# The big disconnect. Or a follow up from Aikido vs MMA.



## drop bear (Dec 10, 2017)

So Aikido guy sparred a MMA guy and got handled. Anyway he has then gone out and interviewed some top martial artists who can meld the two in a quest to find out just what happened. Why it happend and mabye how to fix it.

I have mentioned evidence based training, Courting loss and, as in the title, the disconnect between what you think is workings in training and what actually works. 

And for the same reason. I came out of these traditional based methods and self defence methods as well. Encountered the same issues and basically came to these same conclusions.

Anyway here is the vid.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 10, 2017)

Spot on...Roy dean


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 10, 2017)

A good video - thanks for posting this, DB. Though they are from a different art in the Aikido world, they express some of what I went through, and some of the ways I had to change my training along the way - some of which I'm still working through. Dean makes a great point (one you've made before), that training has to allow for failure. I think courting failure is something my early Aikido training simply didn't do much of.

I really like Dean's expression of what he likes so much about BJJ. A lot of good community in that art. And I've seen a lot of the ego and desperation to define he talks about in his Aikido experience.


----------



## skribs (Dec 10, 2017)

In our hapkido class, we go over the techniques and we "tank" for each other, but then we do sparring.  Sparring in our classes is where one guy "attacks" the other, and must be submitted.  We don't tank for each other during this phase, and half the time the person who is supposed to be defending is forced to tap out.  (I say half the time, but when it's me, it's more like 80% of the time).  

I do agree with the general premise that if you don't practice against a live opponent, it can be very hard to succeed.  That's why most of these "TMA Grandmaster vs. MMA" fights end in the MMA guy just clobbering the TMA guy right off the bat.  The TMA guy might have great technique, but as soon as he gets hit once, the fight is over, because he's not used to getting hit.  He's put all his XP into Dexterity and none into Health, so one hit and it's over.

It also sounds to me like Roy isn't saying that Aikido is bad, and I'm not trying to say that (insert TMA here) is bad.  But if you want martial competency, you have to be able to take that hit, and you have to be able to react, instead of expecting your plan to work.

Going back to our hapkido, the video says you need to have plan A, plan B, and plan C.  I do believe my hapkido training (what I've received of it, anyway, I'm still not even halfway to black belt) gives us these options.  Hapkido has very similar techniques to aikido, to my knowledge, so I could see that the techniques taught should work, if you practice them with respect to reality.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 11, 2017)

i am at work and cant type out an entire response so ill will have to break it into a few segments.

Aikido could benefit from looking at their methodology of training.  do i think it should be more like BJJ?  NO.   BJJ is what it is , Aikido is what it is.  Aikido should not be BJJ.  in many ways BJJ suffers from many of the same pitfalls as Aikido.
the first question to be asked in any self defense system is,  what is the desired outcome or goal ?  unfortunately this brings us back around again to the street vs competition thing,,that everyone hates to discuss because we have to define the question of "does it work".  well the context determines whether it works or not *in that context.*  Aikido does not work at all in a competition setting.  should it?  i do not think it has to work in competition but it should work with some resistance and pressure testing.  

if we use a context of a potentially deadly violent assault, what is the desired goal for the defender?


----------



## jobo (Dec 11, 2017)

skribs said:


> In our hapkido class, we go over the techniques and we "tank" for each other, but then we do sparring.  Sparring in our classes is where one guy "attacks" the other, and must be submitted.  We don't tank for each other during this phase, and half the time the person who is supposed to be defending is forced to tap out.  (I say half the time, but when it's me, it's more like 80% of the time).
> 
> I do agree with the general premise that if you don't practice against a live opponent, it can be very hard to succeed.  That's why most of these "TMA Grandmaster vs. MMA" fights end in the MMA guy just clobbering the TMA guy right off the bat.  The TMA guy might have great technique, but as soon as he gets hit once, the fight is over, because he's not used to getting hit.  He's put all his XP into Dexterity and none into Health, so one hit and it's over.
> 
> ...


yes its very much a circulatory argument, that we do over and over again.
an experienced never mind good ring fighter ( of what ever discipline will usually beat a tma, just as they will beat most people who arnt ringfighters, that is just the way it is, th skills of doing it live and the experience of doing it against someone trying to take your head off , can't be replicated with a bit of live sparring against an oppoinent of dubious skills themselves.
 But there is the problem, not many tma types want to get beaten up three times a week in order to be good fighters at the end. And that is largely what the requirement is to get to the elevated level. Fight and loose a lot to get good. If i was 25 i might give it a go, but it takes me to long to heal apart from the fact that I'm always going to loss. Against a trained 25 yo old fighter.

so you are left with what we have now, a bit of liveish sparring wit h big pads and a lot of practise, you will only get so good that way! Quite. Possibly good enough to defend yourself most of the time against most people, but always going to lose against a half decent mmaer, boxer or bbjer. And there doesn't seem a solution to that, just varrying degrees of not to bad and a lot of not good enough


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 11, 2017)

for myself and my own training, in a violent confrontation my goal is to exit the danger zone.  the more prevalent concept seems to be to "beat" the attacker.  this CAN work, but *will it work,* is a matter of percentages.  i believe the goal in a violent situation should remain constant across incidents,  different situations and time.  things like multiple attackers, weapons and others that need your protection should not change the goal.  for myself the best goal is the exit the danger zone.  now how i do that ,, well sometimes i may need to fight other times maybe not.
with the idea of getting out of the danger zone rather than beating someone up,  this changes the way Aikido may and may not be effective VS BJJ.  perhaps in many instances it may be a better option.


----------



## jobo (Dec 11, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> for myself and my own training, in a violent confrontation my goal is to exit the danger zone.  the more prevalent concept seems to be to "beat" the attacker.  this CAN work, but *will it work,* is a matter of percentages.  i believe the goal in a violent situation should remain constant across incidents,  different situations and time.  things like multiple attackers, weapons and others that need your protection should not change the goal.  for myself the best goal is the exit the danger zone.  now how i do that ,, well sometimes i may need to fight other times maybe not.
> with the idea of getting out of the danger zone rather than beating someone up,  this changes the way Aikido may and may not be effective VS BJJ.  perhaps in many instances it may be a better option.


it may, but only if it will work , that the down side of a lot of tma, you only know if the techniques are sound and or you you have the skills to use them in real time, when its to late to change your mind and take up bjj instead


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 11, 2017)

Interesting video I came across last week.  He talks about the need for realistic attacks, but also talks about the change of dynamics in a sparring situation where both people know what is happening and a fight where neither person knows the other person's abilities.  It is an interesting viewpoint that brings up some good points to think about.

Just thought I would throw it there for discussion.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 11, 2017)

many people seem to insist that , it only works, if it works in an MMA resistance type setting.  for some things yes and other things no.   
people get confused on the construct of "what works"   if i am attacked by a guy wielding a knife in a convenience store,  am i better off doing an aikido move where i slip the strike/ dodge it and run, or am i better off getting inside the attackers arc of motion and go for a double leg takedown and try for an arm bar?   i would go for the run every time without a doubt.  but you can prove out the idea that the double leg into an arm bar will out preform the kokyu nage in a one on one competitive resistant roll session.   context is everything.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 11, 2017)

The guy said it all when he said, "technique is technique, the problem is in the training."


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 11, 2017)

DaveB said:


> The guy said it all when he said, "technique is technique, the problem is in the training."


that is correct.  but it is more than just methodology as Roy Dean suggests. behavioral patterns are actually more important than technique when the context is a violent interaction.


----------



## jobo (Dec 11, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> many people seem to insist that , it only works, if it works in an MMA resistance type setting.  for some things yes and other things no.
> people get confused on the construct of "what works"   if i am attacked by a guy wielding a knife in a convenience store,  am i better off doing an aikido move where i slip the strike/ dodge it and run, or am i better off getting inside the attackers arc of motion and go for a double leg takedown and try for an arm bar?   i would go for the run every time without a doubt.  but you can prove out the idea that the double leg into an arm bar will out preform the kokyu nage in a one on one competitive resistant roll session.   context is everything.


only if the aikido move doesn't result in you being knifed in the throat, other wise staying very still and handing over you wallet if asked sounds a much better strategy.


----------



## pgsmith (Dec 11, 2017)

Toby Threadgill wrote a very interesting essay a number of years back about assumptions in the martial arts. It seems pretty relevant to this thread and I feel that it's worth reading, if only for the chuckle factor.

 Assumptions


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 11, 2017)

jobo said:


> only if the aikido move doesn't result in you being knifed in the throat, other wise staying very still and handing over you wallet if asked sounds a much better strategy.


You are changing the situation. I said nothing about being robbed or asked for a wallet. I said ,being attacked by a knife wielding assailant.
However if the best option is compliance, then BJJ will be just as worthless as Aikido.


----------



## jobo (Dec 11, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> You are changing the situation. I said nothing about being robbed or asked for a wallet. I said ,being attacked by a knife wielding assailant.
> However if the best option is compliance, then BJJ will be just as worthless as Aikido.


no compliance is better than using aikido and being stabbed in the throat. Bjj is better than compliance, as long as you don't get stabbed


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 11, 2017)




----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 11, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> Interesting video I came across last week.  He talks about the need for realistic attacks, but also talks about the change of dynamics in a sparring situation where both people know what is happening and a fight where neither person knows the other person's abilities.  It is an interesting viewpoint that brings up some good points to think about.
> 
> Just thought I would throw it there for discussion.


i like Lenny's aikido. i just have a hard time listening to his verbal diatribes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 11, 2017)

skribs said:


> In our hapkido class, we go over the techniques and we "tank" for each other, but then we do sparring.  Sparring in our classes is where one guy "attacks" the other, and must be submitted.  We don't tank for each other during this phase, and half the time the person who is supposed to be defending is forced to tap out.  (I say half the time, but when it's me, it's more like 80% of the time).
> 
> I do agree with the general premise that if you don't practice against a live opponent, it can be very hard to succeed.  That's why most of these "TMA Grandmaster vs. MMA" fights end in the MMA guy just clobbering the TMA guy right off the bat.  The TMA guy might have great technique, but as soon as he gets hit once, the fight is over, because he's not used to getting hit.  He's put all his XP into Dexterity and none into Health, so one hit and it's over.
> 
> ...


In some ways Hapkido (as I've seen it - never trained in it), is closer to NGA (and probably Yoshinkan Aikido) than to most of Ueshiba's Aikido. I like the approach you describe here - in some ways, it's close to where I'm heading with my approach. I've become more a fan of failure late in my training, as I've learned more from it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 11, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> Interesting video I came across last week.  He talks about the need for realistic attacks, but also talks about the change of dynamics in a sparring situation where both people know what is happening and a fight where neither person knows the other person's abilities.  It is an interesting viewpoint that brings up some good points to think about.
> 
> Just thought I would throw it there for discussion.


Too long for our current data availability - I'll try to remember to watch when I'm near a WiFi source. I'm interested in seeing if this mirrors one of the issues I've posted about in the past, where sparring against your own art takes away techniques that are more available against folks who don't know what you are going to do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 11, 2017)

jobo said:


> only if the aikido move doesn't result in you being knifed in the throat, other wise staying very still and handing over you wallet if asked sounds a much better strategy.


Agreed. It's when the knife is actually being used (not just displayed) that the choice in Hoshin's post occurs, if I read it correctly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 11, 2017)

jobo said:


> no compliance is better than using aikido and being stabbed in the throat. Bjj is better than compliance, as long as you don't get stabbed


So, compliance is better than being stabbed, unless you're using BJJ, in which case action is better than compliance, unless you get stabbed?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 11, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> many people seem to insist that , it only works, if it works in an MMA resistance type setting.  for some things yes and other things no.
> people get confused on the construct of "what works"   if i am attacked by a guy wielding a knife in a convenience store,  am i better off doing an aikido move where i slip the strike/ dodge it and run, or am i better off getting inside the attackers arc of motion and go for a double leg takedown and try for an arm bar?   i would go for the run every time without a doubt.  but you can prove out the idea that the double leg into an arm bar will out preform the kokyu nage in a one on one competitive resistant roll session.   context is everything.



Wait a second putting the situation in a MMA resistance setting would still apply. You throw some mma gloves on get a rubber or blunt knife and then test the concept. Test running away. Test wrist locks, test the double leg.

Same as MMA. resistance within as open a rule set as you can apply.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 12, 2017)

Isn't that how all knife defences are trained once the basics of controlling and disarming are taught?


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Wait a second putting the situation in a MMA resistance setting would still apply. You throw some mma gloves on get a rubber or blunt knife and then test the concept. Test running away. Test wrist locks, test the double leg.
> 
> Same as MMA. resistance within as open a rule set as you can apply.
> 
> ]


Let me re frame the issue.
A gun is a tool.
A knife is a tool. So is BJJ so is Aikido.  You don't test a screwdriver by smashing it with a hammer an then say _"see the screwdriver didn't hold up to the hammer, the hammer is the best"_
Because the screwdriver is bent and broken.  You can't test aikido with bjj. The equivalent would be to pull a firearm on you from across the room and say...ok do some of that ju jitsy stuff and see if you can stop this bullet.
The way I see it is aikido and bjj are different tools. They apply to different aspect of the defensive spectrum in a violent encounter.  Aikido is good for the initial contact (it's a facilitator for what ever is next) bjj is good for the middle (establishing dominance and control ) then a little ground and pound is great for the finnish. I used the example of use the aiki move as a facilitator then run but it could also be to gain distance to draw my firearm.  Aikido is best used for a different purpose then bjj. That's why you can't just pit one again the other on a mat and see which one is better. They really have different functions.


----------



## jobo (Dec 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So, compliance is better than being stabbed, unless you're using BJJ, in which case action is better than compliance, unless you get stabbed?


more or less


----------



## jobo (Dec 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. It's when the knife is actually being used (not just displayed) that the choice in Hoshin's post occurs, if I read it correctly.


he came up with a very specific case of being attacked by a knife  maniac in a store. Whilst I'm not saying that has never happened, its so rare as to be in the don't need to worry class, 

in the rare event i was in a store and that happened o would throw tins of beans at him, unless i was in the hardware section , where i would grab a hammer or a Spade, perhaps a hoe


----------



## drop bear (Dec 12, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> Let me re frame the issue.
> A gun is a tool.
> A knife is a tool. So is BJJ so is Aikido.  You don't test a screwdriver by smashing it with a hammer an then say _"see the screwdriver didn't hold up to the hammer, the hammer is the best"_
> Because the screwdriver is bent and broken.  You can't test aikido with bjj. The equivalent would be to pull a firearm on you from across the room and say...ok do some of that ju jitsy stuff and see if you can stop this bullet.
> The way I see it is aikido and bjj are different tools. They apply to different aspect of the defensive spectrum in a violent encounter.  Aikido is good for the initial contact (it's a facilitator for what ever is next) bjj is good for the middle (establishing dominance and control ) then a little ground and pound is great for the finnish. I used the example of use the aiki move as a facilitator then run but it could also be to gain distance to draw my firearm.  Aikido is best used for a different purpose then bjj. That's why you can't just pit one again the other on a mat and see which one is better. They really have different functions.



Of course you can pit one against the other on the mat and see which one is better.






Whole point of the thread.

A gun from across the room is better than BJJ.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 12, 2017)

What this thread shows best is that some people will only ever see their own point of view.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 12, 2017)

DaveB said:


> What this thread shows best is that some people will only ever see their own point of view.


 
This thread shows people can see more.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Of course you can pit one against the other on the mat and see which one is better.



Well, no, all that will show you is which person is better. On that particular day.



> A gun from across the room is better than BJJ.



Chic-Chic-POW beats pretty much all unarmed systems.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 12, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Isn't that how all knife defences are trained once the basics of controlling and disarming are taught?


I wish. Lots of schools in lots of arts where knife defenses are taught but never trained live.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Too long for our current data availability - I'll try to remember to watch when I'm near a WiFi source. I'm interested in seeing if this mirrors one of the issues I've posted about in the past, where sparring against your own art takes away techniques that are more available against folks who don't know what you are going to do.



I believe he does touch on that a little bit.  He goes more over the mindset of a sparring match versus an angry bloke who is egging on a fight.  He also makes the point that you are unlikely to face another trained martial artist in a  "streetfight" because *usually* they aren't the ones looking for one.  He talks about how when you spar there is a certain perspective that you are going to actively resist whatever the other person does from the onset in both attack and defense.  In an altercation, the attacker doesn't necessarily do that and is more open to your counter.

It was an interesting perspective that I hadn't heard before concerning the "ring vs. the street" argument that usually occurs.


----------



## jobo (Dec 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Of course you can pit one against the other on the mat and see which one is better.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i thought the purpose of the op was to improve aikido, not to make it better than bjj at ring fighting ? Bjj has a tenancy towards beating any other art, all things being equal. It's unfair to single out aikido, when the same deficiencies would apply to karate, boxing, judo etc


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Of course you can pit one against the other on the mat and see which one is better.


yes you can, but you shouldnt and that was my point with the gun.  you can pit them together but the resulting data gained is non consequential.  its a bogus result.  the gun will kill the bjj guy every single time, does that mean that bjj is useless BS?  tests like that do not mean anything because while aikido and bjj seem similar they are non compatible concepts like bjj and a gun.  nor can you qualify the successfullness of running away against bjj.  these are all different contexts within a violent encounter.   each tool has its purpose.  again you can judge a screwdriver by how well its hammers a nail but what good is that?  by putting Bjj and Aikido on the mat the only thing you are testing is ones ability to dominate and control.


Dirty Dog said:


> Well, no, all that will show you is which person is better. On that particular day.


and this is not really true in this instance.  bjj will win every time, aikido will lose every time almost without exception.  the usual explanation of "_well its not a real fight...but if it was, my art would win......"_  that is a cop out.  when people say that its because they do not really understand why aikido is not working for them.  they do not understand the underling factors at work.
i kinda see aikido as an exception to most arts.  it has by design no dominance and control game. thus  it will always lose to an art that specializes in that.   what Roy Dean seems to be suggesting is that it should adapt to have it.  i say it shouldnt.  it should be used as a different kind of tool.


----------



## jobo (Dec 12, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> Let me re frame the issue.
> A gun is a tool.
> A knife is a tool. So is BJJ so is Aikido.  You don't test a screwdriver by smashing it with a hammer an then say _"see the screwdriver didn't hold up to the hammer, the hammer is the best"_
> Because the screwdriver is bent and broken.  You can't test aikido with bjj. The equivalent would be to pull a firearm on you from across the room and say...ok do some of that ju jitsy stuff and see if you can stop this bullet.
> The way I see it is aikido and bjj are different tools. They apply to different aspect of the defensive spectrum in a violent encounter.  Aikido is good for the initial contact (it's a facilitator for what ever is next) bjj is good for the middle (establishing dominance and control ) then a little ground and pound is great for the finnish. I used the example of use the aiki move as a facilitator then run but it could also be to gain distance to draw my firearm.  Aikido is best used for a different purpose then bjj. That's why you can't just pit one again the other on a mat and see which one is better. They really have different functions.


I'm not sure that,screw driver hammer comparison holds up, you can very much judge the quality of a,screw driver by if it bends when you hit it with hammer, a good quality screwdriver should be impervious to a  few hammer blows, admittedly you are using it to compare screw driver not hammer against driver, but still!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Wait a second putting the situation in a MMA resistance setting would still apply. You throw some mma gloves on get a rubber or blunt knife and then test the concept. Test running away. Test wrist locks, test the double leg.
> 
> Same as MMA. resistance within as open a rule set as you can apply.


Except that you, in the past, have argued that there's no value in adding situational SD training to MMA. You're now saying almost exactly something I've said before, and something you've argued (in complete ignorance) that I don't do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> he came up with a very specific case of being attacked by a knife  maniac in a store. Whilst I'm not saying that has never happened, its so rare as to be in the don't need to worry class,
> 
> in the rare event i was in a store and that happened o would throw tins of beans at him, unless i was in the hardware section , where i would grab a hammer or a Spade, perhaps a hoe


But that was the scenario he set forth, and you sidestepped it saying a different response to a different scenario is better. I don't disagree with your point, but it doesn't apply to the situation he was applying.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 12, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> I believe he does touch on that a little bit.  He goes more over the mindset of a sparring match versus an angry bloke who is egging on a fight.  He also makes the point that you are unlikely to face another trained martial artist in a  "streetfight" because *usually* they aren't the ones looking for one.  He talks about how when you spar there is a certain perspective that you are going to actively resist whatever the other person does from the onset in both attack and defense.  In an altercation, the attacker doesn't necessarily do that and is more open to your counter.
> 
> It was an interesting perspective that I hadn't heard before concerning the "ring vs. the street" argument that usually occurs.


I agree with most of that, except - and this is a point Drop Bear makes better than me - someone doesn't have to be a skilled, trained martial artist to come with controlled attacks. Of course, there's a difference between facing someone who is a skilled and controlled fighter, and someone who actually knows what you do and how to counter it.

The rest is good points. When I spar, I can stop a lot of techniques that absolutely work, because I can recognize them coming and know exactly how to counter them. You see this a lot in how Judo has progressed, and the rules they've had to put in place in competitions to avoid stalemating. I seem to remember there being some rules to that end in BJJ competitions, but I know far less about those. If someone is angry, they (according to video evidence, my own experience, and most of the discussions I've had with folks who deal with angry people getting physical) tend to focus mostly on attack, often (though not always) even to the point of exposing themselves to techniques and counters that wouldn't show up sparring even with an untrained person.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 12, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> yes you can, but you shouldnt and that was my point with the gun.  you can pit them together but the resulting data gained is non consequential.  its a bogus result.  the gun will kill the bjj guy every single time, does that mean that bjj is useless BS?  tests like that do not mean anything because while aikido and bjj seem similar they are non compatible concepts like bjj and a gun.  nor can you qualify the successfullness of running away against bjj.  these are all different contexts within a violent encounter.   each tool has its purpose.  again you can judge a screwdriver by how well its hammers a nail but what good is that?  by putting Bjj and Aikido on the mat the only thing you are testing is ones ability to dominate and control.
> 
> and this is not really true in this instance.  bjj will win every time, aikido will lose every time almost without exception.  the usual explanation of "_well its not a real fight...but if it was, my art would win......"_  that is a cop out.  when people say that its because they do not really understand why aikido is not working for them.  they do not understand the underling factors at work.
> i kinda see aikido as an exception to most arts.  it has by design no dominance and control game. thus  it will always lose to an art that specializes in that.   what Roy Dean seems to be suggesting is that it should adapt to have it.  i say it shouldnt.  it should be used as a different kind of tool.


I go back and forth on that last point. If we view Aikido as an add-on (what I think it originally was), then I agree with you. If we view it as a stand-alone art (the way it is most commonly taught), I think it needs a dominance and control game of some sort. It needs a vehicle to make the aiki more available and useful, and to fill the areas where it isn't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> I'm not sure that,screw driver hammer comparison holds up, you can very much judge the quality of a,screw driver by if it bends when you hit it with hammer, a good quality screwdriver should be impervious to a  few hammer blows, admittedly you are using it to compare screw driver not hammer against driver, but still!


My best screwdriver is electric. It does a better job driving screws than anything I own, and can drive more screws deeper into harder wood than I could ever do by hand. Hitting it hard with a hammer will do damage to it. It's still a better screwdriver than any of the ones that would be unharmed by the hammer.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 12, 2017)

to test something is really trying to apply the scientific method. one of the challenges of this is to develop a proper test that will give proper results.   aikido vs bjj  doesnt do this and it doesnt impress me.  if you want a fair comparison,  put the bjj guy and the aikido guy side by side have them both fight a boxer, a TKD guy, a guy with a knife and one with a machette together at the same time, and last event ..a guy with a gun.  tally up the results and see were we stand.
against 2 assailants one with a machette and one with a knife my money will be on the skilled aikido guy every time.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I go back and forth on that last point. If we view Aikido as an add-on (what I think it originally was), then I agree with you. If we view it as a stand-alone art (the way it is most commonly taught), I think it needs a dominance and control game of some sort. It needs a vehicle to make the aiki more available and useful, and to fill the areas where it isn't.


agreed, but aikido can be the core art with something else added on.  aikido doesnt have to re invent the wheel ,you can add like i believe your art has some, judo and then add some skill in Bjj.   we do not have to redefine and recreate aikido

the only reason i see that people want to recreate it is because they believe aiki as it stands is invalid


----------



## jobo (Dec 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> My best screwdriver is electric. It does a better job driving screws than anything I own, and can drive more screws deeper into harder wood than I could ever do by hand. Hitting it hard with a hammer will do damage to it. It's still a better screwdriver than any of the ones that would be unharmed by the hammer.


only with in the limitation of its design, ! Electric screw driver are pretty good at putting screws in, but next to useless at getting rusty or damaged screws out, at which point you want one that you can hammer to get some purchase. With. They are also weak at driving slotted screws,it just ends badly if you try

that said i own a early 90s bosh electric screwdriver that is next to useless at driving screws electrically( not enough power) , but its so robustly made. That it excels at just being a,screwdriver you can hammer to get rusty damaged screws out of door hinges.

there are a whole class of screw driver made to be hammer , they have a metal top to them, and of course. The impact driver, which has no other purpose than being hammered

nb, get a gimlet, it makes driving screws by hand a piece of cake and isn't prone to splitting the wood like a powerful electric one might


----------



## wab25 (Dec 12, 2017)

One thing we need to do, is to have good expectations. Not all arts have the same expectation. Testing our arts is great. The problem is applying one arts expectations to another art and then judging usefulness based on the outcome. We start with Aikido vs MMA, in an MMA style test. Thats like taking an MMA fighter and putting him in a boxing match, under boxing rules with boxing expectations. That didn't work out so well for McGregor. (well, except for his pay check) Should we then conclude that MMA is useless because McGregor got stopped in a boxing match? Its the same as putting a judo guy in a kickboxing match. Has not turned out well for Ronda Rousy. Are we to conclude that Judo is useless because she was knocked out in a kickboxing match. (technically it was MMA, but there was very little Judo involved)

The point is that Judo is great for throwing, choking, and grappling. Not so great at punching and kicking. BJJ is great on the ground, not so much at punching, kicking or getting people to the ground. Boxing is really good for punching... not much else though. Kickboxing is great for kicking and punching, but throwing, pinning and arm baring, no so much.

Aikido is interesting, in that many people have the wrong expectation of it. Even many who practice or teach, have the wrong expectation of it. Its not about arm bar throws, wrist throws or really any finishing moves. Aikido is about blending, and taking the other guys balance through blending with him. The instant he touches you, you are in the process of taking his balance by blending with him. The parts about the guy falling down, flying through the air or tapping, are not the point. Yes, he does that to protect himself. But more importantly, he does that to learn the blending... the main point of the art. If you can blend, and take the guys balance there are any number of martial attacks to use, at the point. Some look like aikido, some look like boxing, some like karate or judo or really whatever. The finish is not what aikido is about, it is the blending and entrance. The reason they have the finishes that they do, is that those more fully demonstrate and teach the principles of aikido... not because they are martially effective.

The BJJ guy in the first video, talked about how he took the principles of aikido and applied them in BJJ. He even thought BJJ guys should learn the blending ideas. He got it. There are lots of pieces to being a complete martial artist. Throwing, grappling, pinning, ckoking, punching, kicking, trapping... Different arts focus on the different pieces in different ways. Whether an art is successful and useful should be based on whether that art can contribute its principles to the practitioners. Aikido gave the BJJ guy the principles of blending and off balancing, which he was successfully able to apply in BJJ and other arts. That is the success of Aikido. It is the same for Judo. If studying Judo can make you better at throwing and choking... it is useful. As martial artists, we need to choose what is of most worth for each of us to study. It may be different for each of us. It may change over time. But I would not say Judo is useless and must change, since it can't produce a good boxer.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> only with in the limitation of its design, ! Electric screw driver are pretty good at putting screws in, but next to useless at getting rusty or damaged screws out, at which point you want one that you can hammer to get some purchase. With. They are also weak at driving slotted screws,it just ends badly if you try
> 
> that said i own a early 90s bosh electric screwdriver that is next to useless at driving screws electrically( not enough power) , but its so robustly made. That it excels at just being a,screwdriver you can hammer to get rusty damaged screws out of door hinges.
> 
> ...


That all fits the point. A tool can be good for its purpose, and fail the "hit it with a hammer" test. And it might not be great for related purposes, so if you need to do those things, another tool might work better.


----------



## jobo (Dec 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That all fits the point. A tool can be good for its purpose, and fail the "hit it with a hammer" test. And it might not be great for related purposes, so if you need to do those things, another tool might work better.


 no any tool of quality can take being hit with a hammer, just coz you have a crappy elecy driver doesn't change that


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> no any tool of quality can take being hit with a hammer, just coz you have a crappy elecy driver doesn't change that


You're judging it as "crappy" by a test that has no relevance to its utility. I've owned it for a decade. It has never failed, and has driven screws I'd never have tried to drive by hand. It has survived falls from ladders, etc. with only scrapes. But give me a decent hammer, and I could crack the case with one blow. But that doesn't matter. It's still a good screwdriver. There are certainly tougher ones (like the one I had before it), and they are also heavier and cost more, so there's a trade-off. My previous electric driver would probably have taken a half dozen decent hammer shots (unless I got lucky and caught it just right), but wasn't as good at driving screws. Since the point of the driver is to drive screws, this one is more functional. If I need to warm up my hammer, there are better places to do that than my screwdriver.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 12, 2017)

wab25 said:


> One thing we need to do, is to have good expectations. Not all arts have the same expectation. Testing our arts is great. The problem is applying one arts expectations to another art and then judging usefulness based on the outcome. We start with Aikido vs MMA, in an MMA style test. Thats like taking an MMA fighter and putting him in a boxing match, under boxing rules with boxing expectations. That didn't work out so well for McGregor. (well, except for his pay check) Should we then conclude that MMA is useless because McGregor got stopped in a boxing match? Its the same as putting a judo guy in a kickboxing match. Has not turned out well for Ronda Rousy. Are we to conclude that Judo is useless because she was knocked out in a kickboxing match. (technically it was MMA, but there was very little Judo involved)
> 
> The point is that Judo is great for throwing, choking, and grappling. Not so great at punching and kicking. BJJ is great on the ground, not so much at punching, kicking or getting people to the ground. Boxing is really good for punching... not much else though. Kickboxing is great for kicking and punching, but throwing, pinning and arm baring, no so much.
> 
> ...



exactly..  to test validity we need to use more than one metric.


----------



## jobo (Dec 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> You're judging it as "crappy" by a test that has no relevance to its utility. I've owned it for a decade. It has never failed, and has driven screws I'd never have tried to drive by hand. It has survived falls from ladders, etc. with only scrapes. But give me a decent hammer, and I could crack the case with one blow. But that doesn't matter. It's still a good screwdriver. There are certainly tougher ones (like the one I had before it), and they are also heavier and cost more, so there's a trade-off. My previous electric driver would probably have taken a half dozen decent hammer shots (unless I got lucky and caught it just right), but wasn't as good at driving screws. Since the point of the driver is to drive screws, this one is more functional. If I need to warm up my hammer, there are better places to do that than my screwdriver.


the manufactures will as part of the test process hit it with a hammer to see what impact resistance it has, there fore hitting with a hammer IS a relevant test


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> the manufactures will as part of the test process hit it with a hammer to see what impact resistance it has, there fore hitting with a hammer IS a relevant test


Not to its function at driving screws, it isn't. Just because a test is used, that doesn't make it valid.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 12, 2017)

jobo said:


> the manufactures will as part of the test process hit it with a hammer to see what impact resistance it has, there fore hitting with a hammer IS a relevant test


i was in the construction trade for over 10 years.  your full of it.   only a moron hits the tools he makes his living from with a hammer.  they will all break.  any tool not used for its intended purpose gets ruined.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 12, 2017)

how the F did this thread turn into a hardware store dialog.


----------



## Steve (Dec 12, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> Let me re frame the issue.
> A gun is a tool.
> A knife is a tool. So is BJJ so is Aikido.  You don't test a screwdriver by smashing it with a hammer an then say _"see the screwdriver didn't hold up to the hammer, the hammer is the best"_
> Because the screwdriver is bent and broken.  You can't test aikido with bjj. The equivalent would be to pull a firearm on you from across the room and say...ok do some of that ju jitsy stuff and see if you can stop this bullet.
> The way I see it is aikido and bjj are different tools. They apply to different aspect of the defensive spectrum in a violent encounter.  Aikido is good for the initial contact (it's a facilitator for what ever is next) bjj is good for the middle (establishing dominance and control ) then a little ground and pound is great for the finnish. I used the example of use the aiki move as a facilitator then run but it could also be to gain distance to draw my firearm.  Aikido is best used for a different purpose then bjj. That's why you can't just pit one again the other on a mat and see which one is better. They really have different functions.


You might not test the screwdriver by smashing it with a hammer.  But if someone asked you to connect two boards together with a nail, and then handed you a screwdriver to do it, you'd test the screwdriver AS a hammer.  Using your analogy, the idea is that if you only have aikido because that's what you train, you are choosing to use it in multiple contexts.  If you have BJJ, that's the tool you have. 

Otherwise, your analogy is a great argument in favor of cross training for self defense.  After all, who has just one tool?


gpseymour said:


> I agree with most of that, except - and this is a point Drop Bear makes better than me - someone doesn't have to be a skilled, trained martial artist to come with controlled attacks. Of course, there's a difference between facing someone who is a skilled and controlled fighter, and someone who actually knows what you do and how to counter it.
> 
> The rest is good points. When I spar, I can stop a lot of techniques that absolutely work, because I can recognize them coming and know exactly how to counter them. You see this a lot in how Judo has progressed, and the rules they've had to put in place in competitions to avoid stalemating. I seem to remember there being some rules to that end in BJJ competitions, but I know far less about those. If someone is angry, they (according to video evidence, my own experience, and most of the discussions I've had with folks who deal with angry people getting physical) tend to focus mostly on attack, often (though not always) even to the point of exposing themselves to techniques and counters that wouldn't show up sparring even with an untrained person.


IBJJF rules prohibit stalling.  You'd get a warning and then a penalty point. 

There are other rule sets for BJJ that penalize passivity in other ways.  Submission only tournaments do not reward defense and encourage competitors to attack for submissions.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 12, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Well, no, all that will show you is which person is better. On that particular day.
> 
> 
> 
> Chic-Chic-POW beats pretty much all unarmed systems.



Do you see how those two statements conflict?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Except that you, in the past, have argued that there's no value in adding situational SD training to MMA. You're now saying almost exactly something I've said before, and something you've argued (in complete ignorance) that I don't do.



Show me where i have said there is no value in adding situational defence training to MMA.

Are you saying you do add situational defence to MMA?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 12, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> to test something is really trying to apply the scientific method. one of the challenges of this is to develop a proper test that will give proper results.   aikido vs bjj  doesnt do this and it doesnt impress me.  if you want a fair comparison,  put the bjj guy and the aikido guy side by side have them both fight a boxer, a TKD guy, a guy with a knife and one with a machette together at the same time, and last event ..a guy with a gun.  tally up the results and see were we stand.
> against 2 assailants one with a machette and one with a knife my money will be on the skilled aikido guy every time.



My money is on the guy with the machete.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 12, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i was in the construction trade for over 10 years.  your full of it.   only a moron hits the tools he makes his living from with a hammer.  they will all break.  any tool not used for its intended purpose gets ruined.



That is because you have all the tools. Ask a bush mechanic and he will use what is available.

Mental elasticity


----------



## jobo (Dec 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Not to its function at driving screws, it isn't. Just because a test is used, that doesn't make it valid.


if its beoke it can't drive screws, of course its impact resistance is related to its function


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Do you see how those two statements conflict?



No. I don't. It's simply recognizing the reality that if I shoot you from 100 yards away, you're not likely to be able to do much about it with unarmed combat skills.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 12, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> No. I don't. It's simply recognizing the reality that if I shoot you from 100 yards away, you're not likely to be able to do much about it with unarmed combat skills.



No that will just show you which person is better.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 13, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Show me where i have said there is no value in adding situational defence training to MMA.
> 
> Are you saying you do add situational defence to MMA?


No, no need to attempt every permutation. I've trained with some MMA folks to get a chance to defend against MMA folks. I've trained situations, to get to stuff that doesn't happen naturally in the dojo, but which I find evidence of in videos, reports, etc. I do like when I get someone in scenario training with some previous experience and/or training, though. It gives me a chance to see if my predictions of what is and isn't going to change will be accurate. Of course, individuals vary so much that predictions have to be pretty vague.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> if its beoke it can't drive screws, of course its impact resistance is related to its function


Only if you're beating it with a hammer. I generally don't do that, so it's not so much of an issue.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 13, 2017)

drop bear said:


> No that will just show you which person is better.


DB, I see the point you're trying to make here, but when you make these oblique clever half-references, it doesn't usually get people to the point very well. And it's a valid point - that the tool (and system) matters, too.


----------



## jobo (Dec 14, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Only if you're beating it with a hammer. I generally don't do that, so it's not so much of an issue.


but you have,dropped it!


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 14, 2017)

i would like to go back to this video and make a point.
in the clip there are many demonstrations of a push.  the first one is at about 7:14 in.   at 22:27 and onward Lenny is constantly reminding the guy to push harder.
this is partially where the aikido fallacy is.  Lenny is berating the guy to push harder as if harder means that the push will be "more real". its not.  this is not how a push is done typically in real life.  the uke is initiating his push from about 5 ft away.  a push is usually done at a much closer distance and without the momentum that the uke is adding to the push. it is this momentum that gives energy to aikido and allows it to work.  a push is usually seen being done by the aggressor face to face yelling at each other , chests puffed up, then one pushes the other backwards.  if you take away the few steps almost running at the Tori, there is no opportunity for the aikido to work.
this running and stepping in to attack as an uke is a behavioral patten that needs to be addressed and overcome.  if you take it away most aikidoka will have problems.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 14, 2017)

I've seen pushes happen in both manners.  Chirping from a distance and the other guy moves in to push and escalate the situation and I have seen them chest to chest and someone pushes to create distances.

It is VERY important to define the "psychology of attack"  (Dr. Chapel) and what the scenario is.  If we change the parameters even slightly, we change the dynamics and responses as well many times.

In the situation that Lenny is giving, it is a likely scenario.  Why?  Because, as an aikidoka he wouldn't be standing chest to chest with someone yelling like that.  Following the precepts of aikido, there would have been a response prior to that occurrence.  In fact, I just saw a very similar assault happen this way very recently.  Victim was trying to apologize to the Attacker and that just pissed him off more so he closed the distance to push the Victim.


----------



## jobo (Dec 14, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i would like to go back to this video and make a point.
> in the clip there are many demonstrations of a push.  the first one is at about 7:14 in.   at 22:27 and onward Lenny is constantly reminding the guy to push harder.
> this is partially where the aikido fallacy is.  Lenny is berating the guy to push harder as if harder means that the push will be "more real". its not.  this is not how a push is done typically in real life.  the uke is initiating his push from about 5 ft away.  a push is usually done at a much closer distance and without the momentum that the uke is adding to the push. it is this momentum that gives energy to aikido and allows it to work.  a push is usually seen being done by the aggressor face to face yelling at each other , chests puffed up, then one pushes the other backwards.  if you take away the few steps almost running at the Tori, there is no opportunity for the aikido to work.
> this running and stepping in to attack as an uke is a behavioral patten that needs to be addressed and overcome.  if you take it away most aikidoka will have problems.


i don't disagree, with thats how it some times happens, nether wants a fight so they go head to head or chest to chest , till either one throws a punch or they both get bored . But to say that's how it mostly happens is taking it to far, if the aggressor has got it in his mind to punch or push as soon as he gets in range, they he WILL come with momentum as shown in the vid. Consequently the techniques will probably work.

if the aggressor  just wants to bang chests with you, then as a trained fighter you shouldn't be playing that game, as you are giving up a lot of your advantage, either back away to maintain some distance or drop him as soon as he comes in range. You can use any forward momentum against him, even a purposeful walk


----------



## drop bear (Dec 14, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> DB, I see the point you're trying to make here, but when you make these oblique clever half-references, it doesn't usually get people to the point very well. And it's a valid point - that the tool (and system) matters, too.



I explained outright that the statement contradicts itself.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 14, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i would like to go back to this video and make a point.
> in the clip there are many demonstrations of a push.  the first one is at about 7:14 in.   at 22:27 and onward Lenny is constantly reminding the guy to push harder.
> this is partially where the aikido fallacy is.  Lenny is berating the guy to push harder as if harder means that the push will be "more real". its not.  this is not how a push is done typically in real life.  the uke is initiating his push from about 5 ft away.  a push is usually done at a much closer distance and without the momentum that the uke is adding to the push. it is this momentum that gives energy to aikido and allows it to work.  a push is usually seen being done by the aggressor face to face yelling at each other , chests puffed up, then one pushes the other backwards.  if you take away the few steps almost running at the Tori, there is no opportunity for the aikido to work.
> this running and stepping in to attack as an uke is a behavioral patten that needs to be addressed and overcome.  if you take it away most aikidoka will have problems.



Also if you know what is coming it is a bit easier as well. I can pretty much get a guy to counter a flat out punch if they only have to deal with one and it is not a surprise.

And yes that is not honest training.

This is very comon in security training where you make them give you their hand then they let you get the wristlock and you practice cranking that lock untill the other guy cries.

And then you go out and for some reason barry drunk does not want to give you his hand and suddenly you realised you have basically trained the wrong thing.

this harder is more realistic is definitely a disconnect.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 14, 2017)

the important part is that aikido uke have a particular way of moving. these behavior patterns will not be found outside the dojo.  





at 3:35 in Stanley Pranin is talking about how to make the technique "work"  but the reality of it is that everything he is talking about is irrelevant if it was a real attack.  why is uke not doing anything with the grab? why is he standing there like a statue. wouldnt he be grabbing and pulling or something?     this is no different then karate people who punch then freeze at the extension of there attack punch.  its a dojo behavior and people tend to go down that rabbit hole chasing the specifics of the "dojo" attack and forget that this type of attack only exists in the dojo.





notice in this clip how much the uke is running around.  many of the attacks take 3 running steps before contact is made.





lets compare with some actual street fights. notice the chaos in these.  untrained people are fun to watch.





this one is brutal  **warning**





imagine on this one if the defender didnt have a firearm.
Racial Slurs Turn Into Deadly Shooting


----------



## drop bear (Dec 14, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> the important part is that aikido uke have a particular way of moving. these behavior patterns will not be found outside the dojo.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Opens up the importance of timing.







By the way. Big call to make suggesting that situational awareness would have helped stop a random guy beading you in the head with a bat.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 15, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Big call to make suggesting that situational awareness would have helped stop a random guy beading you in the head with a bat.


I am not sure what you mean.  I think John in the clip said there was not much she could have done, but that it's a good reminder to always stay alert.
As for myself posting it, it was to show the difference in extremes from a dojo munetsuki and a real attack which often happens from an ambush.
What is notable is the mechanics difference between the munetsuki as shown and the street fight punches.  The munetsuki has its purpose as a possible knife thrust, but untrained people throwing punches come from all kinds of weird angles that are not trained for.  Some may say that aikido also do shomen uchi and yokomen uchi but again these are still not representational of the same mechanics


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2017)

jobo said:


> no any tool of quality can take being hit with a hammer, just coz you have a crappy elecy driver doesn't change that


That's true, if you define "quality" as "being able to be hit with a hammer". And that's valid if the tool's likely to be exposed to such (as they might on a construction site). There are lots of very high quality tools that don't even attempt to meet that standard (the computer I'm using would be an example). My driver rarely takes so much as a fall from a couple of feet up, and has served for many years without fail. Anything beyond that may contribute to higher quality, but not in any meaningful way. The tool performs as it is needed. That's quality for the purpose.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2017)

jobo said:


> but you have,dropped it!


And it has survived that just fine, because that's not nearly as hard as if I hit it with a hammer. My blocks don't have to be able to stop a super-hard haymaker from some monster winding up in front of me and punching while I stand still and let them do so, because if they're winding up in front of me and I see it (so I can block it), I'd also move.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i would like to go back to this video and make a point.
> in the clip there are many demonstrations of a push.  the first one is at about 7:14 in.   at 22:27 and onward Lenny is constantly reminding the guy to push harder.
> this is partially where the aikido fallacy is.  Lenny is berating the guy to push harder as if harder means that the push will be "more real". its not.  this is not how a push is done typically in real life.  the uke is initiating his push from about 5 ft away.  a push is usually done at a much closer distance and without the momentum that the uke is adding to the push. it is this momentum that gives energy to aikido and allows it to work.  a push is usually seen being done by the aggressor face to face yelling at each other , chests puffed up, then one pushes the other backwards.  if you take away the few steps almost running at the Tori, there is no opportunity for the aikido to work.
> this running and stepping in to attack as an uke is a behavioral patten that needs to be addressed and overcome.  if you take it away most aikidoka will have problems.


Agreed. We sometimes use the "Frankenpush" for drills, to work on specific movement (because it makes timing easy), but when we practice application of technique, I get snitty if I see that Frankenpush show up. Some drunk guy might do that, but I've never found any evidence of it (no videos, and no reports from the field that have much credibility), so I consider it unlikely. A push is likely to either be 1) a distraction or taunt (very little power), 2) an attempt to move you (some power, but a compact push), or 3) an attempt to put you on your *** (lots of power, weight forward of the foot). The third one is what they should be using in this case, and it still generally starts just a small step away. If they're doing an entry version of the technique, the second push can work, as well, though the timing is tight enough that it's unlikely to be a conscious choice.

Part of the reason I started teach some boxing-style punches and movement is to improve the quality of attacks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> I am not sure what you mean.  I think John in the clip said there was not much she could have done, but that it's a good reminder to always stay alert.
> As for myself posting it, it was to show the difference in extremes from a dojo munetsuki and a real attack which often happens from an ambush.
> What is notable is the mechanics difference between the munetsuki as shown and the street fight punches.  The munetsuki has its purpose as a possible knife thrust, but untrained people throwing punches come from all kinds of weird angles that are not trained for.  Some may say that aikido also do shomen uchi and yokomen uchi but again these are still not representational of the same mechanics


I've had Aikido folks argue that the mechanics are very close to basic trained and untrained strikes, but I disagree. The chops put the elbow and shoulder (and, thus, the upper body) in a different position, and make different responses immediately available. Add to that the soft over-reach they usually add, and it's not very effective for training the techniques for application, IMO.


----------



## jobo (Dec 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And it has survived that just fine, because that's not nearly as hard as if I hit it with a hammer. My blocks don't have to be able to stop a super-hard haymaker from some monster winding up in front of me and punching while I stand still and let them do so, because if they're winding up in front of me and I see it (so I can block it), I'd also move.


?? You said you dropped it from height! And you seem to have concluded that a hammer hit only has one, ie max power. A hammer is a precision instrument, it can deliver as much or little power as you wish or are capable of doing


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2017)

jobo said:


> ?? You said you dropped it from height! And you seem to have concluded that a hammer hit only has one, ie max power. A hammer is a precision instrument, it can deliver as much or little power as you wish or are capable of doing


From height doesn't mean from 20' in the air. It's fallen off chairs and benches, but rarely has duty any higher than that.

With the plastic on it, it wouldn't take a maximum-power hit from a hammer to crack it badly. About the force you'd use to drive a glue nail into a 2x4 would probably be sufficient, if you hit anything like the right spot. Let me choose the spot, and I can probably make it wobble with one hit that hard.


----------



## jobo (Dec 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> From height doesn't mean from 20' in the air. It's fallen off chairs and benches, but rarely has duty any higher than that.
> 
> With the plastic on it, it wouldn't take a maximum-power hit from a hammer to crack it badly. About the force you'd use to drive a glue nail into a 2x4 would probably be sufficient, if you hit anything like the right spot. Let me choose the spot, and I can probably make it wobble with one hit that hard.


at no point have i said you should hit a screw driver with max power


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. We sometimes use the "Frankenpush" for drills, to work on specific movement (because it makes timing easy), but when we practice application of technique, I get snitty if I see that Frankenpush show up. Some drunk guy might do that, but I've never found any evidence of it (no videos, and no reports from the field that have much credibility), so I consider it unlikely. A push is likely to either be 1) a distraction or taunt (very little power), 2) an attempt to move you (some power, but a compact push), or 3) an attempt to put you on your *** (lots of power, weight forward of the foot). The third one is what they should be using in this case, and it still generally starts just a small step away. If they're doing an entry version of the technique, the second push can work, as well, though the timing is tight enough that it's unlikely to be a conscious choice.
> 
> Part of the reason I started teach some boxing-style punches and movement is to improve the quality of attacks.



Agree with this, just thought I would add to it.  I did give an example of a "non-drunk" push from a distance that I just saw last week at work.  Also, I have seen a combination #2 where the guy pushes and the other moves back a few feet and the attacker moves in to keep driving them back with a follow up push as they are TRYING to escalate/work up the courage to punch.  I have also seen #2 happen where the push creates the distance and then the guy uses a big step to close the distance for a punch.

Even in the video posted of the "brutal" fights.  Many of them didn't show any pre-cursor just the two guys squaring off in fighting stances, which even in a "street fight" has more in common with a sparring match in as far as certain dynamics. BUT, that is the exact reason that many TMA's forget in their training.  There are times that it happens that way even if you are trying to de-escalate etc. and the person is still itching to fight and isn't going to let you leave, and it will appear to be more a "sparring" scenario for the fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2017)

jobo said:


> at no point have i said you should hit a screw driver with max power


And, as I said in the post you just quoted, I'm not referring to anything like max power. If you're talking about the tap used to install a tack, I'm not sure what use that has in evaluating durability of anything is - my hand can take that without showing a bruise.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> Agree with this, just thought I would add to it.  I did give an example of a "non-drunk" push from a distance that I just saw last week at work.  Also, I have seen a combination #2 where the guy pushes and the other moves back a few feet and the attacker moves in to keep driving them back with a follow up push as they are TRYING to escalate/work up the courage to punch.  I have also seen #2 happen where the push creates the distance and then the guy uses a big step to close the distance for a punch.
> 
> Even in the video posted of the "brutal" fights.  Many of them didn't show any pre-cursor just the two guys squaring off in fighting stances, which even in a "street fight" has more in common with a sparring match in as far as certain dynamics. BUT, that is the exact reason that many TMA's forget in their training.  There are times that it happens that way even if you are trying to de-escalate etc. and the person is still itching to fight and isn't going to let you leave, and it will appear to be more a "sparring" scenario for the fight.


Agreed. With some space/distance management, the movement may start from more than a step away, but the push generally won't. They might need 2-3 steps to close the distance, but they will typically push when they think they are in range for contact. If they over-commit, they mis-judge the range, or you draw them out with good movement at the last moment, it's possible to get the same weight commitment that's seen in those drills. It's just a tighter timing.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> We sometimes use the "Frankenpush" for drills, to work on specific movement


Franken push is a good descriptive term.    i sometimes find it difficult to describe aikido habits to non practitioners.  the running around in circles trying to grab tori's wrist like a dog chasing its own tail is another one.

i think the mechanics of the standard aikido attacks are important. the munetsuki and shomen/ yokomen strikes have a different mechanical structure than punches.  in yokomen uchi the elbow joint is low and the palm is upward (comparatively) , with a punch the elbow is high and palm is down.  this subtle difference changes everything when it comes to tori/ nage technique options. they are representative of weapon strikes not empty hand strikes.  so what that means is that basically aikido does not train for the most common attack which is a punch.  if we wanted to improve aikido as a self defense art maybe we could start there.


----------



## jobo (Dec 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And, as I said in the post you just quoted, I'm not referring to anything like max power. If you're talking about the tap used to install a tack, I'm not sure what use that has in evaluating durability of anything is - my hand can take that without showing a bruise.


your just jumping from one extreme to the other, between the lightest tap and full force there is an infinite number of different forces that can be applied by a hammer to a tool for various applications, and a considerable number of different types and weights of hammer with which to hit them


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2017)

jobo said:


> your just jumping from one extreme to the other, between the lightest tap and full force there is an infinite number of different forces that can be applied by a hammer to a tool for various applications, and a considerable number of different types and weights of hammer with which to hit them


No, you appear to be doing that. I specified that a moderate strike - just enough to drive a glue nail - would be sufficient. You went back to the max hit. If a moderate hit isn't what you're talking about, I'm not even sure why you brought up a hammer.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 15, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> I am not sure what you mean.  I think John in the clip said there was not much she could have done, but that it's a good reminder to always stay alert.
> As for myself posting it, it was to show the difference in extremes from a dojo munetsuki and a real attack which often happens from an ambush.
> What is notable is the mechanics difference between the munetsuki as shown and the street fight punches.  The munetsuki has its purpose as a possible knife thrust, but untrained people throwing punches come from all kinds of weird angles that are not trained for.  Some may say that aikido also do shomen uchi and yokomen uchi but again these are still not representational of the same mechanics



And timing. Bear in mind people in these fights when they bet hit haven't managed to either move their head or their hand a couple of inches to get themselves out of danger. Let alone perform any sort of move.


----------



## jobo (Dec 15, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> No, you appear to be doing that. I specified that a moderate strike - just enough to drive a glue nail - would be sufficient. You went back to the max hit. If a moderate hit isn't what you're talking about, I'm not even sure why you brought up a hammer.


i didn't bring up the hammer, though you did introduce the electric. Screwdriver, a very,cheap one at that by the,sounds of it


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2017)

jobo said:


> i didn't bring up the hammer, though you did introduce the electric. Screwdriver, a very,cheap one at that by the,sounds of it


Quite cheap, indeed. And quite effective. I have more expensive ones (and tougher ones), but this is the one that drives screws the best.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Quite cheap, indeed. And quite effective. I have more expensive ones (and tougher ones), but this is the one that drives screws the best.


intresting, assuming your not just exaggerating to make a point, which previous experience suggests you are prone to!.
what quality does it have that makes it better a driving screws, as the more expensive ones are likely to be better designed and use high quality components.

i have two l elecy drivers,( three if you count my 30 yo bosh) one a chain supper market own brand, that cost 20 quid and one a dewalt,that cost over a hundred.

the cheap one is extremely robust and comes with a 3year guarantee, the expensive one is also robust but comes with just a 1 year warranty.

at first glance  its fair to say the cheap one is every bit as good as the expensive one at driving a screws and should last at least as long.
but using them is night and day, the dear one is much lighter,and the battery lasts much longer between charges and charges quicker. It's smaller to fit in tight places it has better speed control, is considerably lighter, vibrates less and the ergonomics much much better.

if i have ten screws to drive it makes little difference which one i use. If I'm screwing all day then the ease of using the dewalt driver makes the extra 80 quid a bargain

nb, by far the best thing you can do is invest the not inconsiderable amount required to get some high quality diamond tipped bits


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> intresting, assuming your not just exaggerating to make a point, which previous experience suggests you are prone to!.
> what quality does it have that makes it better a driving screws, as the more expensive ones are likely to be better designed and use high quality components.
> 
> i have two l elecy drivers,( three if you count my 30 yo bosh) one a chain supper market own brand, that cost 20 quid and one a dewalt,that cost over a hundred.
> ...


The quality it has is that of driving screws well. It drives reliably. It gets the job done. It has a bit more power than my more expensive drivers, and the battery lasts a bit longer.

As you point out, if I have 10 screws to drive, any would work (assuming they aren't 3" screws into hardwood - then I need the power.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 17, 2017)

jobo said:


> nb, by far the best thing you can do is invest the not inconsiderable amount required to get some high quality diamond tipped bits


I probably should do that at some point. For now, I'm working my way through the literally dozens of bits (both driver and drill) I've received as gifts over the years. Most are incomplete (broken/worn-out bits removed), so someday I'll reach a point where it makes sense to replace them all.

Wait, now we're not even discussing the analogy. This is a hell of a swerve, even for us!


----------



## jobo (Dec 18, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> The quality it has is that of driving screws well. It drives reliably. It gets the job done. It has a bit more power than my more expensive drivers, and the battery lasts a bit longer.
> 
> As you point out, if I have 10 screws to drive, any would work (assuming they aren't 3" screws into hardwood - then I need the power.


pilot holes, always drill pilot holes, it takes seconds and makes a substantial difference to how easy it is to drive the screw and more importantly doesn't chew up the bit or deform the screw slots, so you can get it out again with ease should that need arise,

that leaves the question of why your cheap driver has more power? Power you wouldn't need if you used pilot holes, perhaps you bought a lower powered tool? 
perhaps the clue is the battery lasting longer! So More likely that your stuck in a cycle that the less you use a battery powered tool the less power it has. Quite the worst thing you can do to them is leave them for months at at time with out use or charge, the second worst thing is to leave them  on charge with out use for weeks at a time, eventually they will have no battery life or power to speak of


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> pilot holes, always drill pilot holes, it takes seconds and makes a substantial difference to how easy it is to drive the screw and more importantly doesn't chew up the bit or deform the screw slots, so you can get it out again with ease should that need arise,
> 
> that leaves the question of why your cheap driver has more power? Power you wouldn't need if you used pilot holes, perhaps you bought a lower powered tool?
> perhaps the clue is the battery lasting longer! So More likely that your stuck in a cycle that the less you use a battery powered tool the less power it has. Quite the worst thing you can do to them is leave them for months at at time with out use or charge, the second worst thing is to leave them  on charge with out use for weeks at a time, eventually they will have no battery life or power to speak of


You're asking a lot of questions about why it's more powerful than the others. But does that really matter? My measure of quality is the ability to drive screws (sometimes skipping pilot holes when the wood won't split and the screw can handle the torque) reliably. It does that well. I don't need it to withstand much impact, so the fact that it's less impact resistant isn't important to the quality from my viewpoint. That's the point. If it was being used on a construction site, in a theatre scene shop, or other places where impact is more of an issue, then that comes back into the equation.

The analogy is punching power. It's not a useful measure for BJJ grappling competition ability, since they don't punch. And the ability to to a single-leg takedown isn't a useful measure of a boxer's ability for the same reason. Quality has to do with the function needed. That's why very high quality medical instruments are rarely designed to withstand hammer blows. It could be done, but it's not worth the cost.

EDIT: And to address the power issue: that's my only 18V driver. All others are 12V or lower, though of decidedly more robust build. I chose the implements to suit their intended application.


----------



## JP3 (Dec 19, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> Franken push is a good descriptive term.    i sometimes find it difficult to describe aikido habits to non practitioners.  the running around in circles trying to grab tori's wrist like a dog chasing its own tail is another one.
> 
> i think the mechanics of the standard aikido attacks are important. the munetsuki and shomen/ yokomen strikes have a different mechanical structure than punches.  in yokomen uchi the elbow joint is low and the palm is upward (comparatively) , with a punch the elbow is high and palm is down.  this subtle difference changes everything when it comes to tori/ nage technique options. they are representative of weapon strikes not empty hand strikes.  so what that means is that basically aikido does not train for the most common attack which is a punch.  if we wanted to improve aikido as a self defense art maybe we could start there.


Look into the Merritt Stevens self-defense system.

Mokuren Dojo: Merritt Stevens Aikido






This is what I've been using to teach people how to deal with punches (all kinds, you just change the initial attack from lunge Frankenstein style, to well-performed straights, hooks and crosses etc.).  And, you are performing it, once the patterns start to make themselves known, to a non-compliant partner, i.e. they don't just let the technique complete.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> You're asking a lot of questions about why it's more powerful than the others. But does that really matter? My measure of quality is the ability to drive screws (sometimes skipping pilot holes when the wood won't split and the screw can handle the torque) reliably. It does that well. I don't need it to withstand much impact, so the fact that it's less impact resistant isn't important to the quality from my viewpoint. That's the point. If it was being used on a construction site, in a theatre scene shop, or other places where impact is more of an issue, then that comes back into the equation.
> 
> The analogy is punching power. It's not a useful measure for BJJ grappling competition ability, since they don't punch. And the ability to to a single-leg takedown isn't a useful measure of a boxer's ability for the same reason. Quality has to do with the function needed. That's why very high quality medical instruments are rarely designed to withstand hammer blows. It could be done, but it's not worth the cost.
> 
> EDIT: And to address the power issue: that's my only 18V driver. All others are 12V or lower, though of decidedly more robust build. I chose the implements to suit their intended application.


SO....... just to sum up, this whole analogy that you cheap and not very robust driver is by far the best at driving screws, is based on it being more powerful than your other drivers, abd its more powerful because you deliberately bought lower powered screw drivers in your good quality selection. This is something of a self inflicted issue and nothing to do with the actual quality of the tools. Further more the statement that the higher quality drivers are inferior at driving is only true if you insist on using poor tecneque, ie not using pilot holes. Other wise they would be every bit as efficient at the task.

this is like claiming the hay maker is your best punch because. You cant be bothered to do the other punches with good techneque,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> SO....... just to sum up, this whole analogy that you cheap and not very robust driver is by far the best at driving screws, is based on it being more powerful than your other drivers, abd its more powerful because you deliberately bought lower powered screw drivers in your good quality selection. This is something of a self inflicted issue and nothing to do with the actual quality of the tools. Further more the statement that the higher quality drivers are inferior at driving is only true if you insist on using poor tecneque, ie not using pilot holes. Other wise they would be every bit as efficient at the task.
> 
> this is like claiming the hay maker is your best punch because. You cant be bothered to do the other punches with good techneque,


Yes. Precisely. The others aren't as good at driving screws. I could easily have gotten one that was more impact resistant AND had the power and battery life of the cheap one. But I didn't need it. So, among mine, the "best" one is the one that best fits my needs.

See, you seem to want me to be saying there's something inherently wrong with the others. There's not. I simply didn't need a higher-end driver. My best one was inexpensive and has done everything I've ever needed. I reach for the others mostly because they are lighter, so if I don't need the extra power, they are good enough.

But remember, this all started with you asserting that the ability to withstand a hammer blow was an important measurement. And that's true if it measures something important to the utility of the device. In my case, it does not.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Yes. Precisely. The others aren't as good at driving screws. I could easily have gotten one that was more impact resistant AND had the power and battery life of the cheap one. But I didn't need it. So, among mine, the "best" one is the one that best fits my needs.
> 
> See, you seem to want me to be saying there's something inherently wrong with the others. There's not. I simply didn't need a higher-end driver. My best one was inexpensive and has done everything I've ever needed. I reach for the others mostly because they are lighter, so if I don't need the extra power, they are good enough.
> 
> But remember, this all started with you asserting that the ability to withstand a hammer blow was an important measurement. And that's true if it measures something important to the utility of the device. In my case, it does not.


BUT assuming your,cheap driver isn't a Chinese fake, the manufacturer WILL have impact test the case with a " hammer" it won't have got a standard mark with out such a test, so no matter how you wrap it up, that,design if bot your actual drill,, it has been tested by hitting with a hammer


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> BUT assuming your,cheap driver isn't a Chinese fake, the manufacturer WILL have impact test the case with a " hammer" it won't have got a standard mark with out such a test, so no matter how you wrap it up, it has been tested by hitting with a hammer


If you say so. All I know (and need to know) is that a moderate hammer blow could disable it, and that has no impact (pun intended) on its functionality for me. It's still the best of my drivers...for me.


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> If you say so. All I know (and need to know) is that a moderate hammer blow could disable it, and that has no impact (pun intended) on its functionality for me. It's still the best of my drivers...for me.


abs plastic has remarkable impact resistance qualities, they make car bumpers out of it, i suspect your assessment of its resistance to impact is very much on the low,side, and let's face it as you refuse. To test it, we only have your very rough assessment to go by


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> abs plastic has remarkable impact resistance qualities, they make car bumpers out of it, i suspect your assessment of its resistance to impact is very much on the low,side, and let's face it as you refuse. To test it, we only have your very rough assessment to go by


You could be correct. I feel fairly certain about the ability to disable it - the main shaft/clutch connection seems vulnerable - but you could be right about the ABS being more resilient than I expect. I have no reason to test it for a quality I have no need of, so I'll never really know...nor will I ever need to. That's the point


----------



## jobo (Dec 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> You could be correct. I feel fairly certain about the ability to disable it - the main shaft/clutch connection seems vulnerable - but you could be right about the ABS being more resilient than I expect. I have no reason to test it for a quality I have no need of, so I'll never really know...nor will I ever need to. That's the point


that's why the manufactures pre hammer it( or one like it) so you don't have to


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 19, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Look into the Merritt Stevens self-defense system.
> 
> Mokuren Dojo: Merritt Stevens Aikido
> 
> ...



i watched the video and im not a fan.  its better then some things but its still has the same problems that i see so often.  in the clip he talks about following the punch back in with a push or kotegaishi.  i dont see that working.  the punch is out and back so fast it is physically impossible. Joko Wilink said "everything works when your partner is static".   a punch can lash out and return in a quarter of a second.  it takes that long just for the brain to go though the OODA cycle. there is not a chance that you can move your entire body to "follow" a punch on its retraction.  
on the first side step technique, this is a common blocking position in many karate styles. there are a lot of variables inherent in a punch that cause this tactic to fail. the most common is that the punch has a slight arch to it (the uke in the clip is punching straight)  again you have to deal with that OODA loop and your not going to have enough time to side step, but even if you could get off line you are still stepping right *into *that punch and your going to eat it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> that's why the manufactures pre hammer it( or one like it) so you don't have to


Even if they didn't, it wouldn't matter, when that measure isn't relevant.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i watched the video and im not a fan.  its better then some things but its still has the same problems that i see so often.  in the clip he talks about following the punch back in with a push or kotegaishi.  i dont see that working.  the punch is out and back so fast it is physically impossible. Joko Wilink said "everything works when your partner is static".   a punch can lash out and return in a quarter of a second.  it takes that long just for the brain to go though the OODA cycle. there is not a chance that you can move your entire body to "follow" a punch on its retraction.
> on the first side step technique, this is a common blocking position in many karate styles. there are a lot of variables inherent in a punch that cause this tactic to fail. the most common is that the punch has a slight arch to it (the uke in the clip is punching straight)  again you have to deal with that OODA loop and your not going to have enough time to side step, but even if you could get off line you are still stepping right *into *that punch and your going to eat it.


The principle isn't that you start moving when the punch starts - you're right that there's not enough time. The principle is to recognize the pre-punch tells (a subconscious pattern matching, which is quite fast) and be moving when the punch starts. Add the necessity for a step (from distance management), and there's time to move. Mind you, that's only true when those assumptions and conditions are present. If you can't read the intent accurately (and that's never going to be 100%, and goes down when the other person has trained to reduce their tells), then it can't be done deliberately. I mostly teach people to use these sorts of responses as what happens when you end up at that point - it's not a full process (the step and response), but a drill that puts you in position for the response. In live practice, the response will still happen, but how you get to it will be quite different from the drill. And the step will still happen, but not in the same condition as in the drill, etc.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Mind you, that's only true when those assumptions and conditions are present.


i think the conditions needed to have this work is quite a long list. its not like i havnt done this side step evasion before.  its a stock in trade move for the kenpo i did.  its just been my experience that tells me it doesnt work. (as shown)


gpseymour said:


> The principle is to recognize the pre-punch tells (a subconscious pattern matching, which is quite fast)


the key here is that the other persons brain works just as fast and we forget that. its a dojo habit to assume the other person is commited to their attack and will follow through with the entire range of motion.  that has not been my observation or experience.  the attacker can and will also be making calculated corrections in their attack as the defender moves or tries to block and evade.

now why does the attacker have to step in the demo?  the instructor even mentions something about the attacker should be stepping.  why?  the first dojo bad habit i had to break in myself was this need to step.  stepping by its very nature implies that your positioning sucks and your too far away. i will again go back to say aikido is good for weapon defenses.  if the attacker has a weapon then the mai-ai (distance) will be greater then if he is attacking with an empty fist.  yeah sure the unwashed masses might throw a punch from that far away, but then again the right punch as shown is also most often the sucker punch.  your not going to see it coming at least 50% of the time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i think the conditions needed to have this work is quite a long list. its not like i havnt done this side step evasion before.  its a stock in trade move for the kenpo i did.  its just been my experience that tells me it doesnt work. (as shown)
> 
> the key here is that the other persons brain works just as fast and we forget that. its a dojo habit to assume the other person is commited to their attack and will follow through with the entire range of motion.  that has not been my observation or experience.  the attacker can and will also be making calculated corrections in their attack as the defender moves or tries to block and evade.
> 
> now why does the attacker have to step in the demo?  the instructor even mentions something about the attacker should be stepping.  why?  the first dojo bad habit i had to break in myself was this need to step.  stepping by its very nature implies that your positioning sucks and your too far away. i will again go back to say aikido is good for weapon defenses.  if the attacker has a weapon then the mai-ai (distance) will be greater then if he is attacking with an empty fist.  yeah sure the unwashed masses might throw a punch from that far away, but then again the right punch as shown is also most often the sucker punch.  your not going to see it coming at least 50% of the time.


The need to step comes from distance management. If they are a step away, they have to step to attack. Obviously, that's nothing unique there - striking arts capitalize on this same distance.

None of the principles and practices involved are inherently problematic, so long as they aren't the sole focus. Some areas of Aikido have made that mistake, so all they have is the stylized approach. If training becomes truly reactive (where we don't try to predict all outcomes, but work to become good at reacting to what comes), then these techniques do come back into play. The exact kote gaeshi he shows there is something I've used many times on resisting partners, when they were resisting another technique (they pull back to avoid an arm bar, for instance). The sequence he shows actually covers that, but he doesn't address it explicitly, so I'm not sure if he actually covers it with students.

You are correct that the other guy will be able to make adjustments. If these movements are "slippery" enough, they often don't. I don't know how to describe that better, though it's something I've been trying to figure out how to explain for quite a while. I've had folks with hard-contact Karate experience tell me they sometimes think they're going to hit me, then just don't. That's when this type of sequence is available. For the most part, though, I find it most useful to use things like this as an exercise of principles (what makes the technique/application available), rather than viewing it as a deliberate sequence.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 19, 2017)

the premise of my thinking is that there is an epidemic of bad dojo habits.  its a programmed behavior we are unaware of. so aikido people look like aikido people and karate people look like karate people, so on and so on.  this is why it is so common now to test what you do against others.  if you want to prove a technique or principal works test it out on a non aikido person.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> The exact kote gaeshi he shows there is something I've used many times on resisting partners, when they were resisting another technique (they pull back to avoid an arm bar, for instance).


 yes it works really well in that instance. i do the same kind of thing. but a retraction from a failed techinque and a punch are totally different and move at different speeds. and angles, the failed technique often dictates the angle.



gpseymour said:


> The need to step comes from distance management. If they are a step away, they have to step to attack. Obviously, that's nothing unique there - striking arts capitalize on this same distance.


maybe my own training is getting in my way of seeing things. because for me if i am to far away to hit you then i am not throwing the punch. my opponent is trying to use his distance management and i am doing the same thing. i am trying to create angles where you do not realize how close i am, with timing and movement, when your in my "sights" i fire, but not before.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> yes it works really well in that instance. i do the same kind of thing. but a retraction from a failed techinque and a punch are totally different and move at different speeds. and angles, the failed technique often dictates the angle.


Yes. That's exactly it.




> maybe my own training is getting in my way of seeing things. because for me if i am to far away to hit you then i am not throwing the punch. my opponent is trying to use his distance management and i am doing the same thing. i am trying to create angles where you do not realize how close i am, with timing and movement, when your in my "sights" i fire, but not before.


So do you just wait outside range until they close for you, or do you sometimes close the distance to strike?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> the premise of my thinking is that there is an epidemic of bad dojo habits.  its a programmed behavior we are unaware of. so aikido people look like aikido people and karate people look like karate people, so on and so on.  this is why it is so common now to test what you do against others.  if you want to prove a technique or principal works test it out on a non aikido person.


Interestingly, there are some aspects that are less likely to work against a (resistance-trained) aikido person - almost as unlikely as getting them to work on a Judo player. I'm more likely to find them against a Karate person.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> So do you just wait outside range until they close for you, or do you sometimes close the distance to strike?


as usual the answer is not so simple.
in sparring i use the analogy of two bubbles floating around in the ring (or octagon) and whenever the two bubbles touch, thats when you strike.

in a street altercation it would depend on the situation, was it an ambush?  then of course he has the first move but after that the aim is to dominate the space.  i decide what happens and where.  so it is my goal to strike him without him striking me.  but i can only strike when i am at my range.  for myself my range is really, really close.  it would make an aikidoka uncomfortable. i can almost rest my head on your shoulder (and sometimes i do, to protect my face)  that is my fighting distance. granted i need to stay outside of that until i am ready to move in.  but how i move in is important.  i dont just walk right into you with my punch like they showed in the clip and that was something i was trying to point out.  i take angles to shut down your defense, my punches might have arcs in them to get around your defense. and i am not standing still.

but like i said this is tactics of an experienced fighter, something that most  of the time you would not run into


----------



## drop bear (Dec 19, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Look into the Merritt Stevens self-defense system.
> 
> Mokuren Dojo: Merritt Stevens Aikido
> 
> ...



There is so much that has to go right for that to come even close to working.

I don't do many techniques that require me to process that much information in that short a time frame.

Again at speed people cant move their hand in the way an inch or their head out of the way an inch to avoid a honking great big obvious punch.






Which means you have to set that shot up about two moves ahead. Which is not really my idea of self defence. Because I want a move I can just do.

See punch.

Not get knocked out.

Then progress with the fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> as usual the answer is not so simple.
> in sparring i use the analogy of two bubbles floating around in the ring (or octagon) and whenever the two bubbles touch, thats when you strike.
> 
> in a street altercation it would depend on the situation, was it an ambush?  then of course he has the first move but after that the aim is to dominate the space.  i decide what happens and where.  so it is my goal to strike him without him striking me.  but i can only strike when i am at my range.  for myself my range is really, really close.  it would make an aikidoka uncomfortable. i can almost rest my head on your shoulder (and sometimes i do, to protect my face)  that is my fighting distance. granted i need to stay outside of that until i am ready to move in.  but how i move in is important.  i dont just walk right into you with my punch like they showed in the clip and that was something i was trying to point out.  i take angles to shut down your defense, my punches might have arcs in them to get around your defense. and i am not standing still.
> ...


I understand these differences. That drill is about the simplest approach to the movement. More advanced drills and live work fill the gap to the variables you're talking about. My point was simply that nobody deliberately punches from outside their range (though some will misjudge it). If you're outside your range, and decide to enter, that's the energy the drill is working from. I'm not personally a fan of that move to the outside, because it's easy to counter. There are ways to get to the outside, but it's unlikely to be as simple as the drill suggests.

If your range is that close, it'd be fun to do some sparring. I tend to strike from a mid-strikers range, and am mostly at grappling inside that, so my desirable range for grappling is pretty close to your desirable range for striking. It would be an interesting interaction.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


> There is so much that has to go right for that to come even close to working.
> 
> I don't do many techniques that require me to process that much information in that short a time frame.
> 
> ...


Agreed. I'm not a fan of this particular approach, for that reason. I use similar drills, but for the purpose of working transitions. I think there's a lot of this type of one-step movement that just doesn't get progressed often enough to something more complete. Just that single drill changes a lot if uke adds the intention of some sort of follow-up. It gets even clearer when the punch from that drill IS the follow-up, which tends to close off that step for avoiding the punch.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 19, 2017)

looking at @drop bear  video clip...notice not one out of the entire clip shows someone stepping forward with the punch. the closest i saw was near the end.    he stepped forward but it was only after the punch landed and the step was for his body to catch up to the momentum of his punch.  most of the punches were an overhand right which is not the same as a straight right.  but both have arc's to a greater or lessor degree that would cause that quasi aikido move to fail.  lets face it no one but a karate guy punches in a perfectly straight line, not to mention timed with a step.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. I'm not a fan of this particular approach, for that reason. I use similar drills, but for the purpose of working transitions. I think there's a lot of this type of one-step movement that just doesn't get progressed often enough to something more complete. Just that single drill changes a lot if uke adds the intention of some sort of follow-up. It gets even clearer when the punch from that drill IS the follow-up, which tends to close off that step for avoiding the punch.



Even if the punch itself goes kind of wonky you run a risk of getting clipped.

Now if you had been fighting the guy for ten minutes and have seen him do that punch. So you set up the conditions and then hope he goes the way you want him to. And you know that if you get clipped he doesn't have the juice to end your fight. You could start pulling moves like that off.

But there are not many self defence situations where that is going to present itself. I mean look at MMA and something as simple as an overwrap of the arm. It never gets pulled off.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 19, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> looking at @drop bear  video clip...notice not one out of the entire clip shows someone stepping forward with the punch. the closest i saw was near the end.    he stepped forward but it was only after the punch landed and the step was for his body to catch up to the momentum of his punch.  most of the punches were an overhand right which is not the same as a straight right.  but both have arc's to a greater or lessor degree that would cause that quasi aikido move to fail.  lets face it no one but a karate guy punches in a perfectly straight line, not to mention timed with a step.



I do that step up punch because it hits a weird range. But it becomes sort of a jab. It is really rare and it need both people to be in a specific position.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 19, 2017)

Lets take this idea a step further. What technique do you never see in Krav sparring?
















And this is one of the iconic krav defences. They are drilling this as a basic fundemental technique.

And look I have tried to pull that off because if I could step in with blasting or blitzing. ( forgot what they call it) I would basically make the other guy do a backflip.

I have found there is no time generally.

It is the big disconnect.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> looking at @drop bear  video clip...notice not one out of the entire clip shows someone stepping forward with the punch. the closest i saw was near the end.    he stepped forward but it was only after the punch landed and the step was for his body to catch up to the momentum of his punch.  most of the punches were an overhand right which is not the same as a straight right.  but both have arc's to a greater or lessor degree that would cause that quasi aikido move to fail.  lets face it no one but a karate guy punches in a perfectly straight line, not to mention timed with a step.


Yeah, that arc problem is what I was talking about before that I see as a problem with that step.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Even if the punch itself goes kind of wonky you run a risk of getting clipped.
> 
> Now if you had been fighting the guy for ten minutes and have seen him do that punch. So you set up the conditions and then hope he goes the way you want him to. And you know that if you get clipped he doesn't have the juice to end your fight. You could start pulling moves like that off.
> 
> But there are not many self defence situations where that is going to present itself. I mean look at MMA and something as simple as an overwrap of the arm. It never gets pulled off.


Agreed. IMO, most of the movement you see in drills like that is for flow after making contact. If I have contact with an arm, I can reliably do a lot that is sketchy at best when I don't already have that contact. Part of the issue in some areas of Aikido is that they've stopped training any significant striking, so they're trying to grapple with punches they should be fighting through. You simply can't Aikido a flurry of punches unless the guy is charging in with them (that overcommitment of weight), and even then it's sketchy until you still an arm.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Lets take this idea a step further. What technique do you never see in Krav sparring?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Might pull it off if someone tries to sucker-punch, but he broadcasts it. Other than that, yeah. I can't see it working when someone knows you're sparring, or when they're bringing a series of attacks.


----------



## JP3 (Dec 24, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i watched the video and im not a fan.  its better then some things but its still has the same problems that i see so often.  in the clip he talks about following the punch back in with a push or kotegaishi.



The video is a teaching video, to show people "how" to set up the drill. It's not meant to be live-fire, full-tilt boogie ("FTB") SD in all its ugly. Learn the steps of the dance, learn the dance, Then go make it rain. Hopefully. 

The thing is, when this drill is practiced FTB it looks Bad. It looks Ugly. Both uke and tori have a huge potential for injury... the usual trade-off between training and realism.  I've had to use two of the  techniques in that drill set for real, and they work as one would think. Quick, direct, brutal. One had some aiki-feeling to it, the other expressed itself straight-in. That comes out of practicing the drill.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 26, 2017)

One of the biggest issues that I see with Aikido and its training is trying to apply it against things its not meant to be used against.  For example, trying to pull off a kotegaishi against a jab or even a balanced right cross.  There is a specific intent and "energy" of the attack (the actual movement, not some mystical "ki') that needs to be there for it to work.  Just like the screwdriver/hammer analogy earlier, different tools for a different job.

Here is an example (just picked the first clip that came up on youtube) that shows more of how an aikidoka should be responding to balanced punches.





I can't recall the Aikido sensei/master, but in the early days of Aikido the sensei was challenged by a boxer.  One of the students went first and got schooled.  When the Sensei went next, he off angled away and then entered with an irimi-nage.  He did not try and "catch" the punches being thrown because he knew they were balanced and were too fast.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 26, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> One of the biggest issues that I see with Aikido and its training is trying to apply it against things its not meant to be used against.  For example, trying to pull off a kotegaishi against a jab or even a balanced right cross.  There is a specific intent and "energy" of the attack (the actual movement, not some mystical "ki') that needs to be there for it to work.  Just like the screwdriver/hammer analogy earlier, different tools for a different job.
> 
> Here is an example (just picked the first clip that came up on youtube) that shows more of how an aikidoka should be responding to balanced punches.
> 
> ...


That irimi nage is something we don't have (in the same incarnation) in NGA, and something I've always wanted to explore more. The closest technique we have (almost certainly both derived from the same technique in Daito-ryu) is our Spin-around, but it activates differently. In the form I teach it, it's more about using an off-angle weight drop to pull them off their structure.

Anyway, yes. The drill shown in the previous video, IMO, isn't really about doing a Kotegaeshi from a jab. It's about learning to work with a hand that's retracting, which nearly always presents an opening for Kotegaeshi if you are on the outside of the arm. I work a lot with dropping weight onto the arm in blocks, to shift weight. People tend to naturally shift that weight back, creating openings in both directions, depending upon timing. And timing is really what aiki application is about. In this video, he has to time his hip shift with the momentum of the attack. Absent correct timing, this technique becomes unavailable, and it's time (literally) for a different technique.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 26, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> One of the biggest issues that I see with Aikido and its training is trying to apply it against things its not meant to be used against.  For example, trying to pull off a kotegaishi against a jab or even a balanced right cross.  There is a specific intent and "energy" of the attack (the actual movement, not some mystical "ki') that needs to be there for it to work.  Just like the screwdriver/hammer analogy earlier, different tools for a different job.
> 
> Here is an example (just picked the first clip that came up on youtube) that shows more of how an aikidoka should be responding to balanced punches.
> 
> ...



The training like above is very misleading. Even catching the body like that is incredibly hard in real time. 

So that even though you think that you have included all the elements that are required to make that technique work. You actually haven't.

And you can test it pretty easy. Because you could do that drill with boxing gloves on.


----------



## Buka (Dec 26, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> One of the biggest issues that I see with Aikido and its training is trying to apply it against things its not meant to be used against.  For example, trying to pull off a kotegaishi against a jab or even a balanced right cross.  There is a specific intent and "energy" of the attack (the actual movement, not some mystical "ki') that needs to be there for it to work.  Just like the screwdriver/hammer analogy earlier, different tools for a different job.
> 
> Here is an example (just picked the first clip that came up on youtube) that shows more of how an aikidoka should be responding to balanced punches.
> 
> ...



I love watching that take down.


----------



## O'Malley (Dec 26, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> One of the biggest issues that I see with Aikido and its training is trying to apply it against things its not meant to be used against.  For example, trying to pull off a kotegaishi against a jab or even a balanced right cross.  There is a specific intent and "energy" of the attack (the actual movement, not some mystical "ki') that needs to be there for it to work.  Just like the screwdriver/hammer analogy earlier, different tools for a different job.
> 
> Here is an example (just picked the first clip that came up on youtube) that shows more of how an aikidoka should be responding to balanced punches.
> 
> ...



The Aikido master you're talking about must be Gozo Shioda who fought a G.I. who used boxing techniques. He ignored the jab and entered deep, caught the dominant right hand and executed a shiho nage. He said afterwards that the jab was just a feint and that the real weapon was the right hand so he controlled it before it could do any damage.

According to him, you need to enter without being concerned by the opponent's attack because it will only result in confrontation. You need to move first because "clearly, you can't deal with a boxer's speed by waiting", and then rely on your senses to improvise with the best suited technique.

Source: Aikido Shugyo by Gozo Shioda.

Note: in the chapter that follows this story, he states that the throws he has most used in real fights to great effect were irimi nage, hiji ate kokyu nage (which is kind of the Yoshinkan equivalent of ude kime nage) and the fundamental shiho nage.



gpseymour said:


> That irimi nage is something we don't have (in the same incarnation) in NGA, and something I've always wanted to explore more. The closest technique we have (almost certainly both derived from the same technique in Daito-ryu) is our Spin-around, but it activates differently. In the form I teach it, it's more about using an off-angle weight drop to pull them off their structure.
> 
> Anyway, yes. The drill shown in the previous video, IMO, isn't really about doing a Kotegaeshi from a jab. It's about learning to work with a hand that's retracting, which nearly always presents an opening for Kotegaeshi if you are on the outside of the arm. I work a lot with dropping weight onto the arm in blocks, to shift weight. People tend to naturally shift that weight back, creating openings in both directions, depending upon timing. And timing is really what aiki application is about. In this video, he has to time his hip shift with the momentum of the attack. Absent correct timing, this technique becomes unavailable, and it's time (literally) for a different technique.



I've recently read a blog post stating that Osensei, when asked, used to answer that aiki has nothing to do with timing and I tend to agree.

I'm sure I don't understand everything about it but the aiki I've seen, felt and used to some extent happens even in static positions where timing is irrelevant (i.e. when a guy does a static grab on your wrist, the moment when you execute the technique doesn't matter). I might add that as long as you don't stop the flow, you can do it as slowly as you want and the technique will still work on a mechanical POV (of course you wouldn't want to slow down too much in a real fight because even though he's unbalanced you can't let the opponent take the initiative). In the video, for example, even if they were doing it slowly or static, he should be able to unbalance his partner with little effort without relying on the attack's momentum.

Like this (from 1:11 onwards):






The aikidoka in the "irimi vs punches" video seems to be actually "cheating" in a way: from what I see, he seems to be pulling the attacker's lower back and then come at his head with his arm, unbalancing his partner using both bodies' opposing momentums. And this sir seems to be using a lot of strength. Not to say that it doesn't work (even though I'd be curious to see this technique against a bigger opponent) but the mechanics at work are not the same as the aikido irimi nage.

It actually looks like a technique I've learnt in Kajukenbo, where you use your hip/leg to provide fulcrum, instead of blocking the lower back (see here at 3:41):






From what I can manage to grasp, aiki is the "blending" of your "force" with your partner's "force" by not opposing it, which allows you to subtly change the direction of both "forces" with a rotating/spiraling movement ("defensive" aiki). It leads you to a position/situation/dynamic where you can apply a throw, a pin or even a strike when your opponent is defenseless ("offensive" aiki). This requires very little strength. Using aiki, you can also connect your center to uke's for both the aforementioned defensive and offensive purposes. Aiki seems to be more of a structural concept and can be really static, as showed by this video (at 2:35):






Or here in Daito Ryu where "I apply aiki" does not mean "I use the opponent's momentum" (1:53):






To this, you can add the concepts of keeping a correct, relaxed and connected body structure (akin to what is studied in the Chinese internal martial arts).

Then, there is kokyu ryoku, which I understand as the "breath power" coming from keeping a relaxed and connected body and using the power of the whole body with the right timing for both defense and offense (there's an element of breathing too). Simply put, kokyu ryoku is the power one uses to move his center and uke's which are connected with aiki. It is more of a dynamic concept and includes timing: you need to blend with the attack at the right time: the better you blend and the stronger the attack, the more power you can redirect and add to your kokyu ryoku.

Those concepts overlap to some extent and my understanding of them is still very immature, yet I wanted to answer to the affirmation that aiki is "just timing".

Now going back to the original topic (sorry for the rant), I think that indeed some/too many flavours of aikido have become more of a "martial dance" than a martial art, focusing only on the "ki no nagare" (dynamic flow work) and throwing out of the window such basic concepts as good body structure, power generation, correct angles and lines, weapon work, resistance, etc. 

Now the Founder was by all accounts a fantastic fighter and a lot of his students (and their students) were outstanding too. Even though the art has been diluted, there are still teachers left who teach aikido as a martial art. We just have to rediscover what made aikido work for OSensei and his students in fights. Moreover, a part of the aikido community seems aware of this issue and is working on solutions: we see more cross-training than before (just like the guy in the video) and some people are even training in internal arts to try and replicate OSensei's strength. I think that Aikido has a lot of tools that can make it really effective but it needs proper teaching, hard training and the courage to actually get out there and put the skills to the test, be it by messing around with like-minded people (I have done this and even though it didn't look like the kata and needed some shoulder-shoving I have managed to get sankyo, kotegaeshi, etc.) or by doing live-blade sparring in the dark like OSensei's students.

Oh and I think that if we figure out how to irimi against skilled resisting opponents a lot of problems will be solved.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 27, 2017)

O'Malley said:


> The Aikido master you're talking about must be Gozo Shioda who fought a G.I. who used boxing techniques. He ignored the jab and entered deep, caught the dominant right hand and executed a shiho nage. He said afterwards that the jab was just a feint and that the real weapon was the right hand so he controlled it before it could do any damage.
> 
> According to him, you need to enter without being concerned by the opponent's attack because it will only result in confrontation. You need to move first because "clearly, you can't deal with a boxer's speed by waiting", and then rely on your senses to improvise with the best suited technique.
> 
> ...


I think part of the issue is back to how we define "aiki". What I refer to (and know) as aiki is all about timing. In that video with Saito, if he reverses at the wrong moment, the technique goes away (or, more accurately, flows to a different technique). If he executes the throw too early he runs into the momentum, and too late he misses the point where execution is all flow. In the irimi nage video in the other post, the use of the momentum against momentum, to me, is not strength - it's "hard aiki" (my term for this kind of application), where he has broken the structure enough (what the hand in the back is doing) that all he needs is to place his momentum/mass in the way, and the technique occurs.

I haven't gotten a chance to see any of the schools that are working on regaining the understanding of power and application outside that (often rather extreme) flow. I know they are out there, and keep hoping to run into one, because I want to sit down and have a long talk with someone working on those areas. The Aikido I see in most dojos can't really be what Ueshiba and his early students used to gain Aikido's early reputation. Clearly something is missing, and I'd love to see it come back. I have a deep interest in it, because I see parts of NGA starting that same drift, and believe we can learn from what Aikido is now working on.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 27, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> One of the biggest issues that I see with Aikido and its training is trying to apply it against things its not meant to be used against.  For example, trying to pull off a kotegaishi against a jab or even a balanced right cross.  There is a specific intent and "energy" of the attack (the actual movement, not some mystical "ki') that needs to be there for it to work.  Just like the screwdriver/hammer analogy earlier, different tools for a different job.
> 
> Here is an example (just picked the first clip that came up on youtube) that shows more of how an aikidoka should be responding to balanced punches.



Beautiful technique, but it's only working in this case because the uke is feeding an incompetent attack. More specifically, he's throwing a lunge punch at an inappropriately close range while also failing to maintain any sort of protective cover or awareness of his target's reactions. If he tried that against a competent striker, he would end up knocked out rather than thrown. The exact same mechanics which create the irimi nage would also produce an easy knockout punch.

An appropriate second punch after the jab would be a cross rather than a lunge punch, shuffling the front foot just a few inches forward rather than stepping way too close with his rear foot and exposing his back. At the same time, his non-punching hand should be protecting his face and he should be ready for the possibility of the opponent moving offline and counter attacking, so his punching arm should be snapping back to counter the moment he misses.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 27, 2017)

@Tony Dismukes   i slowed the clip speed down and all kinds of problems show up.  on the very first technique we can see the anticipated habitual movements by the uke.  poor jab,  the right punch not attacking toward the target and the arch of the back/ lifting of the chin and balance in preparation for the throw.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 27, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Beautiful technique, but it's only working in this case because the uke is feeding an incompetent attack. More specifically, he's throwing a lunge punch at an inappropriately close range while also failing to maintain any sort of protective cover or awareness of his target's reactions. If he tried that against a competent striker, he would end up knocked out rather than thrown. The exact same mechanics which create the irimi nage would also produce an easy knockout punch.
> 
> An appropriate second punch after the jab would be a cross rather than a lunge punch, shuffling the front foot just a few inches forward rather than stepping way too close with his rear foot and exposing his back. At the same time, his non-punching hand should be protecting his face and he should be ready for the possibility of the opponent moving offline and counter attacking, so his punching arm should be snapping back to counter the moment he misses.



And we know the technique is coming. I could cartwheel out of the way if I was a hundred percent sure that attack was going to happen because I can start moving a bit earlier and with more confidence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 27, 2017)

drop bear said:


> And we know the technique is coming. I could cartwheel out of the way if I was a hundred percent sure that attack was going to happen because I can start moving a bit earlier and with more confidence.


Agreed. That's the natural disconnect between drills and actual application. I see too many places that don't make that transition, so remain disconnected. It doesn't take much to create spontaneity, but it is necessary.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 27, 2017)

But it is a conflict because if the uke doesn't "take a fall" then he is going to get slammed across the neck with a forearm.  I did that to someone. ...once....the gurgling sound after is not pleasant. Lucky he was ok. I was really scared.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 27, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> But it is a conflict because if the uke doesn't "take a fall" then he is going to get slammed across the neck with a forearm.  I did that to someone. ...once....the gurgling sound after is not pleasant. Lucky he was ok. I was really scared.



Yeah that is why I demand everyone I punch just collapses to the ground. Because that will happen if I really nail someone and there is no middle ground in that technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 27, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah that is why I demand everyone I punch just collapses to the ground. Because that will happen if I really nail someone and there is no middle ground in that technique.


Not really the same thing, DB. The issue is that some throws are best "taken" by preparing for the fall early, to prevent injury to the uke. Unfortunately, that also means they are sacrificing balance and/or structure going in, which can make the throw artificially easy to do. I don't know a good analog in striking.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Not really the same thing, DB. The issue is that some throws are best "taken" by preparing for the fall early, to prevent injury to the uke. Unfortunately, that also means they are sacrificing balance and/or structure going in, which can make thrtificially easy to do. I don't know a good analog in striking.



Collapso tapout monkeys. Great for making you feel like a god in training.

Not great for for any sort of realistic idea of how you are progressing technique wise.

Closelining a guy is striking.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Collapso tapout monkeys. Great for making you feel like a god in training.
> 
> Not great for for any sort of realistic idea of how you are progressing technique wise.


Agreed. It’s a problem for those techniques. 



> Closelining a guy is striking.


Yeah,it can be, but the problem isn’t about whether it’s a strike or not. If I don’t want to damage somebody by hitting their jaw, O can wear gloves, they can wear a mouthpiece, and I can pull power without materially changing the punch (and can later practice the power on a bag). For a throw that uses the arm across the upper chest/throat, there’s no useful gear to help without changing the technique, and pulling much of the energy out of the technique can materially change it. It severely limits live practice in some cases. While they can be fun techniques, I have my personal hang-ups about anything I can’t find a way to safely practice without uke having to prep for the fall.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah that is why I demand everyone I punch just collapses to the ground. Because that will happen if I really nail someone and there is no middle ground in that technique.


Not everyone that practices a ma is young,  in shape and willing to bang.  This is not a black and white issue. Where unless your going 100% resistance, everything else is just useless and fake.
The analogy I see is snapping people's elbows with an arm bar during practice.  You done have to practice with full intensity but you also don't want the guy to tap before you even get it on.  It should be looked at as taking a fall is aikido ' s version of a tap out.  As long as the attack is proper and the technniques are sound and proper a tap or a fall is irrelevant in cases where it is training not competition.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. It’s a problem for those techniques.
> 
> 
> Yeah,it can be, but the problem isn’t about whether it’s a strike or not. If I don’t want to damage somebody by hitting their jaw, O can wear gloves, they can wear a mouthpiece, and I can pull power without materially changing the punch (and can later practice the power on a bag). For a throw that uses the arm across the upper chest/throat, there’s no useful gear to help without changing the technique, and pulling much of the energy out of the technique can materially change it. It severely limits live practice in some cases. While they can be fun techniques, I have my personal hang-ups about anything I can’t find a way to safely practice without uke having to prep for the fall.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 28, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> Not everyone that practices a ma is young,  in shape and willing to bang.  This is not a black and white issue. Where unless your going 100% resistance, everything else is just useless and fake.
> The analogy I see is snapping people's elbows with an arm bar during practice.  You done have to practice with full intensity but you also don't want the guy to tap before you even get it on.  It should be looked at as taking a fall is aikido ' s version of a tap out.  As long as the attack is proper and the technniques are sound and proper a tap or a fall is irrelevant in cases where it is training not competition.



See for me if the technique is proper you will get the tap or fall. If it is not you will not get the tap or fall.

Which I consider pretty relevant.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


>


Minor details but irimi nage is a bit different from a cloth line in the force vector and irimi works on an arch.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 28, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> Minor details but irimi nage is a bit different from a cloth line in the force vector and irimi works on an arch.



If the other guy is going to fall over regardless as to what I do. I dont think the details are that important.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


> See for me if the technique is proper you will get the tap or fall. If it is not you will not get the tap or fall.
> 
> Which I consider pretty relevant.





drop bear said:


> If the other guy is going to fall over regardless as to what I do. I dont think the details are that important.


i have a feeling your not understanding my view point...either that or your just digging in your heels and refuse to see any validity in a non MMA view.
so instead of wasting my time trying to convince you of something, i will turn it over to you.  you tell me....how can i practice stand up techniques like irimi nage or any of the wrist break type techniques (and i mean wrist breaks, because i do not believe pain compliance works on a standing opponent)  how should i be practicing these without damage to my partner and without going so slow that they are not realistic??   techniques need to be done fast and powerful with a full range of motion but without injury.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 28, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i have a feeling your not understanding my view point...either that or your just digging in your heels and refuse to see any validity in a non MMA view.
> so instead of wasting my time trying to convince you of something, i will turn it over to you.  you tell me....how can i practice stand up techniques like irimi nage or any of the wrist break type techniques (and i mean wrist breaks, because i do not believe pain compliance works on a standing opponent)  how should i be practicing these without damage to my partner and without going so slow that they are not realistic??   techniques need to be done fast and powerful with a full range of motion but without injury.


I'll drop in a few thoughts from a less antagonistic viewpoint, just for the sake of sharing ideas (I don't assume you need this input, but maybe it can be helpful).

With techniques where going for the fall is a safety measure, I work hard to give good feedback after the fall. Sometimes I'll say, "I wouldn't have had to fall to escape that one." Other times, "Wow, that one had me locked before I could even change directions." That spoken feedback can help your partners some, since they aren't getting as much of the failure feedback. I sometimes ask my uke how it felt, if I don't think they're providing good enough verbal feedback. If I never get negative feedback, I start getting purposely sloppy, to make sure they are notice and tell me. 

Where I can safely (for both of us) do so, I'll even stymie a technique that fails early enough for me to recognize it before starting toward the fall. I've had experienced uke do the same for me. And when I'm really on, I can sometimes delay going for the fall later than is normal, to ensure I'm not giving in too easily.

Slower practice can also help. For an experienced uke, a 25% slowdown can give them enough time to recognize the need to fall (or the lack of that need) without losing a reasonably realistic momentum flow. Of course, even that 25% slowdown will give me an unnatural amount of ability to read attacks and respond to them, so that has to be taken into account.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 28, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i have a feeling your not understanding my view point...either that or your just digging in your heels and refuse to see any validity in a non MMA view.
> so instead of wasting my time trying to convince you of something, i will turn it over to you.  you tell me....how can i practice stand up techniques like irimi nage or any of the wrist break type techniques (and i mean wrist breaks, because i do not believe pain compliance works on a standing opponent)  how should i be practicing these without damage to my partner and without going so slow that they are not realistic??   techniques need to be done fast and powerful with a full range of motion but without injury.



Treat them as a worst case scenario. So if you hit that ninja wrist break and all you get is a defensive reaction. What is your follow up?

If you hit that wrist and they collapse screaming you could probably live with not having as well versed a backup plan for that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Treat them as a worst case scenario. So if you hit that ninja wrist break and all you get is a defensive reaction. What is your follow up?
> 
> If you hit that wrist and they collapse screaming you could probably live with not having as well versed a backup plan for that.


This should be the approach to every technique, IMO. It's the focus of a large part of my teaching. Every technique can fail, and some failures are predictable (i.e., it's pretty easy to tell what will cause them to fail, so you can prepare for where you'll find yourself when they do). Most failures actually are really good set-ups for another technique - even the touchier aiki techniques.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Treat them as a worst case scenario. So if you hit that ninja wrist break and all you get is a defensive reaction. What is your follow up?
> 
> If you hit that wrist and they collapse screaming you could probably live with not having as well versed a backup plan for that.


you didnt answer the question.


drop bear said:


> What is your follow up?


this is changing the topic.  in the stand up game your follow up is a strike or something else. its not a hard concept to grasp.  let me translate into something you can relate to....
i got you up against the cage, my shoulder and weight leaning on you.  i am holding your right hand pined to the fence (typical set up)  i release my hand pressure and redirect your hand, this allows me to do a wrist crank that should damage your ligaments.(this is not an end game move there should be follow up with strikes regardless of it working of not)   if i do this to slow you will see it coming and punch me in the head and pull your hand away before i can even attempt it.  if i go at the speed necessary to get the grip and rotation the chances of injury are high.
so how do you practice this???
stand up grappling (if you want to call it that) is different then the ground game.  it is much faster and the leverage dynamics are different.  on the ground there is an immovable mass (your body) on one side of the fulcrum and slow leverage can be applied because your trapped there by the floor and the opponent.  but in stand up there is mobility.  you can wiggle and or shake out of the lock. so locks need to be done quicker and without the floor causing the immovable mass on the end of the fulcrum the lock doesnt work by leverage alone it needs to be a quick snapping action to counter a movable mass.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 29, 2017)




----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> you didnt answer the question.
> 
> this is changing the topic.  in the stand up game your follow up is a strike or something else. its not a hard concept to grasp.  let me translate into something you can relate to....
> i got you up against the cage, my shoulder and weight leaning on you.  i am holding your right hand pined to the fence (typical set up)  i release my hand pressure and redirect your hand, this allows me to do a wrist crank that should damage your ligaments.(this is not an end game move there should be follow up with strikes regardless of it working of not)   if i do this to slow you will see it coming and punch me in the head and pull your hand away before i can even attempt it.  if i go at the speed necessary to get the grip and rotation the chances of injury are high.
> ...



If you are risking getting punched in the head to pull off a wrist lock. It is probably the wrong time or the wrong technique.

Your dilemma is not really unique.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> If you are risking getting punched in the head to pull off a wrist lock. It is probably the wrong time or the wrong technique.
> 
> Your dilemma is not really unique.


So basically your going to ignore the question and just stick to the dogma that MMA is the best and everything else is not worth your time.
Ok I see how it is. I'll refrain from my attempts for dialog from this point.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> If you are risking getting punched in the head to pull off a wrist lock. It is probably the wrong time or the wrong technique.
> 
> Your dilemma is not really unique.


Agree with you 100% there. When SC was evolved into combat SC (add in kick and punch), the major change is to consider whether your opponent's hand can punch you or not.

For example, when you apply the waist surrounding hip throw, your opponent's free hand can punch you. But when you apply the under hook hip throw, or over hook hip throw, your opponent doesn't have free hand. This make a big difference by evolving from "sport" into "combat".

For the following 2 different hip throws, IMO, 2 > 1

1. Waist surrounding hip throw - his opponent's left arm is still free.






2. Under hook hip throw - his opponent's left arm is lifted by his right under hook.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 29, 2017)

Something I don't understand about the Aikido training. Some technique depending on your opponent grabs on your wrist. You then apply your technique. What if your opponent suddenly release his grip and used his free hand to counter your counter. There is nothing to stop him from releasing his grip. That part of training seems to be missing in the Aikido training. I don't like that dependency. I prefer to train all techniques by I grab my opponent's arm instead. But people may not call that "self-defense".

At 0.25 and 0.32 of the following clip, how do you avoid your opponent from releasing his grip?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 29, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Something I don't understand about the Aikido training. Some technique depending on your opponent grabs on your wrist. You then apply your technique. What if your opponent suddenly release his grip and used his free hand to counter your counter. There is nothing to stop him from releasing his grip. That part of training seems to be missing in the Aikido training. I don't like that dependency. I prefer to train all techniques by I grab my opponent's arm instead. But people may not call that "self-defense".



There's always "what ifs"....
First, someone who is grabbing you is going to be focused on that grab. Secondly, there is a speed factor. 
If someone reaches out to grab me in the manner shown, and I want to do irimi nage (or something similar), I'll extend the arm I want them to grab (they'll go for the easy grab - magicians use a similar technique and call it a magicians force) and start the counter while they're still getting a grip on my arm. By the time they get the grip, you're already them, starting the pressure on the neck. At that point, it doesn't really matter overmuch if they do release the grab; you're in a position to either do your own grab during the movement or just maintain pressure against the inside of the wrist (which traps their arm and gives you some leverage). By the time you change arms, they will have turned loose anyway.
If they do turn loose earlier, then "what if" I had the good sense to not continue a takedown that wouldn't work, and did something else. Just like they did?
What if... what if... what if...


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 29, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Something I don't understand about the Aikido training. Some technique depending on your opponent grabs on your wrist. You then apply your technique. What if your opponent suddenly release his grip and used his free hand to counter your counter. There is nothing to stop him from releasing his grip. That part of training seems to be missing in the Aikido training. I don't like that dependency. I prefer to train all techniques by I grab my opponent's arm instead. But people may not call that "self-defense".
> 
> At 0.25 and 0.32 of the following clip, how do you avoid your opponent from releasing his grip?


I will only speak for myself on this.
Most aikido is not practiced as a self-defense aim but rather as a cooperative partner exersize aimed at self actualization.  If practiced as self defense, the techniques are much more condensed. Most schools practice techniques with a long hesitation in time between the first moment of contact until the completion of the technique. For self defense this time lag will have to be shortened to a one, two count or even just a one count. Part of what I was trying to get across to drop bear was that for me an aiki technique is not a finnish move but just something that happens in the exchange. So if my opponent releases his grip that's fine by me I was going to be punching, kicking and throwing elbows anyway.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 29, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Something I don't understand about the Aikido training. Some technique depending on your opponent grabs on your wrist. You then apply your technique. What if your opponent suddenly release his grip and used his free hand to counter your counter. There is nothing to stop him from releasing his grip. That part of training seems to be missing in the Aikido training. I don't like that dependency. I prefer to train all techniques by I grab my opponent's arm instead. But people may not call that "self-defense".
> 
> At 0.25 and 0.32 of the following clip, how do you avoid your opponent from releasing his grip?


Properly used, those are drills. Those drills include the entry and the finish. Between entry and finish, there can be many alternatives. Trained properly, the recovery from counters should be there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 29, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> I will only speak for myself on this.
> Most aikido is not practiced as a self-defense aim but rather as a cooperative partner exersize aimed at self actualization.  If practiced as self defense, the techniques are much more condensed. Most schools practice techniques with a long hesitation in time between the first moment of contact until the completion of the technique. For self defense this time lag will have to be shortened to a one, two count or even just a one count. Part of what I was trying to get across to drop bear was that for me an aiki technique is not a finnish move but just something that happens in the exchange. So if my opponent releases his grip that's fine by me I was going to be punching, kicking and throwing elbows anyway.


I think you’re saying something I was explaining recently to some folks. Many of the aiki techniques are alternatives to standard techniques. If the flow and control happen, I can use an aiki finish, rather than continuing to a “harder” throw/lock.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> So basically your going to ignore the question and just stick to the dogma that MMA is the best and everything else is not worth your time.
> Ok I see how it is. I'll refrain from my attempts for dialog from this point.


I answered the question twice.

So far you are the only one who is suggesting that people should just throw themselves. Rather than having the person who is supposed to throw you actually throw you.

I don't think I am using a MMA only concept here.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think you’re saying something I was explaining recently to some folks. Many of the aiki techniques are alternatives to standard techniques. If the flow and control happen, I can use an aiki finish, rather than continuing to a “harder” throw/lock.


like i said, i will only speak for myself.  in my experience "things happen"  its not always neat and orderly like practice.  logically we know this but often we dont know what that concept actually looks like.  things in a confrontation get messy.  i have found myself set up for a kotegashi and have no idea how i ended up with their hand in mine.  i grabbed it automatically and didnt even know it.  the training repetition manifests itself regardless if the practice seems realistic to others or not.  are there pit falls and areas that can be improved yeah sure.  but the techniques need to happen subconsciously and naturally.  this can only happen through repetition and sometimes being concerned with the "what ifs"  is counter productive.   like the clip i posted many of the techniques should flow from one to the other.  i do not see many aiki schools doing this but i think they should. disclaimer:  i only got to black belt so maybe its something seen more after that rank.
i do know that my Teacher Fumio Toyota had his technique "tool box" and was good at randomly pulling out different techniques and switching from one to another fluidly.  presumably as a response to the changing circumstances of the attack.  as uke it also kept me alert and on my toes.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> I will only speak for myself on this.
> Most aikido is not practiced as a self-defense aim but rather as a cooperative partner exersize aimed at self actualization.  If practiced as self defense, the techniques are much more condensed. Most schools practice techniques with a long hesitation in time between the first moment of contact until the completion of the technique. For self defense this time lag will have to be shortened to a one, two count or even just a one count. Part of what I was trying to get across to drop bear was that for me an aiki technique is not a finnish move but just something that happens in the exchange. So if my opponent releases his grip that's fine by me I was going to be punching, kicking and throwing elbows anyway.



Then that is how you practice it without pretending to fall over or without crippling your training partner in an effort to pull a move off.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Then that is how you practice it without pretending to fall over or without crippling your training partner in an effort to pull a move off.


your single line responses and non responses replaced by video clips indicate to me that either your just arguing to be "right"  rather than create informative dialog or your logic and abilty to formulate a coherent reply is lacking.  either way im not gaining any insight, so im not going to bother.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 29, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> What if... what if... what if...


The technique is the tree trunk. The "what if" is the tree branches.

If you (general YOU) have learned a technique, you also want to learn how to

1. counter it.
2. counter those counters.
3. ...

The deeper level that you train, the more detail that you will learn.

For example,

1. Hip throw is the technique.
2. Sink body down is the counter to hip throw.
3. Turn around and inner hook is the counter for sinking down.
4. Use upper leg to lift the inner hooking leg is the counter for inner hook.
5. ...

By using this method, you can learn many other techniques and counters. Should all MA systems use this method?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 30, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> your single line responses and non responses replaced by video clips indicate to me that either your just arguing to be "right"  rather than create informative dialog or your logic and abilty to formulate a coherent reply is lacking.  either way im not gaining any insight, so im not going to bother.



You quoted a post that was three lines?

Are you in touch with reality? Because a lot of what you are accusing me of isn't happening.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 30, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> your single line responses and non responses replaced by video clips indicate to me that either your just arguing to be "right"  rather than create informative dialog or your logic and abilty to formulate a coherent reply is lacking.  either way im not gaining any insight, so im not going to bother.



Here is a single line response and a video that answers your concerns.


----------

