ask someone how he will use his MA style to deal with punch, kick, single leg, ..., he may tell you exactly what those strategies/counters are.
> 
> What are the Aikido strategies/counters to punch, kick, single leg, and ...?


You'd have to put something after that "and..." to expect an actual response. There are reasonable Aikido answers to punches (which ones?), basic kicks (which ones), and even single-leg. Some of them wouldn't be my first choice, but they are reasonable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Like getting hit by lightning while golfing low.


Not nearly that low.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Can you still be soft if your opponent shakes you? Your softness just make your opponent's shaking works better for him.
> 
> Does Aikido use any "vibration force" that can be used to interrupt opponent's force?
> 
> The concept of "harmony" bother me. Why do you want your opponent to be harmony with you? The more that you can make your opponent feel uncomfortable (enharmonic), the better will be for yourself.


The physical concept that's expressed as "harmony" is pretty close to the basic concept in Judo. It's just about not opposing force, but using it as input to work with.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ryback said:


> It's not a myth, it's true. Aikido techniques can be lethal and dangerous for the person at the receiving end. And sure, the Uke will get hurt if he doesn't know how to receive it, that's not an excuse for him to be compliant, the techniques are designed in order to hurt people, so we must know how to react in order to avoid injury while the technique is being applied full force.
> If someone decides to stop a technique from being applied, he can either try to counter it using another technique or try to tense up physically and try to outmuscle the technique.
> The first scenario is good because it gives both practitioners a ground of working and refining their skills. The second, I wouldn't recommend for anyone, it can result in major injury, Aikido techniques work and if they are done correctly can be destructive. I have seen my fair share of people getting injured because of ego, and because they thought they can resist an Aikido technique and it's not nice...
> Aikido's harmony is a technical skill, not a brainwashing philosophy. It means that we are relaxed, we blend with the attacker instead of colliding with him, for the simple reason that the way Aikido works, if done right, it's a more effective strategy than facing the opponent's power head on.
> We are relaxed but not dead. We are soft but not weak. We are not brutal but we can have pretty brutal result for the attacker. And if one practices Aikido having practical application in mind, after spending some serious time studying the art he may unlock the truth behind Steven Seagal Sensei's words "the soft is the most severe".


I'll just point out that you've said there are only two ways to counter: tension and a technique. There are probably a dozen different counters to any given technique. Some of them are as simple as extending in a direction that takes the technique out of the circle. Others involve purposely shifting weight to change the circle once nage has taken center. They vary by technique, but the vast majority don't involve adding strength to overpower the technique. In fact, that's the easiest counter to counter-counter.


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> I agree with this, especially in the context of that video.
> 
> If someone grabs my left wrist, then whatever their plan I'm doing something with my right arm, or a leg.
> 
> They've essentially just tied up both their arms and one of mine - I could even go in for a headbutt there and them planning to wrap my neck isn't stopping that.
> 
> Even if they're only grabbing with the intent to release, I'm not going to stand around and wait to see what happens next before deciding on a counter - I'll take what's open.



Are you talking about the NY Aikikai vid ? if so it was a pure demo as in illustration not anything more


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> In my experience, most Aikido schools don't put undue emphasis on wrist gate. They tend to work all three, perhaps the least emphasis at elbow gate, as I understand it.



can I ask what you mean by elbow gate ?


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> It's not about the surface. Part of ukemi is using the fall to escape the lock of a technique as nage proceeds with the motion. If nage continues (without change) and uke doesn't do the escape (usually in the form of a breakfall) there can be damage. Of course, nage - especially high-ranking ones - can tell pretty quickly their uke isn't escaping and can make the necessary adjustment to avoid that.



Which is where my "power is nothing without control" comes into play.

And what about the instances where someone can actually use the mechanics of "being locked" to their advantage? Or being able to avoid getting there in the first place?

I'm not saying I can necessarily do either, but I reckon I could stand a decent chance with at least some of it.

And if I mess up that chance, the person having control of themselves enough to release or adjust is exactly the same as me pulling back on a kick when I notice it's not been seen heading toward a face...

Saying (not that I've seen you say it) that if done properly the techniques will work 100% of the time against any opponent is incredibly closed minded - having no notion of possible failure makes you more likely to fail


----------



## pdg

now disabled said:


> Are you talking about the NY Aikikai vid ? if so it was a pure demo as in illustration not anything more



Follow the quotes back - it's whatever video led to the comments (you can follow the quotes by clicking the little up arrow at the top of the quote).


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Someone actually posted a video from an MMA fight that included a very nice example of an Aikido technique. Unfortunately, I don't know the Japanese name (in NGA, we'd call it an inside 2-Hand Wheel Throw, but nobody else does).



You may be meaning Kaiten nage? tenchi nage


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Shioda Gozo is no fake


Shioda had a very high level of skill, but every demo contains some showmanship - some bit of "fakery", if you will. How much varies by demo, and not necessarily by the skill level or efficacy of those involved.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> I agree. But what of the parts where the man demonstrating neither begins nor ends a technique, like say  as just one example near the end of that vid where he is on all fours, and his students are running at him flipping over his back. The guy doesn't even move. Does that count as finishing a technique?


Unfortunately, I get an error when I try to watch that video, so I can't comment. I'd be interested in seeing what your'e talking about.


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> Saying (not that I've seen you say it) that if done properly the techniques will work 100% of the time against any opponent is incredibly closed minded - having no notion of possible failure makes you more likely to fail



Like you when you say you would do this or that tech at whatever juncture then an Aikidoka would to if one thing is not working adapt to another just an example if the famous Kotegaeshi not there then go for udekime nage and if not that then just straight hiji waza so it not just one tech and if that not working it walk away time Aikido has many many techs that can flow from one to another it not all throws lol oh and just for good measure atemi can be added (shock horror lol)


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Shioda had a very high level of skill, but every demo contains some showmanship - some bit of "fakery", if you will. How much varies by demo, and not necessarily by the skill level or efficacy of those involved.



Oh he was a showman he was one of the few when doing a demo used to try and get te audience laughing it was just his style


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Nobody forced him to give "no touch throw" demo. He put that label on himself.
> 
> From 0.04 - 0.22.


That's not "no touch" - he's grabbing sleeves and stomping feet. The uke is just overreacting to the input.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> The part that really got me was where he stood on the other guy's foot and completely disabled him.
> 
> Yeah, like no.
> 
> A person has a weight, that weight is their mass being acted on by gravity. That cannot be changed at will. Expecting me to believe that is akin to asking me to believe in fairy magic. If I can lift someone, I can lift them. They can possibly make getting a grip harder with body positioning and the like, but they can't change their weight. Someone that size stands on my foot I'll either just take my foot from under them or simply pick them up by the ears and put them elsewhere.
> 
> Oh, and I don't buy the (possible) explanation of him targeting a nerve cluster either - for a few reasons.
> 
> One of them is I had that nerve cluster moved following a plasma mortar attack during the battle at owyab'stard valley in 3163.
> 
> Another is - I live somewhat near Salisbury - I haven't survived this long by having such susceptible nerves...


I don't know, maybe that guy's toe is like mine. If you step on my left big toe right at the main joint, you can drop me like a stone. Maybe he just picks uke with bad feet.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> What the hell did I just watch part of???


The time I just wasted watching that is entirely your fault. After that reply, I had to see. Damn you.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Unfortunately, I get an error when I try to watch that video, so I can't comment. I'd be interested in seeing what your'e talking about.



It where shioda is doing the same as he did to RFK's bodyguard he also did Kokyo dosa and the bit he is meaning is the bit he did in every demo where he is in seiza bows down and they go over the top of him


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> I agree with this, especially in the context of that video.
> 
> If someone grabs my left wrist, then whatever their plan I'm doing something with my right arm, or a leg.
> 
> They've essentially just tied up both their arms and one of mine - I could even go in for a headbutt there and them planning to wrap my neck isn't stopping that.
> 
> Even if they're only grabbing with the intent to release, I'm not going to stand around and wait to see what happens next before deciding on a counter - I'll take what's open.


So your plan can't be interfered, but theirs can? I'm confused.

[Edit: Hit post before I finished.]

Seriously, though, we all have plans. And the other guy has his. We're all trying to execute ours and interfere with theirs. Someone's going to win, and it's a toss-up whether it's because they have a better plan or are better at interfering with the other guy's.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> I don't know, maybe that guy's toe is like mine. If you step on my left big toe right at the main joint, you can drop me like a stone. Maybe he just picks uke with bad feet.



That was another shioda party piece he did have a few lol


----------



## pdg

now disabled said:


> Like you when you say you would do this or that tech at whatever juncture then an Aikidoka would to if one thing is not working adapt to another just an example if the famous Kotegaeshi not there then go for udekime nage and if not that then just straight hiji waza so it not just one tech and if that not working it walk away time Aikido has many many techs that can flow from one to another it not all throws lol oh and just for good measure atemi can be added (shock horror lol)



Saying and doing are two separate things.

Like set drills and free sparring.

That's why I have the desire to work with practitioners of other arts - not because I feel my chosen system is lacking, and not to prove it's 'better', but to look at how I can apply things differently.

It can go both ways too - if I can see how to make a mash of tkd moves into a lock, or a throw, or a compliance technique, then the other person could see where they can use a portion of one of their techniques as an effective block or strike that they may not have realised before. That in turn could open up avenues previously unexplored.

I'm not on about changing a way of doing things, because I don't believe a reapplication is changing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> I get that. Again, as you know, I don't take issue with the style, just the way it's trained...and that applies to all arts and styles, not just this one. Hell not just styles, but almost any activity. You just can't learn how to do something without experiencing it in realistic conditions.


And I take the same issue. I see some value in those exercises, but if the point is to teach fighting application they should be a minor part of training. That perhaps changes if everyone involved already has a fighting foundation and is likely to tinker and test outside class.


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> Saying and doing are two separate things.
> 
> Like set drills and free sparring.
> 
> That's why I have the desire to work with practitioners of other arts - not because I feel my chosen system is lacking, and not to prove it's 'better', but to look at how I can apply things differently.
> 
> It can go both ways too - if I can see how to make a mash of tkd moves into a lock, or a throw, or a compliance technique, then the other person could see where they can use a portion of one of their techniques as an effective block or strike that they may not have realised before. That in turn could open up avenues previously unexplored.
> 
> I'm not on about changing a way of doing things, because I don't believe a reapplication is changing.




Yes there are set drills in Aikido and in truth those are the vids that are out there but that not the full story really but as you say saying and doing are to diff things


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> can I ask what you mean by elbow gate ?


If I understood KFW's usage, it's about distance. So, what techniques attack in the area/range of the elbow. What I've seen of Aikido (decidedly not nearly all of it), there's more at the wrist and shoulder/head than at the elbow.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> So your plan can't be interfered, but theirs can? I'm confused.
> 
> [Edit: Hit post before I finished.]
> 
> Seriously, though, we all have plans. And the other guy has his. We're all trying to execute ours and interfere with theirs. Someone's going to win, and it's a toss-up whether it's because they have a better plan or are better at interfering with the other guy's.



Ah, I've found an edge 

As far as I'm concerned just like the spoon, there is no plan.

How can you interfere with my plan if even I don't know what it is until I do it?

His plan: grab the wrist, hit and release the wrist, go for the neck.

My plan: erm, hit something? Grab something? Lick his cheek to distract him then bite his shin? Point and say "look at that kitten" then poke him in the eye?

Quite honestly, the only time I ever actually plan is for set partner drills where both parties agree a script and work with it.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> If I understood KFW's usage, it's about distance. So, what techniques attack in the area/range of the elbow. What I've seen of Aikido (decidedly not nearly all of it), there's more at the wrist and shoulder/head than at the elbow.



We may be at cross purposes but Ikkyo the first tech is the elbow and it is one that O'sensei was really hot on as in I was told (second hand or maybe third ) that he said you could spend a lifetime on just Ikkyo and still not get it right


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Which is where my "power is nothing without control" comes into play.


Precisely.



> And what about the instances where someone can actually use the mechanics of "being locked" to their advantage? Or being able to avoid getting there in the first place?


 A hard lock is hard to make useful - it alters structure too much. As for avoiding getting there, the real utility of aiki flow work is that it tends to improve the reaction time to get to the next technique when this happens.



> I'm not saying I can necessarily do either, but I reckon I could stand a decent chance with at least some of it.


Anyone with grappling experience knows some ways to avoid locks, if they've used it at all in live work. The principles of those counters are the same for many Aikido locks and throws. The trick (against someone who flows really well) is managing to stay ahead of them in that game.



> And if I mess up that chance, the person having control of themselves enough to release or adjust is exactly the same as me pulling back on a kick when I notice it's not been seen heading toward a face...


Pretty much the same. Different mechanics, but the same principle.



> Saying (not that I've seen you say it) that if done properly the techniques will work 100% of the time against any opponent is incredibly closed minded - having no notion of possible failure makes you more likely to fail


Nothing ever works 100% of the time, except restomping the groin.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> You may be meaning Kaiten nage? tenchi nage


2-Hand Wheel Throw would be a variation on kaiten nage. I'm not sure if you'd consider an inside 2HWT to be a variation of that technique. We call it that because it's the closest "named" technique we have, visually speaking. The principles aren't really the same, at all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> That was another shioda party piece he did have a few lol


He liked to entertain at his demos - I've seen that in every demo and teaching video I've ever seen of him. You have to take that into account when evaluating his visible work, because some of what he (and his uke) did was just to entertain.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> The trick (against someone who flows really well) is managing to stay ahead of them in that game.



Yup as Aikido should be flowing and fluid not blocky and mechanical hence the blending and the feel


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> 2-Hand Wheel Throw would be a variation on kaiten nage. I'm not sure if you'd consider an inside 2HWT to be a variation of that technique. We call it that because it's the closest "named" technique we have, visually speaking. The principles aren't really the same, at all.



I'd have to see it lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Ah, I've found an edge
> 
> As far as I'm concerned just like the spoon, there is no plan.
> 
> How can you interfere with my plan if even I don't know what it is until I do it?
> 
> His plan: grab the wrist, hit and release the wrist, go for the neck.
> 
> My plan: erm, hit something? Grab something? Lick his cheek to distract him then bite his shin? Point and say "look at that kitten" then poke him in the eye?
> 
> Quite honestly, the only time I ever actually plan is for set partner drills where both parties agree a script and work with it.


That's rather how I see things - the "plan" isn't something I'm consciously aware of until I'm in the middle of it. Sometimes, in attack drills (random attacks, ends after a single response), I pick something I want to look for a chance to do, but that's about as far as I get. That means the "planning" is actually building sequences in training. In strikes, that's working combos (and maybe even kata, if they contain useful sequences). In grappling, that's practicing a guard pass or sweep, or the full-sequence kote gaeshi. those are all "plans", but they don't have to be reassembled in the same order. I might enter for an arm drag and end up with a kote gaeshi, because they prevented the arm drag.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> He liked to entertain at his demos - I've seen that in every demo and teaching video I've ever seen of him. You have to take that into account when evaluating his visible work, because some of what he (and his uke) did was just to entertain.



I saw him live an well he liked playing to the crowd but when he was in the dojo that was different ... I only saw him teach I never was on the mat with him and he was old when I saw him but it was still there you could feel his presence if that makes any sense


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> That's rather how I see things - the "plan" isn't something I'm consciously aware of until I'm in the middle of it. Sometimes, in attack drills (random attacks, ends after a single response), I pick something I want to look for a chance to do, but that's about as far as I get. That means the "planning" is actually building sequences in training. In strikes, that's working combos (and maybe even kata, if they contain useful sequences). In grappling, that's practicing a guard pass or sweep, or the full-sequence kote gaeshi. those are all "plans", but they don't have to be reassembled in the same order. I might enter for an arm drag and end up with a kote gaeshi, because they prevented the arm drag.



And there in comes the flow and staying ahead of the game being adaptable and fluid


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> We may be at cross purposes but Ikkyo the first tech is the elbow and it is one that O'sensei was really hot on as in I was told (second hand or maybe third ) that he said you could spend a lifetime on just Ikkyo and still not get it right


It's arguable where to place that one. You need both wrist-ish and elbow-ish connection for that in the most common variations. The control point for the entry is actually below the elbow, so I tend to view it as a wrist entry. That's just a point-of-view thing though. Whether you call it a wrist entry or an elbow technique, it's certainly not focused on a wrist lock.

We call that technique "Arm Bar" (it's not entirely the same, but Ikkyo would fall into that technique for us). And we often joke that we could manufacture an entire art called "Armbardo", because of all the options and variations available.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> I'd have to see it lol


I'll have to see if I can find a vid of the inside variation.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> It's arguable where to place that one. You need both wrist-ish and elbow-ish connection for that in the most common variations. The control point for the entry is actually below the elbow, so I tend to view it as a wrist entry. That's just a point-of-view thing though. Whether you call it a wrist entry or an elbow technique, it's certainly not focused on a wrist lock.
> 
> We call that technique "Arm Bar" (it's not entirely the same, but Ikkyo would fall into that technique for us). And we often joke that we could manufacture an entire art called "Armbardo", because of all the options and variations available.



I get you there as there are many things that can come from ikkyo if it not "happening" and even if they don't happen then back to Ikkyo again


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> That's rather how I see things - the "plan" isn't something I'm consciously aware of until I'm in the middle of it. Sometimes, in attack drills (random attacks, ends after a single response), I pick something I want to look for a chance to do, but that's about as far as I get. That means the "planning" is actually building sequences in training. In strikes, that's working combos (and maybe even kata, if they contain useful sequences). In grappling, that's practicing a guard pass or sweep, or the full-sequence kote gaeshi. those are all "plans", but they don't have to be reassembled in the same order. I might enter for an arm drag and end up with a kote gaeshi, because they prevented the arm drag.



That's quite possibly even more in depth than my planning ever gets now.

When I started, I had plans before a sparring session, like whole scenarios. That didn't work in the slightest.

So, I reduced it to openings and responses - I found that only served to slow me down if I couldn't manufacture the opening I hoped for.

So, I reduced it further to aiming to try a specific technique. Nope.

Eventually, it got down to "not get hit". I got hit.

So now, like I say my planning is restricted to set sparring and drills. At a minimum I'm aware of what the attack is going to be so I'll plan for that.

We also do "step sparring" which is kind of semi free - there are 3, 2 or 1 attacks allowed, but you don't say what they're going to be. I don't even try to plan much for that now, maybe something like "if it's this kick, I'll try this", but the way it works out it's hardly ever 'this' kick...

So yeah, unpredictable is the key I think - it doesn't always work obviously, I'm not superhuman. But it does work a lot - I mean, who in their right mind is going to expect a rising block to appear when they're coming in with an axe kick


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

pdg said:


> What the hell did I just watch part of???


Some MA guy suddenly feels that he can move people without touching.


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> I ain't gonna start an argument but where in Aikido does it say that as you put it an elbow to the face is not permitted ?
> 
> This peace and love and non violent thing that seems to run and run is really not true it is wholly misinterpreted imo



My concern would be that compared to other martial arts. You are not very good at it.


----------



## now disabled

drop bear said:


> My concern would be that compared to other martial arts. You are not very good at it.



I'm not good at Aikido ok fair enough


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> In the Aikido mindset, you start your technique when it is available ...


I don't like the technique that "you do X and I counter with Y". I like the technique that "I do X, you counter with Y, I then counter with Z".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> So, you're saying there's no way to counter a plan? I find that difficult to reconcile with experience.


Of course there are always ways to counter a plan. IMO, to assume that your opponent doesn't have a plan is unrealistic.

Should we discuss MA only on the grade school level - you kick me, I kick you back. You punch me, I punch you back? I think we should discuss MA on the university level - I use groin kick to set up a face punch, use face punch to set up a clinch, use clinch to ....


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

pdg said:


> If someone grabs my left wrist, then whatever their plan I'm doing something with my right arm, or a leg.


If someone grabs on your left wrist, if you try to

- punch him with your right arm, since your right punch will require that your body to rotate to your left, if he redirects your left arm to your right and make your body to rotate to your right, it will prevent your body to rotate to your left.
- kick him with your leg, he can drag your left arm downward and make you put more weigh on your leading leg and you can't raise your leg to kick.

If your opponent doesn't know how to do these, he has no reason to grab on your left wrist.

This is why I have asked, "Should we discuss MA on the grade school level? or should we discuss it on university level?"


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> The physical concept that's expressed as "harmony" is pretty close to the basic concept in Judo. It's just about not opposing force, but using it as input to work with.


How do you intend to achieve "harmony" by using Aikido or Judo principle if your opponent do this to you?

When your opponent applies "shaking" on you, there will be no "harmony". You have one grip on your opponent, your opponent breaks it apart. You have another grip on him, he also breaks that grip apart.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

now disabled said:


> Shioda Gozo is no fake


If Mike Tyson demonstrates "no touching knock out", I'll still call that a "fake demo".


----------



## Ryback

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Can you still be soft if your opponent shakes you? Your softness just make your opponent's shaking works better for him.
> 
> Does Aikido use any "vibration force" that can be used to interrupt opponent's force?
> 
> The concept of "harmony" bother me. Why do you want your opponent to be harmony with you? The more that you can make your opponent feel uncomfortable (enharmonic), the better will be for yourself.


It looks by your post that you have no experience in Aikido, so it is a bit difficult for me to explain verbally... 
As I already said, blending with the opponent and being in harmony with him has nothing to do with him feeling nice or feeling a sense of peace and love. 
It's a technical skill, one that allows the aikidoka to face strong, violent, brutal opponents effectively because he is not colliding with their strength head on... 
Apart from any individual techniques, this is the concert of Aiki, the basic Aikido principle and the aikidoka should maintain it at all times. Of course it can be done, all one needs is study hard and once you start applying it, you realize that being relaxed (yet not weak) and blending with the opponent is getting him into a great disadvantage, neutralizing all of his attack and getting his force to actual work against him. 
And right there is where "the soft is the most severe" is the best description...


----------



## pdg

Kung Fu Wang said:


> punch him with your right arm, since your right punch will require that your body to rotate to your left, if he redirects your left arm to your right and make your body to rotate to your right, it will prevent your body to rotate to your left.



So then my punch becomes a grab to his head, using his energy twisting my body to add to my pull.

Oh, and that's assuming I actually need to rotate my body to the left to perform an effective right hand punch, which I don't. Unless his arm is two feet longer than mine he won't turn me enough to be out of range. I train punches full facing, shoulders square to target. I also train them so my shoulders end up in line, and also reverse half facing so my punching hand is across my torso.

Or y'know, if he's pushed my left arm to my right he's compromised his grip so I could even just go with that rotation and take it all way round to get a backfist or elbow going.

Or go half way round and back kick.

Or go half way round and turn out a hip throw.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> kick him with your leg, he can drag your left arm downward and make you put more weigh on your leading leg and you can't raise your leg to kick.



I have two legs, if he's pulled down my arm to weight my front leg I use my rear knee, or I use my other arm and make use of that downward motion to add a bit extra to my elbow on top of his head. Or I do both together.

Or I get all flash and go with that move even more and roll out of it, possibly chucking in a bit of heel action on the way.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> If your opponent doesn't know how to do these, he has no reason to grab on your left wrist.
> 
> This is why I have asked, "Should we discuss MA on the grade school level? or should we discuss it on university level?"



Quite honestly, assuming that I'd be stumped and unable to respond to a pull or a push is a bit grade school - I expected more.


----------



## pdg

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If Mike Tyson demonstrates "no touching knock out", I'll still call that a "fake demo".



I agreed with this post, but I have to add a caveat.

If Mike Tyson said he was going to hit me, you'd very likely see a no touch knock out


----------



## Ryback

pdg said:


> See the way I read that is you saying that only aikido can work against aikido, anything else is ego and attempt at muscle.
> 
> Can you, in any way, accept that other techniques and skill sets can work against aikido and that I'm not coming from an ego perspective?
> 
> If you can't, then I'm afraid I have no choice but to label you as one of the brainwashed...
> 
> Say I punch and you flow with that, but then I'm able to redirect your energy, which was already added to my initial energy in a direction you're not expecting.
> 
> That is of course assuming you're able to flow with my style of punching in the first place, which neither of us actually know.
> 
> You won't be able to use my over commitment for a start, because that doesn't happen.
> 
> Maybe you can work with me retracting my hand, but that could bring you straight into my elbow.
> 
> And if that misses, I bet you didn't even notice my knee looking sternly at your solar plexus...
> 
> Thing is, I don't know if that would work against you, and you sure as shinola don't know if you can work against me.
> 
> But, judging your previous comments about working with other arts, I bet you can confidently state that you could, because you've had someone pretend to do something similar (even though they don't actually know what they're doing).


I wouldn't claim that I can or cannot do something because that depends on the circumstances or who I'm dealing with... 
I'm not saying that only Aikido had an answer to Aikido, there are many martial arts out there and many people with serious training out there... 
Some of the examples you mentioned could very well happen to me if I was to fight with you or any other trained person. But each one of us is responsible of sharpening his own skills by practicing hard and getting better at what he does. 
I am not at brainwashed, I know very well the things that can happen during a fighting situation... I don't think I ever claimed in my posts that I can surely beat you or any other with no doubt... I'm merely stating the potential Aikido has as an art if practiced correctly...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

pdg said:


> So then my punch becomes a grab to his head, using his energy twisting my body to add to my pull.
> 
> Oh, and that's assuming I actually need to rotate my body to the left to perform an effective right hand punch, which I don't. Unless his arm is two feet longer than mine he won't turn me enough to be out of range. I train punches full facing, shoulders square to target. I also train them so my shoulders end up in line, and also reverse half facing so my punching hand is across my torso.
> 
> Or y'know, if he's pushed my left arm to my right he's compromised his grip so I could even just go with that rotation and take it all way round to get a backfist or elbow going.
> 
> Or go half way round and back kick.
> 
> Or go half way round and turn out a hip throw.
> 
> 
> 
> I have two legs, if he's pulled down my arm to weight my front leg I use my rear knee, or I use my other arm and make use of that downward motion to add a bit extra to my elbow on top of his head. Or I do both together.
> 
> Or I get all flash and go with that move even more and roll out of it, possibly chucking in a bit of heel action on the way.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite honestly, assuming that I'd be stumped and unable to respond to a pull or a push is a bit grade school - I expected more.


Do we agree that it's much more fun to discuss MA in this level?

How far can we have discussion if

- My right hand grab on your left wrist.
- Your right hand knock me down?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Ryback said:


> this is the concert of Aiki, ...


The issue is it's not always possible to achieve harmony. How can you achieve harmony if your opponent does this to you?


----------



## pdg

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do we agree that it's much more fun to discuss MA in this level?
> 
> How far can we have discussion if
> 
> - My right hand grab on your left wrist.
> - Your right hand knock me down?



Oh it's more fun, but it's potentially never ending...

Your two step scenario there implies I have that plan, but it's not that simple.

-Your right hand grabs my left wrist
-Who knows?

That's much more accurate.

If you just grab it and stand there waiting to see what I do, we might very well be stood holding hands until one of us gets thirsty.

If you grab it and raise your left hand to strike my wrist, I might punch. That might be at your face, your armpit, your groin, your shoulder... I don't know what's open.

Or, I might kick. Or I might elbow. Or I might grab elsewhere.

If I know for sure (say it's a drill) that you're going to strike and go for a neck grab (as in the video) I might use my right arm to perform an outward block against your arm going for my neck, then lead that motion into a knifehand neck strike or backfist on the return.

Or I might duck under your arm and do something else like hook my right arm behind your front knee. Maybe.

As an example of a combination, fine. It legitimately shows one possible outcome. I have no problem with that.

But it's 3 moves (wrist grab, strike, neck grab) - I don't think anyone can say they can always consistently make all 3 moves work in the same order.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Aikido may assume that if A grabs on B's wrist, B will have more advantage than A. This is the part that I don't agree. IMO, if A grabs on B, A is one step ahead of B.

Here is an example for striking art.






here is an example for wrestling art.


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> I'm not good at Aikido ok fair enough



If  your self defence hinges on winning a striking war with somone. You want to be good at striking.

Otherwise you do the Rousey


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Here is a simple question.

If you want to achieve "harmony", but your opponent wants to interrupt your "harmony", can you still be able to achieve "harmony"? How?


----------



## Ryback

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The issue is it's not always possible to achieve harmony. How can you achieve harmony if your opponent does this to you?


Are you kidding me? This??  You probably have no idea whatsoever what Aikido is about and how it works...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Ryback said:


> Are you kidding me? This??  You probably have no idea whatsoever what Aikido is about and how it works...


You are right! I don't know how an Aikido guy may handle that situation. That's why I ask. I did ask many Judo guys how would they handle that situation. Just by that situation, it can be a very interested discussion. Do you resist, yield, or ...? It's a perfect situation that "harmony" have to be destroyed.

- Do Aikido guys compete in Judo tournament (both are Japanese throwing art)?
- Do Judo guy ever challenge Aikido guy (or the other way around)?

I don't know. You tell me.

By the way, I did have a student who was a blown belt in Aikido. I have wrestled with him on the mat for many years. Also Armando Flores was my training partner when we were young. Armando and I both competed in the Karate tournament back in the 70th.


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is a simple question.
> 
> If you want to achieve "harmony", but your opponent wants to interrupt your "harmony", can you still be able to achieve "harmony"? How?



The short answer is yes


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't like the technique that "you do X and I counter with Y". I like the technique that "I do X, you counter with Y, I then counter with Z".


Why is trying to guess their counter better? To me, that's not better than saying "If you do X, I counter with Y. If you do Y I counter with Z." Those are two different trained responses, but they chain together without having to guess that they'll do Y as a counter to X.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Of course there are always ways to counter a plan. IMO, to assume that your opponent doesn't have a plan is unrealistic.
> 
> Should we discuss MA only on the grade school level - you kick me, I kick you back. You punch me, I punch you back? I think we should discuss MA on the university level - I use groin kick to set up a face punch, use face punch to set up a clinch, use clinch to ....


I don't think I've ever heard anyone assume someone doesn't have a plan. At the same time, many of us don't have a specific, conscious plan. When I grab a wrist, it's because I saw an opening. What I do after I grab it isn't usually a conscious selection - it's driven by what I see and feel as I grab, and what they do while I'm grabbing. I could go for an arm drag takedown, I could push the hand down to expose the head, I could retain the wrist and use a head-based takedown, or I could do something entirely different. The closest I come to a plan is when I practice sequences. So I know some things I _could do_ given specific openings and input, but it's still a matter of the moment as to which I _would do_.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How do you intend to achieve "harmony" by using Aikido or Judo principle if your opponent do this to you?
> 
> When your opponent applies "shaking" on you, there will be no "harmony". You have one grip on your opponent, your opponent breaks it apart. You have another grip on him, he also breaks that grip apart.


Every principle has times when it can't be applied.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Aikido may assume that if A grabs on B's wrist, B will have more advantage than A. This is the part that I don't agree. IMO, if A grabs on B, A is one step ahead of B.
> 
> Here is an example for striking art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here is an example for wrestling art.


I don't think Aikido (as a system) makes that assumption. It assumes that gives B a connection he didn't have, which is an advantage. A also has that connection, and could use that same advantage. It sounds like you're making assumptions, John, rather than asking questions to get clarification.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If  your self defence hinges on winning a striking war with somone. You want to be good at striking.
> 
> Otherwise you do the Rousey


Agreed. I consider good striking a foundational skill for defense (not necessarily for all sport MA, of course). It's the easiest fall-back and the highest-percentage move in a lot of situations. And if you're training with strikers, you're apt to be better against strikes, including with your grappling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is a simple question.
> 
> If you want to achieve "harmony", but your opponent wants to interrupt your "harmony", can you still be able to achieve "harmony"? How?


You can, in some situations. If they want to push and pull back and forth, I just need to pick one to work with. I ignore the other for the most part. I don't need their cooperation to blend with their movement. Of course, if they are skilled at blending (other arts besides Aikido have it, though it looks different and often isn't called "blending"), they should be capable of counter-blending to make it more difficult.

It's no different from any other principle. To punch you need a target. If they are good at defending targets, it's harder to hit them. Same-same.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You are right! I don't know how an Aikido guy may handle that situation. That's why I ask. I did ask many Judo guys how would they handle that situation. Just by that situation, it can be a very interested discussion. Do you resist, yield, or ...? It's a perfect situation that "harmony" have to be destroyed.
> 
> - Do Aikido guys compete in Judo tournament (both are Japanese throwing art)?
> - Do Judo guy ever challenge Aikido guy (or the other way around)?
> 
> I don't know. You tell me.
> 
> By the way, I did have a student who was a blown belt in Aikido. I have wrestled with him on the mat for many years. Also Armando Flores was my training partner when we were young. Armando and I both competed in the Karate tournament back in the 70th.


I can give my (pseudo-Aikido) view on this. For that clip you posted, I could either harmonize with that motion (yep, it can be done) and use it to try to get their structure, or I could oppose it (not very "aiki" in some views) with weight drops and quick pushes to break up their intent. Those are two significant approaches (there would be others), and each has advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

now disabled said:


> I am not in any way calling your skills in to doubt however if I (and I can't now lol) fully fired up Kotegaeshi then your wrist would break





Ryback said:


> Also I don't know many boxers who can counter an Aikido joint lock or learn how to absorb a dynamic Irimi Nage for example.





Ryback said:


> As for resistance, believe me every time we use more resistance in the attacks it's easier to control the Uke, what is difficult is to control a relaxed fast Uke who instead of resisting he is trying to counter you, if that's what you mean then, yeah we do that.





gpseymour said:


> Counters are resistance. Resistance does not mean the same thing as tension. Resistance is the thing you need in your training, and relaxation and counters are part of how we resist aiki techniques. As is controlling our weight transfers and keeping center and structure. Have your partner do those things and find out what causes problems. That's training with resistance.





Ryback said:


> We agree then. If by resistance you mean being relaxed in order to be able to counter the techniques and re-attack then yes, that's part of our practice, an everyday part.





Ryback said:


> If someone decides to stop a technique from being applied, he can either try to counter it using another technique or try to tense up physically and try to outmuscle the technique.



I'd like to expand on gpseymour's point, because I see frequent miscommunication sometimes when these discussions of "compliant" and "resistance" come up.

"Resistance" doesn't mean that (for example) uke waits until nage has a full-fledged kotegaeshi locked on and then tried to muscle out. That's just asking for a broken wrist. It would be like applying "resistance" in a boxing match by waiting until someone punches you in the face and trying to tense up your nose to resist the incoming fist.

"Resistance" or "non-compliance" involves imposing your will and your techniques on the other person while not allowing them to do the same to you, using whatever methods are allowed within the confines of the current exercise.

Getting back to kotegaeshi as an example ...
Typical application of kotegaeshi involves several steps:

Gaining control of the opponent's wrist
Using that control to break the opponent's balance and structure by leading him to overextend and compromise his alignment.
At the same time, nage will be moving off line, gaining a favorable angle relative to uke
Compromise the structure of the opponent's wrist through flexing it.
Finish by applying outwards rotation to the compromised wrist. 
(There are additional details, such as leading the opponent to shift his body weight one direction then applying the kotegaeshi in the opposite direction to increase the destructive power of the lock, but I think I've covered the high points above.)

In true "non-compliant" randori, your opponent will
Try not to let you get control of his wrist
Try to break your control if you do get hold of his wrist
Work to avoid having his structure or balance compromised
Work to regain his structure and balance if it is compromised
_At the same time_, the opponent will be working to gain a favorable angle on you, compromise _your_ structure and balance, and apply whatever techniques he knows (strikes, throws, trips, etc) which are allowed within the current exercise.

Ryback posted that "_Also I don't know many boxers who can counter an Aikido joint lock or learn how to absorb a dynamic Irimi Nage for example._" The boxer's method for countering an aikido joint lock is to not let you get control of the limb in the first place and not allow you to break their structure if you do manage to grab a wrist.  As for irimi nage - if you are able to apply irimi nage that generally means that you also had the option of applying a really solid strike to the face or throat. Boxers are pretty good at not getting hit.

Please note - none of this is intended to trash Aikido or take sides in a style vs style argument. I'm just clarifying what we're talking about with "compliance" vs "resistance/non-compliance."


----------



## pdg

Tony Dismukes said:


> Ryback posted that "_Also I don't know many boxers who can counter an Aikido joint lock or learn how to absorb a dynamic Irimi Nage for example._"



However



Ryback said:


> you don't have to study with boxers in order to be effective...



So not knowing many boxers who can counter those techniques appears to be equal to just simply not having worked with any boxers?


By the exact same logic, I don't know many BJJ practitioners who can counter a tkd kick.

Having never worked with any at all helps to reinforce that statement.

To put it another way, I could even say "I have no personal evidence to suggest that any BJJ guy could do anything about it if I decided to hit him" 

Maybe I should get one of my tkd training partners to dress up all BJJ like and then I can come up with absolutely irrefutable evidence...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'd like to expand on gpseymour's point, because I see frequent miscommunication sometimes when these discussions of "compliant" and "resistance" come up.
> 
> "Resistance" doesn't mean that (for example) uke waits until nage has a full-fledged kotegaeshi locked on and then tried to muscle out. That's just asking for a broken wrist. It would be like applying "resistance" in a boxing match by waiting until someone punches you in the face and trying to tense up your nose to resist the incoming fist.
> 
> "Resistance" or "non-compliance" involves imposing your will and your techniques on the other person while not allowing them to do the same to you, using whatever methods are allowed within the confines of the current exercise.
> 
> Getting back to kotegaeshi as an example ...
> Typical application of kotegaeshi involves several steps:
> 
> Gaining control of the opponent's wrist
> Using that control to break the opponent's balance and structure by leading him to overextend and compromise his alignment.
> At the same time, nage will be moving off line, gaining a favorable angle relative to uke
> Compromise the structure of the opponent's wrist through flexing it.
> Finish by applying outwards rotation to the compromised wrist.
> (There are additional details, such as leading the opponent to shift his body weight one direction then applying the kotegaeshi in the opposite direction to increase the destructive power of the lock, but I think I've covered the high points above.)
> 
> In true "non-compliant" randori, your opponent will
> Try not to let you get control of his wrist
> Try to break your control if you do get hold of his wrist
> Work to avoid having his structure or balance compromised
> Work to regain his structure and balance if it is compromised
> _At the same time_, the opponent will be working to gain a favorable angle on you, compromise _your_ structure and balance, and apply whatever techniques he knows (strikes, throws, trips, etc) which are allowed within the current exercise.
> 
> Ryback posted that "_Also I don't know many boxers who can counter an Aikido joint lock or learn how to absorb a dynamic Irimi Nage for example._" The boxer's method for countering an aikido joint lock is to not let you get control of the limb in the first place and not allow you to break their structure if you do manage to grab a wrist.  As for irimi nage - if you are able to apply irimi nage that generally means that you also had the option of applying a really solid strike to the face or throat. Boxers are pretty good at not getting hit.
> 
> Please note - none of this is intended to trash Aikido or take sides in a style vs style argument. I'm just clarifying what we're talking about with "compliance" vs "resistance/non-compliance."


As usual, excellent clarification, Tony.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> However
> 
> 
> 
> So not knowing many boxers who can counter those techniques appears to be equal to just simply not having worked with any boxers?
> 
> 
> By the exact same logic, I don't know many BJJ practitioners who can counter a tkd kick.
> 
> Having never worked with any at all helps to reinforce that statement.
> 
> To put it another way, I could even say "I have no personal evidence to suggest that any BJJ guy could do anything about it if I decided to hit him"
> 
> Maybe I should get one of my tkd training partners to dress up all BJJ like and then I can come up with absolutely irrefutable evidence...


Nah, they don't need to put on a BJJ gi (those things can get expensive). Just have them crouch down like they're going for a double-leg. That's good enough to simulate BJJ.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

samurai69 said:


> I was teaching in class a couple of days ago and the subject of self defence against a boxer type attack came up.
> 
> We hold a 20 to 30 minute section dealing with SD specifics at the end of class.
> 
> During this, the subject came up of the boxer flying in and out of range and throwing short fast jabs in and out
> 
> I wondered what the aiki way of defence would be against this style of attack, where its difficult to respond directly to specific attacks that are designed to wear down the opponent (jabs) and also the fairly fast footwork of a boxer.


This thread has gone off on a few tangents since it was originally posted 12 years ago and I don't think the OP has been back in a while. Still, I thought I'd address the original question with this clip, which is probably one of the best suggestions I've seen for applying Aikido to a boxing opponent.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> This thread has gone off on a few tangents since it was originally posted 12 years ago and I don't think the OP has been back in a while. Still, I thought I'd address the original question with this clip, which is probably one of the best suggestions I've seen for applying Aikido to a boxing opponent.


I like that. It shows that you wouldn't be grabbing the wrist. Basically, he trapped it while slipping the jab, then caught it in the retraction to transition to kote gaeshi. His focus on the entry (what he calls closing) and that what happens after isn't as important is spot-on.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> Nah, they don't need to put on a BJJ gi (those things can get expensive). Just have them crouch down like they're going for a double-leg. That's good enough to simulate BJJ.



That certainly makes it easier - I can just jump on their head or shoulders.

Excellent


----------



## Martial D

Tony Dismukes said:


> This thread has gone off on a few tangents since it was originally posted 12 years ago and I don't think the OP has been back in a while. Still, I thought I'd address the original question with this clip, which is probably one of the best suggestions I've seen for applying Aikido to a boxing opponent.


See, this guy has an understanding of boxing, and makes his aikido work off of that. Good example.


----------



## Ryback

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You are right! I don't know how an Aikido guy may handle that situation. That's why I ask. I did ask many Judo guys how would they handle that situation. Just by that situation, it can be a very interested discussion. Do you resist, yield, or ...? It's a perfect situation that "harmony" have to be destroyed.
> 
> - Do Aikido guys compete in Judo tournament (both are Japanese throwing art)?
> - Do Judo guy ever challenge Aikido guy (or the other way around)?
> 
> I don't know. You tell me.
> 
> By the way, I did have a student who was a blown belt in Aikido. I have wrestled with him on the mat for many years. Also Armando Flores was my training partner when we were young. Armando and I both competed in the Karate tournament back in the 70th.


It is difficult to explain something technical verbally, watching that video I see hundreds of techniques in order to defend against such an attack... 
I see anything from joint manipulations to projection techniques or even attemi waza. 
This is a relatively easy attack for an aikidoka, there are other more challenging attacks, but this is the way you don't want to attack someone who is good in Aikido...
As for the rest of your post... Aikido has no competition, it is not a sport. And it's not a throwing martial art in the sense that Judo is,but that would be very difficult to explain here... You see, I said projection techniques instead of throwing techniques because that's what you do, you project... And has also immobilizations, attemi waza (strikes)  Keri waza (kicks), armed techniques, unarmed techniques and every combination possible... 
I don't know if I was any help my friend but as I said it is difficult for me to describe Aikido verbally...


----------



## Ryback

pdg said:


> However
> 
> 
> 
> So not knowing many boxers who can counter those techniques appears to be equal to just simply not having worked with any boxers?
> 
> 
> By the exact same logic, I don't know many BJJ practitioners who can counter a tkd kick.
> 
> Having never worked with any at all helps to reinforce that statement.
> 
> To put it another way, I could even say "I have no personal evidence to suggest that any BJJ guy could do anything about it if I decided to hit him"
> 
> Maybe I should get one of my tkd training partners to dress up all BJJ like and then I can come up with absolutely irrefutable evidence...


Do you know any boxing style that instead of training to defeat another boxer in the ring, people are training to counter traditional Martial arts techniques found in Aiki-jutsu, Aikido, ken-jutsu, Jo-do, Tai-Chi, Wing Chun...?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ryback said:


> Do you know any boxing style that instead of training to defeat another boxer in the ring, people are training to counter traditional Martial arts techniques found in Aiki-jutsu, Aikido, ken-jutsu, Jo-do, Tai-Chi, Wing Chun...?


I don't. I also haven't met a boxer who says he's trained specifically to defeat those, without ever training with or against people who know those styles.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Why is trying to guess their counter better? To me, that's not better than saying "If you do X, I counter with Y. If you do Y I counter with Z." Those are two different trained responses, but they chain together without having to guess that they'll do Y as a counter to X.


The difference is if

- you attack me first, the possibility of your attack can be a large number.
- I attack you first, your respond to my attack can be a much smaller number which is easier to handle.

For example, if you attack me, you can kick, knee, punch, elbow, shoot, ... If I sweep your leg, since you can't kick me at that particular moment, I don't have to worry about your kick, knee, shoot.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I don't think Aikido (as a system) makes that assumption. It assumes that gives B a connection he didn't have, which is an advantage. A also has that connection, and could use that same advantage. It sounds like you're making assumptions, John, rather than asking questions to get clarification.


Most of the Aikido clips show A grabs on B, B applies Aikido technique on A. Do you know any Aikido clip that A grabs on B, A then applies Aikido technique on B?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Every principle has times when it can't be applied.


I just ask question, "How to maintain harmony at that particular moment?" When you train your MA system, you have to deal with people from other MA systems. Your opponent may apply some strategy that you are not familiar with.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> You can, in some situations. If they want to push and pull back and forth, I just need to pick one to work with. I ignore the other for the most part. I don't need their cooperation to blend with their movement. Of course, if they are skilled at blending (other arts besides Aikido have it, though it looks different and often isn't called "blending"), they should be capable of counter-blending to make it more difficult.
> 
> It's no different from any other principle. To punch you need a target. If they are good at defending targets, it's harder to hit them. Same-same.


That clip is a perfect example that you should not play your opponent's game. Both resist and yield are not the solution. You will need to interrupt your opponent's game (break the harmony). How to interrupt your opponent's game is the key.


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Most of the Aikido clips show A grabs on B, B applies Aikido technique on A. Do you know any Aikido clip that A grabs on B, A then applies Aikido technique on B?





Kung Fu Wang said:


> I just ask question, "How to maintain harmony at that particular moment?" When you train your MA system, you have to deal with people from other MA systems. Your opponent may apply some strategy that you are not familiar with.



I might be wrong but that is the test and the reason to cross train and expand the knowledge to further yourself in your own art

I might be wrong tho


----------



## drop bear

Ryback said:


> Do you know any boxing style that instead of training to defeat another boxer in the ring, people are training to counter traditional Martial arts techniques found in Aiki-jutsu, Aikido, ken-jutsu, Jo-do, Tai-Chi, Wing Chun...?



As well as.

You would be amazed how versatile punching a guy in the face really is.


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That clip is a perfect example that you should not play your opponent's game. Both resist and yield are not the solution. You will need to interrupt your opponent's game (break the harmony). How to interrupt your opponent's game is the key.


That is a concept in Aikido you are breaking their structure/balance/harmony thereby you are interrupting their game. The key is to do that and make it flow and be ready to adapt


----------



## now disabled

drop bear said:


> As well as.
> 
> You would be amazed how versatile punching a guy in the face really is.



Agreed but you'd also be amazed at how destroying a joint is, it works both ways


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> Agreed but you'd also be amazed at how destroying a joint is, it works both ways



I do both. 
Destroying a joint takes more time. And you can see people trying to do it.

You can't see punches at speed.


----------



## now disabled

assuming the person punching can do that and maybe he would see the joint lock etc coming maybe he wouldn't that all depends on how skilled the opponent is and how aware he is in a situation

Granted a trained boxer is and can punch properly 

like in that vid posted if the person gets past and enters then will he see it coming I guess you will say yes and I will say maybe yes maybe no there are multiple factors that are in play so no one can say a def yes or a def no


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Ryback said:


> It is difficult to explain something technical verbally, ...


If someone asks me, "What will you do if I do ...?" If I have answer, I'll say, "I'll do ..."If I don't have answer, I will get my training partner, ask him to apply that strategy on me. I then can experience that myself and then find solution.

IMO, there is nothing in MA that can not be described by words. Of course the best solution is not to let that situation to happen. Just don't let your opponent to land his hand on you. The issue is if your opponent gets hold on you and start to run circle behind you, what should be your respond at that moment. He has a grip on you but you don't have any grip on him.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

now disabled said:


> That is a concept in Aikido you are breaking their structure/balance/harmony thereby you are interrupting their game. The key is to do that and make it flow and be ready to adapt





now disabled said:


> Ushiro techniques then come into play ...again that is blending and flowing and being adaptable


Could you provide more detail Aikido solution here? Your opponent drags your leading arm and move to your blind side that your back hand can't reach him. What should you do at that moment by using Aikido principle?

This is a very interest scenario that I have discussed with many Judo guys before. But I have not had chance to discuss with Aikido guys yet.


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If someone asks me, "What will you do if I do ...?" If I have answer, I'll say, "I'll do ..."If I don't have answer, I will get my training partner, ask him to apply that strategy on me. I then can experience that myself and then find solution.
> 
> IMO, there is nothing in MA that can not be described by words. Of course the best solution is not to let that situation to happen. Just don't let your opponent to land his hand on you. The issue is if your opponent gets hold on you and start to run circle behind you, what should be your respond at that moment. He has a grip on you but you don't have any grip on him.



Ushiro techniques then come into play ...again that is blending and flowing and being adaptable 

I agree that best form of anything is not let anyone get a hold in fact best way is not to get into any combat situations period but that I guess is a moot point here


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The difference is if
> 
> - you attack me first, the possibility of your attack can be a large number.
> - I attack you first, your respond to my attack can be a much smaller number which is easier to handle.
> 
> For example, if you attack me, you can kick, knee, punch, elbow, shoot, ... If I sweep your leg, since you can't kick me at that particular moment, I don't have to worry about your kick, knee, shoot.


But now you're changing sides on it. My point was learning to execute x, then respond to X with Y and Y with Z is more flexible than learning to start from X and responde to a counter of Y to get to Z. The latter presumes a given counter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Most of the Aikido clips show A grabs on B, B applies Aikido technique on A. Do you know any Aikido clip that A grabs on B, A then applies Aikido technique on B?


What you're seeing is them teaching to perform a given technique. Aikido techniques are normally taught only as responses, rather than initiations. But yes, I have seen some taught as initiations, too. I'm not aware of any clips that show this - it's my impression that it's rare in Aikido training, and maybe normally worked late in the curriculum, if at all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That clip is a perfect example that you should not play your opponent's game. Both resist and yield are not the solution. You will need to interrupt your opponent's game (break the harmony). How to interrupt your opponent's game is the key.


You didn't ask for my preferred solution. You asked how to use the principle of harmony with it. Me, I'd probably punch him, or push at a key moment to disrupt structure. But those aren't how I'd get in harmony with the movement, which is an option.


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Could you provide more detail Aikido solution here?




Ok again I'll try and use Kotegaeshi as an example as today (after many tribulations I did get on the mat,) I tried to perform Kotegaeshi but either through my mistake (which it was ) or it could have been the uke making sure he came around to far I changed tact and moved and took him down in simple ikkyo, no it was not what he was expecting nor what I had originally intended but instead of stopping I carried on.

the blending or harmonizing came in there (imo) as I basically cocked it up and had I not kept going and kept the connection and just let him come round I was going to get a nice whack on the face. Ok it was facilitated by my mistake but he knew that and had I not flowed and blended into that situation he was fully trying to disrupt my Flow and my tech.

I maybe have not explained it correctly or in enough detail but I think that is what you meant


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> Agreed but you'd also be amazed at how destroying a joint is, it works both ways


Getting to that joint is harder than getting a strike in, most of the time. I prefer grappling, but use striking at least as often when things go live.


----------



## Ryback

gpseymour said:


> I don't. I also haven't met a boxer who says he's trained specifically to defeat those, without ever training with or against people who know those styles.


I never claimed that I'm specifically trained to beat anyone.... I'm studying a martial art that, practiced correctly, forges many combat skills and gives you a better chance of defending yourself than you had when you were untrained...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If someone asks me, "What will you do if I do ...?" If I have answer, I'll say, "I'll do ..."If I don't have answer, I will get my training partner, ask him to apply that strategy on me. I then can experience that myself and then find solution.
> 
> IMO, there is nothing in MA that can not be described by words. Of course the best solution is not to let that situation to happen. Just don't let your opponent to land his hand on you. The issue is if your opponent gets hold on you and start to run circle behind you, what should be your respond at that moment. He has a grip on you but you don't have any grip on him.


Describing something in words is not the same as communicating, in some cases. It's tough to explain blending entirely with words. I don't entirely understand some of how it's used in Aikido (we don't tend to get as deep into the nuances of aiki flow as Aikido does).


----------



## Ryback

drop bear said:


> As well as.
> 
> You would be amazed how versatile punching a guy in the face really is.


Of course it is... Also shooting him with a gun can also be... So what?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Could you provide more detail Aikido solution here? Your opponent drags your leading arm and move to your blind side that your back hand can't reach him. What should you do at that moment by using Aikido principle?
> 
> This is a very interest scenario that I have discussed with many Judo guys before. But I have not had chance to discuss with Aikido guys yet.


From that vague description, my first thought is a step toward him might work. If I can make hip contact, I can disrupt structure. Of course, depending where he is and how early I can get that step in, that might also be the wrong move. But it is one option.


----------



## Ryback

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If someone asks me, "What will you do if I do ...?" If I have answer, I'll say, "I'll do ..."If I don't have answer, I will get my training partner, ask him to apply that strategy on me. I then can experience that myself and then find solution.
> 
> IMO, there is nothing in MA that can not be described by words. Of course the best solution is not to let that situation to happen. Just don't let your opponent to land his hand on you. The issue is if your opponent gets hold on you and start to run circle behind you, what should be your respond at that moment. He has a grip on you but you don't have any grip on him.


The whole approach of" if he does this you do that" is a conversation about fighting between elementary school kids, not martial artists...


----------



## now disabled

Ryback said:


> The whole approach of" if he does this you do that" is a conversation about fighting between elementary school kids, not martial artists...



I think he is trying to get a "handle" on the blending side and the why and the mechanics of it, which is not easy to explain


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I'd probably punch him, or push at a key moment to disrupt structure.


When your opponent drags your leading arm and run behind you, your back hand can't punch him.

In order to disrupt his structure, you have to sense his balance point. When you do that, you may just fall into your opponent's trap - he want you to move with him.

Any respond that "you move with your opponent" (harmony?) is bad solution here.


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your opponent drags your leading arm and run behind you, your back hand can't punch him.
> 
> In order to disrupt his structure, you have to sense his balance point. When you do that, you may just fall into your opponent's trap - he want you to move with him.


I'm not getting the dragging arm and running behind could you elaborate on that has he still got a hold or not ?


----------



## Ryback

gpseymour said:


> What you're seeing is them teaching to perform a given technique. Aikido techniques are normally taught only as responses, rather than initiations. But yes, I have seen some taught as initiations, too. I'm not aware of any clips that show this - it's my impression that it's rare in Aikido training, and maybe normally worked late in the curriculum, if at all.


You are correct on that, there is initiative of attacking in Aikido, either by using a technique as an attack or by using attemi in order to cause some reaction from which you could benefit to apply a technique... 
It is true that it's rare and mostly got lost into some new age nonsense that o'sensei said or were attributed to him, nut it's clear that there are photos of him doing that. 
Anyway, in our dojo we learn how to attack with a technique (but we don't do it every day) and also how to set a static attacker (or wanna be attacker)  in motion when it's strategically more convenient for us by using attemi as an attack...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your opponent drags your leading arm and run behind you, your back hand can't punch him.
> 
> In order to disrupt his structure, you have to sense his balance point. When you do that, you may just fall into your opponent's trap - he want you to move with him.


Yes, and any move could be falling into a trap, John. That's a specious argument, at best.

I missed the point about him being behind the shoulder earlier. Disrupting balance and/or structure would be my primary goal. His movement provides whatever openings there are, and that's what I'm looking for. How I break that depends what he's giving me. It might be stepping into his movement to take center. It might be stepping across his movement to change center. It might be extending to change the direction of his push/pull. those are all within aiki flow. For me, it might also be timing an interrupting pull (force just ahead of his force), a weight drop just before a push, or just extending my step (if he's moving me) in a direction that's not moving quite where he's trying to pull me. I think that last one would fit Aikido's principles, but I"m not sure about the two middle ones.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ryback said:


> You are correct on that, there is initiative of attacking in Aikido, either by using a technique as an attack or by using attemi in order to cause some reaction from which you could benefit to apply a technique...
> It is true that it's rare and mostly got lost into some new age nonsense that o'sensei said or were attributed to him, nut it's clear that there are photos of him doing that.
> Anyway, in our dojo we learn how to attack with a technique (but we don't do it every day) and also how to set a static attacker (or wanna be attacker)  in motion when it's strategically more convenient for us by using attemi as an attack...


I'm pretty sure I saw some video of Shioda using big entry movements in initiating action, again going back to his younger years.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Yes, and any move could be falling into a trap, John. That's a specious argument, at best.
> 
> I missed the point about him being behind the shoulder earlier. Disrupting balance and/or structure would be my primary goal. His movement provides whatever openings there are, and that's what I'm looking for. How I break that depends what he's giving me. It might be stepping into his movement to take center. It might be stepping across his movement to change center. It might be extending to change the direction of his push/pull. those are all within aiki flow. For me, it might also be timing an interrupting pull (force just ahead of his force), a weight drop just before a push, or just extending my step (if he's moving me) in a direction that's not moving quite where he's trying to pull me. I think that last one would fit Aikido's principles, but I"m not sure about the two middle ones.




One and three are


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Ryback said:


> The whole approach of" if he does this you do that" is a conversation about fighting between elementary school kids, not martial artists...


But strategy is high level MA.

Trying to move toward your opponent's blind side so his powerful back hand punch cannot reach you is a very important MA strategy.


----------



## Ryback

now disabled said:


> I think he is trying to get a "handle" on the blending side and the why and the mechanics of it, which is not easy to explain


Agreed.  I'm not trying to be rude to the guy but these are concepts that even people like us studying Aikido have spent some years to get used to and starting applying the techniques correctly... 
Almost all of us, as beginners couldn't even get the whole movement right, and after we managed to do it we were doing the techniques using too much arm muscle strength... 
Aikido has the concept of Aiki and the concept of randori, so it cannot be explained in a "he does this, you do that" kind of way... 
Maybe I'm not good at explaining it, if you can do it better please try because it's a nice thing that someone is trying to understand the basic principles of a martial art he hasn't practiced, but I feel I can't help enough...


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> I'm pretty sure I saw some video of Shioda using big entry movements in initiating action, again going back to his younger years.



Yes he did but as he grew older he refined that as he could no longer do that he had more flow earlier imo opinion but again that through watching vids but he could and was very direct to 

again as you said rightly before Shioda was inclined at any demo to be a showman it was just his character but it was no joke that he could actually do it


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

now disabled said:


> I'm not getting the dragging arm and running behind could you elaborate on that has he still got a hold or not ?


Here is the short clip. Your opponent still holds on your leading arm.


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> But strategy is high level MA.
> 
> Trying to move toward your opponent's blind side so his powerful back hand punch cannot reach you is a very important MA strategy.




Yup and that is where and how you blend and disrupt your opponent in what ever way that is possible by what he is trying to do 

Yes you could I guess call blending strategy in a way but it only part of it


----------



## Ryback

gpseymour said:


> I'm pretty sure I saw some video of Shioda using big entry movements in initiating action, again going back to his younger years.


Right... Gozo Shioda left o'sensei early on and he wasn't really effected by Ueshiba's later Omoto kyo inspiration... 
So the Yoshinkan lineage is closer to early o'sensei...


----------



## now disabled

Ryback said:


> Agreed.  I'm not trying to be rude to the guy but these are concepts that even people like us studying Aikido have spent some years to get used to and starting applying the techniques correctly...
> Almost all of us, as beginners couldn't even get the whole movement right, and after we managed to do it we were doing the techniques using too much arm muscle strength...
> Aikido has the concept of Aiki and the concept of randori, so it cannot be explained in a "he does this, you do that" kind of way...
> Maybe I'm not good at explaining it, if you can do it better please try because it's a nice thing that someone is trying to understand the basic principles of a martial art he hasn't practiced, but I feel I can't help enough...



no I get you totally 

It is all the vids that are out there showing folks being taught the basics that can give a wrong impression and also the demos as well most of them are set up and the seminars are really breaking down things to see why or where and what 

just my opinion


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is the short clip. Your opponent still holds on your leading arm.




ok then one option would be as already said follow him use the momentum he has created to your advantage and when you "feel" you have that a simple tenkan movement (180) alows you to possibly then go for irimi nage omote or even just kokyu ho ... I can be more specific as it really all hypothetical and for everything I can say you as another martial artist can counter so it can go on and on lol


----------



## now disabled

Ryback said:


> Right... Gozo Shioda left o'sensei early on and he wasn't really effected by Ueshiba's later Omoto kyo inspiration...
> So the Yoshinkan lineage is closer to early o'sensei...



He did as he joined the army and was sent to China he did return to Ueshiba briefly tho after the war and before he fully set up Yoshinkan and Ueshiba did award him his 10th dan although he was never affiliated to the Aikikai he never broke with Ueshiba and he always without fail gave Ueshiba his place as his teacher. 

Yoshinkan has differences to Aikikai stances etc names is it closer to the pre war Ueshiba I'm not sure possibly but there again the Iwama style claims that and it is and isn't but that for another time lol


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Getting to that joint is harder than getting a strike in, most of the time. I prefer grappling, but use striking at least as often when things go live.



which I might add I have done live probably more than most people.

And there is kind of a trick to it.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> From that vague description, my first thought is a step toward him might work. If I can make hip contact, I can disrupt structure. Of course, depending where he is and how early I can get that step in, that might also be the wrong move. But it is one option.



It is an arm drag.

If you wanted to get really ninja on the guy you step behind and throw him. Which I bet Aikido has a version of.

The reality is you turn and face. And it becomes that Spinny fight.

But that throw would make you look fly as, if you could pull it off.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> But strategy is high level MA.
> 
> Trying to move toward your opponent's blind side so his powerful back hand punch cannot reach you is a very important MA strategy.


Agreed. It's pretty common in most martial arts.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your opponent drags your leading arm and run behind you, your back hand can't punch him.
> 
> In order to disrupt his structure, you have to sense his balance point. When you do that, you may just fall into your opponent's trap - he want you to move with him.
> 
> Any respond that "you move with your opponent" (harmony?) is bad solution here.



No there are a couple of harmony options from there. And a really nice one if you are the one doing the drag.

Especially from there because you are both moving in the same direction. You are running to his back. He circles towards you
And it becomes a Spinny fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ryback said:


> Agreed.  I'm not trying to be rude to the guy but these are concepts that even people like us studying Aikido have spent some years to get used to and starting applying the techniques correctly...
> Almost all of us, as beginners couldn't even get the whole movement right, and after we managed to do it we were doing the techniques using too much arm muscle strength...
> Aikido has the concept of Aiki and the concept of randori, so it cannot be explained in a "he does this, you do that" kind of way...
> Maybe I'm not good at explaining it, if you can do it better please try because it's a nice thing that someone is trying to understand the basic principles of a martial art he hasn't practiced, but I feel I can't help enough...


The issue is that John is asking for a specific answer, and we (I'm including myself in this, because I train an aiki art) don't think that way. I can give some possibilities, but I need a specific point in time to give anything specific. I need to know weight distribution, balance, structure, and some other stuff that we read in the moment either visually or by feel. So trying to pick a single answer is tough.


----------



## drop bear

Ryback said:


> Of course it is... Also shooting him with a gun can also be... So what?



Good analogy.

So do gun shooty  people train specifically to defend against martial artists?

Of course they don't. They get the right distance. They get the gun pointed at you. And they can hit what they aim at. And it doesn't matter what martial arts someone does.

Those factors become interchangeable. It doesn't even matter if they are developed with street or sport in mind.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is an arm drag.
> 
> If you wanted to get really ninja on the guy you step behind and throw him. Which I bet Aikido has a version of.
> 
> The reality is you turn and face. And it becomes that Spinny fight.
> 
> But that throw would make you look fly as, if you could pull it off.


Yep, if there's a chance to get that turn in (I think Ryback mentioned tenkan), then Aikido certainly has some techniques from that turn. NGA shares similar varieties of those techniques. As you imply, it might not be possible to get to that set of techniques. I'd be more likely to cut the angle inward if that's available. If that sets his balance backward, I'll then have a shot at the ninja techniques.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Sorry that this thread suppose to be "Aikido against boxer" thread. I should not turn it into "Aikido against wrestling arm drag" thread. 

We train MA to solve problems. Most of the time those problems come from other MA systems.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yep, if there's a chance to get that turn in (I think Ryback mentioned tenkan), then Aikido certainly has some techniques from that turn. NGA shares similar varieties of those techniques. As you imply, it might not be possible to get to that set of techniques. I'd be more likely to cut the angle inward if that's available. If that sets his balance backward, I'll then have a shot at the ninja techniques.



The thing is blending in real time isn't blending like a lot of people think. it is basically scrambe. And it is agressive.






Now I don't scramble so much because i am getting older. And while I can still grind and maintain pressure. I just can't hit those timing points with the speed needed to do them.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yep, if there's a chance to get that turn in (I think Ryback mentioned tenkan), then Aikido certainly has some techniques from that turn. NGA shares similar varieties of those techniques. As you imply, it might not be possible to get to that set of techniques. I'd be more likely to cut the angle inward if that's available. If that sets his balance backward, I'll then have a shot at the ninja techniques.



Sexy foot sweeps and stuff. Showing that step behind concept. But you need to be seriously slick.


----------



## pdg

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is the short clip. Your opponent still holds on your leading arm.



So it's a diversion, but an interesting one.

How is the person doing the holding?

It looks to me as if the hold entirely relies on the holdee keeping his arm bent - simply straightening the arm would surely see the holder just walking away behind you?

I really can't see a need to blend or flow with that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The thing is blending in real time isn't blending like a lot of people think. it is basically scrambe. And it is agressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I don't scramble so much because i am getting older. And while I can still grind and maintain pressure. I just can't hit those timing points with the speed needed to do them.


I agree it is a more aggressive activity real time. The slow, smooth flow is dojo movement. I still hit the timing points as often as ever, but more now because of skill than speed, and maybe more because I'm less focused on them - more willing to use strikes to change the timing. As my legs get worse, I take smaller steps with less bend in my knee. That's starting to limit my access to some approaches when things speed up, more than my speed of movement is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Sexy foot sweeps and stuff. Showing that step behind concept. But you need to be seriously slick.


Oh, but I'm always seriously slick, DB.

Seriously, that's probably part of why there's more Judo in my movement now than there used to be.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

pdg said:


> How is the person doing the holding?


With the Judo jacket on, the hold can be as simple as a "cross lapel hold" that your right hand grab on your opponent right lapel.

In this clip, the Judo guy uses the "shaking" principle and moves in circle which is similar to the arm drag that I'm talking about. In other words, this situation can happen between a Aikido guy and a Judo guy.






I find this Aikido vs. Judo clip. I don't care who win. I just want to see the difference principles used between Aikido and Judo on the mat. So far, I don't see much difference.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> With the Judo jacket on, the hold can be as simple as a "cross lapel hold" that your right hand grab on your opponent right lapel.
> 
> In this clip, the Judo guy uses the "shaking" principle and moves in circle which is similar to the arm drag that I'm talking about. In other words, this situation can happen between a Aikido guy and a Judo guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find this Aikido vs. Judo clip. I don't care who win. I just want to see the difference principles used between Aikido and Judo on the mat. So far, I don't see much difference.


It's loading too slow for me to watch the whole thing, but I agree I didn't see a lot of difference. I've long said that if you put an Aikidoka against someone who won't commit weight, they'll end up looking more like Judo if they're going to be effective. The "ju" in Judo is a similar concept to the "ai" in Aikido.


----------



## Ryback

now disabled said:


> He did as he joined the army and was sent to China he did return to Ueshiba briefly tho after the war and before he fully set up Yoshinkan and Ueshiba did award him his 10th dan although he was never affiliated to the Aikikai he never broke with Ueshiba and he always without fail gave Ueshiba his place as his teacher.
> 
> Yoshinkan has differences to Aikikai stances etc names is it closer to the pre war Ueshiba I'm not sure possibly but there again the Iwama style claims that and it is and isn't but that for another time lol


Of course, Shioda never stopped respecting Ueshiba.... 
The names of the techniques in Yoshinkan (Ikkajo, Nikkajo etc instead of Ikkyo, Nikkyo etc) show that he was closer to the Daito Ryu era of o'sensei... 
Regardless of what he was doing in demos where everything must look impressive, one thing told about Shioda was "you wouldn't mess with the guy"!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

pdg said:


> I really can't see a need to blend or flow with that.


You are right! To blend or flow with your opponent in that situation is a bad idea. If you let your opponent to get behind you, he can get your leg.


----------



## Ryback

drop bear said:


> Good analogy.
> 
> So do gun shooty  people train specifically to defend against martial artists?
> 
> Of course they don't. They get the right distance. They get the gun pointed at you. And they can hit what they aim at. And it doesn't matter what martial arts someone does.
> 
> Those factors become interchangeable. It doesn't even matter if they are developed with street or sport in mind.


Oh yeah and also people with tanks are even better than that because no matter the distance, your training or your weapons they are gonna get you, while you cannot hurt them. 
Of course I still can't see any relevance to martial arts...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I've long said that if you put an Aikidoka against someone who won't commit weight, they'll end up looking more like Judo if they're going to be effective. The "ju" in Judo is a similar concept to the "ai" in Aikido.


This is why it's important to compare 2 different MA systems such as Aikido and Judo. To compare Aikido with boxing may be too far. But to compare Aikido with Judo should be much similar.

It's hard for me to believe that in Japan, there were not Aikido guys who tried to test their skill against Judo guys (or the other way around).


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> I really can't see a need to blend or flow with that.



It an Aikido concept that blending is part of the whole thing 

It not easy to grasp that and in fact in your art you do blend with things just you don't think of it like Aikidoka or other related Aikido arts do


----------



## pdg

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you let your opponent to get behind you, he can get your leg.



IF he can hold my arm long enough to get behind me at such a range as to have access to my leg.


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why it's important to compare 2 different MA systems such as Aikido and Judo. To compare Aikido with boxing may be too far. But to compare Aikido with Judo should be much similar.
> 
> It's hard for me to believe that in Japan, there were not Aikido guys who tried to test their skill against Judo guys (or the other way around).


Kano sent students to Ueshiba to study early on 

Many of Ueshiba's deshi in the early days had studied judo before Aikido and the one that was mentioned recently Shioda did


----------



## pdg

now disabled said:


> It an Aikido concept that blending is part of the whole thing
> 
> It not easy to grasp that and in fact in your art you do blend with things just you don't think of it like Aikidoka or other related Aikido arts do



It depends on how you interpret 'blend'.

In the specific case of the singular type of arm hold shown in that video, it looks very much to me as though resisting by keeping the arm bent is what enables the hold and turn.

Straighten the arm, step forward out of the hold, find yourself in kicking range.

Is that blending? Because in that specific scenario that would be my most likely response.

There are many things that I could describe as blending with TKD, but whether you'd look at them and see blending or not is an entirely different matter.

And that's the sort of thing I'd like to explore with like minded partners if I get the chance.


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> It depends on how you interpret 'blend'.
> 
> In the specific case of the singular type of arm hold shown in that video, it looks very much to me as though resisting by keeping the arm bent is what enables the hold and turn.
> 
> Straighten the arm, step forward out of the hold, find yourself in kicking range.
> 
> Is that blending? Because in that specific scenario that would be my most likely response.
> 
> There are many things that I could describe as blending with TKD, but whether you'd look at them and see blending or not is an entirely different matter.
> 
> And that's the sort of thing I'd like to explore with like minded partners if I get the chance.




that is where the confusion starts lol as in Aikido it is to the fore and in everything as it a core principle 

Other arts don't do that and thereby it gets confusing in the terminology etc etc etc


----------



## pdg

now disabled said:


> Other arts don't do that and thereby it gets confusing in the terminology etc etc etc



That's nothing, go have a look at the discussion concerning the terminology differences for essentially the same move in tkd and tkd...

(Yes, you probably read that right)


----------



## now disabled

pdg said:


> That's nothing, go have a look at the discussion concerning the terminology differences for essentially the same move in tkd and tkd...
> 
> (Yes, you probably read that right)



there the same in Aikido to lol not all use the same words for the same tech lol but blending is a core to all Ueshiba style or derived Aikido


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

pdg said:


> In the specific case of the singular type of arm hold shown in that video, it looks very much to me as though resisting by keeping the arm bent is what enables the hold and turn.
> 
> Straighten the arm, step forward out of the hold, find yourself in kicking range.


If you use your right hand to touch your left elbow joint, you will find bones on both side of your elbow joint - medial epicondyle, lateral epicondyle. If you put your thumb and index finger on these 2 bones, even if your opponent may straight his arm, you can still pull his arm.


----------



## pdg

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you use your right hand to touch your left elbow joint, you will find bones on both side of your elbow joint - medial epicondyle, lateral epicondyle. If you put your thumb and index finger on these 2 bones, even if your opponent may straight his arm, you can still pull his arm.



But in the first video the thumb and finger are nowhere near those bones, it looks more like an elbow to elbow crook.

And that's not even accounting for the fact that I don't think you'd have sufficient strength in a finger/thumb grip on my elbow to hold on, let alone move my body if I didn't want you to.

(Note I said don't think, I didn't say "pfft that's impossible" because I'd accept someone trying)


----------



## drop bear

Ryback said:


> Do you know any boxing style that instead of training to defeat another boxer in the ring, people are training to counter traditional Martial arts techniques found in Aiki-jutsu, Aikido, ken-jutsu, Jo-do, Tai-Chi, Wing Chun...?



You don't think they commit weight?


----------



## drop bear

Ryback said:


> Oh yeah and also people with tanks are even better than that because no matter the distance, your training or your weapons they are gonna get you, while you cannot hurt them.
> Of course I still can't see any relevance to martial arts...



There are circumstances in martial arts where what you train works an overwhelming fundamental basic.

So you can't wrist lock a tank driver because there is a tank in the way. But a tank is not vulnerable when it attacks an Aikidoka. Because it is a tank.

You can't attack a boxer without making yourself vulnerable.

But like a tank a boxer does not have to concern himself as much with Aikido. Because can attack without making himself vulnerable.

You have to move through the boxers specialized range. A boxer just has to keep that range.


----------



## Ryback

drop bear said:


> There are circumstances in martial arts where what you train works an overwhelming fundamental basic.
> 
> So you can't wrist lock a tank driver because there is a tank in the way. But a tank is not vulnerable when it attacks an Aikidoka. Because it is a tank.
> 
> You can't attack a boxer without making yourself vulnerable.
> 
> But like a tank a boxer does not have to concern himself as much with Aikido. Because can attack without making himself vulnerable.
> 
> You have to move through the boxers specialized range. A boxer just has to keep that range.


A boxer doesn't have to concern himself with Aikido because he can attack without being vulnerable??????  
He is vulnerable the moment he attacks an Aikidoka...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

pdg said:


> I don't think you'd have sufficient strength in a finger/thumb grip on my elbow to hold on, let alone move my body if I didn't want you to.


The original "circular dragging" principle was used on the wrestling jacket. To drag a sweated arm can be more difficulty.


----------



## drop bear

Ryback said:


> A boxer doesn't have to concern himself with Aikido because he can attack without being vulnerable??????
> He is vulnerable the moment he attacks an Aikidoka...



Have you tested this?


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> Have you tested this?


Lots and lots of people have tested this. The evidence is pretty conclusive.


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> Lots and lots of people have tested this. The evidence is pretty conclusive.



I have tested it. And yeah. pretty much.


----------



## now disabled

Ryback said:


> A boxer doesn't have to concern himself with Aikido because he can attack without being vulnerable??????
> He is vulnerable the moment he attacks an Aikidoka...



No matter who it is or what style or art everyone who attacks is vulnerable to some extent. It maybe more or less depending on skill and other factors so you are right he is vulnerable to what extent is open to argument point of view and other factors


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> No matter who it is or what style or art everyone who attacks is vulnerable to some extent. It maybe more or less depending on skill and other factors so you are right he is vulnerable to what extent is open to argument point of view and other factors



Given you pretty much wont see a honest interaction between boxing and Aikido.

Here is BJJ vs boxing to give you an idea of how this plays out.


----------



## now disabled

drop bear said:


> But like a tank a boxer does not have to concern himself as much with Aikido. Because can attack without making himself vulnerable.



Sorry but I don't agree he may be less vulnerable but no more all attacks leave openings they may not be taken but they are there


----------



## now disabled

drop bear said:


> Given you pretty much wont see a honest interaction between boxing and Aikido.
> 
> Here is BJJ vs boxing to give you an idea of how this plays out.




I cannot fully agree with you at all, no matter what is said you have a view on Aikido and it set in stone lol, we will have to agree to disagree


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> Sorry but I don't agree he may be less vulnerable but no more all attacks leave openings they may not be taken but they are there



Ok. What openings do you think are left open for Aikido?


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> I cannot fully agree with you at all, no matter what is said you have a view on Aikido and it set in stone lol, we will have to agree to disagree



My view is you have trained every striking defence at half pace or with prearranged attacks that are not thrown in cobination. From what I have seen normally that is the way it is done.

This unsurprisingly leaves the striker sinificantly open to counter attacks.

Trained like that the feedback you get is incorrect and you have trained a lot of moves that appear to be high percentage. But become low percentage when the dynamics change.

In other words two stage attacks on a punch unless you are lomenchenko and know what you are doing don't work.

They just don't. You dont have the ability to see a punch. Redirect it, then attack that arm before another punch is on its way.

If you see a punch coming at speed I will be impressed.

You just don't get two moves for every one of his moves. That is not reasonable.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Here is BJJ vs boxing to give you an idea of how this plays out.


This clip remind me the "rhino guard". By using the "rhino guard", at least you can run your big fist at your opponent's face, neck, chest. In this clip, the BBJ guys arms have no threaten to the boxer at all.

The big difference is when your opponent punches,

- without "rhino guard", you may have to move back.
- with "rhino guard", you can still move in without fear. This will give you better change to obtain your clinch.


----------



## pdg

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The original "circular dragging" principle was used on the wrestling jacket. To drag a sweated arm can be more difficulty.



Yes, grabbing a handful of sleeve changes the dynamic certainly.

It also presents a different set of challenges and some different possible counters.

But let's say you get some sort of hold on my elbow with your hand - that puts my hand around your elbow, if I can shift to return the grab I can also go for your leg if I want.


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> If you see a punch coming at speed I will be impressed.



I see just about every punch coming. If it's coming from roughly in front of me...

Seeing it coming is not the challenging part though.

Seeing it coming early enough to have sufficient time and speed to react to it, that's the kicker.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

pdg said:


> Yes, grabbing a handful of sleeve changes the dynamic certainly.
> 
> It also presents a different set of challenges and some different possible counters.
> 
> But let's say you get some sort of hold on my elbow with your hand - that puts my hand around your elbow, if I can shift to return the grab I can also go for your leg if I want.


When the Chinese wrestling art evolved from jacket to no-jacket, to be able to grab and pull on a sweated arm became difficult. Old saying said, "If your opponent has clothes, grab on his clothes. Otherwise, grab on his skin". It takes monster grip to be able to grab on skin.


----------



## now disabled

drop bear said:


> My view is you have trained every striking defence at half pace or with prearranged attacks that are not thrown in cobination. From what I have seen normally that is the way it is done.
> 
> This unsurprisingly leaves the striker sinificantly open to counter attacks.
> 
> Trained like that the feedback you get is incorrect and you have trained a lot of moves that appear to be high percentage. But become low percentage when the dynamics change.
> 
> In other words two stage attacks on a punch unless you are lomenchenko and know what you are doing don't work.
> 
> They just don't. You dont have the ability to see a punch. Redirect it, then attack that arm before another punch is on its way.
> 
> If you see a punch coming at speed I will be impressed.
> 
> You just don't get two moves for every one of his moves. That is not reasonable.



I am not going to argue.

I have only respect for boxers and there art and the training they put in and any person that puts in that amount of training and devotion has my respect.

I just cannot as I said fully agree with you on all you say and I am not skilled enough in words to describe things. 

You have your views and I have no issue with that but I am not going to agree when I don't and saying I will not see a punch coming at speed. How do you know? it is your opinion on what you have seen of Aikido


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You are right! To blend or flow with your opponent in that situation is a bad idea. If you let your opponent to get behind you, he can get your leg.


You said he's already behind. Flow wasn't what put him there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why it's important to compare 2 different MA systems such as Aikido and Judo. To compare Aikido with boxing may be too far. But to compare Aikido with Judo should be much similar.
> 
> It's hard for me to believe that in Japan, there were not Aikido guys who tried to test their skill against Judo guys (or the other way around).


Many of the early Aikido students were experienced Judoka, so I expect a lot of that went on inside the dojo.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> It depends on how you interpret 'blend'.
> 
> In the specific case of the singular type of arm hold shown in that video, it looks very much to me as though resisting by keeping the arm bent is what enables the hold and turn.
> 
> Straighten the arm, step forward out of the hold, find yourself in kicking range.
> 
> Is that blending? Because in that specific scenario that would be my most likely response.
> 
> There are many things that I could describe as blending with TKD, but whether you'd look at them and see blending or not is an entirely different matter.
> 
> And that's the sort of thing I'd like to explore with like minded partners if I get the chance.


In the simplest expression, blending either moves with the direction of the attack (you pull, I step in faster than you can move back) or crosses a straight line at an angle to turn it into a circle (you step in to punch with a right hook, I enter off-line to your left, taking your arm with me). That's sort of the starting point for blending, and you can see there's two different versions even at the start. The easiest description - never meet force with force, but find a way to work with the movement they give, rather than against it - matches your ideas. 

Mind you, my "blending" is probably not 100% the "blending" in Aikido, but it's a very close concept.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Many of the early Aikido students were experienced Judoka, so I expect a lot of that went on inside the dojo.



Most if not all of the original deshi and students were skilled in other Arts before they went to Aikido even a current 9th Dan studied his families own style of Archery and Karate and Kendo to before he joined Aikido


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You don't think they commit weight?


That doesn't seem to follow from the post you quoted. Did you mean to reply to my post, where I commented about committing weight?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> There are circumstances in martial arts where what you train works an overwhelming fundamental basic.
> 
> So you can't wrist lock a tank driver because there is a tank in the way. But a tank is not vulnerable when it attacks an Aikidoka. Because it is a tank.
> 
> You can't attack a boxer without making yourself vulnerable.
> 
> But like a tank a boxer does not have to concern himself as much with Aikido. Because can attack without making himself vulnerable.
> 
> You have to move through the boxers specialized range. A boxer just has to keep that range.


True of all grappling arts. That's why strikes are needed. If you have a low entry (single/double-leg), you might be able to slip in below the big guns, but you're still working to penetrate his specialized range.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> In the simplest expression, blending either moves with the direction of the attack (you pull, I step in faster than you can move back) or crosses a straight line at an angle to turn it into a circle (you step in to punch with a right hook, I enter off-line to your left, taking your arm with me). That's sort of the starting point for blending, and you can see there's two different versions even at the start. The easiest description - never meet force with force, but find a way to work with the movement they give, rather than against it - matches your ideas.
> 
> Mind you, my "blending" is probably not 100% the "blending" in Aikido, but it's a very close concept.



From what you have said and the very limited amount I have seen of NGA you guys do blend and I would say use smaller circles as opposed to alot of Aikido which uses large circle


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ryback said:


> A boxer doesn't have to concern himself with Aikido because he can attack without being vulnerable??????
> He is vulnerable the moment he attacks an Aikidoka...


The balance a boxer uses when jabbing is not very vulnerable to the kinds of manipulation used in aiki arts. it can be done (that earlier video showed how for an entry to kote gaeshi), but there aren't nearly as many opportunities. And a boxer is used to missing by a little bit (other boxers' head movement teaches them that) so are unlikely to overpursue. That makes them problematic for an Aikidoka who doesn't have strikes. If you can use and defend strikes, you have new entry options, and the good use of kicks can make him want to reach with his longer punches, which open more opportunities. Using boxing entries, footwork, and head movement dramatically improves the Aikidoka's chances.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> I cannot fully agree with you at all, no matter what is said you have a view on Aikido and it set in stone lol, we will have to agree to disagree


DB does have an opinion on Aikido (and all aiki, in fact) that's not open to change, but he makes a valid point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> My view is you have trained every striking defence at half pace or with prearranged attacks that are not thrown in cobination. From what I have seen normally that is the way it is done.
> 
> This unsurprisingly leaves the striker sinificantly open to counter attacks.
> 
> Trained like that the feedback you get is incorrect and you have trained a lot of moves that appear to be high percentage. But become low percentage when the dynamics change.
> 
> In other words two stage attacks on a punch unless you are lomenchenko and know what you are doing don't work.
> 
> They just don't. You dont have the ability to see a punch. Redirect it, then attack that arm before another punch is on its way.
> 
> If you see a punch coming at speed I will be impressed.
> 
> You just don't get two moves for every one of his moves. That is not reasonable.


It's the grappler's paradox. If he gets the arm, he probably wins with a high percentage. If he doesn't, he has to face another punch. If he tries for the arm, he's more exposed to the next punch, but if he doesn't he's no closer to stopping the punches. The key is controlling the situation until an arm is handy, rather than trying to grab an arm out of the air. Getting to an arm isn't that tough - it happens all the time in boxing. Getting to it with the right timing is the tough part. Of course, the better the boxer, the harder it is to get to, as you'd expect. I'm never getting ahold of Mayweather's arm...well, maybe if he doesn't hit me too hard, he'll let me have his arm to help me up off the floor.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> True of all grappling arts. That's why strikes are needed. If you have a low entry (single/double-leg), you might be able to slip in below the big guns, but you're still working to penetrate his specialized range.



The reason they do it is to sort of guess the other guy will strike at the head. So that they can be moving in to the grapple while he is going for the strike

That way it is one beat vs one beat and they have a bit of initiative.

Do make all of this happen you have to understand how boxers work.Otherwise you are going to try to parry the strike and enter on that same level and more likely than not get your head punched in.

Once the distance is closed. Then boxers have to understand how grapplers work.

Effective strikes are needed. Not Rhonda Rousey boxing. If you are getting smashed apart by the better striker. Desperately closing the gap is still a risky proposition.Because you generally hit that close from too far away.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That doesn't seem to follow from the post you quoted. Did you mean to reply to my post, where I commented about committing weight?



Yeah. judo throws.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> From what you have said and the very limited amount I have seen of NGA you guys do blend and I would say use smaller circles as opposed to alot of Aikido which uses large circle


Our circles are definitely smaller. I've taught a few folks who came from Aikikai (I think all of them were), and the main change for them was tighter circles and earlier reversals. I probably abuse that, often cutting the circle short and getting out of flow.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It's the grappler's paradox. If he gets the arm, he probably wins with a high percentage. If he doesn't, he has to face another punch. If he tries for the arm, he's more exposed to the next punch, but if he doesn't he's no closer to stopping the punches. The key is controlling the situation until an arm is handy, rather than trying to grab an arm out of the air. Getting to an arm isn't that tough - it happens all the time in boxing. Getting to it with the right timing is the tough part. Of course, the better the boxer, the harder it is to get to, as you'd expect. I'm never getting ahold of Mayweather's arm...well, maybe if he doesn't hit me too hard, he'll let me have his arm to help me up off the floor.



Shoulder down. Not wrist up.Because the closer to the body you are the less it is moving.

Secret of standing wristlocks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. judo throws.


When I say "commit weight", I'm using a term I use in my classes. A boxer reserves weight - doesn't let it get past the middle of his front foot unless he's delivering a power punch. With a Jab, his weight is probably at or behind his front heel. When he reaches with an overhand (probably after landing something solid, so the other guy is on his heels and a step away), he doesn't reserve that weight - he commits his weight further forward. That would be much easier to blend on...assuming he hadn't already hit me with something solid, which he just did.

The same is true in Judo. The reason Judo players in the Olympics stand in basically the same spot most of the match is that they're reserving weight. They know the moment they commit weight, they have to complete a throw or they're going down.

Pretty much all kicks commit weight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Shoulder down. Not wrist up.Because the closer to the body you are the less it is moving.
> 
> Secret of standing wristlocks.


Agreed. They are often taught early as an easy start at the wrist, but the application will nearly always be sliding down from elbow or shoulder. Those don't move so fast, and if you screw up you still have options (which is far less true if you're trying directly for the wrist).


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> I am not going to argue.
> 
> I have only respect for boxers and there art and the training they put in and any person that puts in that amount of training and devotion has my respect.
> 
> I just cannot as I said fully agree with you on all you say and I am not skilled enough in words to describe things.
> 
> You have your views and I have no issue with that but I am not going to agree when I don't and saying I will not see a punch coming at speed. How do you know? it is your opinion on what you have seen of Aikido



Almost nobody sees a puch coming at speed. how do you think overhand rights work?

Elite fighters cant even get a hand in the way. One hand about 4 inches.





Now there is a tricks to seeing them if you play around with angles and range. But you would really want to know those tricks.


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> Almost nobody sees a puch coming at speed. how do you think overhand rights work?
> 
> Elite fighters cant even get a hand in the way. One hand about 4 inches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now there is a tricks to seeing them if you play around with angles and range. But you would really want to know those tricks.



You can't fight faith with reason bro. Save your breath on this one.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. They are often taught early as an easy start at the wrist, but the application will nearly always be sliding down from elbow or shoulder. Those don't move so fast, and if you screw up you still have options (which is far less true if you're trying directly for the wrist).



And In all honesty If I wanted to Aikido some guy. I would get to where I am safe first, Which is body to body, Then fart around doing whatever.

This applying grappling at striking range is suicide.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Almost nobody sees a puch coming at speed. how do you think overhand rights work?
> 
> Elite fighters cant even get a hand in the way. One hand about 4 inches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now there is a tricks to seeing them if you play around with angles and range. But you would really want to know those tricks.


I normally see punches coming. I don't always know _which _punch is coming, though. Boxing has some added complications. The gloves block some vision (a reasonable compromise for their defensive use), and the tucked head/raised shoulder limits some of what they see. All of that's a reasonable compromise, especially when all that's coming is punches. And boxers are punch specialists, so they are better at disguising punches than most folks, even if they don't do it purposely.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> In the simplest expression, blending either moves with the direction of the attack (you pull, I step in faster than you can move back) or crosses a straight line at an angle to turn it into a circle (you step in to punch with a right hook, I enter off-line to your left, taking your arm with me). That's sort of the starting point for blending, and you can see there's two different versions even at the start. The easiest description - never meet force with force, but find a way to work with the movement they give, rather than against it - matches your ideas.
> 
> Mind you, my "blending" is probably not 100% the "blending" in Aikido, but it's a very close concept.



I don't tend to think much in circular terms at the mo.

But force on force I can agree is (almost always) not the greatest plan.

My idea of a block isn't using my force to stop the other person's force dead in it's tracks, but more like an angular redirection.

One small example, there's a turning kick heading for me. I'm unlikely to try to block that at 90° with my forearm if it's anything like full power. I'll go toward say 45-75° (ish), aiming to get that kick sliding along my arm to reduce the impact. Coupled with moving in the same direction, even slightly, really takes the oomph out of it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And In all honesty If I wanted to Aikido some guy. I would get to where I am safe first, Which is body to body, Then fart around doing whatever.
> 
> This applying grappling at striking range is suicide.


Yeah, when I see that range used, I wonder why. It looks to me like he's actually moving the guy forward, and it would be both easier and safer to move himself back behind the shoulder. I mean, he already has connection to that arm. But it's a still photo, so I can't really tell what he's doing, much less why.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, when I see that range used, I wonder why. It looks to me like he's actually moving the guy forward, and it would be both easier and safer to move himself back behind the shoulder. I mean, he already has connection to that arm. But it's a still photo, so I can't really tell what he's doing, much less why.



Yeah. It was just to show a position.


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> Almost nobody sees a puch coming at speed. how do you think overhand rights work?
> 
> Elite fighters cant even get a hand in the way. One hand about 4 inches.



This comes down to how you describe seeing it coming.

I'd say the very vast majority of people would see a punch coming in the terms of something coming toward them.

If you count "seeing it coming" as being able to read a punch is about to be initiated, that's a different thing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> I don't tend to think much in circular terms at the mo.
> 
> But force on force I can agree is (almost always) not the greatest plan.
> 
> My idea of a block isn't using my force to stop the other person's force dead in it's tracks, but more like an angular redirection.
> 
> One small example, there's a turning kick heading for me. I'm unlikely to try to block that at 90° with my forearm if it's anything like full power. I'll go toward say 45-75° (ish), aiming to get that kick sliding along my arm to reduce the impact. Coupled with moving in the same direction, even slightly, really takes the oomph out of it.


You use circles (as we define them), but it's not your vocabulary. I've seen some skilled TKD guys move with strikes in ways that would make any Aikidoka proud. You tend to talk angles (as does Shotokan Karate) because you're moving for strikes (they often like that 45 degree angle to expose a kick). It's a small adjustment to use a similar angle to enter to the center of a circle. The circle is what happens around you in grappling. Think of the basic arm drag - once that foot sets, the other guy is pulled in an arc. That's the circle, and the foot is the center point.


----------



## drop bear

pdg said:


> This comes down to how you describe seeing it coming.
> 
> I'd say the very vast majority of people would see a punch coming in the terms of something coming toward them.
> 
> If you count "seeing it coming" as being able to read a punch is about to be initiated, that's a different thing.



Look at those overhands. How much reaction did they get.


----------



## pdg

drop bear said:


> Look at those overhands. How much reaction did they get.



Being unable to react in time doesn't mean they didn't "see" a fist shaped object heading toward them.

I've been hit plenty of times, in almost every single instance I saw that a glove was heading at me.

In far from almost every instance did I have time to react.


----------



## now disabled

drop bear said:


> And In all honesty If I wanted to Aikido some guy. I would get to where I am safe first, Which is body to body, Then fart around doing whatever.
> 
> This applying grappling at striking range is suicide.


ummm it probably a demo and that is nikkyo he is applying and he wouldn't just start like that but I guess it pointless saying that lol


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, when I see that range used, I wonder why. It looks to me like he's actually moving the guy forward, and it would be both easier and safer to move himself back behind the shoulder. I mean, he already has connection to that arm. But it's a still photo, so I can't really tell what he's doing, much less why.



He is doing a form of nikkyo and unless he was doing it just to show the nikkyo application then other things would have happened and he has just applied and his next motion is to move his leg closest to uke backwards (kinda) and away bring uke down and it would have been done at speed, the camera has caught only the application of nikkyo


----------



## O'Malley

drop bear said:


> And In all honesty If I wanted to Aikido some guy. I would get to where I am safe first, Which is body to body, Then fart around doing whatever.
> 
> This applying grappling at striking range is suicide.



This particular technique has two factors that should (in theory) prevent the opponent from retaliating with strikes.

1) the aikidoka should move offline to prevent punches and kicks with the opposite hand/foot from reaching him

2) once in this position, he should send pressure through the arm into the spine, off-balancing the opponent. I had this done to me by a direct student of M. Saito, it feels like someone is sitting on your spine and that sends you to your knees. Ok the wrist hurts (and can hurt like hell) but it is not about inducing compliance with pain, it's not a wrist lock. I don't know whether I'm explaining it clearly haha.


----------



## now disabled

nikkyo is a wrist lock and there are again omote and ura and there is more than one way to apply nikkyo


----------



## Martial D

O'Malley said:


> This particular technique has two factors that should (in theory) prevent the opponent from retaliating with strikes.
> 
> 1) the aikidoka should move offline to prevent punches and kicks with the opposite hand/foot from reaching him
> 
> 2) once in this position, he should send pressure through the arm into the spine, off-balancing the opponent. I had this done to me by a direct student of M. Saito, it feels like someone is sitting on your spine and that sends you to your knees. Ok the wrist hurts (and can hurt like hell) but it is not about inducing compliance with pain, it's not a wrist lock. I don't know whether I'm explaining it clearly haha.


Depends on the theory I guess. Another theory is you will get hit repeatedly while trying to manipulate the arm. it's a matter of trying to get 3 or 4 movements in before a striker can get one movement in that's faster than any of the ones you are trying to do in sequence. It looks really good when the other guy is co-operating. Good enough to create believers in fact.

That's why theories are useless until they are tested, and you just don't see people winning fights using classical aikido strategy and technique, anywhere. If I'm wrong, show me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> This applying grappling at striking range is suicide.


You can't judge by the initial position. If you enter from the side door (the blind side) by surprise, it can be a very effective move.

If I can "manage" to put my thumb in my opponent's palm and put my other 4 fingers on the back of his hand, I'll have 90% chance to take him down.


----------



## now disabled

Martial D said:


> Depends on the theory I guess. Another theory is you will get hit repeatedly while trying to manipulate the arm. it's a matter of trying to get 3 or 4 movements in before a striker can get one movement in that's faster than any of the ones you are trying to do in sequence. It looks really good when the other guy is co-operating. Good enough to create believers in fact.
> 
> That's why theories are useless until they are tested, and you just don't see people winning fights using classical aikido strategy and technique, anywhere. If I'm wrong, show me.



Nikkyo 

I shall await you picking this apart


----------



## drop bear

O'Malley said:


> This particular technique has two factors that should (in theory) prevent the opponent from retaliating with strikes.
> 
> 1) the aikidoka should move offline to prevent punches and kicks with the opposite hand/foot from reaching him
> 
> 2) once in this position, he should send pressure through the arm into the spine, off-balancing the opponent. I had this done to me by a direct student of M. Saito, it feels like someone is sitting on your spine and that sends you to your knees. Ok the wrist hurts (and can hurt like hell) but it is not about inducing compliance with pain, it's not a wrist lock. I don't know whether I'm explaining it clearly haha.



Yeah. If it is locked on. Getting there is where the issue lies.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can't judge by the initial position. If you enter from the side door (the blind side) by surprise, it can be a very effective move.
> 
> If I can "manage" to put my thumb in my opponent's palm and put my other 4 fingers on the back of his hand, I'll have 90% chance to take him down.



So the get to where I am safe first bit.


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> Nikkyo
> 
> I shall await you picking this apart



He just did. The two beat movement in one beat space is precisely the issue there.


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> ummm it probably a demo and that is nikkyo he is applying and he wouldn't just start like that but I guess it pointless saying that lol



OK. Can you show me that in a situation that is not a demo?


----------



## now disabled

drop bear said:


> He just did. The two beat movement in one beat space is precisely the issue there.



ok explain your two beat


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> He is doing a form of nikkyo and unless he was doing it just to show the nikkyo application then other things would have happened and he has just applied and his next motion is to move his leg closest to uke backwards (kinda) and away bring uke down and it would have been done at speed, the camera has caught only the application of nikkyo



OK. Maybe my point is being lost here. When dealing with a boxer he owns all of that territory. 

There is nothing you can do that he can't do more quickly and with more damage.

And with an average of 4 punches a second you can't stay in that territory for very long.

He is not vulnerable there. You are. You won't catch his hand it is too quick. You won't parry and walk in to his blind side he is more experienced at negating that. You are entering using the same tools he does except for the ability to out perform the guy.


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> ok explain your two beat



OK looking at an average of 4 punches a second. Each punch at arms length takes one beat.

So your grab and strike is one beat. In a quarter of a second the next beat is available. So he can hit you in the face.

At which point in that demo both your hands are about at his wrist. Another beat to secure that lock. And that is another punch. By the third beat you have broken his wrist and he has had three shots at you.

And that is if any of those strikes hasn't slipped the arm out. At which point you will need to deal with both hands coming at you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Depends on the theory I guess. Another theory is you will get hit repeatedly while trying to manipulate the arm. it's a matter of trying to get 3 or 4 movements in before a striker can get one movement in that's faster than any of the ones you are trying to do in sequence. It looks really good when the other guy is co-operating. Good enough to create believers in fact.
> 
> That's why theories are useless until they are tested, and you just don't see people winning fights using classical aikido strategy and technique, anywhere. If I'm wrong, show me.


The actual approach is that you don't do the multiple movements until you have an opening for them. So, when a boxer slips a jab to the outside, that's a spot where a grappler can go for grappling - not much risk of strikes coming in, and lots of access to arm, shoulder, head, and maybe back. So it's not trying to get in 3-4 moves while they do one - it's trying to get into position where they can't hit in one move, then preventing them from getting into a better position.


----------



## now disabled

drop bear said:


> OK. Maybe my point is being lost here. When dealing with a boxer he owns all of that territory.
> 
> There is nothing you can do that he can't do more quickly and with more damage.
> 
> And with an average of 4 punches a second you can't stay in that territory for very long.
> 
> He is not vulnerable there. You are. You won't catch his hand it is too quick. You won't parry and walk in to his blind side he is more experienced at negating that. You are entering using the same tools he does except for the ability to out perform the guy.



No I get your point 

Can I ask are you making the assumption that as from most vids the nage is standing still and goes for the first arm thrust at him?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The actual approach is that you don't do the multiple movements until you have an opening for them. So, when a boxer slips a jab to the outside, that's a spot where a grappler can go for grappling - not much risk of strikes coming in, and lots of access to arm, shoulder, head, and maybe back. So it's not trying to get in 3-4 moves while they do one - it's trying to get into position where they can't hit in one move, then preventing them from getting into a better position.



What happens when a boxers jab is slipped in boxing?


----------



## now disabled

I have found a vid and a series of vids on Kuzushi as it is seen in Aikido terms they are demos and slow as they are demos and are drills not techniques 

I'll post em if it ain't gonna start an argument or folks saying he not doing it fast or that not gonna stop him lol...

I am only saying this as blending and breaking structure balance have been mentioned and this is how aikido looks at it (kinda but best I could find and in English )


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> No I get your point
> 
> Can I ask are you making the assumption that as from most vids the nage is standing still and goes for the first arm thrust at him?



Nage  is not moving fast enough to avoid punches from someone who is specialised in hitting fast moving people.

Same deal as I said to Gpseymor. Get someone who is a lot lighter than you to really go for you. And see what sort of time and space you have to play with.

Because not understanding timing is the bulk of what messes people up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> He just did. The two beat movement in one beat space is precisely the issue there.


The principle - I don't see it often in Aikido clips, but every Aikidoka I've talked to seems to know it, so it's taught somewhere along the line - is to break structure at the beginning of the entry, which either shuts down the strikes or slows down their beat (depending how much you manage to break the structure). The corollary is that if you fail to break the structure sufficiently, you don't move into that danger. Aikido (not NGA - we have a slightly different approach) does a decent job of playing at the end of the arm for the beginning of this control, where they can escape fast. The simplest example of this would be you grab my wrist to hold my arm out of the way for your punch (you're holding my left hand down with your left hand, punching with your right). If I can roll my right hand under yours, I can use my one beat (while you're shifting into the punch) to use your arm to put your shoulder (and maybe your arm) between us, to at least reduce the punch's power and accuracy (best case, I can actually shut it down). That buys me another beat. By the end of the first beat, I have a grip on your arm, wrist, or hand (or I've missed and use that beat to escape the killing zone). So my second beat goes to extending your arm down and away while i move to control your head/neck with the other arm. Now I've got options. After the initial interference (which bought me a beat), if anything fails, I change techniques or bail to defensive range. If my first move fails, I got punched, and that's where I started from, anyway.


----------



## pdg

now disabled said:


> I have found a vid and a series of vids on Kuzushi as it is seen in Aikido terms they are demos and slow as they are demos and are drills not techniques
> 
> I'll post em if it ain't gonna start an argument or folks saying he not doing it fast or that not gonna stop him lol...
> 
> I am only saying this as blending and breaking structure balance have been mentioned and this is how aikido looks at it (kinda but best I could find and in English )



Post them, or pm me the links


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> What happens when a boxers jab is slipped in boxing?


Simplest answer - the boxer changes his angle to respond, get the guy out of his blind spot, probably answers with the other hand. That's assuming the guy who slipped it doesn't get his punch in first and change the beat. If the guy who slipped it had a hand free (damned gloves) to grab with, he'd have other options for slowing that response. Okay, not as many unless dude puts a shirt on (damned sweaty boxer).


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The principle - I don't see it often in Aikido clips, but every Aikidoka I've talked to seems to know it, so it's taught somewhere along the line - is to break structure at the beginning of the entry, which either shuts down the strikes or slows down their beat (depending how much you manage to break the structure). The corollary is that if you fail to break the structure sufficiently, you don't move into that danger. Aikido (not NGA - we have a slightly different approach) does a decent job of playing at the end of the arm for the beginning of this control, where they can escape fast. The simplest example of this would be you grab my wrist to hold my arm out of the way for your punch (you're holding my left hand down with your left hand, punching with your right). If I can roll my right hand under yours, I can use my one beat (while you're shifting into the punch) to use your arm to put your shoulder (and maybe your arm) between us, to at least reduce the punch's power and accuracy (best case, I can actually shut it down). That buys me another beat. By the end of the first beat, I have a grip on your arm, wrist, or hand (or I've missed and use that beat to escape the killing zone). So my second beat goes to extending your arm down and away while i move to control your head/neck with the other arm. Now I've got options. After the initial interference (which bought me a beat), if anything fails, I change techniques or bail to defensive range. If my first move fails, I got punched, and that's where I started from, anyway.



If you can enter in hard and get that neck you will get a space. Pretty much everyone who goes this uses covering rather than trapping. 

The best example of trapping entering and taking control of that blind side in real time is lomenchenko. And that is why he is rated so highly


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Nage  is not moving fast enough to avoid punches from someone who is specialised in hitting fast moving people.
> 
> Same deal as I said to Gpseymor. Get someone who is a lot lighter than you to really go for you. And see what sort of time and space you have to play with.
> 
> Because not understanding timing is the bulk of what messes people up.


That's where a striking game is important. Good strikes create opportunities. I'm not going to out-box a boxer, but if I have a good set of strikes, I can control distance somewhat (adding my kicks in, to disrupt his usual entries a bit). And that's what sparring is for. Mind you, I don't feel a driving need to get to aiki techniques. If he's fast but I can get to a clinch, I'll work what I have there, while I try to keep his movement down, take away that power zone.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Simplest answer - the boxer changes his angle to respond, get the guy out of his blind spot, probably answers with the other hand. That's assuming the guy who slipped it doesn't get his punch in first and change the beat. If the guy who slipped it had a hand free (damned gloves) to grab with, he'd have other options for slowing that response. Okay, not as many unless dude puts a shirt on (damned sweaty boxer).



Yeah. Doesn't just stand there and let's you gain ground. If he is specifically trained to fight grapplers they sacrifice long combinations to maintain good striking distance.


----------



## Ryback

drop bear said:


> Have you tested this?


I have tested a lot of things, the fact that I am not cross training doesn't mean that I don't know any people from other martial arts or combat sports and even though I was successful still it doesn't prove anything other than the fact that I was successful that specific moment with those specific people... 
Don't misunderstand the fact that cross training is not my cup of tea, I have exchanged information, techniques and questions with a few people... 
Not to mention the fact that I don't need to test it first to know that it's not a good idea to cook my meal using my CD player... 
The thing is that a boxer has certain skills, mainly to punch people and to protect his upper body behind his arms and fists. Do you know how many combative skills is Aikido cultivating?? Joint manipulations, projections (what you would call throwing but with different basic principles), means of deflecting strikes and kicks, attemi and Keri waza, weapons, disarming, you name it. Not to mention of course one of the most important aspects, the inner, esoteric part, Ki and Kokyu principles... 
To believe that a boxer is invulnerable and the ultimate invincible answer to Aikido just because he is a good punch is at least ridiculous, it would have been funny if it wasn't so tragic!! 
At this moment, I feel like a Monty Python skit, where the time comes for Graham Chapman to say "don't you think that conversation has gone a bit silly?" 
The "invulnerable boxer" claim has soooooooo hit the brakes for my interest in this!! 
I believe I offered whatever I had to offer in the thread for what it's worth, I liked the agreements and disagreements with people that made the conversation constructive, regardless of their point of view.
I wish everyone a happy journey with their martial arts quest and see you guys around in another thread maybe, it's been an honour talking with most of you!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If you can enter in hard and get that neck you will get a space. Pretty much everyone who goes this uses covering rather than trapping.
> 
> The best example of trapping entering and taking control of that blind side in real time is lomenchenko. And that is why he is rated so highly


On a boxer (or other fast striker), I'd expect to use shoulder/head control more than elbow/wrist control. And I'm probably going to play with his legs and hips, to break his rhythm.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. Doesn't just stand there and let's you gain ground. If he is specifically trained to fight grapplers they sacrifice long combinations to maintain good striking distance.


Again, that's why grapplers need strikes.


----------



## drop bear

Ryback said:


> I have tested a lot of things, the fact that I am not cross training doesn't mean that I don't know any people from other martial arts or combat sports and even though I was successful still it doesn't prove anything other than the fact that I was successful that specific moment with those specific people...
> Don't misunderstand the fact that cross training is not my cup of tea, I have exchanged information, techniques and questions with a few people...
> Not to mention the fact that I don't need to test it first to know that it's not a good idea to cook my meal using my CD player...
> The thing is that a boxer has certain skills, mainly to punch people and to protect his upper body behind his arms and fists. Do you know how many combative skills is Aikido cultivating?? Joint manipulations, projections (what you would call throwing but with different basic principles), means of deflecting strikes and kicks, attemi and Keri waza, weapons, disarming, you name it. Not to mention of course one of the most important aspects, the inner, esoteric part, Ki and Kokyu principles...
> To believe that a boxer is invulnerable and the ultimate invincible answer to Aikido just because he is a good punch is at least ridiculous, it would have been funny if it wasn't so tragic!!
> At this moment, I feel like a Monty Python skit, where the time comes for Graham Chapman to say "don't you think that conversation has gone a bit silly?"
> The "invulnerable boxer" claim has soooooooo hit the brakes for my interest in this!!
> I believe I offered whatever I had to offer in the thread for what it's worth, I liked the agreements and disagreements with people that made the conversation constructive, regardless of their point of view.
> I wish everyone a happy journey with their martial arts quest and see you guys around in another thread maybe, it's been an honour talking with most of you!



It doesn't matter how many combative skills you cultivate. If it is not based on a useful basic foundation.

You don't win fights by having more techniques. You win them by being better.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Again, that's why grapplers need strikes.



They need to know how the dynamics of striking works. So they don't constantly rush in to traps.

And some lomenchenko.





You will see how he constantly gets that angled entry.


----------



## Ryback

drop bear said:


> It doesn't matter how many combative skills you cultivate. If it is not based on a useful basic foundation.
> 
> You don't win fights by having more techniques. You win them by being better.


For the last time mate, and this time I mean it, you are making no sense whatsoever and it's because you are not even trying to make! 
Who's gonna judge such a holistic art as Aikido and claim that it has no useful foundation??  The.....invulnerable boxer?? 
I'm soooo out of here, like, for good.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> On a boxer (or other fast striker), I'd expect to use shoulder/head control more than elbow/wrist control. And I'm probably going to play with his legs and hips, to break his rhythm.



Change levels is still safest because you don't have to fart around identifying and redirecting strikes. He will probably be going for your head. So you can just guess.


----------



## drop bear

Ryback said:


> For the last time mate, and this time I mean it, you are making no sense whatsoever and it's because you are not even trying to make!
> Who's gonna judge such a holistic art as Aikido and claim that it has no useful foundation??  The.....invulnerable boxer??
> I'm soooo out of here, like, for good.



How is Aikido holistic?

And Aikido guys who cross train have been judging it.





Is these issues invalid?


----------



## now disabled

Ryback said:


> For the last time mate, and this time I mean it, you are making no sense whatsoever and it's because you are not even trying to make!
> Who's gonna judge such a holistic art as A
> 
> 
> Chill bro ...he is not getting at you just agree to disagree


----------



## now disabled

drop bear said:


> How is Aikido holistic?
> 
> And Aikido guys who cross train have been judging it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is these issues invalid?




I think he is meaning that Aikido is holistic in it's approach as in the big picture and that all things are inter connected


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> I think he is meaning that Aikido is holistic in it's approach as in the big picture and that all things are inter connected



Yeah. But even then. Origionally designed to be paired with judo?

I think to do Aikido you need to be able to punch kick and wrestle well. And I think people miss that.


----------



## now disabled

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But even then. Origionally designed to be paired with judo?
> 
> I think to do Aikido you need to be able to punch kick and wrestle well. And I think people miss that.




no not paired with judo lol There were quite a few of the original deshi that were judoka and as I said before Kano sent some of his students to Ueshiba to study 

I agree you do need to know how to strike I have said many times that Aikido does have atemi, There are just no set drills for teaching that or kicking, I have said before that I believe and was told that when Ueshiba started teaching (ok I don't mean Daito ryu or Aiki-jujutsu ) his original students all knew how to punch and strike due to the backgrounds they came from so he didn't teach what they already knew. So it has got let out kinda in modern schools, He did say many times that Aikido was dependent on atemi (he did quote a number %  I can't remember it tho lol)  and it should be noted that Ueshiba back then didn't really teach publicly he kinda selected when he started to teach Aikido ...Also he didn't teach much at the Aikikai really that was his son and others (I'm not saying he didn't ) he was in Iwama


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> no not paired with judo lol There were quite a few of the original deshi that were judoka and as I said before Kano sent some of his students to Ueshiba to study
> 
> I agree you do need to know how to strike I have said many times that Aikido does have atemi, There are just no set drills for teaching that or kicking, I have said before that I believe and was told that when Ueshiba started teaching (ok I don't mean Daito ryu or Aiki-jujutsu ) his original students all knew how to punch and strike due to the backgrounds they came from so he didn't teach what they already knew. So it has got let out kinda in modern schools, He did say many times that Aikido was dependent on atemi (he did quote a number %  I can't remember it tho lol)  and it should be noted that Ueshiba back then didn't really teach publicly he kinda selected when he started to teach Aikido ...Also he didn't teach much at the Aikikai really that was his son and others (I'm not saying he didn't ) he was in Iwama



I understand Aikido does have striking. And just to insult everyone fairly. I feel it is kind of like when karate says they have grappling.

You can't just have it in your syllabus. It also has to actually work.






I mean hopefully this guys answer to Judo is not going to be. "Yeah but we have throws"


----------



## now disabled

drop bear said:


> I understand Aikido does have striking. And just to insult everyone fairly. I feel it is kind of like when karate says they have grappling.
> 
> You can't just have it in your syllabus. It also has to actually work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean hopefully this guys answer to Judo is not going to be. "Yeah but we have throws"



The atemi do work lol it just they are rarely ever taught and that is wrong and I agree. It is a failing in most (not all) of the schools that they leave that out in a way it can be that it is possibly assumed that when you reach a certain level you should understand where to apply atemi and when, unfortunately that doesn't always work and when schools are set up if the teacher has not be taught that or hasn't grasped that or he is taking it another way then that results in it be thought that it not there.


----------



## now disabled

@drop bear 

I am more than sure that you could teach me how to punch in a better manner and with more power and not letting the gaps appear 

Where Aikido may enhance you or further your knowledge (I am not being nasty) is the body dynamics and how they work ie breaking balance in a different way to you are taught how if a certain body part is manipulated how it can cause things to happen that if done properly the human body has to follow


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> The atemi do work lol it just they are rarely ever taught and that is wrong and I agree. It is a failing in most (not all) of the schools that they leave that out in a way it can be that it is possibly assumed that when you reach a certain level you should understand where to apply atemi and when, unfortunately that doesn't always work and when schools are set up if the teacher has not be taught that or hasn't grasped that or he is taking it another way then that results in it be thought that it not there.



In that regards it is the half pace stuff that gets me. And everyone does this. They just get used to the manufactured large amounts of time and space. And start filling that with ideas that dont work very well.

I can take advantage of a correctly thrown punch at 50% more than I can take advantage of an incorrectly thrown one at 100%

Even boxing sparring done light the rules of what works changes.










You are fundamentally playing around with different physics.


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> @drop bear
> 
> I am more than sure that you could teach me how to punch in a better manner and with more power and not letting the gaps appear
> 
> Where Aikido may enhance you or further your knowledge (I am not being nasty) is the body dynamics and how they work ie breaking balance in a different way to you are taught how if a certain body part is manipulated how it can cause things to happen that if done properly the human body has to follow



Correct. And of course the trick is to do both well.


----------



## now disabled

drop bear said:


> In that regards it is the half pace stuff that gets me. And everyone does this. They just get used to the manufactured large amounts of time and space. And start filling that with ideas that dont work very well.
> 
> I can take advantage of a correctly thrown punch at 50% more than I can take advantage of an incorrectly thrown one at 100%
> 
> Even boxing sparring done light the rules of what works changes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are fundamentally playing around with different physics.



also students change to some because Aikido is marketed the way it is think it passive and non aggressive and they see all the big throws and it impresses them and they trot along. Very few actually even consider the martial side


----------



## Martial D

now disabled said:


> Nikkyo
> 
> I shall await you picking this apart



Pick what apart? This is a slow motion cooperative drill. Literally everything works when the guy cooperates.

Let's see it in real-time against someone fighting back.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> They need to know how the dynamics of striking works. So they don't constantly rush in to traps.
> 
> And some lomenchenko.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will see how he constantly gets that angled entry.


I wish I was that good at cutting that entry angle. He's smooth.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

gpseymour said:


> I wish I was that good at cutting that entry angle. He's smooth.


Er, I mean, TMA...secret techniques...stupid rules...self-defense!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ryback said:


> For the last time mate, and this time I mean it, you are making no sense whatsoever and it's because you are not even trying to make!
> Who's gonna judge such a holistic art as Aikido and claim that it has no useful foundation??  The.....invulnerable boxer??
> I'm soooo out of here, like, for good.


He hasn't claimed boxers are invulnerable. But they are among the most compact fighters, and their punches are fast. That presents a specific problem for aiki arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Change levels is still safest because you don't have to fart around identifying and redirecting strikes. He will probably be going for your head. So you can just guess.


We've talked before about how weak my level changing is, man.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

now disabled said:


> also students change to some because Aikido is marketed the way it is think it passive and non aggressive and they see all the big throws and it impresses them and they trot along. Very few actually even consider the martial side


And this - and some will disagree with me - is a good fit. If the folks participating don't really care about the martial side, then ditch the atemi and the "hard" throws. Focus on the cerebral and attractive stuff, and spend all your time only on flow. That stuff's fun and can be studied a lifetime if it's done right, and everybody's happy. There's only a problem with that approach if someone is trying to use it (exclusively) to develop fighting/defensive skills.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> And this - and some will disagree with me - is a good fit. If the folks participating don't really care about the martial side, then ditch the atemi and the "hard" throws. Focus on the cerebral and attractive stuff, and spend all your time only on flow. That stuff's fun and can be studied a lifetime if it's done right, and everybody's happy. There's only a problem with that approach if someone is trying to use it (exclusively) to develop fighting/defensive skills.



I have no issue with that at all as each has his or her own path


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> He hasn't claimed boxers are invulnerable. But they are among the most compact fighters, and their punches are fast. That presents a specific problem for aiki arts.



They own a range in which they are safe. The tank analogy was pretty good. It is your job to get through that range. All they have to do is keep that range.

Ever fought a tall guy? Same thing.


----------



## drop bear

now disabled said:


> I have no issue with that at all as each has his or her own path



Until you get in to  discussions like vs a boxer.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> They own a range in which they are safe. The tank analogy was pretty good. It is your job to get through that range. All they have to do is keep that range.
> 
> Ever fought a tall guy? Same thing.


Tall guy is a great analogy. Works better I striking, but applies somewhat in stand-up grappling too.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Can someone answer me this simple question?

Do Aikido guys ever test their MA skill against people form different MA systems?

When my Aikido friend Armando Flores and I competed in Austin local Karate tournament, the week after, Armando was kicked out of his Aikido Association. Even today, we still don't know why?


----------



## now disabled

T


Kung Fu Wang said:


> Can someone answer me this simple question?
> 
> Do Aikido guys ever test their MA skill against people form different MA systems?
> 
> When my Aikido friend Armando Flores and I competed in Austin local Karate tournament, the week after, Armando was kicked out of his Aikido Association. Even today, we still don't know why?




There is only one form of Aikido that has competition and that is Tomiki (a deshi of Ueshiba it did cause some issues between Tomiki and the Aikikai  ). Are you saying he was kicked out because of him competing?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

now disabled said:


> Are you saying he was kicked out because of him competing?


Yes! That was back in 1976. Not sure the policy has been changed since then or not.


----------



## now disabled

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Yes! That was back in 1976. Not sure the policy has been changed since then or not.



Hmmmm I have no clue at all 

All I can say is in a Karate Tournament then if your using Karate skills which I assume the rules would dictate then you and your friend were Karateka and nothing to do with Aikido  thereby where is the issue ?

The only thing I can think of is and was your friend taking his Karate into the Aikido dojo and trying to start competition there or indeed just trying to start competition in Aikido as if it was and I assume his style was not Tomiki then that may have been the reason. As I said the only style of Aikido (derived and from Ueshiba's Aikido ) that has competition is Tomiki and well it is a thing well well known that Aikido is not promoted as a competitive art  and it is frowned on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Can someone answer me this simple question?
> 
> Do Aikido guys ever test their MA skill against people form different MA systems?
> 
> When my Aikido friend Armando Flores and I competed in Austin local Karate tournament, the week after, Armando was kicked out of his Aikido Association. Even today, we still don't know why?


The answer, like other arts, is it varies by individual. Many do not. Some do. 

I know some folks in Aikido who are deep into the philosophy of peace and would be bothered by a student competing - a very closed-minded view of competition. I know others in Aikido who have no issue with it.


----------



## now disabled

For the American Aikidoka who might not have seen these two in their prime


----------



## now disabled

Another one who had a great effect on American Aikido


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

now disabled said:


> As I said the only style of Aikido (derived and from Ueshiba's Aikido ) that has competition is Tomiki and well it is a thing well well known that Aikido is not promoted as a competitive art  and it is frowned on.


If a MA style doesn't compete with other MA systems, and also doesn't compete within it's own system, there is some missing training there.

No matter how much partner training that you may have, you still need to test it. I have seen people who has trained the wrestling art for 6 years. On the mat, he still doesn't know how to use his hip throw.

- In partner training, your opponent will give you that opportunity.
- In sparring, your opponent won't give you that opportunity.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The answer, like other arts, is it varies by individual. Many do not. Some do.
> 
> I know some folks in Aikido who are deep into the philosophy of peace and would be bothered by a student competing - a very closed-minded view of competition. I know others in Aikido who have no issue with it.



How is that view inconsistent with competing?

I mean a BJJ is a pretty cruisey event.


----------



## Martial D

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If a MA style doesn't compete with other MA systems, and also doesn't compete within it's own system, there is some missing training there.
> 
> No matter how much partner training that you may have, you still need to test it. I have seen people who has trained the wrestling art for 6 years. On the mat, he still doesn't know how to use his hip throw.
> 
> - In partner training, your opponent will give you that opportunity.
> - In sparring, your opponent won't give you that opportunity.


Exactly this. Alive training teaches you to make your own opportunities. It doesn't matter what you train; if everything you do requires a cooperative partner, you won't have the first idea what to do when he isn't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> How is that view inconsistent with competing?
> 
> I mean a BJJ is a pretty cruisey event.


I'm not clear how it conflicts, either, DB. I've heard it stated more than once, but it has never fully made sense to me. But then, the late-Aikido (Omoto-influenced) philosophy doesn't make sense to me, either, so that may be the base of my lack of comprehension.


----------



## now disabled

gpseymour said:


> I'm not clear how it conflicts, either, DB. I've heard it stated more than once, but it has never fully made sense to me. But then, the late-Aikido (Omoto-influenced) philosophy doesn't make sense to me, either, so that may be the base of my lack of comprehension.



Oomoto has caused many issues that is for sure 

and no I don't fully understand it either ...I get bits well bits of bits lol


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I know some folks in Aikido who are deep into the philosophy of peace and would be bothered by a student competing.


The "Tao" philosophy said,

- You should not promote anybody. If you promote one, you will make all the others unhappy.
- The tallest tree will be blown down by wind first.
- ...

Those kind of thinking is not healthy and may cause big problem for the society. IMO, peace and competing are not conflict.


----------



## Clyde Cash

There is no defence against a boxer


----------



## Headhunter

Clyde Cash said:


> There is no defence against a boxer


Expect for when randy couture put James toney on his butt then destroyed him. Or where art jimmerson literally quit because he got mounted and probably hundreds of other examples. Now I know you're banned because you're a troll but still


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Headhunter said:


> Expect for when randy couture put James toney on his butt then destroyed him. Or where art jimmerson literally quit because he got mounted and probably hundreds of other examples. Now I know you're banned because you're a troll but still


Don't you just hate when they get banned before you can reply to some of the idiocy?


----------



## vince1

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There are 2 things wrong in this grab. IMO, there is no value to train a grab counter if that grab is wrong to start with.



I have been training in Aiki Jiu Jitsu for almost a year and this video was very disappointing. Aiki Jiu Jitsu promotes either striking or kicking in this type of scenario first, then move to either a wrist lock(break) or arm lock, reverse hand to take down and kick to the ribs etc. The guy in the video was too nice and would of gotten himself killed in a real life confrontation.


----------



## Martial D

vince1 said:


> I have been training in Aiki Jiu Jitsu for almost a year and this video was very disappointing. Aiki Jiu Jitsu promotes either striking or kicking in this type of scenario first, then move to either a wrist lock(break) or arm lock, reverse hand to take down and kick to the ribs etc. The guy in the video was too nice and would of gotten himself killed in a real life confrontation.


Do you spar at your school?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

vince1 said:


> I have been training in Aiki Jiu Jitsu for almost a year and this video was very disappointing. Aiki Jiu Jitsu promotes either striking or kicking in this type of scenario first, then move to either a wrist lock(break) or arm lock, reverse hand to take down and kick to the ribs etc. The guy in the video was too nice and would of gotten himself killed in a real life confrontation.


In fairness, that particular video was meant to just show an exercise for learning some basic body mechanics and philosophical principles of Aikido, rather than a realistic full street application.

I could offer some specific criticism of the body mechanics and principles he is teaching, but that’s another issue.


----------



## vince1

Martial D said:


> Do you spar at your school?



Absolutely we spar. Punching,kicking ,grappling along with delicate pressure with regards to the many scenarios where wrist lock, arm lock, leg locks etc. can be used. We also practice footwork which has been a huge benefit in my Aiki Jiu Jitsu journey so far.I am no longer tripping over my feet as much as I use to.We try not to hurt each other.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> In fairness, that particular video was meant to just show an exercise for learning some basic body mechanics and philosophical principles of Aikido, rather than a realistic full street application.
> 
> I could offer some specific criticism of the body mechanics and principles he is teaching, but that’s another issue.


 Why do you want to grab on your opponent's arm?

You want to

- guide his leading arm to jam his own back arm so his back arm can't punch you.
- tuck his leading arm away from your entering path.
- force your opponent to pay attention on your grip.
- ...

To assume that your opponent may grab you without any purpose is not realistic IMO.


----------



## vince1

Tony Dismukes said:


> In fairness, that particular video was meant to just show an exercise for learning some basic body mechanics and philosophical principles of Aikido, rather than a realistic full street application.
> 
> I could offer some specific criticism of the body mechanics and principles he is teaching, but that’s another issue.



Yes I understand what you are saying and I was quick to judge. I understand the particular move he was displaying and have learned a similar move, part of a movement we call leading & following. When you learn the entire movement that leads to another movement you become more comfortable in all types of fighting scenarios.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why do you want to grab on your opponent's arm?
> 
> You want to
> 
> - guide his leading arm to jam his own back arm.
> - tuck his leading arm away from your entering path.
> - force your opponent to pay attention on your grip.
> - ...
> 
> To assume that your opponent may grab you without any purpose is not realistic IMO.


Absolutely correct. 

As I was saying to Vince, this video lesson was clearly meant to teach some basic body mechanics rather than actual application.

Where many teachers in Aikido and other arts go wrong is they stop there and don’t follow up by examining how those mechanics would apply against a realistic threat. (Actually, based on some things the teacher in the video says, I suspect he may have no clue of how a realistic threat involving a grab would work.)


----------



## Martial D

vince1 said:


> Absolutely we spar. Punching,kicking ,grappling along with delicate pressure with regards to the many scenarios where wrist lock, arm lock, leg locks etc. can be used. We also practice footwork which has been a huge benefit in my Aiki Jiu Jitsu journey so far.I am no longer tripping over my feet as much as I use to.We try not to hurt each other.


That's cool. Most of the Aki family works purely in the realm of cooperative choreography. You've found a unicorn school.


----------



## O'Malley

vince1 said:


> Absolutely we spar. Punching,kicking ,grappling along with delicate pressure with regards to the many scenarios where wrist lock, arm lock, leg locks etc. can be used. We also practice footwork which has been a huge benefit in my Aiki Jiu Jitsu journey so far.I am no longer tripping over my feet as much as I use to.We try not to hurt each other.



Are you talking about Daito-ryu aiki-jujutsu? May I ask what branch you are training with? Thanks


----------



## wab25

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why do you want to grab on your opponent's arm?
> 
> You want to
> 
> - guide his leading arm to jam his own back arm so his back arm can't punch you.
> - tuck his leading arm away from your entering path.
> - force your opponent to pay attention on your grip.
> - ...
> 
> To assume that your opponent may grab you without any purpose is not realistic IMO.


I have been given a different understanding of these "grab my wrist" scenarios. (this is what I have been told... if someone knows different, let me know...) I have been told that this is from the time when people wore their sword on their left side. The sword could not be drawn by the left hand, so you wanted to keep the right hand controlled and away from the sword. If it got to the sword, and he drew the sword, things got very bad for you. Also, it was not simply a wrist grab, but a wrist grab and take down, to the rear. The idea was for the unarmed guy to surprise the swordsman, grab his wrist, preventing the sword draw and taking him down. 

So the wrist grab escape, was really about freeing your hand, to get to your sword. Even the "circle the guys grabbing hand, and wrist lock him" escape works for getting to the sword. Forget the lock, circle around his grabbing hand, and draw your sword, cutting him in the draw.

This is what I have been taught, and I would be interested on thoughts about how authentic that is. However, it does give a reason for the grab. You can then move the techniques out of the static realm, by having the attacker grab your wrist and attempt to take you down to the rear. You have to regain your structure and do the escape, as the attacker is trying to take you down, or at least off balance.

These days people don't wear swords, so this attack is less real. But, someone may grab you that way to prevent you from grabbing a weapon of opportunity, or possibly to force you into a car, or out a door... The practice of moving with, to regain your balance and escape, now that a real intent has been added to the "grab my wrist" attack, helps you to learn the underlying principals and body mechanics. Those principals and mechanics can be useful in many other situations, that are more probable.


----------



## vince1

O'Malley said:


> Are you talking about Daito-ryu aiki-jujutsu? May I ask what branch you are training with? Thanks



My Master was a student of Kushida from Ann Arbor Michigan that still taught punching and kicking etc many years ago. Kushida was told to eliminate this but did not and broke off from the main school in Japan many years ago. When my master moved to Canada from Ann Arbor he became friends with Professor Wally Jay (circle jiu jitsu) and Dr. Yang Jwing -Ming. He incorporated these martial arts into the Aiki Jiu Jitsu curriculum. To answer your question I think it was Yoshinkai base Aikido or Aiki Jiu jitsu old school.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wab25 said:


> I have been given a different understanding of these "grab my wrist" scenarios. (this is what I have been told... if someone knows different, let me know...) I have been told that this is from the time when people wore their sword on their left side. The sword could not be drawn by the left hand, so you wanted to keep the right hand controlled and away from the sword. If it got to the sword, and he drew the sword, things got very bad for you. Also, it was not simply a wrist grab, but a wrist grab and take down, to the rear. The idea was for the unarmed guy to surprise the swordsman, grab his wrist, preventing the sword draw and taking him down.
> 
> So the wrist grab escape, was really about freeing your hand, to get to your sword. Even the "circle the guys grabbing hand, and wrist lock him" escape works for getting to the sword. Forget the lock, circle around his grabbing hand, and draw your sword, cutting him in the draw.
> 
> This is what I have been taught, and I would be interested on thoughts about how authentic that is. However, it does give a reason for the grab. You can then move the techniques out of the static realm, by having the attacker grab your wrist and attempt to take you down to the rear. You have to regain your structure and do the escape, as the attacker is trying to take you down, or at least off balance.
> 
> These days people don't wear swords, so this attack is less real. But, someone may grab you that way to prevent you from grabbing a weapon of opportunity, or possibly to force you into a car, or out a door... The practice of moving with, to regain your balance and escape, now that a real intent has been added to the "grab my wrist" attack, helps you to learn the underlying principals and body mechanics. Those principals and mechanics can be useful in many other situations, that are more probable.


That seems plausible. I can't speak to the accuracy of it, but it would explain why some of the older arts have such an emphasis on wrist grips. My personal view of the current usage is that it's an easy way to practice - you know exactly where to find their hand, because it's attached to your forearm. From that, you're actually learning what to do with a hand/arm when you end up with it in your possession while grappling with someone (or blocking, or whatever).


----------



## Bruce7

I have boxed and train in Aikido a year each.
IMO it takes many years of training in Aikido to develop skills necessary to fight a good boxer with one year of training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Bruce7 said:


> I have boxed and train in Aikido a year each.
> IMO it takes many years of training in Aikido to develop skills necessary to fight a good boxer with one year of training.


I would agree with that. Something less "aiki" (wrestling or Judo, for instance) would be a better match than a system focused directly on aiki. There's a foundation needed that's not often included in Aikido training. Some develop it over time, just by exposure to enough situations, but it's not a part of the common training so far as I can tell.


----------



## O'Malley

vince1 said:


> My Master was a student of Kushida from Ann Arbor Michigan that still taught punching and kicking etc many years ago. Kushida was told to eliminate this but did not and broke off from the main school in Japan many years ago. When my master moved to Canada from Ann Arbor he became friends with Professor Wally Jay (circle jiu jitsu) and Dr. Yang Jwing -Ming. He incorporated these martial arts into the Aiki Jiu Jitsu curriculum. To answer your question I think it was Yoshinkai base Aikido or Aiki Jiu jitsu old school.



Thanks, looks like an interesting mix!



gpseymour said:


> The answer, like other arts, is it varies by individual. Many do not. Some do.
> 
> I know some folks in Aikido who are deep into the philosophy of peace and would be bothered by a student competing - a very closed-minded view of competition. I know others in Aikido who have no issue with it.



Well, on a philosophical level, competition was against the founder's beliefs. However, he did not require his students to subscribe to his religion. Also he let Tomiki invent a competitive aikido style without having any problem about it, maintaining a good relationship until his death.

The founder did not want aikido to become a sport either (like judo had done) because "aikido is about life and death". This actually reflects a debate that has been going on since medieval times in Japan and is still going on in this very thread: are kata (drills) needed? Should we include sparring and competition in the training curriculum? Various arguments were already used back then: kata training does not develop courage nor the sense for position, timing and dealing with resistance while sparring is still different from a combat situation and, if success in sparring becomes the goal of training, this will make practitioners pick up bad habits (like exposing vital points that do not constitute targets in competition) and leave them unprepared mentally for life and death situations. It is my understanding that most schools kept kata as the primary method of teaching.

On a technical level, competition/sparring (focusing on downing the opponent) is actually counterproductive to the practice of aikido, which becomes physically easier to do and learn once you stop _trying_ to _do something to_ your uke.



gpseymour said:


> That seems plausible. I can't speak to the accuracy of it, but it would explain why some of the older arts have such an emphasis on wrist grips. My personal view of the current usage is that it's an easy way to practice - you know exactly where to find their hand, because it's attached to your forearm. From that, you're actually learning what to do with a hand/arm when you end up with it in your possession while grappling with someone (or blocking, or whatever).



I believe that, in koryu, wrist grab defenses were indeed used to free your sword. However, Sokaku Takeda's peculiar background (including his family history, his alleged sumo background and his apparent lack of formal training in jujutsu) makes me think that the grabs and techniques used in daito ryu (and even more in aikido) are meant to teach you how to deal with forces applied to your body (someone grabbing you and pushing/pulling), how to move correctly, what are the right positions and angles for kuzushi and to condition your body/joints to receive forces (this theory has been developed by E. Amdur in great detail).

IMO, the techniques that would translate the most into "real life application" would be the ones we lump together as "kokyu nage":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrSgu-TuNUI


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> On a technical level, competition/sparring (focusing on downing the opponent) is actually counterproductive to the practice of aikido, which *becomes physically easier to do and learn once you stop trying to do something to your uke.*


Agreed, especially on that part I bolded. And that's where an Aikidoka needs a base of non-aiki technique (or at least non-aiki application of their techniques). It takes time (both calendar time in training, and patience in the conflict) to allow the movement to open up an opportunity for aiki-based technique. That's an inherent weakness that can be filled with good striking/countering and a solid grappling underpinning. This also opens up some of the very easy early opportunities for those non-aiki applications.



> I believe that, in koryu, wrist grab defenses were indeed used to free your sword. However, Sokaku Takeda's peculiar background (including his family history, his alleged sumo background and his apparent lack of formal training in jujutsu) makes me think that the grabs and techniques used in daito ryu (and even more in aikido) are meant to teach you how to deal with forces applied to your body (someone grabbing you and pushing/pulling), how to move correctly, what are the right positions and angles for kuzushi and to condition your body/joints to receive forces (this theory has been developed by E. Amdur in great detail).


That's a good point about Takeda's background (which I often forget to consider). And that's how I view the grip attacks in NGA. In fact, the actual technique, as I view it, doesn't start from the grip. The beginning of what NGA calls a "technique" is actually an entry (which could potentially be used for other techniques, as well). The entry is used to get to/create (so you can recognize it later) a position where the technique is fully available. The entry starts the kuzushi, provides protective positioning, etc. Combined into a system, these entries are the controlling and defensive movements NGA uses to get to those openings (as you said, rather than manufacturing them).

Personally, I'm a proponent of being able to manufacture openings, too, and being able to take advantage of openings for more forceful (striking or Judu-esque grappling) techniques. I think those abilities make aiki movement and technique more effective and more plausible in most situations. And I actually think that allows the practitioner to be more aiki-focused in his Aikido.


----------



## vince1

O'Malley we practice sword forms/Jo forms in order to strengthen wrist grab defense along with pin pointing the many pressure points . The sword forms that I have learned so far have really helped my wrist grab techniques(flow) along with hand strength and pinpointing pressure points throughout the body. Everything we learn standing up can be applied while sitting or in a grappling scenario.


----------

