# Aikido is the best self defense



## Kiron (Aug 16, 2017)

I'm learning Aikido for its beautiful defense. No fancy movements, no wasting of energy, and the very important thing is it is able to make you calm. It's elegant yet deadly Martial Art.


----------



## Anarax (Aug 16, 2017)

I'm happy for you that you have found a Martial Art you like. However; Aikido is anything but deadly. Aikido technically doesn't even teach breaks, but pins instead. Morihei Ueshiba( The Founder of Aikido) was a follower of the Shinto religion. It essentially teaches Sacred Power exists in animate and inanimate objects. That means breaking someones bones or destroying human tissue is disrespectful to the Sacred Power. Aikido has a rich and interesting history, understanding the Founder helps to give the techniques context.

Good luck in your training


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 17, 2017)

There's a lot more to aikido than that. Think about what happens if you don't know how to fall or if you don't ride out some of those throws, for example.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Headhunter (Aug 17, 2017)

Aikido is a great martial art and yeah it's calming but I definently wouldn't call it deadly it's referred to in some places as the way of peace. I'm not saying it doesn't work but a lot of schools don't teach it properly and there's no resistance to those techniques the guys just go down without any effort and that's not going to happen in a real fight. If you train it properly sure it could work but I don't think it's the best for self defence to be honest.

But if you enjoy it and it's the martial art for you then go for it keep doing it,I'm not going to tell you you should be doing something else but just be aware of it's limitations.


----------



## DaveB (Aug 17, 2017)

All is say is if you want self defence ability do not really on your classes alone.  Find people to attack you realistically and with power and speed and intent. 

It could be friends with boxing gloves or spend time training in boxing or krav maga or some other place where people come at you with more than one punch and where getting hit hurts.

Whatever art you do, test your ability to use it and if you can't then adjust your training accordingly.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 17, 2017)

Kiron said:


> I'm learning Aikido for its beautiful defense. No fancy movements, no wasting of energy, and the very important thing is it is able to make you calm. It's elegant yet deadly Martial Art.





Anarax said:


> I'm happy for you that you have found a Martial Art you like. However; Aikido is anything but deadly. Aikido technically doesn't even teach breaks, but pins instead. Morihei Ueshiba( The Founder of Aikido) was a follower of the Shinto religion. It essentially teaches Sacred Power exists in animate and inanimate objects. That means breaking someones bones or destroying human tissue is disrespectful to the Sacred Power. Aikido has a rich and interesting history, understanding the Founder helps to give the techniques context.
> 
> Good luck in your training


I must be getting old.  I don't really have any interest in this argument any more and I note the very low post count of both very polarized and minimal "sides" and it makes me skeptical.

Feh.  <insert crotchety old dude comment here>

Get off my lawn.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 17, 2017)

Welcome to MT Kiron and Anarax.  Anarax you might wish to go to the Meet and Greet forum and introduce yourself and tell us a little about yourself.

Kiron, if you like Aikido, stay with it and learn all you can.  I don't know how you define fancy movements, but Aikido has movements that non-grappling arts don't have, and might be considered fancy.  Especially as you progress in the art. 

I will grant you there should be little wasted energy, but I think that is true of most martial arts, even if the art's emphasis is on different methods than grappling.  And even now that there is more knowledge of different martial arts, grappling arts still have a chance of befuddling non-grappling artists.

Don't be too concerned about if your practice opponent resists or not.  Contrary to popular belief amongst non-grapplers, once you correctly learn a technique (and a certain amount of resistance of course helps as long as you stop before you break something), most techniques are difficult or impossible to resist once correctly applied. 

Just don't forget, if all, or even a majority, of what a given art does is blocking, striking, and kicking at speed, they likely are very good at it.  In other words, don't get the big-head.


----------



## Matt Bryers (Aug 17, 2017)

Kiron said:


> I'm learning Aikido for its beautiful defense. No fancy movements, no wasting of energy, and the very important thing is it is able to make you calm. It's elegant yet deadly Martial Art.



Hi Kiron!

I think your post was spot-on UNTIL you said "Deadly Martial Art".  It's not that the movements and techniques of Aikido that are "wrong".  In fact the movements, principles, flow, etc of Aiki is absolutely beautiful, and if applied correctly are very effective.

But here lies the problem - does your school train Aikido in realistic self-defense training?  Are you sparring regularly, and if so, are you use Aikido techniques effectively?  Are you training against modern weapons (where Aiki can really shine) done in a realistic manner?  

The sub-problem to that is that Aikido works AFTER a connection has been made.  The connection or entrance to use Aikido or any grappling-based martial art is the secret.  Disrupting, striking, close-quarters-combat, etc is essential to actually use Aikido or Judo or Jiu-Jitsu.  Why MMA is successful in using grappling is because they know how to defend and enter effectively to actually use grappling.

So - I hope that you continue to train Aikido.  It is a wonderful art that has many effective combat PRINCIPLES.  But if you're looking to train Aikido in a combative manner or to make it Deadly-Force worthy, you're going to have to supplement Aikido with other concepts.  

Osss

Matt


----------



## ShortBridge (Aug 17, 2017)

lklawson said:


> ...
> 
> Get off my lawn.



...but my Frisbee is on your roof!


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 17, 2017)

If you get quality instruction and training, and you pursue that training enthusiastically, you can develop excellent defense and combative skills through the study of aikido.

There will always be somebody on the internet who wants to convince you otherwise.  Most of them do not, and never did, train in the method that you train.  For some people it seems like a life's mission.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 17, 2017)

Kiron said:


> I'm learning Aikido for its beautiful defense. No fancy movements, no wasting of energy, and the very important thing is it is able to make you calm. It's elegant yet deadly Martial Art.


There is little deadly about most Aikido, and I (as a teacher of an Aikido art) will argue that aiki arts are not the fastest path to self-defense. As for "best" that depends upon what your specific goal is. I happen to like the aiki toolset, but I find it very limited if you're not also developing a "hard" side with it, which would be either an effective striking game or an in-tight, Judo-style grappling game - preferably both.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 17, 2017)

lklawson said:


> I must be getting old.  I don't really have any interest in this argument any more and I note the very low post count of both very polarized and minimal "sides" and it makes me skeptical.
> 
> Feh.  <insert crotchety old dude comment here>
> 
> Get off my lawn.


Put your bifocals back on and go read your newspaper, Kirk.


----------



## lklawson (Aug 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Put your bifocals back on and go read your newspaper, Kirk.


Where's the large print edition?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 17, 2017)

lklawson said:


> I must be getting old.  I don't really have any interest in this argument any more and I note the very low post count of both very polarized and minimal "sides" and it makes me skeptical.


A: I'm learning MA style X.
B: I like that style.
C: I don't like that style.
B: #@!%^$#
C: *^&%$^#

We should all stay away from thread such as "Which MA style is the best?" It just means trouble.

Also, the thread discussion won't go have any meaning if everybody all agree (some people may prefer this kind of discussion).

A: I think MA style X is the best.
B: I agree with you 100%.
C: +1
D: +2
E: +3
F: +...

I's a lose-lose situation no matter which direction the discussion may go.


----------



## JR 137 (Aug 17, 2017)

ShortBridge said:


> ...but my Frisbee is on your roof!


Damn it!!!

I was about to say "But but I'm just getting my baseball back!" when I read your post.  

I hate it when that happens.


----------



## Kiron (Aug 18, 2017)

Matt Bryers said:


> Hi Kiron!
> 
> I think your post was spot-on UNTIL you said "Deadly Martial Art".  It's not that the movements and techniques of Aikido that are "wrong".  In fact the movements, principles, flow, etc of Aiki is absolutely beautiful, and if applied correctly are very effective.
> 
> ...



Hi Matt, thank you for enlightening me. Thinking I different thing about Aikido is a disgrace to its Art. I think I need to comprehend more to understand the real essence of Aikido. Thanks again!


----------



## Buka (Aug 18, 2017)

Kiron and Anarax, welcome to MartialTalk fellas.


----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 6, 2017)

Kiron said:


> I'm learning Aikido for its beautiful defense. No fancy movements, no wasting of energy, and the very important thing is it is able to make you calm. It's elegant yet deadly Martial Art.




Yeah its a fine art, I did Aiki-Jiu-Jitsu for several years, then moved on.

I loved it for what it is, look into it, similar to this video.............


----------



## Martial D (Sep 6, 2017)

Kiron said:


> I'm learning Aikido for its beautiful defense. No fancy movements, no wasting of energy, and the very important thing is it is able to make you calm. It's elegant yet deadly Martial Art.


Elegant anyway.


----------



## MA_Student (Sep 6, 2017)

I'm no expert but never really seen anything hugely deadly about it


----------



## Martial D (Sep 6, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> I'm no expert but never really seen anything hugely deadly about it


Well, I guess you could get hurt flipping yourself when the other guy does a move.


----------



## JR 137 (Sep 6, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> I'm no expert but never really seen anything hugely deadly about it


Ever see a Steven Seagal movie?


----------



## MA_Student (Sep 6, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Ever see a Steven Seagal movie?


Yep my point exactly lol


----------



## DaveB (Sep 7, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Well, I guess you could get hurt flipping yourself when the other guy does a move.


Have you ever trained Aikido?


----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 7, 2017)

In a mixed martial arts environment when the right conditions and moment is provided these martial arts techniques are very useful..................






But emphasis is on first defensive and counter standup striking then as the opportunity presents itself as the attacker throws are tired strike attempt at you ( aka lazy hand), you then employ this taking them to the ground for more BJJ tactics e.g chokes etc.

This is what I want to see in the UFC good use of various martial art moves through the start to finish of the fight implemented in a technical and methodical approach when they are needed.

Thats what makes good TV fights


----------



## Martial D (Sep 7, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Have you ever trained Aikido?


No, why? Is this the part where you tell me I need to do it for 20 years to understand it's true power or something? Dint mean to offend you


----------



## MA_Student (Sep 7, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Have you ever trained Aikido?


I have. The guy tried to do a throw on me and couldn't do it because I held a strong posture. Didnt even resist it or try to fight just stood in a strong stance and gave a solid grab attack. 

Now I know that was probably just a bad school but still


----------



## Martial D (Sep 7, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> I have. The guy tried to do a throw on me and couldn't do it because I held a strong posture. Didnt even resist it or try to fight just stood in a strong stance and gave a solid grab attack.
> 
> Now I know that was probably just a bad school but still


Well, to be fair that's not really 'training aikido'. I've sparred against and acted as a dummy for aikido guys, for demonstration purposes...

Maybe it's just that none of them were all that good, but ya..like what you said..it seems to me for it to work I would have to cooperate. As I am not keen on throwing myself, it amounted to a couple guys trying to reef on my arm unsuccessfully.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 7, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> I have. The guy tried to do a throw on me and couldn't do it because I held a strong posture. Didnt even resist it or try to fight just stood in a strong stance and gave a solid grab attack.
> 
> Now I know that was probably just a bad school but still


If you didn't resist or fight back and just stood there then there would be no reason to use Aikido on you which is why he couldn't throw you.  Aikido is kind of a different thing because it focus more on defense then offense it requires you to do something for a technique to work properly.  You need to provide energy and force so the techniques will work that's how its designed.


----------



## MA_Student (Sep 7, 2017)

ballen0351 said:


> If you didn't resist or fight back and just stood there then there would be no reason to use Aikido on you which is why he couldn't throw you.  Aikido is kind of a different thing because it focus more on defense then offense it requires you to do something for a technique to work properly.  You need to provide energy and force so the techniques will work that's how its designed.


The guy was teaching a defence to a grab. I grabbed he couldn't do it. He was obviously a fake I walked out a few minutes later


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 7, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> The guy was teaching a defence to a grab. I grabbed he couldn't do it. He was obviously a fake I walked out a few minutes later


if you say so


----------



## MA_Student (Sep 7, 2017)

ballen0351 said:


> if you say so


I do sorry if it offends you


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 7, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> I do sorry if it offends you


Nothing on the internet offends me.  You obviously have all the answers with your vast 20 min of Aikido training that you walked out of so you can judge what works and what doesn't so carry on....


----------



## MA_Student (Sep 7, 2017)

ballen0351 said:


> Nothing on the internet offends me.  You obviously have all the answers with your vast 20 min of Aikido training that you walked out of so you can judge what works and what doesn't so carry on....


Yep got all the information I need from that club when an instructor can't do a technique on someone who's never done it before


----------



## Martial D (Sep 7, 2017)

ballen0351 said:


> Nothing on the internet offends me.  You obviously have all the answers with your vast 20 min of Aikido training that you walked out of so you can judge what works and what doesn't so carry on....


I can't speak for ma_student, but I personally would be delighted to meet the guy from the school of aikido that can make it work without partner cooperation. As a kid I loved all those seagal movies.

I'm willing to admit that maybe everyone I have sparred that identified as an aikido guy just wasn't as good as they claimed to be.  I just haven't seen the evidence.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 7, 2017)

Martial D said:


> I can't speak for ma_student, but I personally would be delighted to meet the guy from the school of aikido that can make it work without partner cooperation. As a kid I loved all those seagal movies.


Thats where Aikido is just different then any other MA. To work the attacker needs to do "something" thats not necessarily cooperation.  In a training environment it is cooperation because it A) helps prevent injuries B) allows the student to work on the desired technique.   The way Aikido works is by momentum and physics so in order to work the other person needs to provide the energy and motion so it can be redirected and exploited for lack of a better word.  Its also not an A.B.C type of style for example in a more main stream style you teach new students Attacker punch and stand still Student when they punch you do A then B then C.  Aikido cant work that way so in the example if I grabbed him and stood still in a main stream style the response would be A. B.C. The Aikido response requires the attacker to do more then grab and stand still.  Its just different which is why people say it takes alot longer to be able to use it in real life application.  Its thrown around as some kind of "excuse" but its not it just is. 



> I'm willing to admit that maybe everyone I have sparred that identified as an aikido guy just wasn't as good as they claimed to be.  I just haven't seen the evidence.


I think most people are not as good as they claim to be.....


----------



## RTKDCMB (Sep 7, 2017)

ShortBridge said:


> ...but my Frisbee is on your roof!


If you wanted it then why did you throw it away?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 7, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> I have. The guy tried to do a throw on me and couldn't do it because I held a strong posture. Didnt even resist it or try to fight just stood in a strong stance and gave a solid grab attack.
> 
> Now I know that was probably just a bad school but still


Actually, if you stand upright, you're not committing weight. Most "aiki" throws use the weight that's committed. If you stand still, it's time for Judo-style responses. If he was trying to show/perform a specific technique (meaning his options were limited by the drill), then he needs the right input. It's like trying to practice single-leg counters against a hip throw - wrong input for the technique, and the technique will fail.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 7, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> The guy was teaching a defence to a grab. I grabbed he couldn't do it. He was obviously a fake I walked out a few minutes later


A grab is just what the hand is doing. A grabbing attack is unlikely to be someone grabbing an wrist and standing still. He's either reaching in (weight forward), pulling back (weight back), or striking (could be either, or a side shift). Standing still in a relaxed posture is a non-attack. There's rarely a need to defend from someone calmly holding your hand.


----------



## MA_Student (Sep 7, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> A grab is just what the hand is doing. A grabbing attack is unlikely to be someone grabbing an wrist and standing still. He's either reaching in (weight forward), pulling back (weight back), or striking (could be either, or a side shift). Standing still in a relaxed posture is a non-attack. There's rarely a need to defend from someone calmly holding your hand.


Then why was the instructor even teaching that then? Shows even more that he was a fraud


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 7, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Then why was the instructor even teaching that then? Shows even more that he was a fraud


I don't know the circumstances, so I can't answer why. There are principles that can be worked from a static position. Some throws (even, in rare situations, some of the more "aiki" ones) can be executed from there. There should be a purpose to static drills, though. Sometimes it is done to take away the easy answer. 

And I don't know what you did that made it not work, nor whether she was stymied, or simply didn't bother to change the situation to fit the technique being drilled. I have met instructors who did not yet understand some of these concepts. They mostly aren't frauds - they just don't understand.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 7, 2017)

Martial D said:


> No, why? Is this the part where you tell me I need to do it for 20 years to understand it's true power or something? Dint mean to offend you



Fascinating. A simple question to find out how you came to your opinion and you produce a flood of assumptions. 

I wonder if this is the same pattern that makes you feel so persecuted and misunderstood while on your noble quest to save lives by exposing those who don't spar.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 7, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> This is what I want to see in the UFC good use of various martial art moves through the start to finish of the fight implemented in a technical and methodical approach when they are needed.



That is what you do see.

What you don't see is a lot of ninja crap rubbish because the people who do UFC are trying not to get their heads kicked in.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 7, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> A grab is just what the hand is doing. A grabbing attack is unlikely to be someone grabbing an wrist and standing still. He's either reaching in (weight forward), pulling back (weight back), or striking (could be either, or a side shift). Standing still in a relaxed posture is a non-attack. There's rarely a need to defend from someone calmly holding your hand.



No.....

There is never just let him control my hand.

I don't care what he is or is not doing with it.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 7, 2017)

ballen0351 said:


> Thats where Aikido is just different then any other MA. To work the attacker needs to do "something" thats not necessarily cooperation.  In a training environment it is cooperation because it A) helps prevent injuries B) allows the student to work on the desired technique.   The way Aikido works is by momentum and physics so in order to work the other person needs to provide the energy and motion so it can be redirected and exploited for lack of a better word.  Its also not an A.B.C type of style for example in a more main stream style you teach new students Attacker punch and stand still Student when they punch you do A then B then C.  Aikido cant work that way so in the example if I grabbed him and stood still in a main stream style the response would be A. B.C. The Aikido response requires the attacker to do more then grab and stand still.  Its just different which is why people say it takes alot longer to be able to use it in real life application.  Its thrown around as some kind of "excuse" but its not it just is.
> 
> 
> I think most people are not as good as they claim to be.....



So it is like every other martial arts just with half the concepts.

In every other martial art you use pressure to create the response. If you want some sort of flash aiki based foot sweep you create the circumstances.






Aikido relies on hope?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 7, 2017)

drop bear said:


> No.....
> 
> There is never just let him control my hand.
> 
> I don't care what he is or is not doing with it.


I've never seen anything resembling control from someone standing g still, calmly holding a hand. I suppose it could happen, and it's fairly easy to defend if there's no attack happening.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 7, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So it is like every other martial arts just with half the concepts.
> 
> In every other martial art you use pressure to create the response. If you want some sort of flash aiki based foot sweep you create the circumstances.
> 
> ...


Many Aikido schools seem to assume (yeah, hope) that will happen on its own. It can, and does, but not having options if it doesn't is why I say many styles of Aikido are best as add-one to existing ability.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 7, 2017)

ballen0351 said:


> Thats where Aikido is just different then any other MA. To work the attacker needs to do "something" thats not necessarily cooperation.


What will happen when 2 Aikido masters fight against each other? They both starve to death. Why? Because they both expect the other to make the first move. But it never happens.

This is the main issue of the Aikido system. In general, you have to "give" before you can "take". Aikido expects to take without giving which is not realistic in the real world.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 7, 2017)

drop bear said:


> In every other martial art you use pressure to create the response. If you want some sort of flash aiki based foot sweep you create the circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To set up a foot sweep, you twist your opponent in counter-clock wise direction. When he resists, you borrow his resistance force, and use foot sweep to take him down by twisting him the clockwise direction. This is just wrestling 101.

Old saying said, "Opportunity is given to those who is prepared." But I strongly believe that "Opportunity is given to those who can create it (and also is prepared)."


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 7, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I've never seen anything resembling control from someone standing g still, calmly holding a hand. I suppose it could happen, and it's fairly easy to defend if there's no attack happening.


When I control your wrist, I'm 1 step ahead of you. You have to break away my grip before you can use that hand to do something. When you try to break my grip, I attack you.

To assume that you can also counter when your opponent grabs you is not realistic.

Here is an example.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 7, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Many Aikido schools seem to assume (yeah, hope) that will happen on its own. It can, and does, but not having options if it doesn't is why I say many styles of Aikido are best as add-one to existing ability.



Yeah. It was the concept I was ragging on there. Not especially all of Aikido.

Having said that. Nothing stopping anybody adding pressure. That is mostly just a case of going for one move and then going for another when they defend it.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 7, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I've never seen anything resembling control from someone standing g still, calmly holding a hand. I suppose it could happen, and it's fairly easy to defend if there's no attack happening.



It is a sneaky wrestling trick. It will end you on your butt.

It is like saying it is OK not to defend grips provided they are not attacking you.


----------



## Martial D (Sep 8, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Fascinating. A simple question to find out how you came to your opinion and you produce a flood of assumptions.
> 
> I wonder if this is the same pattern that makes you feel so persecuted and misunderstood while on your noble quest to save lives by exposing those who don't spar.


I don't feel persecuted nor misunderstood. What assumptions do you think I have made? A flood of them no less? 

Looks like you are the one making assumptions dude.


----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 8, 2017)

What people don't really understand about these types of martial arts is that they are primarily sword fighting styles.

The technical precision of movement needed takes years of refinement, because you don't want a sword slicing you up LoL

Each concept (Locks, Traps, Throws and Swings) develops a flow pattern in a sword fight and various defensive maneuvers that are to counter a sword strike or hand to hand attacks.

I found these videos to illustrate.................












Its hard to find videos that illustrate the point but I hope those suffice for the purpose of a good Forum discussion.

So allot of these martial art styles are really beautiful to watch and to do from this point of view other than that you're not really going to get any realistic street defense or aggressive tactic that works with other styles.

Its not designed that way, I'm sure some will disagree of course but I have spoken with Grand masters in this field and thats what most will tell you.

Its a refined style of martial arts to a specialized weapon the mighty sword...............








When I did Aiki Jiu- Jitsu back in my high school years mainly because a guy I knew kept nagging me to come I loved the throws and locks and the sword flow techniques.

Other than that I wanted something more street defensive that would get me in do the job get me out so to speak.

I thoroughly enjoyed it, and I did learn allot putting them into my chest of skills that I can use when there is an opportunity presented, that would make better sense in the opinion is this the best martial art for defensive purposes.

But all opinions are welcome of course


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 8, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So it is like every other martial arts just with half the concepts.
> 
> In every other martial art you use pressure to create the response. If you want some sort of flash aiki based foot sweep you create the circumstances.


No


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 8, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What will happen when 2 Aikido masters fight against each other? They both starve to death. Why? Because they both expect the other to make the first move. But it never happens.
> .


No there are offensive techniques in Aikido as well.  My post was in response to the original  scenario of "I grabbed him and stood still and it didnt work so Aikido doesnt work"  If you grabbed him and then stood there then the technique the tearcher was showing wouldnt work.  Are there other techniques that may work sure but If the purpose of that particular period of instruction is on a specific technique in a class setting your not going to do a different technique.


----------



## DaveB (Sep 8, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> What people don't really understand about these types of martial arts is that they are primarily sword fighting styles.
> 
> The technical precision of movement needed takes years of refinement, because you don't want a sword slicing you up LoL
> 
> ...



This was my understanding as well. If you want to spar with an aikidoka you need armour or a shield as well as your boxing gloves. 

I know it's met with laughter and derision but this is the kind of thing meant by the term battlefield art. Yes Aikido is a modern style but it was constructed on the back of and with the objectives of a mediaeval fighting art.

Should it be updated? I'm sure those that think so have and those that don't have not.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 8, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What will happen when 2 Aikido masters fight against each other? They both starve to death. Why? Because they both expect the other to make the first move. But it never happens.
> 
> This is the main issue of the Aikido system. In general, you have to "give" before you can "take". Aikido expects to take without giving which is not realistic in the real world.



I can't comment on Aikido since I have never studied it.  In the Hapkido I studied, we were very defense oriented, tending to react to attacks.  But we did learn offenses, generally using a defensive move we had already learned, but using it to attack.

I don't understand your last statement.  If we are, as we usually say, learning MA to protect ourselves from attack, how is it so wrong to wait for an attack rather that initiate an attack and thus become an aggresser?  Not to mention that when an opponent finds so many of his attacks being used against him, he may decide it isn't worth it.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 8, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When I control your wrist, I'm 1 step ahead of you. You have to break away my grip before you can use that hand to do something. When you try to break my grip, I attack you.
> 
> *To assume that you can also counter when your opponent grabs you is not realistic.*
> 
> Here is an example.



Not trying to be a picky confrontational person, but you surely know there are martial arts which base much of their success specifically on countering attacks, including grabs?  And in doing so generally, as part of the counter, prevent the opponent from another attack?


----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 8, 2017)

DaveB said:


> This was my understanding as well. If you want to spar with an aikidoka you need armour or a shield as well as your boxing gloves.
> 
> I know it's met with laughter and derision but this is the kind of thing meant by the term battlefield art. Yes Aikido is a modern style but it was constructed on the back of and with the objectives of a mediaeval fighting art.
> 
> Should it be updated? I'm sure those that think so have and those that don't have not.



Well back in the 1990's when I was doing it, I never wore any of that when I did it for approx 4 years it was just mainly passing and learning the stages, concepts and principles and also using wooden swords, knives and pole techniques.

I lost interest after a while because yes it is only really an art form that was used in medieval times as a swordsman. (Battlefield Arts)

Although to defend it, I say so people don't get me wrong some applications can be used in real life but it all depends on the situation also to really become masterful you have to study it allot and do it for more than 10 years at high rank and training with others in those ranks.

Thats not what I wanted though being young etc I only took from it what I needed as tools.

The Update part of your comment is now more the BBJ/Judo/Wrestling arts now used in UFC, but I get what you mean.

In my opinion its also a fine art nowadays, what I mean by that its usually an art form amongst people in corporate world because its expensive to maintain as an art form I have found in my experience here in Australia.

Also a passion for swords as well that are worth thousands and millions depending on linage etc.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 8, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What will happen when 2 Aikido masters fight against each other? They both starve to death. Why? Because they both expect the other to make the first move. But it never happens.
> 
> This is the main issue of the Aikido system. In general, you have to "give" before you can "take". Aikido expects to take without giving which is not realistic in the real world.


This is why you see more Judo-like movement in Tomiki Aikido than in some other styles. They can initiate, while some others can only respond.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 8, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When I control your wrist, I'm 1 step ahead of you. You have to break away my grip before you can use that hand to do something. When you try to break my grip, I attack you.
> 
> To assume that you can also counter when your opponent grabs you is not realistic.
> 
> Here is an example.


Your statement presumes something follows the grip. The "something" is what an aiki technique will respond to. You being one step ahead doesn't matter if the response is done right (a very big "if").


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 8, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. It was the concept I was ragging on there. Not especially all of Aikido.
> 
> Having said that. Nothing stopping anybody adding pressure. That is mostly just a case of going for one move and then going for another when they defend it.


Agreed. IMO, those schools lack the tools to pressure, because they don't train them. A little Judo influence and some basic striking, and you get a different answer. You can see that in Tomiki competition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 8, 2017)

drop bear said:


> It is a sneaky wrestling trick. It will end you on your butt.
> 
> It is like saying it is OK not to defend grips provided they are not attacking you.


My point is that the holding the hand never ends anyone on their butt. It's what's done with that hand, or after the grip that the aiki technique will respond to. To respond earlier is to respond to a non-attack, which is foreign to a pure-aiki approach (though many of the aiki techniques can easily adjust to that use).

I have people ask me about some of the static grip releases I teach. This is why I teach them. Just one more tool to adapt to differing situations.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 8, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> What people don't really understand about these types of martial arts is that they are primarily sword fighting styles.
> 
> The technical precision of movement needed takes years of refinement, because you don't want a sword slicing you up LoL
> 
> ...


I disagree. Many of the movements are derived from sword movement and defense, but students spend at least 95% of their time defending against unarmed attacks, not swords


----------



## Martial D (Sep 8, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> What people don't really understand about these types of martial arts is that they are primarily sword fighting styles.
> 
> The technical precision of movement needed takes years of refinement, because you don't want a sword slicing you up LoL
> 
> ...


I'm not sure how much swordfighting was going on in the 40s when aikido was founded dude.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 8, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> Well back in the 1990's when I was doing it, I never wore any of that when I did it for approx 4 years it was just mainly passing and learning the stages, concepts and principles and also using wooden swords, knives and pole techniques.
> 
> I lost interest after a while because yes *it is only really an art form that was used in medieval times as a swordsman. (Battlefield Arts)*
> 
> ...



You might want to do some minimal research on when it was started.  Ueshiba Morehei would be surprised at least, probably insulted by your statement.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> My point is that the holding the hand never ends anyone on their butt. It's what's done with that hand, or after the grip that the aiki technique will respond to. To respond earlier is to respond to a non-attack, which is foreign to a pure-aiki approach (though many of the aiki techniques can easily adjust to that use).
> 
> I have people ask me about some of the static grip releases I teach. This is why I teach them. Just one more tool to adapt to differing situations.



If you lived when swordsmen dominated, and one confronted you when you were unarmed, you might wish to prevent him from drawing his sword.  Grabbing his wrist would prevent that, or at a minimum, disrupt it, giving you perhaps some other options.  If I were that swordsman, I needed to be able to remove your hand before you tried one of those other options.  Besides that, in the Hapkido I learned, some of the concepts made good building blocks for later techniques.

I am always bemused by the shortsightedness of those who put down Hapkido or Aikido, without knowing why those concepts were useful for specific defenses before, and as building blocks.  Techniques, to those who don't know how they work, seem too complicated.  Once you learn and practice them, they are quick, simple, and effective.


----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 8, 2017)

Listen  and learn from Navy SEAL Jocko Willink..................






About him - Jocko Willink - Wikipedia

These guys kill for a living to defend our way of life, say thank you and be on your merry way! 

The street wise, always wins, old sword styles umm what!

So basically the style that incorporates all JKD LoL

M8 don't be a puppet,  I read up on who is Ueshiba Morechei years ago, but what did you not understand about *"Swordsman"*!

The sword was used by many in ancient times for example ancient Persian swords - The Shamshir  -  Shamshir - Wikipedia

Watch this doco its a long one so get a coffee...........






Sure you are all entitled to an opinion but so am I!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 8, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> Listen  and learn from Navy SEAL Jocko Willink..................
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Which part were you disagreeing with? That most of their training is NOT against a sword, or that some of the movements are derived from it?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 8, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> ...
> 
> M8 don't be a puppet,  I read up on who is Ueshiba Morechei years ago, but what did you not understand about *"Swordsman"*!
> 
> ...



I don't consider myself a puppet, but if you can enlighten me on what things I don't know about Swordsman, it would probably be a great service not only to me, but all here at MT.  So please do.  Granted that your input will be validated against the time frame you gave for the beginning of Aikido.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion.  Even if it is based on incorrect data.  I don't know what type of MA you learned for 4 years that you only saw sword defense.  I'll give you credit, I wouldn't have waited 4 years to give up on that.  But the Hapkido I learned, and most of the Aikido I have seen, doesn't stop at sword defense.  I was taught some very basic sword techniques, but mostly to give me an idea toward improving my sword (or stick or machete) defense, using both unarmed and short stick techniques.  Could you tell me what your art then was called?

One last thing.  What do you learn from Jocko Willink?  I haven't watched the video you posted.  I don't think I need to and don't have time right now to do so.  I have the greatest respect for Seals.  They go through some very tough training.  They have a fairly specific set of objectives, needing to work on land or sea.  But they don't take anything away from Special Forces, Rangers, or Delta Force.  Why?  Because they all have different missions.  And they are all good at what they do.  And they all train hard, and accomplish missions we will never hear about.  Point being, although I appreciate the training and work Seals do, they aren't the only ones.  If it is important, maybe you can give me a short synopsis of what he believes about martial arts, that I haven't learned?


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 8, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> If it is important, maybe you can give me a short synopsis of what he believes about martial arts, that I haven't learned?


Its basically another Traditional Martial Arts suck train BJJ video


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 8, 2017)

ballen0351 said:


> Its basically another Traditional Martial Arts suck train BJJ video



Thanks.

I expected it might be something like that.  No doubt he would deign to help any of us who asked him.  For a fee, of course.  He is in business, and self promotion is good business.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 8, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't understand your last statement.  If we are, as we usually say, learning MA to protect ourselves from attack, how is it so wrong to wait for an attack rather that initiate an attack and thus become an aggresser?  Not to mention that when an opponent finds so many of his attacks being used against him, he may decide it isn't worth it.


I'm talking about "in the ring" or "on the mat". In street, the strategy may require modification.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 8, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Not trying to be a picky confrontational person, but you surely know there are martial arts which base much of their success specifically on countering attacks, including grabs?  And in doing so generally, as part of the counter, prevent the opponent from another attack?


Have you even experienced someone's "monster grip" that when he grabs on your wrist, your whole arm cannot move?

If both you and your opponent have right side forward. When your right hand grab on your opponent's right wrist, you can sense his intention through the contact. When you sense that he tries to

- punch you with his back left hand, you can drag his right arm to your right (to his left), across his body, and force his own right arm to jam his own left arm.
- kick you with either of his legs, you can drag his right arm downward, force his weight to shift onto his leading leg. This way, he can't lift up his leg.

You can do this to your opponent. Your opponent cannot do this to you. Because you control his arm.

Of course when I grab you, you can pin my arm against your chest (next picture), disable my arm, and have control over me. But this is the "shoulder gate" situation. As far as the "wrist gate" situation that my hand grab on your wrist, the logic is still you have to break my wrist control before you can counter me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Your statement presumes something follows the grip. The "something" is what an aiki technique will respond to. You being one step ahead doesn't matter if the response is done right (a very big "if").


MA has lot of paradox (contradiction).

A: When I grab your wrist, you will be in trouble because ...
B: When you grab my wrist, you will be in trouble because ...

What will happen when A fight B?

IMO, we should not compare just A and B. We can only discuss MA "in general with logic".

When you make 1 move, I will make 1 move. ...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 8, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> MA has lot of paradox (contradiction).
> 
> A: When I grab your wrist, you will be in trouble because ...
> B: When you grab my wrist, you will be in trouble because ...
> ...


Whoever uses the right strategy against the other will win. If both do, it's a stalemate. "Right strategy" really depends upon what the other person does. So, if you grab me to restrain that side (your monster grip) and I respond with a perfect counter to someone pulling me in (which you aren't doing), my counter probably fails. If I counter precisely what you're bringing, it's either down to timing, or to which of us executes better, or strength.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Whoever uses the right strategy against the other will win.


When A grabs B's wrist, since it's easier to twist B's arm against A's thumb (1 finger) than to twist B's arm against A's other 4 fingers, A can predict the direction that B will twist his arm. That information can give A the advantage.

In the following example, A grabs B's arms in such way that when B twists his arms, B's center will be exposed. A can then move in right at that moment. A controls B's wrists first, A's goal is to control B's elbows.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 8, 2017)

DaveB said:


> This was my understanding as well. If you want to spar with an aikidoka you need armour or a shield as well as your boxing gloves.
> 
> I know it's met with laughter and derision but this is the kind of thing meant by the term battlefield art. Yes Aikido is a modern style but it was constructed on the back of and with the objectives of a mediaeval fighting art.
> 
> Should it be updated? I'm sure those that think so have and those that don't have not.



So next level too deadly to spar. The thing is people who have armor based styles like hema and the like are training in armor.


----------



## Steve (Sep 8, 2017)

I think we've all lost track of what this thread is about. 

Is it beautiful?
Are there any fancy movements or wasting of energy?
Does it make you calm?
Is it elegant and also deadly?
And last but not least, can someone please tell me once and for all if Aikido is THE BEST for self defense? 

Enquiring minds want to know!!!


----------



## Steve (Sep 8, 2017)

Also, I don't know what would happen if you grab my wrist.  But I'll give you three guesses what will happen if you pull my finger.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 8, 2017)

Steve said:


> I think we've all lost track of what this thread is about.
> 
> Is it beautiful?


no too many man buns and man pony tails


> Are there any fancy movements or wasting of energy?


makes me dizzy does that count?


> Does it make you calm?


nauseous(see above) 


> Is it elegant and also deadly?


depends on whos doing it


> And last but not least, can someone please tell me once and for all if Aikido is THE BEST for self defense?


no such thing as the best


----------



## drop bear (Sep 8, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> I can't comment on Aikido since I have never studied it.  In the Hapkido I studied, we were very defense oriented, tending to react to attacks.  But we did learn offenses, generally using a defensive move we had already learned, but using it to attack.
> 
> I don't understand your last statement.  If we are, as we usually say, learning MA to protect ourselves from attack, how is it so wrong to wait for an attack rather that initiate an attack and thus become an aggresser?  Not to mention that when an opponent finds so many of his attacks being used against him, he may decide it isn't worth it.



Having the ability to initiate does kind of help to be honest.

I mean you probably don't want to stand there while the other guy puts a headlock on you or something.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> My point is that the holding the hand never ends anyone on their butt. It's what's done with that hand, or after the grip that the aiki technique will respond to. To respond earlier is to respond to a non-attack, which is foreign to a pure-aiki approach (though many of the aiki techniques can easily adjust to that use).
> 
> I have people ask me about some of the static grip releases I teach. This is why I teach them. Just one more tool to adapt to differing situations.



Where as for me this is where the concept of "you messed up a long time ago" comes to play. A move is not just done. There are a whole bunch of steps that lead to that move.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 8, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When A grabs B's wrist, since it's easier to twist B's arm against A's thumb (1 finger) than to twist B's arm against A's other 4 fingers, A can predict the direction that B will twist his arm. That information can give A the advantage.
> 
> In the following example, A grabs B's arms in such way that when B twists his arms, B's center will be exposed. A can then move in right at that moment. A controls B's wrists first, A's goal is to control B's elbows.


Except that there are many other things, besides twisting, that can happen. A pull. Just holding it down while A punches with his free hand. Shoving it away to clear a path to move in for something else.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 8, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So next level too deadly to spar. The thing is people who have armor based styles like hema and the like are training in armor.


Yeah, I can't think why armor would be necessary (or even useful) against an Aikidoka.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 8, 2017)

Steve said:


> I think we've all lost track of what this thread is about.
> 
> Is it beautiful?
> Are there any fancy movements or wasting of energy?
> ...


Yes.
Yes.
Sometimes.
Depends who you ask.
Of course. Doesn't the title say that?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 8, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Having the ability to initiate does kind of help to be honest.
> 
> I mean you probably don't want to stand there while the other guy puts a headlock on you or something.


Depends how much you like him and his armpit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 8, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Where as for me this is where the concept of "you messed up a long time ago" comes to play. A move is not just done. There are a whole bunch of steps that lead to that move.


Agreed. And they aren't likely to happen with someone standing centered and relaxed, a step away, holding your hand. I suppose it could happen, but I'm having a hard time picturing where that particular scenario occurs. Unless the assault is a wedding.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. And they aren't likely to happen with someone standing centered and relaxed, a step away, holding your hand. I suppose it could happen, but I'm having a hard time picturing where that particular scenario occurs. Unless the assault is a wedding.


Ok. One scenario would be any wrestling.






So say you use your hands to do things like defend takedowns.






If i have control of that hand you can't crossface me. I have taken a step towards submitting you. You then have to play serious catch up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 8, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Ok. One scenario would be any wrestling.


But he's not. He's forward-leaning (typical for wrestling), and when he grabs, he's restraining, so not just relaxedly holding it. That's feedback, and he'll immediately (if he gets that hand) do something. He won't just be holding that hand. If he just holds it, and does nothing else, I'm not sure what his point was.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> But he's not. He's forward-leaning (typical for wrestling), and when he grabs, he's restraining, so not just relaxedly holding it. That's feedback, and he'll immediately (if he gets that hand) do something. He won't just be holding that hand. If he just holds it, and does nothing else, I'm not sure what his point was.


You are not getting pulled forwards or backward. it is not that sort of forwards lean. It is an upright forwards lean. Which I know makes no sense.

But O.K. If I wanted to punch you in the mouth. I can hold your hand and there is no real way you can defend a strike. Because my hand or elbow will get to your head before your hand does.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 8, 2017)

It is all grip and counter grip.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 8, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You are not getting pulled forwards or backward. it is not that sort of forwards lean. It is an upright forwards lean. Which I know makes no sense.
> 
> But O.K. If I wanted to punch you in the mouth. I can hold your hand and there is no real way you can defend a strike. Because my hand or elbow will get to your head before your hand does.


I'm talking about the other guy's lean.

And, yeah, there are things that can happen while you're holding the hand. Remember, I was pointing out that aiki techniques don't tend to deal with that static hold (they wait for something non-static to work with), and that's why there should be some non-aiki techniques, even in an aiki-based system.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 8, 2017)

This is Chinese wrestling "grip fight". When you grab on your opponent, he will break your grip.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> they wait for something non-static to work with...


Even that "non-static" move may not be what an Aikido master is ready for. The wrist grip is only the 1st step.


----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 9, 2017)

Steve said:


> I think we've all lost track of what this thread is about.
> 
> Is it beautiful?
> Are there any fancy movements or wasting of energy?
> ...



Exactly!

I love all martial arts, I love the romance between man and art form, and give all respect and honor to all and its long roots and foundations.

The throws, trapping techniques, grappling swing energy etc

In all these forms or styles but they were used in a time when there was more honor in fighting and or self defense 1 vs 1.

In past ancient times it was more of a duel than a brawl.

These days its a brawl from different angles you better know how to tuck in and know how to fight from a clinch out, or to take out one and move around very quick so on, creating angles breaking the approach sequence giving you tactical advantage and time to strategically find a way out or control the situation as best as you can buying time if you like.

So hard to explain all this on a Forum and I hope it never happens to you or someone you love its vicious nowadays watch............






If you have Aikido or Hapkido or Jiu Jitsu you better have more tools in your skill-sets than just that for self defense purposes in a real dangerous life threatening situation like..........

Striking ranges
Ground skills
Movement footwork and body

Speed kicks and punches

Mobility of muscle groups 

Strength legs, torso, arms

Mixed skills - tools
Manage distance

Technique - your strategy to read fights 

Cardio - level of fitness
Etc all are critical and very important to survival in a bad situation.

Tip - "Confined space Fighting" -  I linked a video in another thread that shows this very point.

But I'm going to stop here this is the internet there is only so much you can discuss before it goes bad.

For those who did n't watch the video above on Jocko Willink please do so and there are other military guys online that will give you good feedback on what really works in a real life hostile environment like a war battlefield scenario or a suburban confrontation even a bar fight.

Love the martial arts but be honest to yourself and how you express yourself in the martial arts form you practice!

Practice the art and then practice the street is the point!

Its why I have and embrace Jeet Kune Do + Wing Chun  + Aiki-Jiu-Jitsu as as my love and passion for the martial arts, what works for you might not work for another because of body type.

That's all from FighterTwister!


----------



## drop bear (Sep 9, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'm talking about the other guy's lean.
> 
> And, yeah, there are things that can happen while you're holding the hand. Remember, I was pointing out that aiki techniques don't tend to deal with that static hold (they wait for something non-static to work with), and that's why there should be some non-aiki techniques, even in an aiki-based system.



Not sure what you mean by the other guys lean Both guys are pretty much centered. The grip fighting is in effect static vs static. It is in part either to gain a control or create a response. It could be done from an upright position just you are more easily taken down that way so wrestlers dont do it. This is because you need your hands near your legs to defend takedowns.

You asked for a situation where someone would do a static arm grab attack.

All of wrestling is one of those curcumstances. This transfers in concept of fighting in that the arm grabs then stop weapons and punches. So you may employ this or even face it on the street. 

Waiting for something to happen is silly. Something has happend. Your arm has been grabbed.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 9, 2017)

Steve said:


> Also, I don't know what would happen if you grab my wrist.  But I'll give you three guesses what will happen if you pull my finger.



I wait for triangle chokes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 9, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Even that "non-static" move may not be what an Aikido master is ready for. The wrist grip is only the 1st step.


That kind of movement shouldn't be foreign to anyone doing stand-up grappling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 9, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Not sure what you mean by the other guys lean Both guys are pretty much centered. The grip fighting is in effect static vs static. It is in part either to gain a control or create a response. It could be done from an upright position just you are more easily taken down that way so wrestlers dont do it. This is because you need your hands near your legs to defend takedowns.
> 
> You asked for a situation where someone would do a static arm grab attack.
> 
> ...


I never said it wasn't silly. I said that would be the aiki approach (and the approach in some Aikido schools). That's why there have to be less-aiki tools.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 9, 2017)

drop bear said:


> you need your hands near your legs to defend takedowns.


IMO, this is too conservative thinking. If you can "under hook" your opponent's arms, his arms can't reach to your leg.

It's better to deal with the origin of the problem - your opponent's arms than to put yourself in defensive mode. The same logic that I prefer "arm wrapping" than "head dodging".


----------



## drop bear (Sep 9, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, this is too conservative thinking. If you can "under hook" your opponent's arms, his arms can't reach to your leg.
> 
> It's better to deal with the origin of the problem - your opponent's arms than to put yourself in defensive mode. The same logic that I prefer "arm wrapping" than "head dodging".



So grip fighting or fighting for position?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 9, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So grip fighting or fighting for position?


IMO, the goal of the grip fight is to have

- one arm to control your opponent's elbow joint (for example, arm wrap).
- another arm to control your opponent's shoulder/head (for example, under hook or head lock).

But the starting point is the wrist joint.

wrist -> elbow -> shoulder/head

Since your hands will start from right next to your opponent's hands, your opponent's hands cannot go down to your leg that easy.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 9, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You are not getting pulled forwards or backward. it is not that sort of forwards lean. It is an upright forwards lean. Which I know makes no sense.
> 
> But O.K. If I wanted to punch you in the mouth. I can hold your hand and there is no real way you can defend a strike. *Because my hand or elbow will get to your head before your hand does*.



That's not really true.  The defenses I learned generally cause the opponent to be turned in such a manner as to prevent him from being able to strike or kick me.  Now as I have stated before, I must be quick in my defense, as must we all.  As to the likelihood of someone attacking me by holding my wrist, I agree, in the western world that is less likely.  Opponents are more likely to grab a chest, upper arm, or shoulder if they wish to hold me so they can strike me.  We have defenses for that also though.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 9, 2017)

What is most interesting to me in this thread is seeing comments and descriptions based on the writer's base art.  Also, showing clips of fighting styles where rules against damaging an opponent apply.  I may even do that myself sometimes. When I think I see that, I try to understand if it is workable, even it my art wouldn't do it that way.  Quite often, I expect it might.  Just not my art's way.  As I said, interesting.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 9, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> That's not really true.  The defenses I learned generally cause the opponent to be turned in such a manner as to prevent him from being able to strike or kick me.  Now as I have stated before, I must be quick in my defense, as must we all.  As to the likelihood of someone attacking me by holding my wrist, I agree, in the western world that is less likely.  Opponents are more likely to grab a chest, upper arm, or shoulder if they wish to hold me so they can strike me.  We have defenses for that also though.



No. If I have your wrist then let go of your wrist and punch you in the head the likley hood is I will get there before you.

All of this is working on the theory that for some reason the other guy is just going to let me take his wrist untill such time as I do something agressive with it.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 9, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> What is most interesting to me in this thread is seeing comments and descriptions based on the writer's base art.  Also, showing clips of fighting styles where rules against damaging an opponent apply.  I may even do that myself sometimes. When I think I see that, I try to understand if it is workable, even it my art wouldn't do it that way.  Quite often, I expect it might.  Just not my art's way.  As I said, interesting.



If you are going to bring up rules you have to show why they matter. Rules based moves work in no rules environments. 

In this specific case potentially more so. Because if they have a weapon for example I want a method of securing that arm. So I am going to grab and retain a wrist.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 10, 2017)

drop bear said:


> No. If I have your wrist then let go of your wrist and punch you in the head the likley hood is I will get there before you.
> 
> All of this is working on the theory that for some reason the other guy is just going to let me take his wrist untill such time as I do something agressive with it.


Assuming he blocks with the same hand you were holding, you're almost certainly correct. And this is part of the problem with looking at defense through a purely aiki lens. If you grab my wrist and I do nothing more than roll under your hand with mine (assuming you just let me do that, since it was just a grab at this point), I slow down that hand and might (depending upon your position) slow any rotation you could bring to a punch from the other hand. That's the weakest response I can think of, and it's already worlds better than waiting for you to pull or punch before I react.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 10, 2017)

drop bear said:


> If you are going to bring up rules you have to show why they matter. Rules based moves work in no rules environments.
> 
> In this specific case potentially more so. Because if they have a weapon for example I want a method of securing that arm. So I am going to grab and retain a wrist.


"Possess" is more like it. If there's a weapon in that hand, and I get ahold of the wrist, it is miiiine!


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 10, 2017)

drop bear said:


> No. If I have your wrist then let go of your wrist and punch you in the head the likley hood is I will get there before you.
> 
> All of this is working on the theory that for some reason the other guy is just going to let me take his wrist untill such time as I do something agressive with it.



Oh, so you are going to give me two hands to defend with?  And that will ensure your success?  Be careful with that.  How will you guard against my legs?

Now, I am not the smartest person in the world, but not the dumbest either.  A lot of any defense has a lot of variables.  You may be much faster than I am.  You may be stronger than I am.  You may have any number of other advantages over me. 

But what would prevent me from deflecting your punch just enough to make it miss, and striking you in some way?  How about if as I deflect it while stepping in, I grab that arm with both my hands, one in the forearm, the other on the upper arm, gripping painfully hard, then as I continue to move in, all the while grabbing your skin and muscles, I turn and slip under your hip and throw you?  That is a viable defense.  But of course, there are many variables that will prevent you from countering it, or me pulling it off.  But *if* I get it right, you are in trouble.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 10, 2017)

drop bear said:


> If you are going to bring up rules you have to show why they matter. Rules based moves work in no rules environments.
> 
> In this specific case potentially more so. Because if they have a weapon for example I want a method of securing that arm. So I am going to grab and retain a wrist.



Was there a rule not to kill so as not to go to jail.  Can you see any instances where someone could have killed an opponent?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 10, 2017)

drop bear said:


> All of this is working on the theory that for some reason the other guy is just going to let me take his wrist untill such time as I do something agressive with it.


It doesn't matter whether you can finally grab on your opponent's wrist or not. If your opponent rotates his arm to avoid your wrist grab, he will open himself up, your hand can just slide along his arm and control on top of his elbow joint. A missing wrist grab is just like a "parry". Depending on how you may try to grab, you can predict how your opponent's arm is going to rotate (against your thumb, 1 finger).

When I try to grab my opponent's wrist, I don't expect that I'll always get it. I just want him to rotate his arm as I predict so I can "enter". In other words, the purpose of my wrist grab is to force my opponent to remove the arm guard that he uses to protect his head.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 10, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Oh, so you are going to give me two hands to defend with?  And that will ensure your success?  Be careful with that.  How will you guard against my legs?
> 
> Now, I am not the smartest person in the world, but not the dumbest either.  A lot of any defense has a lot of variables.  You may be much faster than I am.  You may be stronger than I am.  You may have any number of other advantages over me.
> 
> But what would prevent me from deflecting your punch just enough to make it miss, and striking you in some way?  How about if as I deflect it while stepping in, I grab that arm with both my hands, one in the forearm, the other on the upper arm, gripping painfully hard, then as I continue to move in, all the while grabbing your skin and muscles, I turn and slip under your hip and throw you?  That is a viable defense.  But of course, there are many variables that will prevent you from countering it, or me pulling it off.  But *if* I get it right, you are in trouble.



My hand has the inside track to your head from a wrist grab. It is a positional advantage.

You cant hit me with that hand because I am grabbing it. So I am safer in that instance. 

It is basically a free shot. Now for me I dont just give people free shots because being punched in the face sucks and I like to reduce the amount of times that happens in a fight.

This means you have to take two steps to deal with me offensively where I take one. I see you take the first step. I just take that free shot.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 10, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Was there a rule not to kill so as not to go to jail.  Can you see any instances where someone could have killed an opponent?



If they were trying to kill each other how does that change the mechanics of the situation?

This is what I want you to think about when you make the rules no rules distinction. Otherwise it just doesn't really effect the out come. And you are basically spouting dogma.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 10, 2017)

drop bear said:


> If they were trying to kill each other how does that change the mechanics of the situation?
> 
> This is what I want you to think about when you make the rules no rules distinction. Otherwise it just doesn't really effect the out come. And you are basically spouting dogma.



You're kidding, right?



drop bear said:


> My hand has the inside track to your head from a wrist grab. It is a positional advantage.
> 
> You cant hit me with that hand because I am grabbing it. So I am safer in that instance.
> 
> ...



You don't know grappling. or at least Hapkido.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 11, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> You're kidding, right?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know grappling. or at least Hapkido.



Not kidding.

Who are the elite fighters who use Hapkido that would convince me to reinvent the wheel


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 11, 2017)

drop bear said:


> My hand has the inside track to your head from a wrist grab. It is a positional advantage.
> 
> You cant hit me with that hand because I am grabbing it. So I am safer in that instance.
> 
> ...



I did not understand that you would be trying to hit me with the hand you were holding my wrist with.  Several wrist grab defenses have me grabbing you hand with my free hand.  Even if I didn't get the grapple I want, I would be blocking your hand.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 11, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Not kidding.
> 
> Who are the elite fighters who use Hapkido that would convince me to reinvent the wheel



For a Hapkidoist, there are too many rules.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 11, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> I did not understand that you would be trying to hit me with the hand you were holding my wrist with.  Several wrist grab defenses have me grabbing you hand with my free hand.  Even if I didn't get the grapple I want, I would be blocking your hand.


Since "wrist grab" is one of my favor discussion subject, let me put in my 2 cents here.

In the following clip, The moment that A's right hand grabs on B's left wrist, the moment that A's left arm moves in between B's head and B's right arm.

In other words, the opportunity for B to use both hands to deal with A's right hand may not be possible all the time.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 11, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Since "wrist grab" is one of my favor discussion subject, let me put in my 2 cents here.
> 
> In the following clip, The moment that A's right hand grabs on B's left wrist, the moment that A's left arm moves in between B's head and B's right arm.
> 
> In other words, the opportunity for B to use both hands to deal with A's right hand may not be possible all the time.



I don't think this is the type of grab Drop Bear and I were talking about, at least not me.  But I think this would be something Drop Bear would delight in.  As A moves in, B could easily jab A in the throat, face, or rake the eyes.  Other things could follow.

Interesting video anyway.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 11, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't think this is the type of grab Drop Bear and I were talking about, at least not me.  But I think this would be something Drop Bear would delight in.  As A moves in, B could easily jab A in the throat, face, or rake the eyes.  Other things could follow.
> 
> Interesting video anyway.



Not once he has the inside track.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 11, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> For a Hapkidoist, there are too many rules.



Thats convenient.

So your method is extra effective and you dont have to provide evidence of it ever working because it is so deadly.

For me the nature of a working method is that someone uses it somewhere.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 11, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Thats convenient.
> 
> So your method is extra effective and you dont have to provide evidence of it ever working because it is so deadly.
> 
> For me the nature of a working method is that someone uses it somewhere.


Except that it has to be somewhere you acknowledge as valid, if I recall some of our previous conversations properly.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 11, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Except that it has to be somewhere you acknowledge as valid, if I recall some of our previous conversations properly.



And I dont acknowledge tough pub talk from anybody as valid.

I know I am such a hard task master on this. But you can see where relying on the fantasy of your system conflicts with the reality of what you can actually do with it.

In his head he is going to do all these awesome illegal moves that will just wreck people. The reality is if he gets punched in the mouth it will be the same as everybody else. Rules, no rules, no difference.

And you really dont see punches coming when they are coming at full pace.

The same flying flipping around nonsense as aikido when it is too deadly to spar.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 11, 2017)

drop bear said:


> And I dont acknowledge tough pub talk from anybody as valid.
> 
> I know I am such a hard task master on this. But you can see where relying on the fantasy of your system conflicts with the reality of what you can actually do with it.
> 
> ...


You're just stuck on that phrase, and applying it to an entire system, when I mentioned a couple of techniques that weren't safe for full application in resisted sparring. Let it go, already.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 11, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> As A moves in, B could easily jab A in the throat, face, or rake the eyes.  Other things could follow.


Are you talking about B's (person in black) left hand, or B's right hand? The way that I look at this strategy is the following:

When A's right hand controls B's left wrist, A can

- drag B's left arm across B's body to jam B's own right arm (not shown in this clip).
- tuck B's left arm away from A's entering path by moving B's left arm to the left of B's body. Since A's left arm is moving in next to B's chest, It will be easier for A to separate B's right arm away from B's body.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 11, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> You're just stuck on that phrase, and applying it to an entire system, when I mentioned a couple of techniques that weren't safe for full application in resisted sparring. Let it go, already.



You are the only person who think uppercuts are too deadly to spar though.

So I wouldn't drop the mike and walk off stage just yet if I was you.

And offheard1 applied it to a whole style. It is the reason no elite fighters use their method.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Thats convenient.
> 
> So your method is extra effective and you dont have to provide evidence of it ever working because it is so deadly.
> 
> For me the nature of a working method is that someone uses it somewhere.



Don't put words in my mouth.  But since you mention it, the last time I was in Korea there was a Korean Army unit that required a 3rd degree in a MA to be in it.  Hapkido was the preferred MA.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> And I dont acknowledge tough pub talk from anybody as valid.
> 
> I know I am such a hard task master on this. But you can see where relying on the fantasy of your system conflicts with the reality of what you can actually do with it.
> 
> ...



The only advice I could suggest to you would be to study Hapkido or Aikido for a year or two and see if you still believe those MA have no value.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You are the only person who think uppercuts are too deadly to spar though.
> 
> So I wouldn't drop the mike and walk off stage just yet if I was you.
> 
> And offheard1 applied it to a whole style. It is the reason no elite fighters use their method.



As long as you feel good in your belief (correct or not) good on you.

And as you well know well, it is oftheherd1.  If that is the best you can do, I am sorry for you.  Or maybe not.  You are so easily convinced of your cleverness you are unable to consider other possibilities.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 12, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> The only advice I could suggest to you would be to study Hapkido or Aikido for a year or two and see if you still believe those MA have no value.



How about we find out if it has value before we spend a year doing it.

A year to find out if something is useless?

Seriously?

Why don't you spend a year on meth just to see if it is bad for you or not.


----------



## webmaster786 (Sep 12, 2017)

Robust Aikido coach you real budo "warrior's way" so you can stay away being caught up in a bad situation. Simply any martial art can be used for self defense extend as long as you have good training.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> How about we find out if it has value before we spend a year doing it.
> 
> A year to find out if something is useless?
> 
> ...



We are not likely to ever agree.  Post away, I won't however.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> How about we find out if it has value before we spend a year doing it.
> 
> A year to find out if something is useless?
> 
> ...


Feh.  As I expected, this thread is nothing but a long list of penis measuring as one poster goes on about how great Martial Art X is, followed with another poster going on about how it's sucks and is fake.

What it this, 1998?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear (Sep 12, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Feh.  As I expected, this thread is nothing but a long list of penis measuring as one poster goes on about how great Martial Art X is, followed with another poster going on about how it's sucks and is fake.
> 
> What it this, 1998?
> 
> ...



Bringing back a ricky martin vibe for you?





My issue was that I have to try something for a year before I can judge if it is good or bad. Seems silly. As I said how do you know meth is bad if you haven't tried it? 

When the argument becomes about justifying the technique by the percieved deadlyness of the martial art. Then the martial art should be legitimately deadly. 

I have no issue with penis mesurement so long as there is mesurement involved. 

There isnt. 

And look everybody doesn't like something. I dont like martial arts that rely on mysticism. The same way I dont like voodo being used as medicine. 

I would like martial arts to actually do what they say they can do. Not sure why that gets so much opposition. Why there is such a results don't matter vibe.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You are the only person who think uppercuts are too deadly to spar though.
> 
> So I wouldn't drop the mike and walk off stage just yet if I was you.
> 
> And offheard1 applied it to a whole style. It is the reason no elite fighters use their method.


I never said an uppercut was too dangerous for sparring. Go back and look at the context. I said it couldn't be safely fully executed (meaning full-force) in normal sparring.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I never said an uppercut was too dangerous for sparring. Go back and look at the context. I said it couldn't be safely fully executed (meaning full-force) in normal sparring.



Which was your definition of too deadly for sparring. That someone cant hit a guy flat knacker with one without hurting them.

It did not apply to the term then. It does not apply to the term now.

I called it a strawman then. And it is still one.

So why are you pursuing this?


----------



## drop bear (Sep 13, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> Don't put words in my mouth.  But since you mention it, the last time I was in Korea there was a Korean Army unit that required a 3rd degree in a MA to be in it.  Hapkido was the preferred MA.



OK. That is nice. Can you show me where this army has effectively used these concepts?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 13, 2017)

drop bear said:


> OK. That is nice. Can you show me where this army has effectively used these concepts?



No more from or to you.  Imho you only wish to argue.  I have better things to do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 13, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Which was your definition of too deadly for sparring. That someone cant hit a guy flat knacker with one without hurting them.
> 
> It did not apply to the term then. It does not apply to the term now.
> 
> ...


"Too deadly" is a straw man.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> "Too deadly" is a straw man.



Not at all. Just your definition does not apply to it. It never did. Your definition basically states that if you punch a guy as hard as you can you will probably hurt them.

If we cant see a method work outside a drill. It is too deadly to spar. If we dont see a practitioner of the art ever practitioning is too dealy to spar.

We might see some red hot hapkido guys being awesome. I dont know but saying that there are no elite fignters from hapkido because there are too many rules.

Sorry it just doesn't cut it.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 13, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> No more from or to you.  Imho you only wish to argue.  I have better things to do.



It is like people are actively ignoring reality.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 13, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Not at all. Just your definition does not apply to it. It never did. Your definition basically states that if you punch a guy as hard as you can you will probably hurt them.
> 
> If we cant see a method work outside a drill. It is too deadly to spar. If we dont see a practitioner of the art ever practitioning is too dealy to spar.
> 
> ...


It fits the definition of a strawman, as does most of your debate in this area. I've never claimed anything was too deadly, yet you insist on applying that language, because it makes it easier to argue against (the purpose of a strawman). I mentioned two techniques which I consider not usable in sparring because they have no use (as we apply them) other than destruction, and you proceeded to argue using other techniques without ever finding out which techniques I was referring to. By substituting what you wished to discuss for my actual argument, you created a textbook strawman argument.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 13, 2017)

drop bear said:


> It is like people are actively ignoring reality.


It's also a lot like people are ignoring the actual discussion, creating their own version they wish to argue about, rather than addressing any real issues  (and there may be some) with the actual arguments put forth.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 13, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Bringing back a ricky martin vibe for you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Who gives a flying fornication whether or not it's "real" enough or "effective" enough?  Just go train.  You do what you do and let them do what they do.  You can feel smug in the knowledge that if one of the Granola-eating Bunnies & Light Akidoka decides to attack you, for some mystifying reason, you can effortlessly kick their butts.

Here, this is for you:


----------



## StevenNotSeagal (Sep 13, 2017)

Aikido from what I have seen, and I was seriously looking at it when looking for a martial art to study is NOT for people who want to fight, its for people who do not want to fight. I am quite able to punch or headbutt somebody on the nose. Its a very easy and non complicated thing to do, from what I have seen, Aikido is an attempt to create a more peaceful solution.
I see it getting bashed quite a lot on forums but what I will say is this, I do not think starting any martial art would have made me forget how to punch somebody on the nose but add what it teaches to what I already know.

The reason I chose Taekwondo is because I am a natural grappler and have a good left and right. However my kicking and general fitness has much room for improvement (understatement of the year) many people also bash TKD, but depending upon the person and what they need pretty much every martial art bar those whacky ones claiming some magic non touch KO can fit individuals for a great number of diverse reasons.

People tout MMA as the answer, but firstly I have seen a large number of cage fighters who would be utterly crap at legging it when needed and secondly in the real world many people have jobs where turning up with a swollen face from training all the time would wear thin with their employer pretty quickly.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 13, 2017)

StevenNotSeagal said:


> Aikido ..., its for people who do not want to fight.


My friend Sensei Armando Flores will not agree with you on this. Back in 1976, one weekend Armando and another MA instructor visited me. I told them that there was a local Karate tournament. I threw Karate gloves (the soft kind) to both of them. We went to compete in that tournament. Armando was disqualified in the 1st round by making face contact and drew blood. A week later, he was kicked out of his National Aikido Association. After that, he went over sea to further study his Aikido. He told me that "combat" was always his main goal.


----------



## ballen0351 (Sep 13, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Who gives a flying fornication whether or not it's "real" enough or "effective" enough?  Just go train.  You do what you do and let them do what they do.  You can feel smug in the knowledge that if one of the Granola-eating Bunnies & Light Akidoka decides to attack you, for some mystifying reason, you can effortlessly kick their butts.
> 
> Here, this is for you:



I need a bigger ruler.......


----------



## drop bear (Sep 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It fits the definition of a strawman, as does most of your debate in this area. I've never claimed anything was too deadly, yet you insist on applying that language, because it makes it easier to argue against (the purpose of a strawman). I mentioned two techniques which I consider not usable in sparring because they have no use (as we apply them) other than destruction, and you proceeded to argue using other techniques without ever finding out which techniques I was referring to. By substituting what you wished to discuss for my actual argument, you created a textbook strawman argument.



You specified two techniques both only applied to your definition of too deadly uppercuts and finger bending. That definition does not apply here. And it did not apply then.

But you brought it up anyway. Then when I did apply it to the argument. You then noticed it did not apply and used that fact in some epic back flipping. While still trying to stand by your original point.

You had the opportunity to present other techniques and you didn't or couldn't. Even though you couldn't present these techniques you still tried to count them in as examples. And now you are blaming me that I don't know techniques that you never explained.

There is no strawman if you used one first. That is just silly. 

This is pretty simple. Apply an argument that relates to the discussion. Not one that you are having with yourself. Don't suggest that an argument is closed that you basically rage quit from because I pointed out how inconsistent it is.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 13, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Who gives a flying fornication whether or not it's "real" enough or "effective" enough?  Just go train.  You do what you do and let them do what they do.  You can feel smug in the knowledge that if one of the Granola-eating Bunnies & Light Akidoka decides to attack you, for some mystifying reason, you can effortlessly kick their butts.
> 
> Here, this is for you:



I have seen people thrown under a bus with martial arts that don't work and seen people bashed because of it. Watching and letting that happen so that I can feel smug is scummy.

Seriously I really don't understand what drives some people.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 13, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You specified two techniques both only applied to your definition of too deadly uppercuts and finger bending. That definition does not apply here. And it did not apply then.
> 
> But you brought it up anyway. Then when I did apply it to the argument. You then noticed it did not apply and used that fact in some epic back flipping. While still trying to stand by your original point.
> 
> ...


Actually, those were the references I made to try to clarify. But you don't really care what my arguments are - that's why you keep going back to "too deadly". Too bad - I appreciate when you give me something to challenge my view. Here, you're ignoring my actual view, so nothing to challenge it.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, those were the references I made to try to clarify. But you don't really care what my arguments are - that's why you keep going back to "too deadly". Too bad - I appreciate when you give me something to challenge my view. Here, you're ignoring my actual view, so nothing to challenge it.



You actual view isn't challenged. If you judo throw someone off a ten story building. That throw is too deadly to spar. 

It is how you are applying that view to this conversion that I am challenging.

Which is there are no examples of a method working because there are too many rules.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 13, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You actual view isn't challenged. If you judo throw someone off a ten story building. That throw is too deadly to spar.
> 
> It is how you are applying that view to this conversion that I am challenging.
> 
> Which is there are no examples of a method working because there are too many rules.


Um, that last sentence has nothing to do with any position I've ever taken.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Um, that last sentence has nothing to do with any position I've ever taken.



Yeah no kidding.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 14, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I have seen people thrown under a bus with martial arts that don't work and seen people bashed because of it. Watching and letting that happen so that I can feel smug is scummy.


And you care because of your vast empathy for humanity?  Based on what you post here, I call BS.  It's penis measuring.



> Seriously I really don't understand what drives some people.


I do.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 14, 2017)

lklawson said:


> And you care because of your vast empathy for humanity?  Based on what you post here, I call BS.  It's penis measuring.
> 
> I do.



I spend as much time trying to clean up peoples messes as I do expaining people are a mess in the first place.

I am surprised how effectiveness has such a low priority in martial arts discussion. To the point where discussing effectiveness is offensive? I just dont understand that concept.

Mabye that is where the disconnect is occuring. For me martial arts is a functional skill.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 14, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I spend as much time trying to clean up peoples messes as I do expaining people are a mess in the first place.
> 
> I am surprised how effectiveness has such a low priority in martial arts discussion. To the point where discussing effectiveness is offensive? I just dont understand that concept.
> 
> Mabye that is where the disconnect is occuring. For me martial arts is a functional skill.


For *YOU*.

"Martial Arts" is an exceptionally broad and over-arching phrase meaning anything from an effective modern fighting system to a Philosophy with elements of "moving meditation."  It encompass ancient and antique fighting styles and concepts no longer applicable to modern fighting as well as Social Combat, Dueling, and Military Combat, all of which have different contexts and different rules in every varied geography and time period.

Complicating things even more, frequently people claim they want something out of martial arts which they really don't (most often "self defense").

And then to top off this crap sandwich, there is the extremely common theme of male chest thumping, competition, and one-upmanship which you seem to be exhibiting for us while cloaking with the laughable mantle of charity.

So when you and others go on about "effectiveness" of martial arts, I often wonder "effective" in what context, when, where, and why?  When you claim that martial arts should be a "functional skill" the question should be "functional for *WHAT*?"  Oral history has that Buddha taught the martial arts to the monks at Shaolin not out of a need for self defense or need for fighting but as an exercise system to fulfill a specific need for fitness.

So, no, I'm not buying what you're selling.


----------



## StevenNotSeagal (Sep 14, 2017)

lklawson said:


> For *YOU*.
> 
> "Martial Arts" is an exceptionally broad and over-arching phrase meaning anything from an effective modern fighting system to a Philosophy with elements of "moving meditation."  It encompass ancient and antique fighting styles and concepts no longer applicable to modern fighting as well as Social Combat, Dueling, and Military Combat, all of which have different contexts and different rules in every varied geography and time period.
> 
> ...




I will offer an example. I do not know you from Adam. I have travelled to America to see the old Colonies and we happen to be in same bar. (In this scenario we are not our own personas) I announce in a conversation that "we won the war of 1812" a heated debate ensues, I have had a few too many and in typical Brit in a foreign town style I shove you. You say "dont shove me again", I shove you.........and at this point I can certainly see Aikido cleaning my clock quite quickly.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 14, 2017)

lklawson said:


> For *YOU*.
> 
> "Martial Arts" is an exceptionally broad and over-arching phrase meaning anything from an effective modern fighting system to a Philosophy with elements of "moving meditation."  It encompass ancient and antique fighting styles and concepts no longer applicable to modern fighting as well as Social Combat, Dueling, and Military Combat, all of which have different contexts and different rules in every varied geography and time period.
> 
> ...



As I said. This removal of functionality from martial arts conversation is a real suprise to me. I always considered it important. Now I suddenly find I have to argue the point of functionality in martial arts to people.

I honestly thought that was a given. 

I dont consider your aproach to martial arts ethical.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 14, 2017)

drop bear said:


> As I said. This removal of functionality from martial arts conversation is a real suprise to me. I always considered it important. Now I suddenly find I have to argue the point of functionality in martial arts to people.
> 
> I honestly thought that was a given.


And as I wrote, your use of the term "functional" is artificially narrow and, at this point, deliberately ignores reality of the broad application of martial arts.  I'll try one last time, though I am coming to believe that it is a futile effort and you will, once again, deliberately ignore the evidence in favor of advancing your own artificially excluding "definition."

I know you like MMA.  Let's call it circa UFC 3.  In your standard definition it is "functional" and "effective."  So a MMA player challenges an 18th Century Smallsword Maestro, a duelist, to a fight.  Unsurprisingly, the Maestro jams three feet of steel into the bare-handed MMA player's face.  This happened because the context was different.  Despite the fact that Smallsword duels were often tightly controlled with rules and social conventions managing everything from time of day, to "Seconds," to number of "passes," and may have disallowed "pommelling"

How many times do you see anyone in a modern 1st World Nation swaggering down the street with a Smallsword on his side?  (I'm guessing "never.")  Context. 

Time period, location, social requirements, legal requirements, etc., are all important.

Today, studying Smallsword in the theory that it is an "effective" and "functional" self defense system is laughable.  Yet it is still studied by many for sundry other, often esoteric, reasons.  Nevertheless, Smallsword is still a "martial art" regardless of what you seem to claim.

Again, no, I'm not buying what you are selling.



> I dont consider your aproach to martial arts ethical.


Honestly, at this point I don't give a fat fiddler's foreskin what you claim you believe is ethical.  It's pretty clear that you're engaged in the internet version of the Monkey Dance; vying for position in the pecking order.  Feh.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 14, 2017)

lklawson said:


> And as I wrote, your use of the term "functional" is artificially narrow and, at this point, deliberately ignores reality of the broad application of martial arts.  I'll try one last time, though I am coming to believe that it is a futile effort and you will, once again, deliberately ignore the evidence in favor of advancing your own artificially excluding "definition."
> 
> I know you like MMA.  Let's call it circa UFC 3.  In your standard definition it is "functional" and "effective."  So a MMA player challenges an 18th Century Smallsword Maestro, a duelist, to a fight.  Unsurprisingly, the Maestro jams three feet of steel into the bare-handed MMA player's face.  This happened because the context was different.  Despite the fact that Smallsword duels were often tightly controlled with rules and social conventions managing everything from time of day, to "Seconds," to number of "passes," and may have disallowed "pommelling"
> 
> ...



If you are going to learn sword fighting then at the end of your training after all time effort and money you have given up. You really should expect to be a competent sword fighter. If someone shoots you. That is not a reflection of your sword fighting training.

That to me is the pretty clear difference between between functional and non functional. 

Providing a service that does what you say it does is a pretty clear example of an ethical standard.

If you don't do what you say you can do. And then suggest that is because what you said you can do is such an obscure idea that technically the other guy is a dick for expecting that. Is clearly to me unethical.

That you don't give a fat fiddlers foreskin about what I consider ethical would make sense as ethics generally needs empathy.

From a MMA perspective people get hurt if they try to fight with a system that is non functional. So functionality becomes more important ethically. You get to watch the guy you have trained get his face smashed in. 

Something you apparently don't feel it is important to concern yourself about. 

So yes. If your priorities are not functionality you will not buy what I am selling and will sell whatever it is you sell.

If your concern is the pecking order or whatever. Good luck with that. If that was my thing I would agree with people more often and become one of the mean girls.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 15, 2017)

drop bear said:


> As I said. This removal of functionality from martial arts conversation is a real suprise to me. I always considered it important. Now I suddenly find I have to argue the point of functionality in martial arts to people.
> 
> I honestly thought that was a given.
> 
> I dont consider your aproach to martial arts ethical.


In some CMA forums, people will look down on you if you ever talk about "fighting". People may just say, "If you care about fighting, you should buy yourself a gun". People in those forums are only interested in health, self-cultivation, inner peace, world peace, new world order, ...". All Aikido thread discussion may lead into that direction. You should not be surprised at all.

At least in this forum, more people are interested in "fight".


----------



## Tarrycat (Sep 15, 2017)

Kiron said:


> I'm learning Aikido for its beautiful defense. No fancy movements, no wasting of energy, and the very important thing is it is able to make you calm. It's elegant yet deadly Martial Art.



It's the perfect martial art for women; hence it doesn't require strength or force. We do the exact same in Ninjutsu & use a lot of Aikido-based kata. 

I looooove it!


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Sep 23, 2017)

Remember that time an aikido guy beat a jujitsu guy?

Neither do I.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Sep 23, 2017)

Remember that time an aikido guy beat a jujitsu guy?

Neither do I.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Sep 23, 2017)

lklawson said:


> And as I wrote, your use of the term "functional" is artificially narrow and, at this point, deliberately ignores reality of the broad application of martial arts.  I'll try one last time, though I am coming to believe that it is a futile effort and you will, once again, deliberately ignore the evidence in favor of advancing your own artificially excluding "definition."
> 
> I know you like MMA.  Let's call it circa UFC 3.  In your standard definition it is "functional" and "effective."  So a MMA player challenges an 18th Century Smallsword Maestro, a duelist, to a fight.  Unsurprisingly, the Maestro jams three feet of steel into the bare-handed MMA player's face.  This happened because the context was different.  Despite the fact that Smallsword duels were often tightly controlled with rules and social conventions managing everything from time of day, to "Seconds," to number of "passes," and may have disallowed "pommelling"
> 
> ...



No offense, but what you wrote is a lot of nonsense. Martial arts in every culture outside of the Chinese/Japanese paradigm were (and are) about fighting skill.

Also, most people who begin martial arts do so for self-defense skills. What's unethical is when instructors try to sell an impractical martial art like aikido as a viable self-defense system.


----------



## MA_Student (Sep 23, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> No offense, but what you wrote is a lot of nonsense. Martial arts in every culture outside of the Chinese/Japanese paradigm were (and are) about fighting skill.
> 
> Also, most people who begin martial arts do so for self-defense skills. What's unethical is when instructors try to sell an impractical martial art like aikido as a viable self-defense system.


Do they? Well I started just to get out the house and do some exercise not to become a fighter and I know a lot of people who have done the same thing


----------



## MA_Student (Sep 23, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Remember that time an aikido guy beat a jujitsu guy?
> 
> Neither do I.


I do actually a guy came into my Jiu Jitsu club as a black belt in aikido and beat a number of people there in the white belt class


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 23, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> No offense, but what you wrote is a lot of nonsense. Martial arts in every culture outside of the Chinese/Japanese paradigm were (and are) about fighting skill.


Martial arts in the Chinese and Japanese cultures also started around fighting skill. There are some that have deviated from that (either on purpose or by lack of focus). I suspect that can be found in other combat-derived training, as well, regardless of cultural origin.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 23, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> Do they? Well I started just to get out the house and do some exercise not to become a fighter and I know a lot of people who have done the same thing


Thinking back, that's probably why I started the first time (at about age 11/12). I'm pretty sure that's why I started Judo, that and it just seemed cool. Second time I started Karate it was just because it was available and I enjoyed the classes (Judo instructor started teaching Karate classes - ranked in both). NGA was the first time I remember choosing a class/art specifically for self-defense.


----------



## Fuhrer Drumpf (Sep 23, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> I do actually a guy came into my Jiu Jitsu club as a black belt in aikido and beat a number of people there in the white belt class



An aikido black belt beat a bunch of white belt children? Ok.


----------



## MA_Student (Sep 23, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> An aikido black belt beat a bunch of white belt children? Ok.


Where did I say they were children...learn to read


----------



## lklawson (Sep 26, 2017)

drop bear said:


> If you are going to learn sword fighting then at the end of your training after all time effort and money you have given up. You really should expect to be a competent sword fighter. If someone shoots you. That is not a reflection of your sword fighting training.


That's only because you assume that all "swordfighting" is the same and the goals are all identical.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 26, 2017)

Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> No offense, but what you wrote is a lot of nonsense. Martial arts in every culture outside of the Chinese/Japanese paradigm were (and are) about fighting skill.


"No offense" but you don't know what the hell you're talking about.  Martial arts for sports, health, recreation, and not-necessarily-lethal conflict resolution (aka "dueling") dates back as far as we can track martial arts.



Fuhrer Drumpf said:


> Also, most people who begin martial arts do so for self-defense skills.


Well, that's what they *claim* anyway.



> What's unethical is when instructors try to sell an impractical martial art like aikido as a viable self-defense system.


"Impractical" for what and by who's narrow definition?


----------



## drop bear (Sep 26, 2017)

lklawson said:


> That's only because you assume that all "swordfighting" is the same and the goals are all identical.



I assume that the goals of martial arts will be achievable. 

Fluid outcomes give people the opportunity to say they delivered. Even if they did not deliver on any of the outcomes the promise or imply.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 26, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I assume that the goals of martial arts will be achievable.
> 
> Fluid outcomes give people the opportunity to say they delivered. Even if they did not deliver on any of the outcomes the promise or imply.


"Fluid outcomes?"  Seriously?  How 'bout this: Some martial arts have different goals.  Are you seriously going to tell me that the goal of Kick Boxing is the same as that of Smallsword, which is the same as the goal of Kydo, which is the same as Tai Chi?

ft:

If you are unwilling to admit that some martial are for sport, some are for health, some are for recreation, some are for dueling, some are for specific military use, and some are for civilian self defense, insisting that they're all the same then, 1) you've got some pretty severe conative dissonance problems and 2) it's not worth even trying to have a discussion with you.

Ball's in your court.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 26, 2017)

lklawson said:


> "Fluid outcomes?"  Seriously?  How 'bout this: Some martial arts have different goals.  Are you seriously going to tell me that the goal of Kick Boxing is the same as that of Smallsword, which is the same as the goal of Kydo, which is the same as Tai Chi?
> 
> ft:
> 
> ...



I have been saying that during the whole conversation.

Specific aims of martial arts is not the issue.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 26, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I have been saying that during the whole conversation.
> 
> Specific aims of martial arts is not the issue.


That's not what you wrote here: Aikido is the best self defense

Now, if you've decided to change your definition, then all well and good.

Ball is still in your court.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 26, 2017)

lklawson said:


> That's not what you wrote here: Aikido is the best self defense
> 
> Now, if you've decided to change your definition, then all well and good.
> 
> Ball is still in your court.



Functionality isn't just fighting. If martial arts is designed to provide happiness. Then that is it's function. And the discussion would be how it provides that.

If its function is self defence and it provides happiness then it is not doing its job.

The function specifically here from memory was dealing with an arm grab.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 26, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I assume that the goals of martial arts will be achievable.
> 
> Fluid outcomes give people the opportunity to say they delivered. Even if they did not deliver on any of the outcomes the promise or imply.


Sometimes, what we want is pretty fluid.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 26, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Sometimes, what we want is pretty fluid.



That is still different to always having an excuse.


----------



## mdavidg (Feb 23, 2018)

Steve said:


> I think we've all lost track of what this thread is about.
> 
> Is it beautiful?
> Are there any fancy movements or wasting of energy?
> ...




Is it beautiful? 
Answer: Depending on the school, it can be very fluid to watch. 

Does it make you calm? 
Answer: This is the school of thought as it has elements of Zen Buddhism built into the core concept of Aikido. 

Are there any fancy movements or wasting of energy? 
Again, it depends on the school. The founder was attempting to simplify all that he learned from various styles of Jiu Jitsu, both Aiki Jiu Jitsu and Danzan Ryu, along with Judo. And this is the foundation of Aikido. 

Is it elegant and also deadly? 
Answer: It is elegant, but not deadly. Traditional Aiki Jiu Jitsu or Danzan Ryu, on the other hand, teach you how to break wrists, and destroy your opponent. It is referred to as the gentle art, but this is wrong, because real JJ, not that watered down stuff taught by Gracie, has around 2,000 movements to learn, and it was designed to do the most amount of damage with the least amount of noise. Whereas, Aikido, took out all of the deadly, and left in the fluid. Many independent schools of Aikido realize that Aikido created by it's founder isn't appropriate for real world situations and have merged it with other styles that complement it. If I were to study Aikido I would specifically ask my teacher for permission to study an additional style, and i would probably choose Muay Thai, Wing Chun, or even traditional Danzan Ryu Jiu Jitsu.


----------

