# Aikido hate



## Hornviper

Hello everyone,
Why does Aikido get so much hate? I realize that BJJ and MMA are very mainstream at the moment, and some of those guys are the biggest Aikido haters out there. No offense. It all boils down to: Did any of the MMA fighters do aikido?" Some people go as far as calling it ********, ineffective, a waste of time, etc. Really? I visited the local Aikido school, and I loved the atmosphere. I'd like to know what your opinion of this art is. I believe most (if not all) arts can be applied in certain scenarios. I have to admit that I am not one of those people that dream of killing/dismantling others. That's the last thing I want to to. 

Thank you in advance.


----------



## Steve

Hornviper said:


> Hello everyone,
> Why does Aikido get so much hate? I realize that BJJ and MMA are very mainstream at the moment, and some of those guys are the biggest Aikido haters out there. No offense. It all boils down to: Did any of the MMA fighters do aikido?" Some people go as far as calling it ********, ineffective, a waste of time, etc. Really? I visited the local Aikido school, and I loved the atmosphere. I'd like to know what your opinion of this art is. I believe most (if not all) arts can be applied in certain scenarios. I have to admit that I am not one of those people that dream of killing/dismantling others. That's the last thing I want to to.
> 
> Thank you in advance.


welcome to MT.   just curious.  How much experience do you have with BJJ, MMA or aikido?  

I don't think aikido gets a lot of hate around here.


----------



## ShortBridge

Aikido might be right for you. If it felt good to you there and it interests you, why not give it a go and see what happens?


----------



## Hornviper

Thank you for your replies. I don't have any experience with BJJ and MMA, but I do know a lot of guys who do. They absolutely despise Aikido, even though they've never done it. I just wonder why. I keep hearing Aikido's the fastest way to get killed in the street. I personally doubt that but who am I to say? I am no expert whatsoever.


----------



## Midnight-shadow

As with most things it comes down to ignorance. If you look on wikipedia at how it describes Aikido you can quickly see why MMA fighters hate it:



> *Aikido* (Japanese: 合気道 Hepburn: _aikidō_?) [aikiꜜdoː] is a modern Japanese martial art developed by Morihei Ueshiba as a synthesis of his martial studies, philosophy, and religious beliefs. Aikido is often translated as "the way of unifying (with) life energy"[1] or as "the way of harmonious spirit".[2] Ueshiba's goal was to create an art that practitioners could use to defend themselves while also protecting their attacker from injury.[3][4]
> 
> Aikido techniques consist of entering and turning movements that redirect the momentum of an opponent's attack, and a throw or joint lock that terminates the technique.[5]



People see words like "religious beliefs" and "life energy" and immediately group Aikido with "chi magic" practitioners. On top of that you have the whole defending yourself without harming your opponent, which in the western world (particularly for MMA fighters) to mean "I'm too weak to hurt someone and haven't got the guts to punch someone who attacks me". These things give Aikido a reputation for being useless.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

I think a lot of younger MMA guys hate whatever isn't MMA.

Fine with me.

I think Aikido is fine. As are many others, including MMA. I think the key is the person, not the style.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

You can't develop any true MA skill if you only train when your opponent cooperates with you and not train when your opponent does not. If there are Aikido tournament, Aikido reputation will be different.


----------



## Steve

Follow me here.   Once again, people who have no experience with either MMA or aikido are criticizing MMAists for criticizing aikido from a position of ignorance, from a position of ignorance.  

In other words, if you have no actual experience with MMA, then perhaps you should avoid doing the very thing you are criticizing others for doing.


----------



## Steve

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think a lot of younger MMA guys hate whatever isn't MMA.
> 
> Fine with me..


This is tongue in cheek.  Right?

Also, it's not the person.   It's how the style is trained.  You could train MMA in the manner some other styles train, and it would cease to be effective.


----------



## CB Jones

Steve said:


> Follow me here.   Once again, people who have no experience with either MMA or aikido are criticizing MMAists for criticizing aikido from a position of ignorance, from a position of ignorance.
> 
> In other words, if you have no actual experience with MMA, then perhaps you should avoid doing the very thing you are criticizing others for doing.


----------



## Steve

CB Jones said:


>


Lol.  I know it's hard to follow.   Think double standard that is often indulged around here.   

Simply put, if this was just a thread about aikido, fine,   But for some reason, any thread like this must also include unnecessary insults to MMA, BJJ and/or the martial artists who train in them.


----------



## kuniggety

I use wristlocks from aikido while doing BJJ. So, there.


----------



## Tez3

I don't know any MMA people who hate actually Aikido, they are usually like most TMA people, too busy training to actually go round actively hating other styles. They may have looked at aikido and taken anything they personally find useful from it, as they/we do with a lot of styles but no one has the time or interest to actually indulge in hating.
I think what most MMA people do, again like TMA people, is look at a style, say 'it's not for me' and then forget about it.
Threads like this do nothing to either help Aikido or MMA, just saying that 'MMA people hate Aikido' is pointless unless you want to start arguments between MMA people and others. It's another let's bash MMA thread. Well, let's not this time.


----------



## Headhunter

Haven't got an opinion since I've never done it and I think your confusing practitioners to fans. I've only ever seen hate for any martial art on YouTube comment sections with dumb comments like "Conor mcgregor would destroy that guy" or nonsense like that. If you liked it then that's all that matters.

It also doesn't really help the biggest representation of aikido is Steven segal. Who is pretty much considered a joke what with him telling everyone that he taught Anderson silva how to do a front kick


----------



## Jenna

Hornviper said:


> Hello everyone,
> Why does Aikido get so much hate? I realize that BJJ and MMA are very mainstream at the moment, and some of those guys are the biggest Aikido haters out there. No offense. It all boils down to: Did any of the MMA fighters do aikido?" Some people go as far as calling it ********, ineffective, a waste of time, etc. Really? I visited the local Aikido school, and I loved the atmosphere. I'd like to know what your opinion of this art is. I believe most (if not all) arts can be applied in certain scenarios. I have to admit that I am not one of those people that dream of killing/dismantling others. That's the last thing I want to to.
> 
> Thank you in advance.


Some times Aikido practitioners are their own worst enemy. Some times Aikidoka are hypocrites and are poor representatives of their art. Some times Aikidoka are full of xxxx. 

Other times practitioners of other arts have misinformed preconceptions.. that might be based on youtube nonsense or Aikido tall tales.. all art have this.. is understandable Aikido must be felt, and but moreover, the goal and means of Aikido practice is wholly dissimilar from the goal and means of other arts and it is forgiveable that non Aikido practitioners can comment without accurate experience.  

Then again, maybe other times people just like hatin on some thing.. Thing is.. if I decide to tell you your art is ineffective and I have no experience of your art, why would you even value my opinion enough to care?

Wishes xx


----------



## Buka

Welcome to MT, Hornviper.

Don't know how much of that hating actually goes on, but, haters gonna' hate, bro. Screw em'.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hornviper said:


> Thank you for your replies. I don't have any experience with BJJ and MMA, but I do know a lot of guys who do. They absolutely despise Aikido, even though they've never done it. I just wonder why. I keep hearing Aikido's the fastest way to get killed in the street. I personally doubt that but who am I to say? I am no expert whatsoever.


That sounds like dogma, and there's not much of a good explanation for dogma. There are reasons why people who are into MMA don't like Aikido (not the same as "despise"). 

What a person will like (assuming they are working from good information/understanding) will depend upon their personality and goals. Someone who competes in MMA is unlikely to find Aikido a good fit for them. And both MMA folks and BJJ folks tend to have a strong desire to see something proven against a highly skilled, fully resisting opponent (meaning competition). Aikido's principles are not designed around being usable for competition. Any skilled Aikidoka, for instance, can nullify most Aikido techniques. So, have tow skilled Aikidoka competing, and you have to stop looking for the "aiki" in your Aikido, and it starts to look more like Judo competitions. The same would be true for the Aikidoka facing anyone experienced in grappling (standing or ground). And since the opponent has a chance to study you, they know you're going to use aiki, and even the strikers will know to under-commit, taking away much of the "aiki". In a committed attack, that doesn't happen.

There's also the issue that many Aikido schools aren't very realistic in their training. Their attacks are stylized and/or antiquated. I've heard the argument made that these translate into standard modern attacks, but that's not wholly true. A chop has a different elbow (and therefore shoulder) position than a round punch, for instance. And many Aikido schools do not teach effective strikes, which should be a component in any combat training.

It all depends what the purpose of your training is, whether Aikido is a good fit. For the purposes and mindset of MMA and BJJ guys, it often isn't.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And both MMA folks and BJJ folks tend to have a strong desire to see something proven against a highly skilled, fully resisting opponent (meaning competition). Aikido's principles are not designed around being usable for competition. Any skilled Aikidoka, for instance, can nullify most Aikido techniques. So, have two skilled Aikidoka competing, and you have to stop looking for the "aiki" in your Aikido, and it starts to look more like Judo competitions. The same would be true for the Aikidoka facing anyone experienced in grappling (standing or ground). And since the opponent has a chance to study you, they know you're going to use aiki, and even the strikers will know to under-commit, taking away much of the "aiki". In a committed attack, that doesn't happen.



Relying on the other guy to attack you right is pretty low percentage.

But in a fight you need pressure as much as you need aki. If you are relying only on aki you are only using half the method from a fighting point of view.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Relying on the other guy to attack you right is pretty low percentage.
> 
> But in a fight you need pressure as much as you need aki. If you are relying only on aki you are only using half the method from a fighting point of view.


It's not about "attacking right" - it's about committed attacks that commit weight. Trained folks know better. Before MMA, a lot of strikers who competed only against strikers could be found doing precisely that. And from a self-defense perspective, well-controlled attacks (like most competition attacks) are not the norm from angry or desperate people. They aren't normally going to face off, wait, and feel out for a chance to attack.

And I agree that you need to be able to pressure. That's the problem with those schools that don't train strikes. Having a decent striking game is a fairly easy way to add pressure to lead into the Aikido. Mind you, the kind of pressure needed in competition (working against someone highly skilled) is different, IMO, from what is needed against an angry guy in a bar or a scared guy on the street. Probably closer to what would be needed against a cold psychopath, but those are rarer than the aforementioned.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It's not about "attacking right" - it's about committed attacks that commit weight. Trained folks know better. Before MMA, a lot of strikers who competed only against strikers could be found doing precisely that. And from a self-defense perspective, well-controlled attacks (like most competition attacks) are not the norm from angry or desperate people. They aren't normally going to face off, wait, and feel out for a chance to attack.
> 
> And I agree that you need to be able to pressure. That's the problem with those schools that don't train strikes. Having a decent striking game is a fairly easy way to add pressure to lead into the Aikido. Mind you, the kind of pressure needed in competition (working against someone highly skilled) is different, IMO, from what is needed against an angry guy in a bar or a scared guy on the street. Probably closer to what would be needed against a cold psychopath, but those are rarer than the aforementioned.



Ok everybody uses a version of Aki in martial arts. Counterpunching uses Aki. So every martial artist is versed in attacking in a way that maximizes their chances of hurting you  and leaves them the least vunerable to counter attack. This is just a common sense aproach to training.

It sounds like you are trying to say what doesn't work in training will work in self defence due to some sort of fundimental shift in the dynamics of fighting.

That is not the case. If anything moves are harder to pull off if someone is attacking full noise.

If your system only works against a trained oponant or only works against an untrained oponant then you dont have a well rounded system. And you will loose application.

Yes striking creates opportunities for pressure and aki.

Grappling also creates oppotunities for pressure and aki.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok everybody uses a version of Aki in martial arts. Counterpunching uses Aki. So every martial artist is versed in attacking in a way that maximizes their chances of hurting you  and leaves them the least vunerable to counter attack. This is just a common sense aproach to training.


"attacking in a way that maximizes their chances of hurting you  and leaves them the least vunerable to counter attack" doesn't describe what aiki is, to me. Striking arts rarely evidence any aiki - it's not terribly useful for strikes, though it will happen at times. It's not exactly rare in any grappling art, though many don't actually work with it much, so they are less likely to make full use of it. Aiki is an approach to getting them moving with very little effort. It's more about finding the place where there's no resistance (or, better yet, where they are actually giving the force/momentum/energy needed to throw them, so you don't have to).


> It sounds like you are trying to say what doesn't work in training will work in self defence due to some sort of fundimental shift in the dynamics of fighting.


I'm not saying that one can't use competition training for self-defense. I'm saying it doesn't work for developing aiki, because once someone knows what they are dealing with, they can remove most opportunities for aiki. It's a limitation inherent in training aiki. This is one of my problems with the schools that focus on aiki, without building alternatives, and claim to be helping develop self-defense skills. Aikido works for self-defense, but not if it's limited to only the purely aiki movements (except, perhaps, for those with extreme skill levels). Strikes, leverage (Jujutsu/Judo style throws and locks), etc. round out the possibilities.

I think a reasonable comparison would be a haymaker sucker punch. It can work, even on a trained person, when standing in a bar. It's unlikely to be effective in the middle of a boxing or MMA round, because it's not going to be a surprise. Unless you've set them up for it with a lot of other work, that haymaker isn't going to connect. In a surprise situation, though, it's a much higher percentage move.


> That is not the case. If anything moves are harder to pull off if someone is attacking full noise.


That's a quirk of aiki. It's actually easier to execute the core principles (not the exact techniques, the principles that make them work) when someone comes "full noise", as you put it. Someone punching to take a head off gives the kind of weight commitment that makes an Aikido throw feel easy to the thrower.



> If your system only works against a trained oponant or only works against an untrained oponant then you dont have a well rounded system. And you will loose application.


Again, kind of my point. Pure aiki training is not a good solution for self-defense, IMO. Now, that trained opponent will usually give what Aikido needs when he's angry. You can see that when high-level MMA competitors get out of control at photo ops and stuff. Those guys would never give that kind of weight commitment to an opponent in the cage, but when they are shoving, they often over-commit their weight.



> Yes striking creates opportunities for pressure and aki.
> 
> Grappling also creates oppotunities for pressure and aki.



Grappling doesn't actually create as many opportunities for aiki, unless the person does something stupid like pull away as hard as they can. It will create openings for leverage throws and the like. Look at what happens in Judo competitions. They eventually manage a throw, but rarely is it because their opponent over-committed their weight somewhere. If I grapple with someone trained, they'll likely drop/control their weight (far less chance of aiki). If I grapple with someone untrained, they'll likely get more tense and muscle things (again, less chance of aiki). I need them moving for aiki, and strikes do a better job of that.


----------



## frank raud

Midnight-shadow said:


> As with most things it comes down to ignorance. If you look on wikipedia at how it describes Aikido you can quickly see why MMA fighters hate it:
> 
> 
> 
> People see words like "religious beliefs" and "life energy" and immediately group Aikido with "chi magic" practitioners.


   Do you think one of the largest Aikido organizations being the Ki Society might have something to do with that?


----------



## Hanzou

Hornviper said:


> Hello everyone,
> Why does Aikido get so much hate?









Ueshiba was doing the exact same stuff btw.

Going a little bit further, the martial culture nowadays is if you got the goods, prove it on the mat. Unfortunately, the Aikido community tends to shy away from that, and it invites ridicule.


----------



## JP3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can't develop any true MA skill if you only train when your opponent cooperates with you and not train when your opponent does not. If there are Aikido tournament, Aikido reputation will be different.



Here you go, Wang:

Tomiki Aikido Federation  	 - Events

Tomiki aikido has tournaments.  Will you stop the hate now?

J/K I know you don't hate...

As it happens, Tomiki aikido is what I do, but we don't do tournaments... we tend to train Police Officers, Security/personal protection detail people, prison gurard and detention officers, etc.  One of the guys I'm proud to know and I call one of my instructors is a 40 year veteran of various Sheriff Offices in Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (if I've got that dept. name right, I may not), and spent some start-up time as  a street police officer.  His arts... judo and Tomiki aikido.  In his career he's had over 750 prisoner removal from cell situations, 1,000+ felony warrant arrests, and so manyscraps in the street dealing with dumb people he stopped counting at ~3,000. And... he's never once, not once, put someone in the hospital.  He admits to more than a few instances of road rash on faces, but that's it.

Pooh-bear/teddy bear aikido might not be effective on the street, if a school/dojo has lost sight that it derives straight from a battlefield MA... I've been in and trained at those schools, and where people are aghast at this question, "So, how would you modify that for the street encounter, or for a larger opponent?"  Eyes roll, there are heavy sighs, uncomfortable glances around the dojo floor, and then a senior student will typicall speak up and say, "We do traditional aikido here. We are continuing the purity of the art form which O-Sensei created." Or some other such nonsense, imo.  Quite obviously, they've not done their own reading on Morehei Ueshiba.  He was a soldier, and a good (read, vicious) one. He was effective, he killed int he line of duty and afterwards, sometimes with his weapons, sometimes unarmed with his skills.

It's the people who make aikido good/bad for SD, not the art itself.


----------



## JP3

kuniggety said:


> I use wristlocks from aikido while doing BJJ. So, there.



I finished an aikido SD drill the other day with a nifty shimewaza I learned in BJJ about 10 years ago called the "Bow & Arrow choke."  So, there too.  

BJJ = Brazilian Jujitsu = Brazilian Jujutsu
Aikido = nice, restrained  Aikijujutsu
Aikijujutsu with a hangover or used by a mean old man = pain & maiming, followed by The Void.

So, it's the person.


----------



## JP3

I agree with Frank's post above. I'd have clicked Agree, but I wanted to point out to Drop and Gerry that I think that they actually agree, just can't quite see that they do, which I admit, I find funny.

Drop on your counterpunch comment, I completely agree. Drum-technique counterpunching is certainly aiki (i.e. harmonizing, blending...) an attack is fired and as it is entering the space of the defender the defender turns With the strike in yin-yang fashion... entering to deliver his own shot.

On Gerry's comment, I may disagree slightly with you about there not being as much aikiopportunity in grappling situations, and you pointed at judo competitions.  If by "not as much" you meant by amplitude, I agree... the windows of opportunity are much, much smaller... but, if you meant frequency of aiki being present.... I have to disagree with that.   There are many, many more such aiki openings available when you actually have hands on, or other contact with the opponent. Opponent in this is either the guy you've enjoyed randori for fun training with for the past 20 years or the guy who just jumped on your back with a knife intending to neck stab you thrice and take your stuff including your lady.

You've written something like this before, that for aiki to exist, an actual attack must exist, or something like that. Thinking judo, when someone drops into jigotai (defensive posture), they can't attack you (with judo, anyway) unless they leave that posture, i.e. stand-up back to natural posture to enter to throw, or go to the ground for a sacrifice throw. So, this bears out your idea, that the attack (which is not present with a based opponent) cannot be used to have an aiki-based technique.

*Note before people take my thought out of context: based stances work wonders for strikers. *Mr. T voice* "I pity the fool that tries to throw Bill Maddox when he's grounded. Good luck with that, sucka!"


Where was I going... Oh, yeah.  Same-same.  I think that Gerry and Drop are saying the same thing, and having a hemispherical difference of nomenclature to get their opinions conveyed, as I agree with most everything they've said back and forth. But, maybe I'm schizophrenic enough to have multiple points of view in my head at the same time. Probably a Career path thing.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Hornviper said:


> BJJ and MMA are very mainstream at the moment, and some of those guys are the biggest Aikido haters out there


The situation between me and Aikido is personal and I'm not going to our dirty laundry, but Aikido knows what it did. It knows.

(I know too, Aikido. Our mutual "friends" told me _all_ about it. Don't try calling me to apologize, the restraining order is still in effect.)


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Look, I'm not saying I was 100% perfect all the time. But when you think you know a martial art and you can trust it with your girlfriend ... and your best guy friend ... and your parrot ... and your prize-winning rutabaga - and then you have to find out through social media that trust was undeserved ... it hurts, that's all I'm saying.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> I agree with Frank's post above. I'd have clicked Agree, but I wanted to point out to Drop and Gerry that I think that they actually agree, just can't quite see that they do, which I admit, I find funny.
> 
> Drop on your counterpunch comment, I completely agree. Drum-technique counterpunching is certainly aiki (i.e. harmonizing, blending...) an attack is fired and as it is entering the space of the defender the defender turns With the strike in yin-yang fashion... entering to deliver his own shot.
> 
> On Gerry's comment, I may disagree slightly with you about there not being as much aikiopportunity in grappling situations, and you pointed at judo competitions.  If by "not as much" you meant by amplitude, I agree... the windows of opportunity are much, much smaller... but, if you meant frequency of aiki being present.... I have to disagree with that.   There are many, many more such aiki openings available when you actually have hands on, or other contact with the opponent. Opponent in this is either the guy you've enjoyed randori for fun training with for the past 20 years or the guy who just jumped on your back with a knife intending to neck stab you thrice and take your stuff including your lady.
> 
> You've written something like this before, that for aiki to exist, an actual attack must exist, or something like that. Thinking judo, when someone drops into jigotai (defensive posture), they can't attack you (with judo, anyway) unless they leave that posture, i.e. stand-up back to natural posture to enter to throw, or go to the ground for a sacrifice throw. So, this bears out your idea, that the attack (which is not present with a based opponent) cannot be used to have an aiki-based technique.
> 
> *Note before people take my thought out of context: based stances work wonders for strikers. *Mr. T voice* "I pity the fool that tries to throw Bill Maddox when he's grounded. Good luck with that, sucka!"
> 
> 
> Where was I going... Oh, yeah.  Same-same.  I think that Gerry and Drop are saying the same thing, and having a hemispherical difference of nomenclature to get their opinions conveyed, as I agree with most everything they've said back and forth. But, maybe I'm schizophrenic enough to have multiple points of view in my head at the same time. Probably a Career path thing.


I actually think DB and I agree a lot. Unfortunately, I feel at times he has this idea of what I do and teach that isn't in line with what I do and teach, and that notion leads to not understanding me. In this thread, for instance, he seems to be trying to convince me that training only things that work with a committed (over-committed, for the trained folks) attack isn't a good idea. I agree. In fact, that's the point I made in my first post on this thread.

As for what aiki opportunities exist inside grappling, I think that comes down to a definition of "aiki", and I've yet to find two people who had the same definition of it as a physical principle. What I define as "aiki", I find vanishes when people get all stiff. They then open up a whole range of other principles, instead (leverage, openings to strike, etc.). When they resist those principles by moving, the aiki openings come back. Now, I know a lot of folks would put more into the "aiki" group than I do, and I'm okay with that, as long as we understand which definition we're using at any given point.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JP3 said:


> Tomiki aikido has tournaments.  Will you stop the hate now?


I respect all MA styles that test their skill in sport format.

One day an Aikido friend Armando Flores and a Karate friend visited me. I told them that there was a local Karate tournament. All 3 of us put gloves on and went to competed in that tournament. Armando didn't understood Karate tournament rules and punched on his opponent's face so hard, drew some blood, and got disqualified in his 1st fight. In few days, my Aikido friend was kicked out of his Aikido Association. He then went to far east and trained his Aikido with top master. This is how I know that Aikido guys were not allowed to compete in tournament back in 1973.

Today my Aikido friend is "Sensei" now.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JP3 said:


> Tomiki aikido has tournaments.  Will you stop the hate now?


I don't hate Aikido. I have many students who came from Aikido background. Steve and I were both white belt in YMCA Karate class back in 1972 when I was a UT student. I do know a little bit about Aikido.

Steve McAdam (7th degree black belt) was the first member of the UT Aikido Club, which started in 1972.  He has been the chief instructor since 1988. His training in Seidokan Aikido emphasizes gentle, small, and efficient movements.


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> Follow me here.   Once again, people who have no experience with either MMA or aikido are criticizing MMAists for criticizing aikido from a position of ignorance, from a position of ignorance.
> 
> In other words, if you have no actual experience with MMA, then perhaps you should avoid doing the very thing you are criticizing others for doing.



You don't need to practice what they do in order to hear their opinions about something. It's very common in the martial arts community for MMA people to bad mouth anything "TMA".

We've seen it here a number of times too, you can't simply ignore it or write of people stating the obvious because they haven't trained it.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> You don't need to practice what they do in order to hear their opinions about something. It's very common in the martial arts community for MMA people to bad mouth anything "TMA".
> 
> We've seen it here a number of times too, you can't simply ignore it or write of people stating the obvious because they haven't trained it.


First, Google confirmation bias.  Second, stereotyping the practitioners of one art in defense of another is hypocritical. Third, even aikidoka acknowledge there are problems with how aikido is often trained.


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> First, Google confirmation bias.  Second, stereotyping the practitioners of one art in defense of another is hypocritical. Third, even aikidoka acknowledge there are problems with how aikido is often trained.



Who here is stereotyping? The guy literally said in his post that this is what he is hearing from MMA guys. That is him talking about what he had experienced with these individuals. 

Giving constructive criticism as the aikidoka do about their training doesn't mean that aikido is bad either. Everything has stupid training methods that some will agree are fine, and some will agree that they are bad.

Martial arts is one of those things that many people regardless of style have different views on how to do something. These are things you cannot simply just deny. I mean when you have people like Joe Rogan invite aikido and tae Kwon do people onto their shows for the sole purpose of telling them their style is ****.

Then well, sadly stereotypes exist for a reason. It's very common in my generation too, you practice something that isn't MMA and the majority will say you're wasting your time and should just do MMA because it's better.


----------



## Tez3

Ironbear24 said:


> It's very common in the martial arts community for MMA people to bad mouth anything "TMA".



It might be around your way but it's not everywhere, don't forget many MMA people have a TMA background. What you are doing, as someone has already said, is confusing the fan boys with the MMA practitioners. The fan boys for the most part have verbal diarrhoea with mental constipation.


----------



## Ironbear24

Tez3 said:


> It might be around your way but it's not everywhere, don't forget many MMA people have a TMA background. What you are doing, as someone has already said, is confusing the fan boys with the MMA practitioners. The fan boys for the most part have verbal diarrhoea with mental constipation.



They aren't fanboys if they are doing it.

I mean is Joe Rogan a fan boy then?


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> You don't need to practice what they do in order to hear their opinions about something. It's very common in the martial arts community for MMA people to bad mouth anything "TMA".
> 
> We've seen it here a number of times too, you can't simply ignore it or write of people stating the obvious because they haven't trained it.



It is very common for the TMA community to bring up how rotten a bunch of guys the MMA community is. 

You just did it in your post.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> "attacking in a way that maximizes their chances of hurting you and leaves them the least vunerable to counter attack" doesn't describe what aiki is, to me. Striking arts rarely evidence any aiki - it's not terribly useful for strikes, though it will happen at times. It's not exactly rare in any grappling art, though many don't actually work with it much, so they are less likely to make full use of it. Aiki is an approach to getting them moving with very little effort. It's more about finding the place where there's no resistance (or, better yet, where they are actually giving the force/momentum/energy needed to throw them, so you don't have to).



I am not trying to describe aki.  I am describing balanced striking.

And i am sorry if it nullifies aki.  But everyone employs it.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I actually think DB and I agree a lot. Unfortunately, I feel at times he has this idea of what I do and teach that isn't in line with what I do and teach, and that notion leads to not understanding me. In this thread, for instance, he seems to be trying to convince me that training only things that work with a committed (over-committed, for the trained folks) attack isn't a good idea. I agree. In fact, that's the point I made in my first post on this thread.
> 
> As for what aiki opportunities exist inside grappling, I think that comes down to a definition of "aiki", and I've yet to find two people who had the same definition of it as a physical principle. What I define as "aiki", I find vanishes when people get all stiff. They then open up a whole range of other principles, instead (leverage, openings to strike, etc.). When they resist those principles by moving, the aiki openings come back. Now, I know a lot of folks would put more into the "aiki" group than I do, and I'm okay with that, as long as we understand which definition we're using at any given point.



You keep thinking this golden opportunity will somehow just come along. 

And for some mysterious reason your training partners keep denying you this. 

That is not a big surprise.

It is unlikely to happen in a street fight either.  The other guy denying you the golden oportunity is pretty much half of fighting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I am not trying to describe aki.  I am describing balanced striking.
> 
> And i am sorry if it nullifies aki.  But everyone employs it.


No need to apologize. It's the point I was making. It does take away a lot of aiki opportunities, and that's why aiki techniques are easier when someone is angry, desperate, or trying to end something fast. Those conditions lead people to make mistakes they are less likely to make when they are being methodical. When someone is methodical, it takes pressure to create movement for the techniques, or patience to wait for the right opening. Or you go with the leverage and sacrifice techniques. Or you just switch to striking (my preference with someone who is a better grappler than striker).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You keep thinking this golden opportunity will somehow just come along.
> 
> And for some mysterious reason your training partners keep denying you this.
> 
> That is not a big surprise.
> 
> It is unlikely to happen in a street fight either.  The other guy denying you the golden oportunity is pretty much half of fighting.


There it is again. You're assuming we just wait for it. In NGA, we use strikes and other tools unless and until the aiki openings show up. And they do, far more often than you seem to think. Beginners make those mistakes all the time, often when they try to stop someone more experienced from doing a technique. And I have good reports from police officers I trained under and alongside that those opportunities show up fairly reliably even with people who are resisting.


----------



## Tez3

Ironbear24 said:


> They aren't fanboys if they are doing it.
> 
> I mean is Joe Rogan a fan boy then?



Yes, one of the worst.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> Yes, one of the worst.


Agreed. Actually doing something doesn't preclude someone also being a fanboy.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. Actually doing something doesn't preclude someone also being a fanboy.


We should remember that Rogan is a company guy,  he owes much to the UFC and MMA.


----------



## Psilent Knight

First off, I think Aikido is an awesome martial art. Secondly, I am of the opinion that every martial art can be effective if it is trained the right way, including Aikido. In fact, I have always held the viewpoint that Aikido can be devastating when it is incorporated with boxing or kickboxing.

I think there is a source of unfair criticism and a source of criticism that I think is almost well deserved.

The unfair criticism is that Aikidoka don't participate in sport competitions. I think that's unfair because Aikido is a non sporting, non competitive martial art and I don't agree with the opinion that a martial art should automatically be looked at as being ineffective if the practitioners don't compete.

A source of criticism that I do think is deserved are the demonstrations where the Aikido master supposedly defeats 20 people (who just so happen to be his students and co-demonstraters) while barely touching them, using nothing but his ki and the inability of his students to move him or move one of his arms, etc. Stuff like that.

It's bad enough that some people unfairly criticize Aikido for being non competitive. The mystical demonstrations certainly don't help their case.

My two cents.

Take Care All,
Osu!


----------



## Steve

Psilent Knight said:


> First off, I think Aikido is an awesome martial art. Secondly, I am of the opinion that every martial art can be effective if it is trained the right way, including Aikido. In fact, I have always held the viewpoint that Aikido can be devastating when it is incorporated with boxing or kickboxing.
> 
> I think there is a source of unfair criticism and a source of criticism that I think is almost well deserved.
> 
> The unfair criticism is that Aikidoka don't participate in sport competitions. I think that's unfair because Aikido is a non sporting, non competitive martial art and I don't agree with the opinion that a martial art should automatically be looked at as being ineffective if the practitioners don't compete.
> 
> A source of criticism that I do think is deserved are the demonstrations where the Aikido master supposedly defeats 20 people (who just so happen to be his students and co-demonstraters) while barely touching them, using nothing but his ki and the inability of his students to move him or move one of his arms, etc. Stuff like that.
> 
> It's bad enough that some people unfairly criticize Aikido for being non competitive. The mystical demonstrations certainly don't help their case.
> 
> My two cents.
> 
> Take Care All,
> Osu!


I think that, like literally every other skill learned by human beings, application matters.  Competition produces the most consistent, most efficient results.   When people say, "it's the person, not the style," I disagree.   If it takes an exceptional person to make a style work, then the style is flawed.   It is entirely the training model.   If the training model is effective, any able bodied person will be successful.   And nonsense won't survive.   

Anybody can learn to play baseball or soccer.   Anyone can learn to cook or to drive a car.   Anyone can learn BJJ, too.  If you train BJJ, going three times per week for two years, you'll be pretty good and likely have your blue belt.   Because the training model is sound.

Aikido trained like BJJ or boxing could be very effective.


----------



## Andrew Green

Hornviper said:


> Why does Aikido get so much hate?



"Aikido" really doesn't.

The trouble in all these things is any art is situational.  Aikido in MMA is going to be a disaster.  So for that purpose, it's a terrible art.  Same as a lot of other arts, put in a different context they aren't very good.

Even MMA gets it, there are a lot of boxers who will tell you MMA sucks because there boxing is terrible by boxing standards.  BJJ sucks in wrestling because guys keep pinning themselves.  Wrestling sucks in BJJ because guys keep giving up their back and neck.

Now, you will get some people that "hate" a art because it doesn't fit their interests.  So what? people hate hockey, soccer, football, nascar, golf, etc. as well.  People hate their favourite sports teams rivals.  I doubt anyone loses much sleep over it though.

You will also get some arguments when someone makes ridiculous claims... like a Aikido guy claiming he could Aikido his way through any pro MMA fighter easily, but his pacifistic nature keeps him from engaging in sport combat.  Most are going to just ignore those claims though... except online where being argumentative is second nature to most.

Don't worry about it, some people hate rap music, others hate country, some hate Nickleback and everyone hates Beiber.  It's fine, do what you want and have fun.  The people you are going to actually be training with are obviously going to also enjoy whatever it is you do.


----------



## Steve

Andrew Green said:


> "Aikido" really doesn't.
> 
> The trouble in all these things is any art is situational.  Aikido in MMA is going to be a disaster.  So for that purpose, it's a terrible art.  Same as a lot of other arts, put in a different context they aren't very good.
> 
> Even MMA gets it, there are a lot of boxers who will tell you MMA sucks because there boxing is terrible by boxing standards.  BJJ sucks in wrestling because guys keep pinning themselves.  Wrestling sucks in BJJ because guys keep giving up their back and neck.
> 
> Now, you will get some people that "hate" a art because it doesn't fit their interests.  So what? people hate hockey, soccer, football, nascar, golf, etc. as well.  People hate their favourite sports teams rivals.  I doubt anyone loses much sleep over it though.
> 
> You will also get some arguments when someone makes ridiculous claims... like a Aikido guy claiming he could Aikido his way through any pro MMA fighter easily, but his pacifistic nature keeps him from engaging in sport combat.  Most are going to just ignore those claims though... except online where being argumentative is second nature to most.
> 
> Don't worry about it, some people hate rap music, others hate country, some hate Nickleback and everyone hates Beiber.  It's fine, do what you want and have fun.  The people you are going to actually be training with are obviously going to also enjoy whatever it is you do.


Everyone hates nickelback.  Come on.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> There it is again. You're assuming we just wait for it. In NGA, we use strikes and other tools unless and until the aiki openings show up. And they do, far more often than you seem to think. Beginners make those mistakes all the time, often when they try to stop someone more experienced from doing a technique. And I have good reports from police officers I trained under and alongside that those opportunities show up fairly reliably even with people who are resisting.



I assume it because you basically say it. 

* Any skilled Aikidoka, for instance, can nullify most Aikido techniques. So, have tow skilled Aikidoka competing, and you have to stop looking for the "aiki" in your Aikido, and it starts to look more like Judo competitions. The same would be true for the Aikidokafacing anyone experienced in grappling (standing or ground)*

There is a difference between being outclassed by a better martial artist and completely shut down because someone knows the basic fundimentals. You are missing an element that makes akido work against a competent guy. Or you wouldn't get shut down in that manner. Instead of finding that element you are hoping you won't need it. 

All martial arts use the concept of aki.  All martial arts will operate in a way that denies you aki. 

Uou say you are not relying on this golden opportunity while suggesting that while this opportunity doesn't occur in training it will probably happen in a fight.


----------



## Ironbear24

Tez3 said:


> Yes, one of the worst.



My respect for you was already high but now it's even higher.



Steve said:


> We should remember that Rogan is a company guy,  he owes much to the UFC and MMA.



That's a great point.



Steve said:


> Everyone hates nickelback.  Come on.



Same with tez. My respect for you both just skyrocketed now. Nickelback is a crime against ears. I was honestly thinking you and Tez were going to try and defend Rogan here but now that I see you can objectively judge the obvious. My respect for you both has grown.

And yeah, Steven seagal is a horrible representative for aikido.


----------



## Hanzou

Psilent Knight said:


> The unfair criticism is that Aikidoka don't participate in sport competitions. I think that's unfair because Aikido is a non sporting, non competitive martial art and I don't agree with the opinion that a martial art should automatically be looked at as being ineffective if the practitioners don't compete.



There are competitive branches of Aikido. The problem is that those competitive branches end up looking like bad Judo in practice. Thus you have to ask yourself why you're simply not doing Judo instead?

I would also like to add that beyond the spiritual and Ki demonstrations, demonstrations such as this;






.....doesn't help the situation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I think that, like literally every other skill learned by human beings, application matters.  Competition produces the most consistent, most efficient results.   When people say, "it's the person, not the style," I disagree.   If it takes an exceptional person to make a style work, then the style is flawed.   It is entirely the training model.   If the training model is effective, any able bodied person will be successful.   And nonsense won't survive.
> 
> Anybody can learn to play baseball or soccer.   Anyone can learn to cook or to drive a car.   Anyone can learn BJJ, too.  If you train BJJ, going three times per week for two years, you'll be pretty good and likely have your blue belt.   Because the training model is sound.
> 
> Aikido trained like BJJ or boxing could be very effective.


Aikido trained fully against skilled resistance loses most of the aiki. It's like trying to use road racing to train driving skill. It actually precludes certain driving skills. Nothing wrong with it, but it's not the right training model for everything.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I assume it because you basically say it.
> 
> * Any skilled Aikidoka, for instance, can nullify most Aikido techniques. So, have tow skilled Aikidoka competing, and you have to stop looking for the "aiki" in your Aikido, and it starts to look more like Judo competitions. The same would be true for the Aikidokafacing anyone experienced in grappling (standing or ground)*
> 
> There is a difference between being outclassed by a better martial artist and completely shut down because someone knows the basic fundimentals. You are missing an element that makes akido work against a competent guy. Or you wouldn't get shut down in that manner. Instead of finding that element you are hoping you won't need it.
> 
> All martial arts use the concept of aki.  All martial arts will operate in a way that denies you aki.
> 
> Uou say you are not relying on this golden opportunity while suggesting that while this opportunity doesn't occur in training it will probably happen in a fight.


So you think that me saying a skilled aikidoka can eliminate aiki opportunities means we wait for them and do nothing in the interim? That's about as_ non sequitur _as it gets, DB.

Here's the skinny: Aikido that doesn't use aiki looks more like Judo. About a third of what I do isn't pure-aiki - it uses principles very similar to Judo. A third is more like Shotokan Karate. The other third is the aiki principles. You really seem to need me to be stuck on aiki, and only use stuff that works on that principle. Unfortunately for you, that's not the case. Stop projecting your expectations onto what I say and trying to make what I do something you want it to be so you can bash it. If you want to debate what I actually do, that's fine. But cut it out with the f'in strawmen already. We've had this discussion several times, and you always spend time telling me what I train and teach, without any apparent understanding of what the hell I actually train and teach. You've got more brains than this ****.


----------



## Andrew Green

Hanzou said:


> .....doesn't help the situation.





It's funny... there are hints in there that someone watched a video of how to do things properly... but then decided they should be "improved" to fit their own ideas and made it useless.

Deliberate, neat, tidy, clean, well practiced... and yet useless.

I feel like I should counter with a video of how to defeat Aikido.  I get a guy to run across the mat and try to bonk me on the top of the head and show various defences. I think that would be as fair of a representation of Aikido "attack" as this is of a closed guard right?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Aikido trained fully against skilled resistance loses most of the aiki. It's like trying to use road racing to train driving skill. It actually precludes certain driving skills. Nothing wrong with it, but it's not the right training model for everything.


i may not understand what you mean by aiki, but i think so, based in your previous explanations.  

if you've ever rolled with an elite level black belt in BJJ I think you'd get a taste of it.   The difference, I believe, is that they can do it against resistance because of how they train.   It moves beyond compliance.  I would expect any style that is trained for results would have the same.


----------



## Steve

Andrew Green said:


> It's funny... there are hints in there that someone watched a video of how to do things properly... but then decided they should be "improved" to fit their own ideas and made it useless.
> 
> Deliberate, neat, tidy, clean, well practiced... and yet useless.
> 
> I feel like I should counter with a video of how to defeat Aikido.  I get a guy to run across the mat and try to bonk me on the top of the head and show various defences. I think that would be as fair of a representation of Aikido "attack" as this is of a closed guard right?


I thought aikidoka never attack.  I call my defense against aikido, "standing there."


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So you think that me saying a skilled aikidoka can eliminate aiki opportunities means we wait for them and do nothing in the interim? That's about as_ non sequitur _as it gets, DB.
> 
> Here's the skinny: Aikido that doesn't use aiki looks more like Judo. About a third of what I do isn't pure-aiki - it uses principles very similar to Judo. A third is more like Shotokan Karate. The other third is the aiki principles. You really seem to need me to be stuck on aiki, and only use stuff that works on that principle. Unfortunately for you, that's not the case. Stop projecting your expectations onto what I say and trying to make what I do something you want it to be so you can bash it. If you want to debate what I actually do, that's fine. But cut it out with the f'in strawmen already. We've had this discussion several times, and you always spend time telling me what I train and teach, without any apparent understanding of what the hell I actually train and teach. You've got more brains than this ****.



Yes it is like saying a skilled BJJ er can eliminate submission attempts. Or a skilled boxer can eliminate punch attacks. So I guess we cant put two skilled martial artists together or it would just stalemate.

And somehow this is not the fault of akido. But the rest of the universe  conspiring to make training akido in a resisted manner with top practitioners impossible.

If you create aki opportunities better than the other guy can eliminate them you can apply your martial arts more effectively. All martial artists do this. This is not an akido principle. It is just good technique.

Akido is the only art that claims what you are claiming though.

Akido that uses aki correctly looks like judo. Because they are creating the circumstances that allow them to use aki.

This is also why judo looks like judo.Because they are creating the circumstances that allow them to use aki.

In fighting this is a pretty solid principle.

I am not projecting. You keep identifying fundimental issues with your training and then trying to make excuses as to why you can't fix them. You raised aki. you still defend this idea that the other guy can stop aki in training.

So yes striking sets people up for takedowns. Everybody who strikes and does take downs employs this. This is how sweeps generally work. You apply pressue they react and create aki.

Aki does work against trained guys in a competition setting.





Aki isnt the problem.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> i may not understand what you mean by aiki, but i think so, based in your previous explanations.
> 
> if you've ever rolled with an elite level black belt in BJJ I think you'd get a taste of it.   The difference, I believe, is that they can do it against resistance because of how they train.   It moves beyond compliance.  I would expect any style that is trained for results would have the same.


That would fit with one common definition of aiki. The definition I use is that it's where there isn't any resistance. Thus, when there is resistance, we're not doing "aiki" anymore - we're using other principles (leverage, structure, etc.). Those other principles are also used in aiki situations, as well, but are supplemented by finding that void where there isn't any resistance. That's why I say that resistance removes most aiki opportunities - where there's resistance, it's no longer "aiki" as I define it. 

I have to admit I've never been happy with my ability to explain aiki in words. Students get it pretty quickly because they feel what an aiki technique does. They get to compare that to what I refer to as "Judo-style" techniques (usually the same techniques, just executed with emphasis on different areas). 

The best I could explain it with something that I understand within your area, Steve, would be to talk about working against someone who has mount. If you go to bridge-and-roll (the term I know for it), that can be done against resistance by neutralizing their structure. In simple terms (so I don't get deeper than my own understanding), you can trap arms and bind them to you, using structure to prevent their knees from rising, lock their feet down with your hooks, and execute the technique. All of that can be done with timing, even against someone who resists, to some extent. Of course, if you are significantly stronger, you can go for whatever your favorite set of traps, etc. are to get them into position, muscling through their resistance. But you probably wouldn't. You'd probably go for whichever variation of the bridge-and-roll they'd set themselves up for, which would require the least muscling, and execute that one. That's what I refer to as "Judo style" (just to differentiate it from "aiki"). It's clean and efficient, and uses good mechanics and principles to get the job done.

The only difference between that and an aiki version of the same technique would be feeling the moment when they've committed some weight where they really shouldn't, when trapping the arm requires no real effort because they don't have structure already, and bridging will take almost no more force than it would without them there, because the trap leads them to start falling forward. And so on, until you end up with that super-easy bridge-and-roll, like they actually rolled off for you. 

I've never experienced that with bridge-and-roll (I'm pretty workmanlike on the ground, and not very aiki), but skilled folks probably have. It's much easier to find when standing, because there are so many more ways to get people into it. A small shift in structure can take people way off their standing base. If it's done with good timing and feel, it leads right into the aiki versions of techniques. Of course, if they don't end up in a good place for the aiki version, we go to something else. It might be an aiki version of another technique (if they avoid one by pulling back, they probably walked into another), or it might be a non-aiki ("Judo-style") version of the original technique. Just like selecting the right response from under mount to escape, we have to select the right response for what they feed us when standing. Aiki techniques don't preclude the leverage/lead-based stuff, they supplement them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I thought aikidoka never attack.  I call my defense against aikido, "standing there."


That's something some will teach about Aikido. I will say it's impossible to attack with "aiki", because that's a response to the other person's movement and weight. But I can certainly use strikes and non-aiki grappling to attack. Not my first choice, but an option.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yes it is like saying a skilled BJJ er can eliminate submission attempts. Or a skilled boxer can eliminate punch attacks. So I guess we cant put two skilled martial artists together or it would just stalemate.
> 
> And somehow this is not the fault of akido. But the rest of the universe  conspiring to make training akido in a resisted manner with top practitioners impossible.
> 
> If you create aki opportunities better than the other guy can eliminate them you can apply your martial arts more effectively. All martial artists do this. This is not an akido principle. It is just good technique.
> 
> Akido is the only art that claims what you are claiming though.
> 
> Akido that uses aki correctly looks like judo. Because they are creating the circumstances that allow them to use aki.
> 
> This is also why judo looks like judo.Because they are creating the circumstances that allow them to use aki.
> 
> In fighting this is a pretty solid principle.
> 
> I am not projecting. You keep identifying fundimental issues with your training and then trying to make excuses as to why you can't fix them. You raised aki. you still defend this idea that the other guy can stop aki in training.
> 
> So yes striking sets people up for takedowns. Everybody who strikes and does take downs employs this. This is how sweeps generally work. You apply pressue they react and create aki.
> 
> Aki does work against trained guys in a competition setting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aki isnt the problem.


You are still ignoring the non-aiki portions of what I do. I don't know how I can make it plainer. Take away the aiki opportunities, and I still have tools. They're just not aiki tools. It's actually exactly like that seoi nage clip you posted. The other guy eliminated the standing shoulder throw, so he looked for other options. You really have some odd need for this to be something different. It's not. Aiki techniques are tools. No tool works in every scenario. We have other tools for those scenarios.

Or are you saying we should be able to use our standing shoulder throw no matter what the other guy does?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> That would fit with one common definition of aiki. The definition I use is that it's where there isn't any resistance. Thus, when there is resistance, we're not doing "aiki" anymore - we're using other principles (leverage, structure, etc.). Those other principles are also used in aiki situations, as well, but are supplemented by finding that void where there isn't any resistance. That's why I say that resistance removes most aiki opportunities - where there's resistance, it's no longer "aiki" as I define it.
> 
> I have to admit I've never been happy with my ability to explain aiki in words. Students get it pretty quickly because they feel what an aiki technique does. They get to compare that to what I refer to as "Judo-style" techniques (usually the same techniques, just executed with emphasis on different areas).
> 
> The best I could explain it with something that I understand within your area, Steve, would be to talk about working against someone who has mount. If you go to bridge-and-roll (the term I know for it), that can be done against resistance by neutralizing their structure. In simple terms (so I don't get deeper than my own understanding), you can trap arms and bind them to you, using structure to prevent their knees from rising, lock their feet down with your hooks, and execute the technique. All of that can be done with timing, even against someone who resists, to some extent. Of course, if you are significantly stronger, you can go for whatever your favorite set of traps, etc. are to get them into position, muscling through their resistance. But you probably wouldn't. You'd probably go for whichever variation of the bridge-and-roll they'd set themselves up for, which would require the least muscling, and execute that one. That's what I refer to as "Judo style" (just to differentiate it from "aiki"). It's clean and efficient, and uses good mechanics and principles to get the job done.
> 
> The only difference between that and an aiki version of the same technique would be feeling the moment when they've committed some weight where they really shouldn't, when trapping the arm requires no real effort because they don't have structure already, and bridging will take almost no more force than it would without them there, because the trap leads them to start falling forward. And so on, until you end up with that super-easy bridge-and-roll, like they actually rolled off for you.
> 
> I've never experienced that with bridge-and-roll (I'm pretty workmanlike on the ground, and not very aiki), but skilled folks probably have. It's much easier to find when standing, because there are so many more ways to get people into it. A small shift in structure can take people way off their standing base. If it's done with good timing and feel, it leads right into the aiki versions of techniques. Of course, if they don't end up in a good place for the aiki version, we go to something else. It might be an aiki version of another technique (if they avoid one by pulling back, they probably walked into another), or it might be a non-aiki ("Judo-style") version of the original technique. Just like selecting the right response from under mount to escape, we have to select the right response for what they feed us when standing. Aiki techniques don't preclude the leverage/lead-based stuff, they supplement them.


I think you owe it to yourself to roll with an elite level BJJ black belt.   It will blow your mind, my friend.  Seriously.  It's exactly what you describe.     techniques become effortless when they are executed correctly.   I've swept guys that weigh over 300 lbs effortlessly because I could feel the moment they committed their weight, just as you described. 

A BJJ black belt, who also is a black belt in aikido, suggests (paraphrasing) that the difference between purple and brown is that a purple belt can identify these opportunities while a brown belt will begin to create them.


----------



## Tames D

Ironbear24 said:


> And yeah, Steven seagal is a horrible representative for aikido.


I'm interested to know why you think this? Are you saying his Aikido sucks? Or are you referring to his public persona? I'm asking because I don't train in Aikido, and I don't think you do either.


----------



## Hanzou

Tames D said:


> I'm interested to know why you think this? Are you saying his Aikido sucks? Or are you referring to his public persona? I'm asking because I don't train in Aikido, and I don't think you do either.



Other than the fact that he is an arrogant walrus and a wife beater?


----------



## Psilent Knight

Steve said:


> I think that, like literally every other skill learned by human beings, application matters.  Competition produces the most consistent, most efficient results.



I agree with you that application matters. But I disagree with you that competition is what produces the most consistent and efficient results. What is necessary for any application of a martial art to be effective is for the practitioners of that art be pressure tested and competition is not the *only* means of doing that. In my opinion it is not the *best* means of doing so either.



Steve said:


> When people say, "it's the person, not the style," I disagree.   If it takes an exceptional person to make a style work, then the style is flawed.   It is entirely the training model.   If the training model is effective, any able bodied person will be successful.   And nonsense won't survive.



I disagree with this as well. It _IS_ the person and not the style. Some people are good at competing but don't have what it takes to take care of business where it really counts outside of the sporting arena. Just because a person has racked up a closet full of trophies does not mean that they really know how to fight where there are no padded cages, referees and rules.

Also, we see it all the time in mma, bjj, Judo, muay Thai and knockdown karate competitions where some people WIN while others LOSE. But it's the same style that is fought under the same rules. This makes it obvious to me that it _IS_ the person and not the style. You said _"If it takes an exceptional person to make a style work, then the style is flawed"_. By that argument that means the losses that Kazushi Sakuraba handed to all of those bjj stylists in PRIDE FC proves that the style of grappling known as Brazilian Jiujitsu is flawed. Please think about that my friend.



Steve said:


> Aikido trained like BJJ or boxing could be very effective.



I agree, Aikido trained like BJJ or boxing can be very effective. I just don't agree that it's the most effective, let alone the only method of pressure testing.



Hanzou said:


> There are competitive branches of Aikido.



Wow! I NEVER knew that! I just learned something new today.



Hanzou said:


> The problem is that those competitive branches end up looking like bad Judo in practice. Thus you have to ask yourself why you're simply not doing Judo instead?



This makes a whole lot of sense. I had said earlier that I think Aikido can be a great art of combined with boxing or kickboxing. To elaborate on that a little bit I think Aikido could be effective if the Aikidoist fought offensively instead of defensively and make use of the strikes from boxing or kickboxing to aid in the entry into CQC use the jointlocking attacks for which it is known. But because it will be used as an offensive art instead of waiting for an attack and attempt to use aiki it WILL look more like Judo than Aikido.



Hanzou said:


> I would also like to add that beyond the spiritual and Ki demonstrations, demonstrations such as this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....doesn't help the situation.



You're right. That DOES NOT help at all. Stuff like this is all but inviting all of the mockery that gets thrown their way.

Take Care and Good Night Everyone,
Osu!


----------



## Steve

Sure there are other ways to develop skill.  You could develop them as a professional.   Otherwise, competition is absolutely the best way to,develop,skill.


----------



## Ironbear24

Tames D said:


> I'm interested to know why you think this? Are you saying his Aikido sucks? Or are you referring to his public persona? I'm asking because I don't train in Aikido, and I don't think you do either.



He acts very preachy about Buddhism and the spiritual enlightenment of aikido yet has made a fortune on movies which glorify violence and a bad temperament.

In general this is why I have always avoided aikido, not because of Steven seagal but anytime a martial arts gets to preachy or spiritual that is a big turn off for me.

I did a few months of tai chi but I didn't stick with it, I needed something with more contact but it did strengthen my foot alot and help me with weight distribution.


----------



## Tames D

Hanzou said:


> Other than the fact that he is an arrogant walrus and a wife beater?


Walrus? Oh now it's all clear. What was I thinking?


----------



## Tames D

Ironbear24 said:


> I mean when you have people like Joe Rogan invite aikido and tae Kwon do people onto their shows for the sole purpose of telling them their style is ****.


Joe Rogan is a Stand up comic.He should stick to that. I wish Howard Cosell was still alive. I'd like to see those two fight. A couple of "authorities" on fighting, that could never fight


----------



## Tames D

Ironbear24 said:


> He acts very preachy about Buddhism and the spiritual enlightenment of aikido yet has made a fortune on movies which glorify violence and a bad temperament.
> 
> In general this is why I have always avoided aikido, not because of Steven seagal but anytime a martial arts gets to preachy or spiritual that is a big turn off for me.
> 
> I did a few months of tai chi but I didn't stick with it, I needed something with more contact but it did strengthen my foot alot and help me with weight distribution.


So not his fighting? His fighting represents Aikido fine? That's what I'm concerned about. I couldn't care less if he wears a bra and panties while training.


----------



## Hanzou

Tames D said:


> Joe Rogan is a Stand up comic.He should stick to that. I wish Howard Cosell was still alive. I'd like to see those two fight. A couple of "authorities" on fighting, that could never fight



Uh, Joe Rogan has black belts in TKD, Machado Bjj, and 10th Planet Bjj. He's pretty damn legit.



Tames D said:


> Walrus? Oh now it's all clear. What was I thinking?



Did you miss the wife beater part?


----------



## Tames D

Hanzou said:


> Uh, Joe Rogan has black belts in TKD, Machado Bjj, and 10th Planet Bjj. He's pretty damn legit.
> 
> 
> 8 year old have BB's. That doesn't mean it's legit.  Have you seen him fight?


----------



## kuniggety

Tames D said:


> Joe Rogan is a Stand up comic.He should stick to that. I wish Howard Cosell was still alive. I'd like to see those two fight. A couple of "authorities" on fighting, that could never fight



As much of a mouth he has, Joe Rogan is an accomplished martial artist who knows his way around a ring. He's an experienced black belt TKD competitor and a 10th Planet BJJ black belt.

I admit that I haven't listened to very much of his stuff but, from what I have seen, his attacks on TMA are more on the way they're trained than the techniques they teach. He makes his money from being unpolitically correct and so pisses off a lot of people.


----------



## Tames D

Hanzou said:


> Uh, Joe Rogan has black belts in TKD, Machado Bjj, and 10th Planet Bjj. He's pretty damn legit.



Uh, 8  year old have BB's. That doesn't mean it's legit. Have you seen him fight?


----------



## Tames D

kuniggety said:


> As much of a mouth he has, Joe Rogan is an accomplished martial artist who knows his way around a ring. He's an experienced black belt TKD competitor and a 10th Planet BJJ black belt.
> 
> I admit that I haven't listened to very much of his stuff but, from what I have seen, his attacks on TMA are more on the way they're trained than the techniques they teach. He makes his money from being unpolitically correct and so pisses off a lot of people.


Please post footage of his fights.


----------



## Hanzou

Tames D said:


> Uh, 8  year old have BB's. That doesn't mean it's legit. Have you seen him fight?



8 year olds don't get Black Belts in Machado or 10th planet Bjj.

He also has some pretty nice kicking skills;


----------



## Tames D

Hanzou said:


> 8 year olds don't get Black Belts in Machado or 10th planet Bjj.


Please post footage of his fights.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You are still ignoring the non-aiki portions of what I do. I don't know how I can make it plainer. Take away the aiki opportunities, and I still have tools. They're just not aiki tools. It's actually exactly like that seoi nage clip you posted. The other guy eliminated the standing shoulder throw, so he looked for other options. You really have some odd need for this to be something different. It's not. Aiki techniques are tools. No tool works in every scenario. We have other tools for those scenarios.
> 
> Or are you saying we should be able to use our standing shoulder throw no matter what the other guy does?



In which case you are on the same playing field as everybody else.


----------



## Hanzou

Tames D said:


> Please post footage of his fights.


----------



## kuniggety

Tames D said:


> Please post footage of his fights.



I don't know the man/follow him around with a camera. Why would I post videos of him fighting? If he was given a BB by both Eddie Bravo (which there is a video of online) and one by Machado for in the gi, then that's all the proof I need that he knows what he's doing. He would pretzel me up in 10 seconds flat.


----------



## drop bear

Psilent Knight said:


> Also, we see it all the time in mma, bjj, Judo, muay Thai and knockdown karate competitions where some people WIN while others LOSE. But it's the same style that is fought under the same rules. This makes it obvious to me that it _IS_ the person and not the style. You said _"If it takes an exceptional person to make a style work, then the style is flawed"_. By that argument that means the losses that Kazushi Sakuraba handed to all of those bjj stylists in PRIDE FC proves that the style of grappling known as Brazilian Jiujitsu is flawed. Please think about that my friend.



This.  Sakuraba proved through competition that BJJ was flawed. And BJJ responded by scrambling like hell to fix those flaws. 

BJJ is now a better martial art than it was due to the methodology that we are suggesting makes a martial art better.


----------



## kuniggety

Psilent Knight said:


> I agree with you that application matters. But I disagree with you that competition is what produces the most consistent and efficient results. What is necessary for any application of a martial art to be effective is for the practitioners of that art be pressure tested and competition is not the *only* means of doing that. In my opinion it is not the *best* means of doing so either.



I'm not much of a competitor, but what, in your opinion, is a better way of pressure testing someone than pitting them against another person in a match?




> I disagree with this as well. It _IS_ the person and not the style. Some people are good at competing but don't have what it takes to take care of business where it really counts outside of the sporting arena. Just because a person has racked up a closet full of trophies does not mean that they really know how to fight where there are no padded cages, referees and rules.



Any incidents you see of experienced full contact competitors getting steam-rolled on the streets is going to be more the exception than the rule. I don't want to put words in Steve's mouth but I think the problem is the style of training, not inherently the particular flavor of martial art.


----------



## Tames D

Hanzou said:


>


Thanks for posting. I liked it. But was hoping to see him in action against a skilled opponent. I asked because I haven't found anything in my research.


----------



## Tames D

kuniggety said:


> Why would I post videos of him fighting?


I asked you to post footage of his fights  because you said this:* "Joe Rogan is an accomplished martial artist who knows his way around a ring".* I havn't been able to find any footage of him in competition, or of him fighting a skilled opponent.


----------



## kuniggety

Tames D said:


> I asked you to post footage of his fights  because you said this:* "Joe Rogan is an accomplished martial artist who knows his way around a ring".* I havn't been able to find any footage of him in competition, or of him fighting a skilled opponent.



I say this because Eddie Bravo, who has rolled with him a lot, gave him a black belt. The same for Machado. That means quite a lot.


----------



## Tames D

kuniggety said:


> I say this because Eddie Bravo, who has rolled with him a lot, gave him a black belt. The same for Machado. That means quite a lot.


Ok


----------



## Steve

Tames D said:


> Joe Rogan is a Stand up comic.He should stick to that. I wish Howard Cosell was still alive. I'd like to see those two fight. A couple of "authorities" on fighting, that could never fight


Joes actually a pretty tough dude.   TKD and BJJ at least.  He knows what he's talking about.   he's definitely not just a comedian.  He's been doing color commentary for the UFC for a very long time.

Lol.  Nevermind.  Didn't realize Joe rogan is being held to a higher standard than anyone else around here.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> This.  Sakuraba proved through competition that BJJ was flawed. And BJJ responded by scrambling like hell to fix those flaws.
> 
> BJJ is now a better martial art than it was due to the methodology that we are suggesting makes a martial art better.



I find this interesting since Bjj is currently dividing itself between sport and self defense camps.

Honestly if it weren't for MMA, Bjj would be in a lot of trouble. MMA keeps Bjj "honest" so to speak.


----------



## Steve

kuniggety said:


> I'm not much of a competitor, but what, in your opinion, is a better way of pressure testing someone than pitting them against another person in a match?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any incidents you see of experienced full contact competitors getting steam-rolled on the streets is going to be more the exception than the rule. I don't want to put words in Steve's mouth but I think the problem is the style of training, not inherently the particular flavor of martial art.


Yeah, mostly.   I'd say there are people who are violent professionally who have ample opportunity to pressure test a martial art outside of competition.   But for most of us, competition is the best, most reliable, most efficient way to build expertise and skill.

Scenario based training well done is also great, but that's a much more difficult thing to achieve consistently.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> I find this interesting since Bjj is currently dividing itself between sport and self defense camps.
> 
> Honestly if it weren't for MMA, Bjj would be in a lot of trouble. MMA keeps Bjj "honest" so to speak.



Keeps a lot of systems honest.  It really is a very useful testing tool.  And one that nobody had access to back in my day.

And the speculation was pretty rampant back then because of it.


----------



## drop bear

kuniggety said:


> I'm not much of a competitor, but what, in your opinion, is a better way of pressure testing someone than pitting them against another person in a match?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any incidents you see of experienced full contact competitors getting steam-rolled on the streets is going to be more the exception than the rule. I don't want to put words in Steve's mouth but I think the problem is the style of training, not inherently the particular flavor of martial art.



Still not really.You could be the best boxer and be taken down and flogged because your system just doesn't set you up to prevent it. 

You have to be given the right tools as well as be the right person.


----------



## Tez3

Tames D said:


> I asked you to post footage of his fights  because you said this:* "Joe Rogan is an accomplished martial artist who knows his way around a ring".* I havn't been able to find any footage of him in competition, or of him fighting a skilled opponent.



and even if he is an accomplished fighter ( jury is still out, we do know that he has never fought MMA though however 'good' his TKD and BJJ is) it doesn't make him a 'better person', he's still the fan boys hero, the guru of the UFC who they follow and make people's lives a misery.
A friend of mine fought in the UFC and lost, Rogan made some very harsh remarks, _personal ones not relevant to the fight_ while commentating. My friend remonstrated with him on Twitter afterwards. Rogan laughed my friend off but his followers, well they went to town on my friend, death threats, personal remarks including those about my friend's son along with threats to him, really nasty stuff, all on Twitter all hash tagged to add Rogan so he knew but did nothing to stop his little friends sustained attacks. It was nasty. It's not the first time this has happened, now people can say Rogan isn't responsible, it's  arguable but on the other hand he knew about this campaign and did nothing to try and stop it. Being politically incorrect is actually just another way of being rude and nasty and very hurtful. I guess he takes his money and laughs all the way to the bank.


----------



## Psilent Knight

Steve said:


> Sure there are other ways to develop skill.  You could develop them as a professional.   Otherwise, competition is absolutely the best way to,develop,skill.



I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Take Care,
Osu!


----------



## Psilent Knight

drop bear said:


> This.  Sakuraba proved through competition that BJJ was flawed. And BJJ responded by scrambling like hell to fix those flaws.
> 
> BJJ is now a better martial art than it was due to the methodology that we are suggesting makes a martial art better.



Just to be clear I wasn't implying that BJJ is a "flawed" system. I just wanted to point out to Steve how his opinion can be used to make that argument. Fwiw, I do think all of those particular PRIDE FC fights were a case of a fighter being better than the people he beat and not because between catch wrestling and BJJ one grappling art is better or worse than the other or one is "flawed".



kuniggety said:


> I'm not much of a competitor, but what, in your opinion, is a better way of pressure testing someone than pitting them against another person in a match?



Two ways I can immediately answer with are 1) what Geoff Thompson refers to as _Animal Day_ in which there are far less rules than a sporting match and you have a go in different environments outside of the training hall. And 2) is line ups combined with scenario training.

It is often said that in a real fight a person will fight the way he trains. One flaw with sporting competition is the "back-and-forth" mentality that it instills in people. Say what you will but I have learned this to be absolutely true through observation and personal experience.




kuniggety said:


> Any incidents you see of experienced full contact competitors getting steam-rolled on the streets is going to be more the exception than the rule.



Not sure how you came to that conclusion. If you have research and statistics to validate this statement then I would be more than happy to have a look-see. Anybody getting steamrolled by another person in the streets is a demonstration of the _steamroller_ being a better overall street warrior than the _steamrollee_. I stick to my viewpoint that it's _the person_ and not the art.



kuniggety said:


> I don't want to put words in Steve's mouth but I think the problem is the style of training, not inherently the particular flavor of martial art.



Well, I've already mentioned that myself indirectly when I said how I think all martial arts can be effective if they are trained the right way.

Take Care,
Osu!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I think you owe it to yourself to roll with an elite level BJJ black belt.   It will blow your mind, my friend.  Seriously.  It's exactly what you describe.     techniques become effortless when they are executed correctly.   I've swept guys that weigh over 300 lbs effortlessly because I could feel the moment they committed their weight, just as you described.
> 
> A BJJ black belt, who also is a black belt in aikido, suggests (paraphrasing) that the difference between purple and brown is that a purple belt can identify these opportunities while a brown belt will begin to create them.


Oh, I agree that the really skilled BJJ guys use it. It's not as common on the ground was my point, because there's less total movement. High-level Judo folks will use it, too. Tony and I have actually had some discussions about this in the past. The main reason I refer to myself as "workmanlike" on the ground is that I don't possess the skill down there tap into the aiki moments very well. Aiki is not the sole domain of the aiki arts. We just focus on it more (some too much, IMO). The main identifier to me for aiki is when the opponent provides the energy for taking themselves down. Watch a Judo competition, and you'll see that most of their throws aren't like that. Why? Because they know a throw is coming, and they are playing all the weight and structure counters, so speed has to be increased, more muscle is needed, etc. I would assume the same would happen if two elite-level BJJ guys were really trying to stop each other, and weren't willing to play a waiting game (so, let's add in strikes, which adds that urgency).


----------



## Buka

I've never met or trained with Joe Rogan, but I know Joe Rogan is an extremely knowledgeable Martial Artist, and a one tough fighter. Friends who've trained with Joe tell me so and I trust their knowledge completely.

A good friend of mine was his first instructor in Massachusetts when Joe was just a little kid. (Kenpo) Several people I know have rolled with Mister Rogan, talented people, who not only are tacticians, but tell me he has a freakish "monkey strength". If you aren't familiar with that term I hope you never will be.

But I'm a Joe Rogan fan boy. If I was a member of congress I'd push for a law that made in mandatory that Joe Rogan did the commentary for any important MMA fight from any organization. I really don't want to hear anyone else explain to me what I'm seeing.

He can kick, too, that boy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Sure there are other ways to develop skill.  You could develop them as a professional.   Otherwise, competition is absolutely the best way to,develop,skill.


Competition is the best way to verify skill against competitors. I've outlined before the limitations I see in competition. I think competition (at least "competitive" sparring/rolling within the school) is a necessary element - I haven't seen an alternative I think brings the same benefits. And for some arts, open competition (within the art and beyond) seems to foster better effectiveness. But when techniques don't work in competition (meaning the opportunity for them doesn't come up often enough to be worth trying), but are among the most commonly used in altercations (having to depend upon reports from LEO and bouncers, who have enough encounters to draw any conclusions), then competition isn't developing some of the skills that art brings, and a focus on competition would eventually lead to the de-emphasis of those techniques that worked so well in non-competition application.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> In which case you are on the same playing field as everybody else.


If we take away the aiki focus, sure. That puts us in the realm of Judo, with more small joint locks, and more striking. But you may recall that we are an aiki art. Aiki is a primary principle we work with, and something that does (contrary to your assertions) present opportunities in real-world encounters (again, working from reports from LEO's and bouncers who have enough encounters and aiki training to give some reasonable input). So, if we stopped focusing on the aiki, we'd be changing the art. And I don't see a good reason to do that. It's a useful part of our toolset that works for the context it's intended.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Psilent Knight said:


> Just to be clear I wasn't implying that BJJ is a "flawed" system. I just wanted to point out to Steve how his opinion can be used to make that argument. Fwiw, I do think all of those particular PRIDE FC fights were a case of a fighter being better than the people he beat and not because between catch wrestling and BJJ one grappling art is better or worse than the other or one is "flawed".
> 
> 
> 
> Two ways I can immediately answer with are 1) what Geoff Thompson refers to as _Animal Day_ in which there are far less rules than a sporting match and you have a go in different environments outside of the training hall. And 2) is line ups combined with scenario training.
> 
> It is often said that in a real fight a person will fight the way he trains. One flaw with sporting competition is the "back-and-forth" mentality that it instills in people. Say what you will but I have learned this to be absolutely true through observation and personal experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how you came to that conclusion. If you have research and statistics to validate this statement then I would be more than happy to have a look-see. Anybody getting steamrolled by another person in the streets is a demonstration of the _steamroller_ being a better overall street warrior than the _steamrollee_. I stick to my viewpoint that it's _the person_ and not the art.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've already mentioned that myself indirectly when I said how I think all martial arts can be effective if they are trained the right way.
> 
> Take Care,
> Osu!


I'll say the art does matter. I think it's the person and the art, not one or the other. If I get tapped out on the ground by someone who has trained a much shorter time in BJJ, that's probably the art (art with ground focus vs. art with standing focus). Now, if that same person actually manages to get me to the ground (reliably and easily, let's not get caught up in those exceptions that can always happen), that's something wrong with either me as a practitioner or the art I'm trained in or the training methods used to train me.

Notice I threw in a third option to "blame": training methods. Sometimes those are inherent in an art, and sometimes they are not. A really good instructor will produce better students in any given art, at least partly because they use better training methods more often. That difference is inside the art, so not a part of the art. This focus on training methods is really what DB and Steve are focusing on. I have a fundamental difference with them on a couple of points, but actually agree with something behind their comments. I think the real benefit of open competition is how people train for it. They train more intensely and take an approach that I don't see as much in TMA where open competition doesn't exist (or where rulesets are favoring bad habits). That approach is one that appears to be part of the DNA of BJJ, and I hope they never lose it. It's an approach of looking for flaws, rather than perfecting what you have just because it's "the technique". Don't get that bridge-and-roll perfect if there's a fundamental opening it creates for your opponent. Fix the flaw, find a better technique, or something. And open competition fosters this approach, because your opponent will be looking for (and probably making use of) those flaws. I work hard to keep that same mindset within my own training. I have changed techniques within NGA (teaching them differently than I was taught), because I didn't like some of the common flaws I saw students creating. I continue to do so, and always will.


----------



## Tez3

Buka said:


> I really don't want to hear anyone else explain to me what I'm seeing.



I don't want or need anyone explaining to me what I'm seeing, I know very what it is, perhaps better than Rogan because he doesn't actually judge, referee, coach or corner fighters nor has he fought in MMA. He's a comedian/commentator, being good at BJJ and TKD doesn't make him a be all and end all MMA commentator, there are many times he's actually wrong about what he says he sees.
As a person he is what is wrong about 'celebrities' who think they are so much more than they are.
He's there as a salesman for the UFC not as a knowledgeable, considered and reasonable commentator, he's there to sell seats and PPVs,so appeals to the fan boys with his OTT commentary and remarks about fighters whether good or bad. He's part of the multi million dollar brand, he gets to know the fighters, talks loud and so does a good job for his employers, they of course are pleased so he won't be fired any time soon. It is what it is but he's not the best MMA commentator if you want good insights into the fights and the fighters for that matter, he goes for the sensational and entertaining _which many people want._


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> If we take away the aiki focus, sure. That puts us in the realm of Judo, with more small joint locks, and more striking. But you may recall that we are an aiki art. Aiki is a primary principle we work with, and something that does (contrary to your assertions) present opportunities in real-world encounters (again, working from reports from LEO's and bouncers who have enough encounters and aiki training to give some reasonable input). So, if we stopped focusing on the aiki, we'd be changing the art. And I don't see a good reason to do that. It's a useful part of our toolset that works for the context it's intended.



So we are now back to focusing on aiki. 

Didn't you just have a hissy fit over me making aikido about aiki. Because of all the other tools at your disposal.

I am not saying aiki doesnt work. It is present in all martial arts to some extent. I am saying your delivery system doesn't work if you have to dumb down the attacks of your training partners. Rather than make your system better to deal with a more competent threat.

You can't train honestly with a bag full of excuses.


----------



## drop bear

Psilent Knight said:


> Just to be clear I wasn't implying that BJJ is a "flawed" system. I just wanted to point out to Steve how his opinion can be used to make that argument. Fwiw, I do think all of those particular PRIDE FC fights were a case of a fighter being better than the people he beat and not because between catch wrestling and BJJ one grappling art is better or worse than the other or one is "flawed".



That doesnt work though. So I wanted to compete in pride. I could do any system?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Competition is the best way to verify skill against competitors. I've outlined before the limitations I see in competition. I think competition (at least "competitive" sparring/rolling within the school) is a necessary element - I haven't seen an alternative I think brings the same benefits. And for some arts, open competition (within the art and beyond) seems to foster better effectiveness. But when techniques don't work in competition (meaning the opportunity for them doesn't come up often enough to be worth trying), but are among the most commonly used in altercations (having to depend upon reports from LEO and bouncers, who have enough encounters to draw any conclusions), then competition isn't developing some of the skills that art brings, and a focus on competition would eventually lead to the de-emphasis of those techniques that worked so well in non-competition application.



Yeah but they are specific cases that then need to be supported on their own right.

The standing sleeper is never used in competition but is a great peice of kit for choking a fool out on the street.

But is pretty easy to varify as a reasonable technique. There are others that are quite hard to varify. And I would be very wary of believing the tough talk of guys who have said they pulled that off.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> And I would be very wary of believing the tough talk of guys who have said they pulled that off.



Depend what they pulled off... an arm or leg is hard to dispute when held dangling in someone's fist and they are beating you with the soggy end


----------



## DanT

I think Aikido CAN be an effective martial art if it:

-spars hard
-incorporates striking to set up throws
-practices defending against uncommitted attacks
-practices defending against powerful realistic strikes, not someone running across the room trying to karate chop you in the head

If your aikido involves no touch throws or no touch knockouts or nonsense like that then it's "********". If it does all the things that I think it should do then it could be a great style based on throwing and arm locks.

THEREFORE:
Aikido could be effective if you train to make it effective. But a lot of the aikido I've seen appears to be trained in a style that I wouldn't worry too much about if I were fighting someone using it. Then again if you have someone who's really good at it, and trains hard and realistically, I wouldn't want to fight them. Same thing for most Kung Fu styles. You can dance around like a tiger all you want but if you're not sparring and defending against real attacks and training seriously, you won't develop any fighting ability-sorry. And this is coming from a kung fu guy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So we are now back to focusing on aiki.
> 
> Didn't you just have a hissy fit over me making aikido about aiki. Because of all the other tools at your disposal.
> 
> I am not saying aiki doesnt work. It is present in all martial arts to some extent. I am saying your delivery system doesn't work if you have to dumb down the attacks of your training partners. Rather than make your system better to deal with a more competent threat.
> 
> You can't train honestly with a bag full of excuses.


Whatever, DB. What I can't do is have a reasonable argument with someone who really doesn't bother to understand. There are many training tools that aren't competition. There are techniques and methods that don't work in competition and do work elsewhere.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah but they are specific cases that then need to be supported on their own right.
> 
> The standing sleeper is never used in competition but is a great peice of kit for choking a fool out on the street.
> 
> But is pretty easy to varify as a reasonable technique. There are others that are quite hard to varify. And I would be very wary of believing the tough talk of guys who have said they pulled that off.


Locks are pretty easy to verify. Some of them aren't terribly useful for competition.


----------



## Steve

Okay, I don't have a ton of time, but want to try and address a couple of points.  First, regarding aiki, gpseymour, it's not just high level black belts.  That kind of skill is relative.  What I mean is, if you want to be able to get to this "aiki" that you are looking for, pressure testing and a competitive mindset is the way to get there.

Regarding efficacy, I would just suggest that one can be an effective martial artist even if that person will never be a professional fighter.   I cringe whenever a discussion starts to go down the Pride, UFC path.  People play football and golf without ever considering turning pro.  People drive cars and cook wonderful meals.  We don't argue against the way people learn these things because of how the pros do things.  I think we can glean from the pros, but should remember that at that level, it's not apples to apples.

Regarding person, style or training model, it's entirely the training model.  An exceptional person can make pretty much anything work.  But the weaknesses within a style will be exposed in a sound training model, not hidden (I'm looking at you, ninja anti-BJJ techniques).  Others have addressed several examples in this thread of that happening, including with BJJ and boxing.  And in a sound training model, everyone, regardless of native physical ability, will develop skills along a predictable learning curve.  Skills that they will be able to perform in context, under pressure.  EDIT:  Just want to add that in a style without a competitive outlet, you are learning something.  It's just not what you think.  If you are practicing kata, you will become very, very good at doing kata, for example. 

To expand just a bit more on competition, I think that diversity is the key, depending upon your goal.  I think some people have a very myopic view of what competition is.  I personally believe more is better.  In BJJ, for example, if a person competes under only one ruleset, they risk developing some risky habits.  But, in addition to sparring in class, there are several different kinds of competitions available.  They can compete in judo tournaments, IBJJF tournaments, submission only tournaments, hybrid sub/point tournements, gi, no-gi, and then there's MMA, where striking is introduced.  You don't have to be a professional to enter any or all of these tournaments.  In fact, most are not.

The guy who actively pursues a variety of competitive tests will be a much more well-rounded MAist than the guy who doesn't.


----------



## Spinedoc

Okay, a lot of good comments here, some ridiculous.

Aikido practicioners or Aikidoists (Please avoid Aikidoka as a term for Aikido practitioners, technically, in Japan, it only refers to a notable, or high ranking, distinguished Aikidoist, for most people it doesn't matter, but I used the term once with a visiting Shihan from Japan, and he wasn't amused, he took me aside to explain the difference after class) get a fair amount of criticism for a variety of reasons from the MMA community. It goes back to a couple of fundamental differences between competitive MA and Aikido.

#1 Aikido is NOT competitive. The techniques were actually derivatives of techniques developed on Japan's feudal battlefields centuries ago. While it is a Gendai art, it's parent art is Daito Ryu (which is Koryu, although questions have been raised about that as well) as well as multiple other arts (O'Sensei also studied in no particular order Kito Ryu, Goto Ha Yagyu Ryu, Judo, Shikage Ryu, and IIRC, Tenjin Shinyo Ryu) which all played a role in the development of Aikido. Battlefield combat is quite a bit different than competitive "ring" sports. On the battlefield, you would often attack full on in order to try and win and deal with the next person. This is substantially different from an attacker who is probing, and focused on only one person, and trying to win. Just different contexts.

#2 Aikido has unrealistic attacks. The attacks in Aikido are all based on sword motions, or how you would move and cut with a sword....without the sword. While many people deride this as unrealistic, there are only so many ways to grab, punch, or strike someone...the attacks do look silly, but at some point in your Aikido journey you make an astonishing discovery.....that is....The attack DOES NOT MATTER...to be honest, I don't care how you attack me, your energy can only be directed at me in so many ways. The only thing the attack does, is potentially change my entry..but otherwise, I honestly don't care.

#3 Aikido does not pressure test. We actually do, with randori, jiyu waza, and other drills, which can be similar to "rolling" in BJJ, but it doesn't look that way. This is actually one criticism that likely has a little merit, but it can vary considerably by dojo...some are quite martial, and you will be pressure tested, and others are more soft, internal, and spiritual. I cannot speak for them.

#4 Aikido looks like a dance. Yes, it certainly can, but the point is.....ukemi is designed first and foremost, to protect uke. So, at higher levels, your ukemi becomes quite proficient, and it can look more dancelike, and a little less realistic. Trust me. Those same techniques executed on someone without proficient ukemi will badly injure them. I tell new students all the time that want to just learn techniques, that you have to focus on learning ukemi too. For example, I cannot do a gensake otoshi to you if you don't know the ukemi, which for that technique is really scary and pretty advanced. So, you have to focus on ukemi in order to progress as well. Most injuries that happen in Aikido, almost always happen because a nage is throwing or executing a technique on an uke who either doesn't know, or cannot properly execute the ukemi.

I practice BJJ as well as Aikido. Aikido is, and will always be, my primary art. Practice what you like. Don't worry about what others think. Their opinion is really not important or relevant at all.

BTW, I was just at a seminar this weekend with an 80 y/o Japanese Shihan who weighed maybe 120 pounds. He threw me so hard, it was ridiculous. He used me as uke as I am a bit bigger and he wanted to demonstrate how to unbalance a bigger, stronger person. He told me to grab hard, which I did......and then he looked at the class, and said...."Hehe, Stronger fall harder..."......BAM, I was down, over and over again, and the more resistance, the harder I fell.

The point behind that story was, that someone watching with, say an MMA background, might go...."that's ********"....yet, I can tell you unequivocably, that I was not just falling, and I was resisting pretty strongly. He was simply unbalancing me quicky, efficiently, and following w fast techniques that took me down.....


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Okay, I don't have a ton of time, but want to try and address a couple of points.  First, regarding aiki, gpseymour, it's not just high level black belts.  That kind of skill is relative.  What I mean is, if you want to be able to get to this "aiki" that you are looking for, pressure testing and a competitive mindset is the way to get there.
> 
> Regarding efficacy, I would just suggest that one can be an effective martial artist even if that person will never be a professional fighter.   I cringe whenever a discussion starts to go down the Pride, UFC path.  People play football and golf without ever considering turning pro.  People drive cars and cook wonderful meals.  We don't argue against the way people learn these things because of how the pros do things.  I think we can glean from the pros, but should remember that at that level, it's not apples to apples.
> 
> Regarding person, style or training model, it's entirely the training model.  An exceptional person can make pretty much anything work.  But the weaknesses within a style will be exposed in a sound training model, not hidden (I'm looking at you, ninja anti-BJJ techniques).  Others have addressed several examples in this thread of that happening, including with BJJ and boxing.  And in a sound training model, everyone, regardless of native physical ability, will develop skills along a predictable learning curve.  Skills that they will be able to perform in context, under pressure.  EDIT:  Just want to add that in a style without a competitive outlet, you are learning something.  It's just not what you think.  If you are practicing kata, you will become very, very good at doing kata, for example.
> 
> To expand just a bit more on competition, I think that diversity is the key, depending upon your goal.  I think some people have a very myopic view of what competition is.  I personally believe more is better.  In BJJ, for example, if a person competes under only one ruleset, they risk developing some risky habits.  But, in addition to sparring in class, there are several different kinds of competitions available.  They can compete in judo tournaments, IBJJF tournaments, submission only tournaments, hybrid sub/point tournements, gi, no-gi, and then there's MMA, where striking is introduced.  You don't have to be a professional to enter any or all of these tournaments.  In fact, most are not.
> 
> The guy who actively pursues a variety of competitive tests will be a much more well-rounded MAist than the guy who doesn't.


Okay, I think I see where you and I are differing on this one, Steve. See, I don't think of the competitive points as where to develop most things (except better live readings). Drills and practice are where we develop the skills, and the competitive element is where we test them out. Given how scarce aiki opportunities are (as I define them) in competition with folks who understand grappling, it's not a particularly good place to develop that feel. In fact, it's more likely to foster folks taking the leverage route rather than the aiki route. 

I think I need to take some time and refine how I explain my definition of aiki - it seems to confuse everyone but me when I use words to explain it (meaning they get a different definition from my words than the one I'm trying to give).

As for the variety of competition, I agree with you for the most part. I just have no interest in competitions, so have limited that variety to rolling/sparring/playing with folks from different arts on an informal basis, rather than entering competitions. Competitions add some elements that matter less in a short self-defense encounter (the stamina to stay with someone at my own level for several rounds, for instance). I don't know - maybe if I'd had these discussions 20 years ago, I'd have a different attitude. But I do know people who trained their skills without entering competitions, using other training methods, and developed skills that served them well in real encounters (again, looking mostly at LEO's and bouncers). The real differentiator has been testing their skills in various ways, training with good intensity, and being willing to look for flaws in their technique rather than just polishing endlessly without regard to effectiveness. Most of them had experience in more than one art, giving them a more informed filter for evaluating the techniques and applications in each.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Spinedoc said:


> Okay, a lot of good comments here, some ridiculous.
> 
> Aikido practicioners or Aikidoists (Please avoid Aikidoka as a term for Aikido practitioners, technically, in Japan, it only refers to a notable, or high ranking, distinguished Aikidoist, for most people it doesn't matter, but I used the term once with a visiting Shihan from Japan, and he wasn't amused, he took me aside to explain the difference after class) get a fair amount of criticism for a variety of reasons from the MMA community. It goes back to a couple of fundamental differences between competitive MA and Aikido.
> 
> #1 Aikido is NOT competitive. The techniques were actually derivatives of techniques developed on Japan's feudal battlefields centuries ago. While it is a Gendai art, it's parent art is Daito Ryu (which is Koryu, although questions have been raised about that as well) as well as multiple other arts (O'Sensei also studied in no particular order Kito Ryu, Goto Ha Yagyu Ryu, Judo, Shikage Ryu, and IIRC, Tenjin Shinyo Ryu) which all played a role in the development of Aikido. Battlefield combat is quite a bit different than competitive "ring" sports. On the battlefield, you would often attack full on in order to try and win and deal with the next person. This is substantially different from an attacker who is probing, and focused on only one person, and trying to win. Just different contexts.
> 
> #2 Aikido has unrealistic attacks. The attacks in Aikido are all based on sword motions, or how you would move and cut with a sword....without the sword. While many people deride this as unrealistic, there are only so many ways to grab, punch, or strike someone...the attacks do look silly, but at some point in your Aikido journey you make an astonishing discovery.....that is....The attack DOES NOT MATTER...to be honest, I don't care how you attack me, your energy can only be directed at me in so many ways. The only thing the attack does, is potentially change my entry..but otherwise, I honestly don't care.
> 
> #3 Aikido does not pressure test. We actually do, with randori, jiyu waza, and other drills, which can be similar to "rolling" in BJJ, but it doesn't look that way. This is actually one criticism that likely has a little merit, but it can vary considerably by dojo...some are quite martial, and you will be pressure tested, and others are more soft, internal, and spiritual. I cannot speak for them.
> 
> #4 Aikido looks like a dance. Yes, it certainly can, but the point is.....ukemi is designed first and foremost, to protect uke. So, at higher levels, your ukemi becomes quite proficient, and it can look more dancelike, and a little less realistic. Trust me. Those same techniques executed on someone without proficient ukemi will badly injure them. I tell new students all the time that want to just learn techniques, that you have to focus on learning ukemi too. For example, I cannot do a gensake otoshi to you if you don't know the ukemi, which for that technique is really scary and pretty advanced. So, you have to focus on ukemi in order to progress as well. Most injuries that happen in Aikido, almost always happen because a nage is throwing or executing a technique on an uke who either doesn't know, or cannot properly execute the ukemi.
> 
> I practice BJJ as well as Aikido. Aikido is, and will always be, my primary art. Practice what you like. Don't worry about what others think. Their opinion is really not important or relevant at all.
> 
> BTW, I was just at a seminar this weekend with an 80 y/o Japanese Shihan who weighed maybe 120 pounds. He threw me so hard, it was ridiculous. He used me as uke as I am a bit bigger and he wanted to demonstrate how to unbalance a bigger, stronger person. He told me to grab hard, which I did......and then he looked at the class, and said...."Hehe, Stronger fall harder..."......BAM, I was down, over and over again, and the more resistance, the harder I fell.
> 
> The point behind that story was, that someone watching with, say an MMA background, might go...."that's ********"....yet, I can tell you unequivocably, that I was not just falling, and I was resisting pretty strongly. He was simply unbalancing me quicky, efficiently, and following w fast techniques that took me down.....


Just a quick note - the use of "aikidoka" is apparently different outside of Ueshiba's Aikido. Nobody in NGA would bat an eye at it being used to describe a brand new student. For us, it's just a reference to someone who studies the art.


----------



## Tez3

Spinedoc said:


> from the MMA community.



I wouldn't say the MMA community just, there's criticism from the TMA people as well, why do people always say MMA as if they were the only ones who criticise anything? Do the TMA never criticise anything, aren't they the main complainers about MMA?
For the record I am TMA and MMA, I've even done a bit of Aikido.


----------



## Spinedoc

gpseymour said:


> Just a quick note - the use of "aikidoka" is apparently different outside of Ueshiba's Aikido. Nobody in NGA would bat an eye at it being used to describe a brand new student. For us, it's just a reference to someone who studies the art.



I always thought that too.....Honestly, I didn't even think twice about it. However, apparently, the use of the term doka in Japanese, did not imply what I thought it did?? Maybe the guy was just giving me grief? I dunno. Just what I was told.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Okay, I think I see where you and I are differing on this one, Steve. See, I don't think of the competitive points as where to develop most things (except better live readings). Drills and practice are where we develop the skills, and the competitive element is where we test them out. Given how scarce aiki opportunities are (as I define them) in competition with folks who understand grappling, it's not a particularly good place to develop that feel. In fact, it's more likely to foster folks taking the leverage route rather than the aiki route.
> 
> I think I need to take some time and refine how I explain my definition of aiki - it seems to confuse everyone but me when I use words to explain it (meaning they get a different definition from my words than the one I'm trying to give).
> 
> As for the variety of competition, I agree with you for the most part. I just have no interest in competitions, so have limited that variety to rolling/sparring/playing with folks from different arts on an informal basis, rather than entering competitions. Competitions add some elements that matter less in a short self-defense encounter (the stamina to stay with someone at my own level for several rounds, for instance). I don't know - maybe if I'd had these discussions 20 years ago, I'd have a different attitude. But I do know people who trained their skills without entering competitions, using other training methods, and developed skills that served them well in real encounters (again, looking mostly at LEO's and bouncers). The real differentiator has been testing their skills in various ways, training with good intensity, and being willing to look for flaws in their technique rather than just polishing endlessly without regard to effectiveness. Most of them had experience in more than one art, giving them a more informed filter for evaluating the techniques and applications in each.


Think about something like delivering feedback to a problem employee.  We offer soft skills over and over, training management on this fundamental skill.  But it really only takes a few minutes to share a feedback model so that the manager gets it.  Some degree of role playing or scenario training is very helpful for two main reasons.  First, it gives the manager a chance to receive some coaching on the spot.  Second, it usually makes clear that talking about what you'd say is way easier than saying it.

But, all that goes away if the skill is never applied in context.  The real skill development occurs when a manager is determined to apply the skill, and as they do, they improve.  

EDIT:  I want to add that following a period of application, additional coaching and feedback can be very effective. 

I can't think of a single skill that is learned otherwise, with the sole exception of some "martial arts" or "self defense" skills.


----------



## Spinedoc

Steve said:


> Think about something like delivering feedback to a problem employee.  We offer soft skills over and over, training management on this fundamental skill.  But it really only takes a few minutes to share a feedback model so that the manager gets it.  Some degree of role playing or scenario training is very helpful for two main reasons.  First, it gives the manager a chance to receive some coaching on the spot.  Second, it usually makes clear that talking about what you'd say is way easier than saying it.
> 
> But, all that goes away if the skill is never applied in context.  The real skill development occurs when a manager is determined to apply the skill, and as they do, they improve.
> 
> EDIT:  I want to add that following a period of application, additional coaching and feedback can be very effective.
> 
> I can't think of a single skill that is learned otherwise, with the sole exception of some "martial arts" or "self defense" skills.




I think the point is though, that many Aikido dojo's DO some level of pressure testing, usually in the way of multiple attackers, or sometimes, just one attacker with multiple attacks. Heck, this weekend, after lunch on Saturday at the seminar, one of my Sensei's, a Sandan, and I were stretching out (2 hour lunch breaks are simply too long...get stiff), and all of a sudden he started attacking me.......Didn't tell me which attack, just attack, and I had to respond and throw, and then he would attack again. Did that for like 10 minutes which was a nice way to warm up for the afternoon. It may not be competition, but still, it's not just static practice either.


----------



## Steve

Spinedoc said:


> I think the point is though, that many Aikido dojo's DO some level of pressure testing, usually in the way of multiple attackers, or sometimes, just one attacker with multiple attacks. Heck, this weekend, after lunch on Saturday at the seminar, one of my Sensei's, a Sandan, and I were stretching out (2 hour lunch breaks are simply too long...get stiff), and all of a sudden he started attacking me.......Didn't tell me which attack, just attack, and I had to respond and throw, and then he would attack again. Did that for like 10 minutes which was a nice way to warm up for the afternoon. It may not be competition, but still, it's not just static practice either.


Helpful, to be sure, but not the same thing.  As you say, it's not static practice, which is great.   But, still going to be limiting if the skills are never fully applied.


----------



## Psilent Knight

gpseymour said:


> I'll say the art does matter. I think it's the person and the art, not one or the other. If I get tapped out on the ground by someone who has trained a much shorter time in BJJ, that's probably the art (art with ground focus vs. art with standing focus).



Even in that scenario I STILL say that it is the person. As a fighter your goal is to fight TO WIN. Since it's your goal to win then you must put yourself through whatever training regimen that is necessary to ensure that. If you do that and you still get beat by another person by whatever means then that person is just a better fighter than you. With no offense or disrespect intended I have learned that I am not the only one who does not consider Capoeira as legitimate fighting art; at least not one on the same scale as Judo, BJJ or muay Thai. But if a Capoeira person manages to beat the snot out of a mma fighter I will not be so quick to say that Capoeira outperformed mma, I will say the person who had fought using Capoeira outperformed the person who used mma in the fight. It was the individual who had won or lost and not the art.

In discussions like this one of my favorite examples I like to bring up is UFC fighter Lyoto Machida. Before he started competing in mma Karate had a reputation for being all but useless in the cage. The along comes Lyoto defeating people left and right using primarily his Karate skills. And NOW Lyoto seems to be in somewhat of a slump. In the entire ebbs and flows of Lyoto's fighting career it was never so much the superiority or inferiority of Karate as fighting art it was the superiority (and now inferiority) of Lyoto Machida as a fighter compared to his past, present and possibly future opponent's. If Karate was an inferior or useless art then Lyoto would have never won so many fights. But if Karate was such a superior unbeatable martial art then Lyoto would have never lost the fights that he has. It's not the Karate it's Lyoto as an individual and how good or not so good of a fighter he is compared to other fighters.



gpseymour said:


> Now, if that same person actually manages to get me to the ground (reliably and easily, let's not get caught up in those exceptions that can always happen), that's something wrong with either me as a practitioner or the art I'm trained in or the training methods used to train me.



Or it could be that guy IS JUST A BETTER FIGHTER THAN YOU! And by that I mean, martial art aside, he's stronger, more aggressive, faster, lacks fear and empathy, *has had way more street fights than you can possibly imagine*, may have done 10 years upstate and *just has a better overall fight IQ than you*. In such case it's definitely the person. I have seen this happen so many times. I really don't think martial artists who practice for self protection should disregard this.

As martial artists we train to protect ourselves against untrained people. I think this mindset is obscuring our vision a little bit. Just because a person has never stepped foot inside of a dojo does not mean that he is _"untrained"_. Fighting for your life and surviving upstate for 10 or 15 years is possibly the most brutal, adrenaline filled training one can get. Same thing if a 33 year old athletically gifted man spent his entire life fighting on the streets. If he's still alive to talk about those experiences you can bet your last that he knows a thing or two about fighting. He may not know much if anything at all about TMAs that we train but he knows a thing or two about ACTUALLY FIGHTING. I don't want to make the mistake of assuming that just because I train and am very good at the martial art that I practice that automatically means that I know how to fight. I'm afraid it's not that simple and it's not the same thing.

If a person wants to get good at sparring and competing then he should spar and compete. If a person wants to be good at really fighting where the stakes are way higher than a sporting match then the only way to do that is to really fight. There are some people who do just that and have done just that. We never know if the person we're about to mix it up with is that guy or not.

Take Care My Friend and Have A Good One,
Osu!


----------



## Psilent Knight

drop bear said:


> That doesnt work though. So I wanted to compete in pride. I could do any system?



I'm sorry but I don't understand your question. Is it possible for you to rephrase it for me?

Take Care,
Osu!


----------



## Steve

Psilent Knight said:


> Even in that scenario I STILL say that it is the person. As a fighter your goal is to fight TO WIN. Since it's your goal to win then you must put yourself through whatever training regimen that is necessary to ensure that. If you do that and you still get beat by another person by whatever means then that person is just a better fighter than you. With no offense or disrespect intended I have learned that I am not the only one who does not consider Capoeira as legitimate fighting art; at least not one on the same scale as Judo, BJJ or muay Thai. But if a Capoeira person manages to beat the snot out of a mma fighter I will not be so quick to say that Capoeira outperformed mma, I will say the person who had fought using Capoeira outperformed the person who used mma in the fight. It was the individual who had won or lost and not the art.
> 
> In discussions like this one of my favorite examples I like to bring up is UFC fighter Lyoto Machida. Before he started competing in mma Karate had a reputation for being all but useless in the cage. The along comes Lyoto defeating people left and right using primarily his Karate skills. And NOW Lyoto seems to be in somewhat of a slump. In the entire ebbs and flows of Lyoto's fighting career it was never so much the superiority or inferiority of Karate as fighting art it was the superiority (and now inferiority) of Lyoto Machida as a fighter compared to his past, present and possibly future opponent's. If Karate was an inferior or useless art then Lyoto would have never won so many fights. But if Karate was such a superior unbeatable martial art then Lyoto would have never lost the fights that he has. It's not the Karate it's Lyoto as an individual and how good or not so good of a fighter he is compared to other fighters.
> 
> 
> 
> Or it could be that guy IS JUST A BETTER FIGHTER THAN YOU! And by that I mean, martial art aside, he's stronger, more aggressive, faster, lacks fear and empathy, *has had way more street fights than you can possibly imagine*, may have done 10 years upstate and *just has a better overall fight IQ than you*. In such case it's definitely the person. I have seen this happen so many times. I really don't think martial artists who practice for self protection should disregard this.
> 
> As martial artists we train to protect ourselves against untrained people. I think this mindset is obscuring our vision a little bit. Just because a person has never stepped foot inside of a dojo does not mean that he is _"untrained"_. Fighting for your life and surviving upstate for 10 or 15 years is possibly the most brutal, adrenaline filled training one can get. Same thing if a 33 year old athletically gifted man spent his entire life fighting on the streets. If he's still alive to talk about those experiences you can bet your last that he knows a thing or two about fighting. He may not know much if anything at all about TMAs that we train but he knows a thing or two about ACTUALLY FIGHTING. I don't want to make the mistake of assuming that just because I train and am very good at the martial art that I practice that automatically means that I know how to fight. I'm afraid it's not that simple and it's not the same thing.
> 
> If a person wants to get good at sparring and competing then he should spar and compete. If a person wants to be good at really fighting where the stakes are way higher than a sporting match then the only way to do that is to really fight. There are some people who do just that and have done just that. We never know if the person we're about to mix it up with is that guy or not.
> 
> Take Care My Friend and Have A Good One,
> Osu!


Every individual you mention has something very critical in common.  They all apply the skills in context.  Even the guy who doesn't have any formal training will see his skill level improve by simply performing the skill. 

Also, want to point out that Lyoto Machida is, in addition to being a high level karateka, a black belt in BJJ and trained in sumo.


----------



## Ironbear24

Tez3 said:


> I wouldn't say the MMA community just, there's criticism from the TMA people as well, why do people always say MMA as if they were the only ones who criticise anything? Do the TMA never criticise anything, aren't they the main complainers about MMA?
> For the record I am TMA and MMA, I've even done a bit of Aikido.



All the more reason why these terms are stupid and meaningless. As far as I am concerned if you train to fight or protect yourself then you're a martial artist regardless.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Spinedoc said:


> (Please avoid Aikidoka as a term for Aikido practitioners, technically, in Japan, it only refers to a notable, or high ranking, distinguished Aikidoist, for most people it doesn't matter, but I used the term once with a visiting Shihan from Japan, and he wasn't amused, he took me aside to explain the difference after class)



First I've ever heard of this, but I don't practice Aikido or speak Japanese. Do you know if the same outlook would extend to the terms "karateka" or "judoka"? What would the preferred term for an Aikido practitioner be in Japan anyway? "Practitioner" is English and -"ist" would be an English based suffix, so I'm sure neither of those would be used by Japanese speakers.



Spinedoc said:


> The attacks in Aikido are all based on sword motions, or how you would move and cut with a sword....without the sword.



I've heard this before, but in 99% of the Aikido demonstrations I see on video, the striking attacks delivered by uke appear to me like they would represent very poor swordmanship body mechanics (as well as being delivered at the wrong range for a sword cut). Admittedly my own sword skills are rudimentary at best, but I see some pretty glaring issues if the attacks are supposed to represent sword cuts. (The defenses against wrist grabs do make more sense if we imagine the context is an attacker trying to prevent your from drawing your sword. I could buy that explanation.)

Have you noticed the same thing? If so, do you think it has something to do with the fact that the majority of Aikido practitioners don't also practice a sword art? I know some people do cross-train with Aikido and a sword art, so I would expect those individuals might teach uke to present a better simulation of a sword based attack.


----------



## Ironbear24

Tez3 said:


> and even if he is an accomplished fighter ( jury is still out, we do know that he has never fought MMA though however 'good' his TKD and BJJ is) it doesn't make him a 'better person', he's still the fan boys hero, the guru of the UFC who they follow and make people's lives a misery.
> A friend of mine fought in the UFC and lost, Rogan made some very harsh remarks, _personal ones not relevant to the fight_ while commentating. My friend remonstrated with him on Twitter afterwards. Rogan laughed my friend off but his followers, well they went to town on my friend, death threats, personal remarks including those about my friend's son along with threats to him, really nasty stuff, all on Twitter all hash tagged to add Rogan so he knew but did nothing to stop his little friends sustained attacks. It was nasty. It's not the first time this has happened, now people can say Rogan isn't responsible, it's  arguable but on the other hand he knew about this campaign and did nothing to try and stop it. Being politically incorrect is actually just another way of being rude and nasty and very hurtful. I guess he takes his money and laughs all the way to the bank.



Yeah this doesn't surprise me at all sadly. I always got the the impression he was the king of douche bros.



Tez3 said:


> He's a comedian/commentator, being good at BJJ and TKD doesn't make him a be all and end all MMA commentator,



I never been impressed with commentating either, I recall watching an old chuck lidel fight and he said something like "excellent Thai kicks." I'm like, ok well he has never done any muay thai sooo.


----------



## Flying Crane

Psilent Knight said:


> Even in that scenario I STILL say that it is the person. As a fighter your goal is to fight TO WIN. Since it's your goal to win then you must put yourself through whatever training regimen that is necessary to ensure that. If you do that and you still get beat by another person by whatever means then that person is just a better fighter than you. With no offense or disrespect intended I have learned that I am not the only one who does not consider Capoeira as legitimate fighting art; at least not one on the same scale as Judo, BJJ or muay Thai. But if a Capoeira person manages to beat the snot out of a mma fighter I will not be so quick to say that Capoeira outperformed mma, I will say the person who had fought using Capoeira outperformed the person who used mma in the fight. It was the individual who had won or lost and not the art.
> 
> In discussions like this one of my favorite examples I like to bring up is UFC fighter Lyoto Machida. Before he started competing in mma Karate had a reputation for being all but useless in the cage. The along comes Lyoto defeating people left and right using primarily his Karate skills. And NOW Lyoto seems to be in somewhat of a slump. In the entire ebbs and flows of Lyoto's fighting career it was never so much the superiority or inferiority of Karate as fighting art it was the superiority (and now inferiority) of Lyoto Machida as a fighter compared to his past, present and possibly future opponent's. If Karate was an inferior or useless art then Lyoto would have never won so many fights. But if Karate was such a superior unbeatable martial art then Lyoto would have never lost the fights that he has. It's not the Karate it's Lyoto as an individual and how good or not so good of a fighter he is compared to other fighters.
> 
> 
> 
> Or it could be that guy IS JUST A BETTER FIGHTER THAN YOU! And by that I mean, martial art aside, he's stronger, more aggressive, faster, lacks fear and empathy, *has had way more street fights than you can possibly imagine*, may have done 10 years upstate and *just has a better overall fight IQ than you*. In such case it's definitely the person. I have seen this happen so many times. I really don't think martial artists who practice for self protection should disregard this.
> 
> As martial artists we train to protect ourselves against untrained people. I think this mindset is obscuring our vision a little bit. Just because a person has never stepped foot inside of a dojo does not mean that he is _"untrained"_. Fighting for your life and surviving upstate for 10 or 15 years is possibly the most brutal, adrenaline filled training one can get. Same thing if a 33 year old athletically gifted man spent his entire life fighting on the streets. If he's still alive to talk about those experiences you can bet your last that he knows a thing or two about fighting. He may not know much if anything at all about TMAs that we train but he knows a thing or two about ACTUALLY FIGHTING. I don't want to make the mistake of assuming that just because I train and am very good at the martial art that I practice that automatically means that I know how to fight. I'm afraid it's not that simple and it's not the same thing.
> 
> If a person wants to get good at sparring and competing then he should spar and compete. If a person wants to be good at really fighting where the stakes are way higher than a sporting match then the only way to do that is to really fight. There are some people who do just that and have done just that. We never know if the person we're about to mix it up with is that guy or not.
> 
> Take Care My Friend and Have A Good One,
> Osu!


Regarding capoeira, it is my opinion, as a former student of capoeira, that many people in the US practice for the roda, the game of caopeira, which can be rough and combative, but often is not.  I agree that this is not true combat, but can share many aspects of sparring and can develop fighting ability if done with proper intent and intensity.

As to the art itself being viable as a combat method, I could put you in touch with a number of people who could readily convince you of the fighting value that the method holds. There are capoeiristas who most definitely can fight, the system does have what it takes to be a viable fighting method.


----------



## Psilent Knight

Steve said:


> Every individual you mention has something very critical in common.  They all apply the skills in context.  Even the guy who doesn't have any formal training will see his skill level improve by simply performing the skill



Yes, but I don't think this observation negates my viewpoint though. Let's say, hypothetically, you and I decide to have a go at it on the pavement arena due to me swiping a parking spot from you. You train Aikido and I train mma (BJJ, boxing, wrestling and muay Thai) and you use my face to sweep the parking lot. To me that does not mean Aikido is better than mma and/or mma sucks compared to Aikido. I would see that as you being better at what you do than I am at what I do.



Steve said:


> Also, want to point out that Lyoto Machida is, in addition to being a high level karateka, a black belt in BJJ and trained in sumo.



4 Things....

#1 - Shotokan Karate is the art that he has trained the longest by far. He's trained it since age three. It is his DeFacto base fighting style. He's trained it more than the other two, for much longer than the other two and uses it in the cage more than the other two.

#2 - Of Lyoto's 22 wins half of them are by decision and the other half are by finishes. Only two of those finishes were by submission while the remaining nine were by knockout. That's not a grappler's finishing ratio, that's a striker's finishing ratio.

#3 - I have never seen Lyoto dominate on the ground anyone who is/was considered an elite level grappler in any of his matches. Which brings me to...

#4 - I'm definitely a fan of Lyoto. But as a fan I will say that I have seen his "BJJ" in his mma fights and it leaves a whole lot to be desired. This is closely related to #3 above.

Take Care My Friend and Have A Good One,
Osu!


----------



## Psilent Knight

Flying Crane said:


> Regarding capoeira, it is my opinion, as a former student of capoeira, that many people in the US practice for the roda, the game of caopeira, which can be rough and combative, but often is not.  I agree that this is not true combat, but can share many aspects of sparring and* can develop fighting ability* if done with proper intent and intensity.



If by _"can develop fighting ability"_ you mean can help develop the physical attributes that are needed to fight well, I can go for that.



Flying Crane said:


> There are capoeiristas who most definitely can fight,



I only highlighted this part of your quote because it's the one that I deem most relevant and further agrees with my point, although I realize that wasn't your intent.

Take Care,
Osu!


----------



## Flying Crane

Psilent Knight said:


> If by _"can develop fighting ability"_ you mean can help develop the physical attributes that are needed to fight well, I can go for that.
> 
> 
> 
> I only highlighted this part of your quote because it's the one that I deem most relevant and further agrees with my point, although I realize that wasn't your intent.
> 
> Take Care,
> Osu!


Believe what you wish.  It is only my intention to offer an education.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Psilent Knight said:


> With no offense or disrespect intended I have learned that I am not the only one who does not consider Capoeira as legitimate fighting art; at least not one on the same scale as Judo, BJJ or muay Thai.





Flying Crane said:


> Regarding capoeira, it is my opinion, as a former student of capoeira, that many people in the US practice for the roda, the game of caopeira, which can be rough and combative, but often is not.  I agree that this is not true combat, but can share many aspects of sparring and can develop fighting ability if done with proper intent and intensity.
> 
> As to the art itself being viable as a combat method, I could put you in touch with a number of people who could readily convince you of the fighting value that the method holds. There are capoeiristas who most definitely can fight, the system does have what it takes to be a viable fighting method.



Capoeira is an interesting case. I've been studying the art for about 8-9 months now, with an instructor who definitely regards it as a fighting art and teaches the combative applications. The thing is, it's not _just _a fighting art. It's also a cultural art and a game. For that reason I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to an average person who just wanted to develop fighting ability as quickly as possible. Some of the time and energy spent on the cultural art/game aspects of the art is time not spent on immediate optimization of fighting skills. (Some of it does have carry-over because it builds physical attributes which are useful for all aspects of the art including fighting.)

Speaking as someone whose primary martial foundation is in BJJ and Muay Thai, I do think that Capoeira will improve my abilities as a fighter, but it will probably always be a supplemental art for me.

BTW - Capoeira and MMA are not mutually exclusive. Only a few fighters have had much success in the cage with _pure_ Capoeira, but these days no one in MMA fights with a pure style. Several high-level MMA fighters have Capoeira skills - Jose Aldo and Conor McGregor come to mind.


----------



## Flying Crane

Tony Dismukes said:


> Capoeira is an interesting case. I've been studying the art for about 8-9 months now, with an instructor who definitely regards it as a fighting art and teaches the combative applications. The thing is, it's not _just _a fighting art. It's also a cultural art and a game. For that reason I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to an average person who just wanted to develop fighting ability as quickly as possible. Some of the time and energy spent on the cultural art/game aspects of the art is time not spent on immediate optimization of fighting skills. (Some of it does have carry-over because it builds physical attributes which are useful for all aspects of the art including fighting.)
> 
> Speaking as someone whose primary martial foundation is in BJJ and Muay Thai, I do think that Capoeira will improve my abilities as a fighter, but it will probably always be a supplemental art for me.
> 
> BTW - Capoeira and MMA are not mutually exclusive. Only a few fighters have had much success in the cage with _pure_ Capoeira, but these days no one in MMA fights with a pure style. Several high-level MMA fighters have Capoeira skills - Jose Aldo and Conor McGregor come to mind.


Well said, Tony.  I think you have described the issue very accurately.


----------



## Psilent Knight

Flying Crane said:


> Believe what you wish.  It is only my intention to offer an education.



Right back at you.

Osu!


----------



## Psilent Knight

Tony Dismukes said:


> Capoeira is an interesting case. I've been studying the art for about 8-9 months now, with an instructor who definitely regards it as a fighting art and teaches the combative applications. The thing is, it's not _just _a fighting art. It's also a cultural art and a game. For that reason I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to an average person who just wanted to develop fighting ability as quickly as possible. Some of the time and energy spent on the cultural art/game aspects of the art is time not spent on immediate optimization of fighting skills. (Some of it does have carry-over because it builds physical attributes which are useful for all aspects of the art including fighting.)
> 
> Speaking as someone whose primary martial foundation is in BJJ and Muay Thai, I do think that Capoeira will improve my abilities as a fighter, but it will probably always be a supplemental art for me.
> 
> BTW - Capoeira and MMA are not mutually exclusive. Only a few fighters have had much success in the cage with _pure_ Capoeira, but these days no one in MMA fights with a pure style. Several high-level MMA fighters have Capoeira skills - Jose Aldo and Conor McGregor come to mind.



Good post. Thank you for the insights.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Speaking as someone whose primary martial foundation is in BJJ and Muay Thai, I do think that Capoeira will improve my abilities as a fighter, but it will probably always be a supplemental art for me.



The attributes that I envision can be developed through the practice of Capoeira I think can be equally developed through the practice of WTF Taekwondo. No?


----------



## Flying Crane

Psilent Knight said:


> The attributes that I envision can be developed through the practice of Capoeira I think can be equally developed through the practice of WTF Taekwondo. No?



On a basic level, yes, in that they both put a heavy emphasis on kicking.  However capoeira has some kicking techniques that are somewhat unique to that system.
But beyond that, capoeira has a unique way of developing a broad and unusual way of moving, that could be very useful in fighting.  And I am not referring to the acrobatics.  It is a lot of move and change and positioning, that is not necessarily acrobatics.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

There are some strategies used in Aikido that I don't agree with.

1. You always wait for your opponent to attack you. If you have this kind of attitude, you will never get a date with any girlfriend. If you want to take, you have to give first.
2. The contact point is mainly on the wrist. Even if you may have controlled on your opponent's wrist, since his elbow is free, you don't have a full control on that arm.
3. The wrist control keep you and your opponent distance a bit too far. It's not a "clinch". This will give your opponent too much freedom to counter you.
4. If you don't use your leg skill such as cut, spring, sweep, lift, hook, twist, scoop, ... you give your opponent's legs too much freedom. Only use your hand to throw your opponent is not as effective as to use both of your hand and leg to throw. To push/pull the head down and to sweep/hook the leg off is much better strategy.


----------



## Spinedoc

Tony Dismukes said:


> I've heard this before, but in 99% of the Aikido demonstrations I see on video, the striking attacks delivered by uke appear to me like they would represent very poor swordmanship body mechanics (as well as being delivered at the wrong range for a sword cut). Admittedly my own sword skills are rudimentary at best, but I see some pretty glaring issues if the attacks are supposed to represent sword cuts. (The defenses against wrist grabs do make more sense if we imagine the context is an attacker trying to prevent your from drawing your sword. I could buy that explanation.)
> 
> Have you noticed the same thing? If so, do you think it has something to do with the fact that the majority of Aikido practitioners don't also practice a sword art? I know some people do cross-train with Aikido and a sword art, so I would expect those individuals might teach uke to present a better simulation of a sword based attack.



Yeah, I have. Not as much at first, but after studying Iaido for a bit, it's noticeable. That being said, most of the original Aikido students back in the day had studied other martial arts, and many had Iaido or Kendo backgrounds. That being said, I'm not really sure how much difference it makes most of the time. For very precise movements, it makes a big difference, but not many Aikido practitioners drill down that far. Takeguchi Sensei has said for many years that he can watch someone practicing Aikido and tell if they practice weapons or not by watching their Aikido. Those that do practice weapons extensively seem to have much crisper, sharper Aikido overall.


----------



## Spinedoc

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There are some strategies that's used in Aikido that I don't agree with.
> 
> 1. You always wait for your opponent to attack you. If you have this kind of attitude, you will never get a date with any girlfriend. If you want to take, you have to give first.
> 2. The contact point is mainly on the wrist. Even if you may have controlled on your opponent's wrist, since his elbow is free, you don't have a full control on that arm.
> 3. The wrist control keep you and your opponent distance a bit too far. This will give your opponent too much freedom to counter you.
> 4. If you don't use your leg skill such as cut, spring, sweep, lift, hook, twist, scoop, ... you give your opponent's legs too much freedom. Only use your hand to throw your opponent is not as effective as to use both of your hand and leg to throw. push/pull the head down, sweep/hook the leg off is much better strategy.



A few thoughts....

1. Not really. Pranin Sensei who just died 2 weeks ago, would state that the principle of "Go No Sen" was essential to Aikido. While you are not attacking first, you are also not simply receiving...it can be thought of as....anticipation, sensing an attack, and attacking back at essentially the same time as someone attacks you. In other words, at the very first movement or initiation, you are already moving as nage. If you are not, and you are waiting....well, you aren't doing Aikido.

2. Not at all. We are not trying to control the wrist at all...but rather our opponents hara or center. You have to connect with your uke when they attack, and you have to ground yourself while connecting them to YOUR center, not theirs. All the power comes from the center, not peripherally.

3.  Not really, If you are doing it properly, you are touching shoulders, and keeping them close, using your center to manipulate theirs.

4. HA....I remember Ikeda Shihan once saying when asked about kicks....."Man who kicks, is man on one leg" Again though, we aren't throwing with our arms...if you are....you are not doing Aikido. Aikido throws from the center, it's hard, and takes a long time to develop and understand, but if you are doing it properly, it should almost seem effortless.


----------



## Spinedoc

Here's one of my favorite Japanese teachers currently, and next time I go to Japan, I hope to study with him.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Spinedoc said:


> "Man who kicks, is man on one leg"


You are right that when you use one leg to sweep/hook your opponent's leg/legs off the ground, you only have 1 leg for your balance. But your opponent also has 1 leg or no leg at that moment. The risk and reward are always related.

When you throw your opponent, you can throw him:

1. use your arms - Since you have both feet on the ground, you have the best balance. Since you have no control on your opponent's leg, your opponent's legs has full freedom.
2. use your arms and trap your leg with your opponent's leg - You still have both feet on the ground. But your opponent can still step out of your leg blocking.
3. use your leg to sweep/hook/... your opponent's leg off the ground - You only have 1 leg for your balance. But since your use your leg to knock your opponent's leg off the ground, it's hard for your opponent to escape.


----------



## Spinedoc

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You are right that when you use one leg to sweep/hook your opponent's leg/legs off the ground, you only have 1 leg for your balance. But your opponent also has 1 leg or no leg at that moment.
> 
> When you throw your opponent, you can throw him:
> 
> 1. use your arms - Since you have both feet on the ground, you have the best balance. Since you have no control on your opponent's leg, your opponent's legs has full freedom.
> 2. use your arms and trap your leg with your opponent's leg - You still have both feet on the ground. But your opponent can still step out of your leg blocking.
> 3. use your arms and sweep/hook/... with your opponent's leg - You only have 1 leg for your balance. But since your use your leg to knock your opponent's leg off the ground, it's hard for your opponent to escape.



This is why, at least what my teachers DRILL into my brain, that nage HAS to disrupt uke's center prior to trying to throw them. If you haven't unbalanced their center, they aren't going anywhere, so the first movement is to extend or unbalance them, then often, as they are trying to re-gain their balance, you throw them. Often the leg work isn't needed....


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Spinedoc said:


> Often the leg work isn't needed....


You can spin a ball with one hand. You can also spin a ball with both hands that go into opposite directions. To limit your opponent's leg mobility is only "strategy". It has nothing to do with MA system.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

There are some strategies used in Aikido that I like.

1. Try to throw your opponent to the east, when he resists, you borrow his force, throw him to the west.
2. Try to throw your opponent to the east, when he yield/follow, you borrow his force, still throw him to the east.
3. Move out of your opponent's attacking path, give him all the space that he needs, and lead him into the emptiness.
4. Use "water" strategy that only respond when outside force arrives. Good strategy to use against "fire" strategy fighter who moves around with good/fast footwork.


----------



## Spinedoc

Tony Dismukes said:


> If so, do you think it has something to do with the fact that the majority of Aikido practitioners don't also practice a sword art? I know some people do cross-train with Aikido and a sword art, so I would expect those individuals might teach uke to present a better simulation of a sword based attack.



Oh and by the way, this is why some high ranking Aikido teachers have insisted on sword study as well. Nishio Sensei even went so far as to develop his own Aikido/Iaido system.


----------



## KangTsai

I'm just not a fan of how the majority is trained. The full co-operation, voluntarily-do-a-front-flip type of thing. Most techniques can work obviously (although to this day I'm skeptical about wrist throws).
But the way most aikido is trained is dumb.


----------



## Flying Crane

I've sat in to watch classes at three different aikido schools.  Two of the three were impressive.  One was not.  From that brief experience, I saw two thirds of the aikido schools were impressive vs. one third that was not.  I would say that the way most aikido is trained is not dumb.


----------



## Tez3

Flying Crane said:


> Two of the three were impressive. One was not. From that brief experience, I saw two thirds of the aikido schools were impressive vs. one third that was not



That would be a fair summation of all styles really.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Whatever, DB. What I can't do is have a reasonable argument with someone who really doesn't bother to understand. There are many training tools that aren't competition. There are techniques and methods that don't work in competition and do work elsewhere.



You dont understand competition and the complexity of proccessing the information gained from it.

So you are sort of right with your statement but also sort of wrong.


----------



## drop bear

Psilent Knight said:


> I'm sorry but I don't understand your question. Is it possible for you to rephrase it for me?
> 
> Take Care,
> Osu!



There are martial arts that work better than others. I cant just do TKD and think i can compete in wrestling.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Okay, I think I see where you and I are differing on this one, Steve. See, I don't think of the competitive points as where to develop most things (except better live readings). Drills and practice are where we develop the skills, and the competitive element is where we test them out. Given how scarce aiki opportunities are (as I define them) in competition with folks who understand grappling, it's not a particularly good place to develop that feel. In fact, it's more likely to foster folks taking the leverage route rather than the aiki route.
> 
> I think I need to take some time and refine how I explain my definition of aiki - it seems to confuse everyone but me when I use words to explain it (meaning they get a different definition from my words than the one I'm trying to give).
> 
> As for the variety of competition, I agree with you for the most part. I just have no interest in competitions, so have limited that variety to rolling/sparring/playing with folks from different arts on an informal basis, rather than entering competitions. Competitions add some elements that matter less in a short self-defense encounter (the stamina to stay with someone at my own level for several rounds, for instance). I don't know - maybe if I'd had these discussions 20 years ago, I'd have a different attitude. But I do know people who trained their skills without entering competitions, using other training methods, and developed skills that served them well in real encounters (again, looking mostly at LEO's and bouncers). The real differentiator has been testing their skills in various ways, training with good intensity, and being willing to look for flaws in their technique rather than just polishing endlessly without regard to effectiveness. Most of them had experience in more than one art, giving them a more informed filter for evaluating the techniques and applications in each.



Aiki is so hard a concept? Because of it mystical nature.


----------



## drop bear

Spinedoc said:


> I think the point is though, that many Aikido dojo's DO some level of pressure testing, usually in the way of multiple attackers, or sometimes, just one attacker with multiple attacks. Heck, this weekend, after lunch on Saturday at the seminar, one of my Sensei's, a Sandan, and I were stretching out (2 hour lunch breaks are simply too long...get stiff), and all of a sudden he started attacking me.......Didn't tell me which attack, just attack, and I had to respond and throw, and then he would attack again. Did that for like 10 minutes which was a nice way to warm up for the afternoon. It may not be competition, but still, it's not just static practice either.



Which will give you the equivilent level of skill development.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Capoeira is an interesting case. I've been studying the art for about 8-9 months now, with an instructor who definitely regards it as a fighting art and teaches the combative applications. The thing is, it's not _just _a fighting art. It's also a cultural art and a game. For that reason I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to an average person who just wanted to develop fighting ability as quickly as possible. Some of the time and energy spent on the cultural art/game aspects of the art is time not spent on immediate optimization of fighting skills. (Some of it does have carry-over because it builds physical attributes which are useful for all aspects of the art including fighting.)
> 
> Speaking as someone whose primary martial foundation is in BJJ and Muay Thai, I do think that Capoeira will improve my abilities as a fighter, but it will probably always be a supplemental art for me.
> 
> BTW - Capoeira and MMA are not mutually exclusive. Only a few fighters have had much success in the cage with _pure_ Capoeira, but these days no one in MMA fights with a pure style. Several high-level MMA fighters have Capoeira skills - Jose Aldo and Conor McGregor come to mind.



It is not conservative. So you can fight a guy who you are better than or is also not fighting conservatively. But if you matched a high percentage fighter of equal skill you would get mangled.

You will probably find that reflected in your BJJ for MMA where you start to play safe and wont jump off mount for that arm bar for example.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

One Aikido black belt was my student. One time I gave a public demo, when I threw him, I could feel that he did a jump to help my throw. I asked him why, he told me that all Aikido training involve such cooperation. 

All demo are 1/2 fake and 1/2 real. The 1/2 fake is your opponent gives you that opportunity. The 1/2 real is you have to finish it. If your opponent helps you to finish, that's 100% fake by definition.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> There are martial arts that work better than others. I cant just do TKD and think i can compete in wrestling.



Apples and oranges.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Spinedoc said:


> I always thought that too.....Honestly, I didn't even think twice about it. However, apparently, the use of the term doka in Japanese, did not imply what I thought it did?? Maybe the guy was just giving me grief? I dunno. Just what I was told.


We have some folks on here who are pretty knowledgeable about Japanese usage. Maybe one of them can help us out.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Think about something like delivering feedback to a problem employee.  We offer soft skills over and over, training management on this fundamental skill.  But it really only takes a few minutes to share a feedback model so that the manager gets it.  Some degree of role playing or scenario training is very helpful for two main reasons.  First, it gives the manager a chance to receive some coaching on the spot.  Second, it usually makes clear that talking about what you'd say is way easier than saying it.
> 
> But, all that goes away if the skill is never applied in context.  The real skill development occurs when a manager is determined to apply the skill, and as they do, they improve.
> 
> EDIT:  I want to add that following a period of application, additional coaching and feedback can be very effective.
> 
> I can't think of a single skill that is learned otherwise, with the sole exception of some "martial arts" or "self defense" skills.


Well, when the context being trained for is self-defense, competition doesn't replicate it any better than well-committed "attacks" in the dojo. Both are approximations. Each has advantages and disadvantages. For me, in the dojo, I can get people to deliver specific attacks to train them, as well as to test them. The guy in the other corner isn't necessarily going to give me what I need to test against. But he will be more surprising than someone I train with all the time, and he's unlikely to wuss out on his attack (unless he just sucks).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> I've heard this before, but in 99% of the Aikido demonstrations I see on video, the striking attacks delivered by uke appear to me like they would represent very poor swordmanship body mechanics (as well as being delivered at the wrong range for a sword cut). Admittedly my own sword skills are rudimentary at best, but I see some pretty glaring issues if the attacks are supposed to represent sword cuts. (The defenses against wrist grabs do make more sense if we imagine the context is an attacker trying to prevent your from drawing your sword. I could buy that explanation.)
> 
> Have you noticed the same thing? If so, do you think it has something to do with the fact that the majority of Aikido practitioners don't also practice a sword art? I know some people do cross-train with Aikido and a sword art, so I would expect those individuals might teach uke to present a better simulation of a sword based attack.


From what I've heard, the sword skills in Ueshiba's art now are not good (I don't know enough to make that judgment). Without good sword training to back them, they wouldn't be likely to stay solid. Besides that, swinging your arm like there's a sword in it would make a particularly awkward strike, so I think they approximated the motion, while trying to get as close as they could to the strikes in question.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> One Aikido black belt was my student. One time I gave a public demo, when I threw him, I could feel that he did a jump to help my throw. I asked him why, he told me that all Aikido training involve such cooperation.
> 
> All demo are 1/2 fake and 1/2 real. The 1/2 fake is your opponent gives you that opportunity. The 1/2 real is you have to finish it. If your opponent helps you to finish, that's 100% fake by definition.


If that's what he was taught, something was missed. In Ueshiba's Aikido, the high/jumping breakfalls actually are for the benefit of the uke, not the audience. They take pressure off joints earlier and give the uke more time to create a softer fall. There's less of that in NGA, simply because of the difference in how we execute techniques. There are only a few places where launching into a fall is useful.

Now, in demonstration, they often amp that up a bit (actually, many grappling schools seem to jump into falls in demo's).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> many grappling schools seem to jump into falls in demo's.


I have been for my teacher's demo partner for many years. I have not even once to "jump into fall". Even today, I still don't know how to do that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Just find this clip online. At 1.29 and 1.49, the Judo guy uses leg skill "cut" to take his opponent down.


----------



## Ironbear24

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Just find this clip online. At 1.29 and 1.49, the Judo guy uses leg skill "cut" to take his opponent down.



I sometimes have trouble with this technique. I find if I don't put my foot higher than he had then they don't fall but stumble back and struggle to catch their balance.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Ironbear24 said:


> I sometimes have trouble with this technique. I find if I don't put my foot higher than he had then they don't fall but stumble back and struggle to catch their balance.


If you don't control your opponent's upper leg, his knee joint is still free and he can escape out of your "cut". This is why sometime to just control your opponent's lower leg is not good enough. All he needs is just to bend his leg at his knee joint, your cutting leg will go below his knee.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Well, when the context being trained for is self-defense, competition doesn't replicate it any better than well-committed "attacks" in the dojo. Both are approximations. Each has advantages and disadvantages. For me, in the dojo, I can get people to deliver specific attacks to train them, as well as to test them. The guy in the other corner isn't necessarily going to give me what I need to test against. But he will be more surprising than someone I train with all the time, and he's unlikely to wuss out on his attack (unless he just sucks).



No. If you are talking a full contact competition the attacks are not aproximations of attacks. They are attacks. 

This sort of misunderstanding is half the issue.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> Apples and oranges.



Not if it is the person and not the style.


----------



## Psilent Knight

drop bear said:


> There are martial arts that work better than others.



I half agree and half disagree. In certain sporting contexts with rules I agree that certain martial arts will work better than others in that setting. In an open bareknuckle, knockdown rules competition I think ITF Taekwondo would fare better than Aikido for example. But in a no rules altercation outside of the dojo or sporting setting then it becomes LESS about the art and MORE about the individuals who are engaged in the altercation.



drop bear said:


> I cant just do TKD and think i can compete in wrestling.



And vice versa of course. But if a TKD practitioner and a wrestler get involved in a physical altercation with each other and one of them soundly beats the other then that person is a better overall fighter than the guy who got his a-- kicked. I want to reiterate that it is more than just a particular martial art. Much, much more. There are physical attributes that MUST be taken into consideration as well as non physical attributes such as aggression, pain tolerance and fighting experience. 

BJ Penn, who is a BJJ specialist, recently got his butt kicked by Yair Rodriguez whose background is TKD. Most uneducated mma fans would have the whole world believing that BJJ is the best thing since sliced bread and that a BJJ specialist would beat a TKD specialist 8 or 9 times out of ten. But Penn lost and lost badly. Does that mean BJJ is worthless and TKD is a better art than BJJ? Of course not. Rodriguez was simply the better fighter and there are REASONS that he was a better fighter. Most of those reasons have to do with Rodriguez having better physical attributes (due to age difference no doubt) and being successful at fighting HIS fight instead of fighting BJ's fight.

In the fight between BJ and Rodriguez it was not TKD being better than BJJ and neither did BJJ lose to TKD. BJ Penn (as an individual fighter) lost to Yair Rodriguez (as an individual fighter).

Take Care and Have Good One Today,
Osu!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have been for my teacher's demo partner for many years. I have not even once to "jump into fall". Even today, I still don't know how to do that.


It's easy to do on some throws. On others, it would be difficult, at best. I've done it for my instructor a few times when he wanted students to see what a jumping fall looked like (when some would ask about the "high throws" they see in movies and demos).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No. If you are talking a full contact competition the attacks are not aproximations of attacks. They are attacks.
> 
> This sort of misunderstanding is half the issue.


They are approximations of the attacks likely to occur on the street. They are real attacks, but not the same real attacks. This sort of misunderstanding is more than half of the issue.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not if it is the person and not the style.


Agreed. This is why I say the style does matter. I'm slow to judge styles, even if they don't meet my needs, but there is definitely a fitness to context for styles, if nothing else. BJJ won't be good training for a kickboxing competition, boxing won't be good training for a Judo competition, etc.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Psilent Knight said:


> BJ Penn, who is a BJJ specialist, recently got his butt kicked by Yair Rodriguez whose background is TKD. Most uneducated mma fans would have the whole world believing that BJJ is the best thing since sliced bread and that a BJJ specialist would beat a TKD specialist 8 or 9 times out of ten. But Penn lost and lost badly. Does that mean BJJ is worthless and TKD is a better art than BJJ? Of course not. Rodriguez was simply the better fighter and there are REASONS that he was a better fighter. Most of those reasons have to do with Rodriguez having better physical attributes (due to age difference no doubt) and being successful at fighting HIS fight instead of fighting BJ's fight.
> 
> In the fight between BJ and Rodriguez it was not TKD being better than BJJ and neither did BJJ lose to TKD. BJ Penn (as an individual fighter) lost to Yair Rodriguez (as an individual fighter).


The thing to remember about this example is that Penn is not just a representative of BJJ and Rodriguez is not just a representative of TKD. They are both _MMA_ practitioners. Penn's original background may be jiu-jitsu, but he is also a solid striker who has won more matches by KO than by submission. Rodriguez's original background may be TKD, but he also trains jiu-jitsu and has won a couple of his matches by submission. In this case, it really is individual vs individual rather than art vs art, because they are both fighting with the same arts, more or less.

I'm a firm believer that in general both the art and the individual count. Some training methods and techniques do work better than others in a given context. If they didn't, there would be no point in even learning any style. Everybody could just make up their own martial art from the comfort of their living room based on our favorite movie scenes and any of those arts would be just as good as any other for purposes of fighting. The only difference in success would be our individual natural ability. This is clearly not the case.

On the other hand, any art is just a tool, and some people learn how to use their tools better than others. If you give me a $2000 guitar and give Willie Nelson a $150 guitar and set us down to play together, Willie is going to sound a whole lot better than me, even though my guitar is objectively better than his.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> No. If you are talking a full contact competition the attacks are not aproximations of attacks. They are attacks.
> 
> This sort of misunderstanding is half the issue.





gpseymour said:


> They are approximations of the attacks likely to occur on the street. They are real attacks, but not the same real attacks. This sort of misunderstanding is more than half of the issue.


I'm with Gerry on this. In full contact competition, the attacks are definitely real attacks. On the other hand, the situation as a whole, the likely attacks, the likely setups, the psychology, the tactical and strategic considerations, etc are not the same as they are in the majority of real world violent assaults. There is a lot of useful overlap but there are important differences as well. I think that until we develop holodeck or Matrix technology, any and all training and testing methods are going to be imperfect approximations of real world violence.


----------



## Tez3

The thing to remember is that Penn and Rodriguez are now 'old school' in that MMA was something they did after training their first styles. These days fighters are training MMA as a whole rather than having a base style as many of us did before MMA really existed as it does now. If not now certainly in a couple of years we will have the 'pure' MMA fighters at top level who doesn't have a base style but trains specifically for fights against others like them. We could see this coming a while ago with youngsters coming in to learn to fight in MMA comps rather than learn a specific style then another then another.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> There are martial arts that work better than others.


It's the spirit that develop from MA style that will make a difference. In Chinese wrestling, it encourages to play offense and lose than to play defense and win. Some Karate system emphasizes "one punch to kill". Some MA system emphasizes "push opponent away". Different MA style do develop different MA spirit and strategy.


----------



## Steve

Okay, this conversation has moved quite a bit over the last few days.  I'll try to catch up succinctly:





Psilent Knight said:


> Yes, but I don't think this observation negates my viewpoint though. Let's say, hypothetically, you and I decide to have a go at it on the pavement arena due to me swiping a parking spot from you. You train Aikido and I train mma (BJJ, boxing, wrestling and muay Thai) and you use my face to sweep the parking lot. To me that does not mean Aikido is better than mma and/or mma sucks compared to Aikido. I would see that as you being better at what you do than I am at what I do.


I don't think we are too far apart.  I would say, in your example, it's how you trained.  Let's say I train MMA in the manner that aikido is often trained, with compliant exercises and a lack of competition.  And let's say you train Aikido in the manner MMA is often trained, with consistent pressure testing and a competitive objective.  I would expect you to be better able to apply your skills than I.  It just makes sense.  Your training model lends itself to application.  [/quote]


> 4 Things....
> 
> #1 - Shotokan Karate is the art that he has trained the longest by far. He's trained it since age three. It is his DeFacto base fighting style. He's trained it more than the other two, for much longer than the other two and uses it in the cage more than the other two.
> 
> #2 - Of Lyoto's 22 wins half of them are by decision and the other half are by finishes. Only two of those finishes were by submission while the remaining nine were by knockout. That's not a grappler's finishing ratio, that's a striker's finishing ratio.
> 
> #3 - I have never seen Lyoto dominate on the ground anyone who is/was considered an elite level grappler in any of his matches. Which brings me to...
> 
> #4 - I'm definitely a fan of Lyoto. But as a fan I will say that I have seen his "BJJ" in his mma fights and it leaves a whole lot to be desired. This is closely related to #3 above.
> 
> Take Care My Friend and Have A Good One,
> Osu!


I'm very leery of using elite level athletes as a comparative.  It can be useful, if used judiciously.  Lyoto Machida is an elite level athlete, and I'd say an elite level Karateka.  Certainly, he is an elite level MMAist.  As a black belt in BJJ, he may not be able to dominate other elite MMAists on the ground, but we're talking about a very small universe of martial artists in this group.  He certainly could dominate most other grapplers, and I'd argue ALL untrained, non-grapplers on the ground.  It's perfectly legitimate to critique his grappling relative to others in the sport, provided we remember the context of the critique.  Sure, he's not a Damian Maia, but even the worst grappler in the UFC is better than most grapplers, and certainly able to dominate any non-grappler.


gpseymour said:


> Well, when the context being trained for is self-defense, competition doesn't replicate it any better than well-committed "attacks" in the dojo. Both are approximations. Each has advantages and disadvantages. For me, in the dojo, I can get people to deliver specific attacks to train them, as well as to test them. The guy in the other corner isn't necessarily going to give me what I need to test against. But he will be more surprising than someone I train with all the time, and he's unlikely to wuss out on his attack (unless he just sucks).


I've posted at length on this many times.  This is central to why I think self defense training often misses the point entirely.  On an individual level, I have seen zero evidence to suggest that training in a martial art (any martial art) makes you safer than doing tae bo, crossfit, parkour or spin class.  I have seen evidence that addressing high-risk behaviors, such as drug use/abuse, walking alone at night, etc, do.  Also, confidence and a willingness to fight are important.

Also, the bar is not fixed on measuring results.  In other words, what "successful self defense" looks like changes depending on the current agenda.  If someone is sexually assaulted, but survives, is that successful self defense?  Some would say yes.  Some would say no (including me).

Getting to the point, I'm suspicious of training "for self defense."  I can certainly understand training with self defense in mind, but I believe the best way to do that is to incorporate as much variety in one's training as possible, with clear measurements to gauge progress in mind.

Let's say you and I are golf pros.  We each have 100 complete beginners full time for a year.  Our goal is the same, teach them to play golf.  You have no clear objective.   You'll teach them to be "good" at golf, which you intend to measure using video analysis of their swing and computer analytics.  You are confident that if you can teach them a technically perfect swing, they will do well.   You also never let them hit a ball, as that may corrupt their swing.  You are confident that if they have a perfect swing, when they are asked to hit the ball, they will be able to do so.

I measure success by handicap (let's say a 10 handicap or lower), and teach them to play golf as you would expect.  I work with them on the driving range and putting green.  I give them feedback on their swings in context.  And we log some miles on the golf course.

At the end of the year, who do you think will be successful?  I think, given 100 unexceptional people full time, it would be remarkable if any of the 100 people in your group could even hit a ball, and if any of the 100 people in my group didn't have a 10 handicap or lower.


gpseymour said:


> They are approximations of the attacks likely to occur on the street. They are real attacks, but not the same real attacks. This sort of misunderstanding is more than half of the issue.


"Attack likely to occur on the street" is an oxymoronic statement.  Unless you are professionally at risk, any attack on the street is exceedingly unlikely.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> "Attack likely to occur on the street" is an oxymoronic statement. Unless you are professionally at risk, any attack on the street is exceedingly unlikely.


I interpret that phrase to mean "_If you were to be attacked on the street, these are the forms the attack would be most likely to take_" as opposed to "_One of these attacks is likely to come at you on any given day when you walk out on the street_." The first is a reasonable statement. The second one is not so much (for most people).

I should also point out that not everyone is lucky enough to live in a relatively crime-free area where avoiding violence can mostly be accomplished by not hanging out in dive bars and acting stupid. There are plenty of people living in environments where violence is much harder to avoid and they probably will be the target of an attack at some point - perhaps not every day, but not once in a lifetime either.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> I interpret that phrase to mean "_If you were to be attacked on the street, these are the forms the attack would be most likely to take_" as opposed to "_One of these attacks is likely to come at you on any given day when you walk out on the street_." The first is a reasonable statement. The second one is not so much (for most people).
> 
> I should also point out that not everyone is lucky enough to live in a relatively crime-free area where avoiding violence can mostly be accomplished by not hanging out in dive bars and acting stupid. There are plenty of people living in environments where violence is much harder to avoid and they probably will be the target of an attack at some point - perhaps not every day, but not once in a lifetime either.


It's the kind of statement that leads to unreasonable conversations about one martial art being more applicable for self defense than another.  There is only anecdotal evidence one way or the other, and anecdotally, there are examples of pretty much every martial art both succeeding and failing in real life encounters, and also plenty of examples of non-martial arts training succeeding and failing.   It's essentially, "Look.  My attack bears a superficial resemblance to something that feels more realistic.  Ergo, it is more realistic training." 

And while the chances of being a victim of violent crime goes up in high crime areas, these are not the majority of people who are training for self defense.  Also, in those areas, avoiding high risk behaviors will not guarantee safety, but it still helps.

In favor of self defense by common sense is the statistical fact that violent crime is relatively rare, and murder is exceedingly rare.  Even if you are a drug addicted person living in a homeless encampment, your chance of being murdered is exceedingly low.  "But you're saying there's a chance."  Yes.  And I would say that if you are in a high-crime area, a sport art still has every advantage over a non-sport art.  BJJ, Judo, some Karate, wrestling, boxing, muay thai, whatever.  You learn skills that you can reliably repeat under pressure.  You build self esteem.  Your fitness level is improved.  And, particularly where kids are involved, it gives you a positive community to participate in and keeps you busy.  Some of those benefits can be imparted by a non-sport art, but not all of them.


----------



## Flying Crane

I personally rarely think about "self defense" when I train.  It just isn't the motivation that drives my engines.

I personally have zero interest in actual competition.  It also is not the motivation that drives my engines.

I personally simply enjoy the training.  And I am convinced that some level of combative skill development comes out of the training.  Realistic training can be defined in many ways, and the more realistic the training, probably the better the skills that come of it. But there is no single definition of what that means.

These discussions are weird, really.  People entrench themselves into one camp or the other, and it becomes this polarized either/or thing.  I think reality is somewhere on the continuum, and elements of both have a place in the picture.

Sports martial arts can lead to skills that are useful for self defense.  Non sport martial arts can also lead to skills that are useful in self defense.

Everyone ought to really do what they find interesting and enjoyable, because to do otherwise is a guarantee that you will not keep doing it.

And everyone should be honest with themselves about the kinds of skills they are developing, and what their motivations are in training.  Be honest with yourself, and what someone else thinks is irrelevant.  How someone else defines "realistic" does not matter.  People don't come to the forums to be convinced of something.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> In favor of self defense by common sense is the statistical fact that violent crime is relatively rare, and murder is exceedingly rare. Even if you are a drug addicted person living in a homeless encampment, your chance of being murdered is exceedingly low. "But you're saying there's a chance." Yes. And I would say that if you are in a high-crime area, a sport art still has every advantage over a non-sport art. BJJ, Judo, some Karate, wrestling, boxing, muay thai, whatever. You learn skills that you can reliably repeat under pressure. You build self esteem. Your fitness level is improved. And, particularly where kids are involved, it gives you a positive community to participate in and keeps you busy. Some of those benefits can be imparted by a non-sport art, but not all of them.


I have no problem with any of that, other than to say I don't see it being an either/or choice. You can live your life in as safe a way as possible to minimize the chances of encountering violence _and_ train an art with a "sport/competition" component in order to build attributes/reliable skills _and_ practice methods for breaking the "sport" rules when the situation calls for it _and_ study common forms of real-world violence which you aren't likely to encounter in competition so you can train ways of applying your "sport" skills to that context _and_ practice scenario training to optimize your chances of appropriate tactical response under pressure (which may or may not involve physical fighting techniques).


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> I personally rarely think about "self defense" when I train.  It just isn't the motivation that drives my engines.
> 
> I personally have zero interest in actual competition.  It also is not the motivation that drives my engines.
> 
> I personally simply enjoy the training.  And I am convinced that some level of combative skill development comes out of the training.  Realistic training can be defined in many ways, and the more realistic the training, probably the better the skills that come of it. But there is no single definition of what that means.
> 
> These discussions are weird, really.  People entrench themselves into one camp or the other, and it becomes this polarized either/or thing.  I think reality is somewhere on the continuum, and elements of both have a place in the picture.
> 
> Sports martial arts can lead to skills that are useful for self defense.  Non sport martial arts can also lead to skills that are useful in self defense.
> 
> Everyone ought to really do what they find interesting and enjoyable, because to do otherwise is a guarantee that you will not keep doing it.
> 
> And everyone should be honest with themselves about the kinds of skills they are developing, and what their motivations are in training.  Be honest with yourself, and what someone else thinks is irrelevant.  How someone else defines "realistic" does not matter.  People don't come to the forums to be convinced of something.


I agree with you mostly, particularly about what is interesting and enjoyable.

Where I get entrenched is when people start talking about skill development.  When you think you're learning something you aren't actually learning, that's a problem for me.  Martial arts shouldn't be faith based, in my opinion.   Or, maybe it's more fair to say, if you approach martial arts as a faith based activity, hopefully you are self aware.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> I have no problem with any of that, other than to say I don't see it being an either/or choice. You can live your life in as safe a way as possible to minimize the chances of encountering violence _and_ train an art with a "sport/competition" component in order to build attributes/reliable skills _and_ practice methods for breaking the "sport" rules when the situation calls for it _and_ study common forms of real-world violence which you aren't likely to encounter in competition so you can train ways of applying your "sport" skills to that context _and_ practice scenario training to optimize your chances of appropriate tactical response under pressure (which may or may not involve physical fighting techniques).


Yes.   I've said this many times that all of those are great.   Let's discuss omission.  removing one or more of the above will have a greater or lesser impact on the practical effect of your training, if your goal is self defense.  What is the biggest bang for your buck?  Opinions vary.  I think lifestyle is, statistically, the most imortant factor.  And given a choice between rbsd training without a reliable context for application or sport, i think sport gives you the most reliable path to skill development.   

It's not all or nothing, but absent all, what's the most likely to give the desired result, for the average, unexceptional student?


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> I agree with you mostly, particularly about what is interesting and enjoyable.
> 
> Where I get entrenched is when people start talking about skill development.  When you think you're learning something you aren't actually learning, that's a problem for me.  Martial arts shouldn't be faith based, in my opinion.   Or, maybe it's more fair to say, if you approach martial arts as a faith based activity, hopefully you are self aware.


True, but who are you to tell someone else that they arent learning what they say they are learning?  Have you attended their training sessions?  You know with certainty what they are doing and what they are not doing?

To say that you must engage in competition or you do not have good fighting/defense ability is a crock of ****.

To say that you do not have street self defense abilities because you train for sports martial arts, is a crock of ****.

That is what these discussions boil down to: only my way works, and yours does not.  And that is a crock of ****.

If you cannot recognize a huge amount of overlap in these, then you are full of ****.

Be honest with yourself about your training.  If someone else cannot be honest with himself, that is his problem.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> Yes.   I've said this many times that all of those are great.   Let's discuss omission.  removing one or more of the above will have a greater or lesser impact on the practical effect of your training, if your goal is self defense.  What is the biggest bang for your buck?  Opinions vary.  I think lifestyle is, statistically, the most imortant factor.  And given a choice between rbsd training without a reliable context for application or sport, i think sport gives you the most reliable path to skill development.
> 
> It's not all or nothing, but absent all, what's the most likely to give the desired result, for the average, unexceptional student?


Yes, opinions vary.  

But I'll say this much: competition gives me zero bang for my buck, because I have no interest and will not do it.  

But that's just me, and I am comfortable with that.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> Yes.   I've said this many times that all of those are great.   Let's discuss omission.  removing one or more of the above will have a greater or lesser impact on the practical effect of your training, if your goal is self defense.  What is the biggest bang for your buck?  Opinions vary.  I think lifestyle is, statistically, the most imortant factor.  And given a choice between rbsd training without a reliable context for application or sport, i think sport gives you the most reliable path to skill development.
> 
> It's not all or nothing, but absent all, what's the most likely to give the desired result, for the average, unexceptional student?


I'd agree with your order of priority, in general, given a broad enough interpretation of "sport."

I do think there is room for an intermediate step in-between the fundamentals of establishing a generally safe lifestyle and the development of reliable physical skills, especially for women. Unfortunately even women who live in affluent, low-crime areas and who don't engage in especially high-risk behaviors can have a significant chance of being sexually assaulted at one point or another - typically by someone they know. Developing the non-physical skills and attributes to detect and deter or avoid such predators is an area which presents a lot of potential bang for the buck. Unfortunately, I don't know how well proven any particular approach to building those skills and attributes is. I know there have been some studies done, but there are a lot of practical  (and ethical) difficulties in this sort of research.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> True, but who are you to tell someone else that they arent learning what they say they are learning?  Have you attended their training sessions?  You know with certainty what they are doing and what they are not doing?
> 
> To say that you must engage in competition or you do not have good fighting/defense ability is a crock of ****.
> 
> To say that you do not have street self defense abilities because you train for sports martial arts, is a crock of ****.
> 
> That is what these discussions boil down to: only my way works, and yours does not.  And that is a crock of ****.
> 
> If you cannot recognize a huge amount of overlap in these, then you are full of ****.
> 
> Be honest with yourself about your training.  If someone else cannot be honest with himself, that is his problem.


Let's be clear.  If you're having fun and enjoying yourself, knock yourself out.  I would never (here or in person) presume to rain on your parade. 

I mentioned before the statistical unlikelihood that you will ACTUALLY be attacked in your life.  Chances are, even if you aren't learning what you think you are, no biggie.  However, IF we consider the small chance that you actually ARE attacked, it becomes relevant to YOU that you have learned what you think you've learned.

Said another way, if we buy into the rationale for self defense training (that you might be attacked), then we must also buy into the potential that you will have a real world need to use the skills you believe you have been taught.    Does that make sense?


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'd agree with your order of priority, in general, given a broad enough interpretation of "sport."
> 
> I do think there is room for an intermediate step in-between the fundamentals of establishing a generally safe lifestyle and the development of reliable physical skills, especially for women. Unfortunately even women who live in affluent, low-crime areas and who don't engage in especially high-risk behaviors can have a significant chance of being sexually assaulted at one point or another - typically by someone they know. Developing the non-physical skills and attributes to detect and deter or avoid such predators is an area which presents a lot of potential bang for the buck. Unfortunately, I don't know how well proven any particular approach to building those skills and attributes is. I know there have been some studies done, but there are a lot of practical  (and ethical) difficulties in this sort of research.


Totally agree, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish, given the real world circumstances of sexual assault.  It can be the "stranger danger" kind of assault, but isn't usually. 

And, based on what I've seen in my local area, and also read here over the years, most "women's self defense" courses do not address what sexual assault really looks like.  Some do, but I get the impression that these are the minority.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> Let's be clear.  If you're having fun and enjoying yourself, knock yourself out.  I would never (here or in person) presume to rain on your parade.
> 
> I mentioned before the statistical unlikelihood that you will ACTUALLY be attacked in your life.  Chances are, even if you aren't learning what you think you are, no biggie.  However, IF we consider the small chance that you actually ARE attacked, it becomes relevant to YOU that you have learned what you think you've learned.
> 
> Said another way, if we buy into the rationale for self defense training (that you might be attacked), then we must also buy into the potential that you will have a real world need to use the skills you believe you have been taught.    Does that make sense?


Sure it does.  And your training method, while probably highly effective, is not the only effective training method.  Does that make sense?


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm with Gerry on this. In full contact competition, the attacks are definitely real attacks. On the other hand, the situation as a whole, the likely attacks, the likely setups, the psychology, the tactical and strategic considerations, etc are not the same as they are in the majority of real world violent assaults. There is a lot of useful overlap but there are important differences as well. I think that until we develop holodeck or Matrix technology, any and all training and testing methods are going to be imperfect approximations of real world violence.



Nah.  It is a rabbit hole.

You see if they are approximations of a real attack.  And in my self defence class they are approximations of a real attack then we cand lend both pieces of evidence the same weight.

So the takedown defense i pull off on barry who is approximating an attack is as viable as a competition proven defence.

And if i pull that same defence off at the kebab shop at 3am against a real attack then the move has greater validation than someone who has consistently pulled of a move in high level competition.

And we add to this the other idea that as an approximation of an attack it has to be reflected in the manner of a real street attack or we can't correctly utilise aiki.

We also add this idea that if you don't collapse they are going to break your arm. 

And we have a damn mess on our hands.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> Sure it does.  And your training method, while probably highly effective, is not the only effective training method.  Does that make sense?


I would happily agree with you that any training method that includes some way to measure efficacy is effective.  Without any way to measure success, how can you know if training is successful?

I'm willing to take your word that your training is effective, even if you don't have any way to know, but that's mostly because I don't have a real stake in whether it fails or not.  You do.  Doesn't mean is actually IS effective.   To be clear, I'm talking about self identifying some measurable criteria for success and then exceeding it.

I've literally seen people at the moment they realize that what they believed in their heart of hearts was true, wasn't.  Their self image was one thing and reality gave them a bucket of ice water on the head.

EDIT:  Just to add that success shouldn't be a 'probably' thing.  Can I use my BJJ in self defense?  Who knows?  I know for sure I can reliably cross-collar choke someone even if hey don't want me to, and even if they're pretty well trained.  How do I know this?  Because I've done it thousands of times.  See the difference?


----------



## CB Jones

drop bear said:


> Nah.  It is a rabbit hole.
> 
> You see if they are approximations of a real attack.  And in my self defence class they are approximations of a real attack then we cand lend both pieces of evidence the same weight.
> 
> So the takedown defense i pull off on barry who is approximating an attack is as viable as a competition proven defence.
> 
> And if i pull that same defence off at the kebab shop at 3am against a real attack then the move has greater validation than someone who has consistently pulled of a move in high level competition.
> 
> And we add to this the other idea that as an approximation of an attack it has to be reflected in the manner of a real street attack or we can't correctly utilise aiki.
> 
> And we have a damn mess on our hands.



Tell me more about this Kebab shop.

I do love a good steak Kebab.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Yes, opinions vary.
> 
> But I'll say this much: competition gives me zero bang for my buck, because I have no interest and will not do it.
> 
> But that's just me, and I am comfortable with that.



It depends why you train though.  If you trained for self defence in a comprehensive manner.  Then you would have to look at the lessons learned from competition. 

Same as engaging in fitness some don't like it and a martial artist does not have to engage in it.  But if you are responsibly engaging in self defence you have to consider the practical benifits. 

The advantage of self defense is nobody really does it.  It is the equivalent of training a martial art you made up with your friends in your back yard.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Sure it does.  And your training method, while probably highly effective, is not the only effective training method.  Does that make sense?



If you have a training method that produces consistent results.  Then the alternative method would also have to produce consistent results.

Or exactly the same issue alternate medicine has.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> They are approximations of the attacks likely to occur on the street. They are real attacks, but not the same real attacks. This sort of misunderstanding is more than half of the issue.



Punching kicking and grappling is a pretty common attack.  Flying knees not so much.  But you peg someone with a flying knee.  It is as fight ending in the street as it is in the ring.  

You can't site rules or a ref or the padded floor or gloves. The guy was done without those influences.

And it broke his skull.  It legitimately crippled the guy.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> I would happily agree with you that any training method that includes some way to measure efficacy is effective.  Without any way to measure success, how can you know if training is successful?
> 
> I'm willing to take your word that your training is effective, even if you don't have any way to know, but that's mostly because I don't have a real stake in whether it fails or not.  You do.  Doesn't mean is actually IS effective.   To be clear, I'm talking about self identifying some measurable criteria for success and then exceeding it.
> 
> I've literally seen people at the moment they realize that what they believed in their heart of hearts was true, wasn't.  Their self image was one thing and reality gave them a bucket of ice water on the head.
> 
> EDIT:  Just to add that success shouldn't be a 'probably' thing.  Can I use my BJJ in self defense?  Who knows?  I know for sure I can reliably cross-collar choke someone even if hey don't want me to, and even if they're pretty well trained.  How do I know this?  Because I've done it thousands of times.  See the difference?


You use whatever criteria you want, to evaluate your own training.

I just practice my stuff.  With a partner when available, and by myself when a partner is not available.  Which is most of the time, these days. 

I don't set up some marker of some sort that I need to then "exceed".  I don't see any need to create a measurement like that.


----------



## Buka

I feel pretty comfortable in this thread, because I don't know what we're talking about. (a constant state for me) But-

I love the whole Martial enchilada. The training, the uniforms we wear, the customs we adopt, the schools themselves, the people and the fighting. Each of us personally change as the years go by, some in little ways, some in big. If long term practice of the arts doesn't change you for the better in some ways, you're probably doing it wrong.

As for fighting and self defense, the training is different everywhere you go. In my approach, fighting and self defense are pretty much the same thing. But that's my approach, not anyone else’s.

As for what self defense actually is, and what fighting actually is, I turn to 1964, United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward to describe his threshold test for obscenity in Jacobellis v. Ohio

  Stewart wrote:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But _I know it when I see it_, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

I think we all know fighting when we see it. I think we all recognize self defense when we are forced to engage in it. How we decide to train for such things is entirely up to us. As it should be.

That being said.....I still don't know what we're talking about.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> You use whatever criteria you want, to evaluate your own training.
> 
> I just practice my stuff.  With a partner when available, and by myself when a partner is not available.  Which is most of the time, these days.
> 
> I don't set up some marker of some sort that I need to then "exceed".  I don't see any need to create a measurement like that.


And that's fine, if you don't feel it's necessary.  However, absent any form of measurement, you just can't evaluate whether your training is effective.  And we're back to faith... which, again, is also fine, if you know that's where you're at.  You can't say to someone, "I know my training is effective" unless you are prepared to explain what you mean by "effective" and how you're measuring your training against it.

Look, I hope it's clear.  I'm not suggesting you must know whether your training is effective or not.  I'm very specifically saying that "effective" is a subjective term that must be defined in some way.  If you're going to use it, be prepared to define it. 

It's like a manager telling an employee, "Do better."  It's only helpful feedback if the employee understands what you mean by "better."


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> And that's fine, if you don't feel it's necessary.  However, absent any form of measurement, you just can't evaluate whether your training is effective.  And we're back to faith... which, again, is also fine, if you know that's where you're at.  You can't say to someone, "I know my training is effective" unless you are prepared to explain what you mean by "effective" and how you're measuring your training against it.
> 
> Look, I hope it's clear.  I'm not suggesting you must know whether your training is effective or not.  I'm very specifically saying that "effective" is a subjective term that must be defined in some way.  If you're going to use it, be prepared to define it.
> 
> It's like a manager telling an employee, "Do better."  It's only helpful feedback if the employee understands what you mean by "better."



Once again, you set whatever standards you want for your training, and I and others will do the same for ourselves.  Your standards and requirements are meaningless for me, and I suspect for a lot of others as well.  I get that you don't understand that.  You seem to want there to be a universal truth that applies equally in all cases, and you like to think you have identified that truth.

Well, there isn't, and you haven't.

I was looking for a little guy who shrugs his shoulders but couldn't find him.  This one will have to do.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Once again, you set whatever standards you want for your training, and I and others will do the same for ourselves.  Your standards and requirements are meaningless for me, and I suspect for a lot of others as well.  I get that you don't understand that.  You seem to want there to be a universal truth that applies equally in all cases, and you like to think you have identified that truth.
> 
> Well, there isn't, and you haven't.
> 
> I was looking for a little guy who shrugs his shoulders but couldn't find him.  This one will have to do.



Not looking for truth. 

Looking for honesty.


----------



## Buka

I have really good scissor take downs (several variations) Been doing them since forever. First saw one at a demo, and immediately afterwards asked the people doing it to show me how. They were nice enough to do so. Since that time I've worked with others who also have really good scissor take downs. Always been a lot of fun training them. Do they work? Well, sure, they work great. I've done them thousands of times in training, at least fifty times in competitions, (never once did I get stuffed) even did one at a cookout so my buddy would drop his burger and the dog would get it. (he did)

Would it work in a self defense situation? I'm pretty sure it would, but I've never actually done one in that circumstance, so I guess some would say it's not proven. That's fine by me. I still like my scissors. And if you think it won't work, that's okay, too - but hold on to your burger.


----------



## Flying Crane

Buka said:


> I have really good scissor take downs (several variations) Been doing them since forever. First saw one at a demo, and immediately afterwards asked the people doing it to show me how. They were nice enough to do so. Since that time I've worked with others who also have really good scissor take downs. Always been a lot of fun training them. Do they work? Well, sure, they work great. I've done them thousands of times in training, at least fifty times in competitions, (never once did I get stuffed) even did one at a cookout so my buddy would drop his burger and the dog would get it. (he did)
> 
> Would it work in a self defense situation? I'm pretty sure it would, but I've never actually done one in that circumstance, so I guess some would say it's not proven. That's fine by me. I still like my scissors. And if you think it won't work, that's okay, too - but hold on to your burger.


Did one in the capoeira roda many times and with mixed results. but one time I knocked out the other person.  She ducked in a way I didn't expect, it lined everything up in a weird way, and the heel of my foot landed on her upper jaw.  She went out, and later told me that it felt like her teeth were on fire.  I must have hit the nerve in the cheek that serves the teeth of the upper jaw.

Yeah, that one can work pretty well.


----------



## Headhunter

Oh bimey quick look at the thread and it seems it's turned into one of those types debating what works and what doesn't.

Personally I'm at the stage of my training I simply don't give a damm if what I'm learning works. I know I can fight I can punch, I can kick, I can block. I'm just enjoying learning variations and different types of moves, not to fight with them but just to simply know what they are. Lately I've been working a few moves myself and would they work in a real fight...probably not in all honestly but Im just enjoying learning. I'm most likely never going to get in a fight again and if I do Im experienced enough to handle it I'm just enjoying the learning.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> Once again, you set whatever standards you want for your training, and I and others will do the same for ourselves.  Your standards and requirements are meaningless for me, and I suspect for a lot of others as well.  I get that you don't understand that.  You seem to want there to be a universal truth that applies equally in all cases, and you like to think you have identified that truth.
> 
> Well, there isn't, and you haven't.
> 
> I was looking for a little guy who shrugs his shoulders but couldn't find him.  This one will have to do.


i truly don't understand where the attitude is coming from.  When you say, "I get that you don't understand that," it comes across as pretty snarky, to be honest.

if you think I am trying to apply a universal standard, I'm doing a poor job of explaining.   I'm not trying to apply any standards to you or your training.

Please, just take a moment and think about this.  "Effective," however YOU define it for yourself must be measurable or it is a meaningless word.  The same is true for "standards."   However you choose to define standards for yourself, if they are not measurable, it is a meaningless word.  

As I said before, a manager says to an employee, "I need you to be more effective."  That's not helpful to the employee, because the manager didn't explain what "effective" looks like in that situation.  Now, if he says, "your interviews are averaging 20 minutes.   I need you to reduce your average by at least five minutes without compromising quality.". 

This isn't about me imposing standards on you.  As I said earlier, knock yourself out, provided you're happy.  

To the point here, sport arts have a clear advantage over many non-sport arts in that there are clear standards and "effective" is demonstrably measurable and objective outside of the individual.   

And lest you misunderstand again, it's not a big deal, except that we are having a conversation about arts like aikido being effective in self defense (among other things).


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> I have really good scissor take downs (several variations) Been doing them since forever. First saw one at a demo, and immediately afterwards asked the people doing it to show me how. They were nice enough to do so. Since that time I've worked with others who also have really good scissor take downs. Always been a lot of fun training them. Do they work? Well, sure, they work great. I've done them thousands of times in training, at least fifty times in competitions, (never once did I get stuffed) even did one at a cookout so my buddy would drop his burger and the dog would get it. (he did)
> 
> Would it work in a self defense situation? I'm pretty sure it would, but I've never actually done one in that circumstance, so I guess some would say it's not proven. That's fine by me. I still like my scissors. And if you think it won't work, that's okay, too - but hold on to your burger.


This is a perfect example of what I'm trying to say.  Exactly.


----------



## Steve

Steve said:


> EDIT:  Just to add that success shouldn't be a 'probably' thing.  Can I use my BJJ in self defense?  Who knows?  I know for sure I can reliably cross-collar choke someone even if hey don't want me to, and even if they're pretty well trained.  How do I know this?  Because I've done it thousands of times.  See the difference?





Buka said:


> I have really good scissor take downs (several variations) Been doing them since forever. First saw one at a demo, and immediately afterwards asked the people doing it to show me how. They were nice enough to do so. Since that time I've worked with others who also have really good scissor take downs. Always been a lot of fun training them. Do they work? Well, sure, they work great. I've done them thousands of times in training, at least fifty times in competitions, (never once did I get stuffed) even did one at a cookout so my buddy would drop his burger and the dog would get it. (he did)
> 
> Would it work in a self defense situation? I'm pretty sure it would, but I've never actually done one in that circumstance, so I guess some would say it's not proven. That's fine by me. I still like my scissors. And if you think it won't work, that's okay, too - but hold on to your burger.


lol.   I said above this is exactly what I was trying to say.   I realized as I was reading through the thread that I actually did say it.  I knew there was something about you I liked, buka.   Unfortunately for me, I don't have your charming disposition.  Maybe I should have included a reference to BBQ.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> i truly don't understand where the attitude is coming from.  When you say, "I get that you don't understand that," it comes across as pretty snarky, to be honest.
> 
> if you think I am trying to apply a universal standard, I'm doing a poor job of explaining.   I'm not trying to apply any standards to you or your training.
> 
> Please, just take a moment and think about this.  "Effective," however YOU define it for yourself must be measurable or it is a meaningless word.  The same is true for "standards."   However you choose to define standards for yourself, if they are not measurable, it is a meaningless word.
> 
> As I said before, a manager says to an employee, "I need you to be more effective."  That's not helpful to the employee, because the manager didn't explain what "effective" looks like in that situation.  Now, if he says, "your interviews are averaging 20 minutes.   I need you to reduce your average by at least five minutes without compromising quality.".
> 
> This isn't about me imposing standards on you.  As I said earlier, knock yourself out, provided you're happy.
> 
> To the point here, sport arts have a clear advantage over many non-sport arts in that there are clear standards and "effective" is demonstrably measurable and objective outside of the individual.
> 
> And lest you misunderstand again, it's not a big deal, except that we are having a conversation about arts like aikido being effective in self defense (among other things).


I'm not being snarky Steve, I am being honest in our discussion. Why do you misunderstand honesty, even if that honesty is blunt, with snarkyness?

You have identified something that works for you, and all the power to you.  But your parameters and your methods are meaningless to me.  Why is that difficult to understand?  Why is that difficult for you to accept?  I really am stumped by it.

honestly, these discussions, while I realize it is my choice to take part, have me feeling like I have a religious fanatic trying to recruit me. How many times do I need to say no thanks, before I get to say, just bugger off?


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> I'm not being snarky Steve, I am being honest in our discussion. Why do you misunderstand honesty, even if that honesty is blunt, with snarkyness?
> 
> You have identified something that works for you, and all the power to you.  But your parameters and your methods are meaningless to me.  Why is that difficult to understand?  Why is that difficult for you to accept?  I really am stumped by it.
> 
> honestly, these discussions, while I realize it is my choice to take part, have me feeling like I have a religious fanatic trying to recruit me. How many times do I need to say no thanks, before I get to say, just bugger off?



In what way does anything you just posted further the discussion?  Honestly (since we're being honest) it seems like you're just being very snarky.  I honestly believe if you took a few minutes to read my posts without deciding ahead of time you don't agree, you'd feel pretty foolish, as I've said several times I'm not interested in imposing anything on you.  And I've explained it several times, as well.

Saying I am over and over doesn't change the words I've actually written.  This is bizarre.  Truly. 

Edit:   Okay.  I'm trying to understand.  Please tell me what you think Ilve identified that I think works for me, that I'm trying to impose on you?  What is that?  I don't see it.  I just see all of the times I've literally said to you that you're free to establish your own standards, and more power to you.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Chris Parker

kuniggety said:


> I use wristlocks from aikido while doing BJJ. So, there.



Which is not the same as using Aikido or Aiki principles.



drop bear said:


> Ok everybody uses a version of Aki in martial arts. Counterpunching uses Aki. So every martial artist is versed in attacking in a way that maximizes their chances of hurting you  and leaves them the least vunerable to counter attack. This is just a common sense aproach to training.
> 
> It sounds like you are trying to say what doesn't work in training will work in self defence due to some sort of fundimental shift in the dynamics of fighting.
> 
> That is not the case. If anything moves are harder to pull off if someone is attacking full noise.
> 
> If your system only works against a trained oponant or only works against an untrained oponant then you dont have a well rounded system. And you will loose application.
> 
> Yes striking creates opportunities for pressure and aki.
> 
> Grappling also creates oppotunities for pressure and aki.



No, not all arts use Aiki. Simply, you are not understanding what it is. It is not countering, and no, counterpunching is not an example of it. It is not anything to do with maximising attacking ability or leaving yourself vulnerable, or anything of the kind.



Tony Dismukes said:


> First I've ever heard of this, but I don't practice Aikido or speak Japanese. Do you know if the same outlook would extend to the terms "karateka" or "judoka"? What would the preferred term for an Aikido practitioner be in Japan anyway? "Practitioner" is English and -"ist" would be an English based suffix, so I'm sure neither of those would be used by Japanese speakers.



Okay...

The term "ka" is written with this character: 家. It refers to a house, or family (also pronounced "ke"), and the term "do-ka" (道家) then is used to refer to a professional, or senior practitioner... the term by itself typically refers to a Taoist scholar, by the way... so an Aikido-ka would be a professional, or senior practitioner of Aiki. You may note that the "do" suffix is not repeated... you are an Aikido-ka, you practice Aikido, and you attend an Aikido-jo (a place for Aikido).

The term for an "ordinary" member is "in" (員), meaning "member"... so the full term is Aikido-in 合気道員.

The distinction is that an Aikido-ka is someone who is able to practice the entire art (so has been exposed to the breadth of the art), whereas an Aikido-in is a member who is studying the art still.



Tony Dismukes said:


> I've heard this before, but in 99% of the Aikido demonstrations I see on video, the striking attacks delivered by uke appear to me like they would represent very poor swordmanship body mechanics (as well as being delivered at the wrong range for a sword cut). Admittedly my own sword skills are rudimentary at best, but I see some pretty glaring issues if the attacks are supposed to represent sword cuts. (The defenses against wrist grabs do make more sense if we imagine the context is an attacker trying to prevent your from drawing your sword. I could buy that explanation.)
> 
> Have you noticed the same thing? If so, do you think it has something to do with the fact that the majority of Aikido practitioners don't also practice a sword art? I know some people do cross-train with Aikido and a sword art, so I would expect those individuals might teach uke to present a better simulation of a sword based attack.



Partially, yeah... but it's also because the types of attacks aren't literally representative of sword (in terms of mechanics), but more in terms of attack angles... which realistically is what Aikido practices against...



Kung Fu Wang said:


> There are some strategies used in Aikido that I don't agree with.
> 
> 1. You always wait for your opponent to attack you. If you have this kind of attitude, you will never get a date with any girlfriend. If you want to take, you have to give first.
> 2. The contact point is mainly on the wrist. Even if you may have controlled on your opponent's wrist, since his elbow is free, you don't have a full control on that arm.
> 3. The wrist control keep you and your opponent distance a bit too far. It's not a "clinch". This will give your opponent too much freedom to counter you.
> 4. If you don't use your leg skill such as cut, spring, sweep, lift, hook, twist, scoop, ... you give your opponent's legs too much freedom. Only use your hand to throw your opponent is not as effective as to use both of your hand and leg to throw. To push/pull the head down and to sweep/hook the leg off is much better strategy.



And... with you not training in Aikido, not having any experience with it, this means what, exactly? Not all arts are the same, John, they don't all have the same values, ideal tactics, or anything else... so saying "if I was doing Aikido, I'd do it this way" is kinda pointless... with all the views I see here of what people think should be done with Aikido (it should have competition, it should have more striking, there should be different training methods, so on and so forth), the simple fact is that, if you do all that, you take it away from being Aikido.... if you want to train Aikido, then train it the way it has been developed... if you don't want to do Aikido the way Aikido is designed, don't do it. Talking about how you'd change it just shows that you (not just you, John) have no appreciation for the range of martial approaches, and can only see the limited values you have, based on your limited experience and grasp.



Spinedoc said:


> A few thoughts....
> 
> 1. Not really. Pranin Sensei who just died 2 weeks ago, would state that the principle of "Go No Sen" was essential to Aikido. While you are not attacking first, you are also not simply receiving...it can be thought of as....anticipation, sensing an attack, and attacking back at essentially the same time as someone attacks you. In other words, at the very first movement or initiation, you are already moving as nage. If you are not, and you are waiting....well, you aren't doing Aikido.
> 
> 2. Not at all. We are not trying to control the wrist at all...but rather our opponents hara or center. You have to connect with your uke when they attack, and you have to ground yourself while connecting them to YOUR center, not theirs. All the power comes from the center, not peripherally.
> 
> 3.  Not really, If you are doing it properly, you are touching shoulders, and keeping them close, using your center to manipulate theirs.
> 
> 4. HA....I remember Ikeda Shihan once saying when asked about kicks....."Man who kicks, is man on one leg" Again though, we aren't throwing with our arms...if you are....you are not doing Aikido. Aikido throws from the center, it's hard, and takes a long time to develop and understand, but if you are doing it properly, it should almost seem effortless.



Just a small point... Go no Sen is a responsive timing. Sen no Sen is a simultaneous counter to the attack, and Sen Sen no Sen is to pre-emptively attack... what you're describing sounds more like Sen no Sen to me... which I'd agree with.



drop bear said:


> Aiki is so hard a concept? Because of it mystical nature.



Well, apparently so, as it's not mystical, and that video is not an example of it....


----------



## Spinedoc

Chris Parker said:


> The term "ka" is written with this character: 家. It refers to a house, or family (also pronounced "ke"), and the term "do-ka" (道家) then is used to refer to a professional, or senior practitioner... the term by itself typically refers to a Taoist scholar, by the way... so an Aikido-ka would be a professional, or senior practitioner of Aiki. You may note that the "do" suffix is not repeated... you are an Aikido-ka, you practice Aikido, and you attend an Aikido-jo (a place for Aikido).
> 
> The term for an "ordinary" member is "in" (員), meaning "member"... so the full term is Aikido-in 合気道員.
> 
> The distinction is that an Aikido-ka is someone who is able to practice the entire art (so has been exposed to the breadth of the art), whereas an Aikido-in is a member who is studying the art still.
> 
> Partially, yeah... but it's also because the types of attacks aren't literally representative of sword (in terms of mechanics), but more in terms of attack angles... which realistically is what Aikido practices against...
> 
> Just a small point... Go no Sen is a responsive timing. Sen no Sen is a simultaneous counter to the attack, and Sen Sen no Sen is to pre-emptively attack... what you're describing sounds more like Sen no Sen to me... which I'd agree with.
> 
> Well, apparently so, as it's not mystical, and that video is not an example of it....



1. This is essentially exactly what the visitor from Japan told me about the usage of Aikido-ka. He basically stated that that terminology was only viable when talking about someone high ranking and notable in the art. To use it as a blanket term for Aikido students was not only incorrect, when I come to Japan, it could be considered an insult.

2. Agreed on the angles, which is why I was trying to expound on the fact that as you rise in your training in Aikido you eventually come to the realization that the attack really doesn't matter. The attack only matters in how you blend with the energy being delivered, and that is really all that matters. While I agree with Tony that the attacks utilized by most Aikido practitioners leave a lot to be desired from a sword perspective, I also said that it really didn't matter, because it was more about the energy being delivered...IOW, I agree with you Chris.

3. Interesting. I've always heard it described as Go no Sen, but perhaps Sen no Sen is more descriptive. I appreciate your feedback on that.

4. Absolutely agreed. That video is NOT an example of Aiki concepts.

Mike


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Chris Parker said:


> The term "ka" is written with this character: 家. It refers to a house, or family (also pronounced "ke"), and the term "do-ka" (道家) then is used to refer to a professional, or senior practitioner... the term by itself typically refers to a Taoist scholar, by the way... so an Aikido-ka would be a professional, or senior practitioner of Aiki. You may note that the "do" suffix is not repeated... you are an Aikido-ka, you practice Aikido, and you attend an Aikido-jo (a place for Aikido).
> 
> The term for an "ordinary" member is "in" (員), meaning "member"... so the full term is Aikido-in 合気道員.
> 
> The distinction is that an Aikido-ka is someone who is able to practice the entire art (so has been exposed to the breadth of the art), whereas an Aikido-in is a member who is studying the art still.


Are the same rules applied to other arts? Is a regular practitioner of Judo or Karate referred to as a Judo-in or Karate-in?


----------



## Psilent Knight

Steve said:


> Okay, this conversation has moved quite a bit over the last few days.  I'll try to catch up succinctly:I don't think we are too far apart.  I would say, in your example, it's how you trained.  Let's say I train MMA in the manner that aikido is often trained, with compliant exercises and a lack of competition.  And let's say you train Aikido in the manner MMA is often trained, with consistent pressure testing and a competitive objective.  I would expect you to be better able to apply your skills than I.  It just makes sense.  Your training model lends itself to application.



I partly agree with this as well since I did state earlier that I believe that Aikido and any other legitimate martial art can be very effective if it's trained appropriately. So yes, I think Aikido trained in the manner that MMA is trained will stand a person in better stead than muay Thai trained the way Aikido or point Karate is trained. 

BUT (and you should've known this was coming) at the end of the day I still am of the mindset that it ultimately boils down to the individual fighter. I cannot stress this enough. And I still believe that realistic combat experience goes a long way. So even if a person trains Aikido the way MMA is trained or trained actual MMA I still think if they lack the realistic life-or-death fighting experience of that ex con who did 10 or 15 years upstate the ex con's history and background makes him the better fighter, with or without Martial Arts training.




Steve said:


> I'm very leery of using elite level athletes as a comparative.  It can be useful, if used judiciously.  Lyoto Machida is an elite level athlete, and I'd say an elite level Karateka.  Certainly, he is an elite level MMAist.  As a black belt in BJJ, he may not be able to dominate other elite MMAists on the ground, but we're talking about a very small universe of martial artists in this group.



I use elite level athletes especially in sport grappling because that particular sport is one in which the wheat is separated from the chaff. When you have a Damian Maia or BJ Penn or Rickson Gracie or even Makenzie Dern you have someone who has separated him or herself from the rest of the grappling pack via competition exploits. Lyoto does not have a place at all in that separated pack and does not deserve to have his named mentioned among the ones above when it comes to elite level grapplers.



Steve said:


> He certainly could dominate most other grapplers, and I'd argue ALL untrained, non-grapplers on the ground.



He can dominate _other non elite level grapplers_ like himself.



Steve said:


> On an individual level, I have seen zero evidence to suggest that training in a martial art (any martial art) makes you safer than doing tae bo, crossfit, parkour or spin class.  I have seen evidence that addressing high-risk behaviors, such as drug use/abuse, walking alone at night, etc, do.  Also, confidence and a willingness to fight are important.



I am inclined to agree with this.



Steve said:


> Also, the bar is not fixed on measuring results.  In other words, what "successful self defense" looks like changes depending on the current agenda.  If someone is sexually assaulted, but survives, is that successful self defense?  Some would say yes.  Some would say no (including me).



I don't agree or disagree because this is not something I ever considered or pondered on.



Steve said:


> Getting to the point, I'm suspicious of training "for self defense."  I can certainly understand training with self defense in mind, but I believe the best way to do that is to incorporate as much variety in one's training as possible, with clear measurements to gauge progress in mind.



This makes sense.



Steve said:


> "Attack likely to occur on the street" is an oxymoronic statement.  Unless you are professionally at risk, any attack on the street is exceedingly unlikely.



That depends on a lot of factors. The two biggest factors are location and how coded up one is or not coded up at all.

Take Care and Have A Good Day,
Osu!


----------



## Steve

Psilent Knight said:


> I partly agree with this as well since I did state earlier that I believe that Aikido and any other legitimate martial art can be very effective if it's trained appropriately. So yes, I think Aikido trained in the manner that MMA is trained will stand a person in better stead than muay Thai trained the way Aikido or point Karate is trained.
> 
> BUT (and you should've known this was coming) at the end of the day I still am of the mindset that it ultimately boils down to the individual fighter. I cannot stress this enough. And I still believe that realistic combat experience goes a long way. So even if a person trains Aikido the way MMA is trained or trained actual MMA I still think if they lack the realistic life-or-death fighting experience of that ex con who did 10 or 15 years upstate the ex con's history and background makes him the better fighter, with or without Martial Arts training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use elite level athletes especially in sport grappling because that particular sport is one in which the wheat is separated from the chaff. When you have a Damian Maia or BJ Penn or Rickson Gracie or even Makenzie Dern you have someone who has separated him or herself from the rest of the grappling pack via competition exploits. Lyoto does not have a place at all in that separated pack and does not deserve to have his named mentioned among the ones above when it comes to elite level grapplers.
> 
> 
> 
> He can dominate _other non elite level grapplers_ like himself.
> 
> 
> 
> I am inclined to agree with this.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree or disagree because this is not something I ever considered or pondered on.
> 
> 
> 
> This makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on a lot of factors. The two biggest factors are location and how coded up one is or not coded up at all.
> 
> Take Care and Have A Good Day,
> Osu!


Not very far apart, I don't think.  The only area where it seems we disagree a bit is whether the training model or the individual is paramount to success in training.  Something of a chicken/egg situation, maybe.  I'll just say it this way.  If unexceptional individuals routinely succeed in your program, you're on the right track.  If that means losing weight, anyone who puts forth reasonable effort should lose weight.  If you're learning BJJ, you should be able to execute techniques correctly against people who are trying to keep you from doing so.  If it's for self defense, people need to be making progress toward that goal. 

And if "progress" isn't transparent and objective, the training model is broken.

But as you say, the individual has to log the hours.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> Are the same rules applied to other arts? Is a regular practitioner of Judo or Karate referred to as a Judo-in or Karate-in?


And as a follow up question, what's the correct term for a person who does jiu jitsu ?  I've heard jiujitsuka, jiujitsu player, jiujitiero, and luchador.  But mostly, people just say "person who does (or trains) jiu jitsu.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> And as a follow up question, what's the correct term for a person who does jiu jitsu ?  I've heard jiujitsuka, jiujitsu player, jiujitiero, and luchador.  But mostly, people just say "person who does (or trains) jiu jitsu.


I'm partial to "jiujiteiro" for BJJ practitioners, since the use of the Portuguese term makes it clear you're talking about BJJ and not some other branch of the jujutsu/jiu-jitsu family tree. I don't think it really matters that much, though, given the generally casual and varied use of terminology in BJJ. Chris might have some insight into usage among practitioners of Japanese styles. As far as the various American/European branches of jujutsu, I don't know that I've ever heard a practitioner use a specific term other than "practitioner of" or "person who does."


----------



## oftheherd1

Chris Parker said:


> Kung Fu Wang said: ↑
> There are some strategies used in Aikido that I don't agree with.
> 
> 1. You always wait for your opponent to attack you. If you have this kind of attitude, you will never get a date with any girlfriend. If you want to take, you have to give first.
> 2. The contact point is mainly on the wrist. Even if you may have controlled on your opponent's wrist, since his elbow is free, you don't have a full control on that arm.
> 3. The wrist control keep you and your opponent distance a bit too far. It's not a "clinch". This will give your opponent too much freedom to counter you.
> 4. If you don't use your leg skill such as cut, spring, sweep, lift, hook, twist, scoop, ... you give your opponent's legs too much freedom. Only use your hand to throw your opponent is not as effective as to use both of your hand and leg to throw. To push/pull the head down and to sweep/hook the leg off is much better strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And... with you not training in Aikido, not having any experience with it, this means what, exactly? Not all arts are the same, John, they don't all have the same values, ideal tactics, or anything else... so saying "if I was doing Aikido, I'd do it this way" is kinda pointless... with all the views I see here of what people think should be done with Aikido (it should have competition, it should have more striking, there should be different training methods, so on and so forth), the simple fact is that, if you do all that, you take it away from being Aikido.... if you want to train Aikido, then train it the way it has been developed... if you don't want to do Aikido the way Aikido is designed, don't do it. Talking about how you'd change it just shows that you (not just you, John) have no appreciation for the range of martial approaches, and can only see the limited values you have, based on your limited experience and grasp.
> 
> 
> 
> ....
Click to expand...


Something I can agree with you on Chris Parker.  

I think Kung Fu Wang makes the mistake that many do when trying to compare two different martial arts.  It is kind of the saying if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail; so if you try to explain everything from your art's point of view, you will find it difficult to understand other art's point of view.  But ...

1.  If I attack first (and I assume Aikido has attacks just like the Hapkido I studied) I invite a counter attack.  Why not wait for the opponent's attack and counter that?

2.  I don't think the wrists are the main point of contact.  They are an often used one.  But we attack whatever is most convenient in a counter attack.  That might be legs, elbows, upper arms, eyes, neck, hair, Pressure points, or just about any other body part that presents itself to attack or manipulation with the least danger to ourselves.  But ...

3.  I am often bemused by primarily striking or takedown artists who watch a demonstration of a technique, then try it and can't make it work.  One of the most common put downs are, you have to make it work against a resisting opponent.  But done properly there is no resistance, unlike your practice opponent who is fully informed exactly what you are trying to do.  They also don't see that the opponent is being moved in such a way as to prevent the opponent from resisting or counterattacking. 

And I have no idea what you mean by keeping an opponent too far away. First, that just sounds silly.  If I haven't for some reason got good enough control to prevent him counter attacking, why would I want him closer?  But that aside,  None of the techniques I learned made a point of keeping an opponent away, but on properly controlling the opponent so he couldn't do anything except what I wanted him to. 

And for your information, one of the hardest things I had to learn was not retreating from an attack, but to move into the attack, either straight in, or to the side, as part of my counter attack technique.  I'm surprised you didn't mention that.  


Oh, and as an aside, I was obviously monumentally lucky that I was already married when I began studying Hapkido, no need to worry about finding aggressively minded or simply women kind enough to assert themselves.

4.  In the Hapkido I studied, we certain did use leg skills.  But not primarily the way you seem to be saying.  They normally fit with the rest of any technique.  They kept me balanced, got me where I needed to be for a technique, and attacked the opponent's balance or position.  What more do you need your legs to do?  EDIT:  Oops, I keep reminding myself not to try to answer posts while at work:  I meant to point out that often when attacking an opponent's balance or position, we are striking with our feet or knees.  We can do anything you can with our feet, but we have a different mindset.

Anything I have said about Hapkido I would assume would apply to Aikido.  If not, Chris Parker or any other Aikido practitioner, please correct me.


----------



## Cephalopod

JP3 said:


> Here you go, Wang:
> 
> Tomiki Aikido Federation       - Events
> 
> Tomiki aikido has tournaments.  Will you stop the hate now?



Did you guys catch the video on the site that JP3 linked to (thanks for that btw) ?






I enjoyed watching it. I for one had never seen a vid of Aikido practitioners wielding their craft in a live setting against un-cooperative opponents. Looks like a boat load of fun.

It does make me think that even a well trained MAist, face to face with a knife brandishing baddie, had better be wearing body armor if he wants to throw his assailant to the ground.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm partial to "jiujiteiro" for BJJ practitioners, since the use of the Portuguese term makes it clear you're talking about BJJ and not some other branch of the jujutsu/jiu-jitsu family tree. I don't think it really matters that much, though, given the generally casual and varied use of terminology in BJJ. Chris might have some insight into usage among practitioners of Japanese styles. As far as the various American/European branches of jujutsu, I don't know that I've ever heard a practitioner use a specific term other than "practitioner of" or "person who does."


Totally agree about the casual nature of BJJ.  But it's always a little awkward.  I tend to default to "person who does jiu jitsu."  I've used all of the terms above, but they all feel weird.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> No, not all arts use Aiki. Simply, you are not understanding what it is. It is not countering, and no, counterpunching is not an example of it. It is not anything to do with maximising attacking ability or leaving yourself vulnerable, or anything of the kind.



Other arts just call it good technique.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> And as a follow up question, what's the correct term for a person who does jiu jitsu ?  I've heard jiujitsuka, jiujitsu player, jiujitiero, and luchador.  But mostly, people just say "person who does (or trains) jiu jitsu.



We always refer to Brazilian Jiu-jitsu practitioners as "Jits guys". While probably not correct it conveys perfectly within our group.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> We always refer to Brazilian Jiu-jitsu practitioners as "Jits guys". While probably not correct it conveys perfectly within our group.


Sounds about right.


----------



## oftheherd1

Cephalopod said:


> Did you guys catch the video on the site that JP3 linked to (thanks for that btw) ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoyed watching it. I for one had never seen a vid of Aikido practitioners wielding their craft in a live setting against un-cooperative opponents. Looks like a boat load of fun.
> 
> *It does make me think that even a well trained MAist,* face to face with a knife brandishing baddie, had better be wearing body armor if he wants to throw his assailant to the ground.



Well, I would agree that fighting against a knife wielder requires good skill.  It is not to be taken lightly.  Any slight miscue can be fatal.

And another problem is that many arts don't seem to train much against knife attacks.

However, I was surprised at the number of times scores appeared to be made.  It seemed as if only thrusting attacks were made and they had to be defended by arm throws and/or bars.  That would cut down your options if true.


----------



## drop bear

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, I would agree that fighting against a knife wielder requires good skill.  It is not to be taken lightly.  Any slight miscue can be fatal.
> 
> And another problem is that many arts don't seem to train much against knife attacks.
> 
> However, I was surprised at the number of times scores appeared to be made.  It seemed as if only thrusting attacks were made and they had to be defended by arm throws and/or bars.  That would cut down your options if true.



It is stupid hard to stop a knife if someone is really going for you. 

Thats not the fault of the martial arts.  That is the fault of the situation.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

oftheherd1 said:


> However, I was surprised at the number of times scores appeared to be made. It seemed as if only thrusting attacks were made and they had to be defended by arm throws and/or bars. That would cut down your options if true.


I believe the competition rules allow only thrusts with the knife and allow only official Aikido techniques for the person countering the knife.


----------



## Cephalopod

^^^
..which would explain why both attacker and defender seem oblivious to forearm slashes that would make bridging the distance a very bloody business.

Regardless, I maintain that the activity seems like a very enjoyable way of working on movement and body dynamics.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm with Gerry on this. In full contact competition, the attacks are definitely real attacks. On the other hand, the situation as a whole, the likely attacks, the likely setups, the psychology, the tactical and strategic considerations, etc are not the same as they are in the majority of real world violent assaults. There is a lot of useful overlap but there are important differences as well. I think that until we develop holodeck or Matrix technology, any and all training and testing methods are going to be imperfect approximations of real world violence.


Ah, the holodeck solution. I keep waiting for that, then we have a way to actually practice full-tilt-boogie on self-defense situations.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Okay, this conversation has moved quite a bit over the last few days.  I'll try to catch up succinctly:I don't think we are too far apart.  I would say, in your example, it's how you trained.  Let's say I train MMA in the manner that aikido is often trained, with compliant exercises and a lack of competition.  And let's say you train Aikido in the manner MMA is often trained, with consistent pressure testing and a competitive objective.  I would expect you to be better able to apply your skills than I.  It just makes sense.  Your training model lends itself to application.
> I'm very leery of using elite level athletes as a comparative.  It can be useful, if used judiciously.  Lyoto Machida is an elite level athlete, and I'd say an elite level Karateka.  Certainly, he is an elite level MMAist.  As a black belt in BJJ, he may not be able to dominate other elite MMAists on the ground, but we're talking about a very small universe of martial artists in this group.  He certainly could dominate most other grapplers, and I'd argue ALL untrained, non-grapplers on the ground.  It's perfectly legitimate to critique his grappling relative to others in the sport, provided we remember the context of the critique.  Sure, he's not a Damian Maia, but even the worst grappler in the UFC is better than most grapplers, and certainly able to dominate any non-grappler.
> I've posted at length on this many times.  This is central to why I think self defense training often misses the point entirely.  On an individual level, I have seen zero evidence to suggest that training in a martial art (any martial art) makes you safer than doing tae bo, crossfit, parkour or spin class.  I have seen evidence that addressing high-risk behaviors, such as drug use/abuse, walking alone at night, etc, do.  Also, confidence and a willingness to fight are important.
> 
> Also, the bar is not fixed on measuring results.  In other words, what "successful self defense" looks like changes depending on the current agenda.  If someone is sexually assaulted, but survives, is that successful self defense?  Some would say yes.  Some would say no (including me).
> 
> Getting to the point, I'm suspicious of training "for self defense."  I can certainly understand training with self defense in mind, but I believe the best way to do that is to incorporate as much variety in one's training as possible, with clear measurements to gauge progress in mind.
> 
> Let's say you and I are golf pros.  We each have 100 complete beginners full time for a year.  Our goal is the same, teach them to play golf.  You have no clear objective.   You'll teach them to be "good" at golf, which you intend to measure using video analysis of their swing and computer analytics.  You are confident that if you can teach them a technically perfect swing, they will do well.   You also never let them hit a ball, as that may corrupt their swing.  You are confident that if they have a perfect swing, when they are asked to hit the ball, they will be able to do so.
> 
> I measure success by handicap (let's say a 10 handicap or lower), and teach them to play golf as you would expect.  I work with them on the driving range and putting green.  I give them feedback on their swings in context.  And we log some miles on the golf course.
> 
> At the end of the year, who do you think will be successful?  I think, given 100 unexceptional people full time, it would be remarkable if any of the 100 people in your group could even hit a ball, and if any of the 100 people in my group didn't have a 10 handicap or lower.
> "Attack likely to occur on the street" is an oxymoronic statement.  Unless you are professionally at risk, any attack on the street is exceedingly unlikely.


The golf analogy is apt. See, what's actually missing in the "technical swing" portion is the mental game, the strategy, etc. Those things aren't the same for self-defense as for competition. As is often the case, there's significant overlap, but they are not identical.

I do understand your point about what else is more useful for self-protection, and that's valid. But it still doesn't cover what to do if that fails. That's where the physical self-defense comes in. And the practice of building that defense helps with many of the mental factors (as does much else that requires commitment and struggle). It's all part of the package, and suits the mindset of a specific group. Many of them won't be as well served by something like Tae Bo, because it just doesn't suit them. I think training specifically for self-defense is the best approach for this group (and I count myself among that group), for a bunch of reasons.

As for the "attack likely" I should have said "attack most likely" - you're right that the chances for most of us are not high that we will ever be attacked, though I think it's not negligible overall, given the number of people I know who have dealt with some level of attack.


----------



## hoshin1600

gpseymour said:


> Ah, the holodeck solution. I keep waiting for that, then we have a way to actually practice full-tilt-boogie on self-defense situations.


Holodeck technology will only become wide spread after the porn industry gets a hold of it....so I'm waiting for that


----------



## oftheherd1

drop bear said:


> It is stupid hard to stop a knife if someone is really going for you.
> 
> Thats not the fault of the martial arts.  That is the fault of the situation.



True.  One should probably not even attempt to learn knife defense until just before BB or better, after attaining BB.  The greater one's skills are, the better the chance of learning to be adept enough to survive.  And then those skills need to be practiced often.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tony Dismukes said:


> I believe the competition rules allow only thrusts with the knife and allow only official Aikido techniques for the person countering the knife.



That would explain what we are seeing.  It just seems a strange way to do things.


----------



## drop bear

oftheherd1 said:


> True.  One should probably not even attempt to learn knife defense until just before BB or better, after attaining BB.  The greater one's skills are, the better the chance of learning to be adept enough to survive.  And then those skills need to be practiced often.



Much of a muchness.  Most people get stabbed in that sort of training Even experts. (it is just that hard to stop a knife with intent) So you either do it and constantly eat crow.  Or make the situation unrealistic so you win. 

Personally i like the akido method there because it at least gives an honest assessment


----------



## Gerry Seymour

oftheherd1 said:


> True.  One should probably not even attempt to learn knife defense until just before BB or better, after attaining BB.  The greater one's skills are, the better the chance of learning to be adept enough to survive.  And then those skills need to be practiced often.


We incorporate strategy and movement from early in training toward the end of improving chances against a knife. I start from the premise (based upon a lot of reports) that often the knife isn't even seen when the attack starts (and sometimes, not at all), so we don't "take" any punches. We always assume if the first hand doesn't have a knife, the second one could, so we focus on disrupting structure as quickly as possible on the first hand. If we fail that and the second hand has a chance to attack, it's unlikely the knife was in the first, so the focus is on defending the second hand. Early on, they don't know how much of this is preparation for an unseen knife, but it's there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Much of a muchness.  Most people get stabbed in that sort of training Even experts. (it is just that hard to stop a knife with intent) So you either do it and constantly eat crow.  Or make the situation unrealistic so you win.
> 
> Personally i like the akido method there because it at least gives an honest assessment


I like that they don't expect to win every time (unrealistic, otherwise), but I don't like the limitations they put on the attacks and defense. I'd hope they also train against attacks where the "attacker" doesn't display the knife before the attack.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I like that they don't expect to win every time (unrealistic, otherwise), but I don't like the limitations they put on the attacks and defense. I'd hope they also train against attacks where the "attacker" doesn't display the knife before the attack.



Yeah there is lots of things you could do.  But how you do them is the trick.  I would like to see striking but i would be buggered if i am going to jab you with a foam knife while you king hit me in the head. 

That minimalist approach gives you some tools that give a base for a bit of exploration.

So if at the very least you can hit a controlling grip on a guy. That gives you a bit to work with.  Because you kind of have to be there before you can do anything else.

What we have,i think is a huge portion of knife defence.


----------



## Chris Parker

Tony Dismukes said:


> Are the same rules applied to other arts? Is a regular practitioner of Judo or Karate referred to as a Judo-in or Karate-in?



Well, yeah, technically... of course, the "ka" suffix is largely accepted (although a bit grandiose, to a Japanese ear), but you do occasionally hear terms such as "karate-jin" 空手人... pretty literally "karate person/man"... instead. These are broad terms, though, and specific systems/schools may use their own preferred terminology... such as monjin... or base it on the level of status/exposure to the art itself. "Ka", thought, would be closest to our term "adept".



Steve said:


> And as a follow up question, what's the correct term for a person who does jiu jitsu ?  I've heard jiujitsuka, jiujitsu player, jiujitiero, and luchador.  But mostly, people just say "person who does (or trains) jiu jitsu.



Jiu-jitsu? Not Japanese, so I'd leave that one to you... Jujutsu? Same as above.... 



oftheherd1 said:


> Something I can agree with you on Chris Parker.
> 
> I think Kung Fu Wang makes the mistake that many do when trying to compare two different martial arts.  It is kind of the saying if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail; so if you try to explain everything from your art's point of view, you will find it difficult to understand other art's point of view.  But ...
> 
> 1.  If I attack first (and I assume Aikido has attacks just like the Hapkido I studied) I invite a counter attack.  Why not wait for the opponent's attack and counter that?



While there are attacks in Aikido, they are largely considered the least-preferred ideal... meaning, in a practical sense, there really aren't many at all. Instead, there is the use of irimi, which can incorporate atemi or not, and use any of the three major timing forms (Go no Sen, Sen no Sen, Sen Sen no Sen).



oftheherd1 said:


> 2.  I don't think the wrists are the main point of contact.  They are an often used one.  But we attack whatever is most convenient in a counter attack.  That might be legs, elbows, upper arms, eyes, neck, hair, Pressure points, or just about any other body part that presents itself to attack or manipulation with the least danger to ourselves.  But ...



Yeah, I'd say the elbow is a much more frequent point of control in Aikido than the wrist... that comment of John's just showed how little exposure to Aikido he has... the wrist is often a fulcrum, or pivot point, as it's the furthest extension of the arm to take the opponent's balance... but, even then, it's not the main point of contact. I'd actually say the main point of contact in Aikido is the hara... and the contact isn't a physical one.



oftheherd1 said:


> 3.  I am often bemused by primarily striking or takedown artists who watch a demonstration of a technique, then try it and can't make it work.  One of the most common put downs are, you have to make it work against a resisting opponent.  But done properly there is no resistance, unlike your practice opponent who is fully informed exactly what you are trying to do.  They also don't see that the opponent is being moved in such a way as to prevent the opponent from resisting or counterattacking.



Yep.



oftheherd1 said:


> And I have no idea what you mean by keeping an opponent too far away. First, that just sounds silly.  If I haven't for some reason got good enough control to prevent him counter attacking, why would I want him closer?  But that aside,  None of the techniques I learned made a point of keeping an opponent away, but on properly controlling the opponent so he couldn't do anything except what I wanted him to.



Yep, absolutely. The point of centring on the wrist is to extend the opponent's balance, taking them to the point where they do not have the ability to resist, as they're too busy trying to not fall over... 



oftheherd1 said:


> And for your information, one of the hardest things I had to learn was not retreating from an attack, but to move into the attack, either straight in, or to the side, as part of my counter attack technique.  I'm surprised you didn't mention that.



It's not something that should be underestimated, and is one of the first (and biggest) challenges of martial study... not just learning to move in, but learning to make that the new instinct, the new standard response.



oftheherd1 said:


> Oh, and as an aside, I was obviously monumentally lucky that I was already married when I began studying Hapkido, no need to worry about finding aggressively minded or simply women kind enough to assert themselves.



Ha, awesome.



oftheherd1 said:


> 4.  In the Hapkido I studied, we certain did use leg skills.  But not primarily the way you seem to be saying.  They normally fit with the rest of any technique.  They kept me balanced, got me where I needed to be for a technique, and attacked the opponent's balance or position.  What more do you need your legs to do?  EDIT:  Oops, I keep reminding myself not to try to answer posts while at work:  I meant to point out that often when attacking an opponent's balance or position, we are striking with our feet or knees.  We can do anything you can with our feet, but we have a different mindset.



Yeah... look, what John was describing was the equivalent of saying that training with a knife isn't very good, because this bayonet is a much better strategy... showing no clue at all about how the art works, expecting his personal experience to be what everyone wants and the only thing that works... 



oftheherd1 said:


> Anything I have said about Hapkido I would assume would apply to Aikido.  If not, Chris Parker or any other Aikido practitioner, please correct me.



Not entirely... no... while Hapkido is from the same family as Aikido (very, very closely related), the direction it's gone in has taken a lot of it's approach away from Aikido's, especially tactically, rather than mechanically. But the points all still stand.

And, for the record, while I have had exposure to a number of different forms of Aikido over the years (Iwama Ryu, Takemusu, Aiki-kai, Yoshinkan, Tomiki), I am not an Aikido practitioner presently.



Cephalopod said:


> Did you guys catch the video on the site that JP3 linked to (thanks for that btw) ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoyed watching it. I for one had never seen a vid of Aikido practitioners wielding their craft in a live setting against un-cooperative opponents. Looks like a boat load of fun.
> 
> It does make me think that even a well trained MAist, face to face with a knife brandishing baddie, had better be wearing body armor if he wants to throw his assailant to the ground.



Yeah... Tomiki Aikido (Shodokan Aikido) was created by Tomiki Kenji Sensei, who was a student of both Ueshiba Morihei and Kano Jigoro. He brought in some of the ideas from his Judo training into his expression of Aikido, leading to his creation of his shiai methods seen in the video. Because it encourages a number of aspects that go against the ideals of Aikido as expressed by the founder (in many Aikido-ka's view), it is sometimes referred to as corrupted, or not authentic Aikido. Obviously, that is up to the individual to interpret... but it's important to note that the competitive aspect does move quite a bit away from the ideals of many Aikido forms, which also then influences and affects the physical expression of the art.

Additionally, I see a number of aspects of competitive training that I find fairly negative... such as the habit of simply disengaging and walking off, turning your back on the opponent at the end of a bout... 



drop bear said:


> Other arts just call it good technique.



Er... what? No. Aiki is not present in all martial arts... that's the whole sentence. It's not just the same thing under a different name... it's not a part of all arts. Period.



oftheherd1 said:


> Well, I would agree that fighting against a knife wielder requires good skill.  It is not to be taken lightly.  Any slight miscue can be fatal.
> 
> And another problem is that many arts don't seem to train much against knife attacks.
> 
> However, I was surprised at the number of times scores appeared to be made.  It seemed as if only thrusting attacks were made and they had to be defended by arm throws and/or bars.  That would cut down your options if true.



There are 17 basic waza allowed by the tosh (empty handed side) in tanto randori, the tanto person can resist/respond with 5 different waza themselves. Importantly, both the tanto and toshu sides are able to score (and win). There is also toshu randori competition, where both participants are unarmed, and kata competition within Tomiki's competitive forms.



drop bear said:


> Much of a muchness.  Most people get stabbed in that sort of training Even experts. (it is just that hard to stop a knife with intent) So you either do it and constantly eat crow.  Or make the situation unrealistic so you win.
> 
> Personally i like the akido method there because it at least gives an honest assessment



An honest assessment of what? And how is it honest? I'm genuinely curious as to how you would answer that.


----------



## Spinedoc

gpseymour said:


> I like that they don't expect to win every time (unrealistic, otherwise), but I don't like the limitations they put on the attacks and defense. I'd hope they also train against attacks where the "attacker" doesn't display the knife before the attack.



When we work on tango-dori, or knife defense, everyone knows that in a real situation you will get cut. My Sensei always says that IF you get attacked with a knife, the best thing to do is get out of the situation as fast as possible. IF you cannot, and you are forced to actually physically handle the situation....well, you will get cut. What we are trying to do with our training is to minimize that, and hopefully....not die. But, you almost certainly will end up cut.


----------



## Spinedoc

Chris Parker said:


> Well, yeah, technically... of course, the "ka" suffix is largely accepted (although a bit grandiose, to a Japanese ear), but you do occasionally hear terms such as "karate-jin" 空手人... pretty literally "karate person/man"... instead. These are broad terms, though, and specific systems/schools may use their own preferred terminology... such as monjin... or base it on the level of status/exposure to the art itself. "Ka", thought, would be closest to our term "adept".
> 
> While there are attacks in Aikido, they are largely considered the least-preferred ideal... meaning, in a practical sense, there really aren't many at all. Instead, there is the use of irimi, which can incorporate atemi or not, and use any of the three major timing forms (Go no Sen, Sen no Sen, Sen Sen no Sen).
> 
> Yeah, I'd say the elbow is a much more frequent point of control in Aikido than the wrist... that comment of John's just showed how little exposure to Aikido he has... the wrist is often a fulcrum, or pivot point, as it's the furthest extension of the arm to take the opponent's balance... but, even then, it's not the main point of contact. I'd actually say the main point of contact in Aikido is the hara... and the contact isn't a physical one.
> 
> Yep, absolutely. The point of centring on the wrist is to extend the opponent's balance, taking them to the point where they do not have the ability to resist, as they're too busy trying to not fall over...
> 
> Not entirely... no... while Hapkido is from the same family as Aikido (very, very closely related), the direction it's gone in has taken a lot of it's approach away from Aikido's, especially tactically, rather than mechanically. But the points all still stand.
> 
> Er... what? No. Aiki is not present in all martial arts... that's the whole sentence. It's not just the same thing under a different name... it's not a part of all arts. Period.



1. Thank you Chris for that explanation. 

2. Yeah, kind of what I meant when I said that the attacks don't really matter. Heck, last night in class, we worked on the "Trump Handshake Defense" basically, when someone is trying to pull you in by your wrist or your hand, how do you blend with that. Most people, including junior Aikido students, get "hung up" on the wrist, and the small details happening away from them. For example, working with a student last night on a simple Ai Hanmi Katatedori Ikkyo blend. He was focusing on the blend and trying to make the circle, elbow to the ear, all those things we tell him......However, he wasn't connecting to his center, and was trying to do all of this stuff with his arms way extended leaning forward. Once I got him to really step in, so that his elbow is almost hitting my ribs, and got him to straighten up and connect to his center....bam. It worked for him. EVERYTHING in Aikido...EVERYTHING is the hara. My senior Sensei, a godan, talks all the time about "washing machine", and how your trunk rotation, and hip motion is actually what throws someone....your arms have nothing to do with the throw itself, they merely guide uke into the right position for the throw. There's really only 4 main entries in Aikido when you break it down. Irimi, Tenkan, Tenshin Irimi, Tenshin Tenkan, now, there are a myriad of variations on those.....Irimi Kaiten, etc.etc.etc.etc. 

3. Which brings us to this point, which is correct. Extension....Every technique in Aikido is about 5 things. 1. Kokyu.....2. Aiki....3. Unbendable Arm....4. Mental State (Go no Sen, Sen no Sen, Zanshin, Mushin)...and finally 5. EXTENSION.....everytime. This is where sword work really shows up. When you cut, at least cut properly, with a ken, you are extending the cut, it's not a chop....it's a cut. The same is true with Aikido......relaxed extension. 

4. Having practiced Hapkido when I was younger, and Aikido now...they are fairly different. On the surface there are similarities, but there are profound differences in attacks, blends, even techniques. Hapkido can be, at least in my limited experience, much more linear, more direct, and much less "Aiki". That's not necessarily right or wrong, and I would never say one was better than the other, just, that they are different.

5. 100% agree. Aiki can be hard to explain, but most martial arts don't have it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Chris Parker said:


> It's not something that should be underestimated, and is one of the first (and biggest) challenges of martial study... not just learning to move in, but learning to make that the new instinct, the new standard response.



I've even noticed with some experienced martial artists (several years of study) that they have a tendency to move off (sideways or to a wide angle) or back when given an attack they aren't used to (so, someone from a striking art getting a grab attack). And some arts appear to favor that distance because of the way they compete within their art. Within NGA, I'd noticed most students took many years to develop an entering habit, to the point that I changed how I teach from their first techniques (including adjusting forms) to develop that faster.



Chris Parker said:


> Er... what? No. Aiki is not present in all martial arts... that's the whole sentence. It's not just the same thing under a different name... it's not a part of all arts. Period.



I think it shows up in most advanced practitioners of grappling arts (at least, as I define the term "aiki", which I'm not good at giving in words). It's not inherent in those arts, and isn't taught in them so far as I know, but when technique turns into principles it will eventually show up to some extent.


----------



## Steve

Reading through the descriptions of Aiki here and also from other aikidoists who have written descriptions of Aiki on their blogs and school websites, it sounds like there is some room for interpretation, even within the community.

It sounds like some believe there is a mystical quality to it (focusing of ki or channeling of internal energy).   Is this another one of those, "you have to be Japanese to understand" it things?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Reading through the descriptions of Aiki here and also from other aikidoists who have written descriptions of Aiki on their blogs and school websites, it sounds like there is some room for interpretation, even within the community.
> 
> It sounds like some believe there is a mystical quality to it (focusing of ki or channeling of internal energy).   Is this another one of those, "you have to be Japanese to understand" it things?


It's entirely possible one would have to have a firm understanding of Japanese culture/language to get the original Japanese definition. Part of the problem, though, is that it has become a martial arts term used by many of us who don't have that understanding. So, we define the term in our own way, to explain the concept as we see it. And there's some distinct disagreement between those definitions, even among those of us not attempting to replicate what we think the Japanese concept is. Within NGA, with the folks I trained with and under, the term wasn't actually used a lot, so personal definitions of it are probably more variable within NGA than within Ueshiba's Aikido.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> It's entirely possible one would have to have a firm understanding of Japanese culture/language to get the original Japanese definition. Part of the problem, though, is that it has become a martial arts term used by many of us who don't have that understanding. So, we define the term in our own way, to explain the concept as we see it. And there's some distinct disagreement between those definitions, even among those of us not attempting to replicate what we think the Japanese concept is. Within NGA, with the folks I trained with and under, the term wasn't actually used a lot, so personal definitions of it are probably more variable within NGA than within Ueshiba's Aikido.


Yeah, I get it.  And speaking plainly, a discussion about aiki could quickly go the same route as the discussion regarding bowing. 

So, first, acknowledging that I am probably mostly wrong, it SEEMS from what I have read here and elsewhere, that aiki is experienced when a technique is performed exactly right and at exactly the right time, so that it is effortless. 

This guy (who writes a blog I found on google, and so could be VERY knowledgeable... or not...) defines it as this:

_In Sagawa sensei’s “Principles of Aiki Budo”, introduced in the beginning of this book, appears the following passage:
_
*暴を奮う者に対しては合気の理に依りこれをなだめ融和致させ、また敵の既発に対しては同じく合い気の理により敵の攻撃に随い転化または変更して融和致さすのである。*

*Through the principles of Aiki pacify and reconcile those threatening violence. Also when the enemy has already attacked, likewise transform and change according to the attack of the enemy through the principles of fitting together Ki and achieve reconciliation.*
_
This is somewhat abstract, but it states the fundamental principles of Aiki.

Following Sensei’s teachings, this is my interpretation of Aiki: “Aiki is a technique for the efficient use of power in offense and defense, a technique for fully realizing the power naturally possessed by human beings.”
_​


----------



## Tony Dismukes

gpseymour said:


> It's entirely possible one would have to have a firm understanding of Japanese culture/language to get the original Japanese definition.


There's also the question of whether Japanese practitioners would all completely agree on the true original Japanese definition. Many Japanese Aikido practitioners may feel that Tomiki Kenji took his branch of the art away from the principles of aiki. Obviously, Tomiki sensei (who was Japanese) disagreed.


----------



## Spinedoc

Spinedoc said:


> When we work on tango-dori, or knife defense, everyone knows that in a real situation you will get cut. My Sensei always says that IF you get attacked with a knife, the best thing to do is get out of the situation as fast as possible. IF you cannot, and you are forced to actually physically handle the situation....well, you will get cut. What we are trying to do with our training is to minimize that, and hopefully....not die. But, you almost certainly will end up cut.



BTW, friggin spell correct. That should say Tanto Dori, not Tango Dori.....ugh.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> So, first, acknowledging that I am probably mostly wrong, it SEEMS from what I have read here and elsewhere, that aiki is experienced when a technique is performed exactly right and at exactly the right time, so that it is effortless.


From conversations with Gerry and others, I would probably modify that to read: _ aiki is experienced when a technique is performed exactly right and at exactly the right time *using the energy of the opponent*, so that it is effortless.
_
Practitioners of aiki-centric arts, how do you feel about that definition?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Yeah, I get it.  And speaking plainly, a discussion about aiki could quickly go the same route as the discussion regarding bowing.
> 
> So, first, acknowledging that I am probably mostly wrong, it SEEMS from what I have read here and elsewhere, that aiki is experienced when a technique is performed exactly right and at exactly the right time, so that it is effortless.
> 
> This guy (who writes a blog I found on google, and so could be VERY knowledgeable... or not...) defines it as this:
> 
> _In Sagawa sensei’s “Principles of Aiki Budo”, introduced in the beginning of this book, appears the following passage:
> _
> *暴を奮う者に対しては合気の理に依りこれをなだめ融和致させ、また敵の既発に対しては同じく合い気の理により敵の攻撃に随い転化または変更して融和致さすのである。*
> 
> *Through the principles of Aiki pacify and reconcile those threatening violence. Also when the enemy has already attacked, likewise transform and change according to the attack of the enemy through the principles of fitting together Ki and achieve reconciliation.*
> _
> This is somewhat abstract, but it states the fundamental principles of Aiki.
> 
> Following Sensei’s teachings, this is my interpretation of Aiki: “Aiki is a technique for the efficient use of power in offense and defense, a technique for fully realizing the power naturally possessed by human beings.”
> _​


Yeah, that definition is as vague to me as the term itself (undefined).

Your thought above ("aiki is experienced when a technique is performed exactly right and at exactly the right time, so that it is effortless") I think highlights what I haven't communicated well, Steve. That feeling of effortlessness from a great technique isn't quite aiki. There's some similarities, and sometimes you'll feel that effortlessness because of aiki, but I can also get that feeling just by excellent use of timing and leverage, which isn't aiki, by my definition.

For me (and I keep stressing that, because I believe - don't know, just believe - that my definition differs from what you'd likely get from someone in Ueshiba's art), aiki is mostly expressed by (nearly) all of the functional energy/momentum in a technique coming from the "attacker". So, even within a given technique (let's use a standing Arm Bar), there are both aiki and non-aiki variations. Executed properly, both can feel effortless, especially if I catch my opponent "in the void" (that point where they are between bases and easily disrupted). The aiki version of the technique will blend into their movement, either redirecting it or accelerating it into an overextension (actually, mostly the same thing). The non-aiki version doesn't blend with their movement, but interrupts it and redirects their weight through leverage. To muddy things up, these aren't necessarily far apart, and I can execute the technique at several points along a continuum between the two.

There. Sort out that muddiness, Steve!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Spinedoc said:


> BTW, friggin spell correct. That should say Tanto Dori, not Tango Dori.....ugh.


I want to learn the Tango Dori techinques. I think I could attract new students with those.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> There's also the question of whether Japanese practitioners would all completely agree on the true original Japanese definition. Many Japanese Aikido practitioners may feel that Tomiki Kenji took his branch of the art away from the principles of aiki. Obviously, Tomiki sensei (who was Japanese) disagreed.


I think you're right, Tony. I'd love to sit down with an experienced Tomiki student and hear their thoughts on it. There's a concept I've been working on in my own mind, of there being more than one way to view aiki even within NGA. I can't quite wrap my head around what I think that means yet, but I think the Tomiki folks' view would clarify it.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, that definition is as vague to me as the term itself (undefined).
> 
> Your thought above ("aiki is experienced when a technique is performed exactly right and at exactly the right time, so that it is effortless") I think highlights what I haven't communicated well, Steve. That feeling of effortlessness from a great technique isn't quite aiki. There's some similarities, and sometimes you'll feel that effortlessness because of aiki, but I can also get that feeling just by excellent use of timing and leverage, which isn't aiki, by my definition.
> 
> For me (and I keep stressing that, because I believe - don't know, just believe - that my definition differs from what you'd likely get from someone in Ueshiba's art), aiki is mostly expressed by (nearly) all of the functional energy/momentum in a technique coming from the "attacker". So, even within a given technique (let's use a standing Arm Bar), there are both aiki and non-aiki variations. Executed properly, both can feel effortless, especially if I catch my opponent "in the void" (that point where they are between bases and easily disrupted). The aiki version of the technique will blend into their movement, either redirecting it or accelerating it into an overextension (actually, mostly the same thing). The non-aiki version doesn't blend with their movement, but interrupts it and redirects their weight through leverage. To muddy things up, these aren't necessarily far apart, and I can execute the technique at several points along a continuum between the two.
> 
> There. Sort out that muddiness, Steve!


okay.  The only head scratcher in your explanation is, in my mind, if a technique is effortless, by definition any energy would be coming from the other person,  wouldn't it?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> okay.  The only head scratcher in your explanation is, in my mind, if a technique is effortless, by definition any energy would be coming from the other person,  wouldn't it?


Not always. I can make a technique effortless by getting their weight to that void. If I move them there, it's not aiki. If I let their own momentum do the movement, it can be aiki. I think maybe the easiest way to see the difference is by not separating the set-up from the technique. Let's say you're doing a leg sweep (the version where you are facing opposite your opponent, just off his hip, his weight is at his heels, and you take the near leg). If we start from the moment of the sweep, we miss the difference. If I came at you (maybe going for a clinch and you prevented it), let's look at two ways you got me there.

1) As I stepped in, you got good contact on my shoulders, pulled me in and turned me. Now you sweep. The sweep is entirely effortless, but you provided much of the energy to get me there.

2) As I stepped in, you blended in with me and redirected my momentum before I finished the step, tipping my weight just enough that I step to catch my weight, putting me in the position. The sweep is entirely effortless, and the energy that put me there is almost entirely my own momentum (a little of your weight dropped in to change the direction of my momentum). This one is more aiki, though the finishing technique may be entirely identical.

Now we can also add in some timing differences in some techniques. Some techniques can be very easy even if you let their weight just settle to a stopping point. By my definition, it's not aiki if you let them stop, because their movement is no longer committed into the technique. So, with those two sweeps, if I time the first one to just at the moment when their weight stops, and the second to a point before their weight stops, there's even more of a difference in them.

Did that clarify, or muddy it more?


----------



## Spinedoc

Aiki, at least in my mind, has less to do with techniques than most assume. I remember hearing a story of O'Sensei after he left Takeda and before he was really teaching Aikido. He was apparently challenged by a reputable swordsman and O'Sensei simply drew a sword and faced down the attacker. They stood for close to an hour. No attack, no counter. O'Sensei simply stood in perfect stance and presented not a single opening to the swordsman. After an hour, the swordsman sheathed his sword, bowed, said that he apologized and left.

Now, I am not sure if this is a true story, or merely myth, but I heard a Shihan once telling this story, and saying that this was the essence of Aiki.

O'Sensei himself once said “Aiki is a means of achieving harmony with another person so that you can make them do what you want.”

Takeda Sokaku said that Aiki was “the ability to defeat an enemy with a single glance.”

It gets blurry, because Aiki means in Japanese, a fusion or meeting of energy. It is related to Kiai, or focus of the spirit and they actually blend together somewhat...in typical Japanese fashion.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> In what way does anything you just posted further the discussion?  Honestly (since we're being honest) it seems like you're just being very snarky.  I honestly believe if you took a few minutes to read my posts without deciding ahead of time you don't agree, you'd feel pretty foolish, as I've said several times I'm not interested in imposing anything on you.  And I've explained it several times, as well.
> 
> Saying I am over and over doesn't change the words I've actually written.  This is bizarre.  Truly.
> 
> Edit:   Okay.  I'm trying to understand.  Please tell me what you think Ilve identified that I think works for me, that I'm trying to impose on you?  What is that?  I don't see it.  I just see all of the times I've literally said to you that you're free to establish your own standards, and more power to you.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


As I said before, I am not being snarky.  I am being honest. 

Perhaps if you reread your own posts, you might understand why my honesty has taken on a level of bluntness.  If you can't see what it is about your own posts that might cause someone like me to be a bit blunt with you, then I doubt I can make it more clear for you.

All the best to you.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> As I said before, I am not being snarky.  I am being honest.
> 
> Perhaps if you reread your own posts, you might understand why my honesty has taken on a level of bluntness.  If you can't see what it is about your own posts that might cause someone like me to be a bit blunt with you, then I doubt I can make it more clear for you.
> 
> All the best to you.


 What do you think I've identified that works for me, _that I'm trying to impose on you?  
_
Look, I appreciate feedback.  I get that you want to be the good guy, and you're welcome to it.  But I truly don't know what the heck you're talking about.  You think you're being honest, but this isn't honest feedback.  Honest feedback would be where you actually provide some examples.  There is a record that you can easily go back and reference.  If you could quote for me where you think I'm suggesting you should do what I do, or that I think what you're doing is bad or wrong or anything like that, it would really help.  It's all here. 

In fact, I went back, as you suggest, and reread every one of my posts in this thread.  What I found was that I repeatedly emphasized that I am not suggesting anyone do anything they don't enjoy.  To the contrary, I said:



Steve said:


> *I agree with you mostly, particularly about what is interesting and enjoyable.*.





Steve said:


> *Let's be clear.  If you're having fun and enjoying yourself, knock yourself out.  I would never (here or in person) presume to rain on your parade.*





Steve said:


> *I would happily agree with you that any training method that includes some way to measure efficacy is effective.  Without any way to measure success, how can you know if training is successful?
> 
> I'm willing to take your word that your training is effective, even if you don't have any way to know, but that's mostly because I don't have a real stake in whether it fails or not.  You do.  Doesn't mean is actually IS effective.   To be clear, I'm talking about self identifying some measurable criteria for success and then exceeding it.*





Steve said:


> *And that's fine, if you don't feel it's necessary.  However, absent any form of measurement, you just can't evaluate whether your training is effective.  And we're back to faith... which, again, is also fine, if you know that's where you're at.  *You can't say to someone, "I know my training is effective" unless you are prepared to explain what you mean by "effective" and how you're measuring your training against it.
> 
> *Look, I hope it's clear.  I'm not suggesting you must know whether your training is effective or not.  I'm very specifically saying that "effective" is a subjective term that must be defined in some way.  If you're going to use it, be prepared to define it.*





Steve said:


> *if you think I am trying to apply a universal standard, I'm doing a poor job of explaining.   I'm not trying to apply any standards to you or your training.*
> 
> *This isn't about me imposing standards on you.  As I said earlier, knock yourself out, provided you're happy.*
> 
> *And lest you misunderstand again, it's not a big deal, except that we are having a conversation about arts like aikido being effective in self defense (among other things).*


I snipped out most of the repeated points about measurable standards.  I tried to explain that point a few times, but I'm pretty sure now that you get it. 

Once again, I invite you to tell me where you think I'm imposing my beliefs on you, because I see many examples where I have said exactly the opposite.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Er... what? No. Aiki is not present in all martial arts... that's the whole sentence. It's not just the same thing under a



Yes it is. Every martial art uses those fundimentals.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> An honest assessment of what? And how is it honest? I'm genuinely curious as to how you would answer that.



They are actually trying to stab you you are actually trying to stop them. 

That provides a reasonable base for feedback.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, that definition is as vague to me as the term itself (undefined).
> 
> Your thought above ("aiki is experienced when a technique is performed exactly right and at exactly the right time, so that it is effortless") I think highlights what I haven't communicated well, Steve. That feeling of effortlessness from a great technique isn't quite aiki. There's some similarities, and sometimes you'll feel that effortlessness because of aiki, but I can also get that feeling just by excellent use of timing and leverage, which isn't aiki, by my definition.
> 
> For me (and I keep stressing that, because I believe - don't know, just believe - that my definition differs from what you'd likely get from someone in Ueshiba's art), aiki is mostly expressed by (nearly) all of the functional energy/momentum in a technique coming from the "attacker". So, even within a given technique (let's use a standing Arm Bar), there are both aiki and non-aiki variations. Executed properly, both can feel effortless, especially if I catch my opponent "in the void" (that point where they are between bases and easily disrupted). The aiki version of the technique will blend into their movement, either redirecting it or accelerating it into an overextension (actually, mostly the same thing). The non-aiki version doesn't blend with their movement, but interrupts it and redirects their weight through leverage. To muddy things up, these aren't necessarily far apart, and I can execute the technique at several points along a continuum between the two.
> 
> There. Sort out that muddiness, Steve!



ok there is a sweep that catches the foot as it is about to land and drags it forwards.It creates the equivilent of slipping on a banana peel.

That would be aiki.


----------



## Paul_D

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can't develop any true MA skill if you only train when your opponent cooperates


If I punch you in the throat any subsequant throw or joint lock won't require your cooperation I can assure you.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> If I punch you in the throat any subsequant throw or joint lock won't require your cooperation I can assure you.



So you are advising the best method of learning joint locks is good striking?


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> So you are advising the best method of learning joint locks is good striking?


No.


----------



## Steve

Paul_D said:


> If I punch you in the throat any subsequant throw or joint lock won't require your cooperation I can assure you.


That is a really good line.  I literally laughed out loud.  I initially marked it as funny, but I didn't want you to get the wrong impression.   It's true and also very witty.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> ok there is a sweep that catches the foot as it is about to land and drags it forwards.It creates the equivilent of slipping on a banana peel.
> 
> That would be aiki.


If they are still moving their center, yes, that would fit with my definition of aiki.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So you are advising the best method of learning joint locks is good striking?


Or something else to control their structure and/or movement.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> If they are still moving their center, yes, that would fit with my definition of aiki.



Yeah. Ok. The thing I think that is going to get people when looking for aiki in other martial arts is that those elements of aiki are disguised within pressure.

You can apply both at the same time. Or one or the other. This will be much more common if both fighters know what they are doing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. Ok. The thing I think that is going to get people when looking for aiki in other martial arts is that those elements of aiki are disguised within pressure.
> 
> You can apply both at the same time. Or one or the other. This will be much more common if both fighters know what they are doing.


A patient fighter won't commit his weight often in ways that open up for aiki techniques. Fighters in competition tend to be more patient. The opportunities still come up, but waiting for them would be suicide in a competition, IMO.


----------



## oftheherd1

drop bear said:


> Much of a muchness.  Most people get stabbed in that sort of training Even experts. (it is just that hard to stop a knife with intent) So you either do it and constantly eat crow.  Or make the situation unrealistic so you win.
> 
> Personally i like the akido method there because it at least gives an honest assessment



As I said, there isn't a lot of room for error in knife defense.  But it isn't roll over and try to die quickly either.  Properly learned and continuously practiced, there are knife defenses that are very effective.  From your post, it is obvious you are doing what so many do; focusing on the knife rather than what is holding the knife.  That is your best chance to survive; look for what is holding the knife and defend that, not just defend the knife.

Consider also that the attacker with the knife is probably not expecting, therefore not able to effectively defend against, a useful counter to his attack.  And when you see those who have trained themselves in use of a knife, present a series of attacks one after the other (looks so awesome), if you stop the first, the rest never will happen.



Tony Dismukes said:


> From conversations with Gerry and others, I would probably modify that to read: _ aiki is experienced when a technique is performed exactly right and at exactly the right time *using the energy of the opponent*, so that it is effortless.
> _
> Practitioners of aiki-centric arts, how do you feel about that definition?



It is interesting to read all the attempts to explain aiki.  I need to  show another aspect, since I have no concept of what aiki is.  I studied two Korean martial arts, TKD, and Hapkido.  I am belted in Hapkido.  We talk about ki, gi, qi, whatever.  I think it is something like aiki, which isn't surprising, especially in Hapkido.  As Chris Parker pointed out before, Hapkido is closely related to Aikido, having the same ultimate parentage.

In TKD, under Jhoon Goo Rhee, we were taught to use that inner energy, or gi, to use all aspects of our art.  To step, balance, connect to the ground, punch, kick, and defend with speed and correctness.  I learned that to an extent.

In the Hapkido I studied, I didn't even think of learning or using gi, until I one day realized I had achieved some part of it.  So, that meditation, practicing of single and multiple kicks, along with refinement of technique, suddenly paid of when I didn't even realize there was a debt.  I found that gi allowed me to move faster and with more precision.  It allowed me to focus power.  I wasn't as good as I have seen others use it, but to recognize I even had some useful amount of it was awesome.

I believe it is something anyone can acquire if they believe in it.  I also believe that it has a faith aspect to it.  I don't believe it requires faith in a religious sense to be acquired, although I suspect it may help.

That's a part of how I see it,  YMMV, and that doesn't mean it is wrong.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

oftheherd1 said:


> That's a part of how I see it, YMMV, and that doesn't mean it is wrong.


Sure it does. Anyone who disagrees with me is demonstrably wrong.


----------



## oftheherd1

gpseymour said:


> Sure it does. Anyone who disagrees with me is demonstrably wrong.



But, but, I wasn't demonstrating.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> What do you think I've identified that works for me, _that I'm trying to impose on you?
> _
> Look, I appreciate feedback.  I get that you want to be the good guy, and you're welcome to it.  But I truly don't know what the heck you're talking about.  You think you're being honest, but this isn't honest feedback.  Honest feedback would be where you actually provide some examples.  There is a record that you can easily go back and reference.  If you could quote for me where you think I'm suggesting you should do what I do, or that I think what you're doing is bad or wrong or anything like that, it would really help.  It's all here.
> 
> In fact, I went back, as you suggest, and reread every one of my posts in this thread.  What I found was that I repeatedly emphasized that I am not suggesting anyone do anything they don't enjoy.  To the contrary, I said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I snipped out most of the repeated points about measurable standards.  I tried to explain that point a few times, but I'm pretty sure now that you get it.
> 
> Once again, I invite you to tell me where you think I'm imposing my beliefs on you, because I see many examples where I have said exactly the opposite.


You are correct in that you are unable to actually impose anything on anyone here.

The message contained in your posts is that people who don't train the way you train, cannot possibly be doing something with functional value.  And I am certain that you are aware that this is your message.

And so I don't see any need to discuss it in circles any further.  You are free to believe what you wish and train as you will.  It matters not to me.


----------



## ImagineClouds

Hornviper said:


> Hello everyone,
> Why does Aikido get so much hate? I realize that BJJ and MMA are very mainstream at the moment, and some of those guys are the biggest Aikido haters out there. No offense. It all boils down to: Did any of the MMA fighters do aikido?" Some people go as far as calling it ********, ineffective, a waste of time, etc. Really? I visited the local Aikido school, and I loved the atmosphere. I'd like to know what your opinion of this art is. I believe most (if not all) arts can be applied in certain scenarios. I have to admit that I am not one of those people that dream of killing/dismantling others. That's the last thing I want to to.
> 
> Thank you in advance.


Hi
I'm an aikidoka, though i do it for just 2 years now, i think the problem is that we learn thinks static like not in motion, in the beginning!. so people usually say it is not realistic it can get you killed. not true we learn like this cause once you get your uki (the attacker) out of balance what do you do? well we learn from this perspective. later on we put motion in the attacks and once your uki is out of balance you strike with the techniques. furthermore once you are in motion and you attack your blackbelt master you automaticly jump because if you don't and he does a particular technique, like kotegaeshi for example you brake break your wrist, so you jump moments before he uses his technique creating a "non realistic" scéne. and most people don't understand this.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

ImagineClouds said:


> Hi
> I'm an aikidoka, though i do it for just 2 years now, i think the problem is that we learn thinks static like not in motion, in the beginning!. so people usually say it is not realistic it can get you killed. not true we learn like this cause once you get your uki (the attacker) out of balance what do you do? well we learn from this perspective. later on we put motion in the attacks and once your uki is out of balance you strike with the techniques. furthermore once you are in motion and you attack your blackbelt master you automaticly jump because if you don't and he does a particular technique, like kotegaeshi for example you brake break your wrist, so you jump moments before he uses his technique creating a "non realistic" scéne. and most people don't understand this.


Hey, nice to see a new face. Drop by the Meet & Greet section and introduce yourself and give us your background, so we can all say hi!


----------



## Tez3

Remind me again why we should fret, get upset and angry about how other people in other styles train?


----------



## ImagineClouds

gpseymour said:


> Hey, nice to see a new face. Drop by the Meet & Greet section and introduce yourself and give us your background, so we can all say hi!


done


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Remind me again why we should fret, get upset and angry about how other people in other styles train?



People put a lot of time money and faith into their training. It would be upsetting if the training didn't do what it claimed.


----------



## JR 137

Tez3 said:


> Remind me again why we should fret, get upset and angry about how other people in other styles train?



Because what I train and how I train it is right, and EVERYTHING else and EVERYONE else is wrong.

Please, try asking a question that will actually make me think about the answer.


----------



## Tez3

JR 137 said:


> Because what I train and how I train it is right, and EVERYTHING else and EVERYONE else is wrong.




Sorry Master, I will immediately go and bash my head against a wall in penance.


----------



## Headhunter

drop bear said:


> People put a lot of time money and faith into their training. It would be upsetting if the training didn't do what it claimed.


If people are happy with what they're doing its no one else's business you just focus on yourself and let others do what they want


----------



## drop bear

Headhunter said:


> If people are happy with what they're doing its no one else's business you just focus on yourself and let others do what they want



And yet we are on a forum that focuses on what everybody else is doing. Kind of the whole point of a forum. Otherwise it would be a blog.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> And yet we are on a forum that *focuses on what everybody else is doing*. Kind of the whole point of a forum. Otherwise it would be a blog.



Well it doesn't really, some people like me will flit from section to section if there's something interesting however most people tend to stick to their own styles section, commenting on only their style. Also just because you do go from section to section through interest it doesn't mean you have to criticise other people's styles, you could ask questions to learn more about other styles, compare how for example a front kick is done in different styles, discuss problems with students/instructors, ask/discuss things about kit, there's an awful lot of reason to comment on other peoples styles without banging on how useless you think their style is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And yet we are on a forum that focuses on what everybody else is doing. Kind of the whole point of a forum. Otherwise it would be a blog.


That doesn't mean we need to "correct" them. If someone asks for opinions, I'll give mine. (Okay, I don't always wait until they ask, either, but let's act for a minute like I do.) I'm happy to try to help people improve in areas they want to improve and I can help. However, if someone comes on here posting about their training, and it's bad combat mojo all the way, I don't always need to help. If they are training for fun (not defense), and the training appears to be reasonably safe, they don't need my help.

And that goes doubly for the folks who aren't even here, the hypotheticals that get discussed sometimes about how a given art/style _should _train. This thread is a reasonable example. A lot of folks really like to talk about what's wrong with Aikido training. Most of the folks I've known (maybe all of them) who trained in Ueshiba's mainline (I'm excepting the branches created by Shioda and Tomiki) understood that their Aikido training was a long process. Many of them make light of it being a 20-year art (20 years to high competency). They know they could get competency faster in another art, but they like the process they are in. Most, though they like the concept of being able to use the art to defend themselves, are in no hurry. They like what they are doing that much. I don't think there's any reason to "fix" that.


----------



## Headhunter

drop bear said:


> And yet we are on a forum that focuses on what everybody else is doing. Kind of the whole point of a forum. Otherwise it would be a blog.


Yes it's a board for discussion but well...to be honest I'd have a better discussion with a brick wall than I would have with you since you don't listen to anyone and tell everyone that they're wrong unless they do it your way


----------



## drop bear

Headhunter said:


> Yes it's a board for discussion but well...to be honest I'd have a better discussion with a brick wall than I would have with you since you don't listen to anyone and tell everyone that they're wrong unless they do it your way



Unlike what you are doing now?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That doesn't mean we need to "correct" them. If someone asks for opinions, I'll give mine. (Okay, I don't always wait until they ask, either, but let's act for a minute like I do.) I'm happy to try to help people improve in areas they want to improve and I can help. However, if someone comes on here posting about their training, and it's bad combat mojo all the way, I don't always need to help. If they are training for fun (not defense), and the training appears to be reasonably safe, they don't need my help.
> 
> And that goes doubly for the folks who aren't even here, the hypotheticals that get discussed sometimes about how a given art/style _should _train. This thread is a reasonable example. A lot of folks really like to talk about what's wrong with Aikido training. Most of the folks I've known (maybe all of them) who trained in Ueshiba's mainline (I'm excepting the branches created by Shioda and Tomiki) understood that their Aikido training was a long process. Many of them make light of it being a 20-year art (20 years to high competency). They know they could get competency faster in another art, but they like the process they are in. Most, though they like the concept of being able to use the art to defend themselves, are in no hurry. They like what they are doing that much. I don't think there's any reason to "fix" that.



Untill somone says something goober like "What if your martial art doesn't rely on strength"

Train Like A Professional....


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Untill somone says something goober like "What if your martial art doesn't rely on strength"
> 
> Train Like A Professional....


That's not about how they train, but about discussing their comment. If someone makes a statement (or in this case, a question that implies a statement), it's worth letting them know you disagree with the statement.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's not about how they train, but about discussing their comment. If someone makes a statement (or in this case, a question that implies a statement), it's worth letting them know you disagree with the statement.



Well there you go.


----------



## KangTsai

Ironbear24 said:


> They aren't fanboys if they are doing it.
> 
> I mean is Joe Rogan a fan boy then?


Joe Rogan details being scarred from his experience of getting is butt kicked by kickboxers after he'd thought he'd win with a taekwondo background. He was converted fully via trauma.


----------



## Ironbear24

KangTsai said:


> Joe Rogan details being scarred from his experience of getting is butt kicked by kickboxers after he'd thought he'd win with a taekwondo background. He was converted fully via trauma.



So is he a fanboy or not?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> That doesn't mean we need to "correct" them. If someone asks for opinions, I'll give mine. (Okay, I don't always wait until they ask, either, but let's act for a minute like I do.) I'm happy to try to help people improve in areas they want to improve and I can help. However, if someone comes on here posting about their training, and it's bad combat mojo all the way, I don't always need to help. If they are training for fun (not defense), and the training appears to be reasonably safe, they don't need my help.
> 
> And that goes doubly for the folks who aren't even here, the hypotheticals that get discussed sometimes about how a given art/style _should _train. This thread is a reasonable example. A lot of folks really like to talk about what's wrong with Aikido training. Most of the folks I've known (maybe all of them) who trained in Ueshiba's mainline (I'm excepting the branches created by Shioda and Tomiki) understood that their Aikido training was a long process. Many of them make light of it being a 20-year art (20 years to high competency). They know they could get competency faster in another art, but they like the process they are in. Most, though they like the concept of being able to use the art to defend themselves, are in no hurry. They like what they are doing that much. I don't think there's any reason to "fix" that.


Well, for the record, I only suggest that if you say your art is effective, you should be prepared to share your definition of effective.  And if you can't, that's a problem.

So, for example.  When you say "20 years to high competency," what do you mean by high competency.  What can a highly competent aikidoka do?  We know that this doesn't mean "able to compete in MMA."  And that's fine,  but what does it mean?

And then further, how does one know if their own aikido skills meet your own criteria for "high competency?"


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Hornviper said:


> Hello everyone,
> Why does Aikido get so much hate? I realize that BJJ and MMA are very mainstream at the moment, and some of those guys are the biggest Aikido haters out there. No offense. It all boils down to: Did any of the MMA fighters do aikido?" Some people go as far as calling it ********, ineffective, a waste of time, etc. Really? I visited the local Aikido school, and I loved the atmosphere. I'd like to know what your opinion of this art is. I believe most (if not all) arts can be applied in certain scenarios. I have to admit that I am not one of those people that dream of killing/dismantling others. That's the last thing I want to to.
> 
> Thank you in advance.


Aikido generally gets allot of hate from the MMA community because allot of aikidoka would get schooled in a sparring match against even a newer MMA practitioner.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Headhunter said:


> Yes it's a board for discussion but well...to be honest I'd have a better discussion with a brick wall than I would have with you since you don't listen to anyone and tell everyone that they're wrong unless they do it your way


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> Untill somone says something goober like "What if your martial art doesn't rely on strength"
> 
> Train Like A Professional....


I'll try to explain it for you without using too many big words:-

*play devil's advocate*
to pretend to be against an idea which you agree with in order to make people discuss it in more detail and think about it more carefully


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> I'll try to explain it for you without using too many big words:-
> 
> *play devil's advocate*
> to pretend to be against an idea which you agree with in order to make people discuss it in more detail and think about it more carefully



Really. you tried not to use big words but went for advocate?

I mean it doesnt matret if you were playing devils advocate or not. (Bugger it is windy) It is the response I was discussing.


----------



## Ironbear24

ST1Doppelganger said:


> aikidoka would get schooled in a sparring match against even a newer MMA practitioner.



It all depends on the skill level and individual. If the aikidoka were to be experienced that would not happen. If they are new then it is anyone's guess.


----------



## Steve

Ironbear24 said:


> It all depends on the skill level and individual. If the aikidoka were to be experienced that would not happen. If they are new then it is anyone's guess.


We just learned in another thread that an aikidoka is a senior student or expert.  Otherwise they are akidoists.  Or something.


----------



## Ironbear24

Steve said:


> We just learned in another thread that an aikidoka is a senior student or expert.  Otherwise they are akidoists.  Or something.



Well in that case then no, they would school the new "MMAist" easily then. I don't understand why people have this attitude that just by simply being an MMA practitioner somehow makes just better than everyone else. If literally heard people say at one point that a "white belt MMA guy" can beat up a TDK black belt. 

Because you know, MMA totally uses belts.


----------



## Paul_D

ST1Doppelganger said:


> Aikido generally gets allot of hate from the MMA community because allot of aikidoka would get schooled in a sparring match against even a newer MMA practitioner.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


True, but that's more to do with the misunderstanding within the MMA community.   Aikido isn't designed for sparring, or for scoring points in a sporting contest, hence when you put it into an environment that it is not designed to work in, it doesn't work in that environment.  That shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone.  You can't saw a piece of wood in half with a screwdriver, doesn't mean we should all hate screwdrivers though.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> Well in that case then no, they would school the new "MMAist" easily then. I don't understand why people have this attitude that just by simply being an MMA practitioner somehow makes just better than everyone else. If literally heard people say at one point that a "white belt MMA guy" can beat up a TDK black belt.
> 
> Because you know, MMA totally uses belts.



Efficiency and resources pretty much.

First day is expert moves. experts do beginner moves.

And there is a greater push from more people to make MMA a viable fighting system.


----------



## Steve

Paul_D said:


> True, but that's more to do with the misunderstanding within the MMA community.   Aikido isn't designed for sparring, or for scoring points in a sporting contest, hence when you put it into an environment that it is not designed to work in, it doesn't work in that environment.  That shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone.  You can't saw a piece of wood in half with a screwdriver, doesn't mean we should all hate screwdrivers though.


What is aikido designed for?  I've asked this question several times, and only hear about more things it isn't.


----------



## JP3

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, I would agree that fighting against a knife wielder requires good skill.  It is not to be taken lightly.  Any slight miscue can be fatal.
> 
> And another problem is that many arts don't seem to train much against knife attacks.
> 
> However, I was surprised at the number of times scores appeared to be made.  It seemed as if only thrusting attacks were made and they had to be defended by arm throws and/or bars.  That would cut down your options if true.



I just pointed out that aikido tournaments exist... I specifically did NOT vouch for their efficacy! 

Those aikido tournaments are a rules-based structure, like any tournament... in other words, they are a game. In games, the knives don't have edges, at least not in that game, them's the rules boss.

But, unfortunately, games are not reality, so most of those dudes would, and I hate to say this about another aikido person trying their best to be legitimate... probably be bleeding out and wondering why. Not to say I wouldn't be lying there as well, I'd just not be at all confused by what had just happened. 

Fight against a knife, get cut. End of tale. Maybe not dead-cut, but cut always. Unless the once in a lifetime universal continuum aligned in a perfect north-sough galactic axis spiral with purple snowflakes appearing in the out rim of galaxies, then maybe someone doesn't get cut. Pretty much any other time.


----------



## oaktree

Steve said:


> What is aikido designed for?  I've asked this question several times, and only hear about more things it isn't.


I think you will get many answers even if Ueshiba could talk at different times in his life he may give you different answers.

Interview with Morihei Ueshiba and Kisshomaru Ueshiba


----------



## JP3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I respect all MA styles that test their skill in sport format.
> 
> One day an Aikido friend Armando Flores and a Karate friend visited me. I told them that there was a local Karate tournament. All 3 of us put gloves on and went to competed in that tournament. Armando didn't understood Karate tournament rules and punched on his opponent's face so hard, drew some blood, and got disqualified in his 1st fight. In few days, my Aikido friend was kicked out of his Aikido Association. He then went to far east and trained his Aikido with top master. This is how I know that Aikido guys were not allowed to compete in tournament back in 1973.
> 
> Today my Aikido friend is "Sensei" now.



I think that Armando visited Oklahoma City, Windsong Dojo a couple years ago and I trained with him and visited with him. If I've got the right guy, you are correct, very neat guy and very skilled. Shoot, even if I've not got the right guy, skilled and neat guy, one can tell from his student interaction.


----------



## Spinedoc

Steve said:


> What is aikido designed for?  I've asked this question several times, and only hear about more things it isn't.



This is an interesting question. Aikido to me is designed for chaos. Here's what I mean by that. Aikido only works with a committed attack. Aikido practitioners ALWAYS, ALWAYS assume there are multiple attackers. That whoever is attacking has at least one friend if not more. We also ALWAYS assume that they have a weapon. We assume we are in, as one high ranking Sensei told me once, a "gang war".....

Aikido does not work well with one on one sparring/competition. If someone will not commit to an attack, I simply back up and won't even engage with them. If someone just jabs and tries to throw probing attacks, I simply back up and leave...I won't even try to do anything, not until they try to grab, rush, or step into an attack, otherwise it's not worth doing anything.

I've seen Aikido used 3 times in real life, all before I was even studying Aikido, and all with brutal effectiveness. I honestly didn't even know what it was until I started studying Aikido years ago, and went...ahhhh, that's what that was.

1. I was in the US Navy and was at a party, some guy was making out with a girl, when the girls boyfriend showed up...the first guy backed up, saying he didn't know she had a boyfriend, and he didn't want to fight....the boyfriend launched a punch at his face. All I saw was a blur, and the boyfriend hit the wall with his head down, and fall to the floor on his neck and head....not sure how hurt he was, but it was over like that. I know now, that he executed a tsuki kaitenage....

2. I was in a seedy bar with some friends, just after getting out of the Navy. We were playing pool, and a couple of tables over, there were some guys in their early 30's playing pool and hanging out. There were some older biker dudes there, and one of them was getting pretty drunk, he came over to the other guys tables and started making fun of them. They asked him to leave....one of them was pretty cocky and called him basically a filthy drunk.....he got pissed....grabbed a pool cue and swung at one of the other ones holding it like a baseball bat...again...flash, and the drunk guy was flying over a bar table knocking the chairs over. He got up, and at this point the bouncers were there and kicking them all out basically. I know now, that he executed an udekimenage  on that guy....

3. The last time was a blend of Aikido w some other stuff. Was at a bar hanging out when I saw an argument break out...no idea what it was about, but this rather big guy grabbed a rather skinny younger guy by his shirt collar...bam....the skinny guy hit him with a technique and the guy screamed and dropped, and then he kneed him in the gut, and as the big guy leaned forward, slammed his head into an iron railing. Fight over. Again, bouncers all over it. Now, I know......it was a nikyo into a muy thai type knee strike to the abdomen, into a head slam.

Aikido works well for these types of situations...against another fighter who is trained and won't commit? It won't work well at all.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Ironbear24 said:


> It all depends on the skill level and individual. If the aikidoka were to be experienced that would not happen. If they are new then it is anyone's guess.


I'd still put my money on a BJJ blue belt or a white belt with a few years of BJJ training. I'd also put my money on a few year kick boxer over  most black belts in aikido during a sparring match. 

Now on a side note most shodan aikido could probably handle themselves decently against a non trained street thug which is perfectly fine for most aikidoka. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Paul_D said:


> True, but that's more to do with the misunderstanding within the MMA community.   Aikido isn't designed for sparring, or for scoring points in a sporting contest, hence when you put it into an environment that it is not designed to work in, it doesn't work in that environment.  That shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone.  You can't saw a piece of wood in half with a screwdriver, doesn't mean we should all hate screwdrivers though.



I don't hate aikido I was just giving my opinion of why allot of MMA clown aikido. I actually currently study Aikido and know it has allot of concepts to offer if trained appropriately. 

I also personally think the results would be worst for the aikidoka if it wasnt a sparring match and if it was no rule fight.  


Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

Spinedoc, that video you posted in the other thread is very relevant here.  It seems like, even within the Aikido community, there is a schism. 

I love what Roy Dean says about a scientific method of rediscovering effectiveness.  As he says in his video, a lot of people want socialization etc, but they don't want the uncomfortable reality of failure.  YES!    As an Aikidoka and a BJJ black belt, maybe he will not be written off as a BJJ or MMA fanboy and summarily dismissed.


----------



## Steve

oaktree said:


> I think you will get many answers even if Ueshiba could talk at different times in his life he may give you different answers.
> 
> Interview with Morihei Ueshiba and Kisshomaru Ueshiba


Quite an article.  It does reinforce my belief that "Defense against Aikido" is called the "don't attack" defense. 

Seriously, though, it appears that Aikido, at least in its later years, is a kind of ritualized physical activity, sharing much in common with Tai Chi.  Meditative, spiritual and healthful, with a historical, martial base.


----------



## Ironbear24

ST1Doppelganger said:


> I'd still put my money on a BJJ blue belt or a white belt with a few years of BJJ training. I'd also put my money on a few year kick boxer over  most black belts in aikido during a sparring match.
> 
> Now on a side note most shodan aikido could probably handle themselves decently against a non trained street thug which is perfectly fine for most aikidoka.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk



What a way to insult an art.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Instead of waiting for your opponent to come in toward you (conservative approach), you can use "arm drag" to drag your opponent around (aggressive approach),

1. if your opponent "yields" into you, you can

- borrow his force,
- drag him a bit faster,
- move in circle,
- give him all the space that he will need,
- press down on his neck, and
- take him down forward.

2. if your opponent "resists" against you, you can

- borrow his force,
- change your drag into push,
- pick up his leading leg,
- push down on his neck, and
- take him down backward.

This is a perfect Aikido strategy that fully make sense and combat effective.


----------



## Buka

That BJJ stuff? That Aikido Stuff? That Kickboxing stuff? That Karate stuff?


----------



## Headhunter

ST1Doppelganger said:


> I'd still put my money on a BJJ blue belt or a white belt with a few years of BJJ training. I'd also put my money on a few year kick boxer over  most black belts in aikido during a sparring match.
> 
> Now on a side note most shodan aikido could probably handle themselves decently against a non trained street thug which is perfectly fine for most aikidoka.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


Then you'd be risking your money since there's no guarantees in any fight. How many times must it be said for some people to understand it doesn't matter what your style is, it's the practitioner that matters.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> True, but that's more to do with the misunderstanding within the MMA community.   Aikido isn't designed for sparring, or for scoring points in a sporting contest, hence when you put it into an environment that it is not designed to work in, it doesn't work in that environment.  That shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone.  You can't saw a piece of wood in half with a screwdriver, doesn't mean we should all hate screwdrivers though.



Yeah.  Identifying the right screw for aikodos screwdriver is the thing. 

It seems to contradict its own ideas.


----------



## drop bear

ST1Doppelganger said:


> I don't hate aikido I was just giving my opinion of why allot of MMA clown aikido. I actually currently study Aikido and know it has allot of concepts to offer if trained appropriately.
> 
> I also personally think the results would be worst for the aikidoka if it wasnt a sparring match and if it was no rule fight.
> 
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk



No real evidence of an aikidoka winning a fight.  So even if we don't put styles theoretically head to head.  You would reasonably look that when determining effective fighting.


----------



## drop bear

Spinedoc said:


> This is an interesting question. Aikido to me is designed for chaos. Here's what I mean by that. Aikido only works with a committed attack. Aikido practitioners ALWAYS, ALWAYS assume there are multiple attackers. That whoever is attacking has at least one friend if not more. We also ALWAYS assume that they have a weapon. We assume we are in, as one high ranking Sensei told me once, a "gang war".....
> 
> Aikido does not work well with one on one sparring/competition. If someone will not commit to an attack, I simply back up and won't even engage with them. If someone just jabs and tries to throw probing attacks, I simply back up and leave...I won't even try to do anything, not until they try to grab, rush, or step into an attack, otherwise it's not worth doing anything.
> 
> I've seen Aikido used 3 times in real life, all before I was even studying Aikido, and all with brutal effectiveness. I honestly didn't even know what it was until I started studying Aikido years ago, and went...ahhhh, that's what that was.
> 
> 1. I was in the US Navy and was at a party, some guy was making out with a girl, when the girls boyfriend showed up...the first guy backed up, saying he didn't know she had a boyfriend, and he didn't want to fight....the boyfriend launched a punch at his face. All I saw was a blur, and the boyfriend hit the wall with his head down, and fall to the floor on his neck and head....not sure how hurt he was, but it was over like that. I know now, that he executed a tsuki kaitenage....
> 
> 2. I was in a seedy bar with some friends, just after getting out of the Navy. We were playing pool, and a couple of tables over, there were some guys in their early 30's playing pool and hanging out. There were some older biker dudes there, and one of them was getting pretty drunk, he came over to the other guys tables and started making fun of them. They asked him to leave....one of them was pretty cocky and called him basically a filthy drunk.....he got pissed....grabbed a pool cue and swung at one of the other ones holding it like a baseball bat...again...flash, and the drunk guy was flying over a bar table knocking the chairs over. He got up, and at this point the bouncers were there and kicking them all out basically. I know now, that he executed an udekimenage  on that guy....
> 
> 3. The last time was a blend of Aikido w some other stuff. Was at a bar hanging out when I saw an argument break out...no idea what it was about, but this rather big guy grabbed a rather skinny younger guy by his shirt collar...bam....the skinny guy hit him with a technique and the guy screamed and dropped, and then he kneed him in the gut, and as the big guy leaned forward, slammed his head into an iron railing. Fight over. Again, bouncers all over it. Now, I know......it was a nikyo into a muy thai type knee strike to the abdomen, into a head slam.
> 
> Aikido works well for these types of situations...against another fighter who is trained and won't commit? It won't work well at all.



I am not sure i am sold on this idea that training exclusively for multiple attackers with weapons is a good thing. 

I endorse conservative,basic and safe for self defense.  And i think you start to move away from that with multiples and weapons.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> No real evidence of an aikidoka winning a fight.  So even if we don't put styles theoretically head to head.  You would reasonably look that when determining effective fighting.



So no aikidoka has ever won a fight in the history of the world?



drop bear said:


> I am not sure i am sold on this idea that training exclusively for multiple attackers with weapons is a good thing.
> 
> I endorse conservative,basic and safe for self defense.  And i think you start to move away from that with multiples and weapons.



Then don't be shocked when your students panic against an attacker with a weapon.


----------



## drop bear

Ironbear24 said:


> So no aikidoka has ever won a fight in the history of the world?
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't be shocked when your students panic against an attacker with a weapon.



Aikido has one fights. But that isn't really evidence. Swimmers have won fights.  You would want to see a trend.

Every single time i have fought a guy with a weapon.  I have panicked. It is scary stuff.

Actually fighting multiples is pretty bloody scary as well.


----------



## Ironbear24

drop bear said:


> Aikido has one fights. But that isn't really evidence. Swimmers have won fights.  You would want to see a trend.
> 
> Every single time i have fought a guy with a weapon.  I have panicked. It is scary stuff.
> 
> Actually fighting multiples is pretty bloody scary as well.



You shouldn't panic. That's what the training is for. It sounds stupid to say and is very easier said than done but that is the reality of it. You must have done something right since you are alive but your odds are better with training for it


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Every single time i have fought a guy with a weapon.  I have panicked. It is scary stuff.



Having also dealt with armed opponents (which I think we can all agree is not super common) I find this statement interesting, and I'd like you to expand on it, if you would.
I wouldn't say I've ever panicked. Do I get a huge adrenaline dump? Yes. But I've never panicked. By definition, if you're panicking, you're incapable of thought or, really, any sort of sensible, coordinated, response. Which means you're likely to be very unhappy with the outcome of the conflict. Assuming you're alive to be unhappy.
Are you saying you basically fall apart after the confrontation is over? That makes a lot more sense, honestly, but I don't think "panic" would be the correct term. in most cases.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

I hate everything.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Bill Mattocks said:


> I hate everything.



Kittens. Puppies. Chocolate. Caffeine.

There. Proved you wrong.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Dirty Dog said:


> Kittens. Puppies. Chocolate. Caffeine.
> 
> There. Proved you wrong.



I will fong you!


----------



## Spinedoc

drop bear said:


> Aikido has one fights. But that isn't really evidence. Swimmers have won fights.  You would want to see a trend.
> 
> Every single time i have fought a guy with a weapon.  I have panicked. It is scary stuff.
> 
> Actually fighting multiples is pretty bloody scary as well.



I understand what you are saying, but the above question was what was Aikido meant for? I answered that...this is how and what we train for. The bar fight when 3 people are running at you, or in the dark alley when someone pulls a knife and their buddy is right behind them....this is what we train for.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Aikido works just fine for what it is designed for. 

Here we see a police officer utilizing an Aikido like technique easily and disarming a knife:






I know Aikidoka who have worked in law enforcement, corrections, etc.  They were all pleased with the efficiency of their chosen system.


----------



## Steve

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Aikido works just fine for what it is designed for.
> 
> Here we see a police officer utilizing an Aikido like technique easily and disarming a knife:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know Aikidoka who have worked in law enforcement, corrections, etc.  They were all pleased with the efficiency of their chosen system.


Okay.   All kidding aside, according to what has been called aikido, that wasn't it.  That disarm could also be called "kenpo like" or "Krav maga like."

Where was the aiki?  Where was the philosophy of ueshiba?  The bad guy fed him literally zero energy, which is anathema to what aikido is said to be all about.  Isn't it?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

That there was an Aiki jujutsu technique that could be from many systems in South East Asia.  Yet, that is an Aikido technique in application. 

As to the movement of the police officer.  There was distraction, blending, etc. it was all there.  I am sorry you cannot see it Steve.


----------



## Steve

you're sorry I cannot see that?  Lol.  Could you be more patronizing?

Jesus Christ.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

What is your problem Steve.  I was not being patronizing at all to you!


----------



## Steve

Brian R. VanCise said:


> What is your problem Steve.  I was not being patronizing at all to you!


I'm sorry you cannot see it, Brian.  But please, since I can't ignore you....


----------



## oaktree

Steve said:


> Quite an article.  It does reinforce my belief that "Defense against Aikido" is called the "don't attack" defense.
> 
> Seriously, though, it appears that Aikido, at least in its later years, is a kind of ritualized physical activity, sharing much in common with Tai Chi.  Meditative, spiritual and healthful, with a historical, martial base.


Well understand what is said was when the founder has already gone through war and real life and death challenges. I think due to his very religious experiences and seeing combat his focus started to focus on a more higher calling. Understand that Japanese at least more modern times do not view learning martial arts for self defense, the idea that learning for street effectiveness doesn't apply in a place that is relatively safe at least when I was in Japan talking about self defense. Aikido at least before ww2 was a lot more brutal and more in line with Daito Ryu aikijujutsu.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

It would seem you have an issue with me Steve.  Sorry that you feel that way.  I have absolutely no problem with you.  Just so we understand each other!


----------



## oaktree

Steve said:


> Okay.   All kidding aside, according to what has been called aikido, that wasn't it.  That disarm could also be called "kenpo like" or "Krav maga like."
> 
> Where was the aiki?  Where was the philosophy of ueshiba?  The bad guy fed him literally zero energy, which is anathema to what aikido is said to be all about.  Isn't it?


Well it was a recognize technique kote gaeshi. The aiki is found in the leg that sweeps him.  Understand the word 合气 has also the meaning of unbalancing. Borrowing a person's force and redirecting it is another principle it still follows the concept of unbalancing. To really understand aiki principles is to undertake swordsmanship.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> It would seem you have an issue with me Steve.  Sorry that you feel that way.  I have absolutely no problem with you.  Just so we understand each other!



Not an akido technique. Not the blending not the distraction. Nothing.  

A martial arts technique that many people have learned in many different styles. 

Don't stress about steve.  Ok.  Suggesting he doesn't understand the mechanics of the bjj wristlock in the video might bite a bit.  But he will get over it.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

No worries drop bear.

It is a technique from Aikido.  I recently had the opportunity this summer to work out with one of your mates from down under Mal McRae and that as Oaktree also explained it is Kote Gaeshi from Aikido.  It is also Omote Gyaku from Budo Taijutsu and yes you can find it in many other systems.
Still that does not mean it is not an Aikido technique!


----------



## Steve

oaktree said:


> Well understand what is said was when the founder has already gone through war and real life and death challenges. I think due to his very religious experiences and seeing combat his focus started to focus on a more higher calling. Understand that Japanese at least more modern times do not view learning martial arts for self defense, the idea that learning for street effectiveness doesn't apply in a place that is relatively safe at least when I was in Japan talking about self defense. Aikido at least before ww2 was a lot more brutal and more in line with Daito Ryu aikijujutsu.


There's a good point there.   Often the founders of these styles had similar backgrounds.  Whether it's aikido, karate or BJJ.   In another thread, someone mentioned how common it was for samurai to become Buddhist monks later in life.    The problem occurs, I think, when people try to skip the violent parts and jump right to the peaceful parts.  

And I really enjoyed that article you linked to earlier.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Dirty Dog said:


> Having also dealt with armed opponents (which I think we can all agree is not super common) I find this statement interesting, and I'd like you to expand on it, if you would.
> I wouldn't say I've ever panicked. Do I get a huge adrenaline dump? Yes. But I've never panicked. By definition, if you're panicking, you're incapable of thought or, really, any sort of sensible, coordinated, response. Which means you're likely to be very unhappy with the outcome of the conflict. Assuming you're alive to be unhappy.
> Are you saying you basically fall apart after the confrontation is over? That makes a lot more sense, honestly, but I don't think "panic" would be the correct term. in most cases.



Oaktree, I'm curious what it is about this that you disagree with. 
Do you think that panic is conducive to clear, rational thinking?
Do you think it's unreasonable to fall apart (by which I mean come over all shaky and weak kneed) after an armed confrontation?
Or is it that you think dealing with armed attackers is a common, everyday occurrence for the average person?


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

oaktree said:


> Well understand what is said was when the founder has already gone through war and real life and death challenges. I think due to his very religious experiences and seeing combat his focus started to focus on a more higher calling. Understand that Japanese at least more modern times do not view learning martial arts for self defense, the idea that learning for street effectiveness doesn't apply in a place that is relatively safe at least when I was in Japan talking about self defense. Aikido at least before ww2 was a lot more brutal and more in line with Daito Ryu aikijujutsu.



Very well said. 

Probably one of the issues that divides allot of aikido practitioners is the fact that some aikidoka want to train the way it was taught in the earlier years and then you have the ones that want to train the way it was taught in the later years. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

Spinedoc said:


> I understand what you are saying, but the above question was what was Aikido meant for? I answered that...this is how and what we train for. The bar fight when 3 people are running at you, or in the dark alley when someone pulls a knife and their buddy is right behind them....this is what we train for.



So how do you determine you can handle 3 guys in a bar fight?


----------



## drop bear

oaktree said:


> Well it was a recognize technique kote gaeshi. The aiki is found in the leg that sweeps him.  Understand the word 合气 has also the meaning of unbalancing. Borrowing a person's force and redirecting it is another principle it still follows the concept of unbalancing. To really understand aiki principles is to undertake swordsmanship.



Which is what i said about finding Aiki in all martial arts. See it looks like a throw that just uses pressure. But has aiki as well.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> No worries drop bear.
> 
> It is a technique from Aikido.  I recently had the opportunity this summer to work out with one of your mates from down under Mal McRae and that as Oaktree also explained it is Kote Gaeshi from Aikido.  It is also Omote Gyaku from Budo Taijutsu and yes you can find it in many other systems.
> Still that does not mean it is not an Aikido technique!



And so a cake is eggs? We know aikido has that technique. But it would be like saying kung fu works in MMA because we see a vertical fist.

There is a whole lot more to the methodology of the system than seeing one generic move work.


----------



## oaktree

Dirty Dog said:


> Oaktree, I'm curious what it is about this that you disagree with.
> Do you think that panic is conducive to clear, rational thinking?
> Do you think it's unreasonable to fall apart (by which I mean come over all shaky and weak kneed) after an armed confrontation?
> Or is it that you think dealing with armed attackers is a common, everyday occurrence for the average person?


You can't be logical when you panic. I think being shaky after is normal. I am unsure what I said before that made you think I disagree with you.


----------



## oftheherd1

JP3 said:


> I just pointed out that aikido tournaments exist... I specifically did NOT vouch for their efficacy!
> 
> Those aikido tournaments are a rules-based structure, like any tournament... in other words, they are a game. In games, the knives don't have edges, at least not in that game, them's the rules boss.
> 
> But, unfortunately, games are not reality, so most of those dudes would, and I hate to say this about another aikido person trying their best to be legitimate... probably be bleeding out and wondering why. Not to say I wouldn't be lying there as well, I'd just not be at all confused by what had just happened.
> 
> Fight against a knife, get cut. End of tale. Maybe not dead-cut, but cut always. Unless the once in a lifetime universal continuum aligned in a perfect north-sough galactic axis spiral with purple snowflakes appearing in the out rim of galaxies, then maybe someone doesn't get cut. Pretty much any other time.



In the Hapkido I learned, knife defense is taught so that one doesn't get cut.  But as with all techniques, you must be fast and accurate.


----------



## oaktree

Steve said:


> There's a good point there.   Often the founders of these styles had similar backgrounds.  Whether it's aikido, karate or BJJ.   In another thread, someone mentioned how common it was for samurai to become Buddhist monks later in life.    The problem occurs, I think, when people try to skip the violent parts and jump right to the peaceful parts.
> 
> And I really enjoyed that article you linked to earlier.


Well Steve I can say that is why I became a Buddhist priest. I think if one lives through hardship such as violence you have two choices one is to continue down that path which will eventually destroy you and others or the alternative to seek peace and help others and I think that is what also happen to founder he saw a chance for his art to become more than just an art that taught violence and self defense, but an art that also taught understanding of the spiritual development.


----------



## oftheherd1

ST1Doppelganger said:


> I'd still put my money on a BJJ blue belt or a white belt with a few years of BJJ training. I'd also put my money on a few year kick boxer over  most black belts in aikido during a sparring match.
> 
> Now on a side note most shodan aikido could probably handle themselves decently against a non trained street thug which is perfectly fine for most aikidoka.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk



You might be right.  But I seriously doubt it.  Of course on any given day, if your opponent is having the best day of his MA life, and you are having the worst, that will likely affect the outcome.


----------



## oftheherd1

Steve said:


> Quite an article.  It does reinforce my belief that "Defense against Aikido" is called the "don't attack" defense.
> 
> Seriously, though, it appears that Aikido, at least in its later years, is a kind of ritualized physical activity, sharing much in common with Tai Chi.  Meditative, spiritual and healthful, with a historical, martial base.



Brilliant! 

The weakness of Aikido has finally been outed.  Thanks Steve.


----------



## oaktree

Dirty Dog said:


> Oaktree, I'm curious what it is about this that you disagree with.
> Do you think that panic is conducive to clear, rational thinking?
> Do you think it's unreasonable to fall apart (by which I mean come over all shaky and weak kneed) after an armed confrontation?
> Or is it that you think dealing with armed attackers is a common, everyday occurrence for the average person?


I see what happen I hit disagree by mistake or computer error sorry about that


----------



## Spinedoc

drop bear said:


> So how do you determine you can handle 3 guys in a bar fight?



You don't know until it actually happens, but we train with that in mind. We start beginners with what we call zombie randori. Basically, they stand in the middle while everyone acts like zombies and starts walking at them slowly. The goal is to learn tai sabaki and MOVE.....not really even execute techniques. Then as you advance you may start doing 2 person randori w one specific attack, usually ryote katadori to start. Then as you advance further, it eventually becomes a true randori, with 2-5 people attacking, and any attack is legitimate. Sometimes we even do 3 person weapons randori, where you will have someone attacking with a tanto, bokken, and jo. Obviously, the attacks are somewhat staggered with weapons to avoid anyone getting hurt, but not by much.

There are some solid principles to dealing with multiple attackers such as moving towards an attacker, and selecting the next one to deal with. Irimi, tenkan, movement....working the edges to avoid collapsing in the middle. Is it perfect? No, far from it....does it mean you will kick the **** out of multiple attackers if they come? No, not necessarily, but by training for it, even if that training is not how you would do it, we feel a little more comfortable handling that situation. YMMV.

Mike


----------



## Tony Dismukes

gpseymour said:


> Aikido's principles are not designed around being usable for competition. Any skilled Aikidoka, for instance, can nullify most Aikido techniques. So, have tow skilled Aikidoka competing, and you have to stop looking for the "aiki" in your Aikido, and it starts to look more like Judo competitions. The same would be true for the Aikidoka facing anyone experienced in grappling (standing or ground). And since the opponent has a chance to study you, they know you're going to use aiki, and even the strikers will know to under-commit, taking away much of the "aiki". In a committed attack, that doesn't happen.


Been meaning to reply to this, but I've been fighting off a bug for the last couple of weeks and my brain has been a bit too fuzzy for writing coherently very much.

I think there is more aiki occurring in Judo competition than you see, but it only happens for split seconds at a time, which makes it hard to perceive.

As you note, an experienced grappler will know to maintain a solid, well-balanced base and avoid overcommitting momentum. So as a judoka, you start the match by trying to disrupt that base with kuzushi - pulling, pushing, maybe throwing a few light foot sweeps. No aiki so far. You can generally assume that your opponent's base will be good enough that you can't just pull him off his base and into a throw right away. But he _does_ have to react to that kuzushi somehow. If he doesn't, then his base and posture will become progressively more compromised and you _will_ be able to just step in and force the throw. So then you try to time his reaction to your kuzushi and use it to your advantage. Perhaps you pull him forward and as he resists that action you switch your direction to move with his energy for a backwards throw. It's still not aiki, because he's just adjusting his posture and not giving you enough energy to complete the throw. But now you're coming in with what you've referred to in other comments as "Judo mechanics", applying powerful kuzushi, body alignment, leverage, etc to force the throw. Since your opponent was already moving in the same direction anyway, it's a lot harder for him to just settle into his base and stuff the throw. Now he has to commit to a bigger action to stop your entry or launch an counter-attack of his own. In this moment, one or both players have finally committed to some serious momentum. This is the moment where the opportunity exists for one of the judoka to find that perfect timing, that perfect positioning, to blend with their opponent's movement and make the throw completely effortless. The match may have gone on for four minutes, but the aiki happened in just a split second at the end. (Furthermore, the aiki opportunity would not have arisen if not for the other threats which were brought to bear beforehand.)

It doesn't always happen, of course. More often the judoka will compromise the opponent's balance just enough or blend with their energy just enough so that when he or she enters with a forceful throw using good body mechanics the opponent cannot adjust in time. I believe this is what you mean when you refer to "Judo approach" as opposed to "Aiki approach". But it does happen. I'm a crappy judoka myself (probably equivalent to a mediocre brown belt when it comes to throws) and I've experienced multiple times that sense of my opponent seeming to throw himself with no real effort on my part. I'm sure any high-level judoka has experienced it much more frequently.

The Nage no Kata practiced in Judo took some getting used to when I had the opportunity to practice it. It basically requires the uke to deliver the sort of energy you might see in an Aikido demo. When performing the uke role I felt like I was expected to practically throw myself and it took concentration to not ground myself and adjust my base to avoid doing so. Afterwards I came up with the theory that the purpose of the kata is do simulate that "aiki" feel of the ideal throw where the opponent gives you all the energy you need to and all you have to do is let the throw happen. Since randori and shiai typically require a lot more aggressive work it would be easy for a judoka to fall into the mindset of always athletically forcing the throw. Doing the kata may be meant as a reminder to recognize and use those "aiki" opportunities when they occur.

The Aikido folks here can correct me if I'm wrong, but from watching classes and demos and reading things written by Aikido practitioners, it seems like most Aikido practice is commonly focused more around the idea of the opponent feeding you that fully (or over-) committed attack energy continuously right from the beginning so they never have to apply anything _but_ aiki. Obviously this is problematic for competition. There's a greater chance of an untrained street attacker giving you that kind of energy, but you can't necessarily count on it in that context either. I do think there is value in recognizing and being able to use the opportunities for aiki when they occur. Even more value if you have the skills to provoke your opponent into creating those opportunities. I'm just not sure that training in a context where your uke gives you the openings to apply aiki for free every time is the best way to develop those abilities.

Thoughts?


----------



## oaktree

To help address what aiki is

Aiki: the term we toss about glibly whose meaning  no one agrees on by Stanley Pranin


----------



## Buka

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Aikido works just fine for what it is designed for.
> 
> Here we see a police officer utilizing an Aikido like technique easily and disarming a knife:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know Aikidoka who have worked in law enforcement, corrections, etc.  They were all pleased with the efficiency of their chosen system.



That was nicely done. I enjoyed that clip.

I don't know where that is originally from, what it is called by whom - or who, if any, have a problem with it. But it sure worked okay. 

Life as an infidel is sometimes easy.


----------



## JP3

Tony Dismukes said:


> Thoughts?



I agree with most of what you've said, and like with Gerry, I think the difference  in what I think as vs. yours is based in my definitional nomenclature, as I've grown to understand it.  For me... I tend to think there's aiki all over the place, to be taken advantage of and used, whereas to me it appears that you and Gerry share the viewpoint that for it to be aiki at all it needs to fall into that well-nigh effortless category.  You guys may be right, I'm not so awesome or arrogant to assert that my concept defeats yours. However, in explanation, in yours above you're discussing the increasing breakdown of posture inherent in the opponent-uke, using kuzushi to induce movement or affect posture, and I think there's aiki all over the Subtle application of "building" kuzushi as you described above.


----------



## Spinedoc

I think the whole concept of Aiki though has little to do with techniques, at least as I have been taught. In a general sense it has nothing to with external movements or harmonizing with an opponent, etc. It has to do with harmonizing with your own spirit internally. It's difficult to explain to be honest....


----------



## Steve




----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> I agree with most of what you've said, and like with Gerry, I think the difference  in what I think as vs. yours is based in my definitional nomenclature, as I've grown to understand it.  For me... I tend to think there's aiki all over the place, to be taken advantage of and used, whereas to me it appears that you and Gerry share the viewpoint that for it to be aiki at all it needs to fall into that well-nigh effortless category.  You guys may be right, I'm not so awesome or arrogant to assert that my concept defeats yours. However, in explanation, in yours above you're discussing the increasing breakdown of posture inherent in the opponent-uke, using kuzushi to induce movement or affect posture, and I think there's aiki all over the Subtle application of "building" kuzushi as you described above.



The pure aiki idea seems to be a way of exploring a concept. 

Like doing boxing to learn to punch.


----------



## drop bear

Spinedoc said:


> I think the whole concept of Aiki though has little to do with techniques, at least as I have been taught. In a general sense it has nothing to with external movements or harmonizing with an opponent, etc. It has to do with harmonizing with your own spirit internally. It's difficult to explain to be honest....



Even then it doesn't separate itself from other martial arts.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

JP3 said:


> I agree with most of what you've said, and like with Gerry, I think the difference  in what I think as vs. yours is based in my definitional nomenclature, as I've grown to understand it.  For me... I tend to think there's aiki all over the place, to be taken advantage of and used, whereas to me it appears that you and Gerry share the viewpoint that for it to be aiki at all it needs to fall into that well-nigh effortless category.  You guys may be right, I'm not so awesome or arrogant to assert that my concept defeats yours. However, in explanation, in yours above you're discussing the increasing breakdown of posture inherent in the opponent-uke, using kuzushi to induce movement or affect posture, and I think there's aiki all over the Subtle application of "building" kuzushi as you described above.


I'm not attached to any particular definition of aiki. I'm just going with what seems to be the most commonly expressed ideas I see from Aikido practitioners regarding what it means in order to be able to communicate. I'm happy to go with any other explanation as long as it enables us to have a conversation and understand what we're talking about.


----------



## JP3

oftheherd1 said:


> In the Hapkido I learned, knife defense is taught so that one doesn't get cut.  But as with all techniques, you must be fast and accurate.



   My own hapkido training had some of that too.  Fast & accurate, indeed. To be more precise, you needed to be Faster & more accurate than the person with the knife.  I don't know about your knife-defense, but ours had very little of the modern knife-fighting tactical points about it.  There were a couple simple cutting actions, mostly thrusts.
   Then I attended a long seminar from an Escrima/Arnis instructor on knife tactics and defense and my thoughts about what I knew, changed.  See Bill Maddox's post "On Studenting." Whew!  We were training fast, using Sharpie pens and other markers as the "knives" andmoving with some speed. Oh, I forgot to mention that the dress for the seminar was requested to be a new, or at least clean, white -T-shirt.  After the very first encounter, the instructor told everyone, OK look at everyone and you tell me who got cut and who didn't.  Every single person had marks on their hands and arms, and the only one without a mark or seven on the shirt was a particularly short girl... but she had a nifty line running down the left side of her neck. Ewww. Deader.  The seminar continued, much subdued, and although we got better witht he coaching, everyone still continued to get cut. It was How and Where you were getting cut that mattered.



Spinedoc said:


> I think the whole concept of Aiki though has little to do with techniques, at least as I have been taught. In a general sense it has nothing to with external movements or harmonizing with an opponent, etc. It has to do with harmonizing with your own spirit internally. It's difficult to explain to be honest....



IMO what you are trying to describe appears to me to be from the later lines of aikido teachers, such as Tohei's Ki Society (his group way to the extreme left of a continuum on this topic), Tohei Sensei's viewpoint is at the opposite end of teaching as that of Kenji Tomiki or Gozo Shioda.  For me, I break down that pedagogical difference as Tohei's persuit of the use of Ki as an end in and of itself, and at the other... end, I guess we'd call it, is the thought that Ki is something that is shown and felt when everything else is done correctly, or falls into place out of good fortune, i.e. you got lucky.

Either viewpoint is valid, I think. Each teaching methodology brings about skilled people, so... *shrug*


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Well, for the record, I only suggest that if you say your art is effective, you should be prepared to share your definition of effective.  And if you can't, that's a problem.
> 
> So, for example.  When you say "20 years to high competency," what do you mean by high competency.  What can a highly competent aikidoka do?  We know that this doesn't mean "able to compete in MMA."  And that's fine,  but what does it mean?
> 
> And then further, how does one know if their own aikido skills meet your own criteria for "high competency?"


It's not my statement, so I don't think I'm the authority on what it means. I've heard versions of it from multiple people within Ueshiba's art. I believe they meant being able to use the techniques easily, fully flowing, regardless of the attack.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm not attached to any particular definition of aiki. I'm just going with what seems to be the most commonly expressed ideas I see from Aikido practitioners regarding what it means in order to be able to communicate. I'm happy to go with any other explanation as long as it enables us to have a conversation and understand what we're talking about.


Here's something interesting Jonathan Wilson posted on ngaexperience.com this month. He's quoting Pranin Sensei on his experience in taking ukemi from several high-level practitioners of Ueshiba's Aikido (including some offshoots) and Daito-ryu.


> The Late Stanley Pranin on his experiences taking ukemi from aikido and daito-ryu masters.
> 
> Noriaki Inoue (Aikido):  I was thrown by him when he was an old man, but he was still powerful.
> 
> Saito Sensei (Pranin's Sensei): was a supurb tecnnician, perfect tecnnique, powerful, and precise.  He had a computer for a mind, and a labyrth organizational system that cataloged everything he had learned from O'Sensei.
> 
> Kondo Sensei (Daito-ryu):  Was a like a bull.  Really strong, powerful and you said a small prayer before you grabbed him.  Very effective and dangerous.
> 
> Tokemuni Sensei:  He threw me a little bit in suwari waza.  He was stronger than Saito Sensei if you can believe that, and he was powerful, even though he had lost weight.
> 
> I saw Sagawa Sensei.  He was one of the most famous Daito-ryu teachers but he was reclusive, and he didn't want to teach foriegners.  He was very hard to see, and when I was finally able to see him, they wouldn't let me touch him.
> 
> Kimouri Sensei threw me many times.  He was very, very good.
> 
> Tomiki Sensei ~ I met him on about three occassions he was powerful, but less technical.
> 
> Shioda Sensei ~ his aikido was like an explosion, but he wasn't using power.  It was based on precision, positioning, timing, and ki.  He would throw his uchi-deshi very hard.  At many points, I thought he may have injured them.  He was very good, and he was so small.  He probably weighed less than 100 pounds.  He was O'Sensei's height, and thin.
> 
> On Aiki:  There was aiki with all of these men, but there are different types of aiki.  Some forms of aiki are like a caress.  They move you so well that it's like the wind blowing through the trees, but other forms of Aiki are like an explosion.



It seems there's some significant difference in what one man (Pranin) experienced as "aiki" when receiving techniques from different people.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> What is aikido designed for?  I've asked this question several times, and only hear about more things it isn't.


I think that depends at which point you ask the question. Shioda was an early student, and his Aikido (Yoshinkan) is pretty clearly designed for defensive combat. Tohei was a later student, and his appears to be for development of ki.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> It's not my statement, so I don't think I'm the authority on what it means. I've heard versions of it from multiple people within Ueshiba's art. I believe they meant being able to use the techniques easily, fully flowing, regardless of the attack.


I know you seem to have a very healthy approach to training.   What is your criteria for measuring competency?


----------



## oftheherd1

JP3 said:


> My own hapkido training had some of that too.  Fast & accurate, indeed. *To be more precise, you needed to be Faster & more accurate than the person with the knife.*  I don't know about your knife-defense, but ours had very little of the modern knife-fighting tactical points about it.  There were a couple simple cutting actions, mostly thrusts.
> Then I attended a long seminar from an Escrima/Arnis instructor on knife tactics and defense and my thoughts about what I knew, changed.  See Bill Maddox's post "On Studenting." Whew!  We were training fast, using Sharpie pens and other markers as the "knives" andmoving with some speed. Oh, I forgot to mention that the dress for the seminar was requested to be a new, or at least clean, white -T-shirt.  After the very first encounter, the instructor told everyone, OK look at everyone and you tell me who got cut and who didn't.  Every single person had marks on their hands and arms, and the only one without a mark or seven on the shirt was a particularly short girl... but she had a nifty line running down the left side of her neck. Ewww. Deader.  The seminar continued, much subdued, and although we got better witht he coaching, everyone still continued to get cut. It was How and Where you were getting cut that mattered.
> ...



*Bolded:*  You are correct.  That is pretty much how all the Hapkido techniques I learned had to be done.  You are often moving into attacks.

Underlined:  We learned from up to down attacks, slicing attacks from either right or left, and yes, thrusts.  We also learned some sword defense.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I am not sure i am sold on this idea that training exclusively for multiple attackers with weapons is a good thing.
> 
> I endorse conservative,basic and safe for self defense.  And i think you start to move away from that with multiples and weapons.


Actually, we train similarly in NGA. The concept doesn't have to change things dramatically, but the changes are important. Here's are two parts of the difference between training with multiple attackers in mind, and with weapons in mind, versus training for sparring/competition:

With training for sparring, you need to be aware of surroundings enough that you don't back yourself into a corner (or you do back them in), that you have room for whatever you try next, etc. There's not much concern (in competition) that you'll be jumped by a second guy, so you can afford to focus more closely on a single person. Training for multiple attackers means always working to watch for the "other guy", keeping a secondary awareness for movement that might indicate someone stepping into the fight. Mind you, in many MMA gyms, there are a lot of folks training at the same time, so you're doing some of this awareness training. What you're likely not doing, though, is working on movement patterns to keep other people from your back, to control where the "room" is, in relationship to you and your opponent. That wouldn't be an important factor in most competition.
With an assumption there can always be a knife, there's no "taking a punch" (or variations thereof). In competition training, if a strike isn't effective for the ruleset (not hard enough, perhaps, in MM), then it can be partially ignored to allow you to enter and attack. With the assumption there may be a knife, we always defend every attack, even if it appears ineffective, because an ineffective punch can look a lot like a sloppy stab, which is far more effective. Will we still get hit sometimes? Sure, and we'll get "stabbed" by knife attacks, too. But we always defend every attack that could connect.
How important are those differences? I think they are very important. Others will disagree. I'm not sure there's a good way to settle that difference of opinion, and I'm okay with that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Okay.   All kidding aside, according to what has been called aikido, that wasn't it.  That disarm could also be called "kenpo like" or "Krav maga like."
> 
> Where was the aiki?  Where was the philosophy of ueshiba?  The bad guy fed him literally zero energy, which is anathema to what aikido is said to be all about.  Isn't it?


Not anathema. Just not my definition of "aiki". To me, not everything in Aikido must be fully aiki. There's a long continuum, and I teach a lot of things that are nowhere near the "high aiki" end of that continuum.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not an akido technique. Not the blending not the distraction. Nothing.
> 
> A martial arts technique that many people have learned in many different styles.
> 
> Don't stress about steve.  Ok.  Suggesting he doesn't understand the mechanics of the bjj wristlock in the video might bite a bit.  But he will get over it.


By the way, why do you refuse to spell Aikido and aiki properly?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I know you seem to have a very healthy approach to training.   What is your criteria for measuring competency?


For me, it's the ability to defend realistic attacks, to smoothly choose an appropriate technique (including strikes and non-aiki options), and to be able to work with some effectiveness against someone of similar level of training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

oftheherd1 said:


> In the Hapkido I learned, knife defense is taught so that one doesn't get cut.  But as with all techniques, you must be fast and accurate.


IMO knife defense should be taught to avoid getting cut, with the assumption that you will get cut, anyway. Sometimes people will manage to not get cut, but that should never be the expectation. I actually have seen places that stop the defense as soon as the defender gets cut. That's assuming every cut is disastrous, and is building bad habits.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

oftheherd1 said:


> Brilliant!
> 
> The weakness of Aikido has finally been outed.  Thanks Steve.


Another commonality with other styles, I think. Not attacking will stop pretty much anyone from successfully defending.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> Been meaning to reply to this, but I've been fighting off a bug for the last couple of weeks and my brain has been a bit too fuzzy for writing coherently very much.
> 
> I think there is more aiki occurring in Judo competition than you see, but it only happens for split seconds at a time, which makes it hard to perceive.
> 
> As you note, an experienced grappler will know to maintain a solid, well-balanced base and avoid overcommitting momentum. So as a judoka, you start the match by trying to disrupt that base with kuzushi - pulling, pushing, maybe throwing a few light foot sweeps. No aiki so far. You can generally assume that your opponent's base will be good enough that you can't just pull him off his base and into a throw right away. But he _does_ have to react to that kuzushi somehow. If he doesn't, then his base and posture will become progressively more compromised and you _will_ be able to just step in and force the throw. So then you try to time his reaction to your kuzushi and use it to your advantage. Perhaps you pull him forward and as he resists that action you switch your direction to move with his energy for a backwards throw. It's still not aiki, because he's just adjusting his posture and not giving you enough energy to complete the throw. But now you're coming in with what you've referred to in other comments as "Judo mechanics", applying powerful kuzushi, body alignment, leverage, etc to force the throw. Since your opponent was already moving in the same direction anyway, it's a lot harder for him to just settle into his base and stuff the throw. Now he has to commit to a bigger action to stop your entry or launch an counter-attack of his own. In this moment, one or both players have finally committed to some serious momentum. This is the moment where the opportunity exists for one of the judoka to find that perfect timing, that perfect positioning, to blend with their opponent's movement and make the throw completely effortless. The match may have gone on for four minutes, but the aiki happened in just a split second at the end. (Furthermore, the aiki opportunity would not have arisen if not for the other threats which were brought to bear beforehand.)
> 
> It doesn't always happen, of course. More often the judoka will compromise the opponent's balance just enough or blend with their energy just enough so that when he or she enters with a forceful throw using good body mechanics the opponent cannot adjust in time. I believe this is what you mean when you refer to "Judo approach" as opposed to "Aiki approach". But it does happen. I'm a crappy judoka myself (probably equivalent to a mediocre brown belt when it comes to throws) and I've experienced multiple times that sense of my opponent seeming to throw himself with no real effort on my part. I'm sure any high-level judoka has experienced it much more frequently.
> 
> The Nage no Kata practiced in Judo took some getting used to when I had the opportunity to practice it. It basically requires the uke to deliver the sort of energy you might see in an Aikido demo. When performing the uke role I felt like I was expected to practically throw myself and it took concentration to not ground myself and adjust my base to avoid doing so. Afterwards I came up with the theory that the purpose of the kata is do simulate that "aiki" feel of the ideal throw where the opponent gives you all the energy you need to and all you have to do is let the throw happen. Since randori and shiai typically require a lot more aggressive work it would be easy for a judoka to fall into the mindset of always athletically forcing the throw. Doing the kata may be meant as a reminder to recognize and use those "aiki" opportunities when they occur.
> 
> The Aikido folks here can correct me if I'm wrong, but from watching classes and demos and reading things written by Aikido practitioners, it seems like most Aikido practice is commonly focused more around the idea of the opponent feeding you that fully (or over-) committed attack energy continuously right from the beginning so they never have to apply anything _but_ aiki. Obviously this is problematic for competition. There's a greater chance of an untrained street attacker giving you that kind of energy, but you can't necessarily count on it in that context either. I do think there is value in recognizing and being able to use the opportunities for aiki when they occur. Even more value if you have the skills to provoke your opponent into creating those opportunities. I'm just not sure that training in a context where your uke gives you the openings to apply aiki for free every time is the best way to develop those abilities.
> 
> Thoughts?


That's a good explanation of where aiki shows up in Judo competition, Tony. And it fits my definition of the concept nicely. (As you can see in this thread, others may have a broader definition).

As for how Aikido folks (speaking here of Ueshiba's art, not the family of arts), I think that is a common practice for many of them. It has been in schools I've visited, though I'll admit I haven't been to many advanced/yudansha classes at those, so it's possible they include other types of attacks, as well.


----------



## oftheherd1

gpseymour said:


> IMO knife defense should be taught to avoid getting cut, with the assumption that you will get cut, anyway. Sometimes people will manage to not get cut, but that should never be the expectation. *I actually have seen places that stop the defense as soon as the defender gets cut. That's assuming every cut is disastrous, and is building bad habits*.



That seems to be a very sound practice, for the reason you stated.



gpseymour said:


> Another commonality with other styles, I think. Not attacking will stop pretty much anyone from successfully defending.



A Priori if there is no attack, there can be no offense.  Edit:  But I was being a little facetious in my answer to Steve.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> I agree with most of what you've said, and like with Gerry, I think the difference  in what I think as vs. yours is based in my definitional nomenclature, as I've grown to understand it.  For me... I tend to think there's aiki all over the place, to be taken advantage of and used, whereas to me it appears that you and Gerry share the viewpoint that for it to be aiki at all it needs to fall into that well-nigh effortless category.  You guys may be right, I'm not so awesome or arrogant to assert that my concept defeats yours. However, in explanation, in yours above you're discussing the increasing breakdown of posture inherent in the opponent-uke, using kuzushi to induce movement or affect posture, and I think there's aiki all over the Subtle application of "building" kuzushi as you described above.


I think the difference is all in how you use the term (part of Pranin's assertion in the article posted in this thread). If you and I threw away the term "aiki" (as Pranin did in his Zone Theory), we'd have little left to argue about. So, in the interest of interestingness....no, you're wrong. My definition is right, and always will be.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Spinedoc said:


> I think the whole concept of Aiki though has little to do with techniques, at least as I have been taught. In a general sense it has nothing to with external movements or harmonizing with an opponent, etc. It has to do with harmonizing with your own spirit internally. It's difficult to explain to be honest....


That sounds in line with how much of the later-lineage Aikido (Tohei, etc.) views aiki. It becomes almost a philosophical concept, rather than a physical principle of the technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


>


I disagree almost entirely with his initial point. That's one tool, and one that is not always available (for some of us, very sporadically). So, where he says "period", he's far overstating the case for concealed carry.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

oftheherd1 said:


> That seems to be a very sound practice, for the reason you stated.
> 
> 
> 
> A Priori if there is no attack, there can be no offense.  Edit:  But I was being a little facetious in my answer to Steve.


I knew you were being facetious, and I was following up with a semi-serious point (which you restated nicely). I'm not sure I'm making sense today - long night and a head cold. Not enough coffee to clear my brain today.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The pure aiki idea seems to be a way of exploring a concept.



That's my view of it. The only time I train pure-aiki is to explore the concept and the bounds of what it can do. The rest of the time, I work with a continuum, and try to work as far to the "aiki" end of that continuum as I can. I think that latter part is not so different in most grappling arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm not attached to any particular definition of aiki. I'm just going with what seems to be the most commonly expressed ideas I see from Aikido practitioners regarding what it means in order to be able to communicate. I'm happy to go with any other explanation as long as it enables us to have a conversation and understand what we're talking about.


Bah! Make it difficult, Tony!


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Another commonality with other styles, I think. Not attacking will stop pretty much anyone from successfully defending.


  Was said tongue in cheek.   The idea is that an aikidoka would never attack... so defending against... an, nevermind.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I disagree almost entirely with his initial point. That's one tool, and one that is not always available (for some of us, very sporadically). So, where he says "period", he's far overstating the case for concealed carry.


I don't know.  It's not an uncommon perspective, and is one that tends to be endorsed by cops, soldiers and pretty much anyone who is violent professionally.

FWIW, I agree in general.  For home defense, I think a firearm makes a lot of sense.  Concealed carry?   I haven't seen any real data to support it.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Here is another nice video of an Aikidoist involved in a brawl with a hooligan. 






Nice throw to control and the situation resolved!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I don't know.  It's not an uncommon perspective, and is one that tends to be endorsed by cops, soldiers and pretty much anyone who is violent professionally.
> 
> FWIW, I agree in general.  For home defense, I think a firearm makes a lot of sense.  Concealed carry?   I haven't seen any real data to support it.


It is a fairly common perspective, and it ignores some of the realities. Even if I'm not traveling, in NC there are a ton of places I can't carry. Nowhere people paid to get in (movies, theatre, opera, museums, etc.), anyplace anyone puts up any kind of sign (last I looked the law allowed a pretty wide range of signs) that disallows them (and many retailers do), anyplace that serves alcohol (I think that's right, it might be anyplace that has a bar). And when I'm working on a client site, I'm generally subject to their policy manual on most matters, including that. So, even when I'm not traveling, I am very restricted as to where I could carry, even with a permit. And with all those limitations, it'd be difficult to justify carrying most days (since I'd have to keep taking it off an leaving it in the car). Without consistent carry, the gun isn't an especially useful tool, since we can't predict when and where we'll need it.

And I'd be skeptical of the idea of a gun's usefulness in a lot of types of defensive situations. Like you, I haven't seen data that really supports how effectively it can be deployed, and any data we did have would be hopelessly confounded by the user's level of training and preparation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

gpseymour said:


> It is a fairly common perspective, and it ignores some of the realities. Even if I'm not traveling, in NC there are a ton of places I can't carry. Nowhere people paid to get in (movies, theatre, opera, museums, etc.), anyplace anyone puts up any kind of sign (last I looked the law allowed a pretty wide range of signs) that disallows them (and many retailers do), anyplace that serves alcohol (I think that's right, it might be anyplace that has a bar). And when I'm working on a client site, I'm generally subject to their policy manual on most matters, including that. So, even when I'm not traveling, I am very restricted as to where I could carry, even with a permit. And with all those limitations, it'd be difficult to justify carrying most days (since I'd have to keep taking it off an leaving it in the car). Without consistent carry, the gun isn't an especially useful tool, since we can't predict when and where we'll need it.
> 
> And I'd be skeptical of the idea of a gun's usefulness in a lot of types of defensive situations. Like you, I haven't seen data that really supports how effectively it can be deployed, and any data we did have would be hopelessly confounded by the user's level of training and preparation.


Wait, @Steve. Did we just manage to swerve from Aikido to firearms??? That's one hell of a swerve!


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> It is a fairly common perspective, and it ignores some of the realities. Even if I'm not traveling, in NC there are a ton of places I can't carry. Nowhere people paid to get in (movies, theatre, opera, museums, etc.), anyplace anyone puts up any kind of sign (last I looked the law allowed a pretty wide range of signs) that disallows them (and many retailers do), anyplace that serves alcohol (I think that's right, it might be anyplace that has a bar). And when I'm working on a client site, I'm generally subject to their policy manual on most matters, including that. So, even when I'm not traveling, I am very restricted as to where I could carry, even with a permit. And with all those limitations, it'd be difficult to justify carrying most days (since I'd have to keep taking it off an leaving it in the car). Without consistent carry, the gun isn't an especially useful tool, since we can't predict when and where we'll need it.
> 
> And I'd be skeptical of the idea of a gun's usefulness in a lot of types of defensive situations. Like you, I haven't seen data that really supports how effectively it can be deployed, and any data we did have would be hopelessly confounded by the user's level of training and preparation.


i do still agree with everything else the guy said, though.  but what really stppd out for me is the story he told of a fellow navy seal being confronted with the realization that his traditional approach to martial arts had not given him the skills he believed he had learned.  He could not do what he thought. 

If you understand the following point, you will get where I'm coming from in most of my posts.  I don't believe most martial arts teach you what you believe you are learning.  I try to explain this, and people mistake this as a desire to dictate training goals.  It's not.  If you are learning what you BELIEVE you are learning, all is well.  It's when you think you're learning something ("how to fight," "self defense," "how to defend against multiple attackers," "how to avoid being taken to the ground,") THAT'S when there's a problem.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*Pretty simple really:* 

Top priority Weapons/Tools for personal protection after that if you want to be overall effective you have to have skill sets in kicking, hand strikes, trapping and joint manipulation and grappling.  Wherever a violent confrontation goes you can either stay there if you are more efficient than your attacker or go to another area where you can dominate.  If you are only versed in one area and you cannot get it to that area or the other person is better than you then you probably have a serious problem.

*Weapns/Tools have to be the top priority for personal protection*.  Where Jocko makes the mistake in his video he focuses on firearms then right into grappling and western style striking placing knife/stick training last almost as an after thought.  While I also agree that someone trained the way he advise would be effective.  They should first focus on firearms, knives, sticks and then empty hand skill sets including al of the above I listed.  As a firearms instructor I always recommend that practitioner's that study underneath me get their ccw and regular firearms training.  However, that is just one tool to work with and they should be adept with other tools such as the knife, stick, etc.  *With all of that training you need to understand the law fully in your area!*


----------



## Spinedoc

gpseymour said:


> That sounds in line with how much of the later-lineage Aikido (Tohei, etc.) views aiki. It becomes almost a philosophical concept, rather than a physical principle of the technique.



It goes back even earlier than that. Aiki isn't simply blending with an opponent, it's more....It's a state of being if you will.

Aiki is Love, isn't it? Aiki isn't Love, is it? - Aikido Sangenkai


----------



## Buka

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Here is another nice video of an Aikidoist involved in a brawl with a hooligan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice throw to control and the situation resolved!



Note to any hooligans - see that little side to side strut he does? And the extended "ayight" fingers. Don't do that. It really pisses off people who know how to fight. 
He's lucky the man in the white shirt was nice.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> By the way, why do you refuse to spell Aikido and aiki properly?


I'd hazard a guess there's no "I" key on his keyboard. Or, in his brutal days of youth, someone bit off the tip of his right middle and ring fingers and the pinky won't reach that far...


----------



## Xue Sheng

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Pretty simple really:*
> 
> Top priority Weapons/Tools for personal protection after that if you want to be overall effective you have to have skill sets in kicking, hand strikes, trapping and joint manipulation and grappling.  Wherever a violent confrontation goes you can either stay there if you are more efficient than your attacker or go to another area where you can dominate.  If you are only versed in one area and you cannot get it to that area or the other person is better than you then you probably have a serious problem.
> 
> *Weapns/Tools have to be the top priority for personal protection*.  Where Jocko makes the mistake in his video he focuses on firearms then right into grappling and western style striking placing knife/stick training last almost as an after thought.  While I also agree that someone trained the way he advise would be effective.  They should first focus on firearms, knives, sticks and then empty hand skill sets including al of the above I listed.  As a firearms instructor I always recommend that practitioner's that study underneath me get their ccw and regular firearms training.  However, that is just one tool to work with and they should be adept with other tools such as the knife, stick, etc.  *With all of that training you need to understand the law fully in your area!*



Interesting, back when I was training police/military Sanda that was pretty much the opinion of my Shifu, Sanda was when for when you ran out of weapons or had none to use or you couldn't use them. Which was right up there with his other view which was Sanda is not hte best or most dangerous marital art, it is just a quick and easy way to learn how to hurt someone really badly.


----------



## JP3

Steve said:


> If you are learning what you BELIEVE you are learning, all is well.  It's when you think you're learning something ("how to fight," "self defense," "how to defend against multiple attackers," "how to avoid being taken to the ground,") THAT'S when there's a problem.



Karl Geis had an interesting viewpoint on this. If you always practice the same things, the same way, you very easily get into a self-referencing loop.  "Shoot, my stuff always works in class, so it will alwyays work."  In the legal field, that has another technical term, it's "Believing  your own bullsh*t."

Always go back and test what you are learning, against someone who has some motivation to not let you "do it." Can be simple uncooperativeness, or can be outright combat back in your face, but you have to test things to really find out.

Hard to do with full-tilt boogie knife defense though, isn't it. Well, more than once or twice, I suppose.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> By the way, why do you refuse to spell Aikido and aiki properly?


 Whenever I post from my phone, "you" autocorrects to "yiu" for some reason.   I just presumed it was something like that.


----------



## Steve

JP3 said:


> Karl Geis had an interesting viewpoint on this. If you always practice the same things, the same way, you very easily get into a self-referencing loop.  "Shoot, my stuff always works in class, so it will alwyays work."  In the legal field, that has another technical term, it's "Believing  your own bullsh*t."
> 
> Always go back and test what you are learning, against someone who has some motivation to not let you "do it." Can be simple uncooperativeness, or can be outright combat back in your face, but you have to test things to really find out.
> 
> *Hard to do with full-tilt boogie knife defense though, isn't it. Well, more than once or twice, I suppose*.


Totally agree.  A big, red flag when someone alleges to be a knife defense expert, though.   Isn't it?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Spinedoc said:


> It goes back even earlier than that. Aiki isn't simply blending with an opponent, it's more....It's a state of being if you will.
> 
> Aiki is Love, isn't it? Aiki isn't Love, is it? - Aikido Sangenkai


It is my understanding that this wasn't how Ueshiba described aiki early in his teaching.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Karl Geis had an interesting viewpoint on this. If you always practice the same things, the same way, you very easily get into a self-referencing loop.  "Shoot, my stuff always works in class, so it will alwyays work."  In the legal field, that has another technical term, it's "Believing  your own bullsh*t."
> 
> Always go back and test what you are learning, against someone who has some motivation to not let you "do it." Can be simple uncooperativeness, or can be outright combat back in your face, but you have to test things to really find out.
> 
> Hard to do with full-tilt boogie knife defense though, isn't it. Well, more than once or twice, I suppose.


Yeah, about the best you can do with that is use a soft substitute, and many of the responses have to be softened, too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Whenever I post from my phone, "you" autocorrects to "yiu" for some reason.   I just presumed it was something like that.


It's too consistent. He spells "aiki" as "aki" and "aikido" as "akido". It seems purposeful, though I can't figure the purpose.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Here is another nice video of an Aikidoist involved in a brawl with a hooligan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice throw to control and the situation resolved!



Nice use of the Akido jumping side kick.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Nice use of the Akido jumping side kick.


Some styles do have that. In the NGAA, three jumping kicks are tested for nidan. (12 other kicks are tested much earlier in the curriculum.)


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Actually, we train similarly in NGA. The concept doesn't have to change things dramatically, but the changes are important. Here's are two parts of the difference between training with multiple attackers in mind, and with weapons in mind, versus training for sparring/competition:
> 
> With training for sparring, you need to be aware of surroundings enough that you don't back yourself into a corner (or you do back them in), that you have room for whatever you try next, etc. There's not much concern (in competition) that you'll be jumped by a second guy, so you can afford to focus more closely on a single person. Training for multiple attackers means always working to watch for the "other guy", keeping a secondary awareness for movement that might indicate someone stepping into the fight. Mind you, in many MMA gyms, there are a lot of folks training at the same time, so you're doing some of this awareness training. What you're likely not doing, though, is working on movement patterns to keep other people from your back, to control where the "room" is, in relationship to you and your opponent. That wouldn't be an important factor in most competition.
> With an assumption there can always be a knife, there's no "taking a punch" (or variations thereof). In competition training, if a strike isn't effective for the ruleset (not hard enough, perhaps, in MM), then it can be partially ignored to allow you to enter and attack. With the assumption there may be a knife, we always defend every attack, even if it appears ineffective, because an ineffective punch can look a lot like a sloppy stab, which is far more effective. Will we still get hit sometimes? Sure, and we'll get "stabbed" by knife attacks, too. But we always defend every attack that could connect.
> How important are those differences? I think they are very important. Others will disagree. I'm not sure there's a good way to settle that difference of opinion, and I'm okay with that.



So you keep looking around in a fight for other guys. you get bashed by the guy in front of you. There are better ways to protect yourself from multiples than fighting distracted. And not this line three people up while you just knock them out rubbish either. There are different elements to fighting multiples than what a lot of people believe. 

in a fight it is four or five punches a second. you cannot individually address each punch. Which is why people cover. If it is a weapon tough you sorta kind of do have to address each attack individually. And why your strategy needs to change.

You can half and half by restricting opportunities to attack. But that is again position and pressure.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I disagree almost entirely with his initial point. That's one tool, and one that is not always available (for some of us, very sporadically). So, where he says "period", he's far overstating the case for concealed carry.



Depends on how you view he states it. He says something along the line of addressing a truly evil person. And yeah shoot them is good advice.

We generally don't address truly evil people.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> By the way, why do you refuse to spell Aikido and aiki properly?



I just forget to throw the I in every now and then.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> I'd hazard a guess there's no "I" key on his keyboard. Or, in his brutal days of youth, someone bit off the tip of his right middle and ring fingers and the pinky won't reach that far...



We are told there is no i in team. So therefore there is one less i in akido.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Depends on how you view he states it. He says something along the line of addressing a truly evil person. And yeah shoot them is good advice.
> 
> We generally don't address truly evil people.


Oh, I have no problem with his concept that a gun is a useful tool and effective for dealing with truly evil people. My problem is that he pretty much says it's where everyone should start. IMO, it's a waste of time to start there, if you can't have it with you most or all of the time. Better to train for something you always have - like your own hands and feet.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So you keep looking around in a fight for other guys. you get bashed by the guy in front of you. There are better ways to protect yourself from multiples than fighting distracted. And not this line three people up while you just knock them out rubbish either. There are different elements to fighting multiples than what a lot of people believe.
> 
> in a fight it is four or five punches a second. you cannot individually address each punch. Which is why people cover. If it is a weapon tough you sorta kind of do have to address each attack individually. And why your strategy needs to change.
> 
> You can half and half by restricting opportunities to attack. But that is again position and pressure.


Not looking around for them, trained to look for the patterns. Our peripheral vision reduces in stress, but doesn't go away. We have to keep awareness of the environment, anyway, and training the mind to see patterns of likely attacks produces a secondary awareness. Our brains are excellent pattern matchers, and match patterns subconsciously, so it doesn't distract from what we are focused on.

As for a fight being any one thing, that's true once it gets to the point of someone throwing punches (having closed the distance). Managing prior to that point is important. And movement can control the flow, even when dealing with those punches. You're right that it's not as simple as it is in the drills. The drills are, like many things, to improve the odds.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Here is another nice video of an Aikidoist involved in a brawl with a hooligan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice throw to control and the situation resolved!


I found humor in how the guy in black was just way outclassed. He should have walked away as soon as the guy in white smacked him. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Paul_D

ST1Doppelganger said:


> I don't hate aikido I was just giving my opinion of why allot of MMA clown aikido.


I never said you hated it, and I am aware you are just giving your opinion on why MMA 'clown' it.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> We are told there is no i in team. So therefore there is one less i in akido.



To quote Terrell Owens, "No I in Team? Hell, there ain't no damn "we" in Team, neither."


----------



## JP3

Steve said:


> Totally agree.  A big, red flag when someone alleges to be a knife defense expert, though.   Isn't it?


Yep, in my mind. Except in ... maybe 2 instances. Both of which instances I can wrap up in one dude who trains at Windsong Dojo, in OKC.  The guy is retired special forces who has been "in the stuff," not to hear him tell it but other people that know him and what he's done (to a point) in said service.  Also... he literally grew up in Manila, and started practicing bladework there about age 13.

So... maybe that guy's got cred if he said, which he doesn't, that he's a knife defense "expert."


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, about the best you can do with that is use a soft substitute, and many of the responses have to be softened, too.


Indeed. At least, that's the way I look at it, too.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Paul_D said:


> I never said you hated it, and I am aware you are just giving your opinion on why MMA 'clown' it.


Well I also kindly left out the Ki blasting and no touch videos you can find so easily on YouTube which is another main reason MMA clowns on Aikido so  frequently. 

Personally I don't train aikido to fit in with the MMA crowd so it doesn't bug me.  I also know allot of people train aikido for different goals or reasons compared to my reasons which doesn't need to be the same.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Paul_D

ST1Doppelganger said:


> I found humor in how the guy in black was just way outclassed. He should have walked away as soon as the guy in white smacked him.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


This must be fake, everyone knows Aikido only works in the dojo against compliant uke's


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Paul_D said:


> This must be fake, everyone knows Aikido only works in the dojo against compliant uke's


Do we know if that guy was a confirmed aikidoka? 

 I also know aikido techniques and strategies can work against a wide array of opponents. It just depends on if the aikidoka can apply his aikido correctly. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

This is one of the confirmed media cases of an aikidoka using aikido in an altercation. 

He was also a newer aikidoka so that's kind of cool but I will say he's lucky it was against a gun and not a blade. 






Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

ST1Doppelganger said:


> Do we know if that guy was a confirmed aikidoka?
> 
> I also know aikido techniques and strategies can work against a wide array of opponents. It just depends on if the aikidoka can apply his aikido correctly.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


I don't have any confirmation, except that his movement and approach is in line with what I've seen in some Aikido schools.


----------



## Paul_D

ST1Doppelganger said:


> Do we know if that guy was a confirmed aikidoka?


If he isn't does that means it no longer an Aikido technique? 

If I punch someone in the face am I a karate-ka, boxer, Mauy Thai, kickboxing?


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> If he isn't does that means it no longer an Aikido technique?
> 
> If I punch someone in the face am I a karate-ka, boxer, Mauy Thai, kickboxing?



Akido....

Bugger keep forgetting the I.


----------



## drop bear

ST1Doppelganger said:


> This is one of the confirmed media cases of an aikidoka using aikido in an altercation.
> 
> He was also a newer aikidoka so that's kind of cool but I will say he's lucky it was against a gun and not a blade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk



Yeah that one is a legit akido guy. And a solid move I use all the time as well.


----------



## Tez3

Paul_D said:


> I never said you hated it, and I am aware you are just giving your opinion on why MMA 'clown' it.



However, while you keep lumping all MMA people in the same category you are doing to them what you say they are doing to Aikido... basically trashing MMA.

There are many different people who do MMA, many different views just as there are in TMA so please don't keep saying 'MMA' as if everyone thinks the same. There are many in TMAs who also think their style is the perfect one and all others are rubbish.


----------



## Paul_D

Tez3 said:


> There are many different people who do MMA, many different views just as there are in TMA so please don't keep saying 'MMA' as if everyone thinks the same.


I don't think anyone is daft enough to assume that MMA (or indeed any topic) means 'every single person within MMA' (or said topic). 

I'm not gooing to start the laborious process of posting a caveat to that effect with every statement, it's implied when one makes a generalisation.


----------



## Tez3

Paul_D said:


> I don't think anyone is daft enough to assume that MMA (or indeed any topic) means 'every single person within MMA' (or said topic).
> 
> I'm not gooing to start the laborious process of posimng a caveat to that effect with every statement, it's generally implied when one makes a generalisation.



Ah my post wasn't aimed at you but was a caveat to yours to the poster you answered.


----------



## Paul_D

Tez3 said:


> Ah my post wasn't aimed at you but was a caveat to yours to the poster you answered.


Doh, sorry


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> It's too consistent. He spells "aiki" as "aki" and "aikido" as "akido". It seems purposeful, though I can't figure the purpose.



Not sure about the original source, but myself being dislexic (yeah can't spell that) some words form that look right. No amount of spell checking helps, if it looks right, to me it is right.


----------



## Transk53

drop bear said:


> So you keep looking around in a fight for other guys. you get bashed by the guy in front of you. There are better ways to protect yourself from multiples than fighting distracted. And not this line three people up while you just knock them out rubbish either. There are different elements to fighting multiples than what a lot of people believe.
> 
> in a fight it is four or five punches a second. you cannot individually address each punch. Which is why people cover. If it is a weapon tough you sorta kind of do have to address each attack individually. And why your strategy needs to change.
> 
> You can half and half by restricting opportunities to attack. But that is again position and pressure.



Fighting distracted means you have pretty much lost the ground already. I agree, loose ground is fine, but the exit strategy has to be there. Agree that all that knockout rubbish is simply BS. A knockout simply put is taking them out of the fight, doesn't matter how. A simple push, strike or sweep suffices, and doesn't have to be pretty. One opponent on the floor allows time to set up and engage another. Push or sweep another, still gains.


----------



## Tez3

Tez3 said:


> Ah my post wasn't aimed at you but was a caveat to yours to the poster you answered.



My fault, the quote thingy wouldn't include the original post.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Tez3 said:


> However, while you keep lumping all MMA people in the same category you are doing to them what you say they are doing to Aikido... basically trashing MMA.
> 
> There are many different people who do MMA, many different views just as there are in TMA so please don't keep saying 'MMA' as if everyone thinks the same. There are many in TMAs who also think their style is the perfect one and all others are rubbish.


I figured people would figure I meant a portion of MMA especially since I was using the term MMA to answer the original posters question.  That's my bad but the term MMA could easily be switched to MA and still suit the original topic very well. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

ST1Doppelganger said:


> I figured people would figure I meant a portion of MMA especially since I was using the term MMA to answer the original posters question.  That's my bad but the term MMA could easily be switched to MA and still suit the original topic very well.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk



Well no, because all we have is the words, we have no facial expressions, tone of voice etc for us to gain extra context so when you write MMA that's all there is to understand... all of MMA. Plenty of people have written that and meant all of MMA I'm afraid. You know what you are thinking but all we know is the words you use.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Tez3 said:


> Well no, because all we have is the words, we have no facial expressions, tone of voice etc for us to gain extra context so when you write MMA that's all there is to understand... all of MMA. Plenty of people have written that and meant all of MMA I'm afraid. You know what you are thinking but all we know is the words you use.


Ok so if I said MA instead of MMA would that include the aikidoka? 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

ST1Doppelganger said:


> Ok so if I said MA instead of MMA would that include the aikidoka?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk




What about "some people say...."


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> What about "some people say...."


President Trump uses that trick all the time.


----------



## FriedRice

interesting Akido vs. Reality debate:


----------



## Paul_D

FriedRice said:


> interesting Akido vs. Reality debate:


It's not an aikido vs reality debate, it's an aikido vs a trained fighter debate. 

But anyway, Aikido is not designed to score points/be be used in a sporting contest .  Therefore if you put it into a sporting arena, where it isn't designed to work, then it shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone that it doesn't work in that environment.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> It's not an aikido vs reality debate, it's an aikido vs a trained fighter debate.
> 
> But anyway, Aikido is not designed to score points/be be used in a sporting contest .  Therefore if you put it into a sporting arena, where it isn't designed to work, then it shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone that it doesn't work in that environment.



Yeah the argument is Aikido would be better if at least a portion of it was to be used in a sporting contest. As sporting contests tend to develop a better sense of your martial arts. Because of all the usual arguments. Like it gets used more often at a higher level, a faster pace, higher contact and more to lose.

Which is why Sport martial arts do fair well in other contexts like self defence.


----------



## oaktree

drop bear said:


> Yeah the argument is Aikido would be better if at least a portion of it was to be used in a sporting contest. As sporting contests tend to develop a better sense of your martial arts. Because of all the usual arguments. Like it gets used more often at a higher level, a faster pace, higher contact and more to lose.
> 
> Which is why Sport martial arts do fair well in other contexts like self defence.


Since you are ignorant about what Aikido is and where aikido comes from let me explain to you, aikido and the art in which it came from is not concerned with sport orient things. To further give you an understanding Daito Ryu finishes its opponent with a symbolic cutting off of the head the art was used more or less to seriously injure or kill an opponent. The founder of aikido was not interested in a sport like judo he was interested in cultivation like I said before most people who have been in life or death fights when they reach an older age they want peace of mind they want to find a deeper meaning in life. Perhaps in 30 years your path will change and your focus will as well.


----------



## drop bear

oaktree said:


> Since you are ignorant about what Aikido is and where aikido comes from let me explain to you, aikido and the art in which it came from is not concerned with sport orient things. To further give you an understanding Daito Ryu finishes its opponent with a symbolic cutting off of the head the art was used more or less to seriously injure or kill an opponent. The founder of aikido was not interested in a sport like judo he was interested in cultivation like I said before most people who have been in life or death fights when they reach an older age they want peace of mind they want to find a deeper meaning in life. Perhaps in 30 years your path will change and your focus will as well.



Aparently I have actually been using Aikido all this time. The wrist locks the throws Aikido side kicks Aikido slaps. As everybody else who is using Aikido effectively in the real world.

I should probably be teaching it by now.

And I probably have as much peace and deaper meaning as anybody else as well.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And I probably have as much peace and deaper meaning as anybody else as well.


And yet, on here, you seem to often cultivate conflict.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And yet, on here, you seem to often cultivate conflict.



an oyster requires an irritation to create a pearl.


----------



## oaktree

gpseymour said:


> And yet, on here, you seem to often cultivate conflict.


Do I? You are more than welcome to ignore my posts if they bother you. My post above deals more with a common theme found in Japanese warriors who often retired to a lay practice life.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> Yeah the argument is Aikido would be better if at least a portion of it was to be used in a sporting contest. As sporting contests tend to develop a better sense of your martial arts. Because of all the usual arguments. Like it gets used more often at a higher level, a faster pace, higher contact and more to lose.
> 
> Which is why Sport martial arts do fair well in other contexts like self defence.


No, the arguement was that Aikido wouldn't work "in reality" against a trained fighter, and therefore its ********.   But the "reality" is that no ones biggest self defence threat is being attacked in bars by highly skilled/trained profesional fighters.  

Unless there is somewhere in the world where the local crime statistics have shown that, since the rise in the popularity of MMA , there has been a dramatic rise in the number of triangle chokes and ankle locks being used to beat up, mug , or sexually assault people?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

oaktree said:


> Do I? You are more than welcome to ignore my posts if they bother you. My post above deals more with a common theme found in Japanese warriors who often retired to a lay practice life.


Go back and re-read the post you quoted. It was a reply to Drop Bear, not to you.


----------



## oaktree

gpseymour said:


> Go back and re-read the post you quoted. It was a reply to Drop Bear, not to you.



Sumimasen deshita


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> No, the arguement was that Aikido wouldn't work "in reality" against a trained fighter, and therefore its ********.   But the "reality" is that no ones biggest self defence threat is being attacked in bars by highly skilled/trained profesional fighters.
> 
> Unless there is somewhere in the world where the local crime statistics have shown that, since the rise in the popularity of MMA , there has been a dramatic rise in the number of triangle chokes and ankle locks being used to beat up, mug , or sexually assault people?



Relying on the other guy to be terrible to justify a training method is pretty fragile.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> Relying on the other guy to be terrible to justify a training method is pretty fragile.


Point missed, by miles.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> Point missed, by miles.



Relying on the other guy to have no idea how to ground fight is fragile?

And so 20 years ago.

By the way do crime statistics show assults by martial arts technique at all? we wouldn't know if there was a rise or not. It is not information anybody has. Or has ever had.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> It is not information anybody has. Or has ever had.


Incorrect, once again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Relying on the other guy to be terrible to justify a training method is pretty fragile.


Nobody said they have to be "terrible." There are mistakes that are more predictably present among the less-trained.


----------



## CB Jones

Paul_D said:


> since the rise in the popularity of MMA , there has been a dramatic rise in the number of triangle chokes and ankle locks being used to beat up, mug , or sexually assault people



Interesting.

Link to those stats please.


----------



## Steve

CB Jones said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Link to those stats please.


Agreed.  I've spent some quality time looking at crime stats, both federal and more local.  I've never been able to find any stats that even approach this level of specificity.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Relying on the other guy to have no idea how to ground fight is fragile?
> 
> And so 20 years ago.
> 
> By the way do crime statistics show assults by martial arts technique at all? we wouldn't know if there was a rise or not. It is not information anybody has. Or has ever had.


I'd welcome this information if available.


----------



## Paul_D

CB Jones said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Link to those stats please.


You have mis-quoted me,  re-read what I wrote.  My post starts "Unless there has been...."


----------



## CB Jones

Paul_D said:


> You have mis-quoted me,  re-read what I wrote.  My post starts "Unless there has been...."



Ok.  I misunderstood.  Sorry


----------



## Paul_D

CB Jones said:


> Ok.  I misunderstood.  Sorry


Not a problem.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> Incorrect, once again.



Ok then. You dont have that information. Who do you think does?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Nobody said they have to be "terrible." There are mistakes that are more predictably present among the less-trained.



You hope. From a very small sample of fights.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You hope. From a very small sample of fights.


Not hope. I see them in videos with (apparently) untrained people. I see them from new students who don't have previous training. I see them in schools of other styles among the newest students. They are predictably common. They don't happen every time, by any stretch, but they are common among that population.

Bear in mind, I lump experienced people into the "trained" group, even if they don't have formal training. If they fight a lot, they'll either get rid of these tendencies, or they will lose a lot. Thus, street fighters with no training will be less likely to make these mistakes than someone who is trained.

And alcohol and anger make them more common. Fear of being hit brings out another set of predictable responses, and this will happen even among trained people if they haven't gotten used to getting hit.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Not hope. I see them in videos with (apparently) untrained people. I see them from new students who don't have previous training. I see them in schools of other styles among the newest students. They are predictably common. They don't happen every time, by any stretch, but they are common among that population.
> 
> Bear in mind, I lump experienced people into the "trained" group, even if they don't have formal training. If they fight a lot, they'll either get rid of these tendencies, or they will lose a lot. Thus, street fighters with no training will be less likely to make these mistakes than someone who is trained.
> 
> And alcohol and anger make them more common. Fear of being hit brings out another set of predictable responses, and this will happen even among trained people if they haven't gotten used to getting hit.



Your extensive reserch on how a person street fights is about as good as mine on how Aikido works.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> Ok then. You dont have that information. Who do you think does?


Anyone who wishes to access it.  It's freely available.


----------



## FriedRice

Paul_D said:


> It's not an aikido vs reality debate, it's an aikido vs a trained fighter debate.
> 
> But anyway, Aikido is not designed to score points/be be used in a sporting contest .  Therefore if you put it into a sporting arena, where it isn't designed to work, then it shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone that it doesn't work in that environment.



Forget the points, if it can't stop the MMA fighters from knocking them out, then clearly it doesn't work very well. There are valid reasons why that it's mostly older people, weaker people and women who trains Aikido and most Self Defense only classes. This is the reality.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> Anyone who wishes to access it.  It's freely available.



Ok. could you point me in the direction of this freely available information?


----------



## Blues

The topic "My style is better" is centuries old.
I personally believe that the style that one practice doesn't matter: the best thing one can do is to find the martial art right for him, and this is something you feel through experience.
So, long story short, effectiveness is a consequence of the martial artist himself, not of the Art.


----------



## jobo

Blues said:


> The topic "My style is better" is centuries old.
> I personally believe that the style that one practice doesn't matter: the best thing one can do is to find the martial art right for him, and this is something you feel through experience.
> So, long story short, effectiveness is a consequence of the martial artist himself, not of the Art.


indeed, the this style would knock you out or tie you in knots debate is to my mind academic, I have never met a BJJ exponent in the flesh. The chances of me being randomly attacked by one on the way home from the pub is extremely low


----------



## JP3

Paul_D said:


> If he isn't does that means it no longer an Aikido technique?
> 
> If I punch someone in the face am I a karate-ka, boxer, Mauy Thai, kickboxing?



I think FriedRice would have an opinion.

If I look at it and recognize a technique I learned and now teach during my aikido classes, does that make it an aikido technique?  It does to me.

But, if the same technique is taught to a hapkido person, and now they use it (they might) is it now converted to a Hapkido technique?

And if I - as I do - have learned the technique in BOTH aikido and hapkido, and no one can tell me wherefrom or who did it first, then wwhose technique is it? I have an answer...

It is mine. It is now part of John Do.


----------



## Steve

[


JP3 said:


> I think FriedRice would have an opinion.
> 
> If I look at it and recognize a technique I learned and now teach during my aikido classes, does that make it an aikido technique?  It does to me.
> 
> But, if the same technique is taught to a hapkido person, and now they use it (they might) is it now converted to a Hapkido technique?
> 
> And if I - as I do - have learned the technique in BOTH aikido and hapkido, and no one can tell me wherefrom or who did it first, then wwhose technique is it? I have an answer...
> 
> It is mine. It is now part of John Do.


i think this logic is a little flawed.   I'll try to explain.  This guy has learned an armbar.  I think it's terrible technique.  But it kind of, sort of resembles an armbar.




If he sees someone on "the street" execute an armbar, according to the logic in this thread and your post, he could use that as validation that his training is sound.  After all, he learned it.  And it seems like he's teaching it.  

I see a real problem there.  Dont you?


----------



## FriedRice

Blues said:


> The topic "My style is better" is centuries old.
> I personally believe that the style that one practice doesn't matter: the best thing one can do is to find the martial art right for him, and this is something you feel through experience.
> So, long story short, effectiveness is a consequence of the martial artist himself, not of the Art.



Disagree. The effectiveness is a consequence of not only the martial artist, but also the Art(s) and the Coaching(s).  All three, affects the outcome. This is why most people who aspire to become UFC fighters, don't join Aikido schools.


----------



## jobo

FriedRice said:


> Disagree. The effectiveness is a consequence of not only the martial artist, but also the Art(s) and the Coaching(s).  All three, affects the outcome. This is why most people who aspire to become UFC fighters, don't join Aikido schools.


but not every one who is contemplating aikido want to spend their Tuesdays and Thursday evening being punched in the head by some weight training phyco on steroids. Some just want to be able to quietly deal with a pickpocket or a drunk


----------



## Jenna

Hornviper said:


> Hello everyone,
> Why does Aikido get so much hate? I realize that BJJ and MMA are very mainstream at the moment, and some of those guys are the biggest Aikido haters out there. No offense. It all boils down to: Did any of the MMA fighters do aikido?" Some people go as far as calling it ********, ineffective, a waste of time, etc. Really? I visited the local Aikido school, and I loved the atmosphere. I'd like to know what your opinion of this art is. I believe most (if not all) arts can be applied in certain scenarios. I have to admit that I am not one of those people that dream of killing/dismantling others. That's the last thing I want to to.
> 
> Thank you in advance.


An hundred pages later I imagine you have acquired some kind of answer to your question.. hello? are you still here? Hellooo?? oh well by the time another hundred pages of this have elapsed we will have evolved into a completely other species who despise Aikido because it is ineffective at fighting Skynet


----------



## FriedRice

jobo said:


> but not every one who is contemplating aikido want to spend their Tuesdays and Thursday evening being punched in the head by some weight training phyco on steroids. Some just want to be able to quietly deal with a pickpocket or a drunk



Are you that scared of MMA gyms? There are women & children training there too you know, maybe you can ask to train with them only.


----------



## jobo

FriedRice said:


> Are you that scared of MMA gyms? There are women & children training there too you know, maybe you can ask to train with them only.


that's rather skipping the point that some people like to go and punch someone about as a hobby. That's fine. Others have different physical and phycolocal needs and just want to learn self defence techniques' for if and when they need them.
The aikidio whilst not perhaps as effective in the remote likely hood of being mugged by a Thai boxer has the advantage of not carrying the high likely hood of brain damage. It's swings and round abouts. Some folk need their brains to earn a living


----------



## Buka

JP3 said:


> I think FriedRice would have an opinion.
> 
> If I look at it and recognize a technique I learned and now teach during my aikido classes, does that make it an aikido technique?  It does to me.
> 
> But, if the same technique is taught to a hapkido person, and now they use it (they might) is it now converted to a Hapkido technique?
> 
> And if I - as I do - have learned the technique in BOTH aikido and hapkido, and no one can tell me wherefrom or who did it first, then wwhose technique is it? I have an answer...
> 
> It is mine. It is now part of John Do.





Steve said:


> [
> i think this logic is a little flawed.   I'll try to explain.  This guy has learned an armbar.  I think it's terrible technique.  But it kind of, sort of resembles an armbar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he sees someone on "the street" execute an armbar, according to the logic in this thread and your post, he could use that as validation that his training is sound.  After all, he learned it.  And it seems like he's teaching it.
> 
> I see a real problem there.  Dont you?



I agree with both posts. 
The problem, of course, is if you learn and train junk technique, then you have junk technique.
The solution - don't learn and train junk technique.


----------



## FriedRice

Jenna said:


> An hundred pages later I imagine you have acquired some kind of answer to your question.. hello? are you still here? Hellooo?? oh well by the time another hundred pages of this have elapsed we will have evolved into a completely other species who despise Aikido because it is ineffective at fighting Skynet



One of the main reasons for the Akido hate, is probably due to Akidokas making wild claims about their capabilities, especially the street vs. sport training argument...how they're so "realistic", etc. while sports fighting, ie. MMA are not. 

Notice how rarely does the MA world bothers Tai Chi people, or to go as far as hating them. They are left alone to do their thing.


----------



## FriedRice

jobo said:


> that's rather skipping the point that some people like to go and punch someone about as a hobby. That's fine. Others have different physical and phycolocal needs and just want to learn self defence techniques' for if and when they need them.



Not everyone gets punched in MMA gyms. There are women and children training there for 10+ years w/o getting punched once.  I'm just trying to help you with your fear & ignorance..



> The aikidio whilst not perhaps as effective in the remote likely hood of being mugged by a Thai boxer has the advantage of not carrying the high likely hood of brain damage. It's swings and round abouts. Some folk need their brains to earn a living



Which is why Aikido is among the lower levels of MA training. But yea, it's definitely better than nothing.


----------



## CB Jones

FriedRice said:


> One of the main reasons for the Akido hate, is probably due to Akidokas *making wild claims about their capabilities*,


----------



## jobo

FriedRice said:


> Not everyone gets punched in MMA gyms. There are women and children training there for 10+ years w/o getting punched once.  I'm just trying to help you with your fear & ignorance..
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why Aikido is among the lower levels of MA training. But yea, it's definitely better than nothing.


if they are training with out getting involved in punching, being punched then its no more use for fighting than any of the other non participation arts like as aikidio


----------



## FriedRice

jobo said:


> if they are training with out getting involved in punching, being punched then its no more use for fighting than any of the other non participation arts like as aikidio



They're training BJJ only at MMA gyms. It's not the best, but IMO, it's way better than Aikido.


----------



## jobo

FriedRice said:


> They're training BJJ only at MMA gyms. It's not the best, but IMO, it's way better than Aikido.


that's a different argument, this started with ufc,fighters  moved to mma now its bjj. Yes I think its probably superior to most ma in the practicalities of holds throws and wralling around on the floor. But your not addressing your distaist for all the other arts that would loose out to a bjj fighter, which it most of them , just aikidio


----------



## FriedRice

jobo said:


> that's a different argument, this started with ufc,fighters  moved to mma now its bjj. Yes I think its probably superior to most ma in the practicalities of holds throws and wralling around on the floor. But your not addressing your distaist for all the other arts that would loose out to a bjj fighter, which it most of them , just aikidio



The main question was, why all the hate for Aikido. I said why I thought were the main reasons, and this was just my expanding on my own answers.


----------



## Jenna

FriedRice said:


> One of the main reasons for the Akido hate, is probably due to Akidokas making wild claims about their capabilities, especially the street vs. sport training argument...how they're so "realistic", etc. while sports fighting, ie. MMA are not.
> 
> Notice how rarely does the MA world bothers Tai Chi people, or to go as far as hating them. They are left alone to do their thing.


I get you.. and but one thing I do not fathom and you can help me with is.. why do you.. or all of these people up in here apparently care so passionately concerning whatever people out there make whatever big talk about their Aikido whatnots??


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> [
> i think this logic is a little flawed.   I'll try to explain.  This guy has learned an armbar.  I think it's terrible technique.  But it kind of, sort of resembles an armbar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he sees someone on "the street" execute an armbar, according to the logic in this thread and your post, he could use that as validation that his training is sound.  After all, he learned it.  And it seems like he's teaching it.
> 
> I see a real problem there.  Dont you?


I don't think that's an argument against the point JP3 was making. In your example, the guy in the video might see an armbar used effectively on the street and could therefore reasonably draw the conclusion that armbars can sometimes be used effectively in a street confrontation. He *cannot* draw the reasonable conclusion that *his own* armbars are any good and would ever be effective (on the street or elsewhere). For that, he would need to personally go through the sort of pressure testing which would (in his case) expose just how bad his technique is.

JP3's comment that you quoted was not (assuming I am reading him correctly) saying that "_I saw this technique used  in a street confrontation which looks like one I do and therefore my Aikido is sound_." He was saying, _"I learned this technique in Aikido. I also learned it in Hapkido. Rather than worrying about which art 'owns' the technique, I'm just saying it's part of my personal toolbox." _He's not claiming that his training is validated by the success of the guy on the street.

Perhaps it's more directly to your point that JP3 might be mistaken as to whether the guy on the street was really using the same technique as he uses - just as the guy in your video might think he's doing the armbar like a BJJ guy. I suppose it's possible, but considering his background (41 years training martial arts, with dan ranks in Tomiki Aikido, Hapkido, Judo, and TKD, plus an instructor certification in Muay Thai), I'm willing to bet he's got a pretty good eye for these things.


----------



## FriedRice

Jenna said:


> I get you.. and but one thing I do not fathom and you can help me with is.. why do you.. or all of these people up in here apparently care so passionately concerning whatever people out there make whatever big talk about their Aikido whatnots??



Because in general, the essence of the Martial Arts has mostly been about which style is better. Asians in Asia have been fighting over this for a very long time.  Look at all of the Kung-Fu movies. Many of their full contact tournaments, pit style vs. style for national pride to this day. Why did Rhonda Rousey get a crap-storm rained on her when she said something like how she could beat Cain Velasquez under the right condition? Or how she could beat UFC Fighter, Brian Caraway and his girlfriend Miesha Tate, one after the other on the same day.....talking trash, reaps its rewards. You hear many Tai Chi people talking about how deadly they are?


----------



## Buka

FriedRice said:


> Because in general, the essence of the Martial Arts has mostly been about which style is better. Asians in Asia have been fighting over this for a very long time.  Look at all of the Kung-Fu movies. Many of their full contact tournaments, pit style vs. style for national pride to this day. Why did Rhonda Rousey get a crap-storm rained on her when she said something like how she could beat Cain Velasquez under the right condition? Or how she could beat UFC Fighter, Brian Caraway and his girlfriend Miesha Tate, one after the other on the same day.....talking trash, reaps its rewards. You hear many Tai Chi people talking about how deadly they are?



I don't believe the essence of Martial Arts is about which style is better. I think that argument has more to do with the human condition than Martial Arts.

As for Ronda Rousey - goes back to the old adage, "Be nice to the people you meet on the way up, because you're going to run into them on the way down."


----------



## drop bear

Jenna said:


> I get you.. and but one thing I do not fathom and you can help me with is.. why do you.. or all of these people up in here apparently care so passionately concerning whatever people out there make whatever big talk about their Aikido whatnots??



Everyone has their passion. Tez made the same comment here. But then when it comes to profiting from an unworkable anti rape system. She is concerned about the result.

I would not want to see a guy invest a lot of time and money and get sold snake oil.

And even that is kind of funny. Because we have these two opposing ideas where we both feel the other person is being a duche.

People think I am being morally wrong for being critical. Where I think the moral offence is not being critical enough.


----------



## FriedRice

Buka said:


> I don't believe the essence of Martial Arts is about which style is better. I think that argument has more to do with the human condition than Martial Arts.



The Asian culture in Asia, where most to virtually all Martial Arts originated from, seem to disagree with this.

It's only since MA's has been brought over into the Western world, that a lot of this spiritual, feel good stuff started to sprout. Then came the Karate Kid fluff and the McDojo's selling belts. A lot of White people love filming their kids dressed in Oriental clothing and doing Asian things. Nothing wrong with any of this, just as there's nothing wrong with fighting vs. other styles for personal glory and that of your gym and style....which I believe, was one of the main focal points of the MA's....not some weird enlightenment that Asian dudes, sold to White people in the 70's.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> I don't believe the essence of Martial Arts is about which style is better. I think that argument has more to do with the human condition than Martial Arts.
> 
> As for Ronda Rousey - goes back to the old adage, "Be nice to the people you meet on the way up, because you're going to run into them on the way down."



Martial arts has to do what it says on the box. And is has to say on the box what it does in a sensible manner.

And a lot of times it doesn't.

I would love Aikido to work the way people thinks it works.

I could fight whole football teams.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> I don't think that's an argument against the point JP3 was making. In your example, the guy in the video might see an armbar used effectively on the street and could therefore reasonably draw the conclusion that armbars can sometimes be used effectively in a street confrontation. He *cannot* draw the reasonable conclusion that *his own* armbars are any good and would ever be effective (on the street or elsewhere). For that, he would need to personally go through the sort of pressure testing which would (in his case) expose just how bad his technique is.
> 
> JP3's comment that you quoted was not (assuming I am reading him correctly) saying that "_I saw this technique used  in a street confrontation which looks like one I do and therefore my Aikido is sound_." He was saying, _"I learned this technique in Aikido. I also learned it in Hapkido. Rather than worrying about which art 'owns' the technique, I'm just saying it's part of my personal toolbox." _He's not claiming that his training is validated by the success of the guy on the street.
> 
> Perhaps it's more directly to your point that JP3 might be mistaken as to whether the guy on the street was really using the same technique as he uses - just as the guy in your video might think he's doing the armbar like a BJJ guy. I suppose it's possible, but considering his background (41 years training martial arts, with dan ranks in Tomiki Aikido, Hapkido, Judo, and TKD, plus an instructor certification in Muay Thai), I'm willing to bet he's got a pretty good eye for these things.


Tony, this may be the first time I disagree with you.  I'll try to explain.

First, quickly for context, I've said many times it's less about the style than how one trains.  It's the training model.  However, styles do tend to embrace one training model over others.   So, you can have one instructor/school/style train a technique and it will be a miracle if any of the students CAN perform it effectively.  You can have another instructor/school/style train a technique, and it would be a miracle if the student CAN'T perform it effectively. 

So, when we see a technique performed with no context, it is dangerous to jump to, "I recognize that as a [blank] technique."  It ignores so many important, relevant factors. 

In the example I posted, it was of a ninja teaching an armbar.  I learned an armbar, too.  You teach the technique to your students.  Let's say, one of the ninja students posts a video where a person effectively uses an armbar in an unscripted, real life, self defense situation.   He says, "That's an armbar.  It's a ninjutsu armbar.  And it's a BJJ armbar.   Rather than worry about whether it's a BJJ armbar or a  ninja armbar, why not consider it a tool in my toolbox?" 

The answer to that question is that it is probably NOT a tool in this person's toolbox.  It's an association fallacy.  The armbar that the ninja in the video I posted is not the same as the armbar taught by you in BJJ, even if it looks the same, and that is because the way you teach it and the way that a student is expected to learn it in the ninja school and in yours is fundamentally different.

The bottom line here is that there is a new approach being used where we post a video of a technique in use and then because it exists in several styles, we say it is representative of all of those styles.  'That superficially resembles aikido/bjj/mma/boxing/ninjutsu, so it IS aikido/bjj/mma/boxing/ninjutsu."  And now, further, "it doesn't really matter if it's aikido/bjj/mma/boxing/ninjutsu, because they [insert dubious conclusion]."


----------



## oaktree

FriedRice said:


> The Asian culture in Asia, where most to virtually all Martial Arts originated from, seem to disagree with this.
> 
> It's only since MA's has been brought over into the Western world, that a lot of this spiritual, feel good stuff started to sprout. Then came the Karate Kid fluff and the McDojo's selling belts. A lot of White people love filming their kids dressed in Oriental clothing and doing Asian things. Nothing wrong with any of this, just as there's nothing wrong with fighting vs. other styles for personal glory and that of your gym and style....which I believe, was one of the main focal points of the MA's....not some weird enlightenment that Asian dudes, sold to White people in the 70's.


None of this is true, and I study koryu Japanese arts, and Chinese arts as well, lived in those counties and speak the languages and have spoken to a decent amount of martial and non martial artist and none of this sounds right, actually quite the opposite.


----------



## FriedRice

oaktree said:


> None of this is true, and I study koryu Japanese arts, and Chinese arts as well, lived in those counties and speak the languages and have spoken to a decent amount of martial and non martial artist and none of this sounds right, actually quite the opposite.



Haha, none of this is true?

I lived over 8 years in Asia and I'm Asian. How long have you lived there, trained there and which languages do you speak, fluently?


----------



## Steve

FriedRice said:


> Haha, none of this is true?
> 
> I lived over 8 years in Asia and I'm Asian. How long have you lived there, trained there and which languages do you speak, fluently?


Ohhh...  the measuring stick is OUT!  Who's going to come out on top in this episode of, "Dude, I'm WAY more Asian than you!"?

My bet is it's a draw.

Reminds me of a joke.  How many Freudian psychologists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Answer:  Two!  One to screw in the lightbulb and another to hold the peni...  ladder!  I meant to say ladder!


----------



## Blues

FriedRice said:


> Disagree. The effectiveness is a consequence of not only the martial artist, but also the Art(s) and the Coaching(s).  All three, affects the outcome. This is why most people who aspire to become UFC fighters, don't join Aikido schools.



You are your own "coach". You decide what Arts to pursue in order to what you want to become. If one wants to join the UFC, then there is no point in taking Aikido lessons. Totally misunderstood the purpose of Aikido.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> [
> i think this logic is a little flawed.   I'll try to explain.  This guy has learned an armbar.  I think it's terrible technique.  But it kind of, sort of resembles an armbar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he sees someone on "the street" execute an armbar, according to the logic in this thread and your post, he could use that as validation that his training is sound.  After all, he learned it.  And it seems like he's teaching it.
> 
> I see a real problem there.  Dont you?


Actually, if he sees the technique in a street encounter, and recognizes it accurately, then all he knows is that the technique can work. That says nothing about his specific training, nor his ability to apply it.

Mind you, that's assuming he's right that it's the same technique. If he sucks, he might also suck at recognizing technique, confusing two different versions (far apart enough to be recognizably different variations). Your BJJ armbar doesn't provide much validation for the armbar variations I teach and use (except for the actual lock, itself), because we approach it so differently. I can't look at an application of the BJJ armbar (the one I'm familiar with - there may be others, for all I know) and say it's the same as what I do/teach.

EDIT: Oh, and I agree that was awful. I'm not even sure there was a point to getting on the ground for it.


----------



## FriedRice

Blues said:


> You are your own "coach". You decide what Arts to pursue in order to what you want to become. If one wants to join the UFC, then there is no point in taking Aikido lessons. Totally misunderstood the purpose of Aikido.



You taught yourself Aikido?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

FriedRice said:


> The Asian culture in Asia, where most to virtually all Martial Arts originated from, seem to disagree with this.
> 
> It's only since MA's has been brought over into the Western world, that a lot of this spiritual, feel good stuff started to sprout. Then came the Karate Kid fluff and the McDojo's selling belts. A lot of White people love filming their kids dressed in Oriental clothing and doing Asian things. Nothing wrong with any of this, just as there's nothing wrong with fighting vs. other styles for personal glory and that of your gym and style....which I believe, was one of the main focal points of the MA's....not some weird enlightenment that Asian dudes, sold to White people in the 70's.


That doesn't seem to jive with things like Ueshiba's teaching of Aikido. By all reports, he taught it that way to Japanese in Japan.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> Ohhh...  the measuring stick is OUT!  Who's going to come out on top in this episode of, "Dude, I'm WAY more Asian than you!"?
> 
> My bet is it's a draw.
> 
> Reminds me of a joke.  How many Freudian psychologists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
> 
> Answer:  Two!  One to screw in the lightbulb and another to hold the peni...  ladder!  I meant to say ladder!



Damn near soiled myself.


----------



## Blues

FriedRice said:


> You taught yourself Aikido?



In one word, Zanshin. When doing a technique, striking, throwing, or any other martial art sequence, I concentrate on what I've done: am I balanced? Have I made a mistake? What could I've done better? Are my movements corrects?
These kind of things.
This is what I meant when I said "You are your own coach".


----------



## FriedRice

Blues said:


> In one word, Zanshin. When doing a technique, striking, throwing, or any other martial art sequence, I concentrate on what I've done: am I balanced? Have I made a mistake? What could I've done better? Are my movements corrects?
> These kinds of things.
> This is what I meant when I said "You are your own coach".



Most people, considers their coach(es), someone else other than themselves.


----------



## Blues

FriedRice said:


> Most people, considers their coach(es), someone else other than themselves.



Yeah, I know. But It's like when you are feeling yourself ill and start thinking "Well, maybe I won't go to the pub tonight" or "It's better to call a doctor". Creating doubts is a way to progress, and learning martial arts passively is a bad thing.
This is my personal view, it might be wrong or not, I don't know, but works for me.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Actually, if he sees the technique in a street encounter, and recognizes it accurately, then all he knows is that the technique can work. That says nothing about his specific training, nor his ability to apply it.
> 
> Mind you, that's assuming he's right that it's the same technique. If he sucks, he might also suck at recognizing technique, confusing two different versions (far apart enough to be recognizably different variations). Your BJJ armbar doesn't provide much validation for the armbar variations I teach and use (except for the actual lock, itself), because we approach it so differently. I can't look at an application of the BJJ armbar (the one I'm familiar with - there may be others, for all I know) and say it's the same as what I do/teach.
> 
> EDIT: Oh, and I agree that was awful. I'm not even sure there was a point to getting on the ground for it.


It's the ownership piece that is relevant.   It's the, "that's aikido."   If you think it's about the technique, I'm not getting through.  

Let's say I teach a style called Belch.  It's an offshoot of BJJ.  Now, I have a singularly crappy training model.   My students, the belchers, can perform all of their techniques in a controlled, compliant setting.  But, really, its like that ninja video.   They suck.  

But, as in this thread, they know enough to identify the techniques when they see them.  And, as in this thread, they say, "hey!!  That guy is belching!!  Woot.   I'm a belcher, too!  My style works."  Validation!

That's what has happened recently.  

Simply put, a technique may be the same, but whether it is aikido or BJJ or belching matters in that it speaks to training methodology and skill development.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Ohhh...  the measuring stick is OUT!  Who's going to come out on top in this episode of, "Dude, I'm WAY more Asian than you!"?
> 
> My bet is it's a draw.
> 
> Reminds me of a joke.  How many Freudian psychologists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
> 
> Answer:  Two!  One to screw in the lightbulb and another to hold the peni...  ladder!  I meant to say ladder!



Urban Dictionary: Wapanese


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Urban Dictionary: Wapanese


Watch J-Pop America Fun Time Now!: Anna Faris from Saturday Night Live on NBC.com

Hehehehe...ooooh.


----------



## JP3

FriedRice said:


> Disagree. The effectiveness is a consequence of not only the martial artist, but also the Art(s) and the Coaching(s).  All three, affects the outcome. This is why most people who aspire to become UFC fighters, don't join Aikido schools.





FriedRice said:


> Disagree. The effectiveness is a consequence of not only the martial artist, but also the Art(s) and the Coaching(s).  All three, affects the outcome. This is why most people who aspire to become UFC fighters, don't join Aikido schools.


Really? I thought it was because they couldn't earn a living any other way.

I find myself torn all the time with your posts, FR. You go along with some good logic, and then, Wham! In with the early-20s "my style is the best" schtick all over again.  I'm down witht he combination of art, artist and instructor being the combining factors on an individual's efficacy. No problem. Then treating all aikido people to the left-handed, red-haired stepchild backhand. it illuminates a hole in your learning about the MA world as a whole.  You live out west.

I am curious, why is it that you need to have MMA as a "thing"in and of itself, be the "best thing?" You invest money in a school or something? You in--training for the beginning bouts to try to climb the ladder? If so, power to you. Just not the road for me, and for most. I'd rather go to court.


----------



## JP3

Steve said:


> [i think this logic is a little flawed.   I'll try to explain.  This guy has learned an armbar.  I think it's terrible technique.  But it kind of, sort of resembles an armbar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he sees someone on "the street" execute an armbar, according to the logic in this thread and your post, he could use that as validation that his training is sound.  After all, he learned it.  And it seems like he's teaching it.
> 
> I see a real problem there.  Dont you?



Steve, I think you may be mistaking my idea on nomenclature as being a comment on quality or validity.  An armbar is an armbar, rose is a rose, round kick is a round kick. 

Grandmaster Hee Il Choi's round kick is light years better than mine, and mine somewhat better than someone who has never done one, but I can go teach that person for 20 minutes and they will be doing a "round kick."  It is a round kick, because i understand it to be a round kick, and when I say, "OK, show the Grandmaster the round kick you just learned..." Student will attempt said round kick, and Grandmaster will be pleased with student and disappointed in me.  THe fact that the person goes home and says "I learned a round kick today!" to his friend or family, shows it off, and then that person tries it and does a horrible one, does not mean that what I do is any worse. The quality of said technique is a totally different issue. At least to me.

What someone chooses to "think" is not up to me. They may think as you stated, Steve, but in my opinion that is neither my fault nor a correct assumption/conclusion on their part.  In my opinion, the person ought to go get some more classes, perhaps a few hundred hours worth, working with BJJ, judo, aikido, hapkido whichever joint-locker and bone-breaker crew with real skill, and then we'd take a look at it and say, "Man! Your arm bars are a lot better! What you been doing?"

And everyone will know... he was working on an "arm bar." So, I think my point is valid.


----------



## Paul_D

Could it be that most people who aspires to be UFC fighters don't join Aikido schools because Aikido isn't designed to score points in sporting competitions?


----------



## JP3

FriedRice said:


> Are you that scared of MMA gyms? There are women & children training there too you know, maybe you can ask to train with them only.


C'mon man... just because someone doesn't go to an MMA gym doesn't mean they are afraid to go. He explained why he doesn't want to go, and I can see his point. Well, now that I see 50 and it's within the low beams... maybe I should say fog lamps on the seeing the 50...

About 5 years ago there was a MMA club just off of NASA Road 1, in Webster (suburb of Houston).  I trained there with another of my old judo buddies. A guy who I've been trading throws with for about ten years. Cool guy. 

Thing is... his MMA gym was exactly like that. Yes there were girls training there, but there were also freaked out mongoloid knuckleheads who really were not there to learn, they were just there to fight. Austin and I (the guys's name was Austin) had to educate a few. Nothing mean, just a gentle (we thought) redirection out of a combat mode and into a learning mode. Translated, we whipped them and they looked around with that WTF expression on their face... it only changed when we offered to show them what they were doing wrong.  I teach all the time, and in the day I was a knucklehead too, so I recognize the breeding.  Not everyone has the patience, desire whatever you want to call it to just put up with that environment. It does not make them bad people, nor does it make what they do ineffective.


----------



## JP3

Buka said:


> The problem, of course, is if you learn and train junk technique, then you have junk technique.
> The solution - don't learn and train junk technique.


Buka, truth teller once again.


----------



## JP3

FriedRice said:


> One of the main reasons for the Akido hate, is probably due to Akidokas making wild claims about their capabilities, especially the street vs. sport training argument...how they're so "realistic", etc. while sports fighting, ie. MMA are not.



Shoot. Again. Agreed.


----------



## JP3

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm willing to bet he's got a pretty good eye for these things.



Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I wasn't actually commenting on Steve's media at all, more's the pity.  But, nope I'd be shaking my head and wanting to walk over and fix things with it... but it's internet stuff, and therefore the chances of it to be mostly garbage are probably in excess of 9:1 (or 90%).


----------



## Steve

JP3 said:


> Steve, I think you may be mistaking my idea on nomenclature as being a comment on quality or validity.  An armbar is an armbar, rose is a rose, round kick is a round kick.
> 
> Grandmaster Hee Il Choi's round kick is light years better than mine, and mine somewhat better than someone who has never done one, but I can go teach that person for 20 minutes and they will be doing a "round kick."  It is a round kick, because i understand it to be a round kick, and when I say, "OK, show the Grandmaster the round kick you just learned..." Student will attempt said round kick, and Grandmaster will be pleased with student and disappointed in me.  THe fact that the person goes home and says "I learned a round kick today!" to his friend or family, shows it off, and then that person tries it and does a horrible one, does not mean that what I do is any worse. The quality of said technique is a totally different issue. At least to me.
> 
> What someone chooses to "think" is not up to me. They may think as you stated, Steve, but in my opinion that is neither my fault nor a correct assumption/conclusion on their part.  In my opinion, the person ought to go get some more classes, perhaps a few hundred hours worth, working with BJJ, judo, aikido, hapkido whichever joint-locker and bone-breaker crew with real skill, and then we'd take a look at it and say, "Man! Your arm bars are a lot better! What you been doing?"
> 
> And everyone will know... he was working on an "arm bar." So, I think my point is valid.


I'm really speaking to how your comment regarding nomenclature is being used to imply validity by association.   Many aikidoists acknowledge that there is a troubling gap between knowledge and application in that style.  what someone thinks isn't up to you, but certainly, when you dismiss the crucial distinction between how a hapkidoist trains and how an aikidoist trains, you're creating a false impression that is entirely up to you.

in your example, what is happening is like if you (not your student) are using an example of a savate practitioner effectively applying a roundhouse kick, and Intentionally conflating the two styles.  "Hey, that's a roundhouse kick, and so he's doing what we do!  Yay us!"

And not just you.   Others are doing this now, too.  I haven't seen this tactic before, and it just doesn't work for me.   It's specious.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> Could it be that most people who aspires to be UFC fighters don't join Aikido schools because Aikido isn't designed to score points in sporting competitions?


No.

Where Aikido works it would score points. You aikido threw someone in a UFC fight.  That would assist you towards winning.

If you Aikido side kicked someone it would score points.

I mean just looking at the side kick.  The only reason you would choose one method over another is that it is more likley to work or more likley to do damage.

Nothing to do with scoring points in a sporting environment.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> No.
> 
> Where Aikido works it would score points. You aikido threw someone in a UFC fight.  That would assist you towards winning.
> 
> If you Aikido side kicked someone it would score points.
> 
> I mean just looking at the side kick.  The only reason you would choose one method over another is that it is more likley to work or more likley to do damage.
> 
> Nothing to do with scoring points in a sporting environment.


maybe its phylosopicaly unsuitable to take in to ufc . any one who masters aikidio would then not want to take part in bararic blood sport for the enjoyment of a baying crowd. TMA can grow you emotionally as well as physically


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> maybe its phylosopicaly unsuitable to take in to ufc . any one who masters aikidio would then not want to take part in bararic blood sport for the enjoyment of a baying crowd. TMA can grow you emotionally as well as physically



Pretty sure Aikido isn't a cult.  Where mastery requires you to think in an approved manner.

That would be a damn scary prospect if true.


----------



## Buka

JP3 said:


> Grandmaster Hee Il Choi's round kick is light years better than mine,



I've never seen or experienced your kick, of course. But trust me, it ain't.

That's right, I said it.


----------



## O'Malley

drop bear said:


> Pretty sure Aikido isn't a cult.  Where mastery requires you to think in an approved manner.
> 
> That would be a damn scary prospect if true.



It's not, but the philosophical and technical aspects are somewhat intertwined. To really make aikido "work" you have to learn not to resist your opponent's strength but to redirect it while connecting his center to yours and moving as one. It kind of makes sense that once you start to "get" the principles of an art that revolves around non opposition, you're usually not that interested in entering competitions anymore.

I think that nowadays most aikidoka that could actually use their art in MMA are too busy training aikido. It's a really rich art and they must be more interested in pushing their limits in aikido than in trying to transition into MMA. Dissing aikido because we don't see it in MMA would be like saying that water-polo players suck at handball since they never play handball competitively (even though some things transition really well).

That said, there was a time where some aikidoka were feistier and they had to fight for a reason or another. The founder certainly did fight with all kinds of martial artists (judo champions, pro boxers and whatnot), Gozo Shioda did a "fighting journey" and Tadashi Abe had to pave the way for aikido in a France fond of judo and its "combat effectiveness". But then, times were rougher and those guys used to swing at each other with live blades in the dark.


----------



## oaktree

FriedRice said:


> Haha, none of this is true?
> 
> I lived over 8 years in Asia and I'm Asian. How long have you lived there, trained there and which languages do you speak, fluently?


Asia is actually a pretty big place, I lived in Japan and China. I would say my language skill is not to bad. Speaking from a martial art perspective, I can not think of to many teachers or students in those countries who go in to specifically fight or  learn to fight to cause harm. Spiritual side well depends on how much or to degree spiritual. A lot of classical styles have deities and talk about 气。 so again, your experience doesn't match my experience in Japan or China


----------



## oaktree

To add a little bit more, If we look at classical Japanese arts for example such as Koryu we will see a great influence of religious idealism. Katori Shinto ryu the sword school I practice has many such things. 
It is almost impossible to remove 三宝(精气神） from Chinese martial arts I would say the idea is there even in Japanese arts.  

When I was interviewed on why I wanted to practice Koryu arts my answer was a long the lines of improvement of character, most people do not get into classical styles to learn to fight persay more because they are interested in the art for what it is.


----------



## jobo

O'Malley said:


> It's not, but the philosophical and technical aspects are somewhat intertwined. To really make aikido "work" you have to learn not to resist your opponent's strength but to redirect it while connecting his center to yours and moving as one. It kind of makes sense that once you start to "get" the principles of an art that revolves around non opposition, you're usually not that interested in entering competitions anymore.
> 
> I think that nowadays most aikidoka that could actually use their art in MMA are too busy training aikido. It's a really rich art and they must be more interested in pushing their limits in aikido than in trying to transition into MMA. Dissing aikido because we don't see it in MMA would be like saying that water-polo players suck at handball since they never play handball competitively (even though some things transition really well).
> 
> That said, there was a time where some aikidoka were feistier and they had to fight for a reason or another. The founder certainly did fight with all kinds of martial artists (judo champions, pro boxers and whatnot), Gozo Shioda did a "fighting journey" and Tadashi Abe had to pave the way for aikido in a France fond of judo and its "combat effectiveness". But then, times were rougher and those guys used to swing at each other with live blades in the dark.


agree. The people who keep trotting out the, if your art is any good why isn't it featured in the UFC. Seem to miss out on a few sailient facts, this being that apart from the skill involved. UFC fighter need to like hurting people, or if they don't actually like it, they are prepared to do so for money.
People who have dedicated themselves to mastery of a TMA, have most likely done so for physical and psychological betterment , with the benefit that they can defend themselves and their loved ones if attacked.
The two outlooks are not really compatible. UFC is mindless violence for money, TMA is about personal growth


----------



## Jenna

Paul_D said:


> Could it be that most people who aspires to be UFC fighters don't join Aikido schools because Aikido isn't designed to score points in sporting competitions?


100% exactly so.. you understand this quite simply.. you can say why other people have no space in their outlook to appreciate such an idea??? Is because they do not comprehend this utter fundamental of Aikido and conflate the intents of their own systems with some universal intent of all MA that it causes all of this hot air.. anyway.. while they are bitching I have been out and stolen their cars from the lot which are now in containers on their way to buyers in the middle east


----------



## O'Malley

jobo said:


> agree. The people who keep trotting out the, if your art is any good why isn't it featured in the UFC. Seem to miss out on a few sailient facts, this being that apart from the skill involved. UFC fighter need to like hurting people, or if they don't actually like it, they are prepared to do so for money.
> People who have dedicated themselves to mastery of a TMA, have most likely done so for physical and psychological betterment , with the benefit that they can defend themselves and their loved ones if attacked.
> The two outlooks are not really compatible. UFC is mindless violence for money, TMA is about personal growth



I think that it is a very narrow-minded view of MMA.


----------



## jobo

O'Malley said:


> I think that it is a very narrow-minded view of MMA.


I said Ufc rather than mma, mma could be something as great a bjj, or it could be people who like hurting others but but don't even want paying as they will do it for free


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

A good friend of mine Bob Orlando a Silat and Kuntao practitioner and a marine often said: *“All training is a simulation of violence. The key word is simulation.” * He is now deceased and missed by many in the martial community. He was however, correct.  *It doesn't matter what you train in you are not engaging in violence when you are training*.  They are not quite the same.  Just ask anyone who has worked in a profession that requires the usage of violence day to day or anyone who has been a victim of violence.   Training helps but it is not the only factor.  Your psychological make up and attributes have a lot to do with your success as well. 

While I am totally in agreement with pressure testing.  I'm also okay with other martial practitioner's that don't do it or do it in a different manner.  I have met people who utilized their training effectively from many different systems including Aikido. Not everyone pressure tested everything they did in a moment of violence. 

In the end it does come down to the individual in the moment. You either have it or you don't!  Those that have worked in a violence profession will recognize this.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Now here is another Aikido move used in video:


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Yet another Aikido like technique from my locality:


----------



## Paul_D

Jenna said:


> 100% exactly so.. you understand this quite simply.. you can say why other people have no space in their outlook to appreciate such an idea???



I think like any problem there is not one simple answer, but rather a combination of several factors. 

When you do not understand that martial arts and fighting are two different things, then there is a tendency to assume that anything that does not work when it comes to fighting/combat sports, does not work full stop.  It seems of course obvious to a lot of us that if something is not designed to score points in a combat sport, then the fact that it does not work when you try to use it to score points in a competition is unsurprising. 

Some however choose to take this as evidence to support their belief that it simply does not work anywhere at anytime in any context. 

If your area of interest is competition combat sport, then it would make sense to concentrate on techniques which will bring you success in that field, hence you wouldn’t train in something which won’t (Kendo, Aikido, self protection).  Again however, instead of being obvious to some people, take the lack of “Aikido fighters” in MMA as proof to them of its uselessness.   Even experienced martial artist like Joe Rogan and Ronda Rousey don’t seem to be able to differentiate between martial arts and fighting/combat sports, and lump them altogether as one, as both have cited the lack of success of Aikido within the arena of combat sports as proof it doesn’t not work full stop.

Of course what we should be saying is it does not work in situation/context A (because it isn’t designed to) it does however work in situation/context B (where it is designed to work).

The opposite of course is also true.  You cannot explain to a cage fighter that a triangle choke does not work for self protection.  He has used it successfully in the cage, so he *knows* it works.  It is only when he tries to use it outside the chip shop on a Friday night and gets his head stomped flat by the guys mates that he realises just because something works in situation/context A it does not follow that it automatically works in other situations.

Part of the reason is youth.  When you are young you just assume that because you train for fighting/combat sports then everyone does too, and that anyone else who trains in other arts for others reason is wasting their time with “**** that doesn’t work”.

Part of the reason also is the way Aikido presents itself.  Invariably Aikido is shown without the accompanying atemi required for the techniques to work in a live situation.   People who have made no effort to understand Aikido take what they see as being “the whole picture” and say it doesn’t work, not understanding that there are other things happening of which they are ignorant because they are either not shown, or not immediately obvious to the viewer.

Mix these together and you have bunch of people who *Know* it’s **** and doesn’t work.  One day they will get older, and wiser, and perhaps appreciate that other people train for other reasons, and that somethings work well in context A but are wholly inappropriate and not designed to work in context B.  Problem is, they get replaced by a new generation who think like they used to 

That is not to say of course that there isn’t bad Aikido out there.  The third biggest waste of time I have spent on the mat was my first experience of Aikido at a multi style seminar.  We spent an hour shaking hands and then falling over because we didn’t want to embarrass the instructor.

Fast forward a few years and I have experienced Aikido again on a number of different seminars with a different instructor whose Aikido does work, oh boy does it work!

Aikido isn’t alone in having bad elements though.  You can find bad examples of any art, MMA included.


----------



## Jenna

Paul_D said:


> I think like any problem there is not one simple answer, but rather a combination of several factors.
> 
> When you do not understand that martial arts and fighting are two different things, then there is a tendency to assume that anything that does not work when it comes to fighting/combat sports, does not work full stop.  It seems of course obvious to a lot of us that if something is not designed to score points in a combat sport, then the fact that it does not work when you try to use it to score points in a competition is unsurprising.
> 
> Some however choose to take this as evidence to support their belief that it simply does not work anywhere at anytime in any context.
> 
> If your area of interest is competition combat sport, then it would make sense to concentrate on techniques which will bring you success in that field, hence you wouldn’t train in something which won’t (Kendo, Aikido, self protection).  Again however, instead of being obvious to some people, take the lack of “Aikido fighters” in MMA as proof to them of its uselessness.   Even experienced martial artist like Joe Rogan and Ronda Rousey don’t seem to be able to differentiate between martial arts and fighting/combat sports, and lump them altogether as one, as both have cited the lack of success of Aikido within the arena of combat sports as proof it doesn’t not work full stop.
> 
> Of course what we should be saying is it does not work in situation/context A (because it isn’t designed to) it does however work in situation/context B (where it is designed to work).
> 
> The opposite of course is also true.  You cannot explain to a cage fighter that a triangle choke does not work for self protection.  He has used it successfully in the cage, so he *knows* it works.  It is only when he tries to use it outside the chip shop on a Friday night and gets his head stomped flat by the guys mates that he realises just because something works in situation/context A it does not follow that it automatically works in other situations.
> 
> Part of the reason is youth.  When you are young you just assume that because you train for fighting/combat sports then everyone does too, and that anyone else who trains in other arts for others reason is wasting their time with “**** that doesn’t work”.
> 
> Part of the reason also is the way Aikido presents itself.  Invariably Aikido is shown without the accompanying atemi required for the techniques to work in a live situation.   People who have made no effort to understand Aikido take what they see as being “the whole picture” and say it doesn’t work, not understanding that there are other things happening of which they are ignorant because they are either not shown, or not immediately obvious to the viewer.
> 
> Mix these together and you have bunch of people who *Know* it’s **** and doesn’t work.  One day they will get older, and wiser, and perhaps appreciate that other people train for other reasons, and that somethings work well in context A but are wholly inappropriate and not designed to work in context B.  Problem is, they get replaced by a new generation who think like they used to
> 
> That is not to say of course that there isn’t bad Aikido out there.  The third biggest waste of time I have spent on the mat was my first experience of Aikido at a multi style seminar.  We spent an hour shaking hands and then falling over because we didn’t want to embarrass the instructor.
> 
> Fast forward a few years and I have experienced Aikido again on a number of different seminars with a different instructor whose Aikido does work, oh boy does it work!
> 
> Aikido isn’t alone in having bad elements though.  You can find bad examples of any art, MMA included.


Is a thoughtful and lucid answer.. Maybe it will help to clarify for some.. Or maybe those same some do not even want any clarification concerning knowledge that they know they know, and just know it  Either way, you have comprehension in a thread where it is, in places, self-evidently deficient..


----------



## drop bear

O'Malley said:


> It's not, but the philosophical and technical aspects are somewhat intertwined. To really make aikido "work" you have to learn not to resist your opponent's strength but to redirect it while connecting his center to yours and moving as one. It kind of makes sense that once you start to "get" the principles of an art that revolves around non opposition, you're usually not that interested in entering competitions anymore.
> 
> I think that nowadays most aikidoka that could actually use their art in MMA are too busy training aikido. It's a really rich art and they must be more interested in pushing their limits in aikido than in trying to transition into MMA. Dissing aikido because we don't see it in MMA would be like saying that water-polo players suck at handball since they never play handball competitively (even though some things transition really well).
> 
> That said, there was a time where some aikidoka were feistier and they had to fight for a reason or another. The founder certainly did fight with all kinds of martial artists (judo champions, pro boxers and whatnot), Gozo Shioda did a "fighting journey" and Tadashi Abe had to pave the way for aikido in a France fond of judo and its "combat effectiveness". But then, times were rougher and those guys used to swing at each other with live blades in the dark.



If you are not using the martial art to fight. I am not sure how you can really suggest the martial art can equip you to fight.

I am not sure how you would functionally apply a martial art that avoids resistance.


----------



## Steve

Do you, @Jenna and @Paul_D , think there might be more than two alternatives?  In reading Paul_D's post, you present two reasonable perspectives.  The first is that aikido is, in general, a sound training model, acknowledging that there are examples of poor aikido.  Because it's not intended for sport, it's not surprising that it is not successful in sport. 

The second is that aikido is a poor training model, because it doesn't work in sport.  The idea being that, if it were effective for self defense, it would fare well in combat sport.   

One other perspective is not sport-centric (i.e., sport or not sport).  It's application-centric.   As background, I'm thinking about the articles and videos posted by aikidoka referencing a crisis within the art.  I take it from these that at least some aikidoka believe there is some disconnect within the art between the techniques and the ability of students to apply them.  And also some concern over the future of the art.

Thinking this through, it seems to me that we (or maybe I) have been thinking about this wrong.  Perhaps Aikido is just simply not suitable for the average citizen, just as it is unsuitable for a combat sport competitor.  The latter will find that the style itself doesn't lend itself to a ritualized sport.  The former will find that the style doesn't afford any opportunity to apply the skills outside of real world encounters. 

A fourth perspective is the one Roy Dean suggested, which is that aikido is progressing through a predictable and common arc, and is in need of a reset to bring it back to its martial roots. 

I'm sure there are more.  Ultimately, just want to keep this from becoming a "Your side is stupid and young and naïve, and my side is smart and wise, and everyone is either on your team or on mine."  There is room for much more here than that.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> I think like any problem there is not one simple answer, but rather a combination of several factors.
> 
> When you do not understand that martial arts and fighting are two different things, then there is a tendency to assume that anything that does not work when it comes to fighting/combat sports, does not work full stop.  It seems of course obvious to a lot of us that if something is not designed to score points in a combat sport, then the fact that it does not work when you try to use it to score points in a competition is unsurprising.
> 
> Some however choose to take this as evidence to support their belief that it simply does not work anywhere at anytime in any context.
> 
> If your area of interest is competition combat sport, then it would make sense to concentrate on techniques which will bring you success in that field, hence you wouldn’t train in something which won’t (Kendo, Aikido, self protection).  Again however, instead of being obvious to some people, take the lack of “Aikido fighters” in MMA as proof to them of its uselessness.   Even experienced martial artist like Joe Rogan and Ronda Rousey don’t seem to be able to differentiate between martial arts and fighting/combat sports, and lump them altogether as one, as both have cited the lack of success of Aikido within the arena of combat sports as proof it doesn’t not work full stop.
> 
> Of course what we should be saying is it does not work in situation/context A (because it isn’t designed to) it does however work in situation/context B (where it is designed to work).
> 
> The opposite of course is also true.  You cannot explain to a cage fighter that a triangle choke does not work for self protection.  He has used it successfully in the cage, so he *knows* it works.  It is only when he tries to use it outside the chip shop on a Friday night and gets his head stomped flat by the guys mates that he realises just because something works in situation/context A it does not follow that it automatically works in other situations.
> 
> Part of the reason is youth.  When you are young you just assume that because you train for fighting/combat sports then everyone does too, and that anyone else who trains in other arts for others reason is wasting their time with “**** that doesn’t work”.
> 
> Part of the reason also is the way Aikido presents itself.  Invariably Aikido is shown without the accompanying atemi required for the techniques to work in a live situation.   People who have made no effort to understand Aikido take what they see as being “the whole picture” and say it doesn’t work, not understanding that there are other things happening of which they are ignorant because they are either not shown, or not immediately obvious to the viewer.
> 
> Mix these together and you have bunch of people who *Know* it’s **** and doesn’t work.  One day they will get older, and wiser, and perhaps appreciate that other people train for other reasons, and that somethings work well in context A but are wholly inappropriate and not designed to work in context B.  Problem is, they get replaced by a new generation who think like they used to
> 
> That is not to say of course that there isn’t bad Aikido out there.  The third biggest waste of time I have spent on the mat was my first experience of Aikido at a multi style seminar.  We spent an hour shaking hands and then falling over because we didn’t want to embarrass the instructor.
> 
> Fast forward a few years and I have experienced Aikido again on a number of different seminars with a different instructor whose Aikido does work, oh boy does it work!
> 
> Aikido isn’t alone in having bad elements though.  You can find bad examples of any art, MMA included.



Ok. lets look at two types of context. 

Resisted 

Compliant.

Because there is examples of a triangle choke working to stop robberies and rape Which seem a pretty reasonable definition of works to me in context A and context B.

MMA Is being used in the context you suggest it is not being used.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> A good friend of mine Bob Orlando a Silat and Kuntao practitioner and a marine often said: *“All training is a simulation of violence. The key word is simulation.” * He is now deceased and missed by many in the martial community. He was however, correct.  *It doesn't matter what you train in you are not engaging in violence when you are training*.  They are not quite the same.  Just ask anyone who has worked in a profession that requires the usage of violence day to day or anyone who has been a victim of violence.   Training helps but it is not the only factor.  Your psychological make up and attributes have a lot to do with your success as well.
> 
> While I am totally in agreement with pressure testing.  I'm also okay with other martial practitioner's that don't do it or do it in a different manner.  I have met people who utilized their training effectively from many different systems including Aikido. Not everyone pressure tested everything they did in a moment of violence.
> 
> In the end it does come down to the individual in the moment. You either have it or you don't!  Those that have worked in a violence profession will recognize this.



You opened this door. So fine I wiil walk through. I worked in a violence proffession. So lets ask me.

You dont have to have it. you can train to get it. That is the primary point of training.

Having worked in a violence proffession and bodily throwing people who didn't have it in to fights untill they did have it. Having it helps. But if you don't have it work untill you do have it.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> If you are not using the martial art to fight. I am not sure how you can really suggest the martial art can equip you to fight.
> 
> I am not sure how you would functionally apply a martial art that avoids resistance.


lot of non marshal things make you MORE equiped to fight. Playing football(soccer) gives better balance anticipation and co ordination, all important elliments of fighting. Tennis gives you fantastic hand eye co ordination and reactions. Rugby or NFL gets you good at dodging people and or dragging them to the ground


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> lot of non marshal things make you MORE equiped to fight. Playing football(soccer) gives better balance anticipation and co ordination, all important elliments of fighting. Tennis gives you fantastic hand eye co ordination and reactions. Rugby or NFL gets you good at dodging people and or dragging them to the ground



Was that supposed to be quoted to me. Or Guy b?


----------



## Buka

Paul_D said:


> The third biggest waste of time I have spent on the mat was my first experience of Aikido at a multi style seminar.  We spent an hour shaking hands and then falling over because we didn’t want to embarrass the instructor.



That must have been an uncomfortable situation, Paul. If I may, what were two bigger wastes of time?


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Was that supposed to be quoted to me. Or Guy b?





drop bear said:


> Was that supposed to be quoted to me. Or Guy b?


your words so I'm guessing you


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> your words so I'm guessing you



You may not want to be kicking own goals then.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> I think like any problem there is not one simple answer, but rather a combination of several factors.
> 
> When you do not understand that martial arts and fighting are two different things, then there is a tendency to assume that anything that does not work when it comes to fighting/combat sports, does not work full stop.  It seems of course obvious to a lot of us that if something is not designed to score points in a combat sport, then the fact that it does not work when you try to use it to score points in a competition is unsurprising.
> 
> Some however choose to take this as evidence to support their belief that it simply does not work anywhere at anytime in any context.
> 
> If your area of interest is competition combat sport, then it would make sense to concentrate on techniques which will bring you success in that field, hence you wouldn’t train in something which won’t (Kendo, Aikido, self protection).  Again however, instead of being obvious to some people, take the lack of “Aikido fighters” in MMA as proof to them of its uselessness.   Even experienced martial artist like Joe Rogan and Ronda Rousey don’t seem to be able to differentiate between martial arts and fighting/combat sports, and lump them altogether as one, as both have cited the lack of success of Aikido within the arena of combat sports as proof it doesn’t not work full stop.
> 
> Of course what we should be saying is it does not work in situation/context A (because it isn’t designed to) it does however work in situation/context B (where it is designed to work).
> 
> The opposite of course is also true.  You cannot explain to a cage fighter that a triangle choke does not work for self protection.  He has used it successfully in the cage, so he *knows* it works.  It is only when he tries to use it outside the chip shop on a Friday night and gets his head stomped flat by the guys mates that he realises just because something works in situation/context A it does not follow that it automatically works in other situations.
> 
> Part of the reason is youth.  When you are young you just assume that because you train for fighting/combat sports then everyone does too, and that anyone else who trains in other arts for others reason is wasting their time with “**** that doesn’t work”.
> 
> Part of the reason also is the way Aikido presents itself.  Invariably Aikido is shown without the accompanying atemi required for the techniques to work in a live situation.   People who have made no effort to understand Aikido take what they see as being “the whole picture” and say it doesn’t work, not understanding that there are other things happening of which they are ignorant because they are either not shown, or not immediately obvious to the viewer.
> 
> Mix these together and you have bunch of people who *Know* it’s **** and doesn’t work.  One day they will get older, and wiser, and perhaps appreciate that other people train for other reasons, and that somethings work well in context A but are wholly inappropriate and not designed to work in context B.  Problem is, they get replaced by a new generation who think like they used to
> 
> That is not to say of course that there isn’t bad Aikido out there.  The third biggest waste of time I have spent on the mat was my first experience of Aikido at a multi style seminar.  We spent an hour shaking hands and then falling over because we didn’t want to embarrass the instructor.
> 
> Fast forward a few years and I have experienced Aikido again on a number of different seminars with a different instructor whose Aikido does work, oh boy does it work!
> 
> Aikido isn’t alone in having bad elements though.  You can find bad examples of any art, MMA included.



Even jo jo disagrees with that one. 

lot of non marshal things make you MORE equiped to fight. Playing football(soccer) gives better balance anticipation and co ordination, all important elliments of fighting. Tennis gives you fantastic hand eye co ordination and reactions. Rugby or NFL gets you good at dodging people and or dragging them to the ground


----------



## JP3

Steve said:


> I'm really speaking to how your comment regarding nomenclature is being used to imply validity by association.   Many aikidoists acknowledge that there is a troubling gap between knowledge and application in that style.  what someone thinks isn't up to you, but certainly, when you dismiss the crucial distinction between how a hapkidoist trains and how an aikidoist trains, you're creating a false impression that is entirely up to you.
> 
> in your example, what is happening is like if you (not your student) are using an example of a savate practitioner effectively applying a roundhouse kick, and Intentionally conflating the two styles.  "Hey, that's a roundhouse kick, and so he's doing what we do!  Yay us!"
> 
> And not just you.   Others are doing this now, too.  I haven't seen this tactic before, and it just doesn't work for me.   It's specious.


Steve, first let me congratulate you on being a fellow polysyllabist. Nobody uses the word conflating, and you used it in the same post as specious. I'm not kidding and I'm smiling, that was great.

But, I think you should have said, that you "find it to be specious."  As what we're talking about is not fact, but the two of our opinions, therefore no one can be "actually wrong," which is part of the definition of specious.

To your point, at least trying to get to your point as I understand it.  First of all, I've never trained in Savate, so I don't know the first thing about how they train their kicks.  I have had a full-contact amateur bout per PKA rules with a savate guy for fun and training once, and I recognized everything he was doing. He had French names, and barring a 2004 trip I took with my wife and used the Pimmsler CD's to learn a little, I don't speak French at all. So, when I described the savate guy's stuff I fought to my coach the next week during a workout, I used my usual TKD/HKD and Muay Thai terminology and nomenclature to do so.  I had ready-made labels for the techniques which he was attacking me with, to me they applied, so I used them and my coach understood.  I see no problem whatsoever with this. I can't see how you would have a problem with this either, so I think I am totally failing to see what your perceived issue... is.

   I can attest first hand that a Muay Thai round kick is very different fundamentally from a TKD/HKD round kick, and when I'm talking with someone who has enough data background to understand (or to give a flying flip) about the difference, I do use the term (sorry, Fried Rice) the TKD round kick, or the Thai round kick, to explain in short form nomenclature what I'm describing.

When I'm talking to students, people learning, or people asking questions though, I always make sure they know the difference - often going so far as to demonstrate the different rotation plan, impact point/striking surface, target locations and so forth to drive home the separate-ness of the two.  Is that what you mean?


----------



## JP3

jobo said:


> maybe its phylosopicaly unsuitable to take in to ufc . any one who masters aikidio would then not want to take part in bararic blood sport for the enjoyment of a baying crowd. TMA can grow you emotionally as well as physically


Maybe it's just that, by the time we get good enough at it, we've rendered ourselves old and decrepit, and therefore using the wisdom we've generated.... we steer clear of folks who deliberately go out to fight.

Note: The above is said toungue-in-cheek. DOn't set fire to me please.


----------



## JP3

Buka said:


> I've never seen or experienced your kick, of course. But trust me, it ain't.
> 
> That's right, I said it.


That's right! Man... I totally forgot that.  I should have said Phillip Rhee.  He's got some good-looking stuff.


----------



## Steve

JP3 said:


> Steve, first let me congratulate you on being a fellow polysyllabist. Nobody uses the word conflating, and you used it in the same post as specious. I'm not kidding and I'm smiling, that was great.
> 
> But, I think you should have said, that you "find it to be specious."  As what we're talking about is not fact, but the two of our opinions, therefore no one can be "actually wrong," which is part of the definition of specious.
> 
> To your point, at least trying to get to your point as I understand it.  First of all, I've never trained in Savate, so I don't know the first thing about how they train their kicks.  I have had a full-contact amateur bout per PKA rules with a savate guy for fun and training once, and I recognized everything he was doing. He had French names, and barring a 2004 trip I took with my wife and used the Pimmsler CD's to learn a little, I don't speak French at all. So, when I described the savate guy's stuff I fought to my coach the next week during a workout, I used my usual TKD/HKD and Muay Thai terminology and nomenclature to do so.  I had ready-made labels for the techniques which he was attacking me with, to me they applied, so I used them and my coach understood.  I see no problem whatsoever with this. I can't see how you would have a problem with this either, so I think I am totally failing to see what your perceived issue... is.
> 
> I can attest first hand that a Muay Thai round kick is very different fundamentally from a TKD/HKD round kick, and when I'm talking with someone who has enough data background to understand (or to give a flying flip) about the difference, I do use the term (sorry, Fried Rice) the TKD round kick, or the Thai round kick, to explain in short form nomenclature what I'm describing.
> 
> When I'm talking to students, people learning, or people asking questions though, I always make sure they know the difference - often going so far as to demonstrate the different rotation plan, impact point/striking surface, target locations and so forth to drive home the separate-ness of the two.  Is that what you mean?


I understand.  In the words of Inigo Montoya, "Let me explain.  No, there is too much.  Let me sum up."

A kick isn't just a kick.  The execution of a technique is the culmination of many things.  I'm sure we can think of more factors that come into play, but these are the three biggies, in my opinion. 

First, *the technique* itself is present.  If the technique is junk, it's just going to be junk.  A remarkable person might be able to do something with a junk technique, but the technique will always be flawed.  An example would be some of the techniques highlighted in this thread: Most Dangerous (as in Useless) Self-Defense Technique Taught? 

It also represents *the individual*.  When a person executes a kick, their skill level is present.  Their aptitude for the kick (physically and intellectually).  If they have a hip problem, it will be there in the execution of the technique.  If they haven't practiced.  If they are new.  All of that is there. 

Also present (and most relevant to the point I'm trying to make above), is *the training and instruction*.  How is the technique taught?  How is it learned?  How is proficiency measured?  How does the student transfer theory to application?  What does success look like?  We know that there are wildly divergent philosophies on this board.  Right or wrong. 

What I was referring to as specious is to disregard some or all of the three factors above. 

A roundhouse kick taught in TKD represents a body of instruction, a training philosophy and expectations that are not the same as for a karateka or a MMAist.  The techniques may look the same, and contain the same mechanics, but that is superficial.  In every meaningful way, they are not the same technique.

I like analogies, so here's my attempt.  I'm an old aircooled VW guy.  I have had many bugs, a van and my favorite was a 1974 Karmann Ghia (I know... '67 would have been awesome).  Anyway.  The 74 Karmann Ghia was sexy.  It had nice lines.  Driving it was a product of the driver, but also a product of the engineering.  Regardless of what it looked like, it did not drive like a Porsche.  It drove like a Beetle, because that's what was under the hood.


----------



## Paul_D

Steve said:


> Do you think there might be more than two alternatives


Oh yes, I am sure there are many alternatives, not just the ones that came to my mind



Steve said:


> The idea being that, if it were effective for self defense, it would fare well in combat sport.


I'd never say that.  The fact that something is effective for self defence has no bearing on its success or otherwise in combat sport, and vice versa.

There is room for everything, problems only start when people think that one thing is designed for something it is not.


----------



## Paul_D

Buka said:


> That must have been an uncomfortable situation, Paul. If I may, what were two bigger wastes of time?


Well they were both with a local instructor who shall remain nameless

The second worst was on a seminar and we spent an hour doing oi-tsuki.  Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with oi-tsuki, great technique for certain situations, I like it.  But he didn't actually teach anything, we just repeated it, over and over.  No explanation of where and how you would use it.  It was a seminar ffs, not a karate lesson, think someone forgot to tell him that.  I learnt nothing, not a thing.

Biggest waste of time was the same guy.  Another seminar, year before last I think it was actually.  50ish people in the room.  He spent an hour doing head kicks even though he was the only one in the room flexible enough to do them.  I don't see the  point of that, an hour doing techniques no one else in the room is physically capable of doing without tearing muscles tissue.  He either wasn't paying attention to the people he was supposed to be teaching, or didn't care. Again, learnt nothing.

I given that seminar a miss the last two years needless to say.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> It's the ownership piece that is relevant.   It's the, "that's aikido."   If you think it's about the technique, I'm not getting through.
> 
> Let's say I teach a style called Belch.  It's an offshoot of BJJ.  Now, I have a singularly crappy training model.   My students, the belchers, can perform all of their techniques in a controlled, compliant setting.  But, really, its like that ninja video.   They suck.
> 
> But, as in this thread, they know enough to identify the techniques when they see them.  And, as in this thread, they say, "hey!!  That guy is belching!!  Woot.   I'm a belcher, too!  My style works."  Validation!
> 
> That's what has happened recently.
> 
> Simply put, a technique may be the same, but whether it is aikido or BJJ or belching matters in that it speaks to training methodology and skill development.


Ah. That's a valid point. I don't usually think of it as ownership when I identify a technique like that. I'm just identifying it, and I can then say that the technique works and name where it falls within X art. A single technique isn't evidence a style works, of course. If a style has a common training approach (which most do), then that's an important factor. And, of course, there's also the fact that it's a single technique. If I point to a Judo leg sweep that works like ours (same mechanics, same principles), I can say, "See? The technique works." That's not evidence that other NGA techniques work (though it is a piece of evidence in favor of the physical principles involved), and it's not validation of our training methods if we don't train the same way.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Ah. That's a valid point. I don't usually think of it as ownership when I identify a technique like that. I'm just identifying it, and I can then say that the technique works and name where it falls within X art. A single technique isn't evidence a style works, of course. If a style has a common training approach (which most do), then that's an important factor. And, of course, there's also the fact that it's a single technique. If I point to a Judo leg sweep that works like ours (same mechanics, same principles), I can say, "See? The technique works." That's not evidence that other NGA techniques work (though it is a piece of evidence in favor of the physical principles involved), and it's not validation of our training methods if we don't train the same way.


I think training methodology has a large part to play, but its not the only requirement or even actually important at all in some circumstances.

let's take soccer as an example, every one can play soccer, its easy. You try to kick the ball to team mate and failing that kick it in the general direction of the opponents goal. You've got that simple concept and your a soccer player. Now some people will never get any better no matter who coaches them and for how long. They have a certain aptitude and that's it. Now obviously if you can get the other team to all stand still, you can convince them they are better than they actually are.

conversely you can take another player, give him bad coaching and his natural abilities will see him through, he may not be as good as he could be, but maybe his is

as a soccer player I am or at least was quite good, no fancy ball skills needed, I could run faster than most, and tackle like a dumper truck. No amount of coaching would turn me in a skilled midfield player. It was pointless even trying. It's much the same with ma, nothing will ever give me a good side kick, nothing. But who cares when I have a knee. High round house that will cut your leg off


----------



## JP3

jobo said:


> UFC is mindless violence for money, TMA is about personal growth


I generally agree with the spirit but not the absolute letter of what you've got here.  Absolutisms typically to usually fail because... well, because in things like this it is hard to find an "always," or a "never."

UFC does not have to be mindless, it could be, as you pointed in an unquoted part of your post, the mind-ful decision of, or acceptance of, that you are about to engage in violence in exchange for money and/or exaltation/fame. Some folks really do like the idea, some folks find that they are talented and don't have a, to them, better option to make a living, and some people are just fame-hounds. None of these would be mindless.

And, while I agree that, generally, people get into and stay into TMA for the character and developmental benefits, I would wager that, in the beginning, most of them, a some level wanted to learn how to fight/how to defend themselves.  So ... imo ... TMA is good for that, too. The benefits derived from long-term practice start out being alesser and lower-priority benefit and end up being the main thing after a few decades.


I see your point, but I delight in showing that black & white issues are actually shades of gray.


----------



## JP3

Paul_D said:


> That is not to say of course that there isn’t bad Aikido out there.  The third biggest waste of time I have spent on the mat was my first experience of Aikido at a multi style seminar.  We spent an hour shaking hands and then falling over because we didn’t want to embarrass the instructor.
> 
> Fast forward a few years and I have experienced Aikido again on a number of different seminars with a different instructor whose Aikido does work, oh boy does it work!



Question first, then agreement. If going to a seminar and finding your inner-self at war, with the courteous side winning so you fell when there was no need so as to not embarrass the instructor -- was the 3rd biggest waste of time, what were the first and second place results in said comparison?

Go to seminar A, get on the mat, very formal environment, instructor gets out in the middle and does a thing, his uke jumps off of him and takes an impressive, "pretty," fall. Instructor then says some instructor-stuff and has everyone try the technique, and nobody can do it. And I mean Nobody. Even him, when he came back out to answer questions.

Contrasted with Seminar B, similar start to the thing, except that uke didn't go for a nifty flight, but instead seemed to suddenly strain to be as far away from the demonstrator as possible, before just crumpling into a small pile on the ground tapping furiously. That guy also did some instructor-talk, but then he literally walked his way around the ring of people giving them the 3-second version "They do this type of thing, you lift here, push there, move there then drop that." Blam. Every single person had the technique in about ten minutes.

General question for the readers....  Which seminar do you think cost more to attend?


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> I am not sure how you would functionally apply a martial art that avoids resistance.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> I am not sure how you would functionally apply a martial art that avoids resistance.


By "finding" resistance, giving way to it, then redirecting it, or in some cases, emphasizing/enhancing it beyond where the opponent "thought" they would be.

You've done some judo, Drop? Or, something with an armbrag so you can get behind the person and strike from there or take their back is grappling is the better option?

For judo, just think advanced foot sweep - deashi barai on an opponent just standing still, or for the arm drag, think puncher/striker/boxer in some traditional stance about to pounce/swing.

If you try to sweep the foot out from under an opponent who is not moving, you hit a tree stump with most people of about 75% of your own weight and up (advantage to bigger types for this example) It IS ... possible... to kick the leg out, sure. But, it is really hard to do, and it hurts your foot and nobody wants that. Well, except Jack Reacher and it's why he's always wearing general-issue combat boots, but that's another story.

The giving way is to be mindful of the movement, and when the opponent moves his own front (advanced) foot, in any direction, the ... skill... is to continue such move beyond where the person wanted it to be, halt it a bit short o where they wanted it to be, or redirect it in a direction they did not expect it to go. Any success at all with this will start to break down their posture, causing reactions to get it back under control, which will, in turn, exacerbate the structural problems, and they end up falling. Or, you can really catch the technique right and they look like they just slipped on the cartoon banana peel (though I've never found bananas to be overly slick, myself. *shrug*)

Arm drag, same-same. If person is not throwing punches, but remaining hands-up at guard of some type, if/when you move in and attempt to arm drag, easy for them to defend by simple resistance, by movement or popping you with the other hand.  But, wait for them to throw, let's say a straight right.

Step number one, get out of the way, duh. Then out of the way, you put your arm drag on While the person's punch is headed towards where your head was, and it's like you were magically teleported to their back and then you do whatever is next in line for you in this particular tactical situation.

The concept of giving way, blending, harmonizing and generally not combating strength with strength isn't unique to aikido as everyone here knows, or ought to know.  It is central to aikido however, and with the possible exception of judo and the arts which led to the development of judo & aikido, like keto-ryu and daito-ryu, I don't think other systems put the blending at the top of the priority list in order to make their techniques work.

There's not much harmony in a good left cross.  There is some... however, if your opponent strikes from his right side, and you slip and with he overextended you put the left cross on the button as the opponent goes by.  Stylistically, I like to say cool stuff like, "Take that with ya..." as the opponent staggers away, but I think that's just me.

Sorry Drop, I got carried away. I should have just stopped with the first sentence with too many commas, but I've got my Starbucks shooting lighting through my fingers and that energy has got to go somewhere.


----------



## Jenna

Steve said:


> Do you, @Jenna and @Paul_D , think there might be more than two alternatives?  In reading Paul_D's post, you present two reasonable perspectives.  The first is that aikido is, in general, a sound training model, acknowledging that there are examples of poor aikido.  Because it's not intended for sport, it's not surprising that it is not successful in sport.
> 
> The second is that aikido is a poor training model, because it doesn't work in sport.  The idea being that, if it were effective for self defense, it would fare well in combat sport.
> 
> One other perspective is not sport-centric (i.e., sport or not sport).  It's application-centric.   As background, I'm thinking about the articles and videos posted by aikidoka referencing a crisis within the art.  I take it from these that at least some aikidoka believe there is some disconnect within the art between the techniques and the ability of students to apply them.  And also some concern over the future of the art.
> 
> Thinking this through, it seems to me that we (or maybe I) have been thinking about this wrong.  Perhaps Aikido is just simply not suitable for the average citizen, just as it is unsuitable for a combat sport competitor.  The latter will find that the style itself doesn't lend itself to a ritualized sport.  The former will find that the style doesn't afford any opportunity to apply the skills outside of real world encounters.
> 
> A fourth perspective is the one Roy Dean suggested, which is that aikido is progressing through a predictable and common arc, and is in need of a reset to bring it back to its martial roots.
> 
> I'm sure there are more.  Ultimately, just want to keep this from becoming a "Your side is stupid and young and naïve, and my side is smart and wise, and everyone is either on your team or on mine."  There is room for much more here than that.


Aikido is not always the easiest philosophy to understand. Of the practitioners I have trained with, rarely is there understanding among them of the simplest of tenets of O'Sensei. People are interested in technique.  Yet true Aikido technique is inseparable from pure Aikido philosophy. Where a practitioner claim a disconnect it is their own ignorance of their own art which engender this disconnect.. Is like, I can understand ikkyos and sankyos from dozen different attack and but with these people is like.. I do not understand what I am even trying to do! No, in Aikido I am not ever trying to beat.. or to win.. I am trying to reinstate a peace.. that do not happen by forcing an opponent to do what I want or force him to stop doing what he is trying to do on me.. because it is human will to resist.. Violence lead to violence.. if I match an committed attack with greater it will not facilitate an halt to that violence until sufficient damage is done that they are not able.. I can only reinstate a peace when there is nothing for him to fight against except his self.. If this sound woowoo I can understand.. Aikido is not a fighting system.. Aikido in MMA is absurdity.. Aikido is not to beat, not to win, not to compete.. 

"As soon as you concern your self with good and bad of your fellows you create an opening in your heart for maliciousness to enter.. Testing, competing with and criticising others weaken and defeat you.. " is Ueshiba say.. I cannot for one moment hear this from the mouth of some one in cage to fight.. horses for courses.. ring fighting, cage fighting, street fighting, youtube dickery, none of this is the realm of Aikido.. is not meant for that.. yet even some moronic Aikidoka who have personal insecurity feel need to try to prove a thing of an art like @Paul_D say is not design for that.. I go so far as to say in my experience only one person I had train with understand Aikido.. every one else practice a system of DRJJ based syllabus of technique and nothing else.. is the problem that result in disconnect like you say

"If you have not linked your self to true emptiness you have not understood the Art of Peace.." is Ueshiba say.. like how the holy hell can some insecure, undertrained muppet in local dojo who seek only to master kotegaeshi so he can put other muppet who try to shove him in a pub, down on his knees.. how can he understand what is Art of Peace? hmm? then run off to some forum and rail about disconnect? pffft.. Aikido people are in their own Aikido famine and yet so fed full of xxxx is a limbo world out of reach of dealing with real violence and disconnected from core philosophy.. </rant>


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> agree. The people who keep trotting out the, if your art is any good why isn't it featured in the UFC. Seem to miss out on a few sailient facts, this being that apart from the skill involved. UFC fighter need to like hurting people, or if they don't actually like it, they are prepared to do so for money.
> People who have dedicated themselves to mastery of a TMA, have most likely done so for physical and psychological betterment , with the benefit that they can defend themselves and their loved ones if attacked.
> The two outlooks are not really compatible. UFC is mindless violence for money, TMA is about personal growth


While I don't agree with the vilification of MMA, I agree with the general idea here, Jobo. I think a lot of folks I've trained with just wouldn't be interested in delivering the kind of punishment that often is necessary in MMA (as it is seen by those not actively training in it), unless someone puts them in a position to have that need (an attack/physical altercation).


----------



## JP3

Steve said:


> A fourth perspective is the one Roy Dean suggested, which is that aikido is progressing through a predictable and common arc, and is in need of a reset to bring it back to its martial roots.


I agree, I think this is taking place right now.  Instructors such as George Ledyard, Howard Popkin (he's a daito-ryu guy, but he equates with aikido really well with his expression), Nick Lowry and others are... attempting... to get this done.

Personally, and I've had experience here in Houston with this, I think there is a LOT of what my first adult aikido instructor, Ray Williams, called it, was "Pooh-bear and Bunny schools.  In these schools, and I have visited one locally and really felt ... saddened... I'd have to call it,  by the experience.  This example school which will remain nameless is a very pretty place, full of TMA memorabilia, I'd call it, the picture of O-sensei in the place of honor at the forefront of the mat, calligraphy, Japanese-style paintings (prints actually but you get the idea) on the wall, with a real canvas on our new fake American tatami (i.e. not rice) mats. A small gong on a timer announces start and stop of class, everyone who is a dan grade is wearing traditional hakama during practice, thus separating the "in crowd" from the "aspirants."  Class is very formal, just Japanese commands, no English, no explanations, just "I do. Now You do," as the pedagogical approach.

And they are... not very good. Well, that's not right. They aren't really learning anything. They don't even know how to fall correctly.  My fellow judo people on here, let me put it this way. There were not one, but 3 black belts (judging by hakamas only) who were reaching back for the ground when doing backfalls.  No, I don't mean they were doing the cantilevering, soft-style falls and putting their bodies into an accepting posture so as to receive and redirect the fall energy and convert it into a curving roll along the body... they were raching back to Stop Their Fall. Broken-arm anyone?

What we call "Big Falls, those cool-looking flying roll-outs that you see during demonstration... nobody did those -- because when I asked, "Those are too dangerous."  Nothing about how they are a safety mechanism for uke so as to get out of a bad position when the opponent is gaining a dominant advantage/position, nothing about redirecting energy, nothing about the offensive use of ukemi... just a whole lot of nothing.  

During the technique training time, it did not seem to me that there was ever an attempt to gain a positional advantage by movement, to get offline of the attack, to apply kuzushi to the opponent... I mean stuff that should be taught in the white belt's first week. Missing. Completely.

But, when I tried to gently ask my minder, who was apparently the main instructor's second student about these things, approaching them tangentially... because I'm a sensitive guy and I was already struggling with my "WTF!" response... what I got back was "We practice the traditional art of aikido here, without any of the modern aberrancies present in many other schools. We are striving (he said "striving") to keep O-Sensei's art pure and true to his teachings."  

So, at that time I clamped down on talking about Ueshiba's young man/early predilection to send students off the mat bloodied and sometimes broken, and let's not talk about challengers.  

When he was 80, sure.  He was a different dude by then.  How else do we explain Sensei Tohei's Ki Society?  But... go into a Yoshinkan school... things are much different.

I must still be amped up because of my coffee.


----------



## O'Malley

drop bear said:


> If you are not using the martial art to fight. I am not sure how you can really suggest the martial art can equip you to fight.



First example that comes to mind is people training at the shooting range for self-protection (or even the police). Not all of them go to test their skills in paintball matches, yet this training proves valuable when they have to actually shoot someone, even though they may hope to never have to use it.

One can train technique, timing, distance, position, balance and whatnot without having to compete in MMA.



> I am not sure how you would functionally apply a martial art that avoids resistance.



Here's a simple example:


----------



## JP3

Steve said:


> I understand.  In the words of Inigo Montoya, "Let me explain.  No, there is too much.  Let me sum up."
> 
> A kick isn't just a kick.  The execution of a technique is the culmination of many things.  I'm sure we can think of more factors that come into play, but these are the three biggies, in my opinion.


OK, I've added you to my list of top people on this board. Anyone who is both a polysyllabist AND who can properly quote, and use the quote, from The Princess Bride is someone to hang out with.

But VW Bugs? OK, to each his own. I'm also an oldschool aircooled guy, but I favor old Porsche, like a sweet '73 911, no turbo. There's a go-cart! End of digression.

I'm still stuck on my trying to "get" your point.  I agree with the three tenets you put out, I just didn't quote them again for brevity.  My technique can suck, given. But, what I'm trying to say is that the label for the thing... is not the thing itself. A name is not a comment on quality, in and of itself, is it?  I understand that Japanese words have layered meanings and English very rarely does (we have alternate, but not layered meanings).

Commenting on techniques in this thread.  Let's say we are agreed that whatever the guy doing the armbar in the one (bad) way back in the annals of time...er... pages 1-3 of this thread I think, is bad from a technical standpoint.  I think we are.

Now, if we are going to discuss how to correct it, between ourselves on the internet and not in class with the guy, and since we have no contact with and therefore no influence over, his instructor, we can't fix either it, or him, nor his instructor.  However, being the savant internet critics that we are... we say he should do this-&-that, and move like-a and like-b, and then his result will prove more effective.

But, in the communication of ideas, we are just using words, which are sounds we use to capture concepts. Sometimes the concepts are simple, sometimes not, such is the limit of words.  Names are simply a subset of words... and I use words all day in my profession and the solution to a complex conceptual issue is to use more words until the capture of the concept is completed.

Therefore, to me, to try to do what you are attempting to get me to do with my "label" is to just add another word or three, e.g. "That guy's doing an armbar." would be changed/added/edited to be, "Man, that guys doing a sh**ty armbar.  Who taught him that, it's awful."


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> While I don't agree with the vilification of MMA, I agree with the general idea here, Jobo. I think a lot of folks I've trained with just wouldn't be interested in delivering the kind of punishment that often is necessary in MMA (as it is seen by those not actively training in it), unless someone puts them in a position to have that need (an attack/physical altercation).


yes, but I'm not villifying mma, its to much of a mixed bag for that, rather ufc type events and training. I cant spar my skill set, its too deadly. Or rather if I smash some in the face with an elbow their going to hospital, if I pull them forward and knee them in the chest their going to need some assistance to get home. Now apart from my wish not to hurt people my dojo would quickly run out of punters if I was to do so. One guy had to go home with a dead arm as I kick the pad he wad holding to hard.


----------



## JP3

Paul_D said:


> I'd never say that.  The fact that something is effective for self defence has no bearing on its success or otherwise in combat sport, and vice versa.


Absolutes don't really work in this regard, though I get what you are driving at.

Let's say a person was trained by his dad as a boxer, to protect himself/herself while in school-age years.  Such training would cross-pollenate into pro-style boxing, right? Into MMA as the striking component of that person's game? Into part of an arsenal of techniques in the UFC's Octagon?

And, let's say it is actually a She, and this she is approached after class one night n the parking lot by a bad guy. (The thought strikes me that it is a particularly stupid bad guy, to approach a lady who just got done with a MMA workout, but hey... bad guys are typically dumb so it works.)

Bad guy sneaks up, She spots him almost when it's too late, but just in time to avoid "the grab" and she turns and Whop-Whop-Whap!  Jab-cross-hook which dents the guy's nose, starting it to bleeding, cuts him above his right eye (She's a southpaw), and cracks his jaw. He spins and drops to a knee and in a very ladylike fashion she kicks him in the head thus ending the confrontation.  Two weeks later she's in an amateur bout, and though her ground game is still kind of weak, it is sufficient to wear her opponent down, then escape to stand up, then she uses the exact same jab-cross-hook combo to rock her opponent, who she then takes her back and gets a submission with a rear naked choke.

Thus, in this real-world example (which has actually happened (the initial part of the episode only -- I'm not sure anyone like Ronda got attacked after class then went on to fight a match ina  couple weeks!) at least a few hundred times I'm sure... though often times the outcome isn't nearly so comic book awesome) The fact that the Lady's Dad-taught, then coach-taught, boxing is effective for self defence has had a bearing on its success or otherwise in combat sport, and vice versa.

It is the absolutisms that bother me, y'all.


----------



## JP3

Paul_D said:


> I given that seminar a miss the last two years needless to say.



Understandably so.


----------



## Juany118

Jenna said:


> Aikido is not always the easiest philosophy to understand. Of the practitioners I have trained with, rarely is there understanding among them of the simplest of tenets of O'Sensei. People are interested in technique.  Yet true Aikido technique is inseparable from pure Aikido philosophy. Where a practitioner claim a disconnect it is their own ignorance of their own art which engender this disconnect.. Is like, I can understand ikkyos and sankyos from dozen different attack and but with these people is like.. I do not understand what I am even trying to do! No, in Aikido I am not ever trying to beat.. or to win.. I am trying to reinstate a peace.. that do not happen by forcing an opponent to do what I want or force him to stop doing what he is trying to do on me.. because it is human will to resist.. Violence lead to violence.. if I match an committed attack with greater it will not facilitate an halt to that violence until sufficient damage is done that they are not able.. I can only reinstate a peace when there is nothing for him to fight against except his self.. If this sound woowoo I can understand.. Aikido is not a fighting system.. Aikido in MMA is absurdity.. Aikido is not to beat, not to win, not to compete..
> 
> "As soon as you concern your self with good and bad of your fellows you create an opening in your heart for maliciousness to enter.. Testing, competing with and criticising others weaken and defeat you.. " is Ueshiba say.. I cannot for one moment hear this from the mouth of some one in cage to fight.. horses for courses.. ring fighting, cage fighting, street fighting, youtube dickery, none of this is the realm of Aikido.. is not meant for that.. yet even some moronic Aikidoka who have personal insecurity feel need to try to prove a thing of an art like @Paul_D say is not design for that.. I go so far as to say in my experience only one person I had train with understand Aikido.. every one else practice a system of DRJJ based syllabus of technique and nothing else.. is the problem that result in disconnect like you say
> 
> "If you have not linked your self to true emptiness you have not understood the Art of Peace.." is Ueshiba say.. like how the holy hell can some insecure, undertrained muppet in local dojo who seek only to master kotegaeshi so he can put other muppet who try to shove him in a pub, down on his knees.. how can he understand what is Art of Peace? hmm? then run off to some forum and rail about disconnect? pffft.. Aikido people are in their own Aikido famine and yet so fed full of xxxx is a limbo world out of reach of dealing with real violence and disconnected from core philosophy.. </rant>




I would go even further and say that one can debate if there is one overarching Aikido Philosophy.  The Aikido I studied the most years ago was Yoshinkan Aikido.  My Sensei moved out of State and so I briefly went to another school.  I was constantly getting "talking to" by the Sensei, not so much for my technique but the Philosophy behind the technique.  We had a rather circular argument that involved him saying Yoshinkan Aikido wasn't true Aikido, I would point out Sensei Gozo Shioda was award his 10 Dan by the O'Sensei while teaching this style and it was simply a matter of when Sensei Shioda learned (pre-war vs post war Aikido.). It was an interesting conversation, I mention it only to point out the Philosophy of Aikido can be different depending on the lineage that leads to your Sensei.


----------



## JP3

[QUOTE="Jenna, post: 1829092, member: 8768""If you have not linked your self to true emptiness you have not understood the Art of Peace.." is Ueshiba say.. like how the holy hell can some insecure, undertrained muppet in local dojo who seek only to master kotegaeshi so he can put other muppet who try to shove him in a pub, down on his knees.. how can he understand what is Art of Peace? hmm? then run off to some forum and rail about disconnect? pffft.. Aikido people are in their own Aikido famine and yet so fed full of xxxx is a limbo world out of reach of dealing with real violence and disconnected from core philosophy.. </rant> [/QUOTE]

I agree with you, Jenna.  Personally, as we discussed in your thread On Fighting, I'm flawed and I admit it as it applies to being a true aikido practitioner.  If I'm asked what I do nowadays, if it is a prospective student, I tell them "aikido & judo, but I've done a lot of other things as well." And I stop. But with people who know what's what, even my own instructor pipeline, I know, and they know, I'm very much an aikijutsu person.  I just enjoy the way it is possible, sometimes even easy, to end something with hardly any physical effort. You need to have skill, of course, but I still get a kick out of it.

I hope that doesn't make me a muppet.


----------



## Paul_D

JP3 said:


> Absolutes don't really work in this regard, though I get what you are driving at.
> 
> Let's say a person was trained by his dad as a boxer, to protect himself/herself while in school-age years.  Such training would cross-pollenate into pro-style boxing, right? Into MMA as the striking component of that person's game? Into part of an arsenal of techniques in the UFC's Octagon?
> 
> And, let's say it is actually a She, and this she is approached after class one night n the parking lot by a bad guy. (The thought strikes me that it is a particularly stupid bad guy, to approach a lady who just got done with a MMA workout, but hey... bad guys are typically dumb so it works.)
> 
> Bad guy sneaks up, She spots him almost when it's too late, but just in time to avoid "the grab" and she turns and Whop-Whop-Whap!  Jab-cross-hook which dents the guy's nose, starting it to bleeding, cuts him above his right eye (She's a southpaw), and cracks his jaw. He spins and drops to a knee and in a very ladylike fashion she kicks him in the head thus ending the confrontation.  Two weeks later she's in an amateur bout, and though her ground game is still kind of weak, it is sufficient to wear her opponent down, then escape to stand up, then she uses the exact same jab-cross-hook combo to rock her opponent, who she then takes her back and gets a submission with a rear naked choke..


A good punch is always a good punch, and is useful for fighting, self proteciton and martial arts.  No one would deny that.


----------



## JP3

Juany118 said:


> I would go even further and say that one can debate if there is one overarching Aikido Philosophy.  The Aikido I studied the most years ago was Yoshinkan Aikido.  My Sensei moved out of State and so I briefly went to another school.  I was constantly getting "talking to" by the Sensei, not so much for my technique but the Philosophy behind the technique.  We had a rather circular argument that involved him saying Yoshinkan Aikido wasn't true Aikido, I would point out Sensei Gozo Shioda was award his 10 Dan by the O'Sensei while teaching this style and it was simply a matter of when Sensei Shioda learned (pre-war vs post war Aikido.). It was an interesting conversation, I mention it only to point out the Philosophy of Aikido can be different depending on the lineage that leads to your Sensei.


Gozo Shioda was trained in aikido by a Very different Morehei Ueshiba.  Adding decades of life does hat to a person. Same thing with Kenji Tomiki.  I wonder which branch of aikido that instructor, the one you were havin the circular discussion with, was from?


----------



## Steve

JP3 said:


> OK, I've added you to my list of top people on this board. Anyone who is both a polysyllabist AND who can properly quote, and use the quote, from The Princess Bride is someone to hang out with.
> 
> But VW Bugs? OK, to each his own. I'm also an oldschool aircooled guy, but I favor old Porsche, like a sweet '73 911, no turbo. There's a go-cart! End of digression.
> 
> I'm still stuck on my trying to "get" your point.  I agree with the three tenets you put out, I just didn't quote them again for brevity.  My technique can suck, given. But, what I'm trying to say is that the label for the thing... is not the thing itself. A name is not a comment on quality, in and of itself, is it?  I understand that Japanese words have layered meanings and English very rarely does (we have alternate, but not layered meanings).
> 
> Commenting on techniques in this thread.  Let's say we are agreed that whatever the guy doing the armbar in the one (bad) way back in the annals of time...er... pages 1-3 of this thread I think, is bad from a technical standpoint.  I think we are.
> 
> Now, if we are going to discuss how to correct it, between ourselves on the internet and not in class with the guy, and since we have no contact with and therefore no influence over, his instructor, we can't fix either it, or him, nor his instructor.  However, being the savant internet critics that we are... we say he should do this-&-that, and move like-a and like-b, and then his result will prove more effective.
> 
> But, in the communication of ideas, we are just using words, which are sounds we use to capture concepts. Sometimes the concepts are simple, sometimes not, such is the limit of words.  Names are simply a subset of words... and I use words all day in my profession and the solution to a complex conceptual issue is to use more words until the capture of the concept is completed.
> 
> Therefore, to me, to try to do what you are attempting to get me to do with my "label" is to just add another word or three, e.g. "That guy's doing an armbar." would be changed/added/edited to be, "Man, that guys doing a sh**ty armbar.  Who taught him that, it's awful."


i will surely disappoint you at some point.   

Honestly, I may have misread your initial point.   It's not, "that guy is doing an armbar," that is concerning.   It's how that example can be used or misused to validate one's own training model.  

Simply put, it's what comes after identifying a technique, around here.   In judo it's called x, and in aikido, it's called y.   In budo taijutsu, it's called z.   See?  All styles are awesome, and can't we all get along?   

I'm all for getting along, and I can agree with identifying techniques.  But an armbar in bjj is taught differently than an armbar in budo taijutsu.   Even different from judo.   The setups, the feints, the strategies, and the execution are all going to be different, even among close cousins like judo and BJJ.   The technique may be identical, but that's the least important part of the equation.

So, when I see someone post a video and say, see?  Aikido/judo/BJJ works because YouTube, I'm interested in seeing if these other intangibles are present.   Without that context, you don't have enough information to evaluate the video.   For example, in a video where a guy does an armbar, is there enough there to know if it's BJJ or aikido or ninjutsu?   If not, you can't presume it's validation of them all.   That's questionable logic.   

And this even more recent trend to referring to things as "like" (aikido-like) as though that's validation.   Forget about it.


----------



## JP3

Steve said:


> i will surely disappoint you at some point.
> 
> Honestly, I may have misread your initial point.   It's not, "that guy is doing an armbar," that is concerning.   It's how that example can be used or misused to validate one's own training model.
> 
> Simply put, it's what comes after identifying a technique, around here.   In judo it's called x, and in aikido, it's called y.   In budo taijutsu, it's called z.   See?  All styles are awesome, and can't we all get along?
> 
> I'm all for getting along, and I can agree with identifying techniques.  But an armbar in bjj is taught differently than an armbar in budo taijutsu.   Even different from judo.   The setups, the feints, the strategies, and the execution are all going to be different, even among close cousins like judo and BJJ.   The technique may be identical, but that's the least important part of the equation.
> 
> So, when I see someone post a video and say, see?  Aikido/judo/BJJ works because YouTube, I'm interested in seeing if these other intangibles are present.   Without that context, you don't have enough information to evaluate the video.   For example, in a video where a guy does an armbar, is there enough there to know if it's BJJ or aikido or ninjutsu?   If not, you can't presume it's validation of them all.   That's questionable logic.
> 
> And this even more recent trend to referring to things as "like" (aikido-like) as though that's validation.   Forget about it.


I disappoint myself all the time, so that's no big deal.

I think I finally am understanding. See, even the deepest, darkest cave can have a candle lit within.

You do armbar. I do armbar. They are both different, yet both reside in the set of things called armbars. The fact that we both call what we did, and what the other one of us just did, as armbars is not a quality comment on the armbars themselves.  Mine sucked.  Yours stretched out Tito Ortiz's arm to look as long as his legs (not a tremendous change, I grant you), but both still remain armbars.

But, if someone sees my horrible one, and goes, man I need to do that armbr like that guy, that was awesome!... but it's not... then they create for themselves a problem.  For me... I'm OK with that person making a bad judgment about the efficacy of what they are learning.... as long as they're not my student (caveat).  If we become concerned as teachers with everyone else's training model and pedagogical approaches (I suppose unless you are in a big association like USJA where there is a good reason for quality assurance modeling) I think we're aspiring too high for something we could in reasonable probability achieve.

And, some training models are anathema to others, intrinsically.  I just had a funny thought of the training sessions in Rocky IV as applied to a Tai Chi class (like the cool videos of the old folks in the park, all moving in unison for that day's wake-up practice. Which some of those people have been doihng for going past 50 years now....).  That's oil & water.

Shoot, my own, "Anyone have a question?" I say every class after showing something either old or new is anathema to some... hmm... people.  I'd say arts, but that's not really accurate.  Some people do not like, nor do they want, an open, questioning environment which revels in expirementation like I/we do.

You also said, "But an armbar in bjj is taught differently than an armbar in budo taijutsu.   Even different from judo.   The setups, the feints, the strategies, and the execution are all going to be different, even among close cousins like judo and BJJ.   The technique may be identical, but that's the least important part of the equation."

But, both are still armbars, right? I think you already agreed with me on this and I just kicked a deceased equine. Judo armbar isn't a BJJ armbar, though you have to actually go to class in each to figure out the subtle differences between them, imo. But the gross generalities which cause our thoughts/minds to categorize what we're talking about as "armbar" are the same, or similar enough, for the tag to fit.  That being said, a person whose avocation it is to be a martial artist is best served, again in my opinion, by seeking out other "styles" (it is why they call them styles by the way) of things like what you do, and learn from why and how they do what they do. Oftentimes, even if you don't find something outright better, you find at least some valid points with which to supplement your own skill.


----------



## Juany118

JP3 said:


> Gozo Shioda was trained in aikido by a Very different Morehei Ueshiba.  Adding decades of life does hat to a person. Same thing with Kenji Tomiki.  I wonder which branch of aikido that instructor, the one you were havin the circular discussion with, was from?



I believe he was awarded his Dans under Yoshimitsu Yamada Sensei.  My main point however was largely what you say, that things evolve however I don't see that they have diverged so far from one another.


----------



## Jenna

JP3 said:


> I agree with you, Jenna.  Personally, as we discussed in your thread On Fighting, I'm flawed and I admit it as it applies to being a true aikido practitioner.  If I'm asked what I do nowadays, if it is a prospective student, I tell them "aikido & judo, but I've done a lot of other things as well." And I stop. But with people who know what's what, even my own instructor pipeline, I know, and they know, I'm very much an aikijutsu person.  I just enjoy the way it is possible, sometimes even easy, to end something with hardly any physical effort. You need to have skill, of course, but I still get a kick out of it.
> 
> I hope that doesn't make me a muppet.


I do not see flaw nor contradiction nor hypocrisy in fighting as Aikidoka.. individuals have choice to fight with you or me, or to walk away.. Me I do not close down an option to walk away and save face.. is rule#1 for me not to hurt with intent though I have been hurt and done the same.. no.. you are not flawed.. you are who you are.. nobody can say to you is flaw of any thing.. Anyway Zoot is my favourite muppet.. do you know Zoot? is not Kermit because he have confidence issues.. #turnoff #jennatrivia


----------



## O'Malley

I thought this was relevant as we see some aikido in a live sparring (starts around 2:20):


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

In at least one of those videos the practitioner is an Aikidoka.  For instance the black gentleman in that video is an Akidoka.  That indicates some validity to the video being Aikido in a violent encounter.  He handled his attacker easily utilizing aikido.  *Pretty cool right*?  Not cool if your argument that Aikido is unable to be used in a physical encounter though.

I also agree that different systems apply, teach and have different entries for their usage of a specific technique.  That of course does invalidate the technique it just means there is a different way to accomplish the technique.  Minor difference do not invalidate a technique.  Nor does the training methodology invalidate it when it is successful.  While set ups and entries and application may have minor differences and distinctions in the end an armbar really is just an armbar. A lever with potential damage to the elbow or control of the body.

Where people fail in on this thread is when they specifically point out that if a system does not follow the BJJ/MMA teaching model it is not good.  This is simply not true.  BJJ, MMA and Judo are relatively new modern sporting methods of martial training.  They are not the end all be all of martial training.  They were not the exclusive methodology utilized by our ancestors for conflict for just about the length of human existence.  Nor was their methodology exclusively used as well.  Weapons and tools were the mainstay and still are.  Mind you this comes from someone with extensive BJJ training, who loves the system and 99% of the practitioner's.  While I believe personally in progressive resistance and ensure that all of my students have it that does not mean it is the only training methodology that works.  Personally, I have stood next to LEO's and security professionals performing takedowns, standing armbars, joint manipulations, handcuffing, etc. who had no martial training at all other than Defensive Tactics and PPCT.  Most performed fine without the methodology used in BJJ.  Instead, they learned a standing armbar, joint manipulation, takedown, etc. via being taught the technique and then applying said technique on a non-resisting partner.  They took that training right out the door and applied it during arrests.  How is this possible?  Because, there is no one exclusive training methodology that works for all martial practice.  I know exactly what they learned, when they learned it and how they learned it because I was there during the training and then during the arrest. 

There are more than one or two or even three ways to do something.  While I enjoy  methodology of learning a technique, applying a technique against a non-resisting partner and then utilize the technique during resistant training.  That does not mean that this is the only way to train!  If you were to say training for a BJJ Tournament or MMA that you should do BJJ or MMA *I would absolutely agree*.  If someone wants to be successful in MMA they better train with a top rate MMA coach/trainer at their gym.  Could they be successful otherwise?  Yes, but they increase their odds a lot if they train with a good coach.

*During the last few months or so there has specifically been people trying to point out this or that on a system and then trying to fit it into only into their training methodology*.  My attempt to show a few videos or Aikido practitioner's or Aikido like technique is to try and restore some semblance of an even keel here to diffuse some of the art trolling that has been going on.  While I have attended Aikido seminars and hosted them I am not an Aikido practitioner nor do I have a dog in the fight so to speak.  However, watching a group of people trolling another art is simply *not cool!*

BJJ is relatively new and humans have been in conflict for a long, long, long time.  We have also been very successful at I *Where arguments really fall apart is when someone tries to define things as only being able to be done one way*.  Because we all know there are multiple ways to do just about anything.  Some times there are better way's and some times there are multiple efficient ways to do anything!  Martial practitioner's that are around a long time typically figure this out.


----------



## Steve

Brian, It feels a little like you're still trying to suggest that my opinions aren't okay.  But honestly, I can't be sure because you're so indirect and conflict avoidant your posts are hard to understand.  

I have no doubt aikido could work well if trained well. If you think otherwise, you don't get it. 

As an aside, Aikido is also relatively new, as is judo, and most of the modern styles of karate.  

Lastly, If you think people are trolling, Brian, you really should pm then, or report them, or something.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Oh I think I get it as your other thread pointed out Steve. I haven't totally decided if I feel the same way but I would be remiss it I didn't say I was moving in that direction.

Actually that happens all the time here Steve. (ie. people being reported for trolling)  I like your posts, your opinions mostly coincide with my beliefs as well.  However, the idea that there is one training methodology and it is the only way is getting old here.  Myself and others have been very patient to this point.


----------



## Skullpunch

I don't hate aikido at all.  I'm also impressed with the guy in O'malley's video.  That said, if you ask me who would win a fight between a high level aikodo practitioner and a high level wrestler I'm still going with the wrestler 10 times out of 10.

If this qualifies as "hate" then I agree with you, aikido is very hated.  Otherwise, nah, it's not hated, most of us just don't think it kicks as much *** as other styles that are more proven is all.


----------



## Steve

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Oh I think I get it as your other thread pointed out Steve. I haven't totally decided if I feel the same way but I would be remiss it I didn't say I was moving in that direction.
> 
> Actually that happens all the time here Steve. (ie. people being reported for trolling)  I like your posts, your opinions mostly coincide with my beliefs as well.  However, the idea that there is one training methodology and it is the only way is getting old here.  Myself and others have been very patient to this point.


It is the way human beings learn everything and always have.  I appreciate that you have been patient, but thats actually a fact and not an opinion.


----------



## Juany118

Skullpunch said:


> I don't hate aikido at all.  I'm also impressed with the guy in O'malley's video.  That said, if you ask me who would win a fight between a high level aikodo practitioner and a high level wrestler I'm still going with the wrestler 10 times out of 10.
> 
> If this qualifies as "hate" then I agree with you, aikido is very hated.  Otherwise, nah, it's not hated, most of us just don't think it kicks as much *** as other styles that are more proven is all.



I think again you place Aikido under too large an umbrella.  You have to remember something, Aikido evolved greatly as O'Sensei aged.  You have the pre-war/immediately post war Aikido that is still VERY close to Aiki-Jujutsu (meaning entry with strikes, joint breaks vs locks etc. to the point I have heard those who study those lineages "evil Aikidoka".  You then have what people see as "stereotypical" Aikido, and then those that put what some consider an overemphasis on the concept of Ki.  In short there is no "universal" Aikido, anymore than there is Karate, Ju Jujutsu etc.


----------



## Buka

My name is Buka and I am an armbaraholic.

And I've learned from Aikido guys.


----------



## drop bear

O'Malley said:


> First example that comes to mind is people training at the shooting range for self-protection (or even the police). Not all of them go to test their skills in paintball matches, yet this training proves valuable when they have to actually shoot someone, even though they may hope to never have to use it.
> 
> One can train technique, timing, distance, position, balance and whatnot without having to compete in MMA.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a simple example:



Shooting is a different skill to fighting. And can be trained solo and static. 

You don't really need the instruction for shooting either.  

That throw is an example of training without resistance. If the other guy wanted to stop him the outcome of that throw would change.  Now as people have said if you wanted to just train that throw in that manner for the joy of it.  That is fine. 

If you ever wanted to use that throw in someone who doesn't like you.  You should compete for it at some stage.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> While I don't agree with the vilification of MMA, I agree with the general idea here, Jobo. I think a lot of folks I've trained with just wouldn't be interested in delivering the kind of punishment that often is necessary in MMA (as it is seen by those not actively training in it), unless someone puts them in a position to have that need (an attack/physical altercation).



What punishment? Even in MMA fights people don't generally walk off with broken limbs.

We have had the submissions vs limb destruction convo.

Submissions are significantly nicer.

If you followed the concept of peace in self defense.  You would do sub wrestling not Aikido.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> I disappoint myself all the time, so that's no big deal.
> 
> I think I finally am understanding. See, even the deepest, darkest cave can have a candle lit within.
> 
> You do armbar. I do armbar. They are both different, yet both reside in the set of things called armbars. The fact that we both call what we did, and what the other one of us just did, as armbars is not a quality comment on the armbars themselves.  Mine sucked.  Yours stretched out Tito Ortiz's arm to look as long as his legs (not a tremendous change, I grant you), but both still remain armbars.
> 
> But, if someone sees my horrible one, and goes, man I need to do that armbr like that guy, that was awesome!... but it's not... then they create for themselves a problem.  For me... I'm OK with that person making a bad judgment about the efficacy of what they are learning.... as long as they're not my student (caveat).  If we become concerned as teachers with everyone else's training model and pedagogical approaches (I suppose unless you are in a big association like USJA where there is a good reason for quality assurance modeling) I think we're aspiring too high for something we could in reasonable probability achieve.
> 
> And, some training models are anathema to others, intrinsically.  I just had a funny thought of the training sessions in Rocky IV as applied to a Tai Chi class (like the cool videos of the old folks in the park, all moving in unison for that day's wake-up practice. Which some of those people have been doihng for going past 50 years now....).  That's oil & water.
> 
> Shoot, my own, "Anyone have a question?" I say every class after showing something either old or new is anathema to some... hmm... people.  I'd say arts, but that's not really accurate.  Some people do not like, nor do they want, an open, questioning environment which revels in expirementation like I/we do.
> 
> You also said, "But an armbar in bjj is taught differently than an armbar in budo taijutsu.   Even different from judo.   The setups, the feints, the strategies, and the execution are all going to be different, even among close cousins like judo and BJJ.   The technique may be identical, but that's the least important part of the equation."
> 
> But, both are still armbars, right? I think you already agreed with me on this and I just kicked a deceased equine. Judo armbar isn't a BJJ armbar, though you have to actually go to class in each to figure out the subtle differences between them, imo. But the gross generalities which cause our thoughts/minds to categorize what we're talking about as "armbar" are the same, or similar enough, for the tag to fit.  That being said, a person whose avocation it is to be a martial artist is best served, again in my opinion, by seeking out other "styles" (it is why they call them styles by the way) of things like what you do, and learn from why and how they do what they do. Oftentimes, even if you don't find something outright better, you find at least some valid points with which to supplement your own skill.



Or otherwise. It seems that instead of putting the effort in to make their own stuff functional they have just thrown their name on everything that even looks similar.

Yes MMA does Aikido.  And it does it better. Yes there are Aikido people in the competition curcit.  And they can throw out Aikido moves and make them work. 

So if someone can't make Aikido work.  And you want it to.  You need to change your method. 

If you don't know then you need to change you method.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> My name is Buka and I am an armbaraholic.
> 
> And I've learned from Aikido guys.



Different argument though. If you have a honest training method you can. 

If you fill your head with baggage you are shooting yourself in the foot for functionality.

All these misguided conclusions that are holding people back.


----------



## Steve

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Oh I think I get it as your other thread pointed out Steve. I haven't totally decided if I feel the same way but I would be remiss it I didn't say I was moving in that direction.
> 
> Actually that happens all the time here Steve. (ie. people being reported for trolling)  I like your posts, your opinions mostly coincide with my beliefs as well.  However, the idea that there is one training methodology and it is the only way is getting old here.  Myself and others have been very patient to this point.


Brian, I'm concerned that you think I'm a "competition above all" guy.  I'm really not.  I'm an "application" guy.  There are a lot of great ways to apply techniques. Not just competition.  Where competition has a leg up on other means to apply training is that it doesn't require you to be in a violent profession or engage in high risk behaviors.   I wouldn't be at all surprised if a professionally violent person could apply aikido enough to develop real expertise.

You're so funny.  You even say in your post that they took what they learned and... what did they do?  They "applied it during arrests."  What?  Huh?  They did what during arrests?  That transfer from theory to application is crucial.  A cop probably has opportunity to develop real skill.  Joe Blow, the accountant, probably doesn't.

When you talk about the BJJ methodology, frankly, you're completely missing the point.  Or at least, you're missing my point.  And I believe you don't really have any interest in understanding it.  Maybe you do, but that's not my impression.  You continually present a straw man (an actual straw man in the logical fallacy sense, not how you guys generally use the term), tell me that's what I said, and then you make some half baked interjection, in bold and usually underlined, that has nothing to do with what I wrote.  It's frustrating, frankly.  And when I try to explain the difference between what I meant and what you think I meant, you call in reinforcements, and say very insulting things such as that I'm arguing just to argue.

So, when you say you're losing your patience, I have very little sympathy, honestly.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Or otherwise. It seems that instead of putting the effort in to make their own stuff functional they have just thrown their name on everything that even looks similar.
> 
> Yes MMA does Aikido.  And it does it better. Yes there are Aikido people in the competition curcit.  And they can throw out Aikido moves and make them work.
> 
> So if someone can't make Aikido work.  And you want it to.  You need to change your method.
> 
> If you don't know then you need to change you method.



But, they have to "find out" that they don't know, first... right?  

BTW I think you'll give Fried Rice n aneurysm saying that "Yes MMA does Aikido.  And it does it better."


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Brian, It feels a little like you're still trying to suggest that my opinions aren't okay.  But honestly, I can't be sure because you're so indirect and conflict avoidant your posts are hard to understand.
> 
> I have no doubt aikido could work well if trained well. If you think otherwise, you don't get it.
> 
> As an aside, Aikido is also relatively new, as is judo, and most of the modern styles of karate.
> 
> Lastly, If you think people are trolling, Brian, you really should pm then, or report them, or something.


I think the styles are as old as time its self and more or less universal to all countries
here for example is the traditional British marshal art , in which I was first trained as a five year old


----------



## JP3

Steve said:


> Brian, I'm concerned that you think I'm a "competition above all" guy.  I'm really not.  I'm an "application" guy.  There are a lot of great ways to apply techniques. Not just competition.  Where competition has a leg up on other means to apply training is that it doesn't require you to be in a violent profession or engage in high risk behaviors.   I wouldn't be at all surprised if a professionally violent person could apply aikido enough to develop real expertise.
> 
> You're so funny.  You even say in your post that they took what they learned and... what did they do?  They "applied it during arrests."  What?  Huh?  They did what during arrests?  That transfer from theory to application is crucial.  A cop probably has opportunity to develop real skill.  Joe Blow, the accountant, probably doesn't



For the record, I'm an application-guy myself.  My theories and conclusions on how to be a "better" application guy have... grown, some would say mutated, over the past 20 years or so.


----------



## Steve

Aikido was developed in the 1920s or so.
Judo in the late 1800s (1890 or so)
Goju Ryu sometime around the 1930s.
Isshin Ryu - 1956
BJJ - Depends on when you consider it founded, but somewhere in the early 1900s.  If you consider Meada the founder, in the 1915 area, or in the 1930s if you call Carlos or Helio Gracie the founders.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> But, they have to "find out" that they don't know, first... right?
> 
> BTW I think you'll give Fried Rice n aneurysm saying that "Yes MMA does Aikido.  And it does it better."



People open the door for this when they think their evidence has to equal their conclusion. 

Here is Aikido in the real world so therefore my training is validated.

And not. 

Here is Aikido in the real world so why can't I make this stuff work. 

I was on facebook just then and we were mocking the Dillman systems. And the thing is, from inside those systems people are convinced that what they are training is the business.

I have trained in those systems to a greater or lesser extent and I have heard the reasoning.

And the Dilman system is a good example. So as an idea.  I can say my system works.  And then show you me putting the cripple on.  And we assume I have the skills. 

But what happens  If I don't get to pick the guy I validate my system on?


----------



## Steve

JP3 said:


> For the record, I'm an application-guy myself.  My theories and conclusions on how to be a "better" application guy have... grown, some would say mutated, over the past 20 years or so.


It's not rocket science.  But if it were, there would still be application (because... rocket scientists build actual rockets.)

This goes back a bit, JP3.  I suggested at one point that guys who don't apply techniques, and then teach those techniques to other people, aren't really qualified to do so.  And the converse, if you want to become an expert at something, you must apply it.  This gets into identifying actual, measurable outcomes, and then testing for proficiency based upon these outcomes.

Add to this my suggestion that 'self defense' is a term that is defined opportunistically to either support or discount literally any position and some feathers get ruffled.


----------



## Steve

JP3 said:


> But, they have to "find out" that they don't know, first... right?
> 
> BTW I think you'll give Fried Rice n aneurysm saying that "Yes MMA does Aikido.  And it does it better."


Haha.  I can see the vein throbbing!


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Haha.  I can see the vein throbbing!



Some of the ideas that have been put out on this thread. I feel I am the one being trolled.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> It's not rocket science.  But if it were, there would still be application (because... rocket scientists build actual rockets.)
> 
> This goes back a bit, JP3.  I suggested at one point that guys who don't apply techniques, and then teach those techniques to other people, aren't really qualified to do so.  And the converse, if you want to become an expert at something, you must apply it.  This gets into identifying actual, measurable outcomes, and then testing for proficiency based upon these outcomes.
> 
> Add to this my suggestion that 'self defense' is a term that is defined opportunistically to either support or discount literally any position and some feathers get ruffled.



I mean what happens if i just roll up to your gym and say "Show me the power of your martial arts"

Do I get a demonstration with the instructor on a student? 

Or leave in an ambulance?


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> But what happens  If I don't get to pick the guy I validate my system on?



You get outed as believing your own bullsh*t. It is a painful learning experience, and one hopes that it happens in/on the friendly confines of a training facility, not "out there."


----------



## JP3

Steve said:


> It's not rocket science.  But if it were, there would still be application (because... rocket scientists build actual rockets.)
> 
> This goes back a bit, JP3.  I suggested at one point that guys who don't apply techniques, and then teach those techniques to other people, aren't really qualified to do so.  And the converse, if you want to become an expert at something, you must apply it.  This gets into identifying actual, measurable outcomes, and then testing for proficiency based upon these outcomes.
> 
> Add to this my suggestion that 'self defense' is a term that is defined opportunistically to either support or discount literally any position and some feathers get ruffled.


As I think it was Drop that said that if you change the definition of the term you change the whole argument, or something like that.  There is a reason that a good contract has a "definitions" section.

I can attest that certain professors in a certain field, while knowledgeable, are not experts whatsoever. The knowledge of the thing, while helpful to understanding and important, is not in and of itself "useful." One must use a thing in order for it to become useful, yes?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Steve said:


> You're so funny.  You even say in your post that they took what they learned and... what did they do?  They "applied it during arrests."  What?  Huh?  They did what during arrests?  That transfer from theory to application is crucial.  A cop probably has opportunity to develop real skill.  Joe Blow, the accountant, probably doesn't.



They took what they learned in technique training and then applied it.  They didn't use the methodology that you continuous seem to put out there.  They had no resistance training in other words.   Therein lies the difference in what you are continuously putting out there Steve.  They, learned just like an Aikidoist learns in the dojo.  Ouch...


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> I mean what happens if i just roll up to your gym and say "Show me the power of your martial arts"
> 
> Do I get a demonstration with the instructor on a student?
> 
> Or leave in an ambulance?



At my place, you'd get a demo on you,but that's just the simple answer, not a challenge so don't go boarding Qantas.  I've had this happen.  Well, not the guy rolling up and saying, "Show me the power of your martial arts"  Who would do that except on a late-night Kung Fu movie?  But, I have had it happen, sort of.

This happened last year. No wait, this is 2017, so it was 2 years ago but we were still at the same location as now. The instructor from the TKD school literally in the same building complex came in, Korean guy, and literally asked my first student who greeted him, "Does your aikido work? I would like to see some of it."  He had just stepped off of his own mat and walked down the sidewalk, in his dobok, so I was wondering... "What time is it and what channel am I tuned to right now?"  Frayed & graying black belt and everything.

Long story short, I talked with the guy, and he was looking for something effective, but which would not offend the local school district's police policies on defensive violence.  Right now, in most of the US it is deplorable, if a kid swings at your kid, and your kid  gets hit, then hits back... both kids get sent to in-school kid jail.  Sometimes, even if your kid is not hit, both kids go to the same in-school jail.  So, he'd found for himself a situation where his own hard-won skillset was not really appropriate and useful and it was tearing him up.

So, I ended up using a corner of the mat and giving him some simple, non-striking things that he could quickly show his son in case of the usual types of bully attacks like the bear hug and the suckerpunch (assuming he saw it coming). Just movement based stuff and stuff anyone with: A) a clear head (he was really torn up about it); and b) some background in a grappling system... would know.

One of my buds takes his girls to a nearby judo school I'm loosely affiliated with and I pointed him at that school. He stopped by about a season later and thanked me, his son wasn't having the problems he'd been having any longer.

Accepting the challenge of "Your stuff don't work" can be done in a de-escalating manner, just like with any other type of... engagement.  Attitude mostly. Like when a guy's all drunked himself out and the girl has left the bar with the other guy and all he really wants, he thinks, is to hit someone. Talking that guy off of his personal cliff is in the same family of skills.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

drop bear said:


> Shooting is a different skill to fighting. And can be trained solo and static.
> 
> You don't really need the instruction for shooting either.


*
No firearms instructor in the world or shooting enthusiast believes this drop bear*.  People pay thousands of dollars regularly on shooting instruction.  Shooting is a physical skill that anyone who takes up for safety reasons should get some instruction in before they start.  As a physical skill they should do it regularly so the skill set remains ingrained.  Shooting can as you mentioned be trained solo, static, in groups, under pressure such as timing, shoot house or under pressure such as force on force training with airsoft.  Shooting is very dynamic and a skill set that takes a lot of training in to be any good at.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> *No firearms instructor in the world or shooting enthusiast believes this drop bear*.  People pay thousands of dollars regularly on shooting instruction.  Shooting is a physical skill that anyone who takes up for safety reasons should get some instruction in before they start.  As a physical skill they should do it regularly so the skill set remains ingrained.  Shooting can as you mentioned be trained solo, static, in groups, under pressure such as timing or under pressure such as force on force training with airsoft.  Shooting is very dynamic and a skill set that takes a lot of training in to be any good at.



Australian police mandate 30 rounds a year. For real world self defence.

Thats it.


----------



## JP3

Brian R. VanCise said:


> They took what they learned in technique training and then applied it.  They didn't use the methodology that you continuous seem to put out there.  They had no resistance training in other words.   Therein lies the difference in what you are continuously putting out there Steve.  They, learned just like an Aikidoist learns in the dojo.  Ouch...



I'm not able to follow that... are you saying that aikidoists don't use resistance training?  We do.  Well, at least I do and the people from whom I learned it do.  The whole progressive resistance paradigm.  first complete compliance, then No resistance, then no energy, then no movement, then actively not moving, then actively seeking to defeat the technique, then actively trying to reverse the technique and finally actively attempting to counter-attack with whatever is to hand.  Each of these ... levels has its own internal power/speed/effort level. Wind it all the way up to Full-tilt boogie and things get messy.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

drop bear said:


> Australian police mandate 30 rounds a year. For real world self defence.
> 
> Thats it.



On top of after going through an academy which included intensive training.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> On top of after going through an academy which included intensive training.




I know a couple of cops. I will find out how many hours it takes to become proficient for self defence with a pistol in the academy.

For me as a security guard I think it is a couple of days. Of intensive training.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

JP3 said:


> I'm not able to follow that... are you saying that aikidoists don't use resistance training?  We do.  Well, at least I do and the people from whom I learned it do.  The whole progressive resistance paradigm.  first complete compliance, then No resistance, then no energy, then no movement, then actively not moving, then actively seeking to defeat the technique, then actively trying to reverse the technique and finally actively attempting to counter-attack with whatever is to hand.  Each of these ... levels has its own internal power/speed/effort level. Wind it all the way up to Full-tilt boogie and things get messy.



Are you saying in your Aikido training that you have "free sparring" anything goes kind've like mma with Aikido.  Or do you mean you take a technique, learn it, apply it against a non-resisting opponent then slowly amp up the level of resistance from the uke without totally going into a free sparring methodology?


----------



## Steve

JP3 said:


> As I think it was Drop that said that if you change the definition of the term you change the whole argument, or something like that.  There is a reason that a good contract has a "definitions" section.
> 
> I can attest that certain professors in a certain field, while knowledgeable, are not experts whatsoever. The knowledge of the thing, while helpful to understanding and important, is not in and of itself "useful." One must use a thing in order for it to become useful, yes?


Bless you.  I'm tearing up with joy.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

drop bear said:


> I know a couple of cops. I will find out how many hours it takes to become proficient for self defence with a pistol in the academy.



When I went through the academy here in the states I believe we had around twenty hours to become moderately proficient.  Most officers I know then attended further training even when a department only demanded quarterly or yearly qualifying.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> When I went through the academy here in the states I believe we had around twenty hours to become moderately proficient.  Most officers I know then attended further training even when a department only demanded quarterly or yearly qualifying.



Is 20 hours a lot as compared to training martial arts?


----------



## jobo

JP3 said:


> At my place, you'd get a demo on you,but that's just the simple answer, not a challenge so don't go boarding Qantas.  I've had this happen.  Well, not the guy rolling up and saying, "Show me the power of your martial arts"  Who would do that except on a late-night Kung Fu movie?  But, I have had it happen, sort of.
> 
> This happened last year. No wait, this is 2017, so it was 2 years ago but we were still at the same location as now. The instructor from the TKD school literally in the same building complex came in, Korean guy, and literally asked my first student who greeted him, "Does your aikido work? I would like to see some of it."  He had just stepped off of his own mat and walked down the sidewalk, in his dobok, so I was wondering... "What time is it and what channel am I tuned to right now?"  Frayed & graying black belt and everything.
> 
> Long story short, I talked with the guy, and he was looking for something effective, but which would not offend the local school district's police policies on defensive violence.  Right now, in most of the US it is deplorable, if a kid swings at your kid, and your kid  gets hit, then hits back... both kids get sent to in-school kid jail.  Sometimes, even if your kid is not hit, both kids go to the same in-school jail.  So, he'd found for himself a situation where his own hard-won skillset was not really appropriate and useful and it was tearing him up.
> 
> So, I ended up using a corner of the mat and giving him some simple, non-striking things that he could quickly show his son in case of the usual types of bully attacks like the bear hug and the suckerpunch (assuming he saw it coming). Just movement based stuff and stuff anyone with: A) a clear head (he was really torn up about it); and b) some background in a grappling system... would know.
> 
> One of my buds takes his girls to a nearby judo school I'm loosely affiliated with and I pointed him at that school. He stopped by about a season later and thanked me, his son wasn't having the problems he'd been having any longer.
> 
> Accepting the challenge of "Your stuff don't work" can be done in a de-escalating manner, just like with any other type of... engagement.  Attitude mostly. Like when a guy's all drunked himself out and the girl has left the bar with the other guy and all he really wants, he thinks, is to hit someone. Talking that guy off of his personal cliff is in the same family of skills.


yea its much the same here, the victim gets punished usually instead of the bully if they hit back. My nephew about 9 was being bullied extensively by a big kid ay school, his parents went to the school umpteen times nothing. So I said nothing about the bullying, but do you fancy learning tkd. He did, so we did that for about 6months . Then his parents get a call. He has tkd kick the bully in the face and broke his nose. All sorts of trouble and suspension's I got the blame for encouraging him. But the big kid never went with in kicking distance of him again. 8 years later we were parking up at the local shops and some guy walks past and complains about my parking, I was about to reply when my nephew pipes up, talk to me like that and il break your nose, and I thought my work here is done.


----------



## Steve

Brian R. VanCise said:


> They took what they learned in technique training and then applied it.  They didn't use the methodology that you continuous seem to put out there.  They had no resistance training in other words.   Therein lies the difference in what you are continuously putting out there Steve.  They, learned just like an Aikidoist learns in the dojo.  Ouch...


this may blow your mind, but I've never argued for resistance training to exclusion of other training tools.   If you think I have, I either haven't explained it well or you just don't get it... maybe a little of both. ive actually said the opposite many, many times.   Weird, I know, because you think you get it.  And it's inconceivable to you that you don't.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

drop bear said:


> Is 20 hours a lot as compared to training martial arts?



No, not really and I would advocate any LEO to seek out more training and most do.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Steve said:


> this may blow your mind, but I've never argued for resistance training to exclusion of other training tools.   If you think I have, I either haven't explained it well or you just don't get it... maybe a little of both. ive actually said the opposite many, many times.   Weird, I know, because you think you get it.  And it's inconceivable to you that you don't.



Really Steve, you could have simply said, "I don't advocate resistance training above all other training tools".  Rather than trying to be snarky and insulting.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> No, not really and I would advocate any LEO to seek out more training and most do.



And that sounds a reasonable response.

But not the opinion of every fireams instructor or enthusiast. Or they wouldn't put people out there with the training they do.

For me if I were to do firearms with the intention of ever actually using one. There would be some simulated gun fights. Some sort of real feed back and some sort of honesty. It would be screw what feels good. Or what grows me as a person. I would want this stuff to work.

Notice how you are moving into gun training hate by suggesting the bare minimum really isn't advisable if you are going to bank your head on the results?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

No I am not moving into gun training hate.  I actually am in the field. 

I have yet to meet a firearms instructor or enthusiast who thinks there is a bare minimum.  Heck I have an eight hour course tomorrow myself.  Eight hours in a row...


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> No I am not moving into gun training hate.  I actually am in the field.
> 
> I have yet to meet a firearms instructor or enthusiast who thinks there is a bare minimum.  Heck I have an eight hour course tomorrow myself.  Eight hours in a row...



So these fireams instructors are signing of on guys as competent. But don't believe that they really are.

I mean at what point in a police officers career will they be expected to have to use the weapon they have done 20 hours on?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

All the firearm instructors I know including those at the academy would tell you to regularly get instruction and then invest in more training.  Not just a one off and you are all set!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Anyways, let's move the thread back to Aikido...

We can always talk in conversation or start another thread on firearms training!


----------



## CB Jones

drop bear said:


> So these fireams instructors are signing of on guys as competent. But don't believe that they really are.
> 
> I mean at what point in a police officers career will they be expected to have to use the weapon they have done 20 hours on?



You are making a lot of assumptions.

20 hours of training during the academy plus you have to show competency and pass qualification for post certification.

You then have to pass that qualification every year...failure to pass and you aren't allowed to carry.

Plus training throughout the year.  My agency requires 8 hours of training every quarter.

Also add-in simmunition training (live force on force training) plus video simulation training.

Plus many cops enjoy shooting and spend a lot of free time target sbooting.


----------



## JP3

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Are you saying in your Aikido training that you have "free sparring" anything goes kind've like mma with Aikido.  Or do you mean you take a technique, learn it, apply it against a non-resisting opponent then slowly amp up the level of resistance from the uke without totally going into a free sparring methodology?



The former, after the latter when the people are able to withstand it.  I'll explain.

I'm a weird creature for my school and students. Nobody, even the older guy working with the students in my place who outranks me in Tomiki aikido has the cross-genre experience that I have.  I'm not saying I'm unique in the world, or even in my town, but in my school so far (this school is only 6 years old) the only other arts present (outside of myself) are a bit of TKD.  About 10 years ago at my previous place, we had everything from BJJ, Krav, kung fu (forget which style), Shotokan karate, judo etc.  We'd work on something, then work upwards th through the resistance until going nearly full-speed or nearly full power (trying to avoid both so as to not have people leaving for the hospital). But yes, using the aikido against a freestyle attack from the opponent after an initial start position.  We ... were... training trying to learn a specific thing, not to just have an MMA match.

It is very useful, and illuminating to think you've got something down, only to catch a foot in the face.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> All the firearm instructors I know including those at the academy would tell you to regularly get instruction and then invest in more training.  Not just a one off and you are all set!




Congratulations. You just became me.


----------



## drop bear

CB Jones said:


> You are making a lot of assumptions.
> 
> 20 hours of training during the academy plus you have to show competency and pass qualification for post certification.
> 
> You then have to pass that qualification every year...failure to pass and you aren't allowed to carry.
> 
> Plus training throughout the year.  My agency requires 8 hours of training every quarter.
> 
> Also add-in simmunition training (live force on force training) plus video simulation training.
> 
> Plus many cops enjoy shooting and spend a lot of free time target sbooting.



Well if we start a new thread we will have to test how silly these Aikido arguments sound in a different context.


----------



## Steve

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Really Steve, you could have simply said, "I don't advocate resistance training above all other training tools".  Rather than trying to be snarky and insulting.


not snarky... exasperation.   I understand how that could look snarky, but it's genuine, head shaking, arms in the air exasperation at how you don't get it.   Let's be real here.   If I said, "I don't advocate resistance training (a term I honestly don't believe I've  ever used) above all other training tools," I don't think you'd believe me.  I mean, you have already said in this thread that this is something you think ive been saying contuously to the point it's trying your patience.   What the hell, Brian?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Well Steve, that goes for both of us.  I am exasperated as well!


----------



## Steve

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Well Steve, that goes for both of us.  I am exasperated as well!


So, let's try this.   I invite you to reread my posts now that you know that application is not code for BJJ or MMA.   And then maybe you will better understand my perspective.  If you have questions, I'm happy to answer them.


----------



## drop bear

Ok. I have come up with a bit of an idea of how to explain this.

Say you want to do a wrist lock. And instead of just doing it for the joy of wrist locking people you want to use this for self defence.

Now you cant really train this lock because it rips the arm out of its socket or something. But you have drilled it and are pretty confident with it. And your instructor says it works and your friends says it looks cool.

Now in walks a nasty MMA hater and says "before you get anywhere near my wrist I am going to punch you in the face because I hate Aikido and love face punching."

Well you say "I have atemi which is Aikido for face punching. So I can defend punches and deliver my own which will get me to that wrist"

Well guess what you can test and refine that. That is called boxing. That is called MMA, that is called getting a set of five ounce gloves on and seeing if you can get  anywhere near securing that arm.

Now you have spent this time and are a decent striker and you can actually touch a guys wrist in some sort of semblance of a real fight. You dont have to keep complaining he is hitting you wrong And that on the street it will be different. However he hits you. You have the skill to evade punches throw punches and touch that wrist.

Now MMA hater comes back and says" Thats groovy but I am still not just giving you that lock. I will use my amazing MMA technique called defending it."

And you say. "Well bugger. There must be a way I can find out how to get that arm keep it and screw your base up so I can actually have a chance at making the wrist lock work."

well funnily enough. There is wrestling, BJJ, sub westling. And all these other methods of seeing if you can control any variables that will either let that wristlock work or make that lock fail.

What I read is it is all about the lock.






Thanks bruce. Loved you in romeo must die by the way.

Now if you dont consider all these variables and get them in order in some manner. No matter how good you wrist lock is you have a crappy wrist lock.

Sorry I would love for there to be another easier way. But I just dont see one.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I am not sure how you would functionally apply a martial art that avoids resistance.


That's part of what I've been trying to explain. Now, NGA (the way I understand it, anyway), is different from Ueshiba's Aikido (the way I understand it). Only part of what we do would be considered "Aikido" by most of those training Ueshiba's art. So, perhaps this will provide a means of understanding.

When I find resistance, I have 3 choices:

Meet the resistance with overwhelming force (an option in NGA that seems to me is outside the core of Ueshiba's art) to meet my goal of ending the attack. This can be a strike, hard leverage, etc.
Use something like hard leverage to move past the resistance (an option that might be on the edge of Ueshiba's art).
Bypass the resistance and move to a technique that works where the resistance currently isn't (what I perceive as being closer to the core of Ueshiba's art).
That third option is the preferred option in NGA, and that's what we share with Ueshiba's art. It is entirely possible to overcome almost any attack that way. We often resort to the other options out of expediency, and as a recovery when we make an error. They are a convenience, but actually open up fewer options (in our toolbox) than the third option.


----------



## Steve

For the record, I don't want anyone to think I'm anti-resistance training.   Lol.  I just think there needs to be something beyond resistance training, and that's actually doing the thing as intended.   Whatever that thing is.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Ok. I have come up with a bit of an idea of how to explain this.
> 
> Say you want to do a wrist lock. And instead of just doing it for the joy of wrist locking people you want to use this for self defence.
> 
> Now you cant really train this lock because it rips the arm out of its socket or something. But you have drilled it and are pretty confident with it. And your instructor says it works and your friends says it looks cool.
> 
> Now in walks a nasty MMA hater and says "before you get anywhere near my wrist I am going to punch you in the face because I hate Aikido and love face punching."
> 
> Well you say "I have atemi which is Aikido for face punching. So I can defend punches and deliver my own which will get me to that wrist"
> 
> Well guess what you can test and refine that. That is called boxing. That is called MMA, that is called getting a set of five ounce gloves on and seeing if you can get  anywhere near securing that arm.
> 
> Now you have spent this time and are a decent striker and you can actually touch a guys wrist in some sort of semblance of a real fight. You dont have to keep complaining he is hitting you wrong And that on the street it will be different. However he hits you. You have the skill to evade punches throw punches and touch that wrist.
> 
> Now MMA hater comes back and says" Thats groovy but I am still not just giving you that lock. I will use my amazing MMA technique called defending it."
> 
> And you say. "Well bugger. There must be a way I can find out how to get that arm keep it and screw your base up so I can actually have a chance at making the wrist lock work."
> 
> well funnily enough. There is wrestling, BJJ, sub westling. And all these other methods of seeing if you can control any variables that will either let that wristlock work or make that lock fail.
> 
> What I read is it is all about the lock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks bruce. Loved you in romeo must die by the way.
> 
> Now if you dont consider all these variables and get them in order in some manner. No matter how good you wrist lock is you have a crappy wrist lock.
> 
> Sorry I would love for there to be another easier way. But I just dont see one.


 but all these what ifs always seem to depend on your opponent being a derange but highly skilled Mma exponent. They must make up an exceedingly  small percentage of the population . Yet on here they seem to be round every corner just itching to attack aikidio people on the flimsiest of excuses. They are to the most part pycotic killing machines. They will win against most arts. Even if you trained bjj. They would still beat you up coz your not phycotic enough and haven't taken enough steroids


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok. I have come up with a bit of an idea of how to explain this.
> 
> Say you want to do a wrist lock. And instead of just doing it for the joy of wrist locking people you want to use this for self defence.
> 
> Now you cant really train this lock because it rips the arm out of its socket or something. But you have drilled it and are pretty confident with it. And your instructor says it works and your friends says it looks cool.
> 
> Now in walks a nasty MMA hater and says "before you get anywhere near my wrist I am going to punch you in the face because I hate Aikido and love face punching."
> 
> Well you say "I have atemi which is Aikido for face punching. So I can defend punches and deliver my own which will get me to that wrist"
> 
> Well guess what you can test and refine that. That is called boxing. That is called MMA, that is called getting a set of five ounce gloves on and seeing if you can get  anywhere near securing that arm.
> 
> Now you have spent this time and are a decent striker and you can actually touch a guys wrist in some sort of semblance of a real fight. You dont have to keep complaining he is hitting you wrong And that on the street it will be different. However he hits you. You have the skill to evade punches throw punches and touch that wrist.
> 
> Now MMA hater comes back and says" Thats groovy but I am still not just giving you that lock. I will use my amazing MMA technique called defending it."
> 
> And you say. "Well bugger. There must be a way I can find out how to get that arm keep it and screw your base up so I can actually have a chance at making the wrist lock work."
> 
> well funnily enough. There is wrestling, BJJ, sub westling. And all these other methods of seeing if you can control any variables that will either let that wristlock work or make that lock fail.
> 
> What I read is it is all about the lock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks bruce. Loved you in romeo must die by the way.
> 
> Now if you dont consider all these variables and get them in order in some manner. No matter how good you wrist lock is you have a crappy wrist lock.
> 
> Sorry I would love for there to be another easier way. But I just dont see one.


Ah, I think I see part of the difference you and I have in some of our discussions, DB. You see, the lock (in most aikido arts), isn't the point, at all. If that MMA guy says "I won't let you have that lock" then I won't even try for the lock. Why? Because he knows it's coming, and if he resists it, he has to open up something else. I'd be looking for the "something else". Now, if he's better than me, or just hits better than I defend strikes, I'll end up on the worst end of that. But that's about a difference in skill. If my skill at defending strikes equals or exceeds his ability to deliver strikes, then there's a real chance I'll be able to find a technique he's open for.

I've only talked strikes in this, obviously. For this example, I've just followed your post. He might also go for a double-leg takedown, and the logic is the same there: his attack skill on that thing versus my skill at defending against it. And, of course, there's also his ability to defend against whatever technique I choose, assuming he can perceive it before it's too late. But that's all a matter of comparative skill, not the functionality of the technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> I think training methodology has a large part to play, but its not the only requirement or even actually important at all in some circumstances.
> 
> let's take soccer as an example, every one can play soccer, its easy. You try to kick the ball to team mate and failing that kick it in the general direction of the opponents goal. You've got that simple concept and your a soccer player. Now some people will never get any better no matter who coaches them and for how long. They have a certain aptitude and that's it. Now obviously if you can get the other team to all stand still, you can convince them they are better than they actually are.
> 
> conversely you can take another player, give him bad coaching and his natural abilities will see him through, he may not be as good as he could be, but maybe his is
> 
> as a soccer player I am or at least was quite good, no fancy ball skills needed, I could run faster than most, and tackle like a dumper truck. No amount of coaching would turn me in a skilled midfield player. It was pointless even trying. It's much the same with ma, nothing will ever give me a good side kick, nothing. But who cares when I have a knee. High round house that will cut your leg off


I disagree with the premise, unless I'm misunderstanding you. Let's say I take a student and train them the best possible side kick (technically speaking), but they only ever train either against a heavy bag or against a person doing a very predictable, repetitive pattern. You take an equally capable student, and teach them the best possible side kick, adding in nothing but a randomly moving opponent who will actually try to block or dodge. In the end, your student's kick will almost certainly be more usable than mine. Why? The training method. Your training method brought more variety and adaptability (and reality) to the side kick skill.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> but all these what ifs always seem to depend on your opponent being a derange but highly skilled Mma exponent. They must make up an exceedingly  small percentage of the population . Yet on here they seem to be round every corner just itching to attack aikidio people on the flimsiest of excuses. They are to the most part pycotic killing machines. They will win against most arts. Even if you trained bjj. They would still beat you up coz your not phycotic enough and haven't taken enough steroids


It's an odd thing.   Self defense guys will lead you to believe you're gonna get mugged or murdered at any time (and lucky it hasn't happened to you already)  but that the guy who does it will be untrained.   It's an odd combination of hyper-preparedness and disregard.

It seems much more reasonable to me to acknowledge you are unlikely to  be attacked, but if so, that guy might be well trained.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Ah, I think I see part of the difference you and I have in some of our discussions, DB. You see, the lock (in most aikido arts), isn't the point, at all. If that MMA guy says "I won't let you have that lock" then I won't even try for the lock. Why? Because he knows it's coming, and if he resists it, he has to open up something else. I'd be looking for the "something else". Now, if he's better than me, or just hits better than I defend strikes, I'll end up on the worst end of that. But that's about a difference in skill. If my skill at defending strikes equals or exceeds his ability to deliver strikes, then there's a real chance I'll be able to find a technique he's open for.
> 
> I've only talked strikes in this, obviously. For this example, I've just followed your post. He might also go for a double-leg takedown, and the logic is the same there: his attack skill on that thing versus my skill at defending against it. And, of course, there's also his ability to defend against whatever technique I choose, assuming he can perceive it before it's too late. But that's all a matter of comparative skill, not the functionality of the technique.


Yes!  The setup is an implied part of the technique.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> I disagree with the premise, unless I'm misunderstanding you. Let's say I take a student and train them the best possible side kick (technically speaking), but they only ever train either against a heavy bag or against a person doing a very predictable, repetitive pattern. You take an equally capable student, and teach them the best possible side kick, adding in nothing but a randomly moving opponent who will actually try to block or dodge. In the end, your student's kick will almost certainly be more usable than mine. Why? The training method. Your training method brought more variety and adaptability (and reality) to the side kick skill.


not if the kick is equally poorly exicuted they will both be equally rubbish. If my student is so poor that he can't hit the moving targets, then your will be better as at least he has had practise kicking something
people only have so much ability, once you have reach that point you can coach for ever with no improvements'


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> but all these what ifs always seem to depend on your opponent being a derange but highly skilled Mma exponent. They must make up an exceedingly  small percentage of the population . Yet on here they seem to be round every corner just itching to attack aikidio people on the flimsiest of excuses. They are to the most part pycotic killing machines. They will win against most arts. Even if you trained bjj. They would still beat you up coz your not phycotic enough and haven't taken enough steroids



You are trying to broaden the range of oponant that you can handle. This would be the essence of getting better at self defence.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Ah, I think I see part of the difference you and I have in some of our discussions, DB. You see, the lock (in most aikido arts), isn't the point, at all. If that MMA guy says "I won't let you have that lock" then I won't even try for the lock. Why? Because he knows it's coming, and if he resists it, he has to open up something else. I'd be looking for the "something else". Now, if he's better than me, or just hits better than I defend strikes, I'll end up on the worst end of that. But that's about a difference in skill. If my skill at defending strikes equals or exceeds his ability to deliver strikes, then there's a real chance I'll be able to find a technique he's open for.
> 
> I've only talked strikes in this, obviously. For this example, I've just followed your post. He might also go for a double-leg takedown, and the logic is the same there: his attack skill on that thing versus my skill at defending against it. And, of course, there's also his ability to defend against whatever technique I choose, assuming he can perceive it before it's too late. But that's all a matter of comparative skill, not the functionality of the technique.



Ok. If you boxed as an example and you got punched in the face and could not land a punch then you would know what you had to work on to fix that element. If you didn't box you will never know.

If you feel that sport has no bearing on your self defence you would never make that connection and would then rely on what exactly?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*Steve, I will do that and please take that in a sincere manner.*  However it is not just this thread.  I am basing your posting over several threads and months where you have argued with people who are basically experts at what they do. (Koryu, Self Defense, Aikido, etc.)    Now, if you believe the methodology for training in BJJ, Judo, Combat Sports, etc. is the end all be all I don't even have a problem with that.  Nor do I have a problem if you don't believe that.  As long as someone is not working overtly or subtly to undermine other arts or putting those practitioner's down or negatively talking about their training I don't care. 

Think of it this way Steve.  In regards to my exasperation here.  You specifically started another thread recently basically saying you wanted to put me on ignore.  I on the other hand have tried to engage with you in a friendly positive manner with absolutely no bad intentions on my part and I have gone out of my way to stick up for you in the past.  Who should be exasperated here or disappointed?

Having said that, I look forward to your future posts and will reread your posts on this thread and several others when I get a chance.  Maybe we are having one of those famous internet misunderstandings?  I just wanted you to understand my perspective on how you have come across over the last several months here on MartialTalk.  If you wish to carry this on let's move it to conversation as I am sure everyone on this thread could really care less about you or my personal perspectives on each other and frankly it is taking away from the thread. 

------------------Back To The Thread---------------------

Now, let's move this thread back to what the OP originally intended and in specifically why does Aikido receive so much hate! 

*Which personally I do not think it does.  
*
No more or less than any martial system!  One only has to look through the internet and you will find threads attacking almost every martial system.

I have said before and I will say it again I have met many Aikidoka that were really good at what they do and proficient with there skill sets which I have no doubt they could use!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> My name is Buka and I am an armbaraholic.
> 
> And I've learned from Aikido guys.


I went through a phase where my instructor told new students I studied Armbardo.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> It's an odd thing.   Self defense guys will lead you to believe you're gonna get mugged or murdered at any time (and lucky it hasn't happened to you already)  but that the guy who does it will be untrained.   It's an odd combination of hyper-preparedness and disregard.
> 
> It seems much more reasonable to me to acknowledge you are unlikely to  be attacked, but if so, that guy might be well trained.


well yea, there does seem a level of paranoia in some folk.

but they are probably right on the untrained point. If you took the number of criminals in your country and then subtracted the number of criminals who have reached a good standard in a ma. Then you would probably find that a ) not hugely larger than b.)
Not least that the discipline required to get to a good standard and the lack of discipline involved in a life of crime are not really compatable or,, if they had that discipline they would use it to find a better way to make money that robbing passerby. Like bank robbery perhaps


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> What punishment? Even in MMA fights people don't generally walk off with broken limbs.
> 
> We have had the submissions vs limb destruction convo.
> 
> Submissions are significantly nicer.
> 
> If you followed the concept of peace in self defense.  You would do sub wrestling not Aikido.


I'm not talking about broken limbs. I'm talking about hitting someone hard enough to end a bout. I just have no interest in that. I could probably (if my knees weren't crap) enjoy getting into BJJ competition. But getting into MMA - I'd just be the guy not fighting hard enough when facing an opponent with a strong striking game. I'm not interested in hitting him hard enough to win that, nor am I interested in taking the beating he'd give me in that bout.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok. If you boxed as an example and you got punched in the face and could not land a punch then you would know what you had to work on to fix that element. If you didn't box you will never know.
> 
> If you feel that sport has no bearing on your self defence you would never make that connection and would then rely on what exactly?


Where have I ever said sport has no bearing on self-defense? This post seems to have no connection to the one you quoted.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Is 20 hours a lot as compared to training martial arts?


That's basically 20 hours on a single, basic technique. I'd compare it to 20 hours spent on a basic single-leg and some simple set-up variations, and maybe some distancing drills. The gun has the advantage, of course, that resistance doesn't matter so much if it's pointed the right way when it goes off, so it's less prone to resistance failure than a single-leg. However, that 20 hours still won't make the gun terribly useful if the bad guy grabs the shooter's hand before he clears the holster. He'll need something besides that 20 hours of training, most likely, for that situation.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Where have I ever said sport has no bearing on self-defense? This post seems to have no connection to the one you quoted.



Ok.  Different idea.  I get the impression that people want their cake and 6 pack abs.  It is not unusual we get it a bit as well. 

So in a similar vein People want to become a proficient striker but not want to do hard rounds with absolute mongrels.

Do you feel you are selling that idea to a certain extent.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> not if the kick is equally poorly exicuted they will both be equally rubbish. If my student is so poor that he can't hit the moving targets, then your will be better as at least he has had practise kicking something
> people only have so much ability, once you have reach that point you can coach for ever with no improvements'


Remember that your student has all the training mine has. You added the moving target. As long as you train him as well as I train mine, yours will be superior (unless we both suck as teachers, then we both need to quit and go wait tables).


----------



## jobo

jobo said:


> not if the kick is equally poorly exicuted they will both be equally rubbish. If my student is so poor that he can't hit the moving targets, then your will be better as at least he has had practise kicking something
> people only have so much ability, once you have reach that point you can coach for ever with no improvements'


or another way of looking at it, one of the black belts I spar with has beautifully exicuted kicks. They are high they are accurate, they are power full. Unfortunately for him, they don't hit me as I have moved, he just isn't fast enough. And worse than that every time he does one I sweep his standing leg, so he falls over. He gets quite cross about it. You cant coach him faster, he is limited by what god gave him


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's basically 20 hours on a single, basic technique. I'd compare it to 20 hours spent on a basic single-leg and some simple set-up variations, and maybe some distancing drills. The gun has the advantage, of course, that resistance doesn't matter so much if it's pointed the right way when it goes off, so it's less prone to resistance failure than a single-leg. However, that 20 hours still won't make the gun terribly useful if the bad guy grabs the shooter's hand before he clears the holster. He'll need something besides that 20 hours of training, most likely, for that situation.



Which is kind of what I originally said. And then everyone drop beared that idea.


----------



## Steve




----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not talking about broken limbs. I'm talking about hitting someone hard enough to end a bout. I just have no interest in that. I could probably (if my knees weren't crap) enjoy getting into BJJ competition. But getting into MMA - I'd just be the guy not fighting hard enough when facing an opponent with a strong striking game. I'm not interested in hitting him hard enough to win that, nor am I interested in taking the beating he'd give me in that bout.



Your whole philosophy of applying locks is different to sub wrestlers. 

If he doesn't go with the technique he will get hurt. Which is why you can't train in certain ways. 

Has that changed?


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> well yea, there does seem a level of paranoia in some folk.
> 
> but they are probably right on the untrained point. If you took the number of criminals in your country and then subtracted the number of criminals who have reached a good standard in a ma. Then you would probably find that a ) not hugely larger than b.)
> Not least that the discipline required to get to a good standard and the lack of discipline involved in a life of crime are not really compatable or,, if they had that discipline they would use it to find a better way to make money that robbing passerby. Like bank robbery perhaps


Fair enough.   It's incongruent, though, because in every other way, the training is over engineered with knives, guns, gangs, needles, grenades, tactical nukes and MMA thugs.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Fair enough.   It's incongruent, though, because in every other way, the training is over engineered with knives, guns, gangs, needles, grenades, tactical nukes and MMA thugs.



You mean like where someone doesn't like a technique because it leaves them vulnerable to three guys coming out of the woodwork and beating you up?

Ummm.


Thats every technique isn't it?


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Fair enough.   It's incongruent, though, because in every other way, the training is over engineered with knives, guns, gangs, needles, grenades, tactical nukes and MMA thugs.


yea, people selling self defence are selling a) paranoia and b) easy answers . It matters not if the thug is trained , if he is stronger faster with better cardio you have probably lost. To pretend otherwise is fraud by those who run these courses, most of the people doing self defence would actually be more capable of defending themself if they did step aerobics' . Theyshould be told to go away and come back when they have a reasonable level of fitness, but no money in that.
they work just fine if you are 22 healthy and just passed basic training for the army, less so if your over weight and middle aged


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> You are trying to broaden the range of oponant that you can handle. This would be the essence of getting better at self defence.


why would I want to broaden it to fit a ) a situation that is vanishingly unlikely to happen, ( i may as well train for fighting tigers )and b) that if it did I would lose anyway due to the lack of roid rage


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> I think training methodology has a large part to play, but its not the only requirement or even actually important at all in some circumstances.
> 
> let's take soccer as an example, every one can play soccer, its easy. You try to kick the ball to team mate and failing that kick it in the general direction of the opponents goal. You've got that simple concept and your a soccer player. Now some people will never get any better no matter who coaches them and for how long. They have a certain aptitude and that's it. Now obviously if you can get the other team to all stand still, you can convince them they are better than they actually are.
> 
> conversely you can take another player, give him bad coaching and his natural abilities will see him through, he may not be as good as he could be, but maybe his is
> 
> as a soccer player I am or at least was quite good, no fancy ball skills needed, I could run faster than most, and tackle like a dumper truck. No amount of coaching would turn me in a skilled midfield player. It was pointless even trying. It's much the same with ma, nothing will ever give me a good side kick, nothing. But who cares when I have a knee. High round house that will cut your leg off


You're confounding the variables, though. If you take two players of equal potential, the training can make a big difference.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok.  Different idea.  I get the impression that people want their cake and 6 pack abs.  It is not unusual we get it a bit as well.
> 
> So in a similar vein People want to become a proficient striker but not want to do hard rounds with absolute mongrels.
> 
> Do you feel you are selling that idea to a certain extent.


If I understand your term properly, I don't think going rounds with "absolute mongrels" is necessary to developing proficiency at striking. I do think most people need some amount of reasonably hard sparring, hopefully including some opponents who are better than them.

Now, will the guy who trains against those mongrels be better? Yes. The question is how much of that "better" is functional for his purpose. If his goal is to be able to go toe-to-toe with highly skilled, committed opponents, he probably needs that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> or another way of looking at it, one of the black belts I spar with has beautifully exicuted kicks. They are high they are accurate, they are power full. Unfortunately for him, they don't hit me as I have moved, he just isn't fast enough. And worse than that every time he does one I sweep his standing leg, so he falls over. He gets quite cross about it. You cant coach him faster, he is limited by what god gave him


He can't get faster (perhaps), but he can probably telegraph it less, choose a better time to execute it, etc.

You're still confounding the variables. I see your point: some things can't be improved by better training. I get that. However, many things CAN be improved by better training. And "better" sometimes depends upon what the weakness is. I've trained with folks who probably never needed to hit a heavy bag. They "naturally" had the power and hand/arm conditioning (from their jobs), and needed to develop movement. Someone who "naturally" moves well may be better served by that heavy bag.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> If I understand your term properly, I don't think going rounds with "absolute mongrels" is necessary to developing proficiency at striking. I do think most people need some amount of reasonably hard sparring, hopefully including some opponents who are better than them.
> 
> Now, will the guy who trains against those mongrels be better? Yes. The question is how much of that "better" is functional for his purpose. If his goal is to be able to go toe-to-toe with highly skilled, committed opponents, he probably needs that.



Where as if he just wants to do self defense then he can settle for less.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Your whole philosophy of applying locks is different to sub wrestlers.
> 
> If he doesn't go with the technique he will get hurt. Which is why you can't train in certain ways.
> 
> Has that changed?


No. You may recall I was referring to specific locks and the problem with using them for submission, which is different than whether I can get a lock against resistance. There are some that don't work as submissions (the way we apply them, at least), because they reach the "damage" level too quickly if the person resists _once the lock is on_. And most of them work beautifully against specific resistance, because that resistance leads into the technique rather than blocking it. But if I go for a standing wrist lock (1st Wrist Technique in NGA), and the person has a rigid, stiff arm, that's the wrong technique. I could maybe force it, use leverage to get past the rigid arm, but why would I? There are other techniques (and other locks) that are right for that stiff arm.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Where as if he just wants to do self defense then he can settle for less.


Yes. Because his chances of having to face a highly skilled person in that context is lower. Now, if he's only going to depend upon striking, that's a limited toolbox, and he probably can't settle for less. But if he's going to have other options (groundwork, standing grappling, etc.) to use, then it's a matter of odds.

Now, would training to that same level hurt his SD? Of course not, assuming he's not foregoing some other toolset to get there.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> No. You may recall I was referring to specific locks and the problem with using them for submission, which is different than whether I can get a lock against resistance. There are some that don't work as submissions (the way we apply them, at least), because they reach the "damage" level too quickly if the person resists _once the lock is on_. And most of them work beautifully against specific resistance, because that resistance leads into the technique rather than blocking it. But if I go for a standing wrist lock (1st Wrist Technique in NGA), and the person has a rigid, stiff arm, that's the wrong technique. I could maybe force it, use leverage to get past the rigid arm, but why would I? There are other techniques (and other locks) that are right for that stiff arm.



Then you could train on the same level as any other martial arts. Sparring,open mat, competition. 

At a technical level there are no road blocks.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yes. Because his chances of having to face a highly skilled person in that context is lower. Now, if he's only going to depend upon striking, that's a limited toolbox, and he probably can't settle for less. But if he's going to have other options (groundwork, standing grappling, etc.) to use, then it's a matter of odds.
> 
> Now, would training to that same level hurt his SD? Of course not, assuming he's not foregoing some other toolset to get there.



Ok. what information are you basing these chances on? Where are you testing that assumption?


----------



## JP3

Steve said:


> not snarky... exasperation.   I understand how that could look snarky, but it's genuine, head shaking, arms in the air exasperation at how you don't get it.   Let's be real here.   If I said, "I don't advocate resistance training (a term I honestly don't believe I've  ever used) above all other training tools," I don't think you'd believe me.  I mean, you have already said in this thread that this is something you think ive been saying contuously to the point it's trying your patience.   What the hell, Brian?


I think the two of you are suffering from what I call textural dissassociatism.  How about that one, Steve... 10 syllables in naught but two words.

The problem with text based speech, as anyone knows who has a kid nowadays who communicates with them often using text messages in a phone setting.... is that probably above 80% of the non-verbal is lost. Why do you think they invented emoji?

Still, I have to say that as a third party, it is sort of funny to read through this stuff watching people (it's obviously not only the two of you, I've had my own just in this thread as everyone knows, DropBear, FriedRice etc) to work through it.  I had no idea that Brian had lost his patience, nor did I snap to what that meant as I'd not yet noted nore cared that he is a mod. I could tell Steve was getting wound, as he & I had already wound each other up.  Good to read cool heads prevailing.

Now let's get back at it.

No way aikido is going to work on the street, man. No way. I mean, I've been in karate class for two weeks and my instructor, who is a blue belt, was telling me about this one time, at band camp, he heard a story about a blind aikido guy...


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Ok. I have come up with a bit of an idea of how to explain this.
> 
> Say you want to do a wrist lock. And instead of just doing it for the joy of wrist locking people you want to use this for self defence.
> 
> Now you cant really train this lock because it rips the arm out of its socket or something. But you have drilled it and are pretty confident with it. And your instructor says it works and your friends says it looks cool.
> 
> Now in walks a nasty MMA hater and says "before you get anywhere near my wrist I am going to punch you in the face because I hate Aikido and love face punching."
> 
> Well you say "I have atemi which is Aikido for face punching. So I can defend punches and deliver my own which will get me to that wrist"
> 
> Well guess what you can test and refine that. That is called boxing. That is called MMA, that is called getting a set of five ounce gloves on and seeing if you can get  anywhere near securing that arm.
> 
> Now you have spent this time and are a decent striker and you can actually touch a guys wrist in some sort of semblance of a real fight. You dont have to keep complaining he is hitting you wrong And that on the street it will be different. However he hits you. You have the skill to evade punches throw punches and touch that wrist.
> 
> Now MMA hater comes back and says" Thats groovy but I am still not just giving you that lock. I will use my amazing MMA technique called defending it."
> 
> And you say. "Well bugger. There must be a way I can find out how to get that arm keep it and screw your base up so I can actually have a chance at making the wrist lock work."
> 
> well funnily enough. There is wrestling, BJJ, sub westling. And all these other methods of seeing if you can control any variables that will either let that wristlock work or make that lock fail.
> 
> What I read is it is all about the lock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks bruce. Loved you in romeo must die by the way.
> 
> Now if you dont consider all these variables and get them in order in some manner. No matter how good you wrist lock is you have a crappy wrist lock.
> 
> Sorry I would love for there to be another easier way. But I just dont see one.


Drop, you've been to my school! Though... I'm a bit irritated, you didn't even tell me you were there.  The above is very close to precisely what we do, except we have more laughter and cuss words involved.

Maybe I can phrase it this way.  If you don't test what you do, you do not Know if it works the way you are doing it.

The above basic truth being stated, some techniques dohn't really lend themselves to testing, such as some of the keto-ryu back-breaker (you have them land across your bent knee... spine going crossways the knee which is bent and based on the ground), or the direct punches to the throat (Jobo's right, we don't really key on the throat like we should, imo), eye gouges, dislocating knee kicks and so forth.  You can get a really good idea that they do by working right up tot he moment when gravity is taking over and then ... just release, but even so, you do not have ... Certainty. You have an evidence-supported conclusion.


----------



## JP3

jobo said:


> but all these what ifs always seem to depend on your opponent being a derange but highly skilled Mma exponent. They must make up an exceedingly  small percentage of the population . Yet on here they seem to be round every corner just itching to attack aikidio people on the flimsiest of excuses. They are to the most part pycotic killing machines. They will win against most arts. Even if you trained bjj. They would still beat you up coz your not phycotic enough and haven't taken enough steroids



Remember Jobo it's not a good thing to pull the wrapper back to uncover the underlying core of ridiculous paranoia behind there... It cuts into the fun of debating these things.

I mean, since I'm teaching at my place, surely, someday, in will walk a 320 lb Russian, expert in sambo and systema and what will poor little old me do?

Though, I do have a plan for that guy.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Ok. If you boxed as an example and you got punched in the face and could not land a punch then you would know what you had to work on to fix that element. If you didn't box you will never know.
> 
> If you feel that sport has no bearing on your self defence you would never make that connection and would then rely on what exactly?


You'd rely on what we all relied upon at one point... on whatever was being said by whoever was teaching us. Even if the teacher was a 1978 issue of Black Belt on an article about Kung Fu vs. Karate, which is better?

And... you'd be most likely be misled.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> I'm not talking about broken limbs. I'm talking about hitting someone hard enough to end a bout. I just have no interest in that. I could probably (if my knees weren't crap) enjoy getting into BJJ competition. But getting into MMA - I'd just be the guy not fighting hard enough when facing an opponent with a strong striking game. I'm not interested in hitting him hard enough to win that, nor am I interested in taking the beating he'd give me in that bout.


I used to be that guy.  When I was 19 to 27.  Nowadays, not so much.  Nothing left to fight for, so to speak. Strive for, sure, but not fight. *shrug*  Besides, sometimes hitting someone hard enough to knock them down or out hurt my hand/foot/leg and I don't really need that, either.

I could go in the garage and pull the dust cover off  the old machine again if I Had to, but I don't Want to.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> Where have I ever said sport has no bearing on self-defense? This post seems to have no connection to the one you quoted.


I think Drop cross-referenced your post with someone elses.


----------



## JP3

jobo said:


> or another way of looking at it, one of the black belts I spar with has beautifully exicuted kicks. They are high they are accurate, they are power full. Unfortunately for him, they don't hit me as I have moved, he just isn't fast enough. And worse than that every time he does one I sweep his standing leg, so he falls over. He gets quite cross about it. You cant coach him faster, he is limited by what god gave him


In that guy's case, you should help him out and tell him to work on timing, not speed. You can't train speed, much, but you can always work on timing, combos and setups.

Or, I suppose you could not tell him and just keep knocking him down and making him cross.

The latter works against your own gaining of skill though.


----------



## jobo

JP3 said:


> In that guy's case, you should help him out and tell him to work on timing, not speed. You can't train speed, much, but you can always work on timing, combos and setups.
> 
> Or, I suppose you could not tell him and just keep knocking him down and making him cross.
> 
> The latter works against your own gaining of skill though.


he is one of the instructors', he not going to take kindly to Newby me giving him tips. He needs to best part of a second to throw a kick, I need half a second to move. That's a lot of ground to make up


----------



## Steve

JP3 said:


> I think the two of you are suffering from what I call textural dissassociatism.  How about that one, Steve... 10 syllables in naught but two words.


i like it.   What's l funny is, when my now adult son was a toddler I taught him to say, "polysyllabic" just for fun.  





> The problem with text based speech, as anyone knows who has a kid nowadays who communicates with them often using text messages in a phone setting.... is that probably above 80% of the non-verbal is lost. Why do you think they invented emoji?
> 
> Still, I have to say that as a third party, it is sort of funny to read through this stuff watching people (it's obviously not only the two of you, I've had my own just in this thread as everyone knows, DropBear, FriedRice etc) to work through it.  I had no idea that Brian had lost his patience, nor did I snap to what that meant as I'd not yet noted nore cared that he is a mod. I could tell Steve was getting wound, as he & I had already wound each other up.  Good to read cool heads prevailing.
> 
> Now let's get back at it.
> 
> No way aikido is going to work on the street, man. No way. I mean, I've been in karate class for two weeks and my instructor, who is a blue belt, was telling me about this one time, at band camp, he heard a story about a blind aikido guy...


  You're a cool guy, JP3.


----------



## Buka

Lot of stuff on this thread over the last day.

Here's what I think I think....wait, what were the questions?


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Drop, you've been to my school! Though... I'm a bit irritated, you didn't even tell me you were there.  The above is very close to precisely what we do, except we have more laughter and cuss words involved.
> 
> Maybe I can phrase it this way.  If you don't test what you do, you do not Know if it works the way you are doing it.
> 
> The above basic truth being stated, some techniques dohn't really lend themselves to testing, such as some of the keto-ryu back-breaker (you have them land across your bent knee... spine going crossways the knee which is bent and based on the ground), or the direct punches to the throat (Jobo's right, we don't really key on the throat like we should, imo), eye gouges, dislocating knee kicks and so forth.  You can get a really good idea that they do by working right up tot he moment when gravity is taking over and then ... just release, but even so, you do not have ... Certainty. You have an evidence-supported conclusion.



Or you can do away with the whole concept of an evidence supported conclusion and train your partner to attack and then collapse. In the manner of an untrained thug.

That way it will relfect more closely the reality of what will happen in a street attack.

Or what I have constantly called story based training.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> You'd rely on what we all relied upon at one point... on whatever was being said by whoever was teaching us. Even if the teacher was a 1978 issue of Black Belt on an article about Kung Fu vs. Karate, which is better?
> 
> And... you'd be most likely be misled.



Which if anything like Blitz magazine. You pay to put articles in there.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> why would I want to broaden it to fit a ) a situation that is vanishingly unlikely to happen, ( i may as well train for fighting tigers )and b) that if it did I would lose anyway due to the lack of roid rage



Well for one so your training partners don't have to pretend to be street thugs and can just be training partners.

And the more you are able to handle a quality oponant the more you will be able to handle a terrible one. The issue is you cant really pull off a lot of moves when the pace is on. That doesnt mean you drop the pace. You fix your technique.

Say for example if a noob is unnaturally quick.

This in the street this will happen buisness has basically taken a few factors that might happen. Ignored a bunch of factors that might happen and then is manufactured to fit the style.

Which is generally backwards. Me I would fit the style to the threat.


----------



## JP3

Drop, expand on "story based training" if you would?


----------



## JP3

jobo said:


> he is one of the instructors', he not going to take kindly to Newby me giving him tips. He needs to best part of a second to throw a kick, I need half a second to move. That's a lot of ground to make up


He could fix it, if the right people were there to train/teach him.  But, apparently not and as he's in an instructor role I think you're right and he's not going to get it.

Maybe it's You that needs a better school then. You may have outgrown that one. It does happen.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Well for one so your training partners don't have to pretend to be street thugs and can just be training partners.
> 
> And the more you are able to handle a quality oponant the more you will be able to handle a terrible one. The issue is you cant really pull off a lot of moves when the pace is on. That doesnt mean you drop the pace. You fix your technique.
> 
> Say for example if a noob is unnaturally quick.
> 
> This in the street this will happen buisness has basically taken a few factors that might happen. Ignored a bunch of factors that might happen and then is manufactured to fit the style.
> 
> Which is generally backwards. Me I would fit the style to the threat.


this is just one big strawman arguement, I play over 40s Sunday league football/ soccer. We are quite good, its complete pointless me worrying what would happen if we played Manchester united, 1) its not going to happen 2)they are 25 yo elite athletes, we are a group of old blokes that like a kickabout, the score to them would be in the many dozens, possibly hundreds. That's more or less the same,scenario you keep threatening aikidio exponents with with your MMA EXPERT
your also buying  in to the myth that you can teach effective self defence skills to people with little athletic ability against a physical superior opponent, you cant . You might catch them by surprise with a punch and they run off, or you might really annoy them so the beat you up good instead of just takin ng your wallet. But either way a small weak slow guy is not going to win a fight against a big strong fast guy no matter how good their skills are. You need some physical advantage. If their stronger you need speed, but you still need to be strong enough to actual hurt them.

addressing faulty techneque isn't what most people need, its trip down the gym they need to   address their physical frailties' first. My dojo has a number of folk of much higher grade than myself that I can knock over in 5seconds. There techneque is good its there strengh and speed which are lacking

I can see no real need to play street thug, it a bizarre idea that seems to have caught on, there are only a limited number of ways to attack someone, and all these are covered in normal drill sparring. Street thugs don't have unique body mechanics, they kick and punch and shove like the rest of us


----------



## jobo

JP3 said:


> He could fix it, if the right people were there to train/teach him.  But, apparently not and as he's in an instructor role I think you're right and he's not going to get it.
> 
> Maybe it's You that needs a better school then. You may have outgrown that one. It does happen.


the schools is great,I like the people and the teaching is top notch,. The issue really is I have to be very gentle with the other students as they break easily and object strongly if I clothes line them. So I play rough with the black belts, who complain about it, but that's not my problem, if they don't want kicking, move


----------



## JP3

After the last post Jobo, I reiterate... you may have outgrown your current place.

It'd be a good time to play ManU though, wouldn't it. Then hang out witht he players and drink them under the table, the pansies.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Drop, expand on "story based training" if you would?



Ok people are assessing their level of proficiency based on what a street attacker will probably do and fight like.

Which is a story. And gets used all the time.  I mean for gods sake.  "criminals are a cowardly bunch" comes straight out of batman.

We even have jo jo saying this line that street figters are crap in one post and saying he is unnaturally quick and prone to street fighting in another.

And nobody noticed.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> this is just one big strawman arguement, I play over 40s Sunday league football/ soccer. We are quite good, its complete pointless me worrying what would happen if we played Manchester united, 1) its not going to happen 2)they are 25 yo elite athletes, we are a group of old blokes that like a kickabout, the score to them would be in the many dozens, possibly hundreds. That's more or less the same,scenario you keep threatening aikidio exponents with with your MMA EXPERT
> your also buying  in to the myth that you can teach effective self defence skills to people with little athletic ability against a physical superior opponent, you cant . You might catch them by surprise with a punch and they run off, or you might really annoy them so the beat you up good instead of just takin ng your wallet. But either way a small weak slow guy is not going to win a fight against a big strong fast guy no matter how good their skills are. You need some physical advantage. If their stronger you need speed, but you still need to be strong enough to actual hurt them.
> 
> addressing faulty techneque isn't what most people need, its trip down the gym they need to   address their physical frailties' first. My dojo has a number of folk of much higher grade than myself that I can knock over in 5seconds. There techneque is good its there strengh and speed which are lacking
> 
> I can see no real need to play street thug, it a bizarre idea that seems to have caught on, there are only a limited number of ways to attack someone, and all these are covered in normal drill sparring. Street thugs don't have unique body mechanics, they kick and punch and shove like the rest of us



You really haven't been following this thread have you?


----------



## jobo

JP3 said:


> After the last post Jobo, I reiterate... you may have outgrown your current place.
> 
> It'd be a good time to play ManU though, wouldn't it. Then hang out witht he players and drink them under the table, the pansies.


you might be right, I was doing some ground work with a


drop bear said:


> Ok people are assessing their level of proficiency based on what a street attacker will probably do and fight like.
> 
> Which is a story. And gets used all the time.  I mean for gods sake.  "criminals are a cowardly bunch" comes straight out of batman.
> 
> We even have jo jo saying this line that street figters are crap in one post and saying he is unnaturally quick and prone to street fighting in another.
> 
> And nobody noticed.


are the two mutually exclusive, I'm not unnaturally quick, I'm towards the top end of reaction time, at about 2tenths of a second, I measured it. 1tenth is about as fast as a human can go, before they become unnaturally fast   , so im half as fast  as that, faster than a 1tenth and you can get a job driving f1cars


----------



## drop bear

he. he.

Batman the musical.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> you might be right, I was doing some ground work with a
> 
> are the two mutually exclusive, I'm not unnaturally quick, I'm at the top end of reaction time, at about 2tenths of a second, I measured it. 1thenth is about as fast as a human can go, before they become unnaturally fast   , so im half as slow as that, faster than a 1tenth and you can get a job driving f1cars



I am at the top 2% Of hansome. Just shy of being brad pitt.

But my point is a naturally athletic person will eat you alive if you are expecting them to be a gumby. I would be safer if I train for a fighter that is better than the one I fight.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> I am at the top 2% Of hansome. Just shy of being brad pitt.
> 
> But my point is a naturally athletic person will eat you alive if you are expecting them to be a gumby. I would be safer if I train for a fighter that is better than the one I fight.


I do so train, I work hard on my balance and co ordination and strengh and reactions' and endurance and cardio. That's why i can knock people over, because I do and they don't.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> I do so train, I work hard on my balance and co ordination and strengh and reactions' and endurance and cardio. That's why i can knock people over, because I do and they don't.



Have you just switched sides there?


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> You really haven't been following this thread have you?


I was directly replying to your strawman arguement


drop bear said:


> Have you just switched sides there?


no, your , if you cant fight a mma expert you cant fight at all point is bogus. If, to pluck figures out of the air, I can can knock 60% of the population over with out trying,hold my own against another 30% Il call it quits and accept that 10% will knock me in to next week. When I've reach my physical max, there are always going to be stronger faster people than me. It's a simple numbers game, the better I am, the less people can beat me up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> i like it.   What's l funny is, when my now adult son was a toddler I taught him to say, "polysyllabic" just for fun.    You're a cool guy, JP3.


I used to get my nephew to say "truck", because he couldn't say "tr" and it came out as "f". His dad thought it was funny.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Me I would fit the style to the threat.


Yeah, but you seem to assume (in spite of your own experience, which baffles me) that all threats are variations of the threat posed by a skilled, controlled fighter. That hasn't been my experience, nor the experience of the people I've talked to who deal with threats on a far more frequent basis than I ever had to.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, but you seem to assume (in spite of your own experience, which baffles me) that all threats are variations of the threat posed by a skilled, controlled fighter. That hasn't been my experience, nor the experience of the people I've talked to who deal with threats on a far more frequent basis than I ever had to.



Huh? 

All threats kind of are a variation of threats posed by skilled controlled fighters. It will be a variation on a punch, kick, throw or hold. Mostly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Huh?
> 
> All threats kind of are a variation of threats posed by skilled controlled fighters. It will be a variation on a punch, kick, throw or hold. Mostly.


As someone pointed out recently, there's a difference between a technique done with skill and one done without it. That holds true for punches, kicks, throws, and holds. 

Much of our training (eveyone training in MA) is training our brains to recognize patterns - patterns of attack, and patterns of responses that fit those attacks. There are patterns that appear in unskilled people that are different from the patterns that show up in skilled people. There are patterns that show up in both groups. If you only train for the patterns of the skilled, controlled fighter, you are only learning part of the patterns of the unskilled, uncontrolled fighter. If you are good enough, that may be enough, but it will require a higher level of skill than someone with the same toolbox who is familiar with more of the patterns.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> As someone pointed out recently, there's a difference between a technique done with skill and one done without it. That holds true for punches, kicks, throws, and holds.
> 
> Much of our training (eveyone training in MA) is training our brains to recognize patterns - patterns of attack, and patterns of responses that fit those attacks. There are patterns that appear in unskilled people that are different from the patterns that show up in skilled people. There are patterns that show up in both groups. If you only train for the patterns of the skilled, controlled fighter, you are only learning part of the patterns of the unskilled, uncontrolled fighter. If you are good enough, that may be enough, but it will require a higher level of skill than someone with the same toolbox who is familiar with more of the patterns.



And you think that is a real thing?


----------



## TSDTexan

KangTsai said:


> I'm just not a fan of how the majority is trained. The full co-operation, voluntarily-do-a-front-flip type of thing. Most techniques can work obviously (although to this day I'm skeptical about wrist throws).
> But the way most aikido is trained is dumb.



The voluntary front flip is often a requirement to avoid a broken or dislocated wrist.

Torque knows no mercy.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> The voluntary front flip is often a requirement to avoid a broken or dislocated wrist.
> 
> Torque knows no mercy.



Puts a big emphasis on that move though. If every time I touch that wrist they just launch then that becomes my high percentage move.


----------



## TSDTexan

JP3 said:


> Remember Jobo it's not a good thing to pull the wrapper back to uncover the underlying core of ridiculous paranoia behind there... It cuts into the fun of debating these things.
> 
> I mean, since I'm teaching at my place, surely, someday, in will walk a 320 lb Russian, expert in sambo and systema and what will poor little old me do?
> 
> Though, I do have a plan for that guy.



Note to self, scratch the ex-spetznaz hit man kills MA instructor in a freak training accident. The jig is up.

Also... stop taking notes to self, adressed as note to self.


----------



## KangTsai

TSDTexan said:


> The voluntary front flip is often a requirement to avoid a broken or dislocated wrist.
> 
> Torque knows no mercy.


Everyone keeps telling me that and to this minute I do not believe it one bit.


----------



## drop bear

KangTsai said:


> Everyone keeps telling me that and to this minute I do not believe it one bit.



It depends. If you were to give a guy your arm let him get it to a point of toque then tried to resist. You could easily have a bad day. Especially if he is the sort of scumbag who likes to jerk on a submission.

And anyone who does submissions has those moments where someone will do something knarley and you have to let go of the submission or hurt people.

But you can work realistically with those locks without needing the acrobatics.


----------



## Jenna

drop bear said:


> But you can work realistically with those locks without needing the acrobatics.


Not so.. thing is.. when you have trained it for your self for long enough you appreciate that this ukemi is the most efficient and often expedient means of continuing your defence as Aikidoka.. the idea is not like all these people erroneously misinterpret as unnecessary flamboyance -though plainly that happen on demonstration video which is all about show.. done in many martial arts to get feet on mats.. people alas cannot discern what is for demo and want to come online and be all abhorred haha- 

Is ok for people here to maintain initially a lack of understanding until just like Biggie say: if you dont know now you know.. what happen ideally is that you untorque your self into a standing position.. there IS not other faster and more efficient means within Aikido to do this than whole body rotation.. from these everyone including dilettante Aikidoka may take note.. is not extraneous or for show.. unfortunately is poorly taught and assimilated incorrectly.. or with rolling, is not simply to clean the mats of dust with your gi.. is to roll back to a seiza or standing position .. understand there is a point in efficiency in airborne ukemi which is not revealed by watching.. only doing make you get it.. or maybe getting it is not the point.. maybe is me who have miss the point.. maybe the point is in the thread title haha..


----------



## Buka

TSDTexan said:


> The voluntary front flip is often a requirement to avoid a broken or dislocated wrist.
> 
> Torque knows no mercy.



"Torque knows no mercy." What a great turn of phrase.


----------



## drop bear

Jenna said:


> Not so.. thing is.. when you have trained it for your self for long enough you appreciate that this ukemi is the most efficient and often expedient means of continuing your defence as Aikidoka.. the idea is not like all these people erroneously misinterpret as unnecessary flamboyance -though plainly that happen on demonstration video which is all about show.. done in many martial arts to get feet on mats.. people alas cannot discern what is for demo and want to come online and be all abhorred haha-
> 
> Is ok for people here to maintain initially a lack of understanding until just like Biggie say: if you dont know now you know.. what happen ideally is that you untorque your self into a standing position.. there IS not other faster and more efficient means within Aikido to do this than whole body rotation.. from these everyone including dilettante Aikidoka may take note.. is not extraneous or for show.. unfortunately is poorly taught and assimilated incorrectly.. or with rolling, is not simply to clean the mats of dust with your gi.. is to roll back to a seiza or standing position .. understand there is a point in efficiency in airborne ukemi which is not revealed by watching.. only doing make you get it.. or maybe getting it is not the point.. maybe is me who have miss the point.. maybe the point is in the thread title haha..



I am pretty sure i have seen reversals in akido to that lock.






Ok. another thing I just thought of. You have done a flying leap in to the deck.

Then what?






This does not look like a fun position to fight on from.


----------



## O'Malley

Reversals are possible if you find an opening in your partner's technique. If you don't find any, it's better to go with the flow.

Here's a video on how to receive an aikido technique (here in the example of ikkyo): 




I'm not sure whether the second video you posted is a good representation of aikido, attacking like that guy does seems pointless (even in an aikido educative context).

The goal of that flipping is to get back onto your feet (or knees):


----------



## JP3

TSDTexan said:


> Note to self, scratch the ex-spetznaz hit man kills MA instructor in a freak training accident. The jig is up.
> 
> Also... stop taking notes to self, adressed as note to self.


Indeed... I knew I felt a disturbance in The Force....

FYI - my solution to the Russian was very simple, very direct, and nearly 100% Effective.

Her name is Natasha and she arrives in a Cherry Red Porshe 959 with a case of Gray Goose vodka.

I'm still working on the 959, you don't find those just lying around... so I'll have to make Natasha and the vodka work. So, reduce effectiveness to around 70%.


----------



## TSDTexan

Buka said:


> "Torque knows no mercy." What a great turn of phrase.



One of my occupations is writing.


----------



## TSDTexan

Here is some good Aikido.
How to break wrists 101


----------



## drop bear

O'Malley said:


> Reversals are possible if you find an opening in your partner's technique. If you don't find any, it's better to go with the flow.
> 
> Here's a video on how to receive an aikido technique (here in the example of ikkyo):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure whether the second video you posted is a good representation of aikido, attacking like that guy does seems pointless (even in an aikido educative context).
> 
> The goal of that flipping is to get back onto your feet (or knees):



And you test that? So the guy falling is looking for opportunities to counter.  The guy throwing is trying to capitalise.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> Here is some good Aikido.
> How to break wrists 101



That is the same Aikido with more swearing.

Which seems like they are throwing another layer of fluff in front of the viewer.


----------



## O'Malley

drop bear said:


> And you test that? So the guy falling is looking for opportunities to counter.  The guy throwing is trying to capitalise.



Yes, it can be tested. It is called randori, even though not all aikido schools do it but as some might have said before, it is difficult to find two identical aikido schools.


----------



## JP3

Buka said:


> "Torque knows no mercy." What a great turn of phrase.


For the record, I caught what you did there. Nice.

Drop, sometimes we actually do test that stuff. Getting thrown, counter while inside the other guy's throw. If you've accepted the throw, then you have all that energy which has to go somewhere, after all. If you've got connection to the other guy, sometimes you can do neat-O stuff with it. One example which was done to me once, which I took a look at for a while and it's nice and works nearly every time if the person has the standard posture problem.  Think kotegaeshi, standard throw most people have in their system. As long as it is the throw, not the postural destruction one that goes into the body and down.

As uke is being thrown, right as impact with the ground is imminent, the arm which was used to throw uke contracts, bringing itself back to chestm some.  Most people when doing kotegaeshi at speed end up with a small posture break at waist, bending forwards and also sometimes add to that the fact that their eyes track uke to the ground. Both things pitch them slightly forward, and if timed right, you end up throwing them right down the same line they just threw you.  Easily blockable, just fix your feet and back, but it is amazing how many people have this issue which can be taken advantage of.  If desired, at the very least you change the person who threw you from a standing to a kneeling or prone one.


----------



## TSDTexan

KangTsai said:


> Everyone keeps telling me that and to this minute I do not believe it one bit.



Your belief isn't required.

It is what it is, whether you believe it or not.

You are welcome to believe whatever you like.

But...
We can scientifically test this.

Forum rules/ TOS prevent call outs, but I know a Marine, who... if you sign an informed consent and contract of indemnification, he will gladly break your wrist... at no cost to you.

Over suppination or over protenation... your choice.

And...

He will do it for free.

Plus his school is within walking distance of a major hospital.

And I am willing to bet He can, if you agree to let him try...
100.00 USD.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> Your belief isn't required.
> 
> It is what it is, whether you believe it or not.
> 
> You are welcome to believe whatever you like.
> 
> But...
> We can scientifically test this.
> 
> Forum rules/ TOS prevent call outs, but I know a Marine, who... if you sign an informed consent and contract of indemnification, he will gladly break your wrist... at no cost to you.
> 
> Over suppination or over protenation... your choice.
> 
> And...
> 
> He will do it for free.
> 
> Plus his school is within walking distance of a major hospital.
> 
> And I am willing to bet He can, if you agree to let him try...
> 100.00 USD.



What belt is he in BJJ?


----------



## Hanzou

TSDTexan said:


> Your belief isn't required.
> 
> It is what it is, whether you believe it or not.
> 
> You are welcome to believe whatever you like.
> 
> But...
> We can scientifically test this.
> 
> Forum rules/ TOS prevent call outs, but I know a Marine, who... if you sign an informed consent and contract of indemnification, he will gladly break your wrist... at no cost to you.
> 
> Over suppination or over protenation... your choice.
> 
> And...
> 
> He will do it for free.
> 
> Plus his school is within walking distance of a major hospital.
> 
> And I am willing to bet He can, if you agree to let him try...
> 100.00 USD.



I don't think anyone doubts that Aikido techniques can break wrists if properly applied. My issue is the set ups for that application, which are highly stylized and in some cases pretty unrealistic.

I'm convinced that the main issues with Aikido are two-fold:

1. Aikido was originally an art for advanced/senior martial artists. In other words if you're a black belt in Judo/Bjj Aikido's weaknesses aren't a problem.

2. Ueshiba was kind of looney towards the end of his life, and that negatively impacted the art's development.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> I don't think anyone doubts that Aikido techniques can break wrists if properly applied. My issue is the set ups for that application, which are highly stylized and in some cases pretty unrealistic.
> 
> I'm convinced that the main issues with Aikido are two-fold:
> 
> 1. Aikido was originally an art for advanced/senior martial artists. In other words if you're a black belt in Judo/Bjj Aikido's weaknesses aren't a problem.
> 
> 2. Ueshiba was kind of looney towards the end of his life, and that negatively impacted the art's development.



Set up.











I have mentioned this before but. I have done a lot of wrist locks on guys but I set them up with good clinch work and hand fighting.

The catching punches out of thin air I dont think works very well. And is the main entry for these bloody things.

People are just hitting these locks backwards. Again for me it is simp,e. If I attack you your arm isnt going anywhere near as fast as if you are attacking me.


----------



## drop bear

Ok While I was hunting around I found this. Now this move actually works. But for some reason the partner is still throwing himself into the deck. And there is no risk to a limb really at all here. 






Am I just looking at bad aikido here?


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Ok While I was hunting around I found this. Now this move actually works. But for some reason the partner is still throwing himself into the deck. And there is no risk to a limb really at all here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I just looking at bad aikido here?


maybe, its hard to tell how much is techneque and how much is compliance for demo purpose's. It's certainly true that once you get someone flat footed and leaning back 10 degrees they will fall with slight push unless they a) recover their feet or b) grab hold of you. The guy isn't trying not to fall, but that doesn't mean he wouldnt fall anyway. And once a fall is on the cards, its better to put yourself down in a controlled manner,than go down like a sack of spuds


----------



## Spinedoc

jobo said:


> maybe, its hard to tell how much is techneque and how much is compliance for demo purpose's. It's certainly true that once you get someone flat footed and leaning back 10 degrees they will fall with slight push unless they a) recover their feet or b) grab hold of you. The guy isn't trying not to fall, but that doesn't mean he wouldnt fall anyway. And once a fall is on the cards, its better to put yourself down in a controlled manner,than go down like a sack of spuds



Yep, and also, your job as uke is to deliver a sincere attack, and then be neutral....don't resist, don't be a dick, just be neutral, allow nage to find where your balance is, and then when you reach the tipping point, take the fall.


----------



## Spinedoc

drop bear said:


> Ok While I was hunting around I found this. Now this move actually works. But for some reason the partner is still throwing himself into the deck. And there is no risk to a limb really at all here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I just looking at bad aikido here?



His balance is gone...if you watch, he's bending backwards to the point where he can't bend anymore...some people aren't flexible. Then, nage, moves into the space, once you no longer have your balance, as uke, the only thing you can do is fall and try and protect yourself. I know people who can bend backwards WAY, WAY more than this, and I know some who can't even bend this far.....each person is different.


----------



## Spinedoc

drop bear said:


> The catching punches out of thin air I dont think works very well. And is the main entry for these bloody things.



No one "catches punches out of thin air"...that's ridiculous. In Aikido, we blend, if you launch a punch at me, I'm going to get out of the way first....likely w a tenkan movement. I'm not going to try and "catch" the punch, I will let my hand slide down your arm as you are withdrawing and only then execute the technique.....Similar to this...






Watch the slo mo...his hand slides on top of ukes forearm as he tenkans, and then slides into the proper position....he's not catching the actual punch..that's a good way to get your hand broken...


----------



## jobo

Spinedoc said:


> No one "catches punches out of thin air"..
> ...


I do ! Or at least have


----------



## hoshin1600

Spinedoc said:


> No one "catches punches out of thin air"...that's ridiculous. In Aikido, we blend, if you launch a punch at me, I'm going to get out of the way first....likely w a tenkan movement. I'm not going to try and "catch" the punch, I will let my hand slide down your arm as you are withdrawing and only then execute the technique.....Similar to this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the slo mo...his hand slides on top of ukes forearm as he tenkans, and then slides into the proper position....he's not catching the actual punch..that's a good way to get your hand broken...



i agree with both view points.  you cannot capture a proper punch.  this is something that aikido gets a lot of flack for and its deserved at times and other times no.  the attack in the video is over extended and hangs out there in space. a proper punch should snap back to a guard position, making most aikido technique impossible.
that being said this is not really a punch its mune-tsuki.  it represents a lunging action which would more closely resemble a knife thrust then a punch.
if on the street an assailant thrust a knife in that manner at an aikidoka then the technique would work, ...problem...its not often assailants attack like that.


----------



## TSDTexan

hoshin1600 said:


> i agree with both view points.  you cannot capture a proper punch.  this is something that aikido gets a lot of flack for and its deserved at times and other times no.  the attack in the video is over extended and hangs out there in space. a proper punch should snap back to a guard position, making most aikido technique impossible.
> that being said this is not really a punch its mune-tsuki.  it represents a lunging action which would more closely resemble a knife thrust then a punch.
> if on the street an assailant thrust a knife in that manner at an aikidoka then the technique would work, ...problem...its not often assailants attack like that.




The idea is continually drilling until muscle memory is developed. 

 Then when the attack happens, the brain reacts to the threat before conscious thought happens.


----------



## drop bear

TSDTexan said:


> The idea is continually drilling until muscle memory is developed.
> 
> Then when the attack happens, the brain reacts to the threat before conscious thought happens.



You want to set it up with a reasonable chance of working before you drill it though.


----------



## drop bear

Spinedoc said:


> No one "catches punches out of thin air"...that's ridiculous. In Aikido, we blend, if you launch a punch at me, I'm going to get out of the way first....likely w a tenkan movement. I'm not going to try and "catch" the punch, I will let my hand slide down your arm as you are withdrawing and only then execute the technique.....Similar to this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the slo mo...his hand slides on top of ukes forearm as he tenkans, and then slides into the proper position....he's not catching the actual punch..that's a good way to get your hand broken...



That is what I mean when I say catch a punch out of mid air. I mean you need to stop 4 a second not one in 2seconds.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Ok While I was hunting around I found this. Now this move actually works. But for some reason the partner is still throwing himself into the deck. And there is no risk to a limb really at all here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I just looking at bad aikido here?


At 0.17, his opponent can use "reverse head lock (guillotine)", or just strike left elbow on him. The issue is his opponent's left elbow joint is free. He should use his right palm to push on his opponent's left elbow joint.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Set up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have mentioned this before but. I have done a lot of wrist locks on guys but I set them up with good clinch work and hand fighting.
> 
> The catching punches out of thin air I dont think works very well. And is the main entry for these bloody things.
> 
> People are just hitting these locks backwards. Again for me it is simp,e. If I attack you your arm isnt going anywhere near as fast as if you are attacking me.



Roy Dean is a really good example of what I'm talking about. He's a high level Bjj practitioner who incorporates Aikido into his personal style. If you ever see him fight or roll he's doing about 95% Bjj and 5% Aikido. I think those amazing Aikidoka from the early days (like Gozo Shioda and Koichi Tohei)
were probably doing 95% Judo and 5% Aikido.

Nothing against Aikido, but it really appears to be a capstone to decades of training in something else.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> At 0.17, his opponent can use "reverse head lock (guillotine)", or just strike left elbow on him. The issue is his opponent's left elbow joint is free. He should use his right palm to push on his opponent's left elbow joint.



You defend that with good structure. If your head is up and close to their arm you really don't get caught.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Roy Dean is a really good example of what I'm talking about. He's a high level Bjj practitioner who incorporates Aikido into his personal style. If you ever see him fight or roll he's doing about 95% Bjj and 5% Aikido. I think those amazing Aikidoka from the early days (like Gozo Shioda and Koichi Tohei)
> were probably doing 95% Judo and 5% Aikido.
> 
> Nothing against Aikido, but it really appears to be a capstone to decades of training in something else.



Yeah. There is nothing really stopping Aikido being good though. I think it is more of a want to.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> You defend that with good structure. If your head is up and close to their arm you really don't get caught.


When I enter, I like to put my hand on my opponent's leading elbow joint. It's just for safety reason. I don't like to take chance. When I dodge my head under my opponent's hook punch (or hay-maker), I'll do the same.


----------



## jobo

hoshin1600 said:


> i agree with both view points.  you cannot capture a proper punch.  this is something that aikido gets a lot of flack for and its deserved at times and other times no.  the attack in the video is over extended and hangs out there in space. a proper punch should snap back to a guard position, making most aikido technique impossible.
> that being said this is not really a punch its mune-tsuki.  it represents a lunging action which would more closely resemble a knife thrust then a punch.
> if on the street an assailant thrust a knife in that manner at an aikidoka then the technique would work, ...problem...its not often assailants attack like that.


yes you can , I've done it dozens of times, if you can catch a fly, you can catch a punch, flys are faster


----------



## TSDTexan

jobo said:


> yes you can , I've done it dozens of times, if you can catch a fly, you can catch a punch, flys are faster



The average professional heavy weight boxer hits at between 1,200 to 1,700 pounds per square inch, or psi. Legendary boxer *Mike Tyson* had a punch that was measured at 1,800 psi, or almost one ton of force per square inch.

I know golden gloves guys who have metered higher.

Catching a punch is foolishness imo.
But whatever floats your goat.


----------



## jobo

TSDTexan said:


> The average professional heavy weight boxer hits at between 1,200 to 1,700 pounds per square inch, or psi. Legendary boxer *Mike Tyson* had a punch that was measured at 1,800 psi, or almost one ton of force per square inch.
> 
> I know golden gloves guys who have metered higher.
> 
> Catching a punch is foolishness imo.
> But whatever floats your goat.



I think your mixing Mr Tyson up with the hulk. That would mean he could punch through steel. Which if true makes you wonder why he had to resort to bitting

out of interest which fantasy site did you get these figures off


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

TSDTexan said:


> Catching a punch is foolishness imo.


I will never try to catch a punch in fighting. But I do try to catch a punch in training. If I can catch a punch when my opponent's arm is moving, I can grab his wrist when his arm is not moving.


----------



## CB Jones

jobo said:


> I think your mixing Mr Tyson up with the hulk. That would mean he could punch through steel. Which if true makes you wonder why he had to resort to bitting
> 
> out of interest which fantasy site did you get these figures off



Those are numbers that have been reported. 1800 psi is a lot, but maybe possible in a controlled test...not an actual fight..

If you figure Tyson's fist's striking area is 2 square inches then he is producing roughly 900 pounds of force with his punch.


----------



## jobo

CB Jones said:


> Those are numbers that have been reported. 1800 psi is a lot, but maybe possible in a controlled test...not an actual fight..
> 
> If you figure Tyson's fist's striking area is 2 square inches then he is producing roughly 900 pounds of force with his punch.


no those are number that have been made up based on the punch a meter in rocky iv. If you think other wise post some credible source. You don't measure force in psi, you measure force in pounds or kj.you measure pressure in psi . If Mr tyson could exert a pressure of 1800 psi on fist area of 6 sq inches, that would mean the force in parted to the target was 6 x1800 which is about 11000 pounds force about the same as a small bomb or indeed the incredible hulk


----------



## CB Jones

jobo said:


> no those are number that have been made up based on the punch a meter in rocky iv. If you think other wise post some credible source. You don't measure force in psi, you measure force in pounds or kj.you measure pressure in psi . If Mr tyson could exert a pressure of 1800 psi on fist area of 6 sq inches, that would mean the force in parted to the target was 6 x1800 which is about 11000 pounds force about the same as a small bomb or indeed the incredible hulk



That right.  I got the equation backwards.  Pressure=Force/Area....so Force=Pressure*Area

Maybe they are doing the same and getting the two mixed up.

1800 pounds of force generated at 450 psi.


----------



## jobo

CB Jones said:


> That right.  I got the equation backwards.  Pressure=Force/Area....so Force=Pressure*Area
> 
> Maybe they are doing the same and getting the two mixed up.
> 
> 1800 pounds of force generated at 450 psi.


as soon as your source doesn't understand the unit of measurement involved, there a very good chance they just made the whole thing up.
if any one can post can actual source report on Mr tysons punching power being 1800 pounds il back down.
frank Bruno who had a notably hard punch was apparently measure at 900 lbs force, which pretty impressive. I cant find any credable source that iron mikes punch was ever measured at all, other than the wild claims that abound


----------



## CB Jones

jobo said:


> as soon as your source doesn't understand the unit of measurement involved, there a very good chance they just made the whole think up.



Not my source just the numbers reported just like your google search.  

Your article is probably right though about it just being made up.


----------



## jobo

CB Jones said:


> Not my source just the numbers reported just like your google search.
> 
> Your article is probably right though about it just being made up.


I know it wasn't yours, I was talking to the other guy whilst quoting your post, me bad


----------



## TSDTexan

jobo said:


> no those are number that have been made up based on the punch a meter in rocky iv. If you think other wise post some credible source. You don't measure force in psi, you measure force in pounds or kj.you measure pressure in psi . If Mr tyson could exert a pressure of 1800 psi on fist area of 6 sq inches, that would mean the force in parted to the target was 6 x1800 which is about 11000 pounds force about the same as a small bomb or indeed the incredible hulk



An oft-cited 1985 study of Frank Bruno, who'd go on to be WBC heavyweight champ, showed he could punch with a force of 920 pounds in the lab.

 Researchers extrapolated that to a real-life blow of 1,420 pounds, enough to accelerate his opponent's head at a rate of 53 g — that is, 53 times the force of gravity.

Tyson had more horses than Frankie.


----------



## TSDTexan

TSDTexan said:


> An oft-cited 1985 study of Frank Bruno, who'd go on to be WBC heavyweight champ, showed he could punch with a force of 920 pounds in the lab.
> 
> Researchers extrapolated that to a real-life blow of 1,420 pounds, enough to accelerate his opponent's head at a rate of 53 g — that is, 53 times the force of gravity.
> 
> Tyson had more horses than Frankie.




Point still remains... if you don't know how hard a fist is moving... it is unsound tactically to try to catch it.


----------



## TSDTexan

jobo said:


> as soon as your source doesn't understand the unit of measurement involved, there a very good chance they just made the whole thing up.
> if any one can post can actual source report on Mr tysons punching power being 1800 pounds il back down.
> frank Bruno who had a notably hard punch was apparently measure at 900 lbs force, which pretty impressive. I cant find any credable source that iron mikes punch was ever measured at all, other than the wild claims that abound



In 1983 my old teacher was in Brownsville Texas at a tournament, his teacher GM Wannik Yi did a jumping double knife-hand strike and broke a steel truck leaf spring.

It was recorded on video, and I have seen the video at Yi's dojang in Austin TX.


----------



## TSDTexan

jobo said:


> no those are number that have been made up based on the punch a meter in rocky iv. If you think other wise post some credible source. You don't measure force in psi, you measure force in pounds or kj.you measure pressure in psi . If Mr tyson could exert a pressure of 1800 psi on fist area of 6 sq inches, that would mean the force in parted to the target was 6 x1800 which is about 11000 pounds force about the same as a small bomb or indeed the incredible hulk



QUOTE:
_In the movie_ Rocky IV_, Ivan Drago registers a 2,150-psi punch. _


----------



## jobo

TSDTexan said:


> Point still remains... if you don't know how hard a fist is moving... it is unsound tactically to try to catch it.


I didn't say I'd catch a fist I said catch a punch, the wrist is best


----------



## jobo

TSDTexan said:


> An oft-cited 1985 study of Frank Bruno, who'd go on to be WBC heavyweight champ, showed he could punch with a force of 920 pounds in the lab.
> 
> Researchers extrapolated that to a real-life blow of 1,420 pounds, enough to accelerate his opponent's head at a rate of 53 g — that is, 53 times the force of gravity.
> 
> Tyson had more horses than Frankie.


extrapolated it how? Show the working out, how is a fight punch harder than a lab punch.?
I'm still waiting for this test you said mike took to be evidenced


----------



## jobo

TSDTexan said:


> QUOTE:
> _In the movie_ Rocky IV_, Ivan Drago registers a 2,150-psi punch. _


well no he didn't coz its a ) not real and b) not measured in psi


----------



## TSDTexan

jobo said:


> extrapolated it how? Show the working out, how is a fight punch harder than a lab punch.?
> I'm still waiting for this test you said mike took to be evidenced



Actually, never said he took a test, I posted a quote. I am looking for the data, as quoted from, by the reporting source
Www.reference.com


----------



## drop bear

Shogun Rua registers hardest strike ever recorded on ESPNs 'Sport Science' (Video)

1,100 pounds of force


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> Shogun Rua registers hardest strike ever recorded on ESPNs 'Sport Science' (Video)
> 
> 1,100 pounds of force



Of note, that was the hardest strike record at ESPN's lab.

The following net research as I have found:
so, let us take that as an example and see what the body can withstand:

Biomechanical injury tolerance levels:
Throat- 300 lbs of force
Frontal bone ( forehaed)- 1900 lbs
Back of head ( occiptal)- 2100 lbs
Temporal - 1400 lbs
Zygomatic-800 lbs
mandible - 800 lbs
maxilla - 500 lbs
Lat. Maxilla - 700 lbs
"nasal bone"- 200 lbs
Cervical vertebra - 500 lbs
Crown of head - 1350 lbs
area above the ear - 650 lbs
sternum with 4" defelction ( penetration) - 960 lbs

ribs - 400 lbs ( 1-3 ribs are the hardest, 4-9 the most common to fracture

The values were taken by doing impact studies on cadavers.

Other things I have found.. small bones break far easier then large bones. The weaker bones break at about 25 psi.


----------



## TSDTexan

drop bear said:


> Shogun Rua registers hardest strike ever recorded on ESPNs 'Sport Science' (Video)
> 
> 1,100 pounds of force



On the Fight science show, specifically the MMA episode that featured Tito Ortiz, Dean Lister, Randy Couture and Bas Rutten. 

They looked at different strikes, including elbows, punches, and kicks. 

Randy landed a straight punch that had about 500 pounds (227kg) of pressure behind it, while Bas did a hook that had about 1200 (545kg). 

Bas also did a Thai-style roundhouse kick that was over 2000 lbs (909kg). 

They also showed that a good body slam can generate over 2000 lbs of force. 

And most surprisingly, that ground-n-pound strikes can generate even more force than standing ones can! Randy was putting out around 2000 lbs of force in some of his seated GnP strikes


----------



## Buka

I think the old band, The Supremes, taught a lot of strikers how to punch in two man sets in dojos across the USA..






Yeah, I can catch those too. And you can take all the psi stuff you want and extrapolate anything you want from them. But they don't have anything, not thing one, to do with fighting.


----------



## jobo

[QUOTE="TSDTexan, post: 1830134, member:


Randy landed a straight punch that had about 500 pounds (227kg) of pressure behind it,
[/QUOTE]

it doesnt matter how many times we go through this, you still mixing up pressure and force


----------



## jobo

TSDTexan said:


> The average professional heavy weight boxer hits at between 1,200 to 1,700 pounds per square inch, or psi. Legendary boxer *Mike Tyson* had a punch that was measured at 1,800 psi, or almost one ton of force per square inch.
> 
> I know golden gloves guys who have metered higher.
> 
> Catching a punch is foolishness imo.
> But whatever floats your goat.


here youR post were you said iron mike had his punch MEASURED,. Your not quoting anything your making a direct claim. Now do you have some credible   evidence or not, that someone tested mike and measured his punch force


----------



## O'Malley

Where is this thread going?


----------



## Steve

how much force does an aikidoist exert when they blend?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

TSDTexan said:


> Of note, that was the hardest strike record at ESPN's lab.
> 
> The following net research as I have found:
> so, let us take that as an example and see what the body can withstand:
> 
> Biomechanical injury tolerance levels:
> Throat- 300 lbs of force
> Frontal bone ( forehaed)- 1900 lbs
> Back of head ( occiptal)- 2100 lbs
> Temporal - 1400 lbs
> Zygomatic-800 lbs
> mandible - 800 lbs
> maxilla - 500 lbs
> Lat. Maxilla - 700 lbs
> "nasal bone"- 200 lbs
> Cervical vertebra - 500 lbs
> Crown of head - 1350 lbs
> area above the ear - 650 lbs
> sternum with 4" defelction ( penetration) - 960 lbs
> 
> ribs - 400 lbs ( 1-3 ribs are the hardest, 4-9 the most common to fracture
> 
> The values were taken by doing impact studies on cadavers.
> 
> Other things I have found.. small bones break far easier then large bones. The weaker bones break at about 25 psi.


Interesting stats. Do you have a link for a source on those numbers?


----------



## TSDTexan

Tony Dismukes said:


> Interesting stats. Do you have a link for a source on those numbers?


Working on it Tony.


----------



## TSDTexan

Tony Dismukes said:


> Interesting stats. Do you have a link for a source on those numbers?


Sent you a PM, with the link


----------



## TSDTexan

jobo said:


> here youR post were you said iron mike had his punch MEASURED,. Your not quoting anything your making a direct claim. Now do you have some credible   evidence or not, that someone tested mike and measured his punch force




Cut and paste. It was not my statement. See
How hard does a boxer punch in PSI?.

Please forgive me if I gave that impression.
it was not my intention.


----------



## TSDTexan

jobo said:


> [QUOTE="TSDTexan, post: 1830134, member:
> 
> 
> Randy landed a straight punch that had about 500 pounds (227kg) of pressure behind it,



it doesnt matter how many times we go through this, you still mixing up pressure and force[/QUOTE]

Jobo, I will agree you wrt with my loose and fast use of terms, here.

Thank you for pointing it out.
I will try to be more precise on term use here.


----------



## TSDTexan

O'Malley said:


> Where is this thread going?


Good question


----------



## TSDTexan

TSDTexan said:


> Cut and paste. It was not my statement. See
> How hard does a boxer punch in PSI?.
> 
> Please forgive me if I gave that impression.
> it was not my intention.



OK, so in the link it said this as well...

*FULL ANSWER*
Pounds per square inch is usually measured using pressure gauges, but for boxing measurements, special machines are used. These machines calculate how hard a punch is by measuring the power of the punch at impact, calculating the size of the impact zone, and converting that to psi. So if a punch is 1,500 psi and covers four square inches of space, it is the equivalent of 6,000 pounds of impact


----------



## JP3

Spinedoc said:


> Yep, and also, your job as uke is to deliver a sincere attack, and then be neutral....don't resist, don't be a dick, just be neutral, allow nage to find where your balance is, and then when you reach the tipping point, take the fall.


I'd agree with this, but for me it stops short of the complete picture of what I want out of my uke, depending on what I'm "learning" at the time.  When in "learning kata" mode, it's precisely right. Attack with intention, react as the best martial artist int he room would as to bringing yourself back on-balance and good posture, and... be there. That is to learn and feel where the technique is supposed to live.

However, once the info of the above has been learned, and variations on the entry into it explored, then I do want my uke to (here's that progressive resistance thing again) start to be that dick, start to not comply, start trying to get away from the technique, or even yet, to counterattack or to continue with the next available attack to them.

Granted, that's getting into randori.


----------



## JP3

jobo said:


> I do ! Or at least have


Yes. You're not unique either Jobo. When yu get down to the Newtonian physics of a punch, when thrown full power, it's coming at you in the speed range of a baseball (though some guy's fists are the size o softballs), so it is not as hard to catch a punch as people think, especially if the catching action is performed with both hands. It can be effective, but I don't personally like it. It's  a personal thing, like my preference for the open hand strikes now instead of fists. I used to use fists all the time, and they worked just fine, then I started using open hand stuff and ended up feeling.... better about that. No clue why.

But, yes, catching a punch isn't that difficult, though keeping a hold of it when the person wants it back might be.


----------



## JP3

jobo said:


> as soon as your source doesn't understand the unit of measurement involved, there a very good chance they just made the whole thing up.
> if any one can post can actual source report on Mr tysons punching power being 1800 pounds il back down.
> frank Bruno who had a notably hard punch was apparently measure at 900 lbs force, which pretty impressive. I cant find any credable source that iron mikes punch was ever measured at all, other than the wild claims that abound


I think Mike was pretty fearsome, Jobo... Personally, I'd measure force by how hard the guy's head bounces off of his own shoulder when Mike hits him.  Just for fun, check out the video link below, it's a quick Top 10 I think of Mike's fastest knockouts. The Frazier one is the one I think I remember the best.  All of them are (the entire fights aren't in the video) under 1 minute!

Info:  http://boxrec.com/boxer/000474


Video:


----------



## JP3

Steve said:


> how much force does an aikidoist exert when they blend?


I don't know how  much an aikidoist uses, but I use as little as possible. We should ask Gerry.

Aikidoist. Ack. I guess it's better than Aikidoer.


----------



## JP3

Shoot, I couldn't get the video to imbed. Learning curve, y'all. Trying again. It's worth watching if for nothing else than the "Wow..." factor of how hard Mike Tyson could hit.


----------



## Steve

JP3 said:


> I don't know how  much an aikidoist uses, but I use as little as possible. We should ask Gerry.
> 
> Aikidoist. Ack. I guess it's better than Aikidoer.


We learned in another thread that aikidoka is a senior student.   Aikidoist is more correct.


----------



## JP3

Steve said:


> We learned in another thread that aikidoka is a senior student.   Aikidoist is more correct.


More correct.  Says you.

Well, actually... says them. 20 years in and I've never heard the term aikidoist until this very board.  A person is a judoka as soon as they put on a judogi and get on the mat, not a very good judoka but a judoka nonetheless.  Aikido person, same-same imo.

Again. Aikidoist. Ack. Would they be Wing Chunists? Karaticians? Muay Thai'i?


----------



## TSDTexan

[QU OTE="JP3, post: 1830598, member: 34310"]More correct.  Says you.

Well, actually... says them. 20 years in and I've never heard the term aikidoist until this very board.  A person is a judoka as soon as they put on a judogi and get on the mat, not a very good judoka but a judoka nonetheless.  Aikido person, same-same imo.

Again. Aikidoist. Ack. Would they be Wing Chunists? Karaticians? Muay Thai'i?[/QUOTE]

Ahem... karateka... from the first class I took.

But Ka is specifically a Japanese suffix. So I wouldn't be saying Mui thai ka.


Also!
I am a tangsoodoin.

(And recently, I became a Hongsoodoin...in
Okinawan Hong Soo Do.)

In is the Korean equivalent suffix to Ka.






-------   Empty    --------     Hand/Fist   --------   Person

The online Japanese English dictionary
Romajidesu.com said this about Ka:

Meaning of 家 in Japanese | RomajiDesu Japanese dictionary

かka  【 家 】
家 Kanji


(suf) -ist (used after a noun indicating someone's occupation, pursuits, disposition, etc.); -er→Related words: 政治家. My response 政治家 which would be politician or statesman.


----------



## TSDTexan




----------



## TSDTexan




----------



## TSDTexan

.


----------



## JP3

TSDTexan said:


> Ahem... karateka... from the first class I took.
> 
> But Ka is specifically a Japanese suffix. So I wouldn't be saying Mui thai ka.
> 
> In is the Korean equivalent suffix to Ka


Right. Karateka from Day One. My understanding as well. Karateka. Judoka. Aikidoka.

No clue what Muay Tahiian would be in Thai.


----------



## Steve

i have no dog in this hunt.  I'm just calling them what they say they want to be called.   If they wanted to be called aiki-dokeys it's fine by me.


----------



## jobo

JP3 said:


> Yes. You're not unique either Jobo. When yu get down to the Newtonian physics of a punch, when thrown full power, it's coming at you in the speed range of a baseball (though some guy's fists are the size o softballs), so it is not as hard to catch a punch as people think, especially if the catching action is performed with both hands. It can be effective, but I don't personally like it. It's  a personal thing, like my preference for the open hand strikes now instead of fists. I used to use fists all the time, and they worked just fine, then I started using open hand stuff and ended up feeling.... better about that. No clue why.
> 
> But, yes, catching a punch isn't that difficult, though keeping a hold of it when the person wants it back might be.


I didn't say catching punches was desirables, just that someone said it was impossible ,and as is the way on this forum immediately went to extremes to prove their point by sighting iron mike as a punch you could catch, which is i suppose true, but then if faced  with the esteemed Mr Tyson I would be running away rather than trying to catch his bombs.

to be honest its not something I would try as a considered move, but as an instinctive reaction to something move fast at the edge of my vision, I have caught the wrist of the puncher and it does seem to freak them out when you do so


----------



## JP3

jobo said:


> I didn't say catching punches was desirables, just that someone said it was impossible ,and as is the way on this forum immediately went to extremes to prove their point by sighting iron mike as a punch you could catch, which is i suppose true, but then if faced  with the esteemed Mr Tyson I would be running away rather than trying to catch his bombs.
> 
> to be honest its not something I would try as a considered move, but as an instinctive reaction to something move fast at the edge of my vision, I have caught the wrist of the puncher and it does seem to freak them out when you do so


My bad, I misunderstood you I think.

What I was referring to wasn't catching/trapping the wrist, I really did mean catching the punch as it's flying towards your face/head/body.  The Sheriff's Deputy/Prison Guard instructor guy I've mentioned on here was talking about it once.  He was discussing it like all it really needed was a change in mindset about what it is that's coming in. Think of the fist coming in as a baseball, and just catch it... then swarm up the arm intot he body with... whatever showed up. He could do it scary good, but it appeared to be something he'd worked on a lot.


----------



## TSDTexan

JP3 said:


> My bad, I misunderstood you I think.
> 
> What I was referring to wasn't catching/trapping the wrist, I really did mean catching the punch as it's flying towards your face/head/body.  The Sheriff's Deputy/Prison Guard instructor guy I've mentioned on here was talking about it once.  He was discussing it like all it really needed was a change in mindset about what it is that's coming in. Think of the fist coming in as a baseball, and just catch it... then swarm up the arm intot he body with... whatever showed up. He could do it scary good, but it appeared to be something he'd worked on a lot.



That's crazy. But maybe incorporated with tai subaki


----------



## CB Jones

Steve said:


> If they wanted to be called aiki-dokeys it's fine by me.



I vote for this.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And you think that is a real thing?


Yes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KangTsai said:


> Everyone keeps telling me that and to this minute I do not believe it one bit.


I actually had a training partner tell me a story (yep, just a story, DB) about someone applying a lock on him suddenly, and he rather instinctively jumped into a fall when it locked faster and harder than expected. He wasn't trained for those high breakfalls, but it turns out he could do them with enough motivation. The jump into the fall was the protection from that lock. There are ways to practice the locks that don't require those breakfalls (we normally don't need them), and there are ways to practice them that require the breakfalls. I'd rather not do on a regular basis the version that requires them, so my partners don't develop the habit of pre-jumping into them. Of course, if partners are honest with each other, they can also share after the fall whether the technique took them to the "point of". I've occasionally taken a fall, then realized the person let off the technique just when it felt like they were going to lock it. I always tell them when that happens, so they don't get that false sense that what they did would have been effective had I not been protecting my wrist.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I am pretty sure i have seen reversals in akido to that lock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. another thing I just thought of. You have done a flying leap in to the deck.
> 
> Then what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This does not look like a fun position to fight on from.


There are definitely reversals and counters to all techniques. Those should be part of the learning process. And IMO students should also learn how to use their weight in a fall (sutemi waza) as part of a takedown of their partner/opponent. This is not uncommon in wrestling and Judo, and should definitely be trained in Aikido.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok While I was hunting around I found this. Now this move actually works. But for some reason the partner is still throwing himself into the deck. And there is no risk to a limb really at all here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I just looking at bad aikido here?


I think you're looking at a bad habit, which can become common in some Aikido schools.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> i agree with both view points.  you cannot capture a proper punch.  this is something that aikido gets a lot of flack for and its deserved at times and other times no.  the attack in the video is over extended and hangs out there in space. a proper punch should snap back to a guard position, making most aikido technique impossible.
> that being said this is not really a punch its mune-tsuki.  it represents a lunging action which would more closely resemble a knife thrust then a punch.
> if on the street an assailant thrust a knife in that manner at an aikidoka then the technique would work, ...problem...its not often assailants attack like that.


I wouldn't say that a proper punch makes most Aikido techniques impossible. It simply means they have to be executed differently. In many Aikido schools, they only seem to practice against these over-extended attacks, and that's a problem, IMO (assuming they are training to be able to defend). It's a great way to practice exercising aiki, but it fails to train the other side of techniques.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Roy Dean is a really good example of what I'm talking about. He's a high level Bjj practitioner who incorporates Aikido into his personal style. If you ever see him fight or roll he's doing about 95% Bjj and 5% Aikido. I think those amazing Aikidoka from the early days (like Gozo Shioda and Koichi Tohei)
> were probably doing 95% Judo and 5% Aikido.
> 
> Nothing against Aikido, but it really appears to be a capstone to decades of training in something else.


I agree this is the case with the way many schools train their Aikido. And you're probably right (I can't speak to the percentages) about the early students. They were all skilled in something else before their Aikido training, and that combination made them formidable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> I'd agree with this, but for me it stops short of the complete picture of what I want out of my uke, depending on what I'm "learning" at the time.  When in "learning kata" mode, it's precisely right. Attack with intention, react as the best martial artist int he room would as to bringing yourself back on-balance and good posture, and... be there. That is to learn and feel where the technique is supposed to live.
> 
> However, once the info of the above has been learned, and variations on the entry into it explored, then I do want my uke to (here's that progressive resistance thing again) start to be that dick, start to not comply, start trying to get away from the technique, or even yet, to counterattack or to continue with the next available attack to them.
> 
> Granted, that's getting into randori.


Agreed. At what point do you guys start getting into that mode, JP?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> I don't know how  much an aikidoist uses, but I use as little as possible. We should ask Gerry.
> 
> Aikidoist. Ack. I guess it's better than Aikidoer.


I'm not even sure how we would measure that, JP. Some blends, I'm exerting very force, because I'm just slipping past the attack. Others, the attack is more contained, so I'm using an explosive entry. But I'm getting lazy as my knees yell at me more, and I do less of the explosive entry. I'm more likely to abandon blending and respond with a harder version of the techniques.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I agree this is the case with the way many schools train their Aikido. And you're probably right (I can't speak to the percentages) about the early students. They were all skilled in something else before their Aikido training, and that combination made them formidable.



I found this over in the Aikido section, originally posted by Spinedoc;

The Future of Aikido - Ikazuchi Dojo

Roy Dean discussing the future of Aikido. It's quite interesting, since he believes that Aikido is "dying", and he wants to discuss Aikido effectiveness with Joe Rogan. 

Aikido losing popularity doesn't surprise me. I've run across many former Aikidoka who migrated to Bjj and MMA because they feel that Aikido is ineffective.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> More correct.  Says you.
> 
> Well, actually... says them. 20 years in and I've never heard the term aikidoist until this very board.  A person is a judoka as soon as they put on a judogi and get on the mat, not a very good judoka but a judoka nonetheless.  Aikido person, same-same imo.
> 
> Again. Aikidoist. Ack. Would they be Wing Chunists? Karaticians? Muay Thai'i?


I've always heard folks in NGA referred to as "Aikidoka", regardless of rank. Mind you, we have little link to the traditions of Japan, so we're less likely to follow some of those finer points.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I found this over in the Aikido section, originally posted by Spinedoc;
> 
> The Future of Aikido - Ikazuchi Dojo
> 
> Roy Dean discussing the future of Aikido. It's quite interesting, since he believes that Aikido is "dying", and he wants to discuss Aikido effectiveness with Joe Rogan.
> 
> Aikido losing popularity doesn't surprise me. I've run across many former Aikidoka who migrated to Bjj and MMA because they feel that Aikido is ineffective.


This was one of Stan Pranin's concerns, too. I'd like to see two branches of Aikido grow:
1) Aikido with a built-in base of strikes and non-aiki techniques (this probably exists in Yoshinkan, maybe in Tomiki's branch, too).
2) Aikido as an advanced add-on (as it started with Shioda et al).


----------



## JP3

TSDTexan said:


> That's crazy. But maybe incorporated with tai subaki


Like I said, it's not MY thing, but he had me do it. I can punch, and he had me do so. Slide into range and fire, he said he didn't care if it was right or left, he'd catch it with both hands anyway, so I slid in and stuck him with a jab. Probably my best, most useful punch, my jab since I've got these gibbon-like arms and have good handspeed. He just stood there, slid his head back maybe a couple inches and brought his hands together like a fielder - literally the same way an second baseman would catch a line drive. Smack, right into his palms. I was already doing my trained thing, and he said, "Well shoot. I'm out of practice."  I... uh... declined to go down that road.  That road leads to meanness from old guys who think you're being uppity.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. At what point do you guys start getting into that mode, JP?


It's sort of case by case basis, Gerry.  For instance, I'm not doing it right now since I've only got the two black belts in class, and I've stuck them with the problem of learning a one of the advanced kata well enough so that the Nidan can rank up... maybe by the end of the year. He could do that.

But, before, with those same guys, we did a bit of this. I've done it before with brown belts who were excelling, but only with a very limited ... scope of engagement I'd guess I'd call it. For example, I'd not switch gears on them from saying "You've got to watch out for the foot being swept sometimes in this position..."" and then raise the ante to a leg-kick, if you see what I mean.  Not only have some/most of them not ever seen that technique, most haven't even rea the book. Some don't even know the book exists yet. So, it's dumbed down. 

New-ish school, trying to not run off the students.


----------



## TSDTexan

JP3 said:


> Like I said, it's not MY thing, but he had me do it. I can punch, and he had me do so. Slide into range and fire, he said he didn't care if it was right or left, he'd catch it with both hands anyway, so I slid in and stuck him with a jab. Probably my best, most useful punch, my jab since I've got these gibbon-like arms and have good handspeed. He just stood there, slid his head back maybe a couple inches and brought his hands together like a fielder - literally the same way an second baseman would catch a line drive. Smack, right into his palms. I was already doing my trained thing, and he said, "Well shoot. I'm out of practice."  I... uh... declined to go down that road.  That road leads to meanness from old guys who think you're being uppity.




Scary


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> This was one of Stan Pranin's concerns, too. I'd like to see two branches of Aikido grow:
> 1) Aikido with a built-in base of strikes and non-aiki techniques (this probably exists in Yoshinkan, maybe in Tomiki's branch, too).
> 2) Aikido as an advanced add-on (as it started with Shioda et al).



Yeah but you can still fall into the same traps if you train in the same manner.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah but you can still fall into the same traps if you train in the same manner.


You can, but it's less likely you'll train in the same manner if you're using strikes and acknowledging the non-aiki versions of the techniques. You can't practice the latter if you only have a compliant uke - to practice them well, you need someone who is actually trying to stop you. And folks who have advanced experience in another art (and training style) will usually put each other to the test more often, by their nature. They can fall into a mutual-admiration loop and get into bad habits, but it's unlikely since at least some of them are likely to want to see how the new stuff works against their old stuff. And the attacks would almost certainly be better.


----------



## Chris Parker

Steve said:


> We learned in another thread that aikidoka is a senior student.   Aikidoist is more correct.



This thread. Not another. And, despite all the continued posts, the answer was given earlier as well. The preferred term in Japanese for a non-senior (experienced) practitioner of Aikido is Aikido-in. Okay? For reference, I think it was about page 11 or so.


----------



## CB Jones

Chris Parker said:


> This thread. Not another. And, despite all the continued posts, the answer was given earlier as well. The preferred term in Japanese for a non-senior (experienced) practitioner of Aikido is Aikido-in. Okay? For reference, I think it was about page 11 or so.



Ok but I think we are leaning more towards using the name Aiki-Dokeys


----------



## Gerry Seymour

CB Jones said:


> Ok but I think we are leaning more towards using the name Aiki-Dokeys


And for those who do Aikido with a bad attitude: Aiki-Donkeys.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You can, but it's less likely you'll train in the same manner if you're using strikes and acknowledging the non-aiki versions of the techniques. You can't practice the latter if you only have a compliant uke - to practice them well, you need someone who is actually trying to stop you. And folks who have advanced experience in another art (and training style) will usually put each other to the test more often, by their nature. They can fall into a mutual-admiration loop and get into bad habits, but it's unlikely since at least some of them are likely to want to see how the new stuff works against their old stuff. And the attacks would almost certainly be better.



you would be suprised I think. Very few people get manhandled by another style and not have a fleet of excuses ready to rationalise that.

Where was it? Double leg defence using Aikido principles? Because using double leg defence principles would be silly wouldn't it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> you would be suprised I think. Very few people get manhandled by another style and not have a fleet of excuses ready to rationalise that.
> 
> Where was it? Double leg defence using Aikido principles? Because using double leg defence principles would be silly wouldn't it.


Oh, I do understand that people will find excuses. But it's harder to maintain those excuses when the manhandling is by another student in the same class. Eventually, you get tired of it and start actually solving the problem. Or you quit.

Of course, if the person already has skill, they will be able to fill many holes with that pre-existing skill, and the Aikido becomes a supplement, another range of options in their toolbox.

(I'm not sure what that last bit is about.)


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Oh, I do understand that people will find excuses. But it's harder to maintain those excuses when the manhandling is by another student in the same class. Eventually, you get tired of it and start actually solving the problem. Or you quit.
> 
> Of course, if the person already has skill, they will be able to fill many holes with that pre-existing skill, and the Aikido becomes a supplement, another range of options in their toolbox.
> 
> (I'm not sure what that last bit is about.)



The last bit is an example of the first bit.  When exposed to the double leg take down. The solution was not to acknowledge the technique or find a defence.  But to deal with a different technique.

Which I just realized is a physical example of a strawman.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The last bit is an example of the first bit.  When exposed to the double leg take down. The solution was not to acknowledge the technique or find a defence.  But to deal with a different technique.
> 
> Which I just realized is a physical example of a strawman.


That would be a physical example of a strawman, indeed. That's a nice observation. It's something we can all fall into when we try to build a defense against something we don't know how to do. I see that done by grappling instructors teaching defense against strikes, striking instructors teaching defense against grappling, standing arts teaching defense against the mount, etc. Sometimes they're just doing the best they can (we all do that), and sometimes they need to go learn a bit more about the attack before they try. And, of course, when you learn about the attack from someone who knows it, you can also learn how they counter it, and adapt those principles (like you said, double-leg principles).


----------



## FriedRice

oaktree said:


> Asia is actually a pretty big place, I lived in Japan and China. I would say my language skill is not to bad. Speaking from a martial art perspective, I can not think of to many teachers or students in those countries who go in to specifically fight or  learn to fight to cause harm. Spiritual side well depends on how much or to degree spiritual. A lot of classical styles have deities and talk about 气。 so again, your experience doesn't match my experience in Japan or China



Experience in Aikido. I don't think they fight anywhere in the world nor history, with the exception of Steven Seagal vs. Kelly LeBrock.


----------



## oaktree

FriedRice said:


> Experience in Aikido. I don't think they fight anywhere in the world nor history, with the exception of Steven Seagal vs. Kelly LeBrock.


Wow I haven't heard from you in a while thought you got hit by a bus


----------



## FriedRice

oaktree said:


> Wow I haven't heard from you in a while thought you got hit by a bus



Really, or was it because "someone" snitched on me to the moderators and they banned me for a few weeks?  And the infraction was referenced to a post that I specifically made towards you.


----------



## oaktree

FriedRice said:


> Really, or was it because "someone" snitched on me to the moderators and they banned me for a few weeks?  And the infraction was referenced to a post that I specifically made towards you.


Well l  don't recall contacting the mods in references to you.


----------



## JP3

Chris Parker said:


> This thread. Not another. And, despite all the continued posts, the answer was given earlier as well. The preferred term in Japanese for a non-senior (experienced) practitioner of Aikido is Aikido-in. Okay? For reference, I think it was about page 11 or so.


Ack. Bringing up the Japanese. Who does that? I mean, I'm not Japanese, I didn't learn from a Japanese.  We don't have anyone Japanese in our classes or any I've been to recently.  I'm not even learning anything Japanese. 

Wait... I may need to revise that last bit.

Seriously though... just because Japanese some Japanese nomenclature reflects this aikido-in, or even aikidoists, I may be wrong if I go to Japan and speaking my Texan-version wordplay.... I prefer aikidoka.  Why would I not? I give the first day white belt in judo the... uh... title? Honorific? of Judoka as soon as they've lived through their first class, why not the aikido person?  Seems separists and class-based to me... sort of like the... uh... hmm... I'll stop.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> The last bit is an example of the first bit.  When exposed to the double leg take down. The solution was not to acknowledge the technique or find a defence.  But to deal with a different technique.
> 
> Which I just realized is a physical example of a strawman.





drop bear said:


> The last bit is an example of the first bit.  When exposed to the double leg take down. The solution was not to acknowledge the technique or find a defence.  But to deal with a different technique.
> 
> Which I just realized is a physical example of a strawman.


Couldn't I use my "aikido principles" that are cross genre to deal with a double-leg? Lots of it is the same stuff I've got from judo, hapkido, etc? Or, is that the issue? The cross genre nature of those principles, e.g. "Get offline," and so forth?


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Couldn't I use my "aikido principles" that are cross genre to deal with a double-leg? Lots of it is the same stuff I've got from judo, hapkido, etc? Or, is that the issue? The cross genre nature of those principles, e.g. "Get offline," and so forth?



Not unless they are coincidencentially the same as the double leg defences anyway.

It depends what you are trying to do. Uphold the values of your system or not wind up on your butt. 

Going off line should do stuff all unless they are miles away. Sort of. You sprawl off line anyway. But if you think you can just dodge one then probably not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not unless they are coincidencentially the same as the double leg defences anyway.
> 
> It depends what you are trying to do. Uphold the values of your system or not wind up on your butt.
> 
> Going off line should do stuff all unless they are miles away. Sort of. You sprawl off line anyway. But if you think you can just dodge one then probably not.


I think a sprawl fits within the confines of aikido principles, though on the outer edges (as some aikijujutsu and NGA techniques do). A sprawl is a sutemi waza (sacrifice technique), because you give up mobility and base to move your legs away and bring weight onto the attacker. It avoids the intent and energy of the attack, so is an odd form of blending, and it lets the attacker come in so we can redirect him (downward). I see nothing at odds with aikido principles, though the movement is quite different from standard aikido/aikijujutsu techniques.


----------



## JP3

Getting offline is a 3D concept, keep that in mind, Drop. I have, as I'm certain you also have, been able to simply dodge someone's double-leg when they: A) are too slow; B) have bad technique; or C) don't know what they are doing (see A and B). You're right though, get too close to someone whose got a really good one and just stepping out of it probably isn't going to work. So, I think I'm right, which means you're right.

Gerry, I've not noticed the words Double Leg Takedown on any USJA posters lately. Sutemi-waza indeed.  There you go, using Japanese again. Sheesh... Japanese Japanes Japanese.  I mean really. It's not like I'm doing one of my nifty ukemi/falling techniques while linked to a guy to cause him to fall down on his back or anything. I'm diving on my face while intentionally shoving my head and houlders into his gut so he gets pasted.

Completely, totally, absolutely, indisputably, irreconcilably different.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think a sprawl fits within the confines of aikido principles, though on the outer edges (as some aikijujutsu and NGA techniques do). A sprawl is a sutemi waza (sacrifice technique), because you give up mobility and base to move your legs away and bring weight onto the attacker. It avoids the intent and energy of the attack, so is an odd form of blending, and it lets the attacker come in so we can redirect him (downward). I see nothing at odds with aikido principles, though the movement is quite different from standard aikido/aikijujutsu techniques.



Depends what you consider a base.  Surfing on top of a dude is still a base.  Possibly more important.






But my point is that if you are constantly fixated on whether a technique adheres to your principles you miss the Forrest for the trees.

Techniques can do whatever they want.  Your principles are a reflection of what works.  Not the other way around. Because that is dogma.

The word goes around the sun.  Like it or not.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Depends what you consider a base.  Surfing on top of a dude is still a base.  Possibly more important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But my point is that if you are constantly fixated on whether a technique adheres to your principles you miss the Forrest for the trees.
> 
> Techniques can do whatever they want.  Your principles are a reflection of what works.  Not the other way around. Because that is dogma.
> 
> The word goes around the sun.  Like it or not.


OK, on this we disagree Drop. Techniques work, because they fit within certain principles. In my experience, if my posture is better than the other guy's, and my structure is better than the other guy's, then physics (the ultimate principle set) takes over and I win. Doesn't matter if I'm entering for a shoulder throw, or escaping a double-leg shoot,  or countering an inside blast from a Kenpo guy. If I stay in my principles,a nd I break him out of his, I win. 

Granted, simple to say, not easy to do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Depends what you consider a base.  Surfing on top of a dude is still a base.  Possibly more important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But my point is that if you are constantly fixated on whether a technique adheres to your principles you miss the Forrest for the trees.
> 
> Techniques can do whatever they want.  Your principles are a reflection of what works.  Not the other way around. Because that is dogma.
> 
> The word goes around the sun.  Like it or not.


The principles of an art are what make it easier for the casual person to learn new techniques. Where possible, it's preferable to add things that fit within that framework. If there are significant gaps that can't be filled that way, then the framework needs an adjustment. So, no, it's not dogma. Dogma would be like, "Either that fits the principles of the art, or it's wrong." Properly using a foundation of principles is more like, "That looks useful, and it fits the principles of the art, so it's easy to include and can easily become core. This other thing looks useful, but doesn't fit within the principles. I should find something that works as well and fits the principles, or figure out what's wrong with the principles."

By "base", I mean a standing base. The term is used differently in arts that like the ground. The principle of the base is similar to what you're likely used to (I assume that to be something similar to the BJJ usage), except that we're specifically targeting remaining standing, so we'd refer to going to the ground as "sacrificing base". And sacrificing base is actually a principle we work with, so something like a sprawl fits nicely. 

I assume there are other ways to defeat a double-leg. I know some that work when the attacker messes up (assuming you can recognize what the opportunity is), but variations of a sprawl are pretty much my entire response to a well-played double-leg.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Just ran across this and thought I'd post it.





I don't really care so much about the results of the experiment (which are about what I would expect). What I really liked was the friendly, humble, and respectful attitude both martial artists brought to the encounter. In my opinion, that's how it should be done.


----------



## Hanzou

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just ran across this and thought I'd post it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care so much about the results of the experiment (which are about what I would expect). What I really liked was the friendly, humble, and respectful attitude both martial artists brought to the encounter. In my opinion, that's how it should be done.



That's been my experience with Aikido as well. Good to finally see something like this on video.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just ran across this and thought I'd post it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care so much about the results of the experiment (which are about what I would expect). What I really liked was the friendly, humble, and respectful attitude both martial artists brought to the encounter. In my opinion, that's how it should be done.



I would have loved to have seen an armlock competition. Because I still think successfully using Aikido is in the setup.

And sparring is where it gets developed.

 See the MMA guy play the role of the Aikido guy.


----------



## Paul_D

Tony Dismukes said:


>


"Aikido is not meant for this situation". This situation being sports fighting.  So whilst this tells us what we already know, a lot of the hate seems to because it doesn't function in this situation.  Which raises the question, why hate something for not being able to function in a situation it is not designed to function in?


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> "Aikido is not meant for this situation". This situation being sports fighting.  So whilst this tells us what we already know, a lot of the hate seems to because it doesn't function in this situation.  Which raises the question, why hate something for not being able to function in a situation it is not designed to function in?



That was actually representative of a really slow mugging. You need to learn the difference between a consensual fight and self defence.


----------



## Hanzou

Paul_D said:


> "Aikido is not meant for this situation". This situation being sports fighting.  So whilst this tells us what we already know, a lot of the hate seems to because it doesn't function in this situation.  Which raises the question, why hate something for not being able to function in a situation it is not designed to function in?



So you're saying that if someone is (politely) punching, kicking, and/or tackling you Aikido won't work?

If Aikido doesn't function in a safe environment where your attacker is being easy on you, and you know what's coming, how are we supposed to believe that it functions in a chaotic environment where your attacker isn't playing nice, and you have no idea what's coming?


----------



## kuniggety

That was a pretty cool video in that both practitioners were humble. It would be interesting if they would've repeated it with clothes that the aikidoist could grab and maybe stuck to open hand slaps instead of gloves.


----------



## Hanzou

kuniggety said:


> That was a pretty cool video in that both practitioners were humble. It would be interesting if they would've repeated it with clothes that the aikidoist could grab and maybe stuck to open hand slaps instead of gloves.



I liked that the MMA guy pointed out that the Aikido guy wasn't used to taking punches, or being punched, so he began making bigger and bigger mistakes. Additionally his take down defense was non-existent, leaving him wide open to getting taken down and being dominated.

I'm really against the concept that certain arts are only made to fight against people who can't fight. What if your attacker CAN fight? Are you suddenly screwed? Wouldn't you be better off learning a style that CAN counter people who can fight?


----------



## kuniggety

Hanzou said:


> I liked that the MMA guy pointed out that the Aikido guy wasn't used to taking punches, or being punched, so he began making bigger and bigger mistakes. Additionally his take down defense was non-existent, leaving him wide open to getting taken down and being dominated.
> 
> I'm really against the concept that certain arts are only made to fight against people who can't fight. What if your attacker CAN fight? Are you suddenly screwed? Wouldn't you be better off learning a style that CAN counter people who can fight?



Agreed but I think in the end it boils down to what your goals are for training the art which the aikidoist mentioned at the end. Personally I'd be a little upset if I trained a martial art for so long and then got man handled so bad but I know from the start that I want to know how to control a fight from my MA training.


----------



## Hanzou

kuniggety said:


> Agreed but I think in the end it boils down to what your goals are for training the art which the aikidoist mentioned at the end. Personally I'd be a little upset if I trained a martial art for so long and then got man handled so bad but I know from the start that I want to know how to control a fight from my MA training.



If I were training in Aikido (much less an instructor in Aikido), I would want to be able to perform my techniques against an aggressive attacker regardless of their personal level of training. 

The fact that he was completely shut down is pretty concerning. I can understand maybe doing it for the cultural and spiritual aspect, but I can't help but believe the majority of people practicing Aikido want to be able to protect themselves in the unlikely event some MMA-trained goon attacks them.


----------



## Steve

I think it would be really interestingand healthy  if that aikido guy were to continue to spar with that Mma guy.   I think his aikido would improve dramatically, and possibly evolve as he lets some unrealistic techniques go.   Mma guy would learn some things, too, probably.


----------



## drop bear

kuniggety said:


> Agreed but I think in the end it boils down to what your goals are for training the art which the aikidoist mentioned at the end. Personally I'd be a little upset if I trained a martial art for so long and then got man handled so bad but I know from the start that I want to know how to control a fight from my MA training.



Well. Sort of. If the MMA guy is legitimately good. He would have done that anyway. Regardless of style. I get manhandled by MMA guys and I do MMA.

But you just take the loss and use it as a key to unlock the secret of making your martial art functional.

Aikido guy has a whole bunch of stuff he can refine up. Take it back to the lab and see if he is progressing forwards.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I think it would be really interestingand healthy  if that aikido guy were to continue to spar with that Mma guy.   I think his aikido would improve dramatically, and possibly evolve as he lets some unrealistic techniques go.   Mma guy would learn some things, too, probably.



You have to be functional at fighting before you can figure out if your martial arts works.


----------



## Paul_D

Hanzou said:


> So you're saying that if someone is (politely) punching, kicking, and/or tackling you Aikido won't work?


I'm not saying that.



Hanzou said:


> If Aikido doesn't function in a safe environment where your attacker is being easy on you, and you know what's coming, how are we supposed to believe that it functions in a chaotic environment where your attacker isn't playing nice, and you have no idea what's coming?


To clarify, what environment would this be?


----------



## Hanzou

This video reminds me of a quote from Roy Dean; A prominent instructor of Aikido and Bjj;

Below Quote comes from:
http://www.slideyfoot.com/2011/05/dv...-roy-dean.html

"I generally take issue with the aikido I’ve learned, seen, and come in contact with being advertised as self-defense. Although there are aspects and techniques of aikido that I believe can be gleaned and added to your martial arsenal (i.e. footwork for getting off the line, blending with an overcommitted attack, etc.), I could never recommend it to somebody who wanted to learn self-defense. Not only is there too much silence about what works and what doesn’t, the non-competitive training method doesn’t put students in pressure situations similar enough to real confrontations, breeding a false sense of security in students through tacit affirmations such as:

1) It may take 20 years, but this stuff will work if you just keep practicing. 

2) Don’t worry about strength, since physical conditioning isn’t that important.

3) These exercises we’re doing are how attacks really are.

4) If it’s not working, you’re not using your center.

5) Keep extending that ki to keep him at bay!

It’s not fair to your students to misrepresent what your art is capable of. If your average aikido student rolled with a judo or Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu player, or got in the ring with a boxer or kickboxer, he wouldn’t know what to do with that kind of intensity. He’d simply be overwhelmed. I’ve seen this point debated through letters to the editor in Aikido Today Magazine, but there’s only one way to find out. Do it. To paraphrase Bruce Lee, you can’t learn to swim unless you get wet, so how can you learn how to fight without fighting?" - Roy Dean


----------



## O'Malley

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just ran across this and thought I'd post it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care so much about the results of the experiment (which are about what I would expect). What I really liked was the friendly, humble, and respectful attitude both martial artists brought to the encounter. In my opinion, that's how it should be done.



Props to both of them for their attitude! I also liked that the MMA guy let the aikidoist express himself in the ring.

I'm not sure how qualified I'd be to criticize given that I'm still a newbie in aikido and that even in "kata form" I can't do the techniques well but here are some things that popped in my mind while watching this:

1) the gloves the MMA guy is wearing would make wrist locks more complicated to do, so it would be a poor tactical choice to try nikkyo or kote gaeshi, for example.

2) why no irimi? (entering)
I mean, every aikido authority stresses the idea that entering and blending are fundamental principles of the art, we apply irimi in like every technique but here Rokas doesn't look like he's trying to enter. It looks like he's trying to keep his partner at bay and grab his wrist if he ever gets the chance. Why practice techniques where you enter and blend with the attack if when you're in the ring you don't use those principles? As drop bear said, there's a problem with the setup.



Hanzou said:


> I liked that the MMA guy pointed out that the Aikido guy wasn't used to taking punches, or being punched, so he began making bigger and bigger mistakes. Additionally his take down defense was non-existent, leaving him wide open to getting taken down and being dominated.



Something I've been thinking about on the lack of takedown defenses in modern aikido is that sumo was more commonly practiced at the time of the founder. Thus it is possible that takedowns and takedown defences (sprawling seems to be a very basic tactic in sumo) were well known back then. After all, it is likely that the sumo wrestlers that O'Sensei fought against have tried to take him down so he must have found some way to deal with those attempts.



> I'm really against the concept that certain arts are only made to fight against people who can't fight. What if your attacker CAN fight? Are you suddenly screwed? Wouldn't you be better off learning a style that CAN counter people who can fight?



I agree. And I don't know where this excuse is coming from because the founder and a lot of high ranked teachers fought against people who could fight. Here are two posts from Ellis Amdur on Aikiweb:

"This is an interesting question, really. I just reread Douglas Walker's translation - three parts - on the life of Shirata Rinjiro. And a large part of that was taryu-shiai [fighting other styles]. And in another interview, published by Chris Li on the Sangenkai site, Kuroiwa Yoshio tells how all the uchi-deshi in the 1950's trained to take on dojo challenges, Kuroiwa's intention (besides boxing) being a koshinage dropping the guy on his head. I was at Kuroiwa sensei's house when a yakuza boss came to pay his respects, something he did once a year in memory of being dumped four times with that koshinage when Kuroiwa interrupted the yakuza (Momose, a 4th dan amateur sumo) from breaking up a friends dojo. 
There was, in fact, (and probably still is) one or two deshi who are the designated minders of the school, and they handle any dojo challenges in the Aikikai. 
It is fair to say that the ring has rules different from a free-fight, but if you flinch from blows in the ring, you will in the street. 
Shirata sensei emphasized that beyond technique, irimi was the crucial element requisite to manage an assaultive individual. The young man in the video was back on his heels the entire time - he was catching - or trying to - attacks. 
One of my most powerful aikido memories was the first time I took ukemi for Chiba Kazuo - his entry was so powerful that I was destabilized from that point on and never recovered. HIs technique, at that time, I thought was not that high a level (an observation of films over the years shows he continued to develop and refine his skill almost until his death, fwiw). but it was irrelevant, because his irimi was the most explosive and powerful I think I've ever experience in aikido. It is fair to say that Ueshiba Morihei's aikido, tori attacked. These days tori/nage - receives and then techniques. That's very different."

"Shoji Nishio around 1984 - "Right from the start, the value of a Budo is determined by comparisons with other Budo.For the most part, if you set up Kokyu-ho between two Aikido people it's just useless. That will only be effective in the dojo...Even in other Budo, everybody is working hard, you know. When we see that we should make an effort to surpass them with our Aiki. That is the mission of Aikido as a Budo.""



> "I generally take issue with the aikido I’ve learned, seen, and come in contact with being advertised as self-defense. Although there are aspects and techniques of aikido that I believe can be gleaned and added to your martial arsenal (i.e. footwork for getting off the line, blending with an overcommitted attack, etc.), I could never recommend it to somebody who wanted to learn self-defense. Not only is there too much silence about what works and what doesn’t, the non-competitive training method doesn’t put students in pressure situations similar enough to real confrontations, breeding a false sense of security in students through tacit affirmations such as:
> 
> 1) It may take 20 years, but this stuff will work if you just keep practicing.
> 
> 2) Don’t worry about strength, since physical conditioning isn’t that important.
> 
> 3) These exercises we’re doing are how attacks really are.
> 
> 4) If it’s not working, you’re not using your center.
> 
> 5) Keep extending that ki to keep him at bay!
> 
> It’s not fair to your students to misrepresent what your art is capable of. If your average aikido student rolled with a judo or Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu player, or got in the ring with a boxer or kickboxer, he wouldn’t know what to do with that kind of intensity. He’d simply be overwhelmed. I’ve seen this point debated through letters to the editor in Aikido Today Magazine, but there’s only one way to find out. Do it. To paraphrase Bruce Lee, you can’t learn to swim unless you get wet, so how can you learn how to fight without fighting?" - Roy Dean



Well, I don't think that the lack of competition is to blame here. More like the lack of intensity and aliveness in training. In other words, the lack of an "honest" attacker.

The Daito ryu guys and the aikido old timers never competed but they were nonetheless fearsome fighters.

Having honest and intense randori might be a solution to re-discover effectiveness without having to forsake O'Sensei's non competitive ideal.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

O'Malley said:


> 2) why no irimi? (entering)
> I mean, every aikido authority stresses the idea that entering and blending are fundamental principles of the art, we apply irimi in like every technique but here Rokas doesn't look like he's trying to enter. It looks like he's trying to keep his partner at bay and grab his wrist if he ever gets the chance. Why practice techniques where you enter and blend with the attack if when you're in the ring you don't use those principles? As drop bear said, there's a problem with the setup.


Probably because it's psychologically hard to perform a committed entry against non-telegraphed combination attacks if you aren't used to seeing them come at you. The Aikidoin probably knew intellectually what he needed to do but he just didn't have the sparring experience to comfortably pull the trigger, so to speak. It's one thing to perform good irimi against a single stylized overcommitted attack which is telegraphed from eight feet away. It's quite another to perform it against someone stalking you down with deceptive combination attacks and the worry that you are going to be walking into a punch when you enter.

It would be interesting to see what the Aikido guy could manage if he devoted some months to getting comfortable in that environment with those sorts of attacks coming at him.


----------



## JP3

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just ran across this and thought I'd post it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really care so much about the results of the experiment (which are about what I would expect). What I really liked was the friendly, humble, and respectful attitude both martial artists brought to the encounter. In my opinion, that's how it should be done.


Good video. I've a bunch of disjointed thoughts I'll just drop a few of them and see how it goes.

I've seen that guy's aikido videos on youtube before, and he's a good presenter on the videos of the aikido, a good face for the art.

What is his name, anyway? The aikido guy?

The aikidoka's been in aikido 13 years, and been a "professional" teacher for 5 years.... That means he became a pro teacher (meaning he charges is all) after 8 years of training.  I'm not going to say that's a bit early for him (his manner is very good, he should be a doctor with that bedside manner, but for me it would be.

Aikido guy said he did a bit of BJJ, and by a bit it appeared that he took a class. Singular.

Combat is its own animal, it is difficult to train for unless you are actually doing it.

The weakness of aikido is movement... if you stop the aikido person from moving, you're almost home.  If you let him keep moving and you stop, you lose.

Nobody is prepared to be punched in the nose.

Traps are difficult to do with any gloves on, even the MMA ones. Shoot, traps are just difficult to do, period. Doing them at distance to a guy who is actively trying to both hit you and get his hands and arms back, well nigh impossible. Closer up, easier, but closer means more potential for loss of situation control, i.e. get your butt kicked.

The aikido guy suffers from the self-referencing loop problem which now-deceased Sensei Geis talked about. If all you train with are your own people, and they know when they are supposed to fall, you are referencing your own success and inserting that reference into your reality, supporting your own position with your own set of perceived facts.  I texas-style dumb this down to bottom shelf as "You are believing your own bullsh*t."

Going into the lab like this is really Required for Any martial artist who wants to check the efficacy of what they do.  Everyone needs to really check, to find out, and know.  Some people have found out because of what they do every day, which is their lab. Those of us who don't have to deal with that, need to seek out a safe situation in which to... check themselves before they wreck themselves.


----------



## JP3

Tony Dismukes said:


> It would be interesting to see what the Aikido guy could manage if he devoted some months to getting comfortable in that environment with those sorts of attacks coming at him.



I agree.  Is his name Rokas? I'll go with it, sounds close enough. Rokas was on his heels in principle for the whole engagement, and in reality for most of it.  He had an understanding of what the MMA guy was going to do, logically, but not intrinsically. He's obviously watched MMA fights, so he's aware that he's going to be punched, taken down, etc... but he admits he has not ever trained in, therefore against, such attacks.

In the short time of the video you can see how he's learning and adapting. The beginning of this process is a very steep learning curve, so that's not surprising.  A lot of aikido "art" is pretty to look at, and it's nifty in demonstration mode, but there are things which simply are not needed and end up being unnecessary fluff,and could be downright dangerous, if you tried to take them with you in your fight toolbox.

Personally, I'd recommend that Rokas intentionally do what I did accidentally and go, if he really is interested in closing the whole in his art, to a Muay Thai gym for a few months.  Stockpile that knowledge (another steep learning curve is the MT gym), and then go do some BJJ.  Train in BJJ for at least a month of regular training (yet another steep learning curve), and while you won't be able to tap anyone other than a first day in class person, you'll have a much deeper understanding of what it is that the BJJ guy is going to try to do to you, and the MT you took will still be "in residence."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> So you're saying that if someone is (politely) punching, kicking, and/or tackling you Aikido won't work?
> 
> If Aikido doesn't function in a safe environment where your attacker is being easy on you, and you know what's coming, how are we supposed to believe that it functions in a chaotic environment where your attacker isn't playing nice, and you have no idea what's coming?


Actually, that soft, "polite" punching is more problematic than someone going for it. There's no commitment of weight (unnecessary at that speed), and Ueshiba's Aikido depends heavily upon that, from what I've seen. They also work so far out that they can't make effective use of a clean clinch.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I think it would be really interestingand healthy  if that aikido guy were to continue to spar with that Mma guy.   I think his aikido would improve dramatically, and possibly evolve as he lets some unrealistic techniques go.   Mma guy would learn some things, too, probably.


Agreed. If he just got used to punches (both giving and receiving), he'd open up a range of application he doesn't seem to have.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> Probably because it's psychologically hard to perform a committed entry against non-telegraphed combination attacks if you aren't used to seeing them come at you. The Aikidoin probably knew intellectually what he needed to do but he just didn't have the sparring experience to comfortably pull the trigger, so to speak. It's one thing to perform good irimi against a single stylized overcommitted attack which is telegraphed from eight feet away. It's quite another to perform it against someone stalking you down with deceptive combination attacks and the worry that you are going to be walking into a punch when you enter.
> 
> It would be interesting to see what the Aikido guy could manage if he devoted some months to getting comfortable in that environment with those sorts of attacks coming at him.


This is a big reason it's good to practice with folks from other styles, and to have some good sparring even in a style like Aikido. You have to have enough exposure to a good striker in sparring to develop pattern recognition. Only when things look familiar will you reliably find the technique to respond to them.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. If he just got used to punches (both giving and receiving), he'd open up a range of application he doesn't seem to have.



How to apply armlocks on guys who are fighting back.


----------



## O'Malley

gpseymour said:


> Actually, that soft, "polite" punching is more problematic than someone going for it. There's no commitment of weight (unnecessary at that speed), and Ueshiba's Aikido depends heavily upon that, from what I've seen. They also work so far out that they can't make effective use of a clean clinch.



I'm curious where you saw this. Overcommitting your weight is bad budo, uke should try to keep his balance as much as possible and not fall on his own... A decent karate tsuki does not commit his weight more than a boxer's cross. It's just what any decent martial artist would do and it is highly unlikely that O'Sensei and the other famous "aikido fighters" repeatedly beat advanced martial artists (judoka, karateka, boxers, sumo wrestlers and whatnot) by "relying heavily" on them committing their weight.

Can't tell about the other dojos but in mine (Sugano line I think, with influences from Tissier and others) even for techniques that use uke's momentum it's tori's job to break uke's structure (doing what judokas would call kuzushi). And we're pretty "soft" on techniques but softness shouldn't be an excuse for bad positioning.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> Actually, that soft, "polite" punching is more problematic than someone going for it. There's no commitment of weight (unnecessary at that speed), and Ueshiba's Aikido depends heavily upon that, from what I've seen. They also work so far out that they can't make effective use of a clean clinch.


I'll go with that. It's why my brain prefers Tomiki's aikido to traditional Ueshiba.... because of the connection to judo.  A typical Tomiki aikido class will have at some point enough judo to get at least a working understanding of judo (much, much better if you actually Do judo as well of course) so that the grappling-distance mai ai out to the longer typical distanced aikido that you see's mai ai flows, one into and out of the other.  Punch comes, enter, blend seeking kotegaeshi, defender moves in as counter and Wallah! Osoto-gari variations pop up.


----------



## Mou Meng Gung Fu

Hornviper said:


> Hello everyone,
> Why does Aikido get so much hate? I realize that BJJ and MMA are very mainstream at the moment, and some of those guys are the biggest Aikido haters out there. No offense. It all boils down to: Did any of the MMA fighters do aikido?" Some people go as far as calling it ********, ineffective, a waste of time, etc. Really? I visited the local Aikido school, and I loved the atmosphere. I'd like to know what your opinion of this art is. I believe most (if not all) arts can be applied in certain scenarios. I have to admit that I am not one of those people that dream of killing/dismantling others. That's the last thing I want to to.
> 
> Thank you in advance.



This may just be my personal viewpoint, but I no longer believe in styles, or the notion of one style being better than another style. I think Aikido is a beautiful martial art with much to offer. Even though I have experience in Judo and in MMA, honesly I love Aikido and hold absolutely no hatred towards it as a martial artist. I would say to learn as much as you can from anywhere you can. Do not let the opinions of others hinder your own personal growth and development.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> How to apply armlocks on guys who are fighting back.


Nice moves there. I love to watch the close control used in wrestling and BJJ, like that head bump control in the first one. I need to play with that some more. I get to work with close arm control and hip/waist control a fair amount, but don't run my head into people as much as I used to because I wear glasses now.

Just a bit of vocabulary, in case we run into confusion later. I wouldn't call either of those "locks". They're "arm control" in my usage - a lock (again, in my usage) would be where you actually start to over-extend a joint in some direction, causing it to lock up. It wouldn't be too hard to push that Russian arm bar into a lock (to us: Arm Bar breaking across the chest), depending upon how his opponent moves.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> I'm curious where you saw this. Overcommitting your weight is bad budo, uke should try to keep his balance as much as possible and not fall on his own... A decent karate tsuki does not commit his weight more than a boxer's cross. It's just what any decent martial artist would do and it is highly unlikely that O'Sensei and the other famous "aikido fighters" repeatedly beat advanced martial artists (judoka, karateka, boxers, sumo wrestlers and whatnot) by "relying heavily" on them committing their weight.
> 
> Can't tell about the other dojos but in mine (Sugano line I think, with influences from Tissier and others) even for techniques that use uke's momentum it's tori's job to break uke's structure (doing what judokas would call kuzushi). And we're pretty "soft" on techniques but softness shouldn't be an excuse for bad positioning.


I should have been clearer. That's what I see in a lot of what's out there now, which (I believe) has in many places degraded because of the stylized attacks. I've seen uke fully commit weight forward (still balanced, but weight moving further forward than necessary) quite a lot when visiting schools. It's an over-pursuit of one version of "aiki", IMO. I actually use two different definitions of "aiki" even in my own training. One is the "pure" version, which almost entirely uses the committed momentum of an attack. The other is more conceptual, and more in line with the "ju" in Judo/Jiujutsu, and is seen in a lot more arts. Both are useful, but an over-concentration on the first version leads over generations to a dependence upon that forward commitment. A "polite" strike doesn't have it. Nor does any cautious, controlled strike - the only strike I'd offer someone I knew was a competent grappler, until I had them off-center.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Nice moves there. I love to watch the close control used in wrestling and BJJ, like that head bump control in the first one. I need to play with that some more. I get to work with close arm control and hip/waist control a fair amount, but don't run my head into people as much as I used to because I wear glasses now.
> 
> Just a bit of vocabulary, in case we run into confusion later. I wouldn't call either of those "locks". They're "arm control" in my usage - a lock (again, in my usage) would be where you actually start to over-extend a joint in some direction, causing it to lock up. It wouldn't be too hard to push that Russian arm bar into a lock (to us: Arm Bar breaking across the chest), depending upon how his opponent moves.



Sorry.  They are not videos of arm locks.  They are videos of how to get an arm isolate and keep it without getting your face punched in. 

Which for me is the most important part of the lock.  

Once you can get the position the submission is easy. 

From 2 on 1 i can hit a lot of locks throws and positions. If i rush for the lock and wind up in crap positioning. That is where i get punched in the head. 

You see Aikido guy do it sparring. He grabs the wrist.  But where is he? 

Directly in front of a shot.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I should have been clearer. That's what I see in a lot of what's out there now, which (I believe) has in many places degraded because of the stylized attacks. I've seen uke fully commit weight forward (still balanced, but weight moving further forward than necessary) quite a lot when visiting schools. It's an over-pursuit of one version of "aiki", IMO. I actually use two different definitions of "aiki" even in my own training. One is the "pure" version, which almost entirely uses the committed momentum of an attack. The other is more conceptual, and more in line with the "ju" in Judo/Jiujutsu, and is seen in a lot more arts. Both are useful, but an over-concentration on the first version leads over generations to a dependence upon that forward commitment. A "polite" strike doesn't have it. Nor does any cautious, controlled strike - the only strike I'd offer someone I knew was a competent grappler, until I had them off-center.



Yeah but these committed strikes have their own issues. They come really fast and are really dangerous.

That nature tends to counter your ability to redirect them.

Man seriously. Get some big gloves, some headgear and throw bombs.  I think you will be really surprised at what you cant counter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Sorry.  They are not videos of arm locks.  They are videos of how to get an arm isolate and keep it without getting your face punched in.
> 
> Which for me is the most important part of the lock.
> 
> Once you can get the position the submission is easy.
> 
> From 2 on 1 i can hit a lot of locks throws and positions. If i rush for the lock and wind up in crap positioning. That is where i get punched in the head.
> 
> You see Aikido guy do it sparring. He grabs the wrist.  But where is he?
> 
> Directly in front of a shot.


Okay, just wanted to make sure we didn't have a vocabulary difference to deal with. And I agree, entirely. Doing a lock from out front is normally a recipe for getting punched, which neatly reduces the chance of getting that lock on. He didn't seem to be doing anything to get offline, inside, or around. And he was also trying to activate a technique without breaking his opponent's structure. That's damnably hard to do unless the guy is very drunk or has been hit hard first (in which case, he has no stable structure to speak of).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah but these committed strikes have their own issues. They come really fast and are really dangerous.
> 
> That nature tends to counter your ability to redirect them.
> 
> Man seriously. Get some big gloves, some headgear and throw bombs.  I think you will be really surprised at what you cant counter.


Oh, they definitely have their own problems. And if you're not able to deal with them as the big punches they are (defending the punch), you'll be in no position to do anything with them. This is why we spend time sparring (which to us means only strikes).


----------



## Tony Dismukes

gpseymour said:


> And he was also trying to activate a technique without breaking his opponent's structure. That's damnably hard to do unless the guy is very drunk or has been hit hard first (in which case, he has no stable structure to speak of).


Something I have been hammering in to my students in recent weeks is that just about all effective grappling, whether throws or submissions, is about primarily compromising your opponent's structure without compromising your own structure in the process. If you have a solid base, alignment, and structure then I am very unlikely to throw you without offsetting those first. (This process includes not just kuzushi in the typical sense of offsetting the opponent's balance, but also other aspects of their body alignment and structure.) If I do manage to disrupt your structure but compromise my own structure in the process, then there's a good chance that not only will the throw fail but I may get thrown myself. If I can take you out of structure and keep my own, then there is an excellent chance I will get some sort of takedown.

The difference between an expert takedown artist and myself is that a real expert only needs to disrupt your structure for a split second to finish the takedown. Being mediocre at takedowns, I usually have to maintain that positional advantage a little longer to complete my technique.

Submissions on the ground work the same way. The biggest difference is that once you've compromised your opponent's structure it's easier to gradually ratchet his structure into worse and worse shape until your positional advantage makes it easy to finish your technique.

The biggest problem I see with grappling novices is trying to force a "technique" before they have won that battle for superior structure.


----------



## Spinedoc

Hanzou said:


> but I can't help but believe the majority of people practicing Aikido want to be able to protect themselves in the unlikely event some MMA-trained goon attacks them.



While I agree with some of your points, I would have to strongly disagree with this one. Most Aikido folks I know don't train to fight at all. The majority of them don't care if they could beat an MMA-trained goon....Like one of my senior instructors, who is a retired FBI agent and has been doing Aikido for 35 years says...."I wouldn't fight some young, trained fighter...that's stupid. I'd just shoot him." When I tell people in Aikido that I cross train in BJJ, many of them, actually, the majority, don't even know what BJJ is....they don't follow MMA, they don't watch UFC...they couldn't even begin to tell you who the MMA fighters are...or what arts they studied....Mainly because, they simply don't care about that stuff. One of the top Aikido instructors in the country who travels around and conducts seminars all over says that "I don't care how effective Aikido is...I don't train to fight...I train for fitness and making human connections"...

So, I would say that the majority of Aikido practitioners haven't even probably considered the possibility of being attacked by an MMA-trained goon....it's not even on their radar...for right or for wrong.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> Something I have been hammering in to my students in recent weeks is that just about all effective grappling, whether throws or submissions, is about primarily compromising your opponent's structure without compromising your own structure in the process. If you have a solid base, alignment, and structure then I am very unlikely to throw you without offsetting those first. (This process includes not just kuzushi in the typical sense of offsetting the opponent's balance, but also other aspects of their body alignment and structure.) If I do manage to disrupt your structure but compromise my own structure in the process, then there's a good chance that not only will the throw fail but I may get thrown myself. If I can take you out of structure and keep my own, then there is an excellent chance I will get some sort of takedown.
> 
> The difference between an expert takedown artist and myself is that a real expert only needs to disrupt your structure for a split second to finish the takedown. Being mediocre at takedowns, I usually have to maintain that positional advantage a little longer to complete my technique.
> 
> Submissions on the ground work the same way. The biggest difference is that once you've compromised your opponent's structure it's easier to gradually ratchet his structure into worse and worse shape until your positional advantage makes it easy to finish your technique.


Agreed. When I'm really "on", I drop people quickly. When I'm "off", I try to drop them too quickly, and end up tugging at them without doing enough to their structure for long enough. When I'm really "off", I upset me more than them. At those moments, I'm thankful if I can locate a good sacrifice technique to attempt a recovery.

*



			The biggest problem I see with grappling novices is trying to force a "technique" before they have won that battle for superior structure.
		
Click to expand...

*This. I also see this among relatively experienced (let's say 5 years of experience) students who haven't had to deal with consequences of doing this. If someone trains with a non-compliant uke (meaning they don't just fall for no reason, and may resist the technique), but the uke doesn't retaliate for failed technique (by continuing to attack, countering with their own technique, etc.), then they tend to try to "fix" (force) a technique, rather than bailing to a technique or approach that better fits the situation.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> If I can take you out of structure and keep my own, then there is an excellent chance I will get some sort of takedown.


I'll use a simple guideline. If I can "make my opponent's spine to bend side way, forward, or backward", I'll complete my throw. Otherwise, I will borrow his resistance, change my force vector, apply different throw, and try to throw him in the opposite direction.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Okay, just wanted to make sure we didn't have a vocabulary difference to deal with. And I agree, entirely. Doing a lock from out front is normally a recipe for getting punched, which neatly reduces the chance of getting that lock on. He didn't seem to be doing anything to get offline, inside, or around. And he was also trying to activate a technique without breaking his opponent's structure. That's damnably hard to do unless the guy is very drunk or has been hit hard first (in which case, he has no stable structure to speak of).



See anybody who spars or competes does that with pressure. So you apply pressure and if they don't resist their structure breaks. If they do resist then they have provided that Aiki that you are looking for.

The more the subtle use of pressure the more Aiki will look like the Aiki you are looking for.

So some really light wrestling here. Which is forcing the guys to use technique.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Yeah but these committed strikes have their own issues. They come really fast and are really dangerous.
> 
> That nature tends to counter your ability to redirect them.
> 
> Man seriously. Get some big gloves, some headgear and throw bombs.  I think you will be really surprised at what you cant counter.


I've done that.

If by "counter," you mean one of the fancy traps, which leads to a wrist, which flows quite nicely and neatly into some kata-perfect locked position with said bomb-thrower standing on tip-toe tapping frenziedly with his other hand... you got that right.

However, said bomb thrower, when evaded, nearly always has a hard time regaining his posture before I can be beside him doing things he doesn't want to his ability to stand up srtraight and throw more of them.  It ain't perfect, and it's messy, and it looks grappl-y, but it does work.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> I've done that.
> 
> If by "counter," you mean one of the fancy traps, which leads to a wrist, which flows quite nicely and neatly into some kata-perfect locked position with said bomb-thrower standing on tip-toe tapping frenziedly with his other hand... you got that right.
> 
> However, said bomb thrower, when evaded, nearly always has a hard time regaining his posture before I can be beside him doing things he doesn't want to his ability to stand up srtraight and throw more of them.  It ain't perfect, and it's messy, and it looks grappl-y, but it does work.



It is one punch you have picked out or set up. Not a whole system.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> It is one punch you have picked out or set up. Not a whole system.


I think I agree with that.  But, by one punch, what I mean is that I'm looking for that "one punch" where they guy comes out of his shell and is trying to deliver a bomb. It doesn't matter what type of punch it is, anything from haymaker, uppercut to straight lead jab can be overextended and compromise the other guy's balance/posture/structure. And, by overextended, I'm talking about him doing it, not my magically causing it to happen with clever footwork or whatever. ... hmm... though... it is interesting to watch what happens when a bomnb-thrower misses and he gets a finger poke in the shoulder which is at right angles to his line of attack.

When overextension happens is where I'd call it Aikido, and the close stuff I'd call judo or jujitsu since that's what I do. It probably looks a lot like other stuff I don't know the names of in other arts.  Based on your tactical thoughts in other threads, I'd wager you do the exact same type of thing, i.e. slip, close, clinch, lock and control.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> I think I agree with that.  But, by one punch, what I mean is that I'm looking for that "one punch" where they guy comes out of his shell and is trying to deliver a bomb. It doesn't matter what type of punch it is, anything from haymaker, uppercut to straight lead jab can be overextended and compromise the other guy's balance/posture/structure. And, by overextended, I'm talking about him doing it, not my magically causing it to happen with clever footwork or whatever. ... hmm... though... it is interesting to watch what happens when a bomnb-thrower misses and he gets a finger poke in the shoulder which is at right angles to his line of attack.
> 
> When overextension happens is where I'd call it Aikido, and the close stuff I'd call judo or jujitsu since that's what I do. It probably looks a lot like other stuff I don't know the names of in other arts.  Based on your tactical thoughts in other threads, I'd wager you do the exact same type of thing, i.e. slip, close, clinch, lock and control.


That's actually the way I refer to it, too. I often teach an "Aikido" version of a technique and a "Judo" version. They operate on the same principles once they start, but they tend to be at different distances, and start differently. On some techniques, I have a personal preference for the "Judo" version (not necessarily actually anything to do with Judo, but more in line with the Judo "approach").


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> That's actually the way I refer to it, too. I often teach an "Aikido" version of a technique and a "Judo" version. They operate on the same principles once they start, but they tend to be at different distances, and start differently. On some techniques, I have a personal preference for the "Judo" version (not necessarily actually anything to do with Judo, but more in line with the Judo "approach").


Tomiki called his aikido, "Judo from a distance." So, I'm not surprised you see that stuff.

Lots of aikido people have never even heard of the word kuzushi, unfortunately. Bill posted in another thread about his taking of the opponent's balance to improve the efficacy of his karate and I almost jumped out of my chair (metaphysically speaking, sort of in an internet fan-boy way).  Here's a simple one, and I bet our most fearsome strikers on here (whoever they are) know this is a fact.

Guy launches strong right hand at you, which you slip tot he left, now you're behind the arm. Light right hand pressure on the back of his right arm as it goes by and there's a nifty hole in his defense where your straight left or left short hook should go to meet his head/face/chin. Bam! Caught.

That's aikido to me. Personally, anymore I'd probably take the guy's head into control rather than hitting him because heads can hurt hands, but that's just me.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> I think I agree with that.  But, by one punch, what I mean is that I'm looking for that "one punch" where they guy comes out of his shell and is trying to deliver a bomb. It doesn't matter what type of punch it is, anything from haymaker, uppercut to straight lead jab can be overextended and compromise the other guy's balance/posture/structure. And, by overextended, I'm talking about him doing it, not my magically causing it to happen with clever footwork or whatever. ... hmm... though... it is interesting to watch what happens when a bomnb-thrower misses and he gets a finger poke in the shoulder which is at right angles to his line of attack.
> 
> When overextension happens is where I'd call it Aikido, and the close stuff I'd call judo or jujitsu since that's what I do. It probably looks a lot like other stuff I don't know the names of in other arts.  Based on your tactical thoughts in other threads, I'd wager you do the exact same type of thing, i.e. slip, close, clinch, lock and control.



Tactically it becomes a big depends. If I see the shot coming in time to move my whole body to counter it. Then yeah I can start getting crazy counters.But moving a body takes a bit of time in fighting terms.

Mostly I am happy to get a hand up to it which is safer.

My hands dont have to be very far from my face for very long to eat a fight ending strike.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Tomiki called his aikido, "Judo from a distance." So, I'm not surprised you see that stuff.
> 
> Lots of aikido people have never even heard of the word kuzushi, unfortunately. Bill posted in another thread about his taking of the opponent's balance to improve the efficacy of his karate and I almost jumped out of my chair (metaphysically speaking, sort of in an internet fan-boy way).  Here's a simple one, and I bet our most fearsome strikers on here (whoever they are) know this is a fact.
> 
> Guy launches strong right hand at you, which you slip tot he left, now you're behind the arm. Light right hand pressure on the back of his right arm as it goes by and there's a nifty hole in his defense where your straight left or left short hook should go to meet his head/face/chin. Bam! Caught.
> 
> That's aikido to me. Personally, anymore I'd probably take the guy's head into control rather than hitting him because heads can hurt hands, but that's just me.


Interesting, I'd always assumed kuzushi was a common concept in Aikido. Though now that you mention it, I don't think I've ever heard it used in the dojos I've visited. It's a central concept in NGA, and I guess I just assumed it would be so in our cousin art. I personally have a heavy emphasis on it in my teaching for both striking and grappling - so much so that I'll fail a student for not "taking structure" (how I usually refer to kuzushi these days), and am more lenient about flaws in the movements of the technique.

I like that comparison by Tomiki. It has all sorts of implications about how the art should work that I don't see enough in some of the Aikido dojos I've visited.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Tactically it becomes a big depends. If I see the shot coming in time to move my whole body to counter it. Then yeah I can start getting crazy counters.But moving a body takes a bit of time in fighting terms.
> 
> Mostly I am happy to get a hand up to it which is safer.
> 
> My hands dont have to be very far from my face for very long to eat a fight ending strike.


I don't think of this as an "either-or" situation. I move and get hands up. If the movement gets me what I want (I end up in a usable position against an over-extension), the fight is over. If not, it's the hands' job to keep things under control (or end it if a big strike opening shows up). Hands don't move far from the face except to take structure, which (mostly) eliminates the openings for a fight-ending strike.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Tactically it becomes a big depends. If I see the shot coming in time to move my whole body to counter it. Then yeah I can start getting crazy counters.But moving a body takes a bit of time in fighting terms.
> 
> Mostly I am happy to get a hand up to it which is safer.
> 
> My hands dont have to be very far from my face for very long to eat a fight ending strike.


Same page. Same book.

As stated elsewhere, I don't want to eat much of any strike. I like to just slip a bomb, too, makes for easy entry (granted you don't F it up and end up eating the thing) and enter for the grapple-game, starting with standing as my judo standing game is way better than my BJJ. I usually just do judo on the ground too. Judoka can do cool things with arms, too. But, I digress.

If the bomb is coming in, I'm moving. Granted, with everything I've done, movement is key so I'm (trying to) always moving. Getting completely out o the way, i.e. El Toro! doesn't really happen much with a skilled guy, but "more than a bit" happens easily and all the time.

Convert my above tactical to this. Guy throws left jab, followed by straight right, for which he's got to slide a bit forward to get the right to you. You use head evasion as everyone does , combined with hand guard to keep the jab off your head, but you use some kind of inside-out block with your right arm to block the straight. This turns the guy.... and the exact same hole is created over his right shoulder to his chin/face/head and you drop your left in/on it.  Same thing. And, guess what, you didn't get off his line, you changed his line to go past you.  To me, still aikido.

Most people don't agree with my idea of "aikido" by the way. Sometimes, I don't myself. It's actually more of a judo principle, "maximum effect from minimum effort.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> Interesting, I'd always assumed kuzushi was a common concept in Aikido. Though now that you mention it, I don't think I've ever heard it used in the dojos I've visited. It's a central concept in NGA, and I guess I just assumed it would be so in our cousin art. I personally have a heavy emphasis on it in my teaching for both striking and grappling - so much so that I'll fail a student for not "taking structure" (how I usually refer to kuzushi these days), and am more lenient about flaws in the movements of the technique.
> 
> I like that comparison by Tomiki. It has all sorts of implications about how the art should work that I don't see enough in some of the Aikido dojos I've visited.


When I first ran across it, the absence of fundamental understanding of what they were literally doing when things "worked," it struck me as odd, too.  For some reason (this is my perception of what I've personally experienced), in (some, most?) traditional aikido schools the breaking of balance, posture, structure whatever you want to call it is performed, but not discussed.  I visited a dojo about 20 miles away once and while there watching, I never once heard anyone say anything about kuzushi, posture/structure changing, moving the person to hwere they didn't want to go, nothing.

I grant you, the upper rank couple of guys were "doing" it, and their stuff seemed OK, but the students were trying to mimic and not understanding what they were seeing.  I asked the jr. instructor who was sitting and talking with me how long the guys out teaching had been in aikido, and he told me 12 and 15 years respectively.  Then, a big fall off to the student base, as the next ... eldest student had been there about 6 years. The guy next to me had been there about 8.  I sat and watched and discussed the entire class with him, getting more and more technical. He finally asked me who I was, so I told him. Nice guy. He smiled, "Oh, you're that guy. We've heard about you." Which, I didn't know how to take, but it did sort of let him to know the next question.... "Well, how long have you..." etc. etc.

You can walk over and pick someone up, and drop them. If you have the strength to do so, you can tilt them so that they won't land on their feet when you drop them, and I suppose that, technically, that is a throw.  Trying to do that to someone who is not interested in complying with the effort is the trick. Unless I'm able to get kuzushi, in one of its myriad forms, I won't be able to throw them. That simple.  In what I teach, right after "Get your hands up and get out of the way," it's the next talked about thing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> When I first ran across it, the absence of fundamental understanding of what they were literally doing when things "worked," it struck me as odd, too.  For some reason (this is my perception of what I've personally experienced), in (some, most?) traditional aikido schools the breaking of balance, posture, structure whatever you want to call it is performed, but not discussed.  I visited a dojo about 20 miles away once and while there watching, I never once heard anyone say anything about kuzushi, posture/structure changing, moving the person to hwere they didn't want to go, nothing.
> 
> I grant you, the upper rank couple of guys were "doing" it, and their stuff seemed OK, but the students were trying to mimic and not understanding what they were seeing.  I asked the jr. instructor who was sitting and talking with me how long the guys out teaching had been in aikido, and he told me 12 and 15 years respectively.  Then, a big fall off to the student base, as the next ... eldest student had been there about 6 years. The guy next to me had been there about 8.  I sat and watched and discussed the entire class with him, getting more and more technical. He finally asked me who I was, so I told him. Nice guy. He smiled, "Oh, you're that guy. We've heard about you." Which, I didn't know how to take, but it did sort of let him to know the next question.... "Well, how long have you..." etc. etc.
> 
> You can walk over and pick someone up, and drop them. If you have the strength to do so, you can tilt them so that they won't land on their feet when you drop them, and I suppose that, technically, that is a throw.  Trying to do that to someone who is not interested in complying with the effort is the trick. Unless I'm able to get kuzushi, in one of its myriad forms, I won't be able to throw them. That simple.  In what I teach, right after "Get your hands up and get out of the way," it's the next talked about thing.


Agreed. As I think back to classes I've watched or participated in while visiting schools, and seminars I've attended, I don't recall a specific discussion of the concept. I recall seeing some good kuzushi. I recall seeing (and feeling) some students struggling because they weren't doing it. I now know what I'd focus on if I were doing a seminar for Aikido folks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Same page. Same book.
> 
> As stated elsewhere, I don't want to eat much of any strike. I like to just slip a bomb, too, makes for easy entry (granted you don't F it up and end up eating the thing) and enter for the grapple-game, starting with standing as my judo standing game is way better than my BJJ. I usually just do judo on the ground too. Judoka can do cool things with arms, too. But, I digress.
> 
> If the bomb is coming in, I'm moving. Granted, with everything I've done, movement is key so I'm (trying to) always moving. Getting completely out o the way, i.e. El Toro! doesn't really happen much with a skilled guy, but "more than a bit" happens easily and all the time.
> 
> Convert my above tactical to this. Guy throws left jab, followed by straight right, for which he's got to slide a bit forward to get the right to you. You use head evasion as everyone does , combined with hand guard to keep the jab off your head, but you use some kind of inside-out block with your right arm to block the straight. This turns the guy.... and the exact same hole is created over his right shoulder to his chin/face/head and you drop your left in/on it.  Same thing. And, guess what, you didn't get off his line, you changed his line to go past you.  To me, still aikido.
> 
> Most people don't agree with my idea of "aikido" by the way. Sometimes, I don't myself. It's actually more of a judo principle, "maximum effect from minimum effort.


Your discussion of what is and isn't "aikido" is similar to mine. There are times I contradict myself, because there are things that aren't "ideal aikido" to me, but fit with a broader interpretation of aiki principles. A jamming block into something is an example of the latter. There's not much "aiki" in a jamming block, but sometimes it's still the right choice, and more often it's what you're doing so you don't really have a choice. Fighting against that occurrence and trying to make it "aikido" isn't very "aiki" to me. And that latter statement is confusing and clarifying to me, all at the same time.


----------



## Spinedoc

JP3 said:


> When I first ran across it, the absence of fundamental understanding of what they were literally doing when things "worked," it struck me as odd, too.  For some reason (this is my perception of what I've personally experienced), in (some, most?) traditional aikido schools the breaking of balance, posture, structure whatever you want to call it is performed, but not discussed.  I visited a dojo about 20 miles away once and while there watching, I never once heard anyone say anything about kuzushi, posture/structure changing, moving the person to hwere they didn't want to go, nothing.
> 
> I grant you, the upper rank couple of guys were "doing" it, and their stuff seemed OK, but the students were trying to mimic and not understanding what they were seeing.  I asked the jr. instructor who was sitting and talking with me how long the guys out teaching had been in aikido, and he told me 12 and 15 years respectively.  Then, a big fall off to the student base, as the next ... eldest student had been there about 6 years. The guy next to me had been there about 8.  I sat and watched and discussed the entire class with him, getting more and more technical. He finally asked me who I was, so I told him. Nice guy. He smiled, "Oh, you're that guy. We've heard about you." Which, I didn't know how to take, but it did sort of let him to know the next question.... "Well, how long have you..." etc. etc.
> 
> You can walk over and pick someone up, and drop them. If you have the strength to do so, you can tilt them so that they won't land on their feet when you drop them, and I suppose that, technically, that is a throw.  Trying to do that to someone who is not interested in complying with the effort is the trick. Unless I'm able to get kuzushi, in one of its myriad forms, I won't be able to throw them. That simple.  In what I teach, right after "Get your hands up and get out of the way," it's the next talked about thing.



Can't speak for all Aikido dojos but we talk about structure, kuzushi, and breaking structure all the time. Our head Sensei spends a great deal of time talking about this. Not so much for beginners, but definitely for 4th kyu and up.....really starts exploring smaller movements, and disrupting someone's balance and structure in order to effect techniques.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> Your discussion of what is and isn't "aikido" is similar to mine. There are times I contradict myself, because there are things that aren't "ideal aikido" to me, but fit with a broader interpretation of aiki principles. A jamming block into something is an example of the latter. There's not much "aiki" in a jamming block, but sometimes it's still the right choice, and more often it's what you're doing so you don't really have a choice. Fighting against that occurrence and trying to make it "aikido" isn't very "aiki" to me. And that latter statement is confusing and clarifying to me, all at the same time.


What you said.

One of my instructor folks, a judo-aikido-arnis lady named Carla Martin, trained with Hiroaki (Riki) Kogure, long time student of Tomiki's.  They'd do randori here at Karl Geis' place back in the 80s, and there were strikes and foot sweeps all the time. Carla told me that it was a rare class that she'd leave without a bloody nose from him, as he was trying to drive the woman off of the mat as martial arts were for men only. To her credit, she's a very tough lady and it only made her more determined.

Anyway, in class Sensei Kogure would perform a technique, always talking about first kuzushi, at which point he'd do a hand strike or foot sweep, and then the aikido technique would flow from that.

And, since I'm assuming that Riki paid attention to what Tomiki did and said, and likewise with Tomiki to O-Sensei Ueshiba.. I can only conclude that to drop a strike on someone, while perhaps not being "aiki" is still "aikido."

That's another thing. It is WAY easier to double foot sweep a guy whose eyes are watering from a jab that caught him in the nose than one who just took it on the forehead.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't think of this as an "either-or" situation. I move and get hands up. If the movement gets me what I want (I end up in a usable position against an over-extension), the fight is over. If not, it's the hands' job to keep things under control (or end it if a big strike opening shows up). Hands don't move far from the face except to take structure, which (mostly) eliminates the openings for a fight-ending strike.



Show me what you mean by not far from the face.

I mean I can find some positions where you are gonna have a bad day if you actually tried that stuff.


----------



## JP3

Spinedoc said:


> Can't speak for all Aikido dojos but we talk about structure, kuzushi, and breaking structure all the time. Our head Sensei spends a great deal of time talking about this. Not so much for beginners, but definitely for 4th kyu and up.....really starts exploring smaller movements, and disrupting someone's balance and structure in order to effect techniques.


Excellent.  To my way of thinking, the other lines of aikido will get the kuzushi part in their own art, eventually. It's just that it ought to be specifically discussed, and "put out there" so that people can be thinking about it as the initial goal - then techniques can happen.

Much better than trying to snap a moving wrist out of thin air from someone who doesn't want it caught.  That's akin to trying to catch a fly with chopsticks. It is possible to do... but it might be pretty hard.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Show me what you mean by not far from the face.
> 
> I mean I can find some positions where you are gonna have a bad day if you actually tried that stuff.


Of course you can find positions that can defeat other positions, Drop.  Are you trying to say that the way that you hold your hands in guard is impervious and impossible to penetrate?  I'd bet not, you've got too much good sense for that.  

Hands held high, close to the face, closed so as to protect the fingers... leaves the body more open than it would with a lower hand position. But, then you trade-off, by lowering the hands, a much higher probability to get popped in the grape. Vice-versa.  There are no perfect attacks, no perfect defenses. It's a rapid, 3-dimensional chess game and He wins who can make the other guy make the first mistake.  In the above I'm somehow doubting that Gerry is going to stand still while you change your position to take advantage of his.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

When you are in your opponent's front door (between his arms), you have to deal with both of his arms.

In the 1st clip, he only deal with his opponent's left arm.






In the 2nd clip, he deals with both of his opponent's arms.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Of course you can find positions that can defeat other positions, Drop.  Are you trying to say that the way that you hold your hands in guard is impervious and impossible to penetrate?  I'd bet not, you've got too much good sense for that.
> 
> Hands held high, close to the face, closed so as to protect the fingers... leaves the body more open than it would with a lower hand position. But, then you trade-off, by lowering the hands, a much higher probability to get popped in the grape. Vice-versa.  There are no perfect attacks, no perfect defenses. It's a rapid, 3-dimensional chess game and He wins who can make the other guy make the first mistake.  In the above I'm somehow doubting that Gerry is going to stand still while you change your position to take advantage of his.



There are movements that are inherently more risky. Like that video I posed.

The argument isnt whether anyone has a perfect guard. It is whether you can engage without compromising your saftey.

Specifically whether it is an either or situation.

That video would be an either or.

There is a lot of misconception about how much time you have to do stuff in a fight. Which references back to your idea of a rapid 2 dimentional chess game.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Show me what you mean by not far from the face.
> 
> I mean I can find some positions where you are gonna have a bad day if you actually tried that stuff.


You'd probably keep your hands closer to your face than I do, as a general rule. I keep my hands closer to my face than this guy does, as a general rule. There are definitely positions where you are open to a second strike, and those should only be used when you're out of range of a second strike or have eliminated (by structure) his ability to deliver it. The video shows a position that should only be used if you've covered those bases. If you use it on a strike without that, the other hand is probably going to end you.

The better the other guy is at pressuring, the closer my hands will stay to my face. For someone just trying to put in an all-or-nothing punch, I'd prefer my hands further away from my face (because they may move on contact), my weight moving either directly into the path (as a jam) or off-line (to diffuse).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Excellent.  To my way of thinking, the other lines of aikido will get the kuzushi part in their own art, eventually. It's just that it ought to be specifically discussed, and "put out there" so that people can be thinking about it as the initial goal - then techniques can happen.
> 
> Much better than trying to snap a moving wrist out of thin air from someone who doesn't want it caught.  That's akin to trying to catch a fly with chopsticks. It is possible to do... but it might be pretty hard.


Agreed. In fact, I teach my students that, early on, the techniques aren't even the point. Kuzushi/taking structure is the point. If we get halfway in and the technique fails, but we've done our job well at the beginning, there are lots of openings for striking and other techniques. If we get halfway in and the technique fails, but we've skipped the first job (taking structure), we're hosed.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JP3 said:


> no perfect defenses.


The perfect defense is to

- put your fists as close to your opponent's face as possible.
- not giving him enough space to generate his fast and powerful punch.
- interrupt his attack in the initial stage.
- separate his arm away from his head and body.
- ...

The question is "how to achieve that?"


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You'd probably keep your hands closer to your face than I do, as a general rule. I keep my hands closer to my face than this guy does, as a general rule. There are definitely positions where you are open to a second strike, and those should only be used when you're out of range of a second strike or have eliminated (by structure) his ability to deliver it. The video shows a position that should only be used if you've covered those bases. If you use it on a strike without that, the other hand is probably going to end you.
> 
> The better the other guy is at pressuring, the closer my hands will stay to my face. For someone just trying to put in an all-or-nothing punch, I'd prefer my hands further away from my face (because they may move on contact), my weight moving either directly into the path (as a jam) or off-line (to diffuse).



I Am trying to think how I would make that work. Maby an answer the phone block straight after?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The perfect defense is to
> 
> - put your fists as close to your opponent's face as possible.
> - not giving him enough space to generate his fast and powerful punch.
> - interrupt his attack in the initial stage.
> - separate his arm away from his head and body.
> - ...
> 
> The question is "how to achieve that?"


That last one needs a sword, I think. And if you get that one, the others seem unnecessary.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I Am trying to think how I would make that work. Maby an answer the phone block straight after?


I'm not sure I understood the last half of that, DB, so if my reply makes no sense, un-confuse me.

So, with that position in the video, imagine the guy gave a jab right and followed immediately with a hard left while you were fading off the first one. He reaches a bit (not much required), and the right isn't ready to fire again yet. Here, you have a bit of space to use a 2-hand response like this. He's showing it without footwork, so it looks worse than it probably would with some movement. It's also way out of context, so I can't tell his awareness of the other arm. If I come into the arm with both hands that way (facing the arm, from the inside), I messed up and am attacking that arm and shoulder/neck HARD to try to reduce impact from the hand I can't defend against. When we use a 2-hand response, it comes off defending both sides: one hand blocking/handling the primary attack, while the other "occupies space" to be available to defend the second if it shows up. I've seen it taught to beginners with both hands on the one arm like that, and corrected later as they get the movement down. It's usually done to make sure both hands stay up (a problem for beginners), but I prefer to teach the separate jobs from the start.

EDIT: I just understood the last part, and he's going to need that (I call it an "arm helmet" block).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> That last one needs a sword, I think. And if you get that one, the others seem unnecessary.


If you can separate your opponent's arms away from his head and body, he won't be able to generate power and speed with his punch any more. 

IMO, the best defense is not to let your opponent to punch you. It's not how you may block his punches.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure I understood the last half of that, DB, so if my reply makes no sense, un-confuse me.
> 
> So, with that position in the video, imagine the guy gave a jab right and followed immediately with a hard left while you were fading off the first one. He reaches a bit (not much required), and the right isn't ready to fire again yet. Here, you have a bit of space to use a 2-hand response like this. He's showing it without footwork, so it looks worse than it probably would with some movement. It's also way out of context, so I can't tell his awareness of the other arm. If I come into the arm with both hands that way (facing the arm, from the inside), I messed up and am attacking that arm and shoulder/neck HARD to try to reduce impact from the hand I can't defend against. When we use a 2-hand response, it comes off defending both sides: one hand blocking/handling the primary attack, while the other "occupies space" to be available to defend the second if it shows up. I've seen it taught to beginners with both hands on the one arm like that, and corrected later as they get the movement down. It's usually done to make sure both hands stay up (a problem for beginners), but I prefer to teach the separate jobs from the start.
> 
> EDIT: I just understood the last part, and he's going to need that (I call it an "arm helmet" block).



You could mabye hit a duck under from there like on the vid.





A good example of what I mean by space on this vid as well.

From what I have seen so much of Aikido is operating in that getting killed by strikes range.


----------



## JP3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The perfect defense is to
> 
> - put your fists as close to your opponent's face as possible.
> - not giving him enough space to generate his fast and powerful punch.
> - interrupt his attack in the initial stage.
> - separate his arm away from his head and body.
> - ...
> 
> The question is "how to achieve that?"


Therefore, it is not perfect, is it. If it was perfect, you could just tell me what it is and I'd immediately understand it perfectly and be able to use it perfectly.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. In fact, I teach my students that, early on, the techniques aren't even the point. Kuzushi/taking structure is the point. If we get halfway in and the technique fails, but we've done our job well at the beginning, there are lots of openings for striking and other techniques. If we get halfway in and the technique fails, but we've skipped the first job (taking structure), we're hosed.


I think this hosed state is where Drop is perceiving where all of our stuff ends up.


----------



## JP3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you can separate your opponent's arms away from his head and body, he won't be able to generate power and speed with his punch any more.
> 
> IMO, the best defense is not to let your opponent to punch you. It's not how you may block his punches.


I'd agree with that, to be closely followed by not being where he is, or can, punch.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> I think this hosed state is where Drop is perceiving where all of our stuff ends up.



Yep. 

Unless you have dominated the striking or are applying really good pressure.

Does Aikido tend to be dominant in striking or apply really good pressure?


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> There are movements that are inherently more risky. Like that video I posed.
> 
> The argument isnt whether anyone has a perfect guard. It is whether you can engage without compromising your saftey.
> 
> Specifically whether it is an either or situation.
> 
> That video would be an either or.
> 
> There is a lot of misconception about how much time you have to do stuff in a fight. Which references back to your idea of a rapid 2 dimentional chess game.


Ah, I understand you now.

As wang said, when you come in the front door you've got to be able to deal with both arms. In my guy's terminology, when you walk right down the barrel you've got to expect bullets, and bullets hurt.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> You could mabye hit a duck under from there like on the vid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A good example of what I mean by space on this vid as well.
> 
> From what I have seen so much of Aikido is operating in that getting killed by strikes range.


It is, you got it.  My and Gerry's lines seem to differ from what you've seen in that we are setting up a situation where the guy is not "pointed at us."  That's the goal, anyway.  IMO operating in the line of fire is ... well... wrong.  Doing what I'm teaching, it's wrong. Doing what I used to do in the Thai? Different, sometimes. Fine to be right there, as the point of what I was doing was literally getting there the fastest with the mostest.

Whew, I just cleaned that up prior to posting it.  It "used to read:" Getting there the fastest with the moistest.

And that would be all kinds of wrong.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JP3 said:


> Therefore, it is not perfect, is it. If it was perfect, you could just tell me what it is and I'd immediately understand it perfectly and be able to use it perfectly.


Many boxers like to

- keep their leading arm stiff,
- keep that leading stiff arm fist right in front of their opponent's face, and
- only punch with the back hand.

That "stiff arm jab" is one strategy to "fight in your opponent's territory and not to fight in your own territory".

At 0.53 - 1.05 in the following clip.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Yep.
> 
> Unless you have dominated the striking or are applying really good pressure.
> 
> Does Aikido tend to be dominant in striking or apply really good pressure?


That's a big definition, Drop. "Does aikido..."  there's a lot of stuff out there called aikido, and some that's one way and others that are other ways. So, I don't know. I can answe4r about mine, and Gerry can answer about his, and SpineDoc can answer about his.  We're a multiple-personality bunch.  You did know that we're all the same human being, right?

J/K.  Define dominating striking for me first. I think I know what you mean, but want to make sure.


----------



## JP3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many boxers like to
> 
> - keep their leading arm stiff,
> - keep that leading stiff arm fist right in front of their opponent's face, and
> - only punch with the back hand.
> 
> That "stiff arm jab" is one strategy to fight in your opponent's territory than to fight in your own territory.
> 
> At 0.53 - 1.05 in the following clip.



I get that, but that's a boxing-only strategy imo... if the dude did that to a grappler, don't you think it'd be "grappled?"

Judo people try to do that, too... when they're learning. It goes away after the first time someone snaps into a standing arm bar. That hurts, that snapping.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> That's a big definition, Drop. "Does aikido..."  there's a lot of stuff out there called aikido, and some that's one way and others that are other ways. So, I don't know. I can answer about mine, and Gerry can answer about his, and SpineDoc can answer about his.  We're a multiple-personality bunch.  You did know that we're all the same human being, right?
> 
> J/K.  Define dominating striking for me first. I think I know what you mean, but want to make sure.



I am not expecting anybody to answer for anyone else.  And I accept what I may see consistently may not be the be all and end all.  

Dominating striking is in an environment where generally both people can strike. But one guy is bashing the other guy. 

At which point the chess game works like one guy will be trying to move to where hitting is easier.  And the other guy is moving to where hitting is harder. 

At wrist grab range.  Hitting is really easy.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> I get that, but that's a boxing-only strategy imo... if the dude did that to a grappler, don't you think it'd be "grappled?"
> 
> Judo people try to do that, too... when they're learning. It goes away after the first time someone snaps into a standing arm bar. That hurts, that snapping.



Boxing people fluff that for the same reason as well.  Leave the arm out there too long and your head is exposed.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JP3 said:


> I get that, but that's a boxing-only strategy imo... if the dude did that to a grappler, don't you think it'd be "grappled?"
> 
> Judo people try to do that, too... when they're learning. It goes away after the first time someone snaps into a standing arm bar. That hurts, that snapping.


Stiff arms strategy such as "double spears - rotate both arms inward" is also used in Chinese wrestling.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Leave the arm out there too long and your head is exposed.


When I extend my arm, if my fist is just right in front of your face (not touching your face), your fist will not be able to hit on my face (if we both have the same arm length).

Since your opponent puts his arm right in your striking path, if your fist want to meet his face, your fist has to deal with his arm first.


----------



## drop bear

I had a thought. 

With these sort of conversations. And ones where people think I am saying MMA is the only way. Or that i don't understand Aikido. 

Do you guys think that these factors somehow change from system to system? 

Where i can't create space in the clinch in MMA due to the risk of getting pulverised. You can in Aikido? 

That there is just a stylistic difference here? 

Because that is a fairly rare circumstance.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When I extend my arm, if my fist is just right in front of your face (not touching your face), your fist will not be able to hit on my face (if we both have the same arm length).
> 
> Since your opponent puts his arm right in your striking path, if your fist want to meet his face, your fist has to deal with his arm first.



Yeah.  But then have given away position on that arm.  A jab is dangerous. A straight arm isn't.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> people think I am saying MMA is the only way. Or that i don't understand Aikido.


If you ask an Aikido guy to fight in the cage, his art will evolve.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> It is, you got it.  My and Gerry's lines seem to differ from what you've seen in that we are setting up a situation where the guy is not "pointed at us."  That's the goal, anyway.  IMO operating in the line of fire is ... well... wrong.  Doing what I'm teaching, it's wrong. Doing what I used to do in the Thai? Different, sometimes. Fine to be right there, as the point of what I was doing was literally getting there the fastest with the mostest.
> 
> Whew, I just cleaned that up prior to posting it.  It "used to read:" Getting there the fastest with the moistest.
> 
> And that would be all kinds of wrong.



I think the space issue is still being half assed.  It looks like you have closed it up a bit but are still not accounting for how fast someone can create an opening.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Yeah.  But then have given away position on that arm.  A jab is dangerous. A straight arm isn't.


A stiff arm with fist near your face is also dangerous. It's like to use a stick to poke on your face. You can use your

- body to push your leading arm,
- leading arm to push your fist,

and make your fist to land on your opponent's face. It may not have knock down power, but you follow up back arm "cross" do have knock down power.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You could mabye hit a duck under from there like on the vid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A good example of what I mean by space on this vid as well.
> 
> From what I have seen so much of Aikido is operating in that getting killed by strikes range.


Variations of the duck under are among my go-to tools. I don't really like to stay inside, so unless I get quick dominance, I'll be looking for an opportunity to slip out like that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> I think this hosed state is where Drop is perceiving where all of our stuff ends up.


I think so, too. Because that's what it looks like when you stop it to demonstrate a point in time. It's nearly impossible to demonstrate something while someone's structure is broken. At best, it's really uncomfortable for them, so we tend to demonstrate with them in a similar position, but letting them keep the structure. We also tend to stop time a lot in demonstrations, so the effect of momentum is lost when you see someone teaching a point.

DB, perhaps a bit of description of how my movement usually plays out will help. You see, if I describe what a single defense looks like, it's way too predictable for reality. It's just a scenario we use to train pattern recognition and feel, among other things. It's pretty common when I respond to a decent attack (as opposed to a crappy one), that my first response doesn't lead me right to a technique. I might not break his structure enough for my liking, or I might find I'm running out of his momentum before I'm in position for the technique I'm heading to, or I might be too late in responding to the strike and have to resort to a jamming block. In any of those cases, I might start toward a technique, then change "directions" (not necessarily literally, though that's an option) to get better control before a finish. Sometimes that "changing direction" means I opt for a big elbow strike along the way, or I move a lot closer to use my body to bump him off his center, or I feel his arm start to retract so I literally change directions and use that new input. All of those changes (and a host of others) are ways I stay out of the situation where I'd be hosed. Sometimes, I'm just going to go with my striking game, because I'm not feeling enough movement to get to the grappling I want.

If I didn't do that, I'd be like a boxer swinging for the KO regardless of what the other guy's doing. I might get lucky, but I'd be more likely to end up staring at a blurry ceiling.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> I am not expecting anybody to answer for anyone else.  And I accept what I may see consistently may not be the be all and end all.
> 
> Dominating striking is in an environment where generally both people can strike. But one guy is bashing the other guy.
> 
> At which point the chess game works like one guy will be trying to move to where hitting is easier.  And the other guy is moving to where hitting is harder.
> 
> At wrist grab range.  Hitting is really easy.


Thanks for clearing that up. For me, here we go. Right, if I stand there and am playing wristy things with a guy who is actively trying to tag me, I'm toast.

In your domination example, both guys are striking, seems to me. Might be off on that. Maybe one guy's just really good at it, and the other guy is trying to shut him down. That'd work too.

Let me ask you another question, boxer/Thai-boxer/other striker is there waiting with his quick stuff to set up his bombs.  What if he gets rushed, compromising his distance, jamming him up and making it very difficult/awkward to get his shots off? Would that be domination of striking?  This is what we see when a wrestler/BJJ player gets a good look and nails a double leg, or a clinch against the cage, like that. If so, then there's more than one way to dominate the striker.  I'll grant you, it's easier said than done with some of these lightning-quick dudes.

The above being said, another way to ... block the striker's ability to get his typical (punching) shots off is to be beside him, instead of in front of him (being behind him goes without saying, so I said it anyway).  Reviewing and thinking about your posts in my Close Them Off vs. Open Them Up thread makes me believe that you've had experience where guy's moving in, you get a block which lets you get beside him and you can take that advantage, even if small and short-lived, for a bit. While you are over there (shikaku) he can't strike you effectively (with his hands. Side kicks still work fine, as long as there is "room" to chamber them up. But if you are close enough, that's shut down, too. It is definitely a grappler's position, more than a striker's, but I would offer you Sugar Ray Leanord and Oscar de la Hoya as guys who regular were... somehow... over there and just peppering the other dude with shots.

Out of our (meaning my Tomiki aikido) basic techniques, there is a kata which is called randori-no-kata, also called the junana-han no-kata. The latter term is better imo as it literally means kata of 17 techniques.  Out of the 17... 11 of them go to that position.  It's a pain to deal with if you're trying to hit a guy, and he's just hanging out, singing songs with his arms draped over your far shoulder and near side arm. I mean, really annoying. But, it's a nifty place to be there and Be the annoying guy.


----------



## JP3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When I extend my arm, if my fist is just right in front of your face (not touching your face), your fist will not be able to hit on my face (if we both have the same arm length).
> 
> Since your opponent puts his arm right in your striking path, if your fist want to meet his face, your fist has to deal with his arm first.


If I wasn't "boxing," and the rules allowed me to, or there were no rules, a guy could just hyperextend the elbow with a minimum of effort and hardly anything moving but his arms. And... if the guy holding the arm was That focused on keeping his hand right in front... he'd likely get caught and get a doinked elbow. Ouch. No more strategy, as the arm wouldn' straighten any more, and then he's a one-handed boxer for a while. At least that day for certain.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> I had a thought.
> 
> With these sort of conversations. And ones where people think I am saying MMA is the only way. Or that i don't understand Aikido.
> 
> Do you guys think that these factors somehow change from system to system?
> 
> Where i can't create space in the clinch in MMA due to the risk of getting pulverised. You can in Aikido?
> 
> That there is just a stylistic difference here?
> 
> Because that is a fairly rare circumstance.


Nope, all same-same.

Thing that might be not working is body alignment in a "clinch," whether western boxing or Thai.  Keep in mind, I consider being able to snatch a moving wrist out the air akin to Mr. Miyagi's catching a fly with chopsticks. (That man can do anything."

Trying to work on a wristlock while in a clinch is sort of like working on one on the ground during rolling/naewaza. They show up, but they look different. Still work though. Sometimes even better, since because both of you are on the ground, the option of just"leaving" is out the door, most times.

I think you're mistaking what I'm saying as an "always" thing, Drop.  Obviously, it's not, nor can it be something that "always" works. Just like you're not always going to land the jab to set up the uppercut, or get the stutter-step off of the intended sweep that sets up the massive Harai-goshi that wins the match, or evade a half-guard right into a baseball choke.  Can these things happen? Sure. Do they happen often? Depends on skill level, but with two skilled guys going at it, typically not.

If a guy is coming at me with mayhem in mind, I'm going to be backing up, if I can, hands up to try to de-escalate.   Well, maybe that is the start of the wrong kind of engagement for describing what I'm trying to get at here.

OK, MMA gym. In the ring, got the prototypical bomb-thrower opposite.  First of all, I hope I can transform myself immediately back 20 years into that guy, who did that all the time, just for cardio/wind purposes. Fighting like that is hard work.  Anyway, hands up, that Muay Thai guard hand position I like, which is higher and more forward than some guys like, sort of leaving my abdomen exposed (but remember, I'm 28 and you could run into my gut back then with a Chevy S-10 truck and I'd have been OK I think. Bomb thrower is coming in, circling, stepping straight in, whatever. Engagement starts.

Shots come in, deflected, evaded, some land sure. For me personally, if he's striking at me, I'm doing some bombing of my own to his inner thigh, whichever one is leading. I can hit it if he can hit me.

Here's a problem:  Are we wearing gloves? Because if we're wearing anything over a 4-oz fingerless, I won't have the ability to really grab anything effectively enough, for me, to control it.

Let's say we're in some cool (or maybe not so cool) gladiator/mma fight sequence in a B-movie, no gloves.  One guy drives the other guy up against the ropes/cage and starts trying to work the body, and the guy against the cage clinches, a hand around the neck/head, the other down around the arm. Not great, as the other arm is deliving damage to the other side gut/ribs.

But, and you should try this, life the outside leg, keeping the other guy's weight on the one closest inside to keep the rising knee from rising where you don't want it to go, and relax a bit of the pressure on the arm. I promise you it pops up and back so the dude can opunch with it as well most times. But, thing is, it's hanging in space, in a controlled place, and Not Moving. You predict the time and location of this moment, and you CAN just grab the thing.  And, once you got it, you can, possibly, do all sort of things with it.

Easy? No. Possible, yes. Figured it out doing it ont he ground, in a north-north top-down configuration in BJJ class, got it to work a couple times, thought about it, then tried it standing, still works though the window is a lot smaller.

Now, all of the above is for someone who can withstand bombs, and deliver some, setting them up. It is not your average aikido person, who... in my personal experience, trains a couple hours a week, perhaps as many as six, might (maye) do some cardio at the gym, is very possibly a vegan and... I could go on but you get the picture. It probably will Not work for them.  Almost certaihnly won't.

I can guarantee that it wouldn't work for me against GSP, either, at any point in my history. You can insert your favorite or most infamous MMA name for GSP there too.


----------



## JP3

Oh, Drop I forgot to mention.  According to most, and who am I to argue with them, you can't do aikido close to another person, so you can't do it in a clinch, by definition.

Aikido at its core is a movement art, we move to cause things to happen. If you can stop us from moving, we lose. That simple. So, for most aikido people the clinch means game over.  So, the lesson here is... you probably need something else, other than aikido, if you get caught and stopped, or held, or grabbed, or elsewise put in a position where you can't move where you want.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I had a thought.
> 
> With these sort of conversations. And ones where people think I am saying MMA is the only way. Or that i don't understand Aikido.
> 
> Do you guys think that these factors somehow change from system to system?
> 
> Where i can't create space in the clinch in MMA due to the risk of getting pulverised. You can in Aikido?
> 
> That there is just a stylistic difference here?
> 
> Because that is a fairly rare circumstance.


The difference is one I've pointed out before. It's not stylistic, it's about context. If I stepped into an MMA competition, I wouldn't be able to afford the space. Against the overwhelming majority of people (and, thus, the overwhelming majority of potential attackers), I can play a different game. Even against the overwhelming majority of martial artists, I can afford more space than I could in MMA, because Muay Thai has such a presence in that context, and it's styles like MT that make use of that space in the clinch. Working against someone without that knowledge, not only can I afford to create space in the clinch, it's actually a useful tool.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Oh, Drop I forgot to mention.  According to most, and who am I to argue with them, you can't do aikido close to another person, so you can't do it in a clinch, by definition.
> 
> Aikido at its core is a movement art, we move to cause things to happen. If you can stop us from moving, we lose. That simple. So, for most aikido people the clinch means game over.  So, the lesson here is... you probably need something else, other than aikido, if you get caught and stopped, or held, or grabbed, or elsewise put in a position where you can't move where you want.


I'll argue with them. You can't do most of the techniques seen in Aikido that close, in an Aikido fashion. However, I think a variation on seoi nage, or maybe a hip throw, can definitely be done in Aikido fashion from that close.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> I think the space issue is still being half assed.  It looks like you have closed it up a bit but are still not accounting for how fast someone can create an opening.


I missed this. I hate half-assing things.

 If I get behind the guy's arm, and put pressure on him, literally or figuratively by movement or actual physical pressure if he's pushing back or can't go back, he can't create the space he's after to launch more shots. Arm drags work for this in space, just leaning on them works against a wall, rope or cage. Nothing is "over" of course, but it is one way to shut the barrage down...  Thus, clinching in boxing, cage techniques in MMA, etc. Slow them dudes down.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> I'll argue with them. You can't do most of the techniques seen in Aikido that close, in an Aikido fashion. However, I think a variation on seoi nage, or maybe a hip throw, can definitely be done in Aikido fashion from that close.


So, you use two judo throws to say you can do aikido from the clinch?

I'll agree, there are a lot of judo things which can be done from a clinch or a cage hold. But... nomenclature indicates they are judo, not aikido.

Note... I wrote Nomenclature, not philosophy.

In a clinch, where is the "energy" being directed, and to where would you "re-direct" it to take advantage? It's all going... sort of "in" wouldn't you say? So, you need to wait until the other person releases the clinch to do something, or you, yourself, break the clinch to do something, either of which might cause movement by release of potential energy, or maybe just a real movement trying to escape.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> So, you use two judo throws to say you can do aikido from the clinch?
> 
> I'll agree, there are a lot of judo things which can be done from a clinch or a cage hold. But... nomenclature indicates they are judo, not aikido.
> 
> Note... I wrote Nomenclature, not philosophy.
> 
> In a clinch, where is the "energy" being directed, and to where would you "re-direct" it to take advantage? It's all going... sort of "in" wouldn't you say? So, you need to wait until the other person releases the clinch to do something, or you, yourself, break the clinch to do something, either of which might cause movement by release of potential energy, or maybe just a real movement trying to escape.


I'm starting from the premise that Aikido is not the techniques, but the principles and approach. If that's the case, then we have to look at throws that could fit within those principles and approach. I think those throws do. So, the issue (in my mind, anyway) for consideration is that most Aikido is taught with throws at a distance, rather than in close. If appropriate close-in throws are used within those principles, it's still Aikido - again, to me. Mind you, I'm not very traditionalist about these things. If something fits within the principles of NGA, it's NGA to me, whether it's in the Classical curriculum or not.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Thanks for clearing that up. For me, here we go. Right, if I stand there and am playing wristy things with a guy who is actively trying to tag me, I'm toast.
> 
> In your domination example, both guys are striking, seems to me. Might be off on that. Maybe one guy's just really good at it, and the other guy is trying to shut him down. That'd work too.
> 
> Let me ask you another question, boxer/Thai-boxer/other striker is there waiting with his quick stuff to set up his bombs.  What if he gets rushed, compromising his distance, jamming him up and making it very difficult/awkward to get his shots off? Would that be domination of striking?  This is what we see when a wrestler/BJJ player gets a good look and nails a double leg, or a clinch against the cage, like that. If so, then there's more than one way to dominate the striker.  I'll grant you, it's easier said than done with some of these lightning-quick dudes.
> 
> The above being said, another way to ... block the striker's ability to get his typical (punching) shots off is to be beside him, instead of in front of him (being behind him goes without saying, so I said it anyway).  Reviewing and thinking about your posts in my Close Them Off vs. Open Them Up thread makes me believe that you've had experience where guy's moving in, you get a block which lets you get beside him and you can take that advantage, even if small and short-lived, for a bit. While you are over there (shikaku) he can't strike you effectively (with his hands. Side kicks still work fine, as long as there is "room" to chamber them up. But if you are close enough, that's shut down, too. It is definitely a grappler's position, more than a striker's, but I would offer you Sugar Ray Leanord and Oscar de la Hoya as guys who regular were... somehow... over there and just peppering the other dude with shots.
> 
> Out of our (meaning my Tomiki aikido) basic techniques, there is a kata which is called randori-no-kata, also called the junana-han no-kata. The latter term is better imo as it literally means kata of 17 techniques.  Out of the 17... 11 of them go to that position.  It's a pain to deal with if you're trying to hit a guy, and he's just hanging out, singing songs with his arms draped over your far shoulder and near side arm. I mean, really annoying. But, it's a nifty place to be there and Be the annoying guy.



Rushing a guy is and it isn't and is a trap some times.

So you rush in anda are firing punches when you suddenly get countered.

And this is because you were punching into his guard or his defensive movement was good. But because you have worked into a position where your punches are most effective. So are his.

You rush a guy and clinch. You basically create a 50/50 now you can still strike. And from that distance it becomes very hard to tell where the shots are coming from.

Good for you.  But also good for him.  And either you are the dominant striker or have shut down his striking or you have just jumped into a woodchipper.

Rushing a guy and shooting a double is different. You don't go through his punches and you create no space.  Which is why it is a mechanic that gets used a lot.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> So, you use two judo throws to say you can do aikido from the clinch?
> 
> I'll agree, there are a lot of judo things which can be done from a clinch or a cage hold. But... nomenclature indicates they are judo, not aikido.
> 
> Note... I wrote Nomenclature, not philosophy.
> 
> In a clinch, where is the "energy" being directed, and to where would you "re-direct" it to take advantage? It's all going... sort of "in" wouldn't you say? So, you need to wait until the other person releases the clinch to do something, or you, yourself, break the clinch to do something, either of which might cause movement by release of potential energy, or maybe just a real movement trying to escape.



No.

my clinch work is as you described. Good clinch work is very much pressure and aiki.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> I'm starting from the premise that Aikido is not the techniques, but the principles and approach. If that's the case, then we have to look at throws that could fit within those principles and approach. I think those throws do. So, the issue (in my mind, anyway) for consideration is that most Aikido is taught with throws at a distance, rather than in close. If appropriate close-in throws are used within those principles, it's still Aikido - again, to me. Mind you, I'm not very traditionalist about these things. If something fits within the principles of NGA, it's NGA to me, whether it's in the Classical curriculum or not.


Who am I to challenge that, since I'm not one either.  I'm much more practical physicist than traditionalist.

In the way I understand aikido, as I mentioned in the other thread, aikido people don't do two things that judo people (and other folks as well) do -- Lift & Pull.  One of our favorite saying is this trite little thing, "Aikido People are Pushy."

I'll give you, it's possible to execute ippon seoinage with neither lift nor pull -- especially if you catch a guy in the act of punching. All you need do is blend, drop a smidge and turn. Blop, thrown puncher. You've got to catch him actually "punching" though. Same-same with hip throw.

The problem my mind's eye is having is with... maybe it's not so much the clinch itself, as that "can" happen in a free-standing state out against nothing at all, in the middle of the ring if you want a visual.  It's the up against the cage thing. I can't see either one working in an aikido-way off the cage.  Judo? Absolutely. Guy holding the pressure against the cage suddenly releases the pressure, and uses the potential, which will pop the guy off the cage, to enter and throw.

Drop... I'm still in thought about your comment about the clinch having aiki in it. I'm reviewing mental videotapes, using a different perspective. I'll get back to you on that.


----------



## JP3

After writing all these posts, and generally liking doing so as a thought exercise, I am led to write something else.

To be perfectly honest, aikido people, if we're going to stay aikido people, should not want to try to expirement with this whole MMA vs. Aikido thing. It's cross/counter to what we're trying to instill.

That being said, I DO think it's a good idea to have these other skill sets in your tool box.

I'm just struggling to reconcile the two positions.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Oh, Drop I forgot to mention.  According to most, and who am I to argue with them, you can't do aikido close to another person, so you can't do it in a clinch, by definition.
> 
> Aikido at its core is a movement art, we move to cause things to happen. If you can stop us from moving, we lose. That simple. So, for most aikido people the clinch means game over.  So, the lesson here is... you probably need something else, other than aikido, if you get caught and stopped, or held, or grabbed, or elsewise put in a position where you can't move where you want.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Who am I to challenge that, since I'm not one either.  I'm much more practical physicist than traditionalist.
> 
> In the way I understand aikido, as I mentioned in the other thread, aikido people don't do two things that judo people (and other folks as well) do -- Lift & Pull.  One of our favorite saying is this trite little thing, "Aikido People are Pushy."
> 
> I'll give you, it's possible to execute ippon seoinage with neither lift nor pull -- especially if you catch a guy in the act of punching. All you need do is blend, drop a smidge and turn. Blop, thrown puncher. You've got to catch him actually "punching" though. Same-same with hip throw.
> 
> The problem my mind's eye is having is with... maybe it's not so much the clinch itself, as that "can" happen in a free-standing state out against nothing at all, in the middle of the ring if you want a visual.  It's the up against the cage thing. I can't see either one working in an aikido-way off the cage.  Judo? Absolutely. Guy holding the pressure against the cage suddenly releases the pressure, and uses the potential, which will pop the guy off the cage, to enter and throw.
> 
> Drop... I'm still in thought about your comment about the clinch having aiki in it. I'm reviewing mental videotapes, using a different perspective. I'll get back to you on that.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


>


Greg Nelson has the best clinch material I've seen from anybody.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Who am I to challenge that, since I'm not one either.  I'm much more practical physicist than traditionalist.
> 
> In the way I understand aikido, as I mentioned in the other thread, aikido people don't do two things that judo people (and other folks as well) do -- Lift & Pull.  One of our favorite saying is this trite little thing, "Aikido People are Pushy."
> 
> I'll give you, it's possible to execute ippon seoinage with neither lift nor pull -- especially if you catch a guy in the act of punching. All you need do is blend, drop a smidge and turn. Blop, thrown puncher. You've got to catch him actually "punching" though. Same-same with hip throw.
> 
> The problem my mind's eye is having is with... maybe it's not so much the clinch itself, as that "can" happen in a free-standing state out against nothing at all, in the middle of the ring if you want a visual.  It's the up against the cage thing. I can't see either one working in an aikido-way off the cage.  Judo? Absolutely. Guy holding the pressure against the cage suddenly releases the pressure, and uses the potential, which will pop the guy off the cage, to enter and throw.
> 
> Drop... I'm still in thought about your comment about the clinch having aiki in it. I'm reviewing mental videotapes, using a different perspective. I'll get back to you on that.


I agree entirely about the against-the-cage part, JP. There's very little opportunity there for what I'd call "aiki", except in the broader sense where "aiki" is the same as "ju" (using good technique rather than strength).

And with the Aikido versions of those throws (I hope I'm remembering what ippon seoinage is), they can also happen off some of those long leads that Aikido uses, if they move themselves into the center while they have the person moving - creating the same dynamic as catching the person punching. It's a bit of a stretch if no adaptation is made, I'll grant you, but it (to my mind) still fits within their basic principles and movement.

I like the point about pushing vs. pulling and lifting. I need to give that some consideration. I think as I've improved my technique, I may be teaching less pulling and lifting than I used to, and that's probably not a good thing. Maybe time for me to go play with someone with some Judo. I keep threatening to visit @Tony Dismukes, as he's within a day's drive. Maybe I'll take a couple of days after my current project and see if we can connect.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> After writing all these posts, and generally liking doing so as a thought exercise, I am led to write something else.
> 
> To be perfectly honest, aikido people, if we're going to stay aikido people, should not want to try to expirement with this whole MMA vs. Aikido thing. It's cross/counter to what we're trying to instill.
> 
> That being said, I DO think it's a good idea to have these other skill sets in your tool box.
> 
> I'm just struggling to reconcile the two positions.


I think this is especially true if you accept that Aikido's best performance is as a finishing layer for someone with other training. In that case, the rest of this become a moot point, since the art isn't meant to cover even some of those fundamental areas.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


>


For those who've asked in the past, I can use this material to explain one of the differences between Aikido (Ueshiba's art) and Nihon Goshin Aikido (Morita's art). This would look odd in most Aikido dojos. The body positions, close distance, and even the foot sweeps would seem out-of-place. It actually fits nicely in most NGA schools. We work at three distances, two of which (elbow and wrist) are common in Aikido. The third (shoulder) is that Judo/clinch/creepy distance stuff. Aikido spends less time in that distance, and has few tools that are designed to initiate from that distance. We have more Judo influence, and are more likely to be comfortable in there, even in front (behind the shoulder, Aikido folks wouldn't be uncomfortable, either, I think). We're not clinch fighters, but we're a little better prepared to work from a clinch.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> I agree entirely about the against-the-cage part, JP. There's very little opportunity there for what I'd call "aiki", except in the broader sense where "aiki" is the same as "ju" (using good technique rather than strength).
> 
> And with the Aikido versions of those throws (I hope I'm remembering what ippon seoinage is), they can also happen off some of those long leads that Aikido uses, if they move themselves into the center while they have the person moving - creating the same dynamic as catching the person punching. It's a bit of a stretch if no adaptation is made, I'll grant you, but it (to my mind) still fits within their basic principles and movement.
> 
> I like the point about pushing vs. pulling and lifting. I need to give that some consideration. I think as I've improved my technique, I may be teaching less pulling and lifting than I used to, and that's probably not a good thing. Maybe time for me to go play with someone with some Judo. I keep threatening to visit @Tony Dismukes, as he's within a day's drive. Maybe I'll take a couple of days after my current project and see if we can connect.


Ahh... I'd be worried that Tony is going to pull your wings off and stick a pin through you into his mat. Might nnot be a good idea.  Those BJJ guys in their own house, ya know...

J/K. Sounds like a good time.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> I think this is especially true if you accept that Aikido's best performance is as a finishing layer for someone with other training. In that case, the rest of this become a moot point, since the art isn't meant to cover even some of those fundamental areas.


I think I am going to adopt this position.

Aikido is a finishing art. So to speak.

I like that a lot. It helps me to answer Drop's questions about what I'd do, as an aikido guy, aikidoist, aikidoka, aikidoken aikidork, whatever.

Guy comes in throwing bombs, I'm going full Muay Thai on him, with a nice frosting of aikido principles. I'm out of the dude's way, and then he's catching my own stuff obliquely. That's the plan.  Funny thing is, that's the plan for everyone with sense, isn't it? Nobody just stands there and gets hit except Rocko...

But, then Gerry... what do we do with beginner students, green as new spring grass, who've never done anything else vefore? And, they really have no interest? It's a knotty problem.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> I think I am going to adopt this position.
> 
> Aikido is a finishing art. So to speak.
> 
> I like that a lot. It helps me to answer Drop's questions about what I'd do, as an aikido guy, aikidoist, aikidoka, aikidoken aikidork, whatever.
> 
> Guy comes in throwing bombs, I'm going full Muay Thai on him, with a nice frosting of aikido principles. I'm out of the dude's way, and then he's catching my own stuff obliquely. That's the plan.  Funny thing is, that's the plan for everyone with sense, isn't it? Nobody just stands there and gets hit except Rocko...
> 
> But, then Gerry... what do we do with beginner students, green as new spring grass, who've never done anything else vefore? And, they really have no interest? It's a knotty problem.



I have made the point though about there is no such things as Aikido principles. There is fighting principles.

Or they are at least different principles.

It is like having a diet that only consists of eating blue food. You can but that is you trying to subjigate reality to your whims.

If you think you are speaking english. You are not. It is french and Russian and chinese. Whatever makes the conversation work.


----------



## Chris Parker

There's a lot that I'd want to say over the last half dozen pages or so, but I'm going to restrict it to one, as I see it, major misunderstanding from quite a number of people here.



JP3 said:


> Oh, Drop I forgot to mention.  According to most, and who am I to argue with them, you can't do aikido close to another person, so you can't do it in a clinch, by definition.
> 
> Aikido at its core is a movement art, we move to cause things to happen. If you can stop us from moving, we lose. That simple. So, for most aikido people the clinch means game over.  So, the lesson here is... you probably need something else, other than aikido, if you get caught and stopped, or held, or grabbed, or elsewise put in a position where you can't move where you want.





drop bear said:


>





drop bear said:


>



Hmm... hubris, perhaps?

Look, this speaks specifically to what I wanted to talk about, which is the misapplication and misunderstanding of "kuzushi", especially as it pertains to Aikido... because these clips are a very good example of not understanding what the difference is, or why JP3 said that Aikido isn't so useful in the clinch... as what is shown is really nothing like Aikido... 

Let's begin with kuzushi... as most people misapply it. To start, the term itself doesn't really mean what is thought by most... nor is it by any means a universal idea. The term kuzushi really refers to "breaking down", and in Judo comes from the terminology of Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu (as does Uke and Tori, for that matter...), and is used there to refer to an initial action applied against a stationary body/opponent in order to break down their structure, and begin to start their momentum towards a direction, which the judo-ka then takes advantage of in order to affect a throw. By contrast, the term kuzushi is used in Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu to refer to the breakdown and application of their (somewhat long) kata, showing the hidden aspects (in a way similar to the karate idea of bunkai.... again, a largely misapplied term).

The thing is, kuzushi is applied when both partners are starting from a stationary, solid, balanced structure and position.... so it's required in arts such as Judo, where the initial position is stationary. There, kuzushi is applied offensively, aiming to take an opponent from balanced and solid to unbalanced and broken (structurally)... but Aikido is approaching things from a different direction. There is no kuzushi, as known and understood in Judo.

This is because, in Aikido, the practitioner doesn't start with the opponent in a stationary position...they're already moving towards you. Aikido is based upon, not upsetting the opponents balance, but taking their incoming energy (movement, momentum, however you want to describe it), extending it, and redirecting it. This means there is no kuzushi, as the opponent has already provided the break to their own structure by attacking in the first place. It's not about doing anything to them, but allowing them to provide their own path to their defeat. If they don't attack, or provide any energy coming in, all good... everyone gets to go home!

This is why even the only "sporting" version of Aikido still has designated attackers and defenders.... typically with the attacker armed with a knife.... but Judo competition doesn't. Judo is offensive as much as defensive... you work to create a throw... Aikido doesn't... it just takes what is given.

Which takes up to the videos above. Neither of them show anything even like Aikido, or Aiki principles in action. As a result, using them to show how correct you are, really doesn't do you any favours, Drop Bear.... all is shows is that, every time you've said you "use Aiki", or have any understanding of it, and are told that you don't, well, it shows that you don't have any understanding of it... and you don't know what it is to know if you use it or not (I'm going to say flat out that you don't, by the way).

In both clips what is shown is more akin to the idea of kuzushi, as seen in Judo... in both cases, Mr Nelson applies pressure to force the opponent to break their structure, and uses some pretty good timing and mechanics to take advantage of their then compromised structure.... but that's not what Aiki is. Aiki would require that the energy/momentum is something that is brought in by the attacker... which is why Aikido operates from a further distance, really. 

In other words, Drop.... no, that's not anything like a good or accurate representation of Aikido (or Aiki) being used from the clinch... instead, it's a good example of why Aikido isn't that suitable for clinch work at all.



drop bear said:


> I have made the point though about there is no such things as Aikido principles. There is fighting principles.



Which would be staggeringly incorrect.



drop bear said:


> Or they are at least different principles.



I don't have a clue what you're meaning by this... again, there's no context to your comment.... are you saying that the Aikido principles that you don't think exist are different principles, and therefore do exist, or.... huh?



drop bear said:


> It is like having a diet that only consists of eating blue food. You can but that is you trying to subjigate reality to your whims.



It's really not.



drop bear said:


> If you think you are speaking english. You are not. It is french and Russian and chinese. Whatever makes the conversation work.



Uh... what? Seriously, what are you talking about? If we think we are speaking English, we're actually speaking Russian? Dude... make some effort to have some kind of context for your ramblings, I beg of you....


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> There's a lot that I'd want to say over the last half dozen pages or so, but I'm going to restrict it to one, as I see it, major misunderstanding from quite a number of people here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... hubris, perhaps?
> 
> Look, this speaks specifically to what I wanted to talk about, which is the misapplication and misunderstanding of "kuzushi", especially as it pertains to Aikido... because these clips are a very good example of not understanding what the difference is, or why JP3 said that Aikido isn't so useful in the clinch... as what is shown is really nothing like Aikido...
> 
> Let's begin with kuzushi... as most people misapply it. To start, the term itself doesn't really mean what is thought by most... nor is it by any means a universal idea. The term kuzushi really refers to "breaking down", and in Judo comes from the terminology of Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu (as does Uke and Tori, for that matter...), and is used there to refer to an initial action applied against a stationary body/opponent in order to break down their structure, and begin to start their momentum towards a direction, which the judo-ka then takes advantage of in order to affect a throw. By contrast, the term kuzushi is used in Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu to refer to the breakdown and application of their (somewhat long) kata, showing the hidden aspects (in a way similar to the karate idea of bunkai.... again, a largely misapplied term).
> 
> The thing is, kuzushi is applied when both partners are starting from a stationary, solid, balanced structure and position.... so it's required in arts such as Judo, where the initial position is stationary. There, kuzushi is applied offensively, aiming to take an opponent from balanced and solid to unbalanced and broken (structurally)... but Aikido is approaching things from a different direction. There is no kuzushi, as known and understood in Judo.
> 
> This is because, in Aikido, the practitioner doesn't start with the opponent in a stationary position...they're already moving towards you. Aikido is based upon, not upsetting the opponents balance, but taking their incoming energy (movement, momentum, however you want to describe it), extending it, and redirecting it. This means there is no kuzushi, as the opponent has already provided the break to their own structure by attacking in the first place. It's not about doing anything to them, but allowing them to provide their own path to their defeat. If they don't attack, or provide any energy coming in, all good... everyone gets to go home!
> 
> This is why even the only "sporting" version of Aikido still has designated attackers and defenders.... typically with the attacker armed with a knife.... but Judo competition doesn't. Judo is offensive as much as defensive... you work to create a throw... Aikido doesn't... it just takes what is given.
> 
> Which takes up to the videos above. Neither of them show anything even like Aikido, or Aiki principles in action. As a result, using them to show how correct you are, really doesn't do you any favours, Drop Bear.... all is shows is that, every time you've said you "use Aiki", or have any understanding of it, and are told that you don't, well, it shows that you don't have any understanding of it... and you don't know what it is to know if you use it or not (I'm going to say flat out that you don't, by the way).
> 
> In both clips what is shown is more akin to the idea of kuzushi, as seen in Judo... in both cases, Mr Nelson applies pressure to force the opponent to break their structure, and uses some pretty good timing and mechanics to take advantage of their then compromised structure.... but that's not what Aiki is. Aiki would require that the energy/momentum is something that is brought in by the attacker... which is why Aikido operates from a further distance, really.
> 
> In other words, Drop.... no, that's not anything like a good or accurate representation of Aikido (or Aiki) being used from the clinch... instead, it's a good example of why Aikido isn't that suitable for clinch work at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Which would be staggeringly incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a clue what you're meaning by this... again, there's no context to your comment.... are you saying that the Aikido principles that you don't think exist are different principles, and therefore do exist, or.... huh?
> 
> 
> 
> It's really not.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh... what? Seriously, what are you talking about? If we think we are speaking English, we're actually speaking Russian? Dude... make some effort to have some kind of context for your ramblings, I beg of you....



You may want to stay away from practical applications of martial arts.  You don't have the tool set to understand it. 

You just prioritise the wrong things to be able to make it work.


----------



## Chris Parker

drop bear said:


> You may want to stay away from practical applications of martial arts.  You don't have the tool set to understand it.
> 
> You just prioritise the wrong things to be able to make it work.



Son, do you have any idea what you're talking about?


----------



## JP3

Chris, before I respond... can you please tell me which line of Aikido you do/practice/teach? Not the specific style, but out from under which student of O-Sensei's did your line come from? I think that's dispositive.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Ahh... I'd be worried that Tony is going to pull your wings off and stick a pin through you into his mat. Might nnot be a good idea.  Those BJJ guys in their own house, ya know...
> 
> J/K. Sounds like a good time.


I fully expect - nay, anticipate - that outcome. My hope is that I can manage to make him sweat for it, just a bit, part of the time. Or maybe I can manage to keep standing, where, let's face it, I'm probably outclassed to a lesser degree.


----------



## Martial D

Hornviper said:


> Hello everyone,
> Why does Aikido get so much hate? I realize that BJJ and MMA are very mainstream at the moment, and some of those guys are the biggest Aikido haters out there. No offense. It all boils down to: Did any of the MMA fighters do aikido?" Some people go as far as calling it ********, ineffective, a waste of time, etc. Really? I visited the local Aikido school, and I loved the atmosphere. I'd like to know what your opinion of this art is. I believe most (if not all) arts can be applied in certain scenarios. I have to admit that I am not one of those people that dream of killing/dismantling others. That's the last thing I want to to.
> 
> Thank you in advance.


I feel a lot of this has to do with their most visible spokesman being such an utter dbag.

From there it's the interesting phenomenon of couch warriors feeding off each other, where people that have never practiced an art pass judgement based on what they have heard from other couch warriors (who sometimes have a YouTube channel to excellerate the process)

However, and I know this might not be a popular statement, some martial arts just aren't suited to live combat. I've sparred with a few legit aikido guys, and I've yet to be flipped by one.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> aikidork


This is my favorite, BTW. I'm going to start using it to refer to students.



> But, then Gerry... what do we do with beginner students, green as new spring grass, who've never done anything else vefore? And, they really have no interest? It's a knotty problem.


That's a bit different in NGA. There's a striking base and a bit of Judo influence in our art. And I'm a bit different from most in NGA, in that students spend a few weeks getting some simple stuff before they get their first NGA technique. I haven't gotten the progression the way I want it yet (just not enough yet iterations in a small program), but the idea is to build a functional foundation for the aiki-based portion of the curriculum.

IMO, this would work with Aikido, as well. If a student comes in without a foundation, a short pre-aiki prep curriculum can give them a functional base to work from. If Ueshiba had taught beginners when he first formed the art, I think we'd see it in the curriculum today.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Chris Parker said:


> The thing is, kuzushi is applied when both partners are starting from a stationary, solid, balanced structure and position.... so it's required in arts such as Judo, where the initial position is stationary. There, kuzushi is applied offensively, aiming to take an opponent from balanced and solid to unbalanced and broken (structurally)... but Aikido is approaching things from a different direction. There is no kuzushi, as known and understood in Judo.
> 
> This is because, in Aikido, the practitioner doesn't start with the opponent in a stationary position...they're already moving towards you. Aikido is based upon, not upsetting the opponents balance, but taking their incoming energy (movement, momentum, however you want to describe it), extending it, and redirecting it. This means there is no kuzushi, as the opponent has already provided the break to their own structure by attacking in the first place. It's not about doing anything to them, but allowing them to provide their own path to their defeat. If they don't attack, or provide any energy coming in, all good... everyone gets to go home!


Some thoughts ...

In Judo's Nage no Kata, there is no kuzushi applied to a stationary opponent. Uke provides the initial movement/energy for the throw. Tori just adds a little extra redirection at the moment of execution.

In uchikomi drills, the Judo practitioner does apply kuzushi to a stationary target, however this is a drill to develop certain body mechanics, not application. The receiver does not respond with any realistic attempt to stay rooted.

In application, the Judoka may apply kuzushi to a (relatively) stationary opponent, but that initial kuzushi will not usually produce a throw unless the opponent is unskilled or weaker/smaller. Rather (as I discussed in a previous comment) it's the opponent's _reaction_ to that initial kuzushi which can be exploited to complete a throw. In this case the Judoka is extending and redirecting the opponent's energy, just as an Aikido practitioner  might. (The biggest difference is that the Judoka _provokes_ the opponent to provide that energy instead of standing around waiting for it.) More often than not against a skilled practitioner, the Judoka will have to add significant additional force to make sure the opponent is not able to recover before being thrown, but sometimes the timing is just right so that the throw feels effortless like the opponent is doing all the work of throwing himself. That's what I think of as an aiki moment within the Judo realm and at least a couple of Aikido practitioners up-thread seemed to agree with me. Personally I suspect the purpose of the Nage no Kata is to remind Judo practitioners to strive for those moments and I have had other Judo practitioners agree with me on that idea previously.

As far as the idea that in Aikido "_there is no kuzushi, as the opponent has already provided the break to their own structure by attacking in the first place_", that only works in demonstration with a cooperative uke or sometimes in application with a really incompetent attacker. A competent attacker may provide incoming energy, but they won't break their own structure. The receiver will have to do something to compromise that structure besides just capturing their energy. In many cases, this is where atemi comes in, or should. I suspect the reasoning behind the statement that "atemi is 90% of Aikido" is that without atemi the opponent's structure will not be sufficiently compromised for the Aikido practitioner to just capture their energy and use it. On this theory, atemi in Aikido is primarily for purposes of kuzushi.

Not saying I'm right in all this. I don't practice Aikido and I'm a mediocre Judoka at best. However I've gotten indications that at least some Aikidoin and Judoka agree with me. (Others definitely disagree with me. In conclusion, Aikido is a land of contrasts.)


----------



## Tony Dismukes

gpseymour said:


> I fully expect - nay, anticipate - that outcome. My hope is that I can manage to make him sweat for it, just a bit, part of the time. Or maybe I can manage to keep standing, where, let's face it, I'm probably outclassed to a lesser degree.


I figure I'll pick your brains for what you consider the most important details of your highest percentage aiki techniques. In exchange I'll offer any knowledge I have on any subject that interests you. After that if you want to get a little freestyle action going, that's cool. I always learn a lot from the different energy I get from sparring someone from an unfamiliar style. I'll just keep my inhaler handy so I don't run out of steam too quickly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> I figure I'll pick your brains for what you consider the most important details of your highest percentage aiki techniques. In exchange I'll offer any knowledge I have on any subject that interests you. After that if you want to get a little freestyle action going, that's cool. I always learn a lot from the different energy I get from sparring someone from an unfamiliar style. I'll just keep my inhaler handy so I don't run out of steam too quickly.


That's my inclination, too. I just wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to play. Even when I'm in a situation where I'm certain to lose reliably (like rolling with a BJJ black belt), there's something for me to learn from the nature of the failure.


----------



## hoshin1600

Tony Dismukes said:


> in Aikido "_there is no kuzushi, as the opponent has already provided the break to their own structure by attacking in the first place_", that only works in demonstration with a cooperative uke or sometimes in application with a really incompetent attacker. A competent attacker may provide incoming energy, but they won't break their own structure. The receiver will have to do something to compromise that structure besides just capturing their energy.


my thought is that in aiki the Tori does break the structure but in a more subtle way than judo.  (keep in mind all of these are general statements that do not always apply).
from what i see in Judo there is at times a reversal of force/ energy that facilitates the throw. left to right or front to back.  in aiki you dont see that much.  you get a more gradual vector that over time/distance the uke loses his structure.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Tony Dismukes said:


> As far as the idea that in Aikido "_there is no kuzushi, as the opponent has already provided the break to their own structure by attacking in the first place_", that only works in demonstration with a cooperative uke or sometimes in application with a really incompetent attacker. A competent attacker may provide incoming energy, but they won't break their own structure. The receiver will have to do something to compromise that structure besides just capturing their energy. In many cases, this is where atemi comes in, or should. I suspect the reasoning behind the statement that "atemi is 90% of Aikido" is that without atemi the opponent's structure will not be sufficiently compromised for the Aikido practitioner to just capture their energy and use it. On this theory, atemi in Aikido is primarily for purposes of kuzushi.
> 
> Not saying I'm right in all this. I don't practice Aikido and I'm a mediocre Judoka at best. However I've gotten indications that at least some Aikidoin and Judoka agree with me. (Others definitely disagree with me. In conclusion, Aikido is a land of contrasts.)



Hey Tony, enraged, adrenalized attackers wishing great bodily harm or death often provide kuzushi during their attack.  Rarely do they attack in a systemized manner or spar.  Instead they attack with intention and adrenalize the attacks are usually larger.  This is what person practicing Aikido would take advantage of.  That or the opponent grabbing them and then applying a larger adrenalized strike.  Either case allows an Aikido practitioner to do what they do very well!


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey Tony, enraged, adrenalized attackers wishing great bodily harm or death often provide kuzushi during their attack.  Rarely do they attack in a systemized manner or spar.  Instead they attack with intention and adrenalize the attacks are usually larger.  This is what person practicing Aikido would take advantage of.  That or the opponent grabbing them and then applying a larger adrenalized strike.  Either case allows an Aikido practitioner to do what they do very well!


Yep, that's why I said it sometimes will work in application against an unskilled attacker to rely totally on the attackers energy without any additional kuzushi the way Chris described. The problem is, you can't count on the attacker compromising his own structure that badly every time. You have to be willing to add some kuzushi or atemi to break the opponent's balance when necessary.


----------



## drop bear

Chris Parker said:


> Son, do you have any idea what you're talking about?



You did what to my mother? 

And yeah i think I have a fair idea what I am talking about here.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

hoshin1600 said:


> my thought is that in aiki the Tori does break the structure but in a more subtle way than judo.  (keep in mind all of these are general statements that do not always apply).
> from what i see in Judo there is at times a reversal of force/ energy that facilitates the throw. left to right or front to back.  in aiki you dont see that much.  you get a more gradual vector that over time/distance the uke loses his structure.


I could buy that (as a generalization rather than a hard and fast rule).


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey Tony, enraged, adrenalized attackers wishing great bodily harm or death often provide kuzushi during their attack.  Rarely do they attack in a systemized manner or spar.  Instead they attack with intention and adrenalize the attacks are usually larger.  This is what person practicing Aikido would take advantage of.  That or the opponent grabbing them and then applying a larger adrenalized strike.  Either case allows an Aikido practitioner to do what they do very well!



Thats relying on a lot of hope. And I think it breaks down in 2 ways.  

1. Is of course when they don't attack in a mindless rage. 

2. When this attack is coming too fast and furiously.

A hockey fight should be a gift for an Aikidoer. But being in a fight like that is a meat grinder. Which changes the odds.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> I could buy that (as a generalization rather than a hard and fast rule).



The grab my wrist is like a very subtle clinch or grips basically.


----------



## O'Malley

Well, some aikidoka have written about kuzushi and a lot of the top guys who came from judo definitely knew about it. What's strange is that they didn't seem to emphasize this concept in training since I've only found one aikido book explicitly mentioning kuzushi (Principles of Aikido by Senta Yamada, who's from the Tomiki line).

I'd also like to point out the fact that the older styles (Iwama, Yoshinkan) work their fundamentals from static positions therefore I'm not sure whether their aikido depends on the energy given by uke.

As for the dojo I train in, we're kind of in between. We sometimes have techniques where the sensei says "ok this one won't work unless you do it in a dynamic situation and take advantage of uke, if he/she doesn't give you what you need you'll have to use *this* technique instead".

Other times, uke resists from a static position and we have to find "the path" using our sensitivity and positioning to push through the "loophole", in the angle where he cannot oppose resistance. That's one of the things you learn from suwariwaza kokyuho.

Here's the basic technique:






Here's an outstanding teacher demonstrating it (skip to 2:20 if you're in a hurry):






We also work on something that I believe is similar to judo kuzushi when we do back breakfalls: uke takes tori's wrist (gyakuhanmi katatedori) and tori extends uke's arm down then behind uke's feet to create an extension and break his balance.



hoshin1600 said:


> my thought is that in aiki the Tori does break the structure but in a more subtle way than judo.  (keep in mind all of these are general statements that do not always apply).
> from what i see in Judo there is at times a reversal of force/ energy that facilitates the throw. left to right or front to back.  in aiki you dont see that much.  you get a more gradual vector that over time/distance the uke loses his structure.



That's an interesting view.


I've also read about a trend in some aikido circles that is geared more towards conceiving aiki as an internal power concept. Their theory is that the religious ramblings of the Founder were actually practical instructions about internal power training that one can decipher by knowing about his cultural and religious background. To them, aiki is the harmony of forces and tensions within the body that in practice makes you able to become immovable, redirect incoming forces and thus create kuzushi on contact with your opponent (just like when you strike at a big bouncing ball and your hand flies away from the impact). Some Daito ryu practicioners, the Founder, Koichi Tohei and Gozo Shioda did similar things.

The problem is that there seems to be no clear methodology for teaching internal skills in aikido and that most of it has been lost by most of the lines, even though there are groups that try to rebuilt it. I have not had hands on training with those people so I cannot tell whether their findings are valuable or not (not that my current level would allow me to have an informed opinion anyway).

One of the most confusing characteristics of aikido is that it varies completely from practicioner to practicioner even within the same line so you end up having a myriad of teachers working on their own aikido, their own concepts, even though in essence we're all doing the same thing. That truly amazes me, you have so many outstanding practicioners from which you can "steal" aikido to build your own. For example, you could look at the way a "fluffy aikido" Hombu teacher pushes into uke's center through his arms and use it to do more "martial" throws:


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yep, that's why I said it sometimes will work in application against an unskilled attacker to rely totally on the attackers energy without any additional kuzushi the way Chris described. The problem is, you can't count on the attacker compromising his own structure that badly every time. You have to be willing to add some kuzushi or atemi to break the opponent's balance when necessary.



You and I agree on that point and Aikido has atemi, etc. to create off balancing.  However, in really adrenalized violent situations a lot of the times people give you kuzushi.  Even trained people in real violence where they are adrenalized will give kuzushi.  The key being that they are adrenalized, angry, etc.   Now, I would agree with you that you can't count on the attacker compromising his own structure and that you should have skills to create what you want.  You and I are in total agreement there!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

drop bear said:


> Thats relying on a lot of hope. And I think it breaks down in 2 ways.
> 
> 1. Is of course when they don't attack in a mindless rage.
> 
> 2. When this attack is coming too fast and furiously.
> 
> A hockey fight should be a gift for an Aikidoer. But being in a fight like that is a meat grinder. Which changes the odds.



You of all people having worked the door at bars and security should understand that people when adrenalized give big openings?


----------



## O'Malley

Except that when O'Sensei and the others were challenged they managed to deal with advanced trained martial artists who were not adrenalized. So there must be something more.

Otherwise I agree that adrenalized attackers give more openings but that holds true whether you do aikido, BJJ or yoga and is thus not specific to Ueshiba's art.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

I have concern about the following clip. When you grab on your opponent's wrist with your "tiger mouth - space between thumb and index finger" facing toward your opponent, your opponent can rotate his arm to against your thumb and put his arm "inside" and "on top" of your arm. This will put you in disadvantage.

In "grip fight", you want to get that "inside" and "on top" dominate position. You can verify this by using your right hand to grab on your own left wrist.






This is a wrong wrist grip.







This is a correct wrist grip. If you grab on your opponent's wrist with "tiger mouth" facing toward yourself, when your opponent turns his arm to against your thumb, your arm will be "inside" and "on top" of his arm.


----------



## O'Malley

@Kung Fu Wang: it is an exercise to teach you about body structure and other subtle things so I don't think that using the grip you recommend would help (especially in a seated position where you have to grip both hands).

But kokyu ho can be practiced with other grips as you can see here:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

O'Malley said:


> @Kung Fu Wang: it is an exercise to teach you about body structure and other subtle things so I don't think that using the grip you recommend would help (especially in a seated position where you have to grip both hands).
> 
> But kokyu ho can be practiced with other grips as you can see here:


I won't be able to watch your clip in US.

When you do something, you have to predict what your opponent will do to you. If what you have done can put you in disadvantage position, you should

1. not do it in the first place.
2. have back up plan to handle it.

IMO, 1 > 2

To prevent a problem from happening is always better than to let the problem to happen and then try to fix it afterward.


----------



## O'Malley

I understand but that is simply not the point of the exercise.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey Tony, enraged, adrenalized attackers wishing great bodily harm or death often provide kuzushi during their attack.  Rarely do they attack in a systemized manner or spar.  Instead they attack with intention and adrenalize the attacks are usually larger.  This is what person practicing Aikido would take advantage of.  That or the opponent grabbing them and then applying a larger adrenalized strike.  Either case allows an Aikido practitioner to do what they do very well!


"You want me? You got me."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> Except that when O'Sensei and the others were challenged they managed to deal with advanced trained martial artists who were not adrenalized. So there must be something more.
> 
> Otherwise I agree that adrenalized attackers give more openings but that holds true whether you do aikido, BJJ or yoga and is thus not specific to Ueshiba's art.


I think this was them layering the Aikido principles on top of their other training. If an accomplished Judoka trains in Aikido, she'll be able to handle advanced practitioners with the Aikido concepts and techniques, using the Judo principles to generate openings. Early in his career, Shioda used some very serious amounts of body weight to activate some of his techniques.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have concern about the following clip. When you grab on your opponent's wrist with your "tiger mouth - space between thumb and index finger" facing toward your opponent, your opponent can rotate his arm to against your thumb and put his arm "inside" and "on top" of your arm. This will put you in disadvantage.
> 
> In "grip fight", you want to get that "inside" and "on top" dominate position. You can verify this by using your right hand to grab on your own left wrist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a wrong wrist grip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a correct wrist grip. If you grab on your opponent's wrist with "tiger mouth" facing toward yourself, when your opponent turns his arm to against your thumb, your arm will be "inside" and "on top" of his arm.


This is an exercise to develop feel and technique, not a system of grip fighting.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> You of all people having worked the door at bars and security should understand that people when adrenalized give big openings?



Why should I understand that?

I got told that a lot and used to believe it. But a few unexpected face punches later I reqlly started to have my doubts.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have concern about the following clip. When you grab on your opponent's wrist with your "tiger mouth - space between thumb and index finger" facing toward your opponent, your opponent can rotate his arm to against your thumb and put his arm "inside" and "on top" of your arm. This will put you in disadvantage.
> 
> In "grip fight", you want to get that "inside" and "on top" dominate position. You can verify this by using your right hand to grab on your own left wrist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a wrong wrist grip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a correct wrist grip. If you grab on your opponent's wrist with "tiger mouth" facing toward yourself, when your opponent turns his arm to against your thumb, your arm will be "inside" and "on top" of his arm.



There is a concept we use called tyrannosaurus arms.





The grip fighting looks like it is about maintaining that while extending his arms out. Overhand,underhand wont matter if you fall into that trap.

If you go overhand you can still be opened up.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

O'Malley said:


> I understand but that is simply not the point of the exercise.





gpseymour said:


> This is an exercise to develop feel and technique, not a system of grip fighting.


I don't understand here. If your opponent doesn't (or shoulder not) grab your arms like this, why do you even want to train this situation?

If you throw a right hook punch (or hay-maker) and your opponent uses left arm to block it, your right hand can slide down to his left wrist with "tiger mouth" facing to yourself. This way you can use your hook punch (or hay-maker) to "set up" your wrist grip. Is that how you will integrate your striking art with your wrestling art?


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> I fully expect - nay, anticipate - that outcome. My hope is that I can manage to make him sweat for it, just a bit, part of the time. Or maybe I can manage to keep standing, where, let's face it, I'm probably outclassed to a lesser degree.


Man... you are going to be spending some time on your back, on your face, on your side thrashing around trying to get away from Tony and he's going to be rolling you up, it's what they do!

...lol...

We all "want" to stay up, and ... sometimes.. we are able to. It's those other times that things go south. Er, North for Drop.

Do they have that saying in Australia, even? Things go south? I've a feeling that is something from the U.S. Civil War, now that I think on it. But, I've no time to google at present. Wife wanting to leave... just a few more posts to read...


----------



## JP3

Tony Dismukes said:


> Some thoughts ...
> 
> In Judo's Nage no Kata, there is no kuzushi applied to a stationary opponent. Uke provides the initial movement/energy for the throw. Tori just adds a little extra redirection at the moment of execution.
> 
> In uchikomi drills...
> 
> In application...
> 
> That's what I think of as an aiki moment within the Judo realm and at least a couple of Aikido practitioners up-thread seemed to agree with me. Personally I suspect the purpose of the Nage no Kata is to remind Judo practitioners to strive for those moments and I have had other Judo practitioners agree with me on that idea previously.
> 
> As far as the idea that in Aikido "_there is no kuzushi, as the opponent has already provided the break to their own structure by attacking in the first place_", that only works in demonstration with a cooperative uke or sometimes in application with a really incompetent attacker. A competent attacker may provide incoming energy, but they won't break their own structure. The receiver will have to do something to compromise that structure besides just capturing their energy. In many cases, this is where atemi comes in, or should. I suspect the reasoning behind the statement that "atemi is 90% of Aikido" is that without atemi the opponent's structure will not be sufficiently compromised for the Aikido practitioner to just capture their energy and use it. On this theory, atemi in Aikido is primarily for purposes of kuzushi.
> 
> Not saying I'm right in all this. I don't practice Aikido and I'm a mediocre Judoka at best. However I've gotten indications that at least some Aikidoin and Judoka agree with me. (Others definitely disagree with me. In conclusion, Aikido is a land of contrasts.)


Tony, this is why I wanted to know about Chris' "line," as there are several which apparently don't even discuss kuzushi as an integral concept of their "Aikido."

It doesn't mean that what they do is "wrong," it's just different. I don't talk about Wang's Front Door, Side Door, Back Door concept, but after reading his posts on the idea, I sure as heck use them all the time, for example.

Many aikidorks (for you Gerry) simply don't talk about kuzushi, but they "Do" it all the time, as in "When Master so and so began a technique, his irimi was so powerful it oftentimes knocked opponents off of their feet, merely by entering."  Uh... gee... what's that? That's kuzushi, just not called kuzushi.  It makes no difference if it's called a principle of entering, or off-balancing, or postural destruction, or plain old knockin' the other guy around... it's all the same onion.


----------



## JP3

hoshin1600 said:


> my thought is that in aiki the Tori does break the structure but in a more subtle way than judo.  (keep in mind all of these are general statements that do not always apply).
> from what i see in Judo there is at times a reversal of force/ energy that facilitates the throw. left to right or front to back.  in aiki you dont see that much.  you get a more gradual vector that over time/distance the uke loses his structure.


I'd generally agree, but there are "moments" when a very slight application of opposing pressure vector can cause a catastrophic breakdown (i.e. a fall) in uke.  I'd give you a technique name or to to postulate this but I don't think there's many other Tomiki aikido folks on here so that may not convey the idea.  

Gyakugamae ate (Tomiki version of the classic off-balancing eye flash technique everyone does), or Ushiro ate (Tomiki's #5 technique out of the Randori-no-kata/Junana-han-no-kata (Rear Strike))

Here's an example dojo's (I don't know them but they've got the kata names/order righrt)

Atlantic Martial Arts - Basic 17 Techniques of Tomiki Aikido


In the ushiro, at the moment of 0-gravity at the top of uke's step, you "halt" his forward progress and he literally walks out from under himself. 0-effort, simple technique. Countering force is my point.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

drop bear said:


> Why should I understand that?
> 
> I got told that a lot and used to believe it. But a few unexpected face punches later I reqlly started to have my doubts.



People who are getting those unexpected face punches need to watch this video put out by Tgrace a law enforcement officer.  The cues here are life savers!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't understand here. If your opponent doesn't (or shoulder not) grab your arms like this, why do you even want to train this situation?
> 
> If you throw a right hook punch (or hay-maker) and your opponent uses left arm to block it, your right hand can slide down to his left wrist with "tiger mouth" facing to yourself. This way you can use your hook punch (or hay-maker) to "set up" your wrist grip. Is that how you will integrate your striking art with your wrestling art?


It's just a sensitivity and manipulation exercise. It's divorced from normal body movement to handicap the practitioner into having to use certain principles.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> It's just a sensitivity and manipulation exercise. It's divorced from normal body movement to handicap the practitioner into having to use certain principles.


- I said, "Any opponent with proper MA knowledge won't grab your wrist with tiger mouth facing to you".
- You said, "It's just ... exercise".

I believe we are missing each other here. For example,

- If you and I are training partner.
- If I refuse to grab your wrist with tiger mouth facing to you, You can't use me to train your exercise.
- If I allow myself to grab your wrist with tiger mouth facing to you, I have violate my own MA guideline.

Can you see my concern here?

Let me use another example here.

- You want me to move one leg across another leg. When i do that, you are going to sweep me down (you use me to train your foot sweep).
- Since I will never cross my legs like that, I can't be your training partner.
- You then say, "It's just an exercise."
- I then say, "Even if it's just an exercise, but it violates my MA principle "Never cross my legs when I'm in my opponent's kicking range".

Can you see my concern again here?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - I said, "Any opponent with proper MA knowledge won't grab your wrist with tiger mouth facing to you".
> - You said, "It's just ... exercise".
> 
> I believe we are missing each other here. For example,
> 
> - If you and I are training partner.
> - If I refuse to grab your wrist with tiger mouth facing to you, You can't use me to train your exercise.
> - If I allow myself to grab your wrist with tiger mouth facing to you, I have violate my own MA guideline.
> 
> Can you see my concern here?
> 
> Let me use another example here.
> 
> - You want me to move one leg across another leg. When i do that, you are going to sweep me down (you use me to train your foot sweep).
> - Since I will never cross my legs like that, I can't be your training partner.
> - You then say, "It's just an exercise."
> - I then say, "Even if it's just an exercise, but it violates my MA principle "Never cross my legs when I'm in my opponent's kicking range".
> 
> Can you see my concern again here?


Yes. But not everyone has that absolute view. I will practice throws without footwork to force myself to work on other parts of the throw. That's just an exercise, and not something I would do in application.


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> People who are getting those unexpected face punches need to watch this video put out by Tgrace a law enforcement officer.  The cues here are life savers!



I don't think the issue is I can't recognise an angry person.

What i miss is the exact moment between anger and action. 

Because real attacks come fast.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - I said, "Any opponent with proper MA knowledge won't grab your wrist with tiger mouth facing to you".
> - You said, "It's just ... exercise".
> 
> I believe we are missing each other here. For example,
> 
> - If you and I are training partner.
> - If I refuse to grab your wrist with tiger mouth facing to you, You can't use me to train your exercise.
> - If I allow myself to grab your wrist with tiger mouth facing to you, I have violate my own MA guideline.
> 
> Can you see my concern here?
> 
> Let me use another example here.
> 
> - You want me to move one leg across another leg. When i do that, you are going to sweep me down (you use me to train your foot sweep).
> - Since I will never cross my legs like that, I can't be your training partner.
> - You then say, "It's just an exercise."
> - I then say, "Even if it's just an exercise, but it violates my MA principle "Never cross my legs when I'm in my opponent's kicking range".
> 
> Can you see my concern again here?



If you go to that video of a top level martial artist performing a foot sweep. 

What wrist grab does he use?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> If you go to that video of a top level martial artist performing a foot sweep.
> 
> What wrist grab does he use?


I don't understand your question. In that clip, both persons are kneeing down on the ground. There is no foot sweep in that clip.

IMO, there is nothing wrong to train wrist grip. But I just don't see any good reason to train the wrong kind of wrist grip.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't understand your question. In that clip, both persons are knee down on the ground. There is no foot sweep.


I don't think he's talking about the Aikido clip. Maybe the video of Greg Nelson doing a foot sweep from the clinch?


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


>



This video.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> This video.


in that clip, the "clinch" has already been established. His right "under hook" has already placed successfully under his opponent's left shoulder. He is no longer fight on his opponent's "wrist gate". He has already reached to his opponent's "shoulder gate". The "grip fighting" game is over. The "wrestling" game has started. He can throw his opponent just with that "under hook". He doesn't need that wrist holding hand.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

drop bear said:


> Because real attacks come fast.



Absolutely!


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> in that clip, the "clinch" has already been established. His right "under hook" has already placed successfully under his opponent's left shoulder. The "grip fighting" game is over. The "wrestling" game has started. He can throw his opponent just with that "under hook". He doesn't need that wrist holding hand.



You kind of do if you don't want your face punched in.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> You kind of do if you don't want your face punched in.


If you just standing there, of course you have to deal with his right arm. If you use both hands to press down his left shoulder, his right punch won't have chance to punch out. When you press down his left shoulder, if you let your right knee to meet his face, that can be a knock out knee strike.

Here is an example. The knee strike is not shown in this clip.


----------



## Steve

I'm also very interested in Chris' aikido lineage.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you just standing there, of course you have to deal with his right arm. If you use both hands to press down his left shoulder, his right punch won't have chance to punch out. When you press down his left shoulder, if you let your right knee to meet his face, that can be a knock out knee strike.
> 
> Here is an example. The knee strike is not shown in this clip.



In a pefect world.  But its not a perfect world.  Its a fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> in that clip, the "clinch" has already been established. His right "under hook" has already placed successfully under his opponent's left shoulder. He is no longer fight on his opponent's "wrist gate". He has already reached to his opponent's "shoulder gate". The "grip fighting" game is over. The "wrestling" game has started. He can throw his opponent just with that "under hook". He doesn't need that wrist holding hand.


I think you're misunderstanding how most Aikidoka use their grips. They aren't going to be "grip fighting" when they are using their Aikido.


----------



## JP3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - I said, "Any opponent with proper MA knowledge won't grab your wrist with tiger mouth facing to you".
> - You said, "It's just ... exercise".
> 
> I believe we are missing each other here. For example,
> 
> - If you and I are training partner.
> - If I refuse to grab your wrist with tiger mouth facing to you, You can't use me to train your exercise.
> - If I allow myself to grab your wrist with tiger mouth facing to you, I have violate my own MA guideline.
> 
> Can you see my concern here?
> 
> Let me use another example here.
> 
> - You want me to move one leg across another leg. When i do that, you are going to sweep me down (you use me to train your foot sweep).
> - Since I will never cross my legs like that, I can't be your training partner.
> - You then say, "It's just an exercise."
> - I then say, "Even if it's just an exercise, but it violates my MA principle "Never cross my legs when I'm in my opponent's kicking range".
> 
> Can you see my concern again here?


I do see your concern, Wang. The thing is, most opponents are not gifted with decades of experience like you are, so they do "dumb" things all the time.

I agree witht he premise that we want tot rain against the best, most prepared person, in order to get better ourselves. But, I think we need to reconcile that against the actual fact that most people (not all, just most) people who do that really don't have the temperament to engage in long-time MA training, or if they are, such long-time MA training actually  and  literally trans the "fighting" out of them.

Conundrum.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> Yes. But not everyone has that absolute view. I will practice throws without footwork to force myself to work on other parts of the throw. That's just an exercise, and not something I would do in application.


I find myself torn on this issue in my own class... I try to get the students to realize that practice doesn't maike perfect, it is Perfect Practice that makes perfect (as far as that goes). But, saying that, and implementing it are two different things.

While I will "demonstrate" a particular portion of a technique, whether it is hand action, strike body position/movement, etc., I "try" to inst that the student do "All the pieces of the technique," rather than just the one piece, as I'm trying to put the movement into their muscle memory. Even slow, halting movements start them down the road to coordinative mastery (a physical education concept, not a mystical thing).


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> I don't think the issue is I can't recognise an angry person.
> 
> What i miss is the exact moment between anger and action.
> 
> Because real attacks come fast.


And there's not really all that much time to put your game plan into action, is there...


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> You kind of do if you don't want your face punched in.


Does it need to be wrist control, do you think? Or, will anything which covers the hand up suffice, as long as it's heavy enough to keep the head shots from coming up?


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> In a pefect world.  But its not a perfect world.  Its a fight.


Reviewing this stuff on here, I think I've figured out how Wang sees things and comments on them.  He sees things through from " perspective.  Am I right, Wang?

The techniques you offer u are, for your point of view, those witht he highest chance of working in the position you are discussing. Example abve. I get it now, I think.

Drop, I think you are insisting that the randomness/chaos of the Fight itself must be figured in, and I agree with that, from a tactical sense. You really never know what is going to happen. However, you can make certain decisions, which lead to tactics, which lead to predetermined actions/reactions to what the other guy is doing/not doing, which tend to favor the position you are in over the position/action the other guys is taking.

To not think about the chaos is a bad idea, but to think that there's no reason (you aren't doing this I don't think) about probabilities and training for them just because "Hey, it's a fight and fights go off in directions nobody thought about. They're chaotic." is also a bad way to look at it. You'd agree with that, right?  Otherwise, why in the heck are well on here all the time talking about all this stuff?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I think you're misunderstanding how most Aikidoka use their grips. They aren't going to be "grip fighting" when they are using their Aikido.


But your opponent may not be an Aikido guy.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> I think you're misunderstanding how most Aikidoka use their grips. They aren't going to be "grip fighting" when they are using their Aikido.



Put me on board that ship, Captain.

I just thought of this, but generally it makes sense from my aikido-to-judo and back again, outside-in idea.  If I've gotten so close as to establish gripping, I'm in judo range doing judo. If I'm outside and still able to play hand-games and handle what's up/going on, I'm doing aikido.

Generalization only.  I can do some cool aikido things standing right next to someone, and have a judo grip and do a lot of judo throwing techniques without ever needing to violate one of the Tomiki aikido principles (in other words I don't pull them in, don't lift, and I throw them in the direction they want to go anyway).  Grip fighting is for judo competition.  In my opinion, grip fighting has no place in an SD situation as a general thing. I mean, someone can probably come up with a situation in which it'd be a decent idea, but from my own point of view, you grip fight to get a clear advantage over the other guy for the single purpose of being able to throw him before he throws you.  Thing is, those kinds of exchanges can literally last for minutes while the two opponents are circling, trying to get contact, warding it off, etc. A strike would just wade in and commence to bash faces.


----------



## JP3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> But your opponent may not be an Aikido guy.


I can almost guarantee you that my opponent would not be an aikido guy, actually.

C'mon, you guys... that's funny right there, I don't care what you say.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JP3 said:


> In my opinion, grip fighting has no place in an SD situation as a general thing.


When the fists are flying, the "grip fight" opportunity is gone. 

But when your opponent is on guard with his arms protecting his head - his arms are not moving, you can still use your "grip fight" skill to deal with his arms.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JP3 said:


> I can almost guarantee you that my opponent would not be an aikido guy, actually.
> 
> C'mon, you guys... that's funny right there, I don't care what you say.


I just respond to gpseymour's concern, "I think you're misunderstanding how most Aikidoka use their grips. They aren't going to be 'grip fighting' when they are using their Aikido."

What if your opponent is a Judo guy? It's not what you may do to your opponent. It's what your opponent may do to you.


----------



## JP3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I just respond to gpseymour's concern, "I think you're misunderstanding how most Aikidoka use their grips. They aren't going to be 'grip fighting' when they are using their Aikido."
> 
> What if your opponent is a Judo guy? It's not what you may do to your opponent. It's what your opponent may do to you.



With my being a judo guy, and if my opponent is another judo guy, and we're not playing, we're in a fight for some weird Bizarro-universe situation, then I'm not going to play judo against him I dohn't want to go where he's good, I want to go where he's not good. I'm not going to close and get into a judo match turned fight, I'm going to stay outside if I can and if he closes, he's got to get through the woodchipper, to use Drop Bear's turn of phrase.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> I find myself torn on this issue in my own class... I try to get the students to realize that practice doesn't maike perfect, it is Perfect Practice that makes perfect (as far as that goes). But, saying that, and implementing it are two different things.
> 
> While I will "demonstrate" a particular portion of a technique, whether it is hand action, strike body position/movement, etc., I "try" to inst that the student do "All the pieces of the technique," rather than just the one piece, as I'm trying to put the movement into their muscle memory. Even slow, halting movements start them down the road to coordinative mastery (a physical education concept, not a mystical thing).


I argue with myself about this, too. My tendency is not to have early students do much separation, except when they are having trouble executing a whole movement (for instance, someone who's confusing themselves in a technique, I'll have them do the foot work without the hands, perhaps). I find the isolation exercises more useful for more experienced students, to give them a chance to correct persistent issues as their techniques mature.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> But your opponent may not be an Aikido guy.


Irrelevant to my comment. If there's "grip fighting" going on with a Judoka (or, really, with anyone), this type of Aikido is not the answer. That's not what this exercise is about.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Reviewing this stuff on here, I think I've figured out how Wang sees things and comments on them.  He sees things through from " perspective.  Am I right, Wang?
> 
> The techniques you offer u are, for your point of view, those witht he highest chance of working in the position you are discussing. Example abve. I get it now, I think.
> 
> Drop, I think you are insisting that the randomness/chaos of the Fight itself must be figured in, and I agree with that, from a tactical sense. You really never know what is going to happen. However, you can make certain decisions, which lead to tactics, which lead to predetermined actions/reactions to what the other guy is doing/not doing, which tend to favor the position you are in over the position/action the other guys is taking.
> 
> To not think about the chaos is a bad idea, but to think that there's no reason (you aren't doing this I don't think) about probabilities and training for them just because "Hey, it's a fight and fights go off in directions nobody thought about. They're chaotic." is also a bad way to look at it. You'd agree with that, right?  Otherwise, why in the heck are well on here all the time talking about all this stuff?



Simpler than that. I am suggesting both techniques are viable. One doesn't negate the other.

I mean the origional idea was that Martial artists wont wrist grab in a certain way so therefore it is wrong to train from that wrist grab.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> And there's not really all that much time to put your game plan into action, is there...



Sort of. There are distancing tricks.

There is a self defense convention that suggests you need to be nose to nose to a guy. And the argument is you wreck them with elbows or some such.

That you sit there in the pocket with your defensive fence stance against a guy who has veins popping out of his head waiting for him to throw a telegraphed overhand right which of course you then use to ninja to death.

And honestly it is a really silly module to work from. 

You cant get away with it in MMA because you just can't pick out attacks from that distance. That isnt because of the style. That is because you are too close to pick out attacks from that distance.

Now this is reflected in self defence with the concept of the reactive gap. But for some reason people dont seem to make that connection.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Put me on board that ship, Captain.
> 
> I just thought of this, but generally it makes sense from my aikido-to-judo and back again, outside-in idea.  If I've gotten so close as to establish gripping, I'm in judo range doing judo. If I'm outside and still able to play hand-games and handle what's up/going on, I'm doing aikido.
> 
> Generalization only.  I can do some cool aikido things standing right next to someone, and have a judo grip and do a lot of judo throwing techniques without ever needing to violate one of the Tomiki aikido principles (in other words I don't pull them in, don't lift, and I throw them in the direction they want to go anyway).  Grip fighting is for judo competition.  In my opinion, grip fighting has no place in an SD situation as a general thing. I mean, someone can probably come up with a situation in which it'd be a decent idea, but from my own point of view, you grip fight to get a clear advantage over the other guy for the single purpose of being able to throw him before he throws you.  Thing is, those kinds of exchanges can literally last for minutes while the two opponents are circling, trying to get contact, warding it off, etc. A strike would just wade in and commence to bash faces.



You grip fight in MMA to shut down punching. It is also good for weapons. And standing arm locks. If you want to get all street.

Otherwise you are right in that being able to blend in your martial arts is an important skill. You really dont want Judo mode and Aikido mode.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Sort of. There are distancing tricks.
> 
> There is a self defense convention that suggests you need to be nose to nose to a guy. And the argument is you wreck them with elbows or some such.
> 
> That you sit there in the pocket with your defensive fence stance against a guy who has veins popping out of his head waiting for him to throw a telegraphed overhand right which of course you then use to ninja to death.
> 
> And honestly it is a really silly module to work from.
> 
> You cant get away with it in MMA because you just can't pick out attacks from that distance. That isnt because of the style. That is because you are too close to pick out attacks from that distance.
> 
> Now this is reflected in self defence with the concept of the reactive gap. But for some reason people dont seem to make that connection.


I'm not familiar with any self-defense convention that suggests staying inside and waiting for the big punch. That's anathema to both extremes of self-defense approaches I've seen. One suggests you keep distance and wait for the mistake, while the other suggests you get in tight and finish them before they can continue.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You grip fight in MMA to shut down punching. It is also good for weapons. And standing arm locks. If you want to get all street.
> 
> Otherwise you are right in that being able to blend in your martial arts is an important skill. You really dont want Judo mode and Aikido mode.


Actually, I like having access to two different modes. The blending is just a bit of a blurring of the line between them. Aikido and Judo are good compliments to each other, IMO.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not familiar with any self-defense convention that suggests staying inside and waiting for the big punch. That's anathema to both extremes of self-defense approaches I've seen. One suggests you keep distance and wait for the mistake, while the other suggests you get in tight and finish them before they can continue.



Yeah. But you do this a lot. 

Fine I will point that one out next time someone tries to suggest it.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Actually, I like having access to two different modes. The blending is just a bit of a blurring of the line between them. Aikido and Judo are good compliments to each other, IMO.



What is your reasoning for that?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But you do this a lot.
> 
> Fine I will point that one out next time someone tries to suggest it.


I do what a lot? Mention that I'm not familiar with something you claim is universal?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> What is your reasoning for that?


For saying they compliment well? I like that they share some principles, while having some approaches that are quite opposite. There's some footage of one of the old masters of Judo working at an advanced age. What he does there shows some aiki application of Judo techniques (his partners appear to be allowing him to do so), and it'd be tough to argue that what he does in that footage isn't consistent with Aikido.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> For saying they compliment well? I like that they share some principles, while having some approaches that are quite opposite. There's some footage of one of the old masters of Judo working at an advanced age. What he does there shows some aiki application of Judo techniques (his partners appear to be allowing him to do so), and it'd be tough to argue that what he does in that footage isn't consistent with Aikido.



For not blending. Compliment is a very tricky issue. Judo and Muay thai compliment but they are opposing concepts.


----------



## drop bear

Using distancing to set up a counter punch on the streets. Which is more in line with what I would suggest to do.

My guess is the difference is this half assing issue again. You think you are using distancing well. But you are not really using it well.

Which was some of the many reasons Aikido guy was getting schooled in that MMA fight.

It is certainly why I ate the sucker punches I did.

And it is something that  people dont realise untill they are put in that environment and then told they cant make excuses.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Simpler than that. I am suggesting both techniques are viable. One doesn't negate the other.
> 
> I mean the origional idea was that Martial artists wont wrist grab in a certain way so therefore it is wrong to train from that wrist grab.


Ah, OK.  Meaning, maybe martial artists won't wrist grab in a particular manner... but it is possible that someone might do so, therefore it's not a bad idea to at least have addressed the issue at some point?


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Sort of. There are distancing tricks.
> 
> There is a self defense convention that suggests you need to be nose to nose to a guy. And the argument is you wreck them with elbows or some such.
> 
> That you sit there in the pocket with your defensive fence stance against a guy who has veins popping out of his head waiting for him to throw a telegraphed overhand right which of course you then use to ninja to death.
> 
> And honestly it is a really silly module to work from.
> 
> You cant get away with it in MMA because you just can't pick out attacks from that distance. That isnt because of the style. That is because you are too close to pick out attacks from that distance.
> 
> Now this is reflected in self defence with the concept of the reactive gap. But for some reason people dont seem to make that connection.



Ack.. If I'm nose to nose with someone, I'm doing it wrong imo... I might be that close, but got myself all over him,a nd again imo I've done something way, way wrong, or I'm in a judo class/match.  For me, and this goes way, way back to working the bar days... If I've got anything to do with it, I do NOT get that close, in front of anyone, ever.  There's no time. Some guys, even untrained have really good hand speed, and you literally do not have the reaction time, neuron-speed I'm talking about, to react properly and timely. You need that space. It is not a ... lot .. of space, but you have to have some.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> You grip fight in MMA to shut down punching. It is also good for weapons. And standing arm locks. If you want to get all street.
> 
> Otherwise you are right in that being able to blend in your martial arts is an important skill. You really dont want Judo mode and Aikido mode.


Question. Grip fighting int he sense I'm using it is the type used in competition judo, where the competitors are moving and testing, seeking to shoot a hand in to get "their grip," meaning the hand position on the judogi that they prefer for their pet throw. It's intrinsic to the wearing of a judogi jacket.

I think you are using the term in a broader sense, from what you said above.  Do you mean something like wha thappens in clinch work,w here the guys are exchanging hand positions on limbs, ont the other guys body, neck, head whatever and that is what you are talking about as being grip-fighting? I didn't have that included in my thought, above ... if it is.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> I'm not familiar with any self-defense convention that suggests staying inside and waiting for the big punch. That's anathema to both extremes of self-defense approaches I've seen. One suggests you keep distance and wait for the mistake, while the other suggests you get in tight and finish them before they can continue.



In other words, the comparison between the "Stay away, I don't want to fight..." model and the "Get there fastest with the mostest" model.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> For not blending. Compliment is a very tricky issue. Judo and Muay thai compliment but they are opposing concepts.


Complementing and blending are different concepts... for me anyway.

Not too many ways I can see blending being used in Muay Thai, but it really does work great as a complement to aikido/aikijutsu for me.

To complement to me in this sense, to work well with the other thing.

To blend in this sense means to aling one's energy witht he energy of the other person so as to disturb it the least but to influence it subtly to the other's detriment.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Using distancing to set up a counter punch on the streets. Which is more in line with what I would suggest to do.
> 
> My guess is the difference is this half assing issue again. You think you are using distancing well. But you are not really using it well.
> 
> Which was some of the many reasons Aikido guy was getting schooled in that MMA fight.
> 
> It is certainly why I ate the sucker punches I did.
> 
> And it is something that  people dont realise untill they are put in that environment and then told they cant make excuses.



Is that a comment on the fact that people "Just don't know what they don't know." or is it a comment on how "Aikido does not work in real fights."  I can't tell.

People who have not been in fights don't know what fights are like. Fights are ugly, ungraceful, accidental, cramped, hurried and shortcut. There isn't anything pretty in a fight.

In a sporting match between two highly-skilled guys, doing their thing, exercising a strategy overall and using tactics in the fights situation to situation, there can be. Street fight though... u.g.l.y.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> For not blending. Compliment is a very tricky issue. Judo and Muay thai compliment but they are opposing concepts.


Ah. It's probably a matter of semantics. To me, "blending" two arts or approaches is a process. It involves conscious work. I'm not sure much conscious work is necessary to make Judo and Aikido work together. I'm not trained in Muay Thai, so I'm not sure if there'd be much need for blending between it and Judo. I can say that working Shotokan Karate-do and Aikido together seems to require some blending, because they actually have some opposing principles (distancing, angles and lines, etc.).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Question. Grip fighting int he sense I'm using it is the type used in competition judo, where the competitors are moving and testing, seeking to shoot a hand in to get "their grip," meaning the hand position on the judogi that they prefer for their pet throw. It's intrinsic to the wearing of a judogi jacket.
> 
> I think you are using the term in a broader sense, from what you said above.  Do you mean something like wha thappens in clinch work,w here the guys are exchanging hand positions on limbs, ont the other guys body, neck, head whatever and that is what you are talking about as being grip-fighting? I didn't have that included in my thought, above ... if it is.


That latter is what I was assuming in my comments, more or less.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Ah, OK.  Meaning, maybe martial artists won't wrist grab in a particular manner... but it is possible that someone might do so, therefore it's not a bad idea to at least have addressed the issue at some point?



Even martial artists will. It depends on what they are trying to do.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Is that a comment on the fact that people "Just don't know what they don't know." or is it a comment on how "Aikido does not work in real fights."  I can't tell.
> 
> People who have not been in fights don't know what fights are like. Fights are ugly, ungraceful, accidental, cramped, hurried and shortcut. There isn't anything pretty in a fight.
> 
> In a sporting match between two highly-skilled guys, doing their thing, exercising a strategy overall and using tactics in the fights situation to situation, there can be. Street fight though... u.g.l.y.



People really need to quit saying street fights are things. That is kind of my point.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Ack.. If I'm nose to nose with someone, I'm doing it wrong imo... I might be that close, but got myself all over him,a nd again imo I've done something way, way wrong, or I'm in a judo class/match.  For me, and this goes way, way back to working the bar days... If I've got anything to do with it, I do NOT get that close, in front of anyone, ever.  There's no time. Some guys, even untrained have really good hand speed, and you literally do not have the reaction time, neuron-speed I'm talking about, to react properly and timely. You need that space. It is not a ... lot .. of space, but you have to have some.



Boom. That.

People use this idea that in a real fight they will get that time and space to succeed at what they can't pull of live in training. Because an untrained attacker will behave in this predictable way.

The old "But I am not training to fight a trained fighter. I am training to fight an adrenalized bad guy who will telegraph his strikes."

"There is no time" should be tattooed on every self defence instructor everywhere so they dont forget.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> "There is no time" should be tattooed on every self defence instructor everywhere so they dont forget.


Agreed, SD does not take place at sparring/sport fighting range, hence you have neither the time nor the space, as you say.  It's why people who only posses fighting skills pretend that fighting is the same as self defence, that way what they teaches 'works'.

However I think "Familiare yourself with the rituals of violence so you know when to strike pre emptively, if escape and de-escalation are not available" should be tattooed on every self defence instructor.  But that would probably take up too much space ;-)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Boom. That.
> 
> People use this idea that in a real fight they will get that time and space to succeed at what they can't pull of live in training. Because an untrained attacker will behave in this predictable way.
> 
> The old "But I am not training to fight a trained fighter. I am training to fight an adrenalized bad guy who will telegraph his strikes."
> 
> "There is no time" should be tattooed on every self defence instructor everywhere so they dont forget.


I get aggravated when I see someone teaching a nice, smooth entering move that reaches a strike before it moves into the power zone, and telling students that they'll be able to read that strike and get to it that early. Oh, there's a chance you'll get in that early, but not on purpose. There won't be enough time to move your body that far once the strike starts. You only get there that early (usually) one of two ways: you either read the strike before it happens (like a pro baseball batter reading a pitcher's body movements - they're reading the pitcher before he releases, as well as the pitch, itself), or you came in for some other reason and ran into the wind-up of that spot. The latter is more likely, IMO. So, to me, many of these early-entry techniques/applications are best understood as either a way to take advantage of that coincidence or a way to recover from that screw-up (depending upon your point of view).


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Paul_D said:


> Agreed, SD does not take place at sparring/sport fighting range, hence you have neither the time nor the space, as you say.  It's why people who only posses fighting skills pretend that fighting is the same as self defence, that way what they teaches 'works'.
> 
> However I think "Familiare yourself with the rituals of violence so you know when to strike pre emptively, if escape and de-escalation are not available" should be tattooed on every self defence instructor.  But that would probably take up too much space ;-)


Agreed on the "familiarize yourself ..." part. Not so much on the first sentence. Sparring should be done at all ranges where it is possible to make contact with an opponent, including toe-to-toe, chest-to-chest. If someone's sparring doesn't include that, it's a flaw in their approach to sparring, not with the idea of sparring itself.


----------



## Paul_D

Tony Dismukes said:


> Agreed on the "familiarize yourself ..." part. Not so much on the first sentence. Sparring should be done at all ranges where it is possible to make contact with an opponent, including toe-to-toe, chest-to-chest. If someone's sparring doesn't include that, it's a flaw in their approach to sparring, not with the idea of sparring itself.


Agreed, when I say sparring I only mean sport sparring - six feet apart.  Not everyone shares that same definition of course.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> Ah. It's probably a matter of semantics. To me, "blending" two arts or approaches is a process. It involves conscious work. I'm not sure much conscious work is necessary to make Judo and Aikido work together. I'm not trained in Muay Thai, so I'm not sure if there'd be much need for blending between it and Judo. I can say that working Shotokan Karate-do and Aikido together seems to require some blending, because they actually have some opposing principles (distancing, angles and lines, etc.).


Well, that's not the synonym of blending I was talking about... but I suppose it is one of them, in the Kitchen Aid Mixer variety of blending, i.e. mixing.  Instead of blending as in harmonizing, aligning, joining, etc a movement thing. Which, I suppose in a sense, is exactly what a blender/mixer does.

   Thai-boxing is simple, meaning that there are techniques to learn, then combinations to assemble. Once you do that, you spar/fight to test them, and then learn the other aspects of that particular type of duel. In/out, distancing, lines and angles, all that stuff came to me very easily and quickly as I'd been introduced to it from green belt in TKD when we were allowed to start to spar.  What didn't make sense in TKD because of all of the rules (so people couldn't hurt one another) came crystalline when the other guy Was trying to hurt you. In a sporting way of course.

Punches are punches, kicks are kicks. They come from right and left, and/or straight down the middle. From a defensive point of view, it's not really much different if the attacker is a western style boxer, or a Chinese style one, the attacker still has 2 arms, 2 legs and a head with a body connecting it all.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> That latter is what I was assuming in my comments, more or less.


Well, to me that's not grip-fighting. So, one of two things need to happen.  Either I need to expand my definition or someone needs to feed me a new word. I'm stuck on this. For me, that's clinch-work.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> People really need to quit saying street fights are things. That is kind of my point.


So, what would you call a fight out in the street? (Obviously, "street" here is intended as a global term for "not inside a training facility, or sporting event.")

The disappearance of rules alters both strategy & tactics. I'm not eye-gouging a dude with whom I'm engaged in a training or competition situation, but on the aforementioned "street," it could be fair game if the only way out is to maim. Ugly thought that, by the way.  So, you can't call both of them just "fights," as they are different things.  or, are you feeling that I'm missing something?


----------



## JP3

Paul_D said:


> However I think "Familiare yourself with the rituals of violence so you know when to strike pre emptively, if escape and de-escalation are not available" should be tattooed on every self defence instructor.  But that would probably take up too much space ;-)



Thinking on that... I've been accused of having a five-head (as opposed to a forehead) a few times, but I think that phrase would end up wrapping around to my left ear, even so.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> I get aggravated when I see someone teaching a nice, smooth entering move that reaches a strike before it moves into the power zone, and telling students that they'll be able to read that strike and get to it that early. Oh, there's a chance you'll get in that early, but not on purpose. There won't be enough time to move your body that far once the strike starts. You only get there that early (usually) one of two ways: you either read the strike before it happens (like a pro baseball batter reading a pitcher's body movements - they're reading the pitcher before he releases, as well as the pitch, itself), or you came in for some other reason and ran into the wind-up of that spot. The latter is more likely, IMO. So, to me, many of these early-entry techniques/applications are best understood as either a way to take advantage of that coincidence or a way to recover from that screw-up (depending upon your point of view).


A thought for you, Gerry.  Do you guys talk about the concept of mai ai (sometimes I've seen it spelled as miai ?)

Mai Ai is the "combative Interval" or the maximum outer distance from an opponent where they could actually affect you/do harm to you.  It changes with body sizes, obviously, and with various length weapons.  We talk about it as "If the opponent can take one step (not a full striding step, but the sliding in step of a striker, swordsman, sharpy-pointy-pokey guy) and do something harmful to you... that's Mai Ai.  So, when you go "into" Mai Ai, it's hands-up and out of the Way" time.  Therefore I'll offer you yet another way you can get intot hat intercept the strike thing, which Does require a certain amount of perception of aggressive behavior, I grant you.  Read intent (usually very easy, sometimes not so much) and as you enter the field you are pre-emptively moving to the spot.  It's A Thing. Play with it.


----------



## JP3

Tony Dismukes said:


> Agreed on the "familiarize yourself ..." part. Not so much on the first sentence. Sparring should be done at all ranges where it is possible to make contact with an opponent, including toe-to-toe, chest-to-chest. If someone's sparring doesn't include that, it's a flaw in their approach to sparring, not with the idea of sparring itself.


Yes. Sometimes you find yourself In the Woodchipper, and it's a good thing to know the geography so you can find your way out, instead of down the chute and into the blades.

It is ALWAYS better to get your butt kicked by your friends and/or training partners, or even the guys/gals yu can't stand to be around at a tournament... than have it happen to you where you don't know anyone, are alone, and find out too late there may not be rules.  At least if you've trained all of these things, if they happen to you from one with malevolent intent, you've done some of the required homework.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Paul_D said:


> Agreed, when I say sparring I only mean sport sparring - six feet apart.  Not everyone shares that same definition of course.


Well, sparring from six feet apart has its place - in sword fighting, for example. Not so much for unarmed purposes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Well, that's not the synonym of blending I was talking about... but I suppose it is one of them, in the Kitchen Aid Mixer variety of blending, i.e. mixing.  Instead of blending as in harmonizing, aligning, joining, etc a movement thing. Which, I suppose in a sense, is exactly what a blender/mixer does.
> 
> Thai-boxing is simple, meaning that there are techniques to learn, then combinations to assemble. Once you do that, you spar/fight to test them, and then learn the other aspects of that particular type of duel. In/out, distancing, lines and angles, all that stuff came to me very easily and quickly as I'd been introduced to it from green belt in TKD when we were allowed to start to spar.  What didn't make sense in TKD because of all of the rules (so people couldn't hurt one another) came crystalline when the other guy Was trying to hurt you. In a sporting way of course.
> 
> Punches are punches, kicks are kicks. They come from right and left, and/or straight down the middle. From a defensive point of view, it's not really much different if the attacker is a western style boxer, or a Chinese style one, the attacker still has 2 arms, 2 legs and a head with a body connecting it all.


You're using the definition of "blending" I'd use with my students, during class. I assumed the discussion was about how two arts can be mixed together. Different discussions, entirely, and probably confusing if we don't know which definition we're on at any given point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> A thought for you, Gerry.  Do you guys talk about the concept of mai ai (sometimes I've seen it spelled as miai ?)
> 
> Mai Ai is the "combative Interval" or the maximum outer distance from an opponent where they could actually affect you/do harm to you.  It changes with body sizes, obviously, and with various length weapons.  We talk about it as "If the opponent can take one step (not a full striding step, but the sliding in step of a striker, swordsman, sharpy-pointy-pokey guy) and do something harmful to you... that's Mai Ai.  So, when you go "into" Mai Ai, it's hands-up and out of the Way" time.  Therefore I'll offer you yet another way you can get intot hat intercept the strike thing, which Does require a certain amount of perception of aggressive behavior, I grant you.  Read intent (usually very easy, sometimes not so much) and as you enter the field you are pre-emptively moving to the spot.  It's A Thing. Play with it.


We do discuss the concept (which we spell "ma-ai", though I have no idea why the hyphen is in there). For us it's both the concept of that outer distance, as well as the concept of proper distancing for a given technique.

Your point is well taken. It's actually something I include in my "you got lucky" grouping. You might be entering/stepping off-line/changing positions at the same moment he decides to initiate an attack, and you just "get lucky" and end up in the right position for a given technique. You can't really plan to move in for that specific technique (in that situation), because he hasn't given you enough cues to know how he'll be moving. You know he's about to do something in the next couple of seconds, but you may not even be able to tell when he's going to start his movement. You put yourself in a position you like better than where you were, and he brings you an arm to do a technique with. Sort of a house-warming gift for the new location you've chosen. Neighborly kind of guy, this one.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> So, what would you call a fight out in the street? (Obviously, "street" here is intended as a global term for "not inside a training facility, or sporting event.")
> 
> The disappearance of rules alters both strategy & tactics. I'm not eye-gouging a dude with whom I'm engaged in a training or competition situation, but on the aforementioned "street," it could be fair game if the only way out is to maim. Ugly thought that, by the way.  So, you can't call both of them just "fights," as they are different things.  or, are you feeling that I'm missing something?


I think maybe DB is saying street fights aren't a specific thing. They vary too much to be lumped into a single bucket. Or maybe I'm missing his point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Well, to me that's not grip-fighting. So, one of two things need to happen.  Either I need to expand my definition or someone needs to feed me a new word. I'm stuck on this. For me, that's clinch-work.


That happens. I'm good with discussing it either way, as I've been known to use the term for either, and talk about clinch-work as you use it. I was mostly trying to use it in the form it came up in here, assuming I've understood that correctly.


----------



## Paul_D

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well, sparring from six feet apart has its place - in sword fighting, for example. Not so much for unarmed purposes.


I think Kendo had a lot of influence on Karate once it started being taught in Japanese Universities.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> You're using the definition of "blending" I'd use with my students, during class. I assumed the discussion was about how two arts can be mixed together. Different discussions, entirely, and probably confusing if we don't know which definition we're on at any given point.


There are only so many different words available to describe so many different things.  I've had a thought, so I'm goihng to left-turn this, specifically for you, Gerry, due to the mai ai thing.

And still, even using the same language, we get into problems with people using our same language.  I suppose we can call what we Mericans (a omitted on purpose) use, as compared with the U.K., or the Austrailians.





gpseymour said:


> We do discuss the concept (which we spell "ma-ai", though I have no idea why the hyphen is in there). For us it's both the concept of that outer distance, as well as the concept of proper distancing for a given technique.
> 
> Your point is well taken. It's actually something I include in my "you got lucky" grouping. You might be entering/stepping off-line/changing positions at the same moment he decides to initiate an attack, and you just "get lucky" and end up in the right position for a given technique. You can't really plan to move in for that specific technique (in that situation), because he hasn't given you enough cues to know how he'll be moving. You know he's about to do something in the next couple of seconds, but you may not even be able to tell when he's going to start his movement. You put yourself in a position you like better than where you were, and he brings you an arm to do a technique with. Sort of a house-warming gift for the new location you've chosen. Neighborly kind of guy, this one.



I like those neighborly kinds of bad guys, the kinds who rather freely offer up their limbs. Problem is, they want them right back and that ain't right.

Here's a thing we do for kata practice, which makes sense to me. Think a guy coming at you right side forward, striking at you with his right hand, his target your head/neck zone. It really matters very little "how" he's striking at the instant when he's trying to make contact, except for some potential circular/torque entry (haymaker or hook punch vs a straight), which is easy to learn to deal with.  Uppercuts are worse for him, just like they are worse for you if he makes contact (the risk/reward thing).

So for kata practice, as long as you are aware of, and can deal with, the different ways that the strike can come in... all such strikes terminate in the same general area... which is about the size of a basketball.  The human arm only works in a set, specific way, so the arm is actually in a much more limited area of space. Give that some thought. (I know, you need to be able to judge where a guy is aiming. That comes with time. It's been my experience that it's almost instinctive, the knowing "where" but the knowing "how" to deal with it is not.)

So, now I generally work with kata assuming two strike zones, because of the staggeringly high probability that someone is going to try to strike you in the head/neck vs the arm/shoulder... and likewise, the ribs/belly vs. the hips/leg.  I'm talking about hands here, keep in mind. Kicks are a different paradigm.

As soon as you've identified these three things, you can pre-emptively move to where you need to go: 1) bad guy; 2) bad guy going to attack; and 3) Bad guy going to attack my head with his right hand. Boom, off line, out of his way and his swing either misses or it goes intot he zone where you predicted it would go.

Again. Way easier for me to type than for people to get, but do-able. The problems faced is the intentional avoidance of "real" attacks coming in... not even full-power/full-speed stuff, just a variation from the prototypical stylized aikido kata attacks.  I'm usually talking to my people about that all the time they're in mid-kata.  Sometimes to drive home the point that it works, I'll have uke change the attack to be a wiled swing. Sometimes toss a knife in there to see what happens when uke has a blade. Talk about shortening up motions... goodness.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Paul_D said:


> I think Kendo had a lot of influence on Karate once it started being taught in Japanese Universities.


Interesting idea. If correct, it would explain both the increased range and the notion of "one strike, one kill" that lead the way to point tournaments and eventually to tippy tippy tag from out of range. I wonder if there are any contemporary sources to confirm the notion?


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> So, what would you call a fight out in the street? (Obviously, "street" here is intended as a global term for "not inside a training facility, or sporting event.")
> 
> The disappearance of rules alters both strategy & tactics. I'm not eye-gouging a dude with whom I'm engaged in a training or competition situation, but on the aforementioned "street," it could be fair game if the only way out is to maim. Ugly thought that, by the way.  So, you can't call both of them just "fights," as they are different things.  or, are you feeling that I'm missing something?



We come up with so many preconceived ideas about street fights that the reality is lost.

It is like me telling you what Americans are like. 

They love guns. They eat too much and are deeply religious.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I get aggravated when I see someone teaching a nice, smooth entering move that reaches a strike before it moves into the power zone, and telling students that they'll be able to read that strike and get to it that early. Oh, there's a chance you'll get in that early, but not on purpose. There won't be enough time to move your body that far once the strike starts. You only get there that early (usually) one of two ways: you either read the strike before it happens (like a pro baseball batter reading a pitcher's body movements - they're reading the pitcher before he releases, as well as the pitch, itself), or you came in for some other reason and ran into the wind-up of that spot. The latter is more likely, IMO. So, to me, many of these early-entry techniques/applications are best understood as either a way to take advantage of that coincidence or a way to recover from that screw-up (depending upon your point of view).



4 to 5 punches a second for a guy who is not even that fast. If your defence hasn't solved the problem in a quater of a second. You have a new problem.


----------



## Paul_D

Tony Dismukes said:


> Interesting idea. If correct, it would explain both the increased range and the notion of "one strike, one kill" that lead the way to point tournaments and eventually to tippy tippy tag from out of range. I wonder if there are any contemporary sources to confirm the notion?


There are plenty of articles online.  I guess it depends how much credence you place in them as to whether or not they count as confirmation, but I haven't heard any alternative to explanation as to why the Japanese made the changes they did.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> We come up with so many preconceived ideas about street fights that the reality is lost.
> 
> It is like me telling you what Americans are like.
> 
> They love guns. They eat too much and are deeply religious.


is there something inaccurate about what you said? Seems right to this Texan.
to back at you with a similar tongue-in-cheek thing, Aussies drink Fosters beer, have kangaroos for pets, toss scorpions out the door each morning with the rubbish, and generally carouse with the best of them.  Oh, and all the girls are named Sheila.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You're using the definition of "blending" I'd use with my students, during class. I assumed the discussion was about how two arts can be mixed together. Different discussions, entirely, and probably confusing if we don't know which definition we're on at any given point.



So for blending put simply. I dont forget my ability to box while grappling on the ground.

I also dont box then wrestle as to wrestle well you really need to punch people. So you I do both at once. Punch to get armlocks. Get armlocks to punch.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> 4 to 5 punches a second for a guy who is not even that fast. If your defence hasn't solved the problem in a quater of a second. You have a new problem.


It's a useful skillset to have, things that slo those guys down.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> is there something inaccurate about what you said? Seems right to this Texan.
> to back at you with a similar tongue-in-cheek thing, Aussies drink Fosters beer, have kangaroos for pets, toss scorpions out the door each morning with the rubbish, and generally carouse with the best of them.  Oh, and all the girls are named Sheila.



Exactly. you will exactly pick out one Australian probably mostly pick out lots of Australians. But you wouldn't risk your head on the fact that tne next Australian you meet fits that description.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> It's a useful skillset to have, things that slo those guys down.



Also part of the dynamic. And important.

But you look at an outer wrist lock throw it takes mabye half a second. So you have to deal with 2 punches somewhere in that movement. People think half a second is fast. But half a second is half assing.

Slow them down is an option.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think maybe DB is saying street fights aren't a specific thing. They vary too much to be lumped into a single bucket. Or maybe I'm missing his point.



And they are generally described either by people who don't street fight. Or by people who want to make it appear different to what it is.

Geoff Thompsons hyperbole for example.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> And they are generally described either by people who don't street fight. Or by people who want to make it appear different to what it is.
> 
> Geoff Thompsons hyperbole for example.


In the same way that people often confuse street fights with SD, and don't understand the difference.  Case in point the post you are referring to has nothing to do with street fighting, hence he never mentions fighting or uses the word fight.


----------



## JP3

Paul_D said:


> In the same way that people often confuse street fights with SD, and don't understand the difference.  Case in point the post you are referring to has nothing to do with street fighting, hence he never mentions fighting or uses the word fight.


Question about the Thompson post on pre-emptive action.

He got that attitude just working the door at clubs? I don't know the guy's history, is why I'm asking.  Ive watched his fence videos, heard him speak in the videos. He's a good presenter, but I think he'd be arrested in the U.S. once word got around about his tactics.... control, hit first, hit hard, hit several times.

I'm not saying it's bad advice for a fight, it's not. It seems on the edge as far as the enforcement of law goes.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> In the same way that people often confuse street fights with SD, and don't understand the difference.  Case in point the post you are referring to has nothing to do with street fighting, hence he never mentions fighting or uses the word fight.



For the same reason I don't separate Texans and Americans as 2 completely separate entitys. 

As much as the Texans would want you to believe that is a thing.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Question about the Thompson post on pre-emptive action.
> 
> He got that attitude just working the door at clubs? I don't know the guy's history, is why I'm asking.  Ive watched his fence videos, heard him speak in the videos. He's a good presenter, but I think he'd be arrested in the U.S. once word got around about his tactics.... control, hit first, hit hard, hit several times.
> 
> I'm not saying it's bad advice for a fight, it's not. It seems on the edge as far as the enforcement of law goes.



And ironically self defense.


----------



## Paul_D

JP3 said:


> Question about the Thompson post on pre-emptive action.
> 
> He got that attitude just working the door at clubs? I don't know the guy's history, is why I'm asking.  Ive watched his fence videos, heard him speak in the videos. He's a good presenter, but I think he'd be arrested in the U.S. once word got around about his tactics.... control, hit first, hit hard, hit several times.
> 
> I'm not saying it's bad advice for a fight, it's not. It seems on the edge as far as the enforcement of law goes.


I can't speak about US law, but pre emptive striking is legal in the UK.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> For the same reason I don't separate Texans and Americans as 2 completely separate entitys.
> 
> As much as the Texans would want you to believe that is a thing.


I guess it depends, like most things, on your definition (of fighting) as well?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> Interesting idea. If correct, it would explain both the increased range and the notion of "one strike, one kill" that lead the way to point tournaments and eventually to tippy tippy tag from out of range. I wonder if there are any contemporary sources to confirm the notion?


That would explain why so often I find people sparring from what seems "out-of-range". I'm able to move back a small amount and evade their strikes enough to keep them off their strategy. If their distancing (ma-ai from my discussion with JP in this thread) is influenced by sword work, that would be a reasonable conclusion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> There are only so many different words available to describe so many different things.  I've had a thought, so I'm goihng to left-turn this, specifically for you, Gerry, due to the mai ai thing.
> 
> And still, even using the same language, we get into problems with people using our same language.  I suppose we can call what we Mericans (a omitted on purpose) use, as compared with the U.K., or the Austrailians.
> 
> I like those neighborly kinds of bad guys, the kinds who rather freely offer up their limbs. Problem is, they want them right back and that ain't right.
> 
> Here's a thing we do for kata practice, which makes sense to me. Think a guy coming at you right side forward, striking at you with his right hand, his target your head/neck zone. It really matters very little "how" he's striking at the instant when he's trying to make contact, except for some potential circular/torque entry (haymaker or hook punch vs a straight), which is easy to learn to deal with.  Uppercuts are worse for him, just like they are worse for you if he makes contact (the risk/reward thing).
> 
> So for kata practice, as long as you are aware of, and can deal with, the different ways that the strike can come in... all such strikes terminate in the same general area... which is about the size of a basketball.  The human arm only works in a set, specific way, so the arm is actually in a much more limited area of space. Give that some thought. (I know, you need to be able to judge where a guy is aiming. That comes with time. It's been my experience that it's almost instinctive, the knowing "where" but the knowing "how" to deal with it is not.)
> 
> So, now I generally work with kata assuming two strike zones, because of the staggeringly high probability that someone is going to try to strike you in the head/neck vs the arm/shoulder... and likewise, the ribs/belly vs. the hips/leg.  I'm talking about hands here, keep in mind. Kicks are a different paradigm.
> 
> As soon as you've identified these three things, you can pre-emptively move to where you need to go: 1) bad guy; 2) bad guy going to attack; and 3) Bad guy going to attack my head with his right hand. Boom, off line, out of his way and his swing either misses or it goes intot he zone where you predicted it would go.
> 
> Again. Way easier for me to type than for people to get, but do-able. The problems faced is the intentional avoidance of "real" attacks coming in... not even full-power/full-speed stuff, just a variation from the prototypical stylized aikido kata attacks.  I'm usually talking to my people about that all the time they're in mid-kata.  Sometimes to drive home the point that it works, I'll have uke change the attack to be a wiled swing. Sometimes toss a knife in there to see what happens when uke has a blade. Talk about shortening up motions... goodness.



There are definitely opportunities to enter on a strike. What I'm referring to is when the entry is meant to catch the arm almost on the backswing. So, with your round attack example, it would catch that arm far enough back that the elbow would be near or behind the plane of the body. That's an unlikely position to get to by decision, unless they wind up like a major league pitcher. In most cases, getting in on a strike that early is simply lucky timing, or a bad decision that turned out well.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So for blending put simply. I dont forget my ability to box while grappling on the ground.
> 
> I also dont box then wrestle as to wrestle well you really need to punch people. So you I do both at once. Punch to get armlocks. Get armlocks to punch.


That's a different interaction than between two grappling styles (like Judo and Aikido). What you're talking about is more inline with the integration of my striking and my grappling (both primarily from NGA).


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> I guess it depends, like most things, on your definition (of fighting) as well?



A definition of fighting is a manufactured idea. I can punch you exactly the same way in sport, fighting or self defence. And the result will be pretty much the same.

The idea that self defence doesn't aply to fighting doesn't aply to sport is a very limited way to to view things. And all I would have to do is find one overlap and it would prove that idea false.

This is because your destinction does not change reality. Reality should effect the distinction.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's a different interaction than between two grappling styles (like Judo and Aikido). What you're talking about is more inline with the integration of my striking and my grappling (both primarily from NGA).



Ok why would incorporating one goup of things be blending. And incorporating another group of things not be blending?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That would explain why so often I find people sparring from what seems "out-of-range". I'm able to move back a small amount and evade their strikes enough to keep them off their strategy. If their distancing (ma-ai from my discussion with JP in this thread) is influenced by sword work, that would be a reasonable conclusion.



Mostly it is because people dont want to be hit.

I have seen street fights like that where both parties stand five feet away and punch the crap out of the air in front of them.






You know what. Every time someone says their stuff is validated by the street. I am going to put that video up.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> A definition of fighting is a manufactured idea. I can punch you exactly the same way in sport, fighting or self defence. And the result will be pretty much the same.
> 
> The idea that self defence doesn't aply to fighting doesn't aply to sport is a very limited way to to view things. And all I would have to do is find one overlap and it would prove that idea false.
> 
> This is because your destinction does not change reality. Reality should effect the distinction.


A good punch is always a good punch, but just as there are areas that overlap, there are areas that do not.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> A good punch is always a good punch, but just as there are areas that overlap, there are areas that do not.



Ok.  But re read your post. "Nothing to do with fighting."

Suggests there is no overlap.

If there are distinctions you need to be specific.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> Ok.  But re read your post. "Nothing to do with fighting."
> 
> Suggests there is no overlap.
> 
> If there are distinctions you need to be specific.


To be specific would take more space than is allowed in a MT forum post.  However the biggest difference is made for us by the law.  Fighting in the street is illegal.  Self defence is not.  If you agree to step outside and settle an argument by fighting in the street then that has nothing to do with SD.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> To be specific would take more space than is allowed in a MT forum post.  However the biggest difference is made for us by the law.  Fighting in the street is illegal.  Self defence is not.  If you agree to step outside and settle an argument by fighting in the street then that has nothing to do with SD.



Ok. So you wouldnt see the advantage in preemptively hitting someone in a street fight but you would in self defence?


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> Ok. So you wouldnt see the advantage in preemptively hitting someone in a street fight but you would in self defence?


How do you strike preemptively if you square off 5-6 feet apart in a fighting stance?

Unless you sucker punch him as you both walk outside, but then that's not a fight, that's assault.  It would /could however give you the advantage of ending it then and there, in the same way that a pre-emptive strike in SD would/could.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> A definition of fighting is a manufactured idea. I can punch you exactly the same way in sport, fighting or self defence. And the result will be pretty much the same.
> 
> The idea that self defence doesn't aply to fighting doesn't aply to sport is a very limited way to to view things. And all I would have to do is find one overlap and it would prove that idea false.
> 
> This is because your destinction does not change reality. Reality should effect the distinction.


A definition of fighting is not a "manufactured idea". Words have definitions, and it can be helpful to clarify what definition is being used, since there are often multiple options, even if we stick to the dictionary (which is a record of common usage, not an arbiter of correct usage).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok why would incorporating one goup of things be blending. And incorporating another group of things not be blending?


It's not that one "is" blending and the other "isn't". It's that, in my view, one of them _requires _blending (to work out conflicts between opposing principles), while the other doesn't (at least, not much). To incorporate Shotokan Karate with Aikido would take some serious smoothing out and finding the right compromises and choices.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> A definition of fighting is not a "manufactured idea". Words have definitions, and it can be helpful to clarify what definition is being used, since there are often multiple options, even if we stick to the dictionary (which is a record of common usage, not an arbiter of correct usage).


This is true, but often the meaning of a word is opportunistic.  Words legitimately have formal definitions, informal definitions, and connotations.  There are also sometimes regional or national differences in meaning.

Around here, you will find that the meaning of a word is fluid, and even people whom I believe have a very concrete definition in mind will shuck and jive when convenient.  Some words and phrases are more susceptible to this than others.

I believe the following words and phrases are functionally meaningless, beyond very, very broad, sweeping generalization.  While they may be well defined, they are so often misapplied they typically do nothing but cause arguments about what they mean, effectively derailing whatever thread in which they appear.

Self Defense
Fight / Fighting
Traditional Martial Art
Sparring
Karate
Effective
Street fight
The street 

The following terms are what I consider more settled, even if they do sometimes cause confusion:

Mixed Martial Art(s)
Martial Artist
Grappling
Striking
Choke / Strangle

I'm sure I could think of many more, but these were off the top of my head.


----------



## Martial D

Self defense and a street fight are the same damn thing. To make them distinct you need to put some unrealistic qualifiers on what 'street fight means', such as..you are only street fighting if you start it, its only a street fight if it goes X amount of time, its only a street fight if both people want to fight, its only a street fight if it starts with a square off, etc.

None of the above are true. If someone attacks you, and you use a 'self defense technique' you have engaged in combat, ie a fight, which if it isn't in the gym..is a street fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Mostly it is because people dont want to be hit.
> 
> I have seen street fights like that where both parties stand five feet away and punch the crap out of the air in front of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what. Every time someone says their stuff is validated by the street. I am going to put that video up.


That's likely part of it, though the distance is held differently. Those folks avoiding getting hit typically keep their weight near the back heel (pretty easy to finish that structure). The folks I'm talking about are well-balanced, but working from a range that doesn't leave much room for error. They can strike with power, but not if you move just a bit off. It feels (to me) like they are working at the extreme range of their power, even when they are working on a static target (no chance of getting hit).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> This is true, but often the meaning of a word is opportunistic.  Words legitimately have formal definitions, informal definitions, and connotations.  There are also sometimes regional or national differences in meaning.
> 
> Around here, you will find that the meaning of a word is fluid, and even people whom I believe have a very concrete definition in mind will shuck and jive when convenient.  Some words and phrases are more susceptible to this than others.
> 
> I believe the following words and phrases are functionally meaningless, beyond very, very broad, sweeping generalization.  While they may be well defined, they are so often misapplied they typically do nothing but cause arguments about what they mean, effectively derailing whatever thread in which they appear.
> 
> Self Defense
> Fight / Fighting
> Traditional Martial Art
> Sparring
> Karate
> Effective
> Street fight
> The street
> 
> The following terms are what I consider more settled, even if they do sometimes cause confusion:
> 
> Mixed Martial Art(s)
> Martial Artist
> Grappling
> Striking
> Choke / Strangle
> 
> I'm sure I could think of many more, but these were off the top of my head.


Without specifying a definition, that can easily be true. Yet people manage to have meaningful discussions using those terms on a regular basis. Why? Because either their personal usages match each other, or they find a common definition to work from. Paul and I, for instance, use "fight" very differently. But as long as we agree to use a common definition in a given discussion, we can use that word without it being meaningless.

There are some words, like "effective", that are disputed not because of the definition of the word, but because you have to decide a measurement/standard to compare against, and that's even more contentious than the definition of "self-defense".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Self defense and a street fight are the same damn thing. To make them distinct you need to put some unrealistic qualifiers on what 'street fight means', such as..you are only street fighting if you start it, its only a street fight if it goes X amount of time, its only a street fight if both people want to fight, its only a street fight if it starts with a square off, etc.
> 
> None of the above are true. If someone attacks you, and you use a 'self defense technique' you have engaged in combat, ie a fight, which if it isn't in the gym..is a street fight.


Paul uses a different definition - a more closely legal one. He defines a "fight" (roughly) as something mutually agreed. As such, it's not self-defense.

You and I define it similarly, apparently.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Without specifying a definition, that can easily be true. Yet people manage to have meaningful discussions using those terms on a regular basis.


I would suggest that "meaningful discussions" on these topics are like unicorns.  We want to believe in them and it sure would be cool if they did.  Sometimes it's because people presume a shared understanding, and other times they just presume to know what the other person means.  Sometimes people just don't like the other person.  Sometimes, it's this and sometimes it's that.  But when those terms or words are used, the discussion seems to become quite circular.  I'm not saying you will actually hear a flushing sound.


> Why? Because either their personal usages match each other, or they find a common definition to work from. Paul and I, for instance, use "fight" very differently. But as long as we agree to use a common definition in a given discussion, we can use that word without it being meaningless.
> 
> There are some words, like "effective", that are disputed not because of the definition of the word, but because you have to decide a measurement/standard to compare against, and that's even more contentious than the definition of "self-defense".


I appreciate your thoughts on why these things happen, and agree with you to an extent.  But to be clear, I'm not all too worried about the "why" of it anymore.  I'm just observing the "what".  There are some words and phrases that are triggers.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Paul_D said:


> How do you strike preemptively if you square off 5-6 feet apart in a fighting stance?
> 
> Unless you sucker punch him as you both walk outside, but then that's not a fight, that's assault.  It would /could however give you the advantage of ending it then and there, in the same way that a pre-emptive strike in SD would/could.


If you consider "fighting" to necessarily involve squaring up 5-6 feet apart in a fighting stance, it's no wonder we have so much debate over terms.


----------



## Paul_D

Tony Dismukes said:


> If you consider "fighting" to necessarily involve squaring up 5-6 feet apart in a fighting stance, it's no wonder we have so much debate over terms.


I don't consider it necessary, but it does happen.  So if you are a fight that does start from that range I wanted to know how you pre emptively strike.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> If you consider "fighting" to necessarily involve squaring up 5-6 feet apart in a fighting stance, it's no wonder we have so much debate over terms.


It's the James Kirk school of combat:

Step 1:  Declare your intention to engage in honorable, hand to hand combat.





Step 2:  Assume a fighting stance across from your opponent at a distance of no more than 6' and no less than 5'.




Step 3:  Circle to his back (if possible)




Step 4:  Grapple (standing)





Step 5:  Grapple (ground)




Step 6:  Run Away (when it is safe to do so):


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> Self defense and a street fight are the same damn thing.


Then why are street fights illegal, whilst SD is legal?


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> I can punch you exactly the same way in sport, fighting or self defence. And the result will be pretty much the same.


Punching someone in a sport fight is not illegal, punching some one in SD is legal, punching someone in a street fight is illegal.  If you injure someone in an illegal street fight you legally and financially responsible for your actions.  Hence he outcome is not pretty much the same.

Further punching me in a sport or street fight doesn't mean you are acting in SD.



drop bear said:


> The idea that self defence doesn't aply to fighting doesn't aply to sport is a very limited way to to view things.
> .


Quite the opposite.  Assuming that Figthing is the same as SD is a very limited view born out of either ignorance to he realities of criminal violence, or the mistaken belief that if you can handle a trained fighter then an untrained criminal should present no problem.  But criminals don't want to fight you.  They will use deception, weapons, greater number, anything that allows them to get what they want more easily.  If a fighter is mugged at knife/gun point there is no question who is the better fighter, but the other guy was was the better criminal.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I would suggest that "meaningful discussions" on these topics are like unicorns.  We want to believe in them and it sure would be cool if they did.  Sometimes it's because people presume a shared understanding, and other times they just presume to know what the other person means.  Sometimes people just don't like the other person.  Sometimes, it's this and sometimes it's that.  But when those terms or words are used, the discussion seems to become quite circular.  I'm not saying you will actually hear a flushing sound.
> I appreciate your thoughts on why these things happen, and agree with you to an extent.  But to be clear, I'm not all too worried about the "why" of it anymore.  I'm just observing the "what".  There are some words and phrases that are triggers.


Agreed. Much moreso on this forum than in any IRL discussions. There, the meaningful discussions are the norm, rather than the exception.


----------



## Martial D

Paul_D said:


> Then why are street fights illegal, whilst SD is legal?



Because some old man in a suit managed to convince a few other old men in suits(complete with a heaping helping of legal mumbo jumbo) that they are different things.

Even so, the line is very grey. Try some 'self defense's on a cop that is attacking you and see where the legal chips land.


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> Even so, the line is very grey. Try some 'self defense's on a cop that is attacking you and see where the legal chips land.


No it's not grey at all, fighting is illegal, SD is legal.

Why is the cop attacking me?  As long as I follow his Instructions and comply with his requests he has no reason to attack.


----------



## Martial D

What a nice world you must live in, where every police man is totally honest and above reproach.

Anyway, just saying 'ya but ones illegal' again after I addressed that doesn't further your case. Even within your narrow context it is very grey, as I pointed out in the argument you ignored.


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> What a nice world you must live in, where every police man is totally honest and above reproach.
> 
> Anyway, just saying 'ya but ones illegal' again after I addressed that doesn't further your case. Even within your narrow context it is very grey, as I pointed out in the argument you ignored.


You haven't addressed it, you posted something about old men in suits which totally missed the point.  The reeason one is illegal and the other isn't is because they are different.  Agreeing to go outside into the pub car park and fight someone to settle your arguement has nothing to do with self defence.

Agreeing to fight people bare knuckle boxing matches for cash in a field/street/car park (as a boxer friend of mine does) is undeniably a fight, is illegal, and has nothing to do with SD.

However, rather beating the same old drum, let's approach it in a different way.  If fighting is the same as SD, which you claim, then the only possible ending for any and all SD situations would be for it to end in a fight, yes?


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> What a nice world you must live in, where every police man is totally honest and above reproach.


What a strange world you live in where all the Police are male.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> If you consider "fighting" to necessarily involve squaring up 5-6 feet apart in a fighting stance, it's no wonder we have so much debate over terms.



Yeah ok.  But how off track have we gotten here.  My post was about geoff Thompsons misleading slant on fighting. It is still misleading if it is self defence. He overcooks how dangerous the street is and then overcooks how you need to train specifically for this.  And then doesn't really have that much of a different system to everyone else. 

To be specific you would have to explain why the difference between self defense and fighting makes Geoffs comments sensible or useful.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> And then doesn't really have that much of a different system to everyone else.


And what is it you think his system is?


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> Quite the opposite. Assuming that Figthing is the same as SD is a very limited view born out of either ignorance to he realities of criminal violence, or the mistaken belief that if you can handle a trained fighter then an untrained criminal should present no problem. But criminals don't want to fight you. They will use deception, weapons, greater number, anything that allows them to get what they want more easily. If a fighter is mugged at knife/gun point there is no question who is the better fighter, but the other guy was was the better criminal.



Applies doesn't have the same meaning as same. 

You keep adding random stuff that doesn't apply. 

Self defense doesn't help you if you are drowning. Swimming does. 

You have to understand the difference.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> And what is it you think his system is?



How about you adress the misleading hyperbole.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> You keep adding random stuff that doesn't apply.


But it does apply.  You just don't understand why because you think men brawling in the street or a bar is SD.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> How about you adress the misleading hyperbole.


I don't think it is misleading, criminals do kill people everyday.  

What is it you think his system is?


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> But it does apply.  You just don't understand why because you think men brawling in the street or a bar is SD.



The difference between men brawling in a bar and self defense can be up to the quality of you lawyer.

Going back to the importance of preemptive striking.  In the self defence situation you described, multiple guys ambushing you to steal your stuff.  Preemptive striking is about the least useful skill you can learn. 

If someone calls you out in a pub then smacking the guy off the bat and running for the door works pretty well. 

You are suggesting that tactics that work for Geoff Thompson with his bouncing back ground work.  And then try to suggest that pub fighting background doesn't apply.

So what grounding does Geof Thompson have in self defence? Because it sounds like your logic is shooting yourself in the foot.


----------



## Steve

Paul_D said:


> No it's not grey at all, fighting is illegal, SD is legal.
> 
> Why is the cop attacking me?  As long as I follow his Instructions and comply with his requests he has no reason to attack.


Well, to be more accurate, fighting is fighting, and can be legal or illegal.  Self defense is a legal justification for fighting.   Self defense is to fighting what the morning after pill is to unprotected seX with a stranger. Taking the pill doesn't mean you didn't have sex.   It simply means you won't pay for that sex for the rest of your life.


----------



## Martial D

Paul_D said:


> What a strange world you live in where all the Police are male.


LOL.

That's your rejoinder? I don't know what martial art you practice, but your rhetorical Kung Fu is weak. 

A fight is a fight. The difference between self defense and a street fight is a question of why, not how or what.


----------



## jobo

Paul_D said:


> Punching someone in a sport fight is not illegal, punching some one in SD is legal, punching someone in a street fight is illegal.  If you injure someone in an illegal street fight you legally and financially responsible for your actions.  Hence he outcome is not pretty much the same.
> 
> Further punching me in a sport or street fight doesn't mean you are acting in SD.
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.  Assuming that Figthing is the same as SD is a very limited view born out of either ignorance to he realities of criminal violence, or the mistaken belief that if you can handle a trained fighter then an untrained criminal should present no problem.  But criminals don't want to fight you.  They will use deception, weapons, greater number, anything that allows them to get what they want more easily.  If a fighter is mugged at knife/gun point there is no question who is the better fighter, but the other guy was was the better criminal.


street fighting isn't necessarily illegal


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> I don't think it is misleading, criminals do kill people everyday.
> 
> What is it you think his system is?



Well Geoff Thompson said it.  So how many fights to how many deaths was he involved in?

I mean it would be tough going to work every day and having people die on you all the time.

Of course if by chance he had hundreds or thousands of fights and nobody died.  Then we have a different interpretation of misleading.

By the way he has the fence. The animal day concept. ( which is hyperbole version of MMA) Some sucker punching. Some jits and some judo.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Without specifying a definition, that can easily be true. Yet people manage to have meaningful discussions using those terms on a regular basis. Why? Because either their personal usages match each other, or they find a common definition to work from. Paul and I, for instance, use "fight" very differently. But as long as we agree to use a common definition in a given discussion, we can use that word without it being meaningless.
> 
> There are some words, like "effective", that are disputed not because of the definition of the word, but because you have to decide a measurement/standard to compare against, and that's even more contentious than the definition of "self-defense".



By the way.  Can you see how nuts conversations regarding self defence gets.  Because nobody has the grounding and everyone is trying to beat some sort of drum.  The information you actually get is so unreliable.

It is like trying to argue what colour pants god wears. 

This is a very big aspect of the Aikido hate.  Or any martial art that relies on this justification.

We are comparing this mentally with people who will justify their Method by grabbing you and hurting you until you have to stop. 

Which is such a compelling argument as compared to what martial artists are generally used to.


----------



## AIKIKENJITSU

Hornviper said:


> Hello everyone,
> Why does Aikido get so much hate? I realize that BJJ and MMA are very mainstream at the moment, and some of those guys are the biggest Aikido haters out there. No offense. It all boils down to: Did any of the MMA fighters do aikido?" Some people go as far as calling it ********, ineffective, a waste of time, etc. Really? I visited the local Aikido school, and I loved the atmosphere. I'd like to know what your opinion of this art is. I believe most (if not all) arts can be applied in certain scenarios. I have to admit that I am not one of those people that dream of killing/dismantling others. That's the last thing I want to to.
> 
> Thank you in advance.


Hi, I'm a old martial arts instructor. I started learning in 1970 and I still teach and work out. I wanted to learn Aikido, and I went to several schools, but what finally caught my eye was Kenpo. I earned a black belt in Tracy kenpo and then third degree black in Ed Parker (American) Kenpo. I've read legit articles and from my own experience I can tell you this about Aikido: It is only effective if you have enough room to do it. Also it isn't truly a self defense art where it can be applied in every situation.  Here's an example: a black belt wrote an article in black belt magazine. He was a black belt in Aikido and also a military police overseas. When having to break up a bar fight, he was many times at a loss of what to do. Aikido just didn't cut the mustard in tight situations. He later learned a punching and kicking art and combined Aikido with it and he had a kickass art. Aikido "compliments" a punching and kicking martial art. I added the circular motion of Aikido to Kenpo in taking guys down. Remember, the Aikido creator wanted an art to profess peace and harmony with the universe. 
Sifu


----------



## Jenna

AIKIKENJITSU said:


> Hi, I'm a old martial arts instructor. I started learning in 1970 and I still teach and work out. I wanted to learn Aikido, and I went to several schools, but what finally caught my eye was Kenpo. I earned a black belt in Tracy kenpo and then third degree black in Ed Parker (American) Kenpo. I've read legit articles and from my own experience I can tell you this about Aikido: It is only effective if you have enough room to do it. Also it isn't truly a self defense art where it can be applied in every situation.  Here's an example: a black belt wrote an article in black belt magazine. He was a black belt in Aikido and also a military police overseas. When having to break up a bar fight, he was many times at a loss of what to do. Aikido just didn't cut the mustard in tight situations. He later learned a punching and kicking art and combined Aikido with it and he had a kickass art. Aikido "compliments" a punching and kicking martial art. I added the circular motion of Aikido to Kenpo in taking guys down. Remember, the Aikido creator wanted an art to profess peace and harmony with the universe.
> Sifu


How come you have chosen to label your self sifu and not sensei?


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> Well Geoff Thompson said it.  So how many fights to how many deaths was he involved in?
> 
> I mean it would be tough going to work every day and having people die on you all the time.
> 
> Of course if by chance he had hundreds or thousands of fights and nobody died.  Then we have a different interpretation of misleading.
> 
> By the way he has the fence. The animal day concept. ( which is hyperbole version of MMA) Some sucker punching. Some jits and some judo.


So, for the third time of asking, what do you think his system is?


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> In the self defence situation you described, multiple guys ambushing you to steal your stuff.  Preemptive striking is about the least useful skill you can learn.


It is, but then SD skills don't begin and end with physical skills.  Fighting doesn't teach you the non physical SD skills.  That's why Maiquel Falcao and undefeated Kaue Mena ended up in hospital.  They had great fighting skill, but no (non physical) SD skills to stop their situation escalating to the point of violence.


----------



## Paul_D

jobo said:


> street fighting isn't necessarily illegal


In what way?


----------



## Paul_D

Steve said:


> Self defense is a legal justification for fighting.


It is.  SD is legal justification for a physical response.  I just choose not to label that physical response as fighting, as it leads people to believe it can resemble a consensual sport/street fight, and also that the two require the same skill set.


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> That's your rejoinder? I don't know what martial art you practice, but your rhetorical Kung Fu is weak.


I will try harder Sifu


----------



## jobo

Paul_D said:


> In what way?


in that there is no specific law against fighting. The nearest we has is affray
but that needs quite a big fight usually involving a fair number of people and indiscriminate violence


----------



## Paul_D

jobo said:


> in that there is no specific law against fighting. The nearest we has is affray
> but that needs quite a big fight usually involving a fair number of people and indiscriminate violence


Yes whilst on paper there is no law against it, so it may appear legal, the reality is you are breaking any number of laws which will land you in trouble.


----------



## jobo

Paul_D said:


> Yes whilst on paper there is no law against it, so it may appear legal, the reality is you are breaking any number of laws which will land you in trouble.


such as? The police have a habit,of slapping a section 5 public order on anything they can't find a specific offence for. But other than that a consensual fight where no one wants to complain about injuries doesn't seem to break anylaws.
if you and i met up and decided to do some full bloodied sparing in the local park, there are no offences committed


----------



## Paul_D

jobo said:


> if you and i met up and decided to do some full bloodied sparing in the local park, there are no offences committed


Public Disturbance.


----------



## jobo

Paul_D said:


> Public Disturbance.


what laws that?


Paul_D said:


> Public Disturbance.



I'm not aware of that as a uk law. And nether is google, what law are you quoting ?


----------



## Steve

Paul_D said:


> It is.  SD is legal justification for a physical response.  I just choose not to label that physical response as fighting, as it leads people to believe it can resemble a consensual sport/street fight, and also that the two require the same skill set.


There is overlap.  You've said so yourself.


----------



## Paul_D

jobo said:


> what law are you quoting ?


I’m not quoting anything.  As we have said whilst there is no specific law and it may therefore _appear_ to be legal, there will be other offences that it comes under.  You can be charged with common assault without even injuring someone, so if you are injuring someone there is going to be something you can be arrested for.  If we are fighting in a public place and the police are called they aren’t going to let us carry on because they can’t think and anything to arrest us for. Or do you think they would?

Of course if neither of us agree to press charges we aren’t going to go to court, as the courts have too many more serious things to deal with, but the fact we decide not to press charges doesn’t mean there aren’t any.


----------



## Paul_D

Steve said:


> There is overlap.  You've said so yourself.



Yes, a good punch is always a good punch, so in that sense there is overlap.  However, agreeing to going outside into the pub car park and fight someone you are having an argument doesn't mean you are acting in SD just because both fights and SD contain punches.


----------



## jobo

Paul_D said:


> I’m not quoting anything.  As we have said whilst there is no specific law and it may therefore _appear_ to be legal, there will be other offences that it comes under.  You can be charged with common assault without even injuring someone, so if you are injuring someone there is going to be something you can be arrested for.  If we are fighting in a public place and the police are called they aren’t going to let us carry on because they can’t think and anything to arrest us for. Or do you think they would?
> 
> Of course if neither of us agree to press charges we aren’t going to go to court, as the courts have too many more serious things to deal with, but the fact we decide not to press charges doesn’t mean there aren’t any.


I'm getting confused now, are you stating that you are likely to get arrested or that ou have committed a criminal offence that will be proccessed through the courts. It's seems the first ?

any laying on of hands is common assault if you a) don't consent and b) the other person makes a complaint.

but we are talking about a consenual exchange where they have a agreed to the other trying to punch them never mind just touching them. In that situation common assault just wouldn't run

you keep talking about mystery offences that have been committed, but won't say what these mystery offences might be


----------



## jobo

Paul_D said:


> Yes, a good punch is always a good punch, so in that sense there is overlap.  However, agreeing to going outside into the pub car park and fight someone you are having an argument doesn't mean you are acting in SD just because both fights and SD contain punches.


??? You keep using the term illegal street fight as opposed to a legal sports fight

why is a fight in a dojo legal whilst the exact same fight on a car park is "illegal"? They both involved a fight, injuries and consent


----------



## Martial D

Paul_D said:


> Yes, a good punch is always a good punch, so in that sense there is overlap.  However, agreeing to going outside into the pub car park and fight someone you are having an argument doesn't mean you are acting in SD just because both fights and SD contain punches.


Ok, so say you walk around a corner, and see two people in combat.

How do you objectively define what you see?

Unless you know WHY the combat started, can you know if what you are seeing is a fight or self defense?


----------



## Paul_D

jobo said:


> you keep talking about mystery offences that have been committed, but won't say what these mystery offences might be


Yo would need to check with a solicitor, as I am not one, hence I didn't quote the offences.  But you didn't; answer my question:-

If we are fighting in a public place and the police are called they aren’t going to let us carry on because they can’t think and anything to arrest us for. Or do you think they would?


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> can you know if what you are seeing is a fight or self defense?


Not definitively no.


----------



## Paul_D

jobo said:


> ??? You keep using the term illegal street fight as opposed to a legal sports fight
> 
> why is a fight in a dojo legal whilst the exact same fight on a car park is "illegal"? They both involved a fight, injuries and consent


The police don't tend to take you away for questioning if you are fighting in the dojo?  Are you suggesting of the police fighting in a car park they would just let you carry on?


----------



## Martial D

Paul_D said:


> Not definitively no.


 My point exactly. A fight is a fight. If you don't like the word fight, combat is fine.

What makes the distinction of self defense vs not self defense are the events prior to the combat.


----------



## jobo

Paul_D said:


> Yo would need to check with a solicitor, as I am not one, hence I didn't quote the offences.  But you didn't; answer my question:-
> 
> If we are fighting in a public place and the police are called they aren’t going to let us carry on because they can’t think and anything to arrest us for. Or do you think they would?



so to clarify you don't actually know of any offences' despite saying repeatedly that they exist?

what the police do is irrelevant to the conversation. If they cant think of an offence they can't arrest you. They can usually manage to think of a possible offence, but that's a long way from saying you have attacked illegally. That can only be determined by a court


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> My point exactly. A fight is a fight. If you don't like the word fight, combat is fine.
> 
> What makes the distinction of self defense vs not self defense are the events prior to the combat.


No it isn't because agreeing to fighting someone has nothing to do with SD.  SD is protection yourself from criminal violence that you do not want to take part in.  

if they were the same then a 24 year old man in a hoodie isn't beating the crap out of an 80 year old woman because he wants to steal her purse, he's doing it because they wanted fight each other in the street.


----------



## Paul_D

jobo said:


> so to clarify you don't actually know of any offences' despite saying repeatedly that they exist?
> Absolutely yes, you would have to check with a solicitor to get all of the offences that it would be possible for you to be arrested under.
> 
> 
> 
> jobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That can only be determined by a court
> 
> 
> 
> That is true, but then i never said it wasn't.
Click to expand...


----------



## Martial D

Martial D said:


> My point exactly. A fight is a fight. If you don't like the word fight, combat is fine.
> 
> What makes the distinction of self defense vs not self defense are the events prior to the combat.





Paul_D said:


> No it isn't because agreeing to fighting someone has nothing to do with SD.  SD is protection yourself from criminal violence that you do not want to take part in.
> 
> if they were the same then a 24 year old man in a hoodie isn't beating the crap out of an 80 year old woman because he wants to steal her purse, he's doing it because they wanted fight each other in the street.


Your qualifier that in order for something to be a fight both parties must first agree is ludicrous. That isn't what the word fight means, it isn't what combat means either. Perhaps a dictionary would help?


----------



## Steve

Paul_D said:


> Yes, a good punch is always a good punch, so in that sense there is overlap.  However, agreeing to going outside into the pub car park and fight someone you are having an argument doesn't mean you are acting in SD just because both fights and SD contain punches.


If you and I agree to go outside, square off 5 to 6 feet apart in a fighting stance, and I punch you, whether or not it's self defense isn't relevant.  In this situation, the "self defense" is the choice not to go outside, using your current definition of self defense, which morphs from post to post. 

You acknowledged just a few posts ago that self defense is a legal defense for poor behavior, which is an after-the-fact justification for violence that has already occurred.   

@gpseymour, this is what I meant earlier.  We have at least two very different definitions used by the same person within the same thread.  It's very difficult to keep up, particularly when a definition can change in more subtle ways as the discussion becomes more specific. 

On a high level, self defense situations are more a matter of context, tactics and strategy, as opposed to a matter of skill.   At least, that's what the experts around here have said in other threads.  Which is why, they said, they spend most of their time training the skills they are least likely to use (the fighting skills).


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> Your qualifier that in order for something to be a fight both parties must first agree is ludicrous. That isn't what the word fight means, it isn't what combat means either. Perhaps a dictionary would help?





Martial D said:


> Your qualifier that in order for something to be a fight both parties must first agree is ludicrous. That isn't what the word fight means, it isn't what combat means either. Perhaps a dictionary would help?


No it isn’t, you are correct.

As has been explained elsewhere though, for ME to call it a fight it has to be consensual.  If one or more parties don’t consent then it isn’t a fight, it’s SD.   Hence I use the terms consensual fight for fighting, and non consensual criminal violence for SD.

Lumping everything together as fighting is misleading in a number of ways, which is I (and others) chose not to do it.  Firstly it suggests that the only possible outcome to any SD situation is a fight. It isn’t.

Also, you have people like Defence Lab who pretend men getting into fights is the same as SD (and in fact pretending there is no other situation in which people needs to defend themselves) and claim they are teaching SD when what they are actually teaching is fighting skills.  You don’t send your poor old Gran down to the local MMA gym to roll if she is worried about having her handbag stolen.  Now that is ludicrous. 

Further it leads people to believe that if they have fighting skills they are equipped for SD. If the were the case skilled fighters would never be the victim of crime.  And Vice Versa, people would only be able to defend themselves if they spend years training to become skilled fighters. Neither of these statements is true.

It also leads people into the mistaken belief that y agreeing to go outside and settle an argument by fighting they are acting legally in SD.

Also in a fight you want an exchange of blows, it is pretty boring if you spend the whole round just getting hit, or just hitting the other guy.  In SD the very last thing you want is an exchange of blows.  What you want is a one way stream of blows  that only ends when your attacker is no longer in a position to be a threat, and you have therefore created the opportunity to escape.  You do not want him to “get a go”.

There are other problems too, but you start to get the ideal.

I am of course aware not everyone clarifies these terms in the same way, so you kind offer of a dictionary is noted but not necessary.


----------



## Martial D

Paul_D said:


> No it isn’t, you are correct.
> 
> As has been explained elsewhere though, for ME to call it a fight it has to be consensual.  If one or more parties don’t consent then it isn’t a fight, it’s SD.   Hence I use the terms consensual fight for fighting, and non consensual criminal violence for SD.
> 
> Lumping everything together as fighting is misleading in a number of ways, which is I (and others) chose not to do it.  Firstly it suggests that the only possible outcome to any SD situation is a fight. It isn’t.
> 
> Also, you have people like Defence Lab who pretend men getting into fights is the same as SD (and in fact pretending there is no other situation in which people needs to defend themselves) and claim they are teaching SD when what they are actually teaching is fighting skills.  You don’t send your poor old Gran down to the local MMA gym to roll if she is worried about having her handbag stolen.  Now that is ludicrous.
> 
> Further it leads people to believe that if they have fighting skills they are equipped for SD. If the were the case skilled fighters would never be the victim of crime.  And Vice Versa, people would only be able to defend themselves if they spend years training to become skilled fighters. Neither of these statements is true.
> 
> It also leads people into the mistaken belief that y agreeing to go outside and settle an argument by fighting they are acting legally in SD.
> 
> Also in a fight you want an exchange of blows, it is pretty boring if you spend the whole round just getting hit, or just hitting the other guy.  In SD the very last thing you want is an exchange of blows.  What you want is a one way stream of blows  that only ends when your attacker is no longer in a position to be a threat, and you have therefore created the opportunity to escape.  You do not want him to “get a go”.
> 
> There are other problems too, but you start to get the ideal.
> 
> I am of course aware not everyone clarifies these terms in the same way, so you kind offer of a dictionary is noted but not necessary.



So you invent your own meanings for already defined words and argue the definition with those using the accepted definition?

How does that normally work out for you?


----------



## Paul_D

Steve said:


> If you and I agree to go outside, square off 5 to 6 feet apart in a fighting stance, and I punch you, whether or not it's self defense isn't relevant.


If you want to stay on the right side of the law, it is relevant.  



Steve said:


> In this situation, the "self defense" is the choice not to go outside


Correct.



Steve said:


> You acknowledged just a few posts ago that self defense is a legal defense for poor behavior,


Protecting yourself from harm is not poor behaviour. 

@gpseymour
Which is why, they said, they spend most of their time training the skills they are least likely to use (the fighting skills).[/QUOTE]
Quite the contrary.  The skills I have most used are not fighting skills, and the skills I have least used are fighting skills. 

If your SD skills are good fighting skills are the thing you are least likely to use.  Knowing how criminals select their targets means you can avoid doing what they are looking for and therefore avoid being selected as a victim.  Hence your fighting skills don’t need to be used.  If you know how to deal with eye contact challengers in bars the first time they look at you it never gets to the stage where they come across and say “What the **** are you looking at?” hence it never escalates to a fight. Being familiar with the rituals of violence means you can spot a potential incident when you are at the interview stage and head it off so you never have to use your fighting skills.


My wife was approached by three mean, being familiar  with the ritual of violence and Target hardening meant they quickly realised she wasn’t; the victim they initially though she might be, and they moved on to go find an easier victim.  Criminals do not want to fight you.  They want to take what they want in the easiest possible fashion .  They easy want victims. 


I have dispelled far far more SD situations before they ever got to the stage that violence was necessary, than I have had to use violence because my skill were not able to stop it getting to that stage.


However, if you only ever view SD as men arguing and getting into fights with each other, you don’t learn these others skills.  You just get good at fighting, and pretend you are doing SD.


----------



## Steve

Avoiding conflict entirely isn't self defense.  That's typically referred to by most people as "every day."   It's only self defense if you have been charged with a violent crime and are asserting that your violence was justified and should be excused.

You're describing what most people understand intuitively as "not being a dick."  That's not self defense, although it's a good idea and makes life much more enjoyable.

I do want to be clear, I agree that there are strategies and tactical decisions that can escalate or de-escalate a volatile situation, and also that there are habits or behaviors that put one at unnecessary risk.  I'm simply suggesting that this is not actually self defense.  Or at the very least, it's one of several definitions of self defense which are used strategically by people to move the goalposts in a discussion in order to avoid acknowledging that fighting skills can't be learned if you aren't actually learning them.

Simply put, it isn't self defense if violence isn't involved.


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> So you invent your own meanings for already defined words and argue the definition with those using the accepted definition?
> 
> How does that normally work out for you?


No, I didn't invent them.  And I wasn't arguing the definitions.  What I said was if you agree to go out into the pub car park and fight someone that has nothing to do with self defence.  You maintained that because it was a fight it also counts as self defence because fighting and self defence are the same thing.

I also note you ignored all the other points I made.  I wonder why that would was.


----------



## Paul_D

I think we have reached the point where we have all made our point, repeatedly.

The four of us are never going to agree, and there is nothing wrong with that, in fact quite the opposite, the forum would be very boring if everyone agreed with everyone else.  But as we are just going over old ground now, it's probably for the best if we draw a line under it and move on, at least in this thread.

I'm quite happy to continue he discussion privately though, so feel free to start a private conversation with me if you want to continue.


----------



## Steve

Things can get muddy, so I'll just bullet out my own beliefs quickly.

Most self defense training focuses on fighting skill, but misses the mark because it stops short of application.  This makes it unreliable, particularly as the system ages.  This is because often, guys start teaching the system they have learned, but have no experience applying the skills they are teaching.
Without violence, it's not self defense.  Doesn't mean it isn't valuable training, but if it's not managing violence in some direct manner, it's something other than self defense. 
There are programs that can actually make people safer, but these are tailored programs that address specific safety concerns.  For example, programs that target women should be different than programs that target kids, or college students, or the mentally ill, or the business professional. 
Fighting skill is a relatively unimportant aspect to the programs above.
In order to actually know whether your program is useful or effective, you have to define the results so that they are measurable, establish a baseline and include some kind of a control group.  We've seen this in the past, and it was extremely valuable and informative.
For people who do not have a professional application for fighting skills, any martial art that has a competitive outlet for applying skills is going to be more successful than programs that  don't.
What's interesting to me here is that I have suggested (and still believe) that training for fighting isn't really going to keep a person safer, and pointed to studies and self defense programs which ACTUALLY reduce risk, and was hammered pretty hard by the establishment here.  I wonder where you guys are now?


----------



## Martial D

Paul_D said:


> No, I didn't invent them.  And I wasn't arguing the definitions.  What I said was if you agree to go out into the pub car park and fight someone that has nothing to do with self defence.  You maintained that because it was a fight it also counts as self defence because fighting and self defence are the same thing.
> 
> I also note you ignored all the other points I made.  I wonder why that would was.


So, if you did not make up yourself your definition of fighting, being that a fight must be mutually agreed upon or it's not a fight(the premise from which everything else you have written flows), where did you get it?

Fighting and self defense ARE the same thing. The only difference is in reasons for doing so. The act itself..punches, kicks, throws, all fighting..regardless of reasoning.

By the way, the law makes no distinction between fighting and self defense either, that's assault you are thinking of..and assault doesn't have to be fighting. Spitting on someone is considered assault, but not fighting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> By the way.  Can you see how nuts conversations regarding self defence gets.  Because nobody has the grounding and everyone is trying to beat some sort of drum.  The information you actually get is so unreliable.
> 
> It is like trying to argue what colour pants god wears.
> 
> This is a very big aspect of the Aikido hate.  Or any martial art that relies on this justification.
> 
> We are comparing this mentally with people who will justify their Method by grabbing you and hurting you until you have to stop.
> 
> Which is such a compelling argument as compared to what martial artists are generally used to.


Actually, I find only a few people get lost in the rhetoric of such a discussion. Most are able to have a meaningful discussion - understanding the verification issues exist but do not make the entire endeavor a waste of time.

Difficulty in agreeing on a definition, difficulty identifying a valid method of validation, difficulty practicing certain techniques and/or attacks in a fully realistic manner. These are all issues anyone who teaches for self-defense must grapple with. None of them make it impossible, improbable, or unrealistic to train.


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> So, if you did not make up yourself your definition of fighting, being that a fight must be mutually agreed upon or it's not a fight(the premise from which everything else you have written flows), where did you get it?
> 
> Fighting and self defense ARE the same thing. The only difference is in reasons for doing so. The act itself..punches, kicks, throws, all fighting..regardless of reasoning.
> 
> By the way, the law makes no distinction between fighting and self defense either, that's assault you are thinking of..and assault doesn't have to be fighting. Spitting on someone is considered assault, but not fighting.


PM me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Which is why, they said, they spend most of their time training the skills they are least likely to use (the fighting skills).


No, they haven't said that, in any way I've seen it. Several of us have pointed out that the physical skills require practice and maintenance they will not get in normal life. Deescalation can be practiced in a lot of ways. Recognition and target hardening can't be practiced meaningfully over a large period of time in classes. De-escalation can be practiced in classes, but doesn't seem to degrade the way physical skills do, and seems to require less practice to become moderately effective, and is something that can be practiced quite often in settings other than classes. Those are among the reasons many people train the physical skills most. There are other reasons, some of which vary by person. 

Using Paul's insistance on a non-standard definition of "fight" as an example of certain words being meaningless would be like me showing a video of a BJJ guy getting run over by a bicyclist and saying, "See? BJJ isn't very good 'on the street'!" I don't agree with his definition, but he and I are aware of that, and I usually just acknowledge his definition and move on when it creates a point of contention. We manage to discuss this and other topics reasonably well in spite of it all.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Actually, I find only a few people get lost in the rhetoric of such a discussion. Most are able to have a meaningful discussion - understanding the verification issues exist but do not make the entire endeavor a waste of time.
> 
> Difficulty in agreeing on a definition, difficulty identifying a valid method of validation, difficulty practicing certain techniques and/or attacks in a fully realistic manner. These are all issues anyone who teaches for self-defense must grapple with. None of them make it impossible, improbable, or unrealistic to train.



Provided you are willing to accept dogma.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> For the same reason I don't separate Texans and Americans as 2 completely separate entitys.
> 
> As much as the Texans would want you to believe that is a thing.


There are still people who beat on the Free Republic of Texas, it's serious stuff.

It'll never happen though, it'd cut down on football competition level, not having Florida and California high schools to grass root with.


----------



## JP3

Paul_D said:


> I can't speak about US law, but pre emptive striking is legal in the UK.


Having done it states-side, if a doorman/bouncer gets the reputation of being a hit-first guy, pretty soon his bar owner gets a visit from the police and that guy is either asked to adjust his thinking or he is often out of a job.  Granted, I've only worked the door in Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas, but that type of gentle... pressure from the police was present in each state.

Doorman is presumed sober, guest is presumed to have been drinking is the issue. At least, I think that was the issue. I never got the interview witht he Chief of Police I asked one cop for.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> That would explain why so often I find people sparring from what seems "out-of-range". I'm able to move back a small amount and evade their strikes enough to keep them off their strategy. If their distancing (ma-ai from my discussion with JP in this thread) is influenced by sword work, that would be a reasonable conclusion.


Or... they're afraid of being hit, so stay so far away that they can't hit you.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> There are definitely opportunities to enter on a strike. What I'm referring to is when the entry is meant to catch the arm almost on the backswing. So, with your round attack example, it would catch that arm far enough back that the elbow would be near or behind the plane of the body. That's an unlikely position to get to by decision, unless they wind up like a major league pitcher. In most cases, getting in on a strike that early is simply lucky timing, or a bad decision that turned out well.


I see what you are driving at. The parallel to jamming a kick, but against the punch/strike. Yeah, if you get "there" you got lucky or you can read the guy's thoughts.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> That's a different interaction than between two grappling styles (like Judo and Aikido). What you're talking about is more inline with the integration of my striking and my grappling (both primarily from NGA).


Or... my integrating in with my aikido hand stuff the footsweep techniques of judo, but with the Thai leg kick as the "sweeping" action.

That is a blender.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> A definition of fighting is not a "manufactured idea". Words have definitions, and it can be helpful to clarify what definition is being used, since there are often multiple options, even if we stick to the dictionary (which is a record of common usage, not an arbiter of correct usage).


Gerry, there you go cheating with vocabulary technique again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Provided you are willing to accept dogma.


I'm not sure where any of that requires the acceptance of dogma.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure where any of that requires the acceptance of dogma.



You have to rely on belief. Someone is giving you information that never gets tested properly. You are not out there getting mugged to see what work and what doesn't. 

Even Geoff Thompson isn't out there getting mugged.  

So somewhere this information is coming in that you have no way to varify. But for your system to work you have to accept it.  Which is why from my perspective there are these really strange ideas that come out.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You have to rely on belief. Someone is giving you information that never gets tested properly. You are not out there getting mugged to see what work and what doesn't.
> 
> Even Geoff Thompson isn't out there getting mugged.
> 
> So somewhere this information is coming in that you have no way to varify. But for your system to work you have to accept it.  Which is why from my perspective there are these really strange ideas that come out.


Nope. We've had that discussion before. You have this dogma you're stuck on.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Nope. We've had that discussion before. You have this dogma you're stuck on.



Dogma is very hard to see when you are invested. And where there is no real experts to tell you otherwise.

Sun goes around the earth? Hey why not? 

It is not like anyone could prove otherwise.

You don't think there is a reason why almost nobody can practically demonstrate Aikido?  

I mean I can go to a boxing, bjj,  judo, karate school and all of them can do it.  They may do it to different levels of ability but they could show there art working against new or experienced guys.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Dogma is very hard to see when you are invested. And where there is no real experts to tell you otherwise.
> 
> Sun goes around the earth? Hey why not?
> 
> It is not like anyone could prove otherwise.
> 
> You don't think there is a reason why almost nobody can practically demonstrate Aikido?
> 
> I mean I can go to a boxing, bjj,  judo, karate school and all of them can do it.  They may do it to different levels of ability but they could show there art working against new or experienced guys.


What, precisely, does any of that have to do with my statements about self-defense instruction? You're lost in a discussion we aren't in the middle of, DB.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> What, precisely, does any of that have to do with my statements about self-defense instruction? You're lost in a discussion we aren't in the middle of, DB.


Perfect quote.   I should have said this exact thing in another thread.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Applies doesn't have the same meaning as same.
> 
> You keep adding random stuff that doesn't apply.
> 
> Self defense doesn't help you if you are drowning. Swimming does.
> 
> You have to understand the difference.


Unless... you're being held under by a person who does not like you very much.  Just sayin'...


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> How about you adress the misleading hyperbole.


I get the impression that Geoff has some striking training, but his "system" is designed behind (pun intended) his Fence defense?

I could very easily be wrong, and be ignorantly minimizing the training he's had, I've no clue. I've not run across a resume or biography that talks about training, specifically. Not what he did, but what he trained.


----------



## JP3

Paul_D said:


> But it does apply.  You just don't understand why because you think men brawling in the street or a bar is SD.


Paul... a question --

If I'm stood with my wife in a pub, and some fellow decides for whatever reason to attempt pre-emption and succeeds in lamblasting me while I'm involved in staring at her, in the initial moments we end up rolling around on the floor, is that not an SD situation to you?  Pre-emptive strike, hit from surprised, slight recovery... etc?

I'm trying to wrap my head around where you define the "line" to be and... I'm having trouble.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> No, they haven't said that, in any way I've seen it. Several of us have pointed out that the physical skills require practice and maintenance they will not get in normal life. Deescalation can be practiced in a lot of ways. Recognition and target hardening can't be practiced meaningfully over a large period of time in classes. De-escalation can be practiced in classes, but doesn't seem to degrade the way physical skills do, and seems to require less practice to become moderately effective, and is something that can be practiced quite often in settings other than classes. Those are among the reasons many people train the physical skills most. There are other reasons, some of which vary by person.
> 
> Using Paul's insistance on a non-standard definition of "fight" as an example of certain words being meaningless would be like me showing a video of a BJJ guy getting run over by a bicyclist and saying, "See? BJJ isn't very good 'on the street'!" I don't agree with his definition, but he and I are aware of that, and I usually just acknowledge his definition and move on when it creates a point of contention. We manage to discuss this and other topics reasonably well in spite of it all.


The difficulty seems to be when two (or more) parties have different definitions of the same term(s), recognize that they have such different definitions.... and then one (or both/all) insist that the other one must use their definition.

To sidestep this issue is a skill inherent to discussion boards, I've noted. In the real world, people get on the same page as to what's being talked about very quickly.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Provided you are willing to accept dogma.


OK, I've got to ask. I do know what dogma is, and dicta, etc.

I know you can precisely list all the dogma you're talking about, there's tons. But, can you give some examples which apply to the (original discussion) which ou & Gerry were having?

For anyone who doesn't know, here's a decent dogma definition:

Dogma: (noun)  --  "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."

I'm wondering which set of statements you're talking about. 

(By the way... If you can't tell... I'm trying to single-handedly wrench this thread back on track and out of the "It's SD, No it's Not!" debate.)


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> OK, I've got to ask. I do know what dogma is, and dicta, etc.
> 
> I know you can precisely list all the dogma you're talking about, there's tons. But, can you give some examples which apply to the (original discussion) which ou & Gerry were having?
> 
> For anyone who doesn't know, here's a decent dogma definition:
> 
> Dogma: (noun)  --  "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."
> 
> I'm wondering which set of statements you're talking about.
> 
> (By the way... If you can't tell... I'm trying to single-handedly wrench this thread back on track and out of the "It's SD, No it's Not!" debate.)



Depends how original. The big one I have an issue with that Gerry does is that a street fight will provide openings that training won't.

Which justifies modifying attacks in training to reflect someones idea of a real fight.

And it is dogma.  You have to believe yhe definition of this real fight for the training to work.

Ironically. Lost in a discussion you are not in the middle of is a very accurate description of that method.


----------



## Paul_D

JP3 said:


> Paul... a question --
> 
> If I'm stood with my wife in a pub, and some fellow decides for whatever reason to attempt pre-emption and succeeds in lamblasting me while I'm involved in staring at her, in the initial moments we end up rolling around on the floor, is that not an SD situation to you?  Pre-emptive strike, hit from surprised, slight recovery... etc?
> 
> I'm trying to wrap my head around where you define the "line" to be and... I'm having trouble.


Happy to explain, but PM, I think I have taken up enough of the thread already.  Plus. Don't quite understand the situation you are describing, he is attacking while you are involved in staring at your wife?


----------



## jobo

JP3 said:


> Paul... a question --
> 
> If I'm stood with my wife in a pub, and some fellow decides for whatever reason to attempt pre-emption and succeeds in lamblasting me while I'm involved in staring at her, in the initial moments we end up rolling around on the floor, is that not an SD situation to you?  Pre-emptive strike, hit from surprised, slight recovery... etc?
> 
> I'm trying to wrap my head around where you define the "line" to be and... I'm having trouble.


its a silly defintion of Paul's, which is why he has with drawn from the thread.

its quite possible that both people in a fight are defending themselves from an assault by the other. One feels threatened and strikes, the other gets punched and defends himself

as a general observation, most men like most dogs have to snarl and posture a bit before they actual start punching. People who just lash out are either trying to rob you or are very annoyed with someone else and  take it out on you


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Depends how original. The big one I have an issue with that Gerry does is that a street fight will provide openings that training won't.
> 
> Which justifies modifying attacks in training to reflect someones idea of a real fight.
> 
> And it is dogma.  You have to believe yhe definition of this real fight for the training to work.
> 
> Ironically. Lost in a discussion you are not in the middle of is a very accurate description of that method.


Actually, I've had input from people who deal with angry and/or drunk people. It's not dogma, it's based upon evidence (evidence you often to write off as "stories", simply because it's not on a video or otherwise witnessed by many people).

And, as usual, you twist the discussion. You make it sound as if I've said we never train against a controlled, trained attack from a skilled fighter. A notion I countered many months ago. You still seem stuck on the idea that all valid attacks will happen between two skilled people, and that an unskilled, angry, or impaired person won't make more mistakes. That's just absurd.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Actually, I've had input from people who deal with angry and/or drunk people. It's not dogma, it's based upon evidence (evidence you often to write off as "stories", simply because it's not on a video or otherwise witnessed by many people).
> 
> And, as usual, you twist the discussion. You make it sound as if I've said we never train against a controlled, trained attack from a skilled fighter. A notion I countered many months ago. You still seem stuck on the idea that all valid attacks will happen between two skilled people, and that an unskilled, angry, or impaired person won't make more mistakes. That's just absurd.



And by imput you mean a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true?

And no. the valid attacks happen by the people validly attacking you. If they are unskilled then it is an unskilled attack. If they are skilled then it is a skilled attack. Nobody has to pretend to make the system work.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> its a silly defintion of Paul's, which is why he has with drawn from the thread.
> 
> its quite possible that both people in a fight are defending themselves from an assault by the other. One feels threatened and strikes, the other gets punched and defends himself
> 
> as a general observation, most men like most dogs have to snarl and posture a bit before they actual start punching. People who just lash out are either trying to rob you or are very annoyed with someone else and  take it out on you



And men like dogs after a bit of training that observation changes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And by imput you mean a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true?


Nope. Nothing was put forth as "incontrovertibly true". That's where you're getting stuck. People with experience sharing what they've experienced is not stating something as incontrovertible.



> And no. the valid attacks happen by the people validly attacking you. If they are unskilled then it is an unskilled attack. If they are skilled then it is a skilled attack. Nobody has to pretend to make the system work.


Correct. But if you want to practice a specific technique against a specific attack, you need someone to give you that attack. That's nothing you don't do in your own training. You don't train a sprawl against a single-leg by waiting until someone randomly gives you a single-leg. You ask them for the single-leg, and practice the sprawl. Even if they prefer a double-leg, because they know it works more reliably against you, they give you the single-leg, so you can practice. You REALLY want there to be something wrong with people giving a specific attack on request, but it's a necessary part of everyone's training.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Nope. Nothing was put forth as "incontrovertibly true". That's where you're getting stuck. People with experience sharing what they've experienced is not stating something as incontrovertible.



Then who is controverting these ideas? 

Probably not a real word.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Correct. But if you want to practice a specific technique against a specific attack, you need someone to give you that attack. That's nothing you don't do in your own training. You don't train a sprawl against a single-leg by waiting until someone randomly gives you a single-leg. You ask them for the single-leg, and practice the sprawl. Even if they prefer a double-leg, because they know it works more reliably against you, they give you the single-leg, so you can practice. You REALLY want there to be something wrong with people giving a specific attack on request, but it's a necessary part of everyone's training.



Exept what you described there is a little different to attack me with a single leg.  But do it like you don't know how to do a single leg and try to pretend you are also really angry. Because people have told me that is more likley to occur on the street. And somewhere in that mess of truth and pretend you are trying to figure out what works and what doesn't.

Which is kind of the impression I get.  Hence how being in a conversation you are not actually having applies.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Then who is controverting these ideas?
> 
> Probably not a real word.


Anyone who has different evidence is free to dispute them. Is the law of conservation of matter and energy dogma, just because people have accepted the evidence?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Exept what you described there is a little different to attack me with a single leg.  But do it like you don't know how to do a single leg and try to pretend you are also really angry. Because people have told me that is more likley to occur on the street. And somewhere in that mess of truth and pretend you are trying to figure out what works and what doesn't.
> 
> Which is kind of the impression I get.  Hence how being in a conversation you are not actually having applies.


Nope, that's a story in your head. It's much more like, "Okay, so an angry person will sometimes overcommit. On this attack, overcommit. Bring a lot of power, and leave your patience behind." That sets up a specific situation to work against, and is not all that different from learning to work from under mount without the other person having a good base (a first step in learning to get out).

You've gotten really stuck on there being a problem with what I call "simulated attacks", which are just attacks with parameters. Those parameters might be over-committing, stepping with a specific foot, "fake attacking" (a feint), attacking with slow pressure, attacking with over-aggression, being left-handed, or anything else that sets up a training opportunity.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Depends how original. The big one I have an issue with that Gerry does is that a street fight will provide openings that training won't.
> 
> Which justifies modifying attacks in training to reflect someones idea of a real fight.


OK... are you thinking about another thread, or just this one? I've not noted that happening in this one.

    "A street fight will provide openings that training won't."  If that is what you are getting out of what Gerry's saying, then I'd agree with you. The training should (imperfect tool that it is) reflect as closely the thing that your are training "for," bodies only move in certain ways, physics is physics. Same openings for techniques in both places. The openings are usually smaller and tighter in a fight (with a guy coming full-tilt boogie) due to speed but the same ones are still there.

But... I don't think Gerry is saying that.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> Actually, I've had input from people who deal with angry and/or drunk people. It's not dogma, it's based upon evidence (evidence you often to write off as "stories", simply because it's not on a video or otherwise witnessed by many people)



If he's writing off/scoffing at the anecdotal evidence... it must be contradicting his own experiences.  That's the issue with anecdotal info, the problems with verification. It's what led to the "Hearsay Rule" in court proceedings.

It is sort of like my starting a story with, "This one time... at band camp... I met this girl and we..."   The story is going to be great fun, probably brilliant in conception, the plot will execute with precision and the .... uhh... climax will be satisfying. Yeah, that's it. But, nobody will believe a word of it unless I've got security camera footage.

Which I do, but that's beside the point.

"Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. ... Thus, even when accurate, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a typical experience." (Straight from the Google goblins)

And... just like my band camp story is actually factual, the premise of it and the nature of the one-off tale indicates to others that it is, at the very least, exaggerated and/or changed in some small way.

Think of this, and it's more pronounced on discussion boards than anything else which represents this type of communication. I'm at the dojo, and a visitor comes in and asks, "So, what is it that you guys do here?" So I start talking, students demo, I do stuff, Q & A happens, etc. You might get a good, penetrating question such as "Pardon me for beind direct, but it doesn't look like this stuff would do F-all against a guy going off on you at the pub." And then we get intot hat discussion, and if the right people are there who can take it, maybe a full-speed with intent demo. Problem witht he demo is, it's "set up" so is only anecdotally (that word again) related to what would/could actually happen.

Here's another great example.  I tell you on here, "My wife is Hot.  I mean, uber-smoking, and she kills it ont he beach over the 20-somethings."  What ALWAYS seems to happen when you get one of those style comments....

"Pictures or it didn't happen."  Verification, authentication... evidence. Not just words, i.e. unverifiable stories.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Then who is controverting these ideas?
> 
> Probably not a real word.


It's a real word. I use it in my real world all the time.

controverting:  --  verb (gerund or present participle)  --  deny the truth of (something).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> If he's writing off/scoffing at the anecdotal evidence... it must be contradicting his own experiences.  That's the issue with anecdotal info, the problems with verification. It's what led to the "Hearsay Rule" in court proceedings.
> 
> It is sort of like my starting a story with, "This one time... at band camp... I met this girl and we..."   The story is going to be great fun, probably brilliant in conception, the plot will execute with precision and the .... uhh... climax will be satisfying. Yeah, that's it. But, nobody will believe a word of it unless I've got security camera footage.
> 
> Which I do, but that's beside the point.
> 
> "Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. ... Thus, even when accurate, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a typical experience." (Straight from the Google goblins)
> 
> And... just like my band camp story is actually factual, the premise of it and the nature of the one-off tale indicates to others that it is, at the very least, exaggerated and/or changed in some small way.
> 
> Think of this, and it's more pronounced on discussion boards than anything else which represents this type of communication. I'm at the dojo, and a visitor comes in and asks, "So, what is it that you guys do here?" So I start talking, students demo, I do stuff, Q & A happens, etc. You might get a good, penetrating question such as "Pardon me for beind direct, but it doesn't look like this stuff would do F-all against a guy going off on you at the pub." And then we get intot hat discussion, and if the right people are there who can take it, maybe a full-speed with intent demo. Problem witht he demo is, it's "set up" so is only anecdotally (that word again) related to what would/could actually happen.
> 
> Here's another great example.  I tell you on here, "My wife is Hot.  I mean, uber-smoking, and she kills it ont he beach over the 20-somethings."  What ALWAYS seems to happen when you get one of those style comments....
> 
> "Pictures or it didn't happen."  Verification, authentication... evidence. Not just words, i.e. unverifiable stories.


The issue I've had with DB is that he impugns all anecdotal evidence as "just stories", regardless of their source. If I hear something (such as that people who are angry and people who are drunk and people who are untrained are much more likely to overcommit in an attack) from several sources who have reasonable background to provide that input (LEO, bouncer, someone who just got into a lot of fights in college, etc.), and all of them seem to have had similar experiences, then that's not just "stories". And it's certainly not dogma.

Wherever possible, we want to look for both confirming and contradictory evidence beyond the anecdotal variety. And I can find videos that show people over-committing in an attack. I can see how angry people tend to move. That can be combined with that anecdotal evidence to provide useful input to training (assuming the training isn't only for competition, where this would have less utility).


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> OK... are you thinking about another thread, or just this one? I've not noted that happening in this one.
> 
> "A street fight will provide openings that training won't."  If that is what you are getting out of what Gerry's saying, then I'd agree with you. The training should (imperfect tool that it is) reflect as closely the thing that your are training "for," bodies only move in certain ways, physics is physics. Same openings for techniques in both places. The openings are usually smaller and tighter in a fight (with a guy coming full-tilt boogie) due to speed but the same ones are still there.
> 
> But... I don't think Gerry is saying that.



The opposite
 He thinks the openings will be larger and more pronounced.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> The opposite
> He thinks the openings will be larger and more pronounced.


If you get an untrained guy, I agree with him. Well, perhaps untrained is the wrong word, as there's lots of self-taught fighters out there that can crack heads pretty well.

How about in-schooled. People who have very little idea what they're doing.

But, those kinds of people really don't get into fights, I've noticed... so maybe it ends up being moot.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> If you get an untrained guy, I agree with him. Well, perhaps untrained is the wrong word, as there's lots of self-taught fighters out there that can crack heads pretty well.
> 
> How about in-schooled. People who have very little idea what they're doing.
> 
> But, those kinds of people really don't get into fights, I've noticed... so maybe it ends up being moot.



It depends how you look at evidence. If you are searching for fights that validate your training method. You can.  You just have to filter out all the ones that don't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The opposite
> He thinks the openings will be larger and more pronounced.


That's not exactly what I said, but I can see how it could be read that way. There will be openings in anger that won't exist in a controlled fighter. Those will, often, be both larger and more pronounced than if the same person is not angry, though the timeframe may be compressed (which makes them "smaller" in one way). For untrained people, the openings will, in fact, be often both larger and more pronounced.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> If you get an untrained guy, I agree with him. Well, perhaps untrained is the wrong word, as there's lots of self-taught fighters out there that can crack heads pretty well.
> 
> How about in-schooled. People who have very little idea what they're doing.
> 
> But, those kinds of people really don't get into fights, I've noticed... so maybe it ends up being moot.


People with no training/unschooled do get into fights. Heck, that would describe pretty much everyone I've had take a swing at me my entire life, outside a training situation. It also describes most of the people I've heard described by LEO and bouncers.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It depends how you look at evidence. If you are searching for fights that validate your training method. You can.  You just have to filter out all the ones that don't.


Yes. And if you look at those that controvert your expectations, as well, you get a more balanced view.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> People with no training/unschooled do get into fights. Heck, that would describe pretty much everyone I've had take a swing at me my entire life, outside a training situation. It also describes most of the people I've heard described by LEO and bouncers.


I don't think I was clear.

If a guy takes a swing at you.... as an adult... he's probably swung at people before because that's how that person has learned (so to speak) to solve his problems with other people.  So, having swung at lots of people before, he's engaged in a it of live-fire training in getting your butt kicked or, alternatively if he found he was naturally good at it, kicking people's butts.  So, not a rank, totally "untrained" individual at all.

As compared with these two someones:

   A)  Never got in a fight, never did any training... then ended up having the worse day of his life and ends up going all Michael Douglas (reference to the film Falling Down) on you, coming out of nowhere.... this guy is completely "untrained;" or

   B) One of us who gets in the dojo/gym regularly and does this stuff for fun. Trained.  Well, the efficacy of the training is a hot button issue, but I'm sure you see what I'm driving at.

   The guy at the top of this reply is the one who "gets into fights" more than either A or B. Definitely was during my 5 year stint at the door. Coming in as a newbie, never having done it before, our old hand, Leon, would point out the troublemakers to keep an eye on from their past history.

Sure enough, 4 out of 5 situations... there was one of those kinds of guys.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> Yes. And if you look at those that controvert your expectations, as well, you get a more balanced view.


Wha-wha-What?!

 Look at extrinsic controverting evidence?  Who does that!

I mean, if it disagrees with what I'm saying to my students, which my teacher said to me, and his to him, and his to him, and his to him, and his to him, and his to him... then I don't want to hear or see it.

Uh... right?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> I don't think I was clear.
> 
> If a guy takes a swing at you.... as an adult... he's probably swung at people before because that's how that person has learned (so to speak) to solve his problems with other people.  So, having swung at lots of people before, he's engaged in a it of live-fire training in getting your butt kicked or, alternatively if he found he was naturally good at it, kicking people's butts.  So, not a rank, totally "untrained" individual at all.
> 
> As compared with these two someones:
> 
> A)  Never got in a fight, never did any training... then ended up having the worse day of his life and ends up going all Michael Douglas (reference to the film Falling Down) on you, coming out of nowhere.... this guy is completely "untrained;" or
> 
> B) One of us who gets in the dojo/gym regularly and does this stuff for fun. Trained.  Well, the efficacy of the training is a hot button issue, but I'm sure you see what I'm driving at.
> 
> The guy at the top of this reply is the one who "gets into fights" more than either A or B. Definitely was during my 5 year stint at the door. Coming in as a newbie, never having done it before, our old hand, Leon, would point out the troublemakers to keep an eye on from their past history.
> 
> Sure enough, 4 out of 5 situations... there was one of those kinds of guys.


Ah, gotcha. That's a reasonable entry to the discussion. People who are ill-tempered enough to take a swing at you have probably done so before. Most will stop doing it if they routinely fail. They still differ from someone who is skilled as a fighter, in that they are usually not going to face anyone with any real skill. So, they make mistakes that someone trained won't make. Someone who fights a lot, even occasionally against skilled fighters, is being trained, and will respond more like a trained fighter.

Those folks also are used to ending things quickly, because they're used to facing someone with very little skill. That probably accounts for many of the openings they leave. Someone who trains in boxing (for instance) for even a few months will know better, because they'll have sparred against people who leave fewer openings and take advantage of more openings.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> Ah, gotcha. That's a reasonable entry to the discussion. People who are ill-tempered enough to take a swing at you have probably done so before. Most will stop doing it if they routinely fail. They still differ from someone who is skilled as a fighter, in that they are usually not going to face anyone with any real skill. So, they make mistakes that someone trained won't make. Someone who fights a lot, even occasionally against skilled fighters, is being trained, and will respond more like a trained fighter.
> 
> Those folks also are used to ending things quickly, because they're used to facing someone with very little skill. That probably accounts for many of the openings they leave. Someone who trains in boxing (for instance) for even a few months will know better, because they'll have sparred against people who leave fewer openings and take advantage of more openings.


Right, what you said.

But what happens in a street fight?

J/K...


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yes. And if you look at those that controvert your expectations, as well, you get a more balanced view.



How do you decide which one is right?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> How do you decide which one is right?


It's not an "either-or" situation, DB. If both controlled and uncontrolled attacks occur in the evidence you can find, you prepare for both.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> How do you decide which one is right?


For me... I evaluate it based on what the person was trying to do. If I can identify it. If they succeeded, or not, either way, you can learn something.

There is great value in knowing how NOT to do something.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It's not an "either-or" situation, DB. If both controlled and uncontrolled attacks occur in the evidence you can find, you prepare for both.



See this is the difference. I prepare for sloppy attacks by preparing for good attacks. I dont consider being a bad fighter some sort of street superpower. Regardless how common it might be.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> For me... I evaluate it based on what the person was trying to do. If I can identify it. If they succeeded, or not, either way, you can learn something.
> 
> There is great value in knowing how NOT to do something.



Except people have a vested intrest in making themselves look good.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> See this is the difference. I prepare for sloppy attacks by preparing for good attacks. I dont consider being a bad fighter some sort of street superpower. Regardless how common it might be.


I don't see good attacks and bad attacks as the same thing. There are openings (and occasionally problems) in bad attacks that aren't the same as similar good attacks. They are different things, so I train them differently.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Except people have a vested intrest in making themselves look good.


And you seem to assume we can't take that into account when evaluating their input.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And you seem to assume we can't take that into account when evaluating their input.



You could if anyone had a grounding in self defence. But most people are virgins talking about sex.

And yeah I get the impression you can't tell the difference.

When self defense discussions sound like trump speeches you know nobody really knows what they are on about.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't see good attacks and bad attacks as the same thing. There are openings (and occasionally problems) in bad attacks that aren't the same as similar good attacks. They are different things, so I train them differently.



Which is a really hard way to do self defence. what you are trying to do is really only done at a top level of competition.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Except people have a vested intrest in making themselves look good.


Some do, sure.

Some might surprise you with their objectivity.  I'd postulate that most people want to look good most of the time, that's natural I think.

But, there are times when people really want to truly know if they are doing something wrong.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Which is a really hard way to do self defence. what you are trying to do is really only done at a top level of competition.


I don't see it as the hard way. To me, treating an off-balance punch like a compact punch is senseless. My range of options is quite different, though there's some overlap between them. And sometimes I can turn the compact punch into something like the off-balance one, so that training comes back into play.

It's clear you don't understand this. And that's not a shot at you. What I train in is different than what you do, and you've made it clear by your statements that some of it is foreign to your experience. You've several times said things like, "Yeah, that's exactly like..." and then mentioned something that's not at all like the original topic/technique/principle. Why not accept that we talk different languages on this one? You seem hell-bent on trying to prove me wrong on something, and you keep coming back to arguments that you've tried before. You get condescending and make really quite outrageous assumptions and claims about what others do, often saying people do (and even say) things we do not. Enough is enough.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Some do, sure.
> 
> Some might surprise you with their objectivity.  I'd postulate that most people want to look good most of the time, that's natural I think.
> 
> But, there are times when people really want to truly know if they are doing something wrong.



Ok.  But it doesn't change the dynamic. If I go to three mechanics and one of them is dodgy. I won't really know.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't see it as the hard way. To me, treating an off-balance punch like a compact punch is senseless. My range of options is quite different, though there's some overlap between them. And sometimes I can turn the compact punch into something like the off-balance one, so that training comes back into play.
> 
> It's clear you don't understand this. And that's not a shot at you. What I train in is different than what you do, and you've made it clear by your statements that some of it is foreign to your experience. You've several times said things like, "Yeah, that's exactly like..." and then mentioned something that's not at all like the original topic/technique/principle. Why not accept that we talk different languages on this one? You seem hell-bent on trying to prove me wrong on something, and you keep coming back to arguments that you've tried before. You get condescending and make really quite outrageous assumptions and claims about what others do, often saying people do (and even say) things we do not. Enough is enough.



Ok.  Sensible part first.  Two reasons your dual method is high risk.

1. Fighting happens really quite fast.

2. Getting punched in the face can be very distracting.

So you are trying to pick out if a punch is sloppy enough to use as a counter or tight enough to use a different counter in what could be an attack by a guy you know nothing about in a fight that could be done in seconds.

If you mess it up and enter on a sloppy shot.  And it is not as sloppy as you fist thought you could eat a shot that ends your ability to continue.

This is again not because I do MMA and you do Aikido.  This is just how that dynamic works.

Which is especially bad in a street fight and why I continue to preach people to fight conservatively..

And now for the silly bit.  You can't sook about people making assumptions while making assumptions about them.

Suck it up princess and play the ball not the man. I am not trying to hurt your feelings.

I am trying to explain why what you suggest really isn't going to work very well without having to resort to just telling you I have tried all this stuff you are suggesting. Did it in real fights.  And it is risky.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok.  Sensible part first.  Two reasons your dual method is high risk.
> 
> 1. Fighting happens really quite fast.
> 
> 2. Getting punched in the face can be very distracting.
> 
> So you are trying to pick out if a punch is sloppy enough to use as a counter or tight enough to use a different counter in what could be an attack by a guy you know nothing about in a fight that could be done in seconds.
> 
> If you mess it up and enter on a sloppy shot.  And it is not as sloppy as you fist thought you could eat a shot that ends your ability to continue.
> 
> This is again not because I do MMA and you do Aikido.  This is just how that dynamic works.
> 
> Which is especially bad in a street fight and why I continue to preach people to fight conservatively..
> 
> And now for the silly bit.  You can't sook about people making assumptions while making assumptions about them.
> 
> Suck it up princess and play the ball not the man. I am not trying to hurt your feelings.
> 
> I am trying to explain why what you suggest really isn't going to work very well without having to resort to just telling you I have tried all this stuff you are suggesting. Did it in real fights.  And it is risky.


You're assuming this requires conscious thought ("trying to pick out"). That's not how skilled response works. Baseball batters don't think about whether the pitch is slow or fast, curved or straight. They just recognize the cues. I can recognize someone's weight moving forward pretty easily, and I simply use what works with that pattern of movement.

As for the other comment, this isn't a game, so I'm not playing anything. You're making unsupported statements and getting condescending. Commenting on that is not _ad hominem_ - it's an acknowledgement of a problem with your argument.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Ok.  Sensible part first.  Two reasons your dual method is high risk.
> 
> 1. Fighting happens really quite fast.
> 
> 2. Getting punched in the face can be very distracting.
> 
> So you are trying to pick out if a punch is sloppy enough to use as a counter or tight enough to use a different counter in what could be an attack by a guy you know nothing about in a fight that could be done in seconds.
> 
> If you mess it up and enter on a sloppy shot.  And it is not as sloppy as you fist thought you could eat a shot that ends your ability to continue.
> 
> This is again not because I do MMA and you do Aikido.  This is just how that dynamic works.
> 
> Which is especially bad in a street fight and why I continue to preach people to fight conservatively..
> 
> And now for the silly bit.  You can't sook about people making assumptions while making assumptions about them.
> 
> Suck it up princess and play the ball not the man. I am not trying to hurt your feelings.
> 
> I am trying to explain why what you suggest really isn't going to work very well without having to resort to just telling you I have tried all this stuff you are suggesting. Did it in real fights.  And it is risky.


your not actually describing real fights as they commonly happen. Fight usually have a build up, even fast fight give you a few seconds notice. If some one just decided to punch you with out any warning, then you are going to get punched, unless you are very quick or constantly on a state of alertness, just incase..
that said the subconscious brain has far quicker reactions that the conscious Brian. And if you drill enough on reaction to a stimulus, a fast movement perhaps you can train yourself to react /counter at the level of subconsciousness that makes you very difficult to hit even with a,sucker punch. That's why the endless repeating of drills and forms are so useful in priming your subconscious in to a) reacting and b) reacting the correct way. As soon as you start to think, you are to slow


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> You're assuming this requires conscious thought ("trying to pick out"). That's not how skilled response works. Baseball batters don't think about whether the pitch is slow or fast, curved or straight. They just recognize the cues. I can recognize someone's weight moving forward pretty easily, and I simply use what works with that pattern of movement.
> 
> As for the other comment, this isn't a game, so I'm not playing anything. You're making unsupported statements and getting condescending. Commenting on that is not _ad hominem_ - it's an acknowledgement of a problem with your argument.


Just want to point out that a really really good batter misses almost every time.  They get three strikes every at bat and even then don't hit more than 1/3 of the time.  

I think the key is to expect to fail and prepare for contingency.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Just want to point out that a really really good batter misses almost every time.  They get three strikes every at bat and even then don't hit more than 1/3 of the time.
> 
> I think the key is to expect to fail and prepare for contingency.


yes but really good batters are facing really good pitchers. Put them against a average pitcher and they will wack it out nearly every time.


----------



## O'Malley

I am with Drop Bear on this, I can't think of any reason to consciously train against a sloppy attacker over a good one and an art that relies on the attacker giving away his own balance (which would be the "aiki" part of Gerry's training if I understand correctly) would be highly unreliable.

There's a saying in French that goes "he who can do more, can do less", which means here that if you can handle a good hook punch for example, you'll be even more able to deal with a sloppy haymaker.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Ok.  But it doesn't change the dynamic. If I go to three mechanics and one of them is dodgy. I won't really know.


Why not? If you go to 3 mechanics, and one of them is dodgy... "One of these is not like the other."

You'd have the other 2 to compare with, thus isolating the dodgy one, who would no longer get your business.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Why not? If you go to 3 mechanics, and one of them is dodgy... "One of these is not like the other."
> 
> You'd have the other 2 to compare with, thus isolating the dodgy one, who would no longer get your business.



So long as we know only one is dodgy. And then yes your analogy works.

If we don't know how many are dodgy Then 1,2 or all three could be full of it.  Or they could all be correct and just dissagree. And because I dont know how an engine works it is going to be very hard to judge.


----------



## jobo

O'Malley said:


> I am with Drop Bear on this, I can't think of any reason to consciously train against a sloppy attacker over a good one and an art that relies on the attacker giving away his own balance (which would be the "aiki" part of Gerry's training if I understand correctly) would be highly unreliable.
> 
> There's a saying in French that goes "he who can do more, can do less", which means here that if you can handle a good hook punch for example, you'll be even more able to deal with a sloppy haymaker.



there is also the 80/20 rule of economics'. They being that training so you can deal with 80% of attackers makes good sense in the use of time and resources. And 80 % of people are not trained fighter and even if they are they won't be very good ones


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> your not actually describing real fights as they commonly happen. Fight usually have a build up, even fast fight give you a few seconds notice. If some one just decided to punch you with out any warning, then you are going to get punched, unless you are very quick or constantly on a state of alertness, just incase..
> that said the subconscious brain has far quicker reactions that the conscious Brian. And if you drill enough on reaction to a stimulus, a fast movement perhaps you can train yourself to react /counter at the level of subconsciousness that makes you very difficult to hit even with a,sucker punch. That's why the endless repeating of drills and forms are so useful in priming your subconscious in to a) reacting and b) reacting the correct way. As soon as you start to think, you are to slow



Not really. Not if you are relying on your subconscious to do too many things at too fast a rate. You do train to react quickly. But being quick in a fight you use tactics to trick the system a bit.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Not really. Not if you are relying on your subconscious to do too many things at too fast a rate. You do train to react quickly. But being quick in a fight you use tactics to trick the system a bit.


but my sub conscious is far more able than my conscious self. Provided it has been programed to make the right decision


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You're assuming this requires conscious thought ("trying to pick out"). That's not how skilled response works. Baseball batters don't think about whether the pitch is slow or fast, curved or straight. They just recognize the cues. I can recognize someone's weight moving forward pretty easily, and I simply use what works with that pattern of movement.
> 
> As for the other comment, this isn't a game, so I'm not playing anything. You're making unsupported statements and getting condescending. Commenting on that is not _ad hominem_ - it's an acknowledgement of a problem with your argument.



I don't know how baseball batters think about baseball. But you are talking about 2 pretty big changes in response. Entering and using someones weight against them requires you to move your whole body.

Most people cant do it.

We can see it because the big energy given strike is a common strike.





And yet nobody enters and does anything cool with it.

You see it most often with a mid kick catch.





That is a pretty small movement with a really big result. Yet you dont see it happen all that often.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> but my sub conscious is far more able than my conscious self. Provided it has been programed to make the right decision



Yeah but you have super fast reflexes. And so can do things other people cant. 

I don't have super fast reflexes and so create a dynamic that does not require them to function.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> I don't know how baseball batters think about baseball. But you are talking about 2 pretty big changes in response. Entering and using someones weight against them requires you to move your whole body.
> 
> Most people cant do it.
> 
> We can see it because the big energy given strike is a common strike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet nobody enters and does anything cool with it.
> 
> I am not suggesting ad hominem. I was saying you were being a whiney *****.  it's an acknowledgement of a problem with your argument.


is this the old, if they don't dp it in mma it doesn't work argument ?


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> I don't know how baseball batters think about baseball. But you are talking about 2 pretty big changes in response. Entering and using someones weight against them requires you to move your whole body.
> 
> Most people cant do it.
> 
> We can see it because the big energy given strike is a common strike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet nobody enters and does anything cool with it


With that big old hoss energy train going in that direction... the proper play would be to just get out of its way, right? Then, when he's redirecting... that'd be where/when.  You said you did this yourself, I think. Isn't that cool enough?  or, are you referring to nobody doing a whiz-bang thing at the end (rather the impact zone) of the big power load?


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Yeah but you have super fast reflexes. And so can do things other people cant.
> 
> I don't have super fast reflexes and so create a dynamic that does not require them to function.


but that's my point, you do have super fast reflex's . You just not using them. Conscious reflex time is usually about 3ths of a second, then you have to pick an action of what to do and then do it. At least half a second. You subconscious reflex's are a,10th of that. You just need to develop them and trust them


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> With that big old hoss energy train going in that direction... the proper play would be to just get out of its way, right? Then, when he's redirecting... that'd be where/when.  You said you did this yourself, I think. Isn't that cool enough?  or, are you referring to nobody doing a whiz-bang thing at the end (rather the impact zone) of the big power load?



Krav maga the guy or something would be cool.






Which I have tried. But generally still coming too fast. 

How about some sort of cool ninja throw where you use their force against them.

But generally out of the way is best case.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> but that's my point, you do have super fast reflex's . You just not using them. Conscious reflex time is usually about 3ths of a second, then you have to pick an action of what to do and then do it. At least half a second. You subconscious reflex's are a,10th of that. You just need to develop them and trust them



A tenth of a third of a second?

That is pretty quick. I am suprised anyone ever gets hit with reflexes that good.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> A tenth of a third of a second?
> 
> That is pretty quick. I am suprised anyone ever gets hit with reflexes that good.




the ones with reflex's that good generaly don't, unless they are fighting someone with faster reflex's of course

its a 10 0f half a second, there os no decision making time as you react as you have been programmed, so that speeds up a bit.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> the ones with reflex's that good generaly don't, unless they are fighting someone with faster reflex's of course



Those guys who never get hit in fights?

Hmmmmmmmm.............


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Those guys who never get hit in fights?
> 
> Hmmmmmmmm.............


have a google on sub conscious reaction time.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> is this the old, if they don't do it in mma it doesn't work argument ?



MMA is an easy way to provide visable evidence that something is happening. Lots of fights lots of different siuations and lots of it on video.

It is the same dynamic no matter where you take it. Unless you want to suggest gloces or a ref or rules or something changed that outcome.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> have a google on sub conscious reaction time.



Human Benchmark - Reaction Time Test

547ms

Or about 2 punches too slow

Ok. Got it to 479.0 top 9 percent.
Human Benchmark - User - Guest user

Half a second is still too slow.

And that was my finger. Not my whole body.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> there is also the 80/20 rule of economics'. They being that training so you can deal with 80% of attackers makes good sense in the use of time and resources. And 80 % of people are not trained fighter and even if they are they won't be very good ones


you know that's not a real rule.   Right?  You can literally apply it to anything.   Did you know that 20% of martial arts styles have 80% of the students?

20% of techniques cause 80% of the injuries.  You can literally make up anything.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> MMA is an easy way to provide visable evidence that something is happening. Lots of fights lots of different siuations and lots of it on video.
> 
> It is the same dynamic no matter where you take it. Unless you want to suggest gloces or a ref or rules or something changed that outcome.



at least by the time it gets to big shows and on you tube, they are a self selecting group of elite athletes , not uncommonly jacked up on steroids. And full of rage

heavy weight boxing champs would struggle against them, but then we don't get. Boxing doesn't work because its not in mma. Of mmaers competing in karate comps for that matter.


----------



## Pepsiman

I'll say this off the bat: depending on why you want to learn it, Aikido is a very good martial art, as far as self-defense goes. From all I've seen and read, it's deceptively technical. My two cents on the OP's central question is that any "hate" Aikido receives from MMA fans stems from the fact that the style isn't known to effectively transition into MMA training; I remember saying in another thread that Aikido was meant purely to defend against and safely neutralize the common thug, and I stand by that statement. The thing with Aikido is that you have to think about how./why it was developed, and what techniques and principles were stripped from it (Aikijujutsu/Japanese Jujutsu -> Judo -> Brazilian Jujitsu -> Aikido -> Small Circle Jujutsu). As well-suited for defending yourself Aikido is, it simply lacks in offensive options.

And to answer another question I read earlier (to paraphrase, "Why Steven Seagal is bad for Aikido?"), I personally think that numerous personal failures/shortcomings aside, his movies portray Aikido in a negative and hypocritical light. Out of all the stuff he's accused of lying about, one of the very few truths is that he was/is a very talented Aikido practitioner, and was indeed one of the very first Westerners to run a dojo in Japan. Having said that, the depiction of Aikido in his movies is basically everything that it's _against_; excessive violence, aggression, and the deliberate harm of others. While there are a lot of con artists who'll try to promote their own bastardized version of Aikido featuring chi energy/no-touch KO's, Steven Seagal can be considered just as bad a role model for the art.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Human Benchmark - Reaction Time Test
> 
> 547ms
> 
> Or about 2 punches too slow
> 
> Ok. Got it to 479.0 top 9 percent.
> Human Benchmark - User - Guest user
> 
> Half a second is still too slow.
> 
> And that was my finger. Not my whole body.


god you have got slow reactions haven't you, you need to work on that, start by practicing catching a ball


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> you know that's not a real rule.   Right?  You can literally apply it to anything.   Did you know that 20% of martial arts styles have 80% of the students?
> 
> 20% of techniques cause 80% of the injuries.  You can literally make up anything.


well yes it is a real rule,its called the law of diminishing  returns


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> well yes it is a real rule,its called the law of diminishing  returns


It's actually called the Pareto principle, and it is misused like crazy.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> It's actually called the Pareto principle, and it is misused like crazy.


I knew that but,couldn't spell pareto, yes it is, but not by me, I used it correctly. There is an optimal point, where investing addition resources', in this case time and,effort. To be good enough to defends against an attacker you will probably never be attacked by is pointless,


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> at least by the time it gets to big shows and on you tube, they are a self selecting group of elite athletes , not uncommonly jacked up on steroids. And full of rage
> 
> heavy weight boxing champs would struggle against them, but then we don't get. Boxing doesn't work because its not in mma. Of mmaers competing in karate comps for that matter.



Which is nice but has nothing to do with my point. Which is up to and including elite athletes people are not even getting out of the way of big winging right hands.  Let alone entering and throwing people off it. 

Steroid rage should work in Aikidos favor by the way.  Rage was one of the components that makes Aikido work.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> god you have got slow reactions haven't you, you need to work on that, start by practicing catching a ball



Given I am top 9% I will suggest everyone does exept you.  Which is what i said earlier.

I noticed your score is missing by the way.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> I knew that but,couldn't spell pareto, yes it is, but not by me, I used it correctly. There is an optimal point, where investing addition resources', in this case time and,effort. To be good enough to defends against an attacker you will probably never be attacked by is pointless,


did you know 80% of people who use the 80/20 rule eat 20% of the world's cashews?   It's true.   Science FTW!


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Which is nice but has nothing to do with my point. Which is up to and including elite athletes people are not even getting out of the way of big winging right hands.  Let alone entering and throwing people off it.
> 
> Steroid rage should work in Aikidos favor by the way.  Rage was one of the components that makes Aikido work.


no, they are going to beat anyone up, boxer karate, judo and,aikido, but its only ackidio that gets the flack.
rage might be bad, but rage backed up with big muscles is a hard, combination


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Given I am top 9% I will suggest everyone does exept you.  Which is what i said earlier.
> 
> I noticed your score is missing by the way.


top 9% of the people who have taken the test or top 9% of the actual population? The average is between 2 and 3 10 ths of a second and you are at 5 10 ths of a second

my conscious reaction time is less than 2ths

my point was that sub conscious reaction time is quicker, but some what hard to measure


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> no, they are going to beat anyone up, boxer karate, judo and,aikido, but its only ackidio that gets the flack.
> rage might be bad, but rage backed up with big muscles is a hard, combination



Because I have an Aikido instructor telling me that he can reliably counter something that those guys can't 

With no indication of how he can possibly achieve it. 

Aikido should get flack if they can't do what they say they can do.  Especially if that person is trusting that instructor to give them a skill they may actually need.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> top 9% of the people who have taken the test or top 9% of the actual population? The average is between 2 and 3 10 ths of a second and you are at 5 10 ths of a second
> 
> my conscious reaction time is less than 2ths
> 
> my point was that sub conscious reaction time is quicker, but some what hard to measure



Do the test.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Just want to point out that a really really good batter misses almost every time.  They get three strikes every at bat and even then don't hit more than 1/3 of the time.
> 
> I think the key is to expect to fail and prepare for contingency.


Yes, but he's dealing with a small object coming nearly straight in, not attached to a person who can be disrupted. And "miss" includes when he actually hits it, but someone catches it, or it goes where he doesn't want it to. Not much like what we face when dealing with punches.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> I am with Drop Bear on this, I can't think of any reason to consciously train against a sloppy attacker over a good one and an art that relies on the attacker giving away his own balance (which would be the "aiki" part of Gerry's training if I understand correctly) would be highly unreliable.
> 
> There's a saying in French that goes "he who can do more, can do less", which means here that if you can handle a good hook punch for example, you'll be even more able to deal with a sloppy haymaker.


Very different openings available from a good hook and a sloppy haymaker, when dealing with taking structure for a throw. You can apply one to the other, where they cross over, but that doesn't make the tools for one obsolete. Interestingly, the only real difference is how they end up at the point of the technique.

And I'd agree. If an art is only useful if the guy gives up his balance on his own, it's going to have major weaknesses.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not really. Not if you are relying on your subconscious to do too many things at too fast a rate. You do train to react quickly. But being quick in a fight you use tactics to trick the system a bit.


None of that changes that your previous statement isn't really accurate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I don't know how baseball batters think about baseball. But you are talking about 2 pretty big changes in response. Entering and using someones weight against them requires you to move your whole body.
> 
> Most people cant do it.
> 
> We can see it because the big energy given strike is a common strike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet nobody enters and does anything cool with it.
> 
> You see it most often with a mid kick catch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a pretty small movement with a really big result. Yet you dont see it happen all that often.


I'm not sure how showing skilled people throwing skilled punches is supposed to be a counter, given I've said those are a different animal.

As for moving the whole body, pretty much all throws use that. Try to do a takedown without it. Heck, a wide range of punching involves stepping in, too. So, I'm not sure what your point is about having to move the body. We all do it, kind of a lot.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure how showing skilled people throwing skilled punches is supposed to be a counter, given I've said those are a different animal.
> 
> As for moving the whole body, pretty much all throws use that. Try to do a takedown without it. Heck, a wide range of punching involves stepping in, too. So, I'm not sure what your point is about having to move the body. We all do it, kind of a lot.



Because you have one set of counters for skilled punches and one set for unskilled punches and are somehow able to determine which is which in half or a quater of a second depending on what your reaction time is.

Then within that time you think you can move your whole body in to position to take advantage of that unskilled punch. Unless of course it is a skilled punch which means you could either be moving in to a punch or just standing there like a deer in the headlights while you are deciding what to do.

here is a heap of unskilled punches. Again showing people have no time to do what you are suggesting they can do.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> here is a heap of unskilled punches. Again showing people have no time to do what you are suggesting they can do.


I only watched the first five, and then pretty much got the jist.  Five punches, five knockouts, I am curious to know why you class these as unskilled?

They are not wild haymakers and the attackers just get lucky, they are relatively untelegraphed, powerful strikes delivered with intent to the right target to secure a KO.  If you class these as unskilled, what are classing as skilled, or did the unskilled punches come later on in the video?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Because you have one set of counters for skilled punches and one set for unskilled punches and are somehow able to determine which is which in half or a quater of a second depending on what your reaction time is.
> 
> Then within that time you think you can move your whole body in to position to take advantage of that unskilled punch. Unless of course it is a skilled punch which means you could either be moving in to a punch or just standing there like a deer in the headlights while you are deciding what to do.
> 
> here is a heap of unskilled punches. Again showing people have no time to do what you are suggesting they can do.


That's actually my point about the difference. Time to recognize them? That time is the same whether you take your approach or mine. I'm not standing there wondering if it's a good punch or bad (and neither are you). We're both recognizing (pattern recognition) the attack. Or we aren't. If we do, we respond with something appropriate. If we don't, we respond with something inappropriate or fail to respond. It's not a matter of choosing between the two, but a matter of recognizing the thing that's happening. We do this all the time - it's how you know when a shoot for your legs is coming. You don't have to stop and wonder whether it's a shoot for the legs or a drop seoi nage or an arm drag. Your pattern recognition simply identifies it as what it is. If you screw up, they succeed. If you match it (and have an effective counter in your ready toolkit), they fail. So, I'm not adding another decision, I'm just storing a pattern that matches the less-skilled punch, making it recognizable the same way that shoot is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Because you have one set of counters for skilled punches and one set for unskilled punches and are somehow able to determine which is which in half or a quater of a second depending on what your reaction time is.
> 
> Then within that time you think you can move your whole body in to position to take advantage of that unskilled punch. Unless of course it is a skilled punch which means you could either be moving in to a punch or just standing there like a deer in the headlights while you are deciding what to do.
> 
> here is a heap of unskilled punches. Again showing people have no time to do what you are suggesting they can do.


I didn't look at the video before my other post (not pertinent to the point I was making). These appear to all be sucker punches, and most are nicely compact, started from well within striking range, with only a bit of weight-forward commitment. Those aren't things anyone is likely to enter against. Those - if you can spot them - get blocked and slipped for survival.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I didn't look at the video before my other post (not pertinent to the point I was making). These appear to all be sucker punches, and most are nicely compact, started from well within striking range, with only a bit of weight-forward commitment. Those aren't things anyone is likely to enter against. Those - if you can spot them - get blocked and slipped for survival.



Yeah I thought you would find a way those dont apply either. Witch just means this perfect strike you are training for may not be the one you get. And is seeming less and less comon.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's actually my point about the difference. Time to recognize them? That time is the same whether you take your approach or mine. I'm not standing there wondering if it's a good punch or bad (and neither are you). We're both recognizing (pattern recognition) the attack. Or we aren't. If we do, we respond with something appropriate. If we don't, we respond with something inappropriate or fail to respond. It's not a matter of choosing between the two, but a matter of recognizing the thing that's happening. We do this all the time - it's how you know when a shoot for your legs is coming. You don't have to stop and wonder whether it's a shoot for the legs or a drop seoi nage or an arm drag. Your pattern recognition simply identifies it as what it is. If you screw up, they succeed. If you match it (and have an effective counter in your ready toolkit), they fail. So, I'm not adding another decision, I'm just storing a pattern that matches the less-skilled punch, making it recognizable the same way that shoot is.



You have to adopt a different move to stop a shoot. You dont have adopt a different move to stop a sloppy punch vs a crisp one. You can if you are a top tier competition fighter and you start working peoples games. But that is not self defence.

By the way if you look like you want to shoot because you are known for your wrestling and then uppercut you can then double bluff them. But is kind of over engeneered for what you are trying to achieve in SD.

about 6 minutes in.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> I only watched the first five, and then pretty much got the jist.  Five punches, five knockouts, I am curious to know why you class these as unskilled?
> 
> They are not wild haymakers and the attackers just get lucky, they are relatively untelegraphed, powerful strikes delivered with intent to the right target to secure a KO.  If you class these as unskilled, what are classing as skilled, or did the unskilled punches come later on in the video?



Well. There is your issue. Because the dogma is that people on the street will most likley throw an unskilled punch. Now if people are not throwing unskilled punches then the dogma may not reflect the reality.

Doesnt phase me as good defence that will stop a skilled punch will stop an unskilled one. So I have taken the safest option. Not good If you have trained yourself to stop an unskilled punch though.

Gpseymour wouldn't accept an overhand right thrown and connected as relevant because it was in a cage. Even though in theory the other guy had plenty of time to see it and counter it.

I guess we just wont see this style of punching anywhere.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Well. There is your issue. Because the dogma is that people on the street will most likley throw an unskilled punch. Now if people are not throwing unskilled punches then the dogma may not reflect the reality.
> 
> Doesnt phase me as good defence that will stop a skilled punch will stop an unskilled one. So I have taken the safest option. Not good If you have trained yourself to stop an unskilled punch though.
> 
> Gpseymour wouldn't accept an overhand right thrown and connected as relevant because it was in a cage. Even though in theory the other guy had plenty of time to see it and counter it.
> 
> I guess we just wont see this style of punching anywhere.


butt those have made the video because the guy fell over when hit. There are millions of punches thrown were no one falls over. So its not a representative sample to build as case on.

don't forget you need to make a stand alone argument


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> butt those have made the video because the guy fell over when hit. There are millions of punches thrown were no one falls over. So its not a representative sample to build as case on.
> 
> don't forget you need to make a stand alone argument



Good point. Statistically we should be training for strikes so terrible they dont even hit the target.






Not really helping the case though.


----------



## drop bear

Lets try this. this a brophy tent. Where for a fun night you get off chops and then challenge a pro boxer.

Now by the third round the boxer can do any old thing he wants because by then he knows exactly how crap his oponant is. Including ludicrous ideas like throwing scorpion punches.

He doesn't fire that stuff off on the start of the first round because he has no idea who he is facing.

Fighting conservatively.






Now you can train things like the scorpian to be used against terrible punching. But you should leave that for impressing people and mocking your opponent. Not for serious self defence.

And the methods that work against good striking work against bad striking. Why do you need separate methods?


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Good point. Statistically we should be training for strikes so terrible they dont even hit the target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really helping the case though.


well I do train for punches that don't hit, or rather I train to not be there any more. You cant train to be hit, if they hit you they hurt you, if they hit you hard enough you fall over. There is no training that can stop that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Gpseymour wouldn't accept an overhand right thrown and connected as relevant because it was in a cage. Even though in theory the other guy had plenty of time to see it and counter it.


That's BS, just so you know, in case you weren't aware of what you were spewing.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's BS, just so you know, in case you weren't aware of what you were spewing.



I am trying to show commonalities under different circumstances to support my idea.  You wouldn't accept trained fighters.  Because you think that doesn't apply. So I gave you untrained fighters.  And even trained vs untrained fighters.

And you are still not happy.

I feel like I am doing all the work in this discussion.

I mean if just calling an idea BS was the end of it I would have done it 20 posts ago and saved myself trying to explain why it is BS.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> Well. There is your issue. Because the dogma is that people on the street will most likley throw an unskilled punch.


I think I get it now, are you saying that people think punches on the street are unskilled, but you have posted the video to show that in reality they are skilled?


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> I think I get it now, are you saying that people think punches on the street are unskilled, but you have posted the video to show that in reality they are skilled?



Not even.

I am saying treat them as skilled.  And the unskilled will take care of themselves.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I am trying to show commonalities under different circumstances to support my idea.  You wouldn't accept trained fighters.  Because you think that doesn't apply. So I gave you untrained fighters.  And even trained vs untrained fighters.
> 
> And you are still not happy.
> 
> I feel like I am doing all the work in this discussion.
> 
> I mean if just calling an idea BS was the end of it I would have done it 20 posts ago and saved myself trying to explain why it is BS.


No, I said trained fighters are different. I started with that position, so I didn't say it didn't apply, I said it wasn't contrary to my original statement. You are doing a lot of work to show things that don't fit one side of my statement, which doesn't really refute anything, since I actually said there are two different things to be dealt with. If I say a golf ball is different from a cricket ball, posting a lot of pictures of cricket balls doesn't refute that statement.

I'll have some time this weekend to link some videos that show what I'm talking about on the other side.


----------



## Paul_D

drop bear said:


> Not even.
> 
> I am saying treat them as skilled.  And the unskilled will take care of themselves.


So are the punches in video skilled or unskilled in your opinion?


----------



## jobo

Paul_D said:


> So are the punches in video skilled or unskilled in your opinion?


its a false choice they are nether. Punching in its self is a,skill ergo all punched are skilled or by comparison with a pro boxer they are unskilled


----------



## Paul_D

jobo said:


> its a false choice they are nether. Punching in its self is a,skill ergo all punched are skilled or by comparison with a pro boxer they are unskilled


You said that without moving your lips DB


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> So are the punches in video skilled or unskilled in your opinion?



Unskilled.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I am trying to show commonalities under different circumstances to support my idea.  You wouldn't accept trained fighters.  Because you think that doesn't apply. So I gave you untrained fighters.  And even trained vs untrained fighters.
> 
> And you are still not happy.
> 
> I feel like I am doing all the work in this discussion.
> 
> I mean if just calling an idea BS was the end of it I would have done it 20 posts ago and saved myself trying to explain why it is BS.


Okay, literally the first applicable video I looked at on Youtube, searching by "bully". I bypassed those that were about how to fight/defend/stop a bully, and went with the first one that was a compilation. Nearly every instance shows someone off-balance and/or over-committed in their attack. Nearly always the first attack. People reach, people lean forward or away, people strike ineffectively. I could find dozens more of these - I know because I come across them on a regular basis. And in this one we also get to see some skilled (one even looks trained) deliveries. Both happen.




2:50 (both guys in the first moments)
3:40 (the only one getting punches in)
4:50 (the opening attack)
5:30 (both kids)
7:00 (the girl who loses her ****)


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> How about some sort of cool ninja throw where you use their force against them.
> 
> But generally out of the way is best case.


I don't know if ninja have the set of throws that genrally fall in line with my thought of, "While you're headed on by... take That with ya!"  But, if you converted his horizontal vector into a vertical vector int he down direction by... like... tripping him, that'd be way neat-O.  No ninja needed.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Okay, literally the first applicable video I looked at on Youtube, searching by "bully". I bypassed those that were about how to fight/defend/stop a bully, and went with the first one that was a compilation. Nearly every instance shows someone off-balance and/or over-committed in their attack. Nearly always the first attack. People reach, people lean forward or away, people strike ineffectively. I could find dozens more of these - I know because I come across them on a regular basis. And in this one we also get to see some skilled (one even looks trained) deliveries. Both happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2:50 (both guys in the first moments)
> 3:40 (the only one getting punches in)
> 4:50 (the opening attack)
> 5:30 (both kids)
> 7:00 (the girl who loses her ****)



And so you go on youtube and replicate a bad fight and then try to develop counters specific to that.

Like some sort of Michael page style thing.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> I don't know if ninja have the set of throws that genrally fall in line with my thought of, "While you're headed on by... take That with ya!"  But, if you converted his horizontal vector into a vertical vector int he down direction by... like... tripping him, that'd be way neat-O.  No ninja needed.



I agree. and we try stupid stuff in sparring because if we pull it of it would be neat-O as well. 

But if there are consequences to losing that fight the neat-O factor is less important than the not get punched in the head being a goose-O.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> And so you go on youtube and replicate a bad fight and then try to develop counters specific to that.
> 
> Like some sort of Michael page style thing.


I sort of see your point, but maybe we have different perspectives. I'm reasonably sure that of I get into a fight with even an average level mma fighter, a kick boxer, a boxer even a bjj er . I will lose. But as I have no intention of getting in to an octagon/ ring or going down the bjj gym and shouting my mouth off, this is of no real concern to me. It's not that I train to only fight bad fighters, as you would have it. It's just i am were I am in my development and if I have to use my skills in real life then there are over whelming odds that it will be against an untrained fighter .


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> I sort of see your point, but maybe we have different perspectives. I'm reasonably sure that of I get into a fight with even an average level mma fighter, a kick boxer, a boxer even a bjj er . I will lose. But as I have no intention of getting in to an octagon/ ring or going down the bjj gym and shouting my mouth off, this is of no real concern to me. It's not that I train to only fight bad fighters, as you would have it. It's just i am were I am in my development and if I have to use my skills in real life then there are over whelming odds that it will be against an untrained fighter .



Yeah but i assume you are training to combat good fighters. Even if your level of development isn't there.

Not this is how you defend a bad punch.  This is how you defend a good punch.

And this is an idea that is supposed to be specifically catered towards self defence.

I love a cartwheel when I do capoeira.  Not really for self defence though.

I mean if Aikido even leaned towards high percentage low risk.  It would be taking some pretty big steps forward.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Yeah but i assume you are training to combat good fighters. Even if your level of development isn't there.
> 
> Not this is how you defend a bad punch.  This is how you defend a good punch.
> 
> And this is an idea that is supposed to be specifically catered towards self defence.
> 
> I love a cartwheel when I do capoeira.  Not really for self defence though.
> 
> I mean if Aikido even leaned towards high percentage low risk.  It would be taking some pretty big steps forward.


well that's not really why I am training, I could robustly defend myself against most people before I started training. I am now considerably fitter than I was then. So that ability will have increased. I dont see any likelyhood of me being attacked by a trained fighter whilst outwalking my dog, so no I'm not training to be able to deal with good fighters, I'm training to deal more effectively with drunks jumkies muggers and random idiots with pit bulls. Who are almost certainly not good fighters by your measure


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> well that's not really why I am training, I could robustly defend myself against most people before I started training. I am now considerably fitter than I was then. So that ability will have increased. I dont see any likelyhood of me being attacked by a trained fighter whilst outwalking my dog, so no I'm not training to be able to deal with good fighters, I'm training to deal more effectively with drunks jumkies muggers and random idiots with pit bulls. Who are almost certainly not good fighters by your measure



Yeah but do you train specifically to combat drunks or bad fighters?

"Sorry that hook punch is a bit tight.  Can you make it worse.  And mabye over balance a bit?  I am trying to train for the street here. "


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Yeah but do you train specifically to combat drunks or bad fighters?
> 
> "Sorry that hook punch is a bit tight.  Can you make it worse.  And mabye over balance a bit?  I am trying to train for the street here. "


but we are back at the beginning. I would expect my oppoinent to over commit over extend and go of balance, coz that's what 90% of people will do. My techniques' will deal with that with ease, if they are using tight compact techniques'. Il give up and hand over my wallet. Because I am going to lose anyway. I am as you put it training for the street , why would I worry about defending against a trained fighter


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> I didn't look at the video before my other post (not pertinent to the point I was making). These appear to all be sucker punches, and most are nicely compact, started from well within striking range, with only a bit of weight-forward commitment. Those aren't things anyone is likely to enter against. Those - if you can spot them - get blocked and slipped for survival.


The point I take from that video is... maintain the distance. To be inside (mai ai)is to be blasted.

Also... if you're that close to a potential threat, get your hands up and make the guy go through them.

Crap... now I sound like Geoff.


----------



## JP3

Paul_D said:


> So are the punches in video skilled or unskilled in your opinion?


I don't know about him, but to me, those were skilled punches, thrown by people who figured out how to successfully sucker punch someone, i.e. trained and skilled.  Training doesn't have to happen in a gym, or a dojo... training can happen anywhere someone learns something and works on it.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> but we are back at the beginning. I would expect my oppoinent to over commit over extend and go of balance, coz that's what 90% of people will do. My techniques' will deal with that with ease, if they are using tight compact techniques'. Il give up and hand over my wallet. Because I am going to lose anyway. I am as you put it training for the street , why would I worry about defending against a trained fighter



Well you shouldn't.

 But I will tell you why I should. Being able to deal with a trained fighter will help me deal with an untrained fighter. I do not suffer a disadvantage if a strike has more mistakes in it or I have more time to deal with it. That works in my favor. If I can dodge a bullet. I can dodge a tennis ball.

Plus the more trained fighters who are leaning to deal with untrained fighters also work in my favor. Because while I can deal with untrained fighters. They can't as effectively deal with me.  So there is a whole section of trained fighters that have now put themselves at a disadvantage.

And I will be more equiped to deal with a trained fighter. Because I am dealing with trained fighters.

So I get to deal with a much larger range of circumstances with a smaller range of strategies. And while none of my strategies will be considered neat-O they will be more likely to work.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> I don't know about him, but to me, those were skilled punches, thrown by people who figured out how to successfully sucker punch someone, i.e. trained and skilled.  Training doesn't have to happen in a gym, or a dojo... training can happen anywhere someone learns something and works on it.



No. I am pretty sure most punches are unskilled in the street. That is why there is all that time dedicated towards defending them.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> The point I take from that video is... maintain the distance. To be inside (mai ai)is to be blasted.
> 
> Also... if you're that close to a potential threat, get your hands up and make the guy go through them.
> 
> Crap... now I sound like Geoff.



Position will save you more than a guard in a bare knuckle fight. Just too much can go wrong too quickly.

Of course a guard will save you more than no guard.

So fence, angle off.

you have a lot less control over the direction of this sort of fight. Because you are moving forwards and taking risks.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> I mean if Aikido even leaned towards high percentage low risk.  It would be taking some pretty big steps forward.


If you're looking at the foo-foo stuff while dancing around in hakama, the pretty ukemi being taken while going with and not fighting techniques while "thinking" all that stuff works just the same as on the street.... I'm with that.

But, that's not what I do.  I think I'm doing aikido when I'm doing the below, though I may not be using aikido techniques, whatever those are. armbar is armbar, we had that discussion in May.

Crisp attacks get blocked when it's required, and opponents get struck, hard, when openings appear, and they always do -- that's a two-way street.

Guy swings big right slip right, catch it on guard twist back right and block right while firing counterpunch, or your striking technique de jour, if opening is there to get an arm drag to take the back do that.... fighting up the middle is no fun.

Or, big right hand comes in and you duck, dodge, slip  whatever and now you are immediately behind them.  Surely this has happened to you.  People throw WAY more punches than they hit with, it's worse than the baseball pitcher vs. hitter comparison, typically.  And for this one, the only difference between skilled and unskilled is that skilled guys have a higher batting average and throw the bat (i.e. lose their balance, overextend, overcommit, etc) less often.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> No. I am pretty sure most punches are unskilled in the street. That is why there is all that time dedicated towards defending them.


Sophistry.  Or, sarcasm. My detector's batteries are almost dead.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Position will save you more than a guard in a bare knuckle fight. Just too much can go wrong too quickly.
> 
> Of course a guard will save you more than no guard.
> 
> So fence, angle off.
> 
> you have a lot less control over the direction of this sort of fight. Because you are moving forwards and taking risks.


You wrote that like you thought I didn't know that, Drop.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> If you're looking at the foo-foo stuff while dancing around in hakama, the pretty ukemi being taken while going with and not fighting techniques while "thinking" all that stuff works just the same as on the street.... I'm with that.
> 
> But, that's not what I do.  I think I'm doing aikido when I'm doing the below, though I may not be using aikido techniques, whatever those are. armbar is armbar, we had that discussion in May.
> 
> Crisp attacks get blocked when it's required, and opponents get struck, hard, when openings appear, and they always do -- that's a two-way street.
> 
> Guy swings big right slip right, catch it on guard twist back right and block right while firing counterpunch, or your striking technique de jour, if opening is there to get an arm drag to take the back do that.... fighting up the middle is no fun.
> 
> Or, big right hand comes in and you duck, dodge, slip  whatever and now you are immediately behind them.  Surely this has happened to you.  People throw WAY more punches than they hit with, it's worse than the baseball pitcher vs. hitter comparison, typically.  And for this one, the only difference between skilled and unskilled is that skilled guys have a higher batting average and throw the bat (i.e. lose their balance, overextend, overcommit, etc) less often.



It happens in a fight where you have a bit of time to figure out what the other guy is going to do. Or where your basics are to a point you can start taking risks. I was going to say sports fight here. But a street fight could go long enough.

And then the way to train a crap punch if you were that mad keen on the idea. In the middle of sparring heve them throw an over-committed shot. See if you can pick it up from the committed ones of the bat while moving. Because the idea is you are supposed to know the difference in that split second the punch comes.

If you can pull that off I would be more convinced your theory could work.

And would still not advise it for self defence. Because of the risks.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> You wrote that like you thought I didn't know that, Drop.



Yeah well Geoff doesn't.


----------



## Paul_D

JP3 said:


> I don't know about him, but to me, those were skilled punches, thrown by people who figured out how to successfully sucker punch someone, i.e. trained and skilled.  Training doesn't have to happen in a gym, or a dojo... training can happen anywhere someone learns something and works on it.


Indeed, the second one in particular (guys smoking cigarettes) the guy was clearly an experienced criminal, using distraction/deception (have you got a fag/light etc) and then takes the guy out of the game before he even knows he's in it.  He may not be a skilled "fighter" buts he's a skilled criminal, and that's what you're dealing with when it comes to SD.  Like you say, he may not have learnt it in a gym, but it doesn't stop him being skilled.  The few others that I watched were all powerful, on target, reasonably untelegraphed and got the job done.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And so you go on youtube and replicate a bad fight and then try to develop counters specific to that.
> 
> Like some sort of Michael page style thing.


So, suddenly getting some input from video evidence, and using that to inform your training, is a bad thing? Kind of contrary to your argument against anecdotal evidence, isn't it?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I mean if Aikido even leaned towards high percentage low risk. It would be taking some pretty big steps forward.


I mean, if you understood what you were talking about when you discuss other arts, that would be a big step forward. You have assumed - and continue to assume - things about what I (and others) do, without evidence. Then you try to support your view by showing videos that sometimes have no relevance to the argument at hand, sometimes support one side of the argument while ignoring the fact that they don't actually refute anything the other side is saying, and sometimes - just sometimes - actually bring relevant points to the argument.

Try more of the latter, and a lot less strawman and unsupported assumptions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> The point I take from that video is... maintain the distance. To be inside (mai ai)is to be blasted.
> 
> Also... if you're that close to a potential threat, get your hands up and make the guy go through them.
> 
> Crap... now I sound like Geoff.


Yep. The kind of stuff most of us would consider basics.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> I don't know about him, but to me, those were skilled punches, thrown by people who figured out how to successfully sucker punch someone, i.e. trained and skilled.  Training doesn't have to happen in a gym, or a dojo... training can happen anywhere someone learns something and works on it.


And being sucker punches (and fairly skilled ones), they fall into a group that's pretty hard to deal with in any style. (For clarity, when I say "sucker punch", by definition it's not anticipated by the punchee, and there aren't a lot of clear visual cues beforehand.)


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I mean, if you understood what you were talking about when you discuss other arts, that would be a big step forward. You have assumed - and continue to assume - things about what I (and others) do, without evidence. Then you try to support your view by showing videos that sometimes have no relevance to the argument at hand, sometimes support one side of the argument while ignoring the fact that they don't actually refute anything the other side is saying, and sometimes - just sometimes - actually bring relevant points to the argument.
> 
> Try more of the latter, and a lot less strawman and unsupported assumptions.



You dont understand how self defence actually works. You are trying to explain how you want self defence to work. Because that gells with your training methods.

So you create a circumstance in training that people throw a technique that makes your defence work. (Your version of a sloppy street punch) This does not reflect the reality of anything. Neither street or sport. Just your idealised version of martial arts.

When we see sparring. We see a very predictable respons of deer in the headlights as the reality does not meet the expectation.

You suggested that to work effectively a punch needs to be thrown with intent. The first video was a punch thrown with intent.

You decided that that wasn't the right punch as both parties were trained. And that most agressors wont be trained.

So I showed punches thrown with intent by people who were not trained. And the definition expanded to people who were not formally trained but either skilled or experienced. And again does not fit in to your right sort of punch.

And so you again found some punches that met your ideal version of a punch you wanted. And they were not very effective punches.

Every time you limit what punch you can use. You take away from the argument that you are training for a common punch.

But you dont want a common punch you want an idealic punch that suits your method of defence.

Rather than training a method of defence to suit an actual punch you might face.

And you don't realise any of this which is why you think my comments are strawmen or irrelevant or mean or I am just too damn blond. Or whatever.

You are desperate to hold on to an ideal.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So, suddenly getting some input from video evidence, and using that to inform your training, is a bad thing? Kind of contrary to your argument against anecdotal evidence, isn't it?



Can I become an aikido intructor from watching videos?  I would first need a grounding in Aikido.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> If you're looking at the foo-foo stuff while dancing around in hakama, the pretty ukemi being taken while going with and not fighting techniques while "thinking" all that stuff works just the same as on the street.... I'm with that.
> 
> But, that's not what I do.  I think I'm doing aikido when I'm doing the below, though I may not be using aikido techniques, whatever those are. armbar is armbar, we had that discussion in May.
> 
> Crisp attacks get blocked when it's required, and opponents get struck, hard, when openings appear, and they always do -- that's a two-way street.
> 
> Guy swings big right slip right, catch it on guard twist back right and block right while firing counterpunch, or your striking technique de jour, if opening is there to get an arm drag to take the back do that.... fighting up the middle is no fun.
> 
> Or, big right hand comes in and you duck, dodge, slip  whatever and now you are immediately behind them.  Surely this has happened to you.  People throw WAY more punches than they hit with, it's worse than the baseball pitcher vs. hitter comparison, typically.  And for this one, the only difference between skilled and unskilled is that skilled guys have a higher batting average and throw the bat (i.e. lose their balance, overextend, overcommit, etc) less often.



Some people are desperate to believe their system will work to the point that they start to bend the rules of what an attacker will do.

Capoeira can be a good example because you can bust a guy in a roda. But pert of that is because he is doing capoeira at you. The openings can be created by the dynamics of the system itself.












Sport jujitsu may be an even better example.





And yes I know guys who have used capo and some really inadvisable BJJ in the street.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You dont understand how self defence actually works. You are trying to explain how you want self defence to work. Because that gells with your training methods.
> 
> So you create a circumstance in training that people throw a technique that makes your defence work. (Your version of a sloppy street punch) This does not reflect the reality of anything. Neither street or sport. Just your idealised version of martial arts.



Except it's not "my version" of anything. It's something we can see in video evidence that actually occurs.



> When we see sparring. We see a very predictable respons of dear in the headlights as the reality does not meet the expectation.


Except when people have also sparred. Which we do. Now, I might still be surprised by someone's skill, or run into an approach I've not trained for (something I love to run into - new stuff to work on), but that can happen to any of us, regardless of style.



> You suggested that to work effectively a punch needs to be thrown with intent. The first video was a punch thrown with intent.


This might be where you've gotten off the rails in understanding my point. Pretty much all punches are thrown with intent, unless they are feints. That's going to be as true for a skilled, controlled, and contained punch as it is for an over-committed one. The key point is the amount and method of weight commitment. Over-committed punches have a different dynamic, which can be taken advantage of. The same is true of under-committed punches (which we could arguably say lack "intent", I suppose).



> You decided that that wasn't the right punch as both parties were trained. And that most agressors wont be trained.


Not quite true. You keep ignoring that I've not said those things (skilled punches) don't exist. I've clearly said they do, and that they require a different approach than over-committed ones. So, that set of punches wasn't addressing what you were saying I was wrong about. If you say to me that there are a lot of white cars on the road, me pointing out a dozen red cars doesn't have any bearing on your statement.


> So I showed punches thrown with intent by people who were not trained. And the definition expanded to people who were not formally trained but either skilled or experienced. And again does not fit in to your right sort of punch.


That's a fair point. I tend to lump anyone with skill into the "trained" category. "Skilled" would be a better word. That part of the disagreement is on me.



> And so you again found some punches that met your ideal version of a punch you wanted. And they were not very effective punches.


Not "punch you wanted" - "punch that exists". Different thing. I'm not hoping for those (okay, I am - we all are - they're easier to deal with). They just happen to be the kind I mentioned earlier that happen fairly commonly. Again, it was literally the first video I clicked on after searching "bully" on Youtube. I didn't have to cherry-pick to find it.



> Every time you limit what punch you can use. You take away from the argument that you are training for a common punch.


Except, again, I didn't have to search hard to find several examples. It's actually pretty common to find in videos. If you search for KO's, you'll find more skilled punches (because they're more likely to result in KO). If you look at trained fighters, I hope to hell you'll see more skilled punches. But it's pretty easy to find evidence of unskilled punches. It's also pretty easy to find evidence of over-committed punches where someone's reaching to cover distance in anger (can't tell their skill level as clearly then).



> But you dont want a common punch you want an idealic punch that suits your method of defence.


Except that there's a lot of evidence of those punches being reasonably common. You've presented a false trail here, DB, and you should be aware of that. You're trying to make it look like I'm cherry-picking because I said your two sets of videos weren't evidence contrary to my point. Those weren't randomly selected videos - you chose them, claiming them to be counter evidence. It's not me cherry-picking the evidence - you chose that evidence to demonstrate that good punches happen - a point I made before you started down this rabbit hole.



> Rather than training a method of defence to suit an actual punch you might face.


Are you now claiming the video I posted doesn't represent an actual punch I might face? Or that I have ever said over-committed punches are the only punches that happen, or that they are all I train for? If so, you're lost deep in the woods.



> And you don't realise any of this which is why you think my comments are strawmen or irrelevant or mean or I am just too damn blond. Or whatever.
> 
> You are desperate to hold on to an ideal.


Except that I've pointed out several times where you are, in fact, arguing against something I've not said - the very definition of "strawman argument".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Some people are desperate to believe their system will work to the point that they start to bend the rules of what an attacker will do.
> 
> Capoeira can be a good example because you can bust a guy in a roda. But pert of that is because he is doing capoeira at you. The openings can be created by the dynamics of the system itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sport jujitsu may be an even better example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes I know guys who have used capo and some really inadvisable BJJ in the street.


And some people are so desperate to win an argument that they make false claims about what others are arguing. Just sayin'.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Can I become an aikido intructor from watching videos?  I would first need a grounding in Aikido.


That seems a complete _non sequitur_, DB.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Except when people have also sparred. Which we do. Now, I might still be surprised by someone's skill, or run into an approach I've not trained for (something I love to run into - new



Yeah and this is the kicker. So we can see full contact capoeira sparring and suggest it only works like it does because both people are doing capoeira. 

We can see sports jujitsu sparring and suggest that only works because both people are doing sports jujitsu.

We pretty much cant see Aikido sparring because nobody ever films it. So we cant get a guage on how realistic or relevant it is. 

I cant take the sparring argument if I cant see it.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That seems a complete _non sequitur_, DB.



Can you become a practical expert in defending attacks from watching videos?

I can fight anyone from the sidelines.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And some people are so desperate to win an argument that they make false claims about what others are arguing. Just sayin'.



pot meet kettle.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Are you now claiming the video I posted doesn't represent an actual punch I might face? Or that I have ever said over-committed punches are the only punches that happen, or that they are all I train for? If so, you're lost deep in the woods.



Ok. Show me an example of how you train against a realistic punch?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah and this is the kicker. So we can see full contact capoeira sparring and suggest it only works like it does because both people are doing capoeira.
> 
> We can see sports jujitsu sparring and suggest that only works because both people are doing sports jujitsu.
> 
> We pretty much cant see Aikido sparring because nobody ever films it. So we cant get a guage on how realistic or relevant it is.
> 
> I cant take the sparring argument if I cant see it.


I only mentioned it because you brought it up. The lack of video doesn't help the discussion. Most of the videos I can find of Aikido are either instructional or demonstrations. Very little live work against an opponent seems to show up in videos. In some cases, that's indicative of an issue in the art, but I do know there are Aikido schools that do live work against each other. I wish more of that made it on - would like to see what that looks like in more schools.

In many Aikido schools, there's no sparring (no striking-style sparring - just randori, which I'll talk about in a minute). Those folks will probably have that deer-in-headlights response. Put me in with a skilled striker, and you'll see someone who likes to disrupt hands. If my opponent is good at stopping that (and a skilled striker), I'm probably in trouble, because I don't spar as much as I should with people who can handle that.

Randori - in most Aikido schools - ends up being a lot like the Capoeira sparring. The "attacks" are creating opening that make the Aikido practice possible without alteration. My version of "randori" is just grappling (no strikes, except when we can't contain ourselves because an opening is too good). It looks more like Judo - more inside work, more pulling and pushing - because we're working against people who know how to counter what we're doing, and aren't worried about being punched (so, basically the same setup as Judo randori).

I've only rarely combined those two - grappling and punching - fully in sparring. Mostly, it's a safety issue. I've never had mats more than about 12' wide, and that's not enough space for that activity. For me, personally, when I combine them, I tend to use strikes and pressure to build openings (get inside on strikers, get grapplers to commit weight forward/backward).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok. Show me an example of how you train against a realistic punch?


I have literally zero videos of any of my training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> pot meet kettle.


And what argument of yours have I presented incorrectly? If I'm misunderstanding your point, perhaps that's part of the issue.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I only mentioned it because you brought it up. The lack of video doesn't help the discussion. Most of the videos I can find of Aikido are either instructional or demonstrations. Very little live work against an opponent seems to show up in videos. In some cases, that's indicative of an issue in the art, but I do know there are Aikido schools that do live work against each other. I wish more of that made it on - would like to see what that looks like in more schools.
> 
> In many Aikido schools, there's no sparring (no striking-style sparring - just randori, which I'll talk about in a minute). Those folks will probably have that deer-in-headlights response. Put me in with a skilled striker, and you'll see someone who likes to disrupt hands. If my opponent is good at stopping that (and a skilled striker), I'm probably in trouble, because I don't spar as much as I should with people who can handle that.
> 
> Randori - in most Aikido schools - ends up being a lot like the Capoeira sparring. The "attacks" are creating opening that make the Aikido practice possible without alteration. My version of "randori" is just grappling (no strikes, except when we can't contain ourselves because an opening is too good). It looks more like Judo - more inside work, more pulling and pushing - because we're working against people who know how to counter what we're doing, and aren't worried about being punched (so, basically the same setup as Judo randori).
> 
> I've only rarely combined those two - grappling and punching - fully in sparring. Mostly, it's a safety issue. I've never had mats more than about 12' wide, and that's not enough space for that activity. For me, personally, when I combine them, I tend to use strikes and pressure to build openings (get inside on strikers, get grapplers to commit weight forward/backward).



You need a set of kudo hats.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And what argument of yours have I presented incorrectly? If I'm misunderstanding your point, perhaps that's part of the issue.




I have made my point ten different ways.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I have made my point ten different ways.


And that doesn't answer the question. What part of your argument have I misrepresented?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You need a set of kudo hats.


I have one set of headgear similar to that. I thought I'd be able to wear my glasses under it, so I could spar with glasses on and allow head/face shots. Didn't work out. I'm still thinking it'll be useful for allowing face shots in more of the sparring sessions (troublesome for folks who have office jobs to go in with black eyes).


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> but we are back at the beginning. I would expect my oppoinent to over commit over extend and go of balance, coz that's what 90% of people will do. My techniques' will deal with that with ease, if they are using tight compact techniques'. Il give up and hand over my wallet. Because I am going to lose anyway. I am as you put it training for the street , why would I worry about defending against a trained fighter


Wait.  I'm confused.   I thought on the street, losing isn't an option.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Wait.  I'm confused.   I thought on the street, losing isn't an option.


let's have a reality check, there are people who will make mince meat of me and just about every other poster on here, all you can do is train physically and tecneque wise so that these people represent a small % of the population. And then rely on the fact that if you don't go round annoying people to the point where they want to hurt you, you are extremly unlikely to be attacked by them


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> let's have a reality check, there are people who will make mince meat of me and just about every other poster on here, all you can do is train physically and tecneque wise so that these people represent a small % of the population. And then rely on the fact that if you don't go round annoying people to the point where they want to hurt you, you are extremly unlikely to be attacked by them


Don't tell self defense guys that.  They will excoriate you.   The idea is, if you lose on the street, you die!!!

I've said the same thing you say above, and it really works them up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Don't tell self defense guys that.  They will excoriate you.   The idea is, if you lose on the street, you die!!!
> 
> I've said the same thing you say above, and it really works them up.


What he says is true (had to view ignored content to see what you were talking about, Steve), though I question the logic in his earlier post. He implies he'd go physical before giving up his wallet, then try to give up the wallet if the other guy was more skilled. That's not going to work.

I'd give up the wallet if there was any real threat of violence that might be averted. No sense risking it, because (as is the actual point SD folks try to make) there's always a chance it goes south and someone ends up badly hurt or worse. And if you can't avert the violence, you don't get to back down because the other guy is better. My mindset for that moment is something a friend shared with me from Silat de Thouars (I think I spelled that right). It goes something like this: "I don't care what you have, who you are, or how good you are. It doesn't matter. You've forced me to act, and now I must destroy you." Okay, the last part is a bit over-the-top for my mindset, but if the attacker turns out to be highly skilled and presents a real danger, I'd do as much destruction as necessary to end it. He might finish me off, but he'll have to go through everything I have to do it.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> What he says is true (had to view ignored content to see what you were talking about, Steve), though I question the logic in his earlier post. He implies he'd go physical before giving up his wallet, then try to give up the wallet if the other guy was more skilled. That's not going to work.
> 
> I'd give up the wallet if there was any real threat of violence that might be averted. No sense risking it, because (as is the actual point SD folks try to make) there's always a chance it goes south and someone ends up badly hurt or worse. And if you can't avert the violence, you don't get to back down because the other guy is better. My mindset for that moment is something a friend shared with me from Silat de Thouars (I think I spelled that right). It goes something like this: "I don't care what you have, who you are, or how good you are. It doesn't matter. You've forced me to act, and now I must destroy you." Okay, the last part is a bit over-the-top for my mindset, but if the attacker turns out to be highly skilled and presents a real danger, I'd do as much destruction as necessary to end it. He might finish me off, but he'll have to go through everything I have to do it.


why not, people who steal wallets for a living are lazy, why would they expend additional effort, risk someone coming to your aid or being a witness if they already have what they want,


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> So I get to deal with a much larger range of circumstances with a smaller range of strategies. And while none of my strategies will be considered neat-O they will be more likely to work.


I take that personally, Drop.  Making fun of my attempts to euphemize, that's not right. I am stung.

However, a light when on.  I think I've figured out the disconnect.

Everyone trains for trained fighters. At least, they should, imo. But, we talk about the mistakes untrained people make... we talk about that all the time. When? When we're converting untrained fighters into trained fighters, that's when. In class, training, sparring, mat time, free-roll, whatever it is.  A student, training partner, whoever... does something incorrectly, we talk about why it's wrong, why it can be taken advantage of, how to fix it etc. So, the whole, entire time we're training people we are experiencing, talking about, and training to deal with untrained fighters.... while at the same time we are creating, and therefore having to learn to deal with, trained fighters.

At the core, the only difference between a trained fighter and an untrained one is fewer mistakes. We're agreed that if I/you/he/she can deal with the trained guy, then the untrained guy is/should be easier/simpler.  There truly is no difference in what you're saying, and what, for example, Gerry is saying. You two are standing on the edge of a piece of paper arguing about which side is flat.  They both are.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> If you can pull that off I would be more convinced your theory could work..



OK, with all the back and forth this thread has undergone since it's creation, I've lost track.

Exactly what is "my theory?"  In the 61 pages of this treatise, I think I've forgotten if I postulated something or other.  If you'll remind me, I can reply, after being reminded.  I really don't think I posted a theory.  Anecdotes, sure.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Yeah well Geoff doesn't.


Do you really think he doesn't Know it? Or, is it that he just doesn't care about the risks of doing it the way he does it?

For me the best way was to always stand and talk, out of reach, focusing the other's attention on me.... while 2, maybe 3 of my other guys got in place behind them.  For me, that's optimum.  Granted, it doesn't always work out that way, meaning... into the breach you go. if you go down the barrel, you'd better get there before the other guy pulls the trigger.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> Yep. The kind of stuff most of us would consider basics.


Back when I was bouncing, the most common... problem... if you will, with my other guys who were working with me (only one of them had any MA training, and his was kid-Judo, no striking at all, though he was still good at it) was to get too close, and stay there, engaging witht he person Way inside range.

And then they'd say, after the fight, which their position basically provoked, "Did you see that guy swing at me?"

Well, yeah, dumb-a$$ I did.  

Just stay away from them, you don't even have to be far. One full walking stride is more than enough.  They don't get the sense that you are pressing them and they "have" to react, they're not close enough to you that you'll get hit before you can move.

As you stated. Basics. Problems, basics... have to be learned.

New guy:  "Man, John... I've never seen you get hit."
JP3: "Because I'm not standing where you're standing, that's why."

It ain't rocket science.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> And you don't realise any of this which is why you think my comments are strawmen or irrelevant or mean or I am just too damn blond. Or whatever.



Let's try this again, after a re-boot. Maybe it'll work.

OK! Clarification sought....

"Blond?"

Did you mean Blind... or Blonde?  Either one works, but the sub-text isn't the same.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Can I become an aikido intructor from watching videos?  I would first need a grounding in Aikido.


Left turn... that made me remember those ads int he back of the Black Belt and/or Inside Karate magazines.

"Buy Master So & So's 10 VHS Tape Set and Become a Lethal Black Belt in just SIX MONTHS of at-home training!"

Made me laugh... carry on...


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> And yes I know guys who have used capo and some really inadvisable BJJ in the street.



First, what is roda, or a roda?

Next... why did those guys try that stuff "outside?"  Intentionally not using "street" as people get wound up by that word.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> Except that I've pointed out several times where you are, in fact, arguing against something I've not said - the very definition of "strawman argument".


Is it? The definition of strawman argument, I mean.  Some of y'all use that term on here, and I admit to confusion.  For me, the "Strawman" is a false front" acquisition of something, usually a business or piece of real property by a person using a shell entity, or front, or even another person with an agreement to pass the item/thing's ownership on after the hubbub goes down.


----------



## jobo

JP3 said:


> At the core, the only difference between a trained fighter and an untrained one is fewer mistakes. We're agreed that if I/you/he/she can deal with the trained guy, then the untrained guy is/should be easier/simpler.  There truly is no difference in what you're saying, and what, for example, Gerry is saying. You two are standing on the edge of a piece of paper arguing about which side is flat.  They both are.



I'm not sure that's true, there is an obvious bias on here that untrained fighter are an easier proposition.

example one
billy is an 280lb 6.2 chap. He is over weight, but has biceps in the 25" range. He spends all his time that he is not in the pub in hos home gym lifting weights and partakes in steroid use. He is slow moving but incredibly strong, if he actually get hold of you he will throw you about like a rag doll.

example two, jimmy is a supper fit 25yo, he plays football all winter and tennis all summer. He has fantastic cardio abilites, super fast reactions and great hand foot/ eye co ordination

both of these will give a "trained fighter a good run for their money. unless of Couse. He is stronger than billy and faster than jimmy


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> I have literally zero videos of any of my training.



Here's one, not me but a couple of my students.  She's working her way up to dealing with full-power strikes in this.


----------



## JP3

jobo said:


> I'm not sure that's true, there is an obvious bias on here that untrained fighter are an easier proposition.
> 
> example one
> billy is an 280lb 6.2 chap. He is over weight, but has biceps in the 25" range. He spends all his time that he is not in the pub in hos home gym lifting weights and partakes in steroid use. He is slow moving but incredibly strong, if he actually get hold of you he will throw you about like a rag doll.
> 
> example two, jimmy is a supper fit 25yo, he plays football all winter and tennis all summer. He has fantastic cardio abilites, super fast reactions and great hand foot/ eye co ordination
> 
> both of these will give a "trained fighter a good run for their money. unless of Couse. He is stronger than billy and faster than jimmy


Agreed.

The course of prudence would suggest buying Billy a beer or 7 and telling him jokes rather than provoking him.... get him on your side.  As for Jimmy, introduce him to your little sister as long as Jimmy isn't douchey.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Is it? The definition of strawman argument, I mean.  Some of y'all use that term on here, and I admit to confusion.  For me, the "Strawman" is a false front" acquisition of something, usually a business or piece of real property by a person using a shell entity, or front, or even another person with an agreement to pass the item/thing's ownership on after the hubbub goes down.


Yeah, that's the same principle. A strawman argument is when one puts forth an argument against something that's not the other person's stance. For instance, if you and I were debating whether someone would be better knowing only ground grappling (your stance) or only strikes (my stance). Let's say I'm making strong arguments about being able to end an attack without having to be on the ground in 80% of cases. You reply, "So, you're saying that only 20% of attacks ever end up with someone going to the ground?" It's not what I said, of course - I said that's the portion we could prevent from getting to the ground with expert striking. But arguing against the strawman is easier, so now you dig in and prove that more than 20% of attacks end up on the ground.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I have one set of headgear similar to that. I thought I'd be able to wear my glasses under it, so I could spar with glasses on and allow head/face shots. Didn't work out. I'm still thinking it'll be useful for allowing face shots in more of the sparring sessions (troublesome for folks who have office jobs to go in with black eyes).



You get less black eyes after a while. And I have found nobody really cares that much. Hell we train with a model. And she spars.

Otherwise yeah make them wear the hat if they are that concerned.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> First, what is roda, or a roda?
> 
> Next... why did those guys try that stuff "outside?"  Intentionally not using "street" as people get wound up by that word.



Either they believed their own hype or just got caught up in the moment or just thought it would be fun to try.

I have done it before. Pulled off a rolling guillotine once. But probably came close to killing the guy as I had the neck crank in mount when three bouncers jumped on me trying to help. I had to pop into a head stand to save his neck. And then got stuck there.

But otherwise so many failed wrist lock throws and arm lock attempts. Because I believed as Gpseymor does that the punch will be obvious and sit out there. For me to do something neat-O with.

It took a few to realise that it is a technique that you have to bait and then know its coming then hope you haven't messed it up. And quite simply save it for the sort of gumby you really didn't need to fight anyway.

And most of that was the training. You start with. Punch me as fast as you can with your right hand at my head when I am ready. And then watch my cool move.

Even resisted that can be pulled off. But it is a sham.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You get less black eyes after a while. And I have found nobody really cares that much. Hell we train with a model. And she spars.
> 
> Otherwise yeah make them wear the hat if they are that concerned.


The problem for most of them is the time before "You get less black eyes after a while." Probably less of an issue if I make them wear gloves with more padding (I start them on very light sparring, using just those fabric-and-foam jobs, to reduce the bruising on rib hits).

For me, it's just the glasses thing. Those are a *****, even if none of the hits ever lands with any power. Hell, I bend them up once or twice a year, myself, just demonstrating an arm motion for a technique. I prefer to spar without headgear most of the time, but the worse my eyes get, the more the glasses matter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Because I believed as Gpseymor does that the punch will be obvious and sit out there. For me to do something neat-O with.


Sometimes it will. Many times it won't. It's just a matter of whether you can recognize it in the moment and capitalize on it, or not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> First, what is roda, or a roda?
> 
> Next... why did those guys try that stuff "outside?"  Intentionally not using "street" as people get wound up by that word.


A roda is, IIRC, what they call the get-togethers for sparring among the Capo folks.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Sometimes it will. Many times it won't. It's just a matter of whether you can recognize it in the moment and capitalize on it, or not.



I basically bet you can't. And you could test that pretty easily.

Either statically by just firing off a lot of different shots and letting you try to enter on the ones you like.

Or by sparring and firing off a shot you want and seeing if you can enter on that.

Which we basically do for double legs. Which is still really hard to stick that timing and it is a fundamentally higher percentage move.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The problem for most of them is the time before "You get less black eyes after a while." Probably less of an issue if I make them wear gloves with more padding (I start them on very light sparring, using just those fabric-and-foam jobs, to reduce the bruising on rib hits).
> 
> For me, it's just the glasses thing. Those are a *****, even if none of the hits ever lands with any power. Hell, I bend them up once or twice a year, myself, just demonstrating an arm motion for a technique. I prefer to spar without headgear most of the time, but the worse my eyes get, the more the glasses matter.



I take mine off. A mate of mine wears contacts.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> I take that personally, Drop.  Making fun of my attempts to euphemize, that's not right. I am stung.
> 
> However, a light when on.  I think I've figured out the disconnect.
> 
> Everyone trains for trained fighters. At least, they should, imo. But, we talk about the mistakes untrained people make... we talk about that all the time. When? When we're converting untrained fighters into trained fighters, that's when. In class, training, sparring, mat time, free-roll, whatever it is.  A student, training partner, whoever... does something incorrectly, we talk about why it's wrong, why it can be taken advantage of, how to fix it etc. So, the whole, entire time we're training people we are experiencing, talking about, and training to deal with untrained fighters.... while at the same time we are creating, and therefore having to learn to deal with, trained fighters.
> 
> At the core, the only difference between a trained fighter and an untrained one is fewer mistakes. We're agreed that if I/you/he/she can deal with the trained guy, then the untrained guy is/should be easier/simpler.  There truly is no difference in what you're saying, and what, for example, Gerry is saying. You two are standing on the edge of a piece of paper arguing about which side is flat.  They both are.



Hence the video of the brophy tent. Trained fighters dealing with brawlers.

Now gpseymor trains a system to deal with a trained attack and another to deal with an untrained attack. Because untrained attacks are different feeds And in the street he is more likely to face an untrained attacker.

And I still think this dual method is because Aikido is more likely to work if the attack has a certain aspect.

I spar roll and wrestle untrained fighters. Because we spar early. I use pretty much the same method as I use on everyone else.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Let's try this again, after a re-boot. Maybe it'll work.
> 
> OK! Clarification sought....
> 
> "Blond?"
> 
> Did you mean Blind... or Blonde?  Either one works, but the sub-text isn't the same.








Too blonde is a scene after that where he just runs out of things to insult the guy with. So he is like. "And. and your too gosh darn blonde"


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I basically bet you can't. And you could test that pretty easily.
> 
> Either statically by just firing off a lot of different shots and letting you try to enter on the ones you like.
> 
> Or by sparring and firing off a shot you want and seeing if you can enter on that.
> 
> Which we basically do for double legs. Which is still really hard to stick that timing and it is a fundamentally higher percentage move.


I've done a lot of that. Remember that I use new students as a chance to play with "untrained" attackers. What they give me during attacks, times when I tell them to "just hit me", and when we spar - that tells me a bit of how things work. It's not perfect, because some of them are afraid of what's about to happen, so they don't commit to the punch (no real intent in it). And sometimes I'm asking for something specific (so I can demonstrate a specific technique), and they almost always get more stilted and awkward then. In any case, I take that input and combine it with input from sparring and working with more experienced folks (most of whom don't commit the same mistakes as the new students, though some still do).

Not everything is about entering, by the way. Some things can be entered, some cannot. Sometimes you enter on purpose (recognizing the attack and seeing the opening) and sometimes you enter by accident (you were moving when they started the attack, and you managed an "oh crap!" block as you came in. There are also times when retreating movements are what lead into locks and throws. For instance, if someone is really over-committed forward, I might be able to enter on that, but I don't have to. Entering may take more effort than a slow retreating step that lets them bring all that weight to me, where I can add to it and over-extend them into a throw.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

I take mine off most of the time. I'm just concerned about that time when my vision gets bad enough to cause problems in sparring. And, of course, I need to be able to see to keep an eye on the class I'm teaching. Perhaps soon I'll opt for contacts, too.


drop bear said:


> I take mine off. A mate of mine wears contacts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Now gpseymor trains a system to deal with a trained attack and another to deal with an untrained attack. Because untrained attacks are different feeds And in the street he is more likely to face an untrained attacker.


Not accurate. It's not two systems. It's two different inputs to the same system.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I've done a lot of that. Remember that I use new students as a chance to play with "untrained" attackers. What they give me during attacks, times when I tell them to "just hit me", and when we spar - that tells me a bit of how things work. It's not perfect, because some of them are afraid of what's about to happen, so they don't commit to the punch (no real intent in it). And sometimes I'm asking for something specific (so I can demonstrate a specific technique), and they almost always get more stilted and awkward then. In any case, I take that input and combine it with input from sparring and working with more experienced folks (most of whom don't commit the same mistakes as the new students, though some still do).
> 
> Not everything is about entering, by the way. Some things can be entered, some cannot. Sometimes you enter on purpose (recognizing the attack and seeing the opening) and sometimes you enter by accident (you were moving when they started the attack, and you managed an "oh crap!" block as you came in. There are also times when retreating movements are what lead into locks and throws. For instance, if someone is really over-committed forward, I might be able to enter on that, but I don't have to. Entering may take more effort than a slow retreating step that lets them bring all that weight to me, where I can add to it and over-extend them into a throw.



My entering is your blending pretty much. Slow retreating means you have to catch an arm in mid air?

Either one exposes you a bit because as you move in to a stable position to work from you have given them energy as well.

Or in boxing terms you run into a punch.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Not accurate. It's not two systems. It's two different inputs to the same system.



In context it is accurate.

You are not using the same techniques. So last night we were drilling round kick and front kick defense. Because there are two different systems.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> My entering is your blending pretty much. Slow retreating means you have to catch an arm in mid air?
> 
> Either one exposes you a bit because as you move in to a stable position to work from you have given them energy as well.
> 
> Or in boxing terms you run into a punch.


I've never in my life caught an arm in mid-air. Slow retreating can lead some folks to extend further. My block may trap their striking arm, so I can transition to a grab.

And entering isn't the same thing as blending - at least, not always. I was practicing a set of entering force-on-force blocks last night at a friend's school. That was entering, but definitely not blending. Blending can happen in any direction (mostly entering on a spiral or retreating), depending upon the situation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> In context it is accurate.
> 
> You are not using the same techniques. So last night we were drilling round kick and front kick defense. Because there are two different systems.


Actually, there's a huge overlap in what the finish (technique) can be. Either entry point can lead to leg sweeps (among my favorites) or counter-punches, for instance. It's the transitions that are different, and even those overlap. You seem to be looking at it as a binary thing in my training, but it's not. There's a continuum. At one end of the continuum is a super-compact, tight, focused strike that offers almost no openings. At the other end is a sloppy, over-extended, off-balance strike. Between are infinite variations. Nearly nothing falls to either extreme.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> Actually, there's a huge overlap in what the finish (technique) can be. Either entry point can lead to leg sweeps (among my favorites) or counter-punches, for instance. It's the transitions that are different, and even those overlap. You seem to be looking at it as a binary thing in my training, but it's not. There's a continuum. At one end of the continuum is a super-compact, tight, focused strike that offers almost no openings. At the other end is a sloppy, over-extended, off-balance strike. Between are infinite variations. Nearly nothing falls to either extreme.



I don't think Drop can understand you.... or he doesn't want to understand you.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I've never in my life caught an arm in mid-air. Slow retreating can lead some folks to extend further. My block may trap their striking arm, so I can transition to a grab.
> 
> And entering isn't the same thing as blending - at least, not always. I was practicing a set of entering force-on-force blocks last night at a friend's school. That was entering, but definitely not blending. Blending can happen in any direction (mostly entering on a spiral or retreating), depending upon the situation.



Operating inside the arc of the strike?


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> I don't think Drop can understand you.... or he doesn't want to understand you.



You see the punch. Then make a judgement on what sort of defense you are going to apply.

Cover if you don't have time. Neat-o move if you do.

Again they do it in the brophy tents in the third round when the trained guy has worked out what the inexperienced guy is going to do. Or like Michael page did to Cyborg when he worked out what he was going to do.

Bloody stupid risk for Aikido with its limited striking exposure to try against an unknown guy in self defence. Especially when you have to make your partner mess up intentionally to be even able to pull those moves off in training.

I understand it. I have trained it. Then I got out and used it. Especially in bouncing because the aim isn't to stand and trade. It is to apply standing arm locks.

Which is the definition of Neat-o. 

And I got punched in the head a lot. When I made basic positional mistakes made due exactly to the methodology Gerry trains. 

Because I trained these specific bad punching which were the only thing I could enter on.

So we get back to Aikido vs MMA guy. And he could enter fine. He could take control of Aikido guy. And secure him without hurting him. All those things Aikido wanted to do. Not because MMA is better.(we didn't even reach a point where we could judge.)

But because the training is fundamentally different.

Now I keep getting told that the Aikido training doesn't match my expectations. But I keep jumping on you tube and it does.


----------



## drop bear

So untill you can change my perceptions through evidence. Why shouldn't I filter my expectations of training through this?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> I don't think Drop can understand you.... or he doesn't want to understand you.


It has long been my opinion that the latter is the case. It's how he keeps the topic moving where he wants it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Operating inside the arc of the strike?


I'm not sure which part of my post this was replying to, so I'm not sure how to respond.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> When I made basic positional mistakes made due exactly to the methodology Gerry trains.


Probably not, since you don't seem to understand what I train. I've trained with both bouncers and LEO who found what we do works really well for them. I doubt that's any different where you are, so the difference is probably your understanding of what we do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So untill you can change my perceptions through evidence. Why shouldn't I filter my expectations of training through this?


No reason. Those guys aren't using their strikes effectively, and are too focused on making techniques work (a problem I've seen quite a bit). I can see easy ways to stop their entry, easy ways to enter on them, and better selections of technique from their positions. They don't appear to be used to working the close techniques - some of what they were trying in close are not good from that range, and it feels like they chose the technique they wanted before they got to the position.


----------



## drop bear

When we revisit h


gpseymour said:


> No reason. Those guys aren't using their strikes effectively, and are too focused on making techniques work (a problem I've seen quite a bit). I can see easy ways to stop their entry, easy ways to enter on them, and better selections of technique from their positions. They don't appear to be used to working the close techniques - some of what they were trying in close are not good from that range, and it feels like they chose the technique they wanted before they got to the position.



my advice on that sparring.






By the way. From watching that. And Aikido flow. And a few others I have notice a trend to almost no takedown defence. Which seems strange from a grappling art.


----------



## O'Malley

At the time the Founder of aikido learnt daito ryu aikijujutsu (the old art he based aikido on), almost everyone knew sumo. This has been used as a possible explanation of why there are no hip throws in aikido (well there's one but it doesn't come from daito ryu and has been developed by later generations of aikidoka) and I think that it can, at least in part, explain the lack of takedowns and takedown defences in the art.

Many students of the Founder were also good judoka thus he might not have deemed necessary to teach them such techniques, if he had ever been interested in doing so.

We have accounts that Sokaku Takeda, Morihei Ueshiba or students like Koichi Tohei were "unthrowable" by advanced judoka. The real question here is "how come?" What did those guys have that is or isn't taught in modern aikido?


----------



## drop bear

O'Malley said:


> At the time the Founder of aikido learnt daito ryu aikijujutsu (the old art he based aikido on), almost everyone knew sumo. This has been used as a possible explanation of why there are no hip throws in aikido (well there's one but it doesn't come from daito ryu and has been developed by later generations of aikidoka) and I think that it can, at least in part, explain the lack of takedowns and takedown defences in the art.
> 
> Many students of the Founder were also good judoka thus he might not have deemed necessary to teach them such techniques, if he had ever been interested in doing so.
> 
> We have accounts that Sokaku Takeda, Morihei Ueshiba or students like Koichi Tohei were "unthrowable" by advanced judoka. The real question here is "how come?"



Because he was a gun at takedown defence?





You see derek heckle just standing there chilling out. Because of his better wrestling he could in theory pull off all sorts of Aikido ish stuff. Because no one can take him dowm.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> I understand it. I have trained it. Then I got out and used it. Especially in bouncing because the aim isn't to stand and trade. It is to apply standing arm locks.
> 
> Which is the definition of Neat-o.
> 
> And I got punched in the head a lot. When I made basic positional mistakes made due exactly to the methodology Gerry trains


Your goal in bouncing was quite a bit different than mine, Drop.  I never, not one time, attempted a "standing arm lock" on a guy who was being removed.  Closest thing to that was an osotogari reap-like takedown, flip then hammer lock -- while the guy was face-down - and wait on the cops to come and hand-cuff him.  That was no fun, as I was completely expecting some girl to come out of the crowd with something and jack me from behind.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Your goal in bouncing was quite a bit different than mine, Drop.  I never, not one time, attempted a "standing arm lock" on a guy who was being removed.  Closest thing to that was an osotogari reap-like takedown, flip then hammer lock -- while the guy was face-down - and wait on the cops to come and hand-cuff him.  That was no fun, as I was completely expecting some girl to come out of the crowd with something and jack me from behind.



Dont you know goose neck holds can defeat any attacker? We learned that in our mandatory human weapon training.

I have done marathons with guys in arm locks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> When we revisit h
> 
> 
> my advice on that sparring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way. From watching that. And Aikido flow. And a few others I have notice a trend to almost no takedown defence. Which seems strange from a grappling art.


I find it strange, too, yet it's not as unusual as it should be. I think that comes from a lack of real randori - where "real" means not just trying as hard as you can to throw the other guy, but trying as hard as you can to stop him from throwing you. Do a bit of that, and takedown defense improves (as do takedowns).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> At the time the Founder of aikido learnt daito ryu aikijujutsu (the old art he based aikido on), almost everyone knew sumo. This has been used as a possible explanation of why there are no hip throws in aikido (well there's one but it doesn't come from daito ryu and has been developed by later generations of aikidoka) and I think that it can, at least in part, explain the lack of takedowns and takedown defences in the art.
> 
> Many students of the Founder were also good judoka thus he might not have deemed necessary to teach them such techniques, if he had ever been interested in doing so.
> 
> We have accounts that Sokaku Takeda, Morihei Ueshiba or students like Koichi Tohei were "unthrowable" by advanced judoka. The real question here is "how come?" What did those guys have that is or isn't taught in modern aikido?


This is something Stan Pranin talked about. Most of the early students of Ueshiba were experienced in other arts, including having a solid base in striking skills and some basic grappling (Sumo/Judo), so much of that wasn't taught.


----------

