# Can Karate Stand a Chance Against Aikido?



## Pikaboy777

I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right spot so let me know if this is the wrong place to ask this.

I'm not an expert in martial arts (I'm pretty much a total novice) but I always wanted to know if a offensive-based martial art, like Karate and Taekwondo, is capable of lasting or even defeating a fighter that uses Aikido. I've seen a few YouTube videos of Aikido in action and, so far, I've noticed the Aikido practitioner barely takes any hits from a fighter who used Taekwondo. In fact, almost every attempt the Taekwondo fighter made ends up with him being in a joint lock or on the ground. Like I said, I'm not an expert so I probably don't know the whole story on either fighting style. So can any of you help me answer this question?  I would be very grateful! ^^


----------



## Steve

Nothing can hold up to Aikido.


----------



## Paul_D

Pikaboy777 said:


> I always wanted to know if a offensive-based martial art, like Karate and Taekwondo, is capable of lasting or even defeating a fighter that uses Aikido.


Before that can be answered you need to decide what criteria you are using to define how someone wins or loses.

Scoring points?
Breaking limbs?
Ring/Octogon control?
Pummelling them into whimpering pile of snot in the middle of the street?


----------



## Pikaboy777

Paul_D said:


> Before that can be answered you need to decide what criteria you are using to define how someone wins or loses.
> 
> Scoring points?
> Breaking limbs?
> Ring/Octogon control?
> Pummelling them into whimpering pile of snot in the middle of the street?


....I didn't even think about that. ^^;  Well, I guess it would be the case of fighting until one of the fighters is unable to continue.  Basically the last choice you said but not as drastic.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Pikaboy777 said:


> I've seen a few YouTube videos of Aikido in action and, so far, I've noticed the Aikido practitioner barely takes any hits from a fighter who used Taekwondo. In fact, almost every attempt the Taekwondo fighter made ends up with him being in a joint lock or on the ground.


That's because what you are watching are demonstrations, not fights or sparring matches. In a demo, the outcome is pre-determined. When Aikido practitioners put on a demo, it will show Aikido techniques prevailing every time.

When TKD practitioners put on a demo, it will be TKD techniques which prevail in the depicted scenario. It's just that the people choreographing such things don't cast an Aikido practitioner as the bad guy attacker who gets defeated because Aikido isn't really about attacking. (Theoretically you could choreograph a TKD demo where the TKD practitioner attacks and beats up a defending Aikido practitioner, but the convention in demos is for the art to be presented as a form of self-defense, not as a way to mug people.


----------



## Buka

Welcome to MartialTalk, Pikaboy777.


----------



## oftheherd1

Pikaboy777 said:


> ....I didn't even think about that. ^^;  Well, I guess it would be the case of fighting until one of the fighters is unable to continue.  Basically the last choice you said but not as drastic.



Yep.  And after you determine the rules by which the match will be fought, you have to figure out how you will determine how you will pick two martial artists that are evenly matched.  Not easy any time, but especially when trying to compare striking arts against grappling arts.  And what type of Karate are you talking about?  Some of them have a lot of grappling.

When you are watching a demo, as described by Tony Dismukes, you can't expect the same thing in a free technique-use confrontation.  Then how do you account for who might be having a good day against the other who may be a little better, but having a bad day.

Bottom line, there really isn't much to gain from attempting to compare one martial art against another.


----------



## drop bear

I have sparred karate guys.  They can be tough to deal with.


----------



## Touch Of Death

I think, as a striker, you can get to a point where the novices can't touch you, then you can employ aikido all day long, while they stumble around; so, it would make perfect sense an aikido guy can get to that point, as well. However, I was always taught aikido was a luxury of mastering a striking art. I am not saying pure Aikido can't be done, but it will be very difficult.


----------



## CB Jones

Are No Touch MAs the top of the food chain in MA?

How do stop chi balls thrown across the room?


----------



## Touch Of Death

CB Jones said:


> Are No Touch MAs the top of the food chain in MA?
> 
> How do stop chi balls thrown across the room?


There are up and coming boxers, and already existing ones, that will blow your mind.


----------



## oftheherd1

Touch Of Death said:


> I think, as a striker, you can get to a point where the novices can't touch you, then you can employ aikido all day long, while they stumble around; so, it would make perfect sense an aikido guy can get to that point, as well. However, I was always taught aikido was a luxury of mastering a striking art. I am not saying pure Aikido can't be done, but it will be very difficult.



Back in the 60s, I remember being told about a martial art in Japan that was a defense against the other martial arts.  A few had heard of it, but nobody seemed to know its name. Was it Daiito Ryu, Aikido perhaps, I don't know.  In the popular mind, everything was either Karate or Kung Fu.


----------



## JP3

Steve said:


> Nothing can hold up to Aikido.


Thank you for paying attention, and welcome to the dark side. Your red glowing... Uh, you pick, is in the rack in the back, next to my green one.


----------



## JR 137

Karate beats everything and anything.  Everyone knows that.  The people who don't train in karate wish they could, but don't because they know they'll be killing machines that can't be stopped, so they're afraid and don't train it.  Basically, they know they'll be the Terminator.  Some, such as myself embrace this while others are simply too scared and avoid it altogether.


----------



## Touch Of Death

JR 137 said:


> Karate beats everything and anything.  Everyone knows that.  The people who don't train in karate wish they could, but don't because they know they'll be killing machines that can't be stopped, so they're afraid and don't train it.  Basically, they know they'll be the Terminator.  Some, such as myself embrace this while others are simply too scared and avoid it altogether.


The Fight Man's Burden....


----------



## Andrew Green

Pikaboy777 said:


> I'm not an expert in martial arts (I'm pretty much a total novice) but I always wanted to know if a offensive-based martial art, like Karate and Taekwondo, is capable of lasting or even defeating a fighter that uses Aikido.



Aikido has a very poor track record in real fights.  Fighting is not their focus, so that makes perfect sense.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Andrew Green said:


> Aikido has a very poor track record in real fights.  Fighting is not their focus, so that makes perfect sense.


Actually fighting is their focus.


----------



## Pepsiman

I think a better question to ask is _"Can Aikido stand a chance against Karate?"_. I'll say that Aikido is a beautiful and technical art, but it's only been developed for defending against undisciplined thugs and brawlers, which it does well. It's not really meant for offense, or going against other styles, nor does it translate well into MMA. I've seen plenty of videos of Aikido practitioners getting throttled by other martial artists.


----------



## Andrew Green

Touch Of Death said:


> Actually fighting is their focus.




Ok, name one competitive aikido fighter?  It's a art with pacifism at its core, not known for producing fighters.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Andrew Green said:


> Ok, name one competitive aikido fighter?  It's a art with pacifism at its core, not known for producing fighters.


I am saying that when in a fight they aren't focused on their favorite movie.


----------



## Headhunter

Oh for god sake how much more of this nonsense is there going to be on this forum this week......a karate guy can beat an aikido guy and an aikido guy can beat a karate guy. It depends on the fighter and the circumstance. You don't see an aikido guy getting hit because it's rare to see a real aikido fight. Mostly it's all demos where the partner throws themselves to the floor when touched. That or Steven segal movies.


----------



## Headhunter

Andrew Green said:


> Ok, name one competitive aikido fighter?  It's a art with pacifism at its core, not known for producing fighters.


Hey don't forget the legend Steven segal best fighter in the world who taught Anderson silva and lyoto machida how to throw a front kick....that's sarcasm by the way lol


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Pikaboy777 said:


> almost every attempt the Taekwondo fighter made ends up with him being in a joint lock or ...


How can an Aikido guy be able to apply a "joint lock" on a TKD guy if that TKD guy just kicks and never throws a single punch?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Headhunter said:


> Oh for god sake how much more of this nonsense is there going to be on this forum this week......a karate guy can beat an aikido guy and an aikido guy can beat a karate guy. It depends on the fighter and the circumstance. You don't see an aikido guy getting hit because it's rare to see a real aikido fight. Mostly it's all demos where the partner throws themselves to the floor when touched. That or Steven segal movies.


A jow ga guy can beat anyone.  So all other arguments don't matter.  I once beat up aikido, karate, judo, bjj, boxing, wrestling, fencing, ninjas, and a HEMA guy with a sword, and a TKD guy in less than 20 seconds.  The TKD guy attacked me first so I grabbed his kick and swung him around and used his body to beat up the HEMA guy.  The TKD guy got stuck on the HEMA Guy's sword so I used that to take out the HEMA guy. I then used the Sword to finish off the  fencing guy.  Right about that time  the BJJ laid on his back and invited me to get on the ground and while I was about to beat up the  BJJ guy the wrestler grabbed me from behind and I body slammed him on the BJJ guy.  The others ran away so I guess you can say that I technically didn't fight all of them lol.

Hopefuly this will clear up any question of who is the best. lol.


----------



## Jenna

Pikaboy777 said:


> I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right spot so let me know if this is the wrong place to ask this.
> 
> I'm not an expert in martial arts (I'm pretty much a total novice) but I always wanted to know if a offensive-based martial art, like Karate and Taekwondo, is capable of lasting or even defeating a fighter that uses Aikido. I've seen a few YouTube videos of Aikido in action and, so far, I've noticed the Aikido practitioner barely takes any hits from a fighter who used Taekwondo. In fact, almost every attempt the Taekwondo fighter made ends up with him being in a joint lock or on the ground. Like I said, I'm not an expert so I probably don't know the whole story on either fighting style. So can any of you help me answer this question?  I would be very grateful! ^^


On a internet place like this -as you can see for your self- the answer to this question almost entirely depend up on who you ask  Good luck


----------



## TSDTexan

Pikaboy777 said:


> I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right spot so let me know if this is the wrong place to ask this.
> 
> I'm not an expert in martial arts (I'm pretty much a total novice) but I always wanted to know if a offensive-based martial art, like Karate and Taekwondo, is capable of lasting or even defeating a fighter that uses Aikido. I've seen a few YouTube videos of Aikido in action and, so far, I've noticed the Aikido practitioner barely takes any hits from a fighter who used Taekwondo. In fact, almost every attempt the Taekwondo fighter made ends up with him being in a joint lock or on the ground. Like I said, I'm not an expert so I probably don't know the whole story on either fighting style. So can any of you help me answer this question?  I would be very grateful! ^^



Too many variables:

Which type of karate?

Which type of aikido?

How good is the karateka at his/her style of karate?

How good is the aikidoka at his or her style of aikido?

Why are they fighting? What motivation is theirs?
Is it:
Money? Ego?
A parking space?
A bad haircut? Who gave the haircut?

A family member being held hostage, and who could be killed if they don't fight?

Was the fight on a Friday or Saturday night... or first thing Monday morning?

I need more details then what you have presented.


----------



## Paul_D

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How can an Aikido guy be able to apply a "joint lock" on a TKD guy if that TKD guy just kicks and never throws a single punch?
> ]


Legs have joints too


----------



## Touch Of Death

Paul_D said:


> Legs have joints too


Then you whip out that Elephant Karate.


----------



## JP3

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How can an Aikido guy be able to apply a "joint lock" on a TKD guy if that TKD guy just kicks and never throws a single punch?


One way would be to, as TKD guy kicks lift-block the kicking leg/foot (sometimes hard to do, but not always), causing loss of balance, perhaps a fall. Often times when people fall who are not expecting to do so/untrained, their arms flail. If you are in the right area, you can latch on and as they hit the ground, attach lock.

I know this, as I've done it, but not often as the kicker has to take an ugly side fall from what amounts to a split-stretch.

Get offline, to the back side of a side kick or round kick anywhere above mid-thigh, hook/lift the foot (which can be a really dick move if the other guy isn't aware you're considering that fair game), he tilts, nearly always falls. If you do it explosively they always fall in my experience.  Say they did it witht heir right foot, you hook with your right hand, lift, they fall. Even when trained the right hand is exposed for grasping/grappling at that point. You've just got to get the good grip, and execute your submission before they regain their snap/mental focus.  Pretty much the same time frame you've got if you just got a good throw on someone and are sinking in the choke/lock/holddown while they are jarred from impact.


----------



## JP3

I just read what I wrote above, and that totally sounds like Goshin-jutsu from judo. Which it is, but there's one in aikido as well. Ours at least, since Tomiki was involved in th creation of that kata as I remember. I think that's right.

So, maybe judo can beat a karate guy, but aikido can't. Jury is still out.


----------



## KangTsai

Pikaboy777 said:


> I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right spot so let me know if this is the wrong place to ask this.
> 
> I'm not an expert in martial arts (I'm pretty much a total novice) but I always wanted to know if a offensive-based martial art, like Karate and Taekwondo, is capable of lasting or even defeating a fighter that uses Aikido. I've seen a few YouTube videos of Aikido in action and, so far, I've noticed the Aikido practitioner barely takes any hits from a fighter who used Taekwondo. In fact, almost every attempt the Taekwondo fighter made ends up with him being in a joint lock or on the ground. Like I said, I'm not an expert so I probably don't know the whole story on either fighting style. So can any of you help me answer this question?  I would be very grateful! ^^


If you're basing your knowledge of aikido of those hilarious drill demonstrations, then aiki-man will have his a s s beat.


----------



## That-a-Way

I believe that if both are beginners, the Karate guy would win. If very advanced, probably the Aikido guy, but I'm not sure.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Pikaboy777 said:


> I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right spot so let me know if this is the wrong place to ask this.
> 
> I'm not an expert in martial arts (I'm pretty much a total novice) but I always wanted to know if a offensive-based martial art, like Karate and Taekwondo, is capable of lasting or even defeating a fighter that uses Aikido. I've seen a few YouTube videos of Aikido in action and, so far, I've noticed the Aikido practitioner barely takes any hits from a fighter who used Taekwondo. In fact, almost every attempt the Taekwondo fighter made ends up with him being in a joint lock or on the ground. Like I said, I'm not an expert so I probably don't know the whole story on either fighting style. So can any of you help me answer this question?  I would be very grateful! ^^



It depends on the person not the art. That's been said time and time again and is well known among the experts but since you're a novice as you point out yourself I will explain. The videos you've seen might've been those of a really good Aikido practitioner up against a so so Taekwondo practitioner. If it was the other way around where you've got a really good Taekwondo practitioner up against a so so Aikido practitioner than the Taekwondo practitioner would win.


----------



## KangTsai

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How can an Aikido guy be able to apply a "joint lock" on a TKD guy if that TKD guy just kicks and never throws a single punch?


That sounds like a challenge. A kick - catch to anklelock sounds good.


----------



## drop bear

PhotonGuy said:


> It depends on the person not the art. That's been said time and time again and is well known among the experts but since you're a novice as you point out yourself I will explain. The videos you've seen might've been those of a really good Aikido practitioner up against a so so Taekwondo practitioner. If it was the other way around where you've got a really good Taekwondo practitioner up against a so so Aikido practitioner than the Taekwondo practitioner would win.



So an art i have just invented is as good as an art someone else has actually put some effort into.

That doesn't make sense.


----------



## PhotonGuy

drop bear said:


> So an art i have just invented is as good as an art someone else has actually put some effort into.
> 
> That doesn't make sense.



That would depend. What is your experience prior to inventing your art? What prior style or styles is your art based on?


----------



## drop bear

PhotonGuy said:


> That would depend. What is your experience prior to inventing your art? What prior style or styles is your art based on?



I spent 20 years bashing dudes in pubs.  It is not based on any prior styles though.


----------



## oftheherd1

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How can an Aikido guy be able to apply a "joint lock" on a TKD guy if that TKD guy just kicks and never throws a single punch?



I guess you are kind of assuming the same rules as seen in the video.  Then one could make the argument that arms were off limits.  But as Paul_D pointed out, legs have joints too, and also pressure points.  Even if you have rules that limit you to kicks only, a kick to the inside of the thigh of the leg an opponent is throwing at you will essentially cripple that leg, making it difficult to stand (unless of course he has been watching that training film, "The Karate Kid."  ;-) 

But really, I would not agree to a fight against a TKD or Karate opponent where I could use only my kicks, and using kicks to pressure points would be off limits.  To me that would be foolishness.


----------



## PhotonGuy

drop bear said:


> I spent 20 years bashing dudes in pubs.  It is not based on any prior styles though.



I would not trust that. I would only trust a style that's been around for centuries or a style that's been developed from another style or styles that have been around for centuries.


----------



## drop bear

PhotonGuy said:


> I would not trust that. I would only trust a style that's been around for centuries or a style that's been developed from another style or styles that have been around for centuries.



Why does the style matter?  What if you trained really hard in my style.  Shouldn't that give you the same result?


----------



## Steve

PhotonGuy said:


> I would not trust that. I would only trust a style that's been around for centuries or a style that's been developed from another style or styles that have been around for centuries.


You understand that cuts out pretty much everything. Right?   Most styles.   Even traditional styles, are less than hundred years old.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Steve said:


> You understand that cuts out pretty much everything. Right?   Most styles.   Even traditional styles, are less than hundred years old.



Be that as they may they've got their roots in older styles that have been developed over hundreds, thousands of years.


----------



## Steve

PhotonGuy said:


> Be that as they may they've got their roots in older styles that have been developed over hundreds, thousands of years.


You understand that every style has roots that are hundreds or thousands of years old.   "Traditional" has nothing to do with originality or age.  It's an aesthetic.


----------



## DonnieBravo

I believe Karate has its own strong points, whereas, Aikido helps us get more aware of our bodies!!

Bruce Lee was a martial artist! What style do you think he had?

The article below refers to his own creation of a style known as 'Jeet Kune do'

WHAT IS JEET KUNE DO? - Bruce Lee Foundation


----------



## DonnieBravo

Pikaboy777 said:


> I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right spot so let me know if this is the wrong place to ask this.
> 
> I'm not an expert in martial arts (I'm pretty much a total novice) but I always wanted to know if a offensive-based martial art, like Karate and Taekwondo, is capable of lasting or even defeating a fighter that uses Aikido. I've seen a few YouTube videos of Aikido in action and, so far, I've noticed the Aikido practitioner barely takes any hits from a fighter who used Taekwondo. In fact, almost every attempt the Taekwondo fighter made ends up with him being in a joint lock or on the ground. Like I said, I'm not an expert so I probably don't know the whole story on either fighting style. So can any of you help me answer this question?  I would be very grateful! ^^



I personally am a fan of Karate and I'd like to think of it as an unbeatable sport!


----------



## TSDTexan

DonnieBravo said:


> I personally am a fan of Karate and I'd like to think of it as an unbeatable sport!



Here is a math equation to show how your comment made me feel:

 Sport + Karate =





Ps.
I am not a "fan" of sport karate.

Today's Te ain't got the same soul
I like that old time Karate-do.

Don't try to take me to a Sport show
You'll never even get me out on the floor

In ten minutes I'll be late for the door
I like that old time Karate-do
Ooh

Still like that old time Karate-do
That kind of kata just soothes the soul 

Ooh
I reminisce about the days of old

With that old time Karate-do
Won't go to hear em play a tag-karate-oh

I'd rather hear some iron shoes or Makiwara-oh

There's only one sure way to get me to go
Start practicing that old time Karate-do

Call me a relic, call me what you will
Say I'm old-fashioned, say I'm over the hill
Today's sport karate ain't got the same soul
I like…


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> I spent 20 years bashing dudes in pubs.  It is not based on any prior styles though.


20 years, Drop?  I mean, I spent 5, but still.  There are better careers out there.


----------



## Martial D

Pikaboy777 said:


> I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right spot so let me know if this is the wrong place to ask this.
> 
> I'm not an expert in martial arts (I'm pretty much a total novice) but I always wanted to know if a offensive-based martial art, like Karate and Taekwondo, is capable of lasting or even defeating a fighter that uses Aikido. I've seen a few YouTube videos of Aikido in action and, so far, I've noticed the Aikido practitioner barely takes any hits from a fighter who used Taekwondo. In fact, almost every attempt the Taekwondo fighter made ends up with him being in a joint lock or on the ground. Like I said, I'm not an expert so I probably don't know the whole story on either fighting style. So can any of you help me answer this question?  I would be very grateful! ^^


Please post a video of someone using aikido in a real combat situation defeating anybody.


----------



## Headhunter

Martial D said:


> Please post a video of someone using aikido in a real combat situation defeating anybody.


So if there's not a video online that means it's never happened? A real combat situation. So a fight? You do know most street fights aren't filmed right there's been billions of fights this year alone world wide and maybe a couple hundred make it online


----------



## Martial D

PhotonGuy said:


> Be that as they may they've got their roots in older styles that have been developed over hundreds, thousands of years.


That can go the opposite way too. Many styles began as effective combat systems only to atrophy over time into rigid and stale aproximations of themselves.

Not to say there isn't combat effective versions of almost any traditional martial art, but many get passed from master to student over generations where no real combat is involved anymore, where many of the 'whys' and 'hows' of practical application are lost and forgotten.


----------



## Martial D

Headhunter said:


> So if there's not a video online that means it's never happened? A real combat situation. So a fight? You do know most street fights aren't filmed right there's been billions of fights this year alone world wide and maybe a couple hundred make it online


You are hilarious. No, none of that. I'd just like to see one.

Edit - street fight, open sparring in the gym, tournemant, mma. Anything really. I'm not an aikido hater, I am just honestly interested in seeing the real stuff.


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> Please post a video of someone using aikido in a real combat situation defeating anybody.


Someone did in another thread.
Aikido hate


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> 20 years, Drop?  I mean, I spent 5, but still.  There are better careers out there.



How do you become a bouncer?

Fail at everything else.



I work in a bottleshop now.


----------



## Martial D

Paul_D said:


> Someone did in another thread.
> Aikido hate


Err, that seems to be an unskilled brawl with a half trip half hiptoss thing at the end. The little insert of the aikido guy wasn't even close to the same move.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> How do you become a bouncer?
> 
> Fail at everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> I work in a bottleshop now.


OK.... but I don't know what a "bottle shop" is. A place that sells empty bottles? A liquor store? I admit, I've no idea.f


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> Err, that seems to be an unskilled brawl


You didn't ask for a skilled brawl, you asked for a real combat situation.  Which is what you got.  Yes it was ugly, but that is the nature of real combat.



Martial D said:


> The little insert of the aikido guy wasn't even close to the same move.


You didn't ask for the same move, you asked for Aikido.  Which is what you got.

Clearly any evidence which presented you will find some reason as to why it isn't valid so that you don't have to accept it.  Which suggests presenting evidence is pointless.


----------



## drop bear

Headhunter said:


> So if there's not a video online that means it's never happened? A real combat situation. So a fight? You do know most street fights aren't filmed right there's been billions of fights this year alone world wide and maybe a couple hundred make it online



I fought a dragon once.  Just because it wasn't on you tube are people going to say it didn't happen?


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> OK.... but I don't know what a "bottle shop" is. A place that sells empty bottles? A liquor store? I admit, I've no idea.f



I sell liquor.

I refer to myself as a beer wrangler.


----------



## Martial D

Paul_D said:


> You didn't ask for a skilled brawl, you asked for a real combat situation.  Which is what you got.  Yes it was ugly, but that is the nature of real combat.
> 
> 
> You didn't ask for the same move, you asked for Aikido.  Which is what you got.
> 
> Clearly any evidence which presented you will find some reason as to why it isn't valid so that you don't have to accept it.  Which suggests presenting evidence is pointless.



So then in a real combat situation aikido people don't actually use aikido? Because that wasn't aikido. That was a poorly executed wrestling hip toss while the other guy stumbled over himself.

Yes, I would accept evidence. It would look like a guy doing something recognisably aikido on an opponent that is fighting back.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> So then in a real combat situation aikido people don't actually use aikido? Because that wasn't aikido. That was a poorly executed wrestling hip toss while the other guy stumbled over himself.
> 
> Yes, I would accept evidence. It would look like a guy doing something recognisably aikido on an opponent that is fighting back.


What you're hoping to see won't be easy to see. If the other guy is fighting back against the technique, the principles that make Aikido look like Aikido won't be in use. And most Aikido techniques can be applied without that subset of principles. On top of that, Aikido in the dojo uses movements designed to work with the falls uke uses (to help protect uke) - the guy in the street won't use those falls, so the technique will finish differently. Thus, the result will often not "look like" Aikido, if you are comparing it to what Aikido looks like in the dojo.


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> That was a poorly executed wrestling hip tossof


So techniques can only exist within one system?  And that looked nothing like the Aikido technique cut into the video prior to him excuting it?


Martial D said:


> It would look like a guy doing something recognisably aikido


Which it did.


Martial D said:


> on an opponent that is fighting back.


That isn't what you asked for.  You asked for Aikido used in real combat, which is what you got.  Now you want to move the goalposts so you can dismiss this video.  Like I said, you will find an excuse to dismiss any evidence presented, making presenting any evidence an exercise in futility.

Does someone trying to punch you not qualify as fighting back?

Aikido, from my limited understanding, works on people who are unbalanced, either by the practitioner, or in this case the guy lost his own balance, allowing the technique to be performed.  Now you are saying it doesn't count and the guy has to be on balance so he can resist.   Then no, it doesn't work.  You have to unbalance your opponent.  Aikido also has atemi, so you can hit to unbalance before applying a lock or throw.  Oh wait, no you can't, because that would be a "poorly executed boxing punch, not Aikido".  Silly me.


----------



## Martial D

Paul_D said:


> So techniques can only exist within one system?  And that looked nothing like the Aikido technique cut into the video prior to him excuting it?
> 
> Which it did.
> 
> That isn't what you asked for.  You asked for Aikido used in real combat, which is what you got.  Now you want to move the goalposts so you can dismiss this video.  Like I said, you will find an excuse to dismiss any evidence presented, making presenting any evidence an exercise in futility.
> 
> Does someone trying to punch you not qualify as fighting back?
> 
> Aikido, from my limited understanding, works on people who are unbalanced, either by the practitioner, or in this case the guy lost his own balance, allowing the technique to be performed.  Now you are saying it doesn't count and the guy has to be on balance so he can resist.   Then no, it doesn't work.  You have to unbalance your opponent.  Aikido also has atemi, so you can hit to unbalance before applying a lock or throw.  Oh wait, no you can't, because that would be a "poorly executed boxing punch, not Aikido".  Silly me.


How is 'in real combat' different than 'opponent is fighting back'?

Same goalpost placement.

In the clip, the aikido man is using a wrist technique to flip his opponent, while in the fight video the guy flips him over his hip as he is already falling. You might be able to say that move is also found in aikido, but it's certainly not the same move.


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> How is 'in real combat' different than 'opponent is fighting back'?


You tell me. You asked for real combat, then claimed it didn't count as the guy wasn't fighting back.



Martial D said:


> In the clip, the aikido man is using a wrist technique to flip his opponent, while in the fight video the guy flips him over his hip as he is already falling. You might be able to say that move is also found in aikido, but it's certainly not the same move.


Correct.  But again, you didn't ask for the same move being used, you asked for aikido.


----------



## Paul_D

Martial D said:


> In the clip, the aikido man is using a wrist technique to flip his opponent,


Writs techniques are not used to flip people.  They are used to apply wrist locks, it is just that Aikido students chose to break fall out of them with a flip.  Once you reach the point where damage will happen (unless you do something) the student break falls out of the technique.  There is no reason (that I know) that you can’t do a break fall without a flip (which is what I do if I am ever on a seminar that includes Aikido) it’s just that Aikido students are taught break falls with flips so that’s what they do.  So you will never see a live (real) situation where someone flips from a wrist technique, unless the bad guy also happens to be an aikido student. 


I do think it creates a lot of misunderstanding though, that isn’t necessary.  Because Aikido students deliberately throw themselves out of  techniques with such ostentatious flips it is easy to see why people thinks it’s BS as “he’s just throwing himself”.  Well yes he is throwing himself, because he has to do something before he gets injured, and that is what he/she has been taught to do.   But that doesn’t mean the technique is designed to flip you.   

If they chose to just perform a normal Judo/Ju Jitsu style break fall with no flip it might help lessen some of the misunderstanding and criticism .


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> Writs techniques are not used to flip people.  They are used to apply wrist locks, it is just that Aikido students chose to break fall out of them with a flip.  Once you reach the point where damage will happen (unless you do something) the student break falls out of the technique.  There is no reason (that I know) that you can’t do a break fall without a flip (which is what I do if I am ever on a seminar that includes Aikido) it’s just that Aikido students are taught break falls with flips so that’s what they do.  So you will never see a live (real) situation where someone flips from a wrist technique, unless the bad guy also happens to be an aikido student.
> 
> 
> I do think it creates a lot of misunderstanding though, that isn’t necessary.  Because Aikido students deliberately throw themselves out of  techniques with such ostentatious flips it is easy to see why people thinks it’s BS as “he’s just throwing himself”.  Well yes he is throwing himself, because he has to do something before he gets injured, and that is what he/she has been taught to do.   But that doesn’t mean the technique is designed to flip you.
> 
> If they chose to just perform a normal Judo/Ju Jitsu style break fall with no flip it might help lessen some of the misunderstanding and criticism .


Agreed. I suspect some of it may date back to a time of more aggressive application of the locks. I normally do Judo-style falls. Give me an aggressive kote gaeshi, though, and I'll flip without thinking about it, as it releases the lock much faster and more completely.


----------



## JP3

Martial D said:


> So then in a real combat situation aikido people don't actually use aikido? Because that wasn't aikido. That was a poorly executed wrestling hip toss while the other guy stumbled over himself.
> 
> Yes, I would accept evidence. It would look like a guy doing something recognisably aikido on an opponent that is fighting back.


But, let's say I show it to you, but you don't know what it is that you are seeing? Then where do we get?  I'm referring to when you wrote "guy doing something recognisably aikido ."

Random guy in a crowd doesn't like Gerry's face (which I can understand), so charges him and Gerry can't just evade to the side and watch him go by. By necessity due to lack of lateral escapability/mobility, he's forced to engage directly. Big Alabama superpunch coming in and Gerry turns as it comes in, hand keeping it off his face the turn getting him offline of the blow dropping his center and the guy literally runs up his back. Gerry pops his hips and continues the turn and the guy goes for a ride.

Aikido being used? Argueable,depending on your definition of aikido and what it is, which is a big debate on here... mostly by non-aikido folks. There is some internal dispute as well, mind.

For me, definitely aikido principles with judo technique. For Gerry, maybe, but maybe not. For some of the other few aikido guys/gals on her, probably to certainly not because of the range. For you? I've no clue. You tell me.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. I suspect some of it may date back to a time of more aggressive application of the locks. I normally do Judo-style falls. Give me an aggressive kote gaeshi, though, and I'll flip without thinking about it, as it releases the lock much faster and more completely.


Absolutely. That release speed gets you out of something that simple falling at gravitational acceleration can't do sometimes. The kotegaeshi (wrist twist) thing can happen so fast to someone with unflexible wrists that a tendon is torn or one of the carpal bones shears before they even realize it's happening. You've got to be switched on.  I've been in hapkido class when it happened n two separate occasions... but people still try to deny that it can happen.

For Drop... yes, you've got to "get" the wrist first, and that's not as easy as people try to convey. I know that. But, once got?


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> What you're hoping to see won't be easy to see. If the other guy is fighting back against the technique, the principles that make Aikido look like Aikido won't be in use. And most Aikido techniques can be applied without that subset of principles. On top of that, Aikido in the dojo uses movements designed to work with the falls uke uses (to help protect uke) - the guy in the street won't use those falls, so the technique will finish differently. Thus, the result will often not "look like" Aikido, if you are comparing it to what Aikido looks like in the dojo.


A thought.

Gerry, does your NGA have the concept that "Nothing ever works..." in it?  We talk about that all the time, that the first technique is to start the process but you have to be surprised when suddenly uke is gone, down, or broken.  It's a building kuzushi paradigm, straight across from judo. Touch that, uke reacts. Touch the opposite side/direction, uke reacts even more abruptly. So on and so forth. Most catastrophic with a guy delivering a committed uppercut in my own experience.

Kick defense is.... well... get out of the way and poke them and watch people fall down. Get hit, you hurt bad. Don't get hit, they fall down most of the time.  Coming out of TKD myself, it was frustrating to learn how easy, if the guy facing you knows what is capable of happening, what he can do to you.


----------



## Tired_Yeti

oftheherd1 said:


> Yep.  And after you determine the rules by which the match will be fought, you have to figure out how you will determine how you will pick two martial artists that are evenly matched.  Not easy any time, but especially when trying to compare striking arts against grappling arts.  And what type of Karate are you talking about?  Some of them have a lot of grappling.
> 
> When you are watching a demo, as described by Tony Dismukes, you can't expect the same thing in a free technique-use confrontation.  Then how do you account for who might be having a good day against the other who may be a little better, but having a bad day.
> 
> Bottom line, there really isn't much to gain from attempting to compare one martial art against another.



^^^This is an example of over-thinking an issue.

We all know what the OP was trying to ask. He just didn't know how to word the question.

All things being equal, can a practitioner of a certain proficiency level of a striking art defeat a practitioner of an identical proficiency in Aikido in actual combat where incapacitation is the winning factor?
Yes or no?

The answer, possibly.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Martial D

JP3 said:


> But, let's say I show it to you, but you don't know what it is that you are seeing? Then where do we get?  I'm referring to when you wrote "guy doing something recognisably aikido ."
> 
> Random guy in a crowd doesn't like Gerry's face (which I can understand), so charges him and Gerry can't just evade to the side and watch him go by. By necessity due to lack of lateral escapability/mobility, he's forced to engage directly. Big Alabama superpunch coming in and Gerry turns as it comes in, hand keeping it off his face the turn getting him offline of the blow dropping his center and the guy literally runs up his back. Gerry pops his hips and continues the turn and the guy goes for a ride.
> 
> Aikido being used? Argueable,depending on your definition of aikido and what it is, which is a big debate on here... mostly by non-aikido folks. There is some internal dispute as well, mind.
> 
> For me, definitely aikido principles with judo technique. For Gerry, maybe, but maybe not. For some of the other few aikido guys/gals on her, probably to certainly not because of the range. For you? I've no clue. You tell me.


 I admittedly would not recognize Aikido in action the way someone that has trained in the art would, nor am I one of those that has written the style off(as so many have). If anything, I think perhaps there is gold buried under a lot of impractical training. I do realize that there are many schools and what and how they train is not equal by any means(such as is the case for almost every single traditional style)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> A thought.
> 
> Gerry, does your NGA have the concept that "Nothing ever works..." in it?  We talk about that all the time, that the first technique is to start the process but you have to be surprised when suddenly uke is gone, down, or broken.  It's a building kuzushi paradigm, straight across from judo. Touch that, uke reacts. Touch the opposite side/direction, uke reacts even more abruptly. So on and so forth. Most catastrophic with a guy delivering a committed uppercut in my own experience.
> 
> Kick defense is.... well... get out of the way and poke them and watch people fall down. Get hit, you hurt bad. Don't get hit, they fall down most of the time.  Coming out of TKD myself, it was frustrating to learn how easy, if the guy facing you knows what is capable of happening, what he can do to you.


We do have that same concept. It's one of the parts students sometimes struggle to grasp. Some of the "complicated" techniques are actually partly training for keeping moving through several "misses". So, when it looks like we're doing too many moves before we finish them, it's often for that purpose - to keep attacking structure until a finish presents itself.

The better I get, the more often I notice myself leaving a technique partway in, because a better-situated technique presented itself.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tired_Yeti said:


> ^^^This is an example of over-thinking an issue.
> 
> We all know what the OP was trying to ask. He just didn't know how to word the question.
> 
> *All things being equal, can a practitioner of a certain proficiency level of a striking art defeat a practitioner of an identical proficiency in Aikido in actual combat where incapacitation is the winning factor?
> Yes or no?*
> 
> The answer, possibly.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I don't think that is over-thinking the issue at all.  How can you possibly determine identical proficiency?  I am a Hapkidoist.  I am taught many techniques, and I am taught to defend myself without being injured.  I am taught to defend against punches, kicks, grapples; basically anywhere you touch me or try to touch me, I have defenses.  The only rule is to not lose.  How do you get identical proficiency in a striking art?

That's not a put down on striking arts.  If a Karate practitioner is grossly faster, I may have a problem.  But then was the Karate practitioner not above me in proficiency??


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> But, let's say I show it to you, but you don't know what it is that you are seeing? Then where do we get?  I'm referring to when you wrote "guy doing something recognisably aikido ."
> 
> Random guy in a crowd doesn't like Gerry's face (which I can understand), so charges him and Gerry can't just evade to the side and watch him go by. By necessity due to lack of lateral escapability/mobility, he's forced to engage directly. Big Alabama superpunch coming in and Gerry turns as it comes in, hand keeping it off his face the turn getting him offline of the blow dropping his center and the guy literally runs up his back. Gerry pops his hips and continues the turn and the guy goes for a ride.
> 
> Aikido being used? Argueable,depending on your definition of aikido and what it is, which is a big debate on here... mostly by non-aikido folks. There is some internal dispute as well, mind.
> 
> For me, definitely aikido principles with judo technique. For Gerry, maybe, but maybe not. For some of the other few aikido guys/gals on her, probably to certainly not because of the range. For you? I've no clue. You tell me.



If Gerry did it it was Aikido. If it is just any stray arm lock or thow being claimed as Aikido then probably not.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> If Gerry did it it was Aikido. If it is just any stray arm lock or thow being claimed as Aikido then probably not.


Is that because what Gerry practices is his NGA, or because he did what you consider to be "a recognizeable aikido technique?"

So, If I did it, and I considered a gooly-gee whillickers, whiz-bang  seoinage.... what did I do?

I think the "what I did" depends on the perception of the observer. From inside, I'm probably thinking ippon seoinage, but the Chinese wrestling guy would call it something else.... no clue what it'd be and I'd probably be insulting if I tried to figure it out.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Is that because what Gerry practices is his NGA, or because he did what you consider to be "a recognizeable aikido technique?"
> 
> So, If I did it, and I considered a gooly-gee whillickers, whiz-bang  seoinage.... what did I do?
> 
> I think the "what I did" depends on the perception of the observer. From inside, I'm probably thinking ippon seoinage, but the Chinese wrestling guy would call it something else.... no clue what it'd be and I'd probably be insulting if I tried to figure it out.



Because Gerry actually does Aikido.  Lets turn this around.  If I used a wristlock on the street.  What Aikido belt do I get?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Because Gerry actually does Aikido.  Lets turn this around.  If I used a wristlock on the street.  What Aikido belt do I get?


Okay, I can see your point. Let me present a counter-view. I sometimes look at someone doing TKD, see a nice step off-line to strike an opening, and think, "That's some nice Aikido!" He doesn't know it as Aikido, but it's Aikido to me, because it fits with what we do. I see the same in BJJ quite often - I think they have some of the best "Aikido" from static positions. That's the difference between the art being defined by the training/techniques and the art be defined by the principles.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Because Gerry actually does Aikido.  Lets turn this around.  If I used a wristlock on the street.  What Aikido belt do I get?


Do you need something to help hold your pants up?

Probably none, since you don't even know what to call what you did in "Aikidospeak."  And, unless you just whacked-up an aikido instructor, no aikido instructor saw you do it.  You'd just be telling people after the fact a story, and we generally pooh-pooh those as you know. Pictures or it didn't happen and video would be better.

The above yanking-in of our conversations from other threads notwithstanding, for me personally, if you told me about it, I'd want to feel you do it to me, see you do it on other people, tell you what we call it, and then stick you with a list of other things to be able to likewise do and then... once you did those as well, I'd probably hand you the correct kyu grade colored belt.  IF you needed to have something to hold up your pants.


----------



## KenpoMaster805

Aikido is very poweful compare to karate and taekwondo but the aikido here at oxnard is far so i just taking karate


----------



## drop bear

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't think that is over-thinking the issue at all.  How can you possibly determine identical proficiency?  I am a Hapkidoist.  I am taught many techniques, and I am taught to defend myself without being injured.  I am taught to defend against punches, kicks, grapples; basically anywhere you touch me or try to touch me, I have defenses.  The only rule is to not lose.  How do you get identical proficiency in a striking art?
> 
> That's not a put down on striking arts.  If a Karate practitioner is grossly faster, I may have a problem.  But then was the Karate practitioner not above me in proficiency??



How do you get taught to not loose though? 

I mean not loosing is kind of frowned upon in a lot of places. Because you are obviously not training hard enough.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Do you need something to help hold your pants up?
> 
> Probably none, since you don't even know what to call what you did in "Aikidospeak."  And, unless you just whacked-up an aikido instructor, no aikido instructor saw you do it.  You'd just be telling people after the fact a story, and we generally pooh-pooh those as you know. Pictures or it didn't happen and video would be better.
> 
> The above yanking-in of our conversations from other threads notwithstanding, for me personally, if you told me about it, I'd want to feel you do it to me, see you do it on other people, tell you what we call it, and then stick you with a list of other things to be able to likewise do and then... once you did those as well, I'd probably hand you the correct kyu grade colored belt.  IF you needed to have something to hold up your pants.



So Aikido gets to be everyone but not everyone gets to be Aikido?

Sees unfair.

Now all i have to do is find me an Aikido  instructor and Aikido side kick that guy.


----------



## oftheherd1

drop bear said:


> How do you get taught to not loose though?
> 
> I mean not loosing is kind of frowned upon in a lot of places. Because you are obviously not training hard enough.



I admit I don't know much if anything about your art.  But how does it teach you to lose?

As is so often the case with your posts, at least imho, I simply cannot get any meaning or correlation between your last sentence, and my post or yours.  So there is no way I would attempt to answer it.


----------



## drop bear

oftheherd1 said:


> I admit I don't know much if anything about your art.  But how does it teach you to lose?
> 
> As is so often the case with your posts, at least imho, I simply cannot get any meaning or correlation between your last sentence, and my post or yours.  So there is no way I would attempt to answer it.



I think it is because I ask questions nobody ever thinks about. Like when someone says "I cannot afford to lose" it sounds gret but how? How do you practically not lose?

I lose all the time. I have actively found training partners who will make me lose. If I am always winning. I will place myself in a situation where I am not alway winning.

Because I can afford to lose.


----------



## oftheherd1

drop bear said:


> I think it is because I ask questions nobody ever thinks about.



I can agree with that.



drop bear said:


> Like when someone says "I cannot afford to lose" it sounds gret but how? How do you practically not lose?



Perhaps to paraphrase another answer, "Obviously you aren't training hard enough." 



drop bear said:


> I lose all the time. I have actively found training partners who will make me lose. If I am always winning. I will place myself in a situation where I am not alway winning.
> 
> Because I can afford to lose.



Again, how does your art teach its practitioners to lose?  And to what advantage?

Is your art only allowed to be practiced in the dojo, and has no use outside of there?


----------



## drop bear

oftheherd1 said:


> I can agree with that.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps to paraphrase another answer, "Obviously you aren't training hard enough."
> 
> 
> 
> Again, how does your art teach its practitioners to lose?  And to what advantage?
> 
> Is your art only allowed to be practiced in the dojo, and has no use outside of there?



There are a few advantages to training to loose.

Basically the starting idea is to train to the point of failure. The idea is you push that point of failure further and further back. But to do that you need to chase that failure and not settle for a win. 

Losing also mentally prepares you for it.  So it is not such a distraction in real life and it is not such a blow should it happen.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

oftheherd1 said:


> I can agree with that.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps to paraphrase another answer, "Obviously you aren't training hard enough."
> 
> 
> 
> Again, how does your art teach its practitioners to lose?  And to what advantage?
> 
> Is your art only allowed to be practiced in the dojo, and has no use outside of there?


I think I get DB's point here, OTH. We all lose in our training, if we practice full-resistance against people our skill level or higher. Sometimes they'll best us. That's part of training with resistance. And there, losing is a good thing - it's something we can learn a lot from.

I also understand your point, I think. When training SD, you can't afford to lose the encounter, because on the street you don't know what the consequences might be. So, we take a different mental approach when we're testing/validating our SD work. And since we don't need to score points - don't need to win - we may take a different tactical approach, as well. My first NGA instructor started his career as a cop in NYC (later, and still, teaching DT). He always told me when he had a physical altercation with someone, he was focused on not losing. When he retired from being a cop (and then retired from being a reserve officer), he was "undefeated". He was never looking for a "win", but just to avoid losing.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think I get DB's point here, OTH. We all lose in our training, if we practice full-resistance against people our skill level or higher. Sometimes they'll best us. That's part of training with resistance. And there, losing is a good thing - it's something we can learn a lot from.
> 
> I also understand your point, I think. When training SD, you can't afford to lose the encounter, because on the street you don't know what the consequences might be. So, we take a different mental approach when we're testing/validating our SD work. And since we don't need to score points - don't need to win - we may take a different tactical approach, as well. My first NGA instructor started his career as a cop in NYC (later, and still, teaching DT). He always told me when he had a physical altercation with someone, he was focused on not losing. When he retired from being a cop (and then retired from being a reserve officer), he was "undefeated". He was never looking for a "win", but just to avoid losing.



I can't fight while focusing on not losing in the same way I can't ride a motorbike while focusing on not falling off.

I think it makes you less successful.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I can't fight while focusing on not losing in the same way I can't ride a motorbike while focusing on not falling off.
> 
> I think it makes you less successful.


I don't know. I think it's a difference in perception, DB. I've met a lot of folks who train for SD who share this understanding of "not losing". I think it's maybe a difference in how we think, and is what draws us to the training. We know there's no such thing as never losing, but we get the concept from a strategic standpoint. I don't know that it's actually any different than the approach you'd bring to competition, because I can't get into your head. I suspect your "fighting to win" may be quite similar to my "fighting to not lose". Meanwhile, my "fighting to win" doesn't seem to be much like your "fighting to win".


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't know. I think it's a difference in perception, DB. I've met a lot of folks who train for SD who share this understanding of "not losing". I think it's maybe a difference in how we think, and is what draws us to the training. We know there's no such thing as never losing, but we get the concept from a strategic standpoint. I don't know that it's actually any different than the approach you'd bring to competition, because I can't get into your head. I suspect your "fighting to win" may be quite similar to my "fighting to not lose". Meanwhile, my "fighting to win" doesn't seem to be much like your "fighting to win".



You seem to want to defend against the bad guy. Where as I want the bad guy defending against me. He should be looking to escape. He should be worried about loosing.

This is not a competition mindset I learned this from street fighters. If I am engaged in a fight I am 100% present. Not half there and half trying to be somewhere else. It doesn't work.

The idea that you can die in a fight that is constantly drummed into peoples heads is counter productive to getting people to win fights. You dont fill people full of doubt and then send them off to do something risky. That is bad coaching.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You seem to want to defend against the bad guy. Where as I want the bad guy defending against me. He should be looking to escape. He should be worried about loosing.
> 
> This is not a competition mindset I learned this from street fighters. If I am engaged in a fight I am 100% present. Not half there and half trying to be somewhere else. It doesn't work.
> 
> The idea that you can die in a fight that is constantly drummed into peoples heads is counter productive to getting people to win fights. You dont fill people full of doubt and then send them off to do something risky. That is bad coaching.


That's the part that's odd to me (about how I see it, not about how you see it). I'm more prone to putting pressure on than most I've trained with. I think it's pretty much in line with what you're saying your approach is. In fact, the way I teach, my students are used to hearing me say things like, "You're trying to make yourself my problem. Okay, you want me? You got me. Now I'm your problem." Once it starts, I'm not staying in defense. Yet, somehow, the strategy of fighting to not lose still makes more sense to me. Again, I think it's just a difference in perception.

I'm not sure what the "half there and half somewhere else" comment is about, though.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's the part that's odd to me (about how I see it, not about how you see it). I'm more prone to putting pressure on than most I've trained with. I think it's pretty much in line with what you're saying your approach is. In fact, the way I teach, my students are used to hearing me say things like, "You're trying to make yourself my problem. Okay, you want me? You got me. Now I'm your problem." Once it starts, I'm not staying in defense. Yet, somehow, the strategy of fighting to not lose still makes more sense to me. Again, I think it's just a difference in perception.
> 
> I'm not sure what the "half there and half somewhere else" comment is about, though.



When I go specifically into strategy for street fighting the term I use is fighting conservatively. so that you are not taking big risks for big rewards.

The half there and half not is how some people fight. So for example the people who want to throw punches but cant get in range because they are afraid of taking punches.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> When I go specifically into strategy for street fighting the term I use is fighting conservatively. so that you are not taking big risks for big rewards.


That sounds like a pretty good way of explaining how I see "fighting not to lose". You're probably a more aggressive fighter than I am, on the whole (based upon our choices of training methods and arts), so I'd expect you to be more aggressive than me in most situations, even when you're being conservative. Probably actually a personality difference.



> The half there and half not is how some people fight. So for example the people who want to throw punches but cant get in range because they are afraid of taking punches.


Agreed. I see sometimes in folks who have done too much light sparring. They get into "reaching to touch", since they don't practice enough hard contact (seems even hard contact on bags and pads reduces this tendency). They are staying out of range of getting hit, and trying to hit. I'm really good at stepping back two inches on these.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> When I go specifically into strategy for street fighting the term I use is fighting conservatively. so that you are not taking big risks for big rewards.
> 
> The half there and half not is how some people fight. So for example the people who want to throw punches but cant get in range because they are afraid of taking punches.



I agree, you can break fights down in to three classes, one) both want a fight, ,two) nether want to fight, three) one wants to and other doesn't. This puts them ata disadvantage as they are mentally detached and just want to be somewhere else


----------



## JP3

oftheherd1 said:


> I am a hapkidoist. I am taught many techniques, and I am taught to defend myself without being injured.  I am taught to defend against punches, kicks, grapples; basically anywhere you touch me or try to touch me, I have defenses.  The only rule is to not lose.


I loved my days training HKD because of just that. No joke intended. Sort of, "Touch me and I'll break it." attitude. Backed-up, too.


----------



## JP3

KenpoMaster805 said:


> Aikido is very poweful compare to karate and taekwondo but the aikido here at oxnard is far so i just taking karate



Sweat it not. Get in class, Any class, and learn.  I started in aikid when a kidd it... it was .. better ... in my opinion, to come back to it having established proficiency elsewhere.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> So Aikido gets to be everyone but not everyone gets to be Aikido?
> 
> Sees unfair.
> 
> Now all i have to do is find me an Aikido  instructor and Aikido side kick that guy.


Nah. At my place everyone does get to be Aikido. I'm an aikido instructor and you can come sidekick me. When I get up, having remembered that I am no longer 25, I will still hand you the correct-colored kyu grade belt. If you still need it to hold your pants up -- which would have become evident immediately after said side kick.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure what the "half there and half somewhere else" comment is about, though.


Drop is talking about being "Switched On," focused, ready to engage, gain advantage and dominate  You've talked about lack of Japanese terms in your school, but the related, possibly overlapping mental states which pretty much anyone can achieve of mushin and zanshin apply, imo.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> When I go specifically into strategy for street fighting the term I use is fighting conservatively. so that you are not taking big risks for big rewards.
> 
> The half there and half not is how some people fight. So for example the people who want to throw punches but cant get in range because they are afraid of taking punches.


Which if I may... you also refer to as half-assing, if I'm getting your terminology right.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> That sounds like a pretty good way of explaining how I see "fighting not to lose". You're probably a more aggressive fighter than I am, on the whole (based upon our choices of training methods and arts), so I'd expect you to be more aggressive than me in most situations, even when you're being conservative. Probably actually a personality difference.
> 
> 
> Agreed. I see sometimes in folks who have done too much light sparring. They get into "reaching to touch", since they don't practice enough hard contact (seems even hard contact on bags and pads reduces this tendency). They are staying out of range of getting hit, and trying to hit. I'm really good at stepping back two inches on these.


I'm really good at walking right in to people trying to hit like that, covering them up, putting them on a back corner and then asking them what it was they were previously trying to do.  I am wondering (based on Wang's other thread) if I might be doing some sort of bastardized sticky/push hands thing. Probably very badly, but it does work.  Those people can't fight, though.  Try that on someone who regularly does any sort of full-contact, for real not just in name, and you end up with your face pushed in.


----------



## JP3

jobo said:


> I agree, you can break fights down in to three classes, one) both want a fight, ,two) nether want to fight, three) one wants to and other doesn't. This puts them ata disadvantage as they are mentally detached and just want to be somewhere else


What if you get a grouping of, one wants to fight and the other does not, but is open to the idea that he/she may not have the authority/ability to decide if there is going to be a fight or not?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Drop is talking about being "Switched On," focused, ready to engage, gain advantage and dominate  You've talked about lack of Japanese terms in your school, but the related, possibly overlapping mental states which pretty much anyone can achieve of mushin and zanshin apply, imo.


I've seen those terms used so sloppily that I'm no longer sure I know what concepts they cover, JP. I find myself moving away from some of the vocabulary of my early training, though it seemed to serve me well back then.

Back to the point at hand, I think you're right.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> I'm really good at walking right in to people trying to hit like that, covering them up, putting them on a back corner and then asking them what it was they were previously trying to do.  I am wondering (based on Wang's other thread) if I might be doing some sort of bastardized sticky/push hands thing. Probably very badly, but it does work.  Those people can't fight, though.  Try that on someone who regularly does any sort of full-contact, for real not just in name, and you end up with your face pushed in.


Agreed. The same goes for my 2" step-back. Used against someone over-reaching, it messes them up. They either over-extend (even more) and are easily toppled, or they get frustrated at missing and change tactics. With someone who knows how to make contact, a 2" step just means they hit me while I'm moving backwards, and maybe knock me down easier.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> I've seen those terms used so sloppily that I'm no longer sure I know what concepts they cover, JP. I find myself moving away from some of the vocabulary of my early training, though it seemed to serve me well back then.
> 
> Back to the point at hand, I think you're right.


People do strange things with words sometimes.  I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that thought.

I talk about mushin all the time, but in reverse, as in "Stop thinking about it and just try to do it."  I try to describe to people the 0.2 second delay for conscious thought inherent when you are concentrating on doing "something" rather than just letting it flow.  Obviously, this isn't for beginners (at any given skill, it comes back even to advanced people trying to do something new and/or different).

But, that discussion is in itself a digression from where we were going.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. The same goes for my 2" step-back. Used against someone over-reaching, it messes them up. They either over-extend (even more) and are easily toppled, or they get frustrated at missing and change tactics. With someone who knows how to make contact, a 2" step just means they hit me while I'm moving backwards, and maybe knock me down easier.


Yes.  Being knocked down remains in the "not fun" category. And, with someone who knows what they're doing, that 2" slip back just invites the barrage that Drop was talking about elsewhere. Another "not fun" thing to experience and have to deal with. But then, neither is eating a superman punch because you (meaning I) assumed I could cover it up on my way in.


Better to get out of the way, as Miyagi-san instructed. Best way block punch, you no be there.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Which if I may... you also refer to as half-assing, if I'm getting your terminology right.



Yes and no your suggestion of mushin,being present or just wanting to be there. Is what I am describing here. 

Half assing when I was describing that is when you think you are doing something technically right.  But you are not really doing it.


----------



## TSDTexan

JP3 said:


> Yes.  Being knocked down remains in the "not fun" category. And, with someone who knows what they're doing, that 2" slip back just invites the barrage that Drop was talking about elsewhere. Another "not fun" thing to experience and have to deal with. But then, neither is eating a superman punch because you (meaning I) assumed I could cover it up on my way in.
> 
> 
> Better to get out of the way, as Miyagi-san instructed. Best way block punch, you no be there.



Tai Subaki... up on the 45º counter punching/kicking the moment a committed attack begins.

His attack opens up gates.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> What if you get a grouping of, one wants to fight and the other does not, but is open to the idea that he/she may not have the authority/ability to decide if there is going to be a fight or not?



Deescalation.  Again you are better off using it to save them from a beating than using it to save yourself from one. 

Makes your deescalation better as well.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Yes.  Being knocked down remains in the "not fun" category. And, with someone who knows what they're doing, that 2" slip back just invites the barrage that Drop was talking about elsewhere. Another "not fun" thing to experience and have to deal with. But then, neither is eating a superman punch because you (meaning I) assumed I could cover it up on my way in.
> 
> 
> Better to get out of the way, as Miyagi-san instructed. Best way block punch, you no be there.



This becomes a big issue with MMA with the smaller gloves the knock outs come quicker. So the theory is to hang back and be conservative in your approach.

This is interesting for self defence because once you have had a decent go with 4 ounce gloves not many people want to rush forwards bare knuckle.


----------



## oftheherd1

JP3 said:


> I'm really good at walking right in to people trying to hit like that, covering them up, putting them on a back corner and then asking them what it was they were previously trying to do.  I am wondering (based on Wang's other thread) if I might be doing some sort of bastardized sticky/push hands thing. Probably very badly, but it does work.  Those people can't fight, though.  Try that on someone who regularly does any sort of full-contact, for real not just in name, and you end up with your face pushed in.



I think one of the hardest things I had to overcome was the fear of moving into an attack.  It just seemed counter-intuitive.


----------



## JP3

oftheherd1 said:


> I think one of the hardest things I had to overcome was the fear of moving into an attack.  It just seemed counter-intuitive.


Yes, it was. I completely agree. Then I figured out that, if I was just off the line that they were attacking me on as I moved in, I could often smother them for a second before moving back out. Once my slow-witted self realized what was happening, I started to stay "in" there longer and longer.

And... I also learned pretty quickly the types of opponents it's better to move back out on!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

oftheherd1 said:


> I think one of the hardest things I had to overcome was the fear of moving into an attack.  It just seemed counter-intuitive.


This is one of the things I've been trying to move to earlier in students' development. It's fairly common in my experience for an NGA student to mostly use retreating motions until about halfway through the kyu (colored belts) ranks. I've increased the early focus on learning how (and when) to enter.


----------



## oftheherd1

JP3 said:


> Yes, it was. I completely agree. Then I figured out that, if I was just off the line that they were attacking me on as I moved in, I could often smother them for a second before moving back out. Once my slow-witted self realized what was happening, I started to stay "in" there longer and longer.
> 
> And... I also learned pretty quickly the types of opponents it's better to move back out on!



In the Hapkido I learned, as I am sure in yours, moving off line to one side or the other was bad enough, but to move directly into the attack where my speed and accuracy had to carry me through, was hard and scary.  If you aren't fast and accurate, you put yourself where your opponent couldn't hope to find you, right in his sphere of power.



gpseymour said:


> This is one of the things I've been trying to move to earlier in students' development. It's fairly common in my experience for an NGA student to mostly use retreating motions until about halfway through the kyu (colored belts) ranks. I've increased the early focus on learning how (and when) to enter.



That sounds like a good way to do.  In the Hapkido I learned however, when it was time to use it we learned it.  Another thing I had trouble with was from my TKD training; we always looked at the eyes.  In Hapkido, we specifically watched the attack.  Actually makes more sense I think.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

oftheherd1 said:


> That sounds like a good way to do.  In the Hapkido I learned however, when it was time to use it we learned it.  Another thing I had trouble with was from my TKD training; we always looked at the eyes.  In Hapkido, we specifically watched the attack.  Actually makes more sense I think.


I don't know how Hapkido is organized, so this may be part of the difference. NGA is organized in formal "Techniques" (in quotes, because it's an arbitrary delineation). As a student learns a Technique, he also learns variations of it ("Applications"). Those Applications may be different from instructor to instructor. Many Techniques have both entering and exiting (to group them broadly) Applications. Most students simply stick to the exiting versions for a couple of years, rarely using the entering. Part of this comes from the teaching form used (nearly all are exiting movements), which students tend to practice more than any single variation. I've put more emphasis on the entering, both as a strategy/tactic, and in the teaching forms (I've changed several), to give students more practice on this aspect.

As for watching, we start with our center of vision on the upper chest. It moves more toward an attacking limb in many situations (as we move), with the principle being to keep it on the body rather than all the way out on an arm (so, not looking at a hand) - not always entirely possible, but that's the principle.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> This is one of the things I've been trying to move to earlier in students' development. It's fairly common in my experience for an NGA student to mostly use retreating motions until about halfway through the kyu (colored belts) ranks. I've increased the early focus on learning how (and when) to enter.


In our basic kata, we don't give them the option... we set it up so that they have to move forwards, "because that is where the kuzushi is..."

Of course there's other ways to off-balance people by evading back and to the side, but going in at the angle is the only one in the basic kata... so they get that training, whus hopefully the mindset, from the beginning.

Simple. NOT Easy.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Steve said:


> You understand that every style has roots that are hundreds or thousands of years old.   "Traditional" has nothing to do with originality or age.  It's an aesthetic.



The example that drop bear gave was a style that he created from scratch having no prior experience and developed over a twenty year time period. I would not trust such a style.


----------



## oftheherd1

@gpseymore and @JP3 - In the Hapkido I learned, we also learned 'techniques.'  There were no forms.  That was tried about 1985 or 1986, but it seems most of the Grand Masters were against it and it never took.  I think it had to do with the fact that normally a technique was intended to be executed in such a way that the opponent was disabled and unable to continue.  In the unlikely event that a technique didn't work effectively, we would still be under attack and simply use another technique to counter that.


----------



## oftheherd1

PhotonGuy said:


> The example that drop bear gave was a style that he created from scratch having no prior experience and developed over a twenty year time period. I would not trust such a style.



I understand where you are coming from.  That would be suspicious to me as well, especially from Drop Bear (  ).  But if he is using proven techniques or kata from another style(s), and as would seem so, he is making them effective, he might just have something going for himself, whether what he does works for anyone else or not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

oftheherd1 said:


> @gpseymore and @JP3 - In the Hapkido I learned, we also learned 'techniques.'  There were no forms.  That was tried about 1985 or 1986, but it seems most of the Grand Masters were against it and it never took.  I think it had to do with the fact that normally a technique was intended to be executed in such a way that the opponent was disabled and unable to continue.  In the unlikely event that a technique didn't work effectively, we would still be under attack and simply use another technique to counter that.


The way "techniques" are taught in NGA, there's a "Classical Technique" (what I call the "Classical Form" or "teaching form"). It starts from a specific attack, uses a specific response (entry, block, parry, slip, etc.) and a specific technique. As such, it's a form (in my book), even though it's only one technique, because it's designed to be replicated fairly exactly by each student, in order to practice the technique in question. Alongside those, we train "applications", which are the variations of the technique (where the "technique" is the finishing point), and how we get to them can vary broadly by circumstance.


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> The way "techniques" are taught in NGA, there's a "Classical Technique" (what I call the "Classical Form" or "teaching form"). It starts from a specific attack, uses a specific response (entry, block, parry, slip, etc.) and a specific technique. As such, it's a form (in my book), even though it's only one technique, because it's designed to be replicated fairly exactly by each student, in order to practice the technique in question. Alongside those, we train "applications", which are the variations of the technique (where the "technique" is the finishing point), and how we get to them can vary broadly by circumstance.





oftheherd1 said:


> @gpseymore and @JP3 - In the Hapkido I learned, we also learned 'techniques.'  There were no forms.  That was tried about 1985 or 1986, but it seems most of the Grand Masters were against it and it never took.  I think it had to do with the fact that normally a technique was intended to be executed in such a way that the opponent was disabled and unable to continue.  In the unlikely event that a technique didn't work effectively, we would still be under attack and simply use another technique to counter that.



The hapkido I learned had five forms from beginner/white belt up to 1st dan/black belt. My understanding of the forms were/was that it was a pattern to practice, which strung together a series of techniques as you've described above. It/they were basically a reproduction of a fight against multiples, but conveniently attacking one after the other from various directions. So, a training tool at its core.

Instructor:  "Go over there and work on the 1st and 2nd forms, I'll be there when I'm done working with this beginner on how to stand up straight and tie their belt."
Student: "Yes sir!"

Like that...  

Jerry, my thought on "kata" is the same as yours. It can be a single technique, a single move, or a combination thereof to get to one termination point, or a whole string of those done sequentially. In that sense, I consider things like rope duck-under and uppercut-hook drills to fit the definition of "kata."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> I consider things like rope duck-under and uppercut-hook drills to fit the definition of "kata."


Agreed. To me, there's a pretty vague difference between "drill" and "form", in some cases.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. To me, there's a pretty vague difference between "drill" and "form", in some cases.



Kata tends to be the source of the technique.

A drill tends to be a reflection of a technique.


----------



## Buka

To me....an aggressor comes in. Probably not the first time he has done so. He's usually greeted with whatever the appropriate response he has learned to look out for, learned through first hand experience as a _predator_ on the street.

F' him and the experience he rode in on. Seriously. Full speed ahead. Let him deal with you, not you deal with him.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Kata tends to be the source of the technique.
> 
> A drill tends to be a reflection of a technique.


I'm not sure that's a universally accurate description - at least in part because there's no clear universal definition of "technique".

I don't use kata as the source of a technique. The source, in my mind, is the most effective actual uses. The form is just a training method. So, I can have someone practice the Classical form of a Mugger's Throw (vaguely similar to drop seoi nage) in order to develop the mechanics for that technique. I can have someone practice a short combination repeatedly on a heavy bag to develop the mechanics for that combination. I can have someone practice solo shrimping to develop the mechanics (and core) for that movement. If I call the shrimping drill "the shrimping form", it doesn't change the nature of the practice. If I have someone practice the Mugger's Throw Classical form without a partner (it is normally only practiced with a partner), I'd refer to that as a "drill", but it's really just the form.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure that's a universally accurate description - at least in part because there's no clear universal definition of "technique".
> 
> I don't use kata as the source of a technique. The source, in my mind, is the most effective actual uses. The form is just a training method. So, I can have someone practice the Classical form of a Mugger's Throw (vaguely similar to drop seoi nage) in order to develop the mechanics for that technique. I can have someone practice a short combination repeatedly on a heavy bag to develop the mechanics for that combination. I can have someone practice solo shrimping to develop the mechanics (and core) for that movement. If I call the shrimping drill "the shrimping form", it doesn't change the nature of the practice. If I have someone practice the Mugger's Throw Classical form without a partner (it is normally only practiced with a partner), I'd refer to that as a "drill", but it's really just the form.



Why I said tends.

Your aplication of kata is the better version.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Why I said tends.
> 
> Your aplication of kata is the better version.


Thanks. I thought so - that's why I use it that way. IMO (and it's just my opinion), starting from kata and trying to make application fit that is like starting from a shrimping drill and trying to make the escapes work that way. It should always be the other way around, and forms should evolve as understanding and application evolve. I've actually heard people say that application should be as close to form as possible, and I can agree with that only if the form is adjusted to be as close as possible to useful and effective application.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> Kata tends to be the source of the technique.
> 
> A drill tends to be a reflection of a technique.


Nah... a technique is just a movement, you have to have the movement before you put it, perhaps string it together is the right verb form,  into a kata.

And a drill is a repetition of a movement, which could be a technique, designed to put it into muscle memory for coordinative purposes.


----------



## JP3

Buka said:


> To me....an aggressor comes in. Probably not the first time he has done so. He's usually greeted with whatever the appropriate response he has learned to look out for, learned through first hand experience as a _predator_ on the street.
> 
> F' him and the experience he rode in on. Seriously. Full speed ahead. Let him deal with you, not you deal with him.


Precisely.

As the sig says, paraphrased, don't estimate people. You'll probably be wrong.


----------

