# Aikido.. The reality?



## JowGaWolf

I went spent a few hours on you tube trying to find old sparring videos of Aikido.  This was done with my understanding that Fighting is Abrasive. Which basically means that it's rough and it that it doesn't flow smooth like what we often see in Aikido or Tai Chi.  When these martial arts are practice they often look as if they are flowing and easy.  I think this training concept is similar to Tai Chi /Tajiquan.  The free flowing and easy look seems to be how you learn to relax and to flow.  It is not fighting, and it's not how the fighting is supposed to look.  I also think this is where people screw up with the systems and get it wrong.

So since I don't actually know anything about Aikido, I decided to use my very limited Tajiquan knowledge to make assumption and guesses, and to find some old footage of Aikido Sparring.

Here's the first first one. I found. To me this looks like Aikido concepts applied and it looks abrasive. It doesn't flow the same way that we see it in a demo.  I personally think the "Flow" part is something that you have to experienced.  I know that's the case with Muay thai.  To the outside it may look like a simple clinch but to the person in the clinch it could feel like your balance is easily being robbed from you before the throw occurs.
This is what I expect to see in a fight on the street (the struggle)






In contrast. We can see that he's trying "flow" similar to what they do in training and demos (not sparring).  You can also see that he's uncomfortable with punches coming towards him.  It's clear that he doesn't quite know how to handle them.  From a function perspective it would make sense that Aikido would have some kind of striking  or understanding of "how to enter into grappling" 





Here's another example.  Not the best, but he's got one arm.  What you do see here is punching as a way to enter into grappling.  BJJ does it, Muay Thai does it.  Sanda does it.  So I'm just following some of the things we already know.





2nd Video Same guy,



Thoughts?


----------



## Oni_Kadaki

I've trained at various Aikido schools for about 8-9 years now as circumstances allowed, and have done my best to integrate Aikido into my other training, especially Karate. Traditional Aikido by itself, which a beloved Sensei and friend of mine once described as a "dance-like martial art," is not generally conducive to combat or self-defense against anyone with any degree of skill. However, what I've found is that the techniques can be very useful with modification, and that the principles have applicability across systems (with the caveat that I've mostly trained Karate and Jiu Jitsu derivatives).

I've found that, if you're trying to force an Aikido technique, you will be sorely disappointed... much like in practice. However, I have made Aikido work in sparring in both Karate and, most recently, Judo, by capitalizing on opportunities that I may not have noticed without having trained in Aikido. In Karate, I took down my opponent with kokyu nage twice in the same match (almost three times, she was pissed), and have pulled off irimi nage and possibly ikkyo (it's been awhile). In Judo, my opponent, a judoka who has been training in the martial arts for about twice as long as I have, leaned a little too far forward, and I capitalized on the resulting vulnerability and took him down with a highly-modified kaite nage. Is this to say that Aikido is secretly the end-all, be-all combative art? Hell no, but I do believe myself a more competent martial artist for having studied it, and I believe it rounds out my skillset, which also includes, to some degree or other, striking and groundfighting.

Edit: forgot to mention that one of my first Aikido instructors was retired NYPD. He switched to Aikido from Karate when he realized that throwing kicks with a gun belt on was not necessarily practical, and he found that it made more sense when trying to control suspects than a striking art. It worked for him, and the class where he showed me how he modified it to work for him was one of the most terrifying classes I've ever had!


----------



## Cynik75




----------



## Xue Sheng

Why is it we think everything is an MMA ring these days?

As to taijiquan flowing, I think you missed the concept as to what is meant when you are talking flowing in taijiquan. But that is not surprising, since so few actually know anything about it, as it was applied, before it became a moving meditation. Taijiquan has similarities to aikido, but it is most certainly not aikido, not as concerned about the circle. But don't get me wrong. I like aikido and once, sparring a female aikidoka, got jointlocked and thrown to the floor....and it was awesome.... by the way, it was on a hard floor, no padding...and it was still awesome


----------



## Martial D

Xue Sheng said:


> Why is it we think everything is an MMA ring these days?
> 
> As to taijiquan flowing, I think you missed the concept as to what is meant when you are talking flowing in taijiquan. But that is not surprising, since so few actually know anything about it, as it was applied, before it became a moving meditation. Taijiquan has similarities to aikido, but it is most certainly not aikido, not as concerned about the circle. But don't get me wrong. I like aikido and once, sparring a female aikidoka, got jointlocked and thrown to the floor....and it was awesome.... by the way, it was on a hard floor, no padding...and it was still awesome


Because an mma ring is the closest thing we have to live fighting, short of actual fighting in the street.

The rules that are there don't change much about the situation. Those that say 'if only I could bite and eye gouge things would be different' are kidding themselves.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> Because an mma ring is the closest thing we have to live fighting, short of actual fighting in the street.


Sanda is a good format too. It has everything except the ground game.






IMO, no matter how many rounds that you may have gone through the following match, the experience that you have received will not be realistic.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Cynik75 said:


>


This falls right in line with comments that I made in another thread about the 2 groups of people.  Those who train for function and those who do not.   It's becoming clearer that Aikido wasn't explore very deeply.  I still think he doesn't understand, because he keeps trying for force what he wants to do instead of using what's available.  I wonder how many opportunities did he pass up by trying to focus on what he wanted to do, instead of focusing on what his opponent's openings would allow him to do.

When I spar, I know that I will throw some basic Kung Fu, but beyond that I cannot determine before hand what I will do.  To do so means that I have to force my technique.  If my opponent never stand in a good position for e to throw him, then me  trying to throw him is the same as me forcing a technique.



Xue Sheng said:


> Why is it we think everything is an MMA ring these days?
> 
> As to taijiquan flowing, I think you missed the concept as to what is meant when you are talking flowing in taijiquan. But that is not surprising, since so few actually know anything about it, as it was applied, before it became a moving meditation. Taijiquan has similarities to aikido, but it is most certainly not aikido, not as concerned about the circle. But don't get me wrong. I like aikido and once, sparring a female aikidoka, got jointlocked and thrown to the floor....and it was awesome.... by the way, it was on a hard floor, no padding...and it was still awesome


I can only use the knowledge that I have to understand other things.  Taijiquan is all that I currently have.  If I was taught correctly then I have a few videos of where the "concept of flowing" as I was taught have been applied.  I would have to show the videos and then have you are someone else say how far I'm off in terms of Aikido and Taijiquan. 



Xue Sheng said:


> Why is it we think everything is an MMA ring these days?


Probably because out of all the combat sports out there.  It's the only one that has the least amount of restrictions.


----------



## JowGaWolf

The fact that BJJ practitioners are trying to understand the techniques speaks volumes.   I don't think they would have done so if they truly believed that there was no validity in the techniques.

I think people who do functional things have interests in functional things.  In other words, if they believe that it's not functional, then they aren't going to spend time on trying to "decode it"


----------



## Tony Dismukes

JowGaWolf said:


> Probably because out of all the combat sports out there. It's the only one that has the least amount of restrictions.


Not quite ...


----------



## Yokozuna514

Tony Dismukes said:


> Not quite ...


Ha, ha, at first I thought I was watching some LARPing on steroids but those guys are going pretty hard with what sounds like real sticks and wearing basically tshirts.   Is there a ruleset that you know of for this because it doesn't seem like anyone wants to main their opponent but a twack from a 3 sectional staff being whirled about at top speed would not tickle with just a shirt on.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tony Dismukes said:


> Not quite ...


Yep I forgot about those guys.  They definitely have the least amount of restrictions.


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> Why is it we think everything is an MMA ring these days?
> 
> As to taijiquan flowing, I think you missed the concept as to what is meant when you are talking flowing in taijiquan. But that is not surprising, since so few actually know anything about it, as it was applied, before it became a moving meditation. Taijiquan has similarities to aikido, but it is most certainly not aikido, not as concerned about the circle. But don't get me wrong. I like aikido and once, sparring a female aikidoka, got jointlocked and thrown to the floor....and it was awesome.... by the way, it was on a hard floor, no padding...and it was still awesome



Because it is about the best scientific method to determine if stuff works without crippling people. 

So even if say you wanted to really test knife defence for example. It would make sense to put on mma gloves go in to a padded sealed room and allow punching kicking and grappling. 

So that MMA dynamic basically becomes the start point of a discussion.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Not quite ...



But sort of. It is the same concept.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> The fact that BJJ practitioners are trying to understand the techniques speaks volumes.   I don't think they would have done so if they truly believed that there was no validity in the techniques.
> 
> I think people who do functional things have interests in functional things.  In other words, if they believe that it's not functional, then they aren't going to spend time on trying to "decode it"



It depends. There are things that shouldn't work that do. So you test them to see so that you know one way or the other. 

The Russian wrist snap works. But it looks every bit like an Aikido move that shouldn't.

Backflip single leg defence works. But you would have a very hard time convincing someone who hadn't seen it.


----------



## Yokozuna514

drop bear said:


> Because it is about the best scientific method to determine if stuff works without crippling people.
> 
> So even if say you wanted to really test knife defence for example. It would make sense to put on mma gloves go in to a padded sealed room and allow punching kicking and grappling.
> 
> So that MMA dynamic basically becomes the start point of a discussion.



Ummm, I'm not sure I would go so far as to agree with MMA being the best scientific method to determine if stuff works especially as it would pertain to knife defence.  That's a whole different kettle of fish that probably doesn't intersect with MMA gear, tactic or cage.  I don't practice FMA but I have some experience with them.  I've seen quick little guys that can make a pincushion out of you before you knew you were in a fight.



drop bear said:


> It depends. There are things that shouldn't work that do. So you test them to see so that you know one way or the other.
> 
> The Russian wrist snap works. But it looks every bit like an Aikido move that shouldn't.
> 
> Backflip single leg defence works. But you would have a very hard time convincing someone who hadn't seen it.


Ha, ha, backflip single leg defence totally works.   I think I have even seen youtube videos of some D1 guys in the US using it.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Yokozuna514 said:


> Ha, ha, at first I thought I was watching some LARPing on steroids but those guys are going pretty hard with what sounds like real sticks and wearing basically tshirts.   Is there a ruleset that you know of for this because it doesn't seem like anyone wants to main their opponent but a twack from a 3 sectional staff being whirled about at top speed would not tickle with just a shirt on.


The sparring at Dog Brothers gatherings is full contact with minimal protective gear (typically fencing mask, hockey gloves, and cup, although I believe knee and elbow protection is allowable) and heavy rattan sticks (or synthetic trainers for blades). The only real rule is that everybody stays friends and tries to avoid permanent brain injuries. (So - respect the tap for submissions, stop if someone gets injured, don't tee off with your stick on someone whose mask comes off, etc.)

People do get injured - you see concussions, broken bones, cuts requiring stitches, etc - but not as often as you might expect. I think this is mainly because practitioners don't generally join in that type of sparring until they've reached a certain skill level and know how to protect themselves. Also because the sparring is done in the spirit of growth rather than malice.


----------



## Yokozuna514

Tony Dismukes said:


> The sparring at Dog Brothers gatherings is full contact with minimal protective gear (typically fencing mask, hockey gloves, and cup, although I believe knee and elbow protection is allowable) and heavy rattan sticks (or synthetic trainers for blades). The only real rule is that everybody stays friends and tries to avoid permanent brain injuries. (So - respect the tap for submissions, stop if someone gets injured, don't tee off with your stick on someone whose mask comes off, etc.)
> 
> People do get injured - you see concussions, broken bones, cuts requiring stitches, etc - but not as often as you might expect. I think this is mainly because practitioners don't generally join in that type of sparring until they've reached a certain skill level and know how to protect themselves. Also because the sparring is done in the spirit of growth rather than malice.


Ok, so there is some understanding and mutual respect between opponents.   Looks pretty cool and probably one of the closest opportunities to test your training with weapons without getting maimed in the process.   Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

JowGaWolf said:


> The fact that BJJ practitioners are trying to understand the techniques speaks volumes. I don't think they would have done so if they truly believed that there was no validity in the techniques.


Speaking as a BJJ practitioner, there is certainly potential validity in most of the Aikido techniques I've seen. I've even been caught by a couple of them on occasion. There's also value in the underlying principles.

That said, as an outsider looking in on Aikido practice there are some significant issues I see.

First, most of the techniques in the Aikido syllabus are highly situational. The right circumstances to apply them don't come up that often, especially against skilled fighters. From my outsider's perspective, it appears that a large percentage of Aikido practitioners don't understand those situational limitations, don't train with those situations in mind (except in a highly artificial way which doesn't translate well to actual application), and don't have the skill set to cover the majority of more likely combative situations (unless they have crossed trained in other arts).

Second, it seems that most Aikido schools I've seen have fallen into what I'll call the "Aiki trap." 

For my purposes I'll define Aiki as that moment in a fight where everything comes together perfectly, you blend with your opponent's energy and timing so that your technique feels effortless - it really seems like your opponent just threw themself for you. Unfortunately in real life, you don't get to the point of being able to do this without a whole lot of non-Aiki rough and tumble experience. (You're also more likely to find those moments against opponents who are much less skilled.) Even a really skilled fighter who frequently manages to achieve Aiki moments in a fight can't get them all the time, or even most of the time.

The "Aiki trap" comes when practitioners of an art (and it doesn't have to be Aikido, I've encountered this in other arts), want to bypass the whole process of going through years of rough and tumble fighting or sparring in order to just occasionally be able to get those magical feeling Aiki moments. Instead, they just practice with having their training partners feed them highly stylized, overcommitted, unrealistic attacks that are comparatively easy to blend with and never have those training partners offer any realistic effort to defeat their techniques. It's a shortcut that gives the illusion of being able to reliably demonstrate Aiki, but tends to fall apart under real world pressure.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Yokozuna514 said:


> Ok, so there is some understanding and mutual respect between opponents.


I think this is key. If they made it into a professional sport where there was a paycheck on the line for winning, I think there would be a lot more serious injuries.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think this is key. If they made it into a professional sport where there was a paycheck on the line for winning, I think there would be a lot more serious injuries.


Not only money. The reputation can cause that to happen too.

In one Chinese wrestling tournament, the heavy weight champ had to fight the middle weight champ to win the grand champ. The middle weight champ defeated the heavy weight champ and hurt the heavy weight champ's knee badly in that match.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Not only money. The reputation can cause that to happen too.
> 
> In one Chinese wrestling tournament, the heavy weight champ had to fight the middle weight champ to win the grand champ. The middle weight champ defeated the heavy weight champ and hurt the heavy weight champ's knee badly in that match.


Yeah, that's probably the reason that the Dog Brothers don't make their gatherings into tournaments or award championships. People just show up and pick up as many matches as they want with whoever is willing. "Hey, I want to try my staff work against someone using double sticks. Anyone up for that?" "Sure, sounds like fun. Let's go."


----------



## wab25

Martial D said:


> Those that say 'if only I could bite and eye gouge things would be different' are kidding themselves.






A good eye poke, seems to be very effective, if you can get it in. These are professional MMA fighters being eye poked... some of these would be game changers if the ref did not stop the fight for the poke.


----------



## wab25

Tony Dismukes said:


> Speaking as a BJJ practitioner, there is certainly potential validity in most of the Aikido techniques I've seen. I've even been caught by a couple of them on occasion. There's also value in the underlying principles.
> 
> That said, as an outsider looking in on Aikido practice there are some significant issues I see.
> 
> First, most of the techniques in the Aikido syllabus are highly situational. The right circumstances to apply them don't come up that often, especially against skilled fighters. From my outsider's perspective, it appears that a large percentage of Aikido practitioners don't understand those situational limitations, don't train with those situations in mind (except in a highly artificial way which doesn't translate well to actual application), and don't have the skill set to cover the majority of more likely combative situations (unless they have crossed trained in other arts).
> 
> Second, it seems that most Aikido schools I've seen have fallen into what I'll call the "Aiki trap."
> 
> For my purposes I'll define Aiki as that moment in a fight where everything comes together perfectly, you blend with your opponent's energy and timing so that your technique feels effortless - it really seems like your opponent just threw themself for you. Unfortunately in real life, you don't get to the point of being able to do this without a whole lot of non-Aiki rough and tumble experience. (You're also more likely to find those moments against opponents who are much less skilled.) Even a really skilled fighter who frequently manages to achieve Aiki moments in a fight can't get them all the time, or even most of the time.
> 
> The "Aiki trap" comes when practitioners of an art (and it doesn't have to be Aikido, I've encountered this in other arts), want to bypass the whole process of going through years of rough and tumble fighting or sparring in order to just occasionally be able to get those magical feeling Aiki moments. Instead, they just practice with having their training partners feed them highly stylized, overcommitted, unrealistic attacks that are comparatively easy to blend with and never have those training partners offer any realistic effort to defeat their techniques. It's a shortcut that gives the illusion of being able to reliably demonstrate Aiki, but tends to fall apart under real world pressure.



I have a different take on the "Aiki trap" as you call it. My take on the Aiki Trap, is thinking that Aikido is about the techniques. Aikido is about studying the things that go into that Aiki Moment and how to maintain the Aiki Moment. The idea being that if you study those things, you should be able to find more Aiki Moments in a fight, than if you had not studied how the Aiki Moment works. The techniques found in Aikido are great for studying and learning how to achieve that Aiki Moment. 

If you have another background, where you have experience in resistance sparring / rolling / fighting... then the study of Aikido will improve your ability to find and capitalize on the available Aiki Moments in the fight. Those Aiki Moments will most likely not look like Aikido... but they will feel like Aikido... the effortless magic of the perfect blend.

The thing to remember about Aikido, is that you have to first survive long enough to be functional when the Aiki Moment arrives in the fight. This will not be easy to do, if you have only ever practiced the Aikido choreography. Two ways to fix this... first, start with some other training first, to learn how to fight, then supplement it with Aikido. Second, train Aikido and once you get down the choreography, fight and learn how to use it. This second option will not be nearly as efficient as the first and will be frustrating... mainly because you don't know how to fight or even know what to expect... let alone try to apply principles learned through an exercise on a resisting opponent.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Tony Dismukes said:


> . Unfortunately in real life, you don't get to the point of being able to do this without a whole lot of non-Aiki rough and tumble experience. (You're also more likely to find those moments against opponents who are much less skilled.) Even a really skilled fighter who frequently manages to achieve Aiki moments in a fight can't get them all the time, or even most of the time.


I agree.  I think the rough and tumble experience is necessary for development.  That's when you learn how to read body movement, shift weight, see intentions, escape, etc.  The more experience that one gains with the rough stuff, the easier it will be for them to move smoothly when confronted. But again this is only if the person you are training with isn't so advance that it provides no opportunity to learn.

More than 15 years of Aikido training?  Well how much of that time was spent trying to do Aikido in the "rough and tumble environment." With my own training.  I rather traing kung fu. then spar against non- Jow Ga people. If possible non-TMA people.

I replied before reading ALL of your comment.  Sort of the thoughts that came to mine while reading then discovered your next paragraph said the same thing I'm saying lol.  I need to learn to READ THE WHOLE THING lol


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

wab25 said:


> "Aiki trap"


It may be similar to

- You move out of your opponent's attacking path,
- lead your opponent into the emptiness,
- you then take advantage on it.

If this is similar to "Aiki trap", then it's general strategy used in all MA systems.


----------



## JowGaWolf

wab25 said:


> some of these would be game changers if the ref did not stop the fight for the poke.


There would probably be a lot of one eyed fighters too


----------



## drop bear

wab25 said:


> A good eye poke, seems to be very effective, if you can get it in. These are professional MMA fighters being eye poked... some of these would be game changers if the ref did not stop the fight for the poke.



Yeah. But that is other MMAers doing it. 

I think if average Joe jumped in there armed with eye pokes he would have a bad day.


----------



## wab25

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It may be similar to
> 
> - You move out of your opponent's attacking path,
> - lead your opponent into the emptiness,
> - you then take advantage on it.
> 
> If this is similar to "Aiki trap", then it's general strategy used in all MA systems.



The "Aiki Trap" is not a general strategy or a thing used in MA. It is a term that Tony came up with to describe what happens to people who train Aikido as their only art and never venture out of the dojo to test it against anything other than fully compliant dance partners who know when to fall. They get a false sense that they now understand physical combat and that when the fight happens, they will use the same choreography that they have been practicing and that somehow it will work.

Most traditional arts and arts that have forms or kata, have their own version of this trap. If all you ever do is the choreographed routines, with compliant partners, and you then think you are capable of using that choreography to win a fight... you have been caught in the trap.


----------



## wab25

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But that is other MMAers doing it.


Are MMA eye pokes more effective than karate eye pokes? 

Really, these cases are just bad luck... no one was attempting to poke the eye, they just reacted when attacked and a finger ended up in an eye. 

I do agree that if you are betting everything on making your eye poke work and thats all you have... you may have a hard day of it. It's like the "Aiki Moment" in a fight... you have to survive long enough, and be functional enough, when the eye poke moment in the fight arrives. If you survived long enough, sure it can be effective... but you have to get there first.


----------



## Yokozuna514

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But that is other MMAers doing it.
> 
> I think if average Joe jumped in there armed with eye pokes he would have a bad day.


Nothing pisses me off more than an opponent that intentionally uses dirty tricks to gain an advantage.  That door can swing both ways buddy.  



wab25 said:


> Are MMA eye pokes more effective than karate eye pokes?
> 
> Really, these cases are just bad luck... no one was attempting to poke the eye, they just reacted when attacked and a finger ended up in an eye.
> 
> I do agree that if you are betting everything on making your eye poke work and thats all you have... you may have a hard day of it. It's like the "Aiki Moment" in a fight... you have to survive long enough, and be functional enough, when the eye poke moment in the fight arrives. If you survived long enough, sure it can be effective... but you have to get there first.


If it was accidental contact, it happens.   Let's move on.  If there is a history of those types of shenanigans or if it is clear that dirty tricks are part of your opponents arsenal then someone has to learn the hard way not to poke the bear because this bear pokes back.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

wab25 said:


> It is a term that Tony came up with to describe what happens to people who train Aikido as their only art and never venture out of the dojo to test it against anything other than fully compliant dance partners who know when to fall.


Not just Aikido, although that tends to be a prime example. I encountered a lot of it during my time training in the Bujinkan and I've seen the same sort of process play out with practitioners of other arts.

I think it can be the start of the path that leads to nonsense like no-contact throws and knockouts. You can get training partners and demo dummies who get the pattern of going along with the technique so mentally ingrained that they start throwing themselves without the other person having to really do anything. Add a bit of groupthink and mystical mindset and you can end up with a teacher and students who actually believe that he can throw them without touching them.


----------



## Martial D

wab25 said:


> A good eye poke, seems to be very effective, if you can get it in. These are professional MMA fighters being eye poked... some of these would be game changers if the ref did not stop the fight for the poke.


Yes, I'm not saying eye pokes don't work. Just that, if a guy is out striking you with fists it's likely if you can both poke eyes he will also out poke you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I went spent a few hours on you tube trying to find old sparring videos of Aikido.  This was done with my understanding that Fighting is Abrasive. Which basically means that it's rough and it that it doesn't flow smooth like what we often see in Aikido or Tai Chi.  When these martial arts are practice they often look as if they are flowing and easy.  I think this training concept is similar to Tai Chi /Tajiquan.  The free flowing and easy look seems to be how you learn to relax and to flow.  It is not fighting, and it's not how the fighting is supposed to look.  I also think this is where people screw up with the systems and get it wrong.
> 
> So since I don't actually know anything about Aikido, I decided to use my very limited Tajiquan knowledge to make assumption and guesses, and to find some old footage of Aikido Sparring.
> 
> Here's the first first one. I found. To me this looks like Aikido concepts applied and it looks abrasive. It doesn't flow the same way that we see it in a demo.  I personally think the "Flow" part is something that you have to experienced.  I know that's the case with Muay thai.  To the outside it may look like a simple clinch but to the person in the clinch it could feel like your balance is easily being robbed from you before the throw occurs.
> This is what I expect to see in a fight on the street (the struggle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In contrast. We can see that he's trying "flow" similar to what they do in training and demos (not sparring).  You can also see that he's uncomfortable with punches coming towards him.  It's clear that he doesn't quite know how to handle them.  From a function perspective it would make sense that Aikido would have some kind of striking  or understanding of "how to enter into grappling"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another example.  Not the best, but he's got one arm.  What you do see here is punching as a way to enter into grappling.  BJJ does it, Muay Thai does it.  Sanda does it.  So I'm just following some of the things we already know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2nd Video Same guy,
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts?


There's a definite disconnect between what the "classical" training looks like (this, in my experience is true in all the aiki arts I've ever seen, even on video) and how they'd have to be used against anyone with any skill. This is because the classical training is emphasizing specific principles. The attacks used are set up to allow the drills to focus on these principles. Where those techniques are used in sparring against anyone with skill (including within the same style), they don't look the same because the attack alters what is needed. How much different they look will depend upon the "attacker".

So, let's take that thought to the second video. As you said, he looks like he's trying to do demonstration/drill Aikido. What I see is someone trying to force Aikido-like movement where it doesn't belong, which is actually counter to the principles of Aikido. I've seen this same issue with some of the "NGA sparring" videos I've found online. They're not really sparring with NGA - they're trying to force classical movements (and the training form of the technique) in application.

I don't blame the students for this. This is a common flaw (in my opinion) in aiki systems. Where folks use their skill in resistive training (as in Tomiki Aikido), you don't see the same issue. Against each other, they move more like Judoka, because that approach is more conducive to dealing with a skilled grappler.

One thing I will note that shouldn't be surprising to folks who've trained a while in Aikido: Aikidoka are better at grappling defense (keep good structure and balance, and don't over-resist) than grappling attack. Given that Aikido (all of the versions I've seen except Tomiki) put so much emphasis on accepting the attack and working with it, it makes sense they aren't great at bringing the attack.


----------



## drop bear

The issue with training aiki on its own is there is nobody to give you a reason to apply it. Because they are all trying to use the opponent's energy. 

Eg. Izzy vs yoel Romero. 





Two dedicated counter fighters who basically stood there for three rounds waiting for the other guy to do something.

So it becomes the worst place to learn how to use someone else's force.


----------



## wab25

drop bear said:


> The issue with training aiki on its own is there is nobody to give you a reason to apply it. Because they are all trying to use the opponent's energy.
> 
> Eg. Izzy vs yoel Romero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two dedicated counter fighters who basically stood there for three rounds waiting for the other guy to do something.
> 
> So it becomes the worst place to learn how to use someone else's force.



We get it. Aikido is the worst possible martial art to study and should be obliterated and removed from history...

The whole point of the choreography in Aikido, is to give that force to the guy training, in a predictable manner, so that he can study dealing with that force. It is no different than uchikomi's in Judo. Those are choreographed too... as are guard passing drills in bjj and take down practice in MMA. There is a place for choreography and a place for resistance sparring.


----------



## drop bear

wab25 said:


> We get it. Aikido is the worst possible martial art to study and should be obliterated and removed from history...
> 
> The whole point of the choreography in Aikido, is to give that force to the guy training, in a predictable manner, so that he can study dealing with that force. It is no different than uchikomi's in Judo. Those are choreographed too... as are guard passing drills in bjj and take down practice in MMA. There is a place for choreography and a place for resistance sparring.



Exept if both people are trying to use the others persons force all the time. You don't have resistance sparring. You have the izzy Romero fight.

Which then removes the grounding required to understand drills.

Which then removes the understanding of how to use someone's force.

Gradings of course are always notorious for this because who is going to risk your mates black belt just so you can be a duche.

But this for example has very little in the way of borrowed force.


----------



## wab25

drop bear said:


> Exept if both people are trying to use the others persons force all the time. You don't have resistance sparring. You have the izzy Romero fight.
> 
> Which then removes the grounding required to understand drills.
> 
> Which then removes the understanding of how to use someone's force.


Why is it okay for BJJ and MMA to have choreographed drills that they can use to ramp up the resistance with, until they are rolling / sparring / fighting... but Aikido is not allowed that same ramp? Just because you found some youtube video or tried a few dojos... does not mean that every Aikido dojo sticks strictly to the choreography. There are dojos that do not stick to the choreography and do get to rolling / sparring / heavy resistance... with other arts. I will grant you, that it is harder to find Aikido dojos like this, but they do exist. The lack of resistance training is a problem with the school / organization / instructor... not a problem with the art itself.


----------



## drop bear

wab25 said:


> Why is it okay for BJJ and MMA to have choreographed drills that they can use to ramp up the resistance with, until they are rolling / sparring / fighting... but Aikido is not allowed that same ramp? Just because you found some youtube video or tried a few dojos... does not mean that every Aikido dojo sticks strictly to the choreography. There are dojos that do not stick to the choreography and do get to rolling / sparring / heavy resistance... with other arts. I will grant you, that it is harder to find Aikido dojos like this, but they do exist. The lack of resistance training is a problem with the school / organization / instructor... not a problem with the art itself.



You mention this ramp. But then say that for a lot of schools there is no ramp. Just the choreography ending in more choreography.

If it is most schools. Then it is a problem with the art. The other's are outliers.  And the art makes it very difficult for those outliers to train realistically.

Here is an example of people who can use each other's force against them.





Tomiki are about the only guys who train live.


----------



## wab25

drop bear said:


> And the art makes it very difficult for those outliers to train realistically.


This would be the definition of an assumption.


----------



## drop bear

wab25 said:


> This would be the definition of an assumption.



Not really.

If for example I wanted to be a professional aikido fighting athlete. How would I go about that?


----------



## wab25

drop bear said:


> Not really.
> 
> If for example I wanted to be a professional aikido fighting athlete. How would I go about that?


The same way everyone else does...
Get into professional fighting athlete shape. Identify the sport you want to compete in. Learn the rules. Practice with folks who compete in that sport. Karate guys, Judo guys, BJJ guys, wrestlers, kickboxers... they all do it the same way.

Why would it be any harder for an Aikido guy to get resistance sparring from an MMA guy than a karate guy or a kickboxer or a wrestler? Aikido techniques are just as easy to ramp up the resistance on as a guard pass.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Two dedicated counter fighters who basically stood there for three rounds waiting for the other guy to do something.
> 
> So it becomes the worst place to learn how to use someone else's force.


I can definitely see that. That's the one thing I used to hate with TMA schools growing up.  It was always "self-defense."  "Let the other person attack first"  I grew up believing that and it made attacking a big effort.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Exept if both people are trying to use the others persons force all the time. You don't have resistance sparring. You have the izzy Romero fight.
> 
> Which then removes the grounding required to understand drills.
> 
> Which then removes the understanding of how to use someone's force.
> 
> Gradings of course are always notorious for this because who is going to risk your mates black belt just so you can be a duche.
> 
> But this for example has very little in the way of borrowed force.


I couldn't watch the entire thing.  It just reminded me of why I don't like belts.  The level of mastery is almost never what I have in mind before clicking play.  Even when I should know better.  It always gets me


----------



## JowGaWolf

wab25 said:


> Why would it be any harder for an Aikido guy to get resistance sparring from an MMA guy than a karate guy or a kickboxer or a wrestler? Aikido techniques are just as easy to ramp up the resistance on as a guard pass.


I don't think it's harder. I just think few actually do because of misconceptions that they have about the system.

If I were train to Aikido.  I would learn the techniques then I would follow the same path that I did with learning Crazy Kung Fu Stuff lol.  But seriously I would find someone who doesn't train Aikido punch at me in a friendly sparring match and I would see what comes out of that by working on and focusing on no more than 3 techniques and Basics things like kick punch, that I can use to help set up what I need.  Not a fan of the profanity or the testosterone. But To sum it up, I have to train against what I'm most likely to get from someone fighting me in the streets.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> Speaking as a BJJ practitioner, there is certainly potential validity in most of the Aikido techniques I've seen. I've even been caught by a couple of them on occasion. There's also value in the underlying principles.
> 
> That said, as an outsider looking in on Aikido practice there are some significant issues I see.
> 
> First, most of the techniques in the Aikido syllabus are highly situational. The right circumstances to apply them don't come up that often, especially against skilled fighters. From my outsider's perspective, it appears that a large percentage of Aikido practitioners don't understand those situational limitations, don't train with those situations in mind (except in a highly artificial way which doesn't translate well to actual application), and don't have the skill set to cover the majority of more likely combative situations (unless they have crossed trained in other arts).
> 
> Second, it seems that most Aikido schools I've seen have fallen into what I'll call the "Aiki trap."
> 
> For my purposes I'll define Aiki as that moment in a fight where everything comes together perfectly, you blend with your opponent's energy and timing so that your technique feels effortless - it really seems like your opponent just threw themself for you. Unfortunately in real life, you don't get to the point of being able to do this without a whole lot of non-Aiki rough and tumble experience. (You're also more likely to find those moments against opponents who are much less skilled.) Even a really skilled fighter who frequently manages to achieve Aiki moments in a fight can't get them all the time, or even most of the time.
> 
> The "Aiki trap" comes when practitioners of an art (and it doesn't have to be Aikido, I've encountered this in other arts), want to bypass the whole process of going through years of rough and tumble fighting or sparring in order to just occasionally be able to get those magical feeling Aiki moments. Instead, they just practice with having their training partners feed them highly stylized, overcommitted, unrealistic attacks that are comparatively easy to blend with and never have those training partners offer any realistic effort to defeat their techniques. It's a shortcut that gives the illusion of being able to reliably demonstrate Aiki, but tends to fall apart under real world pressure.


Very well put. I think all of the Aikidoka I've seen would be better at their Aikido if they had 6 months of Judo - preferably before the Aikido. It is my opinion that what is seen as "techniques" in the aiki arts I've seen are actually a subset - just what was selected to give students a chance to practice the principles. But practitioners get stuck on those specific techniques (and many of them, on the specific situational applications they are taught), because of the way the classical drills are run (and the lack of training tools that have a different dynamic, like sparring/rolling/judo randori).

I like the classical training drills. I don't like limiting training to those, because it seems to foster bad habits and poor understanding.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wab25 said:


> A good eye poke, seems to be very effective, if you can get it in. These are professional MMA fighters being eye poked... some of these would be game changers if the ref did not stop the fight for the poke.


The difficulty is getting them reliably. I think hunting for an eye poke might make a fighter miss opportunities for a good solid jab.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wab25 said:


> I have a different take on the "Aiki trap" as you call it. My take on the Aiki Trap, is thinking that Aikido is about the techniques. Aikido is about studying the things that go into that Aiki Moment and how to maintain the Aiki Moment. The idea being that if you study those things, you should be able to find more Aiki Moments in a fight, than if you had not studied how the Aiki Moment works. The techniques found in Aikido are great for studying and learning how to achieve that Aiki Moment.
> 
> If you have another background, where you have experience in resistance sparring / rolling / fighting... then the study of Aikido will improve your ability to find and capitalize on the available Aiki Moments in the fight. Those Aiki Moments will most likely not look like Aikido... but they will feel like Aikido... the effortless magic of the perfect blend.
> 
> The thing to remember about Aikido, is that you have to first survive long enough to be functional when the Aiki Moment arrives in the fight. This will not be easy to do, if you have only ever practiced the Aikido choreography. Two ways to fix this... first, start with some other training first, to learn how to fight, then supplement it with Aikido. Second, train Aikido and once you get down the choreography, fight and learn how to use it. This second option will not be nearly as efficient as the first and will be frustrating... mainly because you don't know how to fight or even know what to expect... let alone try to apply principles learned through an exercise on a resisting opponent.


To me, this sounds like another view of the same thing Tony is saying. But I'm kinda tired, so I may have missed some points that make them different.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wab25 said:


> Why is it okay for BJJ and MMA to have choreographed drills that they can use to ramp up the resistance with, until they are rolling / sparring / fighting... but Aikido is not allowed that same ramp? Just because you found some youtube video or tried a few dojos... does not mean that every Aikido dojo sticks strictly to the choreography. There are dojos that do not stick to the choreography and do get to rolling / sparring / heavy resistance... with other arts. I will grant you, that it is harder to find Aikido dojos like this, but they do exist. The lack of resistance training is a problem with the school / organization / instructor... not a problem with the art itself.


I thnk his point is that if all that is taught in an Aikido school is the aiki approach, then students aren't likely to bring significant aggression to randori. Without that, you have two people trying to borrow force neither is willing to commit. It's not an issue just for Aikido (or the aiki arts) - Judo suffers the same problem, even though they aren't aiki-focused. You get two Judoka in randori (or competition), and neither really wants to commit the weight that the other could use to execute some of the techniques. This has led to competition Judo only having a subset of what Judo contains (at least originally).

But it's more pronounced with the aiki arts, because we are working for moments that are already harder to find, and easier for a skilled practitioner to avoid providing (at least with Judo, there are many techniques that can be executed as a counter to your opponent's attempts at kuzushi). This is why Tomiki Aikido competition looks more like Judo thank mainline Aikido, and doesn't really show a ton of aiki moments.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You mention this ramp. But then say that for a lot of schools there is no ramp. Just the choreography ending in more choreography.
> 
> If it is most schools. Then it is a problem with the art. The other's are outliers.  And the art makes it very difficult for those outliers to train realistically.
> 
> Here is an example of people who can use each other's force against them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tomiki are about the only guys who train live.


I'd argue it's not the art, but the way it is being taught. The art doesn't really preclude that training, at all. It might be fair to lay that responsibility at the doorstep of major associations.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'd argue it's not the art, but the way it is being taught. The art doesn't really preclude that training, at all. It might be fair to lay that responsibility at the doorstep of major associations.



My point  was you are not going to learn how to use a person's momentum against them by having them feed you attacks. You just will never get the right timing.

So drills = bad for aiki.

Otherwise the argument that  it is not all of Aikido just most of it. Or just the major organisations. Honestly sounds a bit desperate.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I couldn't watch the entire thing.  It just reminded me of why I don't like belts.  The level of mastery is almost never what I have in mind before clicking play.  Even when I should know better.  It always gets me



Yeah. That was a good example of bad aiki. You could Literally see where he just stops. And then goes again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> My point  was you are not going to learn how to use a person's momentum against them by having them feed you attacks. You just will never get the right timing.
> 
> So drills = bad for aiki.


I disagree with this. The drills are about being able to recognize the moment - to feel the availability of a given technique or principle. I think they do a good job of this, if the feed is good. All two-man drills are about someone feeding the right position/attack/momentum, regardless of style. And all become less useful if the feed doesn't match what you're trying to train to work with.



> Otherwise the argument that  it is not all of Aikido just most of it. Or just the major organisations. Honestly sounds a bit desperate.


I guess it depends how you define "art". To me, the art is the collection of techniques and principles. Those can be taught in various ways. An association will tend to influence the approach to an art.

I don't think Aikido would cease to be Aikido if it was taught with a foundation of non-aiki grappling and striking. It would cease to be the Aikido I've run into in most places, but it would still be the same art.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I disagree with this. The drills are about being able to recognize the moment - to feel the availability of a given technique or principle. I think they do a good job of this, if the feed is good. All two-man drills are about someone feeding the right position/attack/momentum, regardless of style. And all become less useful if the feed doesn't match what you're trying to train to work with.



Lots of people think that way. But it just doesn't seem to work that way.

You will learn an approximation of the technique by drills. And this is all styles. Go do pad work for 6 months then box. You have this huge adjustment.

 You learn enough that you can then have something to try during sparring. But you will never learn the timing or the feel of the action unless you are really doing it live.

Basically all the things that aiki really relies on happens in a different place than pretty much where all of Aikido is trained.

Which is why Aikido guys are so bad at it. Like that guy in the grading. Where he takes the feed. Stops. Does the technique. He literally has no idea how his uke is moving or how to take advantage of it.

I am surprised you guys don't do flow rolls at the least.






Which should be what randori is. But often randori winds up being a demo rather than an exercise. 

(I mean this one is actually a demo I think. But you know what I mean)


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> Lots of people think that way. But it just doesn't seem to work that way.
> 
> You will learn an approximation of the technique by drills. And this is all styles. Go do pad work for 6 months then box. You have this huge adjustment.
> 
> You learn enough that you can then have something to try during sparring. But you will never learn the timing or the feel of the action unless you are really doing it live.
> 
> Basically all the things that aiki really relies on happens in a different place than pretty much where all of Aikido is trained.
> 
> Which is why Aikido guys are so bad at it. Like that guy in the grading. Where he takes the feed. Stops. Does the technique. He literally has no idea how his uke is moving or how to take advantage of it.
> 
> I am surprised you guys don't do flow rolls at the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which should be what randori is. But often randori winds up being a demo rather than an exercise.
> 
> (I mean this one is actually a demo I think. But you know what I mean)




And on a tangent. Is this difference because of capoeira? Which are basically the masters of the flow roll concept.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> You learn enough that you can then have something to try during sparring. But you will never learn the timing or the feel of the action unless you are really doing it live.


This is how I feel as well.  I like drills and drills are useful to me and I think they are important, but they are clean.  By this I mean live sparring / fighting has a lot of other  "junk" (other movements and challenges) that drills don't have.  One can try to add the "junk" into the drill but it's not the same.  Drill timing is not the same as sparring / fighting timing.

A good way to see the effects of this is to do a drill.  Then after 5 minutes of that drill only add feints.  Drills = walking into a room with nothing in it.  You use the "walking drill" to navigate the room.  Sparring /Fighting = walking into a room with junk on the floor and stuff hanging from the ceiling.  Now you have to walk in a way and do things that weren't in the "walking drill."   You add those things in a drill, but everyone has their own "junk" in different places even if the rooms are the same sizes. Unfortunately some room have junk and no lights on, and that occurs when you don't have an idea of what the other person does so you feel around until you locate the light switch that may be on the wall some where or hanging from the ceiling.  

This is with all martial arts. It's not just an Aikido Thing.  I think drills are clean for a reason.  They help the practitioner focus on one or two things. It cleans up the noise so that there is very little distraction.  I think this is the fastest way to learn a technique.  But most stop there and fail to train how to apply the technique which is different than learning it. It's not until we walk in those "rooms" that we gain a larger understanding.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> And on a tangent. Is this difference because of capoeira? Which are basically the masters of the flow roll concept.


I was actually impressed with that one.  I usually only see the standard stuff.  But even though what they did was great it's style A vs style A.  A continuous drill. And like everyone else, there's that Room we all have to walk into if we want to get to the next level.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Lots of people think that way. But it just doesn't seem to work that way.
> 
> You will learn an approximation of the technique by drills. And this is all styles. Go do pad work for 6 months then box. You have this huge adjustment.
> 
> You learn enough that you can then have something to try during sparring. But you will never learn the timing or the feel of the action unless you are really doing it live.
> 
> Basically all the things that aiki really relies on happens in a different place than pretty much where all of Aikido is trained.
> 
> Which is why Aikido guys are so bad at it. Like that guy in the grading. Where he takes the feed. Stops. Does the technique. He literally has no idea how his uke is moving or how to take advantage of it.
> 
> I am surprised you guys don't do flow rolls at the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which should be what randori is. But often randori winds up being a demo rather than an exercise.
> 
> (I mean this one is actually a demo I think. But you know what I mean)



Actually, nothing you said contradicts my post. I agree that drills are not sufficient for reliably developing fighting skills (I think it's possible, but don't know how you'd know without sparring).

Aikido's "randori" isn't the same thing as Judo's. It's a different kind of drill, with more dynamic feeds, but isn't anything like sparring/rolling/Judo randori. I prefer Judo's use of the term.



> I am surprised you guys don't do flow rolls at the least.



You do this a lot. You're citing a different art than what I trained in. They'd be fast to draw that distinction. I do use flow drills. They are a favorite tool of mine. I learned them from two of my instructors, though I use them more than either of them did. I also use sparring (strikes only), rolling (groundwork only), randori (grappling only, Judo-style), and free sparring (any and all of the above). But you should know all of that, since I've told you before. You just choose to ignore it and cling to your early assumptions about what I teach. Kinda lazy.


----------



## O'Malley

Sorry in advance for the long post.

I'll start with a quick intro, so that you know what I'm talking about (I'll have to simplify to keep it short so please bear with me).

Aikido is a variant of daito-ryu aikijujutsu (DR), a martial art founded by Sokaku Takeda. Takeda was a wandering martial artist with formal training in classical Japanese swordsmanship and in a family martial conditioning method, probably of Chinese origin, that is known in DR as "aiki". Aiki means "to unify forces" and, in this context, it means "creating a balance of mutual opposing forces within the body". It's an internal "tensioning" process that makes it harder to apply force on the user and conversely puts the user's entire body into his movements. Aiki happens within the body and has nothing to do with "blending with the opponent". It's actually a Chinese concept: a crucial teaching of aikido is to stand in "roppo", which is called "liu he" in Chinese and means "six directions". Tai chi and xing yi practitioners should know the idea. [Edit: the concept exists in internal CMA but I'm not sure it's called liu he]

Takeda also loved sumo and despite his small size, he could do frontal force outs (yorikiri) on much bigger opponents, probably due to the aforementioned conditioning. In seminars, he would make people pay a fee _per technique_ and so to earn more money he'd make up stuff on the spot. Sometimes he would imitate techniques he had seen in other styles. That's why DR has a very high number of techniques (118 basic kata in mainline DR, over 500 in the Takuma line).

Enter Morihei Ueshiba, the founder of aikido, who was essentially a DR instructor. Like Takeda and his top students, he also displayed the ability to shed off forces and uncanny full-body power (the abovementioned "aiki"). This made him famous and earned him some top-level politicians and martial artists as students. He renamed stuff several times, including the art, and the name "aikido" stuck. Also, he was a religious fanatic and had close ties with extreme right-wing and ultranationalist movements. His vision of "peace" and "harmony" involved a world unified under the rule of the Japanese emperor, which descends from the gods.

Kisshomaru Ueshiba (Morihei's son) was the second head of aikido. In an occupied Japan, he swept the religious blabbering of his father under the rug and pushed the narrative of "old master Morihei invented the peaceful art of aikido". He simplified the techniques, made them flowing and circular, taught that "there's no attack in aikido", etc. That's where the emphasis on "blending with the opponent's energy" comes from. In a sense, he was more of an innovator than his father.

Fast forward today. Most dojos teach Kisshomaru's version of aikido, which was never meant to be functional (and in many ways has even been "defanged"). You can still find aikido groups that branched off pre-Kisshomaru that teach the older forms from DR (Iwama, Yoshinkan, etc.) or their own stuff (Tomiki). To make things even more complicated, Kisshomaru kept his father's top students in his organisation and let them do their own thing (many were senior to him) so there is strong variation even in mainstream aikido. And since there's no competition, there's no "metagame" that makes aikido technique converge. Lines that descend from Morihei's first disciples tend to have more mechanical validity but also have their own bad practice (e.g. lack of live training). As for the aiki that allowed Takeda and Ueshiba to be so strong in the first place, it's mostly lost today, although some people do preserve the method.



JowGaWolf said:


> Here's the first first one. I found. To me this looks like Aikido concepts applied and it looks abrasive. It doesn't flow the same way that we see it in a demo.  I personally think the "Flow" part is something that you have to experienced.  I know that's the case with Muay thai.  To the outside it may look like a simple clinch but to the person in the clinch it could feel like your balance is easily being robbed from you before the throw occurs.
> This is what I expect to see in a fight on the street (the struggle)



Tohei was strong, and had some good aiki. In the video you posted, he couldn't risk injuring his clearly unskilled sparring partner. Here's an excellent article on this incident: It Aint Necessarily So: Rendez-vous with Adventure



> In contrast. We can see that he's trying "flow" similar to what they do in training and demos (not sparring).  You can also see that he's uncomfortable with punches coming towards him.  It's clear that he doesn't quite know how to handle them.  From a function perspective it would make sense that Aikido would have some kind of striking  or understanding of "how to enter into grappling"



Yep. For context, the guy learned aikido from this teacher:






Most aikido lines don't teach striking. This is because their practice focuses on the collection of kata inherited from DR (and if you've read the above, you know that these were not designed as a complete functional fighting system in the first place) and/or modified by Kisshomaru. But Morihei Ueshiba considered that "in a real fight, aikido is 70% striking" (in a large sense, this includes also shoves/throws, remember Takeda's sumo background?). Some lines do teach striking, though. Here are two aikido headbutt entries by Tadashi Abe:













Tony Dismukes said:


> Speaking as a BJJ practitioner, there is certainly potential validity in most of the Aikido techniques I've seen. I've even been caught by a couple of them on occasion. There's also value in the underlying principles.
> 
> That said, as an outsider looking in on Aikido practice there are some significant issues I see.
> 
> First, most of the techniques in the Aikido syllabus are highly situational. The right circumstances to apply them don't come up that often, especially against skilled fighters. From my outsider's perspective, it appears that a large percentage of Aikido practitioners don't understand those situational limitations, don't train with those situations in mind (except in a highly artificial way which doesn't translate well to actual application), and don't have the skill set to cover the majority of more likely combative situations (unless they have crossed trained in other arts).



This is the direct result of how the curriculum was formed, and of people mistaking it for a complete fighting system.



> For my purposes I'll define Aiki as that moment in a fight where everything comes together perfectly, you blend with your opponent's energy and timing so that your technique feels effortless - it really seems like your opponent just threw themself for you. Unfortunately in real life, you don't get to the point of being able to do this without a whole lot of non-Aiki rough and tumble experience. (You're also more likely to find those moments against opponents who are much less skilled.) Even a really skilled fighter who frequently manages to achieve Aiki moments in a fight can't get them all the time, or even most of the time.
> 
> The "Aiki trap" comes when practitioners of an art (and it doesn't have to be Aikido, I've encountered this in other arts), want to bypass the whole process of going through years of rough and tumble fighting or sparring in order to just occasionally be able to get those magical feeling Aiki moments. Instead, they just practice with having their training partners feed them highly stylized, overcommitted, unrealistic attacks that are comparatively easy to blend with and never have those training partners offer any realistic effort to defeat their techniques. It's a shortcut that gives the illusion of being able to reliably demonstrate Aiki, but tends to fall apart under real world pressure.



I agree with your analysis but, for these very reasons, I think that "your" definition of aiki is harmful. If aikido practitioners keep understanding aiki that way, they are hosed. Judo, for example, is much better equipped to train "that" aiki, because that concept is simply the "ju" in "judo"!



gpseymour said:


> One thing I will note that shouldn't be surprising to folks who've trained a while in Aikido: Aikidoka are better at grappling defense (keep good structure and balance, and don't over-resist) than grappling attack. Given that Aikido (all of the versions I've seen except Tomiki) put so much emphasis on accepting the attack and working with it, it makes sense they aren't great at bringing the attack.



Non-Kisshomaru lines take the initiative:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEyrDYwC5D8



gpseymour said:


> I don't think Aikido would cease to be Aikido if it was taught with a foundation of non-aiki grappling and striking. It would cease to be the Aikido I've run into in most places, but it would still be the same art.



In fact, non-Kisshomaru lines (and other branches of DR) train their techniques statically, without relying on overcommitment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W8Vp1zSLss



drop bear said:


> Lots of people think that way. But it just doesn't seem to work that way.
> 
> You will learn an approximation of the technique by drills. And this is all styles. Go do pad work for 6 months then box. You have this huge adjustment.
> 
> You learn enough that you can then have something to try during sparring. But you will never learn the timing or the feel of the action unless you are really doing it live.
> 
> Basically all the things that aiki really relies on happens in a different place than pretty much where all of Aikido is trained.
> 
> Which is why Aikido guys are so bad at it. Like that guy in the grading. Where he takes the feed. Stops. Does the technique. He literally has no idea how his uke is moving or how to take advantage of it.
> 
> I am surprised you guys don't do flow rolls at the least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which should be what randori is. But often randori winds up being a demo rather than an exercise.
> 
> (I mean this one is actually a demo I think. But you know what I mean)



Agreed. Such training methods would benefit the art's functionality, if that's what people are after (many are very happy practising the flowing aikido, and that's completely ok).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> Sorry in advance for the long post.
> 
> I'll start with a quick intro, so that you know what I'm talking about (I'll have to simplify to keep it short so please bear with me).
> 
> Aikido is a variant of daito-ryu aikijujutsu (DR), a martial art founded by Sokaku Takeda. Takeda was a wandering martial artist with formal training in classical Japanese swordsmanship and in a family martial conditioning method, probably of Chinese origin, that is known in DR as "aiki". Aiki means "to unify forces" and, in this context, it means "creating a balance of mutual opposing forces within the body". It's an internal "tensioning" process that makes it harder to apply force on the user and conversely puts the user's entire body into his movements. Aiki happens within the body and has nothing to do with "blending with the opponent". It's actually a Chinese concept: a crucial teaching of aikido is to stand in "roppo", which is called "liu he" in Chinese and means "six directions". Tai chi and xing yi practitioners should know the idea.
> 
> Takeda also loved sumo and despite his small size, he could do frontal force outs (yorikiri) on much bigger opponents, probably due to the aforementioned conditioning. In seminars, he would make people pay a fee _per technique_ and so to earn more money he'd make up stuff on the spot. Sometimes he would imitate techniques he had seen in other styles. That's why DR has a very high number of techniques (118 basic kata in mainline DR, over 500 in the Takuma line).
> 
> Enter Morihei Ueshiba, the founder of aikido, who was essentially a DR instructor. Like Takeda and his top students, he also displayed the ability to shed off forces and uncanny full-body power (the abovementioned "aiki"). This made him famous and earned him some top-level politicians and martial artists as students. He renamed stuff several times, including the art, and the name "aikido" stuck. Also, he was a religious fanatic and had close ties with extreme right-wing and ultranationalist movements. His vision of "peace" and "harmony" involved a world unified under the rule of the Japanese emperor, which descends from the gods.
> 
> Kisshomaru Ueshiba (Morihei's son) was the second head of aikido. In an occupied Japan, he swept the religious blabbering of his father under the rug and pushed the narrative of "old master Morihei invented the peaceful art of aikido". He simplified the techniques, made them flowing and circular, taught that "there's no attack in aikido", etc. That's where the emphasis on "blending with the opponent's energy" comes from. In a sense, he was more of an innovator than his father.
> 
> Fast forward today. Most dojos teach Kisshomaru's version of aikido, which was never meant to be functional (and in many ways has even been "defanged"). You can still find aikido groups that branched off pre-Kisshomaru that teach the older forms from DR (Iwama, Yoshinkan, etc.) or their own stuff (Tomiki). To make things even more complicated, Kisshomaru kept his father's top students in his organisation and let them do their own thing (many were senior to him) so there is strong variation even in mainstream aikido. And since there's no competition, there's no "metagame" that makes aikido technique converge. Lines that descend from Morihei's first disciples tend to have more mechanical validity but also have their own bad practice (e.g. lack of live training). As for the aiki that allowed Takeda and Ueshiba to be so strong in the first place, it's mostly lost today, although some people do preserve the method.
> 
> 
> 
> Tohei was strong, and had some good aiki. In the video you posted, he couldn't risk injuring his clearly unskilled sparring partner. Here's an excellent article on this incident: It Aint Necessarily So: Rendez-vous with Adventure
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. For context, the guy learned aikido from this teacher:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most aikido lines don't teach striking. This is because their practice focuses on the collection of kata inherited from DR (and if you've read the above, you know that these were not designed as a complete functional fighting system in the first place) and/or modified by Kisshomaru. But Morihei Ueshiba considered that "in a real fight, aikido is 70% striking" (in a large sense, this includes also shoves/throws, remember Takeda's sumo background?). Some lines do teach striking, though. Here are two aikido headbutt entries by Tadashi Abe:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the direct result of how the curriculum was formed, and of people mistaking it for a complete fighting system.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with your analysis but, for these very reasons, I think that "your" definition of aiki is harmful. If aikido practitioners keep understanding aiki that way, they are hosed. Judo, for example, is much better equipped to train "that" aiki, because that concept is simply the "ju" in "judo"!
> 
> 
> 
> Non-Kisshomaru lines take the initiative:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, non-Kisshomaru lines (and other branches of DR) train their techniques statically, without relying on overcommitment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Such training methods would benefit the art's functionality, if that's what people are after (many are very happy practising the flowing aikido, and that's completely ok).


What an excellent breakdown of Aikido's history. I knew some of this at a higher level, but this is some great insight into that progression. And that's a start of an explanation of "aiki" I haven't heard. My concept of it is hard for me to put in words, and is a combination of some comments by the elder Kondo of Daito-ryu, my experience with that "ju" in Judo, and some other bits that fit with the overall usage of the term in NGA....which I suspect is not much in line with the original usage in DR, for a number of reasons.


----------



## O'Malley

gpseymour said:


> What an excellent breakdown of Aikido's history. I knew some of this at a higher level, but this is some great insight into that progression. And that's a start of an explanation of "aiki" I haven't heard. My concept of it is hard for me to put in words, and is a combination of some comments by the elder Kondo of Daito-ryu, my experience with that "ju" in Judo, and some other bits that fit with the overall usage of the term in NGA....which I suspect is not much in line with the original usage in DR, for a number of reasons.



The principle is actually illustrated with gross body movement in aikido's fundamental exercises, where you move along two equal opposing force vectors around the point of contact (on your wrist).






This removes the slack from your opponent's body and binds you together, allowing you to move him with your full-body power. This is called "musubi" ("knot").






In a fight, aikido is irimi (entering), atemi (striking), awase (moving in relation to other things, which includes timing) and musubi (the knot). All of these must be done with aiki (unified opposing forces) inside your body. This is called takemusu ("birth of martial") aiki, i.e. spontaneous martial techniques. As long as you respect these principles, your movement will turn into an aikido technique. This also means that as long as you respect those principles, you can use punches, kicks, single legs or machine guns and it will still be aikido. That's also one of the reasons why we practice with different weapons.


----------



## Flying Crane

O'Malley said:


> This is called takemusu ("birth of martial") aiki, i.e. spontaneous martial techniques. As long as you respect these principles, your movement will turn into an aikido technique. This also means that as long as you respect those principles, you can use punches, kicks, single legs or machine guns and it will still be aikido. That's also one of the reasons why we practice with different weapons.


Very interesting what you are saying here.  I understand a similar concept in the Tibetan White Crane that I train.   It’s never been formally described to me and I’m not aware of an official term for it.  But It is something I have come to understand through the training.


----------



## O'Malley

In fact, Morihei Ueshiba would often see someone do a technique and then say "Neat! In aikido, we do it _this way._"


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> The principle is actually illustrated with gross body movement in aikido's fundamental exercises, where you move along two equal opposing force vectors around the point of contact (on your wrist).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This removes the slack from your opponent's body and binds you together, allowing you to move him with your full-body power. This is called "musubi" ("knot").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a fight, aikido is irimi (entering), atemi (striking), awase (moving in relation to other things, which includes timing) and musubi (the knot). All of these must be done with aiki (unified opposing forces) inside your body. This is called takemusu ("birth of martial") aiki, i.e. spontaneous martial techniques. As long as you respect these principles, your movement will turn into an aikido technique. This also means that as long as you respect those principles, you can use punches, kicks, single legs or machine guns and it will still be aikido. That's also one of the reasons why we practice with different weapons.


Can you expand a bit more on the idea of "unified opposing forces"? I want to make sure I'm understanding your meaning.


----------



## Xue Sheng

O'Malley said:


> This is called takemusu ("birth of martial") aiki, i.e. spontaneous martial techniques. As long as you respect these principles, your movement will turn into an aikido technique. This also means that as long as you respect those principles, you can use punches, kicks, single legs or machine guns and it will still be aikido. That's also one of the reasons why we practice with different weapons.



There is the similarity to Taijiquan


----------



## O'Malley

gpseymour said:


> Can you expand a bit more on the idea of "unified opposing forces"? I want to make sure I'm understanding your meaning.



Ha! Here's the million dollar question! 

Unfortunately, I can't go very deep into detail: I'm not a certified instructor and I'm not sure I even get it. I've tried to write an explanation but I don't want to misrepresent the material. Best course of action would be to go and see someone who teaches it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Can you expand a bit more on the idea of "unified opposing forces"?


From a genera MA point of view (not sure it will fit into the Aikido definition),

- You move yourself out of your opponent's attacking path.
- Leading him into the emptiness.
- You then add your force into his force.
- When he resists, you reverse your force.

In other words, if your opponent wants to

- move forward, you help him to move forward.
- move backward, you help him to move backward.
- sink down, you help him to sink down.
- raise up, you help him to raise up.
- ...


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Actually, nothing you said contradicts my post. I agree that drills are not sufficient for reliably developing fighting skills (I think it's possible, but don't know how you'd know without sparring).
> 
> Aikido's "randori" isn't the same thing as Judo's. It's a different kind of drill, with more dynamic feeds, but isn't anything like sparring/rolling/Judo randori. I prefer Judo's use of the term.
> 
> 
> 
> You do this a lot. You're citing a different art than what I trained in. They'd be fast to draw that distinction. I do use flow drills. They are a favorite tool of mine. I learned them from two of my instructors, though I use them more than either of them did. I also use sparring (strikes only), rolling (groundwork only), randori (grappling only, Judo-style), and free sparring (any and all of the above). But you should know all of that, since I've told you before. You just choose to ignore it and cling to your early assumptions about what I teach. Kinda lazy.



Can you show me a video of that please.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I was actually impressed with that one.  I usually only see the standard stuff.  But even though what they did was great it's style A vs style A.  A continuous drill. And like everyone else, there's that Room we all have to walk into if we want to get to the next level.



Yeah. I like the ones that are more of a game.


----------



## drop bear

O'Malley said:


> Ha! Here's the million dollar question!
> 
> Unfortunately, I can't go very deep into detail: I'm not a certified instructor and I'm not sure I even get it. I've tried to write an explanation but I don't want to misrepresent the material. Best course of action would be to go and see someone who teaches it.



This has been my best example of the concept. How close do you think I came?


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> This has been my best example of the concept. How close do you think I came?


Biggest thing that I see here vs Previous Aikido videos is the misdirection that is use to hid the technique that he wanted to actually do

We've seen that same movement in Kung Fu techniques


O'Malley said:


> Sorry in advance for the long post.
> 
> I'll start with a quick intro, so that you know what I'm talking about (I'll have to simplify to keep it short so please bear with me).
> 
> Aikido is a variant of daito-ryu aikijujutsu (DR), a martial art founded by Sokaku Takeda. Takeda was a wandering martial artist with formal training in classical Japanese swordsmanship and in a family martial conditioning method, probably of Chinese origin, that is known in DR as "aiki". Aiki means "to unify forces" and, in this context, it means "creating a balance of mutual opposing forces within the body". It's an internal "tensioning" process that makes it harder to apply force on the user and conversely puts the user's entire body into his movements. Aiki happens within the body and has nothing to do with "blending with the opponent". It's actually a Chinese concept: a crucial teaching of aikido is to stand in "roppo", which is called "liu he" in Chinese and means "six directions". Tai chi and xing yi practitioners should know the idea. [Edit: the concept exists in internal CMA but I'm not sure it's called liu he]
> 
> Takeda also loved sumo and despite his small size, he could do frontal force outs (yorikiri) on much bigger opponents, probably due to the aforementioned conditioning. In seminars, he would make people pay a fee _per technique_ and so to earn more money he'd make up stuff on the spot. Sometimes he would imitate techniques he had seen in other styles. That's why DR has a very high number of techniques (118 basic kata in mainline DR, over 500 in the Takuma line).
> 
> Enter Morihei Ueshiba, the founder of aikido, who was essentially a DR instructor. Like Takeda and his top students, he also displayed the ability to shed off forces and uncanny full-body power (the abovementioned "aiki"). This made him famous and earned him some top-level politicians and martial artists as students. He renamed stuff several times, including the art, and the name "aikido" stuck. Also, he was a religious fanatic and had close ties with extreme right-wing and ultranationalist movements. His vision of "peace" and "harmony" involved a world unified under the rule of the Japanese emperor, which descends from the gods.
> 
> Kisshomaru Ueshiba (Morihei's son) was the second head of aikido. In an occupied Japan, he swept the religious blabbering of his father under the rug and pushed the narrative of "old master Morihei invented the peaceful art of aikido". He simplified the techniques, made them flowing and circular, taught that "there's no attack in aikido", etc. That's where the emphasis on "blending with the opponent's energy" comes from. In a sense, he was more of an innovator than his father.
> 
> Fast forward today. Most dojos teach Kisshomaru's version of aikido, which was never meant to be functional (and in many ways has even been "defanged"). You can still find aikido groups that branched off pre-Kisshomaru that teach the older forms from DR (Iwama, Yoshinkan, etc.) or their own stuff (Tomiki). To make things even more complicated, Kisshomaru kept his father's top students in his organisation and let them do their own thing (many were senior to him) so there is strong variation even in mainstream aikido. And since there's no competition, there's no "metagame" that makes aikido technique converge. Lines that descend from Morihei's first disciples tend to have more mechanical validity but also have their own bad practice (e.g. lack of live training). As for the aiki that allowed Takeda and Ueshiba to be so strong in the first place, it's mostly lost today, although some people do preserve the method.
> 
> 
> 
> Tohei was strong, and had some good aiki. In the video you posted, he couldn't risk injuring his clearly unskilled sparring partner. Here's an excellent article on this incident: It Aint Necessarily So: Rendez-vous with Adventure
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. For context, the guy learned aikido from this teacher:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most aikido lines don't teach striking. This is because their practice focuses on the collection of kata inherited from DR (and if you've read the above, you know that these were not designed as a complete functional fighting system in the first place) and/or modified by Kisshomaru. But Morihei Ueshiba considered that "in a real fight, aikido is 70% striking" (in a large sense, this includes also shoves/throws, remember Takeda's sumo background?). Some lines do teach striking, though. Here are two aikido headbutt entries by Tadashi Abe:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the direct result of how the curriculum was formed, and of people mistaking it for a complete fighting system.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with your analysis but, for these very reasons, I think that "your" definition of aiki is harmful. If aikido practitioners keep understanding aiki that way, they are hosed. Judo, for example, is much better equipped to train "that" aiki, because that concept is simply the "ju" in "judo"!
> 
> 
> 
> Non-Kisshomaru lines take the initiative:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, non-Kisshomaru lines (and other branches of DR) train their techniques statically, without relying on overcommitment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Such training methods would benefit the art's functionality, if that's what people are after (many are very happy practising the flowing aikido, and that's completely ok).


 This definitely fills in the gaps that I had.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

O'Malley said:


> As long as you respect these principles, your movement will turn into an aikido technique.


What advantage do I have if my technique can turn into an Aikido technique?

MA styles such as Aikido and Taiji just remind me the PINK project developed in the Apple Computer back in the 80. Pink is an object oriental operation system. Even a character and a line are designed as an object. Since a call from one object to another object has to go through layer and layer of objects, the performance is so slow to be useful.

If you start with object oriental programming, you then try to design an operation system, the process is going backward. The operation system doesn't need the object oriental programming. But the object oriental programming tries to prove it can be used to designed an operation system.

Trying to apply MA style such as Aikido or Taiji in fighting is just like to use object oriental programming to design an operation system. A Taiji guy trains how to yield into a chest push. But in combat his opponent will punch on his head. No matter how good the Taiji guy's training to deal with a chest push, the experience that he has developed cannot be used to deal with a face punch.

IMO, you first define your goal (such as fighting), you then find a path (such as a punch to the face) to reach your goal. You just don't start with a MA system such as Aikido or Taiji, and then see if it can be used in fighting or not.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What advantage do I have if my technique can turn into an Aikido technique?
> 
> MA styles such as Aikido and Taiji just remind me the PINK project developed in the Apple Computer back in the 80. Pink is an object oriental operation system. Even a character and a line are designed as an object. Since a call from one object to another object has to go through layer and layer of objects, the performance is so slow to be useful.
> 
> If you start with object oriental programming, you then try to design an operation system, the process is going backward. The operation system doesn't need the object oriental programming. But the object oriental programming tries to prove it can be used to designed an operation system.
> 
> Trying to apply MA style such as Aikido or Taiji in fighting is just like to use object oriental programming to design an operation system. A Taiji guy trains how to yield into a chest push. But in combat his opponent will punch on his head. No matter how good the Taiji guy's training to deal with a chest push, the experience that he has developed cannot be used to deal with a face punch.
> 
> IMO, you first define your goal (such as fighting), you then find a path (such as a punch to the face) to reach your goal. You just don't start with a MA system such as Aikido or Taiji, and then see if it can be used in fighting or not.


I’m not convinced that this is a relevant analogy.  

I think it can sometimes be a mistake to attempt to understand something else through the expectations you have already developed by previous experience.  Sometimes the two methods are simple different and operate with a different approach and even different assumptions and expectations.  They can both be functional, yet utterly incompatible when viewed through previous experience.  To understand something, sometimes your previous education can be a hindrance.  You need to let go of that prior experience if you really want to understand the new thing.  I think both aikido and Taiji are examples of where this is true, when people come into it from certain kinds of prior background.  If you can’t let go of that prior experience, you will never understand it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Can you show me a video of that please.


Nope. I don’t have any.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Nope. I don’t have any.



Oh well can't blame a guy for getting the wrong impression then.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> If you can’t let go of that prior experience, you will never understand it.


Is C++ (object oriental design) better than C?

Since C is faster than C++, if your goal is speed, you will choose C instead of C++.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*C* is low level, procedural, and top-down. *C* is still in use because it is slightly faster and smaller *than C*++. For most people, *C++* is the *better* choice. It has more features, more applications, and for most people, learning *C++* is *easier*.

C++ vs C: Which Language Should You Learn? | Career Karma.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Is C++ (object oriental design) better than C?
> 
> Since C is faster than C++, if your goal is speed, you will choose C instead of C++.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *C* is low level, procedural, and top-down. *C* is still in use because it is slightly faster and smaller *than C*++. For most people, *C++* is the *better* choice. It has more features, more applications, and for most people, learning *C++* is *easier*.
> 
> C++ vs C: Which Language Should You Learn? | Career Karma.


Again, an irrelevant analogy.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> Again, an irrelevant analogy.


If your goal is

- fighting, will you choose Aikido, or Taiji as your training path?
- speed and small code size, will you choose C++ as your program design language?


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Again, an irrelevant analogy.



It all works because it all works. 

Understanding the ethos of a system is kind of like trying to understand why breaking a mirror gives you bad luck.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If your goal is
> 
> - fighting, will you choose Aikido, or Taiji as your training path?


.  I might.  I find it interesting, and if I find a good teacher then yes, I’m open to the possibility.



> - speed and small code size, will you choose C++ as your program design language?


I have no input in this.  I don’t understand coding and I find it irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Oh well can't blame a guy for getting the wrong impression then.


For choosing to assume something without evidence? Yeah, I can.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> For choosing to assume something without evidence? Yeah, I can.



Without evidence it is all assumptions.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I'm glad I keep things simple.  If someone told me that a system is used for fighting then it will either work or it won't based on my understanding of it.  Either way the results will be one of these.

1. A system works I don't understand it
2. A system works I understand it
3. A system doesn't work because I don't understand it
4. A system doesn't work because I understand it

These are the only possibilities 
1.  *A system can work even if you don't understand it.*  An example (C++) or your computer.  As long as someone understands how it works, you don't need to.  You only need to use it.

2.* A system works because you understand it*.  This would be those martial arts who know and understand the system enough to know why it functions the way it does. Depending on their knowledge they can even make changes to the system to make it better. Windows 98 vs Windows 10.

3. *The system doesn't work because I don't understand it.*  For example. Wang understands programming he can use it.  I can't use it because I don't understand it. 

4. *The system doesn't work because I understand it*.  This would be like someone saying to put disinfectant inside the body, one person may think that will work, but doctors have knowledge that it won't work. 

Martial arts is like this.  If you come up with 20  Characteristics of a fight that is true for everyone.  Then a valid fighting system will address the majority of them.  If it doesn't , then it's probably safe to assume that it's not a valid system. Basic on those universal characteristics.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Without evidence it is all assumptions.


Yep. And you choose to assume I’m lying - without evidence. So, yeah, that’s pretty douchey.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yep. And you choose to assume I’m lying - without evidence. So, yeah, that’s pretty douchey.



Not at all. There is no requirement for me to believe something without evidence. That isn't duchey. That is critical thinking.

It is actually duchey not to provide evidence and instead  rely on emotional attacks.

Here is how the burden of proof works and why it is fundamental to understanding how things work.


----------



## punisher73

Tony Dismukes said:


> Not quite ...



Little bit of trivia.  When putting together the first UFC, they were supposed to have full-contact stickfighting (due to the Dog Brothers), but they thought it was too violent and dropped the idea.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not at all. There is no requirement for me to believe something without evidence. That isn't duchey. That is critical thinking.
> 
> It is actually duchey not to provide evidence and instead  rely on emotional attacks.
> 
> Here is how the burden of proof works and why it is fundamental to understanding how things work.


Yet you choose to believe specific things about my training, also without evidence. Things nobody (except you) has ever claimed to be true about my training. As I said, you choose to call me a liar to my face, without evidence. Douchey.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki

gpseymour said:


> Actually, nothing you said contradicts my post. I agree that drills are not sufficient for reliably developing fighting skills (I think it's possible, but don't know how you'd know without sparring).
> 
> Aikido's "randori" isn't the same thing as Judo's. It's a different kind of drill, with more dynamic feeds, but isn't anything like sparring/rolling/Judo randori. I prefer Judo's use of the term.
> 
> 
> 
> You do this a lot. You're citing a different art than what I trained in. They'd be fast to draw that distinction. I do use flow drills. They are a favorite tool of mine. I learned them from two of my instructors, though I use them more than either of them did. I also use sparring (strikes only), rolling (groundwork only), randori (grappling only, Judo-style), and free sparring (any and all of the above). But you should know all of that, since I've told you before. You just choose to ignore it and cling to your early assumptions about what I teach. Kinda lazy.



So, in other words, you use Aikido in the context of MMA and, in doing so, presumably learn what is practical, what isn't, and how/when to apply the stuff that is.


----------



## Flying Crane

Oni_Kadaki said:


> So, in other words, you use Aikido in the context of MMA and, in doing so, presumably learn what is practical, what isn't, and how/when to apply the stuff that is.


I’m not sure I follow your reasoning.  MMA is not the yardstick against which all martial usefulness is measured.  Plenty of things that might not work in the context of an mma competition are still quite useful outside of that venue.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki

Flying Crane said:


> I’m not sure I follow your reasoning.  MMA is not the yardstick against which all martial usefulness is measured.  Plenty of things that might not work in the context of an mma competition are still quite useful outside of that venue.



Quite correct... in my career field, we frequently practice shooting bad guys in the face because it is a _very_ effective way of stopping them, but that certainly won't help me in the context of MMA. However, MMA helps simulate how reliably a technique can be applied against an opponent that is actively trying to punch you in the face as you apply it, as opposed to a cooperative partner. Are there limitations in MMA? Absolutely. However, even recognizing how very artificial the MMA situation is, in my mind, it is a great proving ground for techniques.


----------



## Flying Crane

Oni_Kadaki said:


> Quite correct... in my career field, we frequently practice shooting bad guys in the face because it is a _very_ effective way of stopping them, but that certainly won't help me in the context of MMA. However, MMA helps simulate how reliably a technique can be applied against an opponent that is actively trying to punch you in the face as you apply it, as opposed to a cooperative partner. Are there limitations in MMA? Absolutely. However, even recognizing how very artificial the MMA situation is, in my mind, it is a great proving ground for techniques.


So are you saying that the best way for a person (any person who practices martial arts of any kind) to ensure that they can use their skills, is to enter an mma competition?


----------



## Oni_Kadaki

Flying Crane said:


> So are you saying that the best way for a person (any person who practices martial arts of any kind) to ensure that they can use their skills, is to enter an mma competition?



That depends... personally, as a doctoral student and military member who is 33 years old, I'd rather not risk an injury, which seems far more likely in a competition than in friendly sparring among colleagues at the dojo. With that being said, I have no doubt that I would learn a lot in competition. To me, it all comes down to what you're willing to do to have certainty that your techniques work... I found out that at least some of my training works quite well when a fight came to me (which, by the way, in *no* way resembled MMA, going back to the point of it being artificial), but, prior to that, I had no way of knowing for sure. Also, please bear in mind that I am very much a scientist and a skeptic, and so I have a higher requirement for objective proof about things than many people. Take that for what you will.


----------



## Flying Crane

Oni_Kadaki said:


> That depends... personally, as a doctoral student and military member who is 33 years old, I'd rather not risk an injury, which seems far more likely in a competition than in friendly sparring among colleagues at the dojo. With that being said, I have no doubt that I would learn a lot in competition. To me, it all comes down to what you're willing to do to have certainty that your techniques work... I found out that at least some of my training works quite well when a fight came to me (hich, by the way, in *no* way resembled MMA, going back to the point of it being artificial), but, prior to that, I had no way of knowing for sure. Also, please bear in mind that I am very much a scientist and a skeptic, and so I have a higher requirement for objective proof about things than many people. Take that for what you will.


Fair enough.

I guess I would describe my position as _for those who are interested,_ mma type competition can be a proving ground for them.  But it is in no way mandatory or the only way to develop one’s skill set, and could quite probably lead to erroneous conclusions for a lot of people if they did it.  I will simply never support any notion that mma is THE yardstick against which all martial training must be measured.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki

Flying Crane said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I guess I would describe my position as _for those who are interested,_ mma type competition can be a proving ground for them.  But it is in no way mandatory or the only way to develop one’s skill set, and could quite probably lead to erroneous conclusions for a lot of people if they did it.  I will simply never support any notion that mma is THE yardstick against which all martial training must be measured.



That is fair... I guess I see it as the most likely, ethical way to test your technique. One Aikido Sensei of mine has a wealth of application experience from getting into fights, and that makes him more credible... But to me, getting in fights is not desirable. A nidan that I train with works as a bouncer, and he reports having put Aikido to good use in that context, which I'd argue is a pretty damn good test. My retired-NYPD Sensei is another who found a prosocial way to test his ability in real life. Failing such jobs/professions, however, I see MMA as a consensual way of training without the restrictions often seen in sparring in specific arts (e.g. in BJJ you don't strike, in TKD you dont grapple).


----------



## Flying Crane

Oni_Kadaki said:


> That is fair... I guess I see it as the most likely, ethical way to test your technique. One Aikido Sensei of mine has a wealth of application experience from getting into fights, and that makes him more credible... But to me, getting in fights is not desirable. A nidan that I train with works as a bouncer, and he reports having put Aikido to good use in that context, which I'd argue is a pretty damn good test. My retired-NYPD Sensei is another who found a prosocial way to test his ability in real life. Failing such jobs/professions, however, I see MMA as a consensual way of training without the restrictions often seen in sparring in specific arts (e.g. in BJJ you don't strike, in TKD you dont grapple).


Sure, it is an approach that and for the right person with the right motives, can be beneficial. 

I think a lot depends on what you intend to get out of it, and what you intend to put into it.  I suspect that most people will fare poorly in their first mma competition, regardless of their level of training.  In their first competition, the newness of it works against them.  So then what is the end goal?  Is it to become a competitor?  If so, no problem.  They learn from it and they keep competing and eventually get better in large part because they become more familiar and comfortable with the venue and the reality within the competition ring and really dial into what works best in that venue.

But if the goal is not to become a regular competitor and instead just enter as a test of oneself, then I think the results are unlikely to be encouraging and can lead to erroneous conclusions.  As a new competitor, again success is unlikely especially if one’s opponent is more experienced within the competition venue.  So a person enters a competition as a personal test and without desire to enter subsequent competitions, loses, concludes that their skills don’t work, and that is that.  In truth, that may not be anywhere near reality.  All it has proven is that as an inexperienced competitor, they lost to someone who had more experience and comfort within the competition venue.  In order to really learn from the experience, someone needs to become a regular competitor.  For most people I would say that is simply unrealistic.  You have said so for yourself, by way of example.  

So I just don’t buy the notion that mma competition is the test for everyone.  For some people who have that interest, it is great.  It is definitely NOT great for probably the overwhelming percentage of people involved in martial arts.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I guess I would describe my position as _for those who are interested,_ mma type competition can be a proving ground for them.  But it is in no way mandatory or the only way to develop one’s skill set, and could quite probably lead to erroneous conclusions for a lot of people if they did it.  I will simply never support any notion that mma is THE yardstick against which all martial training must be measured.


Besides the MMA format, I like the Sanda format better . It doesn't have the ground game, so the ability to remain standing is important for this game. Before the Sanda term was even created, we use the term Combat Shuai Chiao (CSC) instead.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Flying Crane said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I guess I would describe my position as _for those who are interested,_ mma type competition can be a proving ground for them.  But it is in no way mandatory or the only way to develop one’s skill set, and could quite probably lead to erroneous conclusions for a lot of people if they did it.  I will simply never support any notion that mma is THE yardstick against which all martial training must be measured.



I agree.  MMA has a lot going for it as far as being interdisciplinary and a rough contact sport.  But it is a sport and bound by certain rules.  If a little lucky, I could take an MMA fighter out of action with an eye poke or kick to the groin, for example.  Most TMA is not designed for competition against highly trained fighters.  It was for more common self defense needs.  As a sport, the goal is to win rounds on the scorecard, or end the fight with legal submission or KO.  All techniques are geared toward this goal - just as in business, the goal by which success is measured is to show quarterly net profit to shareholders.

But there are other qualities and outcomes other than winning a match or showing shareholder return.  In business there is R&D, capital expenditures, community service and loyalty to employees.  While in the long run, they may aid in profits, in the short term, they do not.  And companies interested in short term results (for various reasons) do not consider these other, more altruistic, factors - only the current bottom line.

Martial arts, also, has long term investments, the benefits which may not impact the short term goal of winning a fight.  But in the long run, make for a better person.  The yardstick in TMA is a longer one than in MMA.  Not measured in rounds of minutes each, but in the decades of a lifetime.  TMA is a long term investment that gradually builds wealth, giving the practitioner a diversified, secure and strong overall portfolio.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yet you choose to believe specific things about my training, also without evidence. Things nobody (except you) has ever claimed to be true about my training. As I said, you choose to call me a liar to my face, without evidence. Douchey.



Do you have evidence for that statement?

In that video, if you have a watch. It goes on to explain that the common theist counter argument is to be offended. Rather than just providing the evidence needed to support their statements. 

And why the offence as an argument is also dismissed.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> I guess I would describe my position as _for those who are interested,_ mma type competition can be a proving ground for them.  But it is in no way mandatory or the only way to develop one’s skill set, and could quite probably lead to erroneous conclusions for a lot of people if they did it.  I will simply never support any notion that mma is THE yardstick against which all martial training must be measured.



Then suggest an alternative.

I mean technically it should be gradings. But they tend not to do that job at all well.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Besides the MMA format, I like the Sanda format better . It doesn't have the ground game, so the ability to remain standing is important for this game. Before the Sanda term was even created, we use the term Combat Shuai Chiao (CSC) instead.



I pretty much lump them all together when I say MMA. that way if you wanted to be specific you could.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Besides the MMA format, I like the Sanda format better . It doesn't have the ground game, so the ability to remain standing is important for this game. Before the Sanda term was even created, we use the term Combat Shuai Chiao (CSC) instead.


Again, fair enough if this is something you are interested in. But this also is not the yardstick against which all martial training must be measured.  

People need to do what they are interested in and not concern themselves with what everyone else is doing and not try to judge other methods by the norms of their own methods.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Oni_Kadaki said:


> With that being said, I have no doubt that I would learn a lot in competition.


 Not really.  If you are training for function then the only difference between your training and MMA should be that you hit harder, move faster, are more aggressive.

Any problems that you have will be present in sparring.  For example,  If you spar against a BJJ practitioner, then there should be no unexpected surprises when you get into the MMA competition against a BJJ Practitioner, someone of the same skill level that you spar against in training.  I could never understand the assumption that something magical is going to happen in MMA competition that doesn't happen with quality sparring.

People who know me and have seen me spar at higher intensity levels will tell you the same thing.  I'm going to fight like I train but I'm going to hit harder, move faster, and be more aggressive.  If it didn't happen in sparring then it won't happen in an MMA competition.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> People need to do what they are interested in and not concern themselves with what everyone else is doing and not try to judge other methods by the norms of their own methods.


A: I like the Sanda format better.
B: People need to do what they are interested in ...
A: I said, "I like ...".


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A: I like the Sanda format better.
> B: People need to do what they are interested in ...
> A: I said, "I like ...".


Sure.  While thread drift is common and generally accepted in this forum, this thread is still about aikido, not sanda.

You are welcome to like sanda format and Shuai Jiao.  I expect you would.  That is how you train, after all.  No surprises there.  But if you try to understand aikido through the norms of sanda or shuai jiao, then you will simply fail to understand aikido.  That isn’t aikido’s problem.  It is yours.  Nobody from aikido has any obligation to make aikido like shuai jiao or like sanda, to satisfy you.  You will never understand aikido in this way.  If you really want to understand aikido, you need to be open to what aikido is and not insist that it be like shuai jiao or like sanda.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Sure.  While thread drift is common and generally accepted in this forum, this thread is still about aikido, not sanda.
> 
> You are welcome to like sanda format and Shuai Jiao.  I expect you would.  That is how you train, after all.  No surprises there.  But if you try to understand aikido through the norms of sanda or shuai jiao, then you will simply fail to understand aikido.  That isn’t aikido’s problem.  It is yours.  Nobody from aikido has any obligation to make aikido like shuai jiao or like sanda, to satisfy you.  You will never understand aikido in this way.  If you really want to understand aikido, you need to be open to what aikido is and not insist that it be like shuai jiao or like sanda.



What does Aikido  claim to teach you? And does it reach those claims?

I think the biggest problem is the disconect between those two concepts.

And this is partly because the measuring stick is so weirdly skewed.

So a theory I have heard is Aikido is atemi. It works due to proficient striking creates an opportunity to make their system work.

Well you do a year of sanda. You will out strike every Aikido guy on the planet.

Technically if there was a yard stick to measure. Then just that would make you a top Aikidoka.

70% according to this random guy. 70% of Aikido is atemi.

Atemi arts (striking)

Where as this I think is very bad for your striking. In that it makes you a collapso tap out monkey.






Then when you are fighting people who are just dying from every hit. You don't have to develop your grappling because they are doing it for you.

So we are back to this disconect. Someone offers the ability to block strike and perform this move whatever it is. But does not provide that ability in any real sense. Someone offers that this will provide some sort of sensitivity or awareness of how to manipulate force or momentum. And it doesn't provide that either. 

The measuring stick becomes that, so long as your partner knows how to attack right your techniques are deemed effective.


----------



## MetalBoar

JowGaWolf said:


> Not really.  If you are training for function then the only difference between your training and MMA should be that you hit harder, move faster, are more aggressive.
> 
> Any problems that you have will be present in sparring.  For example,  If you spar against a BJJ practitioner, then there should be no unexpected surprises when you get into the MMA competition against a BJJ Practitioner, someone of the same skill level that you spar against in training.  I could never understand the assumption that something magical is going to happen in MMA competition that doesn't happen with quality sparring.
> 
> People who know me and have seen me spar at higher intensity levels will tell you the same thing.  I'm going to fight like I train but I'm going to hit harder, move faster, and be more aggressive.  If it didn't happen in sparring then it won't happen in an MMA competition.


I mostly agree with this. One difference I see is that I've never had a sparring session, even those that were ostensibly "full contact", in which my sparring partner attacked me with the abandon and aggression of some street attacks I experienced in my youth. I haven't done any MMA tournaments but I'm going to guess that at least at the professional level, with a lot of money and prestige on the line, that the levels of aggression and the willingness to do real injury is going to be higher than you'll get in most sparring sessions. 

I'm not sold on the idea that MMA is the only way to train or measure the efficacy of your training and I guess I think that there are some false assumptions that the MMA crowd seems to make about the subject but I do think that most people would really learn some things if they were to compete in an MMA tournament with strangers where there was money or prestige to be had. It might not be worth it depending on your goals and I don't think it's necessary, but I think there are definitely things to be learned from the experience that it is hard to get in many other similarly safe, legal and ethical ways.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> But if you try to understand aikido through the norms of sanda or shuai jiao, then you will simply fail to understand aikido.


This is definitely true if the point of comparing systems is to say one is better than the other.   There's a big difference between trying to understand and trying to "write off."

I think there's enough similarities among all fighting systems to give valid clues to how Aikido works in application. The only way this wouldn't be true is if it was developed in a vacuum. I just can't see that. 

Things like this video below seem to be consistent across systems including BJJ.  Generally speaking, because I Know there are variations. It almost always starts as
1. Strike -> Grapple -> Strike = when not within grappling range.  The strike is what hides the Grappling
2. Grapple -> Strike - Grapple = when engaged in grappling

We see this play out in almost every martial arts competition.  If this is the norm, the assumption is that Aikido would follow similar principles.  One of the things I see Aikido, Taijiquan, and Chin Na practitioners make is that they give away their attack.  If I sit there and make it clear that I'm trying to grab your wrist then it will be easy for me to defend against any attempts to grab my wrists.
@:22  you see a strike to the face with allows him to get the wrist.  I'm not trying to validate this guy. I'm just pointing out things that are fairly constant.  





We even see strikes to the head here.  The strikes "hide" the grappling technique





We see it here as well.  BJJ has a similar approach. With that in mind. My assumption is that Aikido application would have to follow the same rules or strategy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Oni_Kadaki said:


> So, in other words, you use Aikido in the context of MMA and, in doing so, presumably learn what is practical, what isn't, and how/when to apply the stuff that is.


Kinda. I wouldn't call it the context of MMA, but with the idea of a similar scope. I think MMA's general approach of having good striking, good takedown defense, and good ground work is a solid approach for many contexts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Do you have evidence for that statement?
> 
> In that video, if you have a watch. It goes on to explain that the common theist counter argument is to be offended. Rather than just providing the evidence needed to support their statements.
> 
> And why the offence as an argument is also dismissed.


Evidence of your assumption? Yeah, it's in every thread you've ever referred to my training. Evidence you lack support for your claim? Yeah, in the fact that there's literally no video of my training available to support your chosen assumption. Evidence you've called me a liar? Yep - in those same threads, where you make repeated claims about what my training is like, when I described it as something else.

You choose to be a douche. This isn't about you refusing to accept without evidence. Either side would be equally without evidence, except that one side is at least backed by anecdotal claims (my own). You simply decided it'd be more fun to assume I'm a liar and keep pushing that view.


----------



## JowGaWolf

MetalBoar said:


> . One difference I see is that I've never had a sparring session, even those that were ostensibly "full contact", in which my sparring partner attacked me with the abandon and aggression of some street attacks I experienced in my youth.


  Sparring sessions shouldn't be that aggressive.  MMA fighter don't have full out aggression in their sparring sessions either.  Years back, they tried that and learned the hard way that it caused too many injuries and the last thing that you want to do, is to enter a full contact competitive fight injured.  Now MMA fighters train like they have sense.  Spar to learn. Fight to Win.

As for learning stuff in an MMA ring.  You can get good experience by sparing outside of the system that you train and by sparring against people who are of a high skill level. Whatever lessons you need to learn you'll get it in sparring without all of the damage.

Case in point.  This guy abandon Aikido because it wasn't effect.  This is him after training MMA Skip to 1:00.  He says the sparring was brutal. It wasn't.  It was very light and he still sucks. lol.  





Here's what he looks like trying to use Aikido. 




When I see things like these 2 comparisons, I'll immediately "blame" the fighter and not the system.  I think the same way that you do, because of what these 2 videos highlight.  If the fighter can't gather important information about his or her performance in sparring then they, probably won't gain it in a fight.  Ronda Rousey comes to mind.  Made the same mistake twice and didn't learn from the first lost or the second loss, with that bum Coach she had. 


MetalBoar said:


> I'm not sold on the idea that MMA is the only way to train or measure the efficacy of your training



The fighters that scare me the most are those who are relaxed  I understand aggressive fighters but those who are so relaxed that I don't know when they will flip the switch are the ones that shake me mentally.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> choose to assume I’m lying - without evidence.





gpseymour said:


> Yet you choose to believe specific things about my training, also without evidence.


I wasn't going to jump in, but I agree with you in general and specific as some of the comments made me think about my first months on MT.   The months worth of the assumption that I couldn't do what I claim or that certain techniques don't work when I was able to work them.  The only difference between my ability and understanding is I showed a video.  My ability and understanding didn't change. I was still able and still did the things I claimed even if I didn't show the video.

Just because we don't see evidence doesn't mean that it's not true or that it's not possible.  Sometimes we have to see who is claiming it and either have some level of trust to take that person on their word.  If not then we'll all end like flat earthers who say the world isn't flat with the reasoning that they haven't seen it with their own eyes.  Those people won't believe until you shoot them into space so they can see with their own eyes. But some people won't believe until it happens to them.  So they don't believe drinking bleach is bad until they suffer from doing it.  

If I haven't had as many conversations with Gpseymour then I would be skeptical, but the way people say things and how they say will often add validity of what they actually know or don't know.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Evidence of your assumption? Yeah, it's in every thread you've ever referred to my training. Evidence you lack support for your claim? Yeah, in the fact that there's literally no video of my training available to support your chosen assumption. Evidence you've called me a liar? Yep - in those same threads, where you make repeated claims about what my training is like, when I described it as something else.
> 
> You choose to be a douche. This isn't about you refusing to accept without evidence. Either side would be equally without evidence, except that one side is at least backed by anecdotal claims (my own). You simply decided it'd be more fun to assume I'm a liar and keep pushing that view.



Show me where I called you a liar?  Show me a quote.

I will continue to dismiss  theist arguments of emotional bullying and insults. Not because I care or am gettingupset. But because they fundamentally are not arguments.

You are not making a legitimate point.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> What does Aikido claim to teach you? And does it reach those claims?
> 
> I think the biggest problem is the disconect between those two concepts.


I agree with you here. Not just with Aikido but with Kung Fu as well.



drop bear said:


> So a theory I have heard is Aikido is atemi. It works due to proficient striking creates an opportunity to make their system work.
> 
> Well you do a year of sanda. You will out strike every Aikido guy on the planet.


I'm not sure about this. The Sanda practitioners will be better in striking, but if you are using a strike to set up something else then we aren't looking at the same things.  An example will  be how BJJ uses strikes to help them set their techniques up.  Sanda are better strikers, but the type of striking BJJ does, gets the job done.






Boxers are better strikers but non of there strikes are design to implement a joint lock.    So when I mention the need to set up joint locks and grappling techniques, I have showed various types of strikes from different systems that did just that. 

Sanda follows the same Rule.  Strikes hide the grappling technique.

It's not a foreign concept.  If it's found in other systems, then why would someone think Aikido is the exception to that?





The Sanda school that I sparred against used this same concept here.  Using punches to enter into a grappling position to hide what your grappling attack is nothing new.  What would be new is that  Aikido is the only system that doesn't need to use striking in a similar manner and that doesn't make sense to me.  It's flawed thinking


----------



## JowGaWolf

Here's my logic.

Drop Aikidio and focus on technique.  If you were going to do a wrist lock of your choosing as an attack and not a counter, then what are the things you'll need to do to make it successful and to make it easier to get the lock when your opponent is not aware.   

If you Answer that question then you will see that other systems follow that same logic.  To say Aikido wouldn't need to follow the same logic is what we often see when it fails.  If I were to use Chin Na on you,  It would be done as I'm punching you in the face or to the body.  Your instinct would be to grab my arms to stop me from punching and that's what I want you do to do so I can apply the Chin Na.  You wouldn't have any clue that's what I'm thinking because I would be busing nailing you with hard punches.  If you let me punch you, then I'll keep doing it. No need to let good punches go to waste. 

Anyone who know's how to sweep understand this same thing in the context of sweeping.   Hit that person in the face really hard and often,  when your opponent is too concerned with  his face then take his legs.  If these concepts are common across many fighting systems.  Then we can assume that Aikido would follow the same logic and concept. 

Aikido being 70% striking seems to fit well with that concept.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

I generally find that having something to "minimise dmaage doen to the enemy" or a fighting system for peace to be contary to what you want in actually fighting someone, you would want to maximise the damage doen so they dont end up getting up again as you are busy and stabbing you in the back. 

That sjust on face value of what people say the ideology is, its just contradictory to what you want.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not sure about this. The Sanda practitioners will be better in striking, but if you are using a strike to set up something else then we aren't looking at the same things. An example will be how BJJ uses strikes to help them set their techniques up. Sanda are better strikers, but the type of striking BJJ does, gets the job done.



Bjj doesn't need effective striking to get submissions off. They use more of a smother approach. And then positional dominance.

So their striking can be a bit lame.

Now if a bjj guy can strike really well they are a lot more effective which is why competitively that bjj striking has almost gone out the window.

Aikido has to win the striking. There is no dynamic I have seen for when an Aikido guy is getting mauled. Unlike BJJ which sort of works off that

Otherwise the example is these styles effectively strike.

You straight up box a sanda guy and he can hold his composure for 5 seconds to do something.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Boxers are better strikers but non of there strikes are design to implement a joint lock. So when I mention the need to set up joint locks and grappling techniques, I have showed various types of strikes from different systems that did just that.



You would still have to be handy with just striking. So there are these cheeky shots you Chan hit from say a clinch. But they are not dominant over basic striking.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Rat said:


> I generally find that having something to "minimise dmaage doen to the enemy" or a fighting system for peace to be contary to what you want in actually fighting someone, you would want to maximise the damage


This is how I see martial arts which is why I don't like like the peaceful concept of zen.  Zen to me is like "being in the zone" everything is working, flowing, and timing of your attacks and defenses are excellent and you get that feeling that you are unstoppable.  That is "Zen" to me. That's the way I want to feel if I'm in a fight on the streets or in the ring.  That comfortable calmness and not the panic.

This is one of the definitions for Zen, which is more in line with the above view point of martial arts.  I know some of you have played sports when this has kicked off and things just flowed without conscious effort.  One of the things we often say about martial arts is to not think so much.  Practice repetition so that your actions flow without thought.
Zen - "a state of *calm attentiveness* in which* one's actions are guided by intuition* *rather than by conscious effort * "
Definition of ZEN
Not one mention of peace, and what he says fits more with the definition above then the one below.   Just my 2 cents.





But unfortunately so many people see Zen as "having or showing qualities (such as meditative calmness and an attitude of acceptance) popularly associated with practitioners of Zen Buddhism "
You'll see this projection often with similar system. Yet when we think of Japanese Warrior Monks or Shaolin Monks, this guy doesn't come to mind.


----------



## drop bear

Rat said:


> I generally find that having something to "minimise dmaage doen to the enemy" or a fighting system for peace to be contary to what you want in actually fighting someone, you would want to maximise the damage doen so they dont end up getting up again as you are busy and stabbing you in the back.
> 
> That sjust on face value of what people say the ideology is, its just contradictory to what you want.



It is about proportionate use of force. Which is theoretically more moral but practically keeps you out of jail.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Rat said:


> I generally find that having something to "minimise dmaage doen to the enemy" or a fighting system for peace to be contary to what you want in actually fighting someone, you would want to maximise the damage doen so they dont end up getting up again as you are busy and stabbing you in the back.
> 
> That sjust on face value of what people say the ideology is, its just contradictory to what you want.


A praying mantis teacher will teach his

- beginner students to strike on those place that can cause minor injure.
- advantage students to strike on those place that can cause serious injury.

To be kind to your enemy is to be cruel to yourself.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Bjj doesn't need effective striking to get submissions off. They use more of a smother approach. And then positional dominance.


But they do use striking, yes?  I don't limit striking to jabs or low kicks.  Any use of the hands or legs to make contact or to distract or mislead I consider a strike.  This is due some of the techniques that Jow Ga uses.  So while I may do a punch to set up a grappling opportunity, if my opponent doesn't get out of the way of this punch then it will land for real.  Best way I can describe is is that I throw a punch that will cause you to move backwards which is what I really want you to do.  But I'm equally happy if you don't move backwards and get smashed in the face.  When my technique fails, you don't move backwards but you get hit in the face.   If my technique works, then you'll move backwards and I'll get to set up the technique I was going for., but you don't get hit in the face. So to me that is a strike.  We have a softer one that can be used as an ear slap or to thread my hand between your guard.  In either scenario my target is your ear. 

So that's where I'm coming from when I think of strikes.  If the purpose of your strike is tap me on the head to distract me, then to me that is a strike.   So while BJJ doesn't have the boxer strike damage.  They are still effective in making the opponent move the way that you need them to move in order to advance or grapple.  Is it needed all the time?  Of course not but the fact that it exists gives me a direction to look towards.  If I want to grab someone then I want do it when they least expected it so that they are least able to defend against it.



drop bear said:


> Aikido has to win the striking. There is no dynamic I have seen for when an Aikido guy is getting mauled. Unlike BJJ which sort of works off that


To be honest most of the Aikido sparring that I've seen, seems to abandon striking.  They wade in with the intent to grab a wrist. Which is like me telling you. I'm going to grab your wrist and put you in a wrist lock, then I proceed and only try to get the wrist lock.  There's no need for you to defend against anything else because you by my focus that I'm only going to do 1 thing.

If I take my kung fu approach then I would tell you that I'm going to embarrass you and put you in a wrist lock and make you tap out.  Then while you are looking for my wrist lock I will punch you in your face. Then I will tell you that I will still go for the wrist lock.  I would feit a punch to your face, go for  your hand and then I'll kick you in your gut.   Will I eventually go for the wristlock.  Only if you aren't looking for it.  You will have bragging rights that I couldn't put you in a wrist lock, but I will have bragging rights that I did a lot of kung fu on you.   But the moment you forget about your wrist, I will try to take it.  But Aikido doesn't do that. right off the back you know they want to grab your wrist, so you defend your wrist and they will fail. 

Now if gpseymour step into the ring with me or you and nailed us with combos, and kicks that make us forget our wrist, then he'll probably get our wrist.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Show me where I called you a liar?  Show me a quote.
> 
> I will continue to dismiss  theist arguments of emotional bullying and insults. Not because I care or am gettingupset. But because they fundamentally are not arguments.
> 
> You are not making a legitimate point.


Every time you've made a claim about my training that is counter to what I've said about my training. You know what you're doing. You know it's douchey. You just don't care.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> You would still have to be handy with just striking. So there are these cheeky shots you Chan hit from say a clinch. But they are not dominant over basic striking.


I agree.  You would need to be at least average with striking.  Which is why I think a lot of Aikido vs Guy who punches often fails.  If we look at the Martial Arts Journey guy, we can see how deficient his striking is, and it's really bad. 

If I were to grab someone, I would probably mix close fist and open hand strikes.  That way my opponent wouldn't know if I was going to attempt to grab or punch. This falls in line with some of the techniques that can be used as a punch or a grab.  The motion is the same, the only difference is open hand or closed fist.

I need to get a more detailed look at some of the techniques and then try to visualize some scenarios in which I may try to grab someone in a similar manner.   I think if I can get the grab then I can get something else.  when we look at the videos we see how difficult it is to grab punches and moving wrists.

I know grabbing punches out of the air isn't my thing (probably not anyone's thing), so I don't want to go down that path.  I'm not interested in stopping or redirecting haymakers and hooks.  It's too costly if miss thoses  Jabs are probably easier to deal with as a beginner who doesn't know any Aikido techniques.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To be kind to your enemy is to be cruel to yourself.


I agree with this but, I'm starting to think sparring with Wang may not be a good idea lol


----------



## JowGaWolf

getting closer.  I'm guessing those over hand strikes are chops to the neck?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> To be honest most of the Aikido sparring that I've seen, seems to abandon striking. They wade in with the intent to grab a wrist. Which is like me telling you. I'm going to grab your wrist and put you in a wrist lock, then I proceed and only try to get the wrist lock. There's no need for you to defend against anything else because you by my focus that I'm only going to do 1 thing.


This is by far the most common thing I've seen in videos of "Aikido sparring" (and NGA sparring). And, IMO, it's entirely antithetical to the principles of the arts invovled. It betrays a misunderstanding of basic grappling and the arts. And it's what happens in some systems (can't speak for all) when there's no resistive training to put the drills in context.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> getting closer.  I'm guessing those over hand strikes are chops to the neck?


To the forehead and temple, the way I've seen them, for reasons I don't understand.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I know grabbing punches out of the air isn't my thing (probably not anyone's thing), so I don't want to go down that path. I'm not interested in stopping or redirecting haymakers and hooks. It's too costly if miss thoses Jabs are probably easier to deal with as a beginner who doesn't know any Aikido techniques.


I'm not convinced punches (except the absolute worst ones) can be grabbed. I've never seen it done in any realistic manner. As for redirecting big haymakers, they're easier to read and deal with than jabs. Hooks are a different matter, and it depends who's punching, among other things. Jabs are what I use to show folks they have to be able to "spar" (work the striking game) to get to some of the grappling they like. A decent jab just isn't easy to lay hands on.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

From the "power generation" point of view, should his chop go all the way down and pass through the target?


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> To the forehead and temple, the way I've seen them, for reasons I don't understand.


Same here, I was having trouble understanding the mechanics of it.  Finding video of punching in Aikido is really difficult.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> I'm not convinced punches (except the absolute worst ones) can be grabbed. I've never seen it done in any realistic manner. As for redirecting big haymakers, they're easier to read and deal with than jabs. Hooks are a different matter, and it depends who's punching, among other things. Jabs are what I use to show folks they have to be able to "spar" (work the striking game) to get to some of the grappling they like. A decent jab just isn't easy to lay hands on.


My biggest success in terms of grabbing a punch has been any punch that I can get to before it hits 50% extension.  After a punch passes the 50% mark, it becomes increasingly difficult to catch.  Basically by the time I try to grab it, it is already returning to chamber and the other one is now coming out.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I'm not convinced punches (except the absolute worst ones) can be grabbed.


As long as you can separate your opponent's arms away from his head and take his front door, you can wrap his punching arm.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> From the "power generation" point of view, should his chop go all the way down and pass through the target?


I tried it. It feels weak. Like there was a power connection missing.  So when I added the body connection to generate the power I was left with kung fu.   Strike and foot land at same time.  But in the Aikido clip, the foot lands and then strike lands.   Which for me creates some timing issues.

Just out of curiosity what is the guy in the red pants doing.  Throwing someone, cutting someone (sword technique) or staff technique.?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> After a punch passes the 50% mark, it becomes increasingly difficult to catch.


Agree with you 100% there. This is why when your opponent punches you, you should also jump in at the same time when his punch hasn't reached to the maximum speed and maximum power yet.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> Just out of curiosity what is the guy in the red pants doing.  Throwing someone, cutting someone (sword technique) or staff technique.?


He is from the XingYi Liu He system. The main purpose of this training is to develop the body method that you "only see the body movement, and you don't see the arm movement".


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> He is from the XingYi Liu He system. The main purpose of this training is to develop the body method that you "only see the body movement, and you don't see the arm movement".


I was way off lol.  But it makes sense to me.  I uses a similar concept in sparring, I'm not sure but from what I can tell in sparring it's the reason why Hung Ga, Choy Li Fut and Jow Ga are able to land the big circular punches and your "Only see the body movement, and you don't see the arm movement "  sounds very similar to how I explained it to my son.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> I was way off lol.  But it makes sense to me.  I uses a similar concept in sparring, I'm not sure but from what I can tell in sparring it's the reason why Hung Ga, Choy Li Fut and Jow Ga are able to land the big circular punches and your "Only see the body movement, and you don't see the arm movement "  sounds very similar to how I explained it to my son.


Old CMA saying said, "If you can train your sword form without holding a sword, you will understand what body method is."

Sometime I like to train punch by putting my arms behind my back. I just concentrate on how my body suppose to move and totally ignore my arms.

I assume its similar to the "sine wave pattern" discussed in another thread.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I think I understand this one now. I had to do it a punch of times to keep it from being kung fu.  Those pants threw me off as well.  I thought he was stepping forward but didn't realize it until after I got enough of the Kung Fu out of the movement. 

So this is what I'm seeing in this video based on what I know.  I'll start with the feet.
1. He's stepping at a"45 ish" angle, which means he's stepping off center. If he's stepping off center like that then it's because he's dealing with an incoming jab. You guys have actually seen me do the same foot work.  The biggest different is that he walks into the angle and I shuffle into the angle.  The challenge of walking into an angle is that you have to be good with seeing the distance between you and your opponent,  If you aren't careful you'll walk into a punch. 





As I did this, I'm imagining a jab coming in and I'm stepping off the center.line. This only works if your hands are in a fighting stance.   My forward movement triggers the jab (hopefully). My left hand must shoot between the jab so and my striking hand so that I can redirect the jab. If I can redirect the jab, then I will have an open shot to the back of my opponents head.  Probably right behind the ear.  I'm basing this on the angle of the strike and how his left arm treads the space between the attacking jab and the open hand  strike.

Doing this movement from a fighting stance with your guard up gets rid of the telegraph strike.  I cold be wrong about this as I don't do Aikido, but I've hit people with strikes from similar movements.  The fact that his foot work looks very similar to my footwork makes me think that's what's going on.  

I went back over the foot work and walking forward makes it easier to thread that left hand.  In the clip.  That strike works better if your attacker has his left hand forward, power hand back.  Which is how most right handed people stand.  The step is probably smaller in application than what we see here.

What do you think GpSeymour? Give it a try and see if it feels that way when the technique is used like that.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Old CMA saying said, "If you can train your sword form without holding a sword, you will understand what body method is."


I converted my staff form into an open hand form.  I'll let you know how that works out lol.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

I'm confused here. If he is

1. chasing his opponent, he doesn't need to step to the side.
2. dealing with an incoming attack, he doesn't have time to step in that far.

For 2, he can step in his left leading leg first, he then steps his right leg to the side (wheeling step), and chops his left hand out. This way he can achieve the same goal without having to move his feet that much.

I must miss something here.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Every time you've made a claim about my training that is counter to what I've said about my training. You know what you're doing. You know it's douchey. You just don't care.



No it is douchey to expect people to believe you without backing your claim.


----------



## isshinryuronin

It's not smart to try to directly grab an incoming punch.  You must first get some control of the arm.  Here are a few ways to do this:

     1.  block the punch hard with technique to cause some trauma to the tendons and cause pain to disrupt the opponent, then grab

     2.  sidestep the punch, deflect while keeping contact with the arm, strike with the other hand (or kick) to vulnerable target to disrupt, then set the grab - you can also deflect with one hand, then strike with that same hand as your other hand takes over contact and sets the grab.

     3.  move in to intercept the punch early (which also causes some disruption) as kung fu Wang has suggested, wrap the arm, then set the grab.

In all the above it's important to quickly flow from one step to the next.  The grab may have to wait for 3 or 4 moves before you can get in a good position.  The opponent must be disrupted and have his arm controlled to some extent for a grab to realistically be set while dynamically fighting.

Of course, counter grabs are easier, since by grabbing you the opponent has basically immobilized his own arm.  Still, it's good to pin his hand and get a quick shot in before the grab.  Most importantly, a grab by itself is nothing - it must be immediately put to use.


----------



## Martial D

isshinryuronin said:


> It's not smart to try to directly grab an incoming punch.  You must first get some control of the arm.  Here are a few ways to do this:
> 
> 1.  block the punch hard with technique to cause some trauma to the tendons and cause pain to disrupt the opponent, then grab
> 
> 2.  sidestep the punch, deflect while keeping contact with the arm, strike with the other hand (or kick) to vulnerable target to disrupt, then set the grab - you can also deflect with one hand, then strike with that same hand as your other hand takes over contact and sets the grab.
> 
> 3.  move in to intercept the punch early (which also causes some disruption) as kung fu Wang has suggested, wrap the arm, then set the grab.
> 
> In all the above it's important to quickly flow from one step to the next.  The grab may have to wait for 3 or 4 moves before you can get in a good position.  The opponent must be disrupted and have his arm controlled to some extent for a grab to realistically be set while dynamically fighting.
> 
> Of course, counter grabs are easier, since by grabbing you the opponent has basically immobilized his own arm.  Still, it's good to pin his hand and get a quick shot in before the grab.  Most importantly, a grab by itself is nothing - it must be immediately put to use.


Here's to hoping your imaginary attacker has no idea what he's doing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> My biggest success in terms of grabbing a punch has been any punch that I can get to before it hits 50% extension.  After a punch passes the 50% mark, it becomes increasingly difficult to catch.  Basically by the time I try to grab it, it is already returning to chamber and the other one is now coming out.


Yeah, if you have it jammed, it doesn't develop the speed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I tried it. It feels weak. Like there was a power connection missing.  So when I added the body connection to generate the power I was left with kung fu.   Strike and foot land at same time.  But in the Aikido clip, the foot lands and then strike lands.   Which for me creates some timing issues.
> 
> Just out of curiosity what is the guy in the red pants doing.  Throwing someone, cutting someone (sword technique) or staff technique.?


It's possible to generate some reasonable power with those chops - moreso with the one to the temple. But both are weaker IMO because of the high arm position. I suspect the overhand attack is meant to simulate an overhand weapon attack (just getting the arm in that orientation), so the power generation wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I think I understand this one now. I had to do it a punch of times to keep it from being kung fu.  Those pants threw me off as well.  I thought he was stepping forward but didn't realize it until after I got enough of the Kung Fu out of the movement.
> 
> So this is what I'm seeing in this video based on what I know.  I'll start with the feet.
> 1. He's stepping at a"45 ish" angle, which means he's stepping off center. If he's stepping off center like that then it's because he's dealing with an incoming jab. You guys have actually seen me do the same foot work.  The biggest different is that he walks into the angle and I shuffle into the angle.  The challenge of walking into an angle is that you have to be good with seeing the distance between you and your opponent,  If you aren't careful you'll walk into a punch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I did this, I'm imagining a jab coming in and I'm stepping off the center.line. This only works if your hands are in a fighting stance.   My forward movement triggers the jab (hopefully). My left hand must shoot between the jab so and my striking hand so that I can redirect the jab. If I can redirect the jab, then I will have an open shot to the back of my opponents head.  Probably right behind the ear.  I'm basing this on the angle of the strike and how his left arm treads the space between the attacking jab and the open hand  strike.
> 
> Doing this movement from a fighting stance with your guard up gets rid of the telegraph strike.  I cold be wrong about this as I don't do Aikido, but I've hit people with strikes from similar movements.  The fact that his foot work looks very similar to my footwork makes me think that's what's going on.
> 
> I went back over the foot work and walking forward makes it easier to thread that left hand.  In the clip.  That strike works better if your attacker has his left hand forward, power hand back.  Which is how most right handed people stand.  The step is probably smaller in application than what we see here.
> 
> What do you think GpSeymour? Give it a try and see if it feels that way when the technique is used like that.


This is a place where Aikido isn't much like NGA, so I'm mostly talking from very light experience with this stuff. We work against punches, not chops (though we do sometimes use chops as strikes, but it's pretty limited).

But yes, he is stepping off-line. The way this is used (as I've seen in Aikido, and as we use it in NGA) could be against any attack where the opponent is entering. But the idea of slipping a straight punch (or shove, even) is probably the clearest usage. And it gives a bit of momentum to the chop to the temple, as the hips turn to match the new angle.

Aikido tends to focus on larger steps (some NGA approaches do, too) for entry. The idea is to be just out of range and clear to grappling distance in a step. I've been told some of this is derived from sword footwork, but others here would be better authorities on that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No it is douchey to expect people to believe you without backing your claim.


I don't expect you to believe it. But claiming you don't believe it because no evidence, then choosing to believe the opposite without evidence is just plain dishonest. You're lying about your reason for choosing that belief. You choose it because you're triggered buy the word "Aikido", and really, really, reeally want it to be bad in all the ways you want it to be.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

isshinryuronin said:


> It's not smart to try to directly grab an incoming punch.  You must first get some control of the arm.  Here are a few ways to do this:
> 
> 1.  block the punch hard with technique to cause some trauma to the tendons and cause pain to disrupt the opponent, then grab
> 
> 2.  sidestep the punch, deflect while keeping contact with the arm, strike with the other hand (or kick) to vulnerable target to disrupt, then set the grab - you can also deflect with one hand, then strike with that same hand as your other hand takes over contact and sets the grab.
> 
> 3.  move in to intercept the punch early (which also causes some disruption) as kung fu Wang has suggested, wrap the arm, then set the grab.
> 
> In all the above it's important to quickly flow from one step to the next.  The grab may have to wait for 3 or 4 moves before you can get in a good position.  The opponent must be disrupted and have his arm controlled to some extent for a grab to realistically be set while dynamically fighting.
> 
> Of course, counter grabs are easier, since by grabbing you the opponent has basically immobilized his own arm.  Still, it's good to pin his hand and get a quick shot in before the grab.  Most importantly, a grab by itself is nothing - it must be immediately put to use.


To me, punches are best "grabbed" when closing distance. By that I mean when the punch happens to time with an entry to grappling distance. So if you punch and I make contact (block, deflect, parry, whatever) and am moving in, if my movement happens to time with your arm's retraction (which probably means I had started my entry because I read the punch or even just got lucky on the timing), then the arm won't outrun me. If I can alter your structure with my contact, then I've got a chance to keep that arm and use it to move you.

That's a lot of "if". Much easier to get into grappling distance and get hands on the body, then get arms when they react.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> This is definitely true if the point of comparing systems is to say one is better than the other.   There's a big difference between trying to understand and trying to "write off."
> 
> I think there's enough similarities among all fighting systems to give valid clues to how Aikido works in application. The only way this wouldn't be true is if it was developed in a vacuum. I just can't see that.
> 
> Things like this video below seem to be consistent across systems including BJJ.  Generally speaking, because I Know there are variations. It almost always starts as
> 1. Strike -> Grapple -> Strike = when not within grappling range.  The strike is what hides the Grappling
> 2. Grapple -> Strike - Grapple = when engaged in grappling
> 
> We see this play out in almost every martial arts competition.  If this is the norm, the assumption is that Aikido would follow similar principles.  One of the things I see Aikido, Taijiquan, and Chin Na practitioners make is that they give away their attack.  If I sit there and make it clear that I'm trying to grab your wrist then it will be easy for me to defend against any attempts to grab my wrists.
> @:22  you see a strike to the face with allows him to get the wrist.  I'm not trying to validate this guy. I'm just pointing out things that are fairly constant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We even see strikes to the head here.  The strikes "hide" the grappling technique
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We see it here as well.  BJJ has a similar approach. With that in mind. My assumption is that Aikido application would have to follow the same rules or strategy.


What I was getting at is the philosophy and approach to training can be very different from one system to another.  And yet with these differences, they still manage quality results. 

If a person has experience with a system that they trust and believe in, it can be difficult to look at a different system without comparing it to the experience that they already have.  There is a tendency to expect similarities in training methods because past experience had reinforced the worthiness of that particular method.  

But one needs to be able to let go of those experiences when looking at something new.  It may be different enough that you just cannot compare it.  

I know that aikido gets a lot of negative attention from the mma crowd and other competition folks.  I’ve witnessed aikido schools that I felt had an unrealistic approach in their training.  The intensity was low and the technical drills seemed unrealistic and overly cooperative.  So I understand where the criticisms come from.

However, I have also seen some aikido schools where I felt confident they were providing training at a level where people could develop functional skills.  San Francisco has a couple of schools in particular, and I’ve heard of a few others in the Bay  Area, where high quality training is being conducted.  Since I moved to the Sacramento area, I find myself feeling like I missed the opportunity to train under some highly skilled aikidoka in San Francisco.  But time is limited and I was busy in the kung fu world, so I can’t regret it.  But I would absolutely put trust in those aikido schools to provide high quality training.  

I just feel that perhaps the approach that aikido takes in how it trains is different enough to feel foreign to a lot of people who have prior experience.  But I would caution anyone against simply writing into off, while at the same time acknowledging that there is a lot of poor quality training going on out there.  But hey, I see poor quality training in a lot of schools teaching other systems as well, particularly the daycare Tae Kwon do and similar, including a lot of kung fu schools.  I recall a judo teacher telling me about a judo brown belt who visited his school, and was injured the first time he was thrown.  The fellow confessed after the fact that in his school, they don’t actually do any throwing or falling.  So aikido hardly has the monopoly on poor training.  

There is a lot of garbage that gets posted on the internet, places like YouTube.  People see the garbage and assume that is representative of the system as a whole when often it is not.  It doesn’t take a lot of sophistication to be able to realize that there is more to life than what we find on YouTube, even though a lot of people want to insist that all the truth is to be found there.  If it can’t be found on YouTube, then it doesn’t exist.  That mentality is idiotic.  

At any rate, it comes down to a willingness to put aside assumptions and previous influences, in order to understand a system on its own merits and according to its own methods and norms.  Anyone who isn’t willing to do that doesn’t have much to add to the conversation.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm confused here. If he is
> 
> 1. chasing his opponent, he doesn't need to step to the side.
> 2. dealing with an incoming attack, he doesn't have time to step in that far.
> 
> For 2, he can step in his left leading leg first, he then steps his right leg to the side (wheeling step), and chops his left hand out. This way he can achieve the same goal without having to move his feet that much.
> 
> I must miss something here.


Perhaps he is Isn’t doing anything on the overtly “practical” level, and instead is demonstrating a fundamental body-engagement principal.  That type of thing would have a foundational use in everything that they do, and I imagine there are certain drills that are done to develop the foundational skill.  But that drill as a stand-alone may not have a direct and obvious fight application.  The principles that are developed by practicing the drill are meant to permeate the entire system.

In my system, we do a repetitive back-and-forth rotation drill that serves the same purpose.  Any outsider looking in would be befuddled by it.  You need to understand the purpose in order for it to make sense.  This is what I mean when I say you cannot look at it through the norms of prior experience, when looking at a new (to you) system.  Doing so can ensure that you will never understand it.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

drop bear said:


> It is about proportionate use of force. Which is theoretically more moral but practically keeps you out of jail.



thats not pacifism though, people cite it as pacifism.     And that also is in practise not what they do, as its appriopriate to hurt people more than they tend to show and do and enthsisise more times than they think it is.     I would like to think the orignal aikido made by the person






JowGaWolf said:


> This is how I see martial arts which is why I don't like like the peaceful concept of zen. Zen to me is like "being in the zone" everything is working, flowing, and timing of your attacks and defenses are excellent and you get that feeling that you are unstoppable. That is "Zen" to me. That's the way I want to feel if I'm in a fight on the streets or in the ring. That comfortable calmness and not the panic.



I mean its the reverse way around, the calm meaning of zen derives from the buddhism zen.    But anyway, Buddhism generally requires you to belive in reincarnation, and i can tell you most practcing ones probbly will take issue if you try to kill them, i think only a few monastic ones or sects of it may prefer to take extreme pacifism as a choice.  (as they will be reborn or something like that, i forget the details for the buddhist afterlife)    and there are plenty of cases of Buddhists taking up arms and the like.   And ones taking up arms would be trained in the contemporary way.

I would like to imagine first generation aikdo and maybe second or third ( i dont know how old it was) was better whan what we get now and was more martial arts like and useful as one.    I dont know if the above was relivent or not.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> Here's to hoping your imaginary attacker has no idea what he's doing.


This is why it's much easier that

- You punch.
- Your opponent blocks it.
- You then grab his blocking arm.

It's also easier to grab when your opponent is in on guard position. A fake back fist, or a fake hook punch can help you to move your hand closer to your opponent's wrist.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, if you have it jammed, it doesn't develop the speed.


When your opponent punches right fist at your face, if you use left arm to block his arm, use right palm to push on his right shoulder, you can stop his punch at early stage before his speed and power can be generated. But the requirement is when your opponent punches you, you have to jump in. This require good timing, skill, strategy, and courage.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm confused here. If he is
> 
> 1. chasing his opponent, he doesn't need to step to the side.
> 2. dealing with an incoming attack, he doesn't have time to step in that far.


I don't think he's chasing his opponent.  I think the step forward triggers the jab. My thought is based on how some techniques trigger the punch that you want.  So in this case the punch that you want is a jab.  Step forward and you'll most likely get jab,  his initial forward movement triggers the jab but halfway through that forward movement he steps off the right.  Remember, I stated that I thought he was moving forward into the punch but he's not.  What I was seeing is probably what I would see if I were to face the opponent.

My theory on kung fu and martial arts in general is that no one waits for a punch.  Waiting for the punch that you is like playing the lotto. It's better to trigger the punch that you want. This way you are only dealing with 1 or 2 likely possibilities. 

For the #2 concern I thought the same thing.  So I shorten my step as if I was trying to do it in a closer range.  It worked better that way, which makes me thing that this isn't a long range attack.  This is something that is done within punching range.

There's so much out of sync with this movement that I think it was taught incorrectly on purpose, if you try to use it as it's presented, then it doesn't make sense.  I know you are probably think I'm reaching, but Jow Ga has a punch that is taught incorrectly and I've seen sooooo many Jow Ga practitioners do it incorrectly.  This is why I saying learning how to actually use kung fu helps a person to better understand the techniques in the forms. But in order to get it right the person has to be able to understand how to connect power in various ways.

Give it a try.  Don't think of it doing it exactly as you see it.  Use what you see as a template and make fix the parts that aren't working.  Start with this fix. Instead of Step then hit. Step and hit as the foot lands. Adjust your hands so you can protect your head and open palm strike someone.  Change it just enough so that it works but GpSeymour would see the connection between that and the clip.

The technique was probably taught correct at one point, then people stop trying to use it and because of that no one questioned why so much was off.


----------



## JowGaWolf

isshinryuronin said:


> It's not smart to try to directly grab an incoming punch.  You must first get some control of the arm.  Here are a few ways to do this:
> 
> 1.  block the punch hard with technique to cause some trauma to the tendons and cause pain to disrupt the opponent, then grab
> 
> 2.  sidestep the punch, deflect while keeping contact with the arm, strike with the other hand (or kick) to vulnerable target to disrupt, then set the grab - you can also deflect with one hand, then strike with that same hand as your other hand takes over contact and sets the grab.
> 
> 3.  move in to intercept the punch early (which also causes some disruption) as kung fu Wang has suggested, wrap the arm, then set the grab.
> 
> In all the above it's important to quickly flow from one step to the next.  The grab may have to wait for 3 or 4 moves before you can get in a good position.  The opponent must be disrupted and have his arm controlled to some extent for a grab to realistically be set while dynamically fighting.
> 
> Of course, counter grabs are easier, since by grabbing you the opponent has basically immobilized his own arm.  Still, it's good to pin his hand and get a quick shot in before the grab.  Most importantly, a grab by itself is nothing - it must be immediately put to use.


This is what I've been using because I believe it applies to all Martial Arts / Fighting system.  It's one of those universal truths that all systems must follow.  Even if they say that they don't, in application the rules will hold true.  If someone from Aikido or in Tai Chi told me differently then I would think they don't understand why.  Then I would ask them to show me in application (through sparring) how that works.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> The technique was probably taught correct at one point, then people stop trying to use it and because of that no one questioned why so much was off.


If you try to punch from 

- kicking range, you will need to full step footwork (such as to step in your back foot).
- punching range, you only need 1/2 step footwork (such as front foot step in, back foot slide).

This is why to use kick to replace that full step footwork make sense.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> It's possible to generate some reasonable power with those chops - moreso with the one to the temple. But both are weaker IMO because of the high arm position. I suspect the overhand attack is meant to simulate an overhand weapon attack (just getting the arm in that orientation), so the power generation wouldn't be an issue.


My chop was stronger and faster when my foot and chop lands at the same time.  In addition stepping then striking present a timing risk. It makes you slower  

Aikido Step 1= Step off center -> Opponent's  Step 1=  be caught off guard
Aikido Step 2 =  Strike with chop -> Opponent's Step 2 = regain defense.

If this chop doesn't land within Step 1 then it will never reach the opponent.  The only way to land it, is to strike as soon as that foot that is stepping off center lands.  You'll notice a significant increase in power just from that.  There are still some other power connections that can be added, but they can't be added without this first one.

I think the High arm position is an exaggeration because holding it around fighting guard position makes the movement too fast. So in application I put the chopping hand Jaw height as if I'm trying to keep it close to defend a punch coming in to that side. I use my body movement to help generate the power.  The best way I can describe is to Step forward then turn into horse which will make your face your left.  If you feel the power connection from that then that 's what I'm using.  You can turn it as much as you need.  I tried to get the same angle as what I think I see in that video.  I'm assuming that my opponent will try to flee to his right once I get on his left side.  So I'm striking where he will be and not where he is.  If you look at the Aikido clip you can see that the strike is not in front.  It's at an angle as if there is anticipation that the person will be there.




gpseymour said:


> To me, punches are best "grabbed" when closing distance. By that I mean when the punch happens to time with an entry to grappling distance. So if you punch and I make contact (block, deflect, parry, whatever) and am moving in, if my movement happens to time with your arm's retraction (which probably means I had started my entry because I read the punch or even just got lucky on the timing), then the arm won't outrun me.


  The step forward to trigger the punch fits with your understanding of when the best time to grab.  It's during an entry and as that first step triggers the punch.  Everything else will be sync according to Aikido and how you explained it above.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> At any rate, it comes down to a willingness to put aside assumptions and previous influences, in order to understand a system on its own merits and according to its own methods and norms.


Totally agree. As that's exactly what I'm doing as I'm trying to figure it out as an outsider.  I use somethings that I believe are universal and I work from there.   Like when it felt like I was doing kung fu, I had to dump that.  For starters I don't want it mess up my kung fu lol, but like you stated. I have to empty a lot of the influences and try to follow the Aikido in the approach.  In Kung Fu we would just step off center so that extra step that Aikido takes is nuts to me.  But if I'm trying to draw a jab or straight punch then I would lower my lead hand just low enough to make it look as if the Jab will be the easiest punch to land.  Then I would raise my lead left hand to redirect the jab, step off angle so I don't get punched, and then twist into the chop.  It should work as long as I can invite the jab.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> Perhaps he is Isn’t doing anything on the overtly “practical” level, and instead is demonstrating a fundamental body-engagement principal.  That type of thing would have a foundational use in everything that they do, and I imagine there are certain drills that are done to develop the foundational skill.  But that drill as a stand-alone may not have a direct and obvious fight application.  The principles that are developed by practicing the drill are meant to permeate the entire system.
> 
> In my system, we do a repetitive back-and-forth rotation drill that serves the same purpose.  Any outsider looking in would be befuddled by it.  You need to understand the purpose in order for it to make sense.  This is what I mean when I say you cannot look at it through the norms of prior experience, when looking at a new (to you) system.  Doing so can ensure that you will never understand it.


This is what I often mean when I say that something is intentionally taught incorrectly.  If it's demonstrating a fundamental body-engagement principal then there will be a whole a lot of things that won't work in application, because it's the principal being taught and not the application.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Rat said:


> I would like to imagine first generation aikdo and maybe second or third ( i dont know how old it was) was better whan what we get now and was more martial arts like and useful as one. I dont know if the above was relivent or not.


 It is.  I don't know of any major religion that doesn't have a history of where they didn't spill the blood of another.  Not everyone is born a monk or a religious man.  We all bring our sins and previous life and understanding when we make the choice for a "peaceful life."  Then when things get rough and heads need to be split open,  that "old you" pops up and does what needs to be done.

A tiger is a tiger and will still try to eat or attack you if it feels the need to.  It does not stop being a tiger just because a person is nice to it. And there are so many things in life that are like that.

I think you are right about the 2nd and 3rd generations being better.  If people only train martial arts for health and mediation, then a lot of application will be lost.  People will soon no longer pass along why things are done a certain way.  Tai Chi is the best example.  How many people do Tai Chi for health and have no understanding of reason behind the movement.  Some will see palm strikes as pushing Chi, other will see it as pushing out stress, and still other may even say that it helps improve breathing and relaxation.   I think Aikido has taken a similar path.  Not enough people training it for function so things get lost.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> This is what I often mean when I say that something is intentionally taught incorrectly.  If it's demonstrating a fundamental body-engagement principal then there will be a whole a lot of things that won't work in application, because it's the principal being taught and not the application.


I think then that if the underlying principal is the intent, then it is being taught correctly for that goal.  It is perceived as incorrect if people assume it is meant to have a direct practical application as it is.  If direct application is not the purpose, then there may be nothing incorrect about it.

Going back to my reference of the rotational drill found in my system, by way of example.  You have seen it in some video.  That drill is not meant to be a direct fighting application.  It is meant to develop full-body connection, which then permeates everything that we do.  For that purpose, it works well.  However, it is also possible to identify some direct application with that drill.  They are a bit vague and perhaps not the best options, but I honestly think potentially effective.  But I would never put forth those applications as the real intent of the drill.  The drill isn’t meant for direct application, even if you can find direct application for them.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why to use kick to replace that full step footwork make sense.


This is why I don't think that first step shown in the video is as big as shown if used in application


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't expect you to believe it. But claiming you don't believe it because no evidence, then choosing to believe the opposite without evidence is just plain dishonest. You're lying about your reason for choosing that belief. You choose it because you're triggered buy the word "Aikido", and really, really, reeally want it to be bad in all the ways you want it to be.



I am triggered by the idea that Aikido works. But just when we are not looking. And all the stuff we are looking at doesn't count because of this different stuff. That you can't see.

For someone not heavily invested that is a pretty silly stance. 

The bait and switch that I was discussing earlier.

I provided evidence of where Aikido fails. You haven't provided evidence of where it succeeds.

You are now the one saying I lie. But I have shown the video of the issues I have brought up. You can't provide an example where I lied or made something up. 

You are unable to support your claims and they are not relevant untill you do.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> This is what I often mean when I say that something is intentionally taught incorrectly.  If it's demonstrating a fundamental body-engagement principal then there will be a whole a lot of things that won't work in application, because it's the principal being taught and not the application.



The confusion is you are looking at the application. There is no application after that demonstration.

The end result is to be able to perform this.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> I think then that if the underlying principal is the intent, then it is being taught correctly for that goal. It is perceived as incorrect if people assume it is meant to have a direct practical application as it is. If direct application is not the purpose, then there may be nothing incorrect about it.


In my mind yes and no.  The only reason I say this is because I think there is application in it,  Like my Jow Ga Forms that uses real strikes but the forms do not teach application.  I don't think it's 100% concept drill because it has to be based on something.  In Martial arts that's the application that has similar movements.  If it's not based on an application then why use it in an attack, as we often see in Aikido demos.

For me I'm just not ready to say that it's "only use to explain a concept"  Concepts have to be based on something applicable. This is why we don't see jump jacks and running in place in forms or Aikido Demos.

What I see in Aikido is both concept and application


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> The confusion is you are looking at the application. There is no application after that demonstration.


The application is seen in the demo when the Aikido Guy 1 attacks like that and Aikido Guy 2 grabs the chop.

If it's not a real application then why train a defense against it?


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> The application is seen in the demo when the Aikido Guy 1 attacks like that and Aikido Guy 2 grabs the chop.
> 
> If it's not a real application then why train a defense against it?



Yeah they are training to perform a demo. As they get better they perform them faster and more fluidly with more moving parts and trickier techniques. 

Go look at a grading. Their ability is judged on their ability to do demo's fluidly.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> In my mind yes and no.  The only reason I say this is because I think there is application in it,  Like my Jow Ga Forms that uses real strikes but the forms do not teach application.  I don't think it's 100% concept drill because it has to be based on something.  In Martial arts that's the application that has similar movements.  If it's not based on an application then why use it in an attack, as we often see in Aikido demos.
> 
> For me I'm just not ready to say that it's "only use to explain a concept"  Concepts have to be based on something applicable. This is why we don't see jump jacks and running in place in forms or Aikido Demos.
> 
> What I see in Aikido is both concept and application


Fair enough, and I don’t know enough about aikido to say anything with certainty.  However, I do recognize the concepts and I wonder if that is what is really happening, and most people simply don’t realize what they are looking at.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> The application is seen in the demo when the Aikido Guy 1 attacks like that and Aikido Guy 2 grabs the chop.
> 
> If it's not a real application then why train a defense against it?



I am trying to find a video of this group that make these claims that they are the different Aikido. The really real aikido for the street. And they grunt and swear and wear camo pants.. and then do exactly the same prearranged  demo stuff everyone else does. 

But they do it to the Max.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> The confusion is you are looking at the application. There is no application after that demonstration.
> 
> The end result is to be able to perform this.


I can only think that way if I don't think the technique is valid.  The fact that I'm able to do similar kung fu technique in sparring makes me think it's valid.  If you are correct that would mean that 
1. There is no principal, because the principal is based on something that doesn't occur.  Principal would have to reference something that is real if it doesn't then the principle is flawed and the defense application of it is flawed.

2. If all of Aikido works like #1 then the system is flawed and it doesn't work.

3. If the system is flawed then there no way I would think I could land that that strike. Being that I've landed a closed fist version of that technique before.

4.  If #1 and #2 aren't real then #3 isn't real even though I've used similar techniques in sparring.  

5.  If #4 is true then I'm either a liar or my video is a liar.

So that's where I am. lol.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I am triggered by the idea that Aikido works. But just when we are not looking. And all the stuff we are looking at doesn't count because of this different stuff. That you can't see.
> 
> For someone not heavily invested that is a pretty silly stance.
> 
> The bait and switch that I was discussing earlier.
> 
> I provided evidence of where Aikido fails. You haven't provided evidence of where it succeeds.


Again, I don't do Aikido (the art you're talking about), so..............



> You are now the one saying I lie. But I have shown the video of the issues I have brought up. You can't provide an example where I lied or made something up.


You're making claims aboiut what I do:



drop bear said:


> you guys don't do flow rolls


Show me ANY evidence you have to back up your assertion. Go ahead.

Yet you believe that where there is no evidence (said evidence can't exist, since it's an untrue statement), then dishonestly claim that you're just being intellectually selective by claiming I don't do things.



> You are unable to support your claims and they are not relevant untill you do.


Yet, apparently, you don't mind making unsupported claims and CHOOSING to believe the opposite of my statements (rather than taking a skeptical stance, which would be intellectually honest).

I think you actually believe you're better at this than you are.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I can only think that way if I don't think the technique is valid.  The fact that I'm able to do similar kung fu technique in sparring makes me think it's valid.  If you are correct that would mean that
> 1. There is no principal, because the principal is based on something that doesn't occur.  Principal would have to reference something that is real if it doesn't then the principle is flawed and the defense application of it is flawed.
> 
> 2. If all of Aikido works like #1 then the system is flawed and it doesn't work.
> 
> 3. If the system is flawed then there no way I would think I could land that that strike. Being that I've landed a closed fist version of that technique before.
> 
> 4.  If #1 and #2 aren't real then #3 isn't real even though I've used similar techniques in sparring.
> 
> 5.  If #4 is true then I'm either a liar or my video is a liar.
> 
> So that's where I am. lol.



Nope you are just being mean. You have to account for all the Aikido you can't see. That works like it is supposed to. 

Anyway I found the group. Rogue warriors.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> In my mind yes and no.  The only reason I say this is because I think there is application in it,  Like my Jow Ga Forms that uses real strikes but the forms do not teach application.  I don't think it's 100% concept drill because it has to be based on something.  In Martial arts that's the application that has similar movements.  If it's not based on an application then why use it in an attack, as we often see in Aikido demos.
> 
> For me I'm just not ready to say that it's "only use to explain a concept"  Concepts have to be based on something applicable. This is why we don't see jump jacks and running in place in forms or Aikido Demos.
> 
> What I see in Aikido is both concept and application


I'd argue that some of the drills in Aikido (based on my limited experience with what mainline Aikido folks do) are movement drills, and not direct application. If I'm right about that, there are students who don't understand that. So blending drills, for instance, aren't necessarily meant to replicate the flow of combat, but to allow students to focus on a specific kind of timing and interaction of momentum that is used in a lot of Aikido's grappling. While some application can end up looking like a blending drill, it's not what I'd expect in most situations. More like the speed bag in boxing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah they are training to perform a demo. As they get better they perform them faster and more fluidly with more moving parts and trickier techniques.
> 
> Go look at a grading. Their ability is judged on their ability to do demo's fluidly.


I believe this is absolutely true in some schools. I think some branches actually make this the primary focus - it becomes a philosophical use of movement, rather than a focus on fighting skill.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> Fair enough, and I don’t know enough about aikido to say anything with certainty.  However, I do recognize the concepts and I wonder if that is what is really happening, and most people simply don’t realize what they are looking at.


That's kung fu all day 24/7 , 365.  It happens in other systems as well and I really think it's because most people don't try to actually use this stuff.  Once you try to use it, then you start looking at it differently because the focus changes from "How do I move like that" to  "How does this actually work." 

I could still be wrong, because I haven't actually used it the same way it is shown in Aikido.   I would need to do some sparring to work out the kinks and errors that I have.  I may be able to try it with my son, as he's more of the mindset that Kung Fu techniques don't work.  He usually wasn't around when I did sparring, so his reactions will be normal and more realistic to how a person may react.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Again, I don't do Aikido (the art you're talking about), so..............
> 
> You're making claims aboiut what I do:
> 
> 
> Show me ANY evidence you have to back up your assertion. Go ahead.
> 
> Yet you believe that where there is no evidence (said evidence can't exist, since it's an untrue statement), then dishonestly claim that you're just being intellectually selective by claiming I don't do things.
> 
> Yet, apparently, you don't mind making unsupported claims and CHOOSING to believe the opposite of my statements (rather than taking a skeptical stance, which would be intellectually honest).
> 
> I think you actually believe you're better at this than you are.



Good point I will change that statement to. There is no evidence you do flow rolls.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I believe this is absolutely true in some schools. I think some branches actually make this the primary focus - it becomes a philosophical use of movement, rather than a focus on fighting skill.



Yeah in theory it is portal stuff. But with the Aikido movement training there is no evidence it has practical application out side it's actual application.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Good point I will change that statement to. There is no evidence you do flow rolls.


That's a fair statement.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> I am trying to find a video of this group that make these claims that they are the different Aikido. The really real aikido for the street. And they grunt and swear and wear camo pants.. and then do exactly the same prearranged  demo stuff everyone else does.
> 
> But they do it to the Max.


Oh no.... Not to the Max lol.   Yeah sometimes I think those guys are reaching as well.  I often get the feeling of "Trying to hard to validate something." Lots of explaining and no sparring against someone outside of their school.  I'm always cautious of that regardless of the system.  I try not to take it for more than what it is.  At the most it's a possible guide to something that may or may not work or even appear often.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah in theory it is portal stuff. But with the Aikido movement training there is no evidence it has practical application out side it's actual application.


From what I know of some techniques that overlap with Ueshiba's Aikido, there is application _related to_ that movement training. It's just not as close to the application as in other approaches, like Judo or BJJ. Those movement drills serve multiple purposes. I don't like how much emphasis I've seen on them in some Aikido schools - doesn't fit what I like - but I've found value (both as a student and as an instructor) in some similar stuff. But yeah, it's not directly related to fighting skill. It's like approaching some of the principles from a tangent. I don't really have good way to explain how they work (the training principle), unfortunately. I understand it, but haven't ever really found a good set of words to voice what I understand.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Yeah they are training to perform a demo.


Agree with you 100% there.

In Chinese wrestling, we have a move "float" that look like Aikido technique.







My student can't flip his opponent if his opponent doesn't want to. The reason is simple, he only controls his opponent's wrist joint. His opponent's elbow joint is free. Also both of his opponent's legs are free.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Martial D said:


> Here's to hoping your imaginary attacker has no idea what he's doing.



Is this just a random statement, or is there some reasoned thinking behind it?  You provided no details to back it up.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> but to allow students to focus on a specific kind of timing and interaction of momentum that is used in a lot of Aikido's grappling. While some application can end up looking like a blending drill, it's not what I'd expect in most situations. More like the speed bag in boxing.


I look at speed bag as a conditioning exercise. Which is why you don't have boxing drills where the opponent is doing speed bag movement.  The same cannot be said about Aikido.  If a boxer demonstrated the same speed bag movement in the context of someone attacking him, then I'm calling it an applicable technique.





But because we don't see things like that movie clip of speed bag techniques in application, we can assume that  it's just an exercise or separate it from any attack scenario.   But with aikido it is always shown as someone attacking or someone defending.  Point is, if it's only an exercise then why put it in an Attack / defense scenario? Against attack movement's that aren't realistic.  So basically, you are training using timing that doesn't exist in a fight.  To me that doesn't make sense and to spend 10+ years on that makes even less sense.  So in my mind there has to be something legit there.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> From what I know of some techniques that overlap with Ueshiba's Aikido, there is application _related to_ that movement training. It's just not as close to the application as in other approaches, like Judo or BJJ. Those movement drills serve multiple purposes. I don't like how much emphasis I've seen on them in some Aikido schools - doesn't fit what I like - but I've found value (both as a student and as an instructor) in some similar stuff. But yeah, it's not directly related to fighting skill. It's like approaching some of the principles from a tangent. I don't really have good way to explain how they work (the training principle), unfortunately. I understand it, but haven't ever really found a good set of words to voice what I understand.



I have found it messes people up. Not from doing ineffective striking but from good uke training. Which then trains them to break structure all the time or assume there eyes will pop out at the slightest pressure.

They get flinchy. Which is a really bad trait for any contested activity.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> I look at speed bag as a conditioning exercise. Which is why you don't have boxing drills where the opponent is doing speed bag movement.  The same cannot be said about Aikido.  If a boxer demonstrated the same speed bag movement in the context of someone attacking him, then I'm calling it an applicable technique.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But because we don't see things like that movie clip of speed bag techniques in application, we can assume that  it's just an exercise or separate it from any attack scenario.   But with aikido it is always shown as someone attacking or someone defending.  Point is, if it's only an exercise then why put it in an Attack / defense scenario? Against attack movement's that aren't realistic.  So basically, you are training using timing that doesn't exist in a fight.  To me that doesn't make sense and to spend 10+ years on that makes even less sense.  So in my mind there has to be something legit there.


It is certainly possible that some practitioners have a poor understanding of how to adjust it for application.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I look at speed bag as a conditioning exercise. Which is why you don't have boxing drills where the opponent is doing speed bag movement.  The same cannot be said about Aikido.  If a boxer demonstrated the same speed bag movement in the context of someone attacking him, then I'm calling it an applicable technique.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But because we don't see things like that movie clip of speed bag techniques in application, we can assume that  it's just an exercise or separate it from any attack scenario.   But with aikido it is always shown as someone attacking or someone defending.  Point is, if it's only an exercise then why put it in an Attack / defense scenario? Against attack movement's that aren't realistic.  So basically, you are training using timing that doesn't exist in a fight.  To me that doesn't make sense and to spend 10+ years on that makes even less sense.  So in my mind there has to be something legit there.



There is this idea that because there are movements unrelated to martial arts that help martial arts. Then all unrelated movements must have martial benefits. 

This is not the case.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree with you 100% there.
> 
> In Chinese wrestling, we have a move "float" that look like Aikido technique.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My student can't flip his opponent if his opponent doesn't want to. The reason is simple, he only controls his opponent's wrist joint. His opponent's elbow joint is free. Also both of his opponent's legs are free.





Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree with you 100% there.
> 
> In Chinese wrestling, we have a move "float" that look like Aikido technique.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My student can't flip his opponent if his opponent doesn't want to. The reason is simple, he only controls his opponent's wrist joint. His opponent's elbow joint is free. Also both of his opponent's legs are free.



But then you see @0:35  A similar throw against a resisting opponent and it works.  This goes back to what I've been saying about understanding what's needed in order for it to work.  If you are missing important parts, footwork or in this case shoulder placement, then it's not going to work.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> It is certainly possible that some practitioners have a poor understanding of how to adjust it for application.


The closet thing I've seen to speed bag technique in boxing is milling.  Edit: If there was a technique beyond conditioning then I think we would have seen it used in boxing.  Show me a boxing technique that uses speed bag hand movements.



drop bear said:


> There is this idea that because there are movements unrelated to martial arts that help martial arts. Then all unrelated movements must have martial benefits.
> 
> This is not the case.


I agree,  But I bet in all of your "unrelated" movements, you aren't using them against an attack.  I don't make a form where I do situps as a way to defend against an attack.  I just do sit ups.  When I do arm conditioning exercises, I don't demo it as a defense against an attack.  When boxer do jump ropes, they don't say.  you dodge a punch by doing a jump rope technique.  If the Aikido techniques were done minus the attack defense then I would be 100% agreement with you.

I just can't see spending 10 years doing that chop and all you get out of it is a concept?  Really?  it takes 10 years to understand the concept?  I just can't see the entire system as being one big idea that trains against things that don't happen.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> The closet thing I've seen to speed bag technique in boxing is milling.  Edit: If there was a technique beyond conditioning then I think we would have seen it used in boxing.  Show me a boxing technique that uses speed bag hand movements.
> 
> 
> I agree,  But I bet in all of your "unrelated" movements, you aren't using them against an attack.  I don't make a form where I do situps as a way to defend against an attack.  I just do sit ups.  When I do arm conditioning exercises, I don't demo it as a defense against an attack.  When boxer do jump ropes, they don't say.  you dodge a punch by doing a jump rope technique.  If the Aikido techniques were done minus the attack defense then I would be 100% agreement with you.
> 
> I just can't see spending 10 years doing that chop and all you get out of it is a concept?  Really?  it takes 10 years to understand the concept?  I just can't see the entire system as being one big idea that trains against things that don't happen.


I’m guessing here as I know little about aikido.  But if they do that chop with very specific attention to details and deliberate movement toward full-body unison, then it isn’t about learning a concept.  It is about building and honing and constantly polishing a skill.  That is something that one should practice for a lifetime, as a regular piece of training.  That is what we do with the torso rotation exercise i showed you.  It always requires polishing, we never “graduate” beyond it.  It is a staple that we always practice, and I can show how the principle that it develops is incorporated into everything that we do.  

But I would never demonstrate the torso rotation alone as a viable defense.  The principle developed by our rotation exercise would be found in whatever defensive technique that I might demonstrate, but I wouldn’t demonstrate that rotation alone as the defense.

I think it is possible that with some of these Aikido demonstrations, there is a similar concept going on, but they are failing to understand that an adjustment is necessary if they want to use that drill as an actual combat technique.  So there may be a lack of understanding with some aikidoka.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> I’m guessing here as I know little about aikido.  But if they do that chop with very specific attention to details and deliberate movement toward full-body unison, then it isn’t about learning a concept.  It is about building and honing and constantly polishing a skill.  That is something that one should practice for a lifetime, as a regular piece of training.  That is what we do with the torso rotation exercise i showed you.  It always requires polishing, we never “graduate” beyond it.  It is a staple that we always practice, and I can show how the principle that it develops is incorporated into everything that we do.
> 
> But I would never demonstrate the torso rotation alone as a viable defense.  The principle developed by our rotation exercise would be found in whatever defensive technique that I might demonstrate, but I wouldn’t demonstrate that rotation alone as the defense.
> 
> I think it is possible that with some of these Aikido demonstrations, there is a similar concept going on, but they are failing to understand that an adjustment is necessary if they want to use that drill as an actual combat technique.  So there may be a lack of understanding with some aikidoka.


I'll start with that robot chop to where I'm functional with it.  I think if I can understand a usable attack then I will have a better chance to understand.  The defense for it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> I’m guessing here as I know little about aikido.  But if they do that chop with very specific attention to details and deliberate movement toward full-body unison, then it isn’t about learning a concept.  It is about building and honing and constantly polishing a skill.  That is something that one should practice for a lifetime, as a regular piece of training.  That is what we do with the torso rotation exercise i showed you.  It always requires polishing, we never “graduate” beyond it.  It is a staple that we always practice, and I can show how the principle that it develops is incorporated into everything that we do.
> 
> But I would never demonstrate the torso rotation alone as a viable defense.  The principle developed by our rotation exercise would be found in whatever defensive technique that I might demonstrate, but I wouldn’t demonstrate that rotation alone as the defense.
> 
> I think it is possible that with some of these Aikido demonstrations, there is a similar concept going on, but they are failing to understand that an adjustment is necessary if they want to use that drill as an actual combat technique.  So there may be a lack of understanding with some aikidoka.


Take your reply, and see if it holds true for other systems that you are familiar with. Let us know if there is an exception were a system does different than what you have described here.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> Take your reply, and see if it holds true for other systems that you are familiar with. Let us know if there is an exception were a system does different than what you have described here.


Conceptually it holds true for my own system, although the specifics of the drill are different.  Of course I am making what I feel is an educated guess with aikido, I’ve never actually studied it and am definitely not an expert on it.  But the concept is sound in my opinion.  In my own experience, I feel the Tracy Kenpo that Ive studied did not have a similar approach to what I am describing, and I felt that was one of its shortcomings.  When I began to understand the concept within White Crane, that filled in what I felt were holes in the training.  As a methodology it just made more sense to me.  

I can’t really speak to other systems beyond that.  But I think that isn’t really the point.  The point is, aikido has a methodology and a pedagogy and that may differ from other systems.  You need to be open to those methods and that pedagogy or you will not understand aikido.  Whether or not you ultimately like aikido and wish to train it, is an entirely different matter.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> The closet thing I've seen to speed bag technique in boxing is milling.  Edit: If there was a technique beyond conditioning then I think we would have seen it used in boxing.  Show me a boxing technique that uses speed bag hand movements.
> 
> 
> I agree,  But I bet in all of your "unrelated" movements, you aren't using them against an attack.  I don't make a form where I do situps as a way to defend against an attack.  I just do sit ups.  When I do arm conditioning exercises, I don't demo it as a defense against an attack.  When boxer do jump ropes, they don't say.  you dodge a punch by doing a jump rope technique.  If the Aikido techniques were done minus the attack defense then I would be 100% agreement with you.
> 
> I just can't see spending 10 years doing that chop and all you get out of it is a concept?  Really?  it takes 10 years to understand the concept?  I just can't see the entire system as being one big idea that trains against things that don't happen.



If it taught a concept then it would be worth it. Again say you did 10 years of portal movement and you walk away understanding how to make your body work the way you want.

But with portal for example people can demonstratively produce results.

With training that chop they can't,

sort of.

(The results are fundamentally different. You look at it and say that if someone wanted to chop you with intent to hurt you then you stop them is a result. Where the results for others is a movement pattern that resembles perfect as per a pre determined criteria. )

So for example. You might look at this and wonder what the application is. But you are actually looking at the application.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> Conceptually it holds true for my own system, although the specifics of the drill are different. Of course I am making what I feel is an educated guess with aikido, I’ve never actually studied it and am definitely not an expert on it. But the concept is sound in my opinion.


All I'm doing is guessing as well.  I'm taking things that holds true for most and using that to help guide me with my guesses with Aikido. Instead of me looking at what's different, I try to find out what's true across the board so I don't get way out there with my guesses or completely dismiss it.  If I look at what's different, then I won't be able to get anywhere with this effort.  I can't understand a punch by looking at a kick because they are different.  But I can compare a variety of punches and identify universal requirements / similarities and use that to help me understand other punches.

Not picking on Drop Bear, but when you look at at his posts you'll see that it's about differences and not about what may be the same.  There's a place for that type of thinking, but when trying to figure stuff out, you have to see if there are some universal truths and Drop Bear has not done so, which is why all of comments are about the Differences.  

When you look at my comments.  I actually throw out the differences because if it's truly functional then there should be some similarities to things that happen in other systems.  Like magic chi ball fighter only happens in a magic chi ball system it doesn't happen anywhere else.    I don't think Aikido was built in a vacuum with totally new stuff that no one knows about and only Aikido can do it. 

If I couldn't see similarities in Aikido then I would be the first one that says "Nah that stuff is fake."  But I don't see that and if GpSeymour grabs my wrist then I'm going to do my best to deny him the ability to do what ever technique he's trying to do.  If I had to fight a chi ball master then I probably wouldn't bother to fight.  I wouldn't give it the credit of even taking a defensive stance.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> All I'm doing is guessing as well.  I'm taking things that holds true for most and using that to help guide me with my guesses with Aikido. Instead of me looking at what's different, I try to find out what's true across the board so I don't get way out there with my guesses or completely dismiss it.  If I look at what's different, then I won't be able to get anywhere with this effort.  I can't understand a punch by looking at a kick because they are different.  But I can compare a variety of punches and identify universal requirements / similarities and use that to help me understand other punches.
> 
> Not picking on Drop Bear, but when you look at at his posts you'll see that it's about differences and not about what may be the same.  There's a place for that type of thinking, but when trying to figure stuff out, you have to see if there are some universal truths and Drop Bear has not done so, which is why all of comments are about the Differences.
> 
> When you look at my comments.  I actually throw out the differences because if it's truly functional then there should be some similarities to things that happen in other systems.  Like magic chi ball fighter only happens in a magic chi ball system it doesn't happen anywhere else.    I don't think Aikido was built in a vacuum with totally new stuff that no one knows about and only Aikido can do it.
> 
> If I couldn't see similarities in Aikido then I would be the first one that says "Nah that stuff is fake."  But I don't see that and if GpSeymour grabs my wrist then I'm going to do my best to deny him the ability to do what ever technique he's trying to do.  If I had to fight a chi ball master then I probably wouldn't bother to fight.  I wouldn't give it the credit of even taking a defensive stance.


I’m actually looking at similarities that I see in the approach to training.  That foundational stuff is what I feel is most important, and the notion that aikido may practice drills that reinforce the foundation even if those drills are not meant to have direct combat application, makes sense to me and is consistent with my system.  

The drills are different and the combat applications may be different, but that is what makes aikido unique and makes it not Tibetan White crane.   The approach to foundation-building is what makes sense to me.  I can step back and accept that I don’t have a thorough understanding of all that they do.  I’m perfectly ok with that and assume that if I trained with a good teacher that would come clear. I can accept that their approach to the engagement may be quite different.  That doesn’t bother me at all.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> So for example. You might look at this and wonder what the application is. But you are actually looking at the application.


  Nope. It breaks a lot of Universal Truths about staff application for fighting (striking and defending). 

kick me the groin if I ever try to reason that as fighting application.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> aikido may practice drills that reinforce the foundation even if those drills are not meant to have direct combat application,..


This is what I don't like about some of those TMA training method. In TMA, there are foundation training. There are also technique training. If I can use one training to achieve both, I'll use that training method.

If a partner training uses a principle, when you do partner training without partner, you will get solo training. This way, you can kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

I have discarded many TMA training method that have no direct combat application. I don't even teach those training to my students.

For example, I don't teach this drill no matter how traditional it may be.






But I teach this partner drill. When my students do partner drill without partner, they have solo drill. Those solo drill is combat application.


----------



## JowGaWolf

How close is this to the Aikdo Chop.  I just found it





Or is this concept correct?  If this is correct then I'll stop trying understand. All I need to be able to do is run away if this is the concept










Or is this the correct way





@6:43. I'm prefer stepping to the outside of punches much safer bu you can see how the strike lands
@:7:40  If you do the same technique on the outside of a jab then you will never get hit. If you do it like he says @7:40 then you will get hit.  This is where I have problems.  Universally fighting systems says don't enter on the inside of punches like that. But here he says they do it differently.  My thoughts is that the reason so many systems don't enter like @7:40 is because it's dangerous to do so, as a universal reality. 

Based on what I saw, moving to the inside only works if you can pin the arm against the chest upon the strike. I don't think that's possible as that rear hand is already in a position to defend the strike to the head.  I'm more opened to @6:43.  and would be scared to try to strike or block someone doing punch combos like is shown @7:40.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Yokomen Uchi is the strike right?


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is what I don't like about some of those TMA training method. In TMA, there are foundation training. There are also technique training. If I can use one training to achieve both, I'll use that training method.
> 
> If a partner training uses a principle, when you do partner training without partner, you will get solo training. This way, you can kill 2 birds with 1 stone.
> 
> I have discarded many TMA training method that have no direct combat application. I don't even teach those training to my students.
> 
> For example, I don't teach this drill no matter how traditional it may be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I teach this partner drill. When my students do partner drill without partner, they have solo drill. Those solo drill is combat application.


That can work as well.  

Some foundation training includes technique on a functional level.  That can incorporate application more readily.

Some isolates certain foundational concepts and movements in order to focus on those specifically, without being cluttered by application.  That is a clue as to how important they are.  I appreciate the curriculum structure in isolating those components for focused attention.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> Some isolates certain foundational concepts and movements in order to focus on those specifically, without being cluttered by application.


The "cluttered by application" part caught my eye.  I don't know about other systems but this is definitely a common issue for CMA's were the body is doing more than one thing at once.  Show a regular person a kung fu technique that's simple and their head will explode and they will have trouble getting their body to do what they want it to do.  The concept of "coordination between mind and body" is dominate when it comes to CMA.  It's easier for kids because they do not have a long history of other movements to get in the way or interfere with the new movements being learned.  And that's only just the movement's that I'm talking about.  Add application and you have another set of things you have to get used to.  It's one of the reasons why some martial artists can do the movements perfectly but fail horribly when it comes to actual application. Then there's timing and now you have added another challenge.

There's no way to learn all of this at once.  Even boxers don't learn that way.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree with you 100% there.
> 
> In Chinese wrestling, we have a move "float" that look like Aikido technique.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My student can't flip his opponent if his opponent doesn't want to. The reason is simple, he only controls his opponent's wrist joint. His opponent's elbow joint is free. Also both of his opponent's legs are free.


With throws like that - for the reasons you mention - they become highly situational. If the peroson knows what's coming (either because they read the movement or because they know the drill) they're very easy to stymie. During movement, however, if the person doing the throw knows how to feel the structure as they move, it's possible to recognize the opening and use it. They are reliable in a very limited situation - not a high-percentage movement. With someone standing in structure (like in the second clip), they shouldn't even be attempted - he's essentially trying to throw him through his own leg.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I look at speed bag as a conditioning exercise. Which is why you don't have boxing drills where the opponent is doing speed bag movement.  The same cannot be said about Aikido.  If a boxer demonstrated the same speed bag movement in the context of someone attacking him, then I'm calling it an applicable technique.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But because we don't see things like that movie clip of speed bag techniques in application, we can assume that  it's just an exercise or separate it from any attack scenario.   But with aikido it is always shown as someone attacking or someone defending.  Point is, if it's only an exercise then why put it in an Attack / defense scenario? Against attack movement's that aren't realistic.  So basically, you are training using timing that doesn't exist in a fight.  To me that doesn't make sense and to spend 10+ years on that makes even less sense.  So in my mind there has to be something legit there.


It's put in an attack/defense scenario because it's a grappling movement, intended to practice opposing momentums that shift uke into a throw. Can't practice that nearly as effectively without a partner, and without one it'll never develop the student's feel.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I have found it messes people up. Not from doing ineffective striking but from good uke training. Which then trains them to break structure all the time or assume there eyes will pop out at the slightest pressure.
> 
> They get flinchy. Which is a really bad trait for any contested activity.


My experience has been that sparring/randori (the Judo type) negate that pretty easily. Without those, you're entirely correct.

It's like the way people react to pressure points. If you have me stand still and activate the pressure point behind the clavicle, you can drop me to my knees. Try it while we're rolling or whatever, and it's not so effective.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> But then you see @0:35  A similar throw against a resisting opponent and it works.  This goes back to what I've been saying about understanding what's needed in order for it to work.  If you are missing important parts, footwork or in this case shoulder placement, then it's not going to work.


That's not the same kind of throw. In that one, he's throwing across the body. The arm being pulled across the shoulders gives him a hard anchor to contrrol the whole arm. In the version KFW showed, the arm is free-floating, so only things like conjunctive locking and momentum prevent it from being pulled in (which is all it takes to stymie that throw).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> I’m guessing here as I know little about aikido.  But if they do that chop with very specific attention to details and deliberate movement toward full-body unison, then it isn’t about learning a concept.  It is about building and honing and constantly polishing a skill.  That is something that one should practice for a lifetime, as a regular piece of training.  That is what we do with the torso rotation exercise i showed you.  It always requires polishing, we never “graduate” beyond it.  It is a staple that we always practice, and I can show how the principle that it develops is incorporated into everything that we do.
> 
> But I would never demonstrate the torso rotation alone as a viable defense.  The principle developed by our rotation exercise would be found in whatever defensive technique that I might demonstrate, but I wouldn’t demonstrate that rotation alone as the defense.
> 
> I think it is possible that with some of these Aikido demonstrations, there is a similar concept going on, but they are failing to understand that an adjustment is necessary if they want to use that drill as an actual combat technique.  So there may be a lack of understanding with some aikidoka.


This is pretty much what I was getting at. And I think this is common in what I call "classical" approaches in some Japanese arts. There are "techniques" I know (and still teach) that I don't think have (or everr had) good direct application. One of them is very focused on timing and movement, and I find it much more useful in clinch fighting (so it looks nothing like the classical form). My opinion is that the classical form is training two separate things at once: that movement/feel (which can be used with multiple techniques) and the finishing technique (which can be used in a few situations). They were just linked together because it works well that way in the dril.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> All I'm doing is guessing as well.  I'm taking things that holds true for most and using that to help guide me with my guesses with Aikido. Instead of me looking at what's different, I try to find out what's true across the board so I don't get way out there with my guesses or completely dismiss it.  If I look at what's different, then I won't be able to get anywhere with this effort.  I can't understand a punch by looking at a kick because they are different.  But I can compare a variety of punches and identify universal requirements / similarities and use that to help me understand other punches.
> 
> Not picking on Drop Bear, but when you look at at his posts you'll see that it's about differences and not about what may be the same.  There's a place for that type of thinking, but when trying to figure stuff out, you have to see if there are some universal truths and Drop Bear has not done so, which is why all of comments are about the Differences.
> 
> When you look at my comments.  I actually throw out the differences because if it's truly functional then there should be some similarities to things that happen in other systems.  Like magic chi ball fighter only happens in a magic chi ball system it doesn't happen anywhere else.    I don't think Aikido was built in a vacuum with totally new stuff that no one knows about and only Aikido can do it.
> 
> If I couldn't see similarities in Aikido then I would be the first one that says "Nah that stuff is fake."  But I don't see that and if GpSeymour grabs my wrist then I'm going to do my best to deny him the ability to do what ever technique he's trying to do.  If I had to fight a chi ball master then I probably wouldn't bother to fight.  I wouldn't give it the credit of even taking a defensive stance.


If you're looking for function in Aikido, I don't think I'd spend time looking at that chop. I'm far from an expert, but I've not run into a practitioner or instructor for whom that seemed to be a core part of their training. I've referred to how I think their movement drills (and some of ours) can be viewed usefully, and I think some of that applies to the chop (specifically the offline movement part). The strike, itself, I don't think is highly functional. It's possible the purpose in training it is pretty much what @drop bear suggests: it provides a consistent input for formal technique. It may also simply be part of the "do" of the art, in that rigorous training of it to specific detail has its own purpose. Likely, there's some of those, as well as specific body movement they're working at the same time. That latter, I think I spot in some of their techniques, where they do throws in a manner I'm not able to (even allowing for the uke).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is what I don't like about some of those TMA training method. In TMA, there are foundation training. There are also technique training. If I can use one training to achieve both, I'll use that training method.
> 
> If a partner training uses a principle, when you do partner training without partner, you will get solo training. This way, you can kill 2 birds with 1 stone.
> 
> I have discarded many TMA training method that have no direct combat application. I don't even teach those training to my students.
> 
> For example, I don't teach this drill no matter how traditional it may be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I teach this partner drill. When my students do partner drill without partner, they have solo drill. Those solo drill is combat application.


In my experience, solo training for grappling causes many students to develop bad habits, because they can't properly use their partner's body as a component. It's good for working "muscle memory" on the movements, but only once the student understands the principles in the movement and is able to imagine the position of their opponent. That latter is harder than I expected for students, and some literally take years to develop it at all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> How close is this to the Aikdo Chop.  I just found it


The first one is similar in concept to a technique we have (and which I believe Aikido also has). The strike they show wouldn't have a lot of power - the actual purpose is to move the head off the structure, which (combined with the momentum) breaks down structure enough for the throw. It's easiest with a heavy weapon (slower and more momentum moving around you), but can be done from a static start if they don't read it.



> Or is this concept correct?  If this is correct then I'll stop trying understand. All I need to be able to do is run away if this is the concept


This is consistent with what I was told about these strikes being derived from sword movements. (We won't talk about the odd notion of boxers not being able to move and deliver power at the same time.) He is also correct about the distance problem Aikido has, as I see it. NGA shares this issue with 90% of the Classical techniques - it's why I spend so much time working on striking and clinch-distance grappling that isn't in the Classical curriculum.


> Or is this the correct way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @6:43. I'm prefer stepping to the outside of punches much safer bu you can see how the strike lands
> @:7:40  If you do the same technique on the outside of a jab then you will never get hit. If you do it like he says @7:40 then you will get hit.  This is where I have problems.  Universally fighting systems says don't enter on the inside of punches like that. But here he says they do it differently.  My thoughts is that the reason so many systems don't enter like @7:40 is because it's dangerous to do so, as a universal reality.
> 
> Based on what I saw, moving to the inside only works if you can pin the arm against the chest upon the strike. I don't think that's possible as that rear hand is already in a position to defend the strike to the head.  I'm more opened to @6:43.  and would be scared to try to strike or block someone doing punch combos like is shown @7:40.


This one is looking at use of the strike, itself. The Aikido schools I've seen don't focus as much on application of the strike. (On a side note, even this guy is doing something that I'm sure drives @drop bear crazy - he makes contact and appears to leave uke for a half-beat without doing anything much to him. Maybe there's something subtle going on, but it looks to me like uke could simply step out of the technique after first contact.)
As for the inside/outside question, grapplers tend to work both, even when defending punches. Round strikes are hard to get to the outside of, so we develop entries that move to the inside (sometimes we convert those to outside moves once we're in). Since we have those, we practice using them also against linear strikes, since the muscle memory is there. In general, I'd rather be on the outside. But if I'm inside, that's where I'll work. A clinch (essentially an inside entry) is easier to get from the front than taking the back (essentially an outside movement).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Yokomen Uchi is the strike right?


Yes. That's the one to the side of the head (as I know the term). Shomenuchi is to the front of the head, so directly downward in most schools.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> That can work as well.
> 
> Some foundation training includes technique on a functional level.  That can incorporate application more readily.
> 
> Some isolates certain foundational concepts and movements in order to focus on those specifically, without being cluttered by application.  That is a clue as to how important they are.  I appreciate the curriculum structure in isolating those components for focused attention.


There's an important point here. While I enjoy both approaches to training (direct application, and isolated concepts), I find training more interesting when it includes the latter. I enjoy the challenge of working to hone a specific concept or principle for its own sake (smooth flow in classical forms) as much as I enjoy developing a functional skill (the ability to slip a punch).


----------



## Martial D

isshinryuronin said:


> Is this just a random statement, or is there some reasoned thinking behind it?  You provided no details to back it up.


Because your scenarios don't reflect reality. The sorts of things you detailed only happen when you get the sort of martial arts deliberate and slow attacks where the arm is left dangling, but irl good luck with any of that if the other guy has any sort of ability to punch well.


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> There's an important point here. While I enjoy both approaches to training (direct application, and isolated concepts), I find training more interesting when it includes the latter. I enjoy the challenge of working to hone a specific concept or principle for its own sake (smooth flow in classical forms) as much as I enjoy developing a functional skill (the ability to slip a punch).


Especially when that concept or principle then permeates everything that you do.  By improving that one foundational concept, you then improve everything all at once.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


>


I had a chance to skim through this video and I think it is revealing in terms of how aikido approaches training and application.  In short, I really do believe it approaches things rather differently than folks with a Western mindset are typically comfortable with. 

We in the West tend to be very direct and expect things to have kind of a straight line to the goal.  We expect results and we want to see a logical progression that meets that expectation.  I feel that aikido gets results, but takes a different path.  It is less direct and approaches things in ways that are surprising to a Western mindset.

It seems to me that aikido trains evasions and deflections and redirections, essentially a physical education with a focus on reading the energy and intent and body-positioning of an enemy.  Within that physical education, there exist opportunities to apply decisive throws and joint manipulations and pins, with some strikes as well.  But it doesn’t concern itself with a more direct action-and-response that is often found within other systems.  There aren’t hardline answers to questions like “how does aikido defend against a punch?”, or “I see THIS movement done in aikido, how is it used?”  I think perhaps the philosophy of aikido’s approach just isn’t concerned with that, and anticipates reaching an effective end through a highly attuned awareness of motion and positioning.  Application is highly dependent on circumstances, so it is difficult to answer those questions in the abstract, without an engagement unfolding.

For most people, this is probably a difficult road.  Perhaps Ueshiba was a truly gifted person who found a unique way that worked extremely well for him, but is not easily passed on to most people.  I expect to really be useable requires a high level of skill and long training.  But that’s ok, if someone is interested and willing to travel that road.  People do what they find interesting even if others object to the method.

I think that people who are interested in a direct road, with a focus on results as quickly as possible, will always be frustrated by the approach that aikido takes.  It will seem misguided.  It may be that aikido is a good path for a smaller group of people. 

I don’t see any problem with any of that.

I’m not sure if I’ve managed to express my thoughts clearly or coherently.  I guess I see similar elements within the Chinese methods that I’ve studied.  We can deal with application, but ultimately what one does is highly dependent on the circumstances, and response is often spontaneous and creative, depending on the circumstances. I tend to view my own training as a body of physical education that opens the door to infinite possibilities, rather than as a fixed body of techniques that represent the total of my options.  But that’s just me.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hello everyone, I came here researching a totally different topic and happened upon this thread and it made me register to get a reply in. By means of introductions and specifically for the purpose of providing some personal Curriculum Vitae to accompany my response/input to this thread, a little background on me. I've studied Aikido for approximately 17 years of the time I've been practicing martial arts, it was my first black belt and I consider it to be part of the core/center of my personal style and philosophy in Budo. I'm a combat veteran, I spent some time as a cop and I have been in some form of "profession of arms" since I became an adult. I've also had the opportunity to travel and train in multiple styles of martial art, in their parent countries and I have fought competitively in about a dozen professional/paid fights over the years. I'm not listing all this as machismo or to brag, merely to establish that I have qualifying experience in sport/traditional and practical application of what I am talking about and that when I speak as an Aikido practitioner I am doing so from a position of someone who has experienced fighting in its various facets and venues, with training in multiple styles and who can speak from a reliable level of expertise, assuming you take me at my word regarding my experience.

  Any Aikido school which traces its lineage back to Japan is practicing post world war 2 Aikido, this is problematic for the "practicality" of the martial art in the west. Morihei Ueshiba was a war hero in the Russo-Japanese war and he won the Japanese equivalent of the medal of honor for single handedly breaking a Russian cavalry charge on his position as a lone rifleman. Once he began establishing Aikido, he was a war hero who was also a leading personality within the nationalist movement of pre world war 2 Japan. Ueshiba developed Aikido based on his experience in Judo, Ju-Jutsu, Ken-Jutsu and other specifically Japanese martial arts as a sort of finishing school for Japanese martial artists and as a proprietary "Japanese only" discipline designed to give the Japanese soldier a supernatural edge and to establish the correct philosophy of what he referred to as "Yamato Damashii" or the true spirit of Japan, but as it was seen and understood under Emperor Hirohito and the Japanese fascists. 

 Morihei Ueshiba spent the entire war training the Japanese military, along with most of his core apostles/students, using Aikido as a framework to blend practical Budo with a quasi-religious indoctrination into Japanese fascism/nationalism. Post war, Ueshiba became a pacifist and attempted to re-brand Aikido as a sort of national discipline which could encapsulate the new spirit of peace and the end of Japanese militarism. Once Aikido entered its post war phase/rebranding, the curriculum was edited, the teachings were watered down and much like the rest of the individual Japanese martial arts, Aikido became more about the cultivation of personal discipline and character than as an actual pragmatic fighting system. 

 Skip forward to Aikido coming to the states, Steven Seagal brings it to Hollywood and it reaches popularity during the big "Karate boom". Half of the schools are claiming Aikido is the ultimate combat martial art like you see in the Seagal movies and the other half are still pushing the post war "fight without fighting" pacifism. The UFC shows up in 1993 and America watches first hand as wave after wave of the countries fast food black belts get punched in the face for the first time or choked out by these super brutal kids from Brazil who have a very distinct style and actual experience in real fights. Hence today, we get a dramatic over-correction from this long search for "the best style" to "nothing but BJJ and MMA works" which is perpetuated by all the celebrity attention the BJJ world has gotten through Joe Rogan and company as well as the tried and true record of the Gracie dynasty which has now produced a long line of incredibly talented world champion level martial artists and all of their students.

  The reality however is much different, BJJ is not the end-all-be-all martial art. MMA is not the only way to produce good techniques or fighters and Aikido is not simply a useless discipline that doesn't work. The reality is that we have a slovenly martial arts culture built from instant gratification where many people don't care about anything other than progress to their next belt or getting into the right "camp" to call themselves a cage fighter. While I think things today are much better than the eighties and nineties, I would still hazard an estimate that over three quarters of all martial arts schools in the US are feel good factories charging fifty bucks an hour to give people cool selfies for their instagram or a nice belt to hang on their wall, not schools seeking to train effective warriors. Aikido is simply a victim of both its own post war re-branding as well as our own problems here in the west. For a "bridge" discipline that was always supposed to be partnered with another discipline like Judo or Kendo, the basket of highly technical and situational techniques that aikido brings to the table is simply not useful or practical on its own even if you get lucky enough to find a good teacher who actually knows what the hell they are doing. Aikido is never going to be an all encompassing martial art above all others, but it was never intended to be that, even in its pre-war format that emphasized practicality and lethality, it was always intended to be blended into something else.

  Where Aikido shines, where it is practical and useful, is when it is blended into multiple disciplines and like any martial art, when it is used in conjunction with practical training techniques with an active and resistive partner. What makes BJJ so great is its training methods and its consistent demand for students to apply the techniques to an opponent who is resisting. No system is practical if it is missing this type of resistance training, its like weightlifting but only ever using what weight feels comfortable at the time. If we go back to the source material, the writings and understanding of Morihei Ueshiba and his students/associates before the end of World War 2 and once we filter out the right wing Japanese fascism, we see more practical application and theory. There is, also, a surprising amount of good material in the pacifist/koombaya post war Aikido, if you understand the fundamentals of the philosophy and accept the differences as part of the overall duality of man's nature, rather than try to wrist lock your way out of your next MMA match.

  Aikido is Ai - harmony, Ki - spirit, Do - way or "the way of the harmonious spirit" as a literal translation, though a better one might be "the way of the tranquil soul" but "harmonious spirit" does fit. Aikido philosophy assumes the student understands the concepts of late Edo period, contemporary views of Bushido and Zen as applied to the martial mind of the Samurai. The ultimate goal and life's work behind Aikido is to produce a truly balanced and harmonious warrior who is not only capable of killing but also of mercy and who has the discipline and expertise to choose the appropriate force to respond to an attack and the expertise to only use exactly that force necessary to achieve the desired result. A true master of Aikido is the same concept as an image of the buddha, a conceptual goal more than an image of a specific person. Through the teachings and principles instilled in the student, the goal is to create a fighter who can do what needs to be done in a war such as efficiently killing an opponent but who has the skill and personal attributes that would also allow them to subdue an armed assailant without hurting them.

  So what's a "practical" example of this and how is it applied? Let's look at something like a counter to a punch. Many inexperienced or poorly trained Aikido students will absolutely stand around trying to catch a punch, this is an example of the student not understanding the technique or how to apply it. Aikido traditionally has something like 5 different counters to the traditional "straight punch" or jab, but if you look at each individual technique, it doesn't begin by trying to catch a hand or punch, it starts with the movement of the Aikido practitioner to enter/pass or blend with the opponent and to get a hand in to intercept the joint/limb being used to attack BEFORE the strike is thrown if possible. Take a look at a good explanation of a counter to a punch with a wrist lock here (not an endorsement of the content creator just this one explanation given for this specific technique because it demonstrates the correct targeting and movement):






  The Aikido practitioner is learning to recognize the momentum and power in an opponents actions, to understand where that energy is generated and to intercept, redirect, deflect or ground that energy as if it were electricity. This movement and hostile geometry of the Aikido practitioner to both avoid and position the attack and counter attack at the same time is what allows an experienced practitioner to be effective, all you are doing is moving offline from your opponents attack and then attacking in line with any openings given by the opponent. Think of two dueling samurai, they both approach each other and swing their swords as they enter melee range with each other, both are trying to avoid the blow of their opponent and change their position and line of movement enough to get their sword in to an opening, the fighters are not trying to catch the opponents sword, they are attempting to avoid being cut and to cut the opponent first.

  So I don't have to "catch" your punch, I have to know how to read you, see your body begin to generate the power in your hips, shoulders, etc to form and perform the punch and then I just need to get to the joint or limb doing the strike before you get the punch going. If I get in early, I can neutralize your punch before it does anything, possibly even gain control of that arm and use it as a handle to do something to you like an arm bar, wrist lock, shoulder throw, etc. This has immediate applications with other martial arts.

   If you learn each Aikido technique in a controlled environment, having it applied to you at varying levels of resistance and pressure, you learn how to accurately apply the technique with a varying degree of pressure and intensity to others, as well as recognize how far you can "fight" the technique yourself without injury. If you use that knowledge to promote more resistive and dynamic uke/nage drills, you get that more challenging training against resistance that you need to accurately apply the techniques in the real world. 

  If you go further, you mix in another style or two like BJJ and boxing, the Aikido will help you recognize and manipulate the same things with momentum and body mechanics in your BJJ techniques. Those openings created by a half executed Aikido technique that slipped or failed, might now give you an exposed head to throw a two or three punch combination into. Work in some elbow techniques from Muay Thai and all of a sudden that almost but didn't work wristlock becomes a crisp flowing transition into an elbow strike to the opponents face from the opposite side as they move to try and protect against the joint manipulation. Any martial art practiced without resistance and practical application is just a collection of pretty postures and empty forms. Aikido is maybe more guilty as an art than others, but conceptually there is still value in that art that is both practical and complimentary to anything else. I believe this is true for all systems, if you train to use the system in a fight, you may throw out individual moves or techniques but you will find valuable tools in every system, provided you are dedicated enough to train for them and open minded enough to be receptive to them.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Martial D said:


> Because your scenarios don't reflect reality. The sorts of things you detailed only happen when you get the sort of martial arts deliberate and slow attacks where the arm is left dangling, but irl good luck with any of that if the other guy has any sort of ability to punch well.



You basically just reiterated your previous statement, still not describing how the listed scenarios don't reflect reality.  They are based on a "real" attack.  *That's why I emphasized landing strikes and gaining arm control prior to the grab.*

From your tone, it seems you do not think that grabbing the opponent's arm or wrist is possible in a fight.  Correct?  If not, under what circumstance or scenario do you think it's possible?  IMO, if you are unable or unwilling to back up your assertions, you should refrain from making them.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> The strike they show wouldn't have a lot of power - the actual purpose is to move the head off the structure, which (combined with the momentum) breaks down structure enough for the throw.


I'll have to sit and think about this one as it feels that I'm able to generate a good deal of power.   I'm missing something here.


Shatteredzen said:


> Hello everyone, I came here researching a totally different topic and happened upon this thread and it made me register to get a reply in. By means of introductions and specifically for the purpose of providing some personal Curriculum Vitae to accompany my response/input to this thread, a little background on me. I've studied Aikido for approximately 17 years of the time I've been practicing martial arts, it was my first black belt and I consider it to be part of the core/center of my personal style and philosophy in Budo. I'm a combat veteran, I spent some time as a cop and I have been in some form of "profession of arms" since I became an adult. I've also had the opportunity to travel and train in multiple styles of martial art, in their parent countries and I have fought competitively in about a dozen professional/paid fights over the years. I'm not listing all this as machismo or to brag, merely to establish that I have qualifying experience in sport/traditional and practical application of what I am talking about and that when I speak as an Aikido practitioner I am doing so from a position of someone who has experienced fighting in its various facets and venues, with training in multiple styles and who can speak from a reliable level of expertise, assuming you take me at my word regarding my experience.
> 
> Any Aikido school which traces its lineage back to Japan is practicing post world war 2 Aikido, this is problematic for the "practicality" of the martial art in the west. Morihei Ueshiba was a war hero in the Russo-Japanese war and he won the Japanese equivalent of the medal of honor for single handedly breaking a Russian cavalry charge on his position as a lone rifleman. Once he began establishing Aikido, he was a war hero who was also a leading personality within the nationalist movement of pre world war 2 Japan. Ueshiba developed Aikido based on his experience in Judo, Ju-Jutsu, Ken-Jutsu and other specifically Japanese martial arts as a sort of finishing school for Japanese martial artists and as a proprietary "Japanese only" discipline designed to give the Japanese soldier a supernatural edge and to establish the correct philosophy of what he referred to as "Yamato Damashii" or the true spirit of Japan, but as it was seen and understood under Emperor Hirohito and the Japanese fascists.
> 
> Morihei Ueshiba spent the entire war training the Japanese military, along with most of his core apostles/students, using Aikido as a framework to blend practical Budo with a quasi-religious indoctrination into Japanese fascism/nationalism. Post war, Ueshiba became a pacifist and attempted to re-brand Aikido as a sort of national discipline which could encapsulate the new spirit of peace and the end of Japanese militarism. Once Aikido entered its post war phase/rebranding, the curriculum was edited, the teachings were watered down and much like the rest of the individual Japanese martial arts, Aikido became more about the cultivation of personal discipline and character than as an actual pragmatic fighting system.
> 
> Skip forward to Aikido coming to the states, Steven Seagal brings it to Hollywood and it reaches popularity during the big "Karate boom". Half of the schools are claiming Aikido is the ultimate combat martial art like you see in the Seagal movies and the other half are still pushing the post war "fight without fighting" pacifism. The UFC shows up in 1993 and America watches first hand as wave after wave of the countries fast food black belts get punched in the face for the first time or choked out by these super brutal kids from Brazil who have a very distinct style and actual experience in real fights. Hence today, we get a dramatic over-correction from this long search for "the best style" to "nothing but BJJ and MMA works" which is perpetuated by all the celebrity attention the BJJ world has gotten through Joe Rogan and company as well as the tried and true record of the Gracie dynasty which has now produced a long line of incredibly talented world champion level martial artists and all of their students.
> 
> The reality however is much different, BJJ is not the end-all-be-all martial art. MMA is not the only way to produce good techniques or fighters and Aikido is not simply a useless discipline that doesn't work. The reality is that we have a slovenly martial arts culture built from instant gratification where many people don't care about anything other than progress to their next belt or getting into the right "camp" to call themselves a cage fighter. While I think things today are much better than the eighties and nineties, I would still hazard an estimate that over three quarters of all martial arts schools in the US are feel good factories charging fifty bucks an hour to give people cool selfies for their instagram or a nice belt to hang on their wall, not schools seeking to train effective warriors. Aikido is simply a victim of both its own post war re-branding as well as our own problems here in the west. For a "bridge" discipline that was always supposed to be partnered with another discipline like Judo or Kendo, the basket of highly technical and situational techniques that aikido brings to the table is simply not useful or practical on its own even if you get lucky enough to find a good teacher who actually knows what the hell they are doing. Aikido is never going to be an all encompassing martial art above all others, but it was never intended to be that, even in its pre-war format that emphasized practicality and lethality, it was always intended to be blended into something else.
> 
> Where Aikido shines, where it is practical and useful, is when it is blended into multiple disciplines and like any martial art, when it is used in conjunction with practical training techniques with an active and resistive partner. What makes BJJ so great is its training methods and its consistent demand for students to apply the techniques to an opponent who is resisting. No system is practical if it is missing this type of resistance training, its like weightlifting but only ever using what weight feels comfortable at the time. If we go back to the source material, the writings and understanding of Morihei Ueshiba and his students/associates before the end of World War 2 and once we filter out the right wing Japanese fascism, we see more practical application and theory. There is, also, a surprising amount of good material in the pacifist/koombaya post war Aikido, if you understand the fundamentals of the philosophy and accept the differences as part of the overall duality of man's nature, rather than try to wrist lock your way out of your next MMA match.
> 
> Aikido is Ai - harmony, Ki - spirit, Do - way or "the way of the harmonious spirit" as a literal translation, though a better one might be "the way of the tranquil soul" but "harmonious spirit" does fit. Aikido philosophy assumes the student understands the concepts of late Edo period, contemporary views of Bushido and Zen as applied to the martial mind of the Samurai. The ultimate goal and life's work behind Aikido is to produce a truly balanced and harmonious warrior who is not only capable of killing but also of mercy and who has the discipline and expertise to choose the appropriate force to respond to an attack and the expertise to only use exactly that force necessary to achieve the desired result. A true master of Aikido is the same concept as an image of the buddha, a conceptual goal more than an image of a specific person. Through the teachings and principles instilled in the student, the goal is to create a fighter who can do what needs to be done in a war such as efficiently killing an opponent but who has the skill and personal attributes that would also allow them to subdue an armed assailant without hurting them.
> 
> So what's a "practical" example of this and how is it applied? Let's look at something like a counter to a punch. Many inexperienced or poorly trained Aikido students will absolutely stand around trying to catch a punch, this is an example of the student not understanding the technique or how to apply it. Aikido traditionally has something like 5 different counters to the traditional "straight punch" or jab, but if you look at each individual technique, it doesn't begin by trying to catch a hand or punch, it starts with the movement of the Aikido practitioner to enter/pass or blend with the opponent and to get a hand in to intercept the joint/limb being used to attack BEFORE the strike is thrown if possible. Take a look at a good explanation of a counter to a punch with a wrist lock here (not an endorsement of the content creator just this one explanation given for this specific technique because it demonstrates the correct targeting and movement):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Aikido practitioner is learning to recognize the momentum and power in an opponents actions, to understand where that energy is generated and to intercept, redirect, deflect or ground that energy as if it were electricity. This movement and hostile geometry of the Aikido practitioner to both avoid and position the attack and counter attack at the same time is what allows an experienced practitioner to be effective, all you are doing is moving offline from your opponents attack and then attacking in line with any openings given by the opponent. Think of two dueling samurai, they both approach each other and swing their swords as they enter melee range with each other, both are trying to avoid the blow of their opponent and change their position and line of movement enough to get their sword in to an opening, the fighters are not trying to catch the opponents sword, they are attempting to avoid being cut and to cut the opponent first.
> 
> So I don't have to "catch" your punch, I have to know how to read you, see your body begin to generate the power in your hips, shoulders, etc to form and perform the punch and then I just need to get to the joint or limb doing the strike before you get the punch going. If I get in early, I can neutralize your punch before it does anything, possibly even gain control of that arm and use it as a handle to do something to you like an arm bar, wrist lock, shoulder throw, etc. This has immediate applications with other martial arts.
> 
> If you learn each Aikido technique in a controlled environment, having it applied to you at varying levels of resistance and pressure, you learn how to accurately apply the technique with a varying degree of pressure and intensity to others, as well as recognize how far you can "fight" the technique yourself without injury. If you use that knowledge to promote more resistive and dynamic uke/nage drills, you get that more challenging training against resistance that you need to accurately apply the techniques in the real world.
> 
> If you go further, you mix in another style or two like BJJ and boxing, the Aikido will help you recognize and manipulate the same things with momentum and body mechanics in your BJJ techniques. Those openings created by a half executed Aikido technique that slipped or failed, might now give you an exposed head to throw a two or three punch combination into. Work in some elbow techniques from Muay Thai and all of a sudden that almost but didn't work wristlock becomes a crisp flowing transition into an elbow strike to the opponents face from the opposite side as they move to try and protect against the joint manipulation. Any martial art practiced without resistance and practical application is just a collection of pretty postures and empty forms. Aikido is maybe more guilty as an art than others, but conceptually there is still value in that art that is both practical and complimentary to anything else. I believe this is true for all systems, if you train to use the system in a fight, you may throw out individual moves or techniques but you will find valuable tools in every system, provided you are dedicated enough to train for them and open minded enough to be receptive to them.


This pretty much drops it into the same category as Chin Na


----------



## Brian King

@Shatteredzen 
Great first post. Looking forward to more. Welcome to the forum
Regards
Brian King


----------



## drop bear

isshinryuronin said:


> You basically just reiterated your previous statement, still not describing how the listed scenarios don't reflect reality.  They are based on a "real" attack.  *That's why I emphasized landing strikes and gaining arm control prior to the grab.*
> 
> From your tone, it seems you do not think that grabbing the opponent's arm or wrist is possible in a fight.  Correct?  If not, under what circumstance or scenario do you think it's possible?  IMO, if you are unable or unwilling to back up your assertions, you should refrain from making them.



You basically can't see punches Coming at you at speed. Which is an issue if your defence relies on blocking them, catching them and doing cool stuff with them.

Look at a fight. Any fight where a guy gets knocked out. Now all he had to do to avoid that would be to move his head a fists width to the left or right and he would have been fine. But he didn't have time to do that.

If people are struggling to perform that simple action . What hope do they have to try some multi step catch and redirect.


----------



## Shatteredzen

gpseymour said:


> If you're looking for function in Aikido, I don't think I'd spend time looking at that chop. I'm far from an expert, but I've not run into a practitioner or instructor for whom that seemed to be a core part of their training. I've referred to how I think their movement drills (and some of ours) can be viewed usefully, and I think some of that applies to the chop (specifically the offline movement part). The strike, itself, I don't think is highly functional. It's possible the purpose in training it is pretty much what @drop bear suggests: it provides a consistent input for formal technique. It may also simply be part of the "do" of the art, in that rigorous training of it to specific detail has its own purpose. Likely, there's some of those, as well as specific body movement they're working at the same time. That latter, I think I spot in some of their techniques, where they do throws in a manner I'm not able to (even allowing for the uke).



  Regarding the knife hand in Aikido. I have seen traditional schools teach this as a chop/knife hand style strike to aide the attack/manipulation to a joint or soft part of the opponent as a softening blow or even as an "attack". There is a concept discussed by Morihei Ueshiba that the hands are "te-gatana" or hand swords and should be viewed as such, going so far as to suggest that an aikido practitioner should be able to use their hands in a similar manner to strike/damage and devastate an opponent by attacking with the bladed part of the hand. I personally feel that this falls into the "esoteric" side of Aikido and confuses the student into thinking they need to swing a bunch of knife hands and karate chops like a wierdo. Situationally, yes, you can land an effective strike like this when attacking or blocking, but I don't believe anyone should get hung up on this and try fighting with crab hands. You can see in most Aikido videos that this practice long ago fell into the "going through the motions" part of the technique and most Aikido practitioners kind of just sloppily chop to get their hand in to a position to manipulate the joint acting as a fulcrum or hinge point.

  The way I was taught and have used the "knife hand" is as a penetrating thrust to enter the opponents guard and swim/snake around limbs to get to the contact point I am trying to reach. I'm launching the strike to get my hand to the body quickly, simply to intercept the shoulder, foot, arm, etc before it can continue its movement and generate power. If you get inside an opponents range of movement it takes very little strength to defuse a strike, knock someone off balance or simply grip a joint. Take a high kick to the head for example, a TKD favorite, it's chugging along at most likely over a thousand foot pounds of energy, if it hits you in the head its going to connect like a car accident and send you to the moon, but if I move out of the way, get below the leg and softly tap the kicker in their groin or just push on their supporting leg, the whole thing falls apart and the kicker ends up on the ground. If I sweep my arms from both sides to catch and follow the foot, I can simply pull the foot towards me as I turn and that same force is redirected to continue past me, causing the kicker to fall and the technique to fail. If I intercept the kicker after redirecting them, I can execute a throw to ground all of that momentum, at very little cost or effort on my part. If you watch the infamous Kali "flow" or the way a wing chun fighter will work through an opponents guard on the wooden dummy, that's how I was taught and feel that the Aikido "chop" or "knife hand" is best used.

 Here is a great video explaining the Kali process of empty hand striking, their explanation of "gunting" would be how I would view the choice of whether or not to "strike" or simply intercept/snake past with the knife hand.






To put it all together, here is a video from Aikidoflow, a youtuber who I would fully endorse as being authoritative on practical usage of mostly vanilla/classical, Aikido. The way he uses the knife hand in this video is how I was trained, he uses it to move through the opponents attack or guard to the source of the movement, to deflect/neutralize, etc. He is using the entire range of movement in his body, his positioning, etc to execute the techniques and he is advocating to move and act aggressively. Notice how he does not act/react, he talks about entering the opponents attack with his own, like a sword fight.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shatteredzen said:


> Regarding the knife hand in Aikido. I have seen traditional schools teach this as a chop/knife hand style strike to aide the attack/manipulation to a joint or soft part of the opponent as a softening blow or even as an "attack". There is a concept discussed by Morihei Ueshiba that the hands are "te-gatana" or hand swords and should be viewed as such, going so far as to suggest that an aikido practitioner should be able to use their hands in a similar manner to strike/damage and devastate an opponent by attacking with the bladed part of the hand. I personally feel that this falls into the "esoteric" side of Aikido and confuses the student into thinking they need to swing a bunch of knife hands and karate chops like a wierdo. Situationally, yes, you can land an effective strike like this when attacking or blocking, but I don't believe anyone should get hung up on this and try fighting with crab hands. You can see in most Aikido videos that this practice long ago fell into the "going through the motions" part of the technique and most Aikido practitioners kind of just sloppily chop to get their hand in to a position to manipulate the joint acting as a fulcrum or hinge point.
> 
> The way I was taught and have used the "knife hand" is as a penetrating thrust to enter the opponents guard and swim/snake around limbs to get to the contact point I am trying to reach. I'm launching the strike to get my hand to the body quickly, simply to intercept the shoulder, foot, arm, etc before it can continue its movement and generate power. If you get inside an opponents range of movement it takes very little strength to defuse a strike, knock someone off balance or simply grip a joint. Take a high kick to the head for example, a TKD favorite, it's chugging along at most likely over a thousand foot pounds of energy, if it hits you in the head its going to connect like a car accident and send you to the moon, but if I move out of the way, get below the leg and softly tap the kicker in their groin or just push on their supporting leg, the whole thing falls apart and the kicker ends up on the ground. If I sweep my arms from both sides to catch and follow the foot, I can simply pull the foot towards me as I turn and that same force is redirected to continue past me, causing the kicker to fall and the technique to fail. If I intercept the kicker after redirecting them, I can execute a throw to ground all of that momentum, at very little cost or effort on my part. If you watch the infamous Kali "flow" or the way a wing chun fighter will work through an opponents guard on the wooden dummy, that's how I was taught and feel that the Aikido "chop" or "knife hand" is best used.
> 
> Here is a great video explaining the Kali process of empty hand striking, their explanation of "gunting" would be how I would view the choice of whether or not to "strike" or simply intercept/snake past with the knife hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To put it all together, here is a video from Aikidoflow, a youtuber who I would fully endorse as being authoritative on practical usage of mostly vanilla/classical, Aikido. The way he uses the knife hand in this video is how I was trained, he uses it to move through the opponents attack or guard to the source of the movement, to deflect/neutralize, etc. He is using the entire range of movement in his body, his positioning, etc to execute the techniques and he is advocating to move and act aggressively. Notice how he does not act/react, he talks about entering the opponents attack with his own, like a sword fight.


I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying but I'm not sure we are looking at same thing in terms of that chop.  Just over all, I don't discard Jow Ga techniques because of the quote below. 


Shatteredzen said:


> I personally feel that this falls into the "esoteric" side of Aikido and confuses the student into thinking they need to swing a bunch of knife hands and karate chops like a wierdo.


I understand this is you personally, so in return what I'm saying is just my perspective.  
Here's what I see. 

People drilling a chop not a entry.  In this case an entry would be more linear and less hammer like.  I understand the entry part because I've used it in sparring and it didn't have a hammering feel to it.
People drilling to flow with a chopping motion not an entry motion.
What you are presenting are "ways that it can be used" which I don't disagree with.  But I don't want to get far from the Chopping motion or the reaction to the chopping motion.  The frequency that a technique is done is of minor concern.  Tornado kicks aren't that frequently done in MMA but they have been done.  A chop may be similar.  It's not the common thing, but a thing. Like that tool in the tool box that you only use every 2 or 3 years.

What you have written is what I would say to student to help them see beyond that a single technique.  Instead of thinking "that's all there is" they would learn to see things that can it can be used for.  For me.  I'm just focusing on that 1 technique and that 1 reaction to it.  Unfortunately, I'm at a huge disadvantage because I don't train Aikido and I'm currently not in a position where I can test this against a variety of chopping like attacks and entries that are actually used.

My biggest hang up is the idea of training of flow against a movement that doesn't exist in fighting.  That doesn't make sense to me. I can't learn the flow of swimming by training the flow of running, because the running movement doesn't exist in swimming.  So to train flow on an attack or movement that doesn't exist is difficult for me to understand the logic of.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying but I'm not sure we are looking at same thing in terms of that chop.  Just over all, I don't discard Jow Ga techniques because of the quote below.
> I understand this is you personally, so in return what I'm saying is just my perspective.
> Here's what I see.
> 
> People drilling a chop not a entry.  In this case an entry would be more linear and less hammer like.  I understand the entry part because I've used it in sparring and it didn't have a hammering feel to it.
> People drilling to flow with a chopping motion not an entry motion.
> What you are presenting are "ways that it can be used" which I don't disagree with.  But I don't want to get far from the Chopping motion or the reaction to the chopping motion.  The frequency that a technique is done is of minor concern.  Tornado kicks aren't that frequently done in MMA but they have been done.  A chop may be similar.  It's not the common thing, but a thing. Like that tool in the tool box that you only use every 2 or 3 years.
> 
> What you have written is what I would say to student to help them see beyond that a single technique.  Instead of thinking "that's all there is" they would learn to see things that can it can be used for.  For me.  I'm just focusing on that 1 technique and that 1 reaction to it.  Unfortunately, I'm at a huge disadvantage because I don't train Aikido and I'm currently not in a position where I can test this against a variety of chopping like attacks and entries that are actually used.
> 
> My biggest hang up is the idea of training of flow against a movement that doesn't exist in fighting.  That doesn't make sense to me. I can't learn the flow of swimming by training the flow of running, because the running movement doesn't exist in swimming.  So to train flow on an attack or movement that doesn't exist is difficult for me to understand the logic of.


I think part of his point is that the focus on it being a chop (in training) is focusing on a minority usage. I suspect this is true, and that it was viewed differently in pre-WWII Aikido.


----------



## Shatteredzen

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying but I'm not sure we are looking at same thing in terms of that chop.  Just over all, I don't discard Jow Ga techniques because of the quote below.
> I understand this is you personally, so in return what I'm saying is just my perspective.
> Here's what I see.
> 
> People drilling a chop not a entry.  In this case an entry would be more linear and less hammer like.  I understand the entry part because I've used it in sparring and it didn't have a hammering feel to it.
> People drilling to flow with a chopping motion not an entry motion.
> What you are presenting are "ways that it can be used" which I don't disagree with.  But I don't want to get far from the Chopping motion or the reaction to the chopping motion.  The frequency that a technique is done is of minor concern.  Tornado kicks aren't that frequently done in MMA but they have been done.  A chop may be similar.  It's not the common thing, but a thing. Like that tool in the tool box that you only use every 2 or 3 years.
> 
> What you have written is what I would say to student to help them see beyond that a single technique.  Instead of thinking "that's all there is" they would learn to see things that can it can be used for.  For me.  I'm just focusing on that 1 technique and that 1 reaction to it.  Unfortunately, I'm at a huge disadvantage because I don't train Aikido and I'm currently not in a position where I can test this against a variety of chopping like attacks and entries that are actually used.
> 
> My biggest hang up is the idea of training of flow against a movement that doesn't exist in fighting.  That doesn't make sense to me. I can't learn the flow of swimming by training the flow of running, because the running movement doesn't exist in swimming.  So to train flow on an attack or movement that doesn't exist is difficult for me to understand the logic of.



  There is a disconnect here, what you are seeing/thinking of is the picture of the Hakama wearing aikido practitioner laying about themselves with knife hands. This a form/style thing that shows up a lot and is often not applied with any particular rhyme or reason. I am saying not to do this, if you watch either of the videos, especially the second one, you can see what I am talking about using a sweeping motion to intercept the limb while using the bladed hand to intercept the body and create a hinge point. Instead of entering the opponents line of attack wielding a karate chop, which is what your talking about, both arms are used to intercept the opponents limb and halt that line of attack or to simultaneously attack and defend with a hand sweeping away the opponents attack and the other hand striking or grappling to execute a throw/takedown, etc.

   The "receiving posture" you see in uke/nage drills where the guy defending is doing the 1980's style double knife hand defensive stance is silly and impractical, it IS useful for teaching new students the concept of "receiving" the enemy attack but its practical use should be a nice, relaxed and open stance, feet center width apart, hands down in front or slightly raised in a "hey lets not fight" kind of motion, you can see this in the aikidoflow video. When I train students, I try to keep telling them to relax and "just wax on, wax off" as they go through getting the rhythm down, I also use the Kali flow drill for this. That robotic chop or chop then move motion you keep seeing is bad form, unfortunately, it is very common because everyone keeps watching the old Morihei Ueshiba or Steven Seagal demonstrations and keeps thinking that exaggerated demo posture and movement is the way to go in a fight and its not. 

  If you watch Kendo in practice, the movements are very choppy, staggering and everything looks super rigid, watch a Kendo bout however and there is a definite rhythm and flow that you don't see in the practice or demo portion of the training. Aikido is based on the Japanese sword techniques, so it looks very choppy, it shouldn't however, look like that in practical application but you see it because of the training issues within the community we keep discussing, the lack of realistic resistance and dynamic movement, etc. I used aikidoflow as an example and that video in particular because he is explaining the problem with that rigid movement and he does not use Aikido in that way, although he is using traditional Aikido throughout his videos.


----------



## Martial D

isshinryuronin said:


> You basically just reiterated your previous statement, still not describing how the listed scenarios don't reflect reality.  They are based on a "real" attack.  *That's why I emphasized landing strikes and gaining arm control prior to the grab.*
> 
> From your tone, it seems you do not think that grabbing the opponent's arm or wrist is possible in a fight.  Correct?  If not, under what circumstance or scenario do you think it's possible?  IMO, if you are unable or unwilling to back up your assertions, you should refrain from making them.


Of course it's possible, if you already have control of their body once a grappling exchange has started. But if you think you are catching punches as they enter or attacking a striking arm you either have superhuman reflexes or you have been sold some hooey. Show me any example of these sorts of things working on someone that isn't fully cooperative.


----------



## Shatteredzen

gpseymour said:


> I think part of his point is that the focus on it being a chop (in training) is focusing on a minority usage. I suspect this is true, and that it was viewed differently in pre-WWII Aikido.



Yes, I am not even going to try to defend the Aikido community or the art as a whole, I am here saying that a MAJORITY of the schools are complete rancid garbage. It is super hard to find people who understand or "get" Aikido, even among the practitioners, there's so much leftover esotericism and bullshido that came with its importation to the US and it has never gotten straightened out. I've talked to several black belts over the years from traditional schools with lineages unbroken back to the best schools in Japan who were drinking the koolaid on the non violent / pacifist, post war stuff. I would guess that most Aikido students don't read any of the actual philosophy from Ueshiba except for his post war stuff and have no idea that it was so deliberately neutered post war. Your comment earlier that Aikido seems to be what works for a small group is very on the nose, there's a small group of nerds who put the time in to "get it" and desperately try to make the good stuff available to anyone/everyone. 

  The issue I see is that John Q Public has zero practical reason to sort through the sea of ******** schools trying to find a good trainer they can learn from without having to join the cult of Aikido proper which does not use modern or varied techniques or attempt to integrate itself into other arts. In many ways, modern Aikido is much more rigid than it ever was under Ueshiba since it was always meant to be added to someone's Ju-Jutsu, Judo, karate, etc. Why go to class after class searching for a competent and realistic Aikido teacher, learning all sorts of nonsense along the way when you can join any number of MMA gyms with some washed out fighter teaching who at least has a half dozen fights under their belt to show they know how to at least take a punch. You can take any old martial arts class and feel good about yourself and maybe even defend yourself after a few months of training, where Aikido takes you already knowing one or two other arts and really doesn't start paying super good dividends until at least the "journeyman stage". So somewhere between a thousand and ten thousand hours to mastery, you get the big payout where it all starts to click, if you had a good trainer and you did the extra credit homework with all the background research. Why deal with that when you can learn to triangle choke your buddy, today for $50?

  I'm not saying you get nothing until you go all in, when its rolled into a mixed style of training and/or if you get a good teacher it can start paying off right away just like any martial art. But understanding all the concepts, mastering the movement and techniques and the reasoning behind everything in a practical manner, it takes a long time. this said, it was my first style where I reached "mastery" and its continued to be like my first love, it is part of everything and every technique I use and its the central pillar in my methodology/philosophy with martial arts and I really do believe its led to the successes I have had with all the other systems I have studied.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> I think part of his point is that the focus on it being a chop (in training) is focusing on a minority usage. I suspect this is true, and that it was viewed differently in pre-WWII Aikido.


I'm fine with it being a minority use thing. That's the norm for kung fu so I won't go down that path of people don't attack like that.  I try to keep things in context then build out from that into variations.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shatteredzen said:


> Yes, I am not even going to try to defend the Aikido community or the art as a whole, I am here saying that a MAJORITY of the schools are complete rancid garbage. It is super hard to find people who understand or "get" Aikido, even among the practitioners, there's so much leftover esotericism and bullshido that came with its importation to the US and it has never gotten straightened out. I've talked to several black belts over the years from traditional schools with lineages unbroken back to the best schools in Japan who were drinking the koolaid on the non violent / pacifist, post war stuff. I would guess that most Aikido students don't read any of the actual philosophy from Ueshiba except for his post war stuff and have no idea that it was so deliberately neutered post war. Your comment earlier that Aikido seems to be what works for a small group is very on the nose, there's a small group of nerds who put the time in to "get it" and desperately try to make the good stuff available to anyone/everyone.
> 
> The issue I see is that John Q Public has zero practical reason to sort through the sea of ******** schools trying to find a good trainer they can learn from without having to join the cult of Aikido proper which does not use modern or varied techniques or attempt to integrate itself into other arts. In many ways, modern Aikido is much more rigid than it ever was under Ueshiba since it was always meant to be added to someone's Ju-Jutsu, Judo, karate, etc. Why go to class after class searching for a competent and realistic Aikido teacher, learning all sorts of nonsense along the way when you can join any number of MMA gyms with some washed out fighter teaching who at least has a half dozen fights under their belt to show they know how to at least take a punch. You can take any old martial arts class and feel good about yourself and maybe even defend yourself after a few months of training, where Aikido takes you already knowing one or two other arts and really doesn't start paying super good dividends until at least the "journeyman stage". So somewhere between a thousand and ten thousand hours to mastery, you get the big payout where it all starts to click, if you had a good trainer and you did the extra credit homework with all the background research. Why deal with that when you can learn to triangle choke your buddy, today for $50?
> 
> I'm not saying you get nothing until you go all in, when its rolled into a mixed style of training and/or if you get a good teacher it can start paying off right away just like any martial art. But understanding all the concepts, mastering the movement and techniques and the reasoning behind everything in a practical manner, it takes a long time. this said, it was my first style where I reached "mastery" and its continued to be like my first love, it is part of everything and every technique I use and its the central pillar in my methodology/philosophy with martial arts and I really do believe its led to the successes I have had with all the other systems I have studied.


I'm an analytical person and by default will try to understand one or two things in a system that I don't train.  Show me a video and I'm all over it.  But based on what you have been sharing it seems as if more has been stripped from it than I was willing to accept which is a shame. I was looking forward to explore some of what I was seeing.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shatteredzen said:


> Yes, I am not even going to try to defend the Aikido community or the art as a whole, I am here saying that a MAJORITY of the schools are complete rancid garbage. It is super hard to find people who understand or "get" Aikido, even among the practitioners, there's so much leftover esotericism and bullshido that came with its importation to the US and it has never gotten straightened out. I've talked to several black belts over the years from traditional schools with lineages unbroken back to the best schools in Japan who were drinking the koolaid on the non violent / pacifist, post war stuff. I would guess that most Aikido students don't read any of the actual philosophy from Ueshiba except for his post war stuff and have no idea that it was so deliberately neutered post war. Your comment earlier that Aikido seems to be what works for a small group is very on the nose, there's a small group of nerds who put the time in to "get it" and desperately try to make the good stuff available to anyone/everyone.
> 
> The issue I see is that John Q Public has zero practical reason to sort through the sea of ******** schools trying to find a good trainer they can learn from without having to join the cult of Aikido proper which does not use modern or varied techniques or attempt to integrate itself into other arts. In many ways, modern Aikido is much more rigid than it ever was under Ueshiba since it was always meant to be added to someone's Ju-Jutsu, Judo, karate, etc. Why go to class after class searching for a competent and realistic Aikido teacher, learning all sorts of nonsense along the way when you can join any number of MMA gyms with some washed out fighter teaching who at least has a half dozen fights under their belt to show they know how to at least take a punch. You can take any old martial arts class and feel good about yourself and maybe even defend yourself after a few months of training, where Aikido takes you already knowing one or two other arts and really doesn't start paying super good dividends until at least the "journeyman stage". So somewhere between a thousand and ten thousand hours to mastery, you get the big payout where it all starts to click, if you had a good trainer and you did the extra credit homework with all the background research. Why deal with that when you can learn to triangle choke your buddy, today for $50?
> 
> I'm not saying you get nothing until you go all in, when its rolled into a mixed style of training and/or if you get a good teacher it can start paying off right away just like any martial art. But understanding all the concepts, mastering the movement and techniques and the reasoning behind everything in a practical manner, it takes a long time. this said, it was my first style where I reached "mastery" and its continued to be like my first love, it is part of everything and every technique I use and its the central pillar in my methodology/philosophy with martial arts and I really do believe its led to the successes I have had with all the other systems I have studied.


Just realized that this fits my thoughts about stuff intentionally being left out or shown incorrectly like stepping then chopping vs doing both at the same time.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm an analytical person and by default will try to understand one or two things in a system that I don't train.  Show me a video and I'm all over it.  But based on what you have been sharing it seems as if more has been stripped from it than I was willing to accept which is a shame. I was looking forward to explore some of what I was seeing.


I feel like aikido is something that cannot be understood piecemeal.  I suspect you need to take it as a whole, and then you can understand how the pieces work together because they cannot be separated and looked at as discrete items.  

I feel like Chinese martial arts is very much similar in that regard, although people will often try to analyze it on a piecemeal level.  Some of them may withstand that kind of analysis better than others, but I think much is missed that way.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Flying Crane said:


> I feel like aikido is something that cannot be understood piecemeal.  I suspect you need to take it as a whole, and then you can understand how the pieces work together because they cannot be separated and looked at as discrete items.
> 
> I feel like Chinese martial arts is very much similar in that regard, although people will often try to analyze it on a piecemeal level.  Some of them may withstand that kind of analysis better than others, but I think much is missed that way.



 More than anything, there is a ton of FUD floating around that other people have put into the system since the founders death and for their own reasons. More than many others because you have the whole pacifism thing from the post war stuff which actually completely changed some of the techniques and then you have the fact that there's no combative drilling in most schools, just uke/nage drills, this builds lazy technique and bad habits and encourages the hocus pocus type "teachers". The way I have always been taught and the way I would recommend practicing Aikido, is for the instructor to demonstrate the technique slowly, then half speed, then full speed on each student, also elevating the force in applying the technique from gentle to as painful as possible without causing actual injury. Then have the students do the same for each other. Not only do you learn much more personal control from this, you learn what is working and what's wrong, if the technique doesn't work then it doesn't work and you can correct it individually. 

   I also suggest full contact sparring periodically, at least once per class or at least every other class, have the students throw on some headgear and some MMA gloves and tell them to rough house without hurting each other, this way they get to constantly test and try to apply stuff with resistance and encourage them to think outside the box. Getting a few taps to the head because you tried to follow an arm teaches you to not do that in a confrontation real quick. We also throw in trainer knives or the foam batons or even another student to attack the two sparring every once in awhile to mix things up. As you might guess, this looks nothing like uke/nage drills, but it's still very much Aikido. You learn very quickly that if you are being punched in the face, you need to commit to get that arm manipulation or that trying for that perfect wrist/thumb lock isn't going to work so maybe go for the hip throw as you pass, etc.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> I feel like aikido is something that cannot be understood piecemeal. I suspect you need to take it as a whole, and then you can understand how the pieces work together because they cannot be separated and looked at as discrete items.


I haven't even gotten to that point point. Here's where I'm

1. What is he doing when he makes that motion?  That's it. Is it a chop or is it something else?  Once I understand that I can then look at 2.
2. What is the response to that motion? Is it a defense or is it something else?

These are very basic. I can take any fighting system or supplement system like Chin Na, that's out there and use the same logic.  It is impossible to look at the whole if you don't know what some of the parts. I think this is where people go wrong.  They see the whole without understanding the parts and as a result they usually lack the understanding or knowledge needed to understand the whole.

Here's another example.  When you look at a tree, how can you understand the whole if you do not understand the root, the bark, the trunk, the leaves, or the environment that it lives in.   To me this is a universal truth.  When you look at the whole of chess, how can you understand the whole, if you do not understand some of the pieces?

If I'm doing a chopping motion, how can I understand that chopping motion if I do not understand the parts that make it up, for example, the foot work, the direction of the chop, the location in which the strike lands.  If you cannot define or understand the pieces then how can you know the whole.

Do you know "the whole of me because of the color of my skin" or Do you know "the whole of me because of the the parts that make me up."  There's nothing in this world that would make me see otherwise because there are so many things that follow that logic.  Here's another example,  Someone recently posted a picture saying that they did a "Perfect kick"  what later came out was that they couldn't tell if it was a perfect kick or not.  Did the person just raise their leg then take a picture? Did the person shift their weight correctly? Was the power of the kick generated correct if at all?  All of these are small parts that make the whole of the kick.  You cannot teach the Whole of Karate, Kung Fu, Kali, or any system by trying to learn everything at once.  We learn things in parts, we build upon a small understanding until it grows until a larger and more complete understanding.   I don't know or train Aikido but I'm sure they started small.




Flying Crane said:


> I feel like Chinese martial arts is very much similar in that regard, although people will often try to analyze it on a piecemeal level. Some of them may withstand that kind of analysis better than others, but I think much is missed that way.


This is how I learned my kung fu and is why I'm able to actually use the techniques. When I analyze the technique, I don't care about form as much as purpose.  The form of the technique may just be a template in which more practical variations are built.   If I see a movement that's moves similar to a crude chop, then there's no reason for me to assume that it's an uppercut and that the chopping movement is done for some other health benefit or strength benefit that aids the system.  Things that fall into that category usually don't have an Attack - Defense drill.

When I saw "the step then chop."  It reminded me of Jow Ga's "step, then punch."  Jow Ga schools intentionally teach it incorrectly because they feel that it helps students understand how to drive the punch.  I don't teach it because in application, that's not how the punch is driven and not how it feels in application.  Yet many Jow Ga schools teach students that way.  If you ever spar and paid attention to driving power in your punches during sparring, you would learn through trial and error "what feels better." "What feels connected"  Your first thought will also be "why did that person step then punch instead of doing both at the same time?"  From just that Chop and Footwork, I think there's a lot of things like that in Aikido.  I could easily be wrong, but that's my first impression of what goes through my mind.

Am I the only one who has asked "Why is the chop so robotic?"  "Why does the power generation feel disconnected."  Even GpSeymour made the statement about how the chop was done. 


gpseymour said:


> The strike they show wouldn't have a lot of power


I agree with it. As show the chop doesn't have a lot of power to it, but it could if you just added a few key things and you'll end up with a similar motion, step and all.

This is the application that GPseymour was mention.  In this situation it wasn't done against a strike, It was done against someone trying to push me. The move that my hand made wasn't a chopping motion. It went forward like a vertical punch but open hand.  I was able to do this twice back to back, with no problem and quite to my surprise. He fell to the ground with ease, the first time he hit the ground hard, the second time I tried to reduce his impact. I've pushed empty shopping carts with more effort than what this took.  But that motion wasn't a chopping motion.  In terms of Aikido, I would say it was close to a stabbing motion as if my arm is the sword,  and not as if I'm holding one. Imagine someone cut your hand off and stuck a knife on the end of it.  That type of stabbing motion.





Am I going to be stubborn with this.  Yes.  But not in defense of Aikido.  But in the understanding that there are just some universal movements and physics that apply to people with 2 arms, 2 hands, and 2 legs.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> I haven't even gotten to that point point. Here's where I'm
> 
> 1. What is he doing when he makes that motion?  That's it. Is it a chop or is it something else?  Once I understand that I can then look at 2.
> 2. What is the response to that motion? Is it a defense or is it something else?
> 
> These are very basic. I can take any fighting system or supplement system like Chin Na, that's out there and use the same logic.  It is impossible to look at the whole if you don't know what some of the parts. I think this is where people go wrong.  They see the whole without understanding the parts and as a result they usually lack the understanding or knowledge needed to understand the whole.
> 
> Here's another example.  When you look at a tree, how can you understand the whole if you do not understand the root, the bark, the trunk, the leaves, or the environment that it lives in.   To me this is a universal truth.  When you look at the whole of chess, how can you understand the whole, if you do not understand some of the pieces?
> 
> If I'm doing a chopping motion, how can I understand that chopping motion if I do not understand the parts that make it up, for example, the foot work, the direction of the chop, the location in which the strike lands.  If you cannot define or understand the pieces then how can you know the whole.
> 
> Do you know "the whole of me because of the color of my skin" or Do you know "the whole of me because of the the parts that make me up."  There's nothing in this world that would make me see otherwise because there are so many things that follow that logic.  Here's another example,  Someone recently posted a picture saying that they did a "Perfect kick"  what later came out was that they couldn't tell if it was a perfect kick or not.  Did the person just raise their leg then take a picture? Did the person shift their weight correctly? Was the power of the kick generated correct if at all?  All of these are small parts that make the whole of the kick.  You cannot teach the Whole of Karate, Kung Fu, Kali, or any system by trying to learn everything at once.  We learn things in parts, we build upon a small understanding until it grows until a larger and more complete understanding.   I don't know or train Aikido but I'm sure they started small.
> 
> 
> 
> This is how I learned my kung fu and is why I'm able to actually use the techniques. When I analyze the technique, I don't care about form as much as purpose.  The form of the technique may just be a template in which more practical variations are built.   If I see a movement that's moves similar to a crude chop, then there's no reason for me to assume that it's an uppercut and that the chopping movement is done for some other health benefit or strength benefit that aids the system.  Things that fall into that category usually don't have an Attack - Defense drill.
> 
> When I saw "the step then chop."  It reminded me of Jow Ga's "step, then punch."  Jow Ga schools intentionally teach it incorrectly because they feel that it helps students understand how to drive the punch.  I don't teach it because in application, that's not how the punch is driven and not how it feels in application.  Yet many Jow Ga schools teach students that way.  If you ever spar and paid attention to driving power in your punches during sparring, you would learn through trial and error "what feels better." "What feels connected"  Your first thought will also be "why did that person step then punch instead of doing both at the same time?"  From just that Chop and Footwork, I think there's a lot of things like that in Aikido.  I could easily be wrong, but that's my first impression of what goes through my mind.
> 
> Am I the only one who has asked "Why is the chop so robotic?"  "Why does the power generation feel disconnected."  Even GpSeymour made the statement about how the chop was done.
> 
> I agree with it. As show the chop doesn't have a lot of power to it, but it could if you just added a few key things and you'll end up with a similar motion, step and all.
> 
> This is the application that GPseymour was mention.  In this situation it wasn't done against a strike, It was done against someone trying to push me. The move that my hand made wasn't a chopping motion. It went forward like a vertical punch but open hand.  I was able to do this twice back to back, with no problem and quite to my surprise. He fell to the ground with ease, the first time he hit the ground hard, the second time I tried to reduce his impact. I've pushed empty shopping carts with more effort than what this took.  But that motion wasn't a chopping motion.  In terms of Aikido, I would say it was close to a stabbing motion as if my arm is the sword,  and not as if I'm holding one. Imagine someone cut your hand off and stuck a knife on the end of it.  That type of stabbing motion.
> View attachment 23752
> 
> Am I going to be stubborn with this.  Yes.  But not in defense of Aikido.  But in the understanding that there are just some universal movements and physics that apply to people with 2 arms, 2 hands, and 2 legs.


See, I disagree with how you are looking at it.  I don’t think you can properly understand application until you understand the type of engine under the hood.  And I’m not trying to make a driving analogy.  Yes, you can drive a car without understanding how the engine works.  But I feel martial arts are fundamentally different.  On some level you CAN understand function and application without understanding the engine, but likely your application is inefficient and sub-optimal and to some degree you may be trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.  You might get it to fit if you pound hard enough, but you work harder than you should and it never quite works how it is intended.

So that chop, well, maybe it’s a chop or maybe it’s something else and isn’t applied like a chop.  I dunno.  I just feel like there is more that should be going on there.  But as has been pointed out, a lot of garbage schools, so maybe we haven’t yet seen a good example.

I will also say that I can get a lot of power from something similar to that chop.  I wouldn’t lead in with that, it’s too obvious.  But in the right place, hell  yeah, I can hit hard with something similar to it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shatteredzen said:


> We also throw in trainer knives


 Trainer knifes are a funny concept. Even thought they don't cut, those suckers still hurt. My body reacts to hard plastic trainer knives like a real knife because those 2 instructors I had would stab the heck out of the older students.  They told me a story of the fencer who joined the class and when it came to stabbing that guy was king.   Unfortunately the knife "training wasn't focused"  I would have like to have learned the double dagger form then trained knifes. maybe one day in the future, I'll get to feel those training knifes.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Martial D said:


> Of course it's possible, if you already have control of their body once a grappling exchange has started. But if you think you are catching punches as they enter or attacking a striking arm you either have superhuman reflexes or you have been sold some hooey. Show me any example of these sorts of things working on someone that isn't fully cooperative.



Thank you for adding some context and detail to your original comments.  I never mentioned "catching" a punch.  Let's look at it from the opposite perspective:  How often can you square off with someone, throw one punch, and have it land against someone, unless very unskilled or "fully cooperative?"  Not too many one punch fights.  "You either have superhuman reflexes, or you have been sold some hooey."

Of course, whether landing a knockout punch, OR setting a grab, one must set up the opponent by preliminary attacks, gaining control of the arm, position, manipulation, or some sort of disruption which enables you to execute it.  It usually takes some work and skill for that to develop.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> See, I disagree with how you are looking at it. I don’t think you can properly understand application until you understand the type of engine under the hood.


I guess you don't disagree with me, because I agree with this.  That is just a small piece of the whole.  Which is why I mentioned that while I was performing that chopping motion, that I felt a lot of disconnection of power. If I do it as shown in the video, it's going to be weak. There's no way that motion can be strong.  But the moment I started connecting simple things like landing my foot down at the same time I did the strike, the power for a chop (if that's what it is) was there. 



Flying Crane said:


> But I feel martial arts are fundamentally different. On some level you CAN understand function and application without understanding the engine,


 This is what I don't agree with.  Because "on some level" can  is can be anything from getting to gist of it, or understanding something "completely" or in a deeper sense.

In terms of martial arts "some level" can look like this





With martial arts, we get the gist of things and we don't grasp a good understanding of it until we try to apply it.  Failing at it is just as important as being successful with a technique.  Both help the person gain a better understanding.  Your next statement speaks to this same perception.



Flying Crane said:


> your application is inefficient and sub-optimal and to some degree you may be trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. You might get it to fit if you pound hard enough, but you work harder than you should and it never quite works how it is intended.


This statement = the Errors, Mistakes, and Success that comes along with tying to apply a technique.   For example, with the chop, I didn't just look at it, I tried it.  If I had a quality sparring partner to actually test it, I would have been willing to take a few punches to the face.  Those punches that I eat = "inefficient and sub-optimal...pound a square peg into a round hole."   I know when I get it right because the technique will stop feeling like that and I will have more success of actually landing the technique.  So in this area.  You and I are on the same page.



Flying Crane said:


> So that chop, well, maybe it’s a chop or maybe it’s something else and isn’t applied like a chop. I dunno.


I'm still trying to figure this out.  I'm trying to pick up as many clues as possible, reviewing the footwork. Asking questions about what I see. Things like

  Does he move off center because moving off center is part of the thing of Aikido? 

why is he moving off center when the other person isn't attacking?
why does he step first then chops?
Am I looking at a chop or is it something else."
What is the person trying to do with that striking motion.  What target was he aiming at if any?
If both are Aikido (Style A vs Style A) then why do those the person attack so far out?
If I step forward like shown in the video, what is the likely action that my enemy / opponent / sparring partner do?
In the "chopping drill"  (I'll get the official name right sometime this week).  Why does he drill the "chopping technique" off center, but in the 2 man drill, everyone attacks head on instead of off center.
What would happen if you tried to attack someone like that while moving off center.
Why does the strike end at an angle as if you are standing on someone's flank?
If it's knife stab simulation then why is the hand open?



Person on the right strikes head on and not off center like in the drill.  Off center would  place him on the left flank of the defender and he would be facing the camera.  Here we can see that is not the case. 

Why does he hold his hand across his chest.  If the "chop is an Aikido thing" then I'm assuming there is a successful version of this attack
If there's a successful version of this attack where would his hands be.
If Kung Fu Wang was fighting this guy, The guy on the right would have been punched in the face at the same time the defender made contact with his left arm.  (block and strike at the same time. Is that only a Chinese concept? Did the Japanese have a similar concept?
If there's a successful version of this attack then why wasn't it used in this scenario? Do they train against things that are "crappy"

If I asked the teacher to show me how the chop works, how might he show me?  Would he move off center line?
Here we see the teacher doing the chop.  A punch is thrown the teacher takes an angle.  We can tell because we can see the back of the head. The feet are also not far apart, which is the same with kung fu for a similar strike, in Jow Ga,it's called a nail strike and foot work wise, you end up facing in this direction.  The stepping off center and turning into the strike is what helps to generate the power. In this scenario he's safe from the left punch because that punch cannot leave until the other one comes back to at least the 50% mark, starting at the point where the punch began.





Why does the teacher step off center when he does his chop, but the student does not?
If I had to do a similar technique, is there a benefit from stepping off center?
These are just a few things that run through my mind when I analyze things that I don't understand, including Jow Ga techniques. I can answer many of these questions quickly if I have a sparring partner and got punched in the face a few times.  Sparring is an excelling way to detect some BS if you have a sparring partner willing to punch you in the face.

Is this a common way to position across martial arts system or is this something only Aikido does?
Is this the application of a chop in Aikido





So as you can see.  I first go through these question to see what answers I get or can find.  What do I see. what do I know.  I know without a doubt that staying on center line is a good way to eat a punch.  I know without doubt moving off center is a good way to avoid a punch while landing a strike.  I know that when I see real fights, where a gets nailed with a straight punch is because he didn't move off centerline or parry.

So you can see that I'm asking questions about what I'm seeing


----------



## JowGaWolf

isshinryuronin said:


> Of course, whether landing a knockout punch, OR setting a grab, one must set up the opponent by preliminary attacks, gaining control of the arm, position, manipulation, or some sort of disruption which enables you to execute it.


This is how I see it as well.   Setting up vs Playing the Guessing Game.
Setting up helps to narrow the options of "what comes next" this makes it possible to get your opponent to throw the type of punch that you want when you want it.  Counter punchers do it all the time.   I like how you can hear some of them finish the other guy's punching rhythm 





But back to Set up vs Guessing Game.   The guessing game never worked for me.  It puts me in the mindset of waiting for something to happen vs actually attacking and I end up with the "fly swatting" hands always late to stop the punch.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shatteredzen said:


> if you watch either of the videos, especially the second one, you can see what I am talking about using a sweeping motion to intercept the limb while using the bladed hand to intercept the body and create a hinge point.


So you want me to ignore the Karate chops and follow this?  I can do that, to me it's just a variation.  If this is the Aikido approach I should look at, then I can look at that and from there.  I can drop the karate chop and analyze the application that you speak of.

The only reason that I ask is because you better point this out in terms of Aikido.  Just from my Aikido searches on youtube there's a lot of chops.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> See, I disagree with how you are looking at it.  I don’t think you can properly understand application until you understand the type of engine under the hood.  And I’m not trying to make a driving analogy.  Yes, you can drive a car without understanding how the engine works.  But I feel martial arts are fundamentally different.  On some level you CAN understand function and application without understanding the engine, but likely your application is inefficient and sub-optimal and to some degree you may be trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.  You might get it to fit if you pound hard enough, but you work harder than you should and it never quite works how it is intended.
> 
> So that chop, well, maybe it’s a chop or maybe it’s something else and isn’t applied like a chop.  I dunno.  I just feel like there is more that should be going on there.  But as has been pointed out, a lot of garbage schools, so maybe we haven’t yet seen a good example.
> 
> I will also say that I can get a lot of power from something similar to that chop.  I wouldn’t lead in with that, it’s too obvious.  But in the right place, hell  yeah, I can hit hard with something similar to it.


And in this case, that chop may be a result of degraded understanding of the art (as @Shatteredzen said), in which case drawing any understanding from that practice is problematic.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Is this the application of a chop in Aikido


The way he's describing the first technique, this isn't a powered strike - it uses the weight of the limb. I actually had something similar shown to me at an Aikido dojo in LIsbon. They were using it as a deflecting block, and described it like dropping a wet towel on the striking limb. This seems similar to what he's doing in the first technique.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Just realized that this fits my thoughts about stuff intentionally being left out or shown incorrectly like stepping then chopping vs doing both at the same time.



There is also a premis in drills that you will attack correctly.

This is often taken too far.

It also doesn't matter if it is a chop or a punch. If the general concept is wrong.

For example we could say. Use a knife and do a realistic attack and it would clean the system up.






But we know this isn't really a realistic attack either. It is just better acted out.


----------



## drop bear

isshinryuronin said:


> Thank you for adding some context and detail to your original comments.  I never mentioned "catching" a punch.  Let's look at it from the opposite perspective:  How often can you square off with someone, throw one punch, and have it land against someone, unless very unskilled or "fully cooperative?"  Not too many one punch fights.  "You either have superhuman reflexes, or you have been sold some hooey."
> 
> Of course, whether landing a knockout punch, OR setting a grab, one must set up the opponent by preliminary attacks, gaining control of the arm, position, manipulation, or some sort of disruption which enables you to execute it.  It usually takes some work and skill for that to develop.



It depends where you are standing. If you are in the wrong place you may not react in time.

You don't gain control of the arm by the way. You gain control of either the head or the shoulder. Then you can isolate an arm and then you can do some funky wrist control.

Otherwise you really just get punched in the face a lot.

You see it with knife defense and how people can't even catch one arm. Let alone both of them.


----------



## Cynik75




----------



## Martial D

isshinryuronin said:


> Thank you for adding some context and detail to your original comments.  I never mentioned "catching" a punch.  Let's look at it from the opposite perspective:  How often can you square off with someone, throw one punch, and have it land against someone, unless very unskilled or "fully cooperative?"  Not too many one punch fights.  "You either have superhuman reflexes, or you have been sold some hooey."
> 
> Of course, whether landing a knockout punch, OR setting a grab, one must set up the opponent by preliminary attacks, gaining control of the arm, position, manipulation, or some sort of disruption which enables you to execute it.  It usually takes some work and skill for that to develop.


That's a good question, but these are not similar. 

The answer would be most of the time. The one that initiates has a massive advantage. They not only know when the strike comes, but where, and don't need to react which is way slower than acting. This is why actual fighters don't block or grab or intercept strikes, they instead stay covered and mobile to minimize the target. Because you need to be orders of magnitude faster than your attacker to read the when and where and react to it within the 1/10th of a second it takes. This is why none of those scenarios you posted are realistic.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> I guess you don't disagree with me, because I agree with this.  That is just a small piece of the whole.  Which is why I mentioned that while I was performing that chopping motion, that I felt a lot of disconnection of power. If I do it as shown in the video, it's going to be weak. There's no way that motion can be strong.  But the moment I started connecting simple things like landing my foot down at the same time I did the strike, the power for a chop (if that's what it is) was there.
> 
> This is what I don't agree with.  Because "on some level" can  is can be anything from getting to gist of it, or understanding something "completely" or in a deeper sense.
> 
> In terms of martial arts "some level" can look like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With martial arts, we get the gist of things and we don't grasp a good understanding of it until we try to apply it.  Failing at it is just as important as being successful with a technique.  Both help the person gain a better understanding.  Your next statement speaks to this same perception.
> 
> 
> This statement = the Errors, Mistakes, and Success that comes along with tying to apply a technique.   For example, with the chop, I didn't just look at it, I tried it.  If I had a quality sparring partner to actually test it, I would have been willing to take a few punches to the face.  Those punches that I eat = "inefficient and sub-optimal...pound a square peg into a round hole."   I know when I get it right because the technique will stop feeling like that and I will have more success of actually landing the technique.  So in this area.  You and I are on the same page.
> 
> I'm still trying to figure this out.  I'm trying to pick up as many clues as possible, reviewing the footwork. Asking questions about what I see. Things like
> 
> Does he move off center because moving off center is part of the thing of Aikido?
> 
> why is he moving off center when the other person isn't attacking?
> why does he step first then chops?
> Am I looking at a chop or is it something else."
> What is the person trying to do with that striking motion.  What target was he aiming at if any?
> If both are Aikido (Style A vs Style A) then why do those the person attack so far out?
> If I step forward like shown in the video, what is the likely action that my enemy / opponent / sparring partner do?
> In the "chopping drill"  (I'll get the official name right sometime this week).  Why does he drill the "chopping technique" off center, but in the 2 man drill, everyone attacks head on instead of off center.
> What would happen if you tried to attack someone like that while moving off center.
> Why does the strike end at an angle as if you are standing on someone's flank?
> If it's knife stab simulation then why is the hand open?
> View attachment 23753
> Person on the right strikes head on and not off center like in the drill.  Off center would  place him on the left flank of the defender and he would be facing the camera.  Here we can see that is not the case.
> 
> Why does he hold his hand across his chest.  If the "chop is an Aikido thing" then I'm assuming there is a successful version of this attack
> If there's a successful version of this attack where would his hands be.
> If Kung Fu Wang was fighting this guy, The guy on the right would have been punched in the face at the same time the defender made contact with his left arm.  (block and strike at the same time. Is that only a Chinese concept? Did the Japanese have a similar concept?
> If there's a successful version of this attack then why wasn't it used in this scenario? Do they train against things that are "crappy"
> 
> If I asked the teacher to show me how the chop works, how might he show me?  Would he move off center line?
> Here we see the teacher doing the chop.  A punch is thrown the teacher takes an angle.  We can tell because we can see the back of the head. The feet are also not far apart, which is the same with kung fu for a similar strike, in Jow Ga,it's called a nail strike and foot work wise, you end up facing in this direction.  The stepping off center and turning into the strike is what helps to generate the power. In this scenario he's safe from the left punch because that punch cannot leave until the other one comes back to at least the 50% mark, starting at the point where the punch began.
> View attachment 23754
> 
> 
> Why does the teacher step off center when he does his chop, but the student does not?
> If I had to do a similar technique, is there a benefit from stepping off center?
> These are just a few things that run through my mind when I analyze things that I don't understand, including Jow Ga techniques. I can answer many of these questions quickly if I have a sparring partner and got punched in the face a few times.  Sparring is an excelling way to detect some BS if you have a sparring partner willing to punch you in the face.
> 
> Is this a common way to position across martial arts system or is this something only Aikido does?
> Is this the application of a chop in Aikido
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So as you can see.  I first go through these question to see what answers I get or can find.  What do I see. what do I know.  I know without a doubt that staying on center line is a good way to eat a punch.  I know without doubt moving off center is a good way to avoid a punch while landing a strike.  I know that when I see real fights, where a gets nailed with a straight punch is because he didn't move off centerline or parry.
> 
> So you can see that I'm asking questions about what I'm seeing


To your point of working and making mistakes and ultimately getting it figured out.  Yes, I agree.  But if you have a greater understanding of the system as a whole, then the solutions tend to fall into place more easily and intuitively.  That is what I am getting at.  You still need to work it and develop it, but you would have a better understanding of what you are trying to accomplish.  That was what I was getting at with the square peg-round hole point.  If you are fundamentally approaching it without understanding how the system is meant to work, then your solutions are likely sud-optimal.

Again, I do not claim to understand aikido.  So I don’t know the actual answers in this case.  I’m just suggesting that it is difficult to judge another system without understanding something about the system.  Yes, there are a lot of universals that can be identified from one system to another.  But some things that appear to be a universal, really may not be.  

As far at that move simply being a chop, the engine in my own system allows for a very powerful delivery with something that at least looks similar to the video.  I don’t know if aikido would do it the same.  But I know that movement can be powerful.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Martial D said:


> The one that initiates has a massive advantage.


Usually, yes.  The second paragraph of my post that your above quote refers to, is about initiating action, resulting in being in a position to where a grab can be set.  I would say "setting up" the opponent qualifies as initiating action.


----------



## geezer

isshinryuronin said:


> I would say "setting up" the opponent qualifies as initiating action.



I agree. If you set up someone and bait them right into your counter... you are not reacting, you are really initiating the action.

So.... taking _that_ into consideration when we define who is the_ initiator_, the pro-active fighter will be successful even more of the time. Yet so many TMA (especially those that don't have some form of legit pressure testing) espouse _a reactive strategy._


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> To your point of working and making mistakes and ultimately getting it figured out. Yes, I agree. But if you have a greater understanding of the system as a whole, then the solutions tend to fall into place more easily and intuitively.


 Sometimes things fit nicely and sometimes we are going to get hit in the face.  Not every technique or every aspect regardless of understanding is going to be a smooth transition from what we believe we understand to application.  It's just a part of learning.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> Sometimes things fit nicely and sometimes we are going to get hit in the face.  Not every technique or every aspect regardless of understanding is going to be a smooth transition from what we believe we understand to application.  It's just a part of learning.


No argument there!


----------



## JowGaWolf

So here  is where I am
The "Aikido Robot Chop" 
This movement is incorrect in terms of Aiko where the attacker attacks with a Robot Chop.  This is most likely a misinterpretation of another technique that many get wrong or it could be something that was added to Aikido while it shows an attack with a chop it should not be one.

My personal thoughts about the chop displayed is that it is a summary of a functional chop.  Footwork and stepping offline would suggest that the technique is functional as a chop, but was intentionally "broken" which resulted it in being a weak chop that had no power connection.  In terms of a functional Chop it is possible to "chop" someone with a knife hand using the footwork shown and by planting the lead foot and the "chop" at the same time. There are at least 2 known kung fu systems that have a similar motion.  The functional motion is "less of" of a chopping motion is smaller

There is question about the technique as in demos.  The student will "chop" without stepping off center line, but when the teacher chops he is off center line.   This different approach may support the belief that the Chop is function, but not the correct attack that should be used for that particular demo.

For none TMA people.  The "Aikido Robot Chop" as shown is not functional.  The functional version of it would require you to do small things that aren't shown in such demos.  Even if these things were done,  the demos in which this chop "Aikido Robot Chop" appears is the incorrect attack for the demo.  

I'm saying incorrect attack because I have yet to take a look at the defense.   If the chop was done correctly then a different Aikido response would need to be used.


----------



## JowGaWolf

So I'm back at the starting point.  Now I have to find an Aikido attack that isn't a "Robot Chop"


----------



## Martial D

isshinryuronin said:


> Usually, yes.  The second paragraph of my post that your above quote refers to, is about initiating action, resulting in being in a position to where a grab can be set.  I would say "setting up" the opponent qualifies as initiating action.


Ok, but I was replying to these points.
*
1. block the punch hard with technique to cause some trauma to the tendons and cause pain to disrupt the opponent, then grab 
*
Unrealistic. You just won't have time to target and attack an incoming punch, ever.
*
*

*2. sidestep the punch, deflect while keeping contact with the arm, strike with the other hand (or kick) to vulnerable target to disrupt, then set the grab - you can also deflect with one hand, then strike with that same hand as your other hand takes over contact and sets the grab.
*
Again, unless your name is Barry Allen or you are fighting underwater, it's not realistic to think you can step aside, read the punch, make contact with it and grab it in the tenth of a second you will have to do all this.

*3. move in to intercept the punch early (which also causes some disruption) as kung fu Wang has suggested, wrap the arm, then set the grab.*

Of the three this is the most plausible but still highly unlikely. It would be like a goalie in soccer saving a penalty kick. It could happen but only because of lucky guesswork. You would need to be in motion for the counter before he began the punch.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> *3. move in to intercept the punch early (which also causes some disruption) as kung fu Wang has suggested, wrap the arm, then set the grab.*
> 
> Of the three this is the most plausible but still highly unlikely. It would be like a goalie in soccer saving a penalty kick. It could happen but only because of lucky guesswork. You would need to be in motion for the counter before he began the punch.


This is why you will need 2 different strategies/tactics.

- You know your opponent is going to punch you. When he does, you jump in.
- You don't know your opponent is going to punch you, When he does, it may be too late for you to jump in (your legs are not ready to spring forward yet), you lean your upper body back, and your front leg kick out.


----------



## Martial D

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why you will need 2 different strategies/tactics.
> 
> - You know your opponent is going to punch you. When he does, you jump in.
> - You don't know your opponent is going to punch you, When he does, it may be too late for you to jump in (your legs are not ready to spring forward yet), you lean your upper body back, and your front leg kick out.


Of everyone on this board, you are the one I think I would enjoy a conversation with over a bottle of saki


----------



## JowGaWolf

If you can parry a punch then you can hard block it or strike the punching arm with your wrist or your forearm.  This is reliable.

To grab the punch target the grab at your opponent's half way point.   This increases the time and distance that your opponent's punch must travel to be out of danger of your grab.  This is still difficult because of the speed. To improve the your chances put pressure against the punching arm. This will slow the punch and will increase your chances to grab the punchin arm.  A strong grip will improve the chances as well.

The trick is to not let the punch travel full speed or to start the around the elbow.  Don't think grab punch think grab punching arm.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> 1. block the punch hard with technique to cause some trauma to the tendons and cause pain to disrupt the opponent, then grab


I might have video of this.



Martial D said:


> 2. sidestep the punch, deflect while keeping contact with the arm, strike with the other hand (or kick) to vulnerable target to disrupt, then set the grab - you can also deflect with one hand, then strike with that same hand as your other hand takes over contact and sets the grab.


I don't think I have video of this.  I do have a side step deflect and punch.  I just don't know if I have any where I was trying to grab the arm.  Normally I train to land strikes because they are easier to learn.



Martial D said:


> 3. move in to intercept the punch early (which also causes some disruption) as kung fu Wang has suggested, wrap the arm, then set the grab.


I should have tons of this on video

The problem with "grab a punch" is that it's a low possibility because this would require a person to grab the fastest part of the punch.

The correct thought process is to deal with the punch before it becomes a punch or after it has completed and is moving away from you.   If you miss dealing with the punch before it gets past the 50% point then you can go to plan b and follow the punch so that it doesn't come back out and strike you.  The hard part is catching the punching arm.  The hard part is what to do after you have caught it.  Sort of like how some people will catch a kicking leg, but then just hold onto after they have caught it.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> I might have video of this.
> 
> 
> I don't think I have video of this.  I do have a side step deflect and punch.  I just don't know if I have any where I was trying to grab the arm.  Normally I train to land strikes because they are easier to learn.
> 
> 
> I should have tons of this on video
> 
> The problem with "grab a punch" is that it's a low possibility because this would require a person to grab the fastest part of the punch.
> 
> The correct thought process is to deal with the punch before it becomes a punch or after it has completed and is moving away from you.   If you miss dealing with the punch before it gets past the 50% point then you can go to plan b and follow the punch so that it doesn't come back out and strike you.  The hard part is catching the punching arm.  The hard part is what to do after you have caught it.  Sort of like how some people will catch a kicking leg, but then just hold onto after they have caught it.


To be fair, and absolutely no disrespect intended, I've seen your sparring videos and they are neither full speed not against opponents I would consider decent punchers.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I think this is a picture of a student  grabbing the punching arm.  If my memory is correct he grab the punching arm and interfered with the it returning to chamber.  I want to say he naturally grabbed the arm because his hands were larger so it was an easier thing to do compared to person with small hands, like me, to be grabbing arms.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> To be fair, and absolutely no disrespect intended, I've seen your sparring videos and they are neither full speed not against opponents I would consider decent punchers.


1. They are still sparring videos against a resisting opponent who is clearly not punching softly.
2. They are still concepts and techniques in application against a sparring partner.
3. By your logic the guy @ 1:02 mark doesn't impress you as well.  Because he's "not sparring against a decent puncher."
If I'm sub par then he is subpar by your definition of "not full speed, not against opponent's, I would consider decent punchers."





If you cannot see the skill set beyond "not punching hard" or "punching against " decent puncher.  Then you will not be able to understand the comments that I've made.   The concepts are sound and true.
1. Deal with the punch arm before the punch gets to the 50% mark
2. Deal with the punch arm as it's returning.

If I touch your punching arm before your punch reaches the 50% mark then you will not be able to land that punch on me. 
If I touch your punching arm after your punch reaches the 50% mark then you will have a good chance of landing that punch.

It's not magic and you don't have to be a professional fighter to do these things.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> 1. They are still sparring videos against a resisting opponent who is clearly not punching softly.
> 2. They are still concepts and techniques in application against a sparring partner.
> 3. By your logic the guy @ 1:02 mark doesn't impress you as well.  Because he's "not sparring against a decent puncher."
> If I'm sub par then he is subpar by your definition of "not full speed, not against opponent's, I would consider decent punchers."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you cannot see the skill set beyond "not punching hard" or "punching against " decent puncher.  Then you will not be able to understand the comments that I've made.   The concepts are sound and true.
> 1. Deal with the punch arm before the punch gets to the 50% mark
> 2. Deal with the punch arm as it's returning.
> 
> If I touch your punching arm before your punch reaches the 50% mark then you will not be able to land that punch on me.
> If I touch your punching arm after your punch reaches the 50% mark then you will have a good chance of landing that punch.
> 
> It's not magic and you don't have to be a professional fighter to do these things.


I didn't say you were 'sub par'. In fact, I really like that you do light sparring at all coming from a cma background because the overwhelming majority do not. With that said I would be quite interested in seeing you spar against a decent boxer or kickboxer while remaining in jow ga mode.

You said it yourself. If you can read the intention to punch, can see where it's coming, and get to it before it's 50% of the way out, sure, you'll stop it. But that happens in a single fraction of a second if it's not completely telegraphed and exaggerated, which means you would have to be both inhumanly fast and a little bit psychic to get there against a full speed strike with real intent behind it.


----------



## O'Malley

drop bear said:


> This has been my best example of the concept. How close do you think I came?
> 
> *video*



Not even close, though I love the video.

I've found this demonstration that shows the most basic aspect of aiki: connected body.






The guy above is from I Liq Chuan but they use a similar concept. The video above helps conceptualise what is happening in the aikido video below:








drop bear said:


> What does Aikido  claim to teach you? And does it reach those claims?
> 
> I think the biggest problem is the disconect between those two concepts.



Couldn't agree more. The vast majority of aikido practitioners that claim "effectiveness" have no idea that their lineage of aikido was changed to a less functional form and/or that the training methods are not appropriate to obtain the effective skills that early practitioners had. This also includes my own training.



> And this is partly because the measuring stick is so weirdly skewed.



There is no way to measure aikido proficiency other than peer accolades. And more generally, people don't even agree on what aikido is anyway. If the peers have no clue/are not interested in functionality, the system has no way to know how good you are at applying aikido to a situation where the opponent does not conform to the pre-set pattern.



> Where as this I think is very bad for your striking. In that it makes you a collapso tap out monkey.
> 
> *video*
> 
> Then when you are fighting people who are just dying from every hit. You don't have to develop your grappling because they are doing it for you.



The way atemi is trained, if at all, depends heavily on the teacher/lineage. In my first aikido club, I had to fall/dodge the teacher's strikes in the way you criticise, and I didn't buy it. Firstly, the teacher had no way to make me "respect" his strikes that much: they had no structure nor power, and I could have easily shrugged them off. Secondly, I found it silly to expect your opponent to have the split-second reflex to dodge your strike, but to also do so in an extremely counterintuitive way that just happens to make your technique work (and to expect that you'll be able to recognise the opportunity and take advantage of it in a split-second). In my other aikido clubs, atemi was simply taught as opportunities to strike that arise during a technique, and as a recovery (I don't recall it being taught as a way to bridge distance, at least not explicitly). Can't seem to make the wristy-twisty thing work? If the position leaves you an opening, punch him in the face.



JowGaWolf said:


> I think there's enough similarities among all fighting systems to give valid clues to how Aikido works in application. The only way this wouldn't be true is if it was developed in a vacuum. I just can't see that.



Absolutely right.



> Things like this video below seem to be consistent across systems including BJJ.  Generally speaking, because I Know there are variations. It almost always starts as
> 1. Strike -> Grapple -> Strike = when not within grappling range.  The strike is what hides the Grappling
> 2. Grapple -> Strike - Grapple = when engaged in grappling



Yup, although there is more to it. For example, sometimes atemi itself is the way you deal with your opponent, like the sumo video you posted. Or like Shioda's back atemi (again with his full body behind it):








> We see it here as well.  BJJ has a similar approach. With that in mind. My assumption is that Aikido application would have to follow the same rules or strategy.
> *video*



I think that aikido application, including atemi, would look more like sumo or Tomiki aikido.



JowGaWolf said:


> Here's my logic.
> 
> Drop Aikidio and focus on technique.  If you were going to do a wrist lock of your choosing as an attack and not a counter, then what are the things you'll need to do to make it successful and to make it easier to get the lock when your opponent is not aware.
> 
> If you Answer that question then you will see that other systems follow that same logic.  To say Aikido wouldn't need to follow the same logic is what we often see when it fails.  If I were to use Chin Na on you,  It would be done as I'm punching you in the face or to the body.  Your instinct would be to grab my arms to stop me from punching and that's what I want you do to do so I can apply the Chin Na.  You wouldn't have any clue that's what I'm thinking because I would be busing nailing you with hard punches.  If you let me punch you, then I'll keep doing it. No need to let good punches go to waste.
> 
> Anyone who know's how to sweep understand this same thing in the context of sweeping.   Hit that person in the face really hard and often,  when your opponent is too concerned with  his face then take his legs.  If these concepts are common across many fighting systems.  Then we can assume that Aikido would follow the same logic and concept.
> 
> Aikido being 70% striking seems to fit well with that concept.



Yup.



JowGaWolf said:


> This is how I see martial arts which is why I don't like like the peaceful concept of zen.  Zen to me is like "being in the zone" everything is working, flowing, and timing of your attacks and defenses are excellent and you get that feeling that you are unstoppable.  That is "Zen" to me. That's the way I want to feel if I'm in a fight on the streets or in the ring.  That comfortable calmness and not the panic.
> 
> This is one of the definitions for Zen, which is more in line with the above view point of martial arts.  I know some of you have played sports when this has kicked off and things just flowed without conscious effort.  One of the things we often say about martial arts is to not think so much.  Practice repetition so that your actions flow without thought.
> Zen - "a state of *calm attentiveness* in which* one's actions are guided by intuition* *rather than by conscious effort *"
> Definition of ZEN
> Not one mention of peace, and what he says fits more with the definition above then the one below.   Just my 2 cents.
> *video*
> 
> But unfortunately so many people see Zen as "having or showing qualities (such as meditative calmness and an attitude of acceptance) popularly associated with practitioners of Zen Buddhism "
> You'll see this projection often with similar system. Yet when we think of Japanese Warrior Monks or Shaolin Monks, this guy doesn't come to mind.



FWIW, the founder of aikido hated zen.



JowGaWolf said:


> If I take my kung fu approach then I would tell you that I'm going to embarrass you and put you in a wrist lock and make you tap out.  Then while you are looking for my wrist lock I will punch you in your face. Then I will tell you that I will still go for the wrist lock.  I would feit a punch to your face, go for  your hand and then I'll kick you in your gut.   Will I eventually go for the wristlock.  Only if you aren't looking for it.  You will have bragging rights that I couldn't put you in a wrist lock, but I will have bragging rights that I did a lot of kung fu on you.   But the moment you forget about your wrist, I will try to take it.  But Aikido doesn't do that. right off the back you know they want to grab your wrist, so you defend your wrist and they will fail.



That's the idea behind aikido's first basic technique:






The aikidoka takes the initiative. The first hand moves in to make the opponent react and obstruct his vision, then come the elbow control, unbalancing, and pin.



JowGaWolf said:


> getting closer.  I'm guessing those over hand strikes are chops to the neck?



To the temple. I have several theories as to why they are taught, although nothing conclusive.



Flying Crane said:


> Perhaps he is Isn’t doing anything on the overtly “practical” level, and instead is demonstrating a fundamental body-engagement principal.  That type of thing would have a foundational use in everything that they do, and I imagine there are certain drills that are done to develop the foundational skill.  But that drill as a stand-alone may not have a direct and obvious fight application.  The principles that are developed by practicing the drill are meant to permeate the entire system.
> 
> In my system, we do a repetitive back-and-forth rotation drill that serves the same purpose.  Any outsider looking in would be befuddled by it.  You need to understand the purpose in order for it to make sense.  This is what I mean when I say you cannot look at it through the norms of prior experience, when looking at a new (to you) system.  Doing so can ensure that you will never understand it.



This is one of my theories. And I think it makes sense, as aikido is based on principles and body skill, not technical repertoire.



drop bear said:


> The confusion is you are looking at the application. There is no application after that demonstration.
> 
> The end result is to be able to perform this.
> 
> *video*



Agreed. If training for functionality, this is not sufficient.



drop bear said:


> I have found it messes people up. Not from doing ineffective striking but from good uke training. Which then trains them to break structure all the time or assume there eyes will pop out at the slightest pressure.
> 
> They get flinchy. Which is a really bad trait for any contested activity.



Fully agreed.



JowGaWolf said:


> How close is this to the Aikdo Chop.  I just found it
> *video*
> 
> Or is this concept correct?  If this is correct then I'll stop trying understand. All I need to be able to do is run away if this is the concept
> *video*
> 
> *video*
> 
> Or is this the correct way
> *video*
> 
> @6:43. I'm prefer stepping to the outside of punches much safer bu you can see how the strike lands
> @:7:40  If you do the same technique on the outside of a jab then you will never get hit. If you do it like he says @7:40 then you will get hit.  This is where I have problems.  Universally fighting systems says don't enter on the inside of punches like that. But here he says they do it differently.  My thoughts is that the reason so many systems don't enter like @7:40 is because it's dangerous to do so, as a universal reality.
> 
> Based on what I saw, moving to the inside only works if you can pin the arm against the chest upon the strike. I don't think that's possible as that rear hand is already in a position to defend the strike to the head.  I'm more opened to @6:43.  and would be scared to try to strike or block someone doing punch combos like is shown @7:40.



First video has similarities with the classical yokomen uchi entry (note that both the attacker's stick strike and the defender's hand strike could be called yokomen uchi).

Second video I would discard. That guy has basically created his own very different system, although he calls it aikido and tries to use it to interpret classical aikido forms. His terminology is all over the place, his historical arguments are often false and he routinely contradicts most aikido authorities. Not hating on him but I'd rather have him state explicitly that this is his own invention. Also, for context, he learnt from the same teacher as the "aikido VS MMA, then gave up aikido" guy.

Third video is about one of my personal heroes, Shoji Nishio. I love seeing him move but I wouldn't call him representative of aikido. He was 6th dan in judo, 5th dan in karate, 7th dan in iaido plus other martial arts. He studied aikido then made his own thing, Nishio aikido. I have no doubt he knew about the inside/outside thing you mention (as mentioned, he was a karate master). I'm not familiar with his approach but from the video I think the idea is to take the initiative with an upward/forward strike to the face. Also, I don't reckon him teaching that this is the way to go against a jab.



Flying Crane said:


> I had a chance to skim through this video and I think it is revealing in terms of how aikido approaches training and application.  In short, I really do believe it approaches things rather differently than folks with a Western mindset are typically comfortable with.
> 
> We in the West tend to be very direct and expect things to have kind of a straight line to the goal.  We expect results and we want to see a logical progression that meets that expectation.  I feel that aikido gets results, but takes a different path.  It is less direct and approaches things in ways that are surprising to a Western mindset.
> 
> It seems to me that aikido trains evasions and deflections and redirections, essentially a physical education with a focus on reading the energy and intent and body-positioning of an enemy.  Within that physical education, there exist opportunities to apply decisive throws and joint manipulations and pins, with some strikes as well.  But it doesn’t concern itself with a more direct action-and-response that is often found within other systems.  There aren’t hardline answers to questions like “how does aikido defend against a punch?”, or “I see THIS movement done in aikido, how is it used?”  I think perhaps the philosophy of aikido’s approach just isn’t concerned with that, and anticipates reaching an effective end through a highly attuned awareness of motion and positioning.  Application is highly dependent on circumstances, so it is difficult to answer those questions in the abstract, without an engagement unfolding.
> 
> For most people, this is probably a difficult road.  Perhaps Ueshiba was a truly gifted person who found a unique way that worked extremely well for him, but is not easily passed on to most people.  I expect to really be useable requires a high level of skill and long training.  But that’s ok, if someone is interested and willing to travel that road.  People do what they find interesting even if others object to the method.
> 
> I think that people who are interested in a direct road, with a focus on results as quickly as possible, will always be frustrated by the approach that aikido takes.  It will seem misguided.  It may be that aikido is a good path for a smaller group of people.
> 
> I don’t see any problem with any of that.
> 
> I’m not sure if I’ve managed to express my thoughts clearly or coherently.  I guess I see similar elements within the Chinese methods that I’ve studied.  We can deal with application, but ultimately what one does is highly dependent on the circumstances, and response is often spontaneous and creative, depending on the circumstances. I tend to view my own training as a body of physical education that opens the door to infinite possibilities, rather than as a fixed body of techniques that represent the total of my options.  But that’s just me.



Interesting theory that makes sense. I think mine is simpler, though: for historical reasons, aikido's technical repertoire was made in a haphazard way. Moreover, its founder had crap teaching methods. Therefore, one should not replicate the form that has been passed down, but seek what those who became good sought.



Shatteredzen said:


> Any Aikido school which traces its lineage back to Japan is practicing post world war 2 Aikido, this is problematic for the "practicality" of the martial art in the west. Morihei Ueshiba was a war hero in the Russo-Japanese war and he won the Japanese equivalent of the medal of honor for single handedly breaking a Russian cavalry charge on his position as a lone rifleman. Once he began establishing Aikido, he was a war hero who was also a leading personality within the nationalist movement of pre world war 2 Japan. Ueshiba developed Aikido based on his experience in Judo, Ju-Jutsu, Ken-Jutsu and other specifically Japanese martial arts as a sort of finishing school for Japanese martial artists and as a proprietary "Japanese only" discipline designed to give the Japanese soldier a supernatural edge and to establish the correct philosophy of what he referred to as "Yamato Damashii" or the true spirit of Japan, but as it was seen and understood under Emperor Hirohito and the Japanese fascists.



Hi, and welcome. Actually, Morihei Ueshiba's only significant formal training was Daito ryu aikijujutsu under Sokaku Takeda. He had like 6 months of judo and some Yagyu shingan ryu training (which is the probable origin for his koshi nage: GUEST BLOG: Reflections on the Origin of Ueshiba Morihei’s Koshinage & The Relationship of Daito-ryu and Aikido Waza by John Driscoll – 古現武道 ). He had no known formal kenjutsu training.



> Morihei Ueshiba spent the entire war training the Japanese military, along with most of his core apostles/students, using Aikido as a framework to blend practical Budo with a quasi-religious indoctrination into Japanese fascism/nationalism. Post war, Ueshiba became a pacifist and attempted to re-brand Aikido as a sort of national discipline which could encapsulate the new spirit of peace and the end of Japanese militarism. Once Aikido entered its post war phase/rebranding, the curriculum was edited, the teachings were watered down and much like the rest of the individual Japanese martial arts, Aikido became more about the cultivation of personal discipline and character than as an actual pragmatic fighting system.



Actually, his teachings and technique never changed after the war. The technical and philosophical changes brought to aikido were the work of his son, Kisshomaru Ueshiba. Once, someone asked Kisshomaru "when did your father become a pacifist?" and this made him laugh (a lot!). He answered "my father was not a pacifist".



> For a "bridge" discipline that was always supposed to be partnered with another discipline like Judo or Kendo, the basket of highly technical and situational techniques that aikido brings to the table is simply not useful or practical on its own even if you get lucky enough to find a good teacher who actually knows what the hell they are doing. Aikido is never going to be an all encompassing martial art above all others, but it was never intended to be that, even in its pre-war format that emphasized practicality and lethality, it was always intended to be blended into something else.



Although some people like Nishio and Minoru Mochizuki did blend aikido with other arts with great success, it is incorrect to state that aikido was _meant_ to be blended or that it was "a finishing discipline". Morihei Ueshiba kicked *** and his only significant training was Daito ryu, that is aikido. Tadashi Abe only trained aikido and single-handedly established the credibility of the art as a superior jujutsu in France, where people knew judo, savate and whatnot. Other aikidoka who established themselves as fighters (Tohei, Shioda) had only done some highschool judo. Sagawa started Daito ryu at 12 and thrashed people left and right.



> Where Aikido shines, where it is practical and useful, is when it is blended into multiple disciplines and like any martial art, when it is used in conjunction with practical training techniques with an active and resistive partner.



Despite what I've said just above, I respect your opinion, which makes sense in some ways (although mine is different).



> If we go back to the source material, the writings and understanding of Morihei Ueshiba and his students/associates before the end of World War 2 and once we filter out the right wing Japanese fascism, we see more practical application and theory.



I've read some of Ueshiba's original writings but gee golly, I don't think anyone could understand anything from it without serious study of Oomoto kyo cosmology, the Chinese classics and Daito ryu.



> Aikido is Ai - harmony, Ki - spirit, Do - way or "the way of the harmonious spirit" as a literal translation, though a better one might be "the way of the tranquil soul" but "harmonious spirit" does fit.



Ai can roughly be translated as "matching, fitting together". Ki is... hard to translate. The kanji represents a pan with fire under it, a rough equivalent would be "energy". Do is way, as you stated. A more correct translation would be "the way of fitting energy together". In Daito ryu (and thus in Morihei Ueshiba's aikido) this means in and yo (yin and yang). See here (the whole blog should be required reading if one wants to start understanding this stuff. I'm not trying to be pedantic, but aikido is that messy): Aikido without Peace or Harmony - Aikido Sangenkai Blog



> Aikido philosophy assumes the student understands the concepts of late Edo period, contemporary views of Bushido and Zen as applied to the martial mind of the Samurai. The ultimate goal and life's work behind Aikido is to produce a truly balanced and harmonious warrior who is not only capable of killing but also of mercy and who has the discipline and expertise to choose the appropriate force to respond to an attack and the expertise to only use exactly that force necessary to achieve the desired result. A true master of Aikido is the same concept as an image of the buddha, a conceptual goal more than an image of a specific person. Through the teachings and principles instilled in the student, the goal is to create a fighter who can do what needs to be done in a war such as efficiently killing an opponent but who has the skill and personal attributes that would also allow them to subdue an armed assailant without hurting them.



Aikido philosophy is extremely complex. I've not tried to understand it in detail because I'm more interested in the technique and it makes my head hurt. However, Morihei Ueshiba hated zen. The spiritual components of aikido mainly come from Shingon buddhism and Oomoto kyo teachings, added to Ueshiba's personal study of spiritual matters (I don't know where his ideas on kotodama come from, William Gleason has a book on the topic and I think he knows his stuff).



Shatteredzen said:


> Yes, I am not even going to try to defend the Aikido community or the art as a whole, I am here saying that a MAJORITY of the schools are complete rancid garbage. It is super hard to find people who understand or "get" Aikido, even among the practitioners, there's so much leftover esotericism and bullshido that came with its importation to the US and it has never gotten straightened out. I've talked to several black belts over the years from traditional schools with lineages unbroken back to the best schools in Japan who were drinking the koolaid on the non violent / pacifist, post war stuff. I would guess that most Aikido students don't read any of the actual philosophy from Ueshiba except for his post war stuff and have no idea that it was so deliberately neutered post war. Your comment earlier that Aikido seems to be what works for a small group is very on the nose, there's a small group of nerds who put the time in to "get it" and desperately try to make the good stuff available to anyone/everyone.



I would refrain from insulting the non violent aikido bunch. Not everybody has to train for martial effectiveness.



Shatteredzen said:


> I also suggest full contact sparring periodically, at least once per class or at least every other class, have the students throw on some headgear and some MMA gloves and tell them to rough house without hurting each other, this way they get to constantly test and try to apply stuff with resistance and encourage them to think outside the box. Getting a few taps to the head because you tried to follow an arm teaches you to not do that in a confrontation real quick. We also throw in trainer knives or the foam batons or even another student to attack the two sparring every once in awhile to mix things up. As you might guess, this looks nothing like uke/nage drills, but it's still very much Aikido. You learn very quickly that if you are being punched in the face, you need to commit to get that arm manipulation or that trying for that perfect wrist/thumb lock isn't going to work so maybe go for the hip throw as you pass, etc.



Agreed, great way to train.

And on @JowGaWolf 's considerations re aikido chops, as I've mentioned I don't have any definitive opinion but here are some ideas:

- some Daito ryu techniques were demonstrated against swords so the strike might have been used to simulate a sword strike, then have been passed down as is;
- the strike teaches gross power generation from the hips and conservation of structure in movement;
- although unpractical, the strike can still break the collarbone or cause knockout if it lands on the temple.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> With that said I would be quite interested in seeing you spar against a decent boxer or kickboxer while remaining in jow ga mode.


Once my back has healed and I've lost this weight that I gained, you may very well see such a thing.  "Win or lose" I can't be a good representation of Jow Ga if I bail out of my techniques and foundations that I train by.   I figure by the time this pandemic is under control, I'll be back in fighting shape and good to go.  I hate to say, because it's cruel, but I want to get a chance to go full on without worrying about knocking some out, where I can "just be" and let Jow Ga do what it does without me holding it back or redirecting punches.



Martial D said:


> You said it yourself. If you can read the intention to punch, can see where it's coming, and get to it before it's 50% of the way out, sure, you'll stop it. But that happens in a single fraction of a second if it's not completely telegraphed and exaggerated, which means you would have to be both inhumanly fast and a little bit psychic to get there against a full speed strike with real intent behind it.


  It's not as difficult as you make it sound.  If you get their timing down, then you be a head of them.  There are a couple of things that are universally true that will allow you to stop the punch before it leaves the chamber.  One is timing and the other is how punching in general requires one arm forward and one arm back.  This is the same  for everyone with 2 arms and 2 legs.  Skill level doesn't affect that reality.  People break that rule will have weak strikes that you don't need to fear. Take the hit and land a harder one in return. 

I mentioned this in another thread but timing for a jab revers combo can be Jab > Jab >> Reverse. (where >  is the  amount of time in between strikes). If you know your opponents typing  you can actually use it to counter or  you can use it to catch that punch before it leaves.

Opponent's Timing:                Jab > Jab >> Reverse.
To stop the punch Timing:    Block > Block > Stop punch.   If you know that it takes your  opponent >> to do a punch then you only need to take > to interfere with it.  Or you can increase his timing by interfering.

Opponent's Timing Unrestricted:  Jab > Jab >> Reverse.
To increase timing:  Parry /Push Jab across opponent's body
Opponent's timing  Affected by Parry Jab >>> Jab >> Reverse.

Now your opportunity to stop the 2nd jab has increased from >> to >>>.
You don't want to play the guessing game with punches.  You'll never be able to deal with a punch like that.  You'll get a tummy ache from eating all of those punches.  But if you make them throw  the punch that you want them to throw then all of that timing stuff becomes easier because you know what's coming. 

This is the same thing I've been saying and I think I brought it up in this thread or another.





My very first Jow Ga class when I was in my 20's.  I asked my teacher how does he know which technique to do?  He simply said,  "I make them throw the punch that I want them to throw so I can do the technique that I want to do."  Back then it blew my mind because I had always thought they were "predicting" what was coming.  But in reality they were programming their opponent.


----------



## JowGaWolf

O'Malley said:


> Yup, although there is more to it. For example, sometimes atemi itself is the way you deal with your opponent, like the sumo video you posted. Or like Shioda's back atemi (again with his full body behind it):


Yeah.  My wife tells me I'm always typing books. So I try to follow Kung Fu Wang's example and try to short hand it. 
But you are right there is more to it than that.  I'm still trying to figure out how to short hand Jab (time in between strike) Jab.    So far I've tried Jab..Jab and Jab >> Jab  I'll probably have to just break out my photo editor and paste it like that.


----------



## isshinryuronin

geezer said:


> I agree. If you set up someone and bait them right into your counter... you are not reacting, you are really initiating the action.
> 
> So.... taking _that_ into consideration when we define who is the_ initiator_, the pro-active fighter will be successful even more of the time. Yet so many TMA (especially those that don't have some form of legit pressure testing) espouse _a reactive strategy._


 
I have to agree with you on this.  Much of TMA practice involves one guy stepping in with a punch or kick and the other guy stepping back (hopefully sometimes to the side and even forwards) blocking, then countering.  This basic, staccato, 1-2-3 kind of practice is great for beginners, and also works well for point sparring for intermediates.  Now, if this is also standard for the advanced students, the style or the instructor need to stretch their boundries and rediscover some concepts that may have been lost to them. 

Countering is a great skill and some successfully build their strategy around it.  But all things work better when a strong and effective offense is thrown into the mix.  Like in football, the run and short pass are more successful if the occasional long pass is thrown.

At the higher levels, the terms offense and defense should start to blur.  To address your statement, geezer, let me ask a question.  Is setting the opponent up for a counter proactive, or reactive?  It's proactive in the sense you are leading the action, manipulating the opponent to execute some move (whether strike, kick or position change,) and reactive in that you are working off that move (even though you "caused" it.)

The truth of the matter, IMO, is that at the advanced level terms like offense and defense, or proactive and reactive, are irrelevant.  Like yin and yang they are intimately intertwined.  It all comes together in defeating the opponent.


----------



## JowGaWolf

O'Malley said:


> Second video I would discard. That guy has basically created his own very different system, although he calls it aikido and tries to use it to interpret classical aikido forms. His terminology is all over the place, his historical arguments are often false and he routinely contradicts most aikido authorities. Not hating on him but I'd rather have him state explicitly that this is his own invention. Also, for context, he learnt from the same teacher as the "aikido VS MMA, then gave up aikido" guy.


Thanks for the additional info. This stuff is all over the place.  I always dislike seeing people "give up" on a system that they train. 9 out of 10 give up without even having trained for function in the first place.  

Here's what I see with the "Aikdo Guy that went to MMA"  He trains Aikdo for more than 15 years to spar but only comes to the realization that "Aikido doesn't work" in the "15th year" when he first decides to spar?  That's the deciding factor to quit. 15  years of not sparring against other styles and he thinks it's just "going to work out"?  Then he quits?  Sometimes people need to just step back and measure their training on a time line.  Compare the amount of sparring against other people vs the amount of time drill training and everything will make sense and it should be clear what areas of training  were lacking. They point fingers at their art instead of their training.


----------



## JowGaWolf

O'Malley said:


> Yup, although there is more to it. For example, sometimes atemi itself is the way you deal with your opponent, like the sumo video you posted. Or like Shioda's back atemi (again with his full body behind it):


I watched that video  where the guy attacks from the behind.  At first I was like what the heck was he doing.  Then I saw what looked like elbow strikes an it reminded me of how Kung Fu makes the person pull their elbows back.  I was taught to chamber my punches like I'm trying to strike someone from behind but I never put much thought into it.  I heard what the teacher said but my mind was like "yeah, yeah , yeah.  pull elbows back strike from behind. Got it." lol Then I would be half-assed about it.  But after I've seen that video.  Now I SEE why.  I understood 1 elbow but not 2 at the same time.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> 1. They are still sparring videos against a resisting opponent who is clearly not punching softly.
> 2. They are still concepts and techniques in application against a sparring partner.
> 3. By your logic the guy @ 1:02 mark doesn't impress you as well.  Because he's "not sparring against a decent puncher."
> If I'm sub par then he is subpar by your definition of "not full speed, not against opponent's, I would consider decent punchers."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you cannot see the skill set beyond "not punching hard" or "punching against " decent puncher.  Then you will not be able to understand the comments that I've made.   The concepts are sound and true.
> 1. Deal with the punch arm before the punch gets to the 50% mark
> 2. Deal with the punch arm as it's returning.
> 
> If I touch your punching arm before your punch reaches the 50% mark then you will not be able to land that punch on me.
> If I touch your punching arm after your punch reaches the 50% mark then you will have a good chance of landing that punch.
> 
> It's not magic and you don't have to be a 1professional fighter to do these things.



There are about 5 0r 6 guys I can literally do anything to.

They are not the guys I base my successful techniques on.




JowGaWolf said:


> Thanks for the additional info. This stuff is all over the place.  I always dislike seeing people "give up" on a system that they train. 9 out of 10 give up without even having trained for function in the first place.
> 
> Here's what I see with the "Aikdo Guy that went to MMA"  He trains Aikdo for more than 15 years to spar but only comes to the realization that "Aikido doesn't work" in the "15th year" when he first decides to spar?  That's the deciding factor to quit. 15  years of not sparring against other styles and he thinks it's just "going to work out"?  Then he quits?  Sometimes people need to just step back and measure their training on a time line.  Compare the amount of sparring against other people vs the amount of time drill training and everything will make sense and it should be clear what areas of training  were lacking. They point fingers at their art instead of their training.



Yeah. But he got led down the park a bit as well. There was always some excuse or reason his stuff wouldn't work. Or he just has to wait for the real mysterys to reveal themselves.

When the whole system is working the con
 Pointing fingers at the art is pretty accurate.

He had to leave the system to understand it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> There are about 5 0r 6 guys I can literally do anything to.
> 
> They are not the guys I base my successful techniques on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. But he got led down the park a bit as well. There was always some excuse or reason his stuff wouldn't work. Or he just has to wait for the real mysterys to reveal themselves.
> 
> When the whole system is working the con
> Pointing fingers at the art is pretty accurate.
> 
> He had to leave the system to understand it.


Great points all around.
It seems some people need to really step away.. Far away before they can see where the basic improvements need to be made. It's only when they start doing a lot basic conditioning and footwork drills that they understand just how much they were leaving out of their previous training.  It's probably a good thing to do in general.  Like even for me.  Even though I didn't leave Jow Ga.  I did step out and did a very tiny bit of Sanda Training.   The end result was the realization that I really needed to up my Jow Ga training. I not only saw how much my training was lacking but felt it. So I took that lesson back and started Training Jow Ga with the same intensity that beat me up in the Sanda Training.

Before Sanda I thought I was training hard enough.  After Sanda  nothing less than "warrior training" was acceptable.  If I wasn't training like I was going into battle, then I know I wasn't training hard enough.  Stepping out of the box helped me to get my training straight.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Great points all around.
> It seems some people need to really step away.. Far away before they can see where the basic improvements need to be made. It's only when they start doing a lot basic conditioning and footwork drills that they understand just how much they were leaving out of their previous training.  It's probably a good thing to do in general.  Like even for me.  Even though I didn't leave Jow Ga.  I did step out and did a very tiny bit of Sanda Training.   The end result was the realization that I really needed to up my Jow Ga training. I not only saw how much my training was lacking but felt it. So I took that lesson back and started Training Jow Ga with the same intensity that beat me up in the Sanda Training.
> 
> Before Sanda I thought I was training hard enough.  After Sanda  nothing less than "warrior training" was acceptable.  If I wasn't training like I was going into battle, then I know I wasn't training hard enough.  Stepping out of the box helped me to get my training straight.


Kinda reminds me of the late 90s the first time I started training with thai boxers. What a learning experience after 8 years of WC.
My circumstances were different though, as I had just moved cities and there was no wc at all where I moved to, so I just stayed on there. But I probably would have anyway, the difference in both training and effectiveness was night and day.

I got beat up a LOT.


----------



## drop bear

O'Malley said:


> Not even close, though I love the video.
> 
> I've found this demonstration that shows the most basic aspect of aiki: connected body.
> 
> 
> 
> The guy above is from I Liq Chuan but they use a similar concept. The video above helps conceptualise what is happening in the aikido video below:



So. Magic?

The thing is that an Aikidoka could wrestle and basically do that and present a functionality to aikido that would be easily recognised.

But as soon as aikido step off the stage we get nothing.

And there are black belt aikido guys out in the real world doing this. But they are running in to brick walls when their partners are no longer part of their system.






So this is a mate of mine who is a very good wrestler. The other guy is Adrian Pang who is a legitimate MMA guy. And you can see a few other minor names. I think Ben ten and Jessie Jessie. And some others. 

And the point of this is that at the time these were some really serious guys. 

And the wrestler is basically toying with them. And this is basically because he can make the adjustments to their attacks better than they can attack. 

And he can go anywhere and show this system of using this method to control another person. But there is no internal power going on here. He just moves in a way that removes your ability to utilise your force against him.


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> So. Magic?
> 
> The thing is that an Aikidoka could wrestle and basically do that and present a functionality to aikido that would be easily recognised.
> 
> But as soon as aikido step off the stage we get nothing.
> 
> And there are black belt aikido guys out in the real world doing this. But they are running in to brick walls when their partners are no longer part of their system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So this is a mate of mine who is a very good wrestler. The other guy is Adrian Pang who is a legitimate MMA guy. And you can see a few other minor names. I think Ben ten and Jessie Jessie. And some others.
> 
> And the point of this is that at the time these were some really serious guys.
> 
> And the wrestler is basically toying with them. And this is basically because he can make the adjustments to their attacks better than they can attack.
> 
> And he can go anywhere and show this system of using this method to control another person. But there is no internal power going on here. He just moves in a way that removes your ability to utilise your force against him.


Wrestling at such a high level basically is magic.

I had a buddy when I was younger that was provincial champ in his weight, smaller guy, probably 30 pounds lighter than me at the time.

One night I arrived at a party and saw him sitting in a chair. I creep up behind him to grab his shoulders. Just playing around.

Poof. Magic. I'm on my back and he is looking down at me.

Near 30 years later I still don't know what happened.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I haven't seen technique recommendation so I'm going to start posting something until I find the thing that I should be looking at.

Is this what I should be looking for with Aikido.?  If not just tell me to find another video


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I don't expect you to believe it. But claiming you don't believe it because no evidence, then choosing to believe the opposite without evidence is just plain dishonest. You're lying about your reason for choosing that belief. You choose it because you're triggered buy the word "Aikido", and really, really, reeally want it to be bad in all the ways you want it to be.


speaking for myself, nothing would please me more than to see evidence that the two martial arts styles I loved most as a kid, ninjutsu and aikido, actually work as taught.  I have a soft spot for WC, too, as I trained in it for a couple years in high school in the 80s.  If you could support some of your statements, I'd love it.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> I can only think that way if I don't think the technique is valid.  The fact that I'm able to do similar kung fu technique in sparring makes me think it's valid.  If you are correct that would mean that
> 1. There is no principal, because the principal is based on something that doesn't occur.  Principal would have to reference something that is real if it doesn't then the principle is flawed and the defense application of it is flawed.
> 
> 2. If all of Aikido works like #1 then the system is flawed and it doesn't work.
> 
> 3. If the system is flawed then there no way I would think I could land that that strike. Being that I've landed a closed fist version of that technique before.
> 
> 4.  If #1 and #2 aren't real then #3 isn't real even though I've used similar techniques in sparring.
> 
> 5.  If #4 is true then I'm either a liar or my video is a liar.
> 
> So that's where I am. lol.


It's possible that some of the principles are valid and some are not, but we cannot differentiate between them because the goal of training is choreography and not combat.  I don't think we can get beyond 1 because the few folks in this thread who train in aikido are unwilling to share evidence that some or all of the principles are sound.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> It's possible that some of the principles are valid and some are not, but we cannot differentiate between them because the goal of training is choreography and not combat.  I don't think we can get beyond 1 because the few folks in this thread who train in aikido are unwilling to share evidence that some or all of the principles are sound.



You don't tell people how a magic trick is done.

Unless you are Penn and teller.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> speaking for myself, nothing would please me more than to see evidence that the two martial arts styles I loved most as a kid, ninjutsu and aikido, actually work as taught.  I have a soft spot for WC, too, as I trained in it for a couple years in high school in the 80s.  If you could support some of your statements, I'd love it.


The statements in question are simply how I train. They have nothing to do with effectiveness. As for supporting effectiveness, nothing short of video of competition would satisfy your request, I think. I just don't feel the need to prove anything to you.

And, again, the Aikido you're referring to isn't what I train/teach. Different art, though related.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> It's possible that some of the principles are valid and some are not, but we cannot differentiate between them because the goal of training is choreography and not combat.  I don't think we can get beyond 1 because the few folks in this thread who train in aikido are unwilling to share evidence that some or all of the principles are sound.


I'm not even to that point of choreography or none combat classification.  I just want one technique that is said to be Aikido so that I can look at that one technique to.

In general systems usually use strikes that are found within the system to train attacks that are found in the system.  Even if it's a system of only counters.  They would need to have some type of strike in which to train a  counter.  I'm flexible with the "work as taught" because most TMA's dont' follow this method. Things in general are traditionally done to make it difficult to understand this TMA unless you have some kind of solid foundation of experiencing getting punched kicked, and defending punches and kicks.  

It's very clear that there are many different varieties of Aikido and I'll probably just have to pick one even if stuff was added to it.  While it may not speak to the "Whole of Aikido" it will at least speak to "That variation of Aikido"   I think there's are enough brains here to be able to reverse engineer some basics.


----------



## Martial D

The only style of aikido I've seen with any form of competition or non choreographed resistive training is tommiki(sp?) and they have some weird rules where you aren't allowed to grab and one guy needs to be holding a dildo so I dunno...


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> The statements in question are simply how I train. They have nothing to do with effectiveness. As for supporting effectiveness, nothing short of video of competition would satisfy your request, I think. I just don't feel the need to prove anything to you.
> 
> And, again, the Aikido you're referring to isn't what I train/teach. Different art, though related.


I don't expect you to prove anything to me.  But making claims you have no intention of supporting with evidence seems counterproductive.  That's really all there is to it. 

Design a test and test it.  Figure out what you want to be able to do and then risk failing. And if that test is too narrow to evaluate, figure out other tests.  It's not rocket science, though they actually fire up the occasional rocket to see if what they're doing works.


----------



## Steve

Martial D said:


> The only style of aikido I've seen with any form of competition or non choreographed resistive training is tommiki(sp?) and they have some weird rules where you aren't allowed to grab and one guy needs to be holding a dildo so I dunno...


Step in the right direction.  Figure out what skills  you want to evaluate, design a test, and go for it.  The skills you test will improve.  If you find that the test causes other skills to atrophy, design another test.


----------



## Martial D

Steve said:


> Step in the right direction.  Figure out what skills  you want to evaluate, design a test, and go for it.  The skills you test will improve.  If you find that the test causes other skills to atrophy, design another test.


Like, what if a greased up  naked guy you can't grab on to attacks you in a porn shop.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> I don't expect you to prove anything to me.  But making claims you have no intention of supporting with evidence seems counterproductive.  That's really all there is to it.
> 
> Design a test and test it.  Figure out what you want to be able to do and then risk failing. And if that test is too narrow to evaluate, figure out other tests.  It's not rocket science, though they actually fire up the occasional rocket to see if what they're doing works.


I like the rocket science bit.  That's exactly what learning anything is like a series of failures and small successes and eventually one gains a better understanding and more success.  How many inventors crash Flying machines before we understood enough to fly.  When it comes to my training know what works for me is just as important as knowing what works.   I still fail with some techniques which is why I comfortable telling another Jow ga practitioners"nah it doesn't work that way." It doesn't mean I know how it works. It just means I have personal experience with failing.  But I'm always open to the idea that I failed due to the lack of my understanding.


----------



## Steve

Martial D said:


> Like, what if a greased up  naked guy you can't grab on to attacks you in a porn shop.


I guess it depends on where you hang out.


----------



## JowGaWolf

So I'm changing my approach.  Instead of picking a technique.  I'm going to start from the beginning.  I've been looking up beginning Aikido classes to  grabs some basics. I figure that if there is a gap in understanding of Aikido, that the easiest place to see it is at the beginning.  Sort of like how Kung fu can start with some basic but incorrect foundation in which more advance techniques are built off of.

O.K.  I'm loving this video. A few details are missing but it's not a "game killer"  Pretty solid stuff and universal movement concepts going on.  Out of  10 score.  I would give this an 7.5.  I like that I can see the legs.





Hip / Waist flexibility exercise  - Great
Big Arm rotation exercises - Great
Torso Flexibility stretch - Great
Abdomen /Back Flexibility stretch - Great
Dynamic Horse stance exercise -  Great
Ankle Rotations - Great.
Wrist Flexibility - Required -  If you are going to be locking wrists, then you'll need that strength and flexibility in the wrist.
Stepping Exercise with kneeling - Great
*Duck Walks* - Jury is still out on that.  Probably better for younger people than older people.  Kids and teens tend to have less weight that their knees have to deal with.  I'm 40lbs overweight.  The heaviest I've ever been. I won't be doing duck walks,even though we did them in school. I would probably use a replacement exercise.  I do like the duck walk that moves side ways.  Nice mobility. But I won't be doing those with this weight.

Question 1: The Slide and Pivot? (10:47):  Is this an exercise or how stepping is actually done?  After watching the the Getting off the line. It looks like an official footwork for swinging a sword (just a guess by looking at the mechanics of it)

Getting off the line  (12:39) - Awesome.  That movement is one of those universal things found in all fighting systems.  It's at the right angle too.  I often refer to it as "The Magic Angle" because it's found in so many systems and applications.  It's one of the most universals fighting concepts.  This one thing made me want to see more.

Demo for Getting off the line (13:44)  - Decent Not sure if she's just hyper focused on just the legs intentionally of if that's how beginners practice.

Demo (14:07) - This is why it gets an 8.5.  The score starts to drop really fast Because the demos start to look as if it's missing something.  Like someone giving you a summer of how to build a computer but not showing the necessary details.  Everything up to this point was good.  I'll book mark it and see where the next lesson goes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I don't expect you to prove anything to me.  But making claims you have no intention of supporting with evidence seems counterproductive.  That's really all there is to it.
> 
> Design a test and test it.  Figure out what you want to be able to do and then risk failing. And if that test is too narrow to evaluate, figure out other tests.  It's not rocket science, though they actually fire up the occasional rocket to see if what they're doing works.


Again, the only claims discussed here were about how I train. Those claims don't really need a test. And it's not really usual to tell someone they have to prove they do a given drill, unless it's an exceptional claim. Flow drills aren'te really that exceptional, as claims go.

You're obsessing a little on this.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> Again, the only claims discussed here were about how I train. Those claims don't really need a test. And it's not really usual to tell someone they have to prove they do a given drill, unless it's an exceptional claim. Flow drills aren'te really that exceptional, as claims go.
> 
> You're obsessing a little on this.


Edit: Not addressed to you specifically or you general.. just a general statement about Claims and TMA.  

I must have missed this. I haven't seen anyone make any claims about Aikido yet.  I definitely don't want to take things in the direction of Prove this.  Prove that.   Even in my own training.  I'm not trying to prove that the techniques work.  I'm  trying to figure the techniques out.

A lot of TMA's did not have the advantage of film, video, or a competitive sports environment.  In those environments you had coaches explaining how to set techniques up and how to actually use them.  The fighter would go into the ring and follow the coach.  If the coach is good, then the fighter is likely to be successful to some degree.   If the coach is bad then it will reflect in the fighter such as Rondas Rousey's horrible coach.

With a lot of TMA's there was a lot of secrecy and a lot of people who like the idea of doing a TMA but really had no interest in actually applying TMA.  Most people who train boxing actually want to get into the ring and fight or at least do a lot of sparring.  People who like the idea of Boxing but don't want to spar or fight take Fitness Boxing.  But that's not the same with TMAs.  People who want to fight using kung fu take Kung Fu.  People who want just the fitness part of kung fu take Kung Fu.  There's no secondary outlet for most TMA schools.  No Kung Fu fitness, or TKD fitness, or Tai Chi fitness.  Everything and everyone with different focuses and reasons for taking a TMA are all lumped into the same class.

So TMA's in general never get that fighting focus or that coaching.  The end result is that people end up having to figure stuff out.  There's no one there who can tell them. "you set this technique up by doing this."  There's no group of fighters who can say "yeah that works, or nah that doesn't work do it like this."  Sometimes you may have to specifically ask a teacher in a TMA if they can coach you, because if you don't ask, they normally won't teach in that manner.

Then you have the Zen people who are all about the spiritual journey.  So for TMA...  It's a hot mess.  To be hones if someone has to ask "prove it" then just assume that there's stuff to figure out.  The good thing is that there are some "Universal truths" about fighting, so if a technique is legit, then it's going to be bound by some kind of "universal truths."  Range of motion, Field of vision are example of science base universal truths.   Stepping at a 45 degree angle is a Universal footwork truth.  Flipping an opponent without grabbing them or hooking them is not a universal truth in fighting.

The more fighting and sparring that people do, the more "universal truths" they will run across.

My person opinion is that everyone should view TMA like a puzzle. Take one piece at a time. Start with the things that make sense, things that you understand. Eventually you'll connect enough of those pieces to where things you don't understand will suddenly fall in place.  I will eventually get to a point where you know what fits and which pieces don't belong to the puzzle.  I think that's the healthiest approach for systems with limited information


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Again, the only claims discussed here were about how I train. Those claims don't really need a test. And it's not really usual to tell someone they have to prove they do a given drill, unless it's an exceptional claim. Flow drills aren'te really that exceptional, as claims go.
> 
> You're obsessing a little on this.


You sound really defensive to me.

Speaking just for myself, I'm interested not whether you do them, but what you think you get out of them.  Take another example, kata.  Karate guys do kata and you and others champion their efforts and don't question their usefulness.  XMA guys do kata and you and others become very elitist and dismiss that kata as un-useful.  No one questions that they're doing kata.  It's the results.


----------



## JowGaWolf

not


Steve said:


> You sound really defensive to me.
> 
> Speaking just for myself, I'm interested not whether you do them, but what you think you get out of them.  Take another example, kata.  Karate guys do kata and you and others champion their efforts and don't question their usefulness.  XMA guys do kata and you and others become very elitist and dismiss that kata as un-useful.  No one questions that they're doing kata.  It's the results.


I don't know about the rest of the TMA world but for me my forms are vital.  I don't think people can do Jow Ga effectively or efficiently without it.   I can only speak for Jow Ga because that's what I train, but I'm willing to bet that there are some universal truths.

1. Forms teach movement - this is especially important when using  "unusual movement."  Unusual movement is important because that's the movement that your enemy or opponent will be least likely to defend.  It also teaches basic movement. Where an MMA fighter may drill a bunch of jabs.  The forms drill a lot of different movements but not in a consecutive manner. Basic movements for that system are often repeated the most in the forms.

2. Forms teach combos - Jow Ga forms are made of actual fighting combos. So it's like a predetermined shadow boxing routine.  If I do the form continuously, which is how most kung fu forms work.  Then it looks all over the place like one big fight scene.  But in reality for application  I need to know where to break the combos and singular strikes up.  There should be pauses at specific points within that form

3. Forms help the practitioner remember a lot of techniques.  When I forget my forms, I'm often able to remember it by doing the form and by how it feels.  I don't remember the technique first.  i often remember the movement of what comes next so if it feels strange or out of place then I know I have something wrong.   If it feels like something that I've done over and over a thousand times but need a refresher then I know I"m on the track.  I've pieced together my forms more than once already.  This is sort of like not knowing your company user id, unless you are typing it on the keyboard. It's the motion of your fingers that help you remember it.

Now with that said.  This portion can be replaced with video.  Video is more accurate so long as you can keep the video file from being corrupt.   If you lose the file and have not remembered anything then you have lost everything. 

Sort of like how everyone keeps phone numbers on their phone, but very few actually remember phone numbers.  When the phone dies and the data is lost then there's nothing.   This wouldn't be the case if you spend time to remember the  numbers. You would actually remember some if not all. 

The results that one sees from the forms all depend on what you are training and how you are training.  I can use forms to train power, I can use forms to train footwork, I can use forms to train speed, and I can use forms to train application.  Someone looking on the outside could not verify this usefulness unless they knew how I was training my forms.   If my footwork sucks and I spend  2 months training forms and the next time you see me, my footwork is way better then you can say that the Form training was a good way to train my footwork.

I have maybe 5 other ways that forms help but I won't put it here.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> I have maybe 5 other ways that forms help but I won't put it here.


The concern that I have is people may spend too much time to repeat the TMA forms that they have learned from their teachers. They may forget to create new forms for themselves. All their life, they just act as a perfect copy machine, no more and no less. They have never created anything.

For example, In combat, you will train the following combos:

*1. Jab,* c*ross,* j*ab
2. Jab, cross, hook
3. Jab, hook, jab
4. Jab, hook, hook
5. Jab, hook, uppercut
6. Hook, cross, hook
7. Hook, hook, uppercut
8. Hook, uppercut, hook
9. Hook, spin back fist, hook
10. Hook, back fist, overhand
11.  ...
*
When will you start to train the above combos that doesn't exist in any of those TMA forms that you have learned but you know it's useful in fighting?

No matter how many research papers that you have read, one of these day you will have to start to write your own paper.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The concern that I have is people may spend too much time to repeat the TMA forms that they have learned from their teachers. They may forget to create the new forms for themselves.


I agree completely with this.  The forms should be a template from which effective variety can be built.  The forms should never be "This is the only way."  This works best when the techniques in the form  are things that the practitioner actually uses, then it becomes more of a fighting drill, with techniques that are the most successful for the practitioner.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> When will you start to train the above combos that doesn't exist in any of those TMA forms that you have learned but you know it's useful in fighting?


Jow Ga is the exception as these are in the forms in some shape or another.  I think the founder took the same path that you are talking about.  If it works throw it in the form.

There are things that I've learned on my own just by trying different things.  I will be adding those in my custom forms as well.  If I don't then it will never be passed on.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> No matter how many research papers that you have read, one of these day you will have to start to write your own paper.


Definitely agree with this.  It's the only real way to know if you truly understand the things that you read or were taught.  Sort of like those test where the teacher never taught the answer to it, but if you understand what you have been studying then you should be able to find the answer.


----------



## Buka

I'm doing an Eggs Benedict form right now. I may have to do it again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> You sound really defensive to me.
> 
> Speaking just for myself, I'm interested not whether you do them, but what you think you get out of them.  Take another example, kata.  Karate guys do kata and you and others champion their efforts and don't question their usefulness.  XMA guys do kata and you and others become very elitist and dismiss that kata as un-useful.  No one questions that they're doing kata.  It's the results.


I don't really "champion their efforts". I enjoy kata for what it is to me, and use it in my training and teaching for specific purposes. And when kata is brought up I tend to share my experience with it and why I use it. What I think folks (myself included) mostly get out of those exercises is a chance to move in different ways without a partner, and something they can work on when injured. Not much of a claim there, really.

And, no, I've literally NEVER dismissed XMA kata as un-useful. I suspect it's at least as useful as what I use. That's a blatantly false claim. You're either being deceitful, or just demonstrating that you prefer to work with your bias rather than pay attention to what I actually said.

As for me sounding defensive, I'm really just annoyed that you bothered to jump in to ask for proof of something apparently without the slightest notion what was being discussed. Now you're trying to project emotions on me, which is really just more annoying. If you want to challenge something I've said here, find it and actually refer to it. Otherwise, what the exact heck are you up to?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I don't really "champion their efforts". I enjoy kata for what it is to me, and use it in my training and teaching for specific purposes. And when kata is brought up I tend to share my experience with it and why I use it. What I think folks (myself included) mostly get out of those exercises is a chance to move in different ways without a partner, and something they can work on when injured. Not much of a claim there, really.
> 
> And, no, I've literally NEVER dismissed XMA kata as un-useful. I suspect it's at least as useful as what I use. That's a blatantly false claim. You're either being deceitful, or just demonstrating that you prefer to work with your bias rather than pay attention to what I actually said.
> 
> As for me sounding defensive, I'm really just annoyed that you bothered to jump in to ask for proof of something apparently without the slightest notion what was being discussed. Now you're trying to project emotions on me, which is really just more annoying. If you want to challenge something I've said here, find it and actually refer to it. Otherwise, what the exact heck are you up to?


I said what I'm up to.  I'm interested in what you think you get out of them, and whether you actually get what you think. And really, "you" is generic. You in this case, and others in general. That's pretty much all I'm ever up to.  

Take a few deep breaths, and if you're still not willing to answer the question, that's okay.  Just do us both a favor and if you're not going to answer, don't respond at all.


----------



## Martial D

I saw a really interesting interview with the fella that founded sbg martial arts..and coined the term 'aliveness' within martial arts. He said something that rang true to me.

Once you remove 'aliveness' from a system, it will tend to degrade into patterns, and over time lose any semblance of functionality and become a 'fantasy'(ie not functional) system. 

And further, every single 'alive' (ie a system where competition is possible due to actual resistive opponents) will have a combat sports variant..because human nature. Once competition is possible people will compete. 

One need only look at a: whether competition exists and b: the limits put on said competition to see if your martial art is functional or not. It's really that simple.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> One need only look at a: whether competition exists and b: the limits put on said competition to see if your martial art is functional or not.


I like it, right up to this point.  I understand what was said, So I"m just being picky at this point.  This is true so long as the techniques of that system are being used in that competition.  

If I do competition an only reduce myself to basic kickboxing then I'm not doing what I actually train.  I've actually done the opposite.  I have abandon what I trained and replaced it with something that I don't train.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> I like it, right up to this point.  I understand what was said, So I"m just being picky at this point.  This is true so long as the techniques of that system are being used in that competition.
> 
> If I do competition an only reduce myself to basic kickboxing then I'm not doing what I actually train.  I've actually done the opposite.  I have abandon what I trained and replaced it with something that I don't train.


Well that's kinda the point. If what you are using is not the optimal tool for the job, why use it?

If you find yourself kickboxing instead of adhering to a system when things become alive, you really need to ask yourself why that is. Is it because adhering to it is placing limits on you that are hard to overcome when resistance is added? It seems to me that when things get to a certain level of competitiveness you end up with standup, grappling and clinching that boils down to a very similar looking product regardless of style origins.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> Well that's kinda the point. If what you are using is not the optimal tool for the job, why use it?


not really, because in TMA people are more likely to Bail out of a technique instead of learning how to use the technique properly. 

I like to use the system that I train so that there's no assumption that my ego is "it's that system but not my system."
If you take a look at some of my sparring videos you will see me use a wide variety of Jow Ga techniques.

But this person has 8 years of Jow Ga experience but show me where the Jow Ga is?  They aren't sparring hard so why not take a risk to work the techniques that you train.  Jow Ga is effective for me.  There's no reason why it couldn't be effective for someone else. 





This is what a lot of TMA's have a problem with when it comes to the student.  Instead of learning how to use the techniques they have been training for 8+ years, they abandon it.  This has nothing to do with the optimal tool.

Same situation.. But this time the Teacher corrects the student when the student abandon's Jow Ga.. "Technique from Form... No Boxing hand"





You can't learn a technique unless you try to use it.  But many TMA people bail out of it.  If they were actually adhering to the system, then all you would see is Jow Ga (win or lose) Only Jow Ga comes out of the tap.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The concern that I have is people may spend too much time to repeat the TMA forms that they have learned from their teachers. They may forget to create new forms for themselves. All their life, they just act as a perfect copy machine, no more and no less. They have never created anything.



Then this is a problem in the way the person trains.  Their teacher may encourage simple copying and may discourage exploring use.  But that isn’t a problem with training forms.  It is only a problem with how some people approach it.

Anything can be inappropriately applied or over-relied upon.


----------



## geezer

Martial D said:


> ...It seems to me that when things get to a certain level of competitiveness you end up with standup, grappling and clinching that boils down to a very similar looking product regardless of style origins.



Similar looking, but not identical. The outward similarity is a result of convergent evolution dictated by context of environment. For example, what happens when fighting systems that originally evolved in very different contexts put into a ring or cage under a standardized rule set. As they adopt what works best for most under those conditions, they will look more alike. 

Still, I wonder if there are certain things emphasized in different traditions that could still add value even if the techniques are no longer recognizable. In the following clip, both fighters look to be taking a pretty straight up MMA approach blending kicking, striking and grappling. I don't see any really visible TMA. Yet one fighter represent's Alan Orr's CSL Wing Chun gym and includes chi-sau drills, etc. in his training. At the time of this fight, both he and his coach felt that training to be really helpful. Also, his coach feels that the _way_ he delivers his elbows reflects his WC training. Heck, everyone uses elbows, but there are differences in delivery and execution. 

Did Josh's elbows usage benefit from his WC? I don't know.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> But this person has 8 years of Jow Ga experience but show me where the Jow Ga is? They aren't sparring hard so why not take a risk to work the techniques that you train. Jow Ga is effective for me. There's no reason why it couldn't be effective for someone else.



They weren't sparring hard untill jow gar wanted to escalate.

But it is good to know when to abandon your art and start protecting yourself.

I am also going to suggest that due to the nature of jow gar and the big movements it used. You almost would always need 16oz gloves on or otherwise you would be trying to stop start. And you would be shooting yourself in the foot a bit.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Still, I wonder if there are certain things emphasized in different traditions that could still add value even if the techniques are no longer recognizable. In the following clip, both fighters look to be taking a pretty straight up MMA approach blending kicking, striking and grappling. I don't see any really visible TMA. Yet one fighter represent's Alan Orr's CSL Wing Chun gym and includes chi-sau drills, etc. in his training. At the time of this fight, both he and his coach felt that training to be really helpful. Also, his coach feels that the _way_ he delivers his elbows reflects his WC training. Heck, everyone uses elbows, but there are differences in delivery and execution.



The problem is a lot of wing chun concept is contained in amateur boxing anyway. So they can be doing wing chun but look like boxers.


----------



## Martial D

Think of it like this. Say you want to cross a road, but you have been taught only to hop across on one leg.

Eventually, you will be hopping across that road pretty quickly, with enough practice.

But rarely faster than the guy that runs.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Also, his coach feels that the _way_ he delivers his elbows reflects his WC training. Heck, everyone uses elbows, but there are differences in delivery and execution.



And sorry. The way he delivered downward elbows from a dominant position is his Chun?

All elbows thrown from the top are devastating due to the position they are thrown from.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> reduce myself to basic kickboxing ...





geezer said:


> both fighters look to be taking a pretty straight up MMA approach blending kicking, striking and grappling. I don't see any really visible TMA.





drop bear said:


> they can be doing wing chun but look like boxers.


In fighting, you guys may assume that there is a big difference between TMA, kickboxing, and MMA.

If you ask me what's the difference between a

- long fist hook punch, kickboxing hook punch, MMA hook punch?
- long fist side kick, kickboxing side kick, MMA side kick?
- ...

I won't be able to explain the difference.

A tool is just a tool. No matter where it may come from, it's up to you to decide how to use it.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In fighting, you guys all assume that there is a big difference between TMA, kickboxing, and MMA.
> 
> If you ask me what's the difference between a
> 
> - long fist hook punch, kickboxing hook punch, MMA hook punch?
> - long fist side kick, kickboxing side kick, MMA side kick?
> - ...
> 
> I won't be able to explain the difference.
> 
> A tool is just a tool. No matter where it may come from, it depends on how you may want to use it.



You have to make the difference. Otherwise it would be based solely on performance.

Same reason self defence people do it.

Pugilists have been the most obvious at this. So they have the stance that bare knuckle boxing is a unique skill set. So they can't just box because it isn't their speciality. 

Until bare knuckle promotions came in and none of them did very well.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> You have to make the difference. Otherwise it would be based solely on performance.
> 
> Same reason self defence people do it.


I throw a right jab, my opponent blocks my punch to his left. I then throw a left hook to his right.

Am I using long fist, kickboxing, or MMA?


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I throw a right jab, my opponent blocks my punch to his left. I then throw a left hook to his right.
> 
> Am I using long fist, kickboxing, or MMA?



It depends. If you are getting bashed by a boxer. Do you abandon your system and learn his?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> It depends. If you are getting bashed by a boxer. Do you abandon your system and learn his?


No! I will keep kicking his belly, leg, and knee. My leg is longer than his arm.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't really "champion their efforts". I enjoy kata for what it is to me, and use it in my training and teaching for specific purposes. And when kata is brought up I tend to share my experience with it and why I use it. What I think folks (myself included) mostly get out of those exercises is a chance to move in different ways without a partner, and something they can work on when injured. Not much of a claim there, really.
> 
> And, no, I've literally NEVER dismissed XMA kata as un-useful. I suspect it's at least as useful as what I use. That's a blatantly false claim. You're either being deceitful, or just demonstrating that you prefer to work with your bias rather than pay attention to what I actually said.
> 
> As for me sounding defensive, I'm really just annoyed that you bothered to jump in to ask for proof of something apparently without the slightest notion what was being discussed. Now you're trying to project emotions on me, which is really just more annoying. If you want to challenge something I've said here, find it and actually refer to it. Otherwise, what the exact heck are you up to?



The issue is there are levels. And that context has meaning. Without that context your statements have no meaning. 

So for example I train Aikido. 

But in context I train Aikido without an instructor or any formal training. And basically I just wrist lock fools. 

So should I say I train Aikido. And just leave an empty pit where that context should be. I am not exactly telling the full story. And generally not telling the full story to myself.

This is especially prevalent to comments like I spar, I flow roll, I street fight, I randori. 

Because these could literally mean anything.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> No! I will keep kicking his belly, leg, and knee. My leg is longer than his arm.



Not the point of the question. And it is not a competition.

There are boxers who I can't kick my way out of beating.

The point is that at some stage you need to make a choice. Either adjust the art that was comfortable. That fueled your ego and gave you a standing as a martial artist.

Or continue that art but adjust your perception of reality to create this circumstance where you really are doing the right thing.

This is where your kung fu punch becomes different to a boxers.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> This is where your kung fu punch becomes different to a boxers.


You assume the boxer's punch is better than the Kung Fu guy's punch. This may be true, but the Kung Fu guys still have the kicking skill and wrestling skill that boxers don't have.

Will I try to punch like a boxer does? No, I won't. I will try to disable a boxer's punching ability ASAP. By using A simple single leg take down, the boxer won't be able to punch me any more.

I have no shame to admit that boxing has better punching skill than most of the TMA have.  Even my teacher had to train boxing when he was in the Central Guoshu Institute.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You assume the boxer's punch is better than the Kung Fu guy's punch.


I know this wasn’t directed at me, but I make no such assumptions.  I do not automatically believe that a boxer’s Approach to punching is supreme.

But that’s just me.  One’s mileage may very.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> I do not automatically believe that a boxer’s Approach to punching is supreme.


If A and B spend the same amount of training time.

- A trains boxing (punch only).
- B trains TMA (punch + kick).

A will have better punch skill that B has. But B will have kicking skill that A doesn't have.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You assume the boxer's punch is better than the Kung Fu guy's punch. This may be true, but the Kung Fu guys still have the kicking skill and wrestling skill that boxers don't have.
> 
> Will I try to punch like a boxer does? No, I won't. I will try to disable a boxer's punching ability ASAP. By using A simple single leg take down, the boxer won't be able to punch me any more.
> 
> I have no shame to admit that boxing has better punching skill than most of the TMA have.  Even my teacher had to train boxing when he was in the Central Guoshu Institute.



And this is how you tell the difference between stylistic moves that should technically be interchangeable.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If A and B spend the same amount of training time.
> 
> - A trains boxing (punch only).
> - B trains TMA (punch + kick).
> 
> A will have better punch skill that B has. But B will have kicking skill that A doesn't have.



Not really. Not without context. So if you spent 6 months in maywhethers dog house. Your punching would be better than you could get in a lot of places regardless of the time invested. 

You could then use the extra time to develop your kicking or grappling skills.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> They weren't sparring hard untill jow gar wanted to escalate.


yeah I didn't like that too much.  Not the escalation part but how and maybe the why he did it.  He was out skilled with no "Entry Game" so out of frustration he upped the intensity got caught in a clinch and was worse off.  The guy he was sparring with had a lot of control so it was just missed opportunity to fail figure out some Jow Ga in the process.  instead he failed and learned nothing in return.  The kick boxer got more out it because he worked his techniques, clinch, knees, low kicks, high kicks.  



drop bear said:


> But it is good to know when to abandon your art and start protecting yourself.


All of his sparring videos are like that one. Even the ones he seems to be dominating.  He won't learn the techniques unless he gives it a good try to do so.  This is where MMA excels. They are taught a technique and they go out and try it until they can get good enough with the technique for it to be reliable. 



drop bear said:


> I am also going to suggest that due to the nature of jow gar and the big movements it used. You almost would always need 16oz gloves on or otherwise you would be trying to stop start. And you would be shooting yourself in the foot a bit.


 yep. you are right about that.  It's a big shot in the foot.  Both of them.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If A and B spend the same amount of training time.
> 
> - A trains boxing (punch only).
> - B trains TMA (punch + kick).
> 
> A will have better punch skill that B has. But B will have kicking skill that A doesn't have.


What if A and B spend equal time and similar intensity developing their punches, according to their respective methodologies?  No clear answer there.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> yeah I didn't like that too much.  Not the escalation part but how and maybe the why he did it.  He was out skilled with no "Entry Game" so out of frustration he upped the intensity got caught in a clinch and was worse off.  The guy he was sparring with had a lot of control so it was just missed opportunity to fail figure out some Jow Ga in the process.  instead he failed and learned nothing in return.  The kick boxer got more out it because he worked his techniques, clinch, knees, low kicks, high kicks.
> 
> All of his sparring videos are like that one. Even the ones he seems to be dominating.  He won't learn the techniques unless he gives it a good try to do so.  This is where MMA excels. They are taught a technique and they go out and try it until they can get good enough with the technique for it to be reliable.
> 
> yep. you are right about that.  It's a big shot in the foot.  Both of them.



That other guy could have bashed him at that point. And I assumed that happened when the video conveniently stopped mid round. 


By the way it might be easier to jow gar live if you can already kickbox because you at least have an idea of what is going on before you attempt to add the extra complexity that is a stylistic demand.

So basic kickboxing sparring might actually help the jow gar sparring. By giving a frame of reference.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I said what I'm up to.  I'm interested in what you think you get out of them, and whether you actually get what you think. And really, "you" is generic. You in this case, and others in general. That's pretty much all I'm ever up to.


How did kata become part of this discussion????



> Take a few deep breaths, and if you're still not willing to answer the question, that's okay.  Just do us both a favor and if you're not going to answer, don't respond at all.


You're being ridiculous, Steve. If you'd actually bothered to read my previous post, I actually answered that question already. But go ahead and act sanctimonious and righteous about me not answering questions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The issue is there are levels. And that context has meaning. Without that context your statements have no meaning.
> 
> So for example I train Aikido.
> 
> But in context I train Aikido without an instructor or any formal training. And basically I just wrist lock fools.
> 
> So should I say I train Aikido. And just leave an empty pit where that context should be. I am not exactly telling the full story. And generally not telling the full story to myself.
> 
> This is especially prevalent to comments like I spar, I flow roll, I street fight, I randori.
> 
> Because these could literally mean anything.


Sure, they could mean anything. That's why we have words and question marks, so we can discuss and get the context that leads to understanding. But if you then decide whatever I say I do must be proven, it gets more than a little tedious. I say, "I like to use a heavy bag to work on that." If the reply is, "Video or I don't believe it" then there's really no way to carry on a reasonable discussion. If your reply is something like "Do you work that in combinations at the bag?" or something to clarify the meaning (because "use a heavy bag" covers a huge area of drills), then we get somewhere.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> So basic kickboxing sparring might actually help the jow gar sparring.


You may never see a head lock followed by an uppercut used in boxing, or kickboxing.

IMO, the TMA can help the boxing and kickboxing a lot. Not the other way around.

In TMA, a punch can be used to obtain a clinch. Not sure people do that in boxing or kickboxing.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You may never see a head lock followed by an uppercut used in boxing, or kickboxing.
> 
> IMO, the TMA can help the boxing and kickboxing a lot. Not the other way around.
> 
> In TMA, a punch can be used to obtain a clinch. Not sure people do that in boxing or kickboxing.



It doesn't matter. If you don't understand the principles occurring in a fight then you will never have enough the back of house needed to apply your specific techniques.

And hey we are back to aikido.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Sure, they could mean anything. That's why we have words and question marks, so we can discuss and get the context that leads to understanding. But if you then decide whatever I say I do must be proven, it gets more than a little tedious. I say, "I like to use a heavy bag to work on that." If the reply is, "Video or I don't believe it" then there's really no way to carry on a reasonable discussion. If your reply is something like "Do you work that in combinations at the bag?" or something to clarify the meaning (because "use a heavy bag" covers a huge area of drills), then we get somewhere.



Not really. Because that just continues to support meaningless statements with more meaningless statements.

Which is the issue with arts like Aikido in the first place. Evidence is the best sales pitch. And critical thinkers are just haters. 

Just layers upon layers of explanation as to why, despite any real evidence their stuff really does do what is claimed.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> How did kata become part of this discussion????


it was an example of the same thing.  





> You're being ridiculous, Steve. If you'd actually bothered to read my previous post, I actually answered that question already. But go ahead and act sanctimonious and righteous about me not answering questions.


of course.  I should just read your posts.  I'll try that next time.  Thanks for the constructive discussion.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> And hey we are back to aikido.


Assume I'm an Aikido guy. One day in the street, I threw a punch and knocked my opponent down. How can you say that my Aikido punch is not effective?

Where did I learn my Aikido punch? I learned it by standing in front of a heavy bag and punch on that bag everyday. There is no law that prevent an Aikido guy from working on his heavy bag.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Assume I'm an Aikido guy. One day in the street, I threw a punch and knocked my opponent down. How can you say that my Aikido punch is not effective?
> 
> Where did I learn my Aikido punch? I learned it by standing in front of a heavy bag and punch on that bag everyday. There is no law that prevent an Aikido guy from working on his heavy bag.



But what if the Aikido guy never got in to a fight in the first place. How can you say buying a black cat is bad luck?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> But what if the Aikido guy never got in to a fight in the first place. How can you say buying a black cat is bad luck?


Many years ago, Armando Flores and another Karate friend of mine visited me on a weekend. There was a Karate tournament in town that day. 3 of us put on the soft Karate gloves and competed in that Karate tournament. Armando beat his opponent's face all over the blood and got dis-qualified by using excessive force. A week later he was kicked out of his Aikido association.

Aikido guy can fight if he wants too.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many years ago, Armando Flores and another Karate friend of mine visited me on a weekend. There was a Karate tournament in town that day. 3 of us put on the soft Karate gloves and competed in that Karate tournament. Armando beat his opponent's face all over the blood and got dis-qualified by using excessive force. A week later he was kicked out of his Aikido association.
> 
> Aikido guy can fight if he wants too.



Oscar Isac got in to a fight with ten bikers and beat all of them.

He can fight if he wants to.






Just curious. But what does all this have to do with what I posted?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not really. Because that just continues to support meaningless statements with more meaningless statements.
> 
> Which is the issue with arts like Aikido in the first place. Evidence is the best sales . And critical thinkers are just haters.
> 
> Just layers upon layers of explanation as to why, despite any real evidence their stuff really does do what is claimed.


Okay, so nobody need ever bother to mention anything they do in their training. Apparently all of it is meaningless in discussions without video of it. Got it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> it was an example of the same thing.


 same as what? 





> of course.  I should just read your posts.  I'll try that next time.  Thanks for the constructive discussion.


Happy to help. Surprised you hadn't already thought of reading something before commenting on it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Just curious. But what does all this have to do with what I posted?


All MA systems can be used as an effective fighting system if a person knows how. I have seen an Aikido guy did the best Karate roundhouse kick by kicking with his instep.

If people think that Aikido is not an effective fighting system, may be the person just doesn't know how to make it effective.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Ok here's another Aikido Basics Video






Out of all of the ones I've seen so far I like this one the most.  It has the "Aikido chop" in it (15:38).  So what I'm getting from this video is that the chop is being used as a training tool, for learning how to get the correct angle on receiving the "Chop Attack")  From what I saw in this video.  The upward motion towards the chop is similar to a technique done in Jow Ga, but I may be just reading to much into it.    But here's what I'm getting from it.  When the strike comes in, you want to meet the force at an angle.  The angle slows down the strike an redirects if.  If you do not slow down the strike then the strike will continue on it's path.  That is the concept.

So I used the same Aikido Concept and applied it to a strike. punch.  The punch comes in. I engage the linear strike (with my opposite hand) at an angle, which means you have to do this before the punch is straight.  This creates a grinding motion that slows the punch because you can't grab the arm unless you do this.  Once you get that friction, quickly send your force on a circular path which will push the punch away from your center.  (I probably need to put some more detail into the description).  When I did this.  If felt like one of the techniques that I use in kung fu.  The biggest difference is that I'm trying to blend so can crab the arm.  In Jow ga, we strike the arm to cause damage and snake around the punch.

I didn't think of this until he used the sword to explain it.  I could be wrong but I think this is the correct way and that it can be applied to straight punches.

I still don't like the stances thought.  But when I stand like that I naturally want step off to the right at  45 degree angle and immediately want to raise my rear hand in order to redirect the straight punch so I can prevent it from hitting me.  That may be my kung fu mindset telling me to do that.  Only way to know is to have one of the Aikido guys try it.

The thing that makes me think this is correct is how he uses his forearm (15:38)  which sets up a safer grab with higher probability than just trying to snatch stuff out of the air.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Okay, so nobody need ever bother to mention anything they do in their training. Apparently all of it is meaningless in discussions without video of it. Got it.



It just depends if you want to treat martial arts as a science or a belief system. 

I am sure no touch guys can support their method with more method. I am sure there are books of explanation out there. 

What they can't do is get a random person and make that method work.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> All MA systems can be used as an effective fighting system if a person knows how. I have seen an Aikido guy did the best Karate roundhouse kick by kicking with his instep.
> 
> If people think that Aikido is not an effective fighting system, may be the person just doesn't know how to make it effective.



No they can't. You can't do any random thing and achieve the same results. 

Here is a piece of advice that Mabye I think is self explanatory. So I haven't bothered pointing this out. 

If you want to get better at something you really need to train in a way that makes you better at that thing. 

You don't just train a random thing and then try to figure out how to make that training any to the task you are trying to be good at.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> same as what? Happy to help. Surprised you hadn't already thought of reading something before commenting on it.


Okay.  I don't even know how to respond to this. I hope you have a good day.  It's too beautiful outside to mess with your irrational hostility.  I honestly don't even know what your point of contention is, at this point.  You're clearly upset, but for the life of me, I don't know why.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> All MA systems can be used as an effective fighting system if a person knows how. I have seen an Aikido guy did the best Karate roundhouse kick by kicking with his instep.
> 
> If people think that Aikido is not an effective fighting system, may be the person just doesn't know how to make it effective.



And by the way. How does that make learning to kickbox and then learning to jow gar once fighting is understood.

Or learning to wrestle and then learning to Aikido once grappling is understood.

An incorrect statement.

You need to understand the back of house effort that made this Aikido guys kick so good. Otherwise you see this Aikido guy fire off the killer kick. Go do Aikido, and in ten years find out you can't do that kick. And then get told it is you and not the system.


----------



## BrendanF

drop bear said:


> You need to understand the back of house effort that made this Aikido guys kick so good. Otherwise you see this Aikido guy fire off the killer kick. Go do Aikido, and in ten years find out you can't do that kick. And then get told it is you and not the system.



Is it not you?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> You don't just train a random thing and then try to figure out how to make that training any to the task you are trying to be good at.


The following story is 100% true.

A guy wanted to compete in a Kung Fu tournament in Taiwan. He didn't have teacher and didn't have training partner. He found a coconut shell, drew 2 holes, used 2 ropes and attached to 2 trees. Everyday he just punched on that coconut while it bounced back and forth between 2 trees. many months later, he competed in Kung Fu tournament and won the 1st place. Nobody could escape his head hunting.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I think you guys guys are on the same page but are maybe not seeing it.   I'm only saying this because I've been putting a bunch of likes and agrees on a lot of comments.  Alot of what I'm seeing are things that apply sometimes and not all the time.  So Drop Bear will say something that is true, but not true all the time.  Then Kung Fu Wang will say something true, but not true all the time and GpSeymour will say something true but not true all the time.

For example:  I can go learn how to punch correctly on a punching bag and there is a possibility that I'll be able to use that punch in a fight.  A lot of people actually fight this way.  They copy what they see and then try to reproduce how they see others fight.  This usually occurs with the most basics of strike.  The easier it is to do the strike the more likely it will be done in a fight.  

Here's an example.  Drunken Kung Fu vs Karate.  The video shows a martial artist trying to fight like one would do the form.  This is what we see on TV.  The Druken Boxing techniques that I know aren't like this.  They aren't sloppy and the application of the techniques never looks like in the video.  I've been drunk before and I don't know anyone who gets drunk in moves around like this, so right off the back we see someone copying what they see and trying to apply it in a fight.  If they can do it with silly stuff like this then they can easily do it with basic kicks and punches.  So in that light Kung fu Wang is correct.  But it's always the case.





Drop Bear is also correct.  About experiencing what it's like to be punched, kicked, and trying to kick and punch in the context of sparring.  There are certain things that happen in sparring that puts training into context.  Sparring gives a good visual and basic understanding of how attacks come in and out, and how defenses are deployed.  If you take that information and use that as the "sample attack" or "sample defense" in which a technique must be functional with or against, then you should be able to better understand what you are training and how it actually applies.  This is also correct and it's exactly what I've been using to "decode Aikido"  After watching the video and the explanation of what was going on with the chop it became clear.  But only because the teacher in the video showed how he was using his forearm. Using that forearm made sense to me because of my experience of using something similar in sparring.  Without sparring, I would have never been able to make that connection (right or wrong).  I also know that other systems use the same method of trying to interfere or slow down a punch by using the forearms (universal truths).  

Now when you what Aikido practitioners counter that "Aikido chop" watch if they use their forearms or if they just grab the wrist out of mid air.  Then when you watch Akido sparring vs ???, watch  for the same thing.  Do they just try to grab the punch out of the air or do they use the fore arm to do so.  But with all of that said. The only way a person would even think this way is through the experience of having done something similar.  When you watch other Aikido practitioners talk about dealing with the "Aikido Chop" they never mention using the forearm or discuss why you need to use the forearm.  So experience sparring or fighting makes a difference.


----------



## Steve

BrendanF said:


> Is it not you?


What if it's your lack of kickboxing training?


----------



## BrendanF

Steve said:


> What if it's your lack of kickboxing training?



Well it's going to be a lack of something, right?  No one is arguing that a roundhouse kick is in any orthodox aikido curricula.  But I'd bet that the 'aikido' gent KFWang mentioned had practiced said kick before.  Was that 'kickboxing' training?  Who knows - what we do know is that Wang laoshi was impressed by the kick.

I think these discussions are interesting.  I've always viewed aikido as a fairly idiosyncratic art.  I think it is Ueshiba's distillation of Takeda's improvised, nostalgic nod to times past. I believe Aikido (and DR before it) were products as much of their creators' interest in and promotion of 'old school samurai ethos' and 'yamato damashii' (and themselves) as they were exercises in genuine combat training. 

In other words, the unique approaches shown to fighting in aikido are a reflection of a cultural claim, not a martial one.  That students in a nationalist pre-war Japan would 'tank' for an esteemed teacher who was imparting these cultural traits and claims is entirely in line with the society the art was born in.

Ultimately, I don't think aikido was designed for 'fighting'.  I think it was created and proliferated as a cultural exercise.  So being critical of it as 'fight training' is kinda like being critical of a Ferrarri for it's lack of towing capacity.

There are of course experts who view it differently, and feel like Ueshiba and Takeda had a special 'aiki' type of conditioning which made them exceptional fighters.  While I'm aware of the skills some 'neijia' practitioners possess, I remain unconvinced of that theory.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It just depends if you want to treat martial arts as a science or a belief system.
> 
> I am sure no touch guys can support their method with more method. I am sure there are books of explanation out there.
> 
> What they can't do is get a random person and make that method work.


Yeah, you're pretty dogmatic about this when you decide you don't like a style. Pretty sure you wouldn't think it was so vague as to be meaningless if someone from a style you liked mentioned using a heavy bag.

See, all we've talked about in this lampoon of a side thread is what is done in training, not the effectiveness of it. You're essentially said that anything I say about how I train becomes a claim you feel no need to accept, even if it's a totally normal kind of training. You've also gone so far as to say even mentioning things like a heavy bag is meaningless in discussion with you, because it is too vague.

TL, DR: No sense talking to you about anyting, because it's all too vague for you to comprehend.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Okay.  I don't even know how to respond to this. I hope you have a good day.  It's too beautiful outside to mess with your irrational hostility.  I honestly don't even know what your point of contention is, at this point.  You're clearly upset, but for the life of me, I don't know why.


You are hilarious. You don't even see the aggression in your own approach? Really? You think I'm being hostile when I mock your lack of willingness to discuss, choosing instead to be condescending without bothering to read?

I'm done with you. You've made it clear you're not interested in any actual information. You made up your mind about me and have become increasingly more biased, condescending, and insulting - and less rational in your arguments. You used to be fun to debate with and learn from. Now you're just angry at the world.


----------



## JowGaWolf

BrendanF said:


> Ultimately, I don't think aikido was designed for 'fighting'. I think it was created and proliferated as a cultural exercise.


I'm not so sure about this.  Just looking at some of the basic. Aikido has some of the same basic other fighting systems have.  Stepping off center 45 degrees is one of them.  Using the fore arm to deal with a downward strike.  They aren't the only system that has that.  Hung Gs has a down strike that lands on top of the head. The purpose of the strike is that it compresses the bones in the neck.  I not only have seen this done. I have also seen the effects of it  and I have it on video.   Long fist systems have a lot of these downward punches.  Karate and TKD have upward blocks. That can be used to deal with vertical strikes be it arm or leg. The same upward blocks can be used against horizontal punches.  The forearm itself can be used as a striking tool to strike under the nose to send force upward.  There's actually a pressure point there. Using the forearm increases the possibility that you will strike it since you are basically striking with the bone of the forearm.  

The stance that is use is also viable.  In a way it's cheating because it gives the person a head start. The only draw back is that you can probably only get away with it using by using clothing that hides your stance. I'm all about attacking stances but, it becomes a guessing game if I can easily see how your legs are position.  I don't think anyone can get away with it the stance wearing modern pants.   In  my 20's I would wear big t-shirts to hide my waist. When people targeted my waist with kicks or punches, their strikes would always fall short of where my stomach was.  Their punches would get tangled in my shirt which made it possible to grab the punching arm, by wrapping my arm around it.







I haven't gotten past dealing with at "Aikido Chop" but I do know that the only people who understand how to use the forearm to slow punches are those who actually tried to use it. The impact of something like that is painful for the person with the weakest forearms.  I personally call this technique "Shaving a punch."  because that's the focus you should have..  The same way you would use a blade to shave wood chips from a stick is the same way this technique is used. When I teach this technique I tell students to think of there forearm like a blade and you are going to shave or carve the flesh of that straight punch.

In that one Aikdo video he explained it the same way and the only way someone would understand that is if they actually used it in sparring, which is why so many other Aikido instructors seem to miss this.

You can see me say the same thing in a November 2020 post here
Basic punching skill 101

If you feel your ulna near the wrist you can feel an edge to it which is why I call it "shaving the punch"  
The stance in Aikido reminds me of this. Stance.  If I see legs like then it is my advantage because this person only has 2 options for forward movement . To his and forward.  





You may also see this stance used by some boxer like this guy





Usually when something is trash, none of the pieces add up.  Even if you were trying to get it close to making sense, it still would.  So far things are adding up on "How to receive the force of the "Aikido Chop" as far as I can tell that's pretty sound.  Especially if the "Aikodo chop" isn't an actual attack but a training too to help students understand  what they should be doing with their for arm.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Why does Aikido take this stance





The Answer may be in this video.


----------



## BrendanF

I would only say I see significant differences; the photo you're asking the question of is not in fact the 'stance' aikido people/Ueshiba is taking.  I'd say Xingyiquan's san ti shi is closer, but still different.

I don't believe the overhead strikes/defences are geared toward defending a punch.  I think they are what most all aikido/Daito ryu folks say they are - simulations of an overhead sword strike.


----------



## JowGaWolf

BrendanF said:


> I would only say I see significant differences; the photo you're asking the question of is not in fact the 'stance' aikido people/Ueshiba is taking.


I watched tons of Aikido videos  and They have a stance that is similar to this? It doesn't have to be exactly the same because stance naturally have variations.
The guy below does fencing notice the position of his feet.


----------



## BrendanF

Posture

The above article provides a nice overview of stance and footwork in aikido.  I'd say this is the 'classical' aikido stance:






Not sure the relevance to where you're going; are you arguing that aikido was designed as a striking/punching/kicking art?

Or to take it a step backwards - are you saying you think the aikido overhead chop and associated defenses are intended to be training against people trying to hammerfist the top of your head?


----------



## JowGaWolf

BrendanF said:


> I don't believe the overhead strikes/defences are geared toward defending a punch. I think they are what most all aikido/Daito ryu folks say they are - simulations of an overhead sword strike.


I thought that too until I saw the video of the guy using his forearm.. It's not the same because you would never user your arm like a sword or a blade unless you are fighting open hand no weapons.

  Then I went and pulled up some actual sword fighting. There's nothing in Aikido that makes me thing one is going to do any of those techniques against this.  Aikido doesn't even move with that sense of urgency.





I just don't see it.






I don't see this happening either. A simple poke motion would put an end to all of this.  There's no need to do big movements and slashes.





I did see a video where the concept of the moves were to deal with someone trying to take the sword away from you.   That's looked promising because if I was trying to take a sword out of the hilt then I wouldn't want to let go of the sword because I have control over the end that doesn't cut.  

I know there are some sword techniques in there, but I don't think it's all sword techniques.  The other reason I don't think it's just sword, because the worse way to simulate a sword is to do it with an imaginary sword.  A stick is better than nothing.  If it doesn't make sense to train knife fighting with an imaginary knife then it's not going to make sense to do so with an imaginary sword


----------



## JowGaWolf

BrendanF said:


> Posture
> 
> The above article provides a nice overview of stance and footwork in aikido.  I'd say this is the 'classical' aikido stance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure the relevance to where you're going; are you arguing that aikido was designed as a striking/punching/kicking art?
> 
> Or to take it a step backwards - are you saying you think the aikido overhead chop and associated defenses are intended to be training against people trying to hammerfist the top of your head?


I don't like pictures like this because you can't see the legs or the feet, which means you can't see the stance as it's hidden.  He could shift into a cat stance and  you wouldn't even notice..


----------



## JowGaWolf

BrendanF said:


> Not sure the relevance to where you're going; are you arguing that aikido was designed as a striking/punching/kicking art?


I'm not even that far.  I'm still on the basics . No one has given an sound answer to "whst's the purpose of"  So far I have put more guesses and observation than I've gotten.  "You use that for this." followed by an explanation of why or how it works, or what's being trained.  I got a hint, but that's all.  

Don't get me wrong it's possible that they don't know. I don't know what all of my kung fu is.  There were some simple moves that I didn't understand until I saw a Chin Na video.  It gave me just enough  of a hint to come up with a good working theory that I tested out and it worked like a charm.  So, I understand.  "I don't know." and I don't think less of anyone's knowledge for not knowing.

So short answer.  I'm not making any claims of "What Aikido is"  I'm just making observations to find out who it works and in what context. The only way I would know if I'm correct is if one of the Aikido guys will eventually get a chance to try it or if I get a chance to try it. 

If Aikido is just sword techniques then EVERYONE is doing wrong.



BrendanF said:


> are you saying you think the aikido overhead chop and associated defenses are intended to be training against people trying to hammerfist the top of your head?


For this one, I'm saying that's a possibility. Techniques rarely have only one application.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, you're pretty dogmatic about this when you decide you don't like a style. Pretty sure you wouldn't think it was so vague as to be meaningless if someone from a style you liked mentioned using a heavy bag.
> 
> See, all we've talked about in this lampoon of a side thread is what is done in training, not the effectiveness of it. You're essentially said that anything I say about how I train becomes a claim you feel no need to accept, even if it's a totally normal kind of training. You've also gone so far as to say even mentioning things like a heavy bag is meaningless in discussion with you, because it is too vague.
> 
> TL, DR: No sense talking to you about anyting, because it's all too vague for you to comprehend.



Yeah. So mike Tyson on a heavy bag is not even close to the same sort of training as me on the heavy bag. 

Which makes the effects of that training different. 

Which is why I wouldn't just say yep I train on the heavy bag and expect anyone to take me seriously. 

But then I also don't have an image to maintain.


----------



## drop bear

BrendanF said:


> Is it not you?



Not if you haven't had a real look at why Aikido guy can kick as well as he can. 

It is a correlation doesn't always equal causation issue.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> You are hilarious. You don't even see the aggression in your own approach? Really? You think I'm being hostile when I mock your lack of willingness to discuss, choosing instead to be condescending without bothering to read?
> 
> I'm done with you. You've made it clear you're not interested in any actual information. You made up your mind about me and have become increasingly more biased, condescending, and insulting - and less rational in your arguments. You used to be fun to debate with and learn from. Now you're just angry at the world.


About the only thing you get right is that I do actually think you're pretty hostile. 

Can you calmly and rationally explain to me where you are getting all this?  I mean... draw the line for me between what I wrote and... whatever it is you're doing above.  I will try to explain what I meant. 

But man, what you seem to be reading and what I wrote... I don't see any connection between the two.  This includes whatever emotions you're projecting onto me.  You're angry, so you accuse me of being angry.  You're irrational, so you accuse me of being irrational.  You're hostile, insulting, biased... and so you accuse me of being the same.

If you're prefer to PM me, I'm fine with that.  I'm sure others would appreciate it, too, to get it out of the thread.  Or if you'd like to continue posting like this in public, I guess that's fine, too.  But either way, I'm actually getting a little tired of your emotional outbursts, and if you're going to do it, would appreciate if you'd at the very least be more specific.


----------



## O'Malley

JowGaWolf said:


> Why does Aikido take this stance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Answer may be in this video.



You are correct about the stance: the body is 3/4 facing the opponent, the front foot points towards the opponent and the back foot forms a triangle with the front foot. This is aikido's only "stance", called "hanmi" or "half body". The position in the image is a bit wide for aikido but the idea is there. It probably comes from the founder's practice of Japanese bayonet fighting (juken) and its main advantage is that it offers a smaller target to your opponent, especially if he's armed.

It's still used in modern jukendo competition (think kendo, but with wooden bayonets):








JowGaWolf said:


> I thought that too until I saw the video of the guy using his forearm.. It's not the same because you would never user your arm like a sword or a blade unless you are fighting open hand no weapons.
> 
> Then I went and pulled up some actual sword fighting. There's nothing in Aikido that makes me thing one is going to do any of those techniques against this.  Aikido doesn't even move with that sense of urgency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see this happening either. A simple poke motion would put an end to all of this.  There's no need to do big movements and slashes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did see a video where the concept of the moves were to deal with someone trying to take the sword away from you.   That's looked promising because if I was trying to take a sword out of the hilt then I wouldn't want to let go of the sword because I have control over the end that doesn't cut.
> 
> I know there are some sword techniques in there, but I don't think it's all sword techniques.  The other reason I don't think it's just sword, because the worse way to simulate a sword is to do it with an imaginary sword.  A stick is better than nothing.  If it doesn't make sense to train knife fighting with an imaginary knife then it's not going to make sense to do so with an imaginary sword



Aikido is an empty-handed art. Sword and stick techniques are there to condition your body and teach principles (angles of entry, control of the centerline, power generation, timing, different ranges, etc.).

Yoshio Kuroiwa, one of the founder's disciples, once said at a meeting of top aikido masters: "We should stop doing [sword and stick disarms] in public demos. There are lots of real swordsmen in the audience, people who've really trained with swords, and they know that we can't really do such techniques. We are making fools of ourselves." I think he was right. Even from a swordsmanship perspective, the aikido technical curriculum was not well thought-out (its founder had no formal sword training).

You're doing an interesting exercise but since there's no technical standard for aikido, your conclusions will not apply to the vast majority of practitioners.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't like pictures like this because you can't see the legs or the feet, which means you can't see the stance as it's hidden.  He could shift into a cat stance and  you wouldn't even notice..


Actually, if he were in a cat stance, I could tell. The balance point is distinctly different from that hanmi (our term, though I suspect it's the same in Aikido).


----------



## drop bear

Interestingly when it comes to showing evidence. There is a trend of people unable to do so. 






And a specific pattern of resistance.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> Why does Aikido take this stance


If you want to be precise, his back foot should point 45 degree forward.


----------



## BrendanF

drop bear said:


> Not if you haven't had a real look at why Aikido guy can kick as well as he can.
> 
> It is a correlation doesn't always equal causation issue.



If "you haven't had a real look"... it's not .. you?(who didn't take the initiative to learn that kick?)  Sorry you've lost me.



O'Malley said:


> Aikido is an empty-handed art. Sword and stick techniques are there to condition your body and teach principles (angles of entry, control of the centerline, power generation, timing, different ranges, etc.).
> 
> Yoshio Kuroiwa, one of the founder's disciples, once said at a meeting of top aikido masters: "We should stop doing [sword and stick disarms] in public demos. There are lots of real swordsmen in the audience, people who've really trained with swords, and they know that we can't really do such techniques. We are making fools of ourselves." I think he was right. Even from a swordsmanship perspective, the aikido technical curriculum was not well thought-out (its founder had no formal sword training).
> 
> You're doing an interesting exercise but since there's no technical standard for aikido, your conclusions will not apply to the vast majority of practitioners.



Yes, koryu weapons folk tend to scoff at aikido weapons work (wasn't that Mochizuki?).  In saying 'aikido is an empty-handed art', are you saying that the overhand chop/sankyo techniques (not to mention ikkyo etc) are _supposed_ to be empty handed defenses against people overhand chopping at the top of the head?  I've always heard that the aikido/DR theory stressed that these were symbolic of weapon defense and retention?


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you want to be precise, his back foot should point 45 degree forward.



Not sure of the relevance. This does't look like aikido or fencing. Looks like southern Chinese boxing, or maybe Hsing-i? Obviously some of the cool stuff you've encountered over the years, John. What is it ...and where did you take the picture?


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Interestingly when it comes to showing evidence. There is a trend of people unable to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And a specific pattern of resistance.


In all honesty I think the evidence is that.
1. HE doesn't know
2. HE doesn't understand the functionality of fighting in general
3. He doesn't understand the function of what he trains.

It says more about him than about systems.  He could have used functional reference points then test them out with an Aikido perspective.  Compare what I've written with trying to analyze a "Chop", a stance, and a Forearm.  Between me and him, I've probably added more possible insight for Aikido than what he has added in all of his videos.  His biggest problem is that he's still new to sparring.  You can clearly see that when he spars against people, his foot work tells oh him, his body movement tells on him. His lack of interest of being hit even with light punches tell on him as he tries to dodge every punch.

There's definitely a Trend, but I think it's a trend that people who don't understand stand the system that they train in, probably:

Haven't looked
Haven't sparred
and have a general misunderstanding of what fighting looks like or what fighting spirit is.
I'll tell you this much if I crack "The Aikido Code" and learn how to successfully do a Aikido technique,  then I'm going post a video response back to him.  Titled   "If I can figure this out, then why can't you."  He talks about testing beliefs.  I can tell you for a fact that I've never once tested my Jow Ga beliefs.  I think a person that "Tests beliefs" is going to gain less than a person who sets out to understand function and then "Test Function" to see if they understood correctly.

Think of it this way.  Where would we be if we just assume that just because it didn't work for some that there was no validity in trying to fly. How many failures were made, but people still believed that they could fly.  But where they testing belief or testing function?

So what fits your thoughts when looking at the video below.

It doesn't work for me, so it must not be possible
It doesn't work because they lack the understanding.





Martial arts are just like this.  90% of the time is will be your lack of knowledge of how something works, that will make you think "it's impossible" or that "it doesn't work."

My personal thoughts on Aikido is that Aikido is a flying machine.  The people in the video are Aikido Practitioners who don't understand what's needed to in order to actually fly.  Their idea or concept of a flying machine with flapping wings is sound. The techniques used to accomplish that are the wrong technique because they failed to understand flying.

(0:06) in the video above.  Machines that fly by using flapping wings.  The reality. video below.  You can clearly see the different levels of understanding.  















Sometimes the system is at fault. But I think a lot of times, it's our lack of understanding that causes us to do things incorrectly


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you want to be precise, his back foot should point 45 degree forward.


I'm sure that angle of stances changes during application. Just like horse stance will change when in application.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> Not sure of the relevance. This does't look like aikido or fencing. Looks like southern Chinese boxing, or maybe Hsing-i? Obviously some of the cool stuff you've encountered over the years, John. What is it ...and where did you take the picture?


It's the XingYi 3-7 stance.

The best fighting stance is a stance that you can spring forward from that posture,

So if your back foot is pointing

- 45 degree forward, your body will spring forward.
- 90 degree (as shown in the fencing stance), your body will spring side way (that's not what you want to).

In this pictures, his back foot is pointing 45 degree backward. When he springs, I have no idea which direction that his body will spring to. In other words, his stance is not a spring-able stance.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - 90 degree (as shown in the fencing stance), your body will spring side way (that's not what you want to).


You'll get the quickest push forward with the foot at 90 degree.















It's not just fencing, you'll also see it in boxing.







Jow Ga low stance.  If I want to be mobile in this stance then my rear foot is at 90 read to push forward quickly.  My lead foot is "gate closed"  but when I move it will change position to "gate open" with the toes pointing forward.   




But I think 45 degrees is a compromise between 90 degrees and angle cutting which is often used  for used for kicking. Here my foot is at 45 degrees.


----------



## JowGaWolf

my footwork again




This is a special front kick that I do.  Take a note the position of my feet.




I'm not saying that there is 90 degrees is the only way.  I personally think both ore equally important an I use both equally well.  In application you will see people actually use both


----------



## JowGaWolf

The stances are probably universal stance for systems that use punching and or kicking.  The only place that I don't see a lot of it is wrestling where they tend to point both feet forward.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's the XingYi 3-7 stance.
> 
> The best fighting stance is a stance that you can spring forward from that posture,
> 
> So if your back foot is pointing
> 
> - 45 degree forward, your body will spring forward.
> - 90 degree (as shown in the fencing stance), your body will spring side way (that's not what you want to).
> 
> In this pictures, his back foot is pointing 45 degree backward. When he springs, I have no idea which direction that his body will spring to. In other words, his stance is not a spring-able stance.


I'm not sure what you mean when you say a 90-degree stance will result in springing sideways. I move through a 90-degree stance a lot, including at times when moving forward quickly.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> The stances are probably universal stance for systems that use punching and or kicking.  The only place that I don't see a lot of it is wrestling where they tend to point both feet forward.



Traditional boxing is both feet forward as well.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> In all honesty I think the evidence is that.
> 1. HE doesn't know
> 2. HE doesn't understand the functionality of fighting in general
> 3. He doesn't understand the function of what he trains.
> 
> It says more about him than about systems.  He could have used functional reference points then test them out with an Aikido perspective.  Compare what I've written with trying to analyze a "Chop", a stance, and a Forearm.  Between me and him, I've probably added more possible insight for Aikido than what he has added in all of his videos.  His biggest problem is that he's still new to sparring.  You can clearly see that when he spars against people, his foot work tells oh him, his body movement tells on him. His lack of interest of being hit even with light punches tell on him as he tries to dodge every punch.
> 
> There's definitely a Trend, but I think it's a trend that people who don't understand stand the system that they train in, probably:
> 
> Haven't looked
> Haven't sparred
> and have a general misunderstanding of what fighting looks like or what fighting spirit is.
> I'll tell you this much if I crack "The Aikido Code" and learn how to successfully do a Aikido technique,  then I'm going post a video response back to him.  Titled   "If I can figure this out, then why can't you."  He talks about testing beliefs.  I can tell you for a fact that I've never once tested my Jow Ga beliefs.  I think a person that "Tests beliefs" is going to gain less than a person who sets out to understand function and then "Test Function" to see if they understood correctly.
> 
> Think of it this way.  Where would we be if we just assume that just because it didn't work for some that there was no validity in trying to fly. How many failures were made, but people still believed that they could fly.  But where they testing belief or testing function?
> 
> So what fits your thoughts when looking at the video below.
> 
> It doesn't work for me, so it must not be possible
> It doesn't work because they lack the understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martial arts are just like this.  90% of the time is will be your lack of knowledge of how something works, that will make you think "it's impossible" or that "it doesn't work."
> 
> My personal thoughts on Aikido is that Aikido is a flying machine.  The people in the video are Aikido Practitioners who don't understand what's needed to in order to actually fly.  Their idea or concept of a flying machine with flapping wings is sound. The techniques used to accomplish that are the wrong technique because they failed to understand flying.
> 
> (0:06) in the video above.  Machines that fly by using flapping wings.  The reality. video below.  You can clearly see the different levels of understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes the system is at fault. But I think a lot of times, it's our lack of understanding that causes us to do things incorrectly


I really like what you say about testing function.  But I don't understand how you can suggest that it's the guy in that video who is uninterested in function, and who rejects exploration of techniques.  That's surprising to me. 

As you explore Aikido, something has come up as an undercurrent in this thread, and has come up before in threads about Aikido in particular.  It's simply that the secret to making Aikido work is to start by already being a competent fighter. In the past, this has been acknowledged by people who trained in Aikido.  Point is, maybe the thing most Aikidoka are missing is a prerequisite expertise in one or more other styles, like Judo, BJJ, MMA, Wrestling, Sambo, Savatte, etc.

There's another element at play here, which is that the training model is intrinsic to some styles.  Question being, if you train Aikido techniques in an MMA gym, and you actually solve the puzzle you're currently working on, which is to get one or more Aikido techniques to function as designed... is it still Aikido at that point?  What I mean is, at this point, are you training Aikido, or are you poaching a technique from Aikido for use in your MMA (or some other style) training?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure what you mean when you say a 90-degree stance will result in springing sideways. I move through a 90-degree stance a lot, including at times when moving forward quickly.


If you want to spring forward at any moment as fast as you can, with your back foot pointing 45 degree forward can help a lot.

If you have to turn your back foot and then spring, that's 2 steps process. 1  is better than 1,2 .


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> The stances are probably universal stance for systems that use punching and or kicking.  The only place that I don't see a lot of it is wrestling where they tend to point both feet forward.


This is why the wrestler's single leg is so fast. They are already in the best forward spring fighting stance.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Traditional boxing is both feet forward as well.


Thanks. now we know the


Steve said:


> But I don't understand how you can suggest that it's the guy in that video who is uninterested in function, and who rejects exploration of techniques. That's surprising to me.


It's because of how he explored his Aikido.  If there are 10 layers of exploring one's fighting system.  I would say that he only went to level 1 or 2.  That type of exploration is just on the surface.

What I'm doing right now is probably a level 3 or 4.  Where the goal is to understand the techniques, not if they work or how they work but to identify possibilities and benefits of that technique.  All of this is before you get to the half way mark and sparring.  From what I can tell his main problem seems to be  "trying to get to the goal to quickly" Sometimes things have to sit and "bake in the brain for a bit."  I know what it's like when I started exploring function in Kung Fu and I've seen other's do the same and it takes a long time, especially if you don't have a good road map that helps you understand the function.

Here's an example:  We are talking about Aiko.  Where did I start?  Not with some wrist lock, but some simple concepts.
1. How does Aikido stand
2.  Whats the benefit and disadvantage of standing like that.
3. I took a look at the "Aikido chop" and tried to understand what it was being used for.  Was it a real strike?  Can it be a real strike?  In the process of that I saw a difference in how people move their feat or use their forearms. I started noticing differences.
4. I took a look of exercises to see how they were warming up and to get an idea of what parts of the body they are getting into shape.

I listen to how other people explain it.  What are the differences and what are the similarities.  The fact that he asked BJJ to see if they can "make the techniques work" pretty much tells me that he didn't explore beyond that 2nd layer.



Steve said:


> It's simply that the secret to making Aikido work is to start by already being a competent fighter.


If you had someone to each you function right away then this wouldnt' be necessary.  This is what you need in order to figure stuff out on your own.  If you don't have this then you'll start making some really bad assumptions about things. A person who has a better idea of what incoming punches look like will be able to get rid of bad assumptions faster.  While someone who has never sparred or has never been punched will make some really bad assumptions.   Knowledge builds on knowledge.   If your Aikido teacher has never sparred with Aikido and never has been punched, then there's no "Fighting / Application  knowledge to build upon."



Steve said:


> Aikidoka are missing is a prerequisite expertise in one or more other styles, like Judo, BJJ, MMA, Wrestling, Sambo, Savatte, etc.


  I think if the person knows the correct technique, and just goes out and spar with those techniques would be just as fine and it would be a quicker learning process.  Because even after you learn BJJ you would still need to go back and learn how to do Aikido from an Aikido mindset and not a BJJ mindset.   If Aikido doesn't have you hunched over try to grab your opponents wrist then when you spar you'll need to keep as much of that Aikido structure as possible

Which one of these guys has a structure closer to Aikido?  The Aikido practitioner here abandons his structure.  The possibility that Aikido will flow from this structure is Zero.





This is the wrist structure that the Aikido guy uses to lock a wrist.  This goes back to exploring and understanding what you are doing and understanding the function of the technique.




This is how other Martial Arts System Spread the and lock the wrist. It may not always be close to the body but the spreading of the hand is.  When I see the picture above I see someone who lacks understanding and knowledge.  A little digging around and he would have found the answer, but he didn't so he walk in with a technique that is done completely wrong in many systems and then he makes the assumption that the Aikido doesn't work.  If you try to lock someone's wrist like the way the Aikido person did, then it won't work because that's not to do that wrist lock technique correctly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you want to spring forward at any moment as fast as you can, with your back foot pointing 45 degree forward can help a lot.
> 
> If you have to turn your back foot and then spring, that's 2 steps process. 1  is better than 1,2 .


I can spring forward without needing to turn that back foot first. There are advantages and disadvantes to the stance, but I don't understand this claimed limitation.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

I have never seen any Aikido guy who controls his opponent's wrists like this. Sometime I don't think the gate concept (wrist gate, elbow gate, shoulder/head gate) exist in their system. In wrestling, the wrist grabbing is the 1st step. You then move into elbow gate, and then move into shoulder/head gate.






Example to move from the wrist gate into the elbow gate.






Example to move from the wrist gate into the shoulder gate.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Question being, if you train Aikido techniques in an MMA gym, and you actually solve the puzzle you're currently working on, which is to get one or more Aikido techniques to function as designed... is it still Aikido at that point?


I don't have an answer to that.  In general it's been my experience that once I figure out how one technique the 2nd technique becomes less difficult to figure out.  The hardest part is probably going to be tyring to determine if the Aikido Practitioner is even doing the technique correctly.  I've already seen 3 teachers do a technique incorrectly.  If people follow that as "As designed by Aikido" then it's not going to work.  At that point, I wouldn't even call it Aikido.  Just incorrect technique.



Steve said:


> What I mean is, at this point, are you training Aikido, or are you poaching a technique from Aikido for use in your MMA (or some other style) training?


If it has an incorrect technique then the first step is to fix the errors of the technique that he's trying to do.  I'm afraid that I'm going to find a lot of garbage where people are teaching incorrect techniques.  I've only looked at 3 things and so far its 1 out of 3 techniques being taught incorrect is going = a lot of garbage because the teacher never took time to actually learn this stuff.

For me, I want to make sure I don't "Poach" from other systems.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime I don't think the gate concept (wrist gate, elbow gate, shoulder/head gate) exist in their system.


I probably does exist. If what you are saying is a Universal concept among other grappling systems then I would assume that Aikido would have to follow similar rules.  But they would never learn this unless they spar or is coached by someone who understands this.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I can spring forward without needing to turn that back foot first. There are advantages and disadvantes to the stance, but I don't understand this claimed limitation.


I'm talking about 100% efficiency, With your back foot pointing in 90 degree angle, you may only get 75% efficiency.

So runners, wrestlers, boxers all have their back foot pointing forward. They must have their reason for it. Their reason is they want to spring forward with maximum speed and maximum power.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Do Aikido guys use firemen's carry technique?


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Thanks. now we know the
> 
> It's because of how he explored his Aikido.  If there are 10 layers of exploring one's fighting system.  I would say that he only went to level 1 or 2.  That type of exploration is just on the surface.
> 
> What I'm doing right now is probably a level 3 or 4.  Where the goal is to understand the techniques, not if they work or how they work but to identify possibilities and benefits of that technique.  All of this is before you get to the half way mark and sparring.  From what I can tell his main problem seems to be  "trying to get to the goal to quickly" Sometimes things have to sit and "bake in the brain for a bit."  I know what it's like when I started exploring function in Kung Fu and I've seen other's do the same and it takes a long time, especially if you don't have a good road map that helps you understand the function.
> 
> Here's an example:  We are talking about Aiko.  Where did I start?  Not with some wrist lock, but some simple concepts.
> 1. How does Aikido stand
> 2.  Whats the benefit and disadvantage of standing like that.
> 3. I took a look at the "Aikido chop" and tried to understand what it was being used for.  Was it a real strike?  Can it be a real strike?  In the process of that I saw a difference in how people move their feat or use their forearms. I started noticing differences.
> 4. I took a look of exercises to see how they were warming up and to get an idea of what parts of the body they are getting into shape.
> 
> I listen to how other people explain it.  What are the differences and what are the similarities.  The fact that he asked BJJ to see if they can "make the techniques work" pretty much tells me that he didn't explore beyond that 2nd layer.
> 
> If you had someone to each you function right away then this wouldnt' be necessary.  This is what you need in order to figure stuff out on your own.  If you don't have this then you'll start making some really bad assumptions about things. A person who has a better idea of what incoming punches look like will be able to get rid of bad assumptions faster.  While someone who has never sparred or has never been punched will make some really bad assumptions.   Knowledge builds on knowledge.   If your Aikido teacher has never sparred with Aikido and never has been punched, then there's no "Fighting / Application  knowledge to build upon."
> 
> I think if the person knows the correct technique, and just goes out and spar with those techniques would be just as fine and it would be a quicker learning process.  Because even after you learn BJJ you would still need to go back and learn how to do Aikido from an Aikido mindset and not a BJJ mindset.   If Aikido doesn't have you hunched over try to grab your opponents wrist then when you spar you'll need to keep as much of that Aikido structure as possible
> 
> Which one of these guys has a structure closer to Aikido?  The Aikido practitioner here abandons his structure.  The possibility that Aikido will flow from this structure is Zero.
> 
> View attachment 23775
> 
> This is the wrist structure that the Aikido guy uses to lock a wrist.  This goes back to exploring and understanding what you are doing and understanding the function of the technique.
> View attachment 23776
> 
> This is how other Martial Arts System Spread the and lock the wrist. It may not always be close to the body but the spreading of the hand is.  When I see the picture above I see someone who lacks understanding and knowledge.  A little digging around and he would have found the answer, but he didn't so he walk in with a technique that is done completely wrong in many systems and then he makes the assumption that the Aikido doesn't work.  If you try to lock someone's wrist like the way the Aikido person did, then it won't work because that's not to do that wrist lock technique correctly.
> View attachment 23777



It is prettying interesting that apparently nobody could make the system work though.

I mean we can always support explanations with more explanations. There is an infinite amount of bullcrap an only so many facts.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I really like what you say about testing function.  But I don't understand how you can suggest that it's the guy in that video who is uninterested in function, and who rejects exploration of techniques.  That's surprising to me.
> 
> As you explore Aikido, something has come up as an undercurrent in this thread, and has come up before in threads about Aikido in particular.  It's simply that the secret to making Aikido work is to start by already being a competent fighter. In the past, this has been acknowledged by people who trained in Aikido.  Point is, maybe the thing most Aikidoka are missing is a prerequisite expertise in one or more other styles, like Judo, BJJ, MMA, Wrestling, Sambo, Savatte, etc.
> 
> There's another element at play here, which is that the training model is intrinsic to some styles.  Question being, if you train Aikido techniques in an MMA gym, and you actually solve the puzzle you're currently working on, which is to get one or more Aikido techniques to function as designed... is it still Aikido at that point?  What I mean is, at this point, are you training Aikido, or are you poaching a technique from Aikido for use in your MMA (or some other style) training?



A style ultimately is a figment of the imagination. Where it stops and starts is purely a decision by someone. 

Stylistic consistency is a theology.


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> A style ultimately is a figment of the imagination. Where it stops and starts is purely a decision by someone.
> 
> Stylistic consistency is a theology.


Exactly that. A style is just someone creating a list of movements and saying. These, and only these.
It's ultimately a self imposed handicap.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> It is prettying interesting that apparently nobody could make the system work though.


Too many zen based teachers passing on the system.  Zen users have no need for function, so they are most likely to not care about function or how to do things correctly. 



drop bear said:


> I mean we can always support explanations with more explanations. There is an infinite amount of bullcrap an only so many facts.


I wouldn't bother with explanations at this point.  It's easier to first start by identifying the basics and use your experience to see what's totally incorrect.  By understanding what is happening, you can try to understand if it's a Valid  technique taught incorrectly or if' it's a  valid technique.  If you do it this way then you won't need to explain anything. 

With all of the research that I don't try to support Aikido or throw it away.  It's just me presenting my findings and seeing if other systems have something similar.  If there is similarities then I want to know how the other systems use it and if there are any functional relationships


----------



## JowGaWolf

By the way.  If the last couple of posts seem strange with really bad grammar and sentence structure.  It's because my muscle relaxer. lol


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> A style ultimately is a figment of the imagination. Where it stops and starts is purely a decision by someone.
> 
> Stylistic consistency is a theology.


Kind of where I was headed.  If you take techniques from aikido but don't train aikido in an aikido manner, is it still aikido?  Some would say no.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> A style is just someone creating a list of movements and saying. These, and only these.
> It's ultimately a self imposed handicap.


Agree with you 100% there.

When someone says that you should not

- bend your head forward.
- sweat when training.
- move knee pass your toes.
- use strategy/tactics.
- ...

I know that person and I don't live on the same planet.

Confucius said, "If you believe in book, it's better that there is no book at all." It's very bad that the more MA styles that you have trained, the less freedom that you will have left.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> A style is just someone creating a list of movements and saying. These, and only these.
> It's ultimately a self imposed handicap.


Some people may believe that the older, the better. This is not true in the real world.

MS Window is better than DOS.

Some MA style founder in the ancient time might never have been taken down by wrestler's single leg. If you train that MA system all your life, you still don't know how to counter a single leg.


----------



## Steve

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Some people may believe that the older, the better. This is not true in the real world.
> 
> MS Window is better than DOS.
> 
> Some MA style founder in the ancient time might never have been taken down by wrestler's single leg. If you train that MA system all your life, you still don't know how to counter a single leg.


which version of windows are we talking about?   As good as windows is, I still use a command line to ssh into my raspberry pi.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm talking about 100% efficiency, With your back foot pointing in 90 degree angle, you may only get 75% efficiency.
> 
> So runners, wrestlers, boxers all have their back foot pointing forward. They must have their reason for it. Their reason is they want to spring forward with maximum speed and maximum power.


Every stance has a compromise in some way. Moving forward from hanmi, I'm probably 10% less effective than moving forward from a straight-on stance. Only 10% because the foot pivots as you move - not before, but during the entire part of the movement where the foot is in contact with the floor. If you look at it from the hips, the pelvis is basically in the same position as if both feet were at 45-degree angles. There are variations of that stance (IMO the exact hanmi - an L hanmi - is a beginning point) that allow for more options. The boxer's stance in that lower picture is nearly a J-hanmi.


----------



## Martial D

Well linux isn't any kinda windows isnt raspberry pie a mobile os?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do Aikido guys use firemen's carry technique?


I've never seen it at an Aikido dojo, but we have a pair of throws I uinderstand have come from Daito-ryu that approximate this, so I expect they exist somewhere in Aikido, as well.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Exactly that. A style is just someone creating a list of movements and saying. These, and only these.
> It's ultimately a self imposed handicap.


I have a different view of what "style" means, but I know a lot of instructors who use pretty much exactly the definition you gave.


----------



## Martial D

Windows is a proprietary os. You use what they give you, and you can't alter anything 

Windows is a tma.

Linux is open source, fully customizable and you can alter and recompile any code.

Linux is mma


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> I have a different view of what "style" means, but I know a lot of instructors who use pretty much exactly the definition you gave.



Well I'd also use it to describe someones individual flavor on doing techniques. But I was using the more generalized definition.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> which version of windows are we talking about?   As good as windows is, I still use a command line to ssh into my raspberry pi.


I still use command line such as 

dir *WC*.mp4 /s /p


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Every stance has a compromise in some way.


This is why the horse stance has been evolved through all these years.

horse stance (both feet point 90 degree side way) -> 4-6 stance (back foot points 90 degree side way, front foot points forward) -> 3-7 stance (back foot points 45 degree side way, front foot points forward)

The weight distribution also has been changed from

50/50 -> 40/60 -> 30/70


----------



## Argus

geezer said:


> I agree. If you set up someone and bait them right into your counter... you are not reacting, you are really initiating the action.
> 
> So.... taking _that_ into consideration when we define who is the_ initiator_, the pro-active fighter will be successful even more of the time. Yet so many TMA (especially those that don't have some form of legit pressure testing) espouse _a reactive strategy._



Do they, or is that just the way they've been interpreted? What could be understood as a reactive counter could easily become a proactive setup, and it's simply taught in the beginning as a reaction. Any reactive action can become a setup / proactive counter, I would think.

I'm just thinking back to one of my FMA teachers, and what he related to me both of his own experience, and his teachers. He'd sometimes say things like "X person would sometimes do this to get a reaction, and then counter this way."

But there's also the "skill of recognizing and taking openings as they occur". Again, that same teacher made me hugely aware of this. His ability to find even the slightest opening and be there before I could react was uncanny, and made a huge impression on me. You often see people failing to take openings that are offered to them, simply because they don't recognize them, and choosing to fight instead a much more difficult battle.

Basically, I am saying that the error is mostly in our understanding and practice of arts. Most material is valid given the right circumstance. But when all you have is a hammer and everything looks like a nail, you're going to come across a screw one day and complain how hammers suck. And you likely even had a screwdriver in your pocket that someone convinced you was only for prying open paint cans, because the original handy-man kata took for granted that you knew to use one to unscrew screws, and so opted instead to show you the more novel paint can application. My examples are getting ridiculous, but hopefully the point is conveyed!

The best martial artists don't just try to apply techniques. The ability to flow and immediately find openings, to always be offensive in defense, and to be proactive are, across the board, what make any martial art work. Being proactive need not necessarily mean setting up and baiting -- that's one way, but not the only way. It can also simply be being offensive and giving the opponent something to deal with/react to, such that you are controlling the fight. 

Aikido, for being such a soft art and focusing on borrowing/blending with the opponent, lacks sensitivity training that teaches you how to actually do that against an opponent who is active and resisting. From my point of view, the art itself is valid and valuable, it just doesn't teach one how to adapt when things don't go according to plan, and/or the opponent resists in a way that training partners don't normally do. There are many kind of energies that one has to learn to blend with: committed, uncommitted, soft, tense, etc., and Aikido as typically practice only deals with "soft and committed" energy.

Granted, I do not think Aikido is meant in any way to deal with uncommitted attacks, as these are more of a sportive environment thing. But tense or resisting force is something very important to work into training, especially for any art which intends to blend with the opponent's energy: you must have sensitivity training and the ability to adapt on the fly to do that.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> Every stance has a compromise in some way. Moving forward from hanmi, I'm probably 10% less effective than moving forward from a straight-on stance. Only 10% because the foot pivots as you move - not before, but during the entire part of the movement where the foot is in contact with the floor. If you look at it from the hips, the pelvis is basically in the same position as if both feet were at 45-degree angles. There are variations of that stance (IMO the exact hanmi - an L hanmi - is a beginning point) that allow for more options. The boxer's stance in that lower picture is nearly a J-hanmi.


There is always variety in stances.  In training the stance tend to be the "Perfect Stance"  in application the stance resembles the perfect structure. When then identify variations of the "Perfect Stance"  The "Perfect Stance" will rarely be used in application due to the other forces found in fighting.  The "Perfect Stance" can only exist outside of application..

If we were asked to find evidence of a horse stance used in fighting, we would never find this. Instead we would all post variation of the "Perfect Horse Stance" 




I think of stance like this as a "Parent Stance" The stance that we do in fighting are "Children Stances." When fighting, we will see things that look like the "Parent Stance" but we will never see the Parent.  We will only see the Children.

The perfect hanmi stance will never be seen in fighting or application training through sparring.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Argus said:


> You often see people failing to take openings that are offered to them, simply because they don't recognize them, and choosing to fight instead a much more difficult battle.


One of the instructors I trained with was like this.  He's fighting goal was to always make me react in a way that creates an open.  Because he was so focused on that he would often miss the opening that were given freely.

I always teach students to take the openings that your opponent gives you, because he gives it freely.   Then use baits and other stuff as secondary options.  When your opponent has a strong defense then make him abandon it.  For example,  if I can counter and take advantage of openings in the attack.  If I do that long enough he will abandon the other defense.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Argus said:


> Aikido, for being such a soft art and focusing on borrowing/blending with the opponent,


You will always see an instructor who tries to borrow/blend force with his student. You will never see a student who tries to borrow/blend force with his teacher. You will assume that after these many years, the students should have learned it from their teacher.

The same issue also happen in the Taiji community. A teacher can make his students to bounce up and down. A student will never make his Taiji teacher to bounce up and down. Why?


----------



## Argus

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You will always see an instructor who tries to borrow/blend force with his student. You will never see a student who tries to borrow/blend force with his teacher. You will assume that after these many years, the students should have learned it from their teacher.
> 
> The same issue also happen in the Taiji community. A teacher can make his students to bounce up and down. A student will never make his Taiji teacher to bounce up and down. Why?



I think it is the teachers fault, because teachers intentionally don't give their students energy to use. This is a great disservice to the student.

I believe that especially at first, teachers should intentionally give students a variety of committed, uncommitted, resisting, and unresisting force so that the student can learn to adapt to each of them.

Of course, like in Taichi, there are some frauds. But the concept of borrowing and blending with an opponent's energy is not so foreign or novel a concept: it exists in all martial arts and undeniably has practical application. You just need to know: 1) the energy of a real, resisting opponent. And, 2) What to do when the opponent doesn't give you energy to play with.


----------



## BrendanF

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do Aikido guys use firemen's carry technique?



I don't think most Aikido lines do, but the parent art, Daito ryu certainly does.  This is a picture of Morihei Ueshiba's teacher, Takeda Sokaku:


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The same issue also happen in the Taiji community. A teacher can make his students to bounce up and down. A student will never make his Taiji teacher to bounce up and down. Why?


I like this observation.  In other systems, the school or the gym, shows what other students can do after training.  I think it's more important to show the results of the students than to show the ability of the teacher. To encourage students, I would tell them that I would put them in the promotional videos if they do Jow Ga when sparring.    No one gets posted for doing basic kick boxing.  Those were the rules.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> In other systems, the school or the gym, shows what other students can do after training.


I have never seen any Aikido (or Taiji) video that a student apply technique on his teacher. You will assume that a teacher should produce good students.

Here is a picture of a student (my wife) who throws her teacher (me).







Here is a clip that a student applies head lock on his teacher (me).


----------



## JowGaWolf

Argus said:


> Of course, like in Taichi, there are some frauds. But the concept of borrowing and blending with an opponent's energy is not so foreign or novel a concept: it exists in all martial arts and undeniably has practical application. You just need to know: 1) the energy of a real, resisting opponent. And, 2) What to do when the opponent doesn't give you energy to play with.


I think alot of what we see as "Borrowing and blending" with an opponent's energy is Fake and completely inaccurate.  I believe that both exists, but not in the way that it is often demonstrated.   If you want to see accurate examples of "Borrowing and blending"  with an an opponent's energy then watch people who actually use it.










Demos are great to watch, but the proof is sparring.  Not trying to be disrespectful, but if your skills are this good, then it would be easy to sign up and win Push hands competitions and wrestling competitions. Or at the bare minimum on strangers





One of the things I often took advantage of is demonstration Jow Ga on non-students.  This gives people an accurate idea of my ability at the minimum.  One day I was training in the part and a Father and Son saw me training.  The father was TMA fan.  His son was an MMA fan.  So I asked his son, what does he like about MMA.  His son was a big teenager.  So I gave the son an opportunity to take me down.  My purpose wasn't to show the son that he couldn't take me down.  My purpose was to show him that his idea of how he saw MMA wasn't as easy as he thought.  So we get into the ready position. I told him I would not resist.  I got into a low fighting horse stance.  The son didn't try to take me down.  I ask him, why didn't he try to take me down.  He said because I was too low.

I enjoy doing things like this because it pokes holes in the assumptions that people have about TMA.  They sometimes expect to see magic but are more impressed when they see it's not magic.  His son didn't join the school that day, but his dad was able to walk away with bragging rights for his passion about TMA lol.   If I only demo against students then people will say that my students let me.


----------



## JowGaWolf

BrendanF said:


> I don't think most Aikido lines do, but the parent art, Daito ryu certainly does.  This is a picture of Morihei Ueshiba's teacher, Takeda Sokaku:


That's a wild picture there.


----------



## JowGaWolf

JowGaWolf said:


> That's a wild picture there.


----------



## JowGaWolf

JowGaWolf said:


> That's a wild picture there.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

I would like to see if his student can throw him around like what he does.






I would like to see if his student can make him to bounce back like what he does.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> I think alot of what we see as "Borrowing and blending" with an opponent's energy is Fake and completely inaccurate.  I believe that both exists, but not in the way that it is often demonstrated.   If you want to see accurate examples of "Borrowing and blending"  with an an opponent's energy then watch people who actually use it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demos are great to watch, but the proof is sparring.  Not trying to be disrespectful, but if your skills are this good, then it would be easy to sign up and win Push hands competitions and wrestling competitions. Or at the bare minimum on strangers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the things I often took advantage of is demonstration Jow Ga on non-students.  This gives people an accurate idea of my ability at the minimum.  One day I was training in the part and a Father and Son saw me training.  The father was TMA fan.  His son was an MMA fan.  So I asked his son, what does he like about MMA.  His son was a big teenager.  So I gave the son an opportunity to take me down.  My purpose wasn't to show the son that he couldn't take me down.  My purpose was to show him that his idea of how he saw MMA wasn't as easy as he thought.  So we get into the ready position. I told him I would not resist.  I got into a low fighting horse stance.  The son didn't try to take me down.  I ask him, why didn't he try to take me down.  He said because I was too low.
> 
> I enjoy doing things like this because it pokes holes in the assumptions that people have about TMA.  They sometimes expect to see magic but are more impressed when they see it's not magic.  His son didn't join the school that day, but his dad was able to walk away with bragging rights for his passion about TMA lol.   If I only demo against students then people will say that my students let me.


Hold on. Did the kid actually have some mma training?  I lost the point of the story.  What did you actually prove to them?  Because it sounds like you intimidated a kid with no training, which doesn't seem all that significant.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Hold on. Did the kid actually have some mma training?  I lost the point of the story.  What did you actually prove to them?  Because it sounds like you intimidated a kid with no training, which doesn't seem all that significant.


The purpose of me posting the video was to show how Borrowed Force and Blending Flow works.  I specifically showed the child so that people can see this stuff isn't magic that needs 10 years of training to achieve.    Borrowed Force and Blending as nothing to do with your opponent's skill level.  It's still a skill set regardless of how advanced or inexperience your opponent is.  It is not your fault or concern if your opponent is not as good as you.

Borrowed Force and Blending Flow seen with older wrestlers.  Point of the story.  If you really want to know Borrowed Force and Blending then learn from people who actually use it.


----------



## Argus

Martial D said:


> Windows is a proprietary os. You use what they give you, and you can't alter anything
> 
> Windows is a tma.
> 
> Linux is open source, fully customizable and you can alter and recompile any code.
> 
> Linux is mma



As a Linux user who prefers TMA, what does that make me? XD

Though, I do get annoyed sometimes with the rigidness of TMA, so I can't argue the comparison!


----------



## BrendanF

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have never seen any Aikido (or Taiji) video that a student apply technique on his teacher. You will assume that a teacher should produce good students.



Funnily enough that is one of the _very_ unique things to Daito ryu and Aikido - traditionally in Japanese martial arts the teacher takes the role of uke.  Takeda reversed this; he was by all accounts a hyper-paranoid, cantankerous old guy, who would never let anyone throw him.


----------



## O'Malley

BrendanF said:


> Yes, koryu weapons folk tend to scoff at aikido weapons work (wasn't that Mochizuki?).  In saying 'aikido is an empty-handed art', are you saying that the overhand chop/sankyo techniques (not to mention ikkyo etc) are _supposed_ to be empty handed defenses against people overhand chopping at the top of the head?  I've always heard that the aikido/DR theory stressed that these were symbolic of weapon defense and retention?



I remembered that other quote from Mochizuki but couldn't find it (readily) online  It's not surprising that he'd make that comment, I believe that he had training in Katori Shinto Ryu.

In Morihei Ueshiba's aikido, uke does not do the overhand chop in basic techniques. Tori initiates with a metsubushi strike to the face, which leaves uke in the position where ikkyo can be applied. Morihiro Saito spent his life teaching it that way and some gave him crap with the whole "there's no attack in aikido" mantra. Then someone once brought him a technical instruction manual realised under the founder's supervision, where the technique was done Saito's way. As you could imagine, he was beaming, and from then on he'd bring the book with him at seminars and show people, like "see? I'm not making that up!".






I've seen ippondori (a DR technique resembling aikido's ikkyo) done against a downward sword strike in a DR video. However, both DR and aikido techniques are done (and taught) empty handed. Ueshiba had no formal training in weapons (apart from his bayonet training while in service, and he was very good at it) and there's no record of him ever fighting someone while being armed himself. 

The weapons retention theory is most likely a rationalisation by later generations to explain why their techniques don't work in hand-to-hand combat.



Steve said:


> As you explore Aikido, something has come up as an undercurrent in this thread, and has come up before in threads about Aikido in particular.  It's simply that the secret to making Aikido work is to start by already being a competent fighter. In the past, this has been acknowledged by people who trained in Aikido.  Point is, maybe the thing most Aikidoka are missing is a prerequisite expertise in one or more other styles, like Judo, BJJ, MMA, Wrestling, Sambo, Savatte, etc.



I think that it's true that most aikidoka today couldn't make it work without experience in the styles you cited. I also think that, historically, this was not the case. World class martial arts practitioners (Kenshiro Abbe, Minoru Mochizuki, Shoji Nishio, Kenji Tomiki, etc.) went to study under Ueshiba whose only significant training was "aikido" (that is, DR). Plus, among Ueshiba's famous "fighters", several had little to no previous martial arts experience (people like Tohei and Shioda had done some judo in highschool, while Tadashi Abe started aikido at 16 with no experience, for example).

Given that Ueshiba and his students gained pretty impressive functional ability from their aikido training, it's worth asking oneself what they were doing differently. Ellis Amdur provides some interesting leads here: Great Aikido —Aikido  Greats – 古現武道



JowGaWolf said:


> Here's an example:  We are talking about Aiko.  Where did I start?  Not with some wrist lock, but some simple concepts.
> 1. How does Aikido stand
> 2.  Whats the benefit and disadvantage of standing like that.
> 3. I took a look at the "Aikido chop" and tried to understand what it was being used for.  Was it a real strike?  Can it be a real strike?  In the process of that I saw a difference in how people move their feat or use their forearms. I started noticing differences.
> 4. I took a look of exercises to see how they were warming up and to get an idea of what parts of the body they are getting into shape.
> 
> I listen to how other people explain it.  What are the differences and what are the similarities.  The fact that he asked BJJ to see if they can "make the techniques work" pretty much tells me that he didn't explore beyond that 2nd layer.



This is a good way to understand the techniques from an external perspective and pinpoint similarities. Yet, without a solid technical foundation (gained through extensive training under a good teacher, and ideally supported by technical material from all-time greats) you'll likely miss the _why_ of the movements. I also feel that solid historical knowledge about the art is useful to avoid baseless interpretations (like the weapons retention argument above).

In order to understand aikido, one has to understand fundamental principles like irimi: “Irimi,” by Ellis Amdur – Aikido Journal

Anyway, if you want to analyse aikido techniques that are as close to their original form as possible (although aikido is not about technique) I recommend looking at the Iwama (under Morihiro Saito) and Yoshinkan (under Gozo Shioda) lines of aikido. They are all-time authorities in terms of technique (although in his later years Shioda's demos shifted from techniques to body principles, which is actually good in terms of aikido).






Shioda could also pop your head out of alignment to make you fall, daito-ryu style (the whole video is good in terms of body movement, but the moment I've just mentioned is around the 2.40 mark):








Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do Aikido guys use firemen's carry technique?



Yep, it's in daito ryu. We also have it from the back:






Unfortunately, these techniques are trained less and less. I've never done ganseki otoshi because nobody in the dojo would be able to take the fall.



Argus said:


> Aikido, for being such a soft art and focusing on borrowing/blending with the opponent, lacks sensitivity training that teaches you how to actually do that against an opponent who is active and resisting. From my point of view, the art itself is valid and valuable, it just doesn't teach one how to adapt when things don't go according to plan, and/or the opponent resists in a way that training partners don't normally do. There are many kind of energies that one has to learn to blend with: committed, uncommitted, soft, tense, etc., and Aikido as typically practice only deals with "soft and committed" energy.



Agreed. According to the art's founder, aikido's purpose is "takemusu aiki" or spontaneous martial technique. Yet, aikido is one of the less spontaneous existing martial arts (and this also goes for lines like Iwama style that purports to stick closely to the founder's teachings). I see a fundamental contradiction here.



> Granted, I do not think Aikido is meant in any way to deal with uncommitted attacks, as these are more of a sportive environment thing. But tense or resisting force is something very important to work into training, especially for any art which intends to blend with the opponent's energy: you must have sensitivity training and the ability to adapt on the fly to do that.



Uncommitted attacks are not limited to a sportive environment. Anyone who knows what he's doing will not unbalance himself in a fight, it would be stupid to do so. Yet, aikido was able to deal with trained martial artists at some point in history. So, what happened?



Argus said:


> I think it is the teachers fault, because teachers intentionally don't give their students energy to use. This is a great disservice to the student.
> 
> I believe that especially at first, teachers should intentionally give students a variety of committed, uncommitted, resisting, and unresisting force so that the student can learn to adapt to each of them.



Agreed, although at some point the student should take responsibility for his own training and try to find what's missing, because most teachers won't.



JowGaWolf said:


>





JowGaWolf said:


>



Sick pictures! Do you have the source?



BrendanF said:


> Funnily enough that is one of the _very_ unique things to Daito ryu and Aikido - traditionally in Japanese martial arts the teacher takes the role of uke.  Takeda reversed this; he was by all accounts a hyper-paranoid, cantankerous old guy, who would never let anyone throw him.



Yep, although I suspect there were more didactic reasons for this, like conditioning uke's body by folding him like a pretzel, and making him feel that he's not being overcome through power.


----------



## Argus

JowGaWolf said:


> I think alot of what we see as "Borrowing and blending" with an opponent's energy is Fake and completely inaccurate.  I believe that both exists, but not in the way that it is often demonstrated.   If you want to see accurate examples of "Borrowing and blending"  with an an opponent's energy then watch people who actually use it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demos are great to watch, but the proof is sparring.  Not trying to be disrespectful, but if your skills are this good, then it would be easy to sign up and win Push hands competitions and wrestling competitions. Or at the bare minimum on strangers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the things I often took advantage of is demonstration Jow Ga on non-students.  This gives people an accurate idea of my ability at the minimum.  One day I was training in the part and a Father and Son saw me training.  The father was TMA fan.  His son was an MMA fan.  So I asked his son, what does he like about MMA.  His son was a big teenager.  So I gave the son an opportunity to take me down.  My purpose wasn't to show the son that he couldn't take me down.  My purpose was to show him that his idea of how he saw MMA wasn't as easy as he thought.  So we get into the ready position. I told him I would not resist.  I got into a low fighting horse stance.  The son didn't try to take me down.  I ask him, why didn't he try to take me down.  He said because I was too low.
> 
> I enjoy doing things like this because it pokes holes in the assumptions that people have about TMA.  They sometimes expect to see magic but are more impressed when they see it's not magic.  His son didn't join the school that day, but his dad was able to walk away with bragging rights for his passion about TMA lol.   If I only demo against students then people will say that my students let me.



Exactly.

Well, I wouldn't say that sparring is the only way, but a very good one for sure.
It's good to work on things in gradual steps of difficulty and speed, as well as control/freedom, because sparring with too much pressure all the time can rob one of opportunity to develop certain attributes, especially when it comes to feeling. At the same time, never sparring is even worse.

Flow and sensitivity drills, and mixing in non-compliance can be a useful training aide. Again, the FMA teacher I mentioned would often, during basic drills, switch between compliant and non-compliant randomly during basic drills to show the student what can go wrong and how to adapt. I found that approach really interesting.





O'Malley said:


> I remembered that other quote from Mochizuki but couldn't find it (readily) online  It's not surprising that he'd make that comment, I believe that he had training in Katori Shinto Ryu.
> 
> In Morihei Ueshiba's aikido, uke does not do the overhand chop in basic techniques. Tori initiates with a metsubushi strike to the face, which leaves uke in the position where ikkyo can be applied. Morihiro Saito spent his life teaching it that way and some gave him crap with the whole "there's no attack in aikido" mantra. Then someone once brought him a technical instruction manual realised under the founder's supervision, where the technique was done Saito's way. As you could imagine, he was beaming, and from then on he'd bring the book with him at seminars and show people, like "see? I'm not making that up!".
> 
> I've seen ippondori (a DR technique resembling aikido's ikkyo) done against a downward sword strike in a DR video. However, both DR and aikido techniques are done (and taught) empty handed. Ueshiba had no formal training in weapons (apart from his bayonet training while in service, and he was very good at it) and there's no record of him ever fighting someone while being armed himself.
> 
> The weapons retention theory is most likely a rationalisation by later generations to explain why their techniques don't work in hand-to-hand combat.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that it's true that most aikidoka today couldn't make it work without experience in the styles you cited. I also think that, historically, this was not the case. World class martial arts practitioners (Kenshiro Abbe, Minoru Mochizuki, Shoji Nishio, Kenji Tomiki, etc.) went to study under Ueshiba whose only significant training was "aikido" (that is, DR). Plus, among Ueshiba's famous "fighters", several had little to no previous martial arts experience (people like Tohei and Shioda had done some judo in highschool, while Tadashi Abe started aikido at 16 with no experience, for example).
> 
> Given that Ueshiba and his students gained pretty impressive functional ability from their aikido training, it's worth asking oneself what they were doing differently. Ellis Amdur provides some interesting leads here: Great Aikido —Aikido  Greats – 古現武道
> 
> 
> 
> This is a good way to understand the techniques from an external perspective and pinpoint similarities. Yet, without a solid technical foundation (gained through extensive training under a good teacher, and ideally supported by technical material from all-time greats) you'll likely miss the _why_ of the movements. I also feel that solid historical knowledge about the art is useful to avoid baseless interpretations (like the weapons retention argument above).
> 
> In order to understand aikido, one has to understand fundamental principles like irimi: “Irimi,” by Ellis Amdur – Aikido Journal
> 
> Anyway, if you want to analyse aikido techniques that are as close to their original form as possible (although aikido is not about technique) I recommend looking at the Iwama (under Morihiro Saito) and Yoshinkan (under Gozo Shioda) lines of aikido. They are all-time authorities in terms of technique (although in his later years Shioda's demos shifted from techniques to body principles, which is actually good in terms of aikido).
> 
> Shioda could also pop your head out of alignment to make you fall, daito-ryu style (the whole video is good in terms of body movement, but the moment I've just mentioned is around the 2.40 mark):
> 
> 
> Yep, it's in daito ryu. We also have it from the back:
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, these techniques are trained less and less. I've never done ganseki otoshi because nobody in the dojo would be able to take the fall.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. According to the art's founder, aikido's purpose is "takemusu aiki" or spontaneous martial technique. Yet, aikido is one of the less spontaneous existing martial arts (and this also goes for lines like Iwama style that purports to stick closely to the founder's teachings). I see a fundamental contradiction here.
> 
> 
> 
> Uncommitted attacks are not limited to a sportive environment. Anyone who knows what he's doing will not unbalance himself in a fight, it would be stupid to do so. Yet, aikido was able to deal with trained martial artists at some point in history. So, what happened?
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, *although at some point the student should take responsibility for his own training and try to find what's missing, because most teachers won't.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sick pictures! Do you have the source?
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, although I suspect there were more didactic reasons for this, like conditioning uke's body by folding him like a pretzel, and making him feel that he's not being overcome through power.



Wow, a real wealth of knowledge and research here!

I'd love to do Aikido again some day with someone who has true depth and breadth of knowledge, and isn't afraid to experiment with it. That is, if my wrist tendons ever heal (from typing).

I bolded and underlined a really important point you made, which I feel worth emphasizing. I also believe that to a large degree, it is up to the student to really "discover" and learn to use the art they study. It's a lot like learning a language, I feel: you can't become fluent just by showing up for class or doing exercises in a textbook. You have to gain experience and understanding that only comes with actually using and discovering it for yourself (to a level of both depth and breadth that goes far beyond what you can feasibly learn in a classroom, and in essence, requires you to "re-experience life" in a new language).


----------



## JowGaWolf

O'Malley said:


> Anyway, if you want to analyse aikido techniques that are as close to their original form as possible (although aikido is not about technique)


Everything is about technique.  I would never train a martial arts or anything else thinking that "It's not about technique"  That's a good way of training a lot of stuff that doesn't work.  Which is probably why so many people who train Aikido aren't able to use it. 



O'Malley said:


> This is a good way to understand the techniques from an external perspective and pinpoint similarities. Yet, without a solid technical foundation (gained through extensive training under a good teacher, and ideally supported by technical material from all-time greats) you'll likely miss the _why_ of the movements.


This is pretty solid in terms of understanding a martial art.  I use this same method for learning Jow Ga kun fu and for understanding how my opponents may attack me.  This way I always understand a technique and the context in which is used.  Which is definitely a problem that Aikido has as there is no agreement on the context in which the techniques are used.  

A simple chopping motion sends Aikido practitioners into a whirlpool of debate where there is no agreement on what the motion is. This didn't just start in our time. This seems to be a long rooted problem that is affecting the function of Aikido. In other martial arts it is clear what the attack is.  In Aikido it's not clear.  If you can't agree on what the attack is then there's no way to offer a functional response. If you don't know what the attack is then how do you know that movement initiates the response that you need?



O'Malley said:


> I recommend looking at the Iwama (under Morihiro Saito) and Yoshinkan (under Gozo Shioda) lines of aikido. They are all-time authorities in terms of technique (although in his later years Shioda's demos shifted from techniques to body principles, which is actually good in terms of aikido).


I will check these out as they may clear up what I see


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Argus said:


> It's good to work on things in gradual steps of difficulty and speed, as well as control/freedom, because sparring with too much pressure all the time can rob one of opportunity to develop certain attributes, especially when it comes to feeling. At the same time, never sparring is even worse.


This has been my experience with NGA, as well. Too much resistance too early leads many students to miss how techniques work and focus on muscling them (which can work with some techniques against someone weaker or less athletic). Lack of non-compliant training (no sparring) creates a whole range of issues in nearly all students. There may be other ways to prevent both sets of issues, but I haven't found them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Everything is about technique. I would never train a martial arts or anything else thinking that "It's not about technique" That's a good way of training a lot of stuff that doesn't work. Which is probably why so many people who train Aikido aren't able to use it.


I think the "it's not abourt technique" here is not the same thing you're thinking about. I have the same view about NGA. The techniques in the classical NGA curriculum contain some that don't make sense if you're looking at them for direct application. But if you look at them as drills for developing attributes, they make more sense. The concept is to develop specific attributes (specific approaches to movement, control, feel, etc.), and be able to apply them in a fluid fashion - no longer dependent upon specific techniques. In the past, I referred to this as "the grey space between techniques".

The issue is that some folks then stick tightly to those techniques (I've actually even heard instructors saying that the further application got from specific classical techniques, the less good it was). The folks who are best able to apply their training (either in dojo or in practical application in their work) are those who recognize the principles and attributes, and are able to apply them without needing the specific techniques. Of course some techniques do have good direct application, and recognizing the difference is important. Otherwise, students (and instructors) can spend a lot of time trying to find direct function from an indirect drill. It'd be like a boxer spending hours trying to figure out how to use speedbag technique or jumprope footwork (kept close to the "speedbag form" and "jumprope form") in a fight. I've actually changed to using the term "form" instead of "technique" in some places to remove some confusion.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> The purpose of me posting the video was to show how Borrowed Force and Blending Flow works.  I specifically showed the child so that people can see this stuff isn't magic that needs 10 years of training to achieve.    Borrowed Force and Blending as nothing to do with your opponent's skill level.  It's still a skill set regardless of how advanced or inexperience your opponent is.  It is not your fault or concern if your opponent is not as good as you.


Okay.  Not trying to be argumentative, but can you explain how your story illustrates this?  I mean, you said the kid didn't even try to take you down.  Even if he had, how does this anecdote illustrate borrowing and blending?  Either I fundamentally don't understand borrowed force and blending flow, or I don't understand how intimidating an untrained youth illustrates these concepts.  





> Borrowed Force and Blending Flow seen with older wrestlers.  Point of the story.  If you really want to know Borrowed Force and Blending then learn from people who actually use it.


Learning  from folks who actually use that thing is generally a good idea, regardless of what that thing is. I completely agree, though when certain guys talk about self defense, folks tend to forget this bit of common sense.  But I think that the skill level of your opponent does matter, provided the goal is to continue to learn and progress in that skill set.  Can you explain why you think it doesn't matter?  Maybe I just have a different idea of what the goal is.


----------



## JowGaWolf

O'Malley said:


> Shioda could also pop your head out of alignment to make you fall, daito-ryu style (the whole video is good in terms of body movement, but the moment I've just mentioned is around the 2.40 mark):


Ok here's the problem that I have with this.  I get and understand the concept lesson, not the specifics of it, but just that it's a concept lesson.  The part that I'm confused about is that.

NO ONE, will hold onto you that strongly in application.  The things that were shown were things that occur when someone holds onto you and doesn't let go. Chin Na and other grappling systems solves this problem by holding down their opponent's hand so that they cannot release it.  Aikido Borrows Force and Flows with it.  Your opponent will do the same thing.  I see a lot of things in Aikido where the person is holding on for dear life.  But in real life no one is going to hold onto you like that unless you are trying to pull out a knife or sword and your opponent is trying to keep you from doing so.

If you watch grappling you will see a series of holds in releases as they understand that holding can sometimes be worse than letting go.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> The concept is to develop specific attributes (specific approaches to movement, control, feel, etc.), and be able to apply them in a fluid fashion


This here to me is what I see as technique as well, which is why brute forcing techniques don't work. 



gpseymour said:


> The folks who are best able to apply their training (either in dojo or in practical application in their work) are those who recognize the principles and attributes, and are able to apply them without needing the specific techniques.


This doesn't make sense to me, because the most physical things, you don't understand the principles and attributes until you apply them.

I can talk concept to you about how to ride a bide and keeping balance and shifting weight, but you really won't understand until you actual try to ride a bike.  I don't understand how you can separate it from the technique (actually doing the technique).  To me all of this is part of the technique.  They are not separate things, because the technique cannot work without understanding (what you are talking about) in the context of applying the technique.


----------



## O'Malley

JowGaWolf said:


> Everything is about technique.  I would never train a martial arts or anything else thinking that "It's not about technique".  That's a good way of training a lot of stuff that doesn't work.  Which is probably why so many people who train Aikido aren't able to use it.



If the goal of training aikido were to learn a technical curriculum (= a set of forms) this statement would be true. It's not. Aikido is a martial conditioning method based on Morihei Ueshiba's cosmology and supposed to make both body and mind stronger, which uses a selection of drills, jujutsu techniques and tactical principles as case studies to express these attributes but is not limited by them.



> This is pretty solid in terms of understanding a martial art.  I use this same method for learning Jow Ga kun fu and for understanding how my opponents may attack me.  This way I always understand a technique and the context in which is used.  Which is definitely a problem that Aikido has as there is no agreement on the context in which the techniques are used.



What you lack is precisely context. I don't mean to be offensive, but you lack the background to understand aikido. You have not been taught the principles of the art nor its technical details from a qualified instructor. You don't know the art's history and the _context _and purpose of its teachings.

You've seen it with the yokomen strike. Without hearing from a teacher that it's supposed to simulate a lateral sword strike, would you have considered that application? Without knowing that aikido comes from sumo, would you have considered the idea that the yokomen strike may in fact come from sumo's lateral palm strikes?






See also at 3:32:






I can guarantee that, without knowing that Ueshiba repeated ad nauseam that aikido is first and foremost about _yourself_, without knowing about his understanding of "in" and "yo", without knowing what "standing in six directions" or "standing on the floating bridge of heaven" means, you'll miss the meat of the art. When Henry Kono asked Ueshiba “Why can we not do what you do, Sensei?” he answered “Because you don’t understand In and Yo.”

This is a fundamental exercise in aikido, do you have any idea of its purpose?






The following three exercises were invariably part of each lesson under the founder in Iwama, do you know what their point is?






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBFZgBpSukg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF0diFgJEAQ

Please don't get me wrong, I don't mean to be pedantic (and many highly ranked aikido practitioners could not answer these questions, but this is another debate). My point is that, although your interpretations will probably make sense from a Jow Ga point of view and can be very valid from a martial perspective, they will differ wildly from what aikido was intended to be when it was created.



JowGaWolf said:


> Ok here's the problem that I have with this.  I get and understand the concept lesson, not the specifics of it, but just that it's a concept lesson.  The part that I'm confused about is that.
> 
> NO ONE, will hold onto you that strongly in application.  The things that were shown were things that occur when someone holds onto you and doesn't let go. Chin Na and other grappling systems solves this problem by holding down their opponent's hand so that they cannot release it.  Aikido Borrows Force and Flows with it.  Your opponent will do the same thing.  I see a lot of things in Aikido where the person is holding on for dear life.  But in real life no one is going to hold onto you like that unless you are trying to pull out a knife or sword and your opponent is trying to keep you from doing so.
> 
> If you watch grappling you will see a series of holds in releases as they understand that holding can sometimes be worse than letting go.



I agree, it's a concept lesson. The reason why uke holds so strongly is to make sure that tori is not muscling through the technique. In practice, if uke lets go or holds floppily, tori has a free hand to strike or grapple. When strikes are involved, for example, wrist control can be an important factor:






Aikido borrows force and flows but does not rely on this more than any other martial art (e.g. judo). Basic techniques are trained from static situations.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> The concept is to develop specific attributes (specific approaches to movement, control, feel, etc.), and be able to apply them in a fluid fashion


All of this is part of the technique.



Steve said:


> Okay. Not trying to be argumentative, but can you explain how your story illustrates this? I mean, you said the kid didn't even try to take you down.


 He didn't try to take me down because he didn't have a working solution to do so, all he did was stand and think.  Most take downs are initiated by someone getting under you an removing your root.  Take away this option and people will freeze and not know what to do.

You can see the same response from a sparring video where the low stance removes all of options that most people know. It doesn't matter who you are the response is the same.  They will either freeze, play around on the outside in an attempt to make me raise my stance, or rush in with no plan.  The only person that still tried to go under my stance was my Nephew. He's state champion wrestler.  His dad warned him to be careful not to hurt his knees as we were on a concrete floor and not mats. I was able to defend his attempts to take me down.  His dad already knew the reality, which is why he warned his son.  His son had to learn the hard way.

The video below has shows this. 




(1:19) - my sparring partner was only working on take downs that day. You can see here he's trying to figure out a way.  He even tries to lure me out of my low stance.  You'll also see him make attempts to go under my stance.  He keeps trying to test for openings.  I try to time his step so I can changed how his foot lands, but I screwed up on the timing. I think the plan came to mind too late so I ended up forcing it.  He was probably going for another move and my attempt caused him to abandon his original plan.  But now he's in a bad position for a lift because he's not low enough.
That day his goal was to work on his take downs.  My goal was to not let anyone in that school take me down.

In a real fight I could still aggressively attack from that stance, but this was us just working our techniques and I was testing my theory about the function of the low kung fu stance and the way that it should be used. He had a good day and took down all of my classmates and the 2 instructors.  I had a good day because my theory was correct and still holds strong.



Steve said:


> I don't understand how intimidating an untrained youth illustrates these concepts.


  You and I are on different conversations  in terms of Borrowing Power and Blending is for the kid wrestling.  The teen that I told told to take me down was a different issue related to the function of stance or something, because that's the only time I talk about it.   I didn't intimidate the kids. He was bigger than me.  His dad was bigger than me.  And I was polite.  I didn't even have my kung fu face on.  I even talked to him through the process asked him what was thinking and trying and how was he trying to solve the problem.  His dad even encourage him to give it a try.


----------



## JowGaWolf

O'Malley said:


> Aikido is a martial conditioning method based on Morihei Ueshiba's cosmology and supposed to make both body and mind stronger,


So when I read this I hear exercise not martial arts for actual use in self defense.



O'Malley said:


> which uses a selection of drills, jujutsu techniques and tactical principles as case studies to express these attributes but is not limited by them.


 When I read this I see conflict because no where in you statement mention self-defense or applicable use. beyond "Body an Mind."  That's the reality of Aikido then people who says it's worthless as a fighting or self-defense system would be correct.



O'Malley said:


> What you lack is precisely context. I don't mean to be offensive, but you lack the background to understand aikido.


I know I lack context, but I've been asking and I haven't gotten any. The most that I've gotten so far pretty much sums it up as  a made up Martial Art that is useless for self-defense.

I believe that it was @drop bear  who stated "explanations on top of explanations"



O'Malley said:


> You have not been taught the principles of the art nor its technical details from a qualified instructor.


Again.  After seeing the videos and seeing the discussions from Aikido Practitioners  "qualified instructor" is going to be almost impossible to find. 




O'Malley said:


> You don't know the art's history and the _context _and purpose of its teachings.


How much history do you need to know about punching?
How much history do you need to know about blocking?
How much history do you need to know about setting in a wrist lock?
How much history do you need to know to throw someone?
How much history do you need to know to evade a punch?



O'Malley said:


> You've seen it with the yokomen strike. Without hearing from a teacher that it's supposed to simulate a lateral sword strike, would you have considered that application? Without knowing that aikido comes from sumo, would you have considered the idea that the yokomen strike may in fact come from sumo's lateral palm strikes?


See this what I'm talking about . No one knows what it is.  The qualified instructors are saying that it's not a lateral strike. Some say it's a strike at all. Their words not mine.  So it's not me. 


O'Malley said:


> My point is that, although your interpretations will probably make sense from a Jow Ga point of view and can be very valid from a martial perspective, they will differ wildly from what aikido was intended to be when it was created.





O'Malley said:


> My point is that, although your interpretations will probably make sense from a Jow Ga point of view and can be very valid from a martial perspective, they will differ wildly from what aikido was intended to be when it was created.


 It's not my point of view. I've posted other systems with the same or similar stances I didn't bother doing the same with the "Aikido Chop" because one group say it' s not a chop, another group says it's a chop, another group claims that the movement is upwards and not downwards.   



O'Malley said:


> I agree, it's a concept lesson. The reason why uke holds so strongly is to make sure that tori is not muscling through the technique. In practice, if uke lets go or holds floppily, tori has a free hand to strike or grapple. When strikes are involved, for example, wrist control can be an important factor:


If that's the case then none of the Aiko techniques are valid for application as they only work if someone doesn't let go and holds on as if they glued.  If that's the case the Aikido should probably get out of sparring and should probably not call itself a Martial arts.  I'm only saying this because how you are presenting it, because I know there are others who don't share the same view of Aikido as you.

If Aikido is no good for self-defense or fighting then then that means there is no other application of it beyond exercise.

My personal thought is that this shouldn't be so confusing when all I've looked at was an "Aikido Chop", a response to an "Aikido Chop", and an "Aikodo Stance"


----------



## JowGaWolf

O'Malley said:


> I can guarantee that, without knowing that Ueshiba repeated ad nauseam that aikido is first and foremost about _yourself_, without knowing about his understanding of "in" and "yo", without knowing what "standing in six directions" or "standing on the floating bridge of heaven" means, you'll miss the meat of the art.


  If you know what this is, then feel free to share your knowledge.  About this and what it means.  
If you go all ZEN on me then I'll tell you to stop.  I have no interest in ZEN, when it comes to people telling me how things work.

"You must know yourself first is not an answer an answer"  Because the same people who buy into that are often the people who do not know how to use Aikido on the the most basic level.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Can we find any Aikido video that a student throws his teacher around?

In Aikido, we have all seen a teacher who throws his student around. It's very hard to find a video that a student also throws teacher around.

All demo are 1/2 fake and 1/2 real.

- The 1/2 fake part is you will give your opponent that opportunity.
- The 1/2 real part is your opponent has to finish it.

If you give your opponent the opportunity, you also help him to finish, that 100% fake demo.

In the following clip, the teacher throws the student. the student also throws the teacher.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

O'Malley said:


> without knowing what "standing in six directions" or "standing on the floating bridge of heaven" means, you'll miss the meat of the art.


Your statement remind me the 1st day that I started to cross train the Zimen system. The Zimen system has 8 principles.

1. 残 - disabled, cruelty
2. 推 - push
3. 援 - assisted
4. 夺 - seized
5. 牵 - pulled
6. 捺 - pinched
7. 逼 - forced
8. 吸 - sucked

The 1st principle is "残(CAN) - disabled, cruelty". The Zimen teacher said, "Without understanding the meaning of "disabled, cruelty", you will never understand the Zimen system."

Even today, I still don't understand why "disabled, cruelty" is the number 1 important principle in that system.

Which MA style will you take?

Case 1:

A; What's your style?
B: My style teach me how to obtain self-cultivation and inner peace.

Case 2:

A: What's your style?
B: My style teach me how to land my fist on my opponent's face.

I'll take 2 over 1.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> This here to me is what I see as technique as well, which is why brute forcing techniques don't work.
> 
> This doesn't make sense to me, because the most physical things, you don't understand the principles and attributes until you apply them.
> 
> I can talk concept to you about how to ride a bide and keeping balance and shifting weight, but you really won't understand until you actual try to ride a bike.  I don't understand how you can separate it from the technique (actually doing the technique).  To me all of this is part of the technique.  They are not separate things, because the technique cannot work without understanding (what you are talking about) in the context of applying the technique.


The best example I can give is an experience I had as a mid-level colored belt (blue or green, don't recall which) training with someone else of my own rank. I've seen this happen with other training partners and a few of my own students at times, but this is the one I can describe best. I was training with someone who - like me - was good at taking falls (both in technique and in tolerance) and was quite flexible in the upper body. That meant we could really go at techniques and experiment with movements and move hard and fast, more so than would be the norm at that rank. So we were feeding each other various attacks and just trying stuff out against them. It started with us doing the variations we'd been taught (in NGA, the term is "applications", though many styles would call them techniques or variations). Then we started playing with how far we could stretch those applications - changing the attack angle, the throw/takedown angle, whatever we could think to try. Then we went on to try to NOT use any of the applications we'd been taught. We wanted to see what we could figure out if we took those away. I don't remember who did it first, but we both in turn did exactly the same thing that turned into a throw of sorts. We were really enjoying figuring out how it worked, because it didn't even look like any of the techniques we knew.

2 years later, I learned that was a throw later in the curriculum. It's possible we'd seen it before if a senior group was practicing it at the other end of the dojo (that was how training was organized), but doubtful we'd ever seen it demonstrated. We just played with the concepts and principles and discovered it all on our own.

My view is that the formal curriculum of NGA is not a set of boundaries to describe the art, but a set of drills to learn the movements, concepts, and principles of the art. There are many techniques that fit within the art, but aren't in that formal curriculum. Those are left for discovery, because it's literally impossible to define everything that could be in the art - it changes over time.

So back to  the concept of forms that don't have direct application. The entry to the technique often teaches something about resisting control (countering grappling), breaking the opponent's structure, and/or moving for position. The midpoint of the technique often teaches something about controlling, locking, and off-balancing. And the finish of the technique often teaches about locking, releasing, defensive positioning, or static control (things like submission locks). Even if the technique isn't useful in application as a combined technique, the principles in those three sections can be. One of them that makes very little sense if you look for direct application (so many easier, simpler, and more effective things have to be bypassed to get to it) actually contains some great training for fighting for control (or to avoid being controlled) at clinch. When I'm clinch fighting, you won't see anything you could point to as an NGA technique, but most of the pieces I use are directly from those movements.

I hope I'm making some sense with this. These are topics I usually take up with students after a few months, when there's some shared vocabulary (both literal and figurative) for them to start understanding what I'm talking about. And even then, it's a bit vague since there's not so much of this going on in the early curriculum. More advanced students (with a couple of years of training - and who are starting to do some of the forms in question) are much better equipped for this discussion.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your statement remind me the 1st day that I started to cross train the Zimen system. The Zimen system has 8 principles.
> 
> 1. 残 - disabled, cruelty
> 2. 推 - push
> 3. 援 - assisted
> 4. 夺 - seized
> 5. 牵 - pulled
> 6. 捺 - pinched
> 7. 逼 - forced
> 8. 吸 - sucked
> 
> The 1st principle is "残(CAN) - disabled, cruelty". The Zimen teacher said, "Without understanding the meaning of "disabled, cruelty", you will never understand the Zimen system."
> 
> Even today, I still don't understand why "disabled, cruelty" is the number 1 important principle in that system.
> 
> Which MA style will you take?
> 
> Case 1:
> 
> A; What's your style?
> B: My style teach me how to obtain self-cultivation and inner peace.
> 
> Case 2:
> 
> A: What's your style?
> B: My style teach me how to land my fist on my opponent's face.
> 
> I'll take 2 over 1.


Case 1: Reminds me of when someone told me that I need to learn Martial Arts so I can be a good person.  I told that person.  "I thought that's what Church is for."  So I'm only here learn a fighting system.

It puzzled me because, if the person is a Good Person before they join the school, then why do they need to do extra to be a "Good Person"

But I'm like you.  I'll take Case 2 any day.  I'll get my spirituality and religion from somewhere else.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> Then we started playing with how far we could stretch those applications - changing the attack angle, the throw/takedown angle, whatever we could think to try. Then we went on to try to NOT use any of the applications we'd been taught. We wanted to see what we could figure out if we took those away. I don't remember who did it first, but we both in turn did exactly the same thing that turned into a throw of sorts. We were really enjoying figuring out how it worked, because it didn't even look like any of the techniques we knew.
> 
> 2 years later, I learned that was a throw later in the curriculum. It's possible we'd seen it before if a senior group was practicing it at the other end of the dojo (that was how training was organized), but doubtful we'd ever seen it demonstrated. We just played with the concepts and principles and discovered it all on our own.


I understand this. This is normal and it's something that will happen often as when trying to discover application beyond what is taught. 



gpseymour said:


> My view is that the formal curriculum of NGA is not a set of boundaries to describe the art, but a set of drills to learn the movements, concepts, and principles of the art. There are many techniques that fit within the art, but aren't in that formal curriculum. Those are left for discovery, because it's literally impossible to define everything that could be in the art - it changes over time.


I understand this too.  This is how the learning experience should work.  It's been brought up here a few times about the need for a system to evolve.  This is where that evolution comes from.  But it only happens when a good foundation and a willingness to explore occurs. I think I have about 10 techniques that I learned on my own that aren't formally taught in Jow Ga.  some things that the teacher already knew and some are things that he may not know.  Either way they weren't taught in Jow ga and I didn't grab them from the other system.

So at this point I understand what you are describing.



gpseymour said:


> One of them that makes very little sense if you look for direct application (so many easier, simpler, and more effective things have to be bypassed to get to it) actually contains some great training for fighting for control (or to avoid being controlled) at clinch. When I'm clinch fighting, you won't see anything you could point to as an NGA technique, but most of the pieces I use are directly from those movements.


  I understand this as well as I have used what I learn in Taiji about relaxing an sensing in my Jow Ga.

i just finished reading your whole post.  I understand what you are saying.  I personally don't think it's an Aikido thing because I can pull out examples of how those things (similar things) have happened to me. I'm more likely to use a Taiji Concept with my Jow Ga, than a Taiji technique. This is why I can tell how weak or how strong a person's stance is based on how their punch lands on me.  But I still have to learn how to deal with attacks.  I can't use that concept by itself.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> The best example I can give is an experience I had as a mid-level colored belt (blue or green, don't recall which) training with someone else of my own rank. I've seen this happen with other training partners and a few of my own students at times, but this is the one I can describe best. I was training with someone who - like me - was good at taking falls (both in technique and in tolerance) and was quite flexible in the upper body. That meant we could really go at techniques and experiment with movements and move hard and fast, more so than would be the norm at that rank. So we were feeding each other various attacks and just trying stuff out against them. It started with us doing the variations we'd been taught (in NGA, the term is "applications", though many styles would call them techniques or variations). Then we started playing with how far we could stretch those applications - changing the attack angle, the throw/takedown angle, whatever we could think to try. Then we went on to try to NOT use any of the applications we'd been taught. We wanted to see what we could figure out if we took those away. I don't remember who did it first, but we both in turn did exactly the same thing that turned into a throw of sorts. We were really enjoying figuring out how it worked, because it didn't even look like any of the techniques we knew.
> 
> 2 years later, I learned that was a throw later in the curriculum. It's possible we'd seen it before if a senior group was practicing it at the other end of the dojo (that was how training was organized), but doubtful we'd ever seen it demonstrated. We just played with the concepts and principles and discovered it all on our own.
> 
> My view is that the formal curriculum of NGA is not a set of boundaries to describe the art, but a set of drills to learn the movements, concepts, and principles of the art. There are many techniques that fit within the art, but aren't in that formal curriculum. Those are left for discovery, because it's literally impossible to define everything that could be in the art - it changes over time.
> 
> So back to  the concept of forms that don't have direct application. The entry to the technique often teaches something about resisting control (countering grappling), breaking the opponent's structure, and/or moving for position. The midpoint of the technique often teaches something about controlling, locking, and off-balancing. And the finish of the technique often teaches about locking, releasing, defensive positioning, or static control (things like submission locks). Even if the technique isn't useful in application as a combined technique, the principles in those three sections can be. One of them that makes very little sense if you look for direct application (so many easier, simpler, and more effective things have to be bypassed to get to it) actually contains some great training for fighting for control (or to avoid being controlled) at clinch. When I'm clinch fighting, you won't see anything you could point to as an NGA technique, but most of the pieces I use are directly from those movements.
> 
> I hope I'm making some sense with this. These are topics I usually take up with students after a few months, when there's some shared vocabulary (both literal and figurative) for them to start understanding what I'm talking about. And even then, it's a bit vague since there's not so much of this going on in the early curriculum. More advanced students (with a couple of years of training - and who are starting to do some of the forms in question) are much better equipped for this discussion.


all of this makes sense to me.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Regarding @O'Malley I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that Ueshiba had no formal training outside of Daito-Ryu or that he wasn't a pacifist after the war and that his son made all the changes to the system. Here's a late interview with him where he very clearly lays out a much more extensive background in Budo, to include the Kendo you said he didn't know and where he very clearly expresses his reformed pacifist philosophy for Aikido. Interview with Morihei Ueshiba and Kisshomaru Ueshiba – Aikido Journal  take specific note of the last question, where he specifically references the atomic bomb and a need for an end to war.

 Ueshiba was an extreme nationalist and the defeat of Imperial Japan and the surrender created a total paradigm shift within him, as it did in much of Japanese society. As far as Aikido being a finishing school for more advanced Budo practitioners, its what the Japanese Army hired him for and what he was doing in Manchuria throughout the war, studying with Ueshiba required being referred from other teachers for a long time and his son is credited as being the one to truly open the martial art up to the world, although Ueshiba shared the same mindset as part of his post war paradigm shift. The same thing is listed under the IMAF description of Aikido ::  Aikido  ::

For the hand technique or "Aikido chop" @JowGaWolf  - I'm sorry if I have not been clearer in my description, Aikido teaches the idea of tegatana, literally, "hand swords" and emphasizes knife hand techniques. Aikido techniques come from sword fighting and the idea of tegatana comes from this idea of using the knife hand as a kind of "spirit sword".
There's a very rigid posture to the hand and exacting instructions on using it to focus ki and how to block and strike/ etc. Here is a detailed explanation from Kenji Tomiki and its the best one I can easily find. The Three and Six – TOMIKI AIKIDO

  I may be getting the entire principle wrong but I have always taught the traditional ideas and then told students to dismiss the rigid knife hands and to adopt a more relaxed flow with the hands, similar to the open hands in Kali. This both promotes easier grabbing/grappling it also allows you to use more striking parts of the hand such as the palm or to turn the strike from a knife hand "chop" into a flowing ridge hand over an opponents guard. I try to stress that the tegatana is primarily to intercept the opponents line, not as the classical ki strike karate chop. This is why I link the aikidoflow videos, because he has adopted what looks like the same method, instead of staying with the classical, rigid chopping that you keep seeing. This may be total Aikido heresy, but it has been what I have found works the best when attempting to apply Aikido techniques against resistance and I stay away from teaching martial arts esotericism albeit some is necessary to understand the principles Aikido is teaching. Maybe the old masters really could karate chop the hell out of everyone, in my experience, it screws up and slows down the practitioner, adds rigidity instead of a flowing harmony to the application of techniques and just doesn't work in the way people are trying to use it.

  For the stances, the ready stance and receiving posture are similar to sword fighting stances because you are attempting to maintain distance and then intercept the opponents line of attack, as in Japanese sword fighting. Here's an ok description of the actual footwork/stance as its traditionally taught Katsujinken Dojo: Basic Aikido-Stance and Movements 

There are many arguments on posture, positioning, etc, I don't think it matters as much as people put into it, the hanmi is supposed to be evocative of a student holding a sword. This may get into the region I said before of me just being a total heretic regarding the use of the tegatana concept, but I have always taught this as a "receiving" posture and in practice, my actual stance in a fight tends to at least begin simply with the bladed stance towards the opponent and the hands and arms in a loose receiving posture that looks more like the "hey I don't want any trouble" gesture. The deception is on purpose because I can easily transition through this as I would the more rigid Hanmi used in the dojo while presenting a less threatening or aggressive posture.






  Notice he stays relaxed and emphasizes a relaxation of the stance and hands to aid the movement and technique. In my opinion, this is someone who understands how to apply the techniques through an opponents resistance, where what you are seeing is the dojo method that stresses perfect posture/rigidity and positioning and is not true "budo" but a more stylized form just like we see in many other Japanese fighting arts where the demonstration of a technique doesn't convey a practical application. 

I am dismissive of Ueshiba's post war pacifism as well as the "peace and love" Aikido community because this total reconstruction both hides the true gift of the art form itself as well as promotes all the esoteric and just imaginary nonsense that has gotten us to this discussion in the first place. I almost feel like a part of Ueshiba wanted to leave the world with his creation but to bury the core of his art behind the fluff he was posturing post war. The Japanese Koryu themselves have had an ongoing problem with being watered down, turned into sport and otherwise morphed into something they are not since the end of the warring states period. Aikido suffers from the "cultural icon / art" decay as well as the strong post war re-write which has made it a favorite of hucksters, hippies and snake oil salesman since it hit western shores during the karate boom. 

Despite all of the problems with the "art" as a whole, I don't think its any worse or better off than most other schools and traditions. My first Karate instructor growing up tried to say her red belt kata was based on ripping open someone's ribcage and tearing out their heart with your bare hands, even the pre-teen me called bullshido on that particular claim. Its easy to simply point at Aikido and to just laugh because there is a lot of ammo that's accumulated over the years. I simply contend that its no different to all the fake and bad McDojo's we have seen and the art itself is sound for what it is teaching, "an elegant weapon for a more civilized age" to misquote old Ben Kenobi. 

I also don't think that Aikido has truly had its day in the sun yet, as many other martial arts have not, simply due to the way the Eastern martial arts entered popular culture in the last century and the way that the UFC and BJJ rode that wave into a temporary monopoly. Thankfully the more blind/dogmatic devotion to BJJ seems to be leaving the conversation in favor of a pragmatic "train what works" approach. This mindset of training against resistance and focusing on what works has the potential to weed out enough clutter within the community to really give us that next level of development and blending of styles/techniques and philosophies that could create some really exciting stuff in the years to come.


----------



## isshinryuronin

JowGaWolf said:


> If Aikido is no good for self-defense or fighting then then that means there is no other application of it beyond exercise


 
I agree and disagree, depending on how you define "aikido."  System vs specific technique.  

Taken as a _system_, it may not be effective against resisting, thrashing, punching opponents, or those who have disciplined, centered attacks.  As an exercise, I'd take it over yoga, as aikido's movements have the potential of aiding body movement as practiced in other MA.  Relaxed, smooth and flowing movement is a plus in most all MA.

The basic principles of aikido _technique_ are mostly valid - it's just the _system_ is not designed to execute those techniques in a realistic combat encounter.  If one is skilled in another MA, _some aikido techniques can be lifted and be made to work within that other combat MA framework._  If I have a macadamia nut cookie and the cookie dough is no good, instead of throwing away the whole cookie, I'll pick out the tasty nuts and enjoy those.

So while aikido taken as a whole system may be lacking as a combat MA, within that system are individual concepts and techniques that have value in fighting, given a different delivery system (MA style) that can give relevance and efficacy to those techniques. If one approaches this issue with an open mind, some creativity, and solid experience in a combat oriented MA, some tasty nuts can be found in aikido and put to good, effective, use.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Why do all Aikido training have to start with grabbing? Can Aikido training start from his opponent's kick or punch?

Also why do you always have to wait for your opponent to move in toward you? How about you move in toward your opponent instead?


----------



## Shatteredzen

isshinryuronin said:


> I agree and disagree, depending on how you define "aikido."  System vs specific technique.
> 
> Taken as a _system_, it may not be effective against resisting, thrashing, punching opponents, or those who have disciplined, centered attacks.  As an exercise, I'd take it over yoga, as aikido's movements have the potential of aiding body movement as practiced in other MA.  Relaxed, smooth and flowing movement is a plus in most all MA.
> 
> The basic principles of aikido _technique_ are mostly valid - it's just the _system_ is not designed to execute those techniques in a realistic combat encounter.  If one is skilled in another MA, _some aikido techniques can be lifted and be made to work within that other combat MA framework._  If I have a macadamia nut cookie and the cookie dough is no good, instead of throwing away the whole cookie, I'll pick out the tasty nuts and enjoy those.
> 
> So while aikido taken as a whole system may be lacking as a combat MA, within that system are individual concepts and techniques that have value in fighting, given a different delivery system (MA style) that can give relevance and efficacy to those techniques. If one approaches this issue with an open mind, some creativity, and solid experience in a combat oriented MA, some tasty nuts can be found in aikido and put to good, effective, use.



Except this is all coming from the false pretense that Aikido does not in fact work as a practical martial art or that it is not a "combat" martial art. You are mistaking a preponderance of bad schools and training as being the same as a bad system. I can take examples of bad martial artists in any martial art you want to cite, the failures of these individuals says nothing about the system itself. Aikido comes from the techniques used to train the Takeda clan samurai, it was used by the Japanese military during the second world war and its techniques are still used in law enforcement and military unarmed techniques the world over. The Japanese police and military still use Aikido in their respective unarmed systems alongside Judo, Karate and other techniques. There is not a need to cherry pick a handful of techniques from Aikido, you simply need a good school/teacher and you need to train to practically apply the techniques.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why do all Aikido training have to start with grabbing? Can Aikido training start from his opponent's kick or punch?
> 
> Also why do you always have to wait for your opponent to move in toward you? How about you move in toward your opponent instead?



Nice, you grabbed a good video, this guy is excellent with his technique. You do not have to wait until your opponent moves towards you and it does not need to start with grappling. What you are watching is the equivalent of Kata demonstrations in other Japanese martial arts, the object is to show perfect form/delivery not simulate a realistic fight.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shatteredzen said:


> Regarding @O'Malley I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that Ueshiba had no formal training outside of Daito-Ryu or that he wasn't a pacifist after the war and that his son made all the changes to the system. Here's a late interview with him where he very clearly lays out a much more extensive background in Budo, to include the Kendo you said he didn't know and where he very clearly expresses his reformed pacifist philosophy for Aikido. Interview with Morihei Ueshiba and Kisshomaru Ueshiba – Aikido Journal  take specific note of the last question, where he specifically references the atomic bomb and a need for an end to war.
> 
> Ueshiba was an extreme nationalist and the defeat of Imperial Japan and the surrender created a total paradigm shift within him, as it did in much of Japanese society. As far as Aikido being a finishing school for more advanced Budo practitioners, its what the Japanese Army hired him for and what he was doing in Manchuria throughout the war, studying with Ueshiba required being referred from other teachers for a long time and his son is credited as being the one to truly open the martial art up to the world, although Ueshiba shared the same mindset as part of his post war paradigm shift. The same thing is listed under the IMAF description of Aikido ::  Aikido  ::
> 
> For the hand technique or "Aikido chop" @JowGaWolf  - I'm sorry if I have not been clearer in my description, Aikido teaches the idea of tegatana, literally, "hand swords" and emphasizes knife hand techniques. Aikido techniques come from sword fighting and the idea of tegatana comes from this idea of using the knife hand as a kind of "spirit sword".
> There's a very rigid posture to the hand and exacting instructions on using it to focus ki and how to block and strike/ etc. Here is a detailed explanation from Kenji Tomiki and its the best one I can easily find. The Three and Six – TOMIKI AIKIDO
> 
> I may be getting the entire principle wrong but I have always taught the traditional ideas and then told students to dismiss the rigid knife hands and to adopt a more relaxed flow with the hands, similar to the open hands in Kali. This both promotes easier grabbing/grappling it also allows you to use more striking parts of the hand such as the palm or to turn the strike from a knife hand "chop" into a flowing ridge hand over an opponents guard. I try to stress that the tegatana is primarily to intercept the opponents line, not as the classical ki strike karate chop. This is why I link the aikidoflow videos, because he has adopted what looks like the same method, instead of staying with the classical, rigid chopping that you keep seeing. This may be total Aikido heresy, but it has been what I have found works the best when attempting to apply Aikido techniques against resistance and I stay away from teaching martial arts esotericism albeit some is necessary to understand the principles Aikido is teaching. Maybe the old masters really could karate chop the hell out of everyone, in my experience, it screws up and slows down the practitioner, adds rigidity instead of a flowing harmony to the application of techniques and just doesn't work in the way people are trying to use it.
> 
> For the stances, the ready stance and receiving posture are similar to sword fighting stances because you are attempting to maintain distance and then intercept the opponents line of attack, as in Japanese sword fighting. Here's an ok description of the actual footwork/stance as its traditionally taught Katsujinken Dojo: Basic Aikido-Stance and Movements
> 
> There are many arguments on posture, positioning, etc, I don't think it matters as much as people put into it, the hanmi is supposed to be evocative of a student holding a sword. This may get into the region I said before of me just being a total heretic regarding the use of the tegatana concept, but I have always taught this as a "receiving" posture and in practice, my actual stance in a fight tends to at least begin simply with the bladed stance towards the opponent and the hands and arms in a loose receiving posture that looks more like the "hey I don't want any trouble" gesture. The deception is on purpose because I can easily transition through this as I would the more rigid Hanmi used in the dojo while presenting a less threatening or aggressive posture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice he stays relaxed and emphasizes a relaxation of the stance and hands to aid the movement and technique. In my opinion, this is someone who understands how to apply the techniques through an opponents resistance, where what you are seeing is the dojo method that stresses perfect posture/rigidity and positioning and is not true "budo" but a more stylized form just like we see in many other Japanese fighting arts where the demonstration of a technique doesn't convey a practical application.
> 
> I am dismissive of Ueshiba's post war pacifism as well as the "peace and love" Aikido community because this total reconstruction both hides the true gift of the art form itself as well as promotes all the esoteric and just imaginary nonsense that has gotten us to this discussion in the first place. I almost feel like a part of Ueshiba wanted to leave the world with his creation but to bury the core of his art behind the fluff he was posturing post war. The Japanese Koryu themselves have had an ongoing problem with being watered down, turned into sport and otherwise morphed into something they are not since the end of the warring states period. Aikido suffers from the "cultural icon / art" decay as well as the strong post war re-write which has made it a favorite of hucksters, hippies and snake oil salesman since it hit western shores during the karate boom.
> 
> Despite all of the problems with the "art" as a whole, I don't think its any worse or better off than most other schools and traditions. My first Karate instructor growing up tried to say her red belt kata was based on ripping open someone's ribcage and tearing out their heart with your bare hands, even the pre-teen me called bullshido on that particular claim. Its easy to simply point at Aikido and to just laugh because there is a lot of ammo that's accumulated over the years. I simply contend that its no different to all the fake and bad McDojo's we have seen and the art itself is sound for what it is teaching, "an elegant weapon for a more civilized age" to misquote old Ben Kenobi.
> 
> I also don't think that Aikido has truly had its day in the sun yet, as many other martial arts have not, simply due to the way the Eastern martial arts entered popular culture in the last century and the way that the UFC and BJJ rode that wave into a temporary monopoly. Thankfully the more blind/dogmatic devotion to BJJ seems to be leaving the conversation in favor of a pragmatic "train what works" approach. This mindset of training against resistance and focusing on what works has the potential to weed out enough clutter within the community to really give us that next level of development and blending of styles/techniques and philosophies that could create some really exciting stuff in the years to come.


Thanks for the links.  What read from your post makes sense to me as well.  From what I saw in the video makes sense from the block to the strike.  I'm going to take a look at the links that you posted.  Pre-War Japan was much different than Post War Japan.  Having a big bomb drop on the citizens and then watch people die from radiation poisoning will change a lot of things.  Up until that point the Japanese "Spirit" was that of cruel conquerors.  There history was the same.  I'm not saying that they were the only ones like that.  But nothing about their  Pre-War culture was about "love peace and happiness."  The have always held onto their past history and were proud of about their Warriors of the past. The Bomb changed all of that. 180 degrees from Samurai to "No Mas".


----------



## Shatteredzen

JowGaWolf said:


> Thanks for the links.  What read from your post makes sense to me as well.  From what I saw in the video makes sense from the block to the strike.  I'm going to take a look at the links that you posted.  Pre-War Japan was much different than Post War Japan.  Having a big bomb drop on the citizens and then watch people die from radiation poisoning will change a lot of things.  Up until that point the Japanese "Spirit" was that of cruel conquerors.  There history was the same.  I'm not saying that they were the only ones like that.  But nothing about their  Pre-War culture was about "love peace and happiness."  The have always held onto their past history and were proud of about their Warriors of the past. The Bomb changed all of that. 180 degrees from Samurai to "No Mas".



Yes, a lack of practical training is also to blame however. I see the same issues come up with Kung Fu, I'm sure you can instantly recognize those who train forms to perfection but have no practical fighting ability to use them versus the practitioners who learn to adapt their techniques to combative opponents. All of this is just dancing if you don't learn to use it in an actual fight against someone trying to kick your butt.


----------



## JowGaWolf

isshinryuronin said:


> As an exercise, I'd take it over yoga, as aikido's movements have the potential of aiding body movement as practiced in other MA. Relaxed, smooth and flowing movement is a plus in most all MA.


There were times where I would have taken Dog  Poop over yoga, but that's before I tried it.  Yoga is tough.  I've heard more people get more out of yoga than what people would expect.  I'll be adding it to my rehab within a few weeks.

But I get what you are saying. There are very few Martial Arts systems that I feel are just total duds.  If Japan had won the War and retained their captured Territory, there is a very high chance that Aikido wouldn't have the "peace and zen" vibe that a lot of people push on it.   I always tell people that the byproduct of hard training, sparring , hitting pads, etc.  is reduce stress and calm.  Your day may start off crappy but get in the gym put some hard work in, focus on the moment and that "Peace" they are looking for will come naturally.  There's no need to artificially add it.


----------



## Shatteredzen

JowGaWolf said:


> There were times where I would have taken Dog  Poop over yoga, but that's before I tried it.  Yoga is tough.  I've heard more people get more out of yoga than what people would expect.  I'll be adding it to my rehab within a few weeks.
> 
> But I get what you are saying. There are very few Martial Arts systems that I feel are just total duds.  If Japan had won the War and retained their captured Territory, there is a very high chance that Aikido wouldn't have the "peace and zen" vibe that a lot of people push on it.   I always tell people that the byproduct of hard training, sparring , hitting pads, etc.  is reduce stress and calm.  Your day may start off crappy but get in the gym put some hard work in, focus on the moment and that "Peace" they are looking for will come naturally.  There's no need to artificially add it.



I will happily second that endorsement of Yoga, it does work as intended.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shatteredzen said:


> I see the same issues come up with Kung Fu, I'm sure you can instantly recognize those who train forms to perfection but have no practical fighting ability to use them versus the practitioners who learn to adapt their techniques to combative opponents.


Yep and that's when the sadness hits lol.  All of that time training and not once actually trying it through sparring.  There is so much beyond just the technique and being able to remember the names of moves, and look good doing it.  To me that's a very shallow understanding.  They don't have to go out and fight until they are bloody in order to take it to the next level.  They could have fun with and enjoy the experience of trying to learn and learning how it actually works outside of the form.  

Yeah Kung Fu people do the same thing.  Even in Jow Ga. To spend decades and venture beyond the front door of a system.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Shatteredzen said:


> Yes, a lack of practical training is also to blame however.


I would say the common sense is missing. We all know that if you pick up my left leg, you then hook up my right leg, since I have no leg left, I will have to fall.

As a throwing art, does Aikido have technique such as:

- control one of your opponent's leg,
- control his other leg, and
- take him down?

Why can't we train a throwing art just from the "common sense" instead?


----------



## isshinryuronin

Shatteredzen said:


> Except this is all coming from the false pretense that Aikido does not in fact work as a practical martial art or that it is not a "combat" martial art. You are mistaking a preponderance of bad schools and training as being the same as a bad system.



I was actually trying to defend aikido from those who think it has no practical value and stated it does offer sound principles and techniques.  I agree with the below quote that early aikido was likely more "combat" oriented than commonly practiced today. 

90% of what I've seen of aikido shows some weakness in application against resistance as it seems proper "set up" against resisting opponents is missing.  Perhaps this was not true 80 years ago and more striking was part of the system.  The other 10% of aikido schools may have retained this focus on true combat and these exceptions would be largely exempt from this post.  I would like to work out at one of these.



JowGaWolf said:


> Pre-War Japan was much different than Post War Japan.



As I have mentioned several times in the past, karate also suffered a loss of application technique, so you are right in making a comparison.  But because karate is a striking art (and may be said to be less subtle than aikido) it is more direct, less dependent on finesse, so may be employed effectively against resistance at a lower level of expertise.  So even if they have no understanding of the true bunkai, it is still usable against resisting opponents.  In this light, aikido _as commonly practiced today_ has a systemic weakness as far as actual fighting is concerned, IMO.

I like aikido - it's smooth and has great concepts of directing/redirecting opponent's momentum and has some good locks. I have tried to be fair and objective in my opinions, giving the pros and cons of the current state of the system as I see it.  I admit I have no direct experience in aikido other than seeing several live demos, videos, and studying _Aikido - The Dynamic Sphere _with intermediate aikido practitioners (a long time ago.)  Being in MA since the 60's, I feel it is a worthwhile art, but still stand by my comments.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Except this is all coming from the false pretense that Aikido does not in fact work as a practical martial art or that it is not a "combat" martial art. You are mistaking a preponderance of bad schools and training as being the same as a bad system. I can take examples of bad martial artists in any martial art you want to cite,



Wouldn't you show good examples of Aikido to combat the perception that it is mostly bad?


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Nice, you grabbed a good video, this guy is excellent with his technique. You do not have to wait until your opponent moves towards you and it does not need to start with grappling. What you are watching is the equivalent of Kata demonstrations in other Japanese martial arts, the object is to show perfect form/delivery not simulate a realistic fight.



The secret to fight choreography is the guy taking the falls is doing all the work.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Wouldn't you show good examples of Aikido to combat the perception that it is mostly bad?



I've spent several posts explaining the reason some people have that perception, with video links and I've been pretty in depth about it. If you want to go back and read you can come back and I can go point by point with you if you have a technical argument.


----------



## Shatteredzen

isshinryuronin said:


> I was actually trying to defend aikido from those who think it has no practical value and stated it does offer sound principles and techniques.  I agree with the below quote that early aikido was likely more "combat" oriented than commonly practiced today.
> 
> 90% of what I've seen of aikido shows some weakness in application against resistance as it seems proper "set up" against resisting opponents is missing.  Perhaps this was not true 80 years ago and more striking was part of the system.  The other 10% of aikido schools may have retained this focus on true combat and these exceptions would be largely exempt from this post.  I would like to work out at one of these.
> 
> 
> 
> As I have mentioned several times in the past, karate also suffered a loss of application technique, so you are right in making a comparison.  But because karate is a striking art (and may be said to be less subtle than aikido) it is more direct, less dependent on finesse, so may be employed effectively against resistance at a lower level of expertise.  So even if they have no understanding of the true bunkai, it is still usable against resisting opponents.  In this light, aikido _as commonly practiced today_ has a systemic weakness as far as actual fighting is concerned, IMO.
> 
> I like aikido - it's smooth and has great concepts of directing/redirecting opponent's momentum and has some good locks. I have tried to be fair and objective in my opinions, giving the pros and cons of the current state of the system as I see it.  I admit I have no direct experience in aikido other than seeing several live demos, videos, and studying _Aikido - The Dynamic Sphere _with intermediate aikido practitioners (a long time ago.)  Being in MA since the 60's, I feel it is a worthwhile art, but still stand by my comments.



  Any system without resistance is little better than empty forms. BJJ has no strikes, that doesn't stop anyone from using strikes and BJJ. Aikido was taught with striking, I have gone over the whole tegatana thing at length here in this same thread. I won't endorse the robot chop/ spirit sword hands esotericism because I don't think it works, but the softer and lighter use of the open hand which shows up in Daito-Ryu and is occasionally seen in Aikido nowadays (the Aikidoflow videos again) works great with the same principles. That said, there is nothing saying you can't transition a resisting/missed or half applied kotei gaeshi into an elbow strike to the face and/or back. I specifically teach striking alongside the techniques, it doesn't make it "not" Aikido anymore, if anything, it makes it more authentic to the original art. Also, as I said before, Aikido, like any other martial art, is not a "one and done" style and I believe it works best as a central pillar or finishing art to other systems.

  When it was originally taught, Aikido was a mix of Judo, Ju-Jitsu, Kendo and Bo-Jutsu, at its height, Ueshiba claimed 3,000 techniques (I think he was BSing that number) within the system, most schools teach sixty or so techniques or less nowadays. I was taught and I continue to teach the Aikido alongside Judo, BJJ and Ju-Jitsu techniques, over the years we have mixed in a bunch of the Filipino martial arts, Muay Thai and random other things cherry picked from different systems into what I would consider "my style" of fighting. I have yet to find a single style that can't be countered by another style, to be a well rounded fighter, you are going to have to expect to study multiple systems, especially in Japanese martial arts. I can say however that I consider Aikido to be the central "core" of my style of fighting and it has informed every other style I have studied. Were we to train together, you would likely see the Aikido peaking out of my explanation of Kali or Muay Thai the same way your core art may flavor your other studies.


----------



## O'Malley

JowGaWolf said:


> So when I read this I hear exercise not martial arts for actual use in self defense.



It would be interesting to discuss what makes a martial art but that is another topic.



> When I read this I see conflict because no where in you statement mention self-defense or applicable use. beyond "Body an Mind."  That's the reality of Aikido then people who says it's worthless as a fighting or self-defense system would be correct.



To be more precise, it develops physical and mental attributes that are useful in self defense. This, coupled with alive and intense training (done through sparring sessions after classes) allowed early generations of practitioners to become proficient at fighting and to apply the techniques in real encounters.



> I know I lack context, but I've been asking and I haven't gotten any. The most that I've gotten so far pretty much sums it up as  a made up Martial Art that is useless for self-defense.



I know, I'm trying to help the best I can but some posts on a forum are peanuts compared to real training.



> Again.  After seeing the videos and seeing the discussions from Aikido Practitioners  "qualified instructor" is going to be almost impossible to find.



In fact, aikido instructors that are interested in functionality, know the why's and don'ts of the system _and _can fight are almost non existent, although I'd put a penny on guys like Bruce Bookman.



> How much history do you need to know about punching?
> How much history do you need to know about blocking?
> How much history do you need to know about setting in a wrist lock?
> How much history do you need to know to throw someone?
> How much history do you need to know to evade a punch?



I didn't expect the Spanish inquisition! (Sorry, couldn't resist)

I'll try to illustrate my point with an example. How much history do you have to know to use a fork? If, like me, you're from a working class background but one day you somehow ended up eating at a high-end restaurant, you might have tried to crack the code of "which fork to use for what". Personally, this put my reasoning skills to the test, and although I guessed some things right (the dessert spoon was an easy one) I ended up using the meat knife for fish (or whatever). Now, from a functional perspective, I used the meat knife in a 100% valid manner and it did a great job at cutting the fish. Yet, saying that I understand how to use that knife would be a bit of a stretch.



> See this what I'm talking about . No one knows what it is.  The qualified instructors are saying that it's not a lateral strike. Some say it's a strike at all. Their words not mine.  So it's not me.



Oh I agree with you, it's difficult (and imagine having to do it for the whole art you're trying to study, all the while trying to figure out what's BS and what's good, in light of extremely poor results in cross-style exchanges). That's why I try to apply critical thinking, stick to the most reliable sources and exchange with practitioners of other arts.



> If that's the case then none of the Aiko techniques are valid for application as they only work if someone doesn't let go and holds on as if they glued.  If that's the case the Aikido should probably get out of sparring and should probably not call itself a Martial arts.  I'm only saying this because how you are presenting it, because I know there are others who don't share the same view of Aikido as you.



When uke is unbalanced on contact, he relies on tori for his balance, so his reflex is to keep holding. Otherwise he'll fall. You can see this here at the 1:20 mark:








> My personal thought is that this shouldn't be so confusing when all I've looked at was an "Aikido Chop", a response to an "Aikido Chop", and an "Aikodo Stance"



I like the fresh perspective on aikido that you are trying to bring, and I didn't mean to discourage you. My point was no more than a caveat: you might come up with something perfectly valid from a Jow Ga or functionality perspective (as I did with the knife) and you might even guess something right (the dessert spoon). However, it is very different from understanding the movements in light of the core principles and goals of aikido, which I can guarantee you won't. Many martial artists have tried to do so and most of those interpretations don't hold up to the facts (like the weapons retention stuff). They are innovations and while they might actually be very valuable from a practical perspective, they are just different from aikido as it was designed. That being said, I'm actually very curious to see what you'd come up with.



JowGaWolf said:


> If you know what this is, then feel free to share your knowledge.  About this and what it means.
> If you go all ZEN on me then I'll tell you to stop.  I have no interest in ZEN, when it comes to people telling me how things work.
> 
> "You must know yourself first is not an answer an answer"  Because the same people who buy into that are often the people who do not know how to use Aikido on the the most basic level.



Morihei Ueshiba's speeches had multiple layers of interpretation, and technical explanations were done through spiritual imagery (= the guy talked and nobody understood). However, this is a very concrete, physical concept. At its most basic, it involves using visualisations to pull the tissues in your body in opposing directions at the same time (up-down, left-right, front-back, etc.), which creates internal tension that you use to maintain your structure when force is applied to you (this description has probably holes due to my limited understanding of the phenomenon and the limits of written descriptions of physical movements). If you look at the Sunadomari video from 1:10 on, he first shows "normal" movement, then movement under the effects of this internal tension, which is called "aiki". With your CMA background, you might see similarities with Chen Taiji's "pulling silk" or the pile-standing of Xingyi and Yi Quan. Actually, Ueshiba used the exact same formula as the Chinese internal arts as he talked about "unifying heaven, earth and man".



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Your statement remind me the 1st day that I started to cross train the Zimen system. The Zimen system has 8 principles.
> 
> 1. 残 - disabled, cruelty
> 2. 推 - push
> 3. 援 - assisted
> 4. 夺 - seized
> 5. 牵 - pulled
> 6. 捺 - pinched
> 7. 逼 - forced
> 8. 吸 - sucked
> 
> The 1st principle is "残(CAN) - disabled, cruelty". The Zimen teacher said, "Without understanding the meaning of "disabled, cruelty", you will never understand the Zimen system."
> 
> Even today, I still don't understand why "disabled, cruelty" is the number 1 important principle in that system.
> 
> Which MA style will you take?
> 
> Case 1:
> 
> A; What's your style?
> B: My style teach me how to obtain self-cultivation and inner peace.
> 
> Case 2:
> 
> A: What's your style?
> B: My style teach me how to land my fist on my opponent's face.
> 
> I'll take 2 over 1.



Depends on your goals, I guess.



Shatteredzen said:


> Regarding @O'Malley I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that Ueshiba had no formal training outside of Daito-Ryu



Several authors have thoroughly researched Ueshiba's pre-Daito-Ryu training, including Ellis Amdur and Simone Chierchini:

"This long analysis, therefore, led us to the following conclusions, based on what (little and confused) is known about the life story of the young Morihei: before devoting himself body and soul to Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu under Sokaku Takeda, he had trained for a few months in Tenjin Shinyo-Ryu, he had received occasional teaching in Yagyu Ryu jujutsu, and had practiced Judo for a few months. This was Morihei Ueshiba’s entire martial career outside of Daito, as far as it is currently known. The fact that Morihei has studied, practiced and achieved mastery in a large number of martial disciplines would seem to be a complete fabrication." - Entire essay here: Ueshiba’s Martial Arts Career Before Aikido Was Born



> or that he wasn't a pacifist after the war



"At any rate, Morihei Ueshiba was a remarkable guy. He was a force for good, but this simplistic idea that aikido was created to create peace on earth is just not fully informed. Back in the early eighties, a number of us, under the direction of Phil Relnick, created an organization called the Japan Martial Arts Society (JMAS).  Four times a year, we’d have great martial artists come and present to non-Japanese living in Japan. Doshu Kisshomaru, O-Sensei’s son, did a presentation, and one very sincere guy raises his hand and through translation says, “When did your father become a pacifist?” Someone translates this to Doshu, and he sort of looks like, “What?” The guy translates it again, and he just cracked up. I mean, there were tears in his eyes, and he said, “My father was never a pacifist.”" - Source: Ellis Amdur: On Aikido – Aikido Journal



> and that his son made all the changes to the system.



This has been recognised by the current Doshu:

“To the spirit of the past Doshu”
by San-Dai Doshu Moriteru Ueshiba

“The techniques and way of Aikido that the founder O-Sensei left us, was not always easily understood by everyone. Doshu, my father, changed these so they would be easily understood, and he gave all of his life to spread this. For that reason he left behind many books that he had written. I grew up watching Doshu return from keiko to study and write for long hours and even with my child’s eyes I could see the importance of this work” - Source: Iwama-Ryu Türkiye

It has also been researched to death: The Ueshiba Legacy, by Mark Murray - Aikido Sangenkai Blog ; Is O-Sensei Really the Father of Modern Aikido?, by Stanley Pranin – Aikido Journal



> Ueshiba was an extreme nationalist and the defeat of Imperial Japan and the surrender created a total paradigm shift within him, as it did in much of Japanese society. As far as Aikido being a finishing school for more advanced Budo practitioners, its what the Japanese Army hired him for and what he was doing in Manchuria throughout the war, studying with Ueshiba required being referred from other teachers for a long time and his son is credited as being the one to truly open the martial art up to the world, although Ueshiba shared the same mindset as part of his post war paradigm shift. The same thing is listed under the IMAF description of Aikido ::  Aikido  ::



Tadashi Abe started training at 16 with no martial background, Rinjiro Shirata at 18, Hiroshi Isoyama at 12 (!), Terry Dobson had studied the lethal art of... American football, and I could name more. The "finishing school" thing is a hoax. The IMAF is an administrative body outside of aikido, they'll publish any brief sent by the Aikikai.



> For the hand technique or "Aikido chop" @JowGaWolf  - I'm sorry if I have not been clearer in my description, Aikido teaches the idea of tegatana, literally, "hand swords" and emphasizes knife hand techniques. Aikido techniques come from sword fighting and the idea of tegatana comes from this idea of using the knife hand as a kind of "spirit sword".
> There's a very rigid posture to the hand and exacting instructions on using it to focus ki and how to block and strike/ etc. Here is a detailed explanation from Kenji Tomiki and its the best one I can easily find. The Three and Six – TOMIKI AIKIDO



I'm not that familiar with what the Tomiki folks do but they tend to have sound ideas.



> I may be getting the entire principle wrong but I have always taught the traditional ideas and then told students to dismiss the rigid knife hands and to adopt a more relaxed flow with the hands, similar to the open hands in Kali. This both promotes easier grabbing/grappling it also allows you to use more striking parts of the hand such as the palm or to turn the strike from a knife hand "chop" into a flowing ridge hand over an opponents guard. I try to stress that the tegatana is primarily to intercept the opponents line, not as the classical ki strike karate chop. This is why I link the aikidoflow videos, because he has adopted what looks like the same method, instead of staying with the classical, rigid chopping that you keep seeing. This may be total Aikido heresy, but it has been what I have found works the best when attempting to apply Aikido techniques against resistance and I stay away from teaching martial arts esotericism albeit some is necessary to understand the principles Aikido is teaching. Maybe the old masters really could karate chop the hell out of everyone, in my experience, it screws up and slows down the practitioner, adds rigidity instead of a flowing harmony to the application of techniques and just doesn't work in the way people are trying to use it.



I like that. I also like this:








> Notice he stays relaxed and emphasizes a relaxation of the stance and hands to aid the movement and technique. In my opinion, this is someone who understands how to apply the techniques through an opponents resistance, where what you are seeing is the dojo method that stresses perfect posture/rigidity and positioning and is not true "budo" but a more stylized form just like we see in many other Japanese fighting arts where the demonstration of a technique doesn't convey a practical application.



I would have liked to see him do it in sparring, I remember some live training footage on their channel. BTW Sumo does it against resistance:








Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why do all Aikido training have to start with grabbing? Can Aikido training start from his opponent's kick or punch?
> 
> Also why do you always have to wait for your opponent to move in toward you? How about you move in toward your opponent instead?



See this video from 1:09 onwards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCZ0VizXTfU



Shatteredzen said:


> Except this is all coming from the false pretense that Aikido does not in fact work as a practical martial art or that it is not a "combat" martial art. You are mistaking a preponderance of bad schools and training as being the same as a bad system. I can take examples of bad martial artists in any martial art you want to cite, the failures of these individuals says nothing about the system itself. Aikido comes from the techniques used to train the Takeda clan samurai, it was used by the Japanese military during the second world war and its techniques are still used in law enforcement and military unarmed techniques the world over. The Japanese police and military still use Aikido in their respective unarmed systems alongside Judo, Karate and other techniques. There is not a need to cherry pick a handful of techniques from Aikido, you simply need a good school/teacher and you need to train to practically apply the techniques.



Do you have good examples of aikido application against resistance? No need for competition footage (you'd only have Tomiki stuff I guess) but a sparring video would be nice, as these are rare to find.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> I would say the common sense is missing. We all know that if you pick up my left leg, you then hook up my right leg, since I have no leg left, I will have to fall.
> 
> As a throwing art, does Aikido have technique such as:
> 
> - control one of your opponent's leg,
> - control his other leg, and
> - take him down?
> 
> Why can't we train a throwing art just from the "common sense" instead?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEEV-ZzoWgo&t=47s



isshinryuronin said:


> I was actually trying to defend aikido from those who think it has no practical value and stated it does offer sound principles and techniques.  I agree with the below quote that early aikido was likely more "combat" oriented than commonly practiced today.
> 
> 90% of what I've seen of aikido shows some weakness in application against resistance as it seems proper "set up" against resisting opponents is missing.  Perhaps this was not true 80 years ago and more striking was part of the system.  The other 10% of aikido schools may have retained this focus on true combat and these exceptions would be largely exempt from this post.  I would like to work out at one of these.
> 
> As I have mentioned several times in the past, karate also suffered a loss of application technique, so you are right in making a comparison.  But because karate is a striking art (and may be said to be less subtle than aikido) it is more direct, less dependent on finesse, so may be employed effectively against resistance at a lower level of expertise.  So even if they have no understanding of the true bunkai, it is still usable against resisting opponents.  In this light, aikido _as commonly practiced today_ has a systemic weakness as far as actual fighting is concerned, IMO.
> 
> I like aikido - it's smooth and has great concepts of directing/redirecting opponent's momentum and has some good locks. I have tried to be fair and objective in my opinions, giving the pros and cons of the current state of the system as I see it.  I admit I have no direct experience in aikido other than seeing several live demos, videos, and studying _Aikido - The Dynamic Sphere _with intermediate aikido practitioners (a long time ago.)  Being in MA since the 60's, I feel it is a worthwhile art, but still stand by my comments.



Good points.



> When it was originally taught, Aikido was a mix of Judo, Ju-Jitsu, Kendo and Bo-Jutsu, at its height, Ueshiba claimed 3,000 techniques (I think he was BSing that number) within the system, most schools teach sixty or so techniques or less nowadays.



Aikido was Daito-ryu, plain and simple. As I said, Ueshiba didn't really have much training outside of DR (although a hip throw made its way from Yagyu Shingan Ryu to aikido, it's our koshi nage). And he hated judo because its founder supposedly learned it in China. That said, I also think that the 3000 techniques gimmick was to emphasise the fact that one could incorporate anything into aikido, which is about principles, not technical repertoire (in this, Ueshiba was not different from the other top Daito-Ryu instructors, who said the exact same thing). Also, I agree with what you've said about modern aikido: the current repertoire is much more limited now: you've got basically a dozen of techniques done from various attacks (grab, chop, etc.): the pins (5 techniques), shiho nage, tenchi nage, ude kime nage, kote gaeshi, irimi nage, kaiten nage and that's about it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I understand this. This is normal and it's something that will happen often as when trying to discover application beyond what is taught.
> 
> 
> I understand this too.  This is how the learning experience should work.  It's been brought up here a few times about the need for a system to evolve.  This is where that evolution comes from.  But it only happens when a good foundation and a willingness to explore occurs. I think I have about 10 techniques that I learned on my own that aren't formally taught in Jow Ga.  some things that the teacher already knew and some are things that he may not know.  Either way they weren't taught in Jow ga and I didn't grab them from the other system.
> 
> So at this point I understand what you are describing.
> 
> I understand this as well as I have used what I learn in Taiji about relaxing an sensing in my Jow Ga.
> 
> i just finished reading your whole post.  I understand what you are saying.  I personally don't think it's an Aikido thing because I can pull out examples of how those things (similar things) have happened to me. I'm more likely to use a Taiji Concept with my Jow Ga, than a Taiji technique. This is why I can tell how weak or how strong a person's stance is based on how their punch lands on me.  But I still have to learn how to deal with attacks.  I can't use that concept by itself.


I definitely don't think it's anything unique to the aiki arts. I do think - from my rather shallow analysis - that it's more prevalent in the arts derived from Daito-ryu than I've seen elsewhere. It's part of the reason I think some critiques are misplaced (they don't understand the learning approach), and also a reason I think there are some very valid criticisms (I think there are students and instructors who also don't understand the approach, which makes their outcome problematic).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why do all Aikido training have to start with grabbing? Can Aikido training start from his opponent's kick or punch?
> 
> Also why do you always have to wait for your opponent to move in toward you? How about you move in toward your opponent instead?


There definitely are Aikido responses to both kicks and punches. I've never trained any of their kick responses, but many of their techniques have punch application. As for moving first, that depends how they've trained. Many of the techniques really aren't suited to initial movement. Someone commented earlier about how being an able striker fits with that. The same exists in NGA - if you aren't a good striker, you're pretty much stuck on defense until an opportunity opens, if you want to do most of the classical techniques (there are a few that are close-in techniques - part of our Judo influence). But if you can work with strikes, you can control things to get to the opportunities.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I would say the common sense is missing. We all know that if you pick up my left leg, you then hook up my right leg, since I have no leg left, I will have to fall.
> 
> As a throwing art, does Aikido have technique such as:
> 
> - control one of your opponent's leg,
> - control his other leg, and
> - take him down?
> 
> Why can't we train a throwing art just from the "common sense" instead?


We could. But that's not what everyone wants. IMO, the aiki arts (at least all the ones I've had a glimpse into, and including those that don't really conform to the more accurate definition of "aiki") have a specific focus, and part of what folks enjoy about them is the challenge of that focus.


----------



## O'Malley

O'Malley said:


> And he hated judo because its founder supposedly learned it in China.



Can't edit, but I meant the founders of Yoshin Ryu and Kito Ryu, which form the basis from which J. Kano synthesised judo.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I wonder if terms like heaven and earth throw people off into the spiritual stuff.  If my understanding is correct, they don't mean the same thing in Asian cultures as it means in western cultures.


----------



## JowGaWolf

O'Malley said:


> It would be interesting to discuss what makes a martial art but that is another topic.
> 
> 
> 
> To be more precise, it develops physical and mental attributes that are useful in self defense. This, coupled with alive and intense training (done through sparring sessions after classes) allowed early generations of practitioners to become proficient at fighting and to apply the techniques in real encounters.
> 
> 
> 
> I know, I'm trying to help the best I can but some posts on a forum are peanuts compared to real training.
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, aikido instructors that are interested in functionality, know the why's and don'ts of the system _and _can fight are almost non existent, although I'd put a penny on guys like Bruce Bookman.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't expect the Spanish inquisition! (Sorry, couldn't resist)
> 
> I'll try to illustrate my point with an example. How much history do you have to know to use a fork? If, like me, you're from a working class background but one day you somehow ended up eating at a high-end restaurant, you might have tried to crack the code of "which fork to use for what". Personally, this put my reasoning skills to the test, and although I guessed some things right (the dessert spoon was an easy one) I ended up using the meat knife for fish (or whatever). Now, from a functional perspective, I used the meat knife in a 100% valid manner and it did a great job at cutting the fish. Yet, saying that I understand how to use that knife would be a bit of a stretch.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I agree with you, it's difficult (and imagine having to do it for the whole art you're trying to study, all the while trying to figure out what's BS and what's good, in light of extremely poor results in cross-style exchanges). That's why I try to apply critical thinking, stick to the most reliable sources and exchange with practitioners of other arts.
> 
> 
> 
> When uke is unbalanced on contact, he relies on tori for his balance, so his reflex is to keep holding. Otherwise he'll fall. You can see this here at the 1:20 mark:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the fresh perspective on aikido that you are trying to bring, and I didn't mean to discourage you. My point was no more than a caveat: you might come up with something perfectly valid from a Jow Ga or functionality perspective (as I did with the knife) and you might even guess something right (the dessert spoon). However, it is very different from understanding the movements in light of the core principles and goals of aikido, which I can guarantee you won't. Many martial artists have tried to do so and most of those interpretations don't hold up to the facts (like the weapons retention stuff). They are innovations and while they might actually be very valuable from a practical perspective, they are just different from aikido as it was designed. That being said, I'm actually very curious to see what you'd come up with.
> 
> 
> 
> Morihei Ueshiba's speeches had multiple layers of interpretation, and technical explanations were done through spiritual imagery (= the guy talked and nobody understood). However, this is a very concrete, physical concept. At its most basic, it involves using visualisations to pull the tissues in your body in opposing directions at the same time (up-down, left-right, front-back, etc.), which creates internal tension that you use to maintain your structure when force is applied to you (this description has probably holes due to my limited understanding of the phenomenon and the limits of written descriptions of physical movements). If you look at the Sunadomari video from 1:10 on, he first shows "normal" movement, then movement under the effects of this internal tension, which is called "aiki". With your CMA background, you might see similarities with Chen Taiji's "pulling silk" or the pile-standing of Xingyi and Yi Quan. Actually, Ueshiba used the exact same formula as the Chinese internal arts as he talked about "unifying heaven, earth and man".
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on your goals, I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> Several authors have thoroughly researched Ueshiba's pre-Daito-Ryu training, including Ellis Amdur and Simone Chierchini:
> 
> "This long analysis, therefore, led us to the following conclusions, based on what (little and confused) is known about the life story of the young Morihei: before devoting himself body and soul to Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu under Sokaku Takeda, he had trained for a few months in Tenjin Shinyo-Ryu, he had received occasional teaching in Yagyu Ryu jujutsu, and had practiced Judo for a few months. This was Morihei Ueshiba’s entire martial career outside of Daito, as far as it is currently known. The fact that Morihei has studied, practiced and achieved mastery in a large number of martial disciplines would seem to be a complete fabrication." - Entire essay here: Ueshiba’s Martial Arts Career Before Aikido Was Born
> 
> 
> 
> "At any rate, Morihei Ueshiba was a remarkable guy. He was a force for good, but this simplistic idea that aikido was created to create peace on earth is just not fully informed. Back in the early eighties, a number of us, under the direction of Phil Relnick, created an organization called the Japan Martial Arts Society (JMAS).  Four times a year, we’d have great martial artists come and present to non-Japanese living in Japan. Doshu Kisshomaru, O-Sensei’s son, did a presentation, and one very sincere guy raises his hand and through translation says, “When did your father become a pacifist?” Someone translates this to Doshu, and he sort of looks like, “What?” The guy translates it again, and he just cracked up. I mean, there were tears in his eyes, and he said, “My father was never a pacifist.”" - Source: Ellis Amdur: On Aikido – Aikido Journal
> 
> 
> 
> This has been recognised by the current Doshu:
> 
> “To the spirit of the past Doshu”
> by San-Dai Doshu Moriteru Ueshiba
> 
> “The techniques and way of Aikido that the founder O-Sensei left us, was not always easily understood by everyone. Doshu, my father, changed these so they would be easily understood, and he gave all of his life to spread this. For that reason he left behind many books that he had written. I grew up watching Doshu return from keiko to study and write for long hours and even with my child’s eyes I could see the importance of this work” - Source: Iwama-Ryu Türkiye
> 
> It has also been researched to death: The Ueshiba Legacy, by Mark Murray - Aikido Sangenkai Blog ; Is O-Sensei Really the Father of Modern Aikido?, by Stanley Pranin – Aikido Journal
> 
> 
> 
> Tadashi Abe started training at 16 with no martial background, Rinjiro Shirata at 18, Hiroshi Isoyama at 12 (!), Terry Dobson had studied the lethal art of... American football, and I could name more. The "finishing school" thing is a hoax. The IMAF is an administrative body outside of aikido, they'll publish any brief sent by the Aikikai.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not that familiar with what the Tomiki folks do but they tend to have sound ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> I like that. I also like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would have liked to see him do it in sparring, I remember some live training footage on their channel. BTW Sumo does it against resistance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See this video from 1:09 onwards:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have good examples of aikido application against resistance? No need for competition footage (you'd only have Tomiki stuff I guess) but a sparring video would be nice, as these are rare to find.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good points.
> 
> 
> 
> Aikido was Daito-ryu, plain and simple. As I said, Ueshiba didn't really have much training outside of DR (although a hip throw made its way from Yagyu Shingan Ryu to aikido, it's our koshi nage). And he hated judo because its founder supposedly learned it in China. That said, I also think that the 3000 techniques gimmick was to emphasise the fact that one could incorporate anything into aikido, which is about principles, not technical repertoire (in this, Ueshiba was not different from the other top Daito-Ryu instructors, who said the exact same thing). Also, I agree with what you've said about modern aikido: the current repertoire is much more limited now: you've got basically a dozen of techniques done from various attacks (grab, chop, etc.): the pins (5 techniques), shiho nage, tenchi nage, ude kime nage, kote gaeshi, irimi nage, kaiten nage and that's about it.


 Thanks I appreciate the info, your time and patience with this


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> We could. But that's not what everyone wants. IMO, the aiki arts (at least all the ones I've had a glimpse into, and including those that don't really conform to the more accurate definition of "aiki") have a specific focus, and part of what folks enjoy about them is the challenge of that focus.


So what is the "aiki" that focus on?

If we look at 100 different throws, will you be able to category a set of throws that meet the aiki requirement, and another set of throws that doesn't meet the aiki require?

Does the following video (you attack first) meet the aiki requirement"?


----------



## isshinryuronin

Kung Fu Wang said:


> So what is the "aiki" that focus on?
> 
> If we look at 100 different throws, will you be able to category a set of throws that meet the aiki requirement, and another set of throws that doesn't meet the aiki require?
> 
> Does the following video (you attack first) meet the aiki requirement"?


This is a good example of aggressive defense.  The guy on the left has his arm out, so I'm supposing it was some kind of attack or feint.  The guy on the right _moves in and attacks _the arm, setting up the sweep, leg grab and takedown.  The latter part of this compound attack may not have succeeded if the attacks on the arm did not set it up.  It accomplished this by blocking the punch, working up on the arm to keep it out of play, all the while closing the distance and distracting the opponent which allowed the sweep, which in turn set up the takedown.  This may have been a staged demo, but nevertheless, was very well executed.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> I've spent several posts explaining the reason some people have that perception, with video links and I've been pretty in depth about it. If you want to go back and read you can come back and I can go point by point with you if you have a technical argument.



Ok here is my technical argument. If someone said there is no good mma or there are no nice mma schools or it doesn't work on the street. Or virtually any criticism that is put on a martial arts school I could find video countering that.

And then i could support a claim that it is not the system because this school does this thing.

Arguing that some other school does some bad thing does not support an argument that my school does a good thing.

So the argument is Aikido has enough evidence of compliant training and not enough evidence of non compliance to suggest that in this case it really is the system.

So for example. This is Lachlan Giles. And he sells a system. And to show his system works he employs it with resistance against everyone at his seminar.






So you can say there is evidence his system works. You don't even have to understand how the system works so long as you understand the guy who taps is the guy who has lost.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> So the argument is Aikido has enough evidence of compliant training and not enough evidence of non compliance to suggest that in this case it really is the system.


Do we have any Aikido clip that 2 persons wrestle against each other?


----------



## isshinryuronin

Kung Fu Wang said:


> (Zimen principles)
> 1. 残 - disabled, cruelty
> 2. 推 - push
> 3. 援 - assisted
> 4. 夺 - seized
> 5. 牵 - pulled
> 6. 捺 - pinched
> 7. 逼 - forced
> 8. 吸 - sucked



While I am not a kung fu practitioner, these principles seem a lot like something I have read about, called the "Eight Gates" of kung fu:
  1.  Peng - to ward off, gather then give back
  2.  Lu - roll back, absorb then redirect
  3.  Chi - press, stop hit
  4.  An - push down
  5.  Tsai - pull down
  6.  Leih - split the joints
  7.  Chou - quick strike
  8.  Kao - full body strike
The first four of these being called "the 4 laws of quan fa," and were respectively referred to as: float, swallow, spit and sink.  Are your Zimen principles a variation/adaptation of these 8 gates, do you think?  And do they represent the basic concepts/types of technique taught in CMA?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> So what is the "aiki" that focus on?
> 
> If we look at 100 different throws, will you be able to category a set of throws that meet the aiki requirement, and another set of throws that doesn't meet the aiki require?
> 
> Does the following video (you attack first) meet the aiki requirement"?


Using my own understanding of the term (which isn't the classical definition), I certainly could, though I'd be putting things in two groups. There's one I call "pure aiki", and very few live applications make it into that group (I see it as a training pursuit more than an application pursuit). But to me, that clip would't fall into either aiki category because of a lack of body involvement, opposing forces (a short name I sometimes use for a more complicated concept - hard to describe in a short comment), and stability when the first leg is attacked (the footwork favors mobility more). That's a first-blush reaction, and feeling the same throw I might change my mind.

But, again, my view is not likely to line up with folks in Aikido. NGA's approach to aiki is quite different from what I've seen in Aikido circles. And my view is a minority view in NGA.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

isshinryuronin said:


> While I am not a kung fu practitioner, these principles seem a lot like something I have read about, called the "Eight Gates" of kung fu:
> 1.  Peng - to ward off, gather then give back
> 2.  Lu - roll back, absorb then redirect
> 3.  Chi - press, stop hit
> 4.  An - push down
> 5.  Tsai - pull down
> 6.  Leih - split the joints
> 7.  Chou - quick strike
> 8.  Kao - full body strike
> The first four of these being called "the 4 laws of quan fa," and were respectively referred to as: float, swallow, spit and sink.  Are your Zimen principles a variation/adaptation of these 8 gates, do you think?  And do they represent the basic concepts/types of technique taught in CMA?


You are talking about the Taiji system 13 postures.

Peng (ward-off)
Lu (roll-back)
Chi (press)
An (push)
Tsai (pull-down)
Lieh (split)
Chou (elbow strike)
Kao (shoulder strike)
Chin (advance)
Tui (retreat)
Ku (look left)
Pan (look right)
Ting (center)


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> There's one I call "pure aiki",


Will you consider this throw to be more aiki like?


----------



## isshinryuronin

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You are talking about the Taiji system 13 postures.
> 
> Peng (ward-off)
> Lu (roll-back)
> Chi (press)
> An (push)
> Tsai (pull-down)
> Lieh (split)
> Chou (elbow strike)
> Kao (shoulder strike)
> Chin (advance)
> Tui (retreat)
> Ku (look left)
> Pan (look right)
> Ting (center)



Thanks for the clarification.  The last five were termed the "5 steps" in my source.  Those, plus the 8 principles = 13, as you noted.   How is this relevant to an Okinawan stylist?  One of the oldest, and widespread, kata is "Seisan" (of Chinese origin, though much changed as it made the rounds across Okinawa) which is said to refer to the number 13.  One theory has it that a root form of Seisan kata embodied these 13 elements, and thus the name.  An interesting story.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

isshinryuronin said:


> Thanks for the clarification.  The last five were termed the "5 steps" in my source.  Those, plus the 8 principles = 13, as you noted.   How is this relevant to an Okinawan stylist?  One of the oldest, and widespread, kata is "Seisan" (of Chinese origin, though much changed as it made the rounds across Okinawa) which is said to refer to the number 13.  One theory has it that a root form of Seisan kata embodied these 13 elements, and thus the name.  An interesting story.


The concern that I have is the last 5 principles:


Chin (advance)
Tui (retreat)
Ku (look left)
Pan (look right)
Ting (center)
It's just common sense, You move forward, move backward, look at your left, look at your right, remain center. It's pretty much like you go to church and the preacher tells you that you should love your parents, and you should not steal.

Believe it or not, I have seen one workshop that a Taiji instructor just teach how to be "center".

IMO, the last 5 principles are too abstract to have any combat value.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do we have any Aikido clip that 2 persons wrestle against each other?



There is some aikijitsu out there and some obviously rehearsed boxer vs stuff.

Oh. And when people say "yeah man  we do sparring at our club"  this is what you envisaged right?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> There is some aikijitsu out there and some obviously rehearsed boxer vs stuff.
> 
> Oh. And when people say "yeah man  we do sparring at our club"  this is what you envisaged right?


So to apply force in one direction, when your opponent resists, you reverse your force, and apply your force in the opposite direction is commonly used in the Aikido system.

But you don't always need to use aiki to apply this strategy.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Anyone familiar with this guy or with what he's doing?


----------



## isshinryuronin

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The concern that I have is the last 5 principles:
> 
> 
> Chin (advance)
> Tui (retreat)
> Ku (look left)
> Pan (look right)
> Ting (center)
> It's just common sense, You move forward, move backward, look at your left, look at your right, remain center. It's pretty much like you go to church and the preacher tells you that you should love your parents, and you should not steal.
> 
> Believe it or not, I have seen one workshop that a Taiji instructor just teach how to be "center".
> 
> IMO, the last 5 principles are too abstract to have any combat value.



Instead of "look" left and right, think of *step* left and right, sidestepping the opponent and working angles (I learned these as the 5 *steps*.)  This interpretation makes more sense, especially in terms of fighting.  But I agree, it's just common sense to us, but maybe was a more novel idea hundreds of years ago.

As for "centering," I read it as focusing in on your _dan tien_, the center of your body and source of _qi_.  And/or perhaps rooting your stance into the ground as you draw in towards your center, similar to the _Sam Chien (_Sanchin) form.  This is another of the oldest katas and considered by many to be the most fundamental.  Or we can see it as _controlling the center_, a very important and useful concept in combat.

Whatever those old masters meant, we can spin these things in a way relevant to us, look at them from different angles, and use them as starting points to analyze our art, or to at least remind us of concepts that we can actually use.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

isshinryuronin said:


> Whatever those old masters meant, we can spin these things in a way relevant to us, look at them from different angles, and use them as starting points to analyze our art, or to at least remind us of concepts that we can actually use.


Both Chinese wrestling and Aikido are throwing art.

Chinese wrestling uses the following principles. What principles does the Aikido system use?

*撕(Si) - Tearing
崩(Beng) - Cracking
捅(Tong) - Striking push
褪(tun) - Hand pushing
肘(Zhou) - Elbow pressing
蓋(Gai) - Covering hands
攞(Lou)- Pulling hands
搖(Yao) - Body-shaking hands
捯(Dao) - Reverse arm-holding
抖(Dou) – Shaking
分(Fen) - Separate hands
掖(Ye) - Hand tucking
引(Yin) - Arm guiding
捧(Peng) - Arm raising
架(Jia) - Elbow Locking
圈(Quan) – Under hook
抄(Chao) - Over hook
抹(Mo) – Wiping
偏(Pian) – Head circling
夾(Jia) – Clamping head
摘(Zai) – Helmet removing
摀(Wu) – Face covering
速(Su) – Forehead push
墬(Zhui) - Sticking drop
撈 (Lao) – Leg seize
環(Huan) – Neck surrounding
托(Tuo) – Chin pushing
封(Feng) – Throat/waist blocking
撒(Sa) – Casting
飄(Piao) - Floating hand

Here is 飄(Piao) - Floating hand.






*


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Will you consider this throw to be more aiki like?


Not in that execution. The body structure doesn't fit. There appears to be a lot of "shove" in that, where the power is coming from an arm, not the body. And he's off-balance (I think) at the midpoint. That latter part seems intentional, but doesn't fit with my concept of aiki.

Of course, that doesn't mean there's necessarily anything wrong with it. Just doesn't fit the term.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Anyone familiar with this guy or with what he's doing?


I don't know, but that boxer (if boxer he was) wasn't using any power at all, so the Aikidoka was just standing and taking the punches. Hard to tell if he'd be able to do anything against someone delivering punches with power, but his lack of respect for the light punches suggests he hasn't spent much time working against power.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> So to apply force in one direction, when your opponent resists, you reverse your force, and apply your force in the opposite direction is commonly used in the Aikido system.
> 
> But you don't always need to use aiki to apply this strategy.



Yeah. I don't know if aiki is just good timing or magic.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

drop bear said:


> There is some aikijitsu out there and some obviously rehearsed boxer vs stuff.
> 
> Oh. And when people say "yeah man  we do sparring at our club"  this is what you envisaged right?



To be fair for that point, it looks like they took out the full speed and reistance part of the paired kata.    If i recall my Japanese martial arts history right, they did paired kata at full speed to practise with.  (and if the person had a training weapon there is some incentive to get it right so you dont get your head cracked open)    I havent looked into it as far to know, (if)
there is the beggning stage of it, then they ramp it up to full speed.   I dont know if they would do the person attacks you without you knowing what in the kata part.

But thats not really sparring as far as i know, no one would call that sparring, sparing is free fighting.  Everyone considers sparring free fighting, they may make some safety arrangements or lay down some rules to train a specfic area, but if it becomes too scripted its not really sparring anymore.

Oh i also forgot about step sparring, which is a sort of inbetween free sparring and kata. (no idea how Japanese martial arts would do that one or if its a karate thing TKD took, i only did TKD)


This may have been a rpeated point because i by far have not read any reply here.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Not at all. There is no requirement for me to believe something without evidence. That isn't duchey. That is critical thinking.
> 
> It is actually duchey not to provide evidence and instead  rely on emotional attacks.
> 
> Here is how the burden of proof works and why it is fundamental to understanding how things work.


there a sliding scale on what burden,  the burden of proof imposes,  dependent on context,

in science it's on s
sigma  significance, that to what number in a million is there a possibility you may be incorrect, sigma 5 being the usual level of proof

to beyond reasonable doubt, as used in criminal cases, which is far to frequently wrong to be judged as reliable and very inconveniently  requires a jury of your peers to esablish

to the balance of probabilities,  which mostly depends on people making an informed decision to believe your version of events or not

to the general way of believing what people tell you untill they turn out to be a fibber as it doesnt really matter much at all where they went for their holidays

you cant really insist on either of the first two in social interactions, unless you are actually disputing a scientific fact or have a jury handy(and number three is difficult as it requires you to be impartial , which you clearly are not and is a good way to loose friends) unless you playing silly games, they are generally impossible standards to meet and the person, in this case you, knows that. so proof will always be lacking, so they are always correct,  there is indeed no proof, to that impossible standard


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> there a sliding scale on what burden,  the burden of proof imposes,  dependent on context,
> 
> in science it's on s
> sigma  significance, that to what number in a million is there a possibility you may be incorrect, sigma 5 being the usual level of proof
> 
> to beyond reasonable doubt, as used in criminal cases, which is far to frequently wrong to be judged as reliable and very inconveniently  requires a jury of your peers to esablish
> 
> to the balance of probabilities,  which mostly depends on people making an informed decision to believe your version of events or not
> 
> to the general way of believing what people tell you untill they turn out to be a fibber as it doesnt really matter much at all where they went for their holidays
> 
> you cant really insist on either of the first two in social interactions, unless you are actually disputing a scientific fact or have a jury handy(and number three is difficult as it requires you to be impartial , which you clearly are not and is a good way to loose friends) unless you playing silly games, they are generally impossible standards to meet and the person, in this case you, knows that. so proof will always be lacking, so they are always correct,  there is indeed no proof, to that impossible standard



Until it is a consistent standard of an organisation charging money for a service they claim to provide. 

I am pretty sure then I can expect something other than marketing.


----------



## drop bear

Rat said:


> To be fair for that point, it looks like they took out the full speed and reistance part of the paired kata.    If i recall my Japanese martial arts history right, they did paired kata at full speed to practise with.  (and if the person had a training weapon there is some incentive to get it right so you dont get your head cracked open)    I havent looked into it as far to know, (if)
> there is the beggning stage of it, then they ramp it up to full speed.   I dont know if they would do the person attacks you without you knowing what in the kata part.
> 
> But thats not really sparring as far as i know, no one would call that sparring, sparing is free fighting.  Everyone considers sparring free fighting, they may make some safety arrangements or lay down some rules to train a specfic area, but if it becomes too scripted its not really sparring anymore.
> 
> Oh i also forgot about step sparring, which is a sort of inbetween free sparring and kata. (no idea how Japanese martial arts would do that one or if its a karate thing TKD took, i only did TKD)
> 
> 
> This may have been a rpeated point because i by far have not read any reply here.



The point is sparring or resistance gets used a bit to try and convey a meaning that may not necessarily be true. 

They are cat fishing.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Until it is a consistent standard of an organisation charging money for a service they claim to provide.
> 
> I am pretty sure then I can expect something other than marketing.


that unfortunely most of them, ma or otherwise,  marketing and reality seldom match, in my exsperiance

you could of course take them to court for false representation,  which would then put the onus on them to supply proof to a legal standard, the fact that this doesnt seem to happen all that often perhaps means the express claims are being met, it's the implied ones that are commonly the issue, in the service industry generally

in the mean time you can carry on building strawmen and demanding proof that's impossible to suppy on an internet forum


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> that unfortunely most of them, ma or otherwise,  marketing and reality seldom match, in my exsperiance
> 
> you could of course take them to court for false representation,  which would then put the onus on them to supply proof to a legal standard, the fact that this doesnt seem to happen all that often perhaps means the express claims are being met, it's the implied ones that are commonly the issue, in the service industry generally
> 
> in the mean time you can carry on building strawmen and demanding proof that's impossible to suppy on an internet forum



I know right. If only Aikido wasn't invisible to cameras then they wouldn't get picked on so much.


----------



## BrendanF

jobo said:


> that unfortunely most of them, ma or otherwise,  marketing and reality seldom match, in my exsperiance
> 
> you could of course take them to court for false representation,  which would then put the onus on them to supply proof to a legal standard



lol.  Don't give up the day job mate.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> I know right. If only Aikido wasn't invisible to cameras then they wouldn't get picked on so much.


I wouldnt know,  my life has significantly more reward and balance than would allow me to devote much into ploughing through you tube vids to find out. added to which I'm really not that interested  in doing so, I'd find it a bind if someone was paying me

absence of evidence is not however evidence of absence,

as discussed the burden of proof is your yours,  to support statements you make, not on me to prove you wrong


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> I wouldnt know,  my life has significantly more reward and balance than would allow me to devote much into ploughing through you tube vids to find out. added to which I'm really not that interested  in doing so, I'd find it a bind if someone was paying me
> 
> absence of evidence is not however evidence of absence,
> 
> as discussed the burden of proof is your yours,  to support statements you make, not on me to prove you wrong



Time and effort is the major factor here. 


The thing is from a practical stand point the absence of evidence is evidence of absence is a pretty good rule of thumb when looking at martial arts.

Because nobody should  be forced to buy in, and especially buy in for years. To find out if the martial art does what it claims.

We do sparring but you just can't see it. Is the practical equivalent of we don't do sparring. Ok they might. But why waste time finding out?


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Time and effort is the major factor here.
> 
> 
> The thing is from a practical stand point the absence of evidence is evidence of absence is a pretty good rule of thumb when looking at martial arts.
> 
> Because nobody should  be forced to buy in, and especially buy in for years. To find out if the martial art does what it claims.
> 
> We do sparring but you just can't see it. Is the practical equivalent of we don't do sparring. Ok they might. But why waste time finding out?


nobody is forced to buy into anything


----------



## JowGaWolf

The best way as an outside user to identify what's works in Aikido is to simply start with the simple stuff.  Simple things are often things that we have seen work in various systems and in various levels of intensity.  Many of the simple stuff are things that other people have the ability to to as well.  This adds the validity without the need to actually see it.  If I see Aikido do something that I'm often doing in Jow Ga then I can be comfortable about the function of it within Aikido.  For example, how I notice the discussion about using the forearm to intercept a strike.  I know it can be used against jabs so that gives me enough evidence to feel comfortable that it can be done in Aikido as well.  I don't need an Aikido practitioner to actually prove this to me so long as how he describes it is accurate.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> The best way as an outside user to identify what's works in Aikido is to simply start with the simple stuff.  Simple things are often things that we have seen work in various systems and in various levels of intensity.  Many of the simple stuff are things that other people have the ability to to as well.  This adds the validity without the need to actually see it.  If I see Aikido do something that I'm often doing in Jow Ga then I can be comfortable about the function of it within Aikido.  For example, how I notice the discussion about using the forearm to intercept a strike.  I know it can be used against jabs so that gives me enough evidence to feel comfortable that it can be done in Aikido as well.  I don't need an Aikido practitioner to actually prove this to me so long as how he describes it is accurate.



This is kind of false as well. Because  we need to add this idea of the back of house needed to make a technique work. 

So just because a guy uses the same technique really doesn't make it the same technique. And why white belts don't coach.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> nobody is forced to buy into anything



Ok then lay this stuff out so I can see it. Show me the working Aikido.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Ok then lay this stuff out so I can see it. Show me the working Aikido.


I said nothing about aikido,  just a general statement that no one is forced to buy into it or any other ma, they always, it seems volunteer


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> This is kind of false as well. Because  we need to add this idea of the back of house needed to make a technique work.
> 
> So just because a guy uses the same technique really doesn't make it the same technique. And why white belts don't coach.


If you get to this point, then you have gone beyond basics.  A jab is a jab regardless of which technique you use to drive it.  The concept is going to be the same across systems.

A quick linear (straight forward) lead punch
keep elbows in (close to your center)
No matter what system you are in.  You can recognize this. You can give these 2 characteristics and tell someone who has never punched to punch in this manner the result will be a jab.   We also know that these 2 things are effective for delivering a punch.  So any variation of it knife hand, open palm, vertical fist. or finger strike that uses these 2 characteristics can be assumed to have similar practical use, since the only thing that is changing is the tip of the spear.  Depending on the type of "spear tip you have" this same motion may not become more effective for close range or pushing the chin back.  The motion that the jab uses doesn't become in effective just because it's not the same technique as the jab.

You don't want to look for the exact same technique.  If you want to look for the exact same technique then you need to actually try using the exact same technique.  The danger you'll have there, is that "exactly the same technique"  will get you in trouble.  Jow Ga has a reverse punch where you move your rear foot away first before you punch.  To do the exact technique in this case would be foolish, because in this cash. This is a training technique and not an application technique.

From what I'm reading from people where.  Aikido has a lot Training Techniques that help train you how to make the connections needed for the application of a technique.  If you do exactly what you see then you run across the risk of invalidating a Training Technique as something that was never created to be used in application.  That's why I was so stubborn with the "Aikido Chop"  I needed to know if it's a Training Technique or an Application Technique.

If someone came up to me and told me Jow Ga didn't work because we stepped our foot out first before punching.  Then I would say, That's  training technique and not a fighting technique.  Just like Speed Bag punching is a training technique and not an Application technique.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> I said nothing about aikido,  just a general statement that no one is forced to buy into it or any other ma, they always, it seems volunteer



Like a pyramid scheme or a religion you need to buy in before you see results. And those results are always just one more step away.

Not that you are forced to do Aikido.

So for example I can't just go to a religion and ask them to show me this heaven I am theoretically going to get for an investment.

I have to go through the process to find out.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Like a pyramid scheme or a religion you need to buy in before you see results. And those results are always just one more step away.
> 
> Not that you are forced to do Aikido.
> 
> So for example I can't just go to a religion and ask them to show me this heaven I am theoretically going to get for an investment.
> 
> I have to go through the process to find out.


well you generally dont need to " invest" to get to heaven,  but you due generaly have to die to do so.

so I cant see it's a reasonable comparison.

also in my exsperiance religious people tend to be happier than non, so even if no heaven, they received benifits for their participation,

I consider that's because superstition and ceremony  are the natral state of human beings and naturalism is unnatural, this does of course leave them open to being manipulated, but no more so than simply watching tv


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> well you generally dont need to " invest" to get to heaven,  but you due generaly have to die to do so.
> 
> so I cant see it's a reasonable comparison.
> 
> also in my exsperiance religious people tend to be happier than non, so even if no heaven, they received benifits for their participation,
> 
> I consider that's because superstition and ceremony  are the natral state of human beings and naturalism is unnatural, this does of course leave them open to being manipulated, but no more so than simply watching tv



No.

It is generally thought that you don't just die and go to heaven. You have to fill requirements on earth to be admitted. And this will change depending on the organisation. So you do need to invest in that organisation to enter a reward that you are never sure is real.

This is just like a martial art that will tell you there is this end point where you succeed. If you invest in their organisation. But you never see anyone reach this point.

There are considerable parallels between the two.

So we can look at a claim.

Why Yoshinkan Aikido? Above all, because it works!

And we get assurances without evidence of effectiveness.

miracles to convince people to believe?


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> No.
> 
> It is generally thought that you don't just die and go to heaven. You have to fill requirements on earth to be admitted. And this will change depending on the organisation. So you do need to invest in that organisation to enter a reward that you are never sure is real.
> 
> This is just like a martial art that will tell you there is this end point where you succeed. If you invest in their organisation. But you never see anyone reach this point.
> 
> There are considerable parallels between the two.
> 
> So we can look at a claim.
> 
> Why Yoshinkan Aikido? Above all, because it works!
> 
> And we get assurances without evidence of effectiveness.
> 
> miracles to convince people to believe?


are you talking about emotional investment or financial investment,

yes, religion requires emotional investment, ma however doesnt,  so it's still not a good comparison, you have clearly emotionaly invested  mma, that's not necessarily normal or healthy behaviour


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> are you talking about emotional investment or financial investment,
> 
> yes, religion requires emotional investment, ma however doesnt,  so it's still not a good comparison, you have clearly emotionaly invested  mma, that's not necessarily normal or healthy behaviour



You quite often have to exhibit the right qualities to advance in martial arts. There is definitely an emotional investment in doing that. 

If I was not emotionally invested. What criteria would I use to determine which martial art is the best choice?


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> You quite often have to exhibit the right qualities to advance in martial arts. There is definitely an emotional investment in doing that.
> 
> If I was not emotionally invested. What criteria would I use to determine which martial art is the best choice?


but that's the same as asking how do you choose the best religion  for yourself, it rather depends on personal circumstances and aspirations or you might equal choose non at all as being the best fit

at the moment, you closly resemble a religious zealot, screaming everyone else is wrong if they dont see it your way

do you want to get punched in the head multiple time a week,,,, no? dont do mma 

would seem a good starting point for a decision


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> but that's the same as asking how do you choose the best religion  for yourself, it rather depends on personal circumstances and aspirations or you might equal choose non at all as being the best fit
> 
> at the moment, you closly resemble a religious zealot, screaming everyone else is wrong if they dont see it your way
> 
> do you want to get punched in the head multiple time a week,,,, no? dont do mma
> 
> would seem a good starting point for a decision



Not really. Choosing the best martial arts on personal aspirations would be emotionally investing in it. Same as religion. 

So the zealot would argue the emotion not the evidence.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Not really. Choosing the best martial arts on personal aspirations would be emotionally investing in it. Same as religion.
> 
> So the zealot would argue the emotion not the evidence.


youd be emotionally invested in the asperation not the art if your invested at all

people can have an aspiration to have a green car, and choose accordingly,  they are not emotional invested in the car, they are invested in the colour , preference in colour is a major factor in car choice,  you may think they bought a poor car and you may be right, but its their aspiration and their choice


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> youd be emotionally invested in the asperation not the art if your invested at all
> 
> people can have an aspiration to have a green car, and choose accordingly,  they are not emotional invested in the car, they are invested in the colour , preference in colour is a major factor in car choice,  you may think they bought a poor car and you may be right, but its their aspiration and their choice



So you cant just look objectively at the better car?

It has to be the car that makes you look cool or something.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> So you cant just look objectively at the better car?
> 
> It has to be the car that makes you look cool or something.


I can but lots of people cant, shiny,  check, green , check  il have it,

I usualy end up sorting them out, I hesitate to say its normaly women, but it is mostly women and quite a few young men


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> I can but lots of people cant, shiny,  check, green , check  il have it,
> 
> I usualy end up sorting them out, I hesitate to say its normaly women, but it is mostly women and quite a few young men



Ok then how would you objectively measure an art?


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Ok then how would you objectively measure an art?


as soon as you call it art, then it becomes totally subjective,

do you not remember,  the rows they had in the Olympics when they awarded an objective score for artistic merit, cant be done


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Ok then lay this stuff out so I can see it. Show me the working Aikido.



I've linked several of this guys videos, its the best example I have of someone going step by step through practical Aikido.

https://www.youtube.com/c/AikidoflowLondon/videos

I would hesitantly endorse most of this guys channel, I say that not having seen all of his videos, but enough to say that I agree with much of his thoughts and applications of Aikido on a practical level. You ask for video of working Aikido, the stuff he is teaching here can and does work and its basically just vanilla Aikido, end of story. 

I get that its easier to link videos of nonsense and poke fun at it, its way easier to be an absurdist than it is to have a serious discussion. Are there tons of Aikido videos with guys doing uke/nage with zero resistance, sure, the same thing comes up under most systems, to include BJJ when you get a bad instructor and a cult of personality. Is Aikido all nonsense? Well the same wristlocks show up in every police officers defensive tactics course and they were sure a part of the Marine Corps martial arts program, same thing with the throws, arm bars, etc. 

Does practical Aikido look the same in a real fight as it does in the dojo? Nope, neither does karate, ju-jitsu or any other Japanese unarmed or armed martial art, that doesn't mean the systems are garbage, don't work or are invisible. Here's a video from UF pro showing a "martial artist" trying to defend against knife attacks, it looks the exact same as what I would expect one of my students to look like during the same kind of exercise:






Take a look at any martial art out of context such as BJJ or "MMA" for example, its common, even in the UFC, to see an MMA fighter square up on their back against a standing opponent. If you lay on your back in a real fight you are going to be kicked in the legs, groin and face until you get off your back or go unconscious. It's also very common to see fighters expose part or all of the back of their head and spine to an opponent who has at least one free arm, which would be an instant target for anyone outside of a ring to strike, but we dont see it in MMA because there are strict rules against targeting the neck/spine. There are no kicks to the knees in MMA, and when not prohibited outright they are largely not used by fighters in fear of a reprisal knee strike. Fights are stopped once one of the competitors is cut, knocked out, etc. 

Comparing everything to MMA is as much wishing on practical magic as anything. Iado cutting drills look nothing like a sword fight, yet we don't have the same arguments about whether or not they work or are an example of real martial arts. BJJ sparring does not simulate a real fight, the entire martial art contains no strikes, yet we don't have the same argument. Aikido has a lot of sillyness attached to it, I get it, between the post war peace and love stuff and all of the hippy garbage that got poured into it here during the karate boom, its maybe the easiest target for mockery. This "show me the real Aikido or it doesn't exist" is a logical fallacy, I would no more expect to see a guy throwing karate chops on the street than I would someone starting a fight by kneeling down in front of them and getting on their knees like in BJJ. 

I can see footage from decent schools here and in Japan and see people who at least know the technique and are applying it in uke/nage fairly well, enough to make it "work on the street" from a technical point of view. Whether those people have trained themselves to be actual "fighters" who can apply it in the real world is something else and I can notice the same issues in any other martial arts school. If I walked into any dojo in the country, regardless of style, I'd be hard pressed to find more than a tiny handful (if any) training there who could "practically apply" their skills in a real world scenario and even less who would then be captured on CCTV or camera footage who looked as if they were using good technique. Most people go their whole lives without a serious fight, even fewer people have multiple fights, so if we are talking about "combative martial arts" how is it that Aikido techniques and methods consistently show up in law enforcement and military unarmed combative systems where the actual chance of using the techniques are higher than the rest of society? 

Ask a few police or security guard/bouncer types how many times they have used a "come along" pain compliance technique like a wrist, finger or arm lock or a grounding throw or a joint manipulation take down and you will likely end up hearing about an Aikido/Judo technique being used. Does this mean Aikido is the end all, be all martial art? No. Am I saying Aikido is a holistic system that does not require or benefit from blending with another style? No. I would say, like any martial art, you will need more than any one system to reach a competent level of experience and technique that will make you well rounded. I also think that to make it practical you are going to have to pair it with at least one other discipline, meaning Judo/Boxing/etc but I would say the same about Judo/Boxing or any other martial art. The Japanese martial arts, especially, were modular in nature and you were expected to learn multiple ryu to be a competent warrior as a samurai or even full time Ashigaru being retained as a man at arms.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Is Aikido all nonsense? Well the same wristlocks show up in every police officers defensive tactics course



Don't even get me started there.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> as soon as you call it art, then it becomes totally subjective,
> 
> do you not remember,  the rows they had in the Olympics when they awarded an objective score for artistic merit, cant be done



Then don't call it art.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Then don't call it art.


you just called it ''art'' have you been drinking ?
if  don't call art,,, art it has next to no value at all


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Don't even get me started there.



Ahh, I see you only intend to play the part of the contrarian.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shatteredzen said:


> Does practical Aikido look the same in a real fight as it does in the dojo?


I know this is difficult for many people to understand.  Both practitioners and non practitioners often have an inaccurate idea of what it looks like in application.  
This confusion is because TMA practice forms and applications separately.  I train both kung fu forms and application forms.  My applications forms  look the same as the traditional form but rougher.  One looks like I'm trying to achieve perfection and focus, while the other looks like I'm fighting.  Because of how I train, I won't be winning and forms competitions anytime soon, unless the judges like that kind of stuff.

I'm going to go out on a limb.  Here about @drop bear .  From his earlier posts I don't think he's asking a lot.  This entire tread started off as 2 or 3 simple techniques and still to this point we don't have an agreement on what's actually going on.  We have different paths to take a look at, and for me that's fine. But for drop bear, I'm going to guess that "paths to choose from" is not a good answer.

So this one we covered before.  The use of the forearm to deal with incoming punches.

He deals with the punch before the 50% mark
He uses his forearm to slow the punch 

He doesn't try to use his hand to deal with the punch.  The problem with this is that if you miss the grab then you are screwed.  So you want to use something that will increase your chances that you can deal with the punch even if you are off target.  




*
Interesting fact.*  His forearms are stronger than the person in the demo.  lol.
*Another interesting fact*.  He either hasn't given it much thought or he's at the beginning of what to do with the punch which is good and is the first step.  
*Another interesting fact.*  He says Jab but his Partner throws a reverse.
Another interesting fact.  He's Demo Partner Curves his punch off target.  In Jow Ga this is a NO NO.  It's better to throw the punch right down the middle and on target.  This way it's easy to identify if you are using the correct technique for the incoming punch.  The demo partner shouldn't have to move the punch .

*Jow Ga Approach*.  Don't use that technique off the reverse punch.  The last thing you want is for that reverse punch to go straight through that gap in guard.

Technique is sound, I just think it's used against the wrong punch / arm here.  I think this is why he's having a difficult time trying to figure out what to do next.  He's stuff isn't adding up because he's on the wrong side of the punch.

The hook block is sound but again,  he has trouble about what to do next.  If you teach "What to do next" then it usually comes easier.  Ask me that question and I'll have an answer without thinking.    He mentions, the most important thing, which is .  "Whatever you do, you have to do it at the same time."

*Another Interesting fact*.  He starts with a two hand block to deal with the hook.  You'll often see this with a lot of self defense videos, I don't like it.  Then he corrects himself and uses one arm to deal with the block and the other arm to land the blow at the same time.   This is the correct way.  

In the short sparring session he throws a reverse punch as the first punch. But he knows what punch is coming and that's a problem.  The demo guy shouldn't the reverse if that's what he's looking for.  They can agree to only linear punches but allow the demo guy to determine how to set that linear punch.

Do I think the techniques that he did are viable?  Yes.  just not off the rear hand.  Using it on the lead jab is better safer and that's my Kung Fu talking.  Again.  I don't doubt the technique.  I just think it was done against the wrong punch.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> you just called it ''art'' have you been drinking ?
> if  don't call art,,, art it has next to no value at all



Yeah but I am not forced to view a martial art subjectively just because it has the word art attached to it. 

I can look at it objectively as well.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Ahh, I see you only intend to play the part of the contrarian.



A lot of police restraints courses are terrible. Mostly because you get told to wrist lock people who are trying to punch you.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> In the short sparring session he throws a reverse punch as the first punch. But he knows what punch is coming and that's a problem. The demo guy shouldn't the reverse if that's what he's looking for. They can agree to only linear punches but allow the demo guy to determine how to set that linear punch.
> 
> Do I think the techniques that he did are viable? Yes. just not off the rear hand. Using it on the lead jab is better safer and that's my Kung Fu talking. Again. I don't doubt the technique. I just think it was done against the wrong punch.



The other guy stops fighting. That isn't a resisted drill. 

It is just made to look like one.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> I would no more expect to see a guy throwing karate chops on the street than I would someone starting a fight by kneeling down in front of them and getting on their knees like in BJJ.



But I can show you BJJ in a real fight.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Yeah but I am not forced to view a martial art subjectively just because it has the word art attached to it.
> 
> I can look at it objectively as well.


well you are, you clearly view them subjectively,  you've just use your own subjectivity to arive at your view, but failed to realise that what you have done


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> The other guy stops fighting. That isn't a resisted drill.
> 
> It is just made to look like one.


I don't think it was meant as a resisting drill showing resistance.  I think it was just a summary explaining the entry concept.


----------



## Shatteredzen

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't think it was meant as a resisting drill showing resistance.  I think it was just a summary explaining the entry concept.



He isnt going to form a cohesive argument or address the entirety of the points you make. As I said before, he is playing the contrarian. He has been given plenty of background, context and honest answers by you, myself and others. He is arguing in bad faith by simply finding singular points to argue as abstract points because he doesnt have a counter argument. Its trolling, plain and simple. Simple repetition on the same theme "I dont believe", when no one is asking for blind faith, he is being given answers to his questions he is simply ignoring them in favor of attacking the straw man he constructed at the beginning.


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> He isnt going to form a cohesive argument or address the entirety of the points you make. As I said before, he is playing the contrarian. He has been given plenty of background, context and honest answers by you, myself and others. He is arguing in bad faith by simply finding singular points to argue as abstract points because he doesnt have a counter argument. Its trolling, plain and simple. Simple repetition on the same theme "I dont believe", when no one is asking for blind faith, he is being given answers to his questions he is simply ignoring them in favor of attacking the straw man he constructed at the beginning.


That's not at all how I have read this exchange. He is simply asking for evidence that has yet to be presented.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> That's not at all how I have read this exchange. He is simply asking for evidence that has yet to be presented.


 Really? It reads as "show me video of Aikido street fights or I don't believe you"

Here's police in the Congo using Kote Gaeshi against a man with a machete 




Here's what looks like a Korean riot cop doing the "impossible" against a man with a knife 




Here's a shoulder throw being used against a man with a knife and a hostage 




Here's some dude doing a kote gaeshi into what looks like an arm bar 




Here's some guy in Brixton using a maybe failed irimi takedown transitioned into what looks like ippon seoi nage against a drunk 




Here's a cop doing a larynx grab against a drunk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAXNmgUz9RU

Here's a cop doing an osoto gari against a drunk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiM2EAsbcjw

How many of these do you want?

He's also been given a novel worth of good information that he's failed to address or converse about because he has been sticking to the same circular argument.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So you cant just look objectively at the better car?
> 
> It has to be the car that makes you look cool or something.


What would constitute “better” will vary by person. It’s not entirely objective, at all.


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> Really? It reads as "show me video of Aikido street fights or I don't believe you"
> 
> Here's police in the Congo using Kote Gaeshi against a man with a machete
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what looks like a Korean riot cop doing the "impossible" against a man with a knife
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a shoulder throw being used against a man with a knife and a hostage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some dude doing a kote gaeshi into what looks like an arm bar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's some guy in Brixton using a maybe failed irimi takedown transitioned into what looks like ippon seoi nage against a drunk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a cop doing a larynx grab against a drunk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAXNmgUz9RU
> 
> Here's a cop doing an osoto gari against a drunk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiM2EAsbcjw
> 
> How many of these do you want?
> 
> He's also been given a novel worth of good information that he's failed to address or converse about because he has been sticking to the same circular argument.


To be fair, showing a hip toss and a shoulder throw against people that are focused elsewhere and saying 'see, aikido works' is a little bit thin, but ok. 
I could point to those same videos and say..see judo/wrestling/BJJ works but nobody is arguing against that.

So to ask a more pertinent question, why is it in your opinion aikido does not work in competition?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> What would constitute “better” will vary by person. It’s not entirely objective, at all.



Yeah. But it's being argued as entirely subjective.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> He's also been given a novel worth of good information that he's failed to address or converse about because he has been sticking to the same circular argument.



Most of it wasn't really accurate. And was complicated and time consuming to go point by point on it.

Like the police locks and holds. Which are not generally viewed as practical for a bunch of reasons. The first machete video is a demo. BJJ don't really jump guard in the manner you say and double legs done right Don expose the back of the neck. (Which is where I assumed you were going with that one)

And then there is a whole bunch of nuance that makes risk and reward decisions different in a real fight than what you might get told dogmatically. And so there can be just pages of misconception that I could iron out. But I didn't really have the time to do it.

The issue is there is no link between the training and the application. As you said street Aikido looks nothing like it is trained.

Where there are successful street martial arts that go pretty much the same as they are trained.

There was a poster here who raised this question "prove 2+2=4"

And this is a really good metaphor for martial arts. Because if 1+1=2 and 1+1+1+1=4 and so on and all the parts can be linked to the conclusion that 2+2=4 that proves the equation.

And this is the same as martial arts.

So we can look at say one technique. The double leg. And it works pretty much the same everywhere. And people who are really good at it are constantly good at it. And can use it in every circumstance that applies to that move. 1+1=2 Against different people in different environments. It doesn't matter. They can hit this move consistently.

And it is this consensus of the parts that makes the whole.

Rather than trying to trace a broken line between a cop choke slaming a guy and an Aikido technique. So therefore your whole method is justified.

When you could be missing a ton of back of house that makes that move work.

Which is the back of house we are generally asking for when we ask for video.

So that you can literally unpack your martial art at any time and use it.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Most of it wasn't really accurate. And was complicated and time consuming to go point by point on it.
> 
> Like the police locks and holds. Which are not generally viewed as practical for a bunch of reasons. The first machete video is a demo. BJJ don't really jump guard in the manner you say and double legs done right Don expose the back of the neck. (Which is where I assumed you were going with that one)
> 
> And then there is a whole bunch of nuance that makes risk and reward decisions different in a real fight than what you might get told dogmatically. And so there can be just pages of misconception that I could iron out. But I didn't really have the time to do it.
> 
> The issue is there is no link between the training and the application. As you said street Aikido looks nothing like it is trained.
> 
> Where there are successful street martial arts that go pretty much the same as they are trained.
> 
> There was a poster here who raised this question "prove 2+2=4"
> 
> And this is a really good metaphor for martial arts. Because if 1+1=2 and 1+1+1+1=4 and so on and all the parts can be linked to the conclusion that 2+2=4 that proves the equation.
> 
> And this is the same as martial arts.
> 
> So we can look at say one technique. The double leg. And it works pretty much the same everywhere. And people who are really good at it are constantly good at it. And can use it in every circumstance that applies to that move. 1+1=2 Against different people in different environments. It doesn't matter. They can hit this move consistently.
> 
> And it is this consensus of the parts that makes the whole.
> 
> Rather than trying to trace a broken line between a cop choke slaming a guy and an Aikido technique. So therefore your whole method is justified.
> 
> When you could be missing a ton of back of house that makes that move work.
> 
> Which is the back of house we are generally asking for when we ask for video.
> 
> So that you can literally unpack your martial art at any time and use it.



You link a video of a guy choking a guy out on the street as an example of "BJJ in a fight" and yet 7 videos showing the same amount of substance are a "broken line" towards proving my point? Sure. You have been arguing that Aikido and more recently, police training is all people trying to catch punches to throw wrist locks, yet when given detailed explanation you breeze over it and now dismiss it as "pages of misconception". 

Let's take the double leg takedown, the first move you learn in high school wrestling, it works great, until you run into anyone that expects it. Try a double leg takedown in an actual fight against someone who knows what they are doing and you are going to end up with a knee in your face, someone wailing on the back of your head or choked in a guillotine. Does the technique work? Sure, sometimes, against people who don't expect it or who don't know how to counter it. As a constantly repeatable technique? No, because there is for one, no such thing as a move that works equally well against different people, in different environments. It doesn't work two out of two times in MMA much less anywhere else, that's why so many schools train to sprawl.

The two wrist lock techniques you seem to think makeup the entirety of Aikido are taught as counters to a grab. They work perfectly fine for this purpose, to disarm an attacker or to disable a violent drunk, which, contrary to what you may think, is the vast majority of violent assaults a member of the public will face, if ever, in their lifetime. I can count on one finger, the number of street fights I have been in with a well trained, disciplined opponent and that lasted long enough for him to get a baton across the shin and to get put in handcuffs. What I can tell you is that I have been attacked many times by people trying to hit me with things, stab me or someone else or trying your famous double leg takedown and the aikido has ended plenty of those altercations in one or two techniques, with minimal or sometimes even no injury to everyone involved. I've also never arrived on scene to a martial arts fight in progress between two experienced fighters, nor have I heard about that happening to anyone else I have ever worked with. Surprise! Martial arts masters tend to not walk around getting into street fights. 

  Fights in the real world don't work like an MMA ring, the combatants are rarely sober or athletic and usually the person doing the assault on a regular person is an idiot with little to no training. Criminals are generally lazy people who are fairly cowardly and many times are on drugs. The other place where people like to fight is the bar, where technique beyond wild haymakers ever gets used. For these altercations, Aikido and its underlying principles, tend to work fine. Now if we are talking about a professional, mixed martial arts fight in a ring, Aikido is not going to work well, its hard to do hand manipulations against a sweaty, greased up opponent with MMA gloves on. Finger and wrist locks are banned, slams against a fighter on the ground looking to execute a technique are banned and any single martial art in this setting is going to be at a severe disadvantage without another discipline to round it out. IE BJJ without striking is next to worthless, same with Aikido, you would have to at least pair it with something like boxing or some other combative striking discipline (hence MMA) to make any of it practical. If you get on the ground in a street fight you are getting kicked in the face by the friend of whoever you are fighting, that's a fact more often than not. 

  I'll concede that a majority of what we see and how we see it trained in the Aikido world is not good and not realistic, but that's different than writing off the whole system. It's also not a simple case of imaginary punch catching and for the record, I'm advocating for people to learn it alongside other stuff like judo, BJJ, etc, thats how I learned it and it has informed and helped me in those other pursuits. Now you can take what I've said or not, you can continue to insist that no one has met your personal litmus test but for the purposes of honestly explaining the merits/flaws of Aikido as a system, I think you've been given enough time, energy and explanation to change your mind or re-evaluate your opinion of it being imaginary punch catching if your mind is actually open enough to have a valid discussion. As I said before, if your just here to troll then be honest about it, because short snippy one liners are not a counter argument and neither is throwing out false prepositions like you have been.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Not going to read all 26 pages, but I don't judge a martial art based on how it holds up against other martial arts.

For me, here's how the test goes:
- martial artist who practices a particular martial art and has never been in a real fight before.

Versus

- person who is untrained, but experienced in real fights and can hold his own against other untrained people.

Give them both some MMA gloves, and put them in the ring together.

The reason why I go by that standard is because the person that you're likely going to have to defend yourself from in real life is neither trained in martial arts nor inexperienced in fighting.  Also, training in a particular martial art should stand on its own merits alone without experience applying it.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Urban Trekker said:


> Not going to read all 26 pages, but I don't judge a martial art based on how it holds up against other martial arts.
> 
> For me, here's how the test goes:
> - martial artist who practices a particular martial art and has never been in a real fight before.
> 
> Versus
> 
> - person who is untrained, but experienced in real fights and can hold his own against other untrained people.
> 
> Give them both some MMA gloves, and put them in the ring together.
> 
> The reason why I go by that standard its because the person that you're likely going to have to defend yourself from in real life is neither trained in martial arts nor inexperienced in fighting.  Training in a particular martial art should stand on its merits alone without experience applying it.



Honestly, I'm sorry to say it comes down to how big and mean you are most of the time. Technique helps close the gap but nothing closes the gap on an extra hundred pounds and six inches of reach depending on how much person you were to begin with. You can close most of the gap with technique and ferocity but you need to be able to take a punch or it doesn't matter. Most martial artists lacking experience fall into the category of "cannot take a punch", they think they can, they did that one time in high school but they cannot get past having their nose broken or just getting hit in the face really hard. This is also why you don't see two big guys duking it out as much or more experienced people starting fights, they know the damage isn't going to be worth the posturing. In my experience people tend to give up very quickly when they start to feel pain, they did the mental math for trash talking or "almost" getting into a fight but didn't really have their ante in for the whole show. The size and weight issue is big though, that's the big deal over weight classes in boxing and MMA. I can guarantee most of the Thai guys I have got in the ring with or sparred in the gym were better at Muay Thai, sometimes leaps and bounds better but I had a huge height and weight advantage that made my experience much more forgiving than it would have been if we had been looking each other in the eye.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But it's being argued as entirely subjective.


it can be entirely subjective or people wouldnt drive bad cars, there would only be one good car and you would have to all drive that, even of you really didnt want to, coz someone said it was the best

even if you went for value for money, value is automatically a subjective term


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> You link a video of a guy choking a guy out on the street as an example of "BJJ in a fight" and yet 7 videos showing the same amount of substance are a "broken line" towards proving my point? Sure. You have been arguing that Aikido and more recently, police training is all people trying to catch punches to throw wrist locks, yet when given detailed explanation you breeze over it and now dismiss it as "pages of misconception".
> 
> Let's take the double leg takedown, the first move you learn in high school wrestling, it works great, until you run into anyone that expects it. Try a double leg takedown in an actual fight against someone who knows what they are doing and you are going to end up with a knee in your face, someone wailing on the back of your head or choked in a guillotine. Does the technique work? Sure, sometimes, against people who don't expect it or who don't know how to counter it. As a constantly repeatable technique? No, because there is for one, no such thing as a move that works equally well against different people, in different environments. It doesn't work two out of two times in MMA much less anywhere else, that's why so many schools train to sprawl.
> 
> The two wrist lock techniques you seem to think makeup the entirety of Aikido are taught as counters to a grab. They work perfectly fine for this purpose, to disarm an attacker or to disable a violent drunk, which, contrary to what you may think, is the vast majority of violent assaults a member of the public will face, if ever, in their lifetime. I can count on one finger, the number of street fights I have been in with a well trained, disciplined opponent and that lasted long enough for him to get a baton across the shin and to get put in handcuffs. What I can tell you is that I have been attacked many times by people trying to hit me with things, stab me or someone else or trying your famous double leg takedown and the aikido has ended plenty of those altercations in one or two techniques, with minimal or sometimes even no injury to everyone involved. I've also never arrived on scene to a martial arts fight in progress between two experienced fighters, nor have I heard about that happening to anyone else I have ever worked with. Surprise! Martial arts masters tend to not walk around getting into street fights.
> 
> Fights in the real world don't work like an MMA ring, the combatants are rarely sober or athletic and usually the person doing the assault on a regular person is an idiot with little to no training. Criminals are generally lazy people who are fairly cowardly and many times are on drugs. The other place where people like to fight is the bar, where technique beyond wild haymakers ever gets used. For these altercations, Aikido and its underlying principles, tend to work fine. Now if we are talking about a professional, mixed martial arts fight in a ring, Aikido is not going to work well, its hard to do hand manipulations against a sweaty, greased up opponent with MMA gloves on. Finger and wrist locks are banned, slams against a fighter on the ground looking to execute a technique are banned and any single martial art in this setting is going to be at a severe disadvantage without another discipline to round it out. IE BJJ without striking is next to worthless, same with Aikido, you would have to at least pair it with something like boxing or some other combative striking discipline (hence MMA) to make any of it practical. If you get on the ground in a street fight you are getting kicked in the face by the friend of whoever you are fighting, that's a fact more often than not.
> 
> I'll concede that a majority of what we see and how we see it trained in the Aikido world is not good and not realistic, but that's different than writing off the whole system. It's also not a simple case of imaginary punch catching and for the record, I'm advocating for people to learn it alongside other stuff like judo, BJJ, etc, thats how I learned it and it has informed and helped me in those other pursuits. Now you can take what I've said or not, you can continue to insist that no one has met your personal litmus test but for the purposes of honestly explaining the merits/flaws of Aikido as a system, I think you've been given enough time, energy and explanation to change your mind or re-evaluate your opinion of it being imaginary punch catching if your mind is actually open enough to have a valid discussion. As I said before, if your just here to troll then be honest about it, because short snippy one liners are not a counter argument and neither is throwing out false prepositions like you have been.


Not going to respond to all of that, just here to point out wrist locks are perfectly legal in MMA.

You just never see them because getting the wrist on anyone that's paying attention, trained or not, is nearly impossible.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> it can be entirely subjective or people wouldnt drive bad cars, there would only be one good car and you would have to all drive that, even of you really didnt want to, coz someone said it was the best
> 
> even if you went for value for money, value is automatically a subjective term



For you It might be. In which case you take on the role of the zealot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But it's being argued as entirely subjective.


Much of it is. I may prefer better mileage, while you prefer more power. Maybe I want more room, and you want a sleeker look. We could measure some of those things objectively, but the decision isn't an objective one. Even some that are measureable (more room, for instance) aren't really as objective as they seem. There's more to that preference than just how many cubic centimetres of space are involved.

Sometimes, folks just want what they want, and there's no really good objective measure involved.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Much of it is. I may prefer better mileage, while you prefer more power. Maybe I want more room, and you want a sleeker look. We could measure some of those things objectively, but the decision isn't an objective one. Even some that are measureable (more room, for instance) aren't really as objective as they seem. There's more to that preference than just how many cubic centimetres of space are involved.
> 
> Sometimes, folks just want what they want, and there's no really good objective measure involved.



So flat earth is as viable as a round one because you have to test everything subjectively.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> You link a video of a guy choking a guy out on the street as an example of "BJJ in a fight" and yet 7 videos showing the same amount of substance are a "broken line" towards proving my point?



Which Aikido school did your examples belong to?


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> You link a video of a guy choking a guy out on the street as an example of "BJJ in a fight" and yet 7 videos showing the same amount of substance are a "broken line" towards proving my point? Sure. You have been arguing that Aikido and more recently, police training is all people trying to catch punches to throw wrist locks, yet when given detailed explanation you breeze over it and now dismiss it as "pages of misconception".
> 
> Let's take the double leg takedown, the first move you learn in high school wrestling, it works great, until you run into anyone that expects it. Try a double leg takedown in an actual fight against someone who knows what they are doing and you are going to end up with a knee in your face, someone wailing on the back of your head or choked in a guillotine. Does the technique work? Sure, sometimes, against people who don't expect it or who don't know how to counter it. As a constantly repeatable technique? No, because there is for one, no such thing as a move that works equally well against different people, in different environments. It doesn't work two out of two times in MMA much less anywhere else, that's why so many schools train to sprawl.
> 
> The two wrist lock techniques you seem to think makeup the entirety of Aikido are taught as counters to a grab. They work perfectly fine for this purpose, to disarm an attacker or to disable a violent drunk, which, contrary to what you may think, is the vast majority of violent assaults a member of the public will face, if ever, in their lifetime. I can count on one finger, the number of street fights I have been in with a well trained, disciplined opponent and that lasted long enough for him to get a baton across the shin and to get put in handcuffs. What I can tell you is that I have been attacked many times by people trying to hit me with things, stab me or someone else or trying your famous double leg takedown and the aikido has ended plenty of those altercations in one or two techniques, with minimal or sometimes even no injury to everyone involved. I've also never arrived on scene to a martial arts fight in progress between two experienced fighters, nor have I heard about that happening to anyone else I have ever worked with. Surprise! Martial arts masters tend to not walk around getting into street fights.
> 
> Fights in the real world don't work like an MMA ring, the combatants are rarely sober or athletic and usually the person doing the assault on a regular person is an idiot with little to no training. Criminals are generally lazy people who are fairly cowardly and many times are on drugs. The other place where people like to fight is the bar, where technique beyond wild haymakers ever gets used. For these altercations, Aikido and its underlying principles, tend to work fine. Now if we are talking about a professional, mixed martial arts fight in a ring, Aikido is not going to work well, its hard to do hand manipulations against a sweaty, greased up opponent with MMA gloves on. Finger and wrist locks are banned, slams against a fighter on the ground looking to execute a technique are banned and any single martial art in this setting is going to be at a severe disadvantage without another discipline to round it out. IE BJJ without striking is next to worthless, same with Aikido, you would have to at least pair it with something like boxing or some other combative striking discipline (hence MMA) to make any of it practical. If you get on the ground in a street fight you are getting kicked in the face by the friend of whoever you are fighting, that's a fact more often than not.
> 
> I'll concede that a majority of what we see and how we see it trained in the Aikido world is not good and not realistic, but that's different than writing off the whole system. It's also not a simple case of imaginary punch catching and for the record, I'm advocating for people to learn it alongside other stuff like judo, BJJ, etc, thats how I learned it and it has informed and helped me in those other pursuits. Now you can take what I've said or not, you can continue to insist that no one has met your personal litmus test but for the purposes of honestly explaining the merits/flaws of Aikido as a system, I think you've been given enough time, energy and explanation to change your mind or re-evaluate your opinion of it being imaginary punch catching if your mind is actually open enough to have a valid discussion. As I said before, if your just here to troll then be honest about it, because short snippy one liners are not a counter argument and neither is throwing out false prepositions like you have been.



Ok. The bits where you are wrong.

I argue that police restraints training is generally pretty bad. Nothing to do with catching punches and more to do with catching punches with your face as a pretty common reaction to people getting their arms grabbed. Which happens a fair bit. Especially after two weeks of training.

If you look at MMA competition. That allows striking and guillotines you are suggesting that what is the most successful throw in the competition works because nobody is expecting it. This is wrong everyone is expecting a double leg.

A wrist lock works fine against a grab is a statement that doesn't actually mean anything. Because we have no idea of the context. I mean we do se MMA guys hitting double legs we can get an honest idea of it's chances. We don't see Aikido guys escaping grabs with wrist locks. Exept demo's of course.

Anecdotal stories about how a fight goes is a very common method of dogma. So you say in a fight this happens. But that doesn't really mean much. What if I say in a fight the opposite happens. Then there is no way of discerning truth from fiction. Fights are mostly something doing stuff. Is just an easy way to explain why you can't do the thing you say.

Anyway.  Slams are not banned in MMA.

Multi disciplines. You will find that there are needs for multiple disciplines but the individual disciplines can actually do what they say. So if say for example they said they could escape a grab with a wrist lock. You would be actually able to see that.

I am not writing off the whole system. I am writing off justifying a martial art with stories and assertions but no real evidence.

Especially when those assertions are not really true.


----------



## drop bear

Martial D said:


> Not going to respond to all of that, just here to point out wrist locks are perfectly legal in MMA.
> 
> You just never see them because getting the wrist on anyone that's paying attention, trained or not, is nearly impossible.



I am notorious for hitting wrist locks in the grapple. But that doesn't mean Aikido works. 

I have never done Aikido.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So flat earth is as viable as a round one because you have to test everything subjectively.


Nice jump to utter stupidity. And you claim to have the rational approach.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I have never done Aikido.


Really? I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you had. So why the utter certainty that you know how it is trained? Why the hard-on to attack it every chance you get? I assumed you’d been hurt by Aikido at some point.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> So flat earth is as viable as a round one because you have to test everything subjectively.


well that's interesting, especially as the world is nether of those, its spherical mostly, though if you want to be picky it's not actualy a truly spherical.

the fact that you think it might be round, is that you've taken information off someone who who has applied subjectivity to a scientific fact and come up with a fact that isnt factual  and you've applied subjectivity that this person is to be trusted and belived them with out evidence as cearly there is no evidence its round as it isnt

that makes you slightly worse that a flat earther, who at least has applied the evidence that it looks flatish and ironically the flat earth is general depicted as being flat and round, so your half agreeing with their delusion


----------



## Urban Trekker

,


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> I am notorious for hitting wrist locks in the grapple. But that doesn't mean Aikido works.
> 
> I have never done Aikido.


Well on the ground ya, I should have clarified I meant on the feet. Mia culpa.


----------



## geezer

jobo said:


> well that's interesting, especially as the world is nether of those, its spherical mostly, though if you want to be picky it's not actualy a truly spherical.
> 
> the fact that you think it might be round, is that you've taken information off someone who who has applied subjectivity to a scientific fact and come up with a fact that isnt factual  and you've applied subjectivity that this person is to be trusted and belived them with out evidence as cearly there is no evidence its round as it isnt
> 
> that makes you slightly worse that a flat earther, who at least has applied the evidence that it looks flatish and ironically the flat earth is general depicted as being flat and round, so your half agreeing with their delusion



Jobo, you must be feeling especially contrary today. From the context of his post, it's obvious that in describing the earth, Drop Bear is using the word "round" in the vernacular sense to mean "spherical".

We don't need no stinkin' "grammar police" nitpicking over voacabulary usage, especially when even the native English speakers on the forum come from different nations spread around the globe, with each of us accustomed to different usage and  spelling. What matters is communication, bro.

By chiding Drop over this and implying that he doesn't understand the difference between a round, flat disc and the spheroidal form of the planet you are just being cute, or insulting, and in either case derailing the thread. So, let it go. Let's not make the whole discussion unnecessarily contentious.


----------



## jobo

geezer said:


> Jobo, you must be feeling especially contrary today. From the context of his post, it's obvious that in describing the earth, Drop Bear is using the word "round" in the vernacular sense to mean "spherical".
> 
> We don't need no stinkin' "grammar police" nitpicking over voacabulary usage, especially when even the native English speakers on the forum come from different nations spread around the globe, with each of us accustomed to different usage and  spelling. What matters is communication, bro.
> 
> By chiding Drop over this and implying that he doesn't understand the difference between a round, flat disc and the spheroidal form of the planet you are just being cute, or insulting, and in either case derailing the thread. So, let it go. Let's not make the whole discussion unnecessarily contentious.


it doesnt mean spherical in any sence, well not over the age of 7, it infact means anything you want it to mean as it's not a geometric shape, and as it means anything, it also means nothing

neither of course is flat is shape

we are discussing subjectivity, and both words are subjective assessments, which then raises the hilarious fact that he  was highlighting  the subjectivity of flat earth whilst using subjectivity of his own to do so.

its just the irony of one scientific illiterate correct other scientific illiterates that im highlighting , I dont  care if he doesnt know what shapes are

it's the same with flat eathers, if they dont have the capacity to realise that what they are proposing is a disc, then its really pointless trying to convince them it's  spherical  coz they just dont understand shapes at all


----------



## dunc

Martial D said:


> Well on the ground ya, I should have clarified I meant on the feet. Mia culpa.



I hit them all the time in grappling: standing, kneeling and on the ground
What I will say is that there are not many ways to hit wrist locks in isolation from standing. Generally they need to be combined with something else, whereas on the ground you can isolate the forearm and attack them more directly


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> well that's interesting, especially as the world is nether of those, its spherical mostly, though if you want to be picky it's not actualy a truly spherical.
> 
> the fact that you think it might be round, is that you've taken information off someone who who has applied subjectivity to a scientific fact and come up with a fact that isnt factual  and you've applied subjectivity that this person is to be trusted and belived them with out evidence as cearly there is no evidence its round as it isnt
> 
> that makes you slightly worse that a flat earther, who at least has applied the evidence that it looks flatish and ironically the flat earth is general depicted as being flat and round, so your half agreeing with their delusion



It doesn't matter what the earth is if we can only judge it subjectively. 

Which is my point.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> It doesn't matter what the earth is if we can only judge it subjectively.
> 
> Which is my point.


well sort of,

it's both inconvient and or quite exspensive to verify what shape the earth is, though possible. it easier to prove it isnt " flat"  which only really needs some binoculars and a coast line

which only leaves you with either a subjective judgement to belive what you are told it is or to charter a plane and do a few laps to see for yourself.

as few have actually done that you only have anecdotal evidence  or video that could be faked and no way to objectively assess that evidence other than my elimentary teacher said so


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Really? I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you had. So why the utter certainty that you know how it is trained? Why the hard-on to attack it every chance you get? I assumed you’d been hurt by Aikido at some point.



Of course because I am forced to invest before I can really know?

Look I haven't used healing crystals. But there is no evidence it works. So I remain unconvinced they are medicine.

Otherwise there is an entire cultural gap where I have gone off the whole belief style of argument. And prefer a more critical thinking style. It irritates me that martial arts is treated like a religion. And I think it cheapens the concept.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> well sort of,
> 
> it's both inconvient and or quite exspensive to verify what shape the earth is, though possible. it easier to prove it isnt " flat"  which only really needs some binoculars and a coast line
> 
> which only leaves you with either a subjective judgement to belive what you are told it is or to charter a plane and do a few laps to see for yourself.
> 
> as few have actually done that you only have anecdotal evidence  or video that could be faked and no way to objectively assess that evidence other than my elimentary teacher said so



Why bother proving it. If it ultimately doesn't matter?


----------



## drop bear

dunc said:


> I hit them all the time in grappling: standing, kneeling and on the ground
> What I will say is that there are not many ways to hit wrist locks in isolation from standing. Generally they need to be combined with something else, whereas on the ground you can isolate the forearm and attack them more directly



Pin the elbow and bodyweight. If you don't want to snap on the twisty ones. Which I don't because they can wind up doing nothing and injuring people.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Nice jump to utter stupidity. And you claim to have the rational approach.



We were there a while ago. 

If you go back to that video about evidence. It makes all these claims about religious or theist arguments. 

And it is things like they will resort to attacking the person rather than show evidence when their beliefs are challenged. 

It was called a bullying tactic. 

It is quite interesting the parallels.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Why bother proving it. If it ultimately doesn't matter?


well it doesnt matter to most people, there lives wouldnt be any better of worse, very few peopke understand technology,  they still use it, the tv still works if they dont understand quantum physics

we have reach a point in our development, where there is little differance between science and magic,  you just have to belive what the scientist or the shaman said, as you dont have the capacity to understand it yourself


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> The fact that BJJ practitioners are trying to understand the techniques speaks volumes.   I don't think they would have done so if they truly believed that there was no validity in the techniques.
> 
> I think people who do functional things have interests in functional things.  In other words, if they believe that it's not functional, then they aren't going to spend time on trying to "decode it"



They are? I know the guy in MA Journey explores it because he spent 12 years in Aikido and simply doesn’t want to believe that what he learned is BS. I’ve been looking into Roy Dean’s system, but again I see nothing in there but tack-ons and extra Japanese fluff that doesn’t alter the effective Bjj core.

In short, I haven’t seen a widespread exploration of Aikido within Bjj. The only way something like that would happen is if an Aikidoka were effectively tapping out Bjjers like Sakaruba was doing to the Gracies with Catch 20 years ago. We have yet to see that happen, and frankly I don’t see it ever happening.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> well it doesnt matter to most people, there lives wouldnt be any better of worse, very few peopke understand technology,  they still use it, the tv still works if they dont understand quantum physics
> 
> we have reach a point in our development, where there is little differance between science and magic,  you just have to belive what the scientist or the shaman said, as you dont have the capacity to understand it yourself



Ok. So this is probably the best analogy we have so far. 

So I go in to buy a TV. And I ask the sales man if it works. And he explains why it does via an explanation of quantum physics which I don't understand. And probably he doesn't understand because neither of us really have the grounding. 


Or I can ask other questions. Can I turn it on? Is the brand reputable? Are there reviews? Is there a warranty?


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Ok. So this is probably the best analogy we have so far.
> 
> So I go in to buy a TV. And I ask the sales man if it works. And he explains why it does via an explanation of quantum physics which I don't understand. And probably he doesn't understand because neither of us really have the grounding.
> 
> 
> Or I can ask other questions. Can I turn it on? Is the brand reputable? Are there reviews? Is there a warranty?


you can ask those questions, but one cant be,answered by him one will be  subjective and two he can say yes to but that's drops a long way short of giving you the information you think you requested, which would be your fault for asking the wrong questions


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Very well put. I think all of the Aikidoka I've seen would be better at their Aikido if they had 6 months of Judo - preferably before the Aikido. It is my opinion that what is seen as "techniques" in the aiki arts I've seen are actually a subset - just what was selected to give students a chance to practice the principles. But practitioners get stuck on those specific techniques (and many of them, on the specific situational applications they are taught), because of the way the classical drills are run (and the lack of training tools that have a different dynamic, like sparring/rolling/judo randori).
> 
> I like the classical training drills. I don't like limiting training to those, because it seems to foster bad habits and poor understanding.



Wasnt Aikido originally a capstone course for Judo black belts? I think that’s part of the issue here. In that MA Journey video, the Bjj black belt was able to make the Aikido locks work better than the Aikido black belt who had studied Aikido for 15 years. 

I don’t know how you fix that problem, because it seems that the MA journey guy is having a very hard time making his Aikido work in a grappling context.


----------



## Martial D

dunc said:


> I hit them all the time in grappling: standing, kneeling and on the ground
> What I will say is that there are not many ways to hit wrist locks in isolation from standing. Generally they need to be combined with something else, whereas on the ground you can isolate the forearm and attack them more directly


I've trained MMA for years against guys of all skill levels. If you are getting standing wrist locks you are either amazing at them AND much bigger and stronger than whoever you are getting them on, or they are being gifted to you.

It just doesn't happen.


----------



## Martial D

Martial D said:


> I've trained MMA for years against guys of all skill levels. If you are getting standing wrist locks you are either amazing at them AND much bigger and stronger than whoever you are getting them on, or they are being gifted to you.
> 
> It just doesn't happen.


In fact, if you are hitting ANY sort of arm locks from the feet(short of a flying armbar) I dare say the other guy sucks.. a lot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> They are? I know the guy in MA Journey explores it because he spent 12 years in Aikido and simply doesn’t want to believe that what he learned is BS. I’ve been looking into Roy Dean’s system, but again I see nothing in there but tack-ons and extra Japanese fluff that doesn’t alter the effective Bjj core.
> 
> In short, I haven’t seen a widespread exploration of Aikido within Bjj. The only way something like that would happen is if an Aikidoka were effectively tapping out Bjjers like Sakaruba was doing to the Gracies with Catch 20 years ago. We have yet to see that happen, and frankly I don’t see it ever happening.


Aikido doesn't have to be better than something else to be effective. And Aikido being able to combine with BJJ doesn't have to improve the BJJ - it might just use some principles differently. And in some cases it may look indistinguishable. If someone learns some principles in Aikido and applies them in a BJJ class, they are using Aikido, even if those same movements could also have been learned in that BJJ class (but weren't in this case). There is necessarily an overlap of principles among all grappling.

I've seen (and felt) some nice groundwork from JJJ (mostly from a temporary student visiting from Germany) that wouldn't be out of place in BJJ, though the movement was a bit...wider I think is the word I'm looking for. And I don't think it would be out of place in some Aikido schools (I'm thinking more the movement style of Yoshinkan, as I understand it). Since it wouldn't look out-of-place in either, blending the two together might just produce something that looks like a variation of each.

But I wouldn't expect BJJ folks to be spending a lot of time exploring Aikido. I could see some advantages in it, but only if you could somehow add it on to training without the opportunity cost of not working on other stuff. Otherwise, I don't think it'd be an advantage to try to add it on. The process requireed to blend in the Aikido work seems like it woudn't fit with the BJJ approach to training - too much time required to get a return.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Wasnt Aikido originally a capstone course for Judo black belts? I think that’s part of the issue here. In that MA Journey video, the Bjj black belt was able to make the Aikido locks work better than the Aikido black belt who had studied Aikido for 15 years.
> 
> I don’t know how you fix that problem, because it seems that the MA journey guy is having a very hard time making his Aikido work in a grappling context.


That was my view (from discussions with folks far more knowledgeable than me), though there are folks who have more knowledge of the background of the art who don't share that view. I would readily argue that most of the Aikido I've seen would be better grounded if the practitioners got a year of Judo first. That might be my lack of understanding, but I haven't seen anything yet to change my mind.

As for the MA Journey guy, everthing I've seen of him trying to use his Aikido (from the early videos on) looked like he was forcing a reach for specific techniques, rather than controlling the situation until there were actual openings. This is where a grounding in something is key. That grounding could be developed within Aikido (they have the techniques to work with for Judo-style randori), but I haven't personally seen a school that took that approach.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> I've trained MMA for years against guys of all skill levels. If you are getting standing wrist locks you are either amazing at them AND much bigger and stronger than whoever you are getting them on, or they are being gifted to you.
> 
> It just doesn't happen.


I don't think they're likely to happen against someone trained for MMA-style competition. Perhaps rarely against a striker who isn't trained for dealing with grappling. Depending what your training opponent's goal is, they can become available in grappling (a tad more likely when they are grabbing sleeves on a gi), but it's always been a rare thing for me.

But with relatively untrained folks (people who are new to training), they're significantly less rare. They make weird mistakes.

I've always looked at the standing locks a bit differently. The lock isn't really the point. Everything that happens on the way to the lock is more reliable, so you're actually practicing structure breaking, frame control, conjunctive locking (not the same as locking a joint), and stuff like that - all of which can come into play in, for instance, Judo-style grip fighting and grappling. And a lot of that is quite useful from the opposite side - in controlling your own posture and structure to defend in grappling.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> They are? I know the guy in MA Journey explores it because he spent 12 years in Aikido and simply doesn’t want to believe that what he learned is BS.


I was referring to the video with the Martial Arts Journey.  Had BJJ guys thought the technique was a waste, they would told him him so.  They wouldn't have mislead him or try to spare his fillings.  



Hanzou said:


> In short, I haven’t seen a widespread exploration of Aikido within Bjj. The only way something like that would happen is if an Aikidoka were effectively tapping out Bjjers like Sakaruba was doing to the Gracies with Catch 20 years ago. We have yet to see that happen, and frankly I don’t see it ever happening.


You won't see Aikido but you may see some of the locks that are used in Aikido.  The locks aren't Aikido specific as you would find then in other systems as well. 

But yes BJJ practitioner are interested in wrist locks  Take note at how fast they tap out from the wrist lock.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> , the Bjj black belt was able to make the Aikido locks work better than the Aikido black belt who had studied Aikido for 15 years.
> 
> I don’t know how you fix that problem, because it seems that the MA journey guy is having a very hard time making his Aikido work in a grappling context.


The Aikido locks that you are referring to are universal across systems, so it wouldn't be difficult for the BJJ practitioner to know how it works. 

The Aikido guy just plain flat out didn't know what he was doing.  Out of all the things he did, when I saw that he couldn't properly do a wrist lock, it became clear that some of his other training would be equally if not more faulty.

For a system that  uses locks, he doesn't have any excuse for not knowing.  There can be question about his Aikido but for those wrist locks there's no way.  At a minimum I think Aikido Practitioners should at least understant the majority of their locks.  The one he was trying to do,  was one of the easier ones.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Aikido doesn't have to be better than something else to be effective. And Aikido being able to combine with BJJ doesn't have to improve the BJJ - it might just use some principles differently. And in some cases it may look indistinguishable. If someone learns some principles in Aikido and applies them in a BJJ class, they are using Aikido, even if those same movements could also have been learned in that BJJ class (but weren't in this case). There is necessarily an overlap of principles among all grappling.



You misunderstand; What I'm saying is that in order for Bjj as a whole to explore Aikido would require Aikido to be viewed as offering a Bjj practitioner who studied it a significant advantage over a Bjjer who didn't practice it. That simply isn't the case. Roy Dean's group for example aren't exactly lighting the competitive scene on fire.

As for Aikido being effective, I know people have different views of what "effective" means. I personally don't view Aikido as a combat art along the lines of Judo, some forms of Karate, Bjj, etc. I view it more along the lines of Iaido  or Tai Chi; Something designed to cultivate the mind and the spirit, not something to break someone's neck.



> I've seen (and felt) some nice groundwork from JJJ (mostly from a temporary student visiting from Germany) that wouldn't be out of place in BJJ, though the movement was a bit...wider I think is the word I'm looking for. And I don't think it would be out of place in some Aikido schools (I'm thinking more the movement style of Yoshinkan, as I understand it). Since it wouldn't look out-of-place in either, blending the two together might just produce something that looks like a variation of each.
> 
> But I wouldn't expect BJJ folks to be spending a lot of time exploring Aikido. I could see some advantages in it, but only if you could somehow add it on to training without the opportunity cost of not working on other stuff. Otherwise, I don't think it'd be an advantage to try to add it on. The process requireed to blend in the Aikido work seems like it woudn't fit with the BJJ approach to training - too much time required to get a return.



Again, we'd spend time with it if we find something useful, and especially if we can find something that changes the game. Unfortunately at the present time, there's just nothing there from what I'm seeing on the scene.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I was referring to the video with the Martial Arts Journey.  Had BJJ guys thought the technique was a waste, they would told him him so.  They wouldn't have mislead him or try to spare his fillings.



Actually they would. Unlike my persona here, in person I would never tell someone that what they've learned is a joke (even if it was). Instead, I would have done exactly what this guy did; Take his technique and show him how to properly do it.




> You won't see Aikido but you may see some of the locks that are used in Aikido.  The locks aren't Aikido specific as you would find then in other systems as well.



The wrist locks are universal, but it's the entries where the differences lie. Yeah, if you get someone's wrist in that position you can certainly break or twist their wrist. The trick is getting them into that position. Unfortunately for Aikido, their entry system is grossly inefficient and outdated. Check out some of the entries coming out of modern wrestling, especially from Russia and Central Europe. It's changing the game, and I would LOVE to see Aikido adopt some of them. They never will, but if they did they could really revolutionize their system.



> But yes BJJ practitioner are interested in wrist locks  Take note at how fast they tap out from the wrist lock.



Your video doesn't work, but yes we are interested in wrist locks. However, again it all depends on the entry and the application.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Ok. The bits where you are wrong.
> 
> I argue that police restraints training is generally pretty bad. Nothing to do with catching punches and more to do with catching punches with your face as a pretty common reaction to people getting their arms grabbed. Which happens a fair bit. Especially after two weeks of training.
> 
> If you look at MMA competition. That allows striking and guillotines you are suggesting that what is the most successful throw in the competition works because nobody is expecting it. This is wrong everyone is expecting a double leg.
> 
> A wrist lock works fine against a grab is a statement that doesn't actually mean anything. Because we have no idea of the context. I mean we do se MMA guys hitting double legs we can get an honest idea of it's chances. We don't see Aikido guys escaping grabs with wrist locks. Exept demo's of course.
> 
> Anecdotal stories about how a fight goes is a very common method of dogma. So you say in a fight this happens. But that doesn't really mean much. What if I say in a fight the opposite happens. Then there is no way of discerning truth from fiction. Fights are mostly something doing stuff. Is just an easy way to explain why you can't do the thing you say.
> 
> Anyway.  Slams are not banned in MMA.
> 
> Multi disciplines. You will find that there are needs for multiple disciplines but the individual disciplines can actually do what they say. So if say for example they said they could escape a grab with a wrist lock. You would be actually able to see that.
> 
> I am not writing off the whole system. I am writing off justifying a martial art with stories and assertions but no real evidence.
> 
> Especially when those assertions are not really true.



Let's establish something first, I am not here to justify the martial art to you, I can explain the system to you based off of my training and experience but that's it, there's no need and its not possible to "prove" a system on a message board on the internet. 

MMA is heavily favored towards making accommodations for BJJ that are unrealistic and allow for more completed techniques. when you shoot for the double leg, the part of your head left open is the spine and the back of the head behind the ears, striking this area is called rabbit punching and it is 100% banned in the UFC and most MMA competitions, so its convenient that the move that will most efficiently counter the takedown is also banned in the same arena where it is "most successful". Is there a reason? Yes, MMA is a sport, the rules in MMA favor ensuring longevity for the fighters. Shoot for a double leg in a real altercation and watch how fast you get your bell rung, that's not theory or anecdote, that's experiential wisdom, do what you want with that on your own time. 

Small joint manipulation is 100% not allowed in MMA, with this and the gloves, sweat, bare skin, petroleum jelly and other oilyness during an MMA fight it makes wristlocks impractical for all intents and purposes. There's a huge difference between you grabbing my jacket at the start of a confrontation and me attempting to wristlock you and us squaring off with MMA gloves and greased up at the start of a UFC fight. There's also a threshold for what I will and won't try in a fight with someone who is also a professional fighter, before you get too excited, this list also includes the double leg as something I would write off against a trained fighter.

The piledriver and any slam that could injure the head or back of an opponent is 100% not legal in the UFC, it just so happens that this is one of the more effective ways of countering someone attempting to pull you down for some BJJ, or attempting to grapple a standing opponent. Is there a good reason for it being banned? Yes. That doesn't change the fact that the RESULT, favors the BJJ practitioner. 

Strikes to a downed or grounded opponents head are not allowed in the UFC, here's a disqualifying knee to the head:
https://twitter.com/btsportufc/stat...w.sportskeeda.com/mma/which-moves-illegal-ufc

IS there a reason for this? Yes, a good one, having to do with the longevity and safety of the fighters involved. Still, it's another example of a protection enjoyed by BJJ that falsely inflates the effectiveness of the system. BJJ is great at ground fighting, the problem is you don't want to be on the ground in a fight and when you "shoot" at an opponents waist, fight on your back, etc, your going to tend to catch a beating for exposing your self. The system isn't worthless, in fact there's an argument to be made that BJJ should be integrated into more systems so that you have the tools to escape a fight on the ground or to finish an altercation that goes there, albeit with some caveats. I could make the same claim for Aikido however in regards to how it is incomplete as a single style but able to wonderfully complement a more traditional striking system. You can't simply point at BJJ and say "this works" and then point to Aikido and say "this doesn't work" as blanket statements towards the whole system. 

Your argument "we don't see guys escaping grabs with wrist locks" or that "other arts do the thing that they claim" is more false pretense. Aikido does what it claims to do as much as any other system. Those stupid wrist locks you say don't work are taught to the police and military because they do work, when correctly applied, despite what you or I may think about these classes overall, they are taught because they work, if they didn't we wouldn't have a hundred years of Aikido and Judo techniques being integrated into law enforcement and military training, it would have been opted out by now if it were so wildly ineffective. Add to that, many police departments mandate those techniques trained in their classes as the ONLY ones available to officers for liability purposes, if there was no merit to them, we would have seen an outcry of officers protesting their ineffectual training. Say what you want, but the average cop is going to see and participate in more violent altercations than most other citizens. More cops use these techniques than most martial artists ever get to use their martial arts in street fights. 

There's nothing wrong with the tools in the system, they work, when properly applied. Conflating youtube videos as the final arbiter of what is real is stupid, by that standard, no martial arts moves work other than a handful of arm bars and rear naked chokes. I've used my Aikido as much or more than most of the other tools in my personal tool kit in a variety of altercations, your mileage may vary, it really doesn't matter what your opinion is, I'm not here to convert you to the faith of Aikido, I'm simply trying to explain the dissociation between what you are watching on TV and the system itself, if you are already of the mindset that Aikido is 100% garbage, I can't change that but it doesn't win you the argument either, its just your opinion.

Here's some more anecdotal information, I don't know what your experience level in actual violence is, as someone who has spent time in war, the ring and as a beat cop I can tell you that war is not a street fight and neither are the same as a duel in the ring between two athletes. There is a definitive difference between what you see on you tube and what goes on in the real world, when two people (or more) decide to do serious harm to each other. Now, it isn't going to win me this internet argument, but I can say with certainty that those stupid Aikido moves you say don't work have kept me and several of my friends from serious harm and its led to me being able to de-escalate and deal with violent encounters with real people in a way where neither of us got hurt, on many occasions. Does that mean my intellect, manhood or my kung fu is better than yours? No. What I will say is that there is perhaps more value in spending some time training with Aikido than you suggest, do with that what you will but if you can't say the same, do me the courtesy of thinking about that before you poo on my beloved art out of simple internet trolldom. Other than that, I think we are at an intellectual impasse as it stands since I'm not really wanting to preach and your not really wanting to have a productive conversation.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Of course because I am forced to invest before I can really know?
> 
> Look I haven't used healing crystals. But there is no evidence it works. So I remain unconvinced they are medicine.
> 
> Otherwise there is an entire cultural gap where I have gone off the whole belief style of argument. And prefer a more critical thinking style. It irritates me that martial arts is treated like a religion. And I think it cheapens the concept.



Really? You use a ton of logical fallacy for someone who likes critical thinking.


----------



## Shatteredzen

gpseymour said:


> Really? I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you had. So why the utter certainty that you know how it is trained? Why the hard-on to attack it every chance you get? I assumed you’d been hurt by Aikido at some point.



After 26 pages or so of his commentary, I can say there is assuredly a spot on the drop bear doll where Aikido touched him.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Let's establish something first, I am not here to justify the martial art to you, I can explain the system to you based off of my training and experience but that's it, there's no need and its not possible to "prove" a system on a message board on the internet.
> 
> MMA is heavily favored towards making accommodations for BJJ that are unrealistic and allow for more completed techniques. when you shoot for the double leg, the part of your head left open is the spine and the back of the head behind the ears, striking this area is called rabbit punching and it is 100% banned in the UFC and most MMA competitions, so its convenient that the move that will most efficiently counter the takedown is also banned in the same arena where it is "most successful". Is there a reason? Yes, MMA is a sport, the rules in MMA favor ensuring longevity for the fighters. Shoot for a double leg in a real altercation and watch how fast you get your bell rung, that's not theory or anecdote, that's experiential wisdom, do what you want with that on your own time.
> 
> Small joint manipulation is 100% not allowed in MMA, with this and the gloves, sweat, bare skin, petroleum jelly and other oilyness during an MMA fight it makes wristlocks impractical for all intents and purposes. There's a huge difference between you grabbing my jacket at the start of a confrontation and me attempting to wristlock you and us squaring off with MMA gloves and greased up at the start of a UFC fight. There's also a threshold for what I will and won't try in a fight with someone who is also a professional fighter, before you get too excited, this list also includes the double leg as something I would write off against a trained fighter.
> 
> The piledriver and any slam that could injure the head or back of an opponent is 100% not legal in the UFC, it just so happens that this is one of the more effective ways of countering someone attempting to pull you down for some BJJ, or attempting to grapple a standing opponent. Is there a good reason for it being banned? Yes. That doesn't change the fact that the RESULT, favors the BJJ practitioner.
> 
> Strikes to a downed or grounded opponents head are not allowed in the UFC, here's a disqualifying knee to the head:
> https://twitter.com/btsportufc/status/1368517678420361229?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1368517678420361229|twgr^|twcon^s1_c10&ref_url=https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/which-moves-illegal-ufc



What is this? 1995? In the UFC yes some of those moves are illegal, but in other MMA organizations they aren't. One FC for example allows strikes to grounded opponents, and Bjj does just fine in those promotions as well. We should also not forget that what started all of this in the first place was the original UFCs, were everything you mentioned was fair game. Bjj still did just fine.


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> Let's establish something first, I am not here to justify the martial art to you, I can explain the system to you based off of my training and experience but that's it, there's no need and its not possible to "prove" a system on a message board on the internet.
> 
> MMA is heavily favored towards making accommodations for BJJ that are unrealistic and allow for more completed techniques. when you shoot for the double leg, the part of your head left open is the spine and the back of the head behind the ears, striking this area is called rabbit punching and it is 100% banned in the UFC and most MMA competitions, so its convenient that the move that will most efficiently counter the takedown is also banned in the same arena where it is "most successful". Is there a reason? Yes, MMA is a sport, the rules in MMA favor ensuring longevity for the fighters. Shoot for a double leg in a real altercation and watch how fast you get your bell rung, that's not theory or anecdote, that's experiential wisdom, do what you want with that on your own time.
> 
> Small joint manipulation is 100% not allowed in MMA, with this and the gloves, sweat, bare skin, petroleum jelly and other oilyness during an MMA fight it makes wristlocks impractical for all intents and purposes. There's a huge difference between you grabbing my jacket at the start of a confrontation and me attempting to wristlock you and us squaring off with MMA gloves and greased up at the start of a UFC fight. There's also a threshold for what I will and won't try in a fight with someone who is also a professional fighter, before you get too excited, this list also includes the double leg as something I would write off against a trained fighter.
> 
> The piledriver and any slam that could injure the head or back of an opponent is 100% not legal in the UFC, it just so happens that this is one of the more effective ways of countering someone attempting to pull you down for some BJJ, or attempting to grapple a standing opponent. Is there a good reason for it being banned? Yes. That doesn't change the fact that the RESULT, favors the BJJ practitioner.
> 
> Strikes to a downed or grounded opponents head are not allowed in the UFC, here's a disqualifying knee to the head:
> https://twitter.com/btsportufc/status/1368517678420361229?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1368517678420361229|twgr^|twcon^s1_c10&ref_url=https://www.sportskeeda.com/mma/which-moves-illegal-ufc
> 
> IS there a reason for this? Yes, a good one, having to do with the longevity and safety of the fighters involved. Still, it's another example of a protection enjoyed by BJJ that falsely inflates the effectiveness of the system. BJJ is great at ground fighting, the problem is you don't want to be on the ground in a fight and when you "shoot" at an opponents waist, fight on your back, etc, your going to tend to catch a beating for exposing your self. The system isn't worthless, in fact there's an argument to be made that BJJ should be integrated into more systems so that you have the tools to escape a fight on the ground or to finish an altercation that goes there, albeit with some caveats. I could make the same claim for Aikido however in regards to how it is incomplete as a single style but able to wonderfully complement a more traditional striking system. You can't simply point at BJJ and say "this works" and then point to Aikido and say "this doesn't work" as blanket statements towards the whole system.
> 
> Your argument "we don't see guys escaping grabs with wrist locks" or that "other arts do the thing that they claim" is more false pretense. Aikido does what it claims to do as much as any other system. Those stupid wrist locks you say don't work are taught to the police and military because they do work, when correctly applied, despite what you or I may think about these classes overall, they are taught because they work, if they didn't we wouldn't have a hundred years of Aikido and Judo techniques being integrated into law enforcement and military training, it would have been opted out by now if it were so wildly ineffective. Add to that, many police departments mandate those techniques trained in their classes as the ONLY ones available to officers for liability purposes, if there was no merit to them, we would have seen an outcry of officers protesting their ineffectual training. Say what you want, but the average cop is going to see and participate in more violent altercations than most other citizens. More cops use these techniques than most martial artists ever get to use their martial arts in street fights.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with the tools in the system, they work, when properly applied. Conflating youtube videos as the final arbiter of what is real is stupid, by that standard, no martial arts moves work other than a handful of arm bars and rear naked chokes. I've used my Aikido as much or more than most of the other tools in my personal tool kit in a variety of altercations, your mileage may vary, it really doesn't matter what your opinion is, I'm not here to convert you to the faith of Aikido, I'm simply trying to explain the dissociation between what you are watching on TV and the system itself, if you are already of the mindset that Aikido is 100% garbage, I can't change that but it doesn't win you the argument either, its just your opinion.
> 
> Here's some more anecdotal information, I don't know what your experience level in actual violence is, as someone who has spent time in war, the ring and as a beat cop I can tell you that war is not a street fight and neither are the same as a duel in the ring between two athletes. There is a definitive difference between what you see on you tube and what goes on in the real world, when two people (or more) decide to do serious harm to each other. Now, it isn't going to win me this internet argument, but I can say with certainty that those stupid Aikido moves you say don't work have kept me and several of my friends from serious harm and its led to me being able to de-escalate and deal with violent encounters with real people in a way where neither of us got hurt, on many occasions. Does that mean my intellect, manhood or my kung fu is better than yours? No. What I will say is that there is perhaps more value in spending some time training with Aikido than you suggest, do with that what you will but if you can't say the same, do me the courtesy of thinking about that before you poo on my beloved art out of simple internet trolldom. Other than that, I think we are at an intellectual impasse as it stands since I'm not really wanting to preach and your not really wanting to have a productive conversation.


I have already corrected you on this once, but wrist locks and ankle locks are completely legal under all MMA rulesets. Small joint manipulation applies to toes and fingers. Also your assertion that MMA fighters grease themselves is incorrect..that is completely illegal.

Yours facts...check them.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> The Aikido locks that you are referring to are universal across systems, so it wouldn't be difficult for the BJJ practitioner to know how it works.
> 
> The Aikido guy just plain flat out didn't know what he was doing.  Out of all the things he did, when I saw that he couldn't properly do a wrist lock, it became clear that some of his other training would be equally if not more faulty.
> 
> For a system that  uses locks, he doesn't have any excuse for not knowing.  There can be question about his Aikido but for those wrist locks there's no way.  At a minimum I think Aikido Practitioners should at least understant the majority of their locks.  The one he was trying to do,  was one of the easier ones.



The thing is where have you ever seen an Aikido practitioner do a successful wrist lock under duress? I never have.

While I do agree that his Aikido skill is questionable, he has found some success in Bjj tournaments and MMA, so the excuse simply can't be that he sucks at martial arts, the truth is that something went horribly wrong in his Aikido training.


----------



## Martial D

Hanzou said:


> What is this? 1995? In the UFC yes some of those moves are illegal, but in other MMA organizations they aren't. One FC for example allows strikes to grounded opponents, and Bjj does just fine in those promotions as well. We should also not forget that what started all of this in the first place was the original UFCs, were everything you mentioned was fair game. Bjj still did just fine.


Lol yes. There was a funny article in BB magazine about beating the 'gracie tackle' from the mid 90s that talked about how easy it was to stop takedowns by elbowing to the back of the head. Didn't work then doesn't work now.

People tend to forget(or purposely overlook) that the first few years of MMA had no rules at all and BJJ guys fucked everyone up anyway


----------



## dunc

Martial D said:


> I've trained MMA for years against guys of all skill levels. If you are getting standing wrist locks you are either amazing at them AND much bigger and stronger than whoever you are getting them on, or they are being gifted to you.
> 
> It just doesn't happen.



Well it’s really hard in MMA because of the lack of a gi, gloves and wrapped wrists
And reiterating that whilst there are some standing wrist locks that work pretty well when the opportunity presents itself (eg the standard BJJ one below) the majority are parts of a bigger take down rather than a takedown in their own rights

As you say they are also the sort of thing that you can quickly try if your opponent lets his/her guard down, is unaware or has weak wrists and you don’t really lose anything from trying them, actually they work really well as grip strippers


----------



## Shatteredzen

gpseymour said:


> Aikido doesn't have to be better than something else to be effective. And Aikido being able to combine with BJJ doesn't have to improve the BJJ - it might just use some principles differently. And in some cases it may look indistinguishable. If someone learns some principles in Aikido and applies them in a BJJ class, they are using Aikido, even if those same movements could also have been learned in that BJJ class (but weren't in this case). There is necessarily an overlap of principles among all grappling.
> 
> I've seen (and felt) some nice groundwork from JJJ (mostly from a temporary student visiting from Germany) that wouldn't be out of place in BJJ, though the movement was a bit...wider I think is the word I'm looking for. And I don't think it would be out of place in some Aikido schools (I'm thinking more the movement style of Yoshinkan, as I understand it). Since it wouldn't look out-of-place in either, blending the two together might just produce something that looks like a variation of each.
> 
> But I wouldn't expect BJJ folks to be spending a lot of time exploring Aikido. I could see some advantages in it, but only if you could somehow add it on to training without the opportunity cost of not working on other stuff. Otherwise, I don't think it'd be an advantage to try to add it on. The process requireed to blend in the Aikido work seems like it woudn't fit with the BJJ approach to training - too much time required to get a return.



It's not that much more time, I learned Aikido in sequence alongside Judo and BJJ. Granted, I learned full time also, I had the advantage of my Sensei being a co-worker in my unit in the military and my superiors were very pro martial arts, I spent 4 to 8 hours a day learning stuff for years. Aikido principles and concepts can be taught through a fe different exercises and while learning the techniques, I tend to teach one or two techniques per session, one technique per hour so there is plenty of time for practical application and for everyone to have the technique applied/apply the technique on everyone else. You could pick up enough Aikido to improve your BJJ or whatever in a few weeks, even if you only did a few hours a week. Mastery is a long road but the movement and principles of Aikido are in my opinion the core of the art. I can make a Muay Thai vertical knee or an elbow strike into an "Aikido" move by directing/redirecting my force and momentum with the force and momentum of the opponent. Thats why I believe the theory is the real treasure. 

Also, while it lacks pressure testing, I have rarely seen a "varied" use of force taught anywhere else, most fighting is full force or nothing, but Aikido teaches superior control and a tempered response. My original teacher would take people out to a field or parking lot and encourage them to hit him and then he would spend however long just slapping their hands away, tripping them, dancing out of their reach and otherwise just playing around until they got tired and gave up as a way of teaching what Aikido "is" to new students or other martial artists. Nothing is more dejecting than trying your darndest to punch and kick someone and having them laugh at you, wipe brow sweat on your shirt and otherwise tease you while they simply bat away your best strikes. That is the ultimate goal though, a well disciplined fighter who can apply just enough force or no force at such a high level of competence that they win the altercation and maintain control of the situation in a way that protects both combatants, the same way you keep a kid brother or young son from hitting you while they rough house but you also keep them from getting hurt also.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> Lol yes. There was a funny article in BB magazine about beating the 'gracie tackle' from the mid 90s that talked about how easy it was to stop takedowns by elbowing to the back of the head. Didn't work then doesn't work now.
> 
> People tend to forget(or purposely overlook) that the first few years of MMA had no rules at all and BJJ guys fucked everyone up anyway



You mean the mid 90's UFC's that were put on as commercials for Gracie BJJ? There's a good interview with Bill Wallace on that


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Again, we'd spend time with it if we find something useful, and especially if we can find something that changes the game. Unfortunately at the present time, there's just nothing there from what I'm seeing on the scene.


This is what I was getting at, really. I don't think it'd be a game-changer, and any potential advantage wouldn't likely be worth the time it would take away from BJJ fundamentals.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Shatteredzen said:


> It's not that much more time, I learned Aikido in sequence alongside Judo and BJJ. Granted, I learned full time also, I had the advantage of my Sensei being a co-worker in my unit in the military and my superiors were very pro martial arts, I spent 4 to 8 hours a day learning stuff for years. Aikido principles and concepts can be taught through a fe different exercises and while learning the techniques, I tend to teach one or two techniques per session, one technique per hour so there is plenty of time for practical application and for everyone to have the technique applied/apply the technique on everyone else. You could pick up enough Aikido to improve your BJJ or whatever in a few weeks, even if you only did a few hours a week. Mastery is a long road but the movement and principles of Aikido are in my opinion the core of the art. I can make a Muay Thai vertical knee or an elbow strike into an "Aikido" move by directing/redirecting my force and momentum with the force and momentum of the opponent. Thats why I believe the theory is the real treasure.
> 
> Also, while it lacks pressure testing, I have rarely seen a "varied" use of force taught anywhere else, most fighting is full force or nothing, but Aikido teaches superior control and a tempered response. My original teacher would take people out to a field or parking lot and encourage them to hit him and then he would spend however long just slapping their hands away, tripping them, dancing out of their reach and otherwise just playing around until they got tired and gave up as a way of teaching what Aikido "is" to new students or other martial artists. Nothing is more dejecting than trying your darndest to punch and kick someone and having them laugh at you, wipe brow sweat on your shirt and otherwise tease you while they simply bat away your best strikes. That is the ultimate goal though, a well disciplined fighter who can apply just enough force or no force at such a high level of competence that they win the altercation and maintain control of the situation in a way that protects both combatants, the same way you keep a kid brother or young son from hitting you while they rough house but you also keep them from getting hurt also.


I was talking more about the time it would take for someone training BJJ to add Aikido - and that this time would essentially be time away from BJJ trainign. From a competition perspective (the context mentioned in a prior post) this wouldn't be all that productive. I think it'd be productive from a holistic perspective (different approaches to many of the same concepts and principles), but doesn't really fit with the general BJJ approach I've seen, which favors what they see as the most efficient approaches (both to fighting and to training).


----------



## Shatteredzen

gpseymour said:


> This is what I was getting at, really. I don't think it'd be a game-changer, and any potential advantage wouldn't likely be worth the time it would take away from BJJ fundamentals.



If you get a chance to train under a good instructor I think its worth the investment in time, just as in any martial art. I think it can be a good foundation or capstone to someone's training it just depends on your goals. If your going to compete as an MMA fighter, Aikido is likely not going to be a good use of your time but it blends very well with most martial arts in my experience. BJJ lacks a way to deal with a standing opponent or to counter a charging attacker or an armed one, Aikido can help with that, it also blends wonderfully with Judo which is how it was originally taught.


----------



## Shatteredzen

gpseymour said:


> I was talking more about the time it would take for someone training BJJ to add Aikido - and that this time would essentially be time away from BJJ trainign. From a competition perspective (the context mentioned in a prior post) this wouldn't be all that productive. I think it'd be productive from a holistic perspective (different approaches to many of the same concepts and principles), but doesn't really fit with the general BJJ approach I've seen, which favors what they see as the most efficient approaches (both to fighting and to training).



I agree, the only thing you would get from Aikido to bring to a BJJ competition would be philosophy.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Shatteredzen said:


> Aikido can help with that, it also blends wonderfully with Judo which is how it was originally taught.


In your opinion, what can Aikido offer that Judo or wrestling can't?


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> You mean the mid 90's UFC's that were put on as commercials for Gracie BJJ? There's a good interview with Bill Wallace on that



 Two karatekas with an inferiority complex trying to push a conspiracy theory. Nice. I also think it's hilarious how they say no wrestlers were in the first UFCs when Ken Shamrock was  a professional wrestler in Japan, and multiple wrestlers were in the next 3 UFCs where the Gracies participated.

Also ever notice how no actual fighters from those early UFCs ever said the fights were BS?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> The thing is where have you ever seen an Aikido practitioner do a successful wrist lock under duress? I never have.
> 
> While I do agree that his Aikido skill is questionable, he has found some success in Bjj tournaments and MMA, so the excuse simply can't be that he sucks at martial arts, the truth is that something went horribly wrong in his Aikido training.



I've never seen a double leg takedown work in a real fight outside a ring, yet, its all you BJJ kids can talk about and I won't take the position that they don't work, I just don't advise using it. I've used more wristlocks than I can count on both hands. Your mileage may vary. The MA journey guys Aikido and on camera attempts at application are horrible, that's why the BJJ guy was able to correct him so quickly. Unfortunately, there are more bad Aikido schools than good ones in my experience, it has a higher rate of bullshido than perhaps any other martial art in the US other than generic Karate schools and the strip mall MMA "academies" that employ some random washed out fighter who got a half dozen matches at bars and did wrestling in high school.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> you can ask those questions, but one cant be,answered by him one will be  subjective and two he can say yes to but that's drops a long way short of giving you the information you think you requested, which would be your fault for asking the wrong questions



Lol. 

The concept of people asking the wrong questions and being told the right ones. Is so appropriate for this discussion


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> The thing is where have you ever seen an Aikido practitioner do a successful wrist lock under duress? I never have.
> 
> While I do agree that his Aikido skill is questionable, he has found some success in Bjj tournaments and MMA, so the excuse simply can't be that he sucks at martial arts, the truth is that something went horribly wrong in his Aikido training.



And the irony is that there are examples of successful wrist locks in BJJ. It isn't necessarily the wrist locks that are the issue.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> I've never seen a double leg takedown work in a real fight outside a ring, yet, its all you BJJ kids can talk about and I won't take the position that they don't work, I just don't advise using it. I've used more wristlocks than I can count on both hands. Your mileage may vary. The MA journey guys Aikido and on camera attempts at application are horrible, that's why the BJJ guy was able to correct him so quickly. Unfortunately, there are more bad Aikido schools than good ones in my experience, it has a higher rate of bullshido than perhaps any other martial art in the US other than generic Karate schools and the strip mall MMA "academies" that employ some random washed out fighter who got a half dozen matches at bars and did wrestling in high school.



Classic wataburger fight?

And it wasn't even a good double leg.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In your opinion, what can Aikido offer that Judo or wrestling can't?



They are complementary, not competing systems. I think Aikido is best when paired with Judo, to me, the quickest way to reform the whole system would just be teach it alongside Judo whole cloth. What it provides that Judo and Wrestling don't is a method of receiving and then redirecting and/or grounding the force presented to you by the opponent. I think the movement, footwork and flow of Aikido is something Judo and wrestling are both missing as well as methods for receiving an attack from a standing or rushing opponent or someone who is armed. Wrestling or Judo for example, won't teach you anything for dealing with a vertical knee from a rush or how to disarm someone who has picked up a knife or stick.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Classic wataburger fight?
> 
> And it wasn't even a good double leg.



 Sorry, what? Either you had a stroke or I'm missing some kind of pop culture reference.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Two karatekas with an inferiority complex trying to push a conspiracy theory. Nice. I also think it's hilarious how they say no wrestlers were in the first UFCs when Ken Shamrock was  a professional wrestler in Japan, and multiple wrestlers were in the next 3 UFCs where the Gracies participated.
> 
> Also ever notice how no actual fighters from those early UFCs ever said the fights were BS?



Ken Shamrock, the guy who got retired by a knee to the face when he lunged for a double knee right (I feel like we got a theme here)? Also, I'm not saying the UFC is total BS, just weighted heavily in favor of BJJ. Does that mean the Gracies aren't totally awesome? No. Does that mean BJJ doesn't work? No. Is BJJ touted as being more holistic and applicable than it is? Yes! The main difference between Aikido and BJJ is brand image, there's in all fairness, just as many if not more MMA/BJJ schools and fighters pedaling garbage as there are Aikido schools/practitioners doing the same, but the BJJ has that UFC smell because of many, many years of excellent marketing on the part of the Gracies.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> I've never seen a double leg takedown work in a real fight outside a ring, yet, its all you BJJ kids can talk about and I won't take the position that they don't work, I just don't advise using it.



I wouldn't advise getting into street fights period. That said, do you honestly think that DLTs are the only takedowns that BJJ folks train in? Additionally, I'll just note that DLTs are probably one of the most effective takedowns around, hence why people have to learn how to sprawl to avoid a good one.



> I've used more wristlocks than I can count on both hands. Your mileage may vary. The MA journey guys Aikido and on camera attempts at application are horrible, that's why the BJJ guy was able to correct him so quickly. Unfortunately, there are more bad Aikido schools than good ones in my experience, it has a higher rate of bullshido than perhaps any other martial art in the US other than generic Karate schools and the strip mall MMA "academies" that employ some random washed out fighter who got a half dozen matches at bars and did wrestling in high school.



And once again are we in 1995 again?

Listen friend, if you can do better than the MA Journey guy, stop wasting time on this forum and issue an open challenge to some BJJ schools, and record yourself destroying them with Aikido. You'll be a very wealthy person in a very short amount of time.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> I wouldn't advise getting into street fights period. That said, do you honestly think that DLTs are the only takedowns that BJJ folks train in? Additionally, I'll just note that DLTs are probably one of the most effective takedowns around, hence why people have to learn how to sprawl to avoid a good one.
> 
> 
> 
> And once again are we in 1995 again?
> 
> Listen friend, if you can do better than the MA Journey guy, stop wasting time on this forum and issue an open challenge to some BJJ schools, and record yourself destroying them with Aikido. You'll be a very wealthy person in a very short amount of time.



Do you honestly think the only thing in Aikido is wristlocks? I'm pointing to the DLT since its being held up here as some shining sword for the purposes of argument. The MA journey guy is a youtuber who was attempting to use bad Aikido in a video, how did we go from critiquing a video to the Count Dante esque dojo wars suggestion? So because I say the MA journey guy is bad now I'm committed to issuing an open challenge to the practitioners of BJJ or my argument is invalid? Going by that logic, when is your next UFC fight Hanzou?


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Ken Shamrock, the guy who got retired by a knee to the face when he lunged for a double knee right (I feel like we got a theme here)? Also, I'm not saying the UFC is total BS, just weighted heavily in favor of BJJ. Does that mean the Gracies aren't totally awesome? No. Does that mean BJJ doesn't work? No. Is BJJ touted as being more holistic and applicable than it is? Yes! The main difference between Aikido and BJJ is brand image, there's in all fairness, just as many if not more MMA/BJJ schools and fighters pedaling garbage as there are Aikido schools/practitioners doing the same, but the BJJ has that UFC smell because of many, many years of excellent marketing on the part of the Gracies.



First and foremost, my point was that video you posted was silly because it's two bitter karatekas outright lying about the first UFC and the UFCs that followed. The Gracies never had an issue having wrestlers participate in UFC, which is why Ken Shamrock and Dan Severn were in the first UFCs. If you think Ken didn't measure up, what about Dan Severn?






Also I'm curious as to where anyone is saying that Bjj is more holistic and applicable than it is. What are you talking about, and where are you getting this from? At most, BJJ is simply viewed as an effective martial art, and it has been repeatedly proven over the course of the last 30 years. No one is saying it's perfect. No one is saying you can know BJJ and take down an army with a pocket knife. However if someone wants to learn a MA where they can defend themselves, I'm pointing them in the direction of the nearest BJJ gym everytime.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Do you honestly think the only thing in Aikido is wristlocks? I'm pointing to the DLT since its being held up here as some shining sword for the purposes of argument.



Wrist locks are their claim to fame, and the basis of the system.




> The MA journey guy is a youtuber who was attempting to use bad Aikido in a video, how did we go from critiquing a video to the Count Dante esque dojo wars suggestion? So because I say the MA journey guy is bad now I'm committed to issuing an open challenge to the practitioners of BJJ or my argument is invalid? Going by that logic, when is your next UFC fight Hanzou?



Where am I saying that a public martial artist is doing my martial art badly? Where am I saying that a wrestling/UFC staple technique (DLT) is BS?

The MA Journey guy is one of the few Aikidoka who were willing to put their art to the test on the biggest stages on the planet. He gets respect for that alone. If you think you can do better, what's stopping you? Again, there's millions of dollars waiting for you if you're as good as you say you are.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> First and foremost, my point was that video you posted was silly because it's two bitter karatekas outright lying about the first UFC and the UFCs that followed. The Gracies never had an issue having wrestlers participate in UFC, which is why Ken Shamrock and Dan Severn were in the first UFCs. If you think Ken didn't measure up, what about Dan Severn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also I'm curious as to where anyone is saying that Bjj is more holistic and applicable than it is. What are you talking about, and where are you getting this from? At most, BJJ is simply viewed as an effective martial art, and it has been repeatedly proven over the course of the last 30 years. No one is saying it's perfect. No one is saying you can know BJJ and take down an army with a pocket knife. However if someone wants to learn a MA where they can defend themselves, I'm pointing them in the direction of the nearest BJJ gym everytime.



 I don't know how much lying they are doing, but they bring up some great points that are true about both the first few UFC's as well as the Gracie challenge. Does that mean the Gracies suck or BJJ doesn't work? No. We all know and understand that the Gracies and BJJ revolutionized martial arts. What I see is this pretty regular triangle of "your style sucks ***" from BJJ students, then it turns into "hey look at the UFC" whenever you try to have a discussion and then we get to "well if you can't beat up all the Gracies at once in a Kumite then your full of crap", you yourself went through that same cycle in about three posts.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> I don't know how much lying they are doing, but they bring up some great points that are true about both the first few UFC's as well as the Gracie challenge.



Oh? What "great points" did they bring up?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Wrist locks are their claim to fame, and the basis of the system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where am I saying that a public martial artist is doing my martial art badly? Where am I saying that a wrestling staple is BS?
> 
> The MA Journey guy is one of the few Aikidoka who were willing to put their art to the test on the biggest stages on the planet. He gets respect for that alone. If you think you can do better, what's stopping you? Again, there's millions of dollars waiting for you if you're as good as you say you are.



"wrist locks are the claim to fame and the basis of the system" - no, there are wristlocks, yes, there are more techniques in Aikido than the three basic principles and their associated techniques. Even if we wanted to go soley off the "six principles" your wrist lock Aikido theory would still be wrong by half.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Oh? What "great points" did they bring up?



Hang on, I'd prefer you explain your Kumite challenge before I waste more time covering points you will get upset and ignore in favor of challenging me to blood duel the BJJ community.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> "wrist locks are the claim to fame and the basis of the system" - no, there are wristlocks, yes, there are more techniques in Aikido than the three basic principles and their associated techniques. Even if we wanted to go soley off the "six principles" your wrist lock Aikido theory would still be wrong by half.



I never said that wrist locks were the ONLY techniques in the system. I said that they're the claim to fame and the basis of the system, since the basics revolve around wrist control.


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> I don't know how much lying they are doing, but they bring up some great points that are true about both the first few UFC's as well as the Gracie challenge. Does that mean the Gracies suck or BJJ doesn't work? No. We all know and understand that the Gracies and BJJ revolutionized martial arts. What I see is this pretty regular triangle of "your style sucks ***" from BJJ students, then it turns into "hey look at the UFC" whenever you try to have a discussion and then we get to "well if you can't beat up all the Gracies at once in a Kumite then your full of crap", you yourself went through that same cycle in about three posts.



I will ask you again; why is aikido not used in a competitive format? You seem to truely believe in its eficy. Surely this must have crossed your mind?

Do you believe you know something the entire MMA community doesn't?

What is it about MMA that has been nullifying the usefulness of aikido for all of these years?

Surely you don't believe there is some conspiracy within jui jitsu to keep all the aikidokas from showing their skills?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> I never said that wrist locks were the ONLY techniques in the system. I said that they're the claim to fame and the basis of the system, since the basics revolve around wrist control.



Once again, this is not true, its not even partially true. Three of the six basic principles demonstrate wrist control, so, even going by this argument, the first six techniques taught to you would have three techniques involving the wrist. Wrist locks and wrist control are not the whole, the claim to fame or even half of the system, thats like me trying to equate BJJ only to the double leg takedown (as fun as it is to argue about that with you). You are making a false argument.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Hang on, I'd prefer you explain your Kumite challenge before I waste more time covering points you will get upset and ignore in favor of challenging me to blood duel the BJJ community.



What is there to explain? You're saying that the MA Journey dude is misrepresenting your system, and that a staple of grappling is BS. I'm telling you to stop wasting your time arguing with us and do what the MA Journey guy did; Contact your local MMA or BJJ gym and say you're interested in a fight, sign up for a MMA tournament, enter a local competition, or go on Youtube and issue a challenge. Set the rules, and record what happens.

Like I said, if you're successful you'll be a very wealthy man, because the MA community is hungering for a shift in the status quo. An Aikidoka smashing some burly MMA guys on film would change the landscape of martial arts just like the UFC did back in '93.

Which makes one wonder why a single Aikidoka has never stepped up to the plate to do exactly that.....


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> I will ask you again; why is aikido not used in a competitive format? You seem to truely believe in its eficy. Surely this must have crossed your mind?
> 
> Do you believe you know something the entire MMA community doesn't?
> 
> What is it about MMA that has been nullifying the usefulness of aikido for all of these years?
> 
> Surely you don't believe there is some conspiracy within jui jitsu to keep all the aikidokas from showing their skills?



Here we are again with absolutes. I don't know what "MMA community" your talking about, I've given you specifics as to why Aikido does not translate into MMA, we aren't arguing that it does, or maybe, you are, but I'm not. Stay on track, I'm arguing that Aikido works, as advertised, as an effective method for self defense in day to day life and I'm saying that it also complements other systems. Go back and read every single one of my posts and you will see, very clearly, that's the only two claims I'm making. You are turning this into an all or nothing contest between Aikido and MMA because your getting emotional, much like Hanzou is.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Here we are again with absolutes. I don't know what "MMA community" your talking about, I've given you specifics as to why Aikido does not translate into MMA, we aren't arguing that it does, or maybe, you are, but I'm not. Stay on track, I'm arguing that Aikido works, as advertised, as an effective method for self defense in day to day life and I'm saying that it also complements other systems. Go back and read every single one of my posts and you will see, very clearly, that's the only two claims I'm making. You are turning this into an all or nothing contest between Aikido and MMA because your getting emotional, much like Hanzou is.



Yeah, I'm not getting emotional, I'm just pointing out that you're attacking a martial artist for putting his art and reputation on the line when you're not willing to do the same.


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> Once again, this is not true, its not even partially true. Three of the six basic principles demonstrate wrist control, so, even going by this argument, the first six techniques taught to you would have three techniques involving the wrist. Wrist locks and wrist control are not the whole, the claim to fame or even half of the system, thats like me trying to equate BJJ only to the double leg takedown (as fun as it is to argue about that with you). You are making a false argument.


The double leg is actually a wrestling move.it is mostly taught by BJJ schools now because they tend to absorb what works, but your continued attempt to pin it to BJJ is sorta weird to me.


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> Here we are again with absolutes. I don't know what "MMA community" your talking about, I've given you specifics as to why Aikido does not translate into MMA, we aren't arguing that it does, or maybe, you are, but I'm not. Stay on track, I'm arguing that Aikido works, as advertised, as an effective method for self defense in day to day life and I'm saying that it also complements other systems. Go back and read every single one of my posts and you will see, very clearly, that's the only two claims I'm making. You are turning this into an all or nothing contest between Aikido and MMA because your getting emotional, much like Hanzou is.


Well. I have read your posts. It seems to mostly boil down to your continued (incorrect) assertions that MMA fighters grease up and that wrist locks are illegal in MMA. 

But you haven't addressed why (besides those two debunked assertions) why it works "as advertised" but fails utterly in a competitive format.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> What is there to explain? You're saying that the MA Journey dude is misrepresenting your system, and that a staple of grappling is BS. I'm telling you to stop wasting your time arguing with us and do what the MA Journey guy did; Contact your local MMA or BJJ gym and say you're interested in a fight, sign up for a MMA tournament, enter a local competition, or go on Youtube and issue a challenge. Set the rules, and record what happens.
> 
> Like I said, if you're successful you'll be a very wealthy man, because the MA community is hungering for a shift in the status quo. An Aikidoka smashing some burly MMA guys on film would change the landscape of martial arts just like the UFC did back in '93.
> 
> Which makes one wonder why a single Aikidoka has never stepped up to the plate to do exactly that.....



Once again "fight everyone in the UFC or your argument is invalid". the MA Journey dude made a video to argue a point he knows is popular online and then attempted to (badly) apply a single wrist lock technique, poorly, so poorly, the BJJ guy corrects him.

Yet that means I've issued a challenge to the entire MMA community and its up to me to prove my martial art against all foes and shake up the MMA community or I'm wrong? Why? Because your upset on the internet and can't find a way out of your circular logic? I've been very clear about my claims, my experience and my opinions and I even warned you that you were falling into the same circular argument of "Aikido sucks" - "MMA and BJJ are the bestest" - "go fight in the Kumite" nonsense. Your attempting to use bad logic to quantify an and reframe the argument because you aren't happy staying on topic.


----------



## Martial D

Like say..take ANY alive style. Boxing..mt..kickboxing.. wrestling..BJJ..even karate

Take someone that knows exclusively only one of these things and I can point to where it was successful in competition.

Why not aikido?


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Once again "fight everyone in the UFC or your argument is invalid".



Where did I say fight everyone in the UFC? Again, I simply said if you think the MA Journey dude is misrepresenting your martial art, (at least) do what he did here;






But we both know you're not going to do that, don't we?



> Yet that means I've issued a challenge to the entire MMA community and its up to me to prove my martial art against all foes and shake up the MMA community or I'm wrong? Why?



Because you've repeatedly implied that the MA Journey dude is doing bad Aikido and you can do better.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> The double leg is actually a wrestling move.it is mostly taught by BJJ schools now because they tend to absorb what works, but your continued attempt to pin it to BJJ is sorta weird to me.



If you cycle back, when it first came up in conversation I said it was the first move taught in high school wrestling. We are talking about double leg takedowns because you and the other "aikido sucks" guy brought it up.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Where did I say fight everyone in the UFC? Again, I simply said if you think the MA Journey dude is misrepresenting your martial art, (at least) do what he did here;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we both know you're not going to do that, don't we?
> 
> 
> 
> Because you've repeatedly implied that the MA Journey dude is doing bad Aikido and you can do better.



If you have a youtube channel I'll critique that for you if you want. Yes, the MA Journey dude is doing bad Aikido, the BJJ guy had to show him the right way to do the wrist lock. He makes a whole video on the pretense that Aikido doesn't work because he cant land a wrist lock on the other guy, now I have to go fight everyone in the world and film how to land a wristlock against a BJJ fighter for you or I'm full of crap and grand standing and Aikido is bad? What a convenient argument to make other random internet guy.

How about since your trying to argue that I'm wrong and the whole martial art of Aikido is bad, you go film yourself beating up a couple Aikido practitioners and then come back here and post it for me? You could be famous! Do you see how stupid you sound or are you still missing it because your all spun up?


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> How about since your trying to argue that I'm wrong and the whole martial art of Aikido is bad, you go film yourself beating up a couple Aikido practitioners and then come back here and post it for me? You could be famous! Do you see how stupid you sound or are you still missing it because your all spun up?



Because I don't need to. The ones who have stepped up have already proved what I'd be proving, so that little bout would do nothing for me.

The fact that you don't understand that is hilarious, as is your attempt to deflect. However, it just goes to show what I said earlier; We both know you're not going to do what the MA Journey guy did. Don't worry, it's the typical 1995 behavior that you've exhibited during this entire thread.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> Like say..take ANY alive style. Boxing..mt..kickboxing.. wrestling..BJJ..even karate
> 
> Take someone that knows exclusively only one of these things and I can point to where it was successful in competition.
> 
> Why not aikido?



I'm sorry, how many times has Karate or wrestling or boxing won the UFC since thats the yard stick being used? How often is any system outside of boxing/wrestling, BJJ and maybe parts of muay thai used in the UFC or any other MMA event? How many MMA fights have been won by one of those four styles exclusively? By that logic and the available data, BJJ is the only effective martial art and Gracie settled the whole argument about applicable martial arts in the mid nineties. Aikido has one school out of all of them that has competitive tournaments. Why don't we see wing chun or any kung fu in the UFC? Are the Chinese systems worthless since they don't compete in MMA? Once again, you are making a false argument hoping to reframe the topic of conversation.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Because I don't need to. The ones who have stepped up have already proved what I'd be proving, so that little bout would do nothing for me.
> 
> The fact that you don't understand that is hilarious, as is your attempt to deflect. However, it just goes to show what I said earlier; We both know you're not going to do what the MA Journey guy did. Don't worry, it's the typical 1995 behavior that you've exhibited during this entire thread.



Really? I'm pretty sure I have spent the entire thread as the only Aikido practitioner on your board willing to talk and answer questions, heck, I joined the board to say hello and post. I've been very open and honest about my experience and my opinions, including the negative ones, on Aikido this whole time. You came along and challenged me to a MMA death match in order to prove myself and your reasoning is that I critiqued a video about a guy who gets corrected by a guy in that video. What it looks like to me is this didn't turn into the usual lets bag on Aikido koombaya session you might have been expecting and now its the usual BJJ/MMA dogpile argument about why Aikido sucks to make me go away. Thats fine, its just a silly argument, especially since you try to cover it up with this false humble/high road routine. You came here and made a claim that Aikido is a bunch of wrist locks and it doesn't work, that might work with your buddy dropbear and Martial D here but its pretty weak. I've given you my background and my collection of lived experiences, you've made snide remarks and told me to go fight people and film it and even when its been pointed out to you how silly you are being you double down with more posturing but I'm being intellectually dishonest? Some one needs a nap.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> Well. I have read your posts. It seems to mostly boil down to your continued (incorrect) assertions that MMA fighters grease up and that wrist locks are illegal in MMA.
> 
> But you haven't addressed why (besides those two debunked assertions) why it works "as advertised" but fails utterly in a competitive format.



I've put much more detail than that into my posts. Also, I'm not arguing for Aikido in a professional MMA fight, I'm pretty clearly on record saying its not good for that.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Really? I'm pretty sure I have spent the entire thread as the only Aikido practitioner on your board willing to talk and answer questions, heck, I joined the board to say hello and post. I've been very open and honest about my experience and my opinions, including the negative ones, on Aikido this whole time. You came along and challenged me to a MMA death match. in order to prove myself and your reasoning is that I critiqued a video about a guy who gets corrected by a guy in that video. What it looks like to me is this didn't turn into the usual lets bag on Aikido koombaya session you might have been expecting and now its the usual BJJ/MMA dogpile argument about why Aikido sucks to make me go away. Thats fine, its just a silly argument, especially since you try to cover it up with this false humble/high road routine. You came here and made a claim that Aikido is a bunch of wrist locks and it doesn't work, that might work with your buddy dropbear and Martial D here but its pretty weak. I've given you my background and my collection of lived experiences, you've made snide remarks and told me to go fight people and film it and even when its been pointed out to you how silly you are being you double down with more posturing but I'm being intellectually dishonest? Some one needs a nap.



Yeah, let's discuss what really happened;

You said that MA Journey guy is doing bad Aikido and is misrepresenting the art. When asked to do what he did and step up to the plate, you backed down.

You posted a video from a bitter karateka about how the Gracies fooled people with the UFC. When pressed about what points in the video you thought were "great", you backed down again.

When asked multiple times by Martial D and others to explain why Aikido is absent from competitive competition, you deflect, change the subject, and go on victim rants about how everyone is after you. In short, you backed down again.

No one is telling you to participate in a "MMA death match", and no one is saying Aikido sucks. What people are saying is that you're full of poop.


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> I've put much more detail than that into my posts. Also, I'm not arguing for Aikido in a professional MMA fight, I'm pretty clearly on record saying its not good for that.


Ok. If it's not good for fighting, what are you trying to argue here?

If you're comfortable admitting that as practiced it is co-operative dance, so am I.

Or are you arguing that it's useful in a fight. But only against people that don't know how to fight..in which case I would ask to what end it is useful to prop up mediocrity.

I'm honestly not sure what your goal is here.

Look, like every other child of the 90s, I thought Stephen Segal movies were badass, and I would like nothing more for that to resemble the truth.

I also have no problem with aikido. If putting on the uniform and doing the rather elegant looking cooperative displays gets your juices flowing than cool. More power to you.

But you seem to be arguing that aikido is useful for fighting, because it adds some ethereal X factors to exchanges, but you can't seem to pin them down exactly besides, to paraphrase 'ways of receiving attacks' 

Can you not see why this would be problematic to someone that measures against facts and evidence? 

Have you heard of the sunk cost fallacy? Something to consider.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, let's discuss what really happened;
> 
> You said that MA Journey guy is doing bad Aikido and is misrepresenting the art. When asked to do what he did and step up to the plate, you backed down.
> 
> You posted a video from a bitter karateka about how the Gracies fooled people with the UFC. When pressed about what points in the video you thought were "great", you backed down again.
> 
> When asked multiple times by Martial D and others to explain why Aikido is absent from competitive competition, you deflect, change the subject, and go on victim rants about how everyone is after you. In short, you backed down again.
> 
> No one is telling you to participate in a "MMA death match", and no one is saying Aikido sucks. What people are saying is that you're full of poop.



Let's go point by point for you

- the MA journey video is him attempting to do a kote gaeshi against a BJJ guy, he throws a series of half hearted grabs for the guys wrist, using a technique designed to be a response to a grab (thats how its taught) and when he tries to apply the lock he does so improperly, prompting the BJJ guy to show him how to make it work. This is then used as a rationale for why the entirety of Aikido is bad (much like your argument). I'm pretty confidant in saying that's a bad example and its misrepresentative, someone else said the same thing, but didn't get the same death match challenge from you. The BJJ guy applied the lock correctly, yet you don't demand that the Aikido "master" performs to the same standard as the guy not in the martial art?

- I posted a video that made you angry and refused to go point by point with you until you fully committed to your preposterous Count Dante esque dojo war challenge. You can't be bothered to stay on topic or to have a rationale conversation, so why should I waste time giving you more bullet points to cherry pick in a desperate attempt to find something to grasp on to make your argument? If you want my specific points, I used the video to spin you up since you were already getting upset, instead of taking the jibe you went off like a bull seeing red, demanding I argue with you about it, when I declined, you got all sassy and started stamping your feet.

- Aikido isn't any good, by itself, in mixed martial arts (I have said this, multiple times now), it has no "finishing moves" and the way its being practiced in all of your examples, its not using striking. So lets ask ourselves, why is no one going into an MMA ring and attempting to just throw the other guy around for the entire match until he gives up? I've never taken the position or made the claim that Aikido is good for MMA, so why would I attempt to defend YOUR statement? You and Martial D are doing the math that MMA is the only way to prove a martial arts efficacy and asking me to defend against your assumption. Why are Aikido and Judo used by police and military organizations if they don't work? You and the other two have made a very long winded argument centered around wrist locks. The same wrist locks you are arguing about and that have evidently formed the entirety of your personal knowledge of the system, by your own words, are taught in the entry level portion of the Marine Corps martial arts system, is that dumb? Are the US Marines a bunch of incompetent idiots who should know better and are using bad hand to hand techniques?

  I'm making the claim that Aikido works and does what it is supposed to do enough to be effective in most real world scenarios. No one has ever done an Aikido road show claiming it is meant to defeat all challengers and is the superior system, that's your assumption and your argument hinges on my personal ability to defeat any and all challengers for my claim that Aikido is an effective martial art as a test of that art or I somehow don't know what I'm talking about and both I and Aikido are somehow dishonored. You are also asking me to certify any and all schools and filmed examples you can find, any and all techniques and I've said I wont do that, but that makes me full of it?

  You are demanding and have demanded for several pages in this thread, that I qualify my argument by fighting, and filming an open challenge to the BJJ community to "prove" myself to you, a challenge you were unwilling to accept yourself, I was even nice and asked for it to be just "a couple Aikido guys" instead of your demand that I fight all the BJJ schools in the world and revolutionize MMA, I think you got off on the easier challenge and yet you declined. I set the bar low for you based on your rhetoric and logic and you still went full teenager. I'm 37, I have TBI, arthritis and a host of other things from a career spent fighting other human beings in the Marines and as a martial artist and as a police officer and doing cool stuff that causes joint damage and degenerates things needed to have a highlander fight to proclaim myself god king of your BJJ school, that ship has sailed sir. I'm not trying to have a battle royale with every meat head and internet troll who enjoys this Aikido is bad argument, that doesn't mean I or Aikido are wrong. You don't have to believe me, actually, as the person saying it doesn't work, the burden of proof lies on you and the other two children making the argument you are.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Actually they would. Unlike my persona here, in person I would never tell someone that what they've learned is a joke (even if it was). Instead, I would have done exactly what this guy did; Take his technique and show him how to properly do it.


You are proving my point.  If the technique was actually trash then there is no way you can correctly do  the technique so that it functions.  It would lack the concept and foundation required to be functional.   The BJJ was able to show how to do the technique properly because it was a valid technique.  It was just the other guy was doing it wrong so everything that follows would be wrong too.

If the techniques weren't valid, then you wouldn't waste your time "trying to make it work"  You would just be honest with the person and tell them them the truth.
No BJJ coach, or instructor is going to lower their image by trying to take serious something that isn't valid, or something that they didn't think could be valid.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> Ok. If it's not good for fighting, what are you trying to argue here?
> 
> If you're comfortable admitting that as practiced it is co-operative dance, so am I.
> 
> Or are you arguing that it's useful in a fight. But only against people that don't know how to fight..in which case I would ask to what end it is useful to prop up mediocrity.
> 
> I'm honestly not sure what your goal is here.
> 
> Look, like every other child of the 90s, I thought Stephen Segal movies were badass, and I would like nothing more for that to resemble the truth.
> 
> I also have no problem with aikido. If putting on the uniform and doing the rather elegant looking cooperative displays gets your juices flowing than cool. More power to you.
> 
> But you seem to be arguing that aikido is useful for fighting, because it adds some ethereal X factors to exchanges, but you can't seem to pin them down exactly besides, to paraphrase 'ways of receiving attacks'
> 
> Can you not see why this would be problematic to someone that measures against facts and evidence?
> 
> Have you heard of the sunk cost fallacy? Something to consider.



There's fighting and self defense and then there's sporting competitions. These are different things, with very different goals and training. You should not conflate the two. I've never seen a real fight go longer than maybe two minutes, the average boxing match is fifteen minutes and the average UFC match is nine minutes. Link me a nine minute long fight outside of a sports arena. Everytime this argument goes out, it always comes down to "MMA rocks and Aikido is bs" and without fail its "link video and fight me". I've seen it happen to other martial arts, but I'm beginning to think its just the appointed place for now that Aikido is going to have to simply endure this spot thanks to Joe Rogan and teenage martial arts culture. It used to be "BJJ is the best and everything else sucks" but now I guess its down to Aikido as the whipping post with the other forms being incidental targets.


----------



## geezer

Shatteredzen said:


> ...I'm not trying to have a battle royale with every meat head and internet troll who enjoys this Aikido is bad argument...



Interestingly, in one of his most recent videos, Rokas included several _other_ martial arts besides Aikido in the "ineffective" category ...and my own core art of Wing Chun was one of them. He challenged practitioners of the arts mentioned to respond, and if they could, show him videos of honest sparring and training with real resistance to back up their arguments. 

Dunno about the other arts listed, but the WC community definitely responded, and now Rokas has put out a new video discussing that response. I started a thread on it and included a link down in the Wing Chun forum. Your comments would be most welcome.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> The wrist locks are universal, but it's the entries where the differences lie.


The technique is more important than the entry.  If you get the technique wrong then nothing works.  If you really dig deep into your system then you should be able to see that there are many entries.  I literally just showed my son this today.  I took one technique from Jow Ga and showed multiple entries for that one technique.

Here's an example.  Technique is side kick.  Entry Points on your opponent: From the front, sides, from the back, and at an angle.  Entry Points from my position, From the front of me, to my sides at an angle, behind me.   Some entry points are easier than others.  Some require that you opponent has their back to you,  some require that you have your back to your opponent.  Some requires that you lure your opponent while other's require that you attack your opponent.



Hanzou said:


> The trick is getting them into that position. Unfortunately for Aikido, their entry system is grossly inefficient and outdated.


 People who do wrist locks will tell you the same thing.  They work better when your opponent doesn't know it's coming.  There are many ways to trick someone.   



Hanzou said:


> I would LOVE to see Aikido adopt some of them. They never will, but if they did they could really revolutionize their system.


I would be happy to see Aikido as well as other martial arts train for function.  I think that would revolutionize a lot of systems in terms of martial arts applications.  Some of these systems Like TKD Dance are alreayd making revolutionary changes.  It's just not the changes I care for lol.

I think Aikido has some valid techniques for fighting applications, I just think most to train it don't do so for function.  Like someone stated here sort of Aikido for Health and Tai Chi for health. where techniques are blurred shadows of function.  In terms of sparring against other systems, I've only seen a very few do so.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> Ok. If it's not good for fighting, what are you trying to argue here?
> 
> If you're comfortable admitting that as practiced it is co-operative dance, so am I.
> 
> Or are you arguing that it's useful in a fight. But only against people that don't know how to fight..in which case I would ask to what end it is useful to prop up mediocrity.
> 
> I'm honestly not sure what your goal is here.
> 
> Look, like every other child of the 90s, I thought Stephen Segal movies were badass, and I would like nothing more for that to resemble the truth.
> 
> I also have no problem with aikido. If putting on the uniform and doing the rather elegant looking cooperative displays gets your juices flowing than cool. More power to you.
> 
> But you seem to be arguing that aikido is useful for fighting, because it adds some ethereal X factors to exchanges, but you can't seem to pin them down exactly besides, to paraphrase 'ways of receiving attacks'
> 
> Can you not see why this would be problematic to someone that measures against facts and evidence?
> 
> Have you heard of the sunk cost fallacy? Something to consider.



I missed two things here,

1) 90's Steven Segal movies were indeed badass, the new ones are just depressing, also, none of them are Aikido. I am super considering doing the Glimmer man routine when I get old enough to be considered senile though. Cinema gold that one. 

2) If you would like to discuss specifics on how Aikido is practical, we can do that. We have to stop the silly MMA herpaderp and I'm not going to waste my breath if you keep trying to reframe the argument into positions that I am not taking. But we can start over and go in depth on specifics, like gentlemen if you want to at least refrain from the challenge that its all mystical arm waving for the purposes of polite discussion. That would give you the ability to challenge me on an actual technical point instead of an emotional one. So far however we haven't gotten past the usual BJJ gang, west side story dance scene yet. 

What do you say, do we take the Buddhist path for old Stevie? Or is it just Rock and roll?


----------



## Shatteredzen

geezer said:


> Interestingly, in one of his most recent videos, Rokas included several _other_ martial arts besides Aikido in the "ineffective" category ...and my own core art of Wing Chun was one of them. He challenged practitioners of the arts mentioned to respond, and if they could, show him videos of honest sparring and training with real resistance to back up their arguments.
> 
> Dunno about the other arts listed, but the WC community definitely responded, and now Rokas has put out a new video discussing that response. I started a thread on it and included a link down in the Wing Chun forum. Your comments would be most welcome.



 Well that's just silly, Wing Chun is demonstrably pretty awesome, I will have to go check that one out tomorrow, its even easier to defend than my mystic Aikido arm waving.


----------



## Shatteredzen

JowGaWolf said:


> The technique is more important than the entry.  If you get the technique wrong then nothing works.  If you really dig deep into your system then you should be able to see that there are many entries.  I literally just showed my son this today.  I took one technique from Jow Ga and showed multiple entries for that one technique.
> 
> Here's an example.  Technique is side kick.  Entry Points on your opponent: From the front, sides, from the back, and at an angle.  Entry Points from my position, From the front of me, to my sides at an angle, behind me.   Some entry points are easier than others.  Some require that you opponent has their back to you,  some require that you have your back to your opponent.  Some requires that you lure your opponent while other's require that you attack your opponent.
> 
> People who do wrist locks will tell you the same thing.  They work better when your opponent doesn't know it's coming.  There are many ways to trick someone.
> 
> I would be happy to see Aikido as well as other martial arts train for function.  I think that would revolutionize a lot of systems in terms of martial arts applications.  Some of these systems Like TKD Dance are alreayd making revolutionary changes.  It's just not the changes I care for lol.
> 
> I think Aikido has some valid techniques for fighting applications, I just think most to train it don't do so for function.  Like someone stated here sort of Aikido for Health and Tai Chi for health. where techniques are blurred shadows of function.  In terms of sparring against other systems, I've only seen a very few do so.



  The entry method, footwork, positioning, etc is big. One thing I learned and have not seen replicated outside of the Aikidoflow UK school is consistent practice on entries and correctly intercepting the line of an opponents attack at its place of origin. That IS something I have carried into everything, its why I put so much emphasis on Aikidoflows hand placement/positioning, because I can clearly see how he uses the hands to first intercept the origin point of the movement and then to break the alignment of the attack, many of the techniques do not work against resistance (too slow) unless you are successful in getting inside while the opponent executes their movement. A good example besides blocking a punch, putting your foot in front of the toes of a kick as the kick leaves the ground, (thats a tai chi movement but its totally applicable to Aikido principles). Placing your hand on the small of the back of the person trying to hip toss you, it takes a few pounds of energy to disrupt the pivot/movement and make you impossible to throw/complete the movement. Many times, a simple movement / entrance with almost no force and very little energy can stop an attack if you do everything right, if you are "receiving" the attack, sometimes it takes very little to simply continue that attack and let it go past you. All of this is dependent on how you choose to move, enter or avoid and then exploit the opening. The difference between a purely Aikido approach and a "mixed" one, is I would probably choose to meet the persons momentum with my own, so for example, a punch intercepted at the arm pit / pectoral I might shift into a grab and turn that into a throw by going for a hip toss or shoulder throw or I might try to turn in with an elbow to the throat or face or a "twelve six" (straight down) elbow towards the neck/spine/collarbone if they leaned farther inside as I made the interception of their punching arm.


----------



## Martial D

geezer said:


> Interestingly, in one of his most recent videos, Rokas included several _other_ martial arts besides Aikido in the "ineffective" category ...and my own core art of Wing Chun was one of them. He challenged practitioners of the arts mentioned to respond, and if they could, show him videos of honest sparring and training with real resistance to back up their arguments.
> 
> Dunno about the other arts listed, but the WC community definitely responded, and now Rokas has put out a new video discussing that response. I started a thread on it and included a link down in the Wing Chun forum. Your comments would be most welcome.


Anyone can create a set of movements and teach it to others. The fact that this mostly happened a long time ago and has been taught to many is neither here nor there with regards to whether it does what those that practice it purport it to do.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, let's discuss what really happened;
> 
> You said that MA Journey guy is doing bad Aikido and is misrepresenting the art. When asked to do what he did and step up to the plate, you backed down.
> 
> You posted a video from a bitter karateka about how the Gracies fooled people with the UFC. When pressed about what points in the video you thought were "great", you backed down again.
> 
> When asked multiple times by Martial D and others to explain why Aikido is absent from competitive competition, you deflect, change the subject, and go on victim rants about how everyone is after you. In short, you backed down again.
> 
> No one is telling you to participate in a "MMA death match", and no one is saying Aikido sucks. What people are saying is that you're full of poop.



Although if he wants to participate in a MMA death match I am all for him living out his dreams.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Interestingly, in one of his most recent videos, Rokas included several _other_ martial arts besides Aikido in the "ineffective" category ...and my own core art of Wing Chun was one of them. He challenged practitioners of the arts mentioned to respond, and if they could, show him videos of honest sparring and training with real resistance to back up their arguments.
> 
> Dunno about the other arts listed, but the WC community definitely responded, and now Rokas has put out a new video discussing that response. I started a thread on it and included a link down in the Wing Chun forum. Your comments would be most welcome.



I saw that too. And was trying to find a way to shoe horn it in.

It is definitely a change in mindset.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> Interestingly, in one of his most recent videos, Rokas included several _other_ martial arts besides Aikido in the "ineffective" category ...and my own core art of Wing Chun was one of them. He challenged practitioners of the arts mentioned to respond, and if they could, show him videos of honest sparring and training with real resistance to back up their arguments.


I saw that video to.  I was like.   "Please say Jow Ga,, Please say Jow Ga. lol."  I was surprised that he called out Wng Chun..  I was like, "Soooo the guy who can't jab is going to  call out the Wing Chun group."

It was almost like he was saying that just because he didn't get good training meant that everyone else didn't either.  He was so willing to put so many other groups in the same boat that he was in.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I saw that video to.  I was like.   "Please say Jow Ga,, Please say Jow Ga. lol."  I was surprised that he called out Wng Chun..  I was like, "Soooo the guy who can't jab is going to  call out the Wing Chun group."
> 
> It was almost like he was saying that just because he didn't get good training meant that everyone else didn't either.  He was so willing to put so many other groups in the same boat that he was in.



I think the question needs to be asked and answered. Otherwise you get this weird magical logic which generally doesn't solve anything.


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> There's fighting and self defense and then there's sporting competitions. These are different things, with very different goals and training. You should not conflate the two. I've never seen a real fight go longer than maybe two minutes, the average boxing match is fifteen minutes and the average UFC match is nine minutes. Link me a nine minute long fight outside of a sports arena. Everytime this argument goes out, it always comes down to "MMA rocks and Aikido is bs" and without fail its "link video and fight me". I've seen it happen to other martial arts, but I'm beginning to think its just the appointed place for now that Aikido is going to have to simply endure this spot thanks to Joe Rogan and teenage martial arts culture. It used to be "BJJ is the best and everything else sucks" but now I guess its down to Aikido as the whipping post with the other forms being incidental targets.


As for your teenage quip..I'm in my mid forties, and have been doing both TMA and MMA/BJJ for decades. I'm not some kid that has been enthralled by Rogan.

Secondly, I find your new argumentation vector a little strange. What does the average time spent in a fight have to do with the effectiveness of what is being done? Yes pro fighters tend to go longer. They have amazing cardio.

Are you saying aikido is only effective when neither party is tired? I fail to see the connection you seem to be trying to draw here.

Thirdly, 'self defense' is a weasel word that can mean anything from fighting to running away to situational awareness, which all and all seems unrelated. Fighting and sporting competition is the same but for the rules. A punch in a cage hurts the same as a punch in the bar, and uses the same mechanics. I can only assume you are implying the rules of sport fighting impede aikido from working there, which leaves me only to ask..which rules exactly?


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> I saw that too. And was trying to find a way to shoe horn it in.
> 
> It is definitely a change in mindset.


Dude should have joined Martial Talk and he would have had a better understanding of how to train lol. His exposure to other martial arts seem limited


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> As for your teenage quip..I'm in my mid forties, and have been doing both TMA and MMA/BJJ for decades. I'm not some kid that has been enthralled by Rogan.
> 
> Secondly, I find your new argumentation vector a little strange. What does the average time spent in a fight have to do with the effectiveness of what is being done? Yes pro fighters tend to go longer. They have amazing cardio.
> 
> Are you saying aikido is only effective when neither party is tired? I fail to see the connection you seem to be trying to draw here.
> 
> Thirdly, 'self defense' is a weasel word that can mean anything from fighting to running away to situational awareness, which all and all seems unrelated. Fighting and sporting competition is the same but for the rules. A punch in a cage hurts the same as a punch in the bar, and uses the same mechanics. I can only assume you are implying the rules of sport fighting impede aikido from working there, which leaves me only to ask..which rules exactly?



There's no new vector, I'm trying to get you to drop the MMA is the final and only metric by which to gauge the effectiveness of a martial art. You are drawing too many assumptions here. I've been super clear with you, that the Aikido techniques work as advertised, in most situations. If you would like a real life analogy, I had a crackhead try to bury a screwdriver in another officer once, I used a textbook kote gaeshi to take him down, then I put his wrist behind his back and put handcuffs on him. No, I dont have it on film, no I'm not going to fight in some Kumite with Steven Segal to prove it. I have had numerous drunks and punks grab my shirt, my badge, my arm, etc and Aikido techniques have ALWAYS both taken the aggressor down and ended the confrontation without major harm to anyone, as advertised, in let's say a dozen or so real world fights. Is this irrefutable proof for a two karate guys on the internet argument? Nope. Do you have to believe me? Nope. I know its not proof, but I've been in multiple real life scenarios where the techniques worked, great, for me, or people I trained with. The point is, I'm not trying to win an internet argument with you, I'm simply telling you my side of things. Thats not a weasel argument and I don't care if Mr Kumite thinks Im full of poop. You make the claim that the techniques don't work, I say they do, I've told you that I'm a 37 year old with a dad bod who has been in the Marines in combat, served as a cop and fought lets say maybe a half dozen or so fights in muay thai in Thailand. I have no film to show you, but I have life experience where the **** worked right, exactly as advertised, the very first time, in a real scenario where 99.9% of the public and this forum are never ever going to be in and I've produced consistent, repeated results. You as another educated adult can choose to believe me, the other internet karate guy or not, that doesn't make your argument correct or your assessment correct or the system bad. Your opinion, like mine, is equally worthless.

Also, I've never EVER seen a martial artist in a street fight, does that mean it doesn't happen? Ive never fought anyone win or lose, for longer than maybe a minute or two in the real world. Tournament fighting is against other athletes in ideal circumstances, is it pressure testing yes, is it realistic? No, people dont fight like that and they dont stay up that long. Usually its maybe three or four hits and someone is done, so whose stupid? the guy who theorizes on the internet about a super ninja fight or a cage match that they and no one else is likely to be in or the statistical probability that IF they EVER get into a fight, what is actually likely to happen?


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> I think the question needs to be asked and answered. Otherwise you get this weird magical logic which generally doesn't solve anything.


I agree.   If the person is trying to train for function, then it needs to be asked.


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> There's no new vector, I'm trying to get you to drop the MMA is the final and only metric by which to gauge the effectiveness of a martial art. You are drawing too many assumptions here. I've been super clear with you, that the Aikido techniques work as advertised, in most situations. If you would like a real life analogy, I had a crackhead try to bury a screwdriver in another officer once, I used a textbook kote gaeshi to take him down, then I put his wrist behind his back and put handcuffs on him. No, I dont have it on film, no I'm not going to fight in some Kumite with Steven Segal to prove it. I have had numerous drunks and punks grab my shirt, my badge, my arm, etc and Aikido techniques have ALWAYS both taken the aggressor down and ended the confrontation without major harm to anyone, as advertised, in let's say a dozen or so real world fights. Is this irrefutable proof for a two karate guys on the internet argument? Nope. Do you have to believe me? Nope. I know its not proof, but I've been in multiple real life scenarios where the techniques worked, great, for me, or people I trained with. The point is, I'm not trying to win an internet argument with you, I'm simply telling you my side of things. Thats not a weasel argument and I don't care if Mr Kumite thinks Im full of poop. You make the claim that the techniques don't work, I say they do, I've told you that I'm a 37 year old with a dad bod who has been in the Marines in combat, served as a cop and fought lets say maybe a half dozen or so fights in muay thai in Thailand. I have no film to show you, but I have life experience where the **** worked right, exactly as advertised, the very first time, in a real scenario where 99.9% of the public and this forum are never ever going to be in and I've produced consistent, repeated results. You as another educated adult can choose to believe me, the other internet karate guy or not, that doesn't make your argument correct or your assessment correct or the system bad. Your opinion, like mine, is equally worthless.
> 
> Also, I've never EVER seen a martial artist in a street fight, does that mean it doesn't happen? Ive never fought anyone win or lose, for longer than maybe a minute or two in the real world. Tournament fighting is against other athletes in ideal circumstances, is it pressure testing yes, is it realistic? No, people dont fight like that and they dont stay up that long. Usually its maybe three or four hits and someone is done, so whose stupid? the guy who theorizes on the internet about a super ninja fight or a cage match that they and no one else is likely to be in or the statistical probability that IF they EVER get into a fight, what is actually likely to happen?


Well, that's that then. You have anecdotes, which does little to advance the discussion. 

I have questions which you have chosen not to answer.

If you are satisfied with that so be it.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> Well, that's that then. You have anecdotes, which does little to advance the discussion.
> 
> I have questions which you have chosen not to answer.
> 
> If you are satisfied with that so be it.



Which questions have I not answered? I can answer questions, Im not going to argue against positions I have not taken. For the purposes of internet discussion its all opinion and anecdote, your mileage will vary but I was pretty clear with drop bear, before our diacussion started, that you cant prove or disprove an internet martial arts argument. So if you have questions, ask them. I will answer in good faith and you can choose to believe or disbelieve my answers.


----------



## geezer

JowGaWolf said:


> I saw that video to.  I was like.   "Please say Jow Ga,, Please say Jow Ga. lol."  I was surprised that he called out Wng Chun..  I was like, "Soooo the guy who can't jab is going to  call out the Wing Chun group."It was almost like he was saying that just because he didn't get good training meant that everyone else didn't either.  He was so willing to put so many other groups in the same boat that he was in.



Sooo ...in the newest video he backtracks and says, "Yeah. it looks like there is some WC out there that is being trained with resistance and is useful for fighting...". Gotta respect a guy who is willing to look at evidence and change his mind.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> There's no new vector, I'm trying to get you to drop the MMA is the final and only metric by which to gauge the effectiveness of a martial art. You are drawing too many assumptions here. I've been super clear with you, that the Aikido techniques work as advertised, in most situations. If you would like a real life analogy, I had a crackhead try to bury a screwdriver in another officer once, I used a textbook kote gaeshi to take him down, then I put his wrist behind his back and put handcuffs on him. No, I dont have it on film, no I'm not going to fight in some Kumite with Steven Segal to prove it. I have had numerous drunks and punks grab my shirt, my badge, my arm, etc and Aikido techniques have ALWAYS both taken the aggressor down and ended the confrontation without major harm to anyone, as advertised, in let's say a dozen or so real world fights. Is this irrefutable proof for a two karate guys on the internet argument? Nope. Do you have to believe me? Nope. I know its not proof, but I've been in multiple real life scenarios where the techniques worked, great, for me, or people I trained with. The point is, I'm not trying to win an internet argument with you, I'm simply telling you my side of things. Thats not a weasel argument and I don't care if Mr Kumite thinks Im full of poop. You make the claim that the techniques don't work, I say they do, I've told you that I'm a 37 year old with a dad bod who has been in the Marines in combat, served as a cop and fought lets say maybe a half dozen or so fights in muay thai in Thailand. I have no film to show you, but I have life experience where the **** worked right, exactly as advertised, the very first time, in a real scenario where 99.9% of the public and this forum are never ever going to be in and I've produced consistent, repeated results. You as another educated adult can choose to believe me, the other internet karate guy or not, that doesn't make your argument correct or your assessment correct or the system bad. Your opinion, like mine, is equally worthless.
> 
> Also, I've never EVER seen a martial artist in a street fight, does that mean it doesn't happen? Ive never fought anyone win or lose, for longer than maybe a minute or two in the real world. Tournament fighting is against other athletes in ideal circumstances, is it pressure testing yes, is it realistic? No, people dont fight like that and they dont stay up that long. Usually its maybe three or four hits and someone is done, so whose stupid? the guy who theorizes on the internet about a super ninja fight or a cage match that they and no one else is likely to be in or the statistical probability that IF they EVER get into a fight, what is actually likely to happen?



I assume you mean never seen another martial artist in a street fight.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> - Aikido isn't any good, by itself, in mixed martial arts (I have said this, multiple times now), it has no "finishing moves" and the way its being practiced in all of your examples, its not using striking. So lets ask ourselves, why is no one going into an MMA ring and attempting to just throw the other guy around for the entire match until he gives up?



Have you heard of gsp?
Or Ben Askren?


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> Which questions have I not answered? I can answer questions, Im not going to argue against positions I have not taken. For the purposes of internet discussion its all opinion and anecdote, your mileage will vary but I was pretty clear with drop bear, before our diacussion started, that you cant prove or disprove an internet martial arts argument. So if you have questions, ask them. I will answer in good faith and you can choose to believe or disbelieve my answers.


I've been asking why you do not see aikido being successfully used in competition. You have sidestepped this question 5 ways from Sunday, but you haven't answered it. You have said it's just different in competition, alluded to rules(which can also be inferred as the rules are the only difference) yet did not answer which rules interfere with its potential success. Instead you gave me anecdotes.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In your opinion, what can Aikido offer that Judo or wrestling can't?


If the answer was “nothing,” would it matter?  Because then you would also need to ask:  what can judo or wrestling provide that aikido can’t? The answer would again be “nothing.”


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> I assume you mean never seen another martial artist in a street fight.


LOL, yes, but its fine as is, going by the conversation Im just waving hands around in interpretive dance and using healing crystals. Read it however works for you


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> I've been asking why you do not see aikido being successfully used in competition. You have sidestepped this question 5 ways from Sunday, but you haven't answered it. You have said it's just different in competition, alluded to rules(which can also be inferred as the rules are the only difference) yet did not answer which rules interfere with its potential success. Instead you gave me anecdotes.



Bro, Ive gone over specific rules, Ive said its not a good fit for MMA. I dont know how ELSE to answer that. I dont think vanilla Aikido will work in MMA, who the hell would pay to see one guy get tossed around for a few minutes? Once you mix Aikido with anything else it isnt going to look like the videos of interpretive dance anymore, so then its going to be an argument of "it wasnt the aikido is was the other stuff" although to be fair I can tell by watching those uke nage videos who is doing the technique in a way that will actually work. Some guy posted a video of some old Japanese dude that was pretty solid technique. 

I think we could see Aikido do well with other martial arts, maybe someone with Aikido, Judo and more traditional Ju-Jitsu or Karate? If we go on the current syllabus only like 60 techniques get taught nowadays, if that, if we are going to evaluate only those techniques I dont sew how you could get it to work without some other BJJ/Judo or whatever experience. A traditional Aikido guy with nothing else has no defenses against modern wrestling/BJJ takedowns and anything on the ground, so just like any fighter nowadays has to practice striking AND ground fighting to be competitive, I dont see how you could make Aikido work without the same thing. That doesnt mean it doesnt work as a combative art, maybe it makes the argument about it needing to get with the times, for that we did specific things like integrating judo, BJJ into the system. I still need to look at lists of Aikido and Judo techniques to see where every technique falls, because I learned it along side the Judo. I think we need more people like the budo brothers who advocate training in lots of different styles before we see a see change in MMA and "competitive" martial arts. Filipino martial arts, in my opinion, are the next "big thing", we dont see them in MMA at all, ever, but we know Kali, Escrima, Panatuken, etc works, it was used very effectively against the Spanish, the US, and the Japanese learned to fear little men running around with bamboo sticks and they were a very modern army. What I think we see in modern MMA is a very bottlenecked system of fighting that works very well under the UFC rules and that only really includes BJJ, Boxing, wrestling, and some (very little) karate and muay thai. I dont see this as proof that those are the only things that work, just that is what is being trained and used in current sporting events. Is that transparent enough?


----------



## dunc

Hi @Shatteredzen 

Just sharing my perspective on the original question

The first style I studied was Aikido, for about 2 years, and it absolutely gave me an advantage in my teenage school ground scraps (as did rugby)
I switched from Aikido to traditional Japanese MA and have trained in this for 30 years and more recently added BJJ (for the last 10 years)

I’ve experimented a lot in applying the old techniques/principles in resistive situations with a particular interest in finding the most applicable methods for a self defence context
My conclusion is that styles like aikido removed important elements of the older techniques in order to make them more socially acceptable &/or safer to train
Unfortunately removing elements of martial technique almost always reduces the technique’s efficacy....

Sharing a video of one of the exercises that we use to train two fundamental wrist locks. Starting from a collar grab uke’s job is to resist the wrist lock that they know is coming and do their best to strike tori with the other hand
Apologies as it’s not a very good quality video (I found some old clips from training and bunged it up for my students during covid), but hopefully shows the general idea
If you’re interested in having a practical martial art then I’d strongly recommend introducing exercises like this to make sure that your foundational technique is solid. You don’t need to get stuck in the box of a competition format if your objectives are different to that format


----------



## Shatteredzen

dunc said:


> Hi @Shatteredzen
> 
> Just sharing my perspective on the original question
> 
> The first style I studied was Aikido, for about 2 years, and it absolutely gave me an advantage in my teenage school ground scraps (as did rugby)
> I switched from Aikido to traditional Japanese MA and have trained in this for 30 years and more recently added BJJ (for the last 10 years)
> 
> I’ve experimented a lot in applying the old techniques/principles in resistive situations with a particular interest in finding the most applicable methods for a self defence context
> My conclusion is that styles like aikido removed important elements of the older techniques in order to make them more socially acceptable &/or safer to train
> Unfortunately removing elements of martial technique almost always reduces the technique’s efficacy....
> 
> Sharing a video of one of the exercises that we use to train two fundamental wrist locks. Starting from a collar grab uke’s job is to resist the wrist lock that they know is coming and do their best to strike tori with the other hand
> Apologies as it’s not a very good quality video (I found some old clips from training and bunged it up for my students during covid), but hopefully shows the general idea
> If you’re interested in having a practical martial art then I’d strongly recommend introducing exercises like this to make sure that your foundational technique is solid. You don’t need to get stuck in the box of a competition format if your objectives are different to that format



Very good points. I agree. In my personal style/school, we modernized the techniques by introducing Judo, BJJ, FMA, muay thai and some other stuff. I like training Aikido in the traditional way for form and technique but when I have learned and taught, its done with the instructor teaching the technique at low speed/power, then progressively faster until people are doing each technique against each other as hard, fast and with as much resistance as can be done safely. We also make people of different body types and weights, etc, do the techniques to each other, some techniques require tweaking and Ive had some small women where Ive had to say "if you gotta do this to someone too much bigger your maybe better off just stabbing the guy and articulating why you had to do that to the cops". That said, I have had some seriously vanilla Aikido work in very real altercations and it worked better than I expected. I do think that the average Joe who puts the time in can make regular Aikido work for whatever they are likely going to face in the course of their life to keep them and others safe. This doesnt excuse bad schools, bad training and bad technique, but you can go to plenty of Mc Dojos in plenty of styles and get the same not earned belts that will look good for instagram but not win the lamest parking lot scuffle with your drunk cousin who wants to drive home.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> LOL, yes, but its fine as is, going by the conversation Im just waving hands around in interpretive dance and using healing crystals. Read it however works for you



How do you think a person who does healing crystals would support the idea that they work?


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> How do you think a person who does healing crystals would support the idea that they work?


I'm not arguing healing crystals with you drop bear, sorry. But here is a video I just found thanks to Geezers thread which shows a guy here in the states trying to show/train Aikido in a more practical fashion. My opinion on this specific video is that its good, the guy is making cogent points that I can agree with for the most part. Maybe you would like to discuss this since its the only video of MMAish, resistance training Aikido I can find. I like Aikidoflows video's, but this seems more scientific and more inline with what what you are looking for:


----------



## Shatteredzen

Also, here's a great conversation along the lines of what we are having from MA Journey's channel


----------



## jobo

Shatteredzen said:


> LOL, yes, but its fine as is, going by the conversation Im just waving hands around in interpretive dance and using healing crystals. Read it however works for you


non of the people telling you , you should try your skills in a UFC contest have bothered to try their skill in a ufc contest, they just think it would work as they have seen them work on the tv

in fact asking them to post their fight record at any level mma may be revealing


----------



## Shatteredzen

dunc said:


> Hi @Shatteredzen
> 
> Just sharing my perspective on the original question
> 
> The first style I studied was Aikido, for about 2 years, and it absolutely gave me an advantage in my teenage school ground scraps (as did rugby)
> I switched from Aikido to traditional Japanese MA and have trained in this for 30 years and more recently added BJJ (for the last 10 years)
> 
> I’ve experimented a lot in applying the old techniques/principles in resistive situations with a particular interest in finding the most applicable methods for a self defence context
> My conclusion is that styles like aikido removed important elements of the older techniques in order to make them more socially acceptable &/or safer to train
> Unfortunately removing elements of martial technique almost always reduces the technique’s efficacy....
> 
> Sharing a video of one of the exercises that we use to train two fundamental wrist locks. Starting from a collar grab uke’s job is to resist the wrist lock that they know is coming and do their best to strike tori with the other hand
> Apologies as it’s not a very good quality video (I found some old clips from training and bunged it up for my students during covid), but hopefully shows the general idea
> If you’re interested in having a practical martial art then I’d strongly recommend introducing exercises like this to make sure that your foundational technique is solid. You don’t need to get stuck in the box of a competition format if your objectives are different to that format



Something I noticed with your video, good show of the techniques IMO, one thing I was taught which helps with leverage is what we called "tracing the C" when you go to execute the lock/throw, you trace an exaggerated "C" with your rear foot clockwise or counter clockwise depending on positioning but away from your opponent, in the direction you want them to go. and this helps provide more force/leverage/momentum as you roll through the technique. In the video, my one critique is that his stance is very closed and he visibly struggles to get leverage at some points. Otherwise, yes, the way he defends from the opposite side punches with movement and body positioning is great also.


----------



## Shatteredzen

jobo said:


> non of the people telling you , you should try your skills in a UFC contest have bothered to try their skill in a ufc contest, they just think it would work as they have seen them work on the tv
> 
> in fact asking them to post their fight record at any level mma may be revealing



Indeed, I'm just being cheeky with drop bear since he's coming around and communicating more than grunts and clicks, to be fair, only one person told me I had to fight in a death Kumite, drop bear just said he would like to see it, which is fair, there should be one sacrificial old/dad bod arthritic veteran in every UFC who just throws a beer and gets taken out by someone on the title card.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> I'm not arguing healing crystals with you drop bear, sorry. But here is a video I just found thanks to Geezers thread which shows a guy here in the states trying to show/train Aikido in a more practical fashion. My opinion on this specific video is that its good, the guy is making cogent points that I can agree with for the most part. Maybe you would like to discuss this since its the only video of MMAish, resistance training Aikido I can find. I like Aikidoflows video's, but this seems more scientific and more inline with what what you are looking for:



Very hard to get over the fact he is a screaming duche who grapples tomato cans. And is building a rep off that.

But that being said. It is this sort of suff that is much more convincing in favour of building a case for Aikido. 

And the difference is that you can see what works. How the moves are being set up and what it actually takes to make these Aikido techniques in to real usable techniques. 

So for example that elbow crank is considered a big guy move. I have been got with it. But have almost never caught anyone else because I don't have the muscle.


----------



## jobo

Shatteredzen said:


> Indeed, I'm just being cheeky with drop bear since he's coming around and communicating more than grunts and clicks, to be fair, only one person told me I had to fight in a death Kumite, drop bear just said he would like to see it, which is fair, there should be one sacrificial old/dad bod arthritic veteran in every UFC who just throws a beer and gets taken out by someone on the title card.


they have a wellpractice  logic circle as they have this very debate 50 times a year, 

as far as I know,  non of them are competative fighters, which just makes them hobby ma like the rest of us and they are also quite 9old


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Very hard to get over the fact he is a screaming duche who grapples tomato cans. And is building a rep off that.
> 
> But that being said. It is this sort of suff that is much more convincing in favour of building a case for Aikido.
> 
> And the difference is that you can see what works. How the moves are being set up and what it actually takes to make these Aikido techniques in to real usable techniques.
> 
> So for example that elbow crank is considered a big guy move. I have been got with it. But have almost never caught anyone else because I don't have the muscle.


 
I have zero experience with him prior to that video. I like that he's being fairly honest about who he is training with and what he is doing. That Russian kote gaeshi to an ankle lock switch was rather silly and I have no friggin clue about what he is saying with systema but you can see in that video what Im talking about how it does not LOOK at all the same when you go to apply any of it versus what you see in an uke/nage demo.


----------



## Shatteredzen

jobo said:


> they have a wellpractice  logic circle as they have this very debate 50 times a year,
> 
> as far as I know,  non of them are competative fighters, which just makes them hobby ma like the rest of us and they are also quite 9old



I should fit in great then, I am also old, argumentative and was in the military long enough I can circle jerk as hard as anybody.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> I have zero experience with him prior to that video. I like that he's being fairly honest about who he is training with and what he is doing. That Russian kote gaeshi to an ankle lock switch was rather silly and I have no friggin clue about what he is saying with systema but you can see in that video what Im talking about how it does not LOOK at all the same when you go to apply any of it versus what you see in an uke/nage demo.



Systema is a whole new ball game when it comes to magical powers. But then Fedor did it. And fedor is a killer. So there is probably different versions. Fedor also didn't use magic at any point. 

The thing is when you see something working you start to see consistency. 1+1=2.

So a lot of those moves he is doing is kind of common to a lot of grappling. The methodology of resisted training becomes common to a lot of grappling. He conveniently has back of house training in BJJ and is a physically large man. 

And so these components start to fall in to place. We still look at methodology that works.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> they have a wellpractice  logic circle as they have this very debate 50 times a year,
> 
> as far as I know,  non of them are competative fighters, which just makes them hobby ma like the rest of us and they are also quite 9old



Strawman. 

Who has demanded anyone be a competitive fighter?

I set the bar as low as a flow roll. And that couldn't be met.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Strawman.
> 
> Who has demanded anyone be a competitive fighter?
> 
> I set the bar as low as a flow roll. And that couldn't be met.


who ever said he had to fight kumite, I'm not following the thread that deeply

but the suggestion has been made he should test his skills in an mma contest, that would require him to be a competitive fighter, would it not ?

all we have is three old men who dont fight competitively telling another old man who doesnt fight competitively that he should.

it's a nonsence argument,  unless your slapping your fight record on the table


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> who ever said he had to fight kumite, I'm not following the thread that deeply
> 
> but the suggestion has been made he should test his skills in an mma contest, that would require him to be a competitive fighter, would it not ?
> 
> all we have is three old men who dont fight competitively telling another old man who doesnt fight competitively that he should.
> 
> it's a nonsence argument,  unless your slapping your fight record on the table



When you find the actual argument get back to me with your response. 

You can't argue statements that were not made.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Systema is a whole new ball game when it comes to magical powers. But then Fedor did it. And fedor is a killer. So there is probably different versions. Fedor also didn't use magic at any point.
> 
> The thing is when you see something working you start to see consistency. 1+1=2.
> 
> So a lot of those moves he is doing is kind of common to a lot of grappling. The methodology of resisted training becomes common to a lot of grappling. He conveniently has back of house training in BJJ and is a physically large man.
> 
> And so these components start to fall in to place. We still look at methodology that works.



But he is explaining which principles he is using and how he is using them. There are Judo moves in there that he's explaining with Aikido principles and in my experience, this is a big part of Aikido, adapting the concepts to Judo or another move to exploit the momentum or tweak an existing Judo move. I do the same with some of the muay thai stuff and he kinda glosses over kneeing/elbows at a point or two in there.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> When you find the actual argument get back to me with your response.
> 
> You can't argue statements that were not made.


 I'm not wading through 33 pages of nonsence, so you dont think he should test his skills in a competitive bout, il just wait for you to sugest he should and then refere back to this post

that doesnt get away from the fact that non of you have, and as such your no more or less than me or him


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> When you find the actual argument get back to me with your response.
> 
> You can't argue statements that were not made.



There was one demand for a grand MMA challenge, but he is mistaking you and D arguing with me for pursuing the same course of logic, I told him your not, but his argument is sound for the guy that was making the Count Dante dojo wars demands.


----------



## Shatteredzen

jobo said:


> I'm not wading through 33 pages of nonsence, so you dont think he should test his skills in a competitive bout, il just wait for you to sugest he should and then refere back to this post
> 
> that doesnt get away from the fact that non of you have, and as such your no more or less than me or him



LOL, I've only had one deathmatch challenger, drop bear is just catty.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> But he is explaining which principles he is using and how he is using them. There are Judo moves in there that he's explaining with Aikido principles and in my experience, this is a big part of Aikido, adapting the concepts to Judo or another move to exploit the momentum or tweak an existing Judo move. I do the same with some of the muay thai stuff and he kinda glosses over kneeing/elbows at a point or two in there.



Yeah. He is explaining grappling principles with Aikido. 

Grappling principles remain pretty consistent.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> I'm not wading through 33 pages of nonsence, so you dont think he should test his skills in a competitive bout, il just wait for you to sugest he should and then refere back to this post
> 
> that doesnt get away from the fact that non of you have, and as such your no more or less than me or him



Have you ever had Bundy rum in a can? 

Well I have. So therefore I am better than you.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> There was one demand for a grand MMA challenge, but he is mistaking you and D arguing with me for pursuing the same course of logic, I told him your not, but his argument is sound for the guy that was making the Count Dante dojo wars demands.



From memory you blew that out of proportion.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Have you ever had Bundy rum in a can?
> 
> Well I have. So therefore I am better than you.


I'm not even getting the context of that.

you train ma and dont test your skill in contests, so do I, that leaves us both in the postion of not having tested our skills in a contest.

that leaves us in much the same position,  of untested hobby ma

tp be fair I dont need to test them, I've a good idea how long I would last in a ufc bout


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> who ever said he had to fight kumite, I'm not following the thread that deeply
> 
> but the suggestion has been made he should test his skills in an mma contest, that would require him to be a competitive fighter, would it not ?
> 
> all we have is three old men who dont fight competitively telling another old man who doesnt fight competitively that he should.
> 
> it's a nonsence argument,  unless your slapping your fight record on the table



Found it for you.

"The MA Journey guy is one of the few Aikidoka who were willing to put their art to the test on the biggest stages on the planet. He gets respect for that alone. If you think you can do better, what's stopping you? Again, there's millions of dollars waiting for you if you're as good as you say you are."

Rokus of course has had a MMA fight.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> I'm not even getting the context of that.
> 
> you train ma and dont test your skill in contests, so do I, that leaves us both in the postion of not having tested our skills in a contest.
> 
> that leaves us in much the same position,  of untested hobby ma
> 
> tp be fair I dont need to test them, I've a good idea how long I would last in a ufc bout



I was just inventing an unrelated standard to use as an argument.

Like your competitive fighter standard.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Found it for you.
> 
> "The MA Journey guy is one of the few Aikidoka who were willing to put their art to the test on the biggest stages on the planet. He gets respect for that alone. If you think you can do better, what's stopping you? Again, there's millions of dollars waiting for you if you're as good as you say you are."
> 
> Rokus of course has had a MMA fight.


which seems to be one more than you?


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> which seems to be one more than you?



I have had a MMA fight. And a couple of white belt jits golds.

I have a little trophy somewhere.

I fought this guy on about ten days notice and got uppercutted airborne.

About Us -

Speaking of tomato cans.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> I was just inventing an unrelated standard to use as an argument.
> 
> Like your competitive fighter standard.


it's a requirement to be any sort of fighter,  if your not competitive you loose quickly 

and you fight drunks, I'm sure your competitive at that, I can usually fight drunks as well, the drunker the better


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> it's a requirement to be any sort of fighter,  if your not competitive you loose quickly
> 
> and you fight drunks, I'm sure your competitive at that, I can usually fight drunks as well, the drunker the better



Yeah but I have had Bundy in a can


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Yeah but I have had Bundy in a can


that just makes you a drunk as well, its nothing to be proud of,


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> that just makes you a drunk as well, its nothing to be proud of,



Not subjectively.

In my opinion it makes me better than you. 

And unfortunately we can only judge things in that manner.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Not subjectively.
> 
> In my opinion it makes me better than you.
> 
> And unfortunately we can only judge things in that manner.


good you've accepted the point, that we,all bring our own criteria to what being a proficient ma is

I hope this is an end to your mma is best, coz its objectively better diatribe, il miss you, as it's your only topic


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> You are proving my point.  If the technique was actually trash then there is no way you can correctly do  the technique so that it functions.  It would lack the concept and foundation required to be functional.   The BJJ was able to show how to do the technique properly because it was a valid technique.  It was just the other guy was doing it wrong so everything that follows would be wrong too.



Keep in mind I said "what they learned", not technique in of itself. For example, a lot of Aikido wrist locks are technically sound, it's their entries into those techniques that are the problem.



> No BJJ coach, or instructor is going to lower their image by trying to take serious something that isn't valid, or something that they didn't think could be valid.



But those examples are far and few in between. Outside of no-touch nonsense, a punch is a punch and a lock is a lock, the difference in effectiveness is getting those techniques to land on a consistent basis without getting KO'd in the process. Take for example Masaaki Hatsumi's infamous ground fighting video;






There are sound techniques in that video, it's just layered with tons of BS.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> The technique is more important than the entry.  If you get the technique wrong then nothing works.  If you really dig deep into your system then you should be able to see that there are many entries.  I literally just showed my son this today.  I took one technique from Jow Ga and showed multiple entries for that one technique.



I never said the entries were more important than the technique, I said that if the entry is flawed you'll never get to the technique, thus the entire thing falls apart. I view entry and technique to being two parts of a whole.



> People who do wrist locks will tell you the same thing.  They work better when your opponent doesn't know it's coming.  There are many ways to trick someone.



Yeah, but that pretty much applies to everything doesn't it? If someone sees a punch or a kick coming, they'll defend it as well. I get chokes and locks off in Bjj because my partner didn't see it coming. I disagree that this is a special case just for wrist locks. I think the real fundamental difference here is that in grappling it's position then submission, whereas in Aikido it appears that it's submission then position, where you're using the submission to force your opponent into a position, and that causes an issue with effectiveness.



> I think Aikido has some valid techniques for fighting applications, I just think most to train it don't do so for function.  Like someone stated here sort of Aikido for Health and Tai Chi for health. where techniques are blurred shadows of function.  In terms of sparring against other systems, I've only seen a very few do so.



I stated that, and yes I view Aikido is more like Yoga than Boxing.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Strawman.
> 
> Who has demanded anyone be a competitive fighter?
> 
> I set the bar as low as a flow roll. And that couldn't be met.



I guess he's talking about me.

I simply told him that instead of claiming that Rokas from MA Journey is misrepresenting his art and criticizing his technique, he should do what Rokas did and spar with a MMA fighter and film the results.

Interesting that he views that as someone telling him to participate in a "MMA death match".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Wrist locks are their claim to fame, and the basis of the system.


That's not my understanding of their system. I'd say movement is the basis of the system, and they probably put most of their emphasis on kokyu nage throws in demonstration.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I never said that wrist locks were the ONLY techniques in the system. I said that they're the claim to fame and the basis of the system, since the basics revolve around wrist control.


I've never seen much stress on wrist control when I was visiting an Aikido school. Body control (often via the arm, but not exclusively so) was much more emphasized. I'm really not sure I ever trained a wrist lock at an Aikido dojo, now that I think about it. I probably did, but it certainly wasn't the majority of the training time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> I will ask you again; why is aikido not used in a competitive format? You seem to truely believe in its eficy. Surely this must have crossed your mind?
> 
> Do you believe you know something the entire MMA community doesn't?
> 
> What is it about MMA that has been nullifying the usefulness of aikido for all of these years?
> 
> Surely you don't believe there is some conspiracy within jui jitsu to keep all the aikidokas from showing their skills?


I think if you took Aikido to Judo competition (probably the easiest transition) - assuming you trained it for that format, rather than the typical no-resistance approach seen too often in Aikido schools - it would still look a lot like Judo. What would be most different would be the defense, not the offence. As @Shatteredzen suggested, there's a difference in the way an attack is received. I suspect it would be initially confusing to Judoka, because it is new. How much of an advantage it would be probably depends on how adaptable the individual competitors involved are.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> The technique is more important than the entry.


I teach exactly the opposite of this, and I suspect my view is more accurate for Aikido, as well. The entry to a grappling technique is where the control starts. Fail the entry, and there is no technique available. A good entry is what makes the next step possible, and a single entry can lead to multiple options. If they counter late in the entry, that usually just means there's a different finish. Or it's time to punch them.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> I think if you took Aikido to Judo competition (probably the easiest transition) - assuming you trained it for that format, rather than the typical no-resistance approach seen too often in Aikido schools - it would still look a lot like Judo. What would be most different would be the defense, not the offence. As @Shatteredzen suggested, there's a difference in the way an attack is received. I suspect it would be initially confusing to Judoka, because it is new. How much of an advantage it would be probably depends on how adaptable the individual competitors involved are.


that of course would have no bearing on its s4lf defence use, as your unlikely to be attacked either again by the same guy or by others who had watched, if you " confuse "them and they end up on the floor, that the only success required

it's much the same for all ma, having one trick that works most of the time is really all you will ever need, have three tricks and youve covered most eventualities


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I've never seen much stress on wrist control when I was visiting an Aikido school. Body control (often via the arm, but not exclusively so) was much more emphasized. I'm really not sure I ever trained a wrist lock at an Aikido dojo, now that I think about it. I probably did, but it certainly wasn't the majority of the training time.



Wrist control doesn't form a good portion of the basic techniques Nikyo, Sankyo, and Yonkyo?

Aikido Joint Locks - Black Belt Wiki


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> that of course would have no bearing on its s4lf defence use, as your unlikely to be attacked either again by the same guy or by others who had watched, if you " confuse "them and they end up on the floor, that the only success required
> 
> it's much the same for all ma, having one trick that works most of the time is really all you will ever need, have three tricks and youve covered most eventualities


I don't know that the confusion would (or wouldn't) rise to that level. A very adaptive Judo player might be stymied on their first attempt to throw, but that wouldn't mean they'd end up on the ground - just that the person defending didn't. And that very adaptive person might overcome that defense the second attempt. I do think it would mess with some folks enough to mess up their entire match, but not everyone.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Wrist control doesn't form a good portion of the basic techniques Nikyo, Sankyo, and Yonkyo?
> 
> Aikido Joint Locks - Black Belt Wiki


The way I've experienced those, the arm control and body movement is what really matters. The wrist is the finish. And my experience training at Aikido dojos (limited, but varied), they didn't spend most of their time on those techniques - more spent on "projections" (throws/takedowns).


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> I don't know that the confusion would (or wouldn't) rise to that level. A very adaptive Judo player might be stymied on their first attempt to throw, but that wouldn't mean they'd end up on the ground - just that the person defending didn't. And that very adaptive person might overcome that defense the second attempt. I do think it would mess with some folks enough to mess up their entire match, but not everyone.


yea but it still has no bearing on self defence unless it a particularly adaptive judo man involved

it's the whole it wont work on the street if it wont work in compitiction nonsence, that these three continually argue, that I'm taking issue with

mma is not a close representation of street fight, as most street fight dont look at all like mma, they largly seem to consist of two bald blokes in good shirts and bad shoes pushing each other, before one gets the other in a head lock and they both fall over the kerb

at least round here,


----------



## O'Malley

Hanzou said:


> Wrist control doesn't form a good portion of the basic techniques Nikyo, Sankyo, and Yonkyo?
> 
> Aikido Joint Locks - Black Belt Wiki



In addition to what gpseymour said above, these three are just variations on the first basic technique (ikkyo). The joint locks in that series make for really good stretching, teach you about body mechanics and can be used to lock someone, but they represent a very small portion of aikido kata. Most of the techniques are throws, with integrated striking opportunities.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> The way I've experienced those, the arm control and body movement is what really matters. The wrist is the finish. And my experience training at Aikido dojos (limited, but varied), they didn't spend most of their time on those techniques - more spent on "projections" (throws/takedowns).




Interesting. Aren’t those considered basic techniques? Why wouldn’t Aikidoka spend a lot of time on the basics?


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> yea but it still has no bearing on self defence unless it a particularly adaptive judo man involved
> 
> it's the whole it wont work on the street if it wont work in compitiction nonsence, that these three continually argue, that I'm taking issue with
> 
> mma is not a close representation of street fight, as most street fight dont look at all like mma, they largly seem to consist of two bald blokes in good shirts and bad shoes pushing each other, before one gets the other in a head lock and they both fall over the kerb
> 
> at least round here,



A skilled Judoka wouldn’t have to adapt much to accomplish a throw. The thing is that if you can throw another skilled Judoka, you have a high chance of being able to throw some drunken clown at a bar. Why? Because you’ve spent an inordinate amount of time training against highly resisting opponents who know how to counter what you’re doing. Someone who doesn’t know how to stop or counter your throw would be like you as a black belt sparring against a white belt on their first day of class.

And that’s the core difference;  training against resistance versus compliant training.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> A skilled Judoka wouldn’t have to adapt much to accomplish a throw. The thing is that if you can throw another skilled Judoka, you have a high chance of being able to throw some drunken clown at a bar. Why? Because you’ve spent an inordinate amount of time training against highly resisting opponents who know how to counter what you’re doing. Someone who doesn’t know how to stop or counter your throw would be like you as a black belt sparring against a white belt on their first day of class.


well yes that is possibly so, but I would have a very near to 1 probability of defeating them anyway, so the differance between turning up once a week  to do karate and years of dedicated judoka  training would be minnute

it would indeed be like me sparring with a complete beginner ,only one that is probebly drunk as well


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> well yes that is possibly so, but I would have a very near to 1 probability of defeating them anyway, so the differance between turning up once a week  to do karate and years of dedicated judoka  training would be minnute
> 
> it would indeed be like me sparring with a complete beginner ,only one that is probebly drunk as well



If you’re an excellent striker and the Judoka has bad entry and can’t close the distance, certainly. However, if they can slip in and get their grips, you’re in trouble.

A lot of street fights wind up in a clinch contest. You don’t want to clinch up with a Judoka.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> If you’re an excellent striker and the Judoka has bad entry and can’t close the distance, certainly. However, if they can slip in and get their grips, you’re in trouble.
> 
> A lot of street fights wind up in a clinch contest. You don’t want to clinch up with a Judoka.


I'm not fighting a judoka in this scenario,  I'm fighting combatives that make up the over welcoming majority of street alterations

if they are not as strong as me, I win, if they cant match my cardio I win, if they are drunk I win, the only way I'm losing a one on one altercation with them is if they blind side me or I manage to fall over on my own

that's before we consider my striking and grappeling ability


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> I'm not fighting a judoka in this scenario,  I'm fighting combatives that make up the over welcoming majority of street alterations
> 
> if they are not as strong as me, I win, if they cant match my cardio I win, if they are drunk I win, the only way I'm losing a one on one altercation with them is if they blind side me or I manage to fall over on my own
> 
> that's before we consider my striking and grappeling ability



Okay, but we're talking about MMA and competitive MAs not reflecting a street fight, and you saying that a Judoka needs to be adaptive.

I'm saying that a Judoka doesn't need to be all that adaptive for his training to be effective, because their training is almost entirely throwing people who are resisting them. Further, their training snowballs because the more skilled their opposition becomes, the better they become at throwing. Thus, the final product is someone who is EXTREMELY good at throwing someone.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Okay, but we're talking about MMA and competitive MAs not reflecting a street fight, and you saying that a Judoka needs to be adaptive.
> 
> I'm saying that a Judoka doesn't need to be all that adaptive for his training to be effective, because their training is almost entirely throwing people who are resisting them. Further, their training snowballs because the more skilled their opposition becomes, the better they become at throwing. Thus, the final product is someone who is EXTREMELY good at throwing someone.


we seemed to be running through the well rehearsed argument that as, in this case aikido ( though it could be almost any tma) doesnt work in mma or bjj or judo that its useless for street defence.

iis that not the gist,  it usually is,

I'm more than accepting of the notion that judo is extremly effective at dumping over weight drunks on the floor

i


----------



## O'Malley

Just found this excellent video series on Morihiro Saito's traditional approach to aikido.

Here, he gives some explanations about the "fluid" number of aikido techniques, and how he could come up with almost infinite variations on one technique: Takemusu-aiki-curriculum-(1994-09).mp4

Here, he discusses application. Oyo-waza are techniques from the kata applied to a particular situation (e.g. sparring), while henka-waza is the term for when you try a technique, it doesn't work and then you switch to another one: Oyowaza-and-henkawaza-(1992-09).mp4

I've often wondered why I had never been taught oyo-waza. No teacher says "ok now we're doing applications" and there's almost no trace of them in reference books. From Saito's explanation above, I get that teaching oyo-waza would be moot: I can't teach you adaptability by teaching the 7th oyo-waza version of X technique which is only appropriate when uke has his weight on his nearest foot. Instead I teach the basic form as a drill, and you're expected to make it work.

This clarifies a bit the training model of aikido. That said, I still think that the sparring/randori format could be improved (a lot) to facilitate learning oyo-waza and henka-waza. It's a big part of what makes competitive styles like BJJ, judo and wrestling effective, along with more extensive technical and tactical study.

Bruce Bookman has some great ideas on oyo-waza and henka-waza. See how he has systematized follow ups to classical aikido technique:

First, here's the classical shiho nage:






Now, here's Bookman's shiho nage to sankyo:






Here's a sankyo follow up when uke rolls out of it:






Although I'm more interested in the body skills developed by aikido because the techniques were poorly thought up, I think he's onto something with his work.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> we seemed to be running through the well rehearsed argument that as, in this case aikido ( though it could be almost any tma) doesnt work in mma or bjj or judo that its useless for street defence.
> 
> iis that not the gist,  it usually is,
> 
> I'm more than accepting of the notion that judo is extremly effective at dumping over weight drunks on the floor
> 
> i



Again, what's the difference though? It comes down to resistance vs compliance. In MMA if you're getting punched in the face repeatedly, you simply get better at taking a punch than someone who studies a Karate style that only does forms and kicks air. If you can go five rounds in the ring, you have far more cardio and endurance than someone who is punching and kicking air for an hour a couple of times a week. Put those skills together, and who would you say would do better in a self defense situation where they have to fight?

It's common sense.


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> Bro, Ive gone over specific rules, Ive said its not a good fit for MMA. I dont know how ELSE to answer that. I dont think vanilla Aikido will work in MMA, who the hell would pay to see one guy get tossed around for a few minutes? Once you mix Aikido with anything else it isnt going to look like the videos of interpretive dance anymore, so then its going to be an argument of "it wasnt the aikido is was the other stuff" although to be fair I can tell by watching those uke nage videos who is doing the technique in a way that will actually work. Some guy posted a video of some old Japanese dude that was pretty solid technique.
> 
> I think we could see Aikido do well with other martial arts, maybe someone with Aikido, Judo and more traditional Ju-Jitsu or Karate? If we go on the current syllabus only like 60 techniques get taught nowadays, if that, if we are going to evaluate only those techniques I dont sew how you could get it to work without some other BJJ/Judo or whatever experience. A traditional Aikido guy with nothing else has no defenses against modern wrestling/BJJ takedowns and anything on the ground, so just like any fighter nowadays has to practice striking AND ground fighting to be competitive, I dont see how you could make Aikido work without the same thing. That doesnt mean it doesnt work as a combative art, maybe it makes the argument about it needing to get with the times, for that we did specific things like integrating judo, BJJ into the system. I still need to look at lists of Aikido and Judo techniques to see where every technique falls, because I learned it along side the Judo. I think we need more people like the budo brothers who advocate training in lots of different styles before we see a see change in MMA and "competitive" martial arts. Filipino martial arts, in my opinion, are the next "big thing", we dont see them in MMA at all, ever, but we know Kali, Escrima, Panatuken, etc works, it was used very effectively against the Spanish, the US, and the Japanese learned to fear little men running around with bamboo sticks and they were a very modern army. What I think we see in modern MMA is a very bottlenecked system of fighting that works very well under the UFC rules and that only really includes BJJ, Boxing, wrestling, and some (very little) karate and muay thai. I dont see this as proof that those are the only things that work, just that is what is being trained and used in current sporting events. Is that transparent enough?


So you are saying it doesn't work in competition because it doesn't teach you to deal with striking or grappling.

Yet for (reasons unknown) these shortcomings don't apply to outside a cage. Ok.

And the only rules you went over were the two afformentioned ones(wrist locks being illegal and greased fighters being legal) you were mistaken about. You could say it's the gloves but they actually make it easier to maintain a grip on the wrist. I'm quite sure aikido does not rely on rabbit punching, groin strikes, eye pokes or 12 to 6 elbows, and we are all out of rules.

Again, I'm not trying to bag on you, just trying to get some clarity on the claims you have been making..but it's still not adding up to anything consistent.

I don't see this discussion progressing any further.


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> Just found this excellent video series on Morihiro Saito's traditional approach to aikido.
> 
> Here, he gives some explanations about the "fluid" number of aikido techniques, and how he could come up with almost infinite variations on one technique: Takemusu-aiki-curriculum-(1994-09).mp4
> 
> Here, he discusses application. Oyo-waza are techniques from the kata applied to a particular situation (e.g. sparring), while henka-waza is the term for when you try a technique, it doesn't work and then you switch to another one: Oyowaza-and-henkawaza-(1992-09).mp4
> 
> I've often wondered why I had never been taught oyo-waza. No teacher says "ok now we're doing applications" and there's almost no trace of them in reference books. From Saito's explanation above, I get that teaching oyo-waza would be moot: I can't teach you adaptability by teaching the 7th oyo-waza version of X technique which is only appropriate when uke has his weight on his nearest foot. Instead I teach the basic form as a drill, and you're expected to make it work.
> 
> This clarifies a bit the training model of aikido. That said, I still think that the sparring/randori format could be improved (a lot) to facilitate learning oyo-waza and henka-waza. It's a big part of what makes competitive styles like BJJ, judo and wrestling effective, along with more extensive technical and tactical study.
> 
> Bruce Bookman has some great ideas on oyo-waza and henka-waza. See how he has systematized follow ups to classical aikido technique:
> 
> First, here's the classical shiho nage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, here's Bookman's shiho nage to sankyo:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a sankyo follow up when uke rolls out of it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I'm more interested in the body skills developed by aikido because the techniques were poorly thought up, I think he's onto something with his work.



Hmmm, I like the entries on those, but I think there's way too many steps and need to control a single arm in some of those sequences.

I'm also not a fan of the pin in the third video. It reminds me of Knee on Belly, but it doesn't seem nearly as secure. Bjj has multiple submission strings from knee on belly, but I'm not sure what an Aikidoka could do from that position.


----------



## Martial D

Flying Crane said:


> If the answer was “nothing,” would it matter?  Because then you would also need to ask:  what can judo or wrestling provide that aikido can’t? The answer would again be “nothing.”


Aside from how to grapple.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Again, what's the difference though? It comes down to resistance vs compliance. In MMA if you're getting punched in the face repeatedly, you simply get better at taking a punch than someone who studies a Karate style that only does forms and kicks air. If you can go five rounds in the ring, you have far more cardio and endurance than someone who is punching and kicking air for an hour a couple of times a week. Put those skills together, and who would you say would do better in a self defense situation where they have to fight?
> 
> It's common sense.


well your build a fictitious situation to argue with

conditioning is very important, but a) not all karate spend all or even any of it's time kicking air , we dont,b) conditioning away from fighting is what good fighters do and c) you only have to be better hopefully considerably better than the guy you are fighting and your going to be somewhat unlucky to find the fat drunk to be a closet athelete even more unlucky to find he is a judoka


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> well your build a fictitious situation to argue with



What aspect of my quote is fictitious? 



> conditioning is very important, but a) not all karate spend all or even any of it's time kicking air , we dont,b) conditioning away from fighting is what good fighters do and c) you only have to be better hopefully considerably better than the guy you are fighting and your going to be somewhat unlucky to find the fat drunk to be a closet athelete even more unlucky to find he is a judoka



I never said *ALL *karate styles, but we both know that there are karate styles out there who do that, and even don't practice sparring at all.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> What aspect of my quote is fictitious?
> 
> 
> 
> I never said *ALL *karate styles, but we both know that there are karate styles out there who do that, and even don't practice sparring at all.


if you dont mean all karate say so, ive never seen one where they only kick and punch air, never, do they exist? not sure, possibly

but you focused on on the smallest percentage and make statements that it's common place, which you clearly cant know,  or you do know it's wrong and said it anyway

however kicking air is aerobicaly challeng9ng about the same as running,  so it's not even a rebuttal to the point on conditioning, if there one thing those kata,display teams have its cardio


----------



## O'Malley

Hanzou said:


> Hmmm, I like the entries on those, but I think there's way too many steps and need to control a single arm in some of those sequences.
> 
> I'm also not a fan of the pin in the third video. It reminds me of Knee on Belly, but it doesn't seem nearly as secure. Bjj has multiple submission strings from knee on belly, but I'm not sure what an Aikidoka could do from that position.



I'm no expert but I think that it's actually BJJ's KoB. Bookman is a BJJ black belt and instructor and incorporates both the methodology and techniques into his aikido. I remember he teaches ground survival skills for aikidoka (shrimping, etc.), the double-leg takedown and an ikkyo-to-KoB drill, among others.

Edit: as to an aikido follow up to the KoB, I'm at a loss as well but I've never trained with the guy.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> Sooo ...in the newest video he backtracks and says, "Yeah. it looks like there is some WC out there that is being trained with resistance and is useful for fighting...". Gotta respect a guy who is willing to look at evidence and change his mind.


That's true. Can't hate guy for owning up to his errors.  He could have made his Journey easier had he just asked before assuming. lol.  Functional martial artists never have difficulty in finding each other a youtube search of Wing Chun sparring would have answered any doubts.



Hanzou said:


> I said that if the entry is flawed you'll never get to the technique, thus the entire thing falls apart. I view entry and technique to being two parts of a whole.


 Agreed



Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but that pretty much applies to everything doesn't it? If someone sees a punch or a kick coming, they'll defend it as well. I get chokes and locks off in Bjj because my partner didn't see it coming.


Yep Universal Rule for Martial arts.  There's no exception to it, so when people are trying to apply aikido techniques they should go hunting for a wrist lock.  If it thing, wrist locks and any locks should be more like an ambushed,


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> if you dont mean all karate say so, ive never seen one where they only kick and punch air, never, do they exist? not sure, possibly
> 
> but you focused on on the smallest percentage and make statements that it's common place, which you clearly cant know,  or you do know it's wrong and said it anyway
> 
> however kicking air is aerobicaly challeng9ng about the same as running,  so it's not even a rebuttal to the point on conditioning, if there one thing those kata,display teams have its cardio



I figured saying "a karate system" would indicate that I was talking about some, but okay.

And frankly if all you're doing is kicking air, you don't know how to kick a target.


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> I'm no expert but I think that it's actually BJJ's KoB. Bookman is a BJJ black belt and instructor and incorporates both the methodology and techniques into his aikido. I remember he teaches ground survival skills for aikidoka (shrimping, etc.), the double-leg takedown and an ikkyo-to-KoB drill, among others.
> 
> Edit: as to an aikido follow up to the KoB, I'm at a loss as well but I've never trained with the guy.



Yeah, I can tell he has some Bjj training from those entries. Also my issue with the pin was the transition he was doing. I don't know if he was doing an Aikido move with how he was moving his legs, but the Bjj knee on belly switch is WAY more efficient than what he was doing.

And yeah, my other issue is what does an Aikidoka do from there? It isn't impossible to escape a knee on belly.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> I figured saying "a karate system" would indicate that I was talking about some, but okay.
> 
> And frankly if all you're doing is kicking air, you don't know how to kick a target.


we have far from established that such even exists, they only have to get a focus pad out every now and then to prove you wrong and I've never ever been to a karate club that didnt own a few focus pad

but as said, I'm doing cyclibg at the moment for one of many reasons that it will help my ma ability, the only group I run into regularly that really scare me are cyclists as they have much better cardio than me


----------



## O'Malley

Found something that the grapplers here may like. Here's Greg Bouchelaghem, a BJJ and full-contact karate blackbelt and ex-pro MMA fighter (Pride, Cage Warriors). Here's him trying not to get mangled by Thomas Loubersanes (from 9:22 onwards):






Here's Greg's friendly exchange with aikido instructor Leo Tamaki (grappling sparring starts at 1:09:08):






I hope you'll find it interesting.


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> Found something that the grapplers here may like. Here's Greg Bouchelaghem, a BJJ and full-contact karate blackbelt and ex-pro MMA fighter (Pride, Cage Warriors). Here's him trying not to get mangled by Thomas Loubersanes (from 9:22 onwards):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's Greg's friendly exchange with aikido instructor Leo Tamaki (grappling sparring starts at 1:09:08):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you'll find it interesting.



Thoroughly enjoyed the first video. Very explosive, and I liked the technique shown.

Don't know what to make of the second vid. Greg was trying to be nice I suppose, but yeah....

BTW, here's some submissions from knee on belly;






Is there some reason they couldn't be translated into Aikido?


----------



## Flying Crane

geezer said:


> Sooo ...in the newest video he backtracks and says, "Yeah. it looks like there is some WC out there that is being trained with resistance and is useful for fighting...". Gotta respect a guy who is willing to look at evidence and change his mind.


I dunno.  I still don’t know who the fellow is and don’t really care.  But I don’t think he has earned back any respect, at least not in my book.  He might simply try not being a douche in the first place.  That whole thing of, it takes a thousand acts to build a reputation, and only one to destroy it.  

sounds to me like he is simply a douche, no matter how he tries to conceal it.


----------



## O'Malley

Hanzou said:


> Thoroughly enjoyed the first video. Very explosive, and I liked the technique shown.
> 
> Don't know what to make of the second vid. Greg was trying to be nice I suppose, but yeah....
> 
> BTW, here's some submissions from knee on belly;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there some reason they couldn't be translated into Aikido?



I put the first video in there to show the type of grapplers Greg usually plays with. He can toy with most of the instructors he meets in those exchanges, unless they're prodigies like Loubersanes or Saladdine Parnasse.

Given the difference in size and grappling level (Tamaki doesn't grapple and trains aikido as an armed martial art, something I don't necessarily agree with) I find that Tamaki fared pretty well (way better than the Rokas guy). On the one hand, he didn't submit Greg apart from a fingerlock that caught him by surprise, but we're talking about a guy who can defend against Loubersanes. On the other hand, Tamaki successfully defended most of the time and recovered nicely from the failed rokkyo (you might know this as ude hishigi hara gatame) which left his back exposed. Most importantly, in the debrief Greg commented on Tamaki's surprising power, which is a direct result of good aikido training. He couldn't break Tamaki's posture or move/uproot him and his "wins" in the sparring came from the overwhelming difference in grappling technique and tactics, which was expected.

As for the attacks from KoB, there's no reason they couldn't be brought to aikido. We have bayonet stabs, everything goes.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> I guess he's talking about me.
> 
> I simply told him that instead of claiming that Rokas from MA Journey is misrepresenting his art and criticizing his technique, he should do what Rokas did and spar with a MMA fighter and film the results.
> 
> Interesting that he views that as someone telling him to participate in a "MMA death match".



  You were met with the same childish absurdity as your argument, also, you left out your demand that I challenge the entire BJJ community and revolutionize MMA. Kinda like how you went from talking out of your *** yesterday about Aikido being all wristlocks and today after I corrected you and informed you how dumb you were being, you are trying to name drop three of the six principles like you have a clue as to what your talking about. Also, you forgot to tell everyone about how you wussed out of my counter challenge that you film yourself beating up a couple of random Aikido guys, heck, they could have been white belts and you still weren't up to it.


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> I put the first video in there to show the type of grapplers Greg usually plays with. He can toy with most of the instructors he meets in those exchanges, unless they're prodigies like Loubersanes or Saladdine Parnasse.
> 
> Given the difference in size and grappling level (Tamaki doesn't grapple and trains aikido as an armed martial art, something I don't necessarily agree with) I find that Tamaki fared pretty well (way better than the Rokas guy). On the one hand, he didn't submit Greg apart from a fingerlock that caught him by surprise, but we're talking about a guy who can defend against Loubersanes. On the other hand, Tamaki successfully defended most of the time and recovered nicely from the failed rokkyo (you might know this as ude hishigi hara gatame) which left his back exposed. Most importantly, in the debrief Greg commented on Tamaki's surprising power, which is a direct result of good aikido training. He couldn't break Tamaki's posture or move/uproot him and his "wins" in the sparring came from the overwhelming difference in grappling technique and tactics, which was expected.



I understand that, and also thought Tamaki did impressively well all things considered. I would like to see Greg going full blast though. At the end of their friendly back and forth, he didn't break Tamaki's headlock, which assured me that he was just playing around.



> As for the attacks from KoB, there's no reason they couldn't be brought to aikido. We have bayonet stabs, everything goes.



Indeed, which makes me wonder why they aren't. Also I do believe that Aikido only has one choke? Is that true, and if so why?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> So you are saying it doesn't work in competition because it doesn't teach you to deal with striking or grappling.
> 
> Yet for (reasons unknown) these shortcomings don't apply to outside a cage. Ok.
> 
> And the only rules you went over were the two afformentioned ones(wrist locks being illegal and greased fighters being legal) you were mistaken about. You could say it's the gloves but they actually make it easier to maintain a grip on the wrist. I'm quite sure aikido does not rely on rabbit punching, groin strikes, eye pokes or 12 to 6 elbows, and we are all out of rules.
> 
> Again, I'm not trying to bag on you, just trying to get some clarity on the claims you have been making..but it's still not adding up to anything consistent.
> 
> I don't see this discussion progressing any further.



Neither do I, I've written you and the other two a novel at this point and have only met absurdity, strawmen, fallacy and reductionist arguments instead of any actual consistent logic or even polite conversation from you. Once again, that's not the same as proof that Aikido doesn't work, its just a problem with your logic and communication skills.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Yeah but I have had Bundy in a can



I have also had Bundy in a can, delicious, but not Aikido.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> You were met with the same childish absurdity as your argument, also, you left out your demand that I challenge the entire BJJ community and revolutionize MMA. Kinda like how you went from talking out of your *** yesterday about Aikido being all wristlocks and today after I corrected you and informed you how dumb you were being, you are trying to name drop three of the six principles like you have a clue as to what your talking about. Also, you forgot to tell everyone about how you wussed out of my counter challenge that you film yourself beating up a couple of random Aikido guys, heck, they could have been white belts and you still weren't up to it.



I wasn't the one saying that I was better than a public martial artist. I also wasn't the one saying that MMA and wrestling techniques only work in the ring. Again, I simply said if you think Rokas is doing terrible technique and you can do better, step up to the plate.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> I wasn't the one saying that I was better than a public martial artist. I also wasn't the one saying that MMA and wrestling techniques only work in the ring. Again, I simply said if you think Rokas is doing terrible technique and you can do better, step up to the plate.



You attempted to reframe the argument into a strawman, I refused and that led to a series of internet tough guy comments demanding that I fight the entire BJJ community. If you bothered to read, ever, you would see I had an issue with the video and the way it was presented, but you were so caught up in defending the honor of youtubers that you went right into full pedantic teenager mode (which I see you have not left today) like a kid who didn't get his black dragon fighting society membership card in the mail.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> You attempted to reframe the argument into a strawman, I refused and that led to a series of internet tough guy comments demanding that I fight the entire BJJ community. If you bothered to read, ever, you would see I had an issue with the video and the way it was presented, but you were so caught up in defending the honor of youtubers that you went right into full pedantic teenager mode (which I see you have not left today) like a kid who didn't get his black dragon fighting society membership card in the mail.



Yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about here. Anyone is free to go back through our back and forth to avoid your silly straw man recollections.


----------



## Shatteredzen

gpseymour said:


> I teach exactly the opposite of this, and I suspect my view is more accurate for Aikido, as well. The entry to a grappling technique is where the control starts. Fail the entry, and there is no technique available. A good entry is what makes the next step possible, and a single entry can lead to multiple options. If they counter late in the entry, that usually just means there's a different finish. Or it's time to punch them.



  Yes, the entry, breaking the line of the opponents attack and the positioning from the opponents center line is very central to Aikido principle and application. I use the same principles regarding those entries and have found that they work well for applying other techniques outside of Aikido as well as complementary ones, like Judo or even striking.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about here. Anyone is free to go back through our back and forth to avoid your silly straw man recollections.



They are indeed, there's ample examples of your logical fallacy and poor rhetoric throughout at this point.


----------



## Shatteredzen

O'Malley said:


> Just found this excellent video series on Morihiro Saito's traditional approach to aikido.
> 
> Here, he gives some explanations about the "fluid" number of aikido techniques, and how he could come up with almost infinite variations on one technique: Takemusu-aiki-curriculum-(1994-09).mp4
> 
> Here, he discusses application. Oyo-waza are techniques from the kata applied to a particular situation (e.g. sparring), while henka-waza is the term for when you try a technique, it doesn't work and then you switch to another one: Oyowaza-and-henkawaza-(1992-09).mp4
> 
> I've often wondered why I had never been taught oyo-waza. No teacher says "ok now we're doing applications" and there's almost no trace of them in reference books. From Saito's explanation above, I get that teaching oyo-waza would be moot: I can't teach you adaptability by teaching the 7th oyo-waza version of X technique which is only appropriate when uke has his weight on his nearest foot. Instead I teach the basic form as a drill, and you're expected to make it work.
> 
> This clarifies a bit the training model of aikido. That said, I still think that the sparring/randori format could be improved (a lot) to facilitate learning oyo-waza and henka-waza. It's a big part of what makes competitive styles like BJJ, judo and wrestling effective, along with more extensive technical and tactical study.
> 
> Bruce Bookman has some great ideas on oyo-waza and henka-waza. See how he has systematized follow ups to classical aikido technique:
> 
> First, here's the classical shiho nage:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, here's Bookman's shiho nage to sankyo:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a sankyo follow up when uke rolls out of it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I'm more interested in the body skills developed by aikido because the techniques were poorly thought up, I think he's onto something with his work.



I've just started watching some of Chris Hein's videos after seeing his interview with Rokas, he discusses the same training issues and makes the very cogent point that Aikido is its own thing, its own set of skills and that its not something to force into being a swiss army knife for MMA or many of the other mistaken premises that usually frame these discussions. After hearing his interview I'm actually much more optimistic and excited about the whole of the Aikido community and its future in martial arts. The interview is here if you are interested.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> I dunno.  I still don’t know who the fellow is and don’t really care.  But I don’t think he has earned back any respect, at least not in my book.  He might simply try not being a douche in the first place.  That whole thing of, it takes a thousand acts to build a reputation, and only one to destroy it.
> 
> sounds to me like he is simply a douche, no matter how he tries to conceal it.


He's walking the path that most anti-TMA people take.  It usually starts with them spending many years training a TMA with the assumption that their training was functional even though they don't do sparring or application training (for me this is trying to use techniques in sparring it doesn't include application drills). He ends up sparring against someone loses and then bails out of the system he was training.  During this bail outs he lumps other TMAs that have nothing to do with his failures and makes a statement that their TMA doesn't work.

He turns to MMA and as people show that they spar in their system, he slowly begins to learn.  Its not the system,  it's him.  He started MMA with some really messed up assumptions and never once felt the need to test his own ability and his own understanding.   So he shares his new skills sets through his MMA sparring.  Just like this guy did.  After the viewers see the MMA skills, they think, "Not what I expected. Must be him and not the system."





Then he get to the "Apology phase" where people show that he's wrong in his statements.  MartialArtTutor did the same thing.  Then somewhere down the line he may get back into training Aikido provided that someone can show him a functional version or he may just decide to teach to kids.






They all go down a similar path.  Bad training or Non-Fucntional training makes them feel the need to invalidate other systems.  They start training MMA and for some reason while training MMA they actually decide to open their eyes and look at themselves and not blame the system.  In terms of Aikido he may have a harder time since he bought into the "Zen Life" with Aikido.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> He's walking the path that most anti-TMA people take.  It usually starts with them spending many years training a TMA with the assumption that their training was functional even though they don't do sparring or application training (for me this is trying to use techniques in sparring it doesn't include application drills). He ends up sparring against someone loses and then bails out of the system he was training.  During this bail outs he lumps other TMAs that have nothing to do with his failures and makes a statement that their TMA doesn't work.
> 
> He turns to MMA and as people show that they spar in their system, he slowly begins to learn.  Its not the system,  it's him.  He started MMA with some really messed up assumptions and never once felt the need to test his own ability and his own understanding.   So he shares his new skills sets through his MMA sparring.  Just like this guy did.  After the viewers see the MMA skills, they think, "Not what I expected. Must be him and not the system."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then he get to the "Apology phase" where people show that he's wrong in his statements.  MartialArtTutor did the same thing.  Then somewhere down the line he may get back into training Aikido provided that someone can show him a functional version or he may just decide to teach to kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all go down a similar path.  Bad training or Non-Fucntional training makes them feel the need to invalidate other systems.  They start training MMA and for some reason while training MMA they actually decide to open their eyes and look at themselves and not blame the system.  In terms of Aikido he may have a harder time since he bought into the "Zen Life" with Aikido.



That really is an unfair rundown of that process. Whether we like it or not, fighting is a major aspect of martial arts. Some of us got into martial arts in the first place to learn how to fight. We really can't blame someone if they join a MA and they realize that the system their practicing doesn't view fighting as important or even a part of the system.

Further, you're placing the blame entirely on the practitioners. The blame frankly should be leveled at MA schools who are simply advertising falsities and are being dishonest to their students. If a student is questioning their MA and they test their MA against a highly established system and get creamed, or if they simply observe other martial arts and recognize that there's a planet-sized whole in their training, why wouldn't we expect them to do what people like Rokas did?

People don't do that because of ignorance or some sort of hatred of TMA. It's a combination of bad marketing on the part of TMAs, people being suckered into believing that all martial arts will turn you into Bruce Lee, and the piss-poor work effort of many Americans. This is exemplified by people who believe that they're "good" in their arts, so they can just cross over into a competitive MA and do just as well. Yeah, I've run across a few former TMA exponents who decided to cross over into MMA or BJJ, and they typically don't last. Some people don't like going to class and getting beat up or choked out over and over again. It can be mentally difficult to submit to someone else on a consistent basis.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> He's walking the path that most anti-TMA people take.  It usually starts with them spending many years training a TMA with the assumption that their training was functional even though they don't do sparring or application training (for me this is trying to use techniques in sparring it doesn't include application drills). He ends up sparring against someone loses and then bails out of the system he was training.  During this bail outs he lumps other TMAs that have nothing to do with his failures and makes a statement that their TMA doesn't work.
> 
> He turns to MMA and as people show that they spar in their system, he slowly begins to learn.  Its not the system,  it's him.  He started MMA with some really messed up assumptions and never once felt the need to test his own ability and his own understanding.   So he shares his new skills sets through his MMA sparring.  Just like this guy did.  After the viewers see the MMA skills, they think, "Not what I expected. Must be him and not the system."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then he get to the "Apology phase" where people show that he's wrong in his statements.  MartialArtTutor did the same thing.  Then somewhere down the line he may get back into training Aikido provided that someone can show him a functional version or he may just decide to teach to kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all go down a similar path.  Bad training or Non-Fucntional training makes them feel the need to invalidate other systems.  They start training MMA and for some reason while training MMA they actually decide to open their eyes and look at themselves and not blame the system.  In terms of Aikido he may have a harder time since he bought into the "Zen Life" with Aikido.


Yeah, sounds like a douche.  He gets no respect from me.  I don’t know why anyone would feel compelled to even acknowledge his existence.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> good you've accepted the point, that we,all bring our own criteria to what being a proficient ma is
> 
> I hope this is an end to your mma is best, coz its objectively better diatribe, il miss you, as it's your only topic



We bring our own criteria if we are not thinking critically. Which is fine for religion, karate or Bundy. But less useful for discussing practical things.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> I guess he's talking about me.
> 
> I simply told him that instead of claiming that Rokas from MA Journey is misrepresenting his art and criticizing his technique, he should do what Rokas did and spar with a MMA fighter and film the results.
> 
> Interesting that he views that as someone telling him to participate in a "MMA death match".



Yeah. I found the quote everyone was reinventing. 

It is a very practical example why I don't trust anecdotes.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> we seemed to be running through the well rehearsed argument that as, in this case aikido ( though it could be almost any tma) doesnt work in mma or bjj or judo that its useless for street defence.
> 
> iis that not the gist,  it usually is,
> 
> I'm more than accepting of the notion that judo is extremly effective at dumping over weight drunks on the floor
> 
> i



Where as you are saying it does because street fighting is easier.


----------



## geezer

Flying Crane said:


> I dunno ...sounds to me like he is simply a douche, no matter how he tries to conceal it.



Douche? I never really got that impression. His whole martial arts journey" thing strikes a positive chord with me. He gets it wrong sometimes, but overall, I think he's sincere. He's also young and there is a lot he still hasn't seen.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> I have also had Bundy in a can, delicious, but not Aikido.



Nice


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Interesting. Aren’t those considered basic techniques? Why wouldn’t Aikidoka spend a lot of time on the basics?


I'm not experienced enough in that art to be able to answer that question.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Okay, but we're talking about MMA and competitive MAs not reflecting a street fight, and you saying that a Judoka needs to be adaptive.
> 
> I'm saying that a Judoka doesn't need to be all that adaptive for his training to be effective, because their training is almost entirely throwing people who are resisting them. Further, their training snowballs because the more skilled their opposition becomes, the better they become at throwing. Thus, the final product is someone who is EXTREMELY good at throwing someone.


Maybe I misread something he said, but I thought Jobo's point was that the adaptability of a Judoka wasn't really a consideration, since that's not who you (or me, or that Judoka) are likely to face in a self-defense situation.


----------



## Flying Crane

geezer said:


> Douch? I never really got that impression. His whole martial arts journey" thing strikes a positive chord with me. He gets it wrong sometimes, but overall, I think he's sincere. He's also young and there is a lot he still hasn't seen.


Ok, I admit I haven’t looked at his list or whatever it was that he deemed necessary to put on the internet telling the world that X and Y and Z systems are worthless.  I won’t grant him my time.  But do I have that right?  He put something on the internet telling everyone that these particular systems are worthless?  I haven’t seen it.  I haven’t looked at anything he has done and dont know him.  But if I understand this correctly, if what I describe above is accurate, then he is a douche.  

sure, we all have a journey and we all figure it out for ourselves, eventually.  We all feel that certain systems aren’t right for us, and we choose to do other systems instead.  

But someone who needs to proclaim to the world that he has deemed a certain list of systems is worthless, is just a douche.  How is that part of his “journey”?  He isn’t enough of a grown-up to realize that different strokes for different folks?  He really thinks he has it figured out, and needs to proclaim it to the world?  And by extension, anyone who practices X or Y or Z system is a fool and hasn’t figured it out yet , so he is here to tell them and set them straight. 

yup, he is a douche.


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> Neither do I, I've written you and the other two a novel at this point and have only met absurdity, strawmen, fallacy and reductionist arguments instead of any actual consistent logic or even polite conversation from you. Once again, that's not the same as proof that Aikido doesn't work, its just a problem with your logic and communication skills.


Hold on bucko, my logic has been flawless. You have not directly addressed it. I'm not expecting you to at this point, but let's not be disingenuous sir. It's all here in writing.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> That really is an unfair rundown of that process.


I don't see anything unfair about it.  Do you think he would do the same things if he had been successful at applying Aikido techniques?



Hanzou said:


> We really can't blame someone if they join a MA and they realize that the system their practicing doesn't view fighting as important or even a part of the system.


Not my problem, Not your problem.   I'm not blaming him for anything.  For starters, based on how he carried himself with that Zen Ton and movement, he clearly didn't take Aikido for fighting.  That was his choice and there's nothing wrong about that choice.  But somewhere down the line he forgot why he originally join Aikido and made the assumption that he could use it  simply because he trained it.  Maybe  all of the throws that he practiced gave him that assumption.

Some people look at Martial Arts as a mental health thing.   Others look at it as fighting thing.  No matter which one we choose, the thing that we must not do is to get the two confused as being the same.  Don't think that fighting and sparring with the martial arts is the best path to health.   Don't think focusing on health is the best path to fighting.

The system really doesn't have a focus.  It's the person who decides what focus to take.  People can train boxing and still suck at fighting.  



Hanzou said:


> Further, you're placing the blame entirely on the practitioners. The blame frankly should be leveled at MA schools who are simply advertising falsities and are being dishonest to their students.


Nope.  Again. I'm not blaming the practitioners.  As a practitioner you choose what your goals are and how long you want to keep those goals and when you want to switch those goals. Do schools mislead? yes.  But somewhere down the line he should have been thinking.  I wonder how I'll do against someone who doesn't train Aikido. I'm assuming he has friends.  As a friend to join him for a friendly sparring match so he can safely test his skills.   

When you want to test your basketball skills, you play basketball.
When you want to test your baseball skills, you play baseball.
When you want to test your running skills, you race against someone else.
When you want to test your tennis skills, you play tennis

When you want to test your aikido fighting skills, you do drills?   Nah. not today.  The tone that I hear often is "TMA is the exception to those rules."   Too man TMA practitioners think that their system is so special that it is the exception to everything that is the rule.  I've heard that same tone in her but I kept my mouth shut about it. 

If you want to test anything then you must apply it in the context that you are measuring.  Meaning.  It is impossible to test fighting skills without fighting.  It's that simple. No magic, no exception.  It follows the rules that everything else follows.  There's nothing that's so special about Jow Ga kung fu.  That I don't have to put in the work and run through the same fires to test my fighting skills. People talk about Ego in martial arts but, I swear TMA often have the biggest egos out there.  That's not me slamming TMA.  I like TMA.  I'm just calling it as it is and how it usually plays out.

Had he been able to apply his Aikido he would have never called out Wing Chun or those other systems.  



Hanzou said:


> f a student is questioning their MA and they test their MA against a highly established system and get creamed, or if they simply observe other martial arts and recognize that there's a planet-sized whole in their training, why wouldn't we expect them to do what people like Rokas did?


  I think questioning your MA is counter productive.  The first thing you should be doing is trying to see if you understand your martial arts enough to be able to use it.  It's through understanding it that  you'll discover things that aren't honest.  If anything question your training.  Does your training follow the "Universal norms" of learning how to fight.  How does boxing train, how do other fighting systems train.  Are you doing similar training?

Questioning your MA will bring doubts and that will work against you.  When I do Jow Ga techniques, I have to be all in with that technique.  I can't be indecisive or second guessing the technique.  Success or fail I have to be all in.  If I fail then I have figure out where I went wrong.



Hanzou said:


> People don't do that because of ignorance or some sort of hatred of TMA. It's a combination of bad marketing on the part of TMAs, people being suckered into believing that all martial arts will turn you into Bruce Lee, and the piss-poor work effort of many Americans.


Yeah they do.  When my Jow Ga school screwed me over, you don't think I was pissed off at Jow Ga or TMA?  The only difference between me and Roka is that I cleared my head by asking a few questions.  
1. Why did I take Jow Ga in the first place.   Was it to  impress a Sifu or another  Instructor?  Answer: No
2.  Did I like doing Jow Ga before I got into the school?  Answer: Yes
3.  Am I going to let 2 people who screwed me over destroy my passion for what I do?  Answer: No

I could have easily gone on a rant about not trusting TMA, Don't sell out to them.  I could have easily tried to get back at TMA for what I went through.  I could have easily said.  Don't believe that TMA line about being family.

But I didn't.  I kept with 1 and 2,  and #4 which is to be a good representation of Jow Ga.   

People talk about how Aikido is good for spiritual and mental growth, yet look at Roka. He turned out to be a regular human being.  So much for Zen.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> Hold on bucko, my logic has been flawless. You have not directly addressed it. I'm not expecting you to at this point, but let's not be disingenuous sir. It's all here in writing.



Oh holy hell? What now? WHAT hasn't been answered to you? If its your same broken record routine about why Aikido isn't in the UFC then I'll take a pass guy, you aren't nearly as fun as you think you are to argue with and no you don't avoid logical fallacy. You don't accept anecdotes, great, my life experience says your full of **** and have probably never been in a fight or used martial arts, at least not enough to have anywhere near the experience to have this discussion in a meaningful way, so you make up for that by being snarky on the internet. 

Don't believe Aikido works? Fine. love off. I'm not here offering to teach you or recruit you. I came here to answer questions because no one else from the community was. I didn't come here to dick wave with you or Mr Kumite. Now here's the great thing about arguing martial arts on the internet, you can believe the exact same thing about me, Aikido, Wing Chun, Qi Gong, etc, and it doesn't make you right, in fact, your just some slovenly fat guy talking out of the side of your mouth who doesn't know anything unless I assign my respect to you and decide that what you say is significant. We are two people having a conversation over a distributed medium that requires mutual respect, you can believe me or not, but I'm not here to have a debate with you and I'm sick of giving honest answers and getting your bonehead, rude and confrontational replies about how I am weaseling out of answering them. Your entire argument is: Aikido doesn't work because I haven't seen it, there's no video and its not in MMA. Great. I have seen it work, more than once, that doesn't win our internet karate duel, it does mean the universe says your an idiot on my end. Now, if you want anymore effort or time on my part, drop your crap, ask a technical question and carry on an adult conversation or get lost.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Where as you are saying it does because street fighting is easier.


I'm saying it's a high probability it will be a lot easier than mma, if we assume that most street fight have a winner, though admittedly some are an honoury draw( so we can call them both winners), and that almost non of these winners could turn up and compete at even a basic mma tournament( infact only the ones who were already doing mma or similar),  then yes there seem a good chance that any particular street fight will be a lot easier than an mma tourment bout( as you probably already realise which is why you stick to fighting drunks)

unless your living in street fighter 2, then obviously its different


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> Oh holy hell? What now? WHAT hasn't been answered to you? If its your same broken record routine about why Aikido isn't in the UFC then I'll take a pass guy, you aren't nearly as fun as you think you are to argue with and no you don't avoid logical fallacy. You don't accept anecdotes, great, my life experience says your full of **** and have probably never been in a fight or used martial arts, at least not enough to have anywhere near the experience to have this discussion in a meaningful way, so you make up for that by being snarky on the internet.
> 
> Don't believe Aikido works? Fine. love off. I'm not here offering to teach you or recruit you. I came here to answer questions because no one else from the community was. I didn't come here to dick wave with you or Mr Kumite. Now here's the great thing about arguing martial arts on the internet, you can believe the exact same thing about me, Aikido, Wing Chun, Qi Gong, etc, and it doesn't make you right, in fact, your just some slovenly fat guy talking out of the side of your mouth who doesn't know anything unless I assign my respect to you and decide that what you say is significant. We are two people having a conversation over a distributed medium that requires mutual respect, you can believe me or not, but I'm not here to have a debate with you and I'm sick of giving honest answers and getting your bonehead, rude and confrontational replies about how I am weaseling out of answering them. Your entire argument is: Aikido doesn't work because I haven't seen it, there's no video and its not in MMA. Great. I have seen it work, more than once, that doesn't win our internet karate duel, it does mean the universe says your an idiot on my end. Now, if you want anymore effort or time on my part, drop your crap, ask a technical question and carry on an adult conversation or get lost.


Well then, you really showed me how an adult should comport themselves with this expletive heavy emotional outburst. 

I don't expect you to directly answer any of the questions I have put to you, but for the readership I will list the questions I have asked and the ways  that you have sidestepped them.

I initially asked why is aikido not successfully implemented in a demonstrable way in competition?

-To this you vaguely handwaved by saying it's different because rules.

I asked which rules. To which you did not answer at all, besides two incorrect assertions reflecting your ignorance of MMA rulesets(claiming wrist locks are illegal, and claiming MMA fighters grease with Vaseline) When corrected, you reasserted these things, and were corrected a second time.

You then cited  the fact that MMA fights tend to last longer than street fights, as if that somehow supported your assertions about the effectiveness of aikido vis a vis 'the streets'.

 When asked how these were at all related you did not answer, instead offering anecdotes about how many times you've beat people up with aikido and how you've fought in Thailand.

At some point, you admitted that aikido has no answer for striking or grappling, but maintained it was still effective, but not in a cage, again citing 'rules' without specifying which rules or how (un)said rules apply.

When I realized no answers were forthcoming from you, and stated as much, you offered this final expletive ridden rant,complete with personal attacks, which in my experience is the last resort of someone that has painted themselves into a corner.

At no time did I say anything negative about you personally,nor did I say aikido sucks, or anything of that nature. I only addressed your claims.


----------



## Shatteredzen

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't see anything unfair about it.  Do you think he would do the same things if he had been successful at applying Aikido techniques?
> 
> Not my problem, Not your problem.   I'm not blaming him for anything.  For starters, based on how he carried himself with that Zen Ton and movement, he clearly didn't take Aikido for fighting.  That was his choice and there's nothing wrong about that choice.  But somewhere down the line he forgot why he originally join Aikido and made the assumption that he could use it  simply because he trained it.  Maybe  all of the throws that he practiced gave him that assumption.
> 
> Some people look at Martial Arts as a mental health thing.   Others look at it as fighting thing.  No matter which one we choose, the thing that we must not do is to get the two confused as being the same.  Don't think that fighting and sparring with the martial arts is the best path to health.   Don't think focusing on health is the best path to fighting.
> 
> The system really doesn't have a focus.  It's the person who decides what focus to take.  People can train boxing and still suck at fighting.
> 
> Nope.  Again. I'm not blaming the practitioners.  As a practitioner you choose what your goals are and how long you want to keep those goals and when you want to switch those goals. Do schools mislead? yes.  But somewhere down the line he should have been thinking.  I wonder how I'll do against someone who doesn't train Aikido. I'm assuming he has friends.  As a friend to join him for a friendly sparring match so he can safely test his skills.
> 
> When you want to test your basketball skills, you play basketball.
> When you want to test your baseball skills, you play baseball.
> When you want to test your running skills, you race against someone else.
> When you want to test your tennis skills, you play tennis
> 
> When you want to test your aikido fighting skills, you do drills?   Nah. not today.  The tone that I hear often is "TMA is the exception to those rules."   Too man TMA practitioners think that their system is so special that it is the exception to everything that is the rule.  I've heard that same tone in her but I kept my mouth shut about it.
> 
> If you want to test anything then you must apply it in the context that you are measuring.  Meaning.  It is impossible to test fighting skills without fighting.  It's that simple. No magic, no exception.  It follows the rules that everything else follows.  There's nothing that's so special about Jow Ga kung fu.  That I don't have to put in the work and run through the same fires to test my fighting skills. People talk about Ego in martial arts but, I swear TMA often have the biggest egos out there.  That's not me slamming TMA.  I like TMA.  I'm just calling it as it is and how it usually plays out.
> 
> Had he been able to apply his Aikido he would have never called out Wing Chun or those other systems.
> 
> I think questioning your MA is counter productive.  The first thing you should be doing is trying to see if you understand your martial arts enough to be able to use it.  It's through understanding it that  you'll discover things that aren't honest.  If anything question your training.  Does your training follow the "Universal norms" of learning how to fight.  How does boxing train, how do other fighting systems train.  Are you doing similar training?
> 
> Questioning your MA will bring doubts and that will work against you.  When I do Jow Ga techniques, I have to be all in with that technique.  I can't be indecisive or second guessing the technique.  Success or fail I have to be all in.  If I fail then I have figure out where I went wrong.
> 
> 
> Yeah they do.  When my Jow Ga school screwed me over, you don't think I was pissed off at Jow Ga or TMA?  The only difference between me and Roka is that I cleared my head by asking a few questions.
> 1. Why did I take Jow Ga in the first place.   Was it to  impress a Sifu or another  Instructor?  Answer: No
> 2.  Did I like doing Jow Ga before I got into the school?  Answer: Yes
> 3.  Am I going to let 2 people who screwed me over destroy my passion for what I do?  Answer: No
> 
> I could have easily gone on a rant about not trusting TMA, Don't sell out to them.  I could have easily tried to get back at TMA for what I went through.  I could have easily said.  Don't believe that TMA line about being family.
> 
> But I didn't.  I kept with 1 and 2,  and #4 which is to be a good representation of Jow Ga.
> 
> People talk about how Aikido is good for spiritual and mental growth, yet look at Roka. He turned out to be a regular human being.  So much for Zen.



Well what it does show is that he wasn't learning what was being taught. It doesn't mean its his fault, it could have been his instructor, he could have had different expectations. When I started training the Aikido, I was told, "hey, this stuff is the core of my system but its all gonna be hit or miss, you are going to need everything else worked in to avoid getting your *** kicked". I accepted that and over the course of learning, I saw how things needed to be tweaked, applied and how hard it was to make it work during sparring, or really even just uke nage if the partner wasn't "good" ie helping. We even went to Japanese schools to watch them and see if there was anything different in style/method, etc.

I ended up picking up a book on the history of Aikido with a big bunch of pictures in it, it might have been Ueshiba's "secret teachings" I don't remember, but it was entirely dedicated to Ueshiba's life and advice and it had a pretty good set of pictures in it for most of the traditional Aikido techniques. I started to see notes from Ueshiba that were not in the training, like the heavy emphasis on striking before applying certain techniques. Ueshiba's quote on Kote Gaeshi for example was that it takes three good strikes to get the average person ready to be thrown with Kote Gaeshi. Come to find out, if you hit someone in the face first or strike them a few times while they are grabbing onto you and quickly move into something like a kote gaeshi, it works great. So is that applicable to MMA? Nope. Does it quickly end a street fight or a violent confrontation for most people in most realistic circumstances? Hell yes it does. 

Rokas didn't learn his Aikido alongside other arts, he didn't ever train on practically applying it, he walks into a room with some BJJ/MMA coach with no experience actually fighting and of course he is going to look like a kitten in the ring. He probably fell back to the wrist locks just because he was so darn lost, he doesn't even know to keep his guard up as he moves. Had that been a real encounter, he would have eaten punches that whole time. In my opinion he would have been perfectly justified in being upset if he had been told false promises of what he was getting, but he spent 15 years supposedly doing it? He NEVER questioned before then "maybe I should get in a fight"?

Rokas, like a lot of the community, built a house out of false pretenses. He assumed, he could go to one place, get some hours clocked in and become some kind of warrior, well, the reality of that is you don't ever become a warrior by training an hour or two a week in a strip mall, they don't do boot camp three hours a week over five years. When a Samurai, for example, started learning Budo, he went to one school for swordsmanship, another for horse riding, another for archery, another for mounted archery. Then he probably studied under at least one Jitsu-ryu and took a class for wrestling. He didn't slip being a warrior into a class or two a week, it was his whole life, every day from childhood. So why people think they can hit a class, even with a good teacher, for an hour or two a week and become this big badass is beyond me, but the expectation is there and after 15 years of $50 an hour, there's some entitlement issues also. 

  I started learning Aikido, had the same issues, sat down with it like a rubics cube and then started to integrate it with everything else, instead of treating my prior instruction in TKD, capoeira, bujinkan sillyness, the Marine Corps martial arts, karate as a kid, etc and alongside what I brought to the table we were also learning the BJJ, Judo and Kali stuff. We adopted a policy of "train what works" and ditch the rest. So we started streamlining what we were teaching and spending time working on and also started encouraging the students who were coming in to resist, interject, give opinions, etc. What we ended up training, a few months later, looked nothing like Aikido, except it absolutely was, still is, Aikido, it teaches all the same principles, techniques, it just adds to it and tweaks some stuff but if you sit there and listen to me for example, explaining the Muay Thai clinch, how to enter or receive to setup the clinch, how to manipulate the movement of the opponent, etc, you would quickly say to yourself "oh man, I'm in an Aikido class". 

Im sure, given some time and some open mindedness or curiosity, the community will fix itself and adapt and do the work to bring Aikido forward more than it has. The talk between Rokas and Chris Hein really stuck out to me, because Rokas comes around, admits his personal ******** and endorses Chris and his Aikido and even says he is thinking of coming back around and training some Aikido again. The great thing about the Aikido community, more than others I have seen, is he can come back and no one will make him eat his humble pie, there just isn't that sense of malice you get in the MMA gyms or here on the internet where everyone feels like they need to posture against one another. Rokas lost some of my respect with his challenge videos but he got it back with that interview and his Wing Chun response. Part of me thinks that if he can be that honest with Aikido and Wing Chun, then maybe a good natured "prove it" type challenge could be good for the community. Aikido could definitely benefit from knocking off the post war hippy stuff and a few hundred brains trying to get it to that next step of modernization. I'd love to open a school and help, but I cannot with my current work schedule and I'm not going to give up my real career to go make peanuts teaching martial arts, I can't even stand charging for lessons.

I think there is actually more frontier out there than most think. There's tons of work to do, but there's so many martial arts with some really promising stuff that could be worked on. For everything MMA has "solved" its created a stagnant, petulant martial arts community around it and there's not a huge amount to do with it, as it is other than to get your BJJ classes in so you can get off the ground if the fight goes there. What the MMA community does do, is give an outlet for all the kids who just want to jump in and learn how to fight so they can stop peacocking long enough to become actual martial artists in the classical sense of the word. Respectful students of a lifelong pursuit towards mastery.


----------



## geezer

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, I admit I haven’t looked at his list or whatever it was...  But do I have that right? * He put something on the internet telling everyone that these particular systems are worthless?* ....



No, not really. At least that's not at all how I took it.

Here's the first video in which he challenges certain arts, including Wing Chun, to send him videos of their art being applied against a non-compliant partner in a free sparring context.






Next, after receiving a huge response, he posted this video with a pretty positive reaction and retracted his previous statements as being over generalized and mistaken. He did continue to assert that those schools that do not spar and train against resistance cannot know that their techniques will work. They remain untested. here is the second clip (the same one I posted previously:






While I do not entirely agree with Rokas, I believe he makes good points and is sincere. I also don't think he comes of as a douche ....like that other guy.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> We bring our own criteria if we are not thinking critically. Which is fine for religion, karate or Bundy. But less useful for discussing practical things.


even critical thinking requires to be run through the perception filters of the critical thinker, they cant switch them off no matter how hard they try, hence spock having to be an alien, though some are better than others, this doesnt seem to include you

there a considerable degree of subjectivity ( let's call it interpretation) with in science, which means that scientific facts are also some what open to interpretation, that's why PhD are doctors of philosophy,  not say physics, as philosophy is the only actual science 3everything else is just interpretation using philosophical principals.

and that's dealing with actual science, most of the things most people think are factual  are most certainly not,

when you run the case that not only are they being subjective, but being subjective,about things that arnt objectively true, you can see how it is that grown men dont know the geometrical shape of the planet


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> Well then, you really showed me how an adult should comport themselves with this expletive heavy emotional outburst.
> 
> I don't expect you to directly answer any of the questions I have put to you, but for the readership I will list the questions I have asked and the ways  that you have sidestepped them.
> 
> I initially asked why is aikido not successfully implemented in a demonstrable way in competition?
> 
> -To this you vaguely handwaved by saying it's different because rules.
> 
> I asked which rules. To which you did not answer at all, besides two incorrect assertions reflecting your ignorance of MMA rulesets(claiming wrist locks are illegal, and claiming MMA fighters grease with Vaseline) When corrected, you reasserted these things, and were corrected a second time.
> 
> You then cited  the fact that MMA fights tend to last longer than street fights, as if that somehow supported your assertions about the effectiveness of aikido vis a vis 'the streets'.
> 
> When asked how these were at all related you did not answer, instead offering anecdotes about how many times you've beat people up with aikido and how you've fought in Thailand.
> 
> At some point, you admitted that aikido has no answer for striking or grappling, but maintained it was still effective, but not in a cage, again citing 'rules' without specifying which rules or how (un)said rules apply.
> 
> When I realized no answers were forthcoming from you, and stated as much, you offered this final expletive ridden rant, which in my experience is the last resort of someone that has painted themselves into a corner.
> 
> At no time did I say anything negative about you personally,nor did I say aikido sucks, or anything of that nature. I only addressed your claims.



We never got into technical discussion, you cherry picked answers to other people and kept going with the same reductionist quips like your summary here. Although its already contained in other posts you never bothered to read, I'll explain everything again here, together.

- Aikido isn't taught competitively, there's one school that has tournaments. Aikido, on its own, is not the best candidate for dueling between two athletes in a ring. It's boring to watch, it doesn't particularly finish anyone off, its not taught with striking very often. Even if someone was going to get booked to go into a ring, had the pre-requisite MMA experience, what is the Aikido practitioner supposed to do? Have you tried doing Aikido in MMA gloves? Many of the techniques are also aided by small joint manipulations when faced against a resisting opponent, these are against the rules in MMA. MMA fighters generally wear nothing but shorts, many Aikido techniques are answers to someone grabbing onto you and give a response to that, there's a difference between being grabbed and grappled. Add in again, theres a padded floor, so you punch and kick and I am supposed to throw you but my hands are gloved and you get padding? Sweat and vaseline are absolutely an issue, it makes you hard to grab.  

The existing repetoire of Aikido techniques, by themselves, are not really suited to fighting another martial artist, they don't work correctly without practical training and experience, both of those issues are not solved by the general publicly available schools. Atemi, striking, is taught in Aikido, outside of striking, it has no answer to things like a double leg takedown, there are no ground techniques. What you and everyone else would demand of Aikido is for a purely vanilla Aikido practitioner to go in and dominate an MMA ring, that wont ever happen, if the same Aikido guy uses a handful of other techniques like anyone in the MMA, you and the other children will simply say "well that wasn't Aikido". You apply a misinformed standard to what MMA is, how useful it is, how applicable it is to the real world.

Your overall reverence for MMA is an unfounded idea that because there is a high level of resistance, perhaps higher than any other training method, that this transfers directly to combat and a real altercation. It does not. It might be close, but there are many habits that have become common within MMA and BJJ that translate to getting kicked or otherwise struck once or twice, at the beginning of the fight and then becoming disabled. I have watched several BJJ enthusiasts knock themselves out on other people knees, get kicked in the face or the best one was one guy laid on his back in a guard and got kicked in his balls. You also falsely equate what you see in a professional fight to what YOU or other practitioners are physically capable of. Just because a UFC fighter can do X or Y has nothing to do with your skill and ability. 

 The average MMA fight is a albeit bloody sparring match between two professional athletes. The average bout is nine minutes. Saying that you or any normal person needs to train to that level or is even capable of that performance level is silly. Real fights do not last that long, they aren't against two trained pro athlete martial artists. IF you ever get into a fight as an average person, its because you are likely fighting a drunk or getting robbed. That's it. Most people go their whole lives without fighting. That being said, your average Aikido student from even a basic level of competence and training is probably going to be able to use it to defend themselves, even against someone who might have some of their own training. In the end, it comes down to the individual. Fighting does not work in the framework you are trying to argue it does. You have a better chance of winning the lottery than getting into some kind of magical kung fu/ninja fight on the street and chances are you don't and have never competed. So what is the point of training to be a gladiator in a cage match in the first place, especially when the things the rule set protected you from are going to happen to you in the real world if you do run into a trained opponent. Your entire claim and argument hinges on Aikido having to be competitive to be effective, it is not a competitive art, it can still work as advertised, which is to protect the individual and to provide a method to deal with conflict without causing undue harm, that's how its advertised. 

  Is Aikido going to win the next UFC? No. Can it work and save lives? Yes, I've seen it, do with that what you want, I don't care. Aikido does not have to beat every other martial art to be a viable, living, useful system. End of Story. So there it is, all that and more has already been written in this thread, thats why you got told to pound sand, because your a broken record arguing something that was never being discussed, from a false position of superiority and under false pretenses.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Shatteredzen said:


> We never got into technical discussion,


Let's start some Aikido technical discussion.

As an Aikido guy, what will you do when you apply wrist lock, your opponent raises his elbow joint to release the pressure?


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't see anything unfair about it.  Do you think he would do the same things if he had been successful at applying Aikido techniques?



He didn't even need to be successful in applying Aikido, all he needed was a foundation to base successful Aikido on. That's the problem; There is no concrete basis to gauge the successful application of Aikido. All you hear are folktales and legends, and when you see people attempt to apply Aikido successfully in a pressure-tested situation, it simply fails. You ask questions about this, and you get shot down and told to just keep practicing. Meanwhile, you look over the fence and you see BJJ and MMA guys being successful and asking tons of questions and getting nurtured for it. Those guys have a foundation to base success upon, so that pressure simply isn't there.



> Not my problem, Not your problem.   I'm not blaming him for anything.  For starters, based on how he carried himself with that Zen Ton and movement, he clearly didn't take Aikido for fighting.  That was his choice and there's nothing wrong about that choice.  But somewhere down the line he forgot why he originally join Aikido and made the assumption that he could use it  simply because he trained it.  Maybe  all of the throws that he practiced gave him that assumption.



If we're talking about Rokas, he DID originally take Aikido to learn to fight since he grew up in a town where gangs would go around and attack people. Beyond that though, as an instructor you encounter people who want to learn your martial art for self defense. Some people feel guilty if they feel that they're not teaching someone to actually defend themselves. Rokas was one of those individuals, and he began to have doubts about the efficacy of his system.



> Some people look at Martial Arts as a mental health thing.   Others look at it as fighting thing.  No matter which one we choose, the thing that we must not do is to get the two confused as being the same.  Don't think that fighting and sparring with the martial arts is the best path to health.   Don't think focusing on health is the best path to fighting.



Again though, there are martial arts who claim that they can teach you how to defend yourself, and in reality they simply don't. We can't blame people for being outright misled by false advertising.



> Nope.  Again. I'm not blaming the practitioners.  As a practitioner you choose what your goals are and how long you want to keep those goals and when you want to switch those goals. Do schools mislead? yes.  But somewhere down the line he should have been thinking.  I wonder how I'll do against someone who doesn't train Aikido. I'm assuming he has friends.  As a friend to join him for a friendly sparring match so he can safely test his skills.



Uh, I'm almost positive that he did exactly that, which led him to eventually try his Aikido against a MMA practitioner. 



> I think questioning your MA is counter productive.  The first thing you should be doing is trying to see if you understand your martial arts enough to be able to use it.  It's through understanding it that  you'll discover things that aren't honest.  If anything question your training.  Does your training follow the "Universal norms" of learning how to fight.  How does boxing train, how do other fighting systems train.  Are you doing similar training?



But again, if there's no foundation to base successful Aikido on, how do you know what you're working towards? Also I fundamentally disagree with the notion to not question your MA. You should ALWAYS question your MA, and people in your MA should allow you to question it openly.



> Yeah they do.  When my Jow Ga school screwed me over, you don't think I was pissed off at Jow Ga or TMA?  The only difference between me and Roka is that I cleared my head by asking a few questions.
> 1. Why did I take Jow Ga in the first place.   Was it to  impress a Sifu or another  Instructor?  Answer: No
> 2.  Did I like doing Jow Ga before I got into the school?  Answer: Yes
> 3.  Am I going to let 2 people who screwed me over destroy my passion for what I do?  Answer: No
> 
> I could have easily gone on a rant about not trusting TMA, Don't sell out to them.  I could have easily tried to get back at TMA for what I went through.  I could have easily said.  Don't believe that TMA line about being family.
> 
> But I didn't.  I kept with 1 and 2,  and #4 which is to be a good representation of Jow Ga.
> 
> People talk about how Aikido is good for spiritual and mental growth, yet look at Roka. He turned out to be a regular human being.  So much for Zen.



Here's the thing though; You wouldn't have been in the wrong to leave Jow Ga behind completely because you were kicked out because you were actively pressure testing your MA. You chose to tough it out and go out on your own, which is fine, but it's also fine to look to something else if the culture is backwards and anti-intellectual.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shatteredzen said:


> The talk between Rokas and Chris Hein really stuck out to me, because Rokas comes around, admits his personal ******** and endorses Chris and his Aikido and even says he is thinking of coming back around and training some Aikido again.


  I didn't watch that video yet. But from what you say it sounds like it falls right in light with what I stated. Below it's always the same pattern.



JowGaWolf said:


> Then he get to the "Apology phase" where people show that he's wrong in his statements. MartialArtTutor did the same thing. Then somewhere down the line he may get back into training Aikido provided that someone can show him a functional version or he may just decide to teach to kids.





Shatteredzen said:


> Rokas lost some of my respect with his challenge videos but he got it back with that interview and his Wing Chun response.


I'm not sure where he is located on my respect graph, I never put that much thought into it.  I just know that few people will admit that they were wrong and even fewer will do so publicly. I rather know someone who has the ability to do that than one who can never do it.  I know less than 10 people who can do that. There are 3 things we rarely hear done on the public stage.
1. "I was wrong."
2. "I was sorry."
3.  To be honest and sincere about 1 and 2.



Shatteredzen said:


> The average MMA fight is a albeit bloody sparring match between two professional athletes. The average bout is nine minutes. Saying that you or any normal person needs to train to that level or is even capable of that performance level is silly.


  I train 1 - 6 minutes rounds depending on how many people are there.  I do a 1 minute round and then have fresh body come in after every minute.  This way I'm always fighting someone fresh.  If most people start to gass out at 30 seconds then I want to have a comfortable 30 seconds fighting or running away.  Most people in the U.S. or obese.  I say take advantage of that. 



Shatteredzen said:


> Most people go their whole lives without fighting.


I won't put my safety on something like this.  If I can't guarantee that I'll be one of those "Most People" then I'll keep training.  The worse that will happen is that I'll be in shape and can actually fight if I ever need to.  If I neglect my training then the worse thing that could happen is that someone beats me to death or injure me so bad that I wish I took my training seriously.

Most people don't get stabbed in the chest at school, but she did.  I'm pretty sure she would agree with you up to the day  she got stabbed.   Now she probably agrees with me.  "you never know".


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> He didn't even need to be successful in applying Aikido, all he needed was a foundation to base successful Aikido on. That's the problem; There is no concrete basis to gauge the successful application of Aikido. All you hear are folktales and legends, and when you see people attempt to apply Aikido successfully in a pressure-tested situation, it simply fails. You ask questions about this, and you get shot down and told to just keep practicing. Meanwhile, you look over the fence and you see BJJ and MMA guys being successful and asking tons of questions and getting nurtured for it. Those guys have a foundation to base success upon, so that pressure simply isn't there.
> 
> 
> 
> If we're talking about Rokas, he DID originally take Aikido to learn to fight since he grew up in a town where gangs would go around and attack people. Beyond that though, as an instructor you encounter people who want to learn your martial art for self defense. Some people feel guilty if they feel that they're not teaching someone to actually defend themselves. Rokas was one of those individuals, and he began to have doubts about the efficacy of his system.
> 
> 
> 
> Again though, there are martial arts who claim that they can teach you how to defend yourself, and in reality they simply don't. We can't blame people for being outright misled by false advertising.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, I'm almost positive that he did exactly that, which led him to eventually try his Aikido against a MMA practitioner.
> 
> 
> 
> But again, if there's no foundation to base successful Aikido on, how do you know what you're working towards? Also I fundamentally disagree with the notion to not question your MA. You should ALWAYS question your MA, and people in your MA should allow you to question it openly.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing though; You wouldn't have been in the wrong to leave Jow Ga behind completely because you were kicked out because you were actively pressure testing your MA. You chose to tough it out and go out on your own, which is fine, but it's also fine to look to something else if the culture is backwards and anti-intellectual.


why would he need a concrete base?


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> why would he need a concrete base?



In order to know that the claims made by the system are true.


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> We never got into technical discussion, you cherry picked answers to other people and kept going with the same reductionist quips like your summary here. Although its already contained in other posts you never bothered to read, I'll explain everything again here, together.
> 
> - Aikido isn't taught competitively, there's one school that has tournaments. Aikido, on its own, is not the best candidate for dueling between two athletes in a ring. It's boring to watch, it doesn't particularly finish anyone off, its not taught with striking very often. Even if someone was going to get booked to go into a ring, had the pre-requisite MMA experience, what is the Aikido practitioner supposed to do? Have you tried doing Aikido in MMA gloves? Many of the techniques are also aided by small joint manipulations when faced against a resisting opponent, these are against the rules in MMA. MMA fighters generally wear nothing but shorts, many Aikido techniques are answers to someone grabbing onto you and give a response to that, there's a difference between being grabbed and grappled. Add in again, theres a padded floor, so you punch and kick and I am supposed to throw you but my hands are gloved and you get padding? Sweat and vaseline are absolutely an issue, it makes you hard to grab.
> 
> The existing repetoire of Aikido techniques, by themselves, are not really suited to fighting another martial artist, they don't work correctly without practical training and experience, both of those issues are not solved by the general publicly available schools. Atemi, striking, is taught in Aikido, outside of striking, it has no answer to things like a double leg takedown, there are no ground techniques. What you and everyone else would demand of Aikido is for a purely vanilla Aikido practitioner to go in and dominate an MMA ring, that wont ever happen, if the same Aikido guy uses a handful of other techniques like anyone in the MMA, you and the other children will simply say "well that wasn't Aikido". You apply a misinformed standard to what MMA is, how useful it is, how applicable it is to the real world.
> 
> Your overall reverence for MMA is an unfounded idea that because there is a high level of resistance, perhaps higher than any other training method, that this transfers directly to combat and a real altercation. It does not. It might be close, but there are many habits that have become common within MMA and BJJ that translate to getting kicked or otherwise struck once or twice, at the beginning of the fight and then becoming disabled. I have watched several BJJ enthusiasts knock themselves out on other people knees, get kicked in the face or the best one was one guy laid on his back in a guard and got kicked in his balls. You also falsely equate what you see in a professional fight to what YOU or other practitioners are physically capable of. Just because a UFC fighter can do X or Y has nothing to do with your skill and ability.
> 
> The average MMA fight is a albeit bloody sparring match between two professional athletes. The average bout is nine minutes. Saying that you or any normal person needs to train to that level or is even capable of that performance level is silly. Real fights do not last that long, they aren't against two trained pro athlete martial artists. IF you ever get into a fight as an average person, its because you are likely fighting a drunk or getting robbed. That's it. Most people go their whole lives without fighting. That being said, your average Aikido student from even a basic level of competence and training is probably going to be able to use it to defend themselves, even against someone who might have some of their own training. In the end, it comes down to the individual. Fighting does not work in the framework you are trying to argue it does. You have a better chance of winning the lottery than getting into some kind of magical kung fu/ninja fight on the street and chances are you don't and have never competed. So what is the point of training to be a gladiator in a cage match in the first place, especially when the things the rule set protected you from are going to happen to you in the real world if you do run into a trained opponent. Your entire claim and argument hinges on Aikido having to be competitive to be effective, it is not a competitive art, it can still work as advertised, which is to protect the individual and to provide a method to deal with conflict without causing undue harm, that's how its advertised.
> 
> Is Aikido going to win the next UFC? No. Can it work and save lives? Yes, I've seen it, do with that what you want, I don't care. Aikido does not have to beat every other martial art to be a viable, living, useful system. End of Story. So there it is, all that and more has already been written in this thread, thats why you got told to pound sand, because your a broken record arguing something that was never being discussed, from a false position of superiority and under false pretenses.



Did you..
*blinks*
Unless you are talking about fingers..which..I've not heard of an aikido finger lock..
You just asserted those same two things about wristlocks being illegal and mma fighters greasing...a third time?

Mind blown.

And the time thing too. wow. Somehow being able to last longer and being better at techniques means the mechanics of a fight are different when instead of a cage wall there is a regular wall, and the participants do everything at a lower skill level(you hope at least)

I just can't anymore, this is getting ridiculous. Good luck everyone.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> He didn't even need to be successful in applying Aikido, all he needed was a foundation to base successful Aikido on.


If he goes out to see if he can apply aikido techniques then yes he had to be successful.  Successful applications during sparring means that you are getting things correct.  It's important because it helps you to gauge your level of understanding for a specific technique.  Not being successful means there are some gaps in your understanding and possibly your training.

It's like a high dive competition.  You don't pick the competition day to figure out if you can actually do a twist with a double front flip.  So success matters.  And it's stuff like this that drives me crazy.  So when it comes to Aikido, or any other TMA, people start pulling out exceptions and saying things like no need to be successful in applying Aikido when it was clear that Roka was testing his Aikido Skills.




Hanzou said:


> There is no concrete basis to gauge the successful application of Aikido.


Of course there is. Easy. 
1. Did you try to use an Aikido technique?  If yes, then goto #2
2. Were you able to apply the technique successfully and get the result that the technique was supposed to give you.?

There's nothing more concrete than that.



Hanzou said:


> All you hear are folktales and legends, and when you see people attempt to apply Aikido successfully in a pressure-tested situation, it simply fails


The reality about folktales and legends. They are stories about other people, not about you.  It's what that person did, not what  you did.  So if the legend isn't about you , then don't assume that you can do what was in the legend.  No one on Martial Talk is going to read the legend of John Henry and then 15 year think they are going to beat a machine laying downing train tracks.

Legends and folktales have lessons and moral values in them that inspire people.  If you hear a folktale or legend and then think you can do what they do in the story, then there's a good chance you missed the point of that folktale and legend.  But again, we all understand this but make an exception for TMA.  We ignore the lesson about how  hard they work and sudden assume that because they beat up a Japanese army that we can do the same simply because they did it.




Hanzou said:


> Uh, I'm almost positive that he did exactly that, which led him to eventually try his Aikido against a MMA practitioner.


Nope.  that's not what he did.  He even admitted that he never "pressure tested" his stuff as part of regular training.  Common sense tells you to practice first until you can pull it off in practice then when you get to that then go test your ability against someone else. 

Why would you test your ability on something you don't functionally train?  That's like not studying for a test and expecting to do well on the test.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> But again, if there's no foundation to base successful Aikido on, how do you know what you're working towards? Also I fundamentally disagree with the notion to not question your MA. You should ALWAYS question your MA, and people in your MA should allow you to question it openly.


Because questioning your martial arts makes the assumption that you aren't the problem. 

Martial Arts tutor questioned his MA.  Trained MMA and a little Kickboxing and discovered.  It wasn't the system that was the problem it was him.

Roka question Aikido.  Trained MMA, asked some BJJ gues and discovered.  He was the one not doing the wrist lock correct.  He was the one who wasn't pressure testing.  He was the one that wasn't training his Aikido functional.  Don't take my word.  He even says what I'm saying here.  He didn't question his Instructor.  If you can't use your martial arts, the first thing you should do is question yourself, then you should question the person teaching you.  By the way.  All you hear is stuff about Zen and spiritual stuff.






You know how my students saw me as?  They saw me as the guy in the school who knew how to actually use Kung Fu.  No one ever sees me as the guy with Zen.  I got problems just like everyone else.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki

Martial D said:


> Did you..
> *blinks*
> Unless you are talking about fingers..which..I've not heard of an aikido finger lock..
> You just asserted those same two things about wristlocks being illegal and mma fighters greasing...a third time?
> 
> Mind blown.
> 
> And the time thing too. wow. Somehow being able to last longer and being better at techniques means the mechanics of a fight are different when instead of a cage wall there is a regular wall, and the participants do everything at a lower skill level(you hope at least)
> 
> I just can't anymore, this is getting ridiculous. Good luck everyone.



For reference, finger locks are a thing in Aikido.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> In order to know that the claims made by the system are true.


 Get your friend. put on some gloves, head gear if you need it.  do some light sparring but actually trying to strike and throw each other.  Try your techniques.  If you can't do your technique  in a light environment then the truth should hit you really hard.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Oni_Kadaki said:


> For reference, finger locks are a thing in Aikido.


I have not seen any Aikido technique such as:

- finger bending, or
- fingers splitting.

Do you know any Aikido clip for that?


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> If he goes out to see if he can apply aikido techniques then yes he had to be successful.  Successful applications during sparring means that you are getting things correct.  It's important because it helps you to gauge your level of understanding for a specific technique.  Not being successful means there are some gaps in your understanding and possibly your training.
> 
> It's like a high dive competition.  You don't pick the competition day to figure out if you can actually do a twist with a double front flip.  So success matters.  And it's stuff like this that drives me crazy.  So when it comes to Aikido, or any other TMA, people start pulling out exceptions and saying things like no need to be successful in applying Aikido when it was clear that Roka was testing his Aikido Skills.



Okay, but you can watch Olympic divers to see high diving at the highest competitive levels. You know what a successful application of a high dive looks like because you have objective examples with plenty of evidence to support what is and isn't good high diving.

You don't have that with Aikido. If I said show me an example of an Aikidoka successfully using their skill against a highly skilled wrestler, you couldn't show me that example. What's worse, you'd probably attack me for daring to ask for that example. Thus if I am an Aikidoka looking for answers, I now have pressure on me to find the answers on my own.



> Of course there is. Easy.
> 1. Did you try to use an Aikido technique?  If yes, then goto #2
> 2. Were you able to apply the technique successfully and get the result that the technique was supposed to give you.?
> 
> There's nothing more concrete than that.



Again this is nonsense. There should be examples outside of your personal experience to show you how a technique is applied, and there should be exponents who can apply those techniques in multiple contexts. If that isn't the case, then you begin to sow doubts into the efficacy of the system. 



> The reality about folktales and legends. They are stories about other people, not about you.  It's what that person did, not what  you did.  So if the legend isn't about you , then don't assume that you can do what was in the legend.  No one on Martial Talk is going to read the legend of John Henry and then 15 year think they are going to beat a machine laying downing train tracks.
> 
> Legends and folktales have lessons and moral values in them that inspire people.  If you hear a folktale or legend and then think you can do what they do in the story, then there's a good chance you missed the point of that folktale and legend.  But again, we all understand this but make an exception for TMA.  We ignore the lesson about how  hard they work and sudden assume that because they beat up a Japanese army that we can do the same simply because they did it.



Yeah but here's the problem, in BJJ the Gracies are legends, and we can actually watch and view their feats so we know that the legend is real. What's more, we have modern exponents who are doing what the Gracies did, if not better. So that validates the legends and folktales and the claims of the martial art itself. If you're telling me that Ueshiba was a badass who could beat 10 men with one hand and no Aikidoka has been able to replicate those feats, then I begin to ask questions. This is especially the case if on one hand you're telling me that Aikido is a spiritual exercise, but on the other you brag about what a killer Ueshiba supposedly was.



> Nope.  that's not what he did.  He even admitted that he never "pressure tested" his stuff as part of regular training.  Common sense tells you to practice first until you can pull it off in practice then when you get to that then go test your ability against someone else.
> 
> Why would you test your ability on something you don't functionally train?  That's like not studying for a test and expecting to do well on the test.



Because he had 15 years experience in Aikido and was an instructor. Further, people within Aikido constantly state that their art is on par with other Martial Arts. MMA based martial arts have no problem going outside of their arts and faring well against other martial arts, why would Aikido have a problem with that?


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Get your friend. put on some gloves, head gear if you need it.  do some light sparring but actually trying to strike and throw each other.  Try your techniques.  If you can't do your technique  in a light environment then the truth should hit you really hard.



Again, that isn't enough. Some people want to see if their art is effective against other trained people. I could tie my untrained buddies up in pretzels when we goofed around, but there were times when I preferred to go against my other friend who was a former NCAA wrestler. I definitely couldn't tie him in a pretzel so it was a superior challenge for me and my training.

Also I frankly doubt if Rokas had much success goofing around with his untrained friends.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> I'm saying it's a high probability it will be a lot easier than mma, if we assume that most street fight have a winner, though admittedly some are an honoury draw( so we can call them both winners), and that almost non of these winners could turn up and compete at even a basic mma tournament( infact only the ones who were already doing mma or similar),  then yes there seem a good chance that any particular street fight will be a lot easier than an mma tourment bout( as you probably already realise which is why you stick to fighting drunks)
> 
> unless your living in street fighter 2, then obviously its different



I fight drunks because I get paid to.

I do MMA because they are the gold standard of fighting and so get the most bang for buck.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Because questioning your martial arts makes the assumption that you aren't the problem.
> 
> Martial Arts tutor questioned his MA.  Trained MMA and a little Kickboxing and discovered.  It wasn't the system that was the problem it was him.
> 
> Roka question Aikido.  Trained MMA, asked some BJJ gues and discovered.  He was the one not doing the wrist lock correct.  He was the one who wasn't pressure testing.  He was the one that wasn't training his Aikido functional.  Don't take my word.  He even says what I'm saying here.  He didn't question his Instructor.  If you can't use your martial arts, the first thing you should do is question yourself, then you should question the person teaching you.  By the way.  All you hear is stuff about Zen and spiritual stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know how my students saw me as?  They saw me as the guy in the school who knew how to actually use Kung Fu.  No one ever sees me as the guy with Zen.  I got problems just like everyone else.



What was the point of linking this video? This merely shows how TMAs can develop a cult-like following. In fact, that video SUPPORTS the notion that you should always question your MA, because if you just blindly swallow what is fed to you without questioning it, you can develop a cult-like mindset and start doing whatever your instructor tells you to do.

Also like I said before, if Rokas had a foundation to gauge successful Aikido, he'd still be running an Aikido school today. It's easy to view yourself as the problem if you see elite examples of people practicing your art answering your questions. For example, if I'm wondering if Bjj can help me against a wrestler, I have multiple examples of Bjj practitioners doing just fine against wrestlers, so the pressure to answer that question is relieved. I also know that if I do terrible against a wrestler, its on me. However if I don't have that foundation, then I begin to question the system itself.

That is a logical and sensible reaction.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> even critical thinking requires to be run through the perception filters of the critical thinker, they cant switch them off no matter how hard they try, hence spock having to be an alien, though some are better than others, this doesnt seem to include you
> 
> there a considerable degree of subjectivity ( let's call it interpretation) with in science, which means that scientific facts are also some what open to interpretation, that's why PhD are doctors of philosophy,  not say physics, as philosophy is the only actual science 3everything else is just interpretation using philosophical principals.
> 
> and that's dealing with actual science, most of the things most people think are factual  are most certainly not,
> 
> when you run the case that not only are they being subjective, but being subjective,about things that arnt objectively true, you can see how it is that grown men dont know the geometrical shape of the planet



Yeah but there is a base of at least something physical you can gauge the system with.

Exept in martial arts where it is mostly anecdotes dogma and misconception. And it is deliberately that way.

It is like diet and fitness. There are some consistent themes that work. And then there is the willingness to actually do those things.

One is objective one is subjective.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have not seen any Aikido technique such as:
> 
> - finger bending, or
> - fingers splitting.
> 
> Do you know any Aikido clip for that?



Here is one with a few in it, he's pretty lazily showing them against a very non-resistant student, but he is performing them technically ok, if without force.






To answer your earlier question about what to do against an opponent who attempts to alleviate pressure from his wrist with his elbow, you would transition it towards something like this, gaining control of the elbow and then armbar, this technique goes back to the wrist lock after the arm is exploited.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Here is one with a few in it, he's pretty lazily showing them against a very non-resistant student, but he is performing them technically ok, if without force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To answer your earlier question about what to do against an opponent who attempts to alleviate pressure from his wrist with his elbow, you would transition it towards something like this, gaining control of the elbow and then armbar, this technique goes back to the wrist lock after the arm is exploited.



The big issue is if they keep their arms mostly in and tight, you really are not going to move them. And why you have to break their structure via their head first.

Only half of what needs to be taught gets taught and why as soon as you leave the demo you run in to road blocks.

It is like the double leg. It works fine against strikes if you set it up so they don't have time to strike. Or have posture so they cannot guillotine. But if you just fling your arms out yelling double leg that is where you get countered.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Okay, but you can watch Olympic divers to see high diving at the highest competitive levels. You know what a successful application of a high dive looks like because you have objective examples with plenty of evidence to support what is and isn't good high diving.
> 
> You don't have that with Aikido. If I said show me an example of an Aikidoka successfully using their skill against a highly skilled wrestler, you couldn't show me that example. What's worse, you'd probably attack me for daring to ask for that example. Thus if I am an Aikidoka looking for answers, I now have pressure on me to find the answers on my own.
> 
> 
> 
> Again this is nonsense. There should be examples outside of your personal experience to show you how a technique is applied, and there should be exponents who can apply those techniques in multiple contexts. If that isn't the case, then you begin to sow doubts into the efficacy of the system.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but here's the problem, in BJJ the Gracies are legends, and we can actually watch and view their feats so we know that the legend is real. What's more, we have modern exponents who are doing what the Gracies did, if not better. So that validates the legends and folktales and the claims of the martial art itself. If you're telling me that Ueshiba was a badass who could beat 10 men with one hand and no Aikidoka has been able to replicate those feats, then I begin to ask questions. This is especially the case if on one hand you're telling me that Aikido is a spiritual exercise, but on the other you brag about what a killer Ueshiba supposedly was.
> 
> 
> 
> Because he had 15 years experience in Aikido and was an instructor. Further, people within Aikido constantly state that their art is on par with other Martial Arts. MMA based martial arts have no problem going outside of their arts and faring well against other martial arts, why would Aikido have a problem with that?



I'll go point by point so you can't get lost or claim anyone dodged your question, out of respect that your attempting to ask questions.

- You do have the ability to watch all those uke/nage drills and see who is using good technique if you have the experience. I can watch the "interpretive dance" version of Aikido and point out problems or good technique, you can't because you are not familiar with the system. Yes, other than this Chris Hein school that I literally found yesterday while watching Rokas's videos, I couldn't point you to a good Aikido school in the states, Hein seems to get it and he has awesome technique in his videos, so I would say he's probably the best place to start for someone looking for a good school who may want to see what applies and what doesn't apply for them. The work required to update or fix problems in the system that would be required for it to somehow be competitive how YOU want has not been done. Again you are attempting to make Aikido stand up to something other than what it is, it was never sold or advertised as something to go out and dominate MMA, that's your expectation, full stop. 

- You have a very obscure system that was specifically "pacified" before it came to the states to spread philosophy and personal development, yet you expect it to perform flawlessly, by itself, in a mixed style format where it was never intended even from its start.

- Ueshiba was not just using Aikido, he developed Aikido later in life after studying and mastering Judo/Kenjutsu and other Japanese ryu, he was also a soldier. Asking some 19 year old with no life experience, no military experience and no similar background to replicate the achievements of a man who was awarded his nations equivalent to the medal of honor is stupid. Just like expecting other martial artists within BJJ to live up to the Gracie clans legend, if its happend, I havent seen it.

- Rokas 15 years wasn't 15 good years. I can say "I have ten years experience" but that doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does. How many hours a week was he training? If he did one class a week for two hours like most people do, he did about 1560 hours total, that's nothing, its where most would consider entry Journeyman for most skills and that's maybe six months of full time training, it's not even what a good Japanese school would let you test for Shodan. His mere choice of techniques, posture, footwork, lack of guard, etc, in his wrist lock video shows me someone who has never been in a fight, who has never been punched in the face, even in training. Theres too much hesitance, trepidation, too much looking around and thinking about what to do, then he picks a technique, botches it and has the BJJ show him the right way to do a wristlock. You give him all the credit he says he has for 15 years of anecdotal training, then apply it as gospel, yet you won't listen to a critique about it without flying into a rage and demanding proof, yet you do not question the quality or veracity of his experience. Thats not critical thinking.

   MMA does have issues in practical application outside of its schools, the ring, etc, you are just choosing to ignore it. You can almost pick a ticket for the UFC and watch at least one undercard fight where a fighter doesn't even learn basic striking or is horrible on the ground because they aren't well rounded enough. The individual matters. You are applying what you have seen on television and youtube to your vision of reality, based on limited or no experience (which is why you are hanging onto this video thing) and then stating that MMA works that way in all situations, in all cases, which it does not, then you are holding the other martial arts to the same imagined standard in your head, without thought for circumstance, individual experience, training, any of it. You aren't posting videos of yourself doing any of these things, your pointing to Gracies and other people on the internet and claiming 1+1 =2 in reference to your ability or the system as a whole, which is not in fact how any of this works. Just based on the thought and technical level of discussion you show, I'd eagerly take a class from Jowgawolf in Jowga Kung Fu and probably get much better results from that lesson than spending the same time in any school, under anyone you have trained with, I can tell, because you use all these false prepositions in your argument. Think back to what I said to drop bear before you even jumped into the discussion, you can't prove a martial arts discussion on the internet. 

  Let's assume your right, let's assume, hands down, MMA as a system is the gold standard, the most practical, the best all around method of fighting. You can go study under the best teachers, as long as you want and if you don't put the requisite work in, it won't matter. You can put any belt you want around your waist, even if you think you "earned it" and did everything expected of you, that belt won't stop you from getting thumped in an actual fight. I've seen plenty of black belts who were a disgrace to the concept, who ultimately fell apart the moment someone landed a punch in their teeth or broke their nose. Not everyone is a warrior, belt or no. 

  Don't want to train Aikido? Don't. Think its all fake arm waving and crystals? Cool. No one is forcing you to come here and ***** about it, no one is claiming Aikido is a perfect martial art or one that's effective in the UFC. No one is making these claims. The only thing anyone has said, is that Aikido works fine, as advertised and the only claim being made is that it provides a set of tools, to deal with conflict in a different and less dangerous way and that it will work for most people in most realistic scenarios that they are likely to encounter. So there's no need to "prove" to you, that it is superior to MMA, no one is saying that, you are simply trying to **** on the system and make false claims and say it doesn't work or that it claims something that it doesn't. I have lots of anecdotal experience and that's good enough for me to be happy with the system and to feel happy endorsing it and telling other people its worth training in. I don't need your approval for that or for the system to work, martial arts do not require external validation. Don't like that? Fine, go spend some time bothering someone else instead of arguing the same circular logic over and over.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> The big issue is if they keep their arms mostly in and tight, you really are not going to move them. And why you have to break their structure via their head first.
> 
> Only half of what needs to be taught gets taught and why as soon as you leave the demo you run in to road blocks.
> 
> It is like the double leg. It works fine against strikes if you set it up so they don't have time to strike. Or have posture so they cannot guillotine. But if you just fling your arms out yelling double leg that is where you get countered.



 Yes, I only show that video to answer the question. Personally, I'd for sure emphasize more force in the execution and tell the student to resist. I think he's demoing it to those kids a s a basic intro, I prefer to show things slow, medium, full speed so they see it correct and dont develop bad habits. Also, I have never gotten a finger lock to work pretty, its far easier to try and stop jabs then to grab fingers, a thumb war proves this out. I generally show the finger exercises in the context of "ok the wristlock failed, he is pulling away, spread the fingers and try this". I also tend to show each wrist lock and emphasize splaying the fingers to make them good grab handles if you start slipping and I have gotten the finger holds to work when a slimy sweaty hand started to slip out of my hand and I was going to lose the grab. 

Your observation with the double leg is true for the Aikido stuff, if I telegraph it, if I don't move and execute part of the technique at the same time as I enter or blend, then its gone and I'm taking a punch to the face. The video that had the UK guys doing wristlocks, showed him blocking the punches with his shoulder. off arm and body positioning, I try and show the same thing, I don't like entering with the little Aikido robot chop arm, I enter with both arms and maneuver the off arm to take the off side strikes.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> The big issue is if they keep their arms mostly in and tight, you really are not going to move them. And why you have to break their structure via their head first.
> 
> Only half of what needs to be taught gets taught and why as soon as you leave the demo you run in to road blocks.
> 
> It is like the double leg. It works fine against strikes if you set it up so they don't have time to strike. Or have posture so they cannot guillotine. But if you just fling your arms out yelling double leg that is where you get countered.



Also, this is the issue with Atemi not being taught in Aikido anymore. Two or three strikes BEFORE the technique makes the landing/execution much more plausible, also, if you lose the hold, you should be practicing to move straight into strikes, I never see other schools do that. I intercepted the jab but missed the frontal/revers grab for an arm bar? I should be throwing knees and elbows since I'm still inside your guard.


----------



## Shatteredzen

JowGaWolf said:


> Get your friend. put on some gloves, head gear if you need it.  do some light sparring but actually trying to strike and throw each other.  Try your techniques.  If you can't do your technique  in a light environment then the truth should hit you really hard.


 This! The same should be done for any training, all of it. You don't know, till you know.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Yeah but there is a base of at least something physical you can gauge the system with.
> 
> Exept in martial arts where it is mostly anecdotes dogma and misconception. And it is deliberately that way.
> 
> It is like diet and fitness. There are some consistent themes that work. And then there is the willingness to actually do those things.
> 
> One is objective one is subjective.



Yes, and no one is going to argue that the martial arts has a ton of BS floating through it. The ultimate truth however is in those personal anecdotes. Sure you should choose what to believe or maybe only use your own, but you will develop those anecdotes and that is still what formed all of these martial arts and styles.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> I fight drunks because I get paid to.
> 
> I do MMA because they are the gold standard of fighting and so get the most bang for buck.



Or is it just for the Bundy in a can?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Okay, but you can watch Olympic divers to see high diving at the highest competitive levels. You know what a successful application of a high dive looks like because you have objective examples with plenty of evidence to support what is and isn't good high diving.


Just because they have success in it doesn't mean you will be the same.  It's your skills that you need to test not theirs.  


Hanzou said:


> Again, that isn't enough. Some people want to see if their art is effective against other trained people. I could tie my untrained buddies up in pretzels when we goofed around, but there were times when I preferred to go against my other friend who was a former NCAA wrestler. I definitely couldn't tie him in a pretzel so it was a superior challenge for me and my training.
> 
> Also I frankly doubt if Rokas had much success goofing around with his untrained friends.


If you can't beat those on the lower level with your skills then what makes you think that you will do any better against trained people?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Again, that isn't enough. Some people want to see if their art is effective against other trained people. I could tie my untrained buddies up in pretzels when we goofed around, but there were times when I preferred to go against my other friend who was a former NCAA wrestler. I definitely couldn't tie him in a pretzel so it was a superior challenge for me and my training.
> 
> Also I frankly doubt if Rokas had much success goofing around with his untrained friends.



Then fight, ultimately, all of martial arts is what you can personally get to work, under stress, while another human does mean things to you. If you are not in a profession that requires you to be proficient in unarmed combat, then you are only training up to that "higher standard" as a method of personal gratification, which is fine. In the end, you can watch all the videos you want, in a real confrontation its going to come down to whatever you can use at your lowest level of training.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> I'll go point by point so you can't get lost or claim anyone dodged your question, out of respect that your attempting to ask questions.
> 
> - You do have the ability to watch all those uke/nage drills and see who is using good technique if you have the experience. I can watch the "interpretive dance" version of Aikido and point out problems or good technique, you can't because you are not familiar with the system. Yes, other than this Chris Hein school that I literally found yesterday while watching Rokas's videos, I couldn't point you to a good Aikido school in the states, Hein seems to get it and he has awesome technique in his videos, so I would say he's probably the best place to start for someone looking for a good school who may want to see what applies and what doesn't apply for them. The work required to update or fix problems in the system that would be required for it to somehow be competitive how YOU want has not been done. Again you are attempting to make Aikido stand up to something other than what it is, it was never sold or advertised as something to go out and dominate MMA, that's your expectation, full stop.



Judo, Bjj, Boxing, Wrestling, Muay Thai, Kyokushin, etc. does just in  the MMA space. What's the problem with Aikido? Is it a martial art designed for fighting or not? If not, then it should be advertised as such along the lines of Yoga or Tai Chi.



> - You have a very obscure system that was specifically "pacified" before it came to the states to spread philosophy and personal development, yet you expect it to perform flawlessly, by itself, in a mixed style format where it was never intended even from its start.



Cool. Where are the Japanese exponents then who are utilizing the "unpacified" version?



> - Ueshiba was not just using Aikido, he developed Aikido later in life after studying and mastering Judo/Kenjutsu and other Japanese ryu, he was also a soldier. Asking some 19 year old with no life experience, no military experience and no similar background to replicate the achievements of a man who was awarded his nations equivalent to the medal of honor is stupid. Just like expecting other martial artists within BJJ to live up to the Gracie clans legend, if its happend, I havent seen it.



Except we have modern exponents of Bjj who are actually superior to the Gracies. Where's the Aikidoka mirroring Ueshiba's martial feats?



> - Rokas 15 years wasn't 15 good years. I can say "I have ten years experience" but that doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does. How many hours a week was he training? If he did one class a week for two hours like most people do, he did about 1560 hours total, that's nothing, its where most would consider entry Journeyman for most skills and that's maybe six months of full time training, it's not even what a good Japanese school would let you test for Shodan. His mere choice of techniques, posture, footwork, lack of guard, etc, in his wrist lock video shows me someone who has never been in a fight, who has never been punched in the face, even in training. Theres too much hesitance, trepidation, too much looking around and thinking about what to do, then he picks a technique, botches it and has the BJJ show him the right way to do a wristlock. You give him all the credit he says he has for 15 years of anecdotal training, then apply it as gospel, yet you won't listen to a critique about it without flying into a rage and demanding proof, yet you do not question the quality or veracity of his experience. Thats not critical thinking.



I give him credit for stepping up to the plate and testing his art on the world stage. I wish others in the Aikido community would do the same.



> MMA does have issues in practical application outside of its schools, the ring, etc, you are just choosing to ignore it. You can almost pick a ticket for the UFC and watch at least one undercard fight where a fighter doesn't even learn basic striking or is horrible on the ground because they aren't well rounded enough. The individual matters. You are applying what you have seen on television and youtube to your vision of reality, based on limited or no experience (which is why you are hanging onto this video thing) and then stating that MMA works that way in all situations, in all cases, which it does not, then you are holding the other martial arts to the same imagined standard in your head, without thought for circumstance, individual experience, training, any of it. You aren't posting videos of yourself doing any of these things, your pointing to Gracies and other people on the internet and claiming 1+1 =2 in reference to your ability or the system as a whole, which is not in fact how any of this works. Just based on the thought and technical level of discussion you show, I'd eagerly take a class from Jowgawolf in Jowga Kung Fu and probably get much better results from that lesson than spending the same time in any school, under anyone you have trained with, I can tell, because you use all these false prepositions in your argument. Think back to what I said to drop bear before you even jumped into the discussion, you can't prove a martial arts discussion on the internet.



 I have no idea what you're referring to here. If you're trying to argue against my point that there is no foundational gauge for what is successful Aikido, then you simply missed the point entirely. Yes the individual matters, however so does the community who is also taking the martial art. If the entire community is incapable of producing elite practitioners, then there's something wrong with the style in of itself. If Aikido for example isn't producing martial artists on par with Bjj or Judo practitioners, then there's something going on with Aikido. Now you may argue that isn't Aikido's goals, but then the next question is, what exactly are Aikido's goals? If you're telling me that an Aikidoka can handle themselves on the street, why can't they handle themselves against another trained martial artist?



> Let's assume your right, let's assume, hands down, MMA as a system is the gold standard, the most practical, the best all around method of fighting. You can go study under the best teachers, as long as you want and if you don't put the requisite work in, it won't matter. You can put any belt you want around your waist, even if you think you "earned it" and did everything expected of you, that belt won't stop you from getting thumped in an actual fight. I've seen plenty of black belts who were a disgrace to the concept, who ultimately fell apart the moment someone landed a punch in their teeth or broke their nose. Not everyone is a warrior, belt or no.



Yeah but here's the thing; If you're in a MMA or Bjj gym you're going to improve. The methodology behind those systems almost force you to do so. The same pretty much applies to Boxing, Basketball, and any other sport. Will you be the next Mike Tyson, Michael Jordan or Jon Jones? Probably not, but you'll be a better Boxer, basketball player or fighter than the average person on the street. In terms of MMA, if you're in there constantly getting taken down and punched in the face, you're going to get to the point where you figure out how to stop getting taken down, or stop getting punched in the face, or both. That's simply common sense. If you don't learn how to do that, you're going to quit because no one wants to get punched in the face over and over again. Arts like Aikido simply aren't like that.



> Don't want to train Aikido? Don't. Think its all fake arm waving and crystals? Cool. No one is forcing you to come here and ***** about it, no one is claiming Aikido is a perfect martial art or one that's effective in the UFC. No one is making these claims. The only thing anyone has said, is that Aikido works fine, as advertised and the only claim being made is that it provides a set of tools, to deal with conflict in a different and less dangerous way and that it will work for most people in most realistic scenarios that they are likely to encounter. So there's no need to "prove" to you, that it is superior to MMA, no one is saying that, you are simply trying to **** on the system and make false claims and say it doesn't work or that it claims something that it doesn't. I have lots of anecdotal experience and that's good enough for me to be happy with the system and to feel happy endorsing it and telling other people its worth training in. I don't need your approval for that or for the system to work, martial arts do not require external validation. Don't like that? Fine, go spend some time bothering someone else instead of arguing the same circular logic over and over.



If Aikido works fine as advertised, where's the evidence? 

Again, this is like arguing against a religion where if someone simply asks questions, the zealots come out and scream heretic. If Aikido works as advertised where are the elite Aikidoka who can compete against boxers, wrestlers, Bjjers, or MMA practitioners? Due to Aikido's popularity they should exist in high numbers.

It's okay, I'm prepared for more excuses.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Just because they have success in it doesn't mean you will be the same.  It's your skills that you need to test not theirs.



Not the point. Whether or not I can reach that level is irrelevant. The point is that an objective standard exists.



> If you can't beat those on the lower level with your skills then what makes you think that you will do any better against trained people?



Because not all trained people are equal.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Not the point. Whether or not I can reach that level is irrelevant. The point is that an objective standard exists.
> 
> 
> 
> Because not all trained people are equal.



Awesome, that saved me time from having to respond, thanks for proving you understand the point and are just choosing to be a lump.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Or is it just for the Bundy in a can?



Well you know what they say about Bundy.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Then fight, ultimately, all of martial arts is what you can personally get to work, under stress, while another human does mean things to you. If you are not in a profession that requires you to be proficient in unarmed combat, then you are only training up to that "higher standard" as a method of personal gratification, which is fine. In the end, you can watch all the videos you want, in a real confrontation its going to come down to whatever you can use at your lowest level of training.



Not really. It depends what you are looking at. 

If systems produce consistent results that is looking at the system. Which is what we are discussing.

People constantly try to confuse this by adding in the inherent qualities of the individual. But it is a different discussion.

I mean if we had an argument about who would win a fight between a 150kg Aikidoka and a 50kg MMA er then absolutely the individual is inherent in that discussion. 

But if we are discussing function or self defence or fighting abilities of martial arts. Then we need to look at how much potential we can squeeze out of the person we have. 

Because that is the function of training. 

Then we can look at ourselves and decide what fundamentally needs to change to achieve the goals we want. And then subjectively whether or not we actually want to do those things.


----------



## dunc

Shatteredzen said:


> Something I noticed with your video, good show of the techniques IMO, one thing I was taught which helps with leverage is what we called "tracing the C" when you go to execute the lock/throw, you trace an exaggerated "C" with your rear foot clockwise or counter clockwise depending on positioning but away from your opponent, in the direction you want them to go. and this helps provide more force/leverage/momentum as you roll through the technique. In the video, my one critique is that his stance is very closed and he visibly struggles to get leverage at some points. Otherwise, yes, the way he defends from the opposite side punches with movement and body positioning is great also.



Hi
Don’t want to derail the discussion, but could you share an example video of the “C” concept (can’t quite visualise it)
Thanks
D


----------



## drop bear

And this is why the rokus thing is so telling. 

He trained to do Aikido for ten years or something. And at the end of that training he could not do the things he was told he would be able to do. 

He trained MMA, BJJ and whatever for about a year. And was able to do the things he was told he would be able to do. 

And the aims are are pretty similar if you think of them as meta. 

Could he punch people,  defend punches, throw people on the ground,  apply submissions. Could he use someone's weight against them, create a mechanical advantage to become stronger than his opponent. Could he face an unknown opponent in a full contact fight. 

All this basic fighting fundamentals that are necessary to win a confrontation. 

This is some really simple ideas made really complicated by clever marketing so that people get confused with what they are actually achieving.


----------



## drop bear

dunc said:


> Hi
> Don’t want to derail the discussion, but could you share an example video of the “C” concept (can’t quite visualise it)
> Thanks
> D



At 1:20


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Also, this is the issue with Atemi not being taught in Aikido anymore. Two or three strikes BEFORE the technique makes the landing/execution much more plausible, also, if you lose the hold, you should be practicing to move straight into strikes, I never see other schools do that. I intercepted the jab but missed the frontal/revers grab for an arm bar? I should be throwing knees and elbows since I'm still inside your guard.



The problem there is you don't get free shots. He is striking back. 

At which point your grappling has to be better or you will get out struck.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Rokas 15 years wasn't 15 good years. I can say "I have ten years experience" but that doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does. How many hours a week was he training



I think it was full time. Live in student in Japan ran his own dojo.

I will find out.






1:30


----------



## Cynik75

Rokas asked WC, AIkido and KM people for footages of succesfull application of WC, Aikido and KM in free fight. Only chunners sent right responses (WC adepts using succesfully WC techniques and principles in fight).
From Aikido side Dan The Wolfmand send angry response that he used aikido techniques in many fights - but he is long time catch wrestler, MMA practicioner ( and other grapplings arts adept) so he know the fundamentals of fighting wery well what allows him to use aikido in fight.
Dear Shatteredzen - one picture is worth more than thousand words. Just do the same - post a video of fighting aikidokas. If BJJist, wrestlers, judokas, mmaists can apply aikido in fight why aikidokas cant? (except of some Tomiki guys).

BTW Rokas did not promote himself to aikido black belt. Somebody higher ranked in aikido community recognized him as skilled enough to be BB. It is not Rokas problem, it is rather system problem in aikido..


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> I fight drunks because I get paid to.
> 
> I do MMA because they are the gold standard of fighting and so get the most bang for buck.


but you dont do mma do you, you just train there, it doesnt matter if it's the gold stand if fighting or not, you dont fight to any measurable standard at all, just like me


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Yeah but there is a base of at least something physical you can gauge the system with.
> 
> Exept in martial arts where it is mostly anecdotes dogma and misconception. And it is deliberately that way.
> 
> It is like diet and fitness. There are some consistent themes that work. And then there is the willingness to actually do those things.
> 
> One is objective one is subjective.


but the act of gauging is its self subjective, I dont know how to make it simpler for you

if cosmology for instance has a high degree of subjectivity in it why does the db science of fight assessment not ?


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> but you dont do mma do you, you just train there, it doesnt matter if it's the gold stand if fighting or not, you dont fight to any measurable standard at all, just like me



You are confusing my standard with the standard of training I receive. 

They are two different things.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> but the act of gauging is its self subjective, I dont know how to make it simpler for you
> 
> if cosmology for instance has a high degree of subjectivity in it why does the db science of fight assessment not ?



There is nothing to suggest cosmology is anything like martial arts, and so is ultimately irrelevant.

I can definitely make the case that there are objective results within martial arts.

There are systems that consistently out perform. There are techniques that are high or low percentage.

There are things that demonstratively work. Regardless as to how I personally feel about them.

I am not sure why you keep bringing up extra random factors that don't really apply.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> You are confusing my standard with the standard of training I receive.
> 
> They are two different things.


but the standard of the training is irelivant if your ownly capable of being sub standard.

that said,  your not competing at mma, that makes you and I equal on the only actual objective measure you have arrived at so far


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> There is nothing to suggest cosmology is anything like martial arts, and so is ultimately irrelevant.
> 
> I can definitely make the case that there are objective results within martial arts.
> 
> There are systems that consistently out perform. There are techniques that are high or low percentage.
> 
> There are things that demonstratively work. Regardless as to how I personally feel about them.
> 
> I am not sure why you keep bringing up extra random factors that don't really apply.


ok,give me some of these objective measures that dont require subjectivity, to decided which measures to use, how the measuring is to be done and what weighting you give to it


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> ok,give me some of these objective measures that dont require subjectivity, to decided which measures to use, how the measuring is to be done and what weighting you give to it



Ok. How many days a week can you train?

Sorry how many days a week is training available. 

Because here we have an objective measure that if one place trains 6 days a week and one trains two days a week. The one that trains 6 is offering a better service.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> but the standard of the training is irelivant if your ownly capable of being sub standard.
> 
> that said,  your not competing at mma, that makes you and I equal on the only actual objective measure you have arrived at so far



Not at all. If I looked at the training as a whole. Then I would look at everyone who is competing under that system of training.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Ok. How many days a week can you train?


that's an objective measure of why mma is the best system?

I'm not sure your actualy following this


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> that's an objective measure of why mma is the best system?
> 
> I'm not sure your actualy following this



Yes. It is precisely why.

This is the schedule for Tiger muay thai. Which is a premium MMA training facility.

Training Schedule - Tiger Muay Thai & MMA Training Camp, Phuket, Thailand

It objectively offers a better service.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Not at all. If I looked at the training as a whole. Then I would look at everyone who is competing under that system of training.


but that doesnt seem to be getting you to the objective gold standard you proclaimed

it's like buying a sports car you cant drive properly  coz good driver own them, therefor it will make you good , that really is not objective


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> but that doesnt seem to be getting you to the objective gold standard you proclaimed
> 
> it's like buying a sports car you cant drive coz good driver own them, therefor it will make you good , that really is not objective



No. Objectively the sports car is better.

Subjectively you can't drive it. 

If you put the same driver in different cars he will perform differently.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Yes. It is precisely why.
> 
> This is the schedule for Tiger muay thai. Which is a premium MMA training facility.
> 
> Training Schedule - Tiger Muay Thai & MMA Training Camp, Phuket, Thailand
> 
> It objectively offers a better service.


 you cant say it objectively better unless your comparing it to something else, better is a comparative( and subjective) term

it doesnt seem better for either of us being some distance away


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> No. Objectively the sports car is better.
> 
> Subjectively you can't drive it.
> 
> If you put the same driver in different cars he will perform differently.


no objectively the sports cars isnt better,unless you apply a subjective measure to make it so,


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> you cant say it objectively better unless your comparing it to something else, better is a comparative( and subjective) term



Better is a measurable term. More facilities. More training opportunities it has produced more successful martial artists it has trainers with better credentials it is bigger.

Real measurable objective differences.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Better is a measurable term. More facilities. More training opportunities it has produced more successful martial artists it has trainers with better credentials it is bigger.
> 
> Real measurable objective differences.


better is not measurable, it's a value judgement on what you belive is most important  and only has any meaning at all when in direct comparison with some like thing


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> no objectively the sports cars isnt better,unless you apply a subjective measure to make it so,



Subjecive like one is physically faster?


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> And this is why the rokus thing is so telling.
> 
> He trained to do Aikido for ten years or something. And at the end of that training he could not do the things he was told he would be able to do.
> 
> He trained MMA, BJJ and whatever for about a year. And was able to do the things he was told he would be able to do.
> 
> And the aims are are pretty similar if you think of them as meta.
> 
> Could he punch people,  defend punches, throw people on the ground,  apply submissions. Could he use someone's weight against them, create a mechanical advantage to become stronger than his opponent. Could he face an unknown opponent in a full contact fight.
> 
> All this basic fighting fundamentals that are necessary to win a confrontation.
> 
> This is some really simple ideas made really complicated by clever marketing so that people get confused with what they are actually achieving.



it is also telling that people call him a “douche” or ignorant for going through that and bringing his experience public. Interestingly, nothing that happened to Rokas was surprising, it’s only a revelation to people who buy into the nonsense that all martial arts are created equal.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Subjecive like one is physically faster?


this is what I'm trying to explain to you

you have immediatly come to the conclusion that faster is better, that's a subjective assessment,

it's not even necessarily true that sports cars are faster than saloon cars 

yet you based your answer on two non objective thought processes and reached subjective conclusion


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Also I frankly doubt if Rokas had much success goofing around with his untrained friends.


Based on his initial attempts against the MMA guy, I'd entirely agree.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And this is why the rokus thing is so telling.
> 
> He trained to do Aikido for ten years or something. And at the end of that training he could not do the things he was told he would be able to do.
> 
> He trained MMA, BJJ and whatever for about a year. And was able to do the things he was told he would be able to do.
> 
> And the aims are are pretty similar if you think of them as meta.
> 
> Could he punch people,  defend punches, throw people on the ground,  apply submissions. Could he use someone's weight against them, create a mechanical advantage to become stronger than his opponent. Could he face an unknown opponent in a full contact fight.
> 
> All this basic fighting fundamentals that are necessary to win a confrontation.
> 
> This is some really simple ideas made really complicated by clever marketing so that people get confused with what they are actually achieving.


I think a lot of this comes down to some pretty habitual mythology in more "traditional" arts (not koryu stuff - I know nearly nothing about them). It's not unusual to hear an instructor saying things that suggest MA works like in the movies. And sometimes this even comes from folks who know better (have heard some of this language from a cop who was also a golden gloves boxer). I think it's a matter of learned speech patterns, and it often doesn't mean the same thing to the instructor (who's saying it) as to the student. Maybe it's because too many instructors really enjoyed the bad MA movies of decades past (I still love to watch those). If there's no resistive training, students get this muddled message. Sometimes they get it even with resistive training.

It's something that can be fixed a couple of ways (I prefer both), and neither are all that hard. First, the instructor can be careful to counter this tendency. Talk about limitations. Talk clearly about how much effort is needed to get some types of results (no student is likely to reach my level without putting in the hours I did - and I'm probably not going to reach my first instructor's level, because he trained like a fiend for decades). Secondly, play with folks outside your school and outside the art/system you're training. Get some resistive training time with folks who know stuff, and get that reality check. Find out who's better than you, and what systems or approaches give you problems.

Without that second step, you can end up creating a next generation of instructors who overbought the capabilities of their training (and perhaps of the system they learned) and now pass that belief on to students who buy into it a bit more.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Subjecive like one is physically faster?


That's a really good measure if you're looking for the fastest car. I like some speed in a car, but beyond a point it's meaningless to me. An old 911 is faster than I'll ever make use of, so a brand new supercar doesn't become any better for me. For Jordon Maron it does, but it's not all about straight-line speed for him (you can supertune many cars to beat a supercar off the line - there's a whole category of "sleeper" cars that are built just for that purpose).

So, we can objectively measure speed, but what we do with that (how we figure it in the definition of "better") isn't objective.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> At 1:20


Thanks for sharing that. Good content, and some things I want to make sure I point out whenever I have students again.


----------



## O'Malley

Hanzou said:


> I understand that, and also thought Tamaki did impressively well all things considered. I would like to see Greg going full blast though. At the end of their friendly back and forth, he didn't break Tamaki's headlock, which assured me that he was just playing around.



Agreed. TBH I think he was underestimating Tamaki and didn't want to embarrass him. Several times he stopped and asked "can I do that to you? Can we go to the ground?" and Tamaki was like "go ahead, it should be my problem!". As much as I'd love to see an aikidoka throw Greg around, we're not there yet. However, I think it's a good start and that aikidoka should emulate guys like Tamaki, if they want to train for functionality.



> Indeed, which makes me wonder why they aren't. Also I do believe that Aikido only has one choke? Is that true, and if so why?



My intuition is that, firstly, groundwork was not common at the time and that, secondly, the founder of aikido focused on maintaining mobility so that you're less vulnerable to multiple opponents. This latter reason explains why you don't see much groundwork nor chokes in aikido as they make you less mobile for extended periods of time. BTW it's another reason for not seeing aikido as an art that focuses on joint locks/pins. In aikido, you should ideally be able to disengage and move around at any point of the technique (for example we can jump out of our pins instantly), or change it to suit the circumstances. 

There exists a notebook of a Japanese admiral that recounts how Ueshiba took a bunch of folks who knew judo for study sessions and tried to develop counters against judo. Unfortunately, the techniques are lost today and you can't reconstitute them from the notebook so there's no way to see if he actually came up with anything of value. But he was aware of judo's groundwork and chokes, here's him demonstrating one:








Shatteredzen said:


> I've just started watching some of Chris Hein's videos after seeing his interview with Rokas, he discusses the same training issues and makes the very cogent point that Aikido is its own thing, its own set of skills and that its not something to force into being a swiss army knife for MMA or many of the other mistaken premises that usually frame these discussions. After hearing his interview I'm actually much more optimistic and excited about the whole of the Aikido community and its future in martial arts. The interview is here if you are interested.



I am of the firm opinion that following Chris Hein's teachings is one of the best ways to get worse at aikido. For context, he received permission to teach by the same guy who gave permission to Rokas. I think that Hein's approach completely misses the point. Instead of thinking "ok so here is what is consistently taught in aikido, and here's the context in which it was taught, are my practice and context different?", he thinks "ok this is my practice, how do I make up a context that works for it?". This leads to an afwul lot of mental backflips and shaky rationalisations. 

A pretty dumbfounding result of that process is one of his recent drills. A has a sword/weapon, B is unarmed. B mindlessly lunges at A, who has to use aikido to prevent B from hurting him. Yeah.

Another one of my pet peeves with Hein is his complete inconsistency with aikido teachings. He bases most of his technical insights on the premise that "aikido's purpose is to escape/create distance, so we can have a peaceful conversation". This is something he pulled out of his hat, which he presents as the rational interpretation of aikido ("aikido that makes sense"). I'd be open to this innovation if it didn't break one of the core concepts of aikido, which is "irimi" (entering). In aikido, you enter your attacker's attack. Sometimes you enter so deep that you end up behind him. It is one of the core principles of aikido, Ueshiba and about every single disciple of his said so. It's black-and-white clear. It's so anchored in the art that you can trace it back to Takeda's Itto-ryu training. It also makes sense from the point of view of other martial arts. So, if your whole approach revolves around the opposite of irimi, you're not doing aikido.

It would be ok if he had taken responsibility for his creation (and maybe had called it with another name) but the way he presents it as a general interpretation for aikido is harmful for the art. He provides easy answers that may make sense if you don't know better, but actually make you understand the art less. To top it off, he makes up pseudo-Japanese terms that don't have any sense (like "haragi") and he uses some existing terms wrong (e.g. he calls disarms "kaeshi" whereas, for everyone else, "kaeshi" are technique reversals). So, I would avoid him.



Hanzou said:


> Judo, Bjj, Boxing, Wrestling, Muay Thai, Kyokushin, etc. does just in  the MMA space. What's the problem with Aikido? Is it a martial art designed for fighting or not? If not, then it should be advertised as such along the lines of Yoga or Tai Chi.



I don't think aikido was designed as a fighting _system_. At best, it was a body conditioning method that made you a stronger fighter (including by granting you uncanny heaviness, relaxedness and power) and gave you a bunch of general ideas, techniques and principles (e.g. enter, keep mobility, present a smaller target, use weapons, etc.) that you could then refine in application. For several reasons (one of them being the founder's ties with fascist terrorist groups and war criminals), that austere form of training was changed into a social, self-development-bar-gymnastics type of activity.

I believe that most aikido teachers and students are interested in the latter, more peaceful form and that's ok. Most don't even advertise it as self-defense anymore. However, the problem is when you make claims about effectiveness against an attacker, because you have to deliver and people have the means to compare it to MMA.



> Cool. Where are the Japanese exponents then who are utilizing the "unpacified" version?



There might be (and some instructors have solid technique, in _kata _form) but I haven't seen many aikidoka do decently in a live environment (Bruce Bookman and Tamaki being exceptions). Also, the best instructors aren't necessarily in Japan anymore.



> Except we have modern exponents of Bjj who are actually superior to the Gracies. Where's the Aikidoka mirroring Ueshiba's martial feats?



I've seen some aikido people replicate some of his body mechanics but no one in sparring.



> I give him credit for stepping up to the plate and testing his art on the world stage. I wish others in the Aikido community would do the same.



Same here. The problem is that most don't care, the training methods that have been passed down are very sub-standard, and the talent pool is dwindling. Also, not having competition, or even a technical standard, makes technical development difficult as you can't assess what you're doing.



dunc said:


> Hi
> Don’t want to derail the discussion, but could you share an example video of the “C” concept (can’t quite visualise it)
> Thanks
> D



I'd guess it's a form of tenkan?



drop bear said:


> And this is why the rokus thing is so telling.
> 
> He trained to do Aikido for ten years or something. And at the end of that training he could not do the things he was told he would be able to do.
> 
> He trained MMA, BJJ and whatever for about a year. And was able to do the things he was told he would be able to do.
> 
> And the aims are are pretty similar if you think of them as meta.
> 
> Could he punch people,  defend punches, throw people on the ground,  apply submissions. Could he use someone's weight against them, create a mechanical advantage to become stronger than his opponent. Could he face an unknown opponent in a full contact fight.
> 
> All this basic fighting fundamentals that are necessary to win a confrontation.
> 
> This is some really simple ideas made really complicated by clever marketing so that people get confused with what they are actually achieving.



Agreed. The disconnect between promises and delivery is aikido's biggest problem.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok. How many days a week can you train?
> 
> Sorry how many days a week is training available.
> 
> Because here we have an objective measure that if one place trains 6 days a week and one trains two days a week. The one that trains 6 is offering a better service.


Agreed, if you want to train more days or want that flexibility. That second should be mostly universal, I'd think, though the question is how much it matters to the individual.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yes. It is precisely why.
> 
> This is the schedule for Tiger muay thai. Which is a premium MMA training facility.
> 
> Training Schedule - Tiger Muay Thai & MMA Training Camp, Phuket, Thailand
> 
> It objectively offers a better service.


Better than someplace that offers 3 classes per day? To some folks, yes (those who can use the additional classes). But to someone who works 9-5, all the weekday daytime classes don't actually factor as additional service to them. So we could call it better, but it may not be so for an individual.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Objectively the sports car is better.


Not to me. I don't have much love for sports cars. They are better at going fast and cornering hard, but I don't need a car that can go that fast or corner that hard, and the compromises required to produce that are negatives for me.

So, we're back to "better" being subjective unless we qualify the context. A sports car is almost certainly objectively better on a racetrack than the cars I prefer. I think they are inferior for daily driving.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> "kaeshi" are technique reversals


On a side note, I think you've maybe pointed out a common mis-usage in NGA. We use the term "ura" for reversal. In your understanding is that a mis-use of the term? I suspect we have a number of places where the terms have become loan words with only a shade of their original meaning. Which is fine within the art - words only mean what folks agree they mean.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> but the act of gauging is its self subjective, I dont know how to make it simpler for you
> 
> if cosmology for instance has a high degree of subjectivity in it why does the db science of fight assessment not ?



This is how I gauge;

We have a Bjj technique, the Omoplata;






Is it legit? Well let's see. We have the Omoplata in MMA;






Omoplata in a street fight;






Yep, that's a legit technique. Thanks Bjj.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> This is how I gauge;
> 
> We have a Bjj technique, the Omoplata;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it legit? Well let's see. We have the Omoplata in MMA;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Omoplata in a street fight;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that's a legit technique. Thanks Bjj.


what's your defintion of legitimate? that its parents were married !


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> I don't think aikido was designed as a fighting _system_. At best, it was a body conditioning method that made you a stronger fighter (including by granting you uncanny heaviness, relaxedness and power) and gave you a bunch of general ideas, techniques and principles (e.g. enter, keep mobility, present a smaller target, use weapons, etc.) that you could then refine in application. For several reasons (one of them being the founder's ties with fascist terrorist groups and war criminals), that austere form of training was changed into a social, self-development-bar-gymnastics type of activity.
> 
> I believe that most aikido teachers and students are interested in the latter, more peaceful form and that's ok. Most don't even advertise it as self-defense anymore. However, the problem is when you make claims about effectiveness against an attacker, because you have to deliver and people have the means to compare it to MMA.



See, people say stuff like this, but here are Aikido schools in Atlanta deliberately advertising itself as a fighting art (I chose Atlanta because I'm currently eating a peach);



> Aikido is a Japanese Martial art based on techniques derived from traditional Samurai battle tactics. Developed in the early 20th century  by Morihei Ueshiba (known as O’Sensei), Aikido is a purely defensive art. Rather than meeting force with reciprocal force, the practitioner blends with and redirects the power of the attack* resulting in the attacker either being thrown or immobilized. Thus, it is the attackers own force and aggression which causes his/her downfall.* Because of this principle of “active non-resistance”, *Aikido can be effectively performed even against larger, stronger attackers. At the higher levels of the art, it is equally effective against multiple attackers.*
> 
> Aikido is not a sport or a game. There are no tournaments or competitions. Rather, practice is conducted in a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation. Aikido is distinguished by a highly developed moral code which seeks to protect the assailant while simultaneously neutralizing his will and ability to attack.
> 
> * While Aikido is an extremely effective martial art, self-defense is considered the foundation rather than the ultimate goal of our practice.* Aikido is path or “way” which, if practiced diligently, can enhance all aspects of one’s life.



https://www.aikidocenterofatlanta.com/

So if you know nothing about Martial Arts, this sounds amazing, and an effective tool to protect yourself even against multiple attackers!

Here is another school in the same city;



> Aikido is a true budo (pronounced “boo-dough”) or martial way of life, evolved from the historic tradition of Japanese warrior arts into an *effective and enlightened form of self-defense*.  With Aikido, *it is possible to subdue a much larger aggressor using minimal effort, *but the ultimate goal of Aikido is to resolve conflict safely and effectively without promoting violence to solve problems.  When studied in earnest, Aikido is not merely a science of techniques and tactics for self-defense but a discipline for perfecting the spirit.



https://www.peachtreeaikikai.com/aikido

Again we have Aikido being advertised as a form of self-defense, and we get the additional little nugget that you can subdue someone much larger with MINIMAL effort.

If I knew nothing of MA, Aikido would seem like an amazing and effective fighting style that will allow me to subdue multiple opponents with minimal effort. Is it any surprise that we end up with people like Rokas who spend years in the syste, can't accomplish what is advertised, and begin to question the system?


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> what's your defintion of legitimate? that its parents were married !



If someone can pull off the Omoplata on their back when a sweaty killer is punching them in the face, then yes I view it as a legitimate technique. Why? Because that means that if I'm on my back and a sweaty killer is punching me in the face, if I do the technique right, I can also potentially pull off the technique and snap their shoulder.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> See, people say stuff like this, but here are Aikido schools in Atlanta deliberately advertising itself as a fighting art (I chose Atlanta because I'm currently eating a peach);


Are you in the South, Hanzou? Have you seen the giant peach on I-85 in South Carolina?

Sorry...ADHD thread swerve.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Are you in the South, Hanzou? Have you seen the giant peach on I-85 in South Carolina?
> 
> Sorry...ADHD thread swerve.



I grew up in the south (Alabama). I'm currently living out of a suitcase due to work.

And yes I've seen them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I grew up in the south (Alabama). I'm currently living out of a suitcase due to work.
> 
> And yes I've seen them.


Also known as the giant butt in the sky. Bit of trivia: the model was actually a nectarine, because they last longer. So the state with the most peach production advertises it with a water tower that looks like a nectarine.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> If someone can pull off the Omoplata on their back when a sweaty killer is punching them in the face, then yes I view it as a legitimate technique. Why? Because that means that if I'm on my back and a sweaty killer is punching me in the face, if I do the technique right, I can also potentially pull off the technique and snap their shoulder.


that doesnt appear to be a defintion of legitamate, more some fanciful notion you've invented, it rather bizarrely seems to hinge on the attacker being both sweaty and a killer though you have identified the doing it correctly problem, so kudos for that

do you have a working  defintion of legitamate you are prepared to share so we can further the discusion ? on if it is indeed " legitimate "


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> that doesnt appear to be a defintion of legitamate, more some fanciful notion you've invented, it rather bizarrely seems to hinge on the attacker being both sweaty and a killer though you have identified the doing it correctly problem, so kudos for that
> 
> do you have a working  defintion of legitamate you are prepared to share so we can further the discusion ? on if it is indeed " legitimate "



In terms of martial arts techniques, legitimate would be techniques that can be applied in multiple situations under the threat of violence and stress. The reason MMA potentially works as a demonstrator in this case is because you have two individuals who are both trying to win at all costs. You have the additional layer of both individuals being elite athletes and martial artists.

The reason Aikido gets questioned is because we simply don't see their techniques work as advertised in such situations, whereas the Omoplata worked in two violent, fluid situations almost exactly as how it was demonstrated in the first video. That gives us evidence that Omoplata could also be applied in a similar fashion and wield a similar result.


----------



## Hanzou

Here's another one; The Guillotine choke (standing);

The technique;






The technique used in MMA (multiple times);






Technique used in street fight (arm in variation);


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> In terms of martial arts techniques, legitimate would be techniques that can be applied in multiple situations under the threat of violence and stress. The reason MMA potentially works as a demonstrator in this case is because you have two individuals who are both trying to win at all costs. You have the additional layer of both individuals being elite athletes and martial artists.
> 
> The reason Aikido gets questioned is because we simply don't see their techniques work as advertised in such situations, whereas the Omoplata worked in two violent, fluid situations almost exactly as how it was demonstrated in the first video. That gives us evidence that Omoplata could also be applied in a similar fashion and wield a similar result.


so your just making up your own definitions then, that a good way to always be correct

in how many multiples can the original technque you posted be used, it appears to have only one situation where it would be applicable,

that d3fintion also doesnt seem to require it to ever work, just be used, or have you invented new definitions for work and use as well


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> so your just making up your own definitions then, that a good way to always be correct
> 
> in how many multiples can the original technque you posted be used, it appears to have only one situation where it would be applicable,



You're seriously arguing in how many situations you can wind up defending from your back? I can think of at least 5 situations where that can happen (you getting pushed down, you losing a standing clinch fight, you getting tackled from behind, you being a woman in a rape situation, you losing your balance while striking etc.), and getting the person from a top position into an inferior position WHILE you have a shoulder lock in place would be highly advantageous.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> You're seriously arguing in how many situations you can wind up defending from your back? I can think of at least 5 situations where that can happen (you getting pushed down, you losing a standing clinch fight, you getting tackled from behind, you being a woman in a rape situation, you losing your balance while striking etc.), and getting the person from a top position into an inferior position WHILE you have a shoulder lock in place would be highly advantageous.


no lying on your back whilst being attack is one situation, the circumstances which lead to that situation dont  multiply that,


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> no lying on your back whilst being attack is one situation, the circumstances which lead to that situation dont  multiply that,



Yeah, no it isn't. A woman dealing with an attempted rape is a completely different situation than a guy on top of you trying to turn your face into hamburger. The Omoplata can be used in both scenarios.

Bonus; Another Omoplata submission in MMA;


----------



## Flying Crane

geezer said:


> No, not really. At least that's not at all how I took it.
> 
> Here's the first video in which he challenges certain arts, including Wing Chun, to send him videos of their art being applied against a non-compliant partner in a free sparring context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next, after receiving a huge response, he posted this video with a pretty positive reaction and retracted his previous statements as being over generalized and mistaken. He did continue to assert that those schools that do not spar and train against resistance cannot know that their techniques will work. They remain untested. here is the second clip (the same one I posted previously:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I do not entirely agree with Rokas, I believe he makes good points and is sincere. I also don't think he comes of as a douche ....like that other guy.



Ok, I watched the two videos and I want my 13 minutes back.

This guy is an intellectual lightweight.  And a douche.  He has tried to make himself the martial arts police who determines how people need to train, and apparently need to justify what they do, to him.  F him.  I honestly don’t understand why people give him any power, by even responding to him.  Nobody needs to prove anything to him.  He is nobody.  If he doesn’t understand a particular system, nobody has an obligation to explain it to him.  If he doesn’t know how different schools or systems train, nobody needs to share it with him.  

seriously, I don’t get why anyone responds to this garbage.


----------



## dunc

drop bear said:


> At 1:20


Hi I get it for things like single legs, but curious in a wrist lock / SD scenario



O'Malley said:


> I'd guess it's a form of tenkan?


Hi Do you have a video of the tenkan foot work being used with a wrist lock?


----------



## Dirty Dog

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

If you look at the top of your screen, you will notice that this is MartialTalk. A _*friendly*_ site. 
That means you need to keep your posts polite, friendly, professional. 
So please, knock off the sniping and snarky comments, or threads will be locked, warnings will be issued, accounts will be suspended...

Mark A Cochran
@Dirty Dog 
MartialTalk Senior Moderator


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, no it isn't. A woman dealing with an attempted rape is a completely different situation than a guy on top of you trying to turn your face into hamburger. The Omoplata can be used in both scenarios.
> 
> Bonus; Another Omoplata submission in MMA;


you do know there is a fundamental difference between situation and circumstance, dont you, ?

the situation is 3exactly the same, your lay on you back with someone on top of you, the circumstances of how and why that came to pass and indeed what is likely to happen next, dont change 5he situation your in at that moment

I take it you also havent realised that there is no past or future tence for situation, unless you alter the sentance structure to make it so, which you didnt, it therefore can only apply to what's happening now not what has or is likely to happen,


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> At 1:20


In Chinese wrestling, this is called "stealing step". If you move the other foot forward first, you then spin (you can make much large circle this way), that's called "wheeling step". In CMA, it's also called "lead your opponent into the emptiness".

Here is an example for the "wheeling step". Please notice that he steps in his left foot first (to make a large circle). It's a good strategy to change from a linear attack into a circular attack.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> you do know there is a fundamental difference between situation and circumstance, dont you, ?
> 
> the situation is 3exactly the same, your lay on you back with someone on top of you, the circumstances of how and why that came to pass and indeed what is likely to happen next, dont change 5he situation your in at that moment
> 
> I take it you also havent realised that there is no past or future tence for situation, unless you alter the sentance structure to make it so, which you didnt, it therefore can only apply to what's happening now not what has or is likely to happen,



You do know there is a difference between someone attempting to rape someone and someone attempting to beat someone up right? It's a different situation with different potential consequences. The situation I found myself in (where a mentally challenged individual tried to smash my brains in with a hammer) was different than both of those situations.

And yes, if you're in the process of someone trying to rape you, beat you up, or kill you, those are all present tense while you are in those situations.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> At 1:20



This is it exactly, you can vary the size of the "C" to gain more or less momentum and it is useful to set yourself up so that you don't go with someone during a throw by not opening your stance enough.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Shatteredzen said:


> This is it exactly, you can vary the size of the "C" to gain more or less momentum and it is useful to set yourself up so that you don't go with someone during a throw by not opening your stance enough.


Many throws can be applied either linear or circular. The difference is that spin back footwork ("C", or "stealing step").


----------



## Shatteredzen

dunc said:


> Hi I get it for things like single legs, but curious in a wrist lock / SD scenario
> 
> 
> Hi Do you have a video of the tenkan foot work being used with a wrist lock?



Dunc, for example, you are trying to counter a grab to your gi from the front, you choose to use your right hand to reach over your opponents arms and to grab the opponents right hand for a reverse wristlock. Once you strike and grab or once you've got both hands on the other guys right hand you would shoot your right leg out behind yourself and "trace the C" as you pull the wrist in close to you for leverage, you would start the throw as you started tracing the C and end as you finished, this would put you in a horse stance at the end, the width being determined by how wide you went with your step.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In Chinese wrestling, this is called "stealing step". If you move the other foot forward first, you then spin (you can make much large circle this way), that's called "wheeling step". In CMA, it's also called "lead your opponent into the emptiness".
> 
> Here is an example for the "wheeling step". Please notice that he steps in his left foot first (to make a large circle). It's a good strategy to change from a linear attack into a circular attack.



Nice! I was taught the same thing as part of that "tracing the C" thing, we called this "tracing inwards", so the same move here, would be to "trace in, then trace out"


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> You do know there is a difference between someone attempting to rape someone and someone attempting to beat someone up right? It's a different situation with different potential consequences. The situation I found myself in (where a mentally challenged individual tried to smash my brains in with a hammer) was different than both of those situations.
> 
> And yes, if you're in the process of someone trying to rape you, beat you up, or kill you, those are all present tense while you are in those situations.



If we are submitting anecdotes and honoring them for you, we are most certainly doing it for Aikido. Somehow all of my experience doesn't count but you get to roll yours out afterwords and we are supposed to honor it.


----------



## Shatteredzen

jobo said:


> so your just making up your own definitions then, that a good way to always be correct
> 
> in how many multiples can the original technque you posted be used, it appears to have only one situation where it would be applicable,
> 
> that d3fintion also doesnt seem to require it to ever work, just be used, or have you invented new definitions for work and use as well



He's been doing this kind of intellectual dishonesty the entire discussion, I linked something like 7 clips of various Aikido moves being used in a real world setting, yet two UFC clips and two kids fighting over pokemon cards and somehow his point is proved and there's still no visible proof that Aikido does anything.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> You do know there is a difference between someone attempting to rape someone and someone attempting to beat someone up right? It's a different situation with different potential consequences. The situation I found myself in (where a mentally challenged individual tried to smash my brains in with a hammer) was different than both of those situations.
> 
> And yes, if you're in the process of someone trying to rape you, beat you up, or kill you, those are all present tense while you are in those situations.


it's a different set of circumstances,  jeez even fox news know the differance,

the situation where you are at the moment you wish to deploy that technque are the same, give or take. there motivation is irelivant to that and a circumstance 

that like saying it's a difference situation if they ate going  to punch your lights out as they hate you or want to rob you, it makes no differance, your lay on your back with them on top, that is THE situation you are in


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> it's a different set of circumstances,  jeez even fox news know the differance,



Circumstance and situation are synonyms.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> If we are submitting anecdotes and honoring them for you, we are most certainly doing it for Aikido. Somehow all of my experience doesn't count but you get to roll yours out afterwords and we are supposed to honor it.



You can remove me from the anecdote if you wish. Replace what happened to me with another person on their back with someone trying to kill them with a weapon, it's still a different situation from fighting off a sexual assault or fighting an unarmed idiot in a bar.

Anyway, we're veering off topic. The point is that Omoplata is an effective technique for a variety of situations.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Cynik75 said:


> Rokas asked WC, AIkido and KM people for footages of succesfull application of WC, Aikido and KM in free fight. Only chunners sent right responses (WC adepts using succesfully WC techniques and principles in fight).
> From Aikido side Dan The Wolfmand send angry response that he used aikido techniques in many fights - but he is long time catch wrestler, MMA practicioner ( and other grapplings arts adept) so he know the fundamentals of fighting wery well what allows him to use aikido in fight.
> Dear Shatteredzen - one picture is worth more than thousand words. Just do the same - post a video of fighting aikidokas. If BJJist, wrestlers, judokas, mmaists can apply aikido in fight why aikidokas cant? (except of some Tomiki guys).
> 
> BTW Rokas did not promote himself to aikido black belt. Somebody higher ranked in aikido community recognized him as skilled enough to be BB. It is not Rokas problem, it is rather system problem in aikido..



 Here's the problem, I didn't learn Aikido by itself, I didn't stop and just learn Aikido, I learned Aikido alongside Judo and BJJ. Maybe that's what it takes for it to be effective? But I can't unpack my toolbox and remove everything that isn't Aikido to go get in a fight for you so that you have a video. Somehow we can have a discussion here where everyone excepts BJJ requiring at least some form of striking to work just fine yet the same courtesy is not extended to Aikido. Does Aikido have problems? Sure, but that doesn't mean there's no value to the system. If I go spar with someone to get you your footage, for the purpose of argument, you or someone else will immediately latch onto anything I do thats not one hundred percent me doing uke/nage in a hakama and start screeching "that's not Aikido". So we have a circular argument and instead of saying "MMA is better" its now "Aikido is useless".

I don't have a problem agreeing that MMA is better, its the disrespect of claiming that Aikido is useless and the fact that the people saying it are talking through the sides of their mouth from quite frankly, a position of inexperience and ignorance. Simply training BJJ or MMA is not going to make you better or even able to fight, its got a better chance of producing good results, but schools and systems do not produce 1+1=2, ever. For every martial arts class in the world, only a handful, if any people are going to end up able to apply it against someone who is trained and competent.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Circumstance and situation are synonyms.


you need to read the instruction 9n that book, synonyms are not interchangeable words with the same defintion and usage, well not unless your making the definitions up


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Better is a measurable term. More facilities. More training opportunities it has produced more successful martial artists it has trainers with better credentials it is bigger.
> 
> Real measurable objective differences.



Lol, you picked the most touristy muay thai school I have ever seen. I will agree it is shiny and it looks nice, but WOW, this cracks me up. I learned Muay Thai in a dirt parking lot and a collection of tin sheds out in the jungle, seeing this bougie crap makes me giggle. You realize that school is made for tourists to come and buy shwag and do classes hungover a few times before they go home right? You understand that's absolutely not a muay thai school teaching and preparing muay thai fighters?


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> you need to read the instruction 9n that book, synonyms are not interchangeable words with the same defintion and usage, well not unless your making the definitions up




syn·o·nym
/ˈsinəˌnim/
Learn to pronounce

_noun_

a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example _shut_ is a synonym of _close_.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> If someone can pull off the Omoplata on their back when a sweaty killer is punching them in the face, then yes I view it as a legitimate technique. Why? Because that means that if I'm on my back and a sweaty killer is punching me in the face, if I do the technique right, I can also potentially pull off the technique and snap their shoulder.



 I can guarantee I could put you on your back with some Aikido, this is not the same as putting a professional, competent fighter on their back with Aikido.


Hanzou said:


> You can remove me from the anecdote if you wish. Replace what happened to me with another person on their back with someone trying to kill them with a weapon, it's still a different situation from fighting off a sexual assault or fighting an unarmed idiot in a bar.
> 
> Anyway, we're veering off topic. The point is that Omoplata is an effective technique for a variety of situations.



We really aren't, any technique is only as viable as the individual. You keep doing the math that since you see a thing on tv or youtube, that you can replicate that thing under the same circumstances and any technique without a corresponding video is not viable and would lose to your television martial arts belt.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> You do know there is a difference between someone attempting to rape someone and someone attempting to beat someone up right? It's a different situation with different potential consequences. The situation I found myself in (where a mentally challenged individual tried to smash my brains in with a hammer) was different than both of those situations.
> 
> And yes, if you're in the process of someone trying to rape you, beat you up, or kill you, those are all present tense while you are in those situations.



Oh man, all these juicy forbidden anecdotes


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> I can guarantee I could put you on your back with some Aikido



Here you go again challenging other people's skill level, then you cry foul when people ask you to prove that you're as good as you say you are.



> We really aren't, any technique is only as viable as the individual.



That is demonstrably false. A bad technique will not work regardless of who attempts to perform it.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Here you go again challenging other people's skill level, then you cry foul when people ask you to prove that you're as good as you say you are.
> 
> That is demonstrably false. A bad technique will not work regardless of who attempts to perform it.


 
Not accepting an open challenge to the entire BJJ community on film and poking fun at you for not being willing to do the same thing with any random Aikido practitioners are not synonymous.

Just because you can link a UFC clip of someone doing it does not mean I believe that you could do it. You ask for intellectual trust from the reader without extending the same to anyone else. You also strangely equate what you see on youtube to what is common or possible to the average person.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Not accepting an open challenge to the entire BJJ community on film and poking fun at you for not being willing to do the same thing with any random Aikido practitioners are not synonymous.



I'm curious where and when did I say I could dominate any random Aikido practitioner.... 



> Just because you can link a UFC clip of someone doing it does not mean I believe that you could do it. You ask for intellectual trust from the reader without extending the same to anyone else. You also strangely equate what you see on youtube to what is common or possible to the average person.



I'm also curious what any of this discussion has to do with me and my individual skill set. We're talking about in general. You seem to be taking this conversation personally.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> I'm curious where and when did I say I could dominate any random Aikido practitioner....
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also curious what any of this discussion has to do with me and my individual skill set. We're talking about in general. You seem to be taking this conversation personally.



  Because, you are arguing in absolutes and refusing to honor personal anecdotes while arguing with personal anecdotes, with false arguments, based on those absolutes. I am merely attempting to get you to concede that none of this is absolute, yet you sit here claiming that because you can link a UFC clip of it, you know what you are talking about and are correct. Is it that hard to understand?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> I'm curious where and when did I say I could dominate any random Aikido practitioner....
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also curious what any of this discussion has to do with me and my individual skill set. We're talking about in general. You seem to be taking this conversation personally.



 Also, you've been saying you could dominate Aikido this whole time, you've consistently said that it doesn't work, I'm still waiting on your video to prove that since that's the intellectual standard here.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> syn·o·nym
> /ˈsinəˌnim/
> Learn to pronounce
> 
> _noun_
> 
> a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language, for example _shut_ is a synonym of _close_.


it looks like we can add synonymous to the words you dont understand


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Because, you are arguing in absolutes and refusing to honor personal anecdotes while arguing with personal anecdotes, with false arguments, based on those absolutes. I am merely attempting to get you to concede that none of this is absolute, yet you sit here claiming that because you can link a UFC clip of it, you know what you are talking about and are correct. Is it that hard to understand?



What personal anecdotes am I arguing with? Are you saying I'm the only person in the world who was attacked with a blunt weapon while lying on their back?

As for the clips I posted, you missed the point entirely. I linked the technique being taught, the technique being used in competition, and the technique being used in a street fight situation. The techniques were largely unchanged from point to point to point. That demonstrates the validity of the techniques in multiple environments. Bringing it back to an earlier point, that gives Omoplata and the Guillotine a foundation to base the successful application of the technique upon. You can expand those examples to most techniques in Bjj and MMA. We simply cannot do the same for Aikido.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> What's the problem with Aikido? Is it a martial art designed for fighting or not? If not, then it should be advertised as such along the lines of Yoga or Tai Chi.


 I agree with this.  I have no problem with Tai Chi for health or Tai Chi for fighting.  I don't have any dislike for any martial arts that sheds the combat applications and turns into a healthy exercise.  As a system it just needs to be honest about that.  Tai Chi  for health is very honest about as you see seniors take such classes to help improve and maintain their mobility.   Some take it for stress. But it's honest about that aspect.

No one is going to take a Tai Chi for health class and assume that they can now fight.  Maybe Aikido for Health is where the system is heading.  If they are going to be functional then they will need to clean up a lot that the issues that the "Zen" crowd has put into Aikido.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I agree with this.  I have no problem with Tai Chi for health or Tai Chi for fighting.  I don't have any dislike for any martial arts that sheds the combat applications and turns into a healthy exercise.  As a system it just needs to be honest about that.  Tai Chi  for health is very honest about as you see seniors take such classes to help improve and maintain their mobility.   Some take it for stress. But it's honest about that aspect.
> 
> No one is going to take a Tai Chi for health class and assume that they can now fight.  Maybe Aikido for Health is where the system is heading.  If they are going to be functional then they will need to clean up a lot that the issues that the "Zen" crowd has put into Aikido.



Along those lines, what are you thoughts on the Aikido school snippets I posted in post #799?


----------



## Shatteredzen

JowGaWolf said:


> I agree with this.  I have no problem with Tai Chi for health or Tai Chi for fighting.  I don't have any dislike for any martial arts that sheds the combat applications and turns into a healthy exercise.  As a system it just needs to be honest about that.  Tai Chi  for health is very honest about as you see seniors take such classes to help improve and maintain their mobility.   Some take it for stress. But it's honest about that aspect.
> 
> No one is going to take a Tai Chi for health class and assume that they can now fight.  Maybe Aikido for Health is where the system is heading.  If they are going to be functional then they will need to clean up a lot that the issues that the "Zen" crowd has put into Aikido.



  Post war Aikido is supposed to be along the line of Tai Chi, the system itself is supposed to be practical and it is, depending on your perspective. There are not a lot of good schools and the modern work to unhinge it from its post war self and to update it to the times has not been done as a whole for the system. That's not to say its useless. I use the Aikido techniques of entering/blending, the footwork, the principles of momentum, etc and I've used the basic vanilla techniques in the real world and they work. Are they tight enough to take to the UFC? I think there's an argument to be made for a few of the techniques, not necessarily the wrist locks and not on its own. 

People keep saying "combat applications", MMA is not a "combat application," its not combat, it doesn't even represent a real fight, its a duel, with rules under ideal conditions.

I've used Aikido as a police officer, as a Marine and in multiple scenarios against people attacking me with a weapon, yet here we have an argument between internet martial artists, many of whom are not going to ever armbar anything other than a bag of cheetoh's in their entire lives and somehow my martial art isn't real?

Somehow Rokas, making a video where his incentive is to bomb the technique, gets taken as an accurate reflection of an entire system and acts as a gold star on his school and quality of training? Nevermind the fact that he has since endorsed an Aikido school and said that he wants to go back and train Aikido now that he has a better foundation in fighting....

On a side note: You keep using the word "Zen", its a very specific word that is associated specifically with a form of Buddhism, you aren't using it correctly in the last few instances here.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Lol, you picked the most touristy muay thai school I have ever seen. I will agree it is shiny and it looks nice, but WOW, this cracks me up. I learned Muay Thai in a dirt parking lot and a collection of tin sheds out in the jungle, seeing this bougie crap makes me giggle. You realize that school is made for tourists to come and buy shwag and do classes hungover a few times before they go home right? You understand that's absolutely not a muay thai school teaching and preparing muay thai fighters?



Subjectivity is not objectivity. Shiny and touristy vs a stable of elite guys. Means while it can be perceived as a mcdojo it really isn't.

PRO Fighters at TMT Archives - Tiger Muay Thai & MMA Training Camp, Phuket, Thailand


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> What personal anecdotes am I arguing with? Are you saying I'm the only person in the world who was attacked with a blunt weapon while lying on their back?
> 
> As for the clips I posted, you missed the point entirely. I linked the technique being taught, the technique being used in competition, and the technique being used in a street fight situation. The techniques were largely unchanged from point to point to point. That demonstrates the validity of the techniques in multiple environments. Bringing it back to an earlier point, that gives Omoplata and the Guillotine a foundation to base the successful application of the technique upon. You can expand those examples to most techniques in Bjj and MMA. We simply cannot do the same for Aikido.



You know what else is on youtube?






Guess what the street Omoplata is more likely to look like? Just because a Pro does it in the ring, doesn't mean you can, it doesn't mean that someone can apply it under stress.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> People keep saying "combat applications", MMA is not a "combat application," its not combat, it doesn't even represent a real fight, its a duel, with rules under ideal conditions.



Except combat simply means a purposeful violent conflict meant to physically harm or kill the opposition. So yes, a MMA bout is an example of combat.



Shatteredzen said:


> Guess what the street Omoplata is more likely to look like? Just because a Pro does it in the ring, doesn't mean you can, it doesn't mean that someone can apply it under stress.



Which is why I also posted a video of an ordinary person doing an Omoplata in a street fight. It looked just fine, and even ended up dislocating the assailant's shoulder.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Subjectivity is not objectivity. Shiny and touristy vs a stable of elite guys. Means while it can be perceived as a mcdojo it really isn't.
> 
> PRO Fighters at TMT Archives - Tiger Muay Thai & MMA Training Camp, Phuket, Thailand



 It looks like a "nice" school, but it isn't producing Muay Thai fighters. Real schools in Thailand are usually all Thai, in some dudes shack and the kids, mostly orphans or kids from poor families, live there as full time students. The teacher/coach raises the kids and trains them, feeds them, clothes them and then the school takes the purse from each fight and gives the fighter a portion, if any. Real schools will almost always require you to fight to earn money to pay for your time, that's how I got my experience in Thailand. That method produces the actual Muay Thai fighters. These McMuayThai academies like the ones you linked are vacation resorts for bougie foreigners who want to show up whenever during their vacation. You can still get some decent training in, but its the difference between actual boot camp and some fitness boot camp afternoon class lol. It's great for Thailand and the economy, you can even pay extra to get a "pro fight" where they rent a match spot at a stadium while its closed, pay some bored D level fighter to spar with you and make it look good and you get a neat DVD of your fight as a pro Muay Thai kickboxer to take home with you.

 Edit: it also doesn't look like a bad school. It would probably be a nice place to go get some reps in and sweat out the beer during vacation. It's just bad for your argument, its not the same level of training as a real gym.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Except combat simply means a purposeful violent conflict meant to physically harm or kill the opposition. So yes, a MMA bout is an example of combat.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I also posted a video of an ordinary person doing an Omoplata in a street fight. It looked just fine, and even ended up dislocating the assailant's shoulder.


 
No pal, if we were talking about combat, it would be totally different. Combat is trying to apply your BJJ while the other guy stabs you with a knife.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> It looks like a "nice" school, but it isn't producing Muay Thai fighters. Real schools in Thailand are usually all Thai, in some dudes shack and the kids, mostly orphans or kids from poor families, live there as full time students. The teacher/coach raises the kids and trains them, feeds them, clothes them and then the school takes the purse from each fight and gives the fighter a portion, if any. Real schools will almost always require you to fight to earn money to pay for your time, that's how I got my experience in Thailand. That method produces the actual Muay Thai fighters. These McMuayThai academies like the ones you linked are vacation resorts for bougie foreigners who want to show up whenever during their vacation. You can still get some decent training in, but its the difference between actual boot camp and some fitness boot camp afternoon class lol. It's great for Thailand and the economy, you can even pay extra to get a "pro fight" where they rent a match spot at a stadium while its closed, pay some bored D level fighter to spar with you and make it look good and you get a neat DVD of your fight as a pro Muay Thai kickboxer to take home with you.



They train world class athletes. Now yes there is definitely a vegi patch. But there is also the opportunity for top fighters to get world class training. 

Just like a fight club might have a kids class.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> No pal, if we were talking about combat, it would be totally different. Combat is trying to apply your BJJ while the other guy stabs you with a knife.



Which is a strange example as almost nothing martial arty really works well against that.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> They train world class athletes. Now yes there is definitely a vegi patch. But there is also the opportunity for top fighters to get world class training.
> 
> Just like a fight club might have a kids class.



Ok, I would absolutely grab a couple classes and some Bundys in a can during a trip, I'm not saying it doesn't look nice. It just aint Marlboro country. You can get very fit doing P90X, it will not make you a Navy Seal.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Ok, I would absolutely grab a couple classes and some Bundys in a can during a trip, I'm not saying it doesn't look nice. It just aint Marlboro country. You can get very fit doing P90X, it will not make you a Navy Seal.



Yeah well BJJ is more of a navy seal thing anyway.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Which is a strange example as almost nothing martial arty really works well against that.



That's a standard part of ground fighting training in the military. Having a trainer blade concealed on one person going in or concealed is a training staple, I do the same with all of my students. If the other person scores a thrust to a lethal area you end the match. It works really well with markers also. "combat" is combat, its not two dudes punching each other in the ring, its cheap shots, knives, all the bad stuff, thats a different kind of training entirely. It's what I would recommend for good "pressure testing" to anyone, but it changes your outlook on a lot of this stuff. We wouldn't be having this stupid argument with Honzou if he understood words like synonym, combat and had some good training or experience to fall back on.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> No pal, if we were talking about combat, it would be totally different. Combat is trying to apply your BJJ while the other guy stabs you with a knife.



So on one hand we have the actual meaning of the word, and we have your opinion of what you believe it means. 

I know which one I’m going with.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> That's a standard part of ground fighting training in the military. Having a trainer blade concealed on one person going in or concealed is a training staple, I do the same with all of my students. If the other person scores a thrust to a lethal area you end the match. It works really well with markers also. "combat" is combat, its not two dudes punching each other in the ring, its cheap shots, knives, all the bad stuff, thats a different kind of training entirely. It's what I would recommend for good "pressure testing" to anyone, but it changes your outlook on a lot of this stuff. We wouldn't be having this stupid argument with Honzou if he understood words like synonym, combat and had some good training or experience to fall back on.



Yeah. We had a guy pull an imaginary knife on one of our white belts recently.

The issue I have is I could walk in to any gym. Pull out a rubber knife yell "I have a knife" and then "murder" the whole room and it is unlikely anyone would really be able to stop me. 

Especially in any sort of secure the wrist strip the knife and win the day kind of way. 

And look I have had real knife fights and come away successfully. But the whole process is super low percentage. It is never something I would say I can do.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> So on one hand we have the actual meaning of the word, and we have your opinion of what you believe it means.
> 
> I know which one I’m going with.



So we are moving in to weasel words again?


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Yeah well BJJ is more of a navy seal thing anyway.



No, its a Jocko thing and between him and Rogan I'm sure its quite popular amongst the team guys but they don't actually (or never did) get hand to hand training. If they do, its new since about 2010 or so.

*anecdote warning*
My original sensei and I got a really cool day on the boat and BBQ'ing with Team 5 in Korea because they were birthed next to our tents and saw us doing our morning Escrima work out. We ended up training with them for the month or so they were camped next to us and taught them some Kali, sentry takedowns, even some Aikido stuff, I do remember some of them having some ground fighting knowledge from taking BJJ on their own though. To say thanks we got to go spend a day doing training on their small boats, firing from the boat at buoys and a bunch of other fun stuff and they barbecued for us too. They were very cool guys, who had no issues with the Aikido btw.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Shatteredzen said:


> "combat" is combat, its not two dudes punching each other in the ring,


Agree with you 100% there. Many valuable combat training is missing today such as:

- 2 person fight against each other. The 3rd person can attack either person.
- Dodge flying rocks.
- Hit and run mobility skill.
- Weapon fight.
- Knife throwing.
- ...

I still remember that we used to draw a small circle on the ground. One guy stayed in that circle. 4 other guys threw tennis balls at him. As far as I know, nobody has ever trained like that any more.

Today's combat is different from the combat that I used to know.

How many MA school still teach knife throwing?


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> That's a standard part of ground fighting training in the military. Having a trainer blade concealed on one person going in or concealed is a training staple, I do the same with all of my students. If the other person scores a thrust to a lethal area you end the match. It works really well with markers also. "combat" is combat, its not two dudes punching each other in the ring, its cheap shots, knives, all the bad stuff, thats a different kind of training entirely. It's what I would recommend for good "pressure testing" to anyone, but it changes your outlook on a lot of this stuff. We wouldn't be having this stupid argument with Honzou if he understood words like synonym, combat and had some good training or experience to fall back on.



Sorry the second part of this is what combat is. On one hand we have super deadly encounters with ninjas and on the other we have drunken idiots with no training and no ticker. 

And then we cherry pick this concept to confirm a bias that supports our training. 

So there are knives in fights and we train knives. But there are no double gigs in fights so we don't worry about ground skills. 

And then combat becomes what is called in advertising a weasel word. It sounds like something but doesn't mean anything.

Um.... on a shampoo bottle recently it had approved by mothers. So that kind of thing.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Yeah. We had a guy pull an imaginary knife on one of our white belts recently.
> 
> The issue I have is I could walk in to any gym. Pull out a rubber knife yell "I have a knife" and then "murder" the whole room and it is unlikely anyone would really be able to stop me.
> 
> Especially in any sort of secure the wrist strip the knife and win the day kind of way.
> 
> And look I have had real knife fights and come away successfully. But the whole process is super low percentage. It is never something I would say I can do.



 You might be surprised, try it out with some markers, its fun and you get good training. Maybe try out an Aikido move or two if you do it and see how it works


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Sorry the second part of this is what combat is. On one hand we have super deadly encounters with ninjas and on the other we have drunken idiots with no training and no ticker.
> 
> And then we cherry pick this concept to confirm a bias that supports our training.
> 
> So there are knives in fights and we train knives. But there are no double gigs in fights so we don't worry about ground skills.
> 
> And then combat becomes what is called in advertising a weasel word. It sounds like something but doesn't mean anything.
> 
> Um.... on a shampoo bottle recently it had approved by mothers. So that kind of thing.



Exactly, but that's been my point this whole time. Just because the Aikido doesn't work on Ninjas, doesn't mean it never works. It does not have to meet the Ninja standard to beat the drunk and the drunk is the only guy most people are ever going to fight. It's also one of the best situations for a technique that's less likely to cause actual damage. Drunks give up under pain compliance quite regularly, ninjas not so much.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> No, its a Jocko thing and between him and Rogan I'm sure its quite popular amongst the team guys but they don't actually (or never did) get hand to hand training. If they do, its new since about 2010 or so.
> 
> *anecdote warning*
> My original sensei and I got a really cool day on the boat and BBQ'ing with Team 5 in Korea because they were birthed next to our tents and saw us doing our morning Escrima work out. We ended up training with them for the month or so they were camped next to us and taught them some Kali, sentry takedowns, even some Aikido stuff, I do remember some of them having some ground fighting knowledge from taking BJJ on their own though. To say thanks we got to go spend a day doing training on their small boats, firing from the boat at buoys and a bunch of other fun stuff and they barbecued for us too. They were very cool guys, who had no issues with the Aikido btw.



I have met the guy who does Australia. Paul Cale. Who is among other things (like a bjj black belt) an Aikido guy. But also again a huge man.

He also runs kudo which is a karate mma. 

He does a hybrid combat sports system.

The McMap guy is pretty publicly a bjj guy.

And for me I would have suggested a sub wrestling or a folk wrestling would be better. But high quality BJJ is easy to find and easy to discern if it is any good. Because the objective testing is a lot easier. And consistently pretty good.

So I can see why large organisations tend to go with that method.

Again a whole bunch of this meta stuff that Aikido tends not to perform well in.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Yeah. We had a guy pull an imaginary knife on one of our white belts recently.
> 
> The issue I have is I could walk in to any gym. Pull out a rubber knife yell "I have a knife" and then "murder" the whole room and it is unlikely anyone would really be able to stop me.
> 
> Especially in any sort of secure the wrist strip the knife and win the day kind of way.
> 
> And look I have had real knife fights and come away successfully. But the whole process is super low percentage. It is never something I would say I can do.



  You could do that in a lot of gyms, because most people are not going to be able to apply nearly as much as they think they can. This would be an amazing drill though, Im laughing just thinking about it.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Exactly, but that's been my point this whole time. Just because the Aikido doesn't work on Ninjas, doesn't mean it never works. It does not have to meet the Ninja standard to beat the drunk and the drunk is the only guy most people are ever going to fight. It's also one of the best situations for a technique that's less likely to cause actual damage. Drunks give up under pain compliance quite regularly, ninjas not so much.



No it kind of should if we are comparing it as a self defense system. The top Aikidokas should be able to clean house. And their top students should be able to clean house and then it will start to taper off depending on people's commitment levels and personal ability. 

Because if you do fight a drunk. High level basics still work. The just work better. And if that drunk turns out to be a ninja you are not without resources to deal with that as well.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> I have met the guy who does Australia. Paul Cale. Who is among other things (like a bjj black belt) an Aikido guy. But also again a huge man.
> 
> He does a hybrid combat sports system.
> 
> The McMap guy is pretty publicly a bjj guy.
> 
> And for me I would have suggested a sub wrestling or a folk wrestling would be better. But high quality BJJ is easy to find and easy to discern if it is any good. Because the objective testing is a lot easier. And consistently pretty good.
> 
> So I can see why large organisations tend to go with that method.
> 
> Again a whole bunch of this meta stuff that Aikido tends not to perform well in.



The MCMAP guy put the two Aikido wristlocks you hate into MCMAP, MCMAP uses a bunch of Aikido/Judo techniques and principles. The MCMAP disarms are Aikido. you are confusing me saying that Aikido is a viable system to study with "Aikido can do it all and win the UFC". I wouldn't recommend anyone study ANYTHING, without ALSO training BJJ. BJJ needs at least one other striking art to be effective, so take your pick, BJJ and Boxing, BJJ and MuayThai, etc, thats fine. Now can you take Aikido by itself and be fine in the scenarios a person is likely to find themselves in? Yep, same with BJJ. Most fights that people even get into are not what we are talking about. Any level of training is enough to stay safe and defend yourself in most "fights" against a drunk or whatever. To anyone interested in Aikido, I would recommend taking it alongside both Judo and BJJ and at least learning some boxing, that's the scenario where I will endorse it as being well rounded. That said, I've used the Aikido, it works. If something has saved me and others from being stabbed more than once, I call it a solid win and worth the training.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> So we are moving in to weasel words again?



We’re moving to the actual meaning of words instead of what people think the words mean. Only way to have an honest discussion.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> No it kind of should if we are comparing it as a self defense system. The top Aikidokas should be able to clean house. And their top students should be able to clean house and then it will start to taper off depending on people's commitment levels and personal ability.
> 
> Because if you do fight a drunk. High level basics still work. The just work better. And if that drunk turns out to be a ninja you are not without resources to deal with that as well.



Wrong, a BJJ black belt with no striking experience, much less a lower end BJJ student with no striking experience is going to suffer similar issues. We can watch almost any UFC undercard and find a guy or two who loses because he's got BJJ but no striking.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> The MCMAP guy put the two Aikido wristlocks you hate into MCMAP, MCMAP uses a bunch of Aikido/Judo techniques and principles. The MCMAP disarms are Aikido. you are confusing me saying that Aikido is a viable system to study with "Aikido can do it all and win the UFC". I wouldn't recommend anyone study ANYTHING, without ALSO training BJJ. BJJ needs at least one other striking art to be effective, so take your pick, BJJ and Boxing, BJJ and MuayThai, etc, thats fine. Now can you take Aikido by itself and be fine in the scenarios a person is likely to find themselves in? Yep, same with BJJ. Most fights that people even get into are not what we are talking about. Any level of training is enough to stay safe and defend yourself in most "fights" against a drunk or whatever. To anyone interested in Aikido, I would recommend taking it alongside both Judo and BJJ and at least learning some boxing, that's the scenario where I will endorse it as being well rounded. That said, I've used the Aikido, it works. If something has saved me and others from being stabbed more than once, I call it a solid win and worth the training.



Ok the problem that you have is that there are wrist locks in bjj and other submission wrestling systems. 

And they work live.

Aikido would have to have better ones or otherwise there is no real point.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> We’re moving to the actual meaning of words instead of what people think the words mean. Only way to have an honest discussion.



I'm sorry your strip mall BJJ dojo put "Combat MMA" in the title and got you so messed up. But I'd expect most MMA or even Boxers to laugh at you for mixing "combat" with sport fighting.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> He trained to do Aikido for ten years or something. And at the end of that training he could not do the things he was told he would be able to do.


  Based on one of his videos. It doesn't sound as if he was told that he would be able to fight with Aikido.  From what he states in the video below,  he talks about a lot of zen stuff and not about the application or function.  He even says his teacher was the same way.





The way he speaks and carries himself would also suggest that they were never training with the focus of functional techniques for fighting.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Wrong, a BJJ black belt with no striking experience, much less a lower end BJJ student with no striking experience is going to suffer similar issues. We can watch almost any UFC undercard and find a guy or two who loses because he's got BJJ but no striking.



That is also fine because we know. We can see that and make an honest judgement. 

If you are garbage in a bjj gym. You will get constantly submitted. If you have no striking in MMA you get punched in the face. 

You get honesty. Wich is vitality important feedback.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Ok the problem that you have is that there are wrist locks in bjj and other submission wrestling systems.
> 
> And they work live.
> 
> Aikido would have to have better ones or otherwise there is no real point.



No no, the Aikido wristlocks that you swear don't work. There's no stand up techniques in BJJ, those are Judo that are taught/included with the system so that you don't have to ask the opponent to start the fight like you would in rolling practice. Here's the problem with evaluating one system as a swiss army knife, none of them are.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Based on one of his videos. It doesn't sound as if he was told that he would be able to fight with Aikido.  From what he states in the video below,  he talks about a lot of zen stuff and not about the application or function.  He even says his teacher was the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way he speaks and carries himself would also suggest that they were never training with the focus of functional techniques for fighting.



It gets weaseled around. So you get told you can fight but then told you shouldn't want to. So therefore testing the fighting isn't enlightened. There is a whole bunch of misdirection untill 14 years later you look back and wonder what you have actually gained.


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> No no, the Aikido wristlocks that you swear don't work. There's no stand up techniques in BJJ, those are Judo that are taught/included with the system so that you don't have to ask the opponent to start the fight like you would in rolling practice. Here's the problem with evaluating one system as a swiss army knife, none of them are.


Mma


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> That is also fine because we know. We can see that and make an honest judgement.
> 
> If you are garbage in a bjj gym. You will get constantly submitted. If you have no striking in MMA you get punched in the face.
> 
> You get honesty. Wich is vitality important feedback.



So why do you expect perfection from Aikido but not the same from BJJ? Anyone who tells you that you can just take Aikido and be good is lying or misinformed. I'm not arguing that. I'm simply arguing that the system does in fact work and add things which are unique to a fighters repetoire.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> Mma



Is this a statement or question?

I thought you left...


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> No no, the Aikido wristlocks that you swear don't work. There's no stand up techniques in BJJ, those are Judo that are taught/included with the system so that you don't have to ask the opponent to start the fight like you would in rolling practice. Here's the problem with evaluating one system as a swiss army knife, none of them are.



Yeah. But you still need a knife in your Swiss army knife. 

Let's suggest you are right and BJJ doesn't have its own stand up.(which it does, look up John danaher) 

Or that pretty much everything in judo you could do in wrestling (plus leg attacks that you can't do in Judo)

And say BJJ exclusively jumps guard and grapples off their buts. 

At least we can see if that part works. We can even go to a BJJ open mat and test that it works. 

So we have at least one tool in our Swiss army knife that is a real tool. 

Rather than a Mabye tool that should work because Joe random assures me he did it in a street fight.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> So why do you expect perfection from Aikido but not the same from BJJ? Anyone who tells you that you can just take Aikido and be good is lying or misinformed. I'm not arguing that. I'm simply arguing that the system does in fact work and add things which are unique to a fighters repetoire.



I expect honesty in an Aikido gym.

And this isn't honesty.





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=173308022725322
			




It isn't even good contact improvisation.






Even your BJJ fails compilation was better because it was honest.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> giant peach on I-85 in South Carolina?


  That peach is still up?


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Wrong, a BJJ black belt with no striking experience, much less a lower end BJJ student with no striking experience is going to suffer similar issues. We can watch almost any UFC undercard and find a guy or two who loses because he's got BJJ but no striking.



Would that include Ryan Hall, Garry Tonnon, or McKenzie Dern who were all Bjj competitors who have great ground game and substandard striking, yet have strong MMA records?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, I watched the two videos and I want my 13 minutes back.


Sorry  no refunds on that one.  lol  



Flying Crane said:


> If he doesn’t understand a particular system, nobody has an obligation to explain it to him. If he doesn’t know how different schools or systems train, nobody needs to share it with him.


Pretty much.  He wasn't like this until he discovered he couldn't use Aikido. Misery love company I guess.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> I'm sorry your strip mall BJJ dojo put "Combat MMA" in the title and got you so messed up. But I'd expect most MMA or even Boxers to laugh at you for mixing "combat" with sport fighting.



I’m pretty sure those guys call what they do “combat sports”.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But you still need a knife in your Swiss army knife.
> 
> Let's suggest you are right and BJJ doesn't have its own stand up.(which it does, look up John danaher)
> 
> Or that pretty much everything in judo you could do in wrestling (plus leg attacks that you can't do in Judo)
> 
> And say BJJ exclusively jumps guard and grapples off their buts.
> 
> At least we can see if that part works. We can even go to a BJJ open mat and test that it works.
> 
> So we have at least one tool in our Swiss army knife that is a real tool.
> 
> Rather than a Mabye tool that should work because Joe random assures me he did it in a street fight.



 Ok, because we all know we need ground fighting, that means BJJ must go in the swiss army knife. No, BJJ has zero strikes and no standing techniques in it, there may be gyms that train those, but then we come back to the fact that I learned Aikido alongside BJJ and Judo among other stuff and am not advocating for it to be trained alone with the aim of becoming well rounded. So why does it bother you so badly that someone might want to train Aikido to add it to their tool kit? Pretty much every law enforcement or military agency has at least a few things from Aikido, like the first two wristlocks in MCMAP, because they work, because they have saved lives or filled a hole or niche that those systems wanted to teach.

On top of just the techniques, you have methods of movement, footwork and dealing with an attacker which you don't get from other systems or you would have to develop by cherry picking things out of multiple other systems. You are applying an unfair standard that can't be met and that the system was never intended for. Ueshiba's pre war students were competent fighters when they came to him. I'm a freaking instructor myself and I'm saying that its not the only thing that you should train, that is different than casting the aspersion that the system is worthless.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> I’m pretty sure those guys call what they do “combat sports”.



Lol, I actually blinked and paused for a minute before laughing. I assume you are serious which makes it super funny.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Ok, because we all know we need ground fighting, that means BJJ must go in the swiss army knife. No, BJJ has zero strikes and no standing techniques in it, there may be gyms that train those, but then we come back to the fact that I learned Aikido alongside BJJ and Judo among other stuff and am not advocating for it to be trained alone with the aim of becoming well rounded. So why does it bother you so badly that someone might want to train Aikido to add it to their tool kit? Pretty much every law enforcement or military agency has at least a few things from Aikido, like the first two wristlocks in MCMAP, because they work, because they have saved lives or filled a hole or niche that those systems wanted to teach.
> 
> On top of just the techniques, you have methods of movement, footwork and dealing with an attacker which you don't get from other systems or you would have to develop by cherry picking things out of multiple other systems. You are applying an unfair standard that can't be met and that the system was never intended for. Ueshiba's pre war students were competent fighters when they came to him. I'm a freaking instructor myself and I'm saying that its not the only thing that you should train, that is different than casting the aspersion that the system is worthless.



Which then is becomes your job to make the case that the parts you say work in Aikido work.

Rather than hanging off the coat tails of bjj wrist locks or Wrestling throws or boxing strikes.

All of which have plenty of evidence that they work.

Bjj wrist locks





Bjj stand up.





Bjj slap jitsu.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Ok I gotta go pickup my kid for the weekend so don't expect any responses from me for a bit. Someone please make sure Hanzou doesn't try to bully anyone else into his wierd kinda culty underground Kumite club, the candy is a lie and it's hard to get back out of the van they pick you up in which kinda scares me. I sincerely hope everyone has a great weekend. Even Martial D who I'm worried has a stroke with that weird one word response earlier. Drop bear, please drink a bundy for me, we can't get it here in CA just the root beer


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Lol, I actually blinked and paused for a minute before laughing. I assume you are serious which makes it super funny.



Combat sport - Wikipedia


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> Sorry  no refunds on that one.  lol
> 
> Pretty much.  He wasn't like this until he discovered he couldn't use Aikido. Misery love company I guess.


Yay know, he hits subjects that are fair game for discussion and are done ad nauseum here in the forums.  The general topic of how one trains with the intention of developing genuinely useable skills.  Sure, it’s a valid topic.

It’s this nonsense of, I don’t believe these systems work [systems that he himself hasn’t even trained] and I want you all to prove it to me if you disagree with me.  What kind of self-entitled mentality does it take to make a demand like that?  I don’t understand why anyone would give any oxygen to that.  It is just mystifying, seeing people get sucked into that kind of open debate. The guy isn’t even a member of the forum here to take part in an actual discussion.  And yet here it is, getting debated.  Why give him any of that?

how about: no.  How about: I don’t give a rat’s *** what he believes or does not believe.  How about: grow up.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Flying Crane said:


> Yay know, he hits subjects that are fair game for discussion and are done ad nauseum here in the forums.  The general topic of how one trains with the intention of developing genuinely useable skills.  Sure, it’s a valid topic.
> 
> It’s this nonsense of, I don’t believe these systems work [systems that he himself hasn’t even trained] and I want you all to prove it to me if you disagree with me.  What kind of self-entitled mentality does it take to make a demand like that?  I don’t understand why anyone would give any oxygen to that.  It is just mystifying, seeing people get sucked into that kind of open debate. The guy isn’t even a member of the forum here to take part in an actual discussion.  And yet here it is, getting debated.  Why give him any of that?
> 
> how about: no.  How about: I don’t give a rat’s *** what he believes or does not believe.  How about: grow up.



I do agree its entirely disrespectful to see people trying to denigrate other systems, but its a new world and these kids nowadays hold nothing sacred. When it get's to be too much I will quit, since at the end of the day, this is an internet martial arts talk, which some people seem to have forgotten. I'm hoping for the rare nuggets of people asking real questions and practicing my verbal uke/nage against the trolls.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Combat sport - Wikipedia



lol, ok I'm really leaving, have a nice weekend everyone...


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> Is this a statement or question?
> 
> I thought you left...


No, I'm done taking you seriously. That was me correcting you for the rest of the readership.


----------



## Flying Crane

Shatteredzen said:


> I do agree its entirely disrespectful to see people trying to denigrate other systems, but its a new world and these kids nowadays hold nothing sacred. When it get's to be too much I will quit, since at the end of the day, this is an internet martial arts talk, which some people seem to have forgotten. I'm hoping for the rare nuggets of people asking real questions and practicing my verbal uke/nage against the trolls.


I think folks need to sometimes remind themselves that just because someone says something stupid on the internet, doesn’t mean they need to jump in with both feet and try to “correct” their perception.  There are all kinds of know-nothings all over the internet, spouting all kinds of uninformed and uneducated idiocy.  Don’t take the bait.  Seriously, it doesn’t matter what most of these fellows think.  The rest of the world does not look to them as the final authority in this matter, and most of the general public is savvy enough to recognize when someone has an axe to grind.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Shatteredzen said:


> Ok, I would absolutely grab a couple classes and some Bundys in a can during a trip, I'm not saying it doesn't look nice. It just aint Marlboro country. You can get very fit doing P90X, it will not make you a Navy Seal.


They don't smoke enough there? I'm confused what your complaint about their program is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So we are moving in to weasel words again?


Well, you have effectively said that words don't mean anything if they can be interpreted differently by different people.


----------



## geezer

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, I watched the two videos and I want my 13 minutes back ...seriously, I don’t get why anyone responds to this garbage.



Oh c'mon Crane, were all friends here. Don't hold back ...tell us how you really feel!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Shatteredzen said:


> No no, the Aikido wristlocks that you swear don't work. There's no stand up techniques in BJJ, those are Judo that are taught/included with the system so that you don't have to ask the opponent to start the fight like you would in rolling practice. Here's the problem with evaluating one system as a swiss army knife, none of them are.


Um, Judo was the original base of BJJ. They didn't need to add any to it. Essentially, the original BJJ stuff was mostly a subset of Judo.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> That peach is still up?


Pretty sure it is. I haven't driven past Gaffney in a few years (we live off I-26 now, but we used to live off I-85). I'd be surprised if they ever get rid of it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Shatteredzen said:


> Lol, I actually blinked and paused for a minute before laughing. I assume you are serious which makes it super funny.


It's a commonly used term.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Um, Judo was the original base of BJJ. They didn't need to add any to it. Essentially, the original BJJ stuff was mostly a subset of Judo.



I would also like to point out that there are stand up techniques in Bjj, and thanks to decades of cross pollination and street fighting, they’re closer to wrestling than they are to Judo.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> It gets weaseled around. So you get told you can fight but then told you shouldn't want to.


yeah I can see that , I've heard similar within some kung fu circles and it's an instant irritant for me. I rather here that they don't train fighting application but focus on form training and historical context..


Flying Crane said:


> Yay know, he hits subjects that are fair game for discussion and are done ad nauseum here in the forums.  The general topic of how one trains with the intention of developing genuinely useable skills.  Sure, it’s a valid topic.
> 
> It’s this nonsense of, I don’t believe these systems work [systems that he himself hasn’t even trained] and I want you all to prove it to me if you disagree with me.  What kind of self-entitled mentality does it take to make a demand like that?  I don’t understand why anyone would give any oxygen to that.  It is just mystifying, seeing people get sucked into that kind of open debate. The guy isn’t even a member of the forum here to take part in an actual discussion.  And yet here it is, getting debated.  Why give him any of that?
> 
> how about: no.  How about: I don’t give a rat’s *** what he believes or does not believe.  How about: grow up.


It gets oxygen because people believe what he says and they use his "experience and logic" as an example or provide proof that some other logic is correct,. Then it like it is now turns into a conversation were people will then point out why he had such a bad experience why his training was lacking.  It's a cycle


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> yeah I can see that , I've heard similar within some kung fu circles and it's an instant irritant for me. I rather here that they don't train fighting application but focus on form training and historical context..
> 
> It gets oxygen because people believe what he says and they use his "experience and logic" as an example or provide proof that some other logic is correct,. Then it like it is now turns into a conversation were people will then point out why he had such a bad experience why his training was lacking.  It's a cycle


Sure, he had experience in something [aikido, apparently] but then he transforms it into “wing Chun and Krav Maga are no good, you need to prove otherwise to me.”

nobody needs to prove anything to him.  If he had a negative experience with aikido, then he ought to talk about that and figure out where he went wrong or where his training was lacking or where he failed to step up in the training, or that he needs to recognize that aikido was a bad choice for him and he just doesn’t connect with the methodology properly and he ought to do something else instead.

but his vilifying other systems and petulantly demanding that these other systems be justified to him, is idiotic.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

The issue of Aikido is still the training method.

Do Aikido guys train how to

1. apply a wrist lock?
2. counter a wrist lock?
3. counter the counter of a wrist lock?

I'm sure they do 1, but not sure if they do 2, and 3.

If we apply this requirement on other MA systems, we may find some MA systems are also lacking this kind of training.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The issue of Aikido is still the training method.
> 
> Do Aikido guys train how to
> 
> 1. apply a wrist lock?
> 2. counter a wrist lock?
> 3. counter the counter of a wrist lock?
> 
> I'm sure they do 1, but not sure if they do 2, and 3.
> 
> If we apply this requirement on other MA systems, we may find some MA systems are also lacking this kind of training.



I can buy that. You develop that from free sparring though, which they seemingly don’t do.


----------



## geezer

Flying Crane said:


> ...but his _*vilifying*_ other systems and petulantly demanding that these other systems be justified to him, is idiotic.



Them's fightin' words! ...Especially the word _vilify. _I missed that word on my SAT (analogies section) nearly 60 years ago, somehow failing to recognize it's obvious shared root with the words vile, evil, and villain, and screwed up what would'a been a really good score. 

...Oh, wait, we're still talking _martial arts._ Right. So, yeah... It's not so much that _Rokas_ needs to figure out where he went wrong. _He already believes he knows what the problem_ _is_. Simply put:

He belongs to the camp that believes that martial arts cannot be truly functional unless it's training involves regular sparring and "pressure testing" against heavily resisting opponents from diverse systems. Furthermore, to be effective, Martial arts need to freely adapt and evolve in response to this "pressure testing" to remain effective.

So he believes that _competitive_ MA that subscribe to this model tend to be effective and _traditional_ MA that do not train this way are likely to be less effective and subject to decline over time as they diverge from their fighting roots. Among the _many_ TMA that fit this description are Aikido (of course), a lot of Wing Chun (including what I'm doing these days) ...and perhaps your system?

Now being a traditional martial artist, we can suppose (?) that you do _not_ belong to this school of thought. Apparently, you find greater value in the traditional approach with it's more fixed approach coming from a long history and deeply entrenched traditions, and a more authoritarian model of instruction with the Si-Fu being the primary source of knowledge.

Personally I can value _both_ approaches. Unfortunately, rather than making me friends, my attitude seems to get me into hot water in both camps. Not unlike politics. Sheesh!

Anyway, I do welcome your response if I've got this wrong.


----------



## Flying Crane

geezer said:


> Them's fightin' words! ...Especially the word _vilify. _I missed that word on my SAT (analogies section) nearly 60 years ago, somehow failing to recognize it's obvious shared root with the words vile, evil, and villain, and screwed up what would'a been a really good score.
> 
> ...Oh, wait, we're still talking _martial arts._ Right. So, yeah... It's not so much that _Rokas_ needs to figure out where he went wrong. _He already believes he knows what the problem_ _is_. Simply put:
> 
> He belongs to the camp that believes that martial arts cannot be truly functional unless it's training involves regular sparring and "pressure testing" against heavily resisting opponents from diverse systems. Furthermore, to be effective, Martial arts need to freely adapt and evolve in response to this "pressure testing" to remain effective.



I have no beef with his view on this.  I find things to both agree with and disagree with in this point of view.  The biggest issue I have is that I do not believe sparring is the pinnacle of training.  It CAN be one useful tool among many.  However, there are different kinds of sparring, and so it CAN also be useless.  But at any rate, different strokes for different folks. 


> So he believes that _competitive_ MA that subscribe to this model tend to be effective and _traditional_ MA that do not train this way are likely to be less effective and subject to decline over time as they diverge fro their fighting roots. Among the _many_ TMA that fit this description are Aikido (of course), a lot of Wing Chun (including what I'm doing these days) ...and perhaps your system?


We all have our opinions about other methods that we do not train.  Sometimes that opinion is positive, sometimes negative, sometimes neutral, and sometimes just recognizing when we don’t know enough about it to have an opinion.  I suspect Mr. Rokas lacks the knowledge of these other systems to have a meaningful opinion.  But then again, opinions are much like a certain piece of the anatomy...

At any rate, when people start making a list of systems that they feel don’t work, and essentially demand justification for them, the conversation has already ended.  “Prove it to me!!!”  Um...nah.



> Now being a traditional martial artist, we can suppose (?) that you do _not_ belong to this school of thought. Apparently, you find greater value in the traditional approach with it's more fixed approach coming from a long history and deeply entrenched traditions, and a more authoritarian model of instruction with the Si-Fu being the primary source of knowledge.


I really do not see it that way at all.  I see it as a physical education that is very effective in teaching you how to move powerfully and efficiently, and I freely devise my own drills in my own practice, while continuing to include the “traditional” elements as well (the forms) because in see utility value in them not connected to simple preservation of a tradition.  My Sifu’s role was to help me understand the physical education of it all.  The fact that it has a long tradition speaks to the viability of the method, not simply tradition for the sake of tradition. 

While my Sifu is very strict in his attention to the details, it is all in the spirit of maximizing that physical understanding.  It isn’t dogmatic in how one applies it, it does not put anything off limits.  Instead, it gives one a vision of what is possible with that methodology.  In my opinion, it opens doors to everything, more than it defines restrictive parameters.  Sifu has never lorded over us nor demanded utter obedience.  He only ever did his best to help us understand how it works, which includes precise and demanding attention to details.  Ultimately, what we do with it is up to us. 


> Personally I can value _both_ approaches. Unfortunately, rather than making me friends, my attitude seems to get me into hot water in both camps. Not unlike politics. Sheesh!
> 
> Anyway, I do welcome your response if I've got this wrong.


----------



## Hanzou

Kind of bizarre to say that Rokas is somehow misguided in his actions and views when you have a martial art like Aikido advertising that it will teach you to overcome a bigger/stronger adversary with minimal effort, and/or saying that you will learn how to defeat multiple attackers. You can't blame the student for becoming disillusioned when that is the supposed end result, and you realize it is completely make believe.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Sure, he had experience in something [aikido, apparently] but then he transforms it into “wing Chun and Krav Maga are no good, you need to prove otherwise to me.”
> 
> nobody needs to prove anything to him.  If he had a negative experience with aikido, then he ought to talk about that and figure out where he went wrong or where his training was lacking or where he failed to step up in the training, or that he needs to recognize that aikido was a bad choice for him and he just doesn’t connect with the methodology properly and he ought to do something else instead.
> 
> but his vilifying other systems and petulantly demanding that these other systems be justified to him, is idiotic.



This I think is wrong and confuses a practical thing with a belief system.

You should be making your claims and then be backing them up. 

Not looking stink eye at people who have the temerity to ask these questions.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Well, you have effectively said that words don't mean anything if they can be interpreted differently by different people.



Yeah. And those words are used to make a statement that you can readily back out of at any time.

Did I say combat? No I meant combat. You don't understand the difference.

You probably never grew up on yes minister.





But a really well written political satire that hits a lot of truth boxes.

And I will throw this one in as well because we have run very close to this line a few times.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> This I think is wrong and confuses a practical thing with a belief system.
> You should be making your claims and then be backing them up. Not looking stink eye at people who have the *temerity *to ask these questions.



_Temerity!?! _Are you_ serious???_ ...How did you guys get ahold of my old SATs?  Musta been the internet, I'm guessin'. That's another one of them words I missed. Rub my face in it why don't ya?  I mean, the temerity of it!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The issue of Aikido is still the training method.
> 
> Do Aikido guys train how to
> 
> 1. apply a wrist lock?
> 2. counter a wrist lock?
> 3. counter the counter of a wrist lock?
> 
> I'm sure they do 1, but not sure if they do 2, and 3.
> 
> If we apply this requirement on other MA systems, we may find some MA systems are also lacking this kind of training.


The schools I've been to did do all 3, but not quite as robustly as you may be picturing (at least not while I was there). It was more in the realm of flow drills than active resistance. But at least they were working on recognizing counters and how to move past them.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> Sure, he had experience in something [aikido, apparently] but then he transforms it into “wing Chun and Krav Maga are no good, you need to prove otherwise to me.”


This is why I don't like the sales pitch that martial arts makes you a better person.  He threw all of that out when he felt that he was mislead and then made the assumption that everyone else trains like he did and are also getting fooled.  He didn't even understand that it was.  "Nah dude, it's just you " lol



Flying Crane said:


> If he had a negative experience with aikido, then he ought to talk about that and figure out where he went wrong or where his training was lacking or where he failed to step up in the training, or that he needs to recognize that aikido was a bad choice for him and he just doesn’t connect with the methodology properly and he ought to do something else instead.


 First thing he should have done was to question the person who taught him.  Did that person mislead him.  If not, then the second thing he needs to do is examine his own training and his ego.  From my personal experience, sometimes people can get caught up in the "power of being a teacher."  They let that stuff go to their heads and they begin to think that they are bigger than what they really are.  And that's how they get into that mindset that you have to answer to them and validate your training to them as if they had any say so in the first place.



Flying Crane said:


> but his vilifying other systems and petulantly demanding that these other systems be justified to him, is idiotic.


 Yep it is. Which is why he probably wasn't able to be any good.  That idea that people who know must come to him vs taking a real Martial Arts Journey by seeking others for a better understanding.  He could have set up a friendly sparring match against a Wing Chun practitioner then he would know without  doubt. lol.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Subjectivity is not objectivity. Shiny and touristy vs a stable of elite guys. Means while it can be perceived as a mcdojo it really isn't.
> 
> PRO Fighters at TMT Archives - Tiger Muay Thai & MMA Training Camp, Phuket, Thailand



come on mate try and follow

your quite correct that subjectivity is  not objectivity, but all objectivity is subjective, unless you get a computer or an alien to do it for you


----------



## Martial D

jobo said:


> come on mate try and follow
> 
> your quite correct that subjectivity is  not objectivity, but all objectivity is subjective, unless you get a computer or an alien to do it for you


Yes. And all dry things are wet, all happy people are sad, down is up and dogs are cats.


----------



## jobo

Martial D said:


> Yes. And all dry things are wet, all happy people are sad, down is up and dogs are cats.


im disappointed to see you have gone back on your pledge to ignore me, its less im subject to you, more that you have no will power


----------



## Shatteredzen

JowGaWolf said:


> This is why I don't like the sales pitch that martial arts makes you a better person.  He threw all of that out when he felt that he was mislead and then made the assumption that everyone else trains like he did and are also getting fooled.  He didn't even understand that it was.  "Nah dude, it's just you " lol
> 
> First thing he should have done was to question the person who taught him.  Did that person mislead him.  If not, then the second thing he needs to do is examine his own training and his ego.  From my personal experience, sometimes people can get caught up in the "power of being a teacher."  They let that stuff go to their heads and they begin to think that they are bigger than what they really are.  And that's how they get into that mindset that you have to answer to them and validate your training to them as if they had any say so in the first place.
> 
> Yep it is. Which is why he probably wasn't able to be any good.  That idea that people who know must come to him vs taking a real Martial Arts Journey by seeking others for a better understanding.  He could have set up a friendly sparring match against a Wing Chun practitioner then he would know without  doubt. lol.



  If he had taken the year sabbatical to learn what he has and then attempted to apply his Aikido he likely would have done much better. For all his disappointment in the system, he never really takes personal responsibility for opening a dojo and gathering a following before he knew what he was doing. Seeing him healthy in his newer videos versus the emaciated look he has in his earlier videos which I guess he said was a lack of exercise and dieting on his part, its also easy to see more reasons he didn't have more personal successes with his training. I'm not sure what claims were made to him by his teacher, I have also never been the type of martial arts student who sees a sales pitch and joins a dojo. I learned very quickly following a sour experience with one of my first schools to seek out training based on the experience of the instructor. 

  I think the easiest thing we can agree on are what things need to change in the traditional martial arts community to weed out the bad techniques and the bullshido. I can't think of a single martial art that wouldn't benefit greatly from the introduction of modern training, resistance based sparring and willingness to pressure test and modify techniques as needed. I have noticed many of the same complaints that Aikido gets routinely showing up in a variety of styles and schools, these usually tend to be reflections of the quality of the instructor. Poor instruction ends up creating whole lineages of people who spread more bad martial arts. This isn't a new phenomena, its been a huge problem since the Karate boom, maybe the way we get rid of it is through advocating for these training methods as a community, because the lack thereof is usually a red flag. 

  For Aikido specifically, after some thought over the weekend, I think we DO need a general call for accountability across the entire system. If Wing Chun has 5-20% of schools teaching a practical form of Wing Chun, I would hesitate to give Aikido a measurable percentage since I can only think of two you tubers I would say who show a real knowledge of the system in any applicable way (Chris Hein and Aikidoflow). I agree with Chris Hein's assessment that Aikido has not done the work to bring itself as a system into the modern, post BJJ/MMA world. I also agree that unless it can be demonstrated to work against resistance, Aikido should be advertised as personal development not self defense or what have you, but I would say I feel this way about anyone running a martial arts school. While I don't agree with the general Joe Rogan crowd or his argument against Aikido, I will say that the Aikido community itself is to blame for the perception that has fueled this sentiment and kept it going. When I did an honest inventory of my training versus what the average student would get going to their strip mall school down the street, I find myself incredibly lucky to have found Aikido the way that I did and that's a shame.

  So while I don't have an altered opinion about the merit of Aikido in general or its applicability and usefulness as a martial art, I can agree that the system itself is in crisis from a combination of factors but certainly from years of bad behavior and false representation on a part of the people who were forming and running the schools. I think our Wing Chun practitioners might agree that while they have been vindicated or partially vindicated by Qi La La and even in part by Rokas's video, the low percentage of good schools might call for a general housecleaning within the community to weed out the bad actors. Perhaps the current state of Aikido is a cautionary tale of what happens when you don't hold the community accountable. 

On a positive note, I don't see this being more than a temporary issue, I think there is enough of what Chris Hein refers to as "low hanging fruit" within the system that it can be modernized and developed into something that is more pragmatic once enough people within the community decide to do the work. To be honest, this makes me want to entertain the thought of opening a school even more at least part time, as someone who has enjoyed and been enriched by their experience with the system, I'd like to help with the repairs.


----------



## Martial D

jobo said:


> im disappointed to see you have gone back on your pledge to ignore me, its less im subject to you, more that you have no will power


Sometimes you are too ridiculous to ignore, but I'm doing my best.


----------



## jobo

Martial D said:


> Sometimes you are too ridiculous to ignore, but I'm doing my best.


please try a bit harder,


----------



## Steve

Shatteredzen said:


> If he had taken the year sabbatical to learn what he has and then attempted to apply his Aikido he likely would have done much better. For all his disappointment in the system, he never really takes personal responsibility for opening a dojo and gathering a following before he knew what he was doing. Seeing him healthy in his newer videos versus the emaciated look he has in his earlier videos which I guess he said was a lack of exercise and dieting on his part, its also easy to see more reasons he didn't have more personal successes with his training. I'm not sure what claims were made to him by his teacher, I have also never been the type of martial arts student who sees a sales pitch and joins a dojo. I learned very quickly following a sour experience with one of my first schools to seek out training based on the experience of the instructor.
> 
> I think the easiest thing we can agree on are what things need to change in the traditional martial arts community to weed out the bad techniques and the bullshido. I can't think of a single martial art that wouldn't benefit greatly from the introduction of modern training, resistance based sparring and willingness to pressure test and modify techniques as needed. I have noticed many of the same complaints that Aikido gets routinely showing up in a variety of styles and schools, these usually tend to be reflections of the quality of the instructor. Poor instruction ends up creating whole lineages of people who spread more bad martial arts. This isn't a new phenomena, its been a huge problem since the Karate boom, maybe the way we get rid of it is through advocating for these training methods as a community, because the lack thereof is usually a red flag.
> 
> For Aikido specifically, after some thought over the weekend, I think we DO need a general call for accountability across the entire system. If Wing Chun has 5-20% of schools teaching a practical form of Wing Chun, I would hesitate to give Aikido a measurable percentage since I can only think of two you tubers I would say who show a real knowledge of the system in any applicable way (Chris Hein and Aikidoflow). I agree with Chris Hein's assessment that Aikido has not done the work to bring itself as a system into the modern, post BJJ/MMA world. I also agree that unless it can be demonstrated to work against resistance, Aikido should be advertised as personal development not self defense or what have you, but I would say I feel this way about anyone running a martial arts school. While I don't agree with the general Joe Rogan crowd or his argument against Aikido, I will say that the Aikido community itself is to blame for the perception that has fueled this sentiment and kept it going. When I did an honest inventory of my training versus what the average student would get going to their strip mall school down the street, I find myself incredibly lucky to have found Aikido the way that I did and that's a shame.
> 
> So while I don't have an altered opinion about the merit of Aikido in general or its applicability and usefulness as a martial art, I can agree that the system itself is in crisis from a combination of factors but certainly from years of bad behavior and false representation on a part of the people who were forming and running the schools. I think our Wing Chun practitioners might agree that while they have been vindicated or partially vindicated by Qi La La and even in part by Rokas's video, the low percentage of good schools might call for a general housecleaning within the community to weed out the bad actors. Perhaps the current state of Aikido is a cautionary tale of what happens when you don't hold the community accountable.
> 
> On a positive note, I don't see this being more than a temporary issue, I think there is enough of what Chris Hein refers to as "low hanging fruit" within the system that it can be modernized and developed into something that is more pragmatic once enough people within the community decide to do the work. To be honest, this makes me want to entertain the thought of opening a school even more at least part time, as someone who has enjoyed and been enriched by their experience with the system, I'd like to help with the repairs.


I think Aikido gets it worse than most, because of all the martial arts systems, it is the one that purports to teach effective self defense skills in spite of specifically not teaching fighting skills.  It's self defense for pacifists.  At least that's the common marketing.


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> I think Aikido gets it worse than most, because of all the martial arts systems, it is the one that purports to teach effective self defense skills in spite of specifically not teaching fighting skills.  It's self defense for pacifists.  At least that's the common marketing.



Well that, and the no-touch ki stuff by Ueshiba and modern practitioners does it no favors.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Well that, and the no-touch ki stuff by Ueshiba and modern practitioners does it no favors.



I thought it was all wrist locks? Now its no touch stuff taught by the founder? Google harder before you comment, at least have a frame of reference.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> I thought it was all wrist locks? Now its no touch stuff taught by the founder? Google harder before you comment, at least have a frame of reference.








Okay.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Okay.


that's just like a magician assistant, they dont really get sawn in half either,  but showbiz


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Okay.



 Some old guy in a grainy video for 18 seconds, even the old black and white footage of Ueshiba is clearer than this. Do you have anything connecting this to Aikido or suggesting that this "no touch" stuff is in a syllabus anywhere?


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Some old guy in a grainy video for 18 seconds, even the old black and white footage of Ueshiba is clearer than this. Do you have anything connecting this to Aikido or suggesting that this "no touch" stuff is in a syllabus anywhere?



The founder of Aikido has no connection to Aikido?

We have modern Aikidoka defending this nonsense because the founder did it;

no-touch aikido – a defence

No-touch Aikido techniques: Separating fact and fantasy

No-touch aikido, yes it’s real!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> We have modern Aikidoka defending this nonsense because the founder did it;


I agree this is the problem for some TMA. It's very easy for someone to destroy his style reputation if he starts to talk about no contact magic.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> The founder of Aikido has no connection to Aikido?
> 
> We have modern Aikidoka defending this nonsense because the founder did it;
> 
> no-touch aikido – a defence
> 
> No-touch Aikido techniques: Separating fact and fantasy
> 
> No-touch aikido, yes it’s real!



The first is an article talking about Ki in Aikido in the 80's and mainly explains using a leading movement not "no contact" hits

The second is a blog post which starts off saying no touch is ******** and then explains why Uke/Nage demos have students taking a fall as soon as the technique is applied and then you have some random dojo in Sydney that talks about feeling Ki but does not appear to make any claims about no touch hits.

You didn't even read what you were linking. Wow.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I agree this is the problem for some TMA. It's very easy for someone to destroy his style reputation if he starts to talk about no contact magic.



Except he is just searching for another strawman.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Look Hanzou! It's the Loch Ness monster!


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> The first is an article talking about Ki in Aikido in the 80's and mainly explains using a leading movement not "no contact" hits
> 
> The second is a blog post which starts off saying no touch is ******** and then explains why Uke/Nage demos have students taking a fall as soon as the technique is applied and then you have some random dojo in Sydney that talks about feeling Ki but does not appear to make any claims about no touch hits.
> 
> You didn't even read what you were linking. Wow.



Did you?

The end of the first article;



> Why would these teachers want to demonstrate this kind of aikido? That is an interesting question. Perhaps they want to show the aikido world that there is something more? That there are other ways of thinking? *Or perhaps that aikido doesn’t always have to be so serious! These are teachers with about fifty years of aikido training. If they want to play with ki the world of aikido should be big enough and open enough to accept them.*



The second article;



> I should also add that I have on many occasions been the recipient of Aikido no-touch techniques. *Based on this experience, I can assure the reader they are quite effective and have nothing to do with science fiction or mystic rays.*



These would be examples of defending the nonsense.

Also The ENTIRE third article defends the nonsense.

Here’s a video of Rokas drinking the kool-aid before his conversion;






Just to be clear, that stuff doesn’t work, period.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Shatteredzen said:


> Except he is just searching for another strawman.


I don't understate your statement.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I agree this is the problem for some TMA. It's very easy for someone to destroy his style reputation if he starts to talk about no contact magic.



Agreed. It’s especially potent when the founder of the system did it, and is so revered that people twist themselves in logical knots trying to defend it.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Did you?
> 
> The end of the first article;
> 
> 
> 
> The second article;
> 
> 
> 
> These would be examples of defending the nonsense.
> 
> Also The ENTIRE third article defends the nonsense.
> 
> Here’s a video of Rokas drinking the kool-aid before his conversion;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, that stuff doesn’t work, period.



The very next line from the second article 

"Essentially what happens is that the nage (i.e. the person doing the technique) neutralises the uke’s attack by executing a strike in such a way that the uke has the option of taking a fall instead of being hit."

Rokas starts that video saying "I am not promoting or endorsing no touch hitting"

come on, your so lazy you are just grasping at straws and not even reading or watching your links. Or you are and are just being blatantly dishonest.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Did you?
> 
> The end of the first article;
> 
> 
> 
> The second article;
> 
> 
> 
> These would be examples of defending the nonsense.
> 
> Also The ENTIRE third article defends the nonsense.
> 
> Here’s a video of Rokas drinking the kool-aid before his conversion;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, that stuff doesn’t work, period.


I’ve experienced one no-touch technique that worked. It was some rather careful hand-waving that caused some reflex reactions that put me just barely off-balance enough to not keep my balance. I doubt it would be reliable in a fight, but it was cool to experience in a dojo. I expect there’s more of this to be had. I wouldn’t want to learn to do it, but it’s fun to have it done to me.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't understate your statement.



A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Hanzou has pretty much been doing the whole strawman thing the entire 47 pages of this thread, now he is just linking random things off the internet and claiming they prove his point hoping people don't scrutinize them at all.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> The very next line from the second article
> 
> "Essentially what happens is that the nage (i.e. the person doing the technique) neutralises the uke’s attack by executing a strike in such a way that the uke has the option of taking a fall instead of being hit."



In other words, he believes it works.



> Rokas starts that video saying "I am not promoting or endorsing no touch hitting"



But then proceeds to do an entire video attempting to show that it does work.



> come on, your so lazy you are just grasping at straws and not even reading or watching your links. Or you are and are just being blatantly dishonest.



None of those sources I posted said that this is nonsense and should be ignored, and that would be the correct answer. When you try to split hairs and attempt to justify this ridiculous practice, you legitimize BS.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> In other words, he believes it works.
> 
> 
> 
> But then proceeds to do an entire video attempting to show that it does work.
> 
> 
> 
> None of those sources I posted said that this is nonsense and should be ignored, and that would be the correct answer. When you try to split hairs and attempt to justify this ridiculous practice, you legitimize BS.



Lol, so its dishonesty, check


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I’ve experienced one no-touch technique that worked. It was some rather careful hand-waving that caused some reflex reactions that put me just barely off-balance enough to not keep my balance. I doubt it would be reliable in a fight, but it was cool to experience in a dojo. I expect there’s more of this to be had. I wouldn’t want to learn to do it, but it’s fun to have it done to me.



Yeah, at most it's a trick, like that other Aikido trick where they have you stretch out your arm and open your hand and have someone attempt to bend your arm. Yeah, it's a cool thing to demonstrate to the rubes, but it has zero practical value.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, at most it's a trick, like that other Aikido trick where they have you stretch out your arm and open your hand and have someone attempt to bend your arm. Yeah, it's interesting and a cool thing to demonstrate to the rubes, but it has zero practical value.



It must be just like all that wrist locking and no touch hitting you were talking about.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, at most it's a trick, like that other Aikido trick where they have you stretch out your arm and open your hand and have someone attempt to bend your arm. Yeah, it's a cool thing to demonstrate to the rubes, but it has zero practical value.


I will say the unbendable arm technique does have some use. It’s very indirect, unless I don’t fully understand it. To me, it’s mostly a way to teach relaxation and proper tension, which can certainly be done other ways. 

And it’s a neat trick for demos.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I will say the unbendable arm technique does have some use. It’s very indirect, unless I don’t fully understand it. To me, it’s mostly a way to teach relaxation and proper tension, which can certainly be done other ways.
> 
> And it’s a neat trick for demos.



If it stopped the arm from bending the opposite way, I could definitely see a practical use for it. However, in the end, it's just a parlor trick.

Just like this no-touch silliness. It's quite telling that there are actually people in the Aikido community who support it's validity, when it should be universally panned and dismissed.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> If it stopped the arm from bending the opposite way, I could definitely see a practical use for it. However, in the end, it's just a parlor trick.
> 
> Just like this no-touch silliness. It's quite telling that there are actually people in the Aikido community who support it's validity, when it should be universally panned and dismissed.



Since literally no one is here doing that. You brought up this no touch sillyness so you would have something to argue about. No one is here advocating any of this. Your literally making things up.

I found a fun lightsaber fight for you to watch since we are playing make believe (it's also not Aikido)


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Since literally no one is here doing that. You brought up this no touch sillyness so you would have something to argue about. No one is here advocating any of this. Your literally making things up.
> 
> I found a fun lightsaber fight for you to watch since we are playing make believe (it's also not Aikido)



I posted articles titled "No-Touch Aikido, A defense", and "No-Touch Aikido, yes it's real!", and your argument is that NO ONE is defending it?

Hilarious.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> I posted articles titled "No-Touch Aikido, A defense", and "No-Touch Aikido, yes it's real!", and your argument is that NO ONE is defending it?
> 
> Hilarious.



Titles that linked to articles you didn't expect anyone to read (like you didn't) and then you attempted to justify them by cherry picking quotations out of them that fit your argument when I called you out for being dishonest and not even reading what you were linking.

Hilarious indeed, like this clip from your favorite movie


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Titles that linked to articles you didn't expect anyone to read (like you didn't) and then you attempted to justify them by cherry picking quotations out of them that fit your argument when I called you out for being dishonest and not even reading what you were linking.



People are free to read the articles for themselves and clearly see that they were defending the practice.

You're defending the practice yourself by attempting to kill the messenger instead of addressing the message. This topic IS called "Aikido the Reality". Part of that is bizarre and looney practices like no-touch, which based on various reports, is rather common in Aikido circles.

Again, the main reason this is embraced and defended is because Ueshiba himself engaged in it.

But by all means, continue to troll instead of addressing the topic at hand.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> People are free to read the articles for themselves and clearly see that they were defending the practice.
> 
> You're defending the practice yourself by attempting to kill the messenger instead of addressing the message. This topic IS called "Aikido the Reality". Part of that is bizarre and looney practices like no-touch, which based on various reports, is rather common in Aikido circles.
> 
> Again, the main reason this is embraced and defended is because Ueshiba himself engaged in it.
> 
> But by all means, continue to troll instead of addressing the topic at hand.



What Aikido syllabus are you getting this from? You are misrepresenting this like its a big part of the system, which it isn't. Even if Morihei Ueshiba is the guy in your 18 second video that you have no provenance for, he was into plenty of kooky things by the end of his life, so was Helio Gracie, it doesn't mean that they system is bad. You are and have been engaging in faithless rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty since your first comment because you simply came here for an Aikido dogpile. You flew into a blind rage when I commented on one of Rokas videos, because I was disrespecting him in your opinion, until it became obvious that he wasn't saying what you thought he was and now you link a video of him today, saying he was "drinking the koolaid" and showing something that he wasn't because you thought the video title supported your argument.

You obviously don't know anything about Aikido, you thought it was all wristlocks and once you were called out for that you have been jumping into any part of the discussion you can as if you were some kind of expert to misrepresent what is and isn't common in Aikido. You don't even have the attention span to find decent sources for your argument, you are simply relying on people not clicking through to your links and taking your words at face value. None of this stuff is part of Aikido and you are only saying that it is because you are entertaining yourself by putting the system down.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Here's the grading syllabus for the Hombu Dojo in Japan, the original Aikido school

Grading System | Aikikai Foundation

Notice the utter lack of no-touch striking and other parlor tricks, just specific, named techniques.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> What Aikido syllabus are you getting this from? You are misrepresenting this like its a big part of the system, which it isn't.



Where did I say it's a big part of the system?



> Even if Morihei Ueshiba is the guy in your 18 second video that you have no provenance for,



It was.



> he was into plenty of kooky things by the end of his life, so was Helio Gracie, it doesn't mean that they system is bad.



This is a whataboutism that doesn't absolve the main point, and is in fact an attempt to deflect. I would never go so far as to say that Aikido is bad, but I will say that it has bad practices. No touch stuff is one such practice.



> You are and have been engaging in faithless rhetoric and intellectual dishonesty since your first comment because you simply came here for an Aikido dogpile.



If there's a "dogpile" then clearly I'm not the only one in here being critical of the system.



> You flew into a blind rage when I commented on one of Rokas videos, because I was disrespecting him in your opinion,



I don't believe asking you to do what Rokas has done since you claim to be a superior Aikidoka to him to be an example of "flying into a blind rage".



> until it became obvious that he wasn't saying what you thought he was and now you link a video of him today, saying he was "drinking the koolaid" and showing something that he wasn't because you thought the video title supported your argument.



Yeah, when I linked the video I said plainly that the video dates before his conversion.

Are you purposely attempting to misrepresent what I'm saying, or are you simply ignoring what I'm typing because you have an urge to respond with whatever comes to your head?



> You obviously don't know anything about Aikido, you thought it was all wristlocks and once you were called out for that you have been jumping into any part of the discussion you can as if you were some kind of expert to misrepresent what is and isn't common in Aikido.



And here we have another misrepresentation. Where did I say that Aikido was ALL wristlocks?



> You don't even have the attention span to find decent sources for your argument, you are simply relying on people not clicking through to your links and taking your words at face value. None of this stuff is part of Aikido and you are only saying that it is because you are entertaining yourself by putting the system down.



Yes, because an article that literally says it defends the practice of no-touch is not actually defending the practice of no-touch right? 

However, what can you expect when you have someone like yourself who is in so much denial that they don't believe that this is Ueshiba;






When in fact it is actually Ueshiba.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Where did I say it's a big part of the system?
> 
> 
> 
> It was.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a whataboutism that doesn't absolve the main point, and is in fact an attempt to deflect. I would never go so far as to say that Aikido is bad, but I will say that it has bad practices. No touch stuff is one such practice.
> 
> 
> 
> If there's a "dogpile" then clearly I'm not the only one in here being critical of the system.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe asking you to do what Rokas has done since you claim to be a superior Aikidoka to him to be an example of "flying into a blind rage".
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, when I linked the video I said plainly that the video dates before his conversion.
> 
> Are you purposely attempting to misrepresent what I'm saying, or are you simply ignoring what I'm typing because you have an urge to respond with whatever comes to your head?
> 
> 
> 
> And here we have another misrepresentation. Where did I say that Aikido was ALL wristlocks?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because an article that literally says it defends the practice of no-touch is not actually defending the practice of no-touch right?
> 
> However, what can you expect when you have someone like yourself who is in so much denial that they don't believe that this is Ueshiba;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When in fact it is actually Ueshiba.



I am not going to bother going back through almost 50 pages to refute you so that you can move on to your next straw man when you cannot be bothered to read the articles you link. You have repeatedly knocked Aikido in this discussion, above and beyond saying it was bad, calling it useless for the purposes of this conversation is functionally identical to using the term "bad". You have such an obsession with the topic it borders on being pathological. The biggest issue however is that you are attempting to misrepresent the entire art with a completely dishonest argument. Aikido as a system has plenty to offer, even in its traditional instruction but you have consistently tried to make it look like something it isn't. Are there bad Aikido schools? Yeah, they exist in every system.

Here's a link to the world Aikido federation, the original school, headed by Morihei Ueshiba's grandson, who is the schools 3rd Doshu
Home | Aikikai Foundation
Here's that man doing classical Aikido





I also already linked the syllabus for the Hombu Doju grading

Point to the no touch hitting, the false claims about lethality, any of the positions you have argued. You can't. I'm sure you can find links to something on the internet that might have the right title that you can link to misrepresent your point, but you wont find it in the actual system. We can debate the effectiveness of specific techniques, but I can simply watch that demo Doshu is doing and see that aside from some very well trained students, he is using enough pressure to correctly apply the techniques and his timing, force and speed are all on par with what it would take to use those same techniques in a realistic scenario.

You act like an expert and its pretty obvious from our interactions that you don't have experience in or around Aikido. You also have not been disabused of some pretty simple logic traps that you wouldn't have if you had that much experience in actual conflict, either competitive or situational. Heck, you commented in the Wing Chun thread saying you wouldn't try Muay Thai and would stick to BJJ because you wouldn't want to get a black eye or busted lip for work. People get those even doing Aikido and I have gotten both doing BJJ just from doing the techniques because of misplaced positioning or random arm/leg movement. So what type of low intensity feel good sparring are you doing? Yet you come in here talking about how Aikido doesn't work and you need to train in "combat" martial arts to win a real confrontation, etc. Pfff. I get it you want to feel better about yourself by making fun of a different system, Aikido is particularly popular right now because of the hate from the Joe Rogan crowd and there's a very egotistical sub section of the BJJ community that likes to bully around the traditional arts, even though the more accomplished BJJ practitioners and the Gracies don't do that. 

  What your doing though is low brow, its in poor form and it shows a casual level of disrespect and contempt for the rest of the Martial Arts community. You try and cloak it in pragmatism but its very thinly veiled, in your case, not veiled at all and its completely undeserved and unearned on your part. You don't have any accomplishments to make you an authority even with personal anecdote, yet you jump in and throw your two cents in with absurdism because it makes you feel good to try and position yourself over others. That's just the kind of thing you see from guys who just got their first belt or two and who like to posture for the other children around the water cooler. What annoys me is that your okay with being dishonest about it to prove your point, so we are incapable of having any meaningful discussion because we have you chirping in every so often to derail the thread and make it about you so that you get a little bit of attention when someone refutes one of your false positions.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> I
> Here's a link to the world Aikido federation, the original school, headed by Morihei Ueshiba's grandson, who is the schools 3rd Doshu
> Home | Aikikai Foundation
> Here's that man doing classical Aikido
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also already linked the syllabus for the Hombu Doju grading



And this is the late Noboyuki Wantanabe, 8th dan and highly respected sensei from the exact same organization;









> Point to the no touch hitting, the false claims about lethality, any of the positions you have argued. You can't. I'm sure you can find links to something on the internet that might have the right title that you can link to misrepresent your point, but you wont find it in the actual system. We can debate the effectiveness of specific techniques, but I can simply watch that demo Doshu is doing and see that aside from some very well trained students, he is using enough pressure to correctly apply the techniques and his timing, force and speed are all on par with what it would take to use those same techniques in a realistic scenario.



I've posted multiple sources showcasing no touch Aikido. Everyone else in this thread has stated it to be a problem with modern Aikido. The only person who seems to be in denial is you.



> You act like an expert and its pretty obvious from our interactions that you don't have experience in or around Aikido.



Typical response from someone who wants to deflect instead of discuss the issue at hand......

Even if I didn't have experience in the martial arts, I would hope that I'm knowledgable enough to recognize that what I'm seeing in that gif above is complete BS.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> And this is the late Noboyuki Wantanabe, 8th dan and highly respected sensei from the exact same organization;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted multiple sources showcasing no touch Aikido. Everyone else in this thread has stated it to be a problem with modern Aikido. The only person who seems to be in denial is you.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical response from someone who wants to deflect instead of discuss the issue at hand......
> 
> Even if I didn't have experience in the martial arts, I would hope that I'm knowledgable enough to recognize that what I'm seeing in that gif above is complete BS.



Ok dude, cool story, Watanabe is a known quantity and regardless of where he got his black belt, his snake oil peddling isn't being taught at the Hombu Dojo, but way to be disingenuous again and "deflect" the entirety of my post as you have been doing in favor of making absurd statements as fact and misrepresenting your earlier posts as being well vetted sources you cited instead of randomly picked articles which didn't say what you say they did except in the titles.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Ok dude, cool story, Watanabe is a known quantity and regardless of where he got his black belt, his snake oil peddling isn't being taught at the Hombu Dojo, but way to be disingenuous again and "deflect" the entirety of my post as you have been doing in favor of making absurd statements as fact and misrepresenting your earlier posts as being well vetted sources you cited instead of randomly picked articles which didn't say what you say they did except in the titles.



LoL! He was an instructor at the Hombu for decades. The idea that he didn't teach that stuff there is absurd. 

Denial isn't just a river Egypt.....


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> LoL! He was an instructor at the Hombu for decades. The idea that he didn't teach that stuff there is absurd.
> 
> Denial isn't just a river Egypt.....



Cool Story Bro


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Here's the grading syllabus for the Hombu Dojo in Japan, the original Aikido school
> 
> Grading System | Aikikai Foundation
> 
> Notice the utter lack of no-touch striking and other parlor tricks, just specific, named techniques.




So Hombu is the benchmark?
Can you show some sparring from that schoo


----------



## O'Malley

gpseymour said:


> On a side note, I think you've maybe pointed out a common mis-usage in NGA. We use the term "ura" for reversal. In your understanding is that a mis-use of the term? I suspect we have a number of places where the terms have become loan words with only a shade of their original meaning. Which is fine within the art - words only mean what folks agree they mean.



If I understand correctly, "ura" means "back" as in the front and back of a playing card. It means a variety of things in different arts but, as far as Ueshiba's aikido is concerned, "ura" refers to techniques where you place yourself in your opponent's back/outside. Here are examples:

This is the "omote" (front) version, where you step directly towards the front/inside of the opponent:






This is the "ura" version:






Interestingly, Seigo Okamoto of Daito-ryu Roppokai seems to have used "ura" for "reversal", similarly to the sumo saying "all 48 techniques have a back and a front" : The Essence of Aiki: an Interview with Seigo Okamoto Soshi - Part 2 - Aikido Sangenkai Blog



Hanzou said:


> Where did I say it's a big part of the system?
> 
> 
> 
> It was.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a whataboutism that doesn't absolve the main point, and is in fact an attempt to deflect. I would never go so far as to say that Aikido is bad, but I will say that it has bad practices. No touch stuff is one such practice.
> 
> 
> 
> If there's a "dogpile" then clearly I'm not the only one in here being critical of the system.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe asking you to do what Rokas has done since you claim to be a superior Aikidoka to him to be an example of "flying into a blind rage".
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, when I linked the video I said plainly that the video dates before his conversion.
> 
> Are you purposely attempting to misrepresent what I'm saying, or are you simply ignoring what I'm typing because you have an urge to respond with whatever comes to your head?
> 
> 
> 
> And here we have another misrepresentation. Where did I say that Aikido was ALL wristlocks?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because an article that literally says it defends the practice of no-touch is not actually defending the practice of no-touch right?
> 
> However, what can you expect when you have someone like yourself who is in so much denial that they don't believe that this is Ueshiba;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When in fact it is actually Ueshiba.



I've got mixed feelings about this video. I do understand some of it: the push demonstrations are nothing extraordinary once you know what's happening, and one or two tricks are just about masterful bodyweight transfer. The last no touch throw is a feint playing on the student's habits (he tries to grab the hand in a particular way, with some momentum, and is caught off guard). But for the no-touch throws at the beginning, I'm puzzled. I mean, it's obvious that the students are tanking for him, I just can't understand why. Can be a religious thing, can be a way to trick gullible crowds, can be a sensitivity exercise, etc.

Ueshiba in general was hard to understand. He'd experiment with shamanistic possession rituals and other weird stuff as part of his spirituality. He'd also trick people (and himself?) into thinking he had magical powers (by "accurately" predicting that someone was waiting for him at the train station, for example). He might even had done this kind of magic trick for the fun of it (in his place, I might have). Also, I don't think that he was really interested in openly teaching what he could do, as illustrated by him hiding his footwork under a hakama (skirt). Moreover, his dojo was regularly challenged by outsiders so he may have been cautious not to give onlookers clues about what he did (I've heard rumors about this, although none from reliable sources). So his policy could well have been "ok I'll fool around for the crowd and look awesome, then I'll teach the people I like. Or not. The talented ones will pick stuff up anyways."

So, what to do with such demonstrations? My approach is to try and understand whether there's useful stuff in there. In my opinion, this does not include believing in magical energy balls that topple opponents, nor expecting a non-cooperative opponent to fall down like this.



Hanzou said:


> And this is the late Noboyuki Wantanabe, 8th dan and highly respected sensei from the exact same organization;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted multiple sources showcasing no touch Aikido. Everyone else in this thread has stated it to be a problem with modern Aikido. The only person who seems to be in denial is you.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical response from someone who wants to deflect instead of discuss the issue at hand......
> 
> Even if I didn't have experience in the martial arts, I would hope that I'm knowledgable enough to recognize that what I'm seeing in that gif above is complete BS.



To be fair to Watanabe, he never claimed to be able to do that on uncooperative opponents, or to have magical powers. This is a demonstration with one of the students at his private dojo, who know the purpose of the practice. According to all sources, his classes at the Hombu dojo were normal aikido kata. So I'm 90% sure this is a sensitivity drill.

Here are a few interesting quotes from Watanabe:

"Reaction moves right into movement. People today don’t have that sensitivity. The Founder would suddenly look at your eyes, and people whose reaction was slow wouldn’t be used for a while, so there was a sense of tension that we always had to be watching the Founder’s hands and feet. The Founder would make skillful use of the energy of people’s watching."

"It’s no good if you are just throwing or being thrown like an object, and being proactive and throwing yourself doesn’t work either. It is training in feeling and detecting a sense of your partner at the time. Now we have training in throwing and training in being thrown. Both sides ought to be working on their sensitivity, but they just cut it off and throw."

"[The Founder]was strongly opposed to Kata practice like “do this and then do this”."

"[Aikido techniques are] for conditioning your body and developing your senses. So if you think “what is Aikido?”, in the end it must be to know yourself, to live your life."

Sources: Interview with Aikido Shihan Nobuyuki Watanabe, Part 1 and Interview with Aikido Shihan Nobuyuki Watanabe, Part 2


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> I've got mixed feelings about this video. I do understand some of it: the push demonstrations are nothing extraordinary once you know what's happening, and one or two tricks are just about masterful bodyweight transfer. The last no touch throw is a feint playing on the student's habits (he tries to grab the hand in a particular way, with some momentum, and is caught off guard). But for the no-touch throws at the beginning, I'm puzzled. I mean, it's obvious that the students are tanking for him, I just can't understand why. Can be a religious thing, can be a way to trick gullible crowds, can be a sensitivity exercise, etc.
> 
> Ueshiba in general was hard to understand. He'd experiment with shamanistic possession rituals and other weird stuff as part of his spirituality. He'd also trick people (and himself?) into thinking he had magical powers (by "accurately" predicting that someone was waiting for him at the train station, for example). He might even had done this kind of magic trick for the fun of it (in his place, I might have). Also, I don't think that he was really interested in openly teaching what he could do, as illustrated by him hiding his footwork under a hakama (skirt). Moreover, his dojo was regularly challenged by outsiders so he may have been cautious not to give onlookers clues about what he did (I've heard rumors about this, although none from reliable sources). So his policy could well have been "ok I'll fool around for the crowd and look awesome, then I'll teach the people I like. Or not. The talented ones will pick stuff up anyways."
> 
> So, what to do with such demonstrations? My approach is to try and understand whether there's useful stuff in there. In my opinion, this does not include believing in magical energy balls that topple opponents, nor expecting a non-cooperative opponent to fall down like this.



I think when we get to the point where we have Aikidoka questioning whether or not they can throw magical energy balls that can topple opponents, you've entered problematic territory, and you begin to damage the system. There's numerous accounts of Aikidoka experiencing this no-touch practice, and having very negative feelings towards it because they know its ridiculous, and they feel that it damages the validity of their style. Compound that with the dubiousness of Aikido's effectiveness in the eyes of the MA community as a whole, and the general drive of the Aikido community to make their art effective, and you have a problem.

As I said, this all stems from a lack of a foundation or standard for what is effective Aikido. Who would we consider to be an elite Aikidoka? Where can we see Aikido being objectively applied in a violent situation on a consistent basis? What does "real" Aikido look like? As long as the answers to these questions are evasive, we're going to continue to have these issues.



> To be fair to Watanabe, he never claimed to be able to do that on uncooperative opponents, or to have magical powers. This is a demonstration with one of the students at his private dojo, who know the purpose of the practice. According to all sources, his classes at the Hombu dojo were normal aikido kata. So I'm 90% sure this is a sensitivity drill.
> 
> Here are a few interesting quotes from Watanabe:
> 
> "Reaction moves right into movement. People today don’t have that sensitivity. The Founder would suddenly look at your eyes, and people whose reaction was slow wouldn’t be used for a while, so there was a sense of tension that we always had to be watching the Founder’s hands and feet. The Founder would make skillful use of the energy of people’s watching."
> 
> "It’s no good if you are just throwing or being thrown like an object, and being proactive and throwing yourself doesn’t work either. It is training in feeling and detecting a sense of your partner at the time. Now we have training in throwing and training in being thrown. Both sides ought to be working on their sensitivity, but they just cut it off and throw."
> 
> "[The Founder]was strongly opposed to Kata practice like “do this and then do this”."
> 
> "[Aikido techniques are] for conditioning your body and developing your senses. So if you think “what is Aikido?”, in the end it must be to know yourself, to live your life."
> 
> Sources: Interview with Aikido Shihan Nobuyuki Watanabe, Part 1 and Interview with Aikido Shihan Nobuyuki Watanabe, Part 2



Yeah, I'm not going to be fair to Watanabe. His position gives him authority, and again since we actually have a debate over the validity of this silliness, he was never clear on the truth behind what he was doing. In short, he was being irresponsible. As I've always said, theory is nice, but we need to see that theory be applied. Demonstrating your theory on compliant sheep is not applying or testing the theory, and simply leads to serious problems.


----------



## O'Malley

By the way (I've just read through the articles in defense of "no touch" aikido quoted by Hanzou), I don't buy the "disrupting the enemy's energy" thing. 

I've myself also done a couple of no touch throws inadvertently, by placing myself just out of reach of someone wanting to grab me, by removing something they expected to rely on for balance or by entering with unexpected rythm or distance but each time they were the ones unbalancing themselves. It's not like I had any control over it.

Feints certainly work, and with a bit of luck, observation and practice you can sometimes feint an opponent so that he's off-rythm, off-balance and/or off-structure for a moment. Here are some examples in basketball:






That said, the justification I've seen in one of these articles is absurd. The reasoning i as follows: 



> I should also add that I have on many occasions been the recipient of Aikido no-touch techniques. Based on this experience, I can assure the reader they are quite effective and have nothing to do with science fiction or mystic rays.
> 
> Essentially what happens is that the nage (i.e. the person doing the technique) neutralises the uke’s attack by executing a strike in such a way that the uke has the option of taking a fall instead of being hit. This takes considerable skill on the part of the nage, both in terms of timing and delivery. Specifically, the strike has to be fast enough such that it cannot be deflected, but slow enough so that the uke has the option of taking the fall to get out of the way of the incoming blow.
> 
> In real life, an untrained attacker will most likely be hit rather than choose to fall to avoid the strike. The nage must therefore also be trained in delivering the strike (which in fact is typically more a cut) so as to not suffer injury to their hand or arm when delivering it.
> 
> In a dojo setting, a uke well versed in ukemi (falling) is also critical. In essence the uke must respond to the strike as if it were a throw – something requiring some practice to do well.



According to this reasoning, for a no-touch throw to work, two conditions must be met:

1) Uke must perceive the strike and react to it;
2) Uke's reaction must be to take the fall rather than take the strike.

Striking arts have been around for millennia, yet I've yet to hear of anyone who hits so hard than their opponent would choose taking a fall over being hit. There's no martial art that advocates this as a defensive tactic. If a trained fighter sees the strike coming, he'll have much better reactive options than unbalancing himself. Untrained opponents will not take the fall as well. So, if neither trained or untrained opponents will take the fall, on whom is this supposed to work? "Assuring the reader" that _this _is "quite effective" is why aikido people are not taken seriously.

The last part is dumbfounding. Why the hell would you want to train uke to respond to strikes as if it were a throw? This actually makes you worse at fighting.


----------



## Shatteredzen

O'Malley said:


> By the way (I've just read through the articles in defense of "no touch" aikido quoted by Hanzou), I don't buy the "disrupting the enemy's energy" thing.
> 
> I've myself also done a couple of no touch throws inadvertently, by placing myself just out of reach of someone wanting to grab me, by removing something they expected to rely on for balance or by entering with unexpected rythm or distance but each time they were the ones unbalancing themselves. It's not like I had any control over it.
> 
> Feints certainly work, and with a bit of luck, observation and practice you can sometimes feint an opponent so that he's off-rythm, off-balance and/or off-structure for a moment. Here are some examples in basketball:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, the justification I've seen in one of these articles is absurd. The reasoning i as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> According to this reasoning, for a no-touch throw to work, two conditions must be met:
> 
> 1) Uke must perceive the strike and react to it;
> 2) Uke's reaction must be to take the fall rather than take the strike.
> 
> Striking arts have been around for millennia, yet I've yet to hear of anyone who hits so hard than their opponent would choose taking a fall over being hit. There's no martial art that advocates this as a defensive tactic. If a trained fighter sees the strike coming, he'll have much better reactive options than unbalancing himself. Untrained opponents will not take the fall as well. So, if neither trained or untrained opponents will take the fall, on whom is this supposed to work? "Assuring the reader" that _this _is "quite effective" is why aikido people are not taken seriously.
> 
> The last part is dumbfounding. Why the hell would you want to train uke to respond to strikes as if it were a throw? This actually makes you worse at fighting.



That's because he is not advocating it for fighting, he is explaining that it happens in the dojo as a side effect of a trained uke anticipating the strike and reacting. He is explaining phenomenon that occurs in the drills, not explaining how to use it for fighting.


----------



## O'Malley

Hanzou said:


> I think when we get to the point where we have Aikidoka questioning whether or not they can throw magical energy balls that can topple opponents, you've entered problematic territory, and you begin to damage the system. There's numerous accounts of Aikidoka experiencing this no-touch practice, and having very negative feelings towards it because they know its ridiculous, and they feel that it damages the validity of their style. Compound that with the dubiousness of Aikido's effectiveness in the eyes of the MA community as a whole, and the general drive of the Aikido community to make their art effective, and you have a problem.



Depends on your goals. If your goal is not related to martial applicability, this is not a problem. The problem is people who make claims about effectiveness that they can't deliver on.



> As I said, this all stems from a lack of a foundation or standard for what is effective Aikido. Who would we consider to be an elite Aikidoka? Where can we see Aikido being objectively applied in a violent situation on a consistent basis? What does "real" Aikido look like? As long as the answers to these questions are evasive, we're going to continue to have these issues.



Oh I agree, as I'm interested in aikido's technical (and thus martial) aspects. And, so far, the aikido community (including yours truly and the bunch of guys claiming to teach "real aikido") hasn't been able to give any decent answer to these questions.



> Yeah, I'm not going to be fair to Watanabe. His position gives him authority, and again since we actually have a debate over the validity of this silliness, he was never clear on the truth behind what he was doing. In short, he was being irresponsible. As I've always said, theory is nice, but we need to see that theory be applied. Demonstrating your theory on compliant sheep is not applying or testing the theory, and simply leads to serious problems.



Watanabe didn't teach this to the regular people who came and trained with him at Hombu, so he didn't teach this as a 7th (6th?8th?) dan. He did it with his private students, in his private dojo. The guy in your gif doesn't look like he believes in his teacher's magic power, it looks like he's actively trying to follow Watanabe's movements and rythm. It's a sensitivity drill and it's fine in my book. We could argue about the opportunity of showing this in demonstrations but it doesn't seem like he was tricking anyone. If people want to believe in fairy tales, it's not Watanabe's fault.


----------



## O'Malley

Shatteredzen said:


> That's because he is not advocating it for fighting, he is explaining that it happens in the dojo as a side effect of a trained uke anticipating the strike and reacting. He is explaining phenomenon that occurs in the drills, not explaining how to use it for fighting.



He says: "In essence the uke must respond to the strike as if it were a throw – something requiring some practice to do well."

This clearly means that *uke has to practice so that he responds to the strike as if it were a throw*.

There is no practical purpose to this. Quite the contrary, it makes you less able to defend yourself than if you were untrained.


----------



## Grenadier

*Admin's Note:*

Last warning, y'all.  Snipes, off-topic (including political) postings, etc., will get this thread locked, and earn some of you a healthy dose of warning points.  

Ignoring a staff member's warning is a surefire way to get smacked by the Ban Hammer, and you've been given plenty of grace as it is.


----------



## drop bear

O'Malley said:


> I've got mixed feelings about this video. I do understand some of it: the push demonstrations are nothing extraordinary once you know what's happening, and one or two tricks are just about masterful bodyweight transfer. The last no touch throw is a feint playing on the student's habits (he tries to grab the hand in a particular way, with some momentum, and is caught off guard). But for the no-touch throws at the beginning, I'm puzzled. I mean, it's obvious that the students are tanking for him, I just can't understand why. Can be a religious thing, can be a way to trick gullible crowds, can be a sensitivity exercise, etc.



People routinely tank in demo's. Touch or no touch makes very little difference.


----------



## Xue Sheng

"And by the way, I don’t think the disadvantages or weaknesses of an art discounts its value. Every art has to specialize in something. For example, I’ve seen some stuff on the Internet where people criticize Aikido because it doesn’t do well in an MMA ring. Well that‘s not the point. I personally don’t think you should do that because you’re looking at an art out of context and asking it to perform in an environment it’s not designed for. "  --- Dan Inosanto


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> "And by the way, I don’t think the disadvantages or weaknesses of an art discounts its value. Every art has to specialize in something. For example, I’ve seen some stuff on the Internet where people criticize Aikido because it doesn’t do well in an MMA ring. Well that‘s not the point. I personally don’t think you should do that because you’re looking at an art out of context and asking it to perform in an environment it’s not designed for. "  --- Dan Inosanto



I don't see evidence that Aikido does Aikido well. This is my biggest contention.

In the sense that you are supposed to learn some sort of mechanic that allows through timing and technique to manipulate another person in to going where you want.

There was a definition of Aiki where it was described as someone sits in a chair and you pull the chair out. And it is this mechanic I am describing.

And drills do not teach this function.

Drills teach technique. And technique is the least important aspect of trying to make that chair pull scenario work.

Even in that actual chair pull example.

And instead creates a false environment where this process will work. So that the method is justified. 

And because of this false environment I am not surprised no touch is a thing.


----------



## Xue Sheng

"The other day, I was listening to a highly respected researcher and authority in the Japanese martial arts. He believes that in certain scenarios,  Aikido can be quite effective for self-defense. Imagine you end up in some kind of riot or civil unrest, which is happening with greater frequency these days. If you need to get from point A to point B safely, through a group of people or a chaotic environment, Aikido is great for that. Aikido builds tactical positioning skill and situational awareness attributes that are far more applicable at allowing one to move through a crowd safely, than say MMA." -- Josh Gold


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> "And by the way, I don’t think the disadvantages or weaknesses of an art discounts its value. Every art has to specialize in something. For example, I’ve seen some stuff on the Internet where people criticize Aikido because it doesn’t do well in an MMA ring. Well that‘s not the point. I personally don’t think you should do that because you’re looking at an art out of context and asking it to perform in an environment it’s not designed for. "  --- Dan Inosanto



The problem is that Aikido schools advertise their art as a highly effective form of self defense while playing up its martial history. In some cases they go the extra mile and say that Aikido is effective against multiple attackers.

When that’s the marketing push for a martial art, it’s a bit silly to expect people not to wonder why it wouldn’t be competitive in all martial settings including MMA. If Aikido was advertised in the same vein as Yoga or Tai Chi, Inosanto would have a better argument.

Consequently, Bjj is marketed in a similar way as Aikido (though I have yet to see a Bjj school advertise that Bjj is highly effective against multiple assailants), and it is a staple of MMA.


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> "The other day, I was listening to a highly respected researcher and authority in the Japanese martial arts. He believes that in certain scenarios,  Aikido can be quite effective for self-defense. Imagine you end up in some kind of riot or civil unrest, which is happening with greater frequency these days. If you need to get from point A to point B safely, through a group of people or a chaotic environment, Aikido is great for that. Aikido builds tactical positioning skill and situational awareness attributes that are far more applicable at allowing one to move through a crowd safely, than say MMA." -- Josh Gold



The principles don't really change from art to art. 

There is a life savers race in Australia where you can push your opponent back. 

And they counter that with underhooks.


----------



## Martial D

Xue Sheng said:


> "The other day, I was listening to a highly respected researcher and authority in the Japanese martial arts. He believes that in certain scenarios,  Aikido can be quite effective for self-defense. Imagine you end up in some kind of riot or civil unrest, which is happening with greater frequency these days. If you need to get from point A to point B safely, through a group of people or a chaotic environment, Aikido is great for that. Aikido builds tactical positioning skill and situational awareness attributes that are far more applicable at allowing one to move through a crowd safely, than say MMA." -- Josh Gold


It seems strange to me that people that train scripted movements, knowing where and when their 'uke' will charge at them with outstretched arms, while under 0 threat of attack,would have better positional awareness than people that are accustomed to having an actual opponent in front of them that could move in any direction and pose a threat of attack. The latter is what builds said awareness.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> If it stopped the arm from bending the opposite way, I could definitely see a practical use for it. However, in the end, it's just a parlor trick.
> 
> Just like this no-touch silliness. It's quite telling that there are actually people in the Aikido community who support it's validity, when it should be universally panned and dismissed.


It's literally training folks to use their muscles differently than a lot of folks manage to do naturally. Most of it is about tricking them into not tensing muscles that interfere with what they're doing. Not so much a parlor trick as a training trick. The way it's used in demos is a bit of a parlor trick, but that can be said of almost anything that's simple and most audiences don't understand.

I look at it this way - I've used juggling to help folks improve hand-eye coordination and proprioception. It can also be used to impress people if you're any good at it, but that use doesn't really affect whether people get a training benefit form it.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> It's literally training folks to use their muscles differently than a lot of folks manage to do naturally. Most of it is about tricking them into not tensing muscles that interfere with what they're doing. Not so much a parlor trick as a training trick. The way it's used in demos is a bit of a parlor trick, but that can be said of almost anything that's simple and most audiences don't understand.
> 
> I look at it this way - I've used juggling to help folks improve hand-eye coordination and proprioception. It can also be used to impress people if you're any good at it, but that use doesn't really affect whether people get a training benefit form it.


Do you juggle actual balls, or do you just sort of pantomime the motion of juggling?  Or perhaps you use juggling balls that are all attached to a stick and some string so there is no chance of dropping one?

I taught myself to juggle.  Only got pretty good at three balls.  But I can pretend to juggle like nobody's business, even up to seven chainsaws.  

That's the difference between what you are talking about and what others are talking about.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> It's literally training folks to use their muscles differently than a lot of folks manage to do naturally. Most of it is about tricking them into not tensing muscles that interfere with what they're doing. Not so much a parlor trick as a training trick. The way it's used in demos is a bit of a parlor trick, but that can be said of almost anything that's simple and most audiences don't understand.
> 
> I look at it this way - I've used juggling to help folks improve hand-eye coordination and proprioception. It can also be used to impress people if you're any good at it, but that use doesn't really affect whether people get a training benefit form it.



What's the application of knowing this? I can see Juggling improving your hand eye coordination, but what does the unbendable arm trick benefit on a practical basis outside of simply showing a rube how "magical" Aikido is?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> It seems strange to me that people that train scripted movements, knowing where and when their 'uke' will charge at them with outstretched arms, while under 0 threat of attack,would have better positional awareness than people that are accustomed to having an actual opponent in front of them that could move in any direction and pose a threat of attack. The latter is what builds said awareness.


I expect the quote is addressing the type of movement used in those drills, but mostly developed and reinforced in the "randori" they do (not the same live randori as, say, Judo). It seems to me the primary purpose of their randori is to practice moving through multiple people, controlling space and distancing. Don't know if it's as effective as the quoted person feels.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Do you juggle actual balls, or do you just sort of pantomime the motion of juggling?  Or perhaps you use juggling balls that are all attached to a stick and some string so there is no chance of dropping one?
> 
> I taught myself to juggle.  Only got pretty good at three balls.  But I can pretend to juggle like nobody's business, even up to seven chainsaws.
> 
> That's the difference between what you are talking about and what others are talking about.


Let's stick to what was under discussion in the side thread in question: the unbendable arm "ki" technique. With that, you're working with a real arm, and a real partner. Just like the real bean bags I use in juggling exercises.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> What's the application of knowing this? I can see Juggling improving your hand eye coordination, but what does the unbendable arm trick benefit on a practical basis outside of simply showing a rube how "magical" Aikido is?


It really doesn't seem magical at all to those learning it. The practical use is learning to keep an extended arm (distance control in some techniques, for instance) without having to keep a rigid arm (using too many muscles for the purpose) and while practicing the posture many of the techniques perform best with. The same principles work with a bent arm, too. To some extent, the relaxed/unbending arm is part of the way we do our front/side rolls, too - a place where students who start after age 30 tend to really struggle with the concept.

It was never a major focus, mind you. It gets used when students aren't using the principles well in a given technique, and otherwise touched on a couple of times a year when going back to work on body principles. Most students get the basic arm part of it in a single session. Most will get the larger body concept in it after they've worked a few techniques that emphasise those principles. In my opinion, all of the "ki" techniques I learned were just ways to practice relaxed control of the body in ways that make some of the techniques easier and less effortfull (they never become effortless, obviously).


----------



## Cynik75




----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Let's stick to what was under discussion in the side thread in question: the unbendable arm "ki" technique. With that, you're working with a real arm, and a real partner. Just like the real bean bags I use in juggling exercises.


I think my analogy is more relevant, but you stick with whatever makes you feel better.


----------



## Hanzou

Cynik75 said:


>



Interesting that all of those guys who made Aikido work were huge dudes who had combat sport experience.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I think my analogy is more relevant, but you stick with whatever makes you feel better.


You tried to tie my comment to something it wasn't addressing. Don't know what analogy you were headed toward, but it wasn't relevant to the post you quoted.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> The problem is that Aikido schools advertise their art as a highly effective form of self defense while playing up its martial history. In some cases they go the extra mile and say that Aikido is effective against multiple attackers.
> 
> When that’s the marketing push for a martial art, it’s a bit silly to expect people not to wonder why it wouldn’t be competitive in all martial settings including MMA. If Aikido was advertised in the same vein as Yoga or Tai Chi, Inosanto would have a better argument.
> 
> Consequently, Bjj is marketed in a similar way as Aikido (though I have yet to see a Bjj school advertise that Bjj is highly effective against multiple assailants), and it is a staple of MMA.


which  school' do this ?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> You tried to tie my comment to something it wasn't addressing. Don't know what analogy you were headed toward, but it wasn't relevant to the post you quoted.


You mention juggling.  You used juggling as an analogy to highlight the differences between application and demonstrations.  I fleshed out your analogy, so that it addresses the difference between what one can do and what one can pretend to do.  As I said, I can juggle three balls pretty well... I don't drop them and can even do a few tricks.  But I can't juggle more than three items, and I certainly can't juggle chainsaws.  How do I know this?  Because I actually do it.   

I presume when you juggle, you actually have some objects (guessing three balls or beanbags, but could be anything) and you literally throw them around in a continuous manner.  That's application.  You are, at that point, juggling.  You may be good at it.  You may not be good at it.  You may be REALLY good at.  How do you know how good you are at it?  Well, when you try to juggle, you get a lot of immediate feedback.  

And the point is, some folks can't do what they purport to do in a demo, and some can.   I can juggle three balls.  From a demonstration, it's impossible for a lay person to distinguish between someone showing them functional expertise in its best light and someone showing them complete theater... a façade of functional expertise that is unrealistic.  

I hope this explains it a little more clearly.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> which  school' do this ?



See post #799.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> The problem is that Aikido schools advertise their art as a highly effective form of self defense while playing up its martial history. In some cases they go the extra mile and say that Aikido is effective against multiple attackers.
> 
> When that’s the marketing push for a martial art, it’s a bit silly to expect people not to wonder why it wouldn’t be competitive in all martial settings including MMA. If Aikido was advertised in the same vein as Yoga or Tai Chi, Inosanto would have a better argument.
> 
> Consequently, Bjj is marketed in a similar way as Aikido (though I have yet to see a Bjj school advertise that Bjj is highly effective against multiple assailants), and it is a staple of MMA.


which  school' do this ?


Hanzou said:


> See post #799.


this one,




__





						Martial Arts | Aikido Center of Atlanta | United States
					

Oldest Aikido dojo in Atlanta, founded in 1967. Offering Online Classes for Children and Adults, as well as Advanced Classes for Adults Members. Charter Member of the United States Aikido Federation.




					www.aikidocenterofatlanta.com
				




that doesnt say its extremly effective form of self defence, it doesnt

it says is an extremly effective martial art, which as I'm sure you will agree is not what you said it said

do you have any that say that or are you going to modify your claim?


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> which  school' do this ?
> 
> this one,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martial Arts | Aikido Center of Atlanta | United States
> 
> 
> Oldest Aikido dojo in Atlanta, founded in 1967. Offering Online Classes for Children and Adults, as well as Advanced Classes for Adults Members. Charter Member of the United States Aikido Federation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aikidocenterofatlanta.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that doesnt say its extremly effective form of self defence, it doesnt
> 
> it says is an extremly effective martial art, which as I'm sure you will agree is not what you said it said
> 
> do you have any that say that or are you going to modify your claim?



So when they say that they’re effective against larger opponents and multiple attackers, they’re not saying they’re an effective form of self defense?


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> So when they say that they’re effective against larger opponents and multiple attackers, they’re not saying they’re an effective form of self defense?


they didnt say what you claim they said, that's clear, if you want to make another accurate statemen,  then we can discuss it.

I asked, " which school said that" and you indicated that one,  , there no where left to go with it now, you were just wrong


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> You mention juggling.  You used juggling as an analogy to highlight the differences between application and demonstrations.  I fleshed out your analogy, so that it addresses the difference between what one can do and what one can pretend to do.  As I said, I can juggle three balls pretty well... I don't drop them and can even do a few tricks.  But I can't juggle more than three items, and I certainly can't juggle chainsaws.  How do I know this?  Because I actually do it.
> 
> I presume when you juggle, you actually have some objects (guessing three balls or beanbags, but could be anything) and you literally throw them around in a continuous manner.  That's application.  You are, at that point, juggling.  You may be good at it.  You may not be good at it.  You may be REALLY good at.  How do you know how good you are at it?  Well, when you try to juggle, you get a lot of immediate feedback.
> 
> And the point is, some folks can't do what they purport to do in a demo, and some can.   I can juggle three balls.  From a demonstration, it's impossible for a lay person to distinguish between someone showing them functional expertise in its best light and someone showing them complete theater... a façade of functional expertise that is unrealistic.
> 
> I hope this explains it a little more clearly.


Actually, I didn't use juggling as an analogy for that. I compared it to the unbendable arm practice. I don't really have a direct application for juggling, either. Both, from a training perspective, are to train body abilities.

You're trying to use that to yank things over to a tired, worn-out attempt to argue something you've actually said twice you'd drop. But you can't. If I'm really lucky, you'll go back to the flying analogy, wherein you can only see your own view of the topic and nobody else's.

So, to bring it back to what I was talking about, I can do an unbendable arm technique. And I sometimes make that claim, so we're all good.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> they didnt say what you claim they said, that's clear, if you want to make another accurate statemen,  then we can discuss it.
> 
> I asked, " which school said that" and you indicated that one,  , there no where left to go with it now, you were just wrong



First off, there were two schools, not one, and I’m sure I could find more making similar claims.

Secondly, if you are advertising that your MA is effective against both larger attackers and multiple attackers, then yes you are saying that your MA is offering a highly effective form of self defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> First off, there were two schools, not one, and I’m sure I could find more making similar claims.
> 
> Secondly, if you are advertising that your MA is effective against both larger attackers and multiple attackers, then yes you are saying that your MA is offering a highly effective form of self defense.


I just realized we apparently no longer have an "agree" (or  "disagree") reaction.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> First off, there were two schools, not one, and I’m sure I could find more making similar claims.
> 
> Secondly, if you are advertising that your MA is effective against both larger attackers and multiple attackers, then yes you are saying that your MA is offering a highly effective form of self defense.


but they didnt say what you claimed, after that it's just your interpretation  of what you think they mean

why not wipe the skate clean and start again with an accurate quote and let's see if you can do better this time


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> I just realized we apparently no longer have an "agree" (or  "disagree") reaction.


agreed, still an agree reaction function


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> agreed, still an agree reaction function


And no "funny" button. Dangit.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Cynik75 said:


>


Seem like he's following that pattern nicely.  Not that he would care what I think, but it amazes me at how he doesn't put the responsibility on the practitioner.  Yes the teacher is responsible for teaching quality, but the student is responsible for exploring the martial art system on his or her own outside of the school.  It's like going to school and having homework (exploring the subject outside of the school).

He wouldn't be in that he's in now if he was doing this in the past.  All of the things he's is exploring should have been a part of his training a long time ago. 

He still fails to take ownership of his own training. Even as a teacher of Aikido, he uses the excuse.  "It's not the student's fault"


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> And no "funny" button. Dangit.


dCochranhas found the funny button, so it here some where


----------



## Dirty Dog

jobo said:


> dCochranhas found the funny button, so it here some where


Who?
Clicking LIKE brings up the various options.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> but they didnt say what you claimed, after that it's just your interpretation  of what you think they mean
> 
> why not wipe the skate clean and start again with an accurate quote and let's see if you can do better this time



Uh yes they did. Again, when you say your art is effective against opponents with superior numbers or size, you’re saying that you’re offering a highly effective form of self defense.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Not gonna read from the beginning, just gonna say that aikido has _always_ been a controversial martial art, and has been so long before MMA was a thing.  And aikidoka are constantly having to defend their art.

That said, I believe this guy.  Two things:

- He was a true believer in aikido
- He excels in the current arts that he practices

When you take those two things into consideration, saying that he's the problem and not aikido doesn't make sense.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Uh yes they did. Again, when you say your art is effective against opponents with superior numbers or size, you’re saying that you’re offering a highly effective form of self defense.


that's your interpretation, cant you tell the difference

and they didn't say it was ''effective against opponents with superior size,'' why don't you actually read it AGAIN,        assuming you read it in the first place which seems increasingly unlikely


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Seem like he's following that pattern nicely.  Not that he would care what I think, but it amazes me at how he doesn't put the responsibility on the practitioner.  Yes the teacher is responsible for teaching quality, but the student is responsible for exploring the martial art system on his or her own outside of the school.  It's like going to school and having homework (exploring the subject outside of the school).
> 
> He wouldn't be in that he's in now if he was doing this in the past.  All of the things he's is exploring should have been a part of his training a long time ago.
> 
> He still fails to take ownership of his own training. Even as a teacher of Aikido, he uses the excuse.  "It's not the student's fault"



Blaming the student is mostly a cop out. 

Especially if it is all the students


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> that's your interpretation, cant you tell the difference
> 
> and they didn't say it was ''effective against opponents with superior size,'



One of the schools specifically says that Aikido is effective against larger opponents. In other words, opponents of a superior size.



> why don't you actually read it AGAIN,        assuming you read it in the first place which seems increasingly unlikely



You should really take your own advice.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> One of the schools specifically says that Aikido is effective against larger opponents. In other words, opponents of a superior size.
> 
> 
> 
> You should really take your own advice.


it didnt, really it didnt, not in the one you refered me to, why not swallow your pride and read it again, then quote it exactly, you can even cut and paste for extra accuracy,


----------



## Shatteredzen

JowGaWolf said:


> Seem like he's following that pattern nicely.  Not that he would care what I think, but it amazes me at how he doesn't put the responsibility on the practitioner.  Yes the teacher is responsible for teaching quality, but the student is responsible for exploring the martial art system on his or her own outside of the school.  It's like going to school and having homework (exploring the subject outside of the school).
> 
> He wouldn't be in that he's in now if he was doing this in the past.  All of the things he's is exploring should have been a part of his training a long time ago.
> 
> He still fails to take ownership of his own training. Even as a teacher of Aikido, he uses the excuse.  "It's not the student's fault"



  He doesn't take personal responsibility for his part as an instructor but it really is not the students fault. If it is being taught to work, it should work, the student should be given a realistic expectation by the instructor as to how successfully they will be able to use their skills. Rokas in my opinion, hit the nail on the head, Aikido needs to update its training methods to the current paradigm. Also, the observation of who made the moves work goes a long way in my opinion to advocating that it be taught alongside or after other martial arts as well as being drilled with more modern and resistive methods. Ueshiba taught originally to black belts in Judo, it makes sense that they would have had the skills after years of teaching and competing in Judo to apply the Aikido techniques appropriately.

One of the core lessons and takeaways in Aikido is to apply force variably to the situation. BJJ teaches this to a degree but with more drastic consequences to the person resisting. If you don't understand striking for example, how are you supposed to understand the timing needed to block/counter/intercept or move away from the strike? If you don't have a good idea for how much force is necessary to apply the technique against someone who is resisting, how are you supposed to vary your response and force appropriately to the threat? If you don't understand any of those things, how do you teach techniques that are supposed to have so many dynamic variables? A simple fix is to just add the sparring and resistance the way BJJ does and let the chips fall where they may, of course, that's going to leave a lot of "masters" out in the cold but there are worse things. 

I'm very happy to see Rokas come around on this and as an Aikido instructor/student/advocate I am very happy to see him use his platform to clarify his position honestly. I felt the first videos he did were a combination of click bait and pandering to the crowd, its good to see him follow through honestly and be willing to alter his position or reconsider. I think videos in the nature of what he has done more recently, even the latest challenge, are good for the community and the systems in the long term. If people can see these kinds of public evaluations being done fairly and honestly, its easier to initiate change within the individual communities.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> it didnt, really it didnt, not in the one you refered me to, why not swallow your pride and read it again, then quote it exactly, you can even cut and paste for extra accuracy,



Yeah, go back and actually read post #799. *Both* schools mention that Aikido is effective against larger opponents. One even goes as far as to say you can do so with *minimal effort*.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Actually, I didn't use juggling as an analogy for that. I compared it to the unbendable arm practice. I don't really have a direct application for juggling, either. Both, from a training perspective, are to train body abilities.
> 
> You're trying to use that to yank things over to a tired, worn-out attempt to argue something you've actually said twice you'd drop. But you can't. If I'm really lucky, you'll go back to the flying analogy, wherein you can only see your own view of the topic and nobody else's.
> 
> So, to bring it back to what I was talking about, I can do an unbendable arm technique. And I sometimes make that claim, so we're all good.


So, we only get to talk about the unbendable arm thing?  That sounds pretty boring.  What else is on your approved list of things I'm allowed to say?

Edit. I just went back to what you said, and you were clearly talking about training the unbendable arm thing some kind of real skill and also a parlor trick.  This is exactly what I'm talking about.  What's your deal, man?


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Seem like he's following that pattern nicely.  Not that he would care what I think, but it amazes me at how he doesn't put the responsibility on the practitioner.  Yes the teacher is responsible for teaching quality, but the student is responsible for exploring the martial art system on his or her own outside of the school.  It's like going to school and having homework (exploring the subject outside of the school).
> 
> He wouldn't be in that he's in now if he was doing this in the past.  All of the things he's is exploring should have been a part of his training a long time ago.
> 
> He still fails to take ownership of his own training. Even as a teacher of Aikido, he uses the excuse.  "It's not the student's fault"


That whole tired argument is such a cop out.

If I bamboozle someone into believing they will be able to disable any attacker by booping them on the nose, and for some reason they can't seem to stop getting their butt kicked, it doesn't mean they need to practice harder to make it work.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shatteredzen said:


> If it is being taught to work, it should work,


This has not been the case with the kung fu that I learned.  For me I was told that "technique as is performed like this and is used in this way"  All Jow Ga students are taught this way.  From there it's a big leap of faith that the person who is teaching you is honest and has accurate knowledge.  From there you work that technique in drills.  In the case of Joint locks, the rule is simple.  IT MUST HURT YOUR PARTNER.  My partner is the one who validates that I'm doing the technique correctly.  It doesn't mean that I try to destroy his or wrist, it just means that the pain needs to be real.  That wrist lock that he showed the BJJ  person would never hurt anyone.  It's hard to lie about or fake real pain from a joint lock.  This is the most basic step in which he would have had feedback while drilling the technique. If it doesn't work then go back to the teacher and ask what you may be doing incorrectly.

In my case, with my big wheel punch.  I had a walk through of how the punches are supposed to work.  From that I tried to do those punches in sparring on my on without being instructed to.  All I had to go on was what my instructor told me.  I failed many times in sparring with these punches.  My belief is that I can only choose a limited number of times before I get it right.  Each failure helped me to better understand what works and what does.  That's how I learned kung fu. 

Martial arts teachers can be funny sometimes.  In other words. They rather not waste their time teaching you the real thing unless you are willing to put in the work.  If you aren't willing to seek out the knowledge and to make an effort to think and figure things out, then they will just teach you what they teach everyone else.  That's been my personal experience.   You have to do the work. 

It's not about "Doing everything the teacher says, It's about having a real passion for the system and a willingness to learn it even if there is no teacher around."  If you think about it. Roka did none of that.  He abandoned Aikido because he thought it was useless.  And the research that he's doing now on isn't because he wants to learn how to really use it.  It's because he wants someone to prove to him it works. 

The people he says know how to use is are also people who know other martial arts systems as well.  That's because they have a passion for it.  It's that passion that leads them to the answers they seek.

Now I understand that some teachers out there are truly frauds.  But we do not know if this is the case with the instructor that taught him.  We also do not know if this instructor taught other students who are able to be more successful with Aikido than Roka.  The only thing that we know for sure is that Roka didn't do his homework..

People who train Muay Thai train hard.  People who train boxing train hard, Can we say that about Roka? No we can't.  In his on words about his past, he speaks about how he did everything the teacher said.  We didn't hear anything about how hard he trained.  My son and I did leg work today. When we were done, we could barely walk down the stairs.  People who put in work like have lots of stories about how tough there training is.  The only training we heard about is from his MMA training.  He talks about how tough that training is.   All I'm saying is.  The student has to put in the work.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Blaming the student is mostly a cop out.
> 
> Especially if it is all the students


But we don't know if it's all the students.  We only know that it's Roka. We don't even know if it's his students. He may have lost students because they search, they trained hard, and when they went back to his class it became clear that he didn't have the knowledge that they gained from training.

You have a guy that Trained Aikido for more than 15 years. Drops Aikido, dumps on other martial arts systems and then after he gets his "videos of proof" makes a video that "He was wrong about Aikido"  And all of that is the teacher's fault?

What makes it sad is that some of the videos that he was referring to were videos that have been around for years.  And he still didn't search for the answers.  He challenged others' to prove that their system works which is not the same thing as searching for the answers.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> If I bamboozle someone into believing they will be able to disable any attacker by booping them on the nose, and for some reason they can't seem to stop getting their butt kicked, it doesn't mean they need to practice harder to make it work.


But that's not what happened was it?  How many times did Roka Spar?  If my memory is correct Roka said that he didn't spar.  So your argument about them getting hit on the nose and getting there butt kicked isn't something that happened.  They didn't put in the work to spar.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> But we don't know if it's all the students.  We only know that it's Roka. We don't even know if it's his students. He may have lost students because they search, they trained hard, and when they went back to his class it became clear that he didn't have the knowledge that they gained from training.
> 
> You have a guy that Trained Aikido for more than 15 years. Drops Aikido, dumps on other martial arts systems and then after he gets his "videos of proof" makes a video that "He was wrong about Aikido"  And all of that is the teacher's fault?
> 
> What makes it sad is that some of the videos that he was referring to were videos that have been around for years.  And he still didn't search for the answers.  He challenged others' to prove that their system works which is not the same thing as searching for the answers.


Yeah but we can tell by looking at the other students. 

So for example I think Rokus trained MMA at strike force gym. 

Now say he trained there and wasn't very good. We could look at the gym and see if other people got good and then actually make an assessment if it was the school or the guy.


So all we do is look at the good students who came out of his Aikido system.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Yeah but we can tell by looking at the other students.
> 
> So for example I think Rokus trained MMA at strike force gym.
> 
> Now say he trained there and wasn't very good. We could look at the gym and see if other people got good and then actually make an assessment if it was the school or the guy.
> 
> 
> So all we do is look at the good students who came out of his Aikido system.


Ok lets use your example

What school did Roka train Aiko in?
Was he one of the students that could apply Aikido or did he just only know book knowledge of Aikido?
What was the focus of training in his school? Peaceful zen mind or application?
Did his school say that they taught self-defense and fighting?  It makes a difference.  If I Tai Chi for health only then I shouldn't assume that I can fight light those who train Tai Chi as a fighting system.  One group puts in the work to fight the other doesn't

We can't see how other students that trained with him as a student turned out.  He doesn't talk about them and how they train. He also doesn't state that his teacher mislead him.

Do you remember the guy who trained a martial art. He quickly got his black belt in it, the teacher left.  The student then started teaching martial arts.  He said that his teacher didn't train punches in under his old system.  This guy still made the effort to learn and train punches so that punches would be a part of his training.  Was that the teacher or the student who was responsible for him to learn punching?

In terms of Roka.  We do not know enough about his old school and how he trained as a student in comparison to the other students, to make an assumption that it was his teacher's fault.   Especially when Roka doesn't blame his teacher.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Did his school say that they taught self-defense and fighting?  It makes a difference.  If I Tai Chi for health only then I shouldn't assume that I can fight light those who train Tai Chi as a fighting system.  One group puts in the work to fight the other doesn't



I have yet to see an Aikido school that doesn't promote itself as a place that teaches self defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> Who?
> Clicking LIKE brings up the various options.


So it does (actually, hovering). I was clicking too quickly for the menu to pop up. Unfortunately, still no agree/disagree, but at least we still have funny.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Urban Trekker said:


> Not gonna read from the beginning, just gonna say that aikido has _always_ been a controversial martial art, and has been so long before MMA was a thing.  And aikidoka are constantly having to defend their art.
> 
> That said, I believe this guy.  Two things:
> 
> - He was a true believer in aikido
> - He excels in the current arts that he practices
> 
> When you take those two things into consideration, saying that he's the problem and not aikido doesn't make sense.


I think the point some are making is that he has taken a different approach to his current style. I'd assert that's because the current style favors that - it teaches the students how to pressure test, and why it's important. Yes, doing that testing is the student's responsibility, but instructors should be teaching these concepts and the methods for testing. Otherwise, we're asking students to rediscover and reinvent at every generation. That's not how you build an art, it's how you let it degrade.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Blaming the student is mostly a cop out.
> 
> Especially if it is all the students


Training culture shapes students who are new to MA. I don't think it's fair to blame students for doing what they are taught. Now if someone who knows better doesn't bother to pressure test, that's their choice.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> So, we only get to talk about the unbendable arm thing?  That sounds pretty boring.  What else is on your approved list of things I'm allowed to say?
> 
> Edit. I just went back to what you said, and you were clearly talking about training the unbendable arm thing some kind of real skill and also a parlor trick.  This is exactly what I'm talking about.  What's your deal, man?


You're free to talk about whatever you like. But don't try to play it like you didn't use an unrelated post to jump to your pet topic to poke.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I have yet to see an Aikido school that doesn't promote itself as a place that teaches self defense.


I have seen a few that really were focused on the peacefulness (and advertised as such), though I suspect it's a rarity within the mainline. Offshoots like Tohei's probably don't, since their focus is on ki.

I think the issue is that most students, when they go to open a school, mostly copy the marketing approach of their instructor and add their personal touch. They don't think really hard about what they are promising.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I have seen a few that really were focused on the peacefulness (and advertised as such), though I suspect it's a rarity within the mainline. Offshoots like Tohei's probably don't, since their focus is on ki.
> 
> I think the issue is that most students, when they go to open a school, mostly copy the marketing approach of their instructor and add their personal touch. They don't think really hard about what they are promising.



Probably has to do with Aikikai being the largest Aikido organization in the world, thus having the majority of affiliated schools around the world.


----------



## jobo

jobo said:


> it didnt, really it didnt, not in the one you refered me to, why not swallow your pride and read it again, then quote it exactly, you can even cut and paste for extra accuracy,





drop bear said:


> Yeah but we can tell by looking at the other students.
> 
> So for example I think Rokus trained MMA at strike force gym.
> 
> Now say he trained there and wasn't very good. We could look at the gym and see if other people got good and then actually make an assessment if it was the school or the guy.
> 
> 
> So all we do is look at the good students who came out of his Aikido system.


that is very true, but that's also what you tend to do with mma exponents

if you pick someone above averagely good then circa 70% of mma students will be worse, the capabilities of the more able cant be used to judge the capabilities of the less able, beyond looking at a distribution curve, which it seems you steadfastly fail to do


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> You're free to talk about whatever you like. But don't try to play it like you didn't use an unrelated post to jump to your pet topic to poke.


Maybe take your own advice, dude.  You do a lot of complaining about stuff like this.  If I had to guess, at least half of your posts are whining about being misunderstood or accusing someone of something, not posting on topic.

You talked about skill and you talked about parlor tricks, and I was really just pointing out that your analogy wasn't quite complete, because in many cases, the parlor trick IS the skill.  And to a lay person, it's impossible to tell the difference between a parlor trick that is grounded in functional skill and a parlor trick that is not.  And I'd wager that if that point touches a nerve with some folks, they may know on some level which one of those categories they would fit into.  Because, the topic of applied skill sure does seem to bother you.  Whenever I or anyone else talks about it, you get mean.


----------



## Hanzou

I found this video interesting. It's related to Rokas' exploits and sort of highlights the general view of Aikido I've been seeing among the MMA, Bjj, Self Defense crowd;


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> But that's not what happened was it?  How many times did Roka Spar?  If my memory is correct Roka said that he didn't spar.  So your argument about them getting hit on the nose and getting there butt kicked isn't something that happened.  They didn't put in the work to spar.


Well, couple things. Few things really 

First, you missed the point; if you haven't been equipped to deal with something, which he hadn't, you can't be blamed for not making it work. If I give you a nail and no hammer, blaming you for not getting the nail driven down is a cop out. The system he learned has, as even our resident aikido guy has admitted, no answer for striking or grappling.

Second, he was trained that cooperative randori is all you need, and that his techniques were too dangerous to spar with. Again, until you are at a mental place to call bs, you are blaming him for being fooled.

Third, he did spar. And spar. And spar. And seeked out real skilled opponents, because unlike some, for him playfighting at low intensity and half speed wasn't enough. He just didn't have any tools to use.

And lastly, if the same is true with someone that has learned boxing kickboxing or BJJ fundamentals, when they face off against someone. Even for the first time, they have tools to use. They have been taught proper position, striking, submissions, etc. It's just a matter of refinement. Rojas had no such advantage.

He knew how to nose Boop, but it was useless. It wasn't him, it's that he wasn't taught anything useful


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Maybe take your own advice, dude.  You do a lot of complaining about stuff like this.  If I had to guess, at least half of your posts are whining about being misunderstood or accusing someone of something, not posting on topic.
> 
> You talked about skill and you talked about parlor tricks, and I was really just pointing out that your analogy wasn't quite complete, because in many cases, the parlor trick IS the skill.  And to a lay person, it's impossible to tell the difference between a parlor trick that is grounded in functional skill and a parlor trick that is not.  And I'd wager that if that point touches a nerve with some folks, they may know on some level which one of those categories they would fit into.  Because, the topic of applied skill sure does seem to bother you.  Whenever I or anyone else talks about it, you get mean.


Again, it wasn't an analogy. Not sure what's so hard about that. I was talking about two training methods I've used, both of which are pretty indirect.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Again, it wasn't an analogy. Not sure what's so hard about that. I was talking about two training methods I've used, both of which are pretty indirect.


Jesus, man.  Just let it go.  If you don't want to reply, just don't.  Stop making this about yourself.  I was commenting on an analogy you used, not on your training or anything about you personally.  If you don't agree with my analogy, fine.  I'm perfectly okay with that.  But what you're doing is just sad.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> that is very true, but that's also what you tend to do with mma exponents
> 
> if you pick someone above averagely good then circa 70% of mma students will be worse, the capabilities of the more able cant be used to judge the capabilities of the less able, beyond looking at a distribution curve, which it seems you steadfastly fail to do



No.

Especially in the context of these programs rokus did. Which take averagely average people. And make them good. 

Not UFC good but a lot better than a 10 year Aikido black belt good.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Jesus, man.  Just let it go.  If you don't want to reply, just don't.  Stop making this about yourself.  I was commenting on an analogy you used, not on your training or anything about you personally.  If you don't agree with my analogy, fine.  I'm perfectly okay with that.  But what you're doing is just sad.


Ah, so someone clarifying that you are wrong in something you say should just hush. But you can comment on something making incorrect statements, and that's cool.

Gotcha.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Ah, so someone clarifying that you are wrong in something you say should just hush. But you can comment on something making incorrect statements, and that's cool.
> 
> Gotcha.


they cant possibly be average, as only a small % of the population do it, so really really not average at all

do you know what average means


drop bear said:


> No.
> 
> Especially in the context of these programs rokus did. Which take averagely average people. And make them good.
> 
> Not UFC good but a lot better than a 10 year Aikido black belt good.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Being "right" is not worth all the headache that I see people putting themselves through to that end.  Sometimes to you gotta pretend that the other guy is your wife, and respond with an equivalent to "yes, dear."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> they cant possibly be average, as only a small % of the population do it, so really really not average at all
> 
> do you know what average means


On average, most folks are kinda average.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> On average, most folks are kinda average.





gpseymour said:


> On average, most folks are kinda average.


on average no, try finding even one average person, there like gold dust and the marketing companies want them badly


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> . If I give you a nail and no hammer,


If I give you a nail and no hammer and told you I would pay you a million dollars to nail it in a board, I bet you'll try hard and work it out.  You'll get that nail in the board without a hammer.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> Second, he was trained that cooperative randori is all you need, and that his techniques were too dangerous to spar with


I don't remember him sayng that his techniques were too dangerous to sparring with. If he didn't say that then you are making an excuse for him on something that he never claimed.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't remember him sayng that his techniques were too dangerous to sparring with. If he didn't say that then you are making an excuse for him on something that he never claimed.


Well, it's clear you are either ignoring or don't understand the point I am making here.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> Third, he did spar. And spar. And spar. And seeked out real skilled opponents, because unlike some, for him playfighting at low intensity and half speed wasn't enough.


I been in real street fights before so I'm satisfied with that experience.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> they cant possibly be average, as only a small % of the population do it, so really really not average at all
> 
> do you know what average means


Most of the population can do it. It is an average sample.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Most of the population can do it. It is an average sample.


there are two statement there and you can prove neither of them


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> there are two statement there and you can prove neither of them


About as readily as you can prove your statements


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Ah, so someone clarifying that you are wrong in something you say should just hush. But you can comment on something making incorrect statements, and that's cool.
> 
> Gotcha.


Good lord.


JowGaWolf said:


> If I give you a nail and no hammer and told you I would pay you a million dollars to nail it in a board, I bet you'll try hard and work it out.  You'll get that nail in the board without a hammer.


One could argue that you would invent a hammer.  Because a tool that drives a nail is, by definition, a hammer.   May not be a sophisticated hammer, but is identified by its function, not its form. 

There is also the possibility that you cannot drive that nail, and that the more experience you have driving nails with a commercial hammer, the more likely it is that you will succeed in improvising a tool.


----------



## Martial D

Steve said:


> Good lord.
> 
> One could argue that you would invent a hammer.  Because a tool that drives a nail is, by definition, a hammer.   May not be a sophisticated hammer, but is identified by its function, not its form.
> 
> There is also the possibility that you cannot drive that nail, and that the more experience you have driving nails with a commercial hammer, the more likely it is that you will succeed in improvising a tool.


Yet, this argument boils down to those that would just..get a hammer, and those that insist owning one is a waste of time because they heard that long ago there was a master carpenter that could drive in those nails with a stapler..so a stapler us all they need, and with enough practice with that stapler it's just as good if not better. The fact that nobody has seen it done or can do it today is irrelevant...


----------



## Steve

Martial D said:


> Yet, this argument boils down to those that would just..get a hammer, and those that insist owning one is a waste of time because they heard that long ago there was a master carpenter that could drive in those nails with a stapler..so a stapler us all they need, and with enough practice with that stapler it's just as good if not better. The fact that nobody has seen it done or can do it today is irrelevant...


Ha. Or someone who taught everyone to use plastic hammers on a fisher price toy.   Imagining someone trying to use a plastic toy to drive a real nail recalling all of those discussions online where he insisted his plastic hammer was a real hammer.  

at risk of beating this analogy to death, if you give a person a real hammer and a nail and tell them to make it happen and they could probably figure it out.  Might not take long.  

But would they be successful their first try?  What if you said, "Drive it without bending it, and if you don't I'm going to beat you with this baseball bat?" Or what if the cost of failure was death? Because, I mean, if we are talking about fighting, the stakes for failure could be pretty high.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Good lord.
> 
> One could argue that you would invent a hammer.  Because a tool that drives a nail is, by definition, a hammer.   May not be a sophisticated hammer, but is identified by its function, not its form.
> 
> There is also the possibility that you cannot drive that nail, and that the more experience you have driving nails with a commercial hammer, the more likely it is that you will succeed in improvising a tool.


Either way, no matter what you use, you are the one who has to do it.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> About as readily as you can prove your statements


so you cant prove them then, at least we agree


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Good lord.
> 
> One could argue that you would invent a hammer.  Because a tool that drives a nail is, by definition, a hammer.   May not be a sophisticated hammer, but is identified by its function, not its form.
> 
> There is also the possibility that you cannot drive that nail, and that the more experience you have driving nails with a commercial hammer, the more likely it is that you will succeed in improvising a tool.


no, the act of knocking it in is a hammer,  you are still however using your shoe to hammer


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Either way, no matter what you use, you are the one who has to do it.


I don't think anyone is arguing it doesn't take hard work and dedication to build real skills. 

Yet we are built a certain way, move a certain way, and all deal with the same physics;so there will be optimal ways to spend your energy that will give you optimal results, right on down to ways that are so unoptimal no amount of effort will lead to these desired results. This is why good technique looks like good technique. There really is a best way to do everything.

There is no Canadian geometry.


----------



## Hanzou

So after over 1000 replies, is it fair to call Aikido a martial art for self defense, or should we consider it more of a spiritual, internal exercise like Yoga or Tai Chi?

I’m leaning towards the latter. I feel that Aikido is too divorced from practicality to be considered a self defense method.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> So after over 1000 replies, is it fair to call Aikido a martial art for self defense, or should we consider it more of a spiritual, internal exercise like Yoga or Tai Chi?
> 
> I’m leaning towards the latter. I feel that Aikido is too divorced from practicality to be considered a self defense method.


well that would depend almost exclusively on who your defending against and their attributes as compared to yours,

its impossible,  no matter how determined you are, and you do seem very determined to consider the effectivness of a ma in a bubble devoid of real world circumstance,


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> well that would depend almost exclusively on who your defending against and their attributes as compared to yours,
> 
> its impossible,  no matter how determined you are, and you do seem very determined to consider the effectivness of a ma in a bubble devoid of real world circumstance,



It's not impossible at all. We see multiple examples of effectiveness in other arts. However, no concrete example of Aikido's effectiveness exists unless it's someone who is far larger and more powerful than their opponent forcing the techniques to work.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> It's not impossible at all. We see multiple examples of effectiveness in other arts. However, no concrete example of Aikido's effectiveness exists unless it's someone who is far larger and more powerful than their opponent forcing the techniques to work.


well exactly, so real world consideration make a,significant difference as to how well it works or not, that's my exact point

all techniques work far better if your in better condition than your attacker,  that just the athletic nature of fighting,

pretending that technques exist in a bubble with out such external influences is what you are doing

if someone asked me, and they have, how to increase their self defence capabilities as quickly as possible,  I'd refere them to a,strengh building program, followed by a cardio programme,  then nearly anything will work against unfit people, who seem to make up a significant % of the population


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> well exactly, so real world consideration make a,significant difference as to how well it works or not, that's my exact point
> 
> all techniques work far better if your in better condition than your attacker,  that just the athletic nature of fighting,
> 
> pretending that technques exist in a bubble with out such external influences is what you are doing
> 
> if someone asked me, and they have, how to increase their self defence capabilities as quickly as possible,  I'd refere them to a,strengh building program, followed by a cardio programme,  then nearly anything will work against unfit people, who seem to make up a significant % of the population



Except other martial arts have demonstrated that if the methodology or technique is sound, a smaller, weaker opponent can beat a larger, stronger opponent. Aikdio advertises this, but has yet to demonstrate this capability.

Further, if you're significantly larger and stronger than the person you're fighting, you can make anything work. If I'm fighting a little kid, I don't need technique to throw them around a room or knock them out. However, if you're a woman who is being attacked by your drunk ex-boyfriend who outweighs you by 40-50 lbs, you're going to need a good methodology and high technique to overcome his weight and strength advantage. This is why people take martial arts for self defense.

People don't take martial arts to beat up little kids, they typically take martial arts for self defense because they are weaker and smaller and want to protect themselves against possible assailants who are bigger and stronger. I think that's the main issue here; If you advertise that your martial art can help you fight off larger and stronger opponents, it should do that. Not living up to that self imposed standard can get someone killed.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Except other martial arts have demonstrated that if the methodology or technique is sound, a smaller, weaker opponent can beat a larger, stronger opponent. Aikdio advertises this, but has yet to demonstrate this capability.
> 
> Further, if you're significantly larger and stronger than the person you're fighting, you can make anything work. If I'm fighting a little kid, I don't need technique to throw them around a room or knock them out. However, if you're a woman who is being attacked by your drunk ex-boyfriend who outweighs you by 40-50 lbs, you're going to need a good methodology and high technique to overcome his weight and strength advantage. This is why people take martial arts for self defense.
> 
> People don't take martial arts to beat up little kids, they typically take martial arts for self defense because they are weaker and smaller and want to protect themselves against possible assailants who are bigger and stronger. I think that's the main issue here; If you advertise that your martial art can help you fight off larger and stronger opponents, it should do that. Not living up to that self imposed standard can get someone killed.


well no they havent demonstrated this at all,
a few isolated you tube vids were we have no idea of the relative physical conditioning doesnt demonstraight anything.

you keep focusing on bigger, that not a factor in conditioning,  though you can usually see it with your eyes, it can be just as much a disadvantage as an advantage, depending on if you mean taller or heavier or fatter,  it means nothing unless you clearly define it

for instance why are you assuming that someone who is 50lbs heavier is also strongerthat's likely to be so if that 50lbs is made up of muscle,  not at all if it's made up of beer belly


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> well no they havent demonstrated this at all,
> a few isolated you tube vids were we have no idea of the relative physical conditioning doesnt demonstraight anything.
> 
> you keep focusing on bigger, that not a factor in conditioning,  though you can usually see it with your eyes, it can be just as much a disadvantage as an advantage, depending on if you mean taller or heavier or fatter,  it means nothing unless you clearly define it
> 
> for instance why are you assuming that someone who is 50lbs heavier is also strongerthat's likely to be so if that 50lbs is made up of muscle,  not at all if it's made up of beer belly



Uh, yes they have. In competition, in demonstration, and in documented street fights. Perhaps the best examples being Royce Gracie versus Dan Severn when the latter outweighed the former by about 60 lbs, or Antonio Nogueria vs Bob Sapp when the latter outweighed the former by over 100 lbs.

And whether someone is conditioned or not, size and weight is *always* a factor. You can be fit as hell and get knocked out or crushed by a 300-lb fat man because their weight is simply too much to overcome. That's simply the basics of fighting. I see no reason why I need to clearly define it. It's exactly why we have weight classes in combat sports, because size and weight can tilt a fight in someone's favor. The same applies to self defense situations. Frankly, if you're 6'2 and 200 lbs, you probably don't have to worry about someone attacking you. If you're 5'2 and 100 lbs, that paradigm changes dramatically.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Uh, yes they have. In competition, in demonstration, and in documented street fights. Perhaps the best examples being Royce Gracie versus Dan Severn when the latter outweighed the former by about 60 lbs, or Antonio Nogueria vs Bob Sapp when the latter outweighed the former by over 100 lbs.
> 
> And whether someone is conditioned or not, size and weight is *always* a factor. You can be fit as hell and get knocked out or crushed by a 300-lb fat man because their weight is simply too much to overcome. That's simply the basics of fighting. I see no reason why I need to clearly define it. It's exactly why we have weight classes in combat sports, because size and weight can tilt a fight in someone's favor. The same applies to self defense situations. Frankly, if you're 6'2 and 200 lbs, you probably don't have to worry about someone attacking you. If you're 5'2 and 100 lbs, that paradigm changes dramatically.


documented street fight that also document the physical conditioning of the peole involved????? how many of those are there


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> documented street fight that also document the physical conditioning of the peole involved????? how many of those are there



Street fight where there is a clear size and weight difference, yes.

I mean, unless someone is having a coronary during the exchange, conditioning means little. Conditioning only really matters if we're talking about extended fights, which tends to happen more in competition than in street brawls.

What tends to happen in street fighting is people square off, they clinch, and they wrestle around. In those phases someone can get knocked out when they square off. The can get slammed to the pavement when they clinch. They can get taken down and grounded and pounded when they wrestle around, and everything in between. Those tend to be the phases of documented street fights, and they tend to be relatively quick affairs.

The relevant point here is that we never see a small Aikidoka tossing around a larger assailant. We don't see it in competition. We don't see it in exhibitions. We don't see it in street fights.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Street fight where there is a clear size and weight difference, yes.
> 
> I mean, unless someone is having a coronary during the exchange, conditioning means little. Conditioning only really matters if we're talking about extended fights, which tends to happen more in competition than in street brawls.
> 
> What tends to happen in street fighting is people square off, they clinch, and they wrestle around. In those phases someone can get knocked out when they square off. The can get slammed to the pavement when they clinch. They can get taken down and grounded and pounded when they wrestle around, and everything in between. Those tend to be the phases of documented street fights, and they tend to be relatively quick affairs.
> 
> The relevant point here is that we never see a small Aikidoka tossing around a larger assailant. We don't see it in competition. We don't see it in exhibitions. We don't see it in street fights.


but cleared size and weight are no advantage if you dont have either the strengh or the cardio to move that weight

your building a ficticious argument,  , that trained boxers have  a weight advantage is because they are fit enough to carry that weight, that is not normally the case with normal fat people, particularly cardio,  it's very difficult to have good cardio and still be very fat, there is no correlation at all between body size and strengh, unless strengh is trained

so again, how have you establish the relative physical conditioning on these documented street fight, you havent as it impossible, therefore it's not at all evidence against my point or in favour of yours


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> but cleared size and weight are no advantage if you dont have either the strengh or the cardio to move that weight
> 
> your building a ficticious argument,  , that trained boxers have  a weight advantage is because they are fit enough to carry that weight, that is not normally the case with normal fat people, particularly cardio,  it's very difficult to have good cardio and still be very fat, there is no correlation at all between body size and strengh, unless strengh is trained
> 
> so again, how have you establish the relative physical conditioning on these documented street fight, you havent as it impossible, therefore it's not at all evidence against my point or in favour of yours



In all seriousness, in what scenario do you see someone attacking you with a 50lb+ advantage and not having a strength advantage?

Boxing has weight divisions. Why?

You keep bringing up morbidly obese people on the verge of having a heart attack. Do you honestly think a morbidly obese person with heart problems is going to attack you (I would still argue that anyone with a significant weight advantage over you is a dangerous assailant, regardless of their health and physical condition)?

Again, street encounters TEND to not last long enough for cardio to be a major factor.

This is simply deflection from the relevant point  that we never see a small Aikidoka tossing around a larger assailant. We don't see it in competition. We don't see it in exhibitions. We don't see it in street fights.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> In all seriousness, in what scenario do you see someone attacking you with a 50lb+ advantage and not having a strength advantage?
> 
> Boxing has weight divisions. Why?
> 
> You keep bringing up morbidly obese people on the verge of having a heart attack. Do you honestly think a morbidly obese person with heart problems is going to attack you (I would still argue that anyone with a significant weight advantage over you is a dangerous assailant, regardless of their health and physical condition)?
> 
> Again, street encounters TEND to not last long enough for cardio to be a major factor.
> 
> This is simply deflection from the relevant point  that we never see a small Aikidoka tossing around a larger assailant. We don't see it in competition. We don't see it in exhibitions. We don't see it in street fights.


inj just about any scenario of them not being able to bench three hundred pounds, if they only weigh 250 lbs pick them up and throw them

no fight are generally short because cardo is a major problem
it was you who started on about three hundred pound people, that is morbidly obese unless they are 7 foot tall and then its just obese


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> inj just about any scenario of them not being able to bench three hundred pounds, if they only weigh 250 lbs pick them up and throw them
> 
> no fight are generally short because cardo is a major problem
> it was you who started on about three hundred pound people, that is morbidly obese unless they are 7 foot tall and then its just obese



No I started on Aikido showing no evidence of being able to overcome a larger, stronger opponent. I have no idea what your point has been in any of this.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> No I started on Aikido showing no evidence of being able to overcome a larger, stronger opponent. I have no idea what your point has been in any of this.


my point is and was you cant as you insis on separating technque and conditioning

there no evidence of mma beating a stronger opponent in a street fight, as there is no evidence of how strong either of them was


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> but cleared size and weight are no advantage if you dont have either the strengh or the cardio to move that weight
> 
> your building a ficticious argument,  , that trained boxers have  a weight advantage is because they are fit enough to carry that weight, that is not normally the case with normal fat people, particularly cardio,  it's very difficult to have good cardio and still be very fat, there is no correlation at all between body size and strengh, unless strengh is trained
> 
> so again, how have you establish the relative physical conditioning on these documented street fight, you havent as it impossible, therefore it's not at all evidence against my point or in favour of yours



Then how do you say bigger better conditioned people win fights?


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Then how do you say bigger better conditioned people win fights?


I dont thing I said bigger? in fact ive spent a few posts explaining why bigger may not be better

but if the bigger person is also better conditioned things are generally in his favour


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> I dont thing I said bigger? in fact ive spent a few posts explaining why bigger may not be better
> 
> but if the bigger person is also better conditioned things are generally in his favour


In your opinion. 

Pretty much everything that will prove better conditioned. Will also prove better trained. 

You routinely beat guys with your conditioning. I routinely beat guys with my better skills. 

Both are probably the case. But then I am not cherry picking and moving goal posts around.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> In your opinion.
> 
> Pretty much everything that will prove better conditioned. Will also prove better trained.
> 
> You routinely beat guys with your conditioning. I routinely beat guys with my better skills.
> 
> Both are probably the case. But then I am not cherry picking and moving goal posts around.


yes in my opinion,  that more or less all we have to trade on here

the goal is still where I found it, the goal keeper seem to have gone missing


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> yes in my opinion,  that more or less all we have to trade on here
> 
> the goal is still where I found it, the goal keeper seem to have gone missing



Not really. I would accept less evidence. So enough videos of smaller trained guys beating bigger untrained guys. And the open mat dynamic. Where bigger untrained guys can at any time test against smaller untrained guys. And where experienced guys do seem to beat inexperienced guys regularly enough.

Or where sports fights where you constantly see conditioning play out in real time. Or again open mats where you routinely against strong guys. Or the open division in BJJ where there is no weight class.

Are all pretty good experiments to at least get a ball park.

Rather than everything being magic and opinions. So therefore I am always right because I want to be.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Not really. I would accept less evidence. So enough videos of smaller trained guys beating bigger untrained guys. And the open mat dynamic. Where bigger untrained guys can at any time test against smaller untrained guys. And where experienced guys do seem to beat inexperienced guys regularly enough.
> 
> Or where sports fights where you constantly see conditioning play out in real time. Or again open mats where you routinely against strong guys. Or the open division in BJJ where there is no weight class.
> 
> Are all pretty good experiments to at least get a ball park.
> 
> Rather than everything being magic and opinions. So therefore I am always right because I want to be.


you seem to think people need to provided evidence to you and precisely the evidence you demand  ,that's really not the case

particularly as you never provided the evidence that other people request of you


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> my point is and was you cant as you insis on separating technque and conditioning



Uh, I never did that. I said that size is always a factor, and size/strength/weight advantages can reduce the need for good technique.



jobo said:


> there no evidence of mma beating a stronger opponent in a street fight, as there is no evidence of how strong either of them was



There's plenty all over the place.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Uh, I never did that. I said that size is always a factor, and size/strength/weight advantages can reduce the need for good technique.
> 
> 
> 
> There's plenty all over the place.


no there isnt, there no point asking you to provided it or youl just pretend to be confused by the question again


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> no there isnt, there no point asking you to provided it or youl just pretend to be confused by the question again



Again, yes there is. However I’m not going to post up various videos and you just sit back and say one person isn’t bigger/ stronger than the other.

Which is why I said the best examples are from the competitive realm, because the weight, height, and general size are readily available.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> you seem to think people need to provided evidence to you and precisely the evidence you demand  ,that's really not the case
> 
> particularly as you never provided the evidence that other people request of you



Not really.


----------



## drop bear

Anyway some live wristlocks from Paul cale. 

Pin the elbow and body weight. 



			https://m.facebook.com/paulcaleofficial/
		


Sorry you have to scroll down. I couldn't isolate the post.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Again, yes there is. However I’m not going to post up various videos and you just sit back and say one person isn’t bigger/ stronger than the other.
> 
> Which is why I said the best examples are from the competitive realm, because the weight, height, and general size are readily available.


it's a good job I didnt request it then, as not only are you not providing it, you pretending to be confused about the difference between weight and strengh

at least I hope for your sake your pretending


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> it's a good job I didnt request it then, as not only are you not providing it, you pretending to be confused about the difference between weight and strengh
> 
> at least I hope for your sake your pretending



Says the guy who is pretending not to know what “bigger, larger and stronger” means....


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Says the guy who is pretending not to know what “bigger, larger and stronger” means....


I dont think I am, it's just I'm making a distinction between them, which you are not, though I'm not at all sure why your using both bigger and larger as they are exactly the same thing, unless you clarify them in some way

bigger/larger is fairly easy to identify by eye, stronger which isnt at all dependent on either is not, with out some objective measurement and even then the nature of the measurement can change that considerably, if you try comparing reps at press ups, with one rep max bench press, for instance are both reasonable measures of strengh

so in short your introducing an assumption that isnt being measured and not specifying how you would measure it if it was to be measured

in such a situation anything you say is effectivly meaningless


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Because a tool that drives a nail is, by definition, a hammer. May not be a sophisticated hammer, but is identified by its function, not its form.


This seems at odds with your contention elsewhere that a knife can't be a knife unless it's tempered...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> So after over 1000 replies, is it fair to call Aikido a martial art for self defense, or should we consider it more of a spiritual, internal exercise like Yoga or Tai Chi?
> 
> I’m leaning towards the latter. I feel that Aikido is too divorced from practicality to be considered a self defense method.


I'd argue it depends how it's trained. Most places I've seen, I'd be inclined to agree it's better aligned for the latter. Some it seems to dance the border between the two (and folks seemed to like it that way). I haven't personally been to any that seemed to really focus on fighting skills with some resistive training to work with, but some of the videos folks have shared suggest there are a few places that do really approach it that way.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Street fight where there is a clear size and weight difference, yes.
> 
> I mean, unless someone is having a coronary during the exchange, conditioning means little. Conditioning only really matters if we're talking about extended fights, which tends to happen more in competition than in street brawls.
> 
> What tends to happen in street fighting is people square off, they clinch, and they wrestle around. In those phases someone can get knocked out when they square off. The can get slammed to the pavement when they clinch. They can get taken down and grounded and pounded when they wrestle around, and everything in between. Those tend to be the phases of documented street fights, and they tend to be relatively quick affairs.
> 
> The relevant point here is that we never see a small Aikidoka tossing around a larger assailant. We don't see it in competition. We don't see it in exhibitions. We don't see it in street fights.


I'd only amend one part - I've seen it in exhibitions, fairly regularly. Aikido schools like to show off their smaller (and often female) practitioner tossing about the big guys. It looks quite cool. But like any demo, the question is whether that would happen with resistance.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> This seems at odds with your contention elsewhere that a knife can't be a knife unless it's tempered...


A knife can't function  as a knife unless it can keep an edge.  And it's analogy.  They aren't perfect.

The key difference being that in the former analogy, you are suggesting a knife like object is a knife because it looks like a knife.  I'm  saying it's not a knife (or a hammer) unless it functions as a knife (or a hammer).  And that if it does function, it doesn't matter what it looks like. 

It's consistent.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> A knife can't function  as a knife unless it can keep an edge.  And it's analogy.  They aren't perfect.



There are work hardened metals that could be turned into a blade without tempering. Either when they're forged or when they're ground. Unless you consider the heat of grinding tempering.
So agreed; analogies are not perfect.
However, untempered steel can still be worked into a knife. It won't be as GOOD, but it will certainly work. I've been bitten by many a blade prior to heat treating.
So maybe this analogy is less perfect than average.


----------



## Steve

Steve said:


> A knife can't function  as a knife unless it can keep an edge.  And it's analogy.  They aren't perfect.





Dirty Dog said:


> There are work hardened metals that could be turned into a blade without tempering. Either when they're forged or when they're ground. Unless you consider the heat of grinding tempering.
> So agreed; analogies are not perfect.
> However, untempered steel can still be worked into a knife. It won't be as GOOD, but it will certainly work. I've been bitten by many a blade prior to heat treating.
> So maybe this analogy is less perfect than average.


If you focus too much on nitpicking the analogy, and not enough on trying to understand the actual point, sure.   The point being that aikido and other styles that train in a similar manner are martial-like.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> If you focus too much on nitpicking the analogy, and not enough on trying to understand the actual point, sure.   The point being that aikido and other styles that train in a similar manner are martial-like.


''martial like'' doesn't stand up to much rigor as the term martial art is very ill-defined and effectively meaningless as applied in this context, qualifying a term with no agreed definition by use of '' like'' only makes it more meaningless


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I'd only amend one part - I've seen it in exhibitions, fairly regularly. Aikido schools like to show off their smaller (and often female) practitioner tossing about the big guys. It looks quite cool. But like any demo, the question is whether that would happen with resistance.



Yeah, the exhibitionions I’m talking about are full on contact demonstrations. An example would be the Gracie in action demonstrations. Not quite competitions, not quite street fighting.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> ''martial like'' doesn't stand up to much rigor as the term martial art is very ill-defined and effectively meaningless as applied in this context, qualifying a term with no agreed definition by use of '' like'' only makes it more meaningless



And all of this is the reason we have the problems with martial arts that we have. 

A martial art isn't validated by its terminology or how good the analogys are. 

It either performs to its claims or it doesn't. 

Rather than this focus on whatever metaphysical nonsense is being used here.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, the exhibitionions I’m talking about are full on contact demonstrations. An example would be the Gracie in action demonstrations. Not quite competitions, not quite street fighting.


exhibitions and demonstrations are not the same thing, you perhaps need to decided which totally arbitrary standard your insisting other need to comply with in order to gain you acceptance


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> And all of this is the reason we have the problems with martial arts that we have.
> 
> A martial art isn't validated by its terminology or how good the analogys are.
> 
> It either performs to its claims or it doesn't.
> 
> Rather than this focus on whatever metaphysical nonsense is being used here.


it seems to be an occupational hazard of indulging in conversation with mma people that you need to keep spelling out the obvious to them

but here i go again

a martial art can not perform, its  not even a thing its a concept totally devoid of performance ability, it doesn't even know your talking to it when you give instructions


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> exhibitions and demonstrations are not the same thing, you perhaps need to decided which totally arbitrary standard your insisting other need to comply with in order to gain you acceptance



Exhibition-

2.
a display or *demonstration* of a particular skill.
"fields that have been plowed with a supreme exhibition of the farm worker's skills"


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Exhibition-
> 
> 2.
> a display or *demonstration* of a particular skill.
> "fields that have been plowed with a supreme exhibition of the farm worker's skills"


thats a children's dictionary, you do realise that just coz the definition contain a word, that doesn't mean that the two words are the same thing

it also contains the words supreme skill and fields


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> thats a children's dictionary,



Nope, it’s a standard dictionary.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Nope, it’s a standard dictionary.


there no such think as a standard dictionary as they are all different, which may have noticed if you had ether own one


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> there no such think as a standard dictionary as they are all different, which may have noticed if you had ether own one



That response is so ironic on so many levels....


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> it seems to be an occupational hazard of indulging in conversation with mma people that you need to keep spelling out the obvious to them
> 
> but here i go again
> 
> a martial art can not perform, its  not even a thing its a concept totally devoid of performance ability, it doesn't even know your talking to it when you give instructions



Yours might have that issue. And so needs this run around to justify its existence. 

Mine pretty much does what it claims in pretty clear terms.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Yours might have that issue. And so needs this run around to justify its existence.
> 
> Mine pretty much does what it claims in pretty clear terms.


what does it claim ?


----------



## MadMartigan

So 1k comments about aikido on this thread. It's clearly the most effectively polarizing art in existence. 
As a TKD guy, with a BJJ blue belt, who has cross trained in Aikido, I've noticed several things. If your goal is quick, short term self defense gains, aikido is not optimal. The timing and small joint manipulation require a great deal of training to become effective. As a lifelong practice for some self defense skills, there is absolutely value. 
All that said, I have absolutely used my (minor) aikido skills in the real world (leo). The understanding of standing wrist and elbow control has been very useful. 
As I'm sure has been said by others (I'm not reading 50+ pages of comments) aikido's strength is surprise. Nothing works if the opponent know what move you're trying for and sits there resisting. The lock or throw (which is actually more likely to break or injure instead of actually throw anyone) works when the opponent is off balance or distracted. 
For the BJJ guys: Consider trying to upa after telling your trained and resisting opponent that you're going for 1. It would never work. It works when you disguise the upa by trying for the elbow escape, then transitioning to the upa and catching them by... surprise (among other methods obviously). 
As Forrest Gump would say,  that's all I have to say about that.


----------



## Hanzou

D Hall said:


> So 1k comments about aikido on this thread. It's clearly the most effectively polarizing art in existence.
> As a TKD guy, with a BJJ blue belt, who has cross trained in Aikido, I've noticed several things. If your goal is quick, short term self defense gains, aikido is not optimal. The timing and small joint manipulation require a great deal of training to become effective. As a lifelong practice for some self defense skills, there is absolutely value.
> All that said, I have absolutely used my (minor) aikido skills in the real world (leo). The understanding of standing wrist and elbow control has been very useful.
> As I'm sure has been said by others (I'm not reading 50+ pages of comments) aikido's strength is surprise. Nothing works if the opponent know what move you're trying for and sits there resisting. The lock or throw (which is actually more likely to break or injure instead of actually throw anyone) works when the opponent is off balance or distracted.
> For the BJJ guys: Consider trying to upa after telling your trained and resisting opponent that you're going for 1. It would never work. It works when you disguise the upa by trying for the elbow escape, then transitioning to the upa and catching them by... surprise (among other methods obviously).
> As Forrest Gump would say,  that's all I have to say about that.



It's not so much "surprise" though, it's instances when what you're taught can be applied. The upa for example is highly applicable when someone is on top of you, and someone being on top of you is applicable to a variety of bad situations. Thus the upa is a highly effective and applicable technique.

Typically when LEOs tell me they used Aikido wristlocks, it comes from them already having control of the assailant, and thus able to apply a wrist lock for further compliance. They're not applying a wristlock via catching their opponent's hand and doing a series of spin moves as we see in Aikido demos.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> It's not so much "surprise" though, it's instances when what you're taught can be applied. The upa for example is highly applicable when someone is on top of you, and someone being on top of you is applicable to a variety of bad situations. Thus the upa is a highly effective and applicable technique.
> 
> Typically when LEOs tell me they used Aikido wristlocks, it comes from them already having control of the assailant, and thus able to apply a wrist lock for further compliance. They're not applying a wristlock via catching their opponent's hand and doing a series of spin moves as we see in Aikido demos.


so your counter to someone using aikido in a law enforcement setting is it doesn't look like aikido in a non resistant demo setting ?

no probably not, no skirts for one,, but its still aikido and seemingly effective in use


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> so your counter to someone using aikido in a law enforcement setting is it doesn't look like aikido in a non resistant demo setting ?
> 
> no probably not, no skirts for one,, but its still aikido and seemingly effective in use



Yeah try again. What I'm saying is that they apply Aikido after the assailant is already restrained. In Bjj we call it position before submission.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Yeah try again. What I'm saying is that they apply Aikido after the assailant is already restrained. In Bjj we call it position before submission.


well that what you say completly anomonous sources have told you, as such its yet another of your opinions and not a fact, 

and how did they over power them in the first place and why isnt this available to ordinary aikido practitioners


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> well that what you say completly anomonous sources have told you, as such its yet another of your opinions and not a fact,
> 
> and how did they over power them in the first place and why isnt this available to ordinary aikido practitioners



They're cops. Many people comply before they start acting stupid.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> They're cops. Many people comply before they start acting stupid.


there still cops that are giving you anecdotes that your then turning into your own anecdotes and then presenting as factual,

so no, this has no bearing at all on reality

and you expressly used the term ''over powered, which you now decided to drop to compliance, that is clearly a contradiction meaning at least one of your anecdotes, though probably both are at best not at all accurate


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> there still cops that are giving you anecdotes that your then turning into your own anecdotes and then presenting as factual,
> 
> so no, this has no bearing at all on reality



Yes, and his anecdotes fits what I'm talking about.

Do you actually believe Aikidoka can fight like their demos?


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Yes, and his anecdotes fits what I'm talking about.
> 
> Do you actually believe Aikidoka can fight like their demos?


which anecdote ?, you've given two contradictory versions and nether of them are supported by evidence, not even that these conversations even took place, your very reluctant to accept even first hand anecdotes as evidence, why do you feel people should accept your second hand anecdotes as such

no of course they dont look like a demonstration, real life seldom does


----------



## MadMartigan

Hanzou said:


> They're cops. Many people comply before they start acting stupid.


While I hate discussing work, my hope is you will take a 1st hand account over internet click bait focused media commentary.
Yes. Many people comply rather than resist. We call those people compliant... meaning that NO force is required. Force (when used appropriately) is Only for resistant+ people... and no, my anecdote was not about wrist locking restrained individuals. I was referring to taking resistant individuals safely to the ground with a wrist lock, that can then be transitioned into safe restraint.
We all believe what we want. As my parents would say, "A man whose mind is changed against his will, is of the same opinion still".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> exhibitions and demonstrations are not the same thing, you perhaps need to decided which totally arbitrary standard your insisting other need to comply with in order to gain you acceptance


This is another area where there's a wide range of acceptable uses of the term. Hanzou and I probably picture different things when we use that term - not sure either is problematic, so long as we understand each other.


----------



## Steve

D Hall said:


> While I hate discussing work, my hope is you will take a 1st hand account over internet click bait focused media commentary.
> Yes. Many people comply rather than resist. We call those people compliant... meaning that NO force is required. Force (when used appropriately) is Only for resistant+ people... and no, my anecdote was not about wrist locking restrained individuals. I was referring to taking resistant individuals safely to the ground with a wrist lock, that can then be transitioned into safe restraint.
> We all believe what we want. As my parents would say, "A man whose mind is changed against his will, is of the same opinion still".


Not commenting on the use of force thing, though I sincerely appreciate that you added the aside, "when used appropriately."  

But I am of the opinion that the lessons learned from being a cop have limited use to folks who are not cops (or at least, folks who are not professionally violent).  The two situations are too different strategically and tactically.  Does "aikido" work for a cop?  Well, I don't know...  maybe.  But what doesn't work for a cop?  I mean you're armed with a gun and a taser, maybe a tactical baton or a well trained dog, rolling with back-up, and the institutional authority to escalate quickly with relative impunity.   Most folks who are learning Aikido aren't going to be so well supported in any kind of self defense situation.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> This is another area where there's a wide range of acceptable uses of the term. Hanzou and I probably picture different things when we use that term - not sure either is problematic, so long as we understand each other.


Wait...  when did we start talking about exhibitionists?


----------



## Hanzou

D Hall said:


> While I hate discussing work, my hope is you will take a 1st hand account over internet click bait focused media commentary.
> Yes. Many people comply rather than resist. We call those people compliant... meaning that NO force is required. Force (when used appropriately) is Only for resistant+ people...



Yeah, I'm talking about situations like this where the person is compliant, and then something goes wrong and now you have to use force to control them;






As I said, in situations like this, the person is initially compliant with law enforcement, until something occurs when they're no longer complaint. 



> and no, my anecdote was not about wrist locking restrained individuals. I was referring to taking resistant individuals safely to the ground with a wrist lock, that can then be transitioned into safe restraint.
> We all believe what we want. As my parents would say, "A man whose mind is changed against his will, is of the same opinion still".



That's good to know, since I wasn't talking about wrist locking restrained individuals either.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> This is another area where there's a wide range of acceptable uses of the term. Hanzou and I probably picture different things when we use that term - not sure either is problematic, so long as we understand each other.


well you can demonstrate at an exhibition and exhibit at a demonstration which doesn't of course mean the words are always or even mostly or even ever interchangeable

English has a lot of words for a reason, that reason being that there are at least subtle differences between them


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> well you can demonstrate at an exhibition and exhibit at a demonstration which doesn't of course mean the words are always or even mostly or even ever interchangeable
> 
> English has a lot of words for a reason, that reason being that there are at least subtle differences between them


And that the words are spelled differently doesn't mean they never overlap in meaning or usage.


----------



## MadMartigan

Steve said:


> Most folks who are learning Aikido aren't going to be so well supported in any kind of self defense situation.


Ahh. Why didn't I see it before? That wrist lock worked in a dynamic situation because of institutional authority. Now don't I feel silly.
Haha. Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument when you know you're always right. 

There is no one on earth that argues against BJJ being effective in many situations. Aikido is effective in fewer situations. 
That is not a reason dismiss an entire skill set or art form. If you don't find personal value with it, don't study it. No one will twist your arm (see what I did there?) and make you learn aikido. 

I have used BJJ skills and aikido skills in many situations. Both have value for me... it's not 1 or the other.


----------



## Steve

D Hall said:


> Ahh. Why didn't I see it before? That wrist lock worked in a dynamic situation because of institutional authority. Now don't I feel silly.



You don't see how? 



D Hall said:


> Haha. Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument when you know you're always right.



A wise warning for us all, I think. 



D Hall said:


> There is no one on earth that argues against BJJ being effective in many situations. Aikido is effective in fewer situations.



I'll take your word for it. 



D Hall said:


> That is not a reason dismiss an entire skill set or art form. If you don't find personal value with it, don't study it. No one will twist your arm (see what I did there?) and make you learn aikido.



If you think I'm dismissing an entire skill set, you're completely off base.  I'm critical of training models.  Though, where the identity and culture of a style is intentionally muddled with the training model, it gets a little mushy.  

I think it's great if Aikido works for you as a cop.  I'm really only pointing out that the lessons learned aren't all that useful to anyone who isn't a cop (in my opinion).



D Hall said:


> I have used BJJ skills and aikido skills in many situations. Both have value for me... it's not 1 or the other.



Cool.  Like what?


----------



## jobo

there a


gpseymour said:


> And that the words are spelled differently doesn't mean they never overlap in meaning or usage.


there very few interchangeable words in  english , can they over lap? only if your not aware of the subtle differance between them, otherwise it's clear which is appropriate

are there people in the world that dont know the differance between sonething being demonstrated and some thing being exhibited?   clearly

I can only help them one at a time


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> I can only help them one at a time


If only there was help for you.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> what does it claim ?



That the people who are considered experts can perform the system they teach on resisting opponent's.

Good boxers can out punch bad boxers.

Good grappler can throw bad grapplers on the ground.

And we can easily identify these people because through competition we have a stat block to see who is good and who isn't.

So say for example when Lachlan guiles claims he has a leg lock system and then leg locks everyone. We can assume his system has some merit. 

When Barry Aikido claims he can Aikido some guy. And that is the end of that. We can't assume he can do that thing.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> That the people who are considered experts can perform the system they teach on resisting opponent's.
> 
> Good boxers can out punch bad boxers.
> 
> Good grappler can throw bad grapplers on the ground.
> 
> And we can easily identify these people because through competition we have a stat block to see who is good and who isn't.


can you show me where your system claims any of those things

be honest you've just made those up havent you


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> can you show me where your system claims any of those things
> 
> be honest you've just made those up havent you


You just read the post where I claimed that.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> You just read the post where I claimed that.


no you said your system claims,,, your not the system are you, you not even a particularly good exponent of the system


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> no you said your system claims,,, your not the system are you, you not even a particularly good exponent of the system



Oh. Semantics.


----------



## Shatteredzen

D Hall said:


> While I hate discussing work, my hope is you will take a 1st hand account over internet click bait focused media commentary.
> Yes. Many people comply rather than resist. We call those people compliant... meaning that NO force is required. Force (when used appropriately) is Only for resistant+ people... and no, my anecdote was not about wrist locking restrained individuals. I was referring to taking resistant individuals safely to the ground with a wrist lock, that can then be transitioned into safe restraint.
> We all believe what we want. As my parents would say, "A man whose mind is changed against his will, is of the same opinion still".


Let me save you some time, the guys you are talking with, specifically Hanzou and Martial D, are not here for an actual conversation about Aikido, they are here to berate anyone who isn't foaming at the mouth about how ineffective it is. Despite having little to no real world experience, and zero actual knowledge of Aikido, they will simply present themselves as authorities on the subject and loudly draw inferences to things they have watched videos of in MMA and BJJ. It comes down to them wanting to speak from a false position of experience or wisdom in front of a crowd. Even if you give them a good natured argument they will simply ignore your points and/or change the subject to try and argue a different point or to try to make you argue against a false premise.


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> Let me save you some time, the guys you are talking with, specifically Hanzou and Martial D, are not here for an actual conversation about Aikido, they are here to berate anyone who isn't foaming at the mouth about how ineffective it is. Despite having little to no real world experience, and zero actual knowledge of Aikido, they will simply present themselves as authorities on the subject and loudly draw inferences to things they have watched videos of in MMA and BJJ. It comes down to them wanting to speak from a false position of experience or wisdom in front of a crowd. Even if you give them a good natured argument they will simply ignore your points and/or change the subject to try and argue a different point or to try to make you argue against a false premise.


That's a very creative, if not overly salty interpretation of events.i can see why you'd prefer people not read the actual exchanges though.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Let me save you some time, the guys you are talking with, specifically Hanzou and Martial D, are not here for an actual conversation about Aikido, they are here to berate anyone who isn't foaming at the mouth about how ineffective it is. Despite having little to no real world experience, and zero actual knowledge of Aikido, they will simply present themselves as authorities on the subject and loudly draw inferences to things they have watched videos of in MMA and BJJ. It comes down to them wanting to speak from a false position of experience or wisdom in front of a crowd. Even if you give them a good natured argument they will simply ignore your points and/or change the subject to try and argue a different point or to try to make you argue against a false premise.



It would be easier if there were Aikido guys that we could point to as any good and who are out there doing their thing I think. 

I mean even the local MMA or BJJ guy is probably pretty reputable with some sort of visible record of achievement. You can even see these guys in video on the mats mixing it up with everyone. 

Where with Aikido it all seems to occur behind some sort of veil. There is street success but you have to trust me. There is stories of the founder but he isn't around. There is promises that these systems work but it is really mostly demo's. 

Even the anecdotal seems a bit thin. Like there are instructors I think are good because I have rolled or wrestled or boxed them that may not have massive fight records. But those guys are open to people walking in and trying that. Which I have never really heard of in Aikido. 

So when you train in this obvious as to who is good and who isn't environment. It is very hard to be convinced by a person who does not exist in that environment. 

We want to see good. Because we are used to seeing it. Rather than be assured good and hope that it is true


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> It would be easier if there were Aikido guys that we could point to as any good and who are out there doing their thing I think.
> 
> I mean even the local MMA or BJJ guy is probably pretty reputable with some sort of visible record of achievement. You can even see these guys in video on the mats mixing it up with everyone.
> 
> Where with Aikido it all seems to occur behind some sort of veil. There is street success but you have to trust me. There is stories of the founder but he isn't around. There is promises that these systems work but it is really mostly demo's.
> 
> Even the anecdotal seems a bit thin. Like there are instructors I think are good because I have rolled or wrestled or boxed them that may not have massive fight records. But those guys are open to people walking in and trying that. Which I have never really heard of in Aikido.
> 
> So when you train in this obvious as to who is good and who isn't environment. It is very hard to be convinced by a person who does not exist in that environment.
> 
> We want to see good. Because we are used to seeing it. Rather than be assured good and hope that it is true


I agree that Aikido needs to adopt this approach to be viewed as practical. The veil is just that, its a smoke screen. A good school would be trying to have you apply the techniques against resistive partners and would be open to working/rolling with other styles. My teacher and I had the same problem, we would visit reputable Aikido schools in Japan while we were there, they would have excellent technique but they wouldn't practice with resistance or against combative opponents. We got one school to let us spar with them but they stipulated it had to be uke/nage (Aikido throws) only. 

My overall point is that there is value in the system, if not the current crop of schools. I don't mind calling the current base of students and instructors on the carpet, I don't know how we get Aikido out of its current state without that, my contention is hearing people claim there is nothing there underneath the years of flotsam that has built up. Aikido might have farther to dig than the rest of the TMA because of its post war re-branding, but that fact is not the same as comparing it to yoga or tai chi. In the way it is being practiced without resistance I can see where you get the argument, but I have seen enough of its under the hood mechanics and used them enough that I know there is a martial art in there that I believe is worth salvaging. 

I'd be much happier with stating the reality of Aikido in this manner, that it must rise to the modern standard of practical training and open itself to competitive scrutiny. Rather than this attempt to relegate it to an exercise regime by people who have not trained it. Especially in the case of LEO's or bouncers or anyone who wants to be able to de-escalate or stop a violent encounter without the only option being to respond with equal or more force, I think the effort is worth it in Aikido's case.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> I agree that Aikido needs to adopt this approach to be viewed as practical. The veil is just that, its a smoke screen. A good school would be trying to have you apply the techniques against resistive partners and would be open to working/rolling with other styles. My teacher and I had the same problem, we would visit reputable Aikido schools in Japan while we were there, they would have excellent technique but they wouldn't practice with resistance or against combative opponents. We got one school to let us spar with them but they stipulated it had to be uke/nage (Aikido throws) only.
> 
> My overall point is that there is value in the system, if not the current crop of schools. I don't mind calling the current base of students and instructors on the carpet, I don't know how we get Aikido out of its current state without that, my contention is hearing people claim there is nothing there underneath the years of flotsam that has built up. Aikido might have farther to dig than the rest of the TMA because of its post war re-branding, but that fact is not the same as comparing it to yoga or tai chi. In the way it is being practiced without resistance I can see where you get the argument, but I have seen enough of its under the hood mechanics and used them enough that I know there is a martial art in there that I believe is worth salvaging.
> 
> I'd be much happier with stating the reality of Aikido in this manner, that it must rise to the modern standard of practical training and open itself to competitive scrutiny. Rather than this attempt to relegate it to an exercise regime by people who have not trained it. Especially in the case of LEO's or bouncers or anyone who wants to be able to de-escalate or stop a violent encounter without the only option being to respond with equal or more force, I think the effort is worth it in Aikido's case.



But then that is Aikidos job to go out and do. 

Not people's job to accept it on face value. 

Especially as this outlook becomes like a pyramid scheme. You keep getting lead along by this guy who is making it work somewhere and so you keep investing. 

You don't want to look like a duche so you never let on that you suck. And so you get all these people in a room feeling like if they pretend hard enough then they will eventually achieve the results for real that they keep getting sold. 

And most of us have gone through this in one form or another. Which is why the systems that perpetuate this are so frown upon.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> But then that is Aikidos job to go out and do.
> 
> Not people's job to accept it on face value.
> 
> Especially as this outlook becomes like a pyramid scheme. You keep getting lead along by this guy who is making it work somewhere and so you keep investing.
> 
> You don't want to look like a duche so you never let on that you suck. And so you get all these people in a room feeling like if they pretend hard enough then they will eventually achieve the results for real that they keep getting sold.
> 
> And most of us have gone through this in one form or another. Which is why the systems that perpetuate this are so frown upon.


Which is why we should call out the behavior over the system, that behavior exists everywhere in the MA community and yes there ARE plenty of bad BJJ and MMA gyms that are just as McDojo as anything else.


----------



## Steve

Shatteredzen said:


> I agree that Aikido needs to adopt this approach to be viewed as practical. The veil is just that, its a smoke screen. A good school would be trying to have you apply the techniques against resistive partners and would be open to working/rolling with other styles. My teacher and I had the same problem, we would visit reputable Aikido schools in Japan while we were there, they would have excellent technique but they wouldn't practice with resistance or against combative opponents. We got one school to let us spar with them but they stipulated it had to be uke/nage (Aikido throws) only.
> 
> My overall point is that there is value in the system, if not the current crop of schools. I don't mind calling the current base of students and instructors on the carpet, I don't know how we get Aikido out of its current state without that, my contention is hearing people claim there is nothing there underneath the years of flotsam that has built up. Aikido might have farther to dig than the rest of the TMA because of its post war re-branding, but that fact is not the same as comparing it to yoga or tai chi. In the way it is being practiced without resistance I can see where you get the argument, but I have seen enough of its under the hood mechanics and used them enough that I know there is a martial art in there that I believe is worth salvaging.
> 
> I'd be much happier with stating the reality of Aikido in this manner, that it must rise to the modern standard of practical training and open itself to competitive scrutiny. Rather than this attempt to relegate it to an exercise regime by people who have not trained it. Especially in the case of LEO's or bouncers or anyone who wants to be able to de-escalate or stop a violent encounter without the only option being to respond with equal or more force, I think the effort is worth it in Aikido's case.


You bring up LEO and bouncers.  When we do hear about Aikido working, it's usually a LEO or a bouncer referencing the use of Aikido techniques to subdue or control someone. 

Two things here. First,  we have no reason to doubt that these techniques work.

However, second, we need to be careful using a very small subset of techniques that are practical to validate an entire system that is (or may be) impractical.

For example, let's accept for the moment that this technique works and is very useful and practical for a LEO or bouncer (it may or may not be... just for the sake of argument, let's say it is demonstrably effective):






That does not validate this:






My point isn't that Aikido is or isn't useful.  Rather, my point is simply that application makes it very clear what is practical and what is impractical.  We need to be careful not to mix the two up by using the former to validate the latter.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Which is why we should call out the behavior over the system, that behavior exists everywhere in the MA community and yes there ARE plenty of bad BJJ and MMA gyms that are just as McDojo as anything else.



Could you point to an example of what you would consider a bad Bjj gym?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> You bring up LEO and bouncers.  When we do hear about Aikido working, it's usually a LEO or a bouncer referencing the use of Aikido techniques to subdue or control someone.
> 
> Two things here. First,  we have no reason to doubt that these techniques work.
> 
> However, second, we need to be careful using a very small subset of techniques that are practical to validate an entire system that is (or may be) impractical.
> 
> For example, let's accept for the moment that this technique works and is very useful and practical for a LEO or bouncer (it may or may not be... just for the sake of argument, let's say it is demonstrably effective):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That does not validate this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point isn't that Aikido is or isn't useful.  Rather, my point is simply that application makes it very clear what is practical and what is impractical.  We need to be careful not to mix the two up by using the former to validate the latter.


I am not saying that traditional uke/nage is a validation. What you see in Uke/Nage is not itself a validation or invalidation, it is a training method. I think on its own it leads to bad habits, but it has practical uses for judging form and demonstrating or even practicing timing and flow. The point that Aikido is not useful has been argued multiple times in this thread, hence my statement, not that you had argued this. 

What is practical and impractical in Aikido has very much to do with how it is taught and trained, we see the stereotypical kote gaishi attempt to counter the jab because it is getting taught that way and perpetuated by a lack of resistive training. The Aikido counter to the jab is actually space, not a kote gaishi, the kote gaishi is supposed to counter a grab to the gi or wrist. So now we have to talk about entering and exiting the opponents circle of influence, breaking the line of the opponents movement, etc, to really start to see all of the things that go into one of these techniques and what makes up the Aikido rather than just the one off situational "move" that you are wondering about. Are these things being taught in Aikido schools? I don't know that they are, or if they are, if they are getting the appropriate emphasis above and beyond the individual techniques and the pretty dancing.

So does this mean Aikido is impractical because we have a bunch of Aikido guys trying to kote gaishi off a jab? No, those students shouldn't have been taught things like that and what would have fixed it is attempting to apply it against a resisting opponent. I'm not blaming the student so much as the understanding of the system by the instructor base. This is further complicated by what was done to the system post world war 2. I am a fan of resurrecting the old style of Aikido and doing the work to update it to this post MMA/BJJ world we live in.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Which is why we should call out the behavior over the system, that behavior exists everywhere in the MA community and yes there ARE plenty of bad BJJ and MMA gyms that are just as McDojo as anything else.



Sort of. I would praise the outliers in this particular case. 

Just because there is so much that is either bad or just hidden so we don't know.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Could you point to an example of what you would consider a bad Bjj gym?


I'm not going to name anyone specifically but the central valley here in CA is full of them. Granted they usually brand as MMA over BJJ but if you want some examples of what makes them garbage there's almost a formula for it.

Strip mall MMA school with one or two instructors, one guy runs the business and the other one is some washed out local fighter with maybe half a dozen no name but technically "ranked" fights at bars and local festivals. Both guys pay annual dues to an instructors only school with a more legit training background to "wash" their credentials and make it look like they come from a solid BJJ school. There are maybe half a dozen of these within fifteen minutes of my house, they are packed full of students paying to get lessons from dudes who learned BJJ watching UFC and youtube.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> I'm not going to name anyone specifically but the central valley here in CA is full of them. Granted they usually brand as MMA over BJJ but if you want some examples of what makes them garbage there's almost a formula for it.
> 
> Strip mall MMA school with one or two instructors, one guy runs the business and the other one is some washed out local fighter with maybe half a dozen no name but technically "ranked" fights at bars and local festivals. Both guys pay annual dues to an instructors only school with a more legit training background to "wash" their credentials and make it look like they come from a solid BJJ school. There are maybe half a dozen of these within fifteen minutes of my house, they are packed full of students paying to get lessons from dudes who learned BJJ watching UFC and youtube.



Would your washed up ammy have more under the hood than your average 20 year veteran in some systems?


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Would your washed up ammy have more under the hood than your average 20 year veteran in some systems?


No, thats the point, I can watch UFC undercard fights and still see horrible technique, local fights and many of these amateur MMA types have a fight camp or less, or wrestled in highschool. Maybe the McDojo thing is more pervasive in the US than Australia?


----------



## Steve

Shatteredzen said:


> I am not saying that traditional uke/nage is a validation. What you see in Uke/Nage is not itself a validation or invalidation, it is a training method. I think on its own it leads to bad habits, but it has practical uses for judging form and demonstrating or even practicing timing and flow. The point that Aikido is not useful has been argued multiple times in this thread, hence my statement, not that you had argued this.



Fair enough.  We agree that a traditional uke/nage is not validation (or invalidation).  Can you share what you think IS validation of all of these really cool, high amplitude throws we see in Aikido demonstrations? 



Shatteredzen said:


> What is practical and impractical in Aikido has very much to do with how it is taught and trained, we see the stereotypical kote gaishi attempt to counter the jab because it is getting taught that way and perpetuated by a lack of resistive training. The Aikido counter to the jab is actually space, not a kote gaishi, the kote gaishi is supposed to counter a grab to the gi or wrist. So now we have to talk about entering and exiting the opponents circle of influence, breaking the line of the opponents movement, etc, to really start to see all of the things that go into one of these techniques and what makes up the Aikido rather than just the one off situational "move" that you are wondering about. Are these things being taught in Aikido schools? I don't know that they are, or if they are, if they are getting the appropriate emphasis above and beyond the individual techniques and the pretty dancing.



We're getting into some kind of esoteric stuff.  While there is room for things that are complex (i.e., difficult to learn, reliant on other skills, etc), to be practical, you generally have ample evidence of this.  There are plenty of things that I know are practical that I also know I cannot perform.  I know that neurosurgery is complex, but practical, because even though I cannot do it, I can see it done.

So, all that to say, I agree with much of what you say above, but I don't think it adds up the way you think it does. 



Shatteredzen said:


> So does this mean Aikido is impractical because we have a bunch of Aikido guys trying to kote gaishi off a jab? No, those students shouldn't have been taught things like that and what would have fixed it is attempting to apply it against a resisting opponent. I'm not blaming the student so much as the understanding of the system by the instructor base. This is further complicated by what was done to the system post world war 2. I am a fan of resurrecting the old style of Aikido and doing the work to update it to this post MMA/BJJ world we live in.



Good luck to you.  I don't think you and I are on the same page about how you might do it, but I wish you well.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> Fair enough.  We agree that a traditional uke/nage is not validation (or invalidation).  Can you share what you think IS validation of all of these really cool, high amplitude throws we see in Aikido demonstrations?
> 
> 
> 
> We're getting into some kind of esoteric stuff.  While there is room for things that are complex (i.e., difficult to learn, reliant on other skills, etc), to be practical, you generally have ample evidence of this.  There are plenty of things that I know are practical that I also know I cannot perform.  I know that neurosurgery is complex, but practical, because even though I cannot do it, I can see it done.
> 
> So, all that to say, I agree with much of what you say above, but I don't think it adds up the way you think it does.
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck to you.  I don't think you and I are on the same page about how you might do it, but I wish you well.


We have already done the back and forth video thing, you are free to wade through the thread for those. 

As far as the "esoteric stuff" there's nothing remarkable being talked about here, you can't equate uke/nage to practical application of technique, its not a reference point anymore than a kata is. There's nothing overly complex being discussed here, if I lost you talking about the use of a wristlock and the Aikido principles of entering/blending, etc that's not because its esoteric, its that you are here discussing a system you don't understand asking to see "proof" of something you would not recognize if it was video taped and shown to you. You want video "proof" of a guy not standing in range of a jab? Are you asking for video of someone explaining why this is incorrect application of the technique? What is esoteric here? What is "it" that you think I'm adding up incorrectly?

I'm not sure what page you are on, you are not saying anything so much as chiming in to disparate parts of the conversation that you jumped into without reading to catch up first.


----------



## Steve

Shatteredzen said:


> We have already done the back and forth video thing, you are free to wade through the thread for those.
> 
> As far as the "esoteric stuff" there's nothing remarkable being talked about here, you can't equate uke/nage to practical application of technique, its not a reference point anymore than a kata is. There's nothing overly complex being discussed here, if I lost you talking about the use of a wristlock and the Aikido principles of entering/blending, etc that's not because its esoteric, its that you are here discussing a system you don't understand asking to see "proof" of something you would not recognize if it was video taped and shown to you. You want video "proof" of a guy not standing in range of a jab? Are you asking for video of someone explaining why this is incorrect application of the technique? What is esoteric here? What is "it" that you think I'm adding up incorrectly?
> 
> I'm not sure what page you are on, you are not saying anything so much as chiming in to disparate parts of the conversation that you jumped into without reading to catch up first.


Seems like you're getting frustrated.  You asked a lot of questions in your post.  Are they rhetorical or are you looking for an answer?  Just don't want to waste my time or see you get more frustrated.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> Seems like you're getting frustrated.  You asked a lot of questions in your post.  Are they rhetorical or are you looking for an answer?  Just don't want to waste my time or see you get more frustrated.


That's an assumption. We are almost at 60 pages into this conversation, much of it being circular logic and strawman arguments. My general unwillingness to rehash that for someone is not the same as frustration. I am simply not going to engage in the same exact circular arguments with you because you do not wish to read the thread you are replying to. When you reduce a substantive reply to "esotericism" because it contains some basic principles about the subject you are discussing that you do not understand, that foundational understanding is more of a precursor to your meaningful participation in the dialogue than it is an attempt at mysticism.


----------



## Martial D

The moral of the thread; Some people enjoy fantasy martial arts, and are happy in their faith based beliefs, while others are rational and need to see evidence and results to believe.

This is no different than a religious debate.

/Thread


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> The moral of the thread; Some people enjoy fantasy martial arts, and are happy in their faith based beliefs, while others are rational and need to see evidence and results to believe.
> 
> This is no different than a religious debate.
> 
> /Thread


it's more of a Schrodinger's cat issue, you are just on the outside of the box screaming for cat pics.


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> it's more of a Schrodinger's cat issue, you are just on the outside of the box screaming for cat pics.


No. That's a bad analogy. The point of shroedingers cat is that it's unknowable. Whether a martial art can be effectively used is not only knowable, it's also falsifiable and reproducible.

In this day and age it's only the faithful and those so deep in sunk cost they can't even be honest with themselves that argue these things. Otherwise there is no need, as the evidence is there both to be observed and reproduced for yourself.

This is why nobody can make the argument that boxing, kickboxing, wrestling, or BJJ are ineffective, while fantasy based people just have anecdotes and incredulity.


----------



## Steve

Shatteredzen said:


> That's an assumption. We are almost at 60 pages into this conversation, much of it being circular logic and strawman arguments. My general unwillingness to rehash that for someone is not the same as frustration. I am simply not going to engage in the same exact circular arguments with you because you do not wish to read the thread you are replying to. When you reduce a substantive reply to "esotericism" because it contains some basic principles about the subject you are discussing that you do not understand, that foundational understanding is more of a precursor to your meaningful participation in the dialogue than it is an attempt at mysticism.


So this is you not frustrated?  Okay.  It tickles my fancy that you joined the thread like 200 posts in acting like an OG.  I don't think you're cut out for this online forum thing.  
I do agree with you about your circular logic and strawman arguments, though, and appreciate that you won't engage in that crap with me.  Much obliged.


----------



## Steve

Martial D said:


> The moral of the thread; Some people enjoy fantasy martial arts, and are happy in their faith based beliefs, while others are rational and need to see evidence and results to believe.
> 
> This is no different than a religious debate.
> 
> /Thread


Hey, he's free to enjoy whatever he wants.  Live and let live.  I just wish he were a little more self-aware about it, and I hope he doesn't teach self defense.  In addition to concerns about whether it's good for self defense, it just doesn't seem like he's got the right temperament for the job.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> No. That's a bad analogy. The point of shroedingers cat is that it's unknowable. Whether a martial art can be effectively used is not only knowable, it's also falsifiable and reproducible.
> 
> In this day and age it's only the faithful and those so deep in sunk cost they can't even be honest with themselves that argue these things. Otherwise there is no need, as the evidence is there both to be observed and reproduced for yourself.
> 
> This is why nobody can make the argument that boxing, kickboxing, wrestling, or BJJ are ineffective, while fantasy based people just have anecdotes and incredulity.


You have had two different people with experience in this thread telling you it works, your choice to not believe personal anecdotes is valid, but also not determinate in anything other than your own perception of reality. Your lack of belief does not invalidate my personal experience, nor does it turn my lived experience from reality into fantasy. No one is here trying to recruit you into Aikido or trying to persuade you into believing anything. From your point of view I'm some guy on the internet practicing a make believe martial art. From my perspective since I've seen it work and done it, your position is the undeniably naive one. Its still the internet so neither of us win but I'm still sitting here chuckling at you being silly.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> So this is you not frustrated?  Okay.  It tickles my fancy that you joined the thread like 200 posts in acting like an OG.  I don't think you're cut out for this online forum thing.
> I do agree with you about your circular logic and strawman arguments, though, and appreciate that you won't engage in that crap with me.  Much obliged.


Frustrated?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> Hey, he's free to enjoy whatever he wants.  Live and let live.  I just wish he were a little more self-aware about it, and I hope he doesn't teach self defense.  In addition to concerns about whether it's good for self defense, it just doesn't seem like he's got the right temperament for the job.


We went over the whole self defense thing already, you should really just go back and read and then come back when you have caught up.


----------



## Steve

Shatteredzen said:


> Frustrated?


Not me.  I'm very amused.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> Not me.  I'm very amused.


See? Assumptions are silly!


----------



## Steve

Shatteredzen said:


> See? Assumptions are silly!


Then stop assuming.   It's very simple.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> Then stop assuming.   It's very simple.


Good advice, give it a shot


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> No, thats the point, I can watch UFC undercard fights and still see horrible technique, local fights and many of these amateur MMA types have a fight camp or less, or wrestled in highschool. Maybe the McDojo thing is more pervasive in the US than Australia?


Ufc under card guys in Australia generally have a few title belts behind them. 

The sloppy technique thing gets thrown around a bit. I don't think it is as valid from a combat sports position where sloppiness doesn't matter. As say a performance position where it does.



Shatteredzen said:


> You have had two different people with experience in this thread telling you it works, your choice to not believe personal anecdotes is valid, but also not determinate in anything other than your own perception of reality. Your lack of belief does not invalidate my personal experience, nor does it turn my lived experience from reality into fantasy. No one is here trying to recruit you into Aikido or trying to persuade you into believing anything. From your point of view I'm some guy on the internet practicing a make believe martial art. From my perspective since I've seen it work and done it, your position is the undeniably naive one. Its still the internet so neither of us win but I'm still sitting here chuckling at you being silly.



Are you really going to go with this line of argument?

Because this is kind of everything that is wrong with martial arts.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Ufc under card guys in Australia generally have a few title belts behind them.
> 
> The sloppy technique thing gets thrown around a bit. I don't think it is as valid from a combat sports position where sloppiness doesn't matter. As say a performance position where it does.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really going to go with this line of argument?
> 
> Because this is kind of everything that is wrong with martial arts.


 I think there's a few crossover fights we could reference that show some UFC champs having issues against Boxers. 


I disagree regarding my line of argument. Guys commenting outside their knowledge base to shout down and disrespect other systems is kind of everything wrong in martial arts. The ego behind the dojo wars stuff is why we don't have a more collaborative atmosphere between systems and schools and while it may appear to effectively popularize people's chosen system for a time, it hampers the growth of the community as a whole. I'd rather have a community built on mutual respect and collaboration with some personal anecdotes thrown in than what we have now where very few people encourage their peers to check their ego's instead of trying to demean or belittle what other people are doing. 

You can take this conversation as a microcosm of that problem, of the detractors, you are the only one to sit down and go point by point after some coaxing to have a legitimate discussion. While you have been fairly cranky at times, you have made good points and we have had some productive discussion. Despite this, however, our ability to even have a discussion starts with one of us being willing to trust and honor the anecdotal data point that the other one has some basis of knowledge and expertise that gives their words merit. The problem with the dogpile crowd is a lack of reciprocity in that same respect. I gave you my abbreviated CV as a fighter, like you have provided yours, not to grandstand but to establish a baseline of where I was drawing that information from, in hopes of receiving the basic level of respect that I am who I claim to be. So far, while we have disagreed, its mostly been on a point to point basis, not through ad hominem attacks or disingenuous argument. You are the exception to the others, who have been far less good natured in their approach to our talk. 

I get it, people see an Aikido dogpile and it looks great, so they jump in. I've ceded almost every possible point brought up about Aikido and given a pretty honest depiction from my point of view as to what it is and isn't. The only thing I have said in its favor is that the system itself, despite its flaws and problems, is valuable, applicable and worth saving. That singular statement has spawned challenges to fight, some Steven Segal commentary, a proverbial buffet of ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, gas lighting and general fury that I won't concede Aikido as an imaginary martial art to the court of public opinion. Why exactly would I do that when I have years of experience with using it successfully? I'm not trying to get your fifty bucks or trying to teach you anything, I'm just disagreeing with you on the internet based on my personal experience. Last time I checked, for my purposes, my real experience outweighs the opinions of some guys on the internet who are saying things I know to be false. 

You have had other people offer the same, which is all this thread really is, opinion, yet for the boo Aikido group here, there's an expectation of anyone in favor of Aikido to prostrate themselves before some supposed truth which doesn't exist. My experience tells me otherwise and I don't require your external validation, I have no intention of sharing your viewpoint when that viewpoint is invalidated by my own experiences and understanding. Do you need to believe me or the other LEO that hopped in here? Nope. You can argue the point just like you can disbelieve a stop sign or doubt the intentions of someone yelling fire, but your doubt is not an objective truth, both our arguments are subjective to our personal experience. My lack of proof and subjective personal experience do not justify or invite a contemptuous response, that response is what is being chosen by personal ego and hubris on the part of those responding.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> I think there's a few crossover fights we could reference that show some UFC champs having issues against Boxers.
> 
> 
> I disagree regarding my line of argument. Guys commenting outside their knowledge base to shout down and disrespect other systems is kind of everything wrong in martial arts. The ego behind the dojo wars stuff is why we don't have a more collaborative atmosphere between systems and schools and while it may appear to effectively popularize people's chosen system for a time, it hampers the growth of the community as a whole. I'd rather have a community built on mutual respect and collaboration with some personal anecdotes thrown in than what we have now where very few people encourage their peers to check their ego's instead of trying to demean or belittle what other people are doing.
> 
> You can take this conversation as a microcosm of that problem, of the detractors, you are the only one to sit down and go point by point after some coaxing to have a legitimate discussion. While you have been fairly cranky at times, you have made good points and we have had some productive discussion. Despite this, however, our ability to even have a discussion starts with one of us being willing to trust and honor the anecdotal data point that the other one has some basis of knowledge and expertise that gives their words merit. The problem with the dogpile crowd is a lack of reciprocity in that same respect. I gave you my abbreviated CV as a fighter, like you have provided yours, not to grandstand but to establish a baseline of where I was drawing that information from, in hopes of receiving the basic level of respect that I am who I claim to be. So far, while we have disagreed, its mostly been on a point to point basis, not through ad hominem attacks or disingenuous argument. You are the exception to the others, who have been far less good natured in their approach to our talk.
> 
> I get it, people see an Aikido dogpile and it looks great, so they jump in. I've ceded almost every possible point brought up about Aikido and given a pretty honest depiction from my point of view as to what it is and isn't. The only thing I have said in its favor is that the system itself, despite its flaws and problems, is valuable, applicable and worth saving. That singular statement has spawned challenges to fight, some Steven Segal commentary, a proverbial buffet of ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, gas lighting and general fury that I won't concede Aikido as an imaginary martial art to the court of public opinion. Why exactly would I do that when I have years of experience with using it successfully? I'm not trying to get your fifty bucks or trying to teach you anything, I'm just disagreeing with you on the internet based on my personal experience. Last time I checked, for my purposes, my real experience outweighs the opinions of some guys on the internet who are saying things I know to be false.
> 
> You have had other people offer the same, which is all this thread really is, opinion, yet for the boo Aikido group here, there's an expectation of anyone in favor of Aikido to prostrate themselves before some supposed truth which doesn't exist. My experience tells me otherwise and I don't require your external validation, I have no intention of sharing your viewpoint when that viewpoint is invalidated by my own experiences and understanding. Do you need to believe me or the other LEO that hopped in here? Nope. You can argue the point just like you can disbelieve a stop sign or doubt the intentions of someone yelling fire, but your doubt is not an objective truth, both our arguments are subjective to our personal experience. My lack of proof and subjective personal experience do not justify or invite a contemptuous response, that response is what is being chosen by personal ego and hubris on the part of those respond



Martial arts relies too heavily on stories to be practical. Effectively this outlook you have puts all of martial arts in to the same category as religious experience and magic. 

And this is very disappointing for martial arts as I believe it is better than that. 

Look at the martial arts that are collaborative. Boxers train with kickboxers. BJJers train with wrestlers and judokas. MMAers train with everyone. And this is because they have sparring which is the best vehicle for collaboration. 

The collaborative martial arts are not the anecdotal martial arts.


Unfortunately collaboration courts loss. The very best anecdotes of streetfighting  badassery make absolutely no difference when you get on the mat with someone. It either works or it doesn't.

So why don't we see Aikido guys out there mixing it up in the same filth with the rest of us? 

Is it because they fear loss? And is that the real ego issue? 

So those that make a stand hidden behind a wall of anecdotes suffer contempt from those that are exposed to defeat so often it doesn't even matter any more. 

Not because they are good or bad. Rokus was never good. He wasn't even good at MMA. But because they were not honest. They were not willing to loose, look foolish, change their bias because of weight of evidence. 

They are not willing to take martial arts out of religious experience and into reality.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Martial arts relies too heavily on stories to be practical. Effectively this outlook you have puts all of martial arts in to the same category as religious experience and magic.
> 
> And this is very disappointing for martial arts as I believe it is better than that.
> 
> Look at the martial arts that are collaborative. Boxers train with kickboxers. BJJers train with wrestlers and judokas. MMAers train with everyone. And this is because they have sparring which is the best vehicle for collaboration.
> 
> The collaborative martial arts are not the anecdotal martial arts.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately collaboration courts loss. The very best anecdotes of streetfighting  badassery make absolutely no difference when you get on the mat with someone. It either works or it doesn't.
> 
> So why don't we see Aikido guys out there mixing it up in the same filth with the rest of us?
> 
> Is it because they fear loss? And is that the real ego issue?
> 
> So those that make a stand hidden behind a wall of anecdotes suffer contempt from those that are exposed to defeat so often it doesn't even matter any more.
> 
> Not because they are good or bad. Rokus was never good. He wasn't even good at MMA. But because they were not honest. They were not willing to loose, look foolish, change their bias because of weight of evidence.
> 
> They are not willing to take martial arts out of religious experience and into reality.



There is a distinct difference between the "they" you are explaining and the "I" who is speaking to you. Nothing I have said has advocated a religious approach to martial arts, a series of dogmatic absolutes requires more blind faith than a single man sharing a personal story.


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> I think there's a few crossover fights we could reference that show some UFC champs having issues against Boxers.
> 
> 
> I disagree regarding my line of argument. Guys commenting outside their knowledge base to shout down and disrespect other systems is kind of everything wrong in martial arts. The ego behind the dojo wars stuff is why we don't have a more collaborative atmosphere between systems and schools and while it may appear to effectively popularize people's chosen system for a time, it hampers the growth of the community as a whole. I'd rather have a community built on mutual respect and collaboration with some personal anecdotes thrown in than what we have now where very few people encourage their peers to check their ego's instead of trying to demean or belittle what other people are doing.
> 
> You can take this conversation as a microcosm of that problem, of the detractors, you are the only one to sit down and go point by point after some coaxing to have a legitimate discussion. While you have been fairly cranky at times, you have made good points and we have had some productive discussion. Despite this, however, our ability to even have a discussion starts with one of us being willing to trust and honor the anecdotal data point that the other one has some basis of knowledge and expertise that gives their words merit. The problem with the dogpile crowd is a lack of reciprocity in that same respect. I gave you my abbreviated CV as a fighter, like you have provided yours, not to grandstand but to establish a baseline of where I was drawing that information from, in hopes of receiving the basic level of respect that I am who I claim to be. So far, while we have disagreed, its mostly been on a point to point basis, not through ad hominem attacks or disingenuous argument. You are the exception to the others, who have been far less good natured in their approach to our talk.
> 
> I get it, people see an Aikido dogpile and it looks great, so they jump in. I've ceded almost every possible point brought up about Aikido and given a pretty honest depiction from my point of view as to what it is and isn't. The only thing I have said in its favor is that the system itself, despite its flaws and problems, is valuable, applicable and worth saving. That singular statement has spawned challenges to fight, some Steven Segal commentary, a proverbial buffet of ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, gas lighting and general fury that I won't concede Aikido as an imaginary martial art to the court of public opinion. Why exactly would I do that when I have years of experience with using it successfully? I'm not trying to get your fifty bucks or trying to teach you anything, I'm just disagreeing with you on the internet based on my personal experience. Last time I checked, for my purposes, my real experience outweighs the opinions of some guys on the internet who are saying things I know to be false.
> 
> You have had other people offer the same, which is all this thread really is, opinion, yet for the boo Aikido group here, there's an expectation of anyone in favor of Aikido to prostrate themselves before some supposed truth which doesn't exist. My experience tells me otherwise and I don't require your external validation, I have no intention of sharing your viewpoint when that viewpoint is invalidated by my own experiences and understanding. Do you need to believe me or the other LEO that hopped in here? Nope. You can argue the point just like you can disbelieve a stop sign or doubt the intentions of someone yelling fire, but your doubt is not an objective truth, both our arguments are subjective to our personal experience. My lack of proof and subjective personal experience do not justify or invite a contemptuous response, that response is what is being chosen by personal ego and hubris on the part of those responding.


You know. Some of us have been here for years...

You aren't the first guy to come in here with strong claims and anecdotes and acted upset to have them questioned.

And for all your strong wording about haters and dogpiling that's all that has happened here. Even though the many times in this thread you have raged out and resorted to ad hominem attacks nobody has returned that favor to you.

If you fly into a new forum where you don't know anyone, as you have, and make strong claims without any evidence, as you have, the reaction you have recieved is pretty par for the course. 

Where you see this reaction as the problem , some others see this sort of emotionally fueled stand based on unsupported and unsupportable premise as a long standing problem pervasive throughout traditional martial arts as the real problem. One that needs to be squashed.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> You know. Some of us have been here for years...
> 
> You aren't the first guy to come in here with strong claims and anecdotes and acted upset to have them questioned.
> 
> And for all your strong wording about haters and dogpiling that's all that has happened here. Even though the many times in this thread you have raged out and resorted to ad hominem attacks nobody has returned that favor to you.
> 
> If you fly into a new forum where you don't know anyone, as you have, and make strong claims without any evidence, as you have, the reaction you have recieved is pretty par for the course.
> 
> Where you see this reaction as the problem , some others see this sort of emotionally fueled stand based on unsupported and unsupportable premise as a long standing problem pervasive throughout traditional martial arts as the real problem. One that needs to be squashed.


Wow, what thread are you reading? First, I've been cheerful throughout this, you feel threatened and "raged" on because you are having your position challenged and you don't have any supporting argument other than wanting to have the last word. Working through logic knots with people who are using simple logical fallacy is me taking the time to help you see the problem with your own argument. Your seniority on an internet martial arts board doesn't mean anything and it doesn't strengthen the logical position you have taken.

You have taken the absolute position of "this doesn't work", its the entirety of your argument. You have to be right, 100% without exception for that position to be true. Two different internet martial arts nerds have told you, "not really, it works". All that made up mojo in your head about how long you have lurked this board berating Aikido peeps, irrelevant, your argument is null and void, its one internet nerd versus two, your mileage may vary. I stated in my first or second post that its impossible to "prove" a martial arts discussion on the internet, that hasn't changed.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

If we compare wrestling, Judo, and Aikido, we can see that their contact points are different.

- Wrestlers like to control the shoulder gate.
- Judo guys like to control the elbow gate.
- Aikido guys like to control the wrist gate.

Why are the difference? IMO, the closer the control, the less mobility your opponent will have.

I have never seen "arm wrapping" used in Aikido. Do Aikido guys give their opponent too much freedom (such as free elbow joints)?


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If we compare wrestling, Judo, and Aikido, we can see that their contact points are different.
> 
> - Wrestlers like to control the shoulder gate.
> - Judo guys like to control the elbow gate.
> - Aikido guys like to control the wrist gate.
> 
> Why are the difference?



You're forgetting Bjj which combines all three.

Anyway, Aikido is different because the training methodology is different. Judo and Wrestling have a competitive sport component which forces live, full contact sparring on a near consistent basis. Aikido doesn't have that, so you have less than realistic sparring that leads to (IMO) unsatisfactory results.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> You're forgetting Bjj which combines all three.
> 
> Anyway, Aikido is different because the training methodology is different. Judo and Wrestling have a competitive sport component which forces live, full contact sparring on a near consistent basis. Aikido doesn't have that, so you have less than realistic sparring that leads to (IMO) unsatisfactory results.


Without testing, the common sense tell me, when you 

- grab on my wrist, if my elbow joint is free, 
- throw me, if my legs are free,

I can still do a lot of things.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Without testing, the common sense tell me, when you grab on my wrist, if my elbow joint is free, I can still do a lot of things.



Well this is why you need to constantly test. You need to understand how to react to countless reactions from what you're doing. You get that from sparring, since everyone you roll with is going to have a different reaction to your standard process of attack. For example, if my bread and butter is takedown/Kesa Gatame/head and arm choke, sparring lets me practice my bread and butter against skinny people, fat people, muscle heads, neck beards, etc. Thus when I really need to do my bread and butter, I'm highly prepared to do so.

If all you're doing is two-person katas with a compliant uke, you're not going to be as well prepared.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If we compare wrestling, Judo, and Aikido, we can see that their contact points are different.
> 
> - Wrestlers like to control the shoulder gate.
> - Judo guys like to control the elbow gate.
> - Aikido guys like to control the wrist gate.
> 
> Why are the difference? IMO, the closer the control, the less mobility your opponent will have.


The first two could still be examples of Aikido. There is a fixation on the wrist stuff, Aikido is heavy on wrist techniques for weapon disarms but these get overused or over emphasized. The wrist stuff works better when you have a sympathetic reflex to continue to grip, while holding an object like a knife or already grabbing something like a gi. The wrist lock is more a counter to a grab, I would advocate someone entering their opponents line of attack to go deeper like you are talking about and to break the line of movement at the source near the shoulder. 

One thing that keeps getting overlooked here is what the Aikido tool basket is. Its roughly 60 to 100 techniques designed to fill in niche stuff not answered in Judo or Ju Jitsu. The budo were not developed in isolation and the practice of learning Aikido by itself is a post war, post pacifist thing. I might find myself in a position where a judo throw makes more sense than an Aikido technique, or I miss the Aikido technique and have to force something or switch to something more akin to striking or Judo. Much of this argument is trying to force Aikido to be something its not and to make it stand up to an imaginary "standard" of effectiveness that it at least did not claim under its premise. 

  If I am grabbed by a drunk for example, I have what option from Judo? While a Judo technique will work fine, I can choose to use an Aikido technique to remove the grip and ground the drunk with no real damage to the aggressor. I know the macho kid thing is to say "why wouldnt you pick the most effective technique?" Aside from it being a personal choice some might like to make, the most practical reason might even just be simple liability. I dont want to risk escalating or feeding into this confrontation so lets toss the guy around a bit and everyone goes home with some wounded pride. The deaths and serious injuries from fights usually involve someone striking their head on the ground after being punched for example, if I dont want to risk slamming the guy on the ground, maybe a wrist grab will work because I know I can transition to an arm bar if I miss. Aikido is about more options and a different approach, not the "best" option for maybe damage, but maybe the best option for a bad situation.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Well this is why you need to constantly test. You need to understand how to react to countless reactions from what you're doing. You get that from sparring, since everyone you roll with is going to have a different reaction to your standard process of attack. For example, if my bread and butter is takedown/Kesa Gatame/head and arm choke, sparring lets me practice my bread and butter against skinny people, fat people, muscle heads, neck beards, etc. Thus when I really need to do my bread and butter, I'm highly prepared to do so.
> 
> If all you're doing is two-person katas with a compliant uke, you're not going to be as well prepared.


I completely agree, thats why we can see Rokas BJJ instructor show the Aikido guy how to make his techniques work. Aikido would benefit from adopting these more modern methods. My point is that training is what dileneates practical application of Aikido and what we see in the demos.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> You're forgetting Bjj which combines all three.
> 
> Anyway, Aikido is different because the training methodology is different. Judo and Wrestling have a competitive sport component which forces live, full contact sparring on a near consistent basis. Aikido doesn't have that, so you have less than realistic sparring that leads to (IMO) unsatisfactory results.


judo only forces live full contact if you chose to go the sports route,  otherwise it forces nothing at all


----------



## Shatteredzen

jobo said:


> judo only forces live full contact if you chose to go the sports route,  otherwise it forces nothing at all


it's even in the name lol


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> judo only forces live full contact if you chose to go the sports route,  otherwise it forces nothing at all



I have never encountered a Judo dojo/club where they're not doing sparring/randori.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> I have never encountered a Judo dojo/club where they're not doing sparring/randori.


It's a joke about force. Judo in Japanese is "the gentle way". It does not force you to do full contact sparring however, it gives you the option.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> I am grabbed by a drunk for example, I have what option from Judo? While a Judo technique will work fine, I can choose to use an Aikido technique to remove the grip and ground the drunk with no real damage to the aggressor. I know the macho kid thing is to say "why wouldnt you pick the most effective technique?" Aside from it being a personal choice some might like to make, the most practical reason might even just be simple liability.


 
Pretty sure judo has tools to defend grabs, throw people and pin them to the ground. 

And of course they are tested and re tested in sparring, competition etc. 

The argument would be which set of tools is more reliable. 

And then we go back to resisted training vs compliant. Access to world champions vs access to who knows.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> It's a joke about force. Judo in Japanese is "the gentle way". It does not force you to do full contact sparring however, it gives you the option.



You have to compete to grade?


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Pretty sure judo has tools to defend grabs, throw people and pin them to the ground.
> 
> And of course they are tested and re tested in sparring, competition etc.
> 
> The argument would be which set of tools is more reliable.
> 
> And then we go back to resisted training vs compliant. Access to world champions vs access to who knows.



This is like the BJJ in law enforcement example. You can use BJJ as a cop, but it puts you in a seriously screwed up position tactically, it exposes your firearm and then you have the problem of being on the ground to get picked off by the opponents friends. Believe it or not, there are lots of reasons to not go to the ground in a fight, once again, the UFC is not an end all be all example of effectiveness in martial arts, it highly favors grappling and ground fighting because you cannot strike the back of the head, the spine, a downed fighter, there's no head butting, no slamming a fighter on the ground, etc. Can you slam someone in Judo? Yes, I said this. If you need to go for the slam, then you use it. Once again, this is an attempt to force a square peg into a round hole. All of these techniques are situational and the Aikido complements the Judo, its not trying to replace it. BJJ has no striking, do we compare it to striking arts and say "well since it has no strikes, this system is imaginary", no, you train strikes, the striking complements the BJJ.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> I have never encountered a Judo dojo/club where they're not doing sparring/randori.


how is that relivant? it sounds like anecdote to me


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> You have to compete to grade?


no you dont,

please write fact after your statement so I can get more points


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> You have to compete to grade?


Where? The two groups in the US and the Kodokan have never required competition or full contact anything to grade. I think USJI has a point system but that allows competition in Kata for the same points as sparring and even thats a suggestion and the grading is left to individual schools.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> This is like the BJJ in law enforcement example. You can use BJJ as a cop, but it puts you in a seriously screwed up position tactically, it exposes your firearm and then you have the problem of being on the ground to get picked off by the opponents friends. Believe it or not, there are lots of reasons to not go to the ground in a fight, once again, the UFC is not an end all be all example of effectiveness in martial arts, it highly favors grappling and ground fighting because you cannot strike the back of the head, the spine, a downed fighter, there's no head butting, no slamming a fighter on the ground, etc. Can you slam someone in Judo? Yes, I said this. If you need to go for the slam, then you use it. Once again, this is an attempt to force a square peg into a round hole. All of these techniques are situational and the Aikido complements the Judo, its not trying to replace it. BJJ has no striking, do we compare it to striking arts and say "well since it has no strikes, this system is imaginary", no, you train strikes, the striking complements the BJJ.



Aikido would be great if it works. Everone would love to do what Aikido people appear to do. But the best we have is a couple of guys say so. Mabye one or two guys in the world who can do it live. And a few examples of Aikido like techniques that have been successful in the street. 

So the best most people have is that rolling around on the ground stuff. Because that actually kind of works in real life. 

The throwing people to the ground, using gravity and positioning to keep them there and then applying restraints is just functionally more reliabe.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> no you dont,
> 
> please write fact after your statement so I can get more points







This is the Australian Judo federation. 
 There is more in there but I am running out of time. And it is a PDF. 

And I dif put a Question mark after the sentence. So it wasn't a statement.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Aikido would be great if it works. Everone would love to do what Aikido people appear to do. But the best we have is a couple of guys say so. Mabye one or two guys in the world who can do it live. And a few examples of Aikido like techniques that have been successful in the street.
> 
> So the best most people have is that rolling around on the ground stuff. Because that actually kind of works in real life.
> 
> The throwing people to the ground, using gravity and positioning to keep them there and then applying restraints is just functionally more reliabe.



There are far more than one or two people in the world who can pull off the techniques live, that's more fud. Most police defensive tactics courses at a local and national level rely equally on Aikido, Judo and BJJ. I've seen plenty of other officers make this stuff work and you have had two LEO's here tell you the same. We've linked the videos back and forth, Rokas even changed his opinion to the fact that its a training issue. We can argue over how practical or effective something is or why you might want to use an aikido technique over something else, but its the same subjectivism we have been going round and round about. 

Pain compliance, controlled throws and locks, less lethal force is a good tool to have in the toolkit. You want to spend the least amount of time training to learn how to fight? Not Aikido's thing, worst choice you could make. Want to learn how to protect yourself and maybe not hurt the guy trying to hurt you? Now we walk into the realm of where Aikido has something to offer. The bokken techniques were adapted from bayonet fighting and they work for weapon retention techniques, so they get used by the military. The chances of you getting rushed by a drunk, ESPECIALLY as a bouncer is much likelier than you having to go three rounds in the octagon as someone who doesn't compete. Aikido may be a terrible choice to fight off a pack of ninjas but thankfully, most of us will never have to do that. Punch a guy, even as a bouncer defending yourself and the guy falls and cracks his skull, you are going to jail. I know its easy to dismiss, but there's reasons for it, maybe not for you, but I'm very happy with the time and energy put into it and out of everything I have trained, I have used the Aikido and Judo by far more than anything else.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> View attachment 26690
> 
> This is the Australian Judo federation.
> There is more in there but I am running out of time. And it is a PDF.
> 
> And I dif put a Question mark after the sentence. So it wasn't a statement.


The contest points also refer to Kata competition unless Australia is different than the US and Japan. Even the Dan don't require any full contact sparring or competition.


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> Wow, what thread are you reading? First, I've been cheerful throughout this, you feel threatened and "raged" on because you are having your position challenged and you don't have any supporting argument other than wanting to have the last word. Working through logic knots with people who are using simple logical fallacy is me taking the time to help you see the problem with your own argument. Your seniority on an internet martial arts board doesn't mean anything and it doesn't strengthen the logical position you have taken.
> 
> You have taken the absolute position of "this doesn't work", its the entirety of your argument. You have to be right, 100% without exception for that position to be true. Two different internet martial arts nerds have told you, "not really, it works". All that made up mojo in your head about how long you have lurked this board berating Aikido peeps, irrelevant, your argument is null and void, its one internet nerd versus two, your mileage may vary. I stated in my first or second post that its impossible to "prove" a martial arts discussion on the internet, that hasn't changed.


This amuses me. Three seperate times you have abandoned all semblance of discussion to try to discredit me, personally, as if you know my history or background, and you've done it to others as well.

I have never said 'it doesn't work'. I started by asking you admittedly pointed questions you politician spoke your way around, and then claimed to have answered...as if people can't just go back and read for themselves.

Anyway. Carry on. Best of luck.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> This amuses me. Three seperate times you have abandoned all semblance of discussion to try to discredit me, personally, as if you know my history or background, and you've done it to others as well.
> 
> I have never said 'it doesn't work'. I started by asking you admittedly pointed questions you politician spoke your way around, and then claimed to have answered...as if people can't just go back and read for themselves.
> 
> Anyway. Carry on. Best of luck.


They sure can, all my wild claims like "hey Aikido is good for some stuff" and your very gracious and not at all snarky or gatekeeping questions you ignored page after page of answers to until you just started in with the "Aikido is imaginary" shtick.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> View attachment 26690
> 
> This is the Australian Judo federation.
> There is more in there but I am running out of time. And it is a PDF.
> 
> And I dif put a Question mark after the sentence. So it wasn't a statement.


did you read point three or only stop when you found something that agreed with you ?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If we compare wrestling, Judo, and Aikido, we can see that their contact points are different.
> 
> - Wrestlers like to control the shoulder gate.
> - Judo guys like to control the elbow gate.
> - Aikido guys like to control the wrist gate.
> 
> Why are the difference? IMO, the closer the control, the less mobility your opponent will have.
> 
> I have never seen "arm wrapping" used in Aikido. Do Aikido guys give their opponent too much freedom (such as free elbow joints)?


You've captured them all at different points in technique, which exaggerates the issue. Judo, at the point of throwing, is as close as most of wrestling. You can find that in Aikido, but on average, it's working further away at initial contact, so there will usually be more space at the time of the throw. What your first two pictures more accurately represent is the difference in the rules approach. Judo tends to stay a bit apart until an attempt at a throw - it's my understanding this is a result of the rules, not the basics of the art.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> It's a joke about force. Judo in Japanese is "the gentle way". It does not force you to do full contact sparring however, it gives you the option.



Bad joke is bad. I would argue that Sport/Olympic Judoka are by far the best exponents of Judo on the planet.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> If all you're doing is two-person katas with a compliant uke, you're not going to be as well prepared.


More to the point, IMO - you don't know how prepared you are. You might be quite good, but wouldn't know it. You might also be quite bad and not know it.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> More to the point, IMO - you don't know how prepared you are. You might be quite good, but wouldn't know it. You might also be quite bad and not know it.



I would say that if you are constantly full contact sparring with resistant partners, you're far more prepared than someone doing 2 person compliant katas. If I'm constantly throwing around 300lb people in my Judo class, throwing around a 300lb drunk at a bar should be a walk in the park.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> judo only forces live full contact if you chose to go the sports route,  otherwise it forces nothing at all


Judo's common training approach (from my experience and what I've heard from others here and elsewhere) involves live work with a resisting opponent/partner. There are probably exceptions, but that seems to be core to the system. This was true within my training group - none of whom were still competing at the time, though we trained as if we were (it was the plan, but the instructor got a job in another country).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You have to compete to grade?


Is that true? I know it wasn't universally true at one point - I know at least two people who (decades ago) took grappling knowledge in and tested to grade in a fairly short period of time. Neither competed in Judo competitions. Those may be extreme exceptions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Shatteredzen said:


> This is like the BJJ in law enforcement example. You can use BJJ as a cop, but it puts you in a seriously screwed up position tactically, it exposes your firearm and then you have the problem of being on the ground to get picked off by the opponents friends. Believe it or not, there are lots of reasons to not go to the ground in a fight, once again, the UFC is not an end all be all example of effectiveness in martial arts, it highly favors grappling and ground fighting because you cannot strike the back of the head, the spine, a downed fighter, there's no head butting, no slamming a fighter on the ground, etc. Can you slam someone in Judo? Yes, I said this. If you need to go for the slam, then you use it. Once again, this is an attempt to force a square peg into a round hole. All of these techniques are situational and the Aikido complements the Judo, its not trying to replace it. BJJ has no striking, do we compare it to striking arts and say "well since it has no strikes, this system is imaginary", no, you train strikes, the striking complements the BJJ.


BJJ isn't about pulling guard. It's about controlling things below standing level. When things get physical for cops, it's going to the ground. BJJ is a pretty good match for controlling the situation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> View attachment 26690
> 
> This is the Australian Judo federation.
> There is more in there but I am running out of time. And it is a PDF.
> 
> And I dif put a Question mark after the sentence. So it wasn't a statement.


I read that to say there's an alternate route away from contest grading.


----------



## Shatteredzen

gpseymour said:


> BJJ isn't about pulling guard. It's about controlling things below standing level. When things get physical for cops, it's going to the ground. BJJ is a pretty good match for controlling the situation.


Except if you go to the ground to wrestle one person, you are vulnerable to anyone else around you, there's also the gun that you have on your hip. Once the suspect is on the ground, the fight should be mostly over, its a matter of putting restraints on a person who is prone at that point. BJJ works well on the ground against a single opponent, that does not mean you want to be on your back with an armbar when you are arresting someone in a parking lot, at night, with five of their friends standing next to you. Yes, you will stack the deck and get backup if you can, but if the altercation begins before you have called for the backup from dispatch, now you have to do that, protect your weapon and arrest the guy who you are fighting with. BJJ is used to fight back to your feet or as a last ditch defense if things go to the ground. If you make a habit of trying to subdue suspects by wrestling with them on the ground instead of taking them down and then getting on top of them you will absolutely get hurt on the job or worse.


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> I would say that if you are constantly full contact sparring with resistant partners, you're far more prepared than someone doing 2 person compliant katas. If I'm constantly throwing around 300lb people in my Judo class, throwing around a 300lb drunk at a bar should be a walk in the park.


 I gotta' get me some of that walk in the park stuff.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> I would say that if you are constantly full contact sparring with resistant partners, you're far more prepared than someone doing 2 person compliant katas. If I'm constantly throwing around 300lb people in my Judo class, throwing around a 300lb drunk at a bar should be a walk in the park.


what happens if your class doesn't have any morbidly obese people in ? then your clearly not prepared


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Bad joke is bad. I would argue that Sport/Olympic Judoka are by far the best exponents of Judo on the planet.


if they are at the Olympics thats a good call, but what about the other 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%


----------



## Shatteredzen

jobo said:


> what happens if your class doesn't have any morbidly obese people in ? then your clearly not prepared


At Hanzou's gym they just stack up white belts until they get 300 lbs and then throw them in a group.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Except if you go to the ground to wrestle one person, you are vulnerable to anyone else around you, there's also the gun that you have on your hip. Once the suspect is on the ground, the fight should be mostly over, its a matter of putting restraints on a person who is prone at that point. BJJ works well on the ground against a single opponent, that does not mean you want to be on your back with an armbar when you are arresting someone in a parking lot, at night, with five of their friends standing next to you. Yes, you will stack the deck and get backup if you can, but if the altercation begins before you have called for the backup from dispatch, now you have to do that, protect your weapon and arrest the guy who you are fighting with. BJJ is used to fight back to your feet or as a last ditch defense if things go to the ground. If you make a habit of trying to subdue suspects by wrestling with them on the ground instead of taking them down and then getting on top of them you will absolutely get hurt on the job or worse.



We can look at the George Floyd case, the Jacob Blake case, and the Rayshard Brooks case to showcase how valuable ground fighting can be for law enforcement.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> what happens if your class doesn't have any morbidly obese people in ? then your clearly



The point is that if you get used to throwing/grappling heavy people under duress, it makes it easier to throw/grapple with heavy people under duress.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> We can look at the George Floyd case, the Jacob Blake case, and the Rayshard Brooks case to showcase how valuable ground fighting can be for law enforcement.


That's completely ridiculous and isn't even close to relevant to the conversation.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> The point is that if you get used to throwing/grappling heavy people under duress, it makes it easier to throw/grapple with heavy people under duress.


do you know what duress means?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I read that to say there's an alternate route away from contest grading.



There is I had to go do stuff. I think it is a deeper question than I have access to right now.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> There are far more than one or two people in the world who can pull off the techniques live, that's more fud. Most police defensive tactics courses at a local and national level rely equally on Aikido, Judo and BJJ. I've seen plenty of other officers make this stuff work and you have had two LEO's here tell you the same. We've linked the videos back and forth, Rokas even changed his opinion to the fact that its a training issue. We can argue over how practical or effective something is or why you might want to use an aikido technique over something else, but its the same subjectivism we have been going round and round about.
> 
> Pain compliance, controlled throws and locks, less lethal force is a good tool to have in the toolkit. You want to spend the least amount of time training to learn how to fight? Not Aikido's thing, worst choice you could make. Want to learn how to protect yourself and maybe not hurt the guy trying to hurt you? Now we walk into the realm of where Aikido has something to offer. The bokken techniques were adapted from bayonet fighting and they work for weapon retention techniques, so they get used by the military. The chances of you getting rushed by a drunk, ESPECIALLY as a bouncer is much likelier than you having to go three rounds in the octagon as someone who doesn't compete. Aikido may be a terrible choice to fight off a pack of ninjas but thankfully, most of us will never have to do that. Punch a guy, even as a bouncer defending yourself and the guy falls and cracks his skull, you are going to jail. I know its easy to dismiss, but there's reasons for it, maybe not for you, but I'm very happy with the time and energy put into it and out of everything I have trained, I have used the Aikido and Judo by far more than anything else.



Ok show me five actual Aikido guys pulling off Aikido techniques live.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> That's completely ridiculous and isn't even close to relevant to the conversation.



All three of those incidents resulted from a lack of skill in ground fighting and controlling an assailant on the ground. If those cops knew some, those incidents may not have occurred.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> do you know what duress means?



Considering your previous semantic arguments, I’m sure I know what the word means better than you do.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> More to the point, IMO - you don't know how prepared you are. You might be quite good, but wouldn't know it. You might also be quite bad and not know it.


If this was something simple, like making a grilled cheese sandwich, sure.  But this is a complex skill set.  It's like practicing tight rope walking by walking along a 12" wide wall that's 36" above the ground, and then trying to walk an actual tightrope 100' up without a net.  There are a lot of in between steps that any reasonable person would take, that for some reason go out the window when we talk about martial arts. 

To answer your question, you won't be well prepared.   You might not die,  but statistically that is likely anyway.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> All three of those incidents resulted from a lack of skill in ground fighting and controlling an assailant on the ground. If those cops knew some, those incidents may not have occurred.


Only thing I'll say about this is that George Floyd didn't die because Chauvin didn't know BJJ.  Lack of grappling skills wasn't Chauvin's deal.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> The point is that if you get used to throwing/grappling heavy people under duress, it makes it easier to throw/grapple with heavy people under duress.


And the first time you do it, it's nice of the stakes are a little lower than a mugging.


----------



## Hanzou

Steve said:


> Only thing I'll say about this is that George Floyd didn't die because Chauvin didn't know BJJ.  Lack of grappling skills wasn't Chauvin's deal.



True. I’m thinking that if they knew BJJ Chauvin or the other cops would have known not to use that hold for as long as they did(assuming he wasn’t trying to murder him, which I believe he was).


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> All three of those incidents resulted from a lack of skill in ground fighting and controlling an assailant on the ground. If those cops knew some, those incidents may not have occurred.


This is by far the dumbest thing I have ever read anywhere on the internet. Congratulations. It would be funny if you werent misrepresenting the deaths of innocent people for shock value in a forum post. This is not only not relevant to the conversation, its just down right in poor taste and shows an extreme lack of maturity on your part. Please have the self awareness to feel an appropriate measure of shame or at least drop this particular subject because Im not going to participate in it with you. We are here to talk about Aikido.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Considering your previous semantic arguments, I’m sure I know what the word means better than you do.


well it would seem not from your usage


----------



## Dirty Dog

jobo said:


> well it would seem not from your usage


Do you REALLY not see the incredible irony of you correcting anyone on their use of the English language?


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Most police defensive tactics courses at a local and national level rely equally on Aikido, Judo and BJJ. I've seen plenty of other officers make this stuff work and you have had two LEO's here tell you the same



Yeah but I want Aikido guys to be doing this.






And not this.






The first video is convincing. Not assurances with nothing to back it up. Dillman no touch ko guy makes assurances. And his stuff is pure fantasy.

Otherwise there is a lot of police training that is quite simply terrible. A lot of cops hate it. So the inclusion in a police defensive tactics course is not on its own a very good endorsement.

I am not sure why the resistance to just showing stuff working. It seems that is the hardest thing in the world. As if I am expected to take people on face value without fact checking them.


----------



## jobo

Dirty Dog said:


> Do you REALLY not see the incredible irony of you correcting anyone on their use of the English language?


your not big on detail yourself, i havent corrected him, that would require me to provided the alternative, rather than point out that he may be in error 

are you aware of the meaning of " correcting" ? it would seem not


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> All three of those incidents resulted from a lack of skill in ground fighting and controlling an assailant on the ground. If those cops knew some, those incidents may not have occurred.



Sort of. Positional asphyxia can just be a combination of top pressure and meth. 

I


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> This is by far the dumbest thing I have ever read anywhere on the internet. Congratulations. It would be funny if you werent misrepresenting the deaths of innocent people for shock value in a forum post. This is not only not relevant to the conversation, its just down right in poor taste and shows an extreme lack of maturity on your part. Please have the self awareness to feel an appropriate measure of shame or at least drop this particular subject because Im not going to participate in it with you. We are here to talk about Aikido.




Thank you for continuing to show your ignorance. Anyway here’s an article on the topic;

Police Officer Uses Flawless Jiu-Jitsu to Subdue Vandal


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Sort of. Positional asphyxia can just be a combination of top pressure and meth.
> 
> I



Outside of the Floyd case, the other two incidents occurred because the cops lost control of the assailant on the ground, and the assailant walked or ran away from the cops. The police then shot both assailants as they were escaping.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Outside of the Floyd case, the other two incidents occurred because the cops lost control of the assailant on the ground, and the assailant walked or ran away from the cops. The police then shot both assailants as they were escaping.


it would seem the deaths happened because they shot them, that may or may not,  ,have happen if the cops new bjj, but it most definitely wouldn't have,happen if they hadnt shot them as they ran,

as a,solution to stop unnecessary deaths, not shooting seems a lot easier to implement and also 100% reliable


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> it would seem the deaths happened because they shot them, that may or may not,  ,have happen if the cops new bjj, but it most definitely wouldn't have,happen if they hadnt shot them as they ran,
> 
> as a,solution to stop unnecessary deaths, not shooting seems a lot easier to implement and also 100% reliable



If the cops* knew* Bjj, they would have had the skill to subdue the men before they broke away from them. Thus, no shooting required.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> If the cops knew Bjj, they would have had the skill to subdue the men before they broke away from them. Thus, no shooting required.


well that may or may not be true, you have no way of proving that other than offering a biased opinion,  no shooting was required, it was completly optional


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> well that may or may not be true, you have no way of proving that other than offering a biased opinion,  no shooting was required, it was completly optional



It's completely true. Having skill in that form of fighting gives you confidence to know that you can control someone. If you don't have that confidence, and the suspect has already broken away from you, you have no control over the situation. Thus you resort to shooting.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> It's completely true. Having skill in that form of fighting gives you confidence to know that you can control someone. If you don't have that confidence, and the suspect has already broken away from you, you have no control over the situation. Thus you resort to shooting.


its not provably true in those exspress cases is it,
you could if course say yes it is  and provided the proof, but you  will just continued with your opinionated mantra

it seems a particularly American view point that spending years diligently build grappling skill, is preferable to just not shooting people running away, the uk seems to manage it most of the time

it does become some what academic as it seems they are going to do neither, when they could of course do both


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> its not provably true in those exspress cases is it,
> you could if course say yes it is  and provided the proof, but you  will just continued with your opinionated mantra
> 
> it seems a particularly American view point that spending years diligently build grappling skill, is preferable to just not shooting people running away, the uk seems to manage it most of the time
> 
> it does become some what academic as it seems they are going to do neither, when they could of course do both



I never said any of those shootings were justified, quite the opposite in fact. That said, if the cops knew some grappling, they could control the person without resorting to more violent methods. That's the point.

Here is the video of the Rayshard Brooks case;






Starting at the 1:08 mark, some grappling knowledge would have been helpful.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> I never said any of those shootings were justified, quite the opposite in fact. That said, if the cops knew some grappling, they could control the person without resorting to more violent methods. That's the point.
> 
> Here is the video of the Rayshard Brooks case;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starting at the 1:08 mark, some grappling knowledge would have been helpful.


well they COULD have done, that not the same as saying that was the only outcome,  which is what you post strongly suggested


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> well they COULD have done, that not the same as saying that was the only outcome,  which is what you post strongly suggested



Uh, this entire conversation revolves around what they *could* have done...


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Uh, this entire conversation revolves around what they *could* have done...


this entire conversation revolves around you saying the bjj would have ensured a different out come,

you could equally make a case if they hadnt been middle aged,over weight, out of condition and trigger happy, there COULD have been a different outcome.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> this entire conversation revolves around you saying the bjj would have ensured a different out come,



Which makes it still fall into the realm of COULD. In other words, if the cops were skilled in Bjj, they COULD have subdued Mr. Brooks without having to resort to shooting him as he ran away with a taser.

Back to the point that began this entire conversation; Bjj can be highly useful for law enforcement, since we often see cops having to wrestle with assailants on the ground. Aikido simply doesn't have an answer for that situation.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Which makes it still fall into the realm of COULD. In other words, if the cops were skilled in Bjj, they COULD have subdued Mr. Brooks without having to resort to shooting him as he ran away with a taser.
> 
> Back to the point that began this entire conversation; Bjj can be highly useful for law enforcement, since we often see cops having to wrestle with assailants on the ground. Aikido simply doesn't have an answer for that situation.


could means it possible, not at all how likely it is, if you want to make a case that bjj could have helped, by an unspecified and totally undetermined amount, then nobody can argue,  saying as you did that the out come  would be different is in the area of fortune readers, youl be right sometimes, but possibly not this time


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> could means it possible, not at all how likely it is, if you want to make a case that bjj could have helped, by an unspecified and totally undetermined amount, then nobody can argue,  saying as you did that the out come  would be different is in the area of fortune readers, youl be right sometimes, but possibly not this time



If the police officers were able to control the suspect on the ground the outcome would have clearly been different. Bjj would have given them the tools to do exactly that because that situation falls perfectly in line with Bjj training methodology.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> If the police officers were able to control the suspect on the ground the outcome would have clearly been different. Bjj would have given them the tools to do exactly that because that situation falls perfectly in line with Bjj training methodology.


bjj would have given them the tools( what does that even mean? if you mean skill say skill) to attempt to use bjj skills on him, and that's all you can say with any accuracy

they are still middle aged over weight and out of condition,  no one knows how that would have turned out, not even you and your fortune telling cards


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> bjj would have given them the tools( what does that even mean? if you mean skill say skill) to attempt to use bjj skills on him, and that's all you can say with any accuracy
> 
> they are still middle aged over weight and out of condition,  no one knows how that would have turned out, not even you and your fortune telling cards



Bjj skills were designed precisely for that situation. This isn't like Aikido or Karate where you do katas and pretend to fight someone when you're training. In Bjj you're actually fighting when you're training, so you become used to dealing with someone attempting to scramble out of your grips, you get used to someone rolling around like a crazy person, you get used to someone attempting to buck you off of them while you're on your back. Further, you get practice doing this against a wide variety of body types and skill levels.

This is simple logic, and we can see the results of cops who have clearly trained this practice versus cops who clearly have not trained this practice. When you have confidence from this fighting range, you're less likely to panic and do stupid stuff (like shooting unarmed people).

As for being overweight and unconditioned, Bjj would have taken care of that too.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Bjj skills were designed precisely for that situation. This isn't like Aikido or Karate where you do katas and pretend to fight someone when you're training. In Bjj you're actually fighting when you're training, so you become used to dealing with someone attempting to scramble out of your grips, you get used to someone rolling around like a crazy person, you get used to someone attempting to buck you off of them while you're on your back. Further, you get practice doing this against a wide variety of body types and skill levels.
> 
> This is simple logic, and we can see the results of cops who have clearly trained this practice versus cops who clearly have not trained this practice. When you have confidence from this fighting range, you're less likely to panic and do stupid stuff (like shooting unarmed people).
> 
> As for being overweight and unconditioned, Bjj would have taken care of that too.


it's very simple logic,  child like almost, 

nothing you've said gives anything but a vague assurance that things COULD have turned out better if the knew bjj


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> it's very simple logic,  child like almost,
> 
> nothing you've said gives anything but a *vague assurance* that things COULD have turned out better if the knew bjj



Uh, how is it vague? If you're grappling against people in your training, you're going to be used to grappling someone in a violent situation.  Again, we have multiple examples of this methodology working in that fashion. This isn't some mystical mumbo-jumbo, it's science backed by decades of evidence. "Vague" is telling me that Aikido works because Ueshiba threw someone with his pinky, yet not being able to show a modern exponent replicating the feat.

What's more, within your training you get to deal with both experienced grapplers and spazzy newbies, thus developing reactions to their reactions and getting used to how someone responds to you having a hold on them. Having multiple ways to attain positional dominance in a violent struggle is invaluable and fundamental.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Uh, how is it vague? If you're grappling against people in your training, you're going to be used to grappling someone in a violent situation.  Again, we have multiple examples of this methodology working in that fashion. This isn't some mystical mumbo-jumbo, it's science backed by decades of evidence. "Vague" is telling me that Aikido works because Ueshiba threw someone with his pinky, yet not being able to show a modern exponent replicating the feat.
> 
> What's more, within your training you get to deal with both experienced grapplers and spazzy newbies, thus developing reactions to their reactions and getting used to how someone responds to you having a hold on them. Having multiple ways to attain positional dominance in a violent struggle is invaluable and fundamental.


its VAGUE, as its an assurance where you cant actually assure people how it will turn out, so its an assurance which lacks exactitude, hence the use of the term vague,


----------



## Shatteredzen

jobo said:


> bjj would have given them the tools( what does that even mean? if you mean skill say skill) to attempt to use bjj skills on him, and that's all you can say with any accuracy
> 
> they are still middle aged over weight and out of condition,  no one knows how that would have turned out, not even you and your fortune telling cards


Hence the problem with this entire BS argument. You have someone who has never had to arrest an out of control suspect trying to quarterback an incident with make believe internet martial arts skills. It's at the very least, off topic and disrespectful to the people who were killed. Quite frankly the lack of mod intervention on this one after all the complaining from them earlier is pretty bad. 

For all the back and forth on here its still been about an existential concept, a style of martial art, which despite the opinion of some, will continue along just fine regardless of internet arguments. While disrespectful and in poor taste in general, the Aikido dog piling happens a lot on the internet where people run their mouths about their sweet skills like they never would on a mat. These are real people being hurt though and videos showing an unjustified use of force to try and make a statement about why your imaginary BJJ expertise could have changed that is stupid, its hurtful, its exploiting the dead to try and manufacture the barest hint of a point that you aren't even succeeding in.

Please, move on to something else and get back on topic or can one of the mods please step in and do their job, do you really want to host this kind of thing on your board?


----------



## Hanzou

Cops need to be better trained = Cops justified in murdering people.
BJJ being more applicable to police work than Aikido= Disrespecting people who were murdered by police.

In short, a laughable interpretation of what is being discussed.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Cops need to be better trained = Cops justified in murdering people.
> BJJ being more applicable to police work than Aikido= Disrespecting people who were murdered by police.
> 
> In short, a laughable interpretation of what is being discussed.


Using examples of unjustified use of force, linking the video of it and then declaring that the situation would have been prevented by BJJ is your opinion, which comes from no position of experience or authority, in a situation you have never been in and quite frankly don't know the slightest thing about. Yes, that's pretty disgusting. I give you anecdotal information about my time as a cop and a vague description of a scenario, that's not the same as naming the person, linking the video of the incident and then proudly exclaiming how it proves how great my martial art is. That in itself would be in poor form, a breach of public trust and a poor argument that may satisfy your teenage curiosity but would be horrendously inappropriate. You naming specific victims killed in unjustified uses of force, linking the videos of their deaths and then loosely fumbling your way through the flawed logic that these situations could have been prevented had the officers taken some BJJ classes is laughable as a logic exercise but incredibly juvenile, tone deaf to current events and shows a lack of moral character and empathy at a basic human level. You are like a small child who just crapped his diaper and is arguing that it doesn't need to be changed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Shatteredzen said:


> Except if you go to the ground to wrestle one person, you are vulnerable to anyone else around you, there's also the gun that you have on your hip. Once the suspect is on the ground, the fight should be mostly over, its a matter of putting restraints on a person who is prone at that point. BJJ works well on the ground against a single opponent, that does not mean you want to be on your back with an armbar when you are arresting someone in a parking lot, at night, with five of their friends standing next to you. Yes, you will stack the deck and get backup if you can, but if the altercation begins before you have called for the backup from dispatch, now you have to do that, protect your weapon and arrest the guy who you are fighting with. BJJ is used to fight back to your feet or as a last ditch defense if things go to the ground. If you make a habit of trying to subdue suspects by wrestling with them on the ground instead of taking them down and then getting on top of them you will absolutely get hurt on the job or worse.


The problems of being on the ground don’t vanish when if you don’t train BJJ. I’ve yet to talk to a LEO who had a habit of cuffing resisting people while standing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> If this was something simple, like making a grilled cheese sandwich, sure.  But this is a complex skill set.  It's like practicing tight rope walking by walking along a 12" wide wall that's 36" above the ground, and then trying to walk an actual tightrope 100' up without a net.  There are a lot of in between steps that any reasonable person would take, that for some reason go out the window when we talk about martial arts.
> 
> To answer your question, you won't be well prepared.   You might not die,  but statistically that is likely anyway.


You seem to be trying to disagree. I’m not sure with what.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Using examples of unjustified use of force, linking the video of it and then declaring that the situation would have been prevented by BJJ is your opinion, which comes from no position of experience or authority, in a situation you have never been in and quite frankly don't know the slightest thing about.




Which would be an assumption.



Shatteredzen said:


> Yes, that's pretty disgusting. I give you anecdotal information about my time as a cop and a vague description of a scenario, that's not the same as naming the person, linking the video of the incident and then proudly exclaiming how it proves how great my martial art is. That in itself would be in poor form, a breach of public trust and a poor argument that may satisfy your teenage curiosity but would be horrendously inappropriate. You naming specific victims killed in unjustified uses of force, linking the videos of their deaths and then loosely fumbling your way through the flawed logic that these situations could have been prevented had the officers taken some BJJ classes is laughable as a logic exercise but incredibly juvenile, tone deaf to current events and shows a lack of moral character and empathy at a basic human level. You are like a small child who just crapped his diaper and is arguing that it doesn't need to be changed.



Incredibly, you seem incapable of recognizing that the use of lethal force occurred because the cops lost control of the situation AFTER they failed to control the suspect via grappling. Thus it would seem rather apparent that if the cops didn't fail during the grappling phase of the encounter and controlled the situation at that point, there would never have been the subsequent escalation afterwards. Tying this into the current Aikido discussion, when you get to the point where you and the assailant are on the ground and are pretty much in a scramble to attain dominant position, Aikido is utterly useless at that point. Bjj on the other hand is in its proverbial wheelhouse.

Where's the logic fail exactly? Please try to explain without the juvenile insults please.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Yeah but I want Aikido guys to be doing this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And not this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first video is convincing. Not assurances with nothing to back it up. Dillman no touch ko guy makes assurances. And his stuff is pure fantasy.
> 
> Otherwise there is a lot of police training that is quite simply terrible. A lot of cops hate it. So the inclusion in a police defensive tactics course is not on its own a very good endorsement.
> 
> I am not sure why the resistance to just showing stuff working. It seems that is the hardest thing in the world. As if I am expected to take people on face value without fact checking them.



Please explain to me how you would transition out of an arm bar from the guard into a mount on the subjects back and then place the subject into handcuffs

A) without exposing yourself to an attack from the subject or a bystander
B) without exposing your firearm or other weapon on your duty belt to the subject or a bystander
C) maintain compliance from the subject the entire time, without providing an opportunity to resist or escape
D) maintain control of the subject in a way that allows you to regain control immediately should resistance occur

The answer is, you can't. No one is saying cops would not benefit from BJJ, as it is, there is commonly BJJ in the defensive tactics curriculum, as a way to fight back to your feet. Cops don't like defensive tactics because they are lazy, the motivated martial artists on the force never complain about a DTAC day with pay. Despite your opinions on the subject, there's much more that goes into an arrest situation and that's why you can't drop on the ground with everyone and go for a choke or submission. IF you get taken down to the ground as a cop you are in a fight for your life immediately and are likely to be attacked by a bystander so maintaining distance and paying more attention to how you enter and receive an opponents line of attack and what you do from there is more Judo and Aikido than it is BJJ, the BJJ is in the one half percent of emergencies where you are scrabbling with someone on the ground trying to get your gun, that's it. I keep trying to explain this to you and you can't seem to understand that if you are on the ground in a fight you are literally waiting to get kicked in the head by the guys friend. Aside from this, you can't cuff a guy in a choke or submission and the moment you turn the submission off you are fighting again, you don't have the option to break the guys arm because he didn't tap. 

BJJ is great, all martial arts are great, more training is more training but you have a deluded concept of how confrontations work and you can't seem to get over the fact that BJJ on its own doesn't go anywhere and isn't an end all, be all, neither is MMA sport fighting. I don't have a library of videos for you with Aikido, that doesn't change the fact that it works or that its good for these types of encounters. While I don't think it has a great future in the UFC, I also don't see the logic in discounting a martial art that gives officers a way to handle a subject while using less force and preventing harm to both parties, or why a private citizen wouldn't be well served learning the same. If your argument is "it doesn't work and therefore A/B/C" please remember, you have already had more than one LEO in here saying it works. The irony of some guys not in law enforcement lecturing people in law enforcement about what has and hasn't worked for them is absolute comedy gold on this end, personal anecdotes notwithstanding.


----------



## Shatteredzen

gpseymour said:


> The problems of being on the ground don’t vanish when if you don’t train BJJ. I’ve yet to talk to a LEO who had a habit of cuffing resisting people while standing.


Once again, you are either arguing from a false position or not keeping up with the conversation. The entirety of my position has remained consistent throughout this discussion. Aikido works in the capacity it was designed, it is useful for its intended purpose although it should update its training methods and the overall quality of the schools available is poor, which should be fixed. Who is telling you not to train BJJ? I said multiple times it is taught in police defensive tactics, I learned BJJ and Judo alongside my Aikido, I've advocated for BJJ here. My point is that Aikido should not be used alone, I believe it is a bridge system and was designed that way to fill in gaps between the budo. 

The argument you are jumping into is that Aikido is akin to reiki crystal healing and BJJ is the ultimate answer for police, which is false on both counts and I gave you some of the reasons.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Which would be an assumption.
> 
> 
> 
> Incredibly, you seem incapable of recognizing that the use of lethal force occurred because the cops lost control of the situation AFTER they failed to control the suspect via grappling. Thus it would seem rather apparent that if the cops didn't fail during the grappling phase of the encounter and controlled the situation at that point, there would never have been the subsequent escalation afterwards. Tying this into the current Aikido discussion, when you get to the point where you and the assailant are on the ground and are pretty much in a scramble to attain dominant position, Aikido is utterly useless at that point. Bjj on the other hand is in its proverbial wheelhouse.
> 
> Where's the logic fail exactly? Please try to explain without the juvenile insults please.


Choking someone to death for nine minutes while they scream for their mother and refusing to render aid is a lot different than a grappling failure. Shooting someone in the back running away from you is a lot different than a grappling failure. Its murder. I don't think the Floyd family or any of the other families in those videos would appreciate you using their family members death as an attempt to win an internet karate argument. We can discuss these things in abstract, I for one, do not have an issue with personal anecdote assuming its honored on both sides of the discussion. 

Your insistence on using these incidents shows that you don't understand the concept of the use of force in law enforcement and your judgement isn't right to have an educated discussion on it, this is not a dig, its a lack of experience and training on your part that you would have no reason to have. Just like this revolving argument about Aikido, BJJ and MMA, none of these are swiss army knives, if BJJ is the blade in the swiss army knife and judo is the corkscrew and Aikido is the toothpick, they are all different tools with different uses and limitations. You don't seem to grasp this, you think its a simple case of BJJ/MMA being a one size fits all thing and Aikido being useless because you have never trained it, used it or seen it done. That's not martial arts guy. I could go on for hours about all the benefits to a fighter that yoga provides, that doesn't make it a stupid imaginary discipline because I'm not going to train yoga by itself and win the next UFC. 

I understand the reasoning behind your argument, but you are missing my points and the reasoning you are following to make your statements comes from a place of inexperience, if it didn't, you wouldn't have the position you do or be so desperate to attack mine. I'm literally just saying that Aikido works, based on my experience, in the way that it was developed. You are taking that to mean a whole lot of things I am not saying, based on your lack of knowledge of the system and what does and does not happen in a real world altercation. You are getting the same tone back that you have given me, if you would like to dial that back to a respectful level, I am happy to do the same assuming you drop specifically these unjustified use of force videos with people dying in them from the conversation.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> You seem to be trying to disagree. I’m not sure with what.


You said you wouldn't know how good you are.  I think you would know. Not at least, you should


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Choking someone to death for nine minutes while they scream for their mother and refusing to render aid is a lot different than a grappling failure.



It's a grappling failure because if you knew anything about that hold (Chauvin isn't the only cop I've seen use that hold on someone), you would know that holding someone in that position is potentially lethal. Further, you would know better ways of restraining someone on the ground, thus putting your knee on the back of their neck would not be necessary.



Shatteredzen said:


> Shooting someone in the back running away from you is a lot different than a grappling failure. Its murder.



And yet again we have you seemingly missing the point that the shooting in the back was a result of a loss of control on the ground. Like I said, once control is lost, people enter into a panic in an attempt to regain control.



Shatteredzen said:


> I don't think the Floyd family or any of the other families in those videos would appreciate you using their family members death as an attempt to win an internet karate argument. We can discuss these things in abstract, I for one, do not have an issue with personal anecdote assuming its honored on both sides of the discussion.




I'm sure the fact that the cop who shot and killed Rayshard Brooks is now being reinstated by the Atlanta police is more of a blow than my belief that cops should be highly trained in grappling in order to control situations before they escalate.



Shatteredzen said:


> Just like this revolving argument about Aikido, BJJ and MMA, none of these are swiss army knives, if BJJ is the blade in the swiss army knife and judo is the corkscrew and Aikido is the toothpick, they are all different tools with different uses and limitations. You don't seem to grasp this, you think its a simple case of BJJ/MMA being a one size fits all thing and Aikido being useless because you have never trained it, used it or seen it done.



Another assumption. But by all means, continue.....



Shatteredzen said:


> That's not martial arts guy. I could go on for hours about all the benefits to a fighter that yoga provides, that doesn't make it a stupid imaginary discipline because I'm not going to train yoga by itself and win the next UFC.
> 
> I understand the reasoning behind your argument, but you are missing my points and the reasoning you are following to make your statements comes from a place of inexperience, if it didn't, you wouldn't have the position you do or be so desperate to attack mine. I'm literally just saying that Aikido works, based on my experience, in the way that it was developed. You are taking that to mean a whole lot of things I am not saying, based on your lack of knowledge of the system and what does and does not happen in a real world altercation. You are getting the same tone back that you have given me, if you would like to dial that back to a respectful level, I am happy to do the same assuming you drop specifically these unjustified use of force videos with people dying in them from the conversation.



Literally no one is talking about your anecdotal Aikido stories. I used verified incidents with tons of video evidence to showcase exactly how those situations could have turned out better. I would prefer for you to explain how Bjj, arguably the most effective grappling martial art currently practiced, would not have benefitted the police in a GRAPPLING situation.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Please explain to me how you would transition out of an arm bar from the guard into a mount on the subjects back and then place the subject into handcuffs
> 
> A) without exposing yourself to an attack from the subject or a bystander
> B) without exposing your firearm or other weapon on your duty belt to the subject or a bystander
> C) maintain compliance from the subject the entire time, without providing an opportunity to resist or escape
> D) maintain control of the subject in a way that allows you to regain control immediately should resistance occur
> 
> The answer is, you can't. No one is saying cops would not benefit from BJJ, as it is, there is commonly BJJ in the defensive tactics curriculum, as a way to fight back to your feet. Cops don't like defensive tactics because they are lazy, the motivated martial artists on the force never complain about a DTAC day with pay. Despite your opinions on the subject, there's much more that goes into an arrest situation and that's why you can't drop on the ground with everyone and go for a choke or submission. IF you get taken down to the ground as a cop you are in a fight for your life immediately and are likely to be attacked by a bystander so maintaining distance and paying more attention to how you enter and receive an opponents line of attack and what you do from there is more Judo and Aikido than it is BJJ, the BJJ is in the one half percent of emergencies where you are scrabbling with someone on the ground trying to get your gun, that's it. I keep trying to explain this to you and you can't seem to understand that if you are on the ground in a fight you are literally waiting to get kicked in the head by the guys friend. Aside from this, you can't cuff a guy in a choke or submission and the moment you turn the submission off you are fighting again, you don't have the option to break the guys arm because he didn't tap.
> 
> BJJ is great, all martial arts are great, more training is more training but you have a deluded concept of how confrontations work and you can't seem to get over the fact that BJJ on its own doesn't go anywhere and isn't an end all, be all, neither is MMA sport fighting. I don't have a library of videos for you with Aikido, that doesn't change the fact that it works or that its good for these types of encounters. While I don't think it has a great future in the UFC, I also don't see the logic in discounting a martial art that gives officers a way to handle a subject while using less force and preventing harm to both parties, or why a private citizen wouldn't be well served learning the same. If your argument is "it doesn't work and therefore A/B/C" please remember, you have already had more than one LEO in here saying it works. The irony of some guys not in law enforcement lecturing people in law enforcement about what has and hasn't worked for them is absolute comedy gold on this end, personal anecdotes notwithstanding.



You would wiggle back up into a t bag kimoura and work from there.






So at the end of the day there is going to be nothing other than your say so that all this stuff works like it is promised.

Which is pretty much been the issue from the start.

Look I would love to throw people to the ground and lock them up with straight arm bars like I learned in my PPCT course. It would solve all these exposure problems, never endanger the other guy and I would look bad ***.

But real fights just don't tend to work that way, sorry.

I mean we hear tales of police throwing off Aikido moves. We see police rolling around on the ground with people.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> It's a grappling failure because if you knew anything about that hold (Chauvin isn't the only cop I've seen use that hold on someone), you would know that holding someone in that position is potentially lethal. Further, you would know better ways of restraining someone on the ground, thus putting your knee on the back of their neck would not be necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet again we have you seemingly missing the point that the shooting in the back was a result of a loss of control on the ground. Like I said, once control is lost, people enter into a panic in an attempt to regain control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the fact that the cop who shot and killed Rayshard Brooks is now being reinstated by the Atlanta police is more of a blow than my belief that cops should be highly trained in grappling in order to control situations before they escalate.
> 
> 
> 
> Another assumption. But by all means, continue.....
> 
> 
> 
> Literally no one is talking about your anecdotal Aikido stories. I used verified incidents with tons of video evidence to showcase exactly how those situations could have turned out better. I would prefer for you to explain how Bjj, arguably the most effective grappling martial art currently practiced, would not have benefitted the police in a GRAPPLING situation.



Chauvin had a duty to render aid, he understands positional asphyxiation and also knew he is supposed to assess his suspect for it continuously, he is duty bound to head all calls for medical assistance or trouble breathing even if he believes they are fake and he should have placed Floyd in a recovery position as soon as he was restrained and compliant, called for medical assistance and transitioned to giving first aid and relaxing the now compliant suspect. You don't get that because you are not a cop and don't have the training, of course, why would you? That doesn't change the fact that you are using a bad example and don't understand the situation.

It's not that he didn't know what to do its that he DID know EXACTLY what to do and he completely ignored it and continued to use force against a restrained and compliant suspect, which is illegal. Your other examples are equally bad, because a lack of control over the situation does not justify an unlawful use of force to regain control, there is a spectrum of force that officers must use that can be deemed reasonable in its escalation and necessity, you don't get that because you don't have the training. 

In all of these cases, more or less grappling training wouldn't have changed the result in any predictable way, the officers choice to use unlawful force, in violation of their oath, policy and the law were what resulted in these deaths. Do you really want to continue to speak outside of your entire area of expertise or would you like to come back and discuss Aikido? I never said BJJ training wouldn't benefit law enforcement, I said its part of the toolkit and that it does not work on its own in these situations but that its good if the situation comes to a ground fight.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> You would wiggle back up into a t bag kimoura and work from there.
> 
> So at the end of the day there is going to be nothing other than your say so that all this stuff works like it is promised.
> 
> Which is pretty much been the issue from the start.
> 
> Look I would love to throw people to the ground and lock them up with straight arm bars like I learned in my PPCT course. It would solve all these exposure problems, never endanger the other guy and I would look bad ***.
> 
> But real fights just don't tend to work that way, sorry.
> 
> I mean we hear tales of police throwing off Aikido moves. We see police rolling around on the ground with people.



You hear tales about incidents that went well, you see video of incidents that went bad and ended in the worst possible way. Either you didn't read or don't care to have an actual discussion, the transition from armbar from the guard to t bag kimoura requires you to relinquish control of the appendage. 

Now we are going with the straight arm bar doesn't work too? You kill me dude.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> You hear tales about incidents that went well, you see video of incidents that went bad and ended in the worst possible way. Either you didn't read or don't care to have an actual discussion, the transition from armbar from the guard to t bag kimoura requires you to relinquish control of the appendage.
> 
> Now we are going with the straight arm bar doesn't work too? You kill me dude.








This went surprisingly well considering. And yet there is video.

So you have the arm bar you can either bend the arm in to the kimoura and get back up. Or you can tuck the arm under your arm pit and get back up.

Or just handcuff the arm and wait for your buddies to rock up.

The issue is that you are still expecting me to take your word for things. And I am not.

So your whole game play basically flies out the window. 

Which is again one of the real problems with Aikido.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Shatteredzen said:


> Once again, you are either arguing from a false position or not keeping up with the conversation. The entirety of my position has remained consistent throughout this discussion. Aikido works in the capacity it was designed, it is useful for its intended purpose although it should update its training methods and the overall quality of the schools available is poor, which should be fixed. Who is telling you not to train BJJ? I said multiple times it is taught in police defensive tactics, I learned BJJ and Judo alongside my Aikido, I've advocated for BJJ here. My point is that Aikido should not be used alone, I believe it is a bridge system and was designed that way to fill in gaps between the budo.
> 
> The argument you are jumping into is that Aikido is akin to reiki crystal healing and BJJ is the ultimate answer for police, which is false on both counts and I gave you some of the reasons.


I literally made no comment about Aikido in this portion of the thread. You aren’t really reading what folks are posting, are you?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> You said you wouldn't know how good you are.  I think you would know. Not at least, you should


If someone is training with no resistance, they don’t actually have any direct feedback to know that. They have to rely on others’ estimations.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> This went surprisingly well considering. And yet there is video.
> 
> So you have the arm bar you can either bend the arm in to the kimoura and get back up. Or you can tuck the arm under your arm pit and get back up.
> 
> Or just handcuff the arm and wait for your buddies to rock up.
> 
> The issue is that you are still expecting me to take your word for things. And I am not.
> 
> So your whole game play basically flies out the window.
> 
> Which is again one of the real problems with Aikido.



He transitions after his partner comes in to assist, so of course that's fine, we weren't talking about that. You don't cuff someone on one arm and then try to wait to get the second cuff, once you have cuffed the first wrist they are now armed with a metal weapon you have to defend against if they get loose, there's a few guys who have gotten nasty lacerations learning that. I am not expecting you to do anything, I am presenting you with information for you to accept, discount, verify, etc on your own. Much like my experience and Aikido, they continue to be real in spite and independent of your belief or regard for them.


----------



## Shatteredzen

gpseymour said:


> I literally made no comment about Aikido in this portion of the thread. You aren’t really reading what folks are posting, are you?


I'm reading while other people are skimming, that's the issue. You began a separate conversation that no one initiated with you about law enforcement not training BJJ which I never advocated. The premise that BJJ is somehow more suited or is the ideal confrontation method for officers is what we were discussing. There is a difference between training a skill to use it to get back to ones feet or to defend against it than saying it works in all situations better than others, which seems to be the prevailing counterpoint you interjected with.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> He transitions after his partner comes in to assist, so of course that's fine, we weren't talking about that. You don't cuff someone on one arm and then try to wait to get the second cuff, once you have cuffed the first wrist they are now armed with a metal weapon you have to defend against if they get loose, there's a few guys who have gotten nasty lacerations learning that. I am not expecting you to do anything, I am presenting you with information for you to accept, discount, verify, etc on your own. Much like my experience and Aikido, they continue to be real in spite and independent of your belief or regard for them.



I wouldn't. But then apparently this guy does. And got away with it. He even got away with crossing his legs. 

We were talking about a scenario you made up to discredit a method we can see working so you can justify a method we can't see working.

And all of this is so you never have to move past an anecdote. 

This is how you would argue a religion. Not a martial art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Shatteredzen said:


> I'm reading while other people are skimming, that's the issue. You began a separate conversation that no one initiated with you about law enforcement not training BJJ which I never advocated. The premise that BJJ is somehow more suited or is the ideal confrontation method for officers is what we were discussing. There is a difference between training a skill to use it to get back to ones feet or to defend against it than saying it works in all situations better than others, which seems to be the prevailing counterpoint you interjected with.


I posted a direct reply to a specific point. You took it as an attack on Aikido and as a BJJ fanboy thing (I have only a basic familiarity with BJJ, and no significant training in it). So your post ranting about my supposed attitude toward Aikido demonstrates that you actually did NOT read the posts you replied to.

As for nobody initiating with me, this is a public forum. No invitations are required. Don’t like that? Maybe public forums aren’t a good fit for you.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> I'm reading while other people are skimming, that's the issue. You began a separate conversation that no one initiated with you about law enforcement not training BJJ which I never advocated. The premise that BJJ is somehow more suited or is the ideal confrontation method for officers is what we were discussing. There is a difference between training a skill to use it to get back to ones feet or to defend against it than saying it works in all situations better than others, which seems to be the prevailing counterpoint you interjected with.



Not exactly true. BJJ just does really good evidence. You can go from anecdotes, to drills, to live work in class, to videos of police using these methods. 

Scientific method right there. 

And it all kind of makes sense with itself. 

If Aikido could make this sort of case for themselves they would do a lot better. 

Aikido makes the case that their moves are more applicable. Which is fair. I have seen Steven Segal movies where he wrecks the whole room. 

But doesn't make the case that the techniques are able to be reliably performed. 

Which is also the case made in industry training. 

Where you just gooseneck everyone and the just comply. I mean yeah. I walk up and gooseneck a guy and he complies then that is a really good move.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> I wouldn't. But then apparently this guy does. And got away with it. He even got away with crossing his legs.
> 
> We were talking about a scenario you made up to discredit a method we can see working so you can justify a method we can't see working.
> 
> And all of this is so you never have to move past an anecdote.
> 
> This is how you would argue a religion. Not a martial art.



I gave you a sample scenario as an example, you provided video of another scenario that was similar where the officer gets backup and so he is able to get a cuff. 

You don't stop to consider that he would have been stuck there in that arm bar if his backup was five or ten minutes out. If he had been better at his standup he wouldn't have gone to the ground, the guy he is fighting is smaller than him with no technique. Your video does not depict what you say it does or counter the points given to you.

You seem to be missing what is going on here. I walked into an ongoing commentary between multiple people trying to reach an opinion about Aikido. I stepped in to help clarify since no other Aikido people had jumped in and the conversation was just a bunch of theory about what people thought was being done or attempted, etc. I attempted to answer everyone's questions and to give a bit of experience and knowledge on the subject since it was clear that no one was talking with any knowledge of Aikido and it was all a bunch of misconceptions, some of them perpetrated by the Aikido community itself. I made only the claim that Aikido has value as a system and works the way it was intended. This became a long, shifting argument about lots of other things as you and a few others have tried to pick different angles of approach to change the argument into what you wanted it to be about. Instead of us having a conversation about the topic of the post, its been a long winded witch hunt to try to get me to bow before you and say "Aikido doesn't work", which I won't do, because I have used it and it does in fact work, contrary to your personal needs to see youtube clips or your lack of satisfaction with my personal anecdotes. 

So yes, we have a broad post full of changes of subject and logical fallacy disguised as argument, here's a list in case you need them explained List of fallacies - Wikipedia

Once again, I am not here to convert you or to prove Aikido, I am here to give my opinion and answer questions or to have a discussion about it since you seem to be trying to reach a consensus, its only fair you should have at least one Aikido adherent in the discussion to correct you when you make fictitious statements or misrepresent the martial art. The irony being that you and the others can't see the verbal randori we are having for what it is.


----------



## Shatteredzen

gpseymour said:


> I posted a direct reply to a specific point. You took it as an attack on Aikido and as a BJJ fanboy thing (I have only a basic familiarity with BJJ, and no significant training in it). So your post ranting about my supposed attitude toward Aikido demonstrates that you actually did NOT read the posts you replied to.
> 
> As for nobody initiating with me, this is a public forum. No invitations are required. Don’t like that? Maybe public forums aren’t a good fit for you.


No one took it that way, if you go back and read my post and then your response, its pretty clear that you were advocating for BJJ as a method for arrest procedure. I replied and told you why that may not be the case. You replied saying that it was still better to train for it then not to because arrests shouldn't be made standing up. I responded and told you that you were going off topic in a line of logic that no one was making. If you have not noticed, there's been an ongoing problem with keeping the discussion on target as people try to reframe it for their own purposes. When I said no one was initiating that line of dialogue with you, it was a reminder that you were carrying the conversation off topic in a direction we were not headed, not an exclusionary statement towards your participation in the discussion.

edit, at least that's how it was intended, perceived on my end @gpseymour I have valued your input here.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I see you guys are still going at it


----------



## Shatteredzen

JowGaWolf said:


> I see you guys are still going at it


I'm going to take a break to go check on my folks and do some errands. Howdy and welcome back btw.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Chauvin had a duty to render aid, he understands positional asphyxiation and also knew he is supposed to assess his suspect for it continuously, he is duty bound to head all calls for medical assistance or trouble breathing even if he believes they are fake and he should have placed Floyd in a recovery position as soon as he was restrained and compliant, called for medical assistance and transitioned to giving first aid and relaxing the now compliant suspect. You don't get that because you are not a cop and don't have the training, of course, why would you? That doesn't change the fact that you are using a bad example and don't understand the situation.



Everything you typed above is completely irrelevant to what I said. It’s a grappling fail because if cops understood grappling they would realize that a knee on someone’s neck isn’t necessary to pin someone down, and it only escalates violence. Again, Chauvin isn’t the only cop I’ve seen using that method of restraint. In Bjj, that restraint and choke is frowned upon, and generally viewed as dirty, unnecessary, and dangerous and should be avoided. There’s far better ways to restrain someone in that position.



Shatteredzen said:


> It's not that he didn't know what to do its that he DID know EXACTLY what to do and he completely ignored it and continued to use force against a restrained and compliant suspect, which is illegal. Your other examples are equally bad, because a lack of control over the situation does not justify an unlawful use of force to regain control, there is a spectrum of force that officers must use that can be deemed reasonable in its escalation and necessity, you don't get that because you don't have the training.



Again, Chauvin isn’t the only cop who has applied that hold. I’ve seen quite a few cops in various departments around the US use that hold.



Shatteredzen said:


> In all of these cases, more or less grappling training wouldn't have changed the result in any predictable way, the officers choice to use unlawful force, in violation of their oath, policy and the law were what resulted in these deaths. Do you really want to continue to speak outside of your entire area of expertise or would you like to come back and discuss Aikido? I never said BJJ training wouldn't benefit law enforcement, I said its part of the toolkit and that it does not work on its own in these situations but that its good if the situation comes to a ground fight.



If those uses of force were unlawful, then why are 2/3 of those cops slated to be back on the job by the end of the year?

Do you really want to continue? You seem incapable of following a discussion without veering off course.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Everything you typed above is completely irrelevant to what I said. It’s a grappling fail because if cops understood grappling they would realize that a knee on someone’s neck isn’t necessary to pin someone down, and it only escalates violence. Again, Chauvin isn’t the only cop I’ve seen using that method of restraint. In Bjj, that restraint and choke is frowned upon, and generally viewed as dirty, unnecessary, and dangerous and should be avoided. There’s far better ways to restrain someone in that position.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, Chauvin isn’t the only cop who has applied that hold. I’ve seen quite a few cops in various departments around the US use that hold.
> 
> 
> 
> If those uses of force were unlawful, then why are 2/3 of those cops slated to be back on the job by the end of the year?
> 
> Do you really want to continue? You seem incapable of following a discussion without veering off course.


Its not the hold, its the totality of the situation. I already told you I am not participating in your misuse of these incidents. I have already given you more participation on the subject than I intended because you were on topic with part of your statements even though they were incorrect. I'm moving on, if you want to stay here in the mud then that's you.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Its not the hold...



Wrong. It is the hold.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shatteredzen said:


> I'm going to take a break to go check on my folks and do some errands. Howdy and welcome back btw.


I'll wait until the convo swing back to exploring the Aikido techniques and looking at the possible functionality that the techniques have or the functionality that that inspire the techniques.


----------



## Buka

I'm just coming into this thread's discussion now.....

All I can say is Wow.


----------



## Martial D

Shatteredzen said:


> I gave you a sample scenario as an example, you provided video of another scenario that was similar where the officer gets backup and so he is able to get a cuff.
> 
> You don't stop to consider that he would have been stuck there in that arm bar if his backup was five or ten minutes out. If he had been better at his standup he wouldn't have gone to the ground, the guy he is fighting is smaller than him with no technique. Your video does not depict what you say it does or counter the points given to you.
> 
> You seem to be missing what is going on here. I walked into an ongoing commentary between multiple people trying to reach an opinion about Aikido. I stepped in to help clarify since no other Aikido people had jumped in and the conversation was just a bunch of theory about what people thought was being done or attempted, etc. I attempted to answer everyone's questions and to give a bit of experience and knowledge on the subject since it was clear that no one was talking with any knowledge of Aikido and it was all a bunch of misconceptions, some of them perpetrated by the Aikido community itself. I made only the claim that Aikido has value as a system and works the way it was intended. This became a long, shifting argument about lots of other things as you and a few others have tried to pick different angles of approach to change the argument into what you wanted it to be about. Instead of us having a conversation about the topic of the post, its been a long winded witch hunt to try to get me to bow before you and say "Aikido doesn't work", which I won't do, because I have used it and it does in fact work, contrary to your personal needs to see youtube clips or your lack of satisfaction with my personal anecdotes.
> 
> So yes, we have a broad post full of changes of subject and logical fallacy disguised as argument, here's a list in case you need them explained List of fallacies - Wikipedia
> 
> Once again, I am not here to convert you or to prove Aikido, I am here to give my opinion and answer questions or to have a discussion about it since you seem to be trying to reach a consensus, its only fair you should have at least one Aikido adherent in the discussion to correct you when you make fictitious statements or misrepresent the martial art. The irony being that you and the others can't see the verbal randori we are having for what it is.


God is real. I don't need to show you evidence because I have personal experience. Wait..wrong forum...


----------



## Shatteredzen

Martial D said:


> God is real. I don't need to show you evidence because I have personal experience. Wait..wrong forum...


You hate God too?


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> I gave you a sample scenario as an example, you provided video of another scenario that was similar where the officer gets backup and so he is able to get a cuff.
> 
> You don't stop to consider that he would have been stuck there in that arm bar if his backup was five or ten minutes out. If he had been better at his standup he wouldn't have gone to the ground, the guy he is fighting is smaller than him with no technique. Your video does not depict what you say it does or counter the points given to you.



You are not really stuck in that arm bar except at a professional level. Where they might have escapes and you have lost top control.

You can sit back up. And from there transition in to something else. Like a mount or my favourite the kasegetami.

Otherwise sitting in that position for ten minutes would be a lot better than grinding someone in a standing arm bar. Which takes a lot more effort because you don't really have the mechanical advantage.

Bear in mind I want the guy to turn away from me because that will set up their roll in to their front. That is what I am trying to do with that T bag kimoura. 

So I mostly just need to make sure I control their near side shoulder. And give him an opportunity to escape the way I want.


----------



## drop bear

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=736777553544381
			




A variation on that theme.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> You are not really stuck in that arm bar except at a professional level. Where they might have escapes and you have lost top control.
> 
> You can sit back up. And from there transition in to something else. Like a mount or my favourite the kasegetami.
> 
> Otherwise sitting in that position for ten minutes would be a lot better than grinding someone in a standing arm bar. Which takes a lot more effort because you don't really have the mechanical advantage.
> 
> Bear in mind I want the guy to turn away from me because that will set up their roll in to their front. That is what I am trying to do with that T bag kimoura.
> 
> So I mostly just need to make sure I control their near side shoulder. And give him an opportunity to escape the way I want.


I see what you are saying and the tbag kimoura is a good transition but it requires the loss of control during the transition. The standing arm bar would go into the takedown and then you would transition straight into cuffing once they get on their stomach. You are saying ten minutes on your back is fine but its not when there are bystanders who may attempt to intervene while you wait. The videos are a good find though, not that I do cuffing anymore but I will check them out if only for theorycraft.


----------



## Shatteredzen

@drop bear , please watch this, start at 5:36 to miss the pre drill talking. 




I am interested to hear your opinion if this kind of drill meets your approval for resistance. This is more akin to what I am talking about running a live drill to practice the techniques although I would have my students mixing in whatever they wanted minus striking, for striking I have always required gloves/headgear/mouthpiece or padding for anything else like elbows/knees, etc that you intend to strike with. I don't know the instructor but the three or four videos I watched from him gave me the impression that he's in the camp of guys trying to fix Aikido (right or wrong) so I figured it was fine to include him. Here the students make some mistakes, but you can see the right emphasis on switching through techniques when one doesn't work and resisting the techniques. 

While they aren't that successful getting their kote gaishi to work, the student that gets it most of the way fails to open his gate with his back leg for leverage and leaves the wrist too far out. I believe though you can see from this that this type of drilling gives you the resistance to learn to apply the techniques and it shows contributing factors that allow the techniques to work even if the other guy is resisting. Its not the silver bullet you want I know, but I have seen this type of drill produce students who can apply the techniques efficiently. If this drill doesn't meet your standard, could you please give me the other factors you would want to see added to the drill for it to be satisfying to an outside observer? Serious request for your opinion, no snarkyness here I promise. I'm also happy for anyone else's legit input on what you would like to see as a scientific/presumptive drill to test the Aikido to satisfy the outside observer.

I won't make any promise to start a youtube channel but if I can get a list of legit requirements for what "good" Aikido should look like to you, the non practitioner, I will work on some stuff with one or two of my friends and see if I can get something together that meets your requirements for the members in motion section or something.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> @drop bear , please watch this, start at 5:36 to miss the pre drill talking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am interested to hear your opinion if this kind of drill meets your approval for resistance. This is more akin to what I am talking about running a live drill to practice the techniques although I would have my students mixing in whatever they wanted minus striking, for striking I have always required gloves/headgear/mouthpiece or padding for anything else like elbows/knees, etc that you intend to strike with. I don't know the instructor but the three or four videos I watched from him gave me the impression that he's in the camp of guys trying to fix Aikido (right or wrong) so I figured it was fine to include him. Here the students make some mistakes, but you can see the right emphasis on switching through techniques when one doesn't work and resisting the techniques.
> 
> While they aren't that successful getting their kote gaishi to work, the student that gets it most of the way fails to open his gate with his back leg for leverage and leaves the wrist too far out. I believe though you can see from this that this type of drilling gives you the resistance to learn to apply the techniques and it shows contributing factors that allow the techniques to work even if the other guy is resisting. Its not the silver bullet you want I know, but I have seen this type of drill produce students who can apply the techniques efficiently. If this drill doesn't meet your standard, could you please give me the other factors you would want to see added to the drill for it to be satisfying to an outside observer? Serious request for your opinion, no snarkyness here I promise. I'm also happy for anyone else's legit input on what you would like to see as a scientific/presumptive drill to test the Aikido to satisfy the outside observer.
> 
> I won't make any promise to start a youtube channel but if I can get a list of legit requirements for what "good" Aikido should look like to you, the non practitioner, I will work on some stuff with one or two of my friends and see if I can get something together that meets your requirements for the members in motion section or something.



Yes that would essentially be live drilling. That is also my experience with that wristlock throw. That you get a bit of a bend and that is about it.

Now all you need is thousands of people to drill like that. 

Once we get enough people drilling live we can start to get an idea of what is going to work and what isn't.

Eventually we will get a guy who is legitimately good at that kind of stuff.

And from there we could springboard the idea that Aikido has these elements that people might want to adopt.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> I see what you are saying and the tbag kimoura is a good transition but it requires the loss of control during the transition. The standing arm bar would go into the takedown and then you would transition straight into cuffing once they get on their stomach. You are saying ten minutes on your back is fine but its not when there are bystanders who may attempt to intervene while you wait. The videos are a good find though, not that I do cuffing anymore but I will check them out if only for theorycraft.



There is almost no restraint hold that let's you fight off bystanders. Mabye a hammerlock for a few seconds if you are lucky. Maybe a rear naked using the guy as a shield. 

But nothing where you have both hands occupied pinning a dude. Cos you got no hands or mobility to defend yourself. 

I assume you mean these straight arm takedowns with the bent wrist pin. Or something similar?


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Yes that would essentially be live drilling. That is also my experience with that wristlock throw. That you get a bit of a bend and that is about it.
> 
> Once we get enough people drilling live we can start to get an idea of what is going to work and what isn't.
> 
> Eventually we will get a guy who is legitimately good at that kind of stuff.
> 
> And from there we could springboard the idea that Aikido has these elements that people might want to adopt.


The instructor has a good point here, he tells them (but they don't do it, it was obvious this was their first drill like this) to switch from Kote Gaishi to pulling the wrist straight and downward into the forward wristlock instead of trying to crank on it further. I am going to stick with my personal opinion that the kotegaishi is a weapon disarm or a counter to the grab but yes you can force it with enough of a strength disparity although we don't want to advocate to use the technique dirty like that since it won't work for others who can't overpower the attacker.

Were there other elements you want in such a drill or are you fine with "vanilla" aikido versus resistance? I don't care about looking dumb and getting hit I am just sick of trying to find videos that match what I am saying and then arguing about inconsistencies in those videos.


----------



## MadMartigan

Shatteredzen said:


> Its not the silver bullet you want I know, but I have seen this type of drill produce students who can apply the techniques efficiently.


Very interesting video. My take aways are: 
It looks like a good training drill to work timing and transitions. The shortcoming (from my admittedly novice understanding of aikido) is that isn't the way it is exactly meant to be used.

As a TKD black belt, with a blue belt in bjj, who has cross trained for years with aikido (yoshinkan style) basic skills; I've always thought that when done correctly and for real, the goal was often to injure the opponent... not necessarily to throw him. 
By this I mean, if I turn the pinky finger side of your hand over your forearm and elbow (to the outside), 1 of 2 things should happen. Someone with ukemi training will feel the danger and go with the pressure to avoid injury (resulting in a seemingly unresisted throw). When the same move is done on an untrained individual, the result is a broken wrist... but no throw. The success of the technique is not in it looking like 2 training partners using break falling techniques to avoid injury. It often actually looks messy and rough. 

This brings me to my other observation. The video shows 2 similarly trained fighters, who know what the other guy is trying and how to resist it. You could compare it to rolling in BJJ, but that's part of where the disconnect is. Where BJJ rolling is (mostly) about obtaining position and working for a submission; I view aikido skills as more '1 and done'. The training to transition to another technique if the 1st or 2nd didn't work is necessary (and why 2 akidokas training often looks smooth and without resistance). 
I've always looked at and said it this way (and this applies to the other arts as well - not counting vast skill discrepancies). "Nothing works if your opponent knows what you're about to do". 
If he knows you're going for a front kick, or 1,2,3 punching combo, he'll dodge. 
If I know you're trying for an americana from side control, I won't let you.
If he knows you're trying a wrist lock. It won't work.
If I smack you in the nose 1st, you may not realize my intentions for your wrist and elbow until it's too late. It's all about setup.

Now take all this from someone who has not studied aikido full time. This is how I have been able to work it into my other skills and found real value and use in the right situation. (Besides the time that a forward break fall I learned while training aikido may have literally saved my life once).


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> I see what you are saying and the tbag kimoura is a good transition but it requires the loss of control during the transition. The standing arm bar would go into the takedown and then you would transition straight into cuffing once they get on their stomach. You are saying ten minutes on your back is fine but its not when there are bystanders who may attempt to intervene while you wait. The videos are a good find though, not that I do cuffing anymore but I will check them out if only for theorycraft.



So this sort of stuff. 






Which would be awesome if it worked. But it basically doesn't. Or you tear the guy apart doing it as he face plants in to the concrete at a huge rate of knots. Or gets his arm broken because he wants to thrash. 

And also why the comment it is used in police defensive tactics syllabus is not an endorsement for a technique.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> There is almost no restraint hold that let's you fight off bystanders. Mabye a hammerlock for a few seconds if you are lucky. Maybe a rear naked using the guy as a shield.
> 
> But nothing where you have both hands occupied pinning a dude. Cos you got no hands or mobility to defend yourself.
> 
> I assume you mean these straight arm takedowns with the bent wrist pin. Or something similar?


Yes to the straight arm takedown with the wrist pin. This is an area where Aikido helps though and its provable because its movement, the randori does help teach how to "stack" attackers so that they are more in line and so that you can attempt to deal with them more individually. I have never seen this work with JUST the aikido but there is something to be said for circling out and getting two guys bunched up so that you can strike one and draw a baton or try to disable one with a baton combo like whats called "three from the ring". 






Despite what you may think of the moves, just watch his movement, notice how he maneuvers and sets the attackers up to force them to deal with him one at a time. While we can't talk about the moves because they are not fully resisting, they are moving at full speed and the movement here is positioning them so that he can deal with each of them individually.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> The instructor has a good point here, he tells them (but they don't do it, it was obvious this was their first drill like this) to switch from Kote Gaishi to pulling the wrist straight and downward into the forward wristlock instead of trying to crank on it further. I am going to stick with my personal opinion that the kotegaishi is a weapon disarm or a counter to the grab but yes you can force it with enough of a strength disparity although we don't want to advocate to use the technique dirty like that since it won't work for others who can't overpower the attacker.
> 
> Were there other elements you want in such a drill or are you fine with "vanilla" aikido versus resistance? I don't care about looking dumb and getting hit I am just sick of trying to find videos that match what I am saying and then arguing about inconsistencies in those videos.



I am fine with vanilla Aikido with resistance. Honestly I would prefer it to fail some of the time. Real drills do.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> So this sort of stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which would be awesome if it worked. But it basically doesn't. Or you tear the guy apart doing it as he face plants in to the concrete at a huge rate of knots. Or gets his arm broken because he wants to thrash.
> 
> And also why the comment it is used in police defensive tactics syllabus is not an endorsement for a technique.


Yes but no, that guy is ****, he has no weight transfer, no dynamic movement, the armbar needs to be one flowing move. Here:






Not perfect, but this absolutely works and its how I learned it in MCMAP, he gets a full hip transfer, if you "open the gate" and "trace the C" with the back support leg you get a dynamic throw, if you do it all at once, this relies on the forearm acting as the (fulcrim?) on the opponents arm.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Yes to the straight arm takedown with the wrist pin. This is an area where Aikido helps though and its provable because its movement, the randori does help teach how to "stack" attackers so that they are more in line and so that you can attempt to deal with them more individually. I have never seen this work with JUST the aikido but there is something to be said for circling out and getting two guys bunched up so that you can strike one and draw a baton or try to disable one with a baton combo like whats called "three from the ring".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite what you may think of the moves, just watch his movement, notice how he maneuvers and sets the attackers up to force them to deal with him one at a time. While we can't talk about the moves because they are not fully resisting, they are moving at full speed and the movement here is positioning them so that he can deal with each of them individually.



Not in that video. That is just junk. Nobody is learning anything. 

Sorry. The attackers are learning great timing and positioning so that they can are that one guy look awesome. 

The secret of stage fighting is the guy getting beaten up is doing all the work.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Yes but no, that guy is ****, he has no weight transfer, no dynamic movement, the armbar needs to be one flowing move. Here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not perfect, but this absolutely works and its how I learned it in MCMAP, he gets a full hip transfer, if you "open the gate" and "trace the C" with the back support leg you get a dynamic throw, if you do it all at once, this relies on the forearm acting as the (fulcrim?) on the opponents arm.



You might get it off if you used a whizzer. Or really jam the head down. But otherwise it is low percentage.

You can do the arm bar takedown better. But even then you will struggle.

There is a version that works better than that called the beef Wellington that sets up the same. But abandons the arn bar for positional dominance.






To get the arm. You need to control the head. Not the arm.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Not in that video. That is just junk. Nobody is learning anything.
> 
> Sorry. The attackers are learning great timing and positioning so that they can are that one guy look awesome.
> 
> The secret of stage fighting is the guy getting beaten up is doing all the work.


Its a randori demo from a traditional school, look past the interpretive dance with the bokken for a second and just pay attention to his footwork and movement, he absolutely is moving full speed and loading his opponents into a queue. Any hesitation here can be chocked up to the speed of the movement and the safety issue with the bokkens but even with that, the speed is good, his positioning is good, he is seeing and addressing each attacker in time and he isn't getting any major freebies by the students with where he is facing like you see in other randori vids. What he is doing here with his footwork will absolutely work to position his opponents. I'm not saying he can down them all, I'm saying he is legitimately stacking them up. I don't think that part of the demo is overly gifted to him.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Its a randori demo from a traditional school, look past the interpretive dance with the bokken for a second and just pay attention to his footwork and movement, he absolutely is moving full speed and loading his opponents into a queue. Any hesitation here can be chocked up to the speed of the movement and the safety issue with the bokkens but even with that, the speed is good, his positioning is good, he is seeing and addressing each attacker in time and he isn't getting any major freebies by the students with where he is facing like you see in other randori vids. What he is doing here with his footwork will absolutely work to position his opponents. I'm not saying he can down them all, I'm saying he is legitimately stacking them up. I don't think that part of the demo is overly gifted to him.



That whole demo is gifted to him. That is the culmination of years of students training that drill. And not being the sneaky bustards who cuts the guy off to land a cheap shot. 

look at hapkido. And they are the masters of the compliant demo at 100%

Still a demo though.


----------



## Shatteredzen

D Hall said:


> Very interesting video. My take aways are:
> It looks like a good training drill to work timing and transitions. The shortcoming (from my admittedly novice understanding of aikido) is that isn't the way it is exactly meant to be used.
> 
> As a TKD black belt, with a blue belt in bjj, who has cross trained for years with aikido (yoshinkan style) basic skills; I've always thought that when done correctly and for real, the goal was often to injure the opponent... not necessarily to throw him.
> By this I mean, if I turn the pinky finger side of your hand over your forearm and elbow (to the outside), 1 of 2 things should happen. Someone with ukemi training will feel the danger and go with the pressure to avoid injury (resulting in a seemingly unresisted throw). When the same move is done on an untrained individual, the result is a broken wrist... but no throw. The success of the technique is not in it looking like 2 training partners using break falling techniques to avoid injury. It often actually looks messy and rough.
> 
> This brings me to my other observation. The video shows 2 similarly trained fighters, who know what the other guy is trying and how to resist it. You could compare it to rolling in BJJ, but that's part of where the disconnect is. Where BJJ rolling is (mostly) about obtaining position and working for a submission; I view aikido skills as more '1 and done'. The training to transition to another technique if the 1st or 2nd didn't work is necessary (and why 2 akidokas training often looks smooth and without resistance).
> I've always looked at and said it this way (and this applies to the other arts as well - not counting vast skill discrepancies). "Nothing works if your opponent knows what you're about to do".
> If he knows you're going for a front kick, or 1,2,3 punching combo, he'll dodge.
> If I know you're trying for an americana from side control, I won't let you.
> If he knows you're trying a wrist lock. It won't work.
> If I smack you in the nose 1st, you may not realize my intentions for your wrist and elbow until it's too late. It's all about setup.
> 
> Now take all this from someone who has not studied aikido full time. This is how I have been able to work it into my other skills and found real value and use in the right situation. (Besides the time that a forward break fall I learned while training aikido may have literally saved my life once).


Yes and no, you are making good observations but there is a discrepancy in the training with this and it get's exacerbated over time. So if you resist a kotegaishi for example, very little is going to happen to you, if you get put off balance and the guy does the sideways movement to torque the wrist more and throws their weight into it and you refuse to go with the fall you can get a break or joint injury assuming the guy did it with gusto. There's inconsistencies like that with a lot of the techniques where the uke/nage drills have conditioned people to believe they can't resist the throws or they will get super hurt. Surprisingly, there are a fair amount of injuries from bad uke/nage drills reported in Aikido but I think this is mainly from accidents over resistance. If you look at the way the wrist turns and some other stuff work, you are usually manipulating the joint towards the ground to carry the momentum and so there is no counter resistance from the motion to the way the joint is bending to cause a break. If you torque the wrist the wrong way to gain leverage and then back and overpower the resistance, you can get a hyper-extension at one or other side of the technique from "not going with it" but that requires quite a bit of torque and you are much more likely to just fall over as a reflex than to really try to muscle through it. More commonly you get the injury because someone wasn't ready and the other guy really went ham on their partner. 

  The trick is to train the uke/nage to do it safely and to increase resistance over time based on how the two partners feel. The teacher should encourage them to push their limits safely until they are both approximating full resistance, this allows both students to develop their pain resistance to the technique over time so that they can think/react under the application of the technique. Once they are both in tune with each other or experienced enough to resist safely and know where their failure points are where they "have to" breakfall, you get someone who can defend the technique and apply it against resistance. If its done with resistance, the uke/nage will train in the counter to the technique as the student comes to understand the mechanics of how the techniques work. The breakfall as you pointed out IS a counter and something that gets overlooked because its part of "the dance" but the person is learning how to escape those holds and break their fall/ roll away/ etc if they practice under resistance. The danger is that the students get too comfortable or they start to anticipate the technique and they give it away. Overtime the sloppy drilling turns into the ballet Aikido or no touch sillyness in a really bad school.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Yes and no, you are making good observations but there is a discrepancy in the training with this and it get's exacerbated over time. So if you resist a kotegaishi for example, very little is going to happen to you, if you get put off balance and the guy does the sideways movement to torque the wrist more and throws their weight into it and you refuse to go with the fall you can get a break or joint injury assuming the guy did it with gusto. There's inconsistencies like that with a lot of the techniques where the uke/nage drills have conditioned people to believe they can't resist the throws or they will get super hurt. Surprisingly, there are a fair amount of injuries from bad uke/nage drills reported in Aikido but I think this is mainly from accidents over resistance. If you look at the way the wrist turns and some other stuff work, you are usually manipulating the joint towards the ground to carry the momentum and so there is no counter resistance from the motion to the way the joint is bending to cause a break. If you torque the wrist the wrong way to gain leverage and then back and overpower the resistance, you can get a hyper-extension at one or other side of the technique from "not going with it" but that requires quite a bit of torque and you are much more likely to just fall over as a reflex than to really try to muscle through it. More commonly you get the injury because someone wasn't ready and the other guy really went ham on their partner.
> 
> The trick is to train the uke/nage to do it safely and to increase resistance over time based on how the two partners feel. The teacher should encourage them to push their limits safely until they are both approximating full resistance, this allows both students to develop their pain resistance to the technique over time so that they can think/react under the application of the technique. Once they are both in tune with each other or experienced enough to resist safely and know where their failure points are where they "have to" breakfall, you get someone who can defend the technique and apply it against resistance. If its done with resistance, the uke/nage will train in the counter to the technique as the student comes to understand the mechanics of how the techniques work. The breakfall as you pointed out IS a counter and something that gets overlooked because its part of "the dance" but the person is learning how to escape those holds and break their fall/ roll away/ etc if they practice under resistance. The danger is that the students get too comfortable or they start to anticipate the technique and they give it away. Overtime the sloppy drilling turns into the ballet Aikido or no touch sillyness in a really bad school.



As far as injurys go. You can train these things mostly. Just don't be a screaming duchebag about it. 

So if you have the wrist lock or the heel hook and the other guy thrashes. Let it go and move on to something else. 

The sub is not so important that you need to snap something off. Especially with things standing arm bars that can Ironically not work and at the same time injure your partner.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> You might get it off if you used a whizzer. Or really jam the head down. But otherwise it is low percentage.
> 
> You can do the arm bar takedown better. But even then you will struggle.
> 
> There is a version that works better than that called the beef Wellington that sets up the same. But abandons the arn bar for positional dominance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To get the arm. You need to control the head. Not the arm.


Interesting, I have always heard it called a reinforced underhook, not the beef wellington but yes, I would argue this goes like PB&J with Aikido, its the same principle and I was taught and have taught it as a reaction to a resisted Kaeten Nage (rotary throw), although I was told it was a wrestling move not an Aikido one.


----------



## MadMartigan

Shatteredzen said:


> Yes and no, you are making good observations but there is a discrepancy in the training with this and it get's exacerbated over time.


Figured there had to be a lot that I couldn't see from my experience level.
Think of me as the aikido equivalent of the guy who learns 3 chords and 1 song on his guitar. I can pull off a passable House of the Rising Sun around the campfire... just don't expect me to start taking requests 😄


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> As far as injurys go. You can train these things mostly. Just don't be a screaming duchebag about it.
> 
> So if you have the wrist lock or the heel hook and the other guy thrashes. Let it go and move on to something else.
> 
> The sub is not so important that you need to snap something off. Especially with things standing arm bars that can Ironically not work and at the same time injure your partner.


Totally agree, I show at 10%/30%/50% and then depending on the comfort level of the student I will show the full speed movement but then I have them do it to me before they get someone else so I can troubleshoot too soft or hard before they get their hands on someone else. The trust gradually progresses within the class as people get comfortable and more competitive, I try to encourage the competitive and look out for the safety stuff by jumping in when people get a little too worked up and it starts looking uncontrolled.


----------



## Shatteredzen

D Hall said:


> Figured there had to be a lot that I couldn't see from my experience level.
> Think of me as the aikido equivalent of the guy who learns 3 chords and 1 song on his guitar. I can pull off a passable House of the Rising Sun around the campfire... just don't expect me to start taking requests 😄


You seem to be a bit farther than that and its probably due to your breadth of training having gone in other areas. I say good observations and I don't mean that lightly. I meet Aikido dan's all the time and they know all the moves and couldn't give a two minute lecture on the theory and philosophy behind Aikido. There is a huge, huge buildup of FUD, possibly more than any other martial art, within the Aikido community itself. What I see in the difference between your understanding and what I pointed out is that someone told you the regular Aikido thing of "go with it so you don't get hurt". This is only partially true and only with some techniques and once you are in motion.

The technique can be resisted safely even, for as long as you are able to do it while the resistance is simply countering the incoming motion of the Aikido technique, so for a wristlock, just turtle and grab your own arm and stabilize the wrist, you won't go anywhere. This is because the Aikido technique is designed to redirect the incoming momentum from the adversary, when you stop or reverse the momentum, there is nothing to redirect. Now if the other guy "muscles" the technique, what we would call a "dirty" technique, he will attempt to generate that lost momentum by muscling you in the opposite direction of the technique and then quickly snapping back the other way to force the technique to work by temporarily getting you to move in response to the change in direction and then attempting to defeat a lack of resistance by quickly changing back to the original motion. If you fight the technique then, assuming the other guy is able to overpower you and he gets it off before you can set yourself to resist, you get two opposing forces on the joint and that's where you get hurt. If you are already "in" the technique, that's where you want to go with the fall, because its too late, you will just add your resistance to the impact. 

  If you want to practice under resistance, you and your partner should both be on the same page with how much speed and resistance to give and receive. When you get to that predetermined break point, you give or they do, etc. The trick is not to get comfortable with this and to increase the resistance until you are both as close to full everything as you can safely manage. This improves you as well as the partners ability to cope with falls, throws, etc and like in BJJ rolling, you both get experience turning into techniques or muscling things, etc and this should translate into Judo/BJJ locks and throws because its all just different angles of resistance. What we see in traditional schools is there's no competition, there's no resistance, so there's no practical application and if you don't bring that with you in, you don't get it in these schools. Then you develop bad habits, you fail to learn the actual mechanics of the locks and throws so you can't actually apply them because you aren't used to having to overcome the resistance and still manage the momentum of the opponent. That's why we see so many Aikido people just stall out when they get stuck and why traditional Aikido turns into battle Kabuki.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> That whole demo is gifted to him. That is the culmination of years of students training that drill. And not being the sneaky bustards who cuts the guy off to land a cheap shot.
> 
> look at hapkido. And they are the masters of the compliant demo at 100%
> 
> Still a demo though.


I think your being a little cranky about this one. Plus, its a really cool demo at least lol.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Yes and no, you are making good observations but there is a discrepancy in the training with this and it get's exacerbated over time. So if you resist a kotegaishi for example, very little is going to happen to you, if you get put off balance and the guy does the sideways movement to torque the wrist more and throws their weight into it and you refuse to go with the fall you can get a break or joint injury assuming the guy did it with gusto. There's inconsistencies like that with a lot of the techniques where the uke/nage drills have conditioned people to believe they can't resist the throws or they will get super hurt. Surprisingly, there are a fair amount of injuries from bad uke/nage drills reported in Aikido but I think this is mainly from accidents over resistance. If you look at the way the wrist turns and some other stuff work, you are usually manipulating the joint towards the ground to carry the momentum and so there is no counter resistance from the motion to the way the joint is bending to cause a break. If you torque the wrist the wrong way to gain leverage and then back and overpower the resistance, you can get a hyper-extension at one or other side of the technique from "not going with it" but that requires quite a bit of torque and you are much more likely to just fall over as a reflex than to really try to muscle through it. More commonly you get the injury because someone wasn't ready and the other guy really went ham on their partner.
> 
> The trick is to train the uke/nage to do it safely and to increase resistance over time based on how the two partners feel. The teacher should encourage them to push their limits safely until they are both approximating full resistance, this allows both students to develop their pain resistance to the technique over time so that they can think/react under the application of the technique. Once they are both in tune with each other or experienced enough to resist safely and know where their failure points are where they "have to" breakfall, you get someone who can defend the technique and apply it against resistance. If its done with resistance, the uke/nage will train in the counter to the technique as the student comes to understand the mechanics of how the techniques work. The breakfall as you pointed out IS a counter and something that gets overlooked because its part of "the dance" but the person is learning how to escape those holds and break their fall/ roll away/ etc if they practice under resistance. The danger is that the students get too comfortable or they start to anticipate the technique and they give it away. Overtime the sloppy drilling turns into the ballet Aikido or no touch sillyness in a really bad school.



Exept this is supposed to be a device to subdue people without causing undue injury.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> I think your being a little cranky about this one. Plus, its a really cool demo at least lol.



Look I like watching fight choreo But it is a completely different method of training than fight training.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> You might get it off if you used a whizzer. Or really jam the head down. But otherwise it is low percentage.
> 
> You can do the arm bar takedown better. But even then you will struggle.
> 
> There is a version that works better than that called the beef Wellington that sets up the same. But abandons the arn bar for positional dominance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To get the arm. You need to control the head. Not the arm.



This really shows why MMA and Bjj chose wrestling over other methods for standing  grappling. Simply far more practical and efficient than other methods, and it continues to evolve instead of staying stagnant.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> This really shows why MMA and Bjj chose wrestling over other methods for standing  grappling. Simply far more practical and efficient than other methods, and it continues to evolve instead of staying stagnant.


in what way has mma evolved in the last 12 months?


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> in what way has mma evolved in the last 12 months?



12 months isn't a large enough span of time. Look at the first UFC compared to the current UFC, and there's a clear evolution from that point to the current point.

Bjj has also evolved in a similar fashion.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> 12 months isn't a large enough span of time. Look at the first UFC compared to the current UFC, and there's a clear evolution from that point to the current point.
> 
> Bjj has also evolved in a similar fashion.





Hanzou said:


> 12 months isn't a large enough span of time. Look at the first UFC compared to the current UFC, and there's a clear evolution from that point to the current point.
> 
> Bjj has also evolved in a similar fashion.


you said it continues to evolve, if you cant show it evolved in the last 12 months, then you have noway of showing that any evolution has occurred or therefore that any evolution is continual

it's also worth noting that evolution is not always for the better, things can and frequently do get worse over time


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> you said it continues to evolve, if you cant show it evolved in the last 12 months, then you have noway of showing that any evolution has occurred or therefore that any evolution is continual
> 
> it's also worth noting that evolution is not always for the better, things can and frequently do get worse over time



Yes, it evolves in small ways that you can't tell, but over time the change is obvious and huge. So no, I can't tell you how MMA/Bjj has evolved in the last year, but 10 years from now they will show clear evolution from where they are currently, which shows that evolution is taking place.

Further I would argue that both have evolved in a positive direction in the last 30 years.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Yes, it evolves in small ways that you can't tell, but over time the change is obvious and huge. So no, I can't tell you how MMA/Bjj has evolved in the last year, but 10 years from now they will show clear evolution from where they are currently, which shows that evolution is taking place.
> 
> Further I would argue that both have evolved in a positive direction in the last 30 years.


, 

so do you have any proof that it has evolved in the last 12 months to support your statement that evolution is continual

I'm not really intrested in your fortune telling skills


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> ,
> 
> so do you have any proof that it has evolved in the last 12 months to support your statement that evolution is continual
> 
> I'm not really intrested in your fortune telling skills



Again, look at MMA and Bjj in 1993 and look at MMA and Bjj today. There's a clear evolution from point A to point B, and nothing indicates that that evolution has stopped.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Again, look at MMA and Bjj in 1993 and look at MMA and Bjj today. There's a clear evolution from point A to point B, and nothing indicates that that evolution has stopped.


nothing indicates its continued either, in fact there is a complete lack of indicators in any direction

but if your changing your statement from, " evolution is continual " to I think it maybe evolving but there is no evidence that this is so" then that your opinion and we can proceed on that basis


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> nothing indicates its continued either, in fact there is a complete lack of indicators in any direction
> 
> but if your changing your statement from, " evolution is continual " to I think it maybe evolving but there is no evidence that this is so" then that your opinion and we can proceed on that basis



Uh, the indication that it's* continuing *is because it's been evolving for 30 years and nothing indicates that that evolution has stopped taking place. I mean in all seriousness, why would MMA and BJJ suddenly stop evolving after they've been clearly evolving for decades? What cataclysmic event would cause that to happen?

You're arguing for the sake of arguing here, and it's downright silly.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Uh, why would MMA and BJJ suddenly stop evolving after they've been clearly evolving for decades? What cataclysmic event would cause that to happen?
> 
> You're arguing for the sake of arguing here, and it's downright silly.


it's not my responsibility to find a reason why its stopped, it's yours to show it has continued, 

which it seems you cant do


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> it's not my responsibility to find a reason why its stopped, it's yours to show it has continued,
> 
> which it seems you cant do



Uh, I did find evidence to show that it has continued; Again, it's been clearly evolving for 30 years and the forces that push that evolution are still in place (developments in wrestling, sport BJJ, striking, etc that in turn effect MMA).

If your argument is that it is no longer evolving, please find evidence to support that statement. Putting up a small, arbitrary time frame simply doesn't cut the mustard.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Uh, I did find evidence to show that it has continued; Again, it's been clearly evolving for 30 years and the forces that push that evolution are still in place (developments in wrestling, sport BJJ, striking, etc that in turn effect MMA).
> 
> If your argument is that it is no longer evolving, please find evidence to support that statement. Putting up a small, arbitrary time frame simply doesn't cut the mustard.


it's not my problem to disprove your rash statements,my argument is your presenting opinions as facts

that it has evolved, does not support your contention,  that not only is it still evolving, it's doing so continually. 

which in its self is a problem,  as nothing evolves continually,  even if it was evolving at all, but we we save that for the unlikely event that you show that evolution is still occurring


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> it's not my problem to disprove your rash statements,my argument is your presenting opinions as facts



So in short you have no evidence to show that MMA/Bjj has stopped evolving.

Cool, thanks for your participation.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> So in short you have no evidence to show that MMA/Bjj has stopped evolving.
> 
> Cool, thanks for your participation.


why is it my job to disprove your opinions,,

its your to prove them,  this is the same nonsence the religious trot out where they require you to prove there is no god

if what you said was factually correct then you can prove it so, if you cant it's an opinion,  you cant  turn an opinion into a fact  by giving me more opinions


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> why is it my job to disprove your opinions,,
> 
> its your to prove them,  this is the same nonsence the religious trot out where they require you to prove there is no god
> 
> if what you said was factually correct then you can prove it so, if you cant it's an opinion,  you cant  turn an opinion into a fact  by giving me more opinions



This just shows that you're not reading the responses. I've provided proof about three times now. Here it is one more time;

MMA/Bjj has clearly evolved over the last 30 years, and since the forces that caused that evolution are still in place, there's no reason to believe that that evolution isn't continuing. 

Now, if you disagree with that statement, it IS your job to disprove it. That's how basic logic and argumentation works.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> This just shows that you're not reading the responses. I've provided proof about three times now. Here it is one more time;
> 
> MMA/Bjj has clearly evolved over the last 30 years, and since the forces that caused that evolution are still in place, there's no reason to believe that that evolution isn't continuing.
> 
> Now, if you disagree with that statement, it IS your job to disprove it. That's how basic logic and argumentation works.


your not following this are you, I've not disagreed with that statement, I havent disagreed with any of your statements 

I've asked to to prove that mma is CONTINUALLY evolving, what it may or may not have done over the last ten years, is not proof that it not only still is, but is doing so continually


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> your not following this are you, I've not disagreed with that statement, I havent disagreed with any of your statements
> 
> I've asked to to prove that mma is CONTINUALLY evolving, what it may or may not have done over the last ten years, is not proof that it not only still is, but is doing so continually



Read (slowly) the second half of the third sentence in my response.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> Read (slowly) the second half of the third sentence in my response.


you've got no reason to believe it stopped

but that's your opinion,  which is totally irelivant to if it happens to be true or not.

to be clear, I've not asked for your opinions,  as entertaining as they are, I've asked for proof that it's a a statement of fact

you seem to be having a great deal of trouble separating,  fact and opinion, facts are things which are independently verifiable, that means independent of your opinions


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> you've got no reason to believe it stopped
> 
> but that's your opinion,  which is totally irelivant to if it happens to be true or not.
> 
> to be clear, I've not asked for your opinions,  as entertaining as they are, I've asked for proof that it's a a statement of fact
> 
> you seem to be having a great deal of trouble separating,  fact and opinion, facts are things which are independently verifiable, that means independent of your opinions



MMA/BJJ evolving over the last 30 years isn't an opinion.
The forces that caused that evolution still being in effect is also not an opinion.

I'm starting to believe that you don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion....


----------



## Urban Trekker

drop bear said:


> look at hapkido. And they are the masters of the compliant demo at 100%
> 
> Still a demo though.


Yep.  I actually signed up for hapkido many years ago, going in thinking it was a hybrid art.  Did it for about three months, until I realized that hapkido is to aikido what tang soo do and soo bahk are to karate: the same damn thing with a Korean spin on it.

One thing I realized that was never taken into account was the pain threshold of the attacker, and the very wrong assumption that the attacker is actually going to move in the same direction that you move him in over to avoid physical pain and/or the fact that the attacker still has three other limbs that they can and will use while you're trying to manipulate the fourth.

When I look at BJJ, it appears that they do consider all of these things.


----------



## Hanzou

Urban Trekker said:


> Yep.  I actually signed up for hapkido many years ago, going in thinking it was a hybrid art.  Did it for about three months, until I realized that hapkido is to aikido what tang soo do and soo bahk are to karate: the same damn thing with a Korean spin on it.
> 
> One thing I realized that was never taken into account was the pain threshold of the attacker, and the very wrong assumption that the attacker is actually going to move in the same direction that you move him in over to avoid physical pain and/or the fact that the attacker still has three other limbs that they can and will use while you're trying to manipulate the fourth.
> 
> When I look at BJJ, it appears that they do consider all of these things.



Techniques and submissions based on the supposed pain that your attacker will be in, are always highly dubious. I once saw a "Combat Hapkido" vid where they were attempting to escape Guard by smashing the testicles of the person holding them in place. While hilarious, it's also not a good way to teach someone how to escape the Guard. You also really shouldn't be wasting time teaching someone how to escape the Guard in self defense anyway.


----------



## jobo

Hanzou said:


> MMA/BJJ evolving over the last 30 years isn't an opinion.
> The forces that caused that evolution still being in effect is also not an opinion.
> 
> I'm starting to believe that you don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion....


mma continuously evolving now i
most certainly is, and that the statement I've asked you to prove, it's like your  trying to steer away from that poinI.

ok let's take your now preferred statement, prove that forces cause evolution


----------



## Urban Trekker

Hanzou said:


> Techniques and submissions based on the supposed pain that your attacker will be in, are always highly dubious. I once saw a "Combat Hapkido" vid where they were attempting to escape Guard by smashing the testicles of the person holding them in place. While hilarious, it's also not a good way to teach someone how to escape the Guard. You also really shouldn't be wasting time teaching someone how to escape the Guard in self defense anyway.



Exactly.  There's the old saying that "the best defense is a strong offense."  While not everyone subscribes to that, the vast majority of untrained fighters do.  This is why we always see videos of them punching each other in the face, with neither of them even trying to duck or block the other's punches.  They're basically in berserk mode, which aikido/hapkido isn't equipped to handle.


----------



## Hanzou

jobo said:


> mma continuously evolving now i
> most certainly is, and that the statement I've asked you to prove, it's like your  trying to steer away from that poinI.
> 
> ok let's take your now preferred statement, prove that forces cause evolution



I'm sorry, but your quote simply doesn't make sense. Maybe someone can translate for me....


----------



## MadMartigan




----------



## Steve

So glad I'm no longer the only one who likes to create visual aids.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Shatteredzen said:


> Interesting, I have always heard it called a reinforced underhook, not the beef wellington but yes, I would argue this goes like PB&J with Aikido, its the same principle and I was taught and have taught it as a reaction to a resisted Kaeten Nage (rotary throw), although I was told it was a wrestling move not an Aikido one.


To me, with any aiki art, one of the biggest issues occurs when this kind of recovery isn't discussed. That both takes away a range of responses that work really well with the overall movements, and also incorporates the working assumption that the techniques don't fail except in ways that lead to other "open" techniques (those that are done at elbow distance or further). Not having these tools (and using that assumption) means there's not much way to do resistive partner training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Urban Trekker said:


> Exactly.  There's the old saying that "the best defense is a strong offense."  While not everyone subscribes to that, the vast majority of untrained fighters do.  This is why we always see videos of them punching each other in the face, with neither of them even trying to duck or block the other's punches.  They're basically in berserk mode, which aikido/hapkido isn't equipped to handle.


IMO, those arts (well practiced) are better equipped for that than they are for a measured attack. If someone is very focused on just trying to get a hit in, they become much easier to draw into over-extending, by controlling distance. Controlling distance through movement is foundational IMO to arts derived from Daito-ryu (as both of those are).


----------



## Urban Trekker

gpseymour said:


> IMO, those arts (well practiced) are better equipped for that than they are for a measured attack. If someone is very focused on just trying to get a hit in, they become much easier to draw into over-extending, by controlling distance. Controlling distance through movement is foundational IMO to arts derived from Daito-ryu (as both of those are).


In my observation, all of the training that I watch aikidoka do, I can think of dozens of things that untrained fighters are likely to do to overwhelm them.

Like I said in another post, while you're manipulating one limb, you've got three others that you're getting attacked with.  That's something that's not happening in the dojo (or dojang in the case of hapkido, because I'm including that too).  But it will be happening in real life.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Urban Trekker said:


> In my observation, all of the training that I watch aikidoka do, I can think of dozens of things that untrained fighters are likely to do to overwhelm them.
> 
> Like I said in another post, while you're manipulating one limb, you've got three others that you're getting attacked with.  That's something that's not happening in the dojo (or dojang in the case of hapkido, because I'm including that too).  But it will be happening in real life.


Not so much, since you're talking about untrained fighters. I am involved in a physical confrontation on a regular basis. At least once every couple weeks. Untrained fighters mostly forget that they have two arms and two legs. At least briefly. Because untrained... And before they remember, I can put them on the floor, or into a wall, or whatever.
It's even better when they have a weapon. People with a weapon in one hand, even if it's just a stick, seem to totally forget the rest of their body. Control the weapon arm, and their whole attack falls apart.
It's a different story if they're trained, of course.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Urban Trekker said:


> while you're manipulating one limb, you've got three others that you're getting attacked with.


Not if you guide your opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm. If you also bite your shin bone into your opponent's leading leg, you don't have to worry about his legs either.

Do untrained guys know how to do this? I don't think so.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Urban Trekker said:


> In my observation, all of the training that I watch aikidoka do, I can think of dozens of things that untrained fighters are likely to do to overwhelm them.
> 
> Like I said in another post, while you're manipulating one limb, you've got three others that you're getting attacked with.  That's something that's not happening in the dojo (or dojang in the case of hapkido, because I'm including that too).  But it will be happening in real life.


There are a lot of bad habits that get built up because of NOT getting hit or training to deal with a fully resisting opponent. That said, there are things you can do. When applying the technique you can account for these things with body positioning and movement. Unfortunately, we see many Aikido practitioners who do not understand good spacing/movement and positioning because they aren't doing the techniques live. Having incorrect assumptions about positioning and spacing leads to not keeping the correct distance and trying to apply techniques from the wrong distance. Aikido students have gotten out of the habit of being hit, so on top of the resistive training you need to put pads on and do drills with striking and they need to spend time learning what its like when their partner swings back. Like you said, its easy to overwhelm someone who doesn't consider someone shooting on them for a double leg or just rushing them with some punches. The good thing is the tools are in the system, we just need better training for people to get them and apply them.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Dirty Dog said:


> Not so much, since you're talking about untrained fighters. I am involved in a physical confrontation on a regular basis. At least once every couple weeks. Untrained fighters mostly forget that they have two arms and two legs. At least briefly. Because untrained... And before they remember, I can put them on the floor, or into a wall, or whatever.
> It's even better when they have a weapon. People with a weapon in one hand, even if it's just a stick, seem to totally forget the rest of their body. Control the weapon arm, and their whole attack falls apart.
> It's a different story if they're trained, of course.


Sounds like you're law enforcement.  If that's the case, your badge is going to affect the phycology of the attacker.  If you use a wristlock, for example, that will be the attacker's cue to agree to deescalate.  I'm thinking that you may have different results if you were off duty.

For most, if a stand-up grappling technique does not serve the purpose of either clinching or a takedown, it's doing far more harm than good.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Urban Trekker said:


> Sounds like you're law enforcement.


Nope. I'm in the ER. We are in physical conflicts more often than most cops. With no badge, no taser, no gun.


Urban Trekker said:


> For most, if a stand-up grappling technique does not serve the purpose of either clinching or a takedown, it's doing far more harm than good.


Uh huh. And how many fights are you basing this on? And why do people think that when we've applied a stand up lock that we then just stand there, rather than transitioning?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Dirty Dog said:


> Nope. I'm in the ER. We are in physical conflicts more often than most cops. With no badge, no taser, no gun.
> 
> Uh huh. And how many fights are you basing this on? And why do people think that when we've applied a stand up lock that we then just stand there, rather than transitioning?


Can confirm, the crazies love to go bat **** on the doctors and nurses. With all the arrestees getting brought into the ER it would not surprise me that the ER staff have way more fights than most cops.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Urban Trekker said:


> Sounds like you're law enforcement.  If that's the case, your badge is going to affect the phycology of the attacker.  If you use a wristlock, for example, that will be the attacker's cue to agree to deescalate.  I'm thinking that you may have different results if you were off duty.
> 
> For most, if a stand-up grappling technique does not serve the purpose of either clinching or a takedown, it's doing far more harm than good.


If anything, the badge escalates the situation. The crooks know that if you have your hand on them they are going away and losing time with their family and freedom. Most people who are going to fight the cops are stupid enough to do it, irrational enough to hope they can win and desperate to not go to jail.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> Nope. I'm in the ER. We are in physical conflicts more often than most cops. With no badge, no taser, no gun.
> 
> Uh huh. And how many fights are you basing this on? And why do people think that when we've applied a stand up lock that we then just stand there, rather than transitioning?



Clinching is better. It is just safer, denies them space, gives you more to work with. And if things go pear shaped you can take their back more easily.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Clinching is better. It is just safer, denies them space, gives you more to work with. And if things go pear shaped you can take their back more easily.


Sure. Sometimes. Because nothing is always. You use what is available. Again, the idea that you'd apply one lock and then just stop is... silly...
If I take the hand that is reaching for my throat, use the arm as a lever to pivot them face first into a wall, it's remarkably easy to then take their back. Or whatever. Options.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Clinching is better. It is just safer, denies them space, gives you more to work with. And if things go pear shaped you can take their back more easily.


Objectively but the ER is its own mess, you have patients, doctors and nurses and other bystanders who you have to protect from the random crackhead who pulls a shank. You have trays full of sharp instruments, heavy and/or delicate equipment, etc. The important thing is to react and do something before multiple people end up getting hurt because of inaction. Its an imperfect scenario and the terrain will heavily dictate what you do and don't have room for.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Shatteredzen said:


> Objectively but the ER is its own mess, you have patients, doctors and nurses and other bystanders who you have to protect from the random crackhead who pulls a shank. You have trays full of sharp instruments, heavy and/or delicate equipment, etc. The important thing is to react and do something before multiple people end up getting hurt because of inaction. Its an imperfect scenario and the terrain will heavily dictate what you do and don't have room for.


True. I one time used a crash cart to stop a guy. We had just done a cardioversion and I was coming out, just as the guy bolted towards the ambulance doors. I shoved the crash cart out in front of him. Boom. 

Admittedly, the defibrillator being knocked off the cart and falling on the floor wasn't ideal, but it stopped him.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Dirty Dog said:


> True. I one time used a crash cart to stop a guy. We had just done a cardioversion and I was coming out, just as the guy bolted towards the ambulance doors. I shoved the crash cart out in front of him. Boom.
> 
> Admittedly, the defibrillator being knocked off the cart and falling on the floor wasn't ideal, but it stopped him.


We showed up one time to a guy barricaded into an overflow room with a crash cart, we just stood outside until he got tired of yelling and asked for some water lmao.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Shatteredzen said:


> We showed up one time to a guy barricaded into an overflow room with a crash cart, we just stood outside until he got tired of yelling and asked for some water lmao.


Sure. If they're barricaded, they're staying in. And if there isn't anybody in there for them to hurt, let them yell.
Treated a guy for hypothermia one time. He'd barricaded himself in a backyard shed. The PD stuck a hose into the gap between wall and roof. It was February. In Colorado...
People are weird. And circumstances should dictate the details of the response.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Objectively but the ER is its own mess, you have patients, doctors and nurses and other bystanders who you have to protect from the random crackhead who pulls a shank. You have trays full of sharp instruments, heavy and/or delicate equipment, etc. The important thing is to react and do something before multiple people end up getting hurt because of inaction. Its an imperfect scenario and the terrain will heavily dictate what you do and don't have room for.



Not really.

If you have a specific concern you think that doesn't address fine.

If you are coming up with some metaphysical junk about how the humidity of the street lights means that these basic mechanics don't work therefore Aikido.

Then there will be a cranky response.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Dirty Dog said:


> Nope. I'm in the ER. We are in physical conflicts more often than most cops. With no badge, no taser, no gun.


I suppose things are different in Colorado.  Here, and in the other three states that I've lived in, local law enforcement officers are assigned to ERs so that ER staff don't have to do it themselves.


Dirty Dog said:


> Uh huh. And how many fights are you basing this on? And why do people think that when we've applied a stand up lock that we then just stand there, rather than transitioning?


This is based on the presumption that someone is only aikido/hapkido techniques without going outside of it.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Urban Trekker said:


> I suppose things are different in Colorado.  Here, and in the other three states that I've lived in, local law enforcement officers assigned to ERs so that ER staff don't have to do it themselves.


I've never worked in an ER that had PD assigned, not even the decade I spent working in the aforementioned most violent city in Colorado, and for various reasons (which I'm not going to get into here) I think it's not necessarily a good idea.


Urban Trekker said:


> This is based on the presumption that someone is only aikido/hapkido techniques without going outside of it.


Oh. I get it. So it's based on unreal and incorrect assumptions. It all makes sense now.


----------



## drop bear

The issue you have is these techniques are quite often trained and therefore applied in either the worst possible position. Or from some magical circumstance that doesn't happen. 

So if I walk up in front of you and grab your wrist you can punch me in the face before I can do anything about it. It is an incredibly risky position. 

This is generally solve by this magical clock position where I instead basically walk up behind you. But here you have the issue that they may not conveniently turn around. 

All this is solve by doing these stand up locks with two or three guys. And either capturing both arms at once or having one in front and one behind. 

But good clinch to two on one isn't effected by you having these advantages and so I suggest you still do them. Just in case the guy breaks free or something.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Dirty Dog said:


> I get it. So it's based on unreal and incorrect assumptions. It all makes sense now.



Imagine an aikidoka who has never trained in any other martial art, and has no untrained fighting experience.  That's how I'm judging aikido, and the standard by how I judge any other martial art for that matter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Urban Trekker said:


> In my observation, all of the training that I watch aikidoka do, I can think of dozens of things that untrained fighters are likely to do to overwhelm them.
> 
> Like I said in another post, while you're manipulating one limb, you've got three others that you're getting attacked with.  That's something that's not happening in the dojo (or dojang in the case of hapkido, because I'm including that too).  But it will be happening in real life.


That should be addressed in the training. It isn't always, but it should be. I think a lot of time the kata (and even the near-kata) practices make it appear the techniques assume the other limbs are uninvolved, but that isn't the case in the background fundamentals. Once there is contact, structure control (shifting weight and movement) should take legs out of the picture as weapons, and positioning should take the other arm out of the picture.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> Sure. Sometimes. Because nothing is always. You use what is available. Again, the idea that you'd apply one lock and then just stop is... silly...
> If I take the hand that is reaching for my throat, use the arm as a lever to pivot them face first into a wall, it's remarkably easy to then take their back. Or whatever. Options.


This is how I view all of the standing joint locks I know (including those that are trained as throws). They are ways to train manipulation from the hand/wrist, if that's all you have, until you can do something else.


----------



## Urban Trekker

.


----------



## Buka

I'm really enjoying following this thread.

Netflix could do a show on this puppy. I think it would rock.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Dirty Dog said:


> Again, the idea that you'd apply one lock and then just stop is... silly...


I didn't mean to insinuate that you would apply a lock and then stop.  Your transition will probably go a little something like this: wristlock, armbar, takedown.  Right?

A lot can happen during those first two steps, especially considering the fact that there's enough distance for the attacker to get some good strikes in.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Urban Trekker said:


> I didn't mean to insinuate that you would apply a lock and then stop.  Your transition will probably go a little something like this: wristlock, armbar, takedown.  Right?


Maybe. There are lots of options.


Urban Trekker said:


> A lot can happen during those first two steps, especially considering the fact that there's enough distance for the attacker to get some good strikes in.


And yet they so rarely do. Why do you suppose that is?
For the record, I've been in my current ER for 21 years. In that time, I've been actually struck with any significant impact maybe 6 times. Out of hundreds of people taken down.
In practice, punching with one arm while you're being tossed around by the other and your feet are being taken out from under you and you're watching the wall or floor approach really isn't all that easy.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dirty Dog said:


> Untrained fighters mostly forget that they have two arms and two legs. At least briefly


I find this to be true even with trained fighters. People tend to be singular in attacking and defending until some lays that technique out on them. I've been reminded a time or two when I assumed the person would only be kicking and punching. That was during sparring so things like that probably set in really fast in real fights.  Especially if you assume they don't have the skill set to exploit legs or attack multiple areas at the same time.


----------



## Hanzou

The idea that an "untrained fighter" isn't going to know what they're doing, and thus isn't a viable threat is a very dubious concept. There's plenty of people who are "untrained" but have better fighting ability and more fighting experience than people who train in Martial Arts dojos twice a week and kick air. This entire idea seems like something out of a kung fu movie, where the guy attempting to punk you on the subway will be outclassed by your pretty kata techniques. In reality, that assailant has a high chance of caving in your face despite never stepping into a martial art school in their entire life.

Prime example;


----------



## Urban Trekker

Hanzou said:


> The idea that an "untrained fighter" isn't going to know what they're doing, and thus isn't a viable threat is a very dubious concept. There's plenty of people who are "untrained" but have better fighting ability and more fighting experience than people who train in Martial Arts dojos twice a week and kick air. This entire idea seems like something out of a kung fu movie, where the guy attempting to punk you on the subway will be outclassed by your pretty kata techniques. In reality, that assailant has a high chance of caving in your face despite never stepping into a martial art school in their entire life.
> 
> Prime example;



I've been trying to tell people this for a long time.  People seem to forget that Kimbo Slice was an untrained fighter.

People act as though Sheldon Cooper can get a black belt from some dojo/dojang/kwoon at the strip mall two blocks from his house, then go on to beat up bikers and other hoodlums and ruffians.  That's a fantasy.


----------



## Yokozuna514

Hanzou said:


> The idea that an "untrained fighter" isn't going to know what they're doing, and thus isn't a viable threat is a very dubious concept. There's plenty of people who are "untrained" but have better fighting ability and more fighting experience than people who train in Martial Arts dojos twice a week and kick air. This entire idea seems like something out of a kung fu movie, where the guy attempting to punk you on the subway will be outclassed by your pretty kata techniques. In reality, that assailant has a high chance of caving in your face despite never stepping into a martial art school in their entire life.
> 
> Prime example;


Sure, there are sports where fighting is 'part' of the game (like hockey) but it is still only part of the game.   Hopefully the training you are receiving is putting you in more fighting situations than than a hockey player or you will be in for a tough night.  These guys can be tough 'out of the gate' trying to take your head off but hopefully your training will allow you to survive the flurry to the point they eventually gas out.   


Urban Trekker said:


> I've been trying to tell people this for a long time.  People seem to forget that Kimbo Slice was an untrained fighter.
> 
> People act as though Sheldon Cooper can get a black belt from some dojo/dojang/kwoon at the strip mall two blocks from his house, then go on to beat up bikers and other hoodlums and ruffians.  That's a fantasy.


Kimbo Slice was a big dude and all those muscles were not meant for marathons.   Kimbo didn't do so well against seasoned fighters.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Yokozuna514 said:


> Kimbo Slice was a big dude and all those muscles were not meant for marathons.   Kimbo didn't do so well against seasoned fighters.


And he fought people in his own weight class.  If you add up UFC, EliteXC, and Bellator, he's 5 and 2 with an additional win that was later overturned.  A .714 puts him right up there with some of the best.


----------



## Yokozuna514

Urban Trekker said:


> And he fought people in his own weight class.  If you add up UFC, EliteXC, and Bellator, he's 5 and 2 with an additional win that was later overturned.  A .714 puts him right up there with some of the best.


Some of the best ? Ok, so you are on a MA forum and you are suggesting that an untrained fighter is "right up there with some of the best" ?   Interesting........


----------



## Urban Trekker

Yokozuna514 said:


> Some of the best ? Ok, so you are on a MA forum and you are suggesting that an untrained fighter is "right up there with some of the best" ?   Interesting........



I'm not saying it, his record is.  Are you openly suggesting that I should be biased based on whether not one is trained?  Because that's what it looks like.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> The idea that an "untrained fighter" isn't going to know what they're doing, and thus isn't a viable threat is a very dubious concept. There's plenty of people who are "untrained" but have better fighting ability and more fighting experience than people who train in Martial Arts dojos twice a week and kick air. This entire idea seems like something out of a kung fu movie, where the guy attempting to punk you on the subway will be outclassed by your pretty kata techniques. In reality, that assailant has a high chance of caving in your face despite never stepping into a martial art school in their entire life.
> 
> Prime example;


I find that the majority of the people who are in the Martial arts dojos aren't trained fighters.  They take martial arts for other reasons.  Those who actually train to fight are a small percentage and I would put my money on those guys who actually train to fight to out perform those who don't train.

Perfect Example Kimbo slice was untrained MMA.  He was a good street fighter, but his MMA debut clearly showed the difference between someone who was formally trained in MMA and someone who wasn't.  If my memory is correct, I think Kimbo even referenced that himself.  After that debut he started to get proper training. 
He was still a tough guy and dangerous, but there's very few untrained people who can match a trained fighter.

Keep in mind I'm referring to people in the same weight range within 10 pounds.


----------



## Urban Trekker

JowGaWolf said:


> I find that the majority of the people who are in the Martial arts dojos aren't trained fighters.  They take martial arts for other reasons.  Those who actually train to fight are a small percentage and I would put my money on those guys who actually train to fight to out perform those who don't train.
> 
> Perfect Example Kimbo slice was untrained MMA.  He was a good street fighter, but his MMA debut clearly showed the difference between someone who was formally trained in MMA and someone who wasn't.  If my memory is correct, I think Kimbo even referenced that himself.  After that debut he started to get proper training.
> He was still a tough guy and dangerous, but there's very few untrained people who can match a trained fighter.
> 
> Keep in mind I'm referring to people in the same weight range within 10 pounds.



Kimbo Slice was 3 and 0 before taking his first loss.  Even if we say that his MMA wins were against journeymen and gatekeepers, that's still an accomplishment.  You'd be hard pressed to find a TMA'ist with no real fighting experience who can do the same thing.

Picture this: a fight between TMA with no experience versus experienced with no training.

You know what I equate that to?  A guy with a college degree and no experience versus a guy with experience and no college degree applying for the same job.  Who's gonna be able to do the job better?


----------



## Yokozuna514

JowGaWolf said:


> I find that the majority of the people who are in the Martial arts dojos aren't trained fighters.  They take martial arts for other reasons.  Those who actually train to fight are a small percentage and I would put my money on those guys who actually train to fight to out perform those who don't train.
> 
> Perfect Example Kimbo slice was untrained MMA.  He was a good street fighter, but his MMA debut clearly showed the difference between someone who was formally trained in MMA and someone who wasn't.  If my memory is correct, I think Kimbo even referenced that himself.  After that debut he started to get proper training.
> He was still a tough guy and dangerous, but there's very few untrained people who can match a trained fighter.
> 
> Keep in mind I'm referring to people in the same weight range within 10 pounds.


Yes, he said that.   Not only did he acknowledge that there was much for him to learn, he strapped on his boots and started to learn things he would need to be able to compete.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Yokozuna514 said:


> Kimbo Slice was a big dude and all those muscles were not meant for marathons. Kimbo didn't do so well against seasoned fighters.


Exactly.  His debut fight was horrible.  He didn't dominate the trained fighter like he dominated those in his backyard. Not even close.  The other guy didn't do too hot either but he didn't get knocked out and he held his own better than others that Kimbo fought before MMA


----------



## Hanzou

Yokozuna514 said:


> Sure, there are sports where fighting is 'part' of the game (like hockey) but it is still only part of the game.   Hopefully the training you are receiving is putting you in more fighting situations than than a hockey player or you will be in for a tough night.  These guys can be tough 'out of the gate' trying to take your head off but hopefully your training will allow you to survive the flurry to the point they eventually gas out.
> 
> Kimbo Slice was a big dude and all those muscles were not meant for marathons.   Kimbo didn't do so well against seasoned fighters.



Not even sports, just a-holes who like to bully and attack people. People like that have a mindset where they are aggressive and thus very dangerous, and will seek out people they perceive to be smaller or weaker than themselves. What's worse, these people are used to hitting and getting hit, and are used to adrenaline dumps and various levels of violence that Bob the lawyer who is a black belt and does Aikido twice a week simply isn't used to.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I find that the majority of the people who are in the Martial arts dojos aren't trained fighters.  They take martial arts for other reasons.  Those who actually train to fight are a small percentage and I would put my money on those guys who actually train to fight to out perform those who don't train.



I agree with this statement. My contention with the language here is the notion that "untrained fighters" are somehow handicapped against someone who is "trained" in the martial arts. That's a joke. Most people are in the martial arts currently BECAUSE of those untrained fighters who are highly capable of hurting or even killing someone else.


----------



## Urban Trekker

JowGaWolf said:


> Exactly.  His debut fight was horrible.  He didn't dominate the trained fighter like he dominated those in his backyard. Not even close.  The other guy didn't do too hot either but he didn't get knocked out and he held his own better than others that Kimbo fought before MMA


That was actually his UFC debut.  He fought in the EliteXC before that.

Also, plenty of the backyard fighters held their own pretty well against Kimbo and I know of one fight that he lost.

I say that to say this: there are plenty of untrained fighters out there who would do well in MMA.  Kimbo Slice was given an opportunity because he went viral on the internet.


----------



## MadMartigan

Kinda feels like more of a semantic argument. In my opinion, what is "training" but doing something over and over until you get really good at it. Going to classes doesn't make you good; repetition with intention does.

By that metric I would contend that Kimbo Was a trained fighter before he started mma. The same applies to other tough guys and frequent street fighters. They've trained for violence by putting themselves through violence. In my circle we call that 'adrenal inoculation'.

I think of the physical skills and the psychological experience as 2 sides of the same coin. Training physical skills without a realistic understanding of how violence feels, will inevitably fail when called upon in real life.


----------



## Yokozuna514

Hanzou said:


> Not even sports, just a-holes who like to bully and attack people. People like that have a mindset where they are aggressive and thus very dangerous, and will seek out people they perceive to be smaller or weaker than themselves. What's worse, these people are used to hitting and getting hit, and are used to adrenaline dumps and various levels of violence that Bob the lawyer who is a black belt and does Aikido twice a week simply isn't used to.


Regardless of the style you do, if you train twice a week are you giving yourself enough time on the floor to deal with a-hole situations ?   A-holes that are 'bigger' and 'stronger' picking on 'smaller' and 'weaker' people are a special kind of a-hole.   Says a lot more about them than it does about the person they are picking on.   Says a lot about 'Bob the Lawyer' if he feels that putting the a-hole down physically is the right call.   You would think Bob the Lawyer would be able to sort that out using his lawyerly skills but then again it is best to have more than one method of dealing with an aggressor.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Urban Trekker said:


> You'd be hard pressed to find a TMA'ist with no real fighting experience who can do the same thing.


Most untrained TMA students come in as untrained with only the interest to learn how to do cool forms or if they are kids to learn how to fight because they get bullied in school.  When I started Jow Ga.  I knew how to fight, but that wasn't the reason why I joined.  My original reason was to learn how to do forms with the weapons, with an interest of eventually learning how to use weapons.

It wasn't until my second Jow Ga school many years later that I wanted to actually learn how to fight with Jow Ga techniques. My first martial arts was karate and we did quite a bit of competitive sparring in that school.  Not the point sparring stuff.  We did continuous sparring.  Most kids will join because of their parents want quick black belts, confidence, or discipline. Very few join because of bullying issues in comparison.   So they come in without a fighting back ground and then they train without a fighting focus.  It's just the way things are at most TMA schools


----------



## Hanzou

Yokozuna514 said:


> Regardless of the style you do, if you train twice a week are you giving yourself enough time on the floor to deal with a-hole situations ?   A-holes that are 'bigger' and 'stronger' picking on 'smaller' and 'weaker' people are a special kind of a-hole.   Says a lot more about them than it does about the person they are picking on.   Says a lot about 'Bob the Lawyer' if he feels that putting the a-hole down physically is the right call.   You would think Bob the Lawyer would be able to sort that out using his lawyerly skills but then again it is best to have more than one method of dealing with an aggressor.



Bob the lawyer might not get the opportunity to use his lawyerly skills, and his Aikido dojo might only offer two classes a week, yet advertise that they will teach him how to defend himself against bigger and larger opponents.


----------



## Urban Trekker

D Hall said:


> By that metric I would contend that Kimbo Was a trained fighter before he started mma. The same applies to other tough guys and frequent street fighters. They've trained for violence by putting themselves through violence. In my circle we call that 'adrenal inoculation'.


This is "feel good" logic.  It helps trained fighters sleep better at night "knowing" that it took a "trained fighter" to beat a trained fighter.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Yokozuna514 said:


> You would think Bob the Lawyer would be able to sort that out using his lawyerly skills but then again it is best to have more than one method of dealing with an aggressor.


If a hoodlum could be reasoned with, he wouldn't be a hoodlum in the first place.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> I find that the majority of the people who are in the Martial arts dojos aren't trained fighters.  They take martial arts for other reasons.


This statement right here encapsulates the fundamental difference between aikido and other grappling arts like Judo or BJJ.  I personally think that if you join a martial arts school, you should be learning what they say you're learning.  I've never seen the martial arts school advert that says, "We don't teach you to fight, but you'll get some exercise and meet some nice people."  



JowGaWolf said:


> Those who actually train to fight are a small percentage and I would put my money on those guys who actually train to fight to out perform those who don't train.



I think in a good school in a system that is structurally sound, 100% of people who train there are learning to fight.  Whether they can manage someone like Kimbo Slice is relative.  What's more constructive and reliable is to measure whether folks are learning to fight based on where they started, their rate of progress, and then ultimately what their individual ceiling is.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Urban Trekker said:


> Picture this: a fight between TMA with no experience versus experienced with no training.


One wouldn't think someone with no experience will well in any situation.  This is how I rank skill levels
1. Experience with Training
2. Experience with no training
3. No Experience with Training
4. No Experience with no training.

# 4 is not better than number # 3.   #3 is not better than #2.    #2 is not better than #1.

To think that someone with no experience can out perform someone with experience isn't something that you should be concerned with.

If you want to compare TMA.  then you should compare it with TMA with experience fighting but no training (self taught)  vs someone who has experienced with fighting but does not train in a system.

In this case I'm going to say the TMA guy is going to have a better skill set than the guy just swinging hard shots. with no training.  People who self train in a TMA with fight experience can still get some good kicks in.  They will spend time kicking a bag with low kicks or throwing jabs, which gives them a better chance than someone who just gets in a fight and windmills everyone.

There's a lot of people out there who have experience fighting but it doesn't mean that it's quality experience.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> This statement right here encapsulates the fundamental difference between aikido and other grappling arts like Judo or BJJ.  I personally think that if you join a martial arts school, you should be learning what they say you're learning.  I've never seen the martial arts school advert that says, "We don't teach you to fight, but you'll get some exercise and meet some nice people."


Cardio kickboxing does that.  If aikido went that route, it would be far less controversial.


----------



## MadMartigan

So you said,


Urban Trekker said:


> You know what I equate that to? A guy with a college degree and no experience versus a guy with experience and no college degree applying for the same job. Who's gonna be able to do the job better?



Then I said,


D Hall said:


> what is "training" but doing something over and over until you get really good at it.





D Hall said:


> By that metric I would contend that Kimbo Was a trained fighter before he started mma. The same applies to other tough guys and frequent street fighters. They've trained for violence by putting themselves through violence. In my circle we call that 'adrenal inoculation'.



But somehow we were disagreeing?


Urban Trekker said:


> This is "feel good" logic. It helps trained fighters sleep better at night "knowing" that it took a "trained fighter" to beat a trained fighter.


Starting to think perhaps the arguement was more important than the topic.


----------



## Steve

Yokozuna514 said:


> Regardless of the style you do, if you train twice a week are you giving yourself enough time on the floor to deal with a-hole situations ?


Hard to say, but getting back to the topic of this thread, I think the question is valid, but style has a lot to do with it.  The style in which you train will most certainly play a major role in what your answer to the question will be.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> Cardio kickboxing does that.  If aikido went that route, it would be far less controversial.


Well, I don't think cardio kickboxing is even marketed as a martial art.  That said, I do think if you train diligently in cardio kickboxing, you will be better prepared to defend yourself than someone who trains in some actual martial arts.  Not because you have any practical fighting skill, but because you'll be physically fit.


----------



## Urban Trekker

D Hall said:


> So you said,
> 
> 
> Then I said,
> 
> But somehow we were disagreeing?


It looks like we disagree on whether or not experience and training are mutually exclusive terms.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> You know what I equate that to?  A guy with a college degree and no experience versus a guy with experience and no college degree applying for the same job.  Who's gonna be able to do the job better?


Out of the gate?  Depends on the job.  Ideally, you're going to end up with an employee who has both, and so you're better off hiring a guy who exhibits other traits and an aptitude for the trade.


----------



## Steve

D Hall said:


> Kinda feels like more of a semantic argument. In my opinion, what is "training" but doing something over and over until you get really good at it. Going to classes doesn't make you good; repetition with intention does


Repetition with intention only gets you so far... and I'd say on the spectrum of skill level, not much further than just going through the motions.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> Well, I don't think cardio kickboxing is even marketed as a martial art.  That said, I do think if you train diligently in cardio kickboxing, you will be better prepared to defend yourself than someone who trains in some actual martial arts.  Not because you have any practical fighting skill, but because you'll be physically fit.


Something that immediately comes to mind: for the average mark, their inability to defend themselves comes from lacking the confidence to throw a punch or a kick and not knowing their own potential.  Much like TMA, cardio kickboxing could have the effect of reversing that.  It won't get you into the cage, but there's probably some value there.


----------



## MadMartigan

Urban Trekker said:


> It looks like we disagree on whether or not experience and training are mutually exclusive terms.


Hmm. Not sure exactly where you stand there..  so I can just clarify my position. 


JowGaWolf said:


> 1. Experience with Training
> 2. Experience with no training
> 3. No Experience with Training
> 4. No Experience with no training.



I agree with this ranking completely. The semantic difference is just that I view experience in and of itself can be a form of training. Just as proper training should do it's best to simulate experience. 

The same as your example of experience vs college education. If I had to choose which side of the coin, I'd bet on the experienced fighter. I think we would all agree that the best fighter is the guy with both.


----------



## Yokozuna514

Steve said:


> Hard to say, but getting back to the topic of this thread, I think the question is valid, but style has a lot to do with it.  The style in which you train will most certainly play a major role in what your answer to the question will be.


Yes, the style will play a role in how you respond but it isn't like a playing a trump card.   You still have to put in the work to become proficient and you still need to test yourself regularly to ensure that the things you are practicing will actually work when you need them.


Steve said:


> Well, I don't think cardio kickboxing is even marketed as a martial art.  That said, I do think if you train diligently in cardio kickboxing, you will be better prepared to defend yourself than someone who trains in some actual martial arts.  Not because you have any practical fighting skill, but because you'll be physically fit.


I'm not sure I would go as far as to say that people doing cardio kickboxing will fare better than someone that trains in a MA but I will agree that they would possibly do better if it was a bad MA school.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> I personally think that if you join a martial arts school, you should be learning what they say you're learning. I've never seen the martial arts school advert that says, "We don't teach you to fight, but you'll get some exercise and meet some nice people."


Actually the ones I've seen say exactly this by not stating that they teach people how to fight.  

This is straight from a TKD school down the the street from me.
"*As such, Master (removed name) states that "the primary purpose of tae kwon do is character development, and self-defense is secondary*."

If the primary purpose of your TKD is character development then you probably aren't doing too much fighting.  This is from their Black Belt Program
"*Black Belts demonstrate leadership during class, through community service, and in their commitment to excellence in all areas of their lives*."

Notice what they are focusing on. 

You'll find a similar focus on a lot of TMA websites.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Actually the ones I've seen say exactly this by not stating that they teach people how to fight.
> 
> This is straight from a TKD school down the the street from me.
> "*As such, Master (removed name) states that "the primary purpose of tae kwon do is character development, and self-defense is secondary*."
> 
> If the primary purpose of your TKD is character development then you probably aren't doing too much fighting.  This is from their Black Belt Program
> "*Black Belts demonstrate leadership during class, through community service, and in their commitment to excellence in all areas of their lives*."
> 
> Notice what they are focusing on.
> 
> You'll find a similar focus on a lot of TMA websites.



And this is from 2 Aikido schools in Atlanta;

"Aikido is a Japanese Martial art based on techniques *derived from traditional Samurai battle tactics*. Developed in the early 20th century by Morihei Ueshiba (known as O’Sensei), Aikido is a purely defensive art. Rather than meeting force with reciprocal force, the practitioner blends with and redirects the power of the attack* resulting in the attacker either being thrown or immobilized. Thus, it is the attackers own force and aggression which causes his/her downfall.* Because of this principle of “active non-resistance”, *Aikido can be effectively performed even against larger, stronger attackers. At the higher levels of the art, it is equally effective against multiple attackers.

Aikido is not a sport or a game*. There are no tournaments or competitions. Rather, practice is conducted in a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation. Aikido is distinguished by a highly developed moral code which* seeks to protect the assailant while simultaneously neutralizing his will and ability to attack.

While Aikido is an extremely effective martial art, self-defense is considered the foundation rather than the ultimate goal of our practice.* Aikido is path or “way” which, if practiced diligently, can enhance all aspects of one’s life."

and.....

"Aikido is a true budo (pronounced “boo-dough”) or martial way of life,* evolved from the historic tradition of Japanese warrior arts* into an *effective and enlightened form of self-defense*. With Aikido, *it is possible to subdue a much larger aggressor using minimal effort, *but the ultimate goal of Aikido is to resolve conflict safely and effectively without promoting violence to solve problems. When studied in earnest, Aikido is not merely* a science of techniques and tactics for self-defense *but a discipline for perfecting the spirit"


----------



## Urban Trekker

JowGaWolf said:


> Actually the ones I've seen say exactly this by not stating that they teach people how to fight.
> 
> This is straight from a TKD school down the the street from me.
> "*As such, Master (removed name) states that "the primary purpose of tae kwon do is character development, and self-defense is secondary*."
> 
> If the primary purpose of your TKD is character development then you probably aren't doing too much fighting.  This is from their Black Belt Program
> "*Black Belts demonstrate leadership during class, through community service, and in their commitment to excellence in all areas of their lives*."
> 
> Notice what they are focusing on.
> 
> You'll find a similar focus on a lot of TMA websites.



I'm sure you know this, and I'm sure the dojang owner knows this too: people perceive this as lip service, particularly towards parents looking for a place to enroll their children, and that the dojang is really selling self-defense anyway.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Actually the ones I've seen say exactly this by not stating that they teach people how to fight.
> 
> This is straight from a TKD school down the the street from me.
> "*As such, Master (removed name) states that "the primary purpose of tae kwon do is character development, and self-defense is secondary*."
> 
> If the primary purpose of your TKD is character development then you probably aren't doing too much fighting.  This is from their Black Belt Program
> "*Black Belts demonstrate leadership during class, through community service, and in their commitment to excellence in all areas of their lives*."
> 
> Notice what they are focusing on.
> 
> You'll find a similar focus on a lot of TMA websites.


This isn't the same as what I said.  If I take a pottery class that said character development is our primary goal and pottery skill is secondary, I would still expect to learn to throw pottery.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> I think in a good school in a system that is structurally sound, 100% of people who train there are learning to fight.


It's really difficult to do this with a TMA schools.  The customer base is different.  I tried to get the last kung fu school I was in to appeal to more fighters but the customer base is just too different.  

People who train Kung Fu = people who want to do forms
People who train MMA = people who don't want to do forms.

Forms are a big part of TMA and it's difficult to get those who like MMA to see that forms are beneficial when trained properly.  I don't know too many TMA people who don't like forms.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Urban Trekker said:


> I've been trying to tell people this for a long time.  People seem to forget that Kimbo Slice was an untrained fighter.
> 
> People act as though Sheldon Cooper can get a black belt from some dojo/dojang/kwoon at the strip mall two blocks from his house, then go on to beat up bikers and other hoodlums and ruffians.  That's a fantasy.


That's an extreme overstatement of the position most folks take on this.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Not even sports, just a-holes who like to bully and attack people. People like that have a mindset where they are aggressive and thus very dangerous, and will seek out people they perceive to be smaller or weaker than themselves. What's worse, these people are used to hitting and getting hit, and are used to adrenaline dumps and various levels of violence that Bob the lawyer who is a black belt and does Aikido twice a week simply isn't used to.


Most grapplers are likely to be in trouble if they take a solid hit (assuming their experience is only with grappling). Which art someone is training in doesn't change that too much. Possibly those taking harder falls will be less surprised by that first hit, but anyone would do better if they've experienced hits in their training.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Urban Trekker said:


> I'm sure you know this, and I'm sure the dojang owner knows this too: people perceive this as lip service, particularly towards parents looking for a place to enroll their children, and that the dojang is really selling self-defense anyway.


But there are non-fighting aspects of self-defense as well.  For example, when someone takes a self-defense class they usually aren't sparring and fighting each other.  They may strike a bag and work on escapes but there's no sparring.  Self-defense isn't always about fighting.  At least for me, the majority of the self-defense that I do doesn't require fighting.

There have been people who don't know how to fight, who have successfully fought off attackers..  In terms of self-defense the attackers are usually trying to do something else other than get in a boxing match with you.

The way I see it is.  Fighting is self-defense, but Self-defense isn't only about fighting.  Self-defense stategies is not the same as fighting strategies.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> It's really difficult to do this with a TMA schools.  The customer base is different.  I tried to get the last kung fu school I was in to appeal to more fighters but the customer base is just too different.
> 
> People who train Kung Fu = people who want to do forms
> People who train MMA = people who don't want to do forms.
> 
> Forms are a big part of TMA and it's difficult to get those who like MMA to see that forms are beneficial when trained properly.  I don't know too many TMA people who don't like forms.


One of the issues at play is who you want to serve. If you only want to serve those who want to train seriously for fighting, you can focus training in that direction. If you want to serve a different audience, you can't really run classes like you would for folks interested in training seriously for fighting - most folks in other audiences won't be interested in that. Which I think is fine - that's why we have a wide range of programs to choose from in most areas.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> But there are non-fighting aspects of self-defense as well.  For example, when someone takes a self-defense class they usually aren't sparring and fighting each other.  They may strike a bag and work on escapes but there's no sparring.  Self-defense isn't always about fighting.  At least for me, the majority of the self-defense that I do doesn't require fighting.
> 
> There have been people who don't know how to fight, who have successfully fought off attackers..  In terms of self-defense the attackers are usually trying to do something else other than get in a boxing match with you.
> 
> The way I see it is.  Fighting is self-defense, but Self-defense isn't only about fighting.  Self-defense stategies is not the same as fighting strategies.


I think if self-defense is an objective, there should be sparring. I'm not sure how you evaluate the ability to deliver the techniques without that.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> But there are non-fighting aspects of self-defense as well.  For example, when someone takes a self-defense class they usually aren't sparring and fighting each other.  They may strike a bag and work on escapes but there's no sparring.  Self-defense isn't always about fighting.  At least for me, the majority of the self-defense that I do doesn't require fighting.
> 
> There have been people who don't know how to fight, who have successfully fought off attackers..  In terms of self-defense the attackers are usually trying to do something else other than get in a boxing match with you.
> 
> The way I see it is.  Fighting is self-defense, but Self-defense isn't only about fighting.  Self-defense stategies is not the same as fighting strategies.


This is partially why self defense courses are mostly useless.

Yes. Self defense isn't always about getting tangled up physically. Yet if that is the scenario you find yourself in, it is unquestionably better to have actual experience against resistance than to be feeling it for the first time when it's too late.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Most grapplers are likely to be in trouble if they take a solid hit (assuming their experience is only with grappling). Which art someone is training in doesn't change that too much. Possibly those taking harder falls will be less surprised by that first hit, but anyone would do better if they've experienced hits in their training.



The advantage that grapplers have is that many fights wind up in a clinch even while blows are being exchanged, which will place them directly in their comfort zone (unless you're dealing with a better grappler). Very rarely can someone circle and strike someone with impunity unless they're an exceptional striker, like a boxer.

In addition, self defense situations where someone is striking you standing up is rarely a problem. If someone is "putting up their dukes" and wants to hit you, you don't need to engage you can simply back up and walk away. You're really only forced to engage when someone has grabbed you and won't let you go. That's when you're forced to fight back in order to escape. Again, that's advantageous for a grappler.


----------



## Yokozuna514

gpseymour said:


> I think if self-defense is an objective, there should be sparring. I'm not sure how you evaluate the ability to deliver the techniques without that.


I think it is going to be very difficult to spar safely and repeatedly if SD is the objective.  Yes, people need to practice SD skills but against a live opponent that isn't padded to the gills is not going to make for a long session.    If they are padded to the gills, it may not give you the proper feedback to help you develop the skill.  

IMO, SD courses should be a primer to introduce new people to a world of possibilities in a particular system.  They can then practice skills in a safe manner repeatedly and with the understanding that these techniques will need to be modified for SD applications.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> It's really difficult to do this with a TMA schools.  The customer base is different.  I tried to get the last kung fu school I was in to appeal to more fighters but the customer base is just too different.
> 
> People who train Kung Fu = people who want to do forms
> People who train MMA = people who don't want to do forms.
> 
> Forms are a big part of TMA and it's difficult to get those who like MMA to see that forms are beneficial when trained properly.  I don't know too many TMA people who don't like forms.


Just don't claim to be teaching self defense, then.  It's not a big deal.  My point isn't to judge one thing over another.  There's value in whatever floats one's boat.  The point is, if you're running a business, it's easy to just be clear about the actual service you're providing.   

And conversely, if you are alleging to sell a product, it's on you to ensure you're providing that product, whether that product is in the form of goods or a service.

Regarding forms, I don't think it's that simple.  Forms/kata is really just an example of how folks feel like victims of a bait and switch.  "I thought I was learning self defense, but what I was really learning is forms."  Forms are a shorthand for a training model that doesn't teach what it purports to teach.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Truth:
No one gets into a ring or fighting competition to test out there self defense skills.

When I was teaching sparring classes.  It was all about fighting there was no mention talk or discussion about self-defense.

When I was teaching self-defense class.  There was very little mention about one's fighting skills.  It was more like.  If you can talk your way out of fight then do it.  If you have a brick that you can use, then use it.  If you have a stick that you can use then use it.  There was no sparring involved in the way that someone would fight in a sporting competition.  There were some outside escape drills, and a lot of awareness drills.  Like  there would be 7 people.  1 victim and 1 attacker.  The other 5 people were just noise, so you never knew who would attack you, unless you could pick up the signs of the attack soon enough.

A lot of what I taught in self-defense were things you weren't going to see in a ring.   My sparring was all about learning how to juse Jow Ga fighting techniques.  There was no discussion about talking someone down or running away.  There was only one focus.  Get hit, hit back, and only strike with Jow Ga techniques.  

I don't see fighting and self-defense as the same thing.  Not even close.  If a school says they teach self-defense, I don't automatically include fighting into that category.  When I want a school that actually trains to use the techniques, then I want to see a lot of reference to things that a person needs for fighting and less reference about my personal development and my self-confidence.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> The point is, if you're running a business, it's easy to just be clear about the actual service you're providing.


I agree with this.  I do think that some TMA schools aren't clear on what they mean when they say self-defense.   There's a lot of aspects to self-defense and I think that should be clear.  Even when I teach self-defense classes.  I'm very clear on what aspects of self-defense will be covered.  I think TMA schools should be equally clear on what aspects of TMA are they covering.  Are they talking about fighting back an attacker? or are they talking about getting into the ring or both?

Not everyone knows what self-defense is about.  Some confuse it with only being about fighting and I've had to correct students about that as well.  Because some where trying to do kung fu when they should have been trying to create distance between them and there attacker.  Then doing stupid stuff like backing themselves against he wall to prevent imaginary attackers from jumping on their backs..   

But yeah sparring was always about fighting and learning how to fight with what we were training.  I think too many TMA schools have a negative view of fighting and that's just not the reality of fighting.  I think controlled fighting is actually healthy in numerous ways.  But I'm probably alone on that .


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> Out of the gate?  Depends on the job.  Ideally, you're going to end up with an employee who has both, and so you're better off hiring a guy who exhibits other traits and an aptitude for the trade.


I'll never forget what the VP of a rather large corporation told me at a social setting after a few drinks. He shared "I'll hire the kid with the degree over a kid with experience because I know if he was patient enough to go through all the BS of college, he'll be patient enough to go through all the BS my company is going to put him through."

I still laugh when I think about it. But it was a fair point.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Most grapplers are likely to be in trouble if they take a solid hit (assuming their experience is only with grappling). Which art someone is training in doesn't change that too much. Possibly those taking harder falls will be less surprised by that first hit, but anyone would do better if they've experienced hits in their training.


I am so confused right now.  Are you actually saying that people without experience are likely to be in trouble?  Come on, man.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Most grapplers are likely to be in trouble if they take a solid hit.


This is why I believe not to get punched is the most important MA skill. 

In the 

- beginner training stage, if your opponent throws 100 punches at you and no punch can land on your body, 
- advance training stage, if you don't allow your opponent to throw more than 10 punches,

you should have developed some useful MA skill.

The interested question is 

- What kind of training do you need in order to reach to your goal?


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> I'll never forget what the VP of a rather large corporation told me at a social setting after a few drinks. He shared "I'll hire the kid with the degree over a kid with experience because I know if he was patient enough to go through all the BS of college, he'll be patient enough to go through all the BS my company is going to put him through."
> 
> I still laugh when I think about it. But it was a fair point.


Funny story, but there's some truth to it.  If someone is optimistic, coachable, and has aptitude, you can teach them to do just about anything.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why I believe not to get punched is the most important MA skill.


You've gotta bring *** to get ***.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> But there are non-fighting aspects of self-defense as well.  For example, when someone takes a self-defense class they usually aren't sparring and fighting each other.  They may strike a bag and work on escapes but there's no sparring.  Self-defense isn't always about fighting.  At least for me, the majority of the self-defense that I do doesn't require fighting.
> 
> There have been people who don't know how to fight, who have successfully fought off attackers..  In terms of self-defense the attackers are usually trying to do something else other than get in a boxing match with you.
> 
> The way I see it is.  Fighting is self-defense, but Self-defense isn't only about fighting.  Self-defense stategies is not the same as fighting strategies.



This falls down if you have moved from a place we can see to a place we can't see.

So if say self defence school can't fight. But they say they focus on de-escalation, awareness, or whatever. 

We still need to verify that works. 

Not everything successful in the school occurring somewhere nobody Chan check.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> *Aikido can be effectively performed even against larger, stronger attackers. At the higher levels of the art, it is equally effective against multiple attackers.*


I was find with it right up to this point.  This doesn't sit well with me. Lots of things change in terms of larger and stronger attackers.  On the most basic levels, the required grip strength needed will increase.  Jow Ga is techniques are trained to fight against multiple attackers, but we don't boast about the effectiveness because the more people there are the more opportunity there is for something to go wrong.  Watch people play American Football being chased by multiple people who are trying to tackle, highlights the difficulty on the smallest of scales.  A multiple, kicks, punches, grabs, and possibly a weapon of some sort and things will quickly become more complicated, one misstep and it could be game over.  



Hanzou said:


> *Aikido is not a sport or a game*. There are no tournaments or competitions. Rather, practice is conducted in a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation. Aikido is distinguished by a highly developed moral code which* seeks to protect the assailant while simultaneously neutralizing his will and ability to attack.*


This contradicts the first paragraph that you wrote.  This is actually a red flag for me.  Even if it wasn't an Aikido school.  Protecting the assailant is counter productive.  Might as well let that person have their way with you.


Hanzou said:


> Aikido is a true budo (pronounced “boo-dough”) or martial way of life,* evolved from the historic tradition of Japanese warrior arts* into an *effective and enlightened form of self-defense*.


Historically incorrect.  Also contradicts "Samurai Battle tactics"  Japanese warriors were some of the most brutal warriors in history and they kept that mindset all the way to WWII.  


Hanzou said:


> ultimate goal of Aikido is to resolve conflict safely and effectively without promoting violence to solve problems.


This is the truth about what they teach at that school.  Extreme Zen.  Contradictions galore.   But the truth finally came out at the end.


Hanzou said:


> Aikido is not merely* a science of techniques and tactics for self-defense *but a discipline for perfecting the spirit"


I'm going to go throw up now. The concept of "Perfecting the spirit" is a flawed concept.  The Human spirit was never meant to be perfect and in my own personal experience is that those who claimed "Perfecting the human Spirit" are often the worst of us.  Not sure where that school is in Atlanta, but I would avoid it for numerous reason.  I'll do a random search on Aikido in Atlanta to see if I get something similar from another school.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why I believe not to get punched is the most important MA skill.
> 
> In the
> 
> - beginner training stage, if your opponent throws 100 punches at you and no punch can land on your body,
> - advance training stage, if you don't allow your opponent to throw more than 10 punches,
> 
> you should have developed some useful MA skill.
> 
> The interested question is
> 
> - What kind of training do you need in order to reach to your goal?


Not getting punched in a fight or attack = mission impossible.

It's better to learn how to reduce the damage from the hits and then avoid all of the crucial stuff that will cause the most damage


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I was find with it right up to this point.  This doesn't sit well with me. Lots of things change in terms of larger and stronger attackers.  On the most basic levels, the required grip strength needed will increase.  Jow Ga is techniques are trained to fight against multiple attackers, but we don't boast about the effectiveness because the more people there are the more opportunity there is for something to go wrong.  Watch people play American Football being chased by multiple people who are trying to tackle, highlights the difficulty on the smallest of scales.  A multiple, kicks, punches, grabs, and possibly a weapon of some sort and things will quickly become more complicated, one misstep and it could be game over.
> 
> 
> This contradicts the first paragraph that you wrote.  This is actually a red flag for me.  Even if it wasn't an Aikido school.  Protecting the assailant is counter productive.  Might as well let that person have their way with you.
> 
> Historically incorrect.  Also contradicts "Samurai Battle tactics"  Japanese warriors were some of the most brutal warriors in history and they kept that mindset all the way to WWII.
> 
> This is the truth about what they teach at that school.  Extreme Zen.  Contradictions galore.   But the truth finally came out at the end.
> 
> I'm going to go throw up now. The concept of "Perfecting the spirit" is a flawed concept.  The Human spirit was never meant to be perfect and in my own personal experience is that those who claimed "Perfecting the human Spirit" are often the worst of us.  Not sure where that school is in Atlanta, but I would avoid it for numerous reason.  I'll do a random search on Aikido in Atlanta to see if I get something similar from another school.



The links to the schools are in post #799.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> So if say self defence school can't fight. But they say they focus on de-escalation, awareness, or whatever.
> 
> We still need to verify that works.


This should be easy to do.  Simply ask students.  When was the last time you were in a conflict? Did you use any methods taught at the school?  Did it work?  Did it help you avoid the physical contact?

If a person has conflicts and is able  to avoid the physical fights then, much can be said about his or her non-fighting self defense skill sets.

If the person gets into conflicts that turn into physical fights most of the time then you can feel comfortable that their non-fighting defensive skills are lacking.

If I were to take a self-defense class.  I would want to take it from someone who gets into conflicts but is able to avoid the fights..   Then I would take a separate class that focuses on fighting or using a weapon.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> The links to the schools are in post #799.


Curiosity has the best of me on this one. Their page probably has a Zen look to it.

Edit.  Oh I remember seeing those sites.  That's when you guys were neck deep with fighting Aikido lol.  I didn't pay much attention to that. 

So I looked at another school.  This one isn't too far from me I don't think.  Depends on traffic I guess.  The only thing I can say about this school is that, this does not a look like a real wrist lock. Yoshinkan Aikido


This is the founder below.  I didn't see much about what they do on the website they have but none of it was zen.

Straight from their website about page
"Home | Kikentai1

"We may not use the sword as self-defense in present day, but applying samurai sword techniques with aikido and Bo is an extremely efficient form of self-defense." This doesn't seem unrealistic to me.  Use the same techniques when using a Bo for self-defense.

If you know how to use a Bo then yes it's going to be a really good self-defense.   One would have to to see their training to know more.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Truth:
> No one gets into a ring or fighting competition to test out there self defense skills.
> 
> When I was teaching sparring classes.  It was all about fighting there was no mention talk or discussion about self-defense.
> 
> When I was teaching self-defense class.  There was very little mention about one's fighting skills.  It was more like.  If you can talk your way out of fight then do it.  If you have a brick that you can use, then use it.  If you have a stick that you can use then use it.  There was no sparring involved in the way that someone would fight in a sporting competition.  There were some outside escape drills, and a lot of awareness drills.  Like  there would be 7 people.  1 victim and 1 attacker.  The other 5 people were just noise, so you never knew who would attack you, unless you could pick up the signs of the attack soon enough.
> 
> A lot of what I taught in self-defense were things you weren't going to see in a ring.   My sparring was all about learning how to juse Jow Ga fighting techniques.  There was no discussion about talking someone down or running away.  There was only one focus.  Get hit, hit back, and only strike with Jow Ga techniques.
> 
> I don't see fighting and self-defense as the same thing.  Not even close.  If a school says they teach self-defense, I don't automatically include fighting into that category.  When I want a school that actually trains to use the techniques, then I want to see a lot of reference to things that a person needs for fighting and less reference about my personal development and my self-confidence.


I hate the term 'self defense' to be honest, it can mean almost anything. But to stay safe there are many layers of preparation , awareness, de-escalation techniques and thinking on your feet that precede anything physical. If your game is on point, you might not ever need to put your hands on anyone.

But it seems like a really bad idea to not have your last line of defense as sharp as the others if you are serious about it.

Also, what is different about punches, kicks, throws and grappling 'in a ring' than anywhere else? I often see you and others try to draw this line like once something happens in a sports setting it is something different and inapplicable to any other setting. It isn't.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> Not getting punched in a fight or attack = mission impossible.
> 
> It's better to learn how to reduce the damage from the hits and then avoid all of the crucial stuff that will cause the most damage


One has to train how to deal with punches. Some MA styles such as Aikido just don't train enough in this area.

The training is simple. Your opponent tries to knock your head off. You try not to get knocked down. Try for 1 minute per round. Test 15 rounds daily.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Martial D said:


> I hate the term 'self defense' to be honest,


I hate the term "self defense" too. You assumes that you are the only good guy, everybody on earth are all bad guys and try to get you. It's a terrible way to live your life this way.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> Also, what is different about punches, kicks, throws and grappling 'in a ring' than anywhere else? I often see you and others try to draw this line like once something happens in a sports setting it is something different and inapplicable to any other setting. It isn't.


Because if I see a weapon, brick, rock, sand, knife, tire iron, lamp, cord, chair, or anything that I think will give me an advantage then I'm going to take it, and use it against the person who is attacking me.  That's the difference.  I train Kung Fu but that doesn't mean I'm against using other objects to attack people.  

When I was in Australia. I got into a conflict with an adult who was trying to beat up a teenager.  I came to the teenagers Aid.   The Adult had been running (exercising) and he intentionally bumped into the teenager and tried to pick a fight.  I approached the adult and got him to focus on me.  During that conflict I had positioned him between me and the street.  Why?  Because it wasn't beneath me to push him into traffic.  And if anyone was going to have the option to do such a thing it will be me.  I was not going to give him the option to do the same so I took that option away from him.

While some people will try to show off their kicks and punches. There are people out there like me who wouldn't mind stabbing or shooting you in self-defense.   So that's the difference.   If you don't think people in the U.S won't blast you with a gun in a fight then think again.  

If you don't think people in the Dominican republic won't take a machete to you, then think again.  Kick and punch all you want.  If you are in a fight that's truly self-defense then you better take the option that gives you best advantage. 

MMA fighter who stabbed someone to death after someone broke in his home.  He took the option that gave him the best advantage.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> But it seems like a really bad idea to not have your last line of defense as sharp as the others if you are serious about it.


By the way I agree with this and I often tell gun owners who depend completely on their guns for protection.  There have been cases in the U.S. where people who were carrying guns got robbed of their guns while carrying it.   That person could have worked on their awareness better.    For me personally I don't get nervous or scared when I see people who carry guns.   Seeing a gun simply gives a criminal an accurate understanding of the approach to take if they want to rob the guy with the gun.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I hate the term "self defense" too. You assumes that you are the only good guy, everybody on earth are all bad guys and try to get you. It's a terrible way to live your life this way.


I like it, because if all heck breaks loose.  I'm telling the cops that I did what I did out of self defense  lol.


----------



## Buka

JowGaWolf said:


> This contradicts the first paragraph that you wrote.  This is actually a red flag for me.  Even if it wasn't an Aikido school.  Protecting the assailant is counter productive.  Might as well let that person have their way with you.


I don't mean to cherry pick your post, but there are exceptions to one thing. In police work, at least all the police work I've been involved in, you try your damnedest not to hurt the person you're arresting or trying to separate from others.

Sometimes you might want to smack the crap out of them, but you just can't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Yokozuna514 said:


> I think it is going to be very difficult to spar safely and repeatedly if SD is the objective.  Yes, people need to practice SD skills but against a live opponent that isn't padded to the gills is not going to make for a long session.    If they are padded to the gills, it may not give you the proper feedback to help you develop the skill.
> 
> IMO, SD courses should be a primer to introduce new people to a world of possibilities in a particular system.  They can then practice skills in a safe manner repeatedly and with the understanding that these techniques will need to be modified for SD applications.


Basic fighting skills are a part of the toolkit. You don't have to be practicing breaks to be practicing SD. If you can't control spacing and timing, the techniques will never come into play. So, even if the keystone elements aren't good for sparring, the foundations of control are. If you're not practicing controlling people who are resisting, I doubt whether the techniques will be very useful.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> beginner training stage, if your opponent throws 100 punches at you and no punch can land on your body,


IF this happens, they are either not trying to hit you, or are pretty bad at it, or you are much more skilled than them. With similar skill levels, this won't happen.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I hate the term "self defense" too. You assumes that you are the only good guy, everybody on earth are all bad guys and try to get you. It's a terrible way to live your life this way.


I've never heard any SD instructor take this view. Not sure where you get it from that term.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Because if I see a weapon, brick, rock, sand, knife, tire iron, lamp, cord, chair, or anything that I think will give me an advantage then I'm going to take it, and use it against the person who is attacking me.  That's the difference.  I train Kung Fu but that doesn't mean I'm against using other objects to attack people.
> 
> When I was in Australia. I got into a conflict with an adult who was trying to beat up a teenager.  I came to the teenagers Aid.   The Adult had been running (exercising) and he intentionally bumped into the teenager and tried to pick a fight.  I approached the adult and got him to focus on me.  During that conflict I had positioned him between me and the street.  Why?  Because it wasn't beneath me to push him into traffic.  And if anyone was going to have the option to do such a thing it will be me.  I was not going to give him the option to do the same so I took that option away from him.
> 
> While some people will try to show off their kicks and punches. There are people out there like me who wouldn't mind stabbing or shooting you in self-defense.   So that's the difference.   If you don't think people in the U.S won't blast you with a gun in a fight then think again.
> 
> If you don't think people in the Dominican republic won't take a machete to you, then think again.  Kick and punch all you want.  If you are in a fight that's truly self-defense then you better take the option that gives you best advantage.
> 
> MMA fighter who stabbed someone to death after someone broke in his home.  He took the option that gave him the best advantage.


Sure but that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> I've never heard any SD instructor take this view. Not sure where you get it from that term.


I get it though. If you are in your 40s or older, you probably remember a time where people weren't so afraid of eachother. Maybe even when people didn't lock their houses or cars. Now everyone sees a stranger as a potential threat instead of a potential friend. It's sad really.


----------



## Buka

Martial D said:


> I get it though. If you are in your 40s or older, you probably remember a time where people weren't so afraid of eachother. Maybe even when people didn't lock their houses or cars. Now everyone sees a stranger as a potential threat instead of a potential friend. It's sad really.


 It is sad. Hell, when I was a little kid we never locked the house or car. Can't even imagine that now.
I'd have nightmares.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> This should be easy to do.  Simply ask students.  When was the last time you were in a conflict? Did you use any methods taught at the school?  Did it work?  Did it help you avoid the physical contact?
> 
> If a person has conflicts and is able  to avoid the physical fights then, much can be said about his or her non-fighting self defense skill sets.
> 
> If the person gets into conflicts that turn into physical fights most of the time then you can feel comfortable that their non-fighting defensive skills are lacking.
> 
> If I were to take a self-defense class.  I would want to take it from someone who gets into conflicts but is able to avoid the fights..   Then I would take a separate class that focuses on fighting or using a weapon.



Ok but you could compare that to a ballet class. 
A lot of fights just don't happen. Regardless as to the method we use.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Buka said:


> I don't mean to cherry pick your post, but there are exceptions to one thing. In police work, at least all the police work I've been involved in, you try your damnedest not to hurt the person you're arresting or trying to separate from others.
> 
> Sometimes you might want to smack the crap out of them, but you just can't.


Police have a really tough job.  Because a lot of what they do requires them to arrest people.  So a lot of they people that most of us would punch are the same people that police after to try to arrest so that the person can be tried in the court of law.  Because of the role and responsibility that they have, they shouldn't play the role of , jury, judge, and executioner unless it's necessary to ensure their safety or the safety of others.

The responsibility that the police should live up to plays an important role in keeping peace and greatly reduces the desire for citizens to feel like they have to "get back at someone."  Not an easy job by any means.



drop bear said:


> Ok but you could compare that to a ballet class.


I wouldn't ask a ballet class about their ballet techniques for fighting.  I would based my questions on what they train. So my question would be, what the best technique for jumping, certain ballet moves, and maybe flexibility, since they have no shortage of that.

People who train to fight talk differently than those who train for zen.  We don't even talk in the same tone. We don't even have the same focus.   Your gym focuses on fighting.  Their school focuses on the development of the mind and spirit.  The only development of the mind that fighters deal with is the fear and anxiety that often comes with the reality of strikes.  Learning how to calm the mind, read the punch, block cover, good head movement.  That stuff doesn't come up in classes that focus on health and spiritual development.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Police have a really tough job.  Because a lot of what they do requires them to arrest people.  So a lot of they people that most of us would punch are the same people that police after to try to arrest so that the person can be tried in the court of law.  Because of the role and responsibility that they have, they shouldn't play the role of , jury, judge, and executioner unless it's necessary to ensure their safety or the safety of others.
> 
> The responsibility that the police should live up to plays an important role in keeping peace and greatly reduces the desire for citizens to feel like they have to "get back at someone."  Not an easy job by any means.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't ask a ballet class about their ballet techniques for fighting.  I would based my questions on what they train. So my question would be, what the best technique for jumping, certain ballet moves, and maybe flexibility, since they have no shortage of that.
> 
> People who train to fight talk differently than those who train for zen.  We don't even talk in the same tone. We don't even have the same focus.   Your gym focuses on fighting.  Their school focuses on the development of the mind and spirit.  The only development of the mind that fighters deal with is the fear and anxiety that often comes with the reality of strikes.  Learning how to calm the mind, read the punch, block cover, good head movement.  That stuff doesn't come up in classes that focus on health and spiritual development.


When you train BJJ you get that same development of 'mind and spirit' but to a far greater extent because it's based on something real.
The zen mindstate you can find while you are live rolling is an ALIVE zen, I'll put that up against any repetition of form.

In BJJ you learn breath control because you HAVE to, where as in many others it's just part of a pattern.

In BJJ you learn REAL humility, as you will be tapping out a lot, and often. Compare this with the structured and preordained humility you learn in a structured sensei/sifu student relationship..where humility is simply expected.

Just an example, point being TMA does not have a monopoly on the 'mind and spirit' angle by any means.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I've never heard any SD instructor take this view. Not sure where you get it from that term.


One night I walked in a dark alley in Rio de Janeiro, a guy had his back against the wall, he looked at me, looked at my watch, looked at me, and looked at my watch again. He then turned his head around. Next night I had blue jean and leather jacket on with my long hair (a long hair China man can be scary). I stood at exactly the same spot. When people passed by, I looked at them. Everybody walked on the other side of the street and tried to stay away from me. I then realized that I could be the bad guy too.

I then realized that if I'm the bad guy, everybody on this planet are all good guys. The world will be a nice place to live.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> I get it though. If you are in your 40s or older, you probably remember a time where people weren't so afraid of eachother. Maybe even when people didn't lock their houses or cars. Now everyone sees a stranger as a potential threat instead of a potential friend. It's sad really.


Yeah, and that’s a media thing, mostly. Blaming that on the term “self-defense” is odd.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> One night I walked in a dark alley in Rio de Janeiro, a guy had his back against the wall, he looked at me, looked at my watch, looked at me, and looked at my watch again. He then turned his head around. Next night I had blue jean and leather jacket on with my long hair (a long hair China man can be scary). I stood at exactly the same spot. When people passed by, I looked at them. Everybody walked on the other side of the street and tried to stay away from me. I then realized that I could be the bad guy too.
> 
> I then realized that if I'm the bad guy, everybody on this planet are all good guys. The world will be a nice place to live.


Still not sure what any of that has to do with the term “self-defense”.


----------



## Buka

gpseymour said:


> Still not sure what any of that has to do with the term “self-defense”.


Maybe it does a little bit. I know of a couple of people nobody would ever mess with, not because they're big, or even all that scary looking....unless they project a certain look. They have a certain knack for looking a certain way.

One of them, I always ask, "what if someone calls your bluff?" He always replies, "Bite your tongue, don't say that! But so far so good."

We always have a good laugh afterwards.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Still not sure what any of that has to do with the term “self-defense”.


To learn SD is to force your opponent to play SD against you.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Buka said:


> One of them, I always ask, "what if someone calls your bluff?" He always replies, "Bite your tongue, don't say that! But so far so good."



This is not uncommon at all where I live.  And there are ways they do this without being confrontational.

An example might be to strike up a friendly conversation with you to assess your overall demeanor.  Some might even take this a step further by asking questions that cross most people's personal boundaries to see whether or not you've got the nuts to enforce them.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> When you train BJJ you get that same development of 'mind and spirit' but to a far greater extent because it's based on something real.


This is my same position, not only to BJJ but to other martial arts that focus on the fighting.  There's a lot more to fighting then just fighting.  Strategy, conquering fears both real, and confidence base, working with uncertainty, controlling one's emotion by not not getting frustrated or angry.  Timing, learning about body mechanics and human behavior.  Personally believe there's very little that can be learned about human behavior when everything is scripted.  Learn about healing and taking care of injuries, understanding balance.   All of that stuff and more helps to develop "the mind and spirit" more so than trying to "cut the mind and spirit parts" out of a system and only do that.  I think people short change themselves when they do that.    I even think Tai Chi for health should focus more on the fighting functions, even if they are old.  If they understand the function then they can move in a way that will give them better results all around.   Move with purpose.



Martial D said:


> The zen mindstate you can find while you are live rolling is an ALIVE zen, I'll put that up against any repetition of form


You can find zen in doing forms and repetition but they have to be "Alive" it can't be lazy.  Zen only comes when you put in the work and really push the body.  "Runners high" is a common zen state.  I'm not sure if you ever experienced it before but it's one of the best feelings a person can feel.  Same with sparring.  Some days you have those days where you see everything even though things are moving fast.  It's a calm and clarity that you won't get by doing easy work outs.  Some get it during tough workouts where that one day you may feel super strong and it seems like your normal workout has just gotten really easy.  Training like you and I are describing puts us in the present time.  Anything that was stressing us out or making us worried disappears after 5 minutes into training.  It allows people to drop everything and focus on what is going on now.  Forms training helps to focus on mindfulness.  Same with drills.  My personal experience is that I'm able to reach such levels easier when I train than if I'm just sitting there trying to meditate and do absolutely nothing.



Martial D said:


> In BJJ you learn breath control because you HAVE to, where as in many others it's just part of a pattern


This is the same with kung fu and many other physical activities. Running forces the the mind to pay attention to the breathing and how it works with the body.



Martial D said:


> Just an example, point being TMA does not have a monopoly on the 'mind and spirit' angle by any means.


I totally agree.  just like my comments above, I listed other ways I've experienced Zen.  I don't buy into the idea that it's only a TMA thing that can only be accomplished by TMA. I believe other people experience it when they say that the are  "in the zone."  This experience is more consistent among people than the concept of what Zen means.


----------



## Shatteredzen

JowGaWolf said:


> This is my same position, not only to BJJ but to other martial arts that focus on the fighting.  There's a lot more to fighting then just fighting.  Strategy, conquering fears both real, and confidence base, working with uncertainty, controlling one's emotion by not not getting frustrated or angry.  Timing, learning about body mechanics and human behavior.  Personally believe there's very little that can be learned about human behavior when everything is scripted.  Learn about healing and taking care of injuries, understanding balance.   All of that stuff and more helps to develop "the mind and spirit" more so than trying to "cut the mind and spirit parts" out of a system and only do that.  I think people short change themselves when they do that.    I even think Tai Chi for health should focus more on the fighting functions, even if they are old.  If they understand the function then they can move in a way that will give them better results all around.   Move with purpose.
> 
> 
> You can find zen in doing forms and repetition but they have to be "Alive" it can't be lazy.  Zen only comes when you put in the work and really push the body.  "Runners high" is a common zen state.  I'm not sure if you ever experienced it before but it's one of the best feelings a person can feel.  Same with sparring.  Some days you have those days where you see everything even though things are moving fast.  It's a calm and clarity that you won't get by doing easy work outs.  Some get it during tough workouts where that one day you may feel super strong and it seems like your normal workout has just gotten really easy.  Training like you and I are describing puts us in the present time.  Anything that was stressing us out or making us worried disappears after 5 minutes into training.  It allows people to drop everything and focus on what is going on now.  Forms training helps to focus on mindfulness.  Same with drills.  My personal experience is that I'm able to reach such levels easier when I train than if I'm just sitting there trying to meditate and do absolutely nothing.
> 
> 
> This is the same with kung fu and many other physical activities. Running forces the the mind to pay attention to the breathing and how it works with the body.
> 
> 
> I totally agree.  just like my comments above, I listed other ways I've experienced Zen.  I don't buy into the idea that it's only a TMA thing that can only be accomplished by TMA. I believe other people experience it when they say that the are  "in the zone."  This experience is more consistent among people than the concept of what Zen means.


Zen is a very specific concept, you are mistaking the idea of "flow state" for "zen". I would really google "zen" because you have used it a bunch of times now throughout the thread and its been incorrect every time. Zen is a specific set of philosophies from the Japanese sect of Mahayana Buddhism of the same name that focuses on "mushin no shin" or "mind with no mind". Specifically, freeing oneself from physical attachments and emotions through mental discipline and logic. As a meditative state it is referring to a state of spiritual tranquility free of physicality, not the feeling of elation you get from exercise.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Shatteredzen said:


> Zen is a very specific concept, you are mistaking the idea of "flow state" for "zen". I would really google "zen" because you have used it a bunch of times now throughout the thread and its been incorrect every time. Zen is a specific set of philosophies from the Japanese sect of Mahayana Buddhism of the same name that focuses on "mushin no shin" or "mind with no mind". Specifically, freeing oneself from physical attachments and emotions through mental discipline and logic. As a meditative state it is referring to a state of spiritual tranquility free of physicality, not the feeling of elation you get from exercise.


CMA also use this approach too.

When you

- run long distance,
- carry heavy weight,
- train human flag,
- train pole hanging,
- ...

you try to think about anything except your body. This way you can take more physical pain than you normally can.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I wouldn't ask a ballet class about their ballet techniques for fighting. I would based my questions on what they train. So my question would be, what the best technique for jumping, certain ballet moves, and maybe flexibility, since they have no shortage of that.



Not really that. Ask a ballet club how many people have avoided a fight. 

And you would probably get the same result as highly trained martial artists.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> People who train to fight talk differently than those who train for zen. We don't even talk in the same tone. We don't even have the same focus. Your gym focuses on fighting. Their school focuses on the development of the mind and spirit. The only development of the mind that fighters deal with is the fear and anxiety that often comes with the reality of strikes. Learning how to calm the mind, read the punch, block cover, good head movement. That stuff doesn't come up in classes that focus on health and spiritual development.



Depends if you believe in either Nichze or stoicism.


----------



## Hanzou

Martial D said:


> When you train BJJ you get that same development of 'mind and spirit' but to a far greater extent because it's based on something real.
> The zen mindstate you can find while you are live rolling is an ALIVE zen, I'll put that up against any repetition of form.
> 
> In BJJ you learn breath control because you HAVE to, where as in many others it's just part of a pattern.
> 
> In BJJ you learn REAL humility, as you will be tapping out a lot, and often. Compare this with the structured and preordained humility you learn in a structured sensei/sifu student relationship..where humility is simply expected.
> 
> Just an example, point being TMA does not have a monopoly on the 'mind and spirit' angle by any means.



I think you see this in all the ki-masters and phonies in TMAs. People like George Dillman who were arrogant enough to believe that he could trick people with his ki-magic BS, or simply believed he could actually do stuff like that is the height of arrogance. You also see it with the cult-like behavior that you see within some TMA circles. Rokas discussed that quite a bit in one of his videos.

Speaking of Rokas, he also talked about how he expected to be laughed at and taunted by the MMA community after he got embarrassed in that Aikido vs MMA video, but he was surprised at how many in that community applauded him and respected him for stepping to the plate and putting his art to the test. On the other hand, he said he was largely attacked and derided by the Aikido community at large who thought he was an idiot for using Aikido in a MMA sparring test. I will say that outside of some very rare instances, the Bjj community is one of the nicest and welcoming martial art communities I've ever experienced. There's a real down to earth feel to it, starting from calling your instructor by their first name, and everyone's actual skill being laid out in the open for all to see.

It's rather easy to smash egos in Bjj when you're a big burly wrestler getting submitted by a skinny teenager. The "mind and spirit" then enters the equation, and you wonder if you want to continue getting your ego smashed by continuing training, or if you want to pack up your ego and leave. Many choose the latter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To learn SD is to force your opponent to play SD against you.


That makes no sense to me.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Generally speaking, an enraged attacker is going to have a higher pain threshold due to the endorphins released by that aggression.  I know this seems counterintuitive for TMA, but that's why I don't mind matching that aggression.  If I'm feeling cautious, I'm probably not going to be able to take as much punishment.


----------



## Buka

Urban Trekker said:


> This is not uncommon at all where I live.  And there are ways they do this without being confrontational.
> 
> An example might be to strike up a friendly conversation with you to assess your overall demeanor.  Some might even take this a step further by asking questions that cross most people's personal boundaries to see whether or not you've got the nuts to enforce them.


Yes, sure. We usually refer to this as "the interview".


----------



## jayoliver00

Tony Dismukes said:


> Not quite ...



Still not as brutal as current MMA and definitely not as brutal as the early UFC's where you can do anything you wanted to win (with fines imposed) w/o worries of disqualification.

These Dog Brother meets, they're wearing safety gear. Sure it still hurts but it would cause more damage to just close the distance, take a few hits, drop the sticks and use MMA.  GNP, armbar, heel hook, raining elbows to the head, etc. will cause more damage than being hit with sticks.


----------



## Steve

jayoliver00 said:


> Still not as brutal as current MMA and definitely not as brutal as the early UFC's where you can do anything you wanted to win (with fines imposed) w/o worries of disqualification.
> 
> These Dog Brother meets, they're wearing safety gear. Sure it still hurts but it would cause more damage to just close the distance, take a few hits, drop the sticks and use MMA.  GNP, armbar, heel hook, raining elbows to the head, etc. will cause more damage than being hit with sticks.


I think the ruleset at these events is flexible enough for you to try it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To learn SD is to force your opponent to play SD against you.


Only if you think of things as good and bad.


Shatteredzen said:


> Zen is a very specific concept, you are mistaking the idea of "flow state" for "zen". I would really google "zen" because you have used it a bunch of times now throughout the thread and its been incorrect every time. Zen is a specific set of philosophies from the Japanese sect of Mahayana Buddhism of the same name that focuses on "mushin no shin" or "mind with no mind". Specifically, freeing oneself from physical attachments and emotions through mental discipline and logic. As a meditative state it is referring to a state of spiritual tranquility free of physicality, not the feeling of elation you get from exercise.


I have the correct definition.   I'm not talking about or referring to "Flow state" Zen has multiple definitions. The feeling of elation from exercise is also not what I'm talking about.


----------



## Shatteredzen

JowGaWolf said:


> Only if you think of things as good and bad.
> 
> I have the correct definition.   I'm not talking about or referring to "Flow state" Zen has multiple definitions. The feeling of elation from exercise is also not what I'm talking about.


None of the Japanese budo teach zen, yet you have referred to it multiple times, going so far as to call them "zen schools".


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Not really that. Ask a ballet club how many people have avoided a fight.
> 
> And you would probably get the same result as highly trained martial artists.


Probably.  I'll have Google Ballet Fights.  Google knows everything lol


B


----------



## JowGaWolf

Urban Trekker said:


> Generally speaking, an enraged attacker is going to have a higher pain threshold due to the endorphins released by that aggression.  I know this seems counterintuitive for TMA, but that's why I don't mind matching that aggression.  If I'm feeling cautious, I'm probably not going to be able to take as much punishment.


Enraged people make alot of mistakes. Start breaking functional stuff and it won't make any difference if they have a high pain threshold. A broken leg doesn't care how we feel.


----------



## Urban Trekker

JowGaWolf said:


> Enraged people make alot of mistakes. Start breaking functional stuff and it won't make any difference if they have a high pain threshold. A broken leg doesn't care how we feel.


I said matching their aggression, not enragement.

Think of it like this:  it's the summer, and you're going to an outdoor swimming pool.  You can be apprehensive about the water being cold and keep dipping your feet in until you feel that you're ready.  Or you can just say to screw all that and have the mindset that you're just gonna jump right into the water.  If you do the latter, you're going to adjust to the temperature of the water much more easily.

It all goes down to the old saying "You've gotta bring *** to get ***."


----------



## jayoliver00

Steve said:


> I think the ruleset at these events is flexible enough for you to try it.



I've seen many Dog Bros videos and that's exactly what happened. When someone with decent MMA skilled wanted, they dropped the sticks and resorted to their MMA skills to hurt the other guy more than the sticks could, forcing submission or giving up.


----------



## Steve

jayoliver00 said:


> I've seen many Dog Bros videos and that's exactly what happened. When someone with decent MMA skilled wanted, they dropped the sticks and resorted to their MMA skills to hurt the other guy more than the sticks could, forcing submission or giving up.


So, then, what's your point?  You said that the Dog Brothers were less "brutal" than MMA.  I said that there's nothing in the Dog Brothers rules that says you can't use MMA techniques in their matches.  Now you're saying that's exactly what happens.  Making me dizzy.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shatteredzen said:


> None of the Japanese budo teach zen, yet you have referred to it multiple times, going so far as to call them "zen schools".


They don't teach how to be nice either but I'm sure they try to obtain it.


----------



## jayoliver00

Steve said:


> So, then, what's your point?  You said that the Dog Brothers were less "brutal" than MMA.  I said that there's nothing in the Dog Brothers rules that says you can't use MMA techniques in their matches.  Now you're saying that's exactly what happens.  Making me dizzy.



You said, "I think the ruleset at these events is flexible enough for you to try it."   

Your comment implied that you didn't know that MMA was tried already within the Dog Bros. org.  I corrected you. You made yourself dizzy.


----------



## Steve

jayoliver00 said:


> You said, "I think the ruleset at these events is flexible enough for you to try it."
> 
> Your comment implied that you didn't know that MMA was tried already within the Dog Bros. org.  I corrected you. You made yourself dizzy.


I was trying to be polite.  To be more direct, what I was actually saying is, there is nothing in the rules prohibiting MMA techniques from being used.   So, once again, what's your point?  You said MMA is more brutal, but now acknowledge that there's nothing in the dog brothers rule set that prohibits any MMA technique.

Edit:  Just to clarify, you're using ninja logic.  =


----------



## JowGaWolf

JowGaWolf said:


> Probably.  I'll have Google Ballet Fights.  Google knows everything lol
> 
> 
> B


Mission accomplished kind of lol.


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, and that’s a media thing, mostly. Blaming that on the term “self-defense” is odd.


Huh? I'm not. How did you get that idea?


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> I think you see this in all the ki-masters and phonies in TMAs. People like George Dillman who were arrogant enough to believe that he could trick people with his ki-magic BS, or simply believed he could actually do stuff like that is the height of arrogance. You also see it with the cult-like behavior that you see within some TMA circles. Rokas discussed that quite a bit in one of his videos.
> 
> Speaking of Rokas, he also talked about how he expected to be laughed at and taunted by the MMA community after he got embarrassed in that Aikido vs MMA video, but he was surprised at how many in that community applauded him and respected him for stepping to the plate and putting his art to the test. On the other hand, he said he was largely attacked and derided by the Aikido community at large who thought he was an idiot for using Aikido in a MMA sparring test. I will say that outside of some very rare instances, the Bjj community is one of the nicest and welcoming martial art communities I've ever experienced. There's a real down to earth feel to it, starting from calling your instructor by their first name, and everyone's actual skill being laid out in the open for all to see.
> 
> It's rather easy to smash egos in Bjj when you're a big burly wrestler getting submitted by a skinny teenager. The "mind and spirit" then enters the equation, and you wonder if you want to continue getting your ego smashed by continuing training, or if you want to pack up your ego and leave. Many choose the latter.


You know what I just don’t get about Dillman? He didn’t have to go that BS route, he really didn’t. He has a ton of experience, a ton of knowledge and he’s a salesman.

He could have been WAY more successful and made way more money if he just taught Martial Arts instead of his cosmic oatmeal cookie bs stuff.

Never could figure out why he went that route. Just doesn’t make any sense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jayoliver00 said:


> You said, "I think the ruleset at these events is flexible enough for you to try it."
> 
> Your comment implied that you didn't know that MMA was tried already within the Dog Bros. org.  I corrected you. You made yourself dizzy.


I think Steve's point was that MMA moves are allowed within Dog Brothers ruleset, so anything MMA is kinda part of DB competition. Just depends whether anyone brings that or not, and what the individual competitors want to focus on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Huh? I'm not. How did you get that idea?


No, but the person I was talking to in the side thread you commented on was.


----------



## jayoliver00

Steve said:


> I was trying to be polite.  To be more direct, what I was actually saying is, there is nothing in the rules prohibiting MMA techniques from being used.   So, once again, what's your point?  You said MMA is more brutal, but now acknowledge that there's nothing in the dog brothers rule set that prohibits any MMA technique.
> 
> Edit:  Just to clarify, you're using ninja logic.  =



Well your first post suggested that I try MMA in these Dog Bros events; which implies that you didn't know that there were people who already did just that by dropping their sticks and went MMA striking & submissions, leading to more brutality and violence than the weapons (resulting in tap outs).


----------



## Steve

jayoliver00 said:


> Well your first post suggested that I try MMA in these Dog Bros events; which implies that you didn't know that there were people who already did just that by dropping their sticks and went MMA striking & submissions, leading to more brutality and violence than the weapons (resulting in tap outs).


Wow.  I sorry I was so hard to understand.  I'll be more direct in the future. I still don't know what your point is.  I encourage you to just forego sticks and see how you do.  We seem to agree that nothing's keeping you from doing that.  Get back to us on how well it works.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> No, but the person I was talking to in the side thread you commented on was.


There's a side thread?


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> You know what I just don’t get about Dillman? He didn’t have to go that BS route, he really didn’t. He has a ton of experience, a ton of knowledge and he’s a salesman.
> 
> He could have been WAY more successful and made way more money if he just taught Martial Arts instead of his cosmic oatmeal cookie bs stuff.
> 
> Never could figure out why he went that route. Just doesn’t make any sense.



He probably believed it. 

Plenty do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> There's a side thread?


Shocking, I know.


----------



## jayoliver00

Steve said:


> Wow.  I sorry I was so hard to understand.  I'll be more direct in the future. I still don't know what your point is.  I encourage you to just forego sticks and see how you do.  We seem to agree that nothing's keeping you from doing that.  Get back to us on how well it works.



I just explained it to you twice already that this has happened a few times in these Dog Bros. meet and with success (where MMA striking/submission won vs. those wielding the weapons allowed). This is the 3rd time now, so you're welcome (again). LOL.


----------



## jayoliver00

gpseymour said:


> I think Steve's point was that MMA moves are allowed within Dog Brothers ruleset, so anything MMA is kinda part of DB competition. Just depends whether anyone brings that or not, and what the individual competitors want to focus on.



I meant that MMA is still more violent & brutal than these Dog Bros' allowed weapons; mostly due to all the safety gear negating the head strikes. While getting punched, kicked, kneed, elbowed to the head at full power in MMA is much more damaging. That's why people with at these events with decent MMA skills (after dropping their sticks & go MMA H2H) would beat those with, ie. the escrima sticks; usually by taking a few shots to close the distance, then TD to GNP. 

He suggested that I try this, afterwhich I told him 3x that it's already been proven to be true in their videos.


----------



## Steve

jayoliver00 said:


> I just explained it to you twice already that this has happened a few times in these Dog Bros. meet and with success (where MMA striking/submission won vs. those wielding the weapons allowed). This is the 3rd time now, so you're welcome (again). LOL.


I went back to read that first post again, and I'm still not clear on how "current MMA" is more brutal than a Dog Brothers event.  When I pointed out that you can use MMA techniques freely in a Dog Brothers event, and nothing was stopping you from doing so, you started talking in circles.  Now you're explaining to me that people actually do this in Dog Brothers events with success, so I'm going to ask again... what's your actual point?


----------



## jayoliver00

Steve said:


> I went back to read that first post again, and I'm still not clear on how "current MMA" is more brutal than a Dog Brothers event.  When I pointed out that you can use MMA techniques freely in a Dog Brothers event, and nothing was stopping you from doing so, you started talking in circles.  Now you're explaining to me that people actually do this in Dog Brothers events with success, so I'm going to ask again... what's your actual point?



Just hang tight. I'll be back in a few hours, then I'll help you out.


----------



## Graywalker

Me I like the Aikido footwork, I find it useful in evading. Although, I will say that my experience training in it, is limited.


----------



## Flying Crane

jayoliver00 said:


> I meant that MMA is still more violent & brutal than these Dog Bros' allowed weapons; mostly due to all the safety gear negating the head strikes. While getting punched, kicked, kneed, elbowed to the head at full power in MMA is much more damaging. That's why people with at these events with decent MMA skills (after dropping their sticks & go MMA H2H) would beat those with, ie. the escrima sticks; usually by taking a few shots to close the distance, then TD to GNP.
> 
> He suggested that I try this, afterwhich I told him 3x that it's already been proven to be true in their videos.


I want to be sure I am clear on what you are saying.  The DB events utilize safety gear to negate the damaging effects of the weapons, so that the participants don’t go home with broken fingers and smashed skulls.  These are friendly bouts, intended for learning, after all.  In that environment, where protective equipment is negating the advantage of the weapons, dropping the weapon and engaging in the use of MMA techniques and tactics can be more decisive.  One can simply ignore the weapon and take their opponent down.  Although it seems to me that isn’t really the point of this kind of weapons training.  But whatever. 

Is that what you are saying?  I can agree with that.

If you are saying that mma techniques and tactics would be advantageous over the use of these weapons in an absolute way, then I cannot agree.  If the safety equipment were removed, the weapons used were real and not a lightweight version meant for safety of participants, and this was a determined life-or- death encounter, then I cannot agree that the mma approach would be advantageous.  

I feel confident that if I had a good stout hickory stick or staff, the room to use it properly with no inhibitions on that use, and an mma-trained enemy trying to do me bodily harm or kill me, then that mma fellow will end up with broken hands and a smashed skull before he can get close enough to engage with me.  

if I am misunderstanding your point, please clarify.


----------



## Martial D

Flying Crane said:


> I want to be sure I am clear on what you are saying.  The DB events utilize safety gear to negate the damaging effects of the weapons, so that the participants don’t go home with broken fingers and smashed skulls.  These are friendly bouts, intended for learning, after all.  In that environment, where protective equipment is negating the advantage of the weapons, dropping the weapon and engaging in the use of MMA techniques and tactics can be more decisive.  One can simply ignore the weapon and take their opponent down.  Although it seems to me that isn’t really the point of this kind of weapons training.  But whatever.
> 
> Is that what you are saying?  I can agree with that.
> 
> If you are saying that mma techniques and tactics would be advantageous over the use of these weapons in an absolute way, then I cannot agree.  If the safety equipment were removed, the weapons used were real and not a lightweight version meant for safety of participants, and this was a determined life-or- death encounter, then I cannot agree that the mma approach would be advantageous.
> 
> I feel confident that if I had a good stout hickory stick or staff, the room to use it properly with no inhibitions on that use, and an mma-trained enemy trying to do me bodily harm or kill me, then that mma fellow will end up with broken hands and a smashed skull before he can get close enough to engage with me.
> 
> if I am misunderstanding your point, please clarify.


Right? It's like if you train with padded weapons and you block with your forearm. Sure. Great approach against padded weapons. Not so great when it counts unless you can tie your shoes with one hand.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Right? It's like if you train with padded weapons and you block with your forearm. Sure. Great approach against padded weapons. Not so great when it counts unless you can tie your shoes with one hand.


This is one of the issues I see a lot in protected weapon sparring and simulated attacks (where the "attacker" is simply given a job). There is often far less self-protection going on than most people would exhibit. Tell me I just have to stab/cut you, and I can do that. Tell me I have to do that without getting hurt, and I'll be able to do that less often.


----------



## Urban Trekker

.


----------



## Yokozuna514

Flying Crane said:


> I want to be sure I am clear on what you are saying.  The DB events utilize safety gear to negate the damaging effects of the weapons, so that the participants don’t go home with broken fingers and smashed skulls.  These are friendly bouts, intended for learning, after all.  In that environment, where protective equipment is negating the advantage of the weapons, dropping the weapon and engaging in the use of MMA techniques and tactics can be more decisive.  One can simply ignore the weapon and take their opponent down.  Although it seems to me that isn’t really the point of this kind of weapons training.  But whatever.
> 
> Is that what you are saying?  I can agree with that.
> 
> If you are saying that mma techniques and tactics would be advantageous over the use of these weapons in an absolute way, then I cannot agree.  If the safety equipment were removed, the weapons used were real and not a lightweight version meant for safety of participants, and this was a determined life-or- death encounter, then I cannot agree that the mma approach would be advantageous.
> 
> I feel confident that if I had a good stout hickory stick or staff, the room to use it properly with no inhibitions on that use, and an mma-trained enemy trying to do me bodily harm or kill me, then that mma fellow will end up with broken hands and a smashed skull before he can get close enough to engage with me.
> 
> if I am misunderstanding your point, please clarify.





Martial D said:


> Right? It's like if you train with padded weapons and you block with your forearm. Sure. Great approach against padded weapons. Not so great when it counts unless you can tie your shoes with one hand.





gpseymour said:


> This is one of the issues I see a lot in protected weapon sparring and simulated attacks (where the "attacker" is simply given a job). There is often far less self-protection going on than most people would exhibit. Tell me I just have to stab/cut you, and I can do that. Tell me I have to do that without getting hurt, and I'll be able to do that less often.


Although I can appreciate what all three of you are saying from a critical standpoint, the flip side of the argument is that people are getting the opportunity to ratchet up their weapons work in a 'safer' context.    Sure you will get people that will block blades with padded forearms in the heat of the moment but that is also a learning point to go back and review so that it can be improved upon moving forward.   Again, too much reliance on the padding can create 'lazy' technique but with the right mindset, that padding can also show vulnerabilities while not having to suffer the consequences of losing the arm.   Basically, I am saying you get out what you put in.   If you are LARPing for the fun of LARPing, LARP away.   You may not get any better but that may not be your point.   However, if you are looking to test where your current skillset is in a more realistic fashion without having to suffer real injuries, this type of training can move you closer to that goal.


----------



## Martial D

Yokozuna514 said:


> Although I can appreciate what all three of you are saying from a critical standpoint, the flip side of the argument is that people are getting the opportunity to ratchet up their weapons work in a 'safer' context.    Sure you will get people that will block blades with padded forearms in the heat of the moment but that is also a learning point to go back and review so that it can be improved upon moving forward.   Again, too much reliance on the padding can create 'lazy' technique but with the right mindset, that padding can also show vulnerabilities while not having to suffer the consequences of losing the arm.   Basically, I am saying you get out what you put in.   If you are LARPing for the fun of LARPing, LARP away.   You may not get any better but that may not be your point.   However, if you are looking to test where your current skillset is in a more realistic fashion without having to suffer real injuries, this type of training can move you closer to that goal.


Well, sure. So long as you keep in mind what you are training for. The overarching thread that grappling and striking (MMA) is better than using weapons is only true when you have gear that negates the weapons. This was the point being made.


----------



## Flying Crane

Yokozuna514 said:


> Although I can appreciate what all three of you are saying from a critical standpoint, the flip side of the argument is that people are getting the opportunity to ratchet up their weapons work in a 'safer' context.    Sure you will get people that will block blades with padded forearms in the heat of the moment but that is also a learning point to go back and review so that it can be improved upon moving forward.   Again, too much reliance on the padding can create 'lazy' technique but with the right mindset, that padding can also show vulnerabilities while not having to suffer the consequences of losing the arm.   Basically, I am saying you get out what you put in.   If you are LARPing for the fun of LARPing, LARP away.   You may not get any better but that may not be your point.   However, if you are looking to test where your current skillset is in a more realistic fashion without having to suffer real injuries, this type of training can move you closer to that goal.


No argument from me, and that was really the point I was making.  The safety measures make for a learning environment and that requires a certain give-and-take and a willingness to respect the attacks.  But I hope nobody is making assumptions that an mma trained person would have some kind of automatic advantage over the weapon user, if the confrontation was for keeps and the safety measures are not in place.


----------



## Yokozuna514

Martial D said:


> Well, sure. So long as you keep in mind what you are training for. The overarching thread that grappling and striking (MMA) is better than using weapons is only true when you have gear that negates the weapons. This was the point being made.


I would think that skill level and experience can also negate the use of weapons as well as multiple attackers but, all things being equal, having a weapon should give one an advantage over an opponent that has none.   

The peanut gallery


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Yokozuna514 said:


> Although I can appreciate what all three of you are saying from a critical standpoint, the flip side of the argument is that people are getting the opportunity to ratchet up their weapons work in a 'safer' context.    Sure you will get people that will block blades with padded forearms in the heat of the moment but that is also a learning point to go back and review so that it can be improved upon moving forward.   Again, too much reliance on the padding can create 'lazy' technique but with the right mindset, that padding can also show vulnerabilities while not having to suffer the consequences of losing the arm.   Basically, I am saying you get out what you put in.   If you are LARPing for the fun of LARPing, LARP away.   You may not get any better but that may not be your point.   However, if you are looking to test where your current skillset is in a more realistic fashion without having to suffer real injuries, this type of training can move you closer to that goal.


This is pretty much what I was saying. It's something you have to keep in mind - it changes the dynamics a bit, but every training tool has a compromise involved.


----------



## jayoliver00

Flying Crane said:


> I want to be sure I am clear on what you are saying.  The DB events utilize safety gear to negate the damaging effects of the weapons, so that the participants don’t go home with broken fingers and smashed skulls.  These are friendly bouts, intended for learning, after all.  In that environment, where protective equipment is negating the advantage of the weapons, dropping the weapon and engaging in the use of MMA techniques and tactics can be more decisive.  One can simply ignore the weapon and take their opponent down.  Although it seems to me that isn’t really the point of this kind of weapons training.  But whatever.
> 
> Is that what you are saying?  I can agree with that.
> 
> If you are saying that mma techniques and tactics would be advantageous over the use of these weapons in an absolute way, then I cannot agree.  If the safety equipment were removed, the weapons used were real and not a lightweight version meant for safety of participants, and this was a determined life-or- death encounter, then I cannot agree that the mma approach would be advantageous.
> 
> I feel confident that if I had a good stout hickory stick or staff, the room to use it properly with no inhibitions on that use, and an mma-trained enemy trying to do me bodily harm or kill me, then that mma fellow will end up with broken hands and a smashed skull before he can get close enough to engage with me.
> 
> if I am misunderstanding your point, please clarify.



Yes, that's pretty much what I was saying.

When it comes to sparring or fighting with as much brutality & real violence as possible, MMA offers the highest level by far.

But it doesn't mean that MMA beats weapons, especially blades. I train with sticks, knives, swords, long swords, spears, glaives, etc. pretty religiously, at least 2-3 hours a week. They're all fake and blunt but the skills are real. Pretty sure I can win a sword fight to the death vs. most UFC fighters; while there are many overweight, Larping nerds that can destroy me in such sword fights yet they can't sprint 20 yards w/o gassing.


----------



## Yokozuna514

gpseymour said:


> This is pretty much what I was saying. It's something you have to keep in mind - it changes the dynamics a bit, but every training tool has a compromise involved.


Ok to be fair, I do see what you are saying.  My sticking point is the 'compromise'.   That implies a negative connotation (being critical) when evaluating something.  Yes, we can and should do that from time to time but there is also another way to look at it from a more positive standpoint.   Instead of looking at DB matches and picking out the areas of 'compromise' we can look at the very same thing and focus on the more 'positive' attributes of the exercise.    Different strokes for different folks but that was all I was trying to say.   My point is no more valid than yours, just seemingly............different ?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> These are friendly bouts, intended for learning, after all. In that environment, where protective equipment is negating the advantage of the weapons, dropping the weapon and engaging in the use of MMA techniques and tactics can be more decisive. One can simply ignore the weapon and take their opponent down.


I agree with this.  Even though the padding protects against the weapons, They should acknowledge the weapon strike with the understanding that without the padding, the strike would be very damaging.  This is the same issue I talk about in regards to "acknowledging strikes that land but do not land hard."  Those strikes just can't be ignored without creating degraded learning and without creating failed solutions.  

If a person needs to be hit with an actual weapon to understand this, then it would be safe to say that the person lacks some basic awareness and understanding of a "fight situation."   They are unable to identify damaging strikes and weaknesses that would exist without the padding.


----------



## drop bear

jayoliver00 said:


> Yes, that's pretty much what I was saying.
> 
> When it comes to sparring or fighting with as much brutality & real violence as possible, MMA offers the highest level by far.
> 
> But it doesn't mean that MMA beats weapons, especially blades. I train with sticks, knives, swords, long swords, spears, glaives, etc. pretty religiously, at least 2-3 hours a week. They're all fake and blunt but the skills are real. Pretty sure I can win a sword fight to the death vs. most UFC fighters; while there are many overweight, Larping nerds that can destroy me in such sword fights yet they can't sprint 20 yards w/o gassing.



Depends on the system. A lot of weapons systems are drill or forms based. And therefore the edge they would have over an untrained guy would be minimal.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Yokozuna514 said:


> I would think that skill level and experience can also negate the use of weapons as well as multiple attackers but, all things being equal, having a weapon should give one an advantage over an opponent that has none.
> 
> The peanut gallery


The type of weapon being used and skill of the person makes a difference.  If a person doesn't know how to fight with certain weapons then it's better to not have it.  Staff, Three section staff, Chain Whip, Baseball bat, and some other weapons may put the person in worse position trying to use it,


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Depends on the system. A lot of weapons systems are drill or forms based.


This shouldn't matter because it's up to the practitioner to take it to the next level.  Sort of how I've taking my staff training to the next level so that I can eventually free spar without equipment.


----------



## Steve

Anyone know the actual rules for a dog brothers match?

And to try and rope this back to the topic of the thread, how do we think an aikidoka would fare vs folks who train in other styles or training models?


----------



## jayoliver00

drop bear said:


> Depends on the system. A lot of weapons systems are drill or forms based. And therefore the edge they would have over an untrained guy would be minimal.



Can you name these weapons systems? How about 10, since you said "a lot".

Kind of like a guy who hacks at sugar cane plants 10 hours a days for years & years, with his machete on a plantation. Even if he doesn't train it for combat nor do MA's, nor ever sparred anyone; I still wouldn't want to mess with him. He's going to be really agile, fast, precise, strong, high stamina, etc. b/c all of his muscles, muscle memory, etc. are bulked up for this exact task.


----------



## jayoliver00

JowGaWolf said:


> The type of weapon being used and skill of the person makes a difference.  If a person doesn't know how to fight with certain weapons then it's better to not have it.  Staff, Three section staff, Chain Whip, Baseball bat, and some other weapons may put the person in worse position trying to use it,



 Untrained people are better off with these weapons than without. Even the chain whip; Just use the chain only when at long range.  At close range, use the spike like a knife.  I'd much rather fight someone who didn't have these weapons, then them do.


----------



## Yokozuna514

jayoliver00 said:


> Untrained people are better off with these weapons than without. Even the chain whip; Just use the chain only when at long range.  At close range, use the spike like a knife.  I'd much rather fight someone who didn't have these weapons, then them do.


I wouldn't agree with you here.   Untrained people using weapons unfamiliar to them are more a danger to themselves than their opponent.  You would think that it is an advantage for them to have the weapon but odds are they will be disarmed and attacked with that very same weapon.


----------



## jayoliver00

Yokozuna514 said:


> I wouldn't agree with you here.   Untrained people using weapons unfamiliar to them are more a danger to themselves than their opponent.  You would think that it is an advantage for them to have the weapon but odds are they will be disarmed and attacked with that very same weapon.



You'd rather fight someone untrained, but armed with a baseball bat than without?

Worse would be, if he was untrained but with a knife. Which leads to all the skepticism about knife disarming training.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Yokozuna514 said:


> I wouldn't agree with you here.   Untrained people using weapons unfamiliar to them are more a danger to themselves than their opponent.  You would think that it is an advantage for them to have the weapon but odds are they will be disarmed and attacked with that very same weapon.


If we're talking about explosive and incendiary weapons, I agree.  But a nunchaku to your skull is a nunchaku to your skull, whether the person wielding them was familiar with the weapon or not.  The average person at cannot, or at least will not, walk into a weapon being swung around to disarm the person wielding it.

Edit:  I removed "firearms" from the first sentence.  I just had a "duh" moment.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Some of you are clearly making a lot of unwarranted and unsupportable assumptions and generalizations.


----------



## Yokozuna514

jayoliver00 said:


> You'd rather fight someone untrained, but armed with a baseball bat than without?


Are you asking if I would "Rather" fight someone untrained with a baseball bat than someone untrained without a baseball bat ?   I would rather not have to fight untrained people at all.   If I was put in a position to fight someone who is untrained with a baseball bat, they are going to lose that bat.    


Urban Trekker said:


> If we're talking about firearms, explosive, and incendiary weapons, I agree.  But a nunchaku to your skull is a nunchaku to your skull, whether the person wielding them was familiar with the weapon or not.  The average person at cannot, or at least will not, walk into a weapon being swung around to disarm the person wielding it.


Have you ever tried to use nunchaku ?   Not as easy as you seem to think.  Chances are, if they are untrained with the nunchaku, they are going to lose that nunchaku.


----------



## Martial D

Yokozuna514 said:


> I would think that skill level and experience can also negate the use of weapons as well as multiple attackers but, all things being equal, having a weapon should give one an advantage over an opponent that has none.
> 
> The peanut gallery


Well. There is a reason weapons have always been a thing in warfare. Never has an army of fisticuffers vanquished anyone.

One person trained with a sword is worth 5 unarmed men.

And no amount of unarmed training reliably beats more than one. Sure it happens, but anyone that tells you X style will make you reliably beat more than one person at a time is selling snake oil.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Yokozuna514 said:


> Have you ever tried to use nunchaku ?   Not as easy as you seem to think.  Chances are, if they are untrained with the nunchaku, they are going to lose that nunchaku.


Yes, I have nunchaku.  I am a karateka.

It's not hard to simply grab one end and swing the other end at someone else's head, as if it were a steel chain.  In my early teens, I knew a kid who served a bid in juvie for doing just that, and it was to a bigger kid.  Again, the average person is unable and unwilling to walk into a weapon being swung around to disarm the person wielding it.  Whether the person with the weapon is trained or not, most people aren't going to risk getting hit with it.


----------



## Yokozuna514

Martial D said:


> Well. There is a reason weapons have always been a thing in warfare. Never has an army of fisticuffers vanquished anyone.
> 
> One person trained with a sword is worth 5 unarmed men.
> 
> And no amount of unarmed training reliably beats more than one. Sure it happens, but anyone that tells you X style will make you reliably beat more than one person at a time is selling snake oil.


Yes, and with weapons of warfare there is typically training.   I cannot speak to the quality of that training or the motivation of the soldiers but the quality of training with the weapons to be used is correlated to the ability of soldiers to win battles.  

My comment was in reference to a post JowGaWolf made about the use of certain weapons by untrained people.   Sure they can have some success with it but against an opponent who is unarmed by trained to fight, I firmly believe the best choice would have been for them to run rather than use a weapon like a 3 sectional staff just because if happened to be near by.


----------



## Yokozuna514

Urban Trekker said:


> Yes, I have nunchaku.  I am a karateka.
> 
> It's not hard to simply grab one end and swing the other end at someone else's head, as if it were a steel chain.  In my early teens, I knew a kid who served a bid in juvie for doing just that, and it was to a bigger kid.  Again, the average person is unable and unwilling to walk into a weapon being swung around to disarm the person wielding it.  Whether the person with the weapon is trained or not, most people aren't going to risk getting hit with it.


Ok so you are saying it is easy to handle nunchaku without training and you wouldn't get disarmed if you are against a trained fighter who is unarmed.   Ok gotcha.


----------



## Steve

jayoliver00 said:


> Can you name these weapons systems? How about 10, since you said "a lot".
> 
> Kind of like a guy who hacks at sugar cane plants 10 hours a days for years & years, with his machete on a plantation. Even if he doesn't train it for combat nor do MA's, nor ever sparred anyone; I still wouldn't want to mess with him. He's going to be really agile, fast, precise, strong, high stamina, etc. b/c all of his muscles, muscle memory, etc. are bulked up for this exact task.


Which guy is this?  Can you name this guy?  How about just any guy like this, since... you know... you're so specific.


----------



## Urban Trekker

What I'm saying here should be common sense, but let me illustrate it for you:  when you hear of a stabbing on the local evening news, do you believe that the person who did the stabbing was trained in knives more often than not?  Along with that, is there normally any mention of the person who did the stabbing injuring themselves with the knife?  And what percentage of the time would you say these knife wielders get disarmed?


----------



## jayoliver00

Yokozuna514 said:


> Are you asking if I would "Rather" fight someone untrained with a baseball bat than someone untrained without a baseball bat ?   I would rather not have to fight untrained people at all.   If I was put in a position to fight someone who is untrained with a baseball bat, they are going to lose that bat.



I get that, but the point still stands that the untrained person with a bat,  have a better chance vs. you (then him w/o at bat). If you're still going to beat his butt H2H anyways, then why wouldn't it give him a better chance with a bat; that's basically just a club.



Yokozuna514 said:


> Have you ever tried to use nunchaku ?   Not as easy as you seem to think.  Chances are, if they are untrained with the nunchaku, they are going to lose that nunchaku.



I can still remember when I bought my first set of chuks. I was like 12 and the shop made me call home for parent's permission.  No training, just watching Bruce Lee & Bruce Li movies.   It was pretty easy to swing it with control as an attack & then control the stop or bounce back. It was only when I tried the movie tricks that I hit myself on that funny bone at the elbow more than a few times. Only a few times in the head as the 1st time causes you to be very cautious afterward. Not that big of a deal.

Now if an untrained person had a knife, that's a lot better for them.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Yokozuna514 said:


> Ok so you are saying it is easy to handle nunchaku without training and you wouldn't get disarmed if you are against a trained fighter who is unarmed.   Ok gotcha.



If by "handle," you mean in the way that they're supposed to be handled, that's not what I'm talking about.  And unless you have been specifically trained in how to disarm people then, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.  I'll even say that IF you have specific training on how to disarm people, fleeing is still the better option if possible.


----------



## jayoliver00

Steve said:


> Which guy is this?  Can you name this guy?  How about just any guy like this, since... you know... you're so specific.



His name is Rodrigo De La Santa Maria He's 25, single daddy, likes long walks along the beach and all the Rocky movies except Rocky V, which is a load of poop.


----------



## Urban Trekker

jayoliver00 said:


> It was only when I tried the movie tricks that I hit myself on that funny bone at the elbow more than a few times. Only a few times in the head as the 1st time causes you to be very cautious afterward. Not that big of a deal.


Exactly.  An attacker who is armed with them is not going to be doing "tricks" when he's focused on taking you out.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Dirty Dog said:


> Some of you are clearly making a lot of unwarranted and unsupportable assumptions and generalizations.


@jayoliver00 your "disagree" would have some actual value if you provided any reason to think your assumptions and generalizations have any basis in actual fact.


----------



## jayoliver00

Dirty Dog said:


> @jayoliver00 your "disagree" would have some actual value if you provided any reason to think your assumptions and generalizations have any basis in actual fact.



You didn't give any of the above with your disagreement to my post neither.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Please understand something.  Melee and cutting weapons are not hi-tech equipment.  Any random hard or sharp object can be used as a weapon.

As a matter of fact, humans have specifically evolved to use weapons.  Species of humans, long before the existence of _homo sapiens_, have been using weapons.  We would not be here if they didn't.

That being said, someone trained with weapons is going to be better off than someone who is not; but nonetheless, using weapons is in our DNA and is an instinct that we're born with.  When a bigger kid came after you on the playground, no one had to tell you that picking up and swinging a stick would knock him out.  You already knew that by instinct.


----------



## jayoliver00

Urban Trekker said:


> Exactly.  An attacker who is armed with them is not going to be doing "tricks" when he's focused on taking you out.



Yea, it ain't rocket science. How many times have those Reality MA people tell you to pick up anything as an improvised weapon, ie. broom, rock, lamp, chair, etc.  Here we already have actual weapons.


----------



## Dirty Dog

jayoliver00 said:


> You didn't give any of the above with your disagreement to my post neither.


Um, it's impossible to prove a negative. You don't really understand how logic works, I take it?
You're making a claim. Actually, a bunch of them. With no reason for anyone to believe you.


----------



## jayoliver00

Dirty Dog said:


> Um, it's impossible to prove a negative. You don't really understand how logic works, I take it?
> You're making a claim. Actually, a bunch of them. With no reason for anyone to believe you.



You disagreed without tell me why. I did the same and you didn't like it.


----------



## Yokozuna514

Urban Trekker said:


> What I'm saying here should be common sense, but let me illustrate it for you:  when you hear of a stabbing on the local evening news, do you believe that the person who did the stabbing was trained in knives more often than not?  Along with that, is there normally any mention of the person who did the stabbing injuring themselves with the knife?  And what percentage of the time would you say these knife wielders get disarmed?


Ok, we can keep going around endlessly bringing up scenarios that will fit our narratives.  Who's right ?  Who's wrong ?   Do they even have stats for this ?  What's the point you are trying to make ?  You are untrained and you pick up a bat.  I'm trained and I see you have a bat, so I grab a bat too.   Where do we go from here ?   Someone is going to hit with a bat.


Urban Trekker said:


> If by "handle," you mean in the way that they're supposed to be handled, that's not what I'm talking about.  And unless you have been specifically trained in how to disarm people then, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.  I'll even say that IF you have specific training on how to disarm people, fleeing is still the better option if possible.


It has been my experience that most people picking up nunchaku for the first time have a similar experience to jayoliver00.  


jayoliver00 said:


> I get that, but the point still stands that the untrained person with a bat,  have a better chance vs. you (then him w/o at bat). If you're still going to beat his butt H2H anyways, then why wouldn't it give him a better chance with a bat; that's basically just a club.
> 
> 
> 
> I can still remember when I bought my first set of chuks. I was like 12 and the shop made me call home for parent's permission.  No training, just watching Bruce Lee & Bruce Li movies.   It was pretty easy to swing it with control as an attack & then control the stop or bounce back. It was only when I tried the movie tricks that I hit myself on that funny bone at the elbow more than a few times. Only a few times in the head as the 1st time causes you to be very cautious afterward. Not that big of a deal.
> 
> Now if an untrained person had a knife, that's a lot better for them.


Will an untrained person with a bat give them a better chance against a trained fighter ?  I think that is their hope.   Sure you can use anything around you as a weapon but that means your opponent can do that as well.


----------



## jayoliver00

Yokozuna514 said:


> It has been my experience that most people picking up nunchaku for the first time have a similar experience to jayoliver00.



So you agree? Because my experience was good with chuks. 



Yokozuna514 said:


> Will an untrained person with a bat give them a better chance against a trained fighter ?  I think that is their hope.



Are you saying that an untrained fighter would be better off w/o a bat than with, vs. a trained fighter?  If he's already deadmeat going H2H vs. the trained fighter, then how is wielding a bat not give him a much better chance?



Yokozuna514 said:


> Sure you can use anything around you as a weapon but that means your opponent can do that as well.



What are the chances of there being 2 bats laying around? But if the Trained Fighter (opponent) can do that as well, then how would it be good for the untrained fighter to not pick up the bat or some other improvised weapon?

More significant would be a knife in the hands of the untrained; swinging a blade is not that hard.


----------



## drop bear

jayoliver00 said:


> Can you name these weapons systems? How about 10, since you said "a lot".
> 
> Kind of like a guy who hacks at sugar cane plants 10 hours a days for years & years, with his machete on a plantation. Even if he doesn't train it for combat nor do MA's, nor ever sparred anyone; I still wouldn't want to mess with him. He's going to be really agile, fast, precise, strong, high stamina, etc. b/c all of his muscles, muscle memory, etc. are bulked up for this exact task.



A lot of weapon systems don't hack at sugar cane either.


----------



## Dirty Dog

jayoliver00 said:


> You disagreed without tell me why. I did the same and you didn't like it.


Utter nonsense. Here:


Dirty Dog said:


> Some of you are clearly making a lot of unwarranted and unsupportable assumptions and generalizations.


If there are words that you do not understand, I'll try to help.


----------



## Urban Trekker

drop bear said:


> A lot of weapon systems don't hack at sugar cane either.


This could apply in many other situations too.  For example, you probably wouldn't want to face a chef armed with kitchen tools.  They can probably do whole hell of a lot more to you with a meat cleaver than anyone else can.

If a player in the MLB can miss your head with a bat, he shouldn't be in the MLB to begin with.


----------



## Steve

jayoliver00 said:


> His name is Rodrigo De La Santa Maria He's 25, single daddy, likes long walks along the beach and all the Rocky movies except Rocky V, which is a load of poop.


Which one is he?


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> A lot of weapon systems don't hack at sugar cane either.



I watched a kung fu movie one time where a guy kicked bamboo over and over until he was really good at punching bad guys.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I watched a kung fu movie one time where a guy kicked bamboo over and over until he was really good at punching bad guys.



Bukau


Urban Trekker said:


> This could apply in many other situations too.  For example, you probably wouldn't want to face a chef armed with kitchen tools.  They can probably do whole hell of a lot more to you with a meat cleaver than anyone else can.
> 
> If a player in the MLB can miss your head with a bat, he shouldn't be in the MLB to begin with.



All correct. But I don't think your long pole form in kung fu or ninjitsu training reflects these results.

And then thet had better hope that the untrained guy isn't a cane farmer.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Bukau
> 
> 
> All correct. But I don't think your long pole form in kung fu or ninjitsu training reflects these results.
> 
> And then thet had better hope that the untrained guy isn't a cane farmer.


I sure wouldn't want to get punched by that guy.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I sure wouldn't want to get punched by that guy.



Even if I had a stick and did forms.


----------



## Urban Trekker

drop bear said:


> Bukau
> 
> 
> All correct. But I don't think your long pole form in kung fu or ninjitsu training reflects these results.
> 
> And then thet had better hope that the untrained guy isn't a cane farmer.


Very true.  Never found myself in this situation, but if I had to use a six-foot long stick (or something similar to a bo), I'm probably not going to use it the way I was trained to.  I'd probably use it like a baseball bat, just like anyone else would.  Your hands are much safer that way, you get better distance, and more power behind the swing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Yokozuna514 said:


> Ok to be fair, I do see what you are saying.  My sticking point is the 'compromise'.   That implies a negative connotation (being critical) when evaluating something.  Yes, we can and should do that from time to time but there is also another way to look at it from a more positive standpoint.   Instead of looking at DB matches and picking out the areas of 'compromise' we can look at the very same thing and focus on the more 'positive' attributes of the exercise.    Different strokes for different folks but that was all I was trying to say.   My point is no more valid than yours, just seemingly............different ?


IMO, it’s useful and instructive to look at both sides of the compromise. With padded weapons, for instance, you gain the ability to practice with intent and power without serious risk of injury, and that comes with a lack of threat to the opponent, which will change their decisions and probably their tactics.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Urban Trekker said:


> If we're talking about explosive and incendiary weapons, I agree.  But a nunchaku to your skull is a nunchaku to your skull, whether the person wielding them was familiar with the weapon or not.  The average person at cannot, or at least will not, walk into a weapon being swung around to disarm the person wielding it.
> 
> Edit:  I removed "firearms" from the first sentence.  I just had a "duh" moment.


I’ve seen far too many people use a nunchaku for the first time to think they’re better off with it in their hands without training.


----------



## Urban Trekker

gpseymour said:


> I’ve seen far too many people use a nunchaku for the first time to think they’re better off with it in their hands without training.


Actually attacking someone with them, or just playing with them?  If an untrained person can whack the side of your skull with a two and a half foot long steel chain, they can do the same thing with nunchaku.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Urban Trekker said:


> Actually attacking someone with them, or just playing with them?  If an untrained person can whack the side of your skull with a two and a half foot long steel chain, they can do the same thing with nunchaku.


Trying to swing them. They tend to wind up  big (easy to see what’s coming) and swing too fast, so the flail end is kinda wobbling in space with reduced force. Or they swing really slow and get it otherwise kind of correct. Either way, they’d be better off with a broken nunchaku or empty hands. Only rarely have I seen someone pick them up the first time and make a reasonable swing the first time. They just don’t swing like a stick.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> how do we think an aikidoka would fare vs folks who train in other styles or training models?


Depends on how they train.  There's nothing that says Aikido techniques have to be applied to someone who is fresh.  If he knows how punch and kick, then the person may get other things before the Aikido comes out.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> I’ve seen far too many people use a nunchaku for the first time to think they’re better off with it in their hands without training.


Three section staff is like that.  Anyone that learns it always talks about how the staff beats them up  lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jayoliver00 said:


> Untrained people are better off with these weapons than without. Even the chain whip; Just use the chain only when at long range. At close range, use the spike like a knife. I'd much rather fight someone who didn't have these weapons, then them do.


They are better off with easy to use weapons.  Chain whips, staffs, baseball bats, rope darts, three sectional staff, are not easy to use.  Staffs are totally useless if you cannot generate powerful strikes or if you cannot quicky strike with them.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Urban Trekker said:


> I'd probably use it like a baseball bat, just like anyone else would. Your hands are much safer that way, you get better distance, and more power behind the swing.


Glad to hear you say that, because this is how I train myself and my son to deal with someone with a 6 foot staff.  This is the worse way to swing a staff.  Use it like a staff or a spear, but if you use it like a baseball bat, you'll only get one good swing then you can kiss your butt goodbye.  I would literally give you my staff "tree" to fight me, if you promise to swing it like a bat.

I'll have the staff back either on your first swing or after it.  There is a reason why you don't see Chinese or Japanese staff fighting systems swing their staffs like a baseball bat.  If you are going to swing a staff like that then your best best is to just toss it as far from me as possible.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Depends on how they train.  There's nothing that says Aikido techniques have to be applied to someone who is fresh.  If he knows how punch and kick, then the person may get other things before the Aikido comes out.


Depends on what?  How would an aikidoka have to train in order to perform well in a dog brothers march?


----------



## Urban Trekker

JowGaWolf said:


> Glad to hear you say that, because this is how I train myself and my son to deal with someone with a 6 foot staff.  This is the worse way to swing a staff.  Use it like a staff or a spear, but if you use it like a baseball bat, you'll only get one good swing then you can kiss your butt goodbye.  I would literally give you my staff "tree" to fight me, if you promise to swing it like a bat.
> 
> I'll have the staff back either on your first swing or after it.  There is a reason why you don't see Chinese or Japanese staff fighting systems swing their staffs like a baseball bat.  If you are going to swing a staff like that then your best best is to just toss it as far from me as possible.


Doesn't sound like you've ever tested that theory on the streets.

Of all weapons that one could possibly use, a bo that's being used the way one is trained to use it is the one that I fear getting into the range of the least.

As many times as I've gotten the broomstick as a form of punishment growing up (I've had a few broken across my back, and acted like nothing happened a half-hour later), I'm not afraid of anything that doesn't weigh heavier at one end (like a baseball bat or gold club).


----------



## JowGaWolf

Urban Trekker said:


> Doesn't sound like you've ever tested that theory on the streets.


I train everyday with the staff.  One of my strength exercises  is to use a baseball swing because it takes a lot of strength to get the staff going and a lot of strength to stop the staff.  It is inefficient but good for strength building. When I train with my son we don't train Style A vs Style A.   We train Style A vs how an untrained person would swing a staff.

We are very ware of where the power is on that swing,  We know how much energy it takes to swing a staff like a baseball bat because we swing our staffs like a baseball bat because it take a lot of strength to start it up and to stop it.  There are swings that clear a large area like baseball swings but it does so with technique and not by swing the staff like a baseball bat.

In one week we probably do 150 baseball bat swings with a staff a week.  We are now in our 3rd week of staff training.  so about 450 give or take baseball bat swings for strength building.  This does not include the training swings that we use when learning how to deal with such swings. 

So you are right.  I haven't tested going unarmed against someone swinging a staff like a baseball bat.  But I understand where the power is on that swing.  The closer I get to the person swinging like that, the less effective the swing will be, to the point where I would be able to take the impact.  Because you have both hands on the staff, you have nothing to guard you from open hand strikes, unless you knew how to use the staff.  

The things about weapons like the staff, it's really important to understand that where you are most vulnerable when you swing, because people will take advantage of that, by rushing in on your swing causing it to jam as they get closer to your swing.   You can see this same truth play out when you watch people spar with staff.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Depends on what?  How would an aikidoka have to train in order to perform well in a dog brothers march?


I'm not sure, but they have sword in the system right?  So if they spar using their sword techniques instead of the compliant training then they would perform better.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Urban Trekker said:


> Of all weapons that one could possibly use, a bo that's being used the way one is trained to use it is the one that I fear getting into the range of the least.


Spar with someone who actually knows how to use a bow staff and your whole world will change. 

If this is the training that you are thinking of then you are looking at the wrong thing.






This is the functional stuff


----------



## jayoliver00

Steve said:


> Which one is he?



he was sick that day for the photo shoot.


----------



## jayoliver00

JowGaWolf said:


> They are better off with easy to use weapons.  Chain whips, staffs, baseball bats, rope darts, three sectional staff, are not easy to use.  Staffs are totally useless if you cannot generate powerful strikes or if you cannot quicky strike with them.



I've seen those videos. Half of them look drunk. They probably would've done worse w/o their sticks.

And nobody's going to randomly run into a staff, lying around in the streets. More than likely, a mop handle if they're lucky. Same goes for chain whips, rope darts, nor 3sec staffs unless they broke into a Kung-Fu joint.  Baseball bat, then that's a common thing for people to carry in their cars in bad areas.


----------



## jayoliver00

Steve said:


> I sure wouldn't want to get punched by that guy.



this is not difficult.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jayoliver00 said:


> I've seen those videos. Half of them look drunk. They probably would've done worse w/o their sticks.
> 
> And nobody's going to randomly run into a staff, lying around in the streets. More than likely, a mop handle if they're lucky. Same goes for chain whips, rope darts, nor 3sec staffs.  Baseball, that's a common thing for people to carry in their cars in bad areas.


This people aren't drunk look how long the reload time is on the swings





Look up Dong Stick Fight.   They aren't drunk. 

Look at these guys they aren't drunk and they are using shorter sticks.  What happens when one guy advances in? The other guy retreats because you can't hit someone up close with the grip that they are using for the stick.  So they run to create distance.





When you hold a staff like a baseball bat the power is on the end and weak points of power is closer to the hands.

Indian shop owners are fighting.  Non-of them are drunk to my knowledge.  The closer that person gets the less effective those swings are.  Here you can see the exact same thing I'm telling you. 








​


----------



## JowGaWolf

jayoliver00 said:


> And nobody's going to randomly run into a staff, lying around in the streets.


India seems to be stick fighting capital of the world.  If you want to see some real stick fights most of them are happening in india.

The point of our statements weren't about randomly running into a staff, lying around in the street.  The purpose of our statements were that sometimes trying to fight with a weapon that you are untrained in isn't going to be the advantage that you think it is.  In reality it could make things worse for you, especially if the other person takes it away from you and beats you with your own weapon.

In addition, people don't randomly have weapons regardless of what is being used.  People usually bring it with them or keep it around.  All of the people who got shot in the U.S. weren't shot by people who randomly found a gun on the street during a fight.   

If I get into a fight and I hit someone with a staff on their head, then there's nothing random about me having the staff.  Just like if I get into a fight and I get stabbed by someone.  There was nothing random about the person who had the knife.

To think that someone is going to "randomly pick up a weapon"  is not realistic

The machete didn't just randomly show up.  Again. sometimes having a weapon doesn't give you the advantage that you think it does.  Then the news anchors laugh at the guy with the machete.   Even the trash can didn't Randomly show up.  I'm pretty sure that trash can is there everyday of the week.


----------



## geezer

JowGaWolf said:


> Spar with someone who actually knows how to use a bow staff and your whole world will change.This is the functional stuff



The traditional Japanese/Okinawan approach is too formalized and rigid for my taste. Personally I like the way GM Rene Latosa integrates a more boxing-like dynamic to the staff. I find it more natural, practical, and very powerful. Also, if anybody grabs your staff, you transition seamlessly into empty hands. As DTE master Martin Torres (another personal inspiration) likes to say: _The stick isn't the weapon. *You* are the weapon._


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> The traditional Japanese/Okinawan approach is too formalized and rigid for my taste. Personally I like the way GM Rene Latosa integrates a more boxing-like dynamic to the staff. I find it more natural, practical, and very powerful. Also, if anybody grabs your staff, you transition seamlessly into empty hands.


You just have to translate the traditional stuff more.  That traditional staff form isn't rigid it only appears that way.   After you figure what the techniques are doing, you can start making the staff techniques more fluid as you train application.

What you see in the staff kata that I showed is not the applications training of the staff.  What you see with the GM Rene Latosa is the applications training so it takes on a different look.  Jow Ga Staff form is very stiff but it's very aggressive during the applications.  Is I training it I can tell the level of aggression that I would need to make it work.  I think the Japanese staff kata is the same way.  Some of those techniques I recognize from what I train.



geezer said:


> Also, if anybody grabs your staff, you transition seamlessly into empty hands.


If anyone grabs your staff then  simply use the close range techniques in that Japanese Staff Kata.  There are grappling techniques in it.  0:55 is a technique that can be used with grappling,  That technique allows you to defend the grab and strike at the same time.  It will blow your mind just how much close range and grappling applications are in the double head staff method (grabbing staff towards the  middle.

@ 10:37  in the video you posted is a good example of how quick that strike is vs pulling the staff back for a baseball swing.  
@10:55  He talks about that aggressiveness that I was referring to. The staff technique doesn't work unless you are aggressive with it.  In training my staff I often think to myself "Wow, this is most straight to business stuff I've done."  There's no baiting and you attack your opponents staff with a lot of aggression, because that's the only way the follow up technique will work.  

@13:25  I think he gets wrong about holding the staff in the middle.  If you are holding the staff in the middle then you are using close range fighting techniques, so yes you want to come in closer.  If you are on the inside of a long range staff technique, then there's nothing that long range tech can do to hurt you. You will still be able to strike with that short range technique.   Now before I get the hate posts.  

I think he's right about using the middle of the staff being an issue if you are using his method of staff fighting, but systems that actually use the middle of the staff understand the risks and have techniques and approaches that minimize or remove the risks.  He says that he doesn't want to get close, so using the middle of the staff pretty much is the opposite of long technique.  Trying to use short staff fighting techniques at a long distance is a lot of work, if you don't plan on advancing.


----------



## Flying Crane

Yokozuna514 said:


> I wouldn't agree with you here.   Untrained people using weapons unfamiliar to them are more a danger to themselves than their opponent.  You would think that it is an advantage for them to have the weapon but odds are they will be disarmed and attacked with that very same weapon.


I’m gonna say that it depends.  A lot of weapons are pretty intuitive.  Poke him with the blunt end, hit him with the heavy end, stab him with the pointy end, cut him with the edge, swing that floppy thing at him with the weighted end.  Pretty obvious on a simplistic level, and perfectly able to be destructive with it.  

I think some people will be incompetent with nearly anything they pick up and try to use. Others could be genuinely dangerous to nearly anyone, even though they have no training with a particular weapon.  A fellow with a tire iron or a baseball bat can be very dangerous, even if he never trained to use those implements as a weapon.  It is intuitive, even if not at a high level of skill.

when you are talking about specific martial arts weapons, like sword or spear or tonfa or sai, then their efficient and maximum effect in use definitely requires training.  But they can still be picked up and used to dangerous effect by someone without training.  Stab him with the pointy end, etc.  If some fellow picked up a katana and relied on his little-league baseball history to swing it at you, you might be in trouble. Just because he never trained the katana properly doesn’t mean you are gonna have an easy time with him, particularly if you are unarmed.


----------



## geezer

JowGaWolf said:


> You just have to translate the traditional stuff more.  That traditional staff form isn't rigid it only appears that way.
> 
> @13:25  I think he gets wrong about holding the staff in the middle.  If you are holding the staff in the middle then you are using close range fighting techniques, so yes you want to come in closer... I think he's right about using the middle of the staff being an issue if you are using his method of staff fighting....



OK Jow Ga, Waitin's over. I'm back with the _hate _stuff!  

Well, maybe not actual "hate"...  ....but, I do have a response or three!

Starting with the top comment quoted above ...about the "rigidity" of the traditional "karate-ish" (Okinawan, Japanese, Korean, etc.) approach. What is really different is the method of power generation. I had a student who had many years of "hard-style" karate experience and he never was really able to get the looser, more relaxed approach we taught. He is now training at a boxing gym (at age 64   can you believe it? Almost my age!) ...maybe that'll help him.

On the other hand, I've had no problem using the_ Latosa Concepts_ approach along with my traditional Chinese training in WC's Luk Dim Boon Kwun when using a short 5'-6' heavy staff. Maybe that's just me, but I think it also has something to do with the greater fluidity of Chinese martial arts and the adaptability of our Escrima methods. I sometimes describe my Escrima end-grip short-staff work as "informal" or "street" Luk Dim Boon Kwun.

Now to your second comments about _Latosa Concepts_ and the center grip. You said: _ If you are holding the staff in the middle then you are using close range fighting techniques, so yes you want to come in closer... _

OK, consider _if you have enough *room*_, the end-grip gives you an undeniable advantage over the center-grip in reach, power, and speed ...if you use the staff correctly integrating your whole body with short powerful snaps and thrusts (no baseball bat swings!). That's why Chinese systems favor the single end approach evolved from the spear.

On the other hand, in tight quarters or against an opponent who has closed and is inside your "spear point" of course center grip is your best option. With a six-foot staff you then have almost exactly the same range as you have holding two 25"-30" _bastones_ (escrima sticks), are a little slower, but with a staff you can generate more power. 

You also stated above: _I think he's right about using the *middle of the staff *being an issue *if you are using his method* of staff fighting...._ 

"His method" is quite broad. In fact, In my group we train this way_ a lot_, and I find it very useful. I would gladly stack up what I've taken from Latosa's teaching against my hypothetical twin using a "karate-ish" approach ...including using the _center grip_. From that grip, we do hit with the center section as well as the ends, and can transition to grappling, punching ...whatever. That's all on the individual practitioner, his skills, and how he trains. The Latosa method I was exposed to years back was about _concepts _not movements, so it was very adaptable.

You know, when I finish giving and grading exams next week, maybe I can get together some short videos of what I do (never done that before) so we can talk about this some more. In the mean time, keep watching _what Lamont does_. I like that!


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> Spar with someone who actually knows how to use a bow staff and your whole world will change.
> 
> If this is the training that you are thinking of then you are looking at the wrong thing.



gotta say I really hate that stuff.  I mean really really.  I can barely stand to even watch it.  

but that’s just me.  One’s mileage may vary.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> OK Jow Ga, Waitin's over. I'm back with the _hate _stuff!
> 
> Well, maybe not actual "hate"...  ....but, I do have a response or three!


You are always cool with me lol.



geezer said:


> Starting with the top comment quoted above ...about the "rigidity" of the traditional "karate-ish" (Okinawan, Japanese, Korean, etc.) approach. What is really different is the method of power generation. I had a student who had many years of "hard-style" karate experience and he never was really able to get the looser, more relaxed approach we taught.


yeah this is a problem when training a "hard style" system.  Gotta get some balance in there and flexibility.   I have a problem with staying loose and it's something that I have to actually train.  Even when I walk or sit down, I try to detect when I'm tensing up.

I need to borrow this guy's beach.







geezer said:


> OK, consider _if you have enough *room*_, the end-grip gives you an undeniable advantage over the center-grip in reach, power, and speed ...if you use the staff correctly integrating your whole body with short powerful snaps and thrusts (no baseball bat swings!).


The middle grip uses a different power than the end grip.  Both have great advantages, but I wouldn't look at it as "one advantage over the other."  Because then that leaves the assumption that one is better to use all the time.

I'm trying to think of the best way to explain this as short as possible. We could spend hours talking about this. I don't think I can.  This one of those things where I need a staff in my hand and you need a staff in your hand as well.

Think of it this weight.  If I put a 20 lb wight on one end of your staff and told you to lift the staff.  Are you going to hold the staff at the very end or are you going to hold the staff closer to the weight? This the power that the middle grip use

If I hold the staff at the end and spin around.   How long will it take for that end to come back around to the staff ends where it started?  If I hold the staff in the middle. how long will it take for one of the ends of the staff to rich the starting point?  This is the speed that the middle grip uses.

In Jow Ga we switch between the two ranges (end grip and middle grip).  You can see it here.







geezer said:


> You also stated above: _I think he's right about using the *middle of the staff *being an issue *if you are using his method* of staff fighting...._
> 
> "His method" is quite broad. In fact, In my group we train this way_ a lot_, and I find it very useful.



I say "his method" because he was the one using it and stated that it was his preference. He prefers to fight on the outside with the staff, using the distance, which you shouldn't try to do if you are using the middle grip.  If I want to use the middle grip then I need to use it where it is most effective which is at a closer range and inside my opponent's swing.  That middle grip was never inteded to fight on the outside for too long.  Which is why fingers gets smashed when using that grip on the outside.  The closer you come in with the middle grip the less likely your fingers will get hit.  Keep in mind.  This means that the middle grip does not mean grab the exact center.  

This is about the distance that I hold my hands.I may be a little wider than use, because of the angle of the phone, but for the most part his would be middle for me.





This is not middle for me. Hands are way too close together.  Hands this close interferes with my ability to generate power correctly,  Having hands this close would cause more than just power issues.  So from the start, a person using this as middle is going to have some difficulties.  When I look at this grip, I can't help to think someone is going to have all fingers and their hands broken.  I'm not the best staff guy in the world.  Far from it.  I'm not even good yet lol, but I've done enough hard drills to get that traumatized feeling of my fingers being smashed in the past. lol.  






geezer said:


> You know, when I finish giving and grading exams next week, maybe I can get together some short videos of what I do (never done that before) so we can talk about this some more. In the mean time, keep watching _what Lamont does_. I like that!


Today is staff training day.  Wife's been bugging me about it. lol.  I had a busy week so my training dipped a little.  Everyone at home should be healed now. So we are in good condition to really go at it today.  I'll get some footage of some of the things we do.  Today's weather started off nice so I'm hoping it stays that way.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> gotta say I really hate that stuff.  I mean really really.  I can barely stand to even watch it.
> 
> but that’s just me.  One’s mileage may vary.


Well since you love that, I might as well add the cherry.

"Traditional bo staff is for beginners"  - And I was so proud of my wax wood staffs.






Someone should make a Movie Fight school where they just teach stuff like that.  I think it would do it more justice than calling it Extreme Martial Arts.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Well since you love that, I might as well add the cherry.
> 
> "Traditional bo staff is for beginners"  - And I was so proud of my wax wood staffs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should make a Movie Fight school where they just teach stuff like that.  I think it would do it more justice than calling it Extreme Martial Arts.



Why is that training essentially any different to a school that doesn't go live with their weapons?


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> Well since you love that, I might as well add the cherry.
> 
> "Traditional bo staff is for beginners"  - And I was so proud of my wax wood staffs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should make a Movie Fight school where they just teach stuff like that.  I think it would do it more justice than calling it Extreme Martial Arts.


AHHHHH!!!!!  MY EYES!!!!!!!  MY EYESSS!!!!!!!!


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Why is that training essentially any different to a school that doesn't go live with their weapons?


1. *Weapon weight - *There's a really big difference.  Last time I picked up an XMA bo staff I thought it was going to break in my hand.

2.* Purpose of training* - We didn't train to perform. We trained to be able do correct striking and blocking techniques (not application) Learning how to correctly punch vs learning how to apply that punch. But with the staff instead of punches. Training for Function vs performance

3. *Staff techniques of striking* - This is a big on one. Even though we didn't spar with the staff, we did practice striking blocks. So you would block then I would strike. This does 2 thing. It trains the person for the impact of the block and it gives the attacker the opportunity to use a real strike. That way we learn how to correctly generate power in a way that allows us to instantly get feedback from our partner. Hold the staff wrong and fingers get smashed.

Even if you don't go live with weapons fighting, Knowing how to use the technique goes a long way.  knowing how to punch goes a long way and it makes learning how to apply the punch easier.  Same with weapons.  Knowing how to shoot a gun, drive a tank, fly a plane vs going to war.   So while your skill sets may not have gone live.  When the time comes, you are still better off for knowing the correct way than someone who jumps into war and has never fired a gun, driven a tank, or flown a plane.  But this is only if what you train has a functional foundation.

XMA doesn't have a function fighting foundation.  A lot of what's in there will not work on the street or anywhere else.  They know this and they don't try to hide it.  Which is why you never hear XMA schools being called out for being a McDojo.


"XMA (_Xtreme Martial Arts_) signifies the transition of martial arts from the traditional towards the contemporary. Having evolved from an ancient form of self-defense,* the modern martial arts movement is now more sport and entertainment*,"

"It is designed to enhance the traditional with more speed, power, presentation and performance value. At the basic levels, Xtreme Martial Arts is used as a tool to develop Life and Leadership Skills. At the high end, students can reach elite levels and compete on the international stage and go head to head with Hollywood’s best!"

Source:  ATA XMA » Performance Martial Arts Academy - Valdosta, GA

As you can see there's a big difference just from the focus of training.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> 1. *Weapon weight - *There's a really big difference.  Last time I picked up an XMA bo staff I thought it was going to break in my hand.
> 
> 2.* Purpose of training* - We didn't train to perform. We trained to be able do correct striking and blocking techniques (not application) Learning how to correctly punch vs learning how to apply that punch. But with the staff instead of punches. Training for Function vs performance
> 
> 3. *Staff techniques of striking* - This is a big on one. Even though we didn't spar with the staff, we did practice striking blocks. So you would block then I would strike. This does 2 thing. It trains the person for the impact of the block and it gives the attacker the opportunity to use a real strike. That way we learn how to correctly generate power in a way that allows us to instantly get feedback from our partner. Hold the staff wrong and fingers get smashed.
> 
> Even if you don't go live with weapons fighting, Knowing how to use the technique goes a long way.  knowing how to punch goes a long way and it makes learning how to apply the punch easier.  Same with weapons.  Knowing how to shoot a gun, drive a tank, fly a plane vs going to war.   So while your skill sets may not have gone live.  When the time comes, you are still better off for knowing the correct way than someone who jumps into war and has never fired a gun, driven a tank, or flown a plane.  But this is only if what you train has a functional foundation.
> 
> XMA doesn't have a function fighting foundation.  A lot of what's in there will not work on the street or anywhere else.  They know this and they don't try to hide it.  Which is why you never hear XMA schools being called out for being a McDojo.
> 
> 
> "XMA (_Xtreme Martial Arts_) signifies the transition of martial arts from the traditional towards the contemporary. Having evolved from an ancient form of self-defense,* the modern martial arts movement is now more sport and entertainment*,"
> 
> "It is designed to enhance the traditional with more speed, power, presentation and performance value. At the basic levels, Xtreme Martial Arts is used as a tool to develop Life and Leadership Skills. At the high end, students can reach elite levels and compete on the international stage and go head to head with Hollywood’s best!"
> 
> Source:  ATA XMA » Performance Martial Arts Academy - Valdosta, GA
> 
> As you can see there's a big difference just from the focus of training.



How do you know?


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> How do you know?


Know what? That there's a huge difference in the focus of training between XMA and TMA? Well, you don't. It's a spectrum from training focused on tricking and entertainment at one end and on practical application and fighting at the other. So with sticks you go from this on one side to Dog Bros. and competitive stick fighters on the other.

If your point is that a lot of TMA, with their fancy forms, uniforms and stylized movements are actually closer to XMA than to fighting ....well that's just _mean_ of you to say (me wagging my finger) ...at also quite _accurate._


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> How do you know?


How do I know what?


----------



## geezer

Oh, here's some shortish, light weight staff work with some double-handed swings sorta like a bat, or maybe more like using a zweihander? Anyway it got my attention.






Oh, and there's this one too:


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> Know what? That there's a huge difference in the focus of training between XMA and TMA? Well, you don't. It's a spectrum from training focused on tricking and entertainment at one end and on practical application and fighting at the other. So with sticks you go from theis on one side to Dog Bros. and competitive stick fighters on the other.
> 
> If your point is that a lot of TMA, with their fancy forms, uniforms and stylized movements are actually closer to XMA than to fighting ....well that's just _mean_ of you to say (me wagging my finger) ...at also quite _accurate._


ha ha ha .. let me find out that Drop Bear has some jokes.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> How do I know what?



How do you know one is more applicable than the other?


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Know what? That there's a huge difference in the focus of training between XMA and TMA? Well, you don't. It's a spectrum from training focused on tricking and entertainment at one end and on practical application and fighting at the other. So with sticks you go from this on one side to Dog Bros. and competitive stick fighters on the other.
> 
> If your point is that a lot of TMA, with their fancy forms, uniforms and stylized movements are actually closer to XMA than to fighting ....well that's just _mean_ of you to say (me wagging my finger) ...at also quite _accurate._



I call this the danos direct factor.






So there is this idea that if someone is training for a specific purpose. Then they are going to be better at that purpose.

But that assumes they have literally any idea about what they are on about.

(And this is often circular. I must know what I am on about because I train for that thing. )

But in martial arts this is often a false assumption. And especially weapons.

So the idea that you are training a method that makes you a better weapons fighter than another method. Really needs to finish with you being a better weapons fighter.

So like you said dog brothers or something vs kata or bunkai are two completely different animals.


----------



## Flying Crane

geezer said:


> Oh, here's some shortish, light weight staff work with some double-handed swings sorta like a bat, or maybe more like using a zweihander? Anyway it got my attention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and there's this one too:


First, Lonely has a beautiful place to train.

second, there is a reason Chinese martial arts call the spear “king of weapons”.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not sure, but they have sword in the system right?  So if they spar using their sword techniques instead of the compliant training then they would perform better.


It's my understanding that their jo (short staff) work is more likely to have application than their sword work. So maybe going in with that in some non-compliant training.


----------



## jayoliver00

JowGaWolf said:


> This people aren't drunk look how long the reload time is on the swings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look up Dong Stick Fight.   They aren't drunk.
> 
> Look at these guys they aren't drunk and they are using shorter sticks.  What happens when one guy advances in? The other guy retreats because you can't hit someone up close with the grip that they are using for the stick.  So they run to create distance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you hold a staff like a baseball bat the power is on the end and weak points of power is closer to the hands.
> 
> Indian shop owners are fighting.  Non-of them are drunk to my knowledge.  The closer that person gets the less effective those swings are.  Here you can see the exact same thing I'm telling you.



Yea, like I said, they'd be worse trying to fight w/o the sticks.  The sticks give them a better chance.


----------



## jayoliver00

JowGaWolf said:


> India seems to be stick fighting capital of the world.  If you want to see some real stick fights most of them are happening in india.
> 
> The point of our statements weren't about randomly running into a staff, lying around in the street.



Yea but a real staff is pretty heavy and 6 feet or so; not what someone would find. Which was why I said that a mop handle is more likely and they can def. swing that better.



JowGaWolf said:


> The purpose of our statements were that sometimes trying to fight with a weapon that you are untrained in isn't going to be the advantage that you think it is.



But you brought up "staff, 3sect staff, chain whip, baseball bat" as your arguments; these are unrealistic examples except the baseball bat as people don't carry them if they're untrained, nor are they even legal to carry, usually. 

And you're prob. the 1st guy who thinks that a baseball bat is not a good weapon for the untrained. Where do you even go to get formal training in using a baseball bat as a weapon?



JowGaWolf said:


> In reality it could make things worse for you, especially if the other person takes it away from you and beats you with your own weapon.



In reality, getting KTFO b/c someone sucked at throwing hands, could get their head stomped into a coma & possibly death. I bet they wished they had that baseball bat to begin with.




JowGaWolf said:


> In addition, people don't randomly have weapons regardless of what is being used.  People usually bring it with them or keep it around.  All of the people who got shot in the U.S. weren't shot by people who randomly found a gun on the street during a fight.



A gun is way different. It's a easily concealed in comparison to all of your listed weapons. Ain't nobody carrying around a 3sect staff.



JowGaWolf said:


> If I get into a fight and I hit someone with a staff on their head, then there's nothing random about me having the staff.  Just like if I get into a fight and I get stabbed by someone.  There was nothing random about the person who had the knife.



So basically, you carry a Karate staff around?




JowGaWolf said:


> To think that someone is going to "randomly pick up a weapon"  is not realistic
> 
> The machete didn't just randomly show up.  Again. sometimes having a weapon doesn't give you the advantage that you think it does.  Then the news anchors laugh at the guy with the machete.   Even the trash can didn't Randomly show up.  I'm pretty sure that trash can is there everyday of the week.



I never claimed it's  guaranteed win with a weapon; but it certainly does give one the advantage.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> So there is this idea that if someone is training for a specific purpose. Then they are going to be better at that purpose.


If you train to play soccer you get good at playing soccer

If you train to play the piano then you get good at playing the piano

If you train at playing tennis then you get good at playing tennis

The purpose of your training makes a difference.

If you train to fight then you get good at fighting

If you train to act then you get good at acting.

If you train to do Extreme martial arts then you get good at doing Extreme Martial Arts.  

If you don't train to do Extreme martial arts then you won't get good at doing Extreme Martial arts

If you train to use a staff for fighting function then you get good at using the staff for fighting function

If you train to use a staff for performance and entertainment purposes then you get get good at the staff in the context of performance and entertainment purpose.   

Training to use a staff for Entertainment purposes does not translate into the ability to use the staff for fighting purposes.  The people who do Extreme MMA would even tell you this, 

Training to use a staff for Entertainment purposes doe snot translate into the ability to use the the staff for Extreme Martial Arts purposes

I don't know why you make things like this so difficult.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> It's my understanding that their jo (short staff) work is more likely to have application than their sword work. So maybe going in with that in some non-compliant training.


That's what I thought as well.   We have already pretty much beat into the ground that non-compliant training is helpful in fighting with any technique.  I think some people make things too difficult.


----------



## BrendanF

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not sure, but they have sword in the system right?  So if they spar using their sword techniques instead of the compliant training then they would perform better.





gpseymour said:


> It's my understanding that their jo (short staff) work is more likely to have application than their sword work. So maybe going in with that in some non-compliant training.



Both the jo and sword seen in aikido are used as tools to develop the student's aikido - not as a practical weapon syllabus.  They are very far removed from real Japanese weapon work.

As is all the Okinawan weapon stuff labelled as 'Japanese' here.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jayoliver00 said:


> And you're prob. the 1st guy who thinks that a baseball bat is not a good weapon for the untrained. Where do you even go to get formal training in using a baseball bat as a weapon?


I have already shown video supporting what I was saying.


----------



## BrendanF

Aikido Techniques Used by Police

FWIW


----------



## JowGaWolf

jayoliver00 said:


> A gun is way different. It's a easily concealed in comparison to all of your listed weapons. Ain't nobody carrying around a 3sect staff.


No one is carrying around a 3 sectional staff because it's very difficult to use.  That's not some kind of weapon you just pick up and land successful attacks on someone.


----------



## JowGaWolf

BrendanF said:


> Both the jo and sword seen in aikido are used as tools to develop the student's aikido - not as a practical weapon syllabus. They are very far removed from real Japanese weapon work.


looks like applications to me.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Sign this guy up for hollywood.   Not sure where he got his Jo staff from but he should stop buying from that company.


----------



## BrendanF

Applications of what?  That's something Chiba invented.  If you research aikido weapons I think you'll come across what I said.. written by senior aikido folks.. everywhere.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> If you train to play soccer you get good at playing soccer
> 
> If you train to play the piano then you get good at playing the piano
> 
> If you train at playing tennis then you get good at playing tennis
> 
> The purpose of your training makes a difference.
> 
> If you train to fight then you get good at fighting
> 
> If you train to act then you get good at acting.
> 
> If you train to do Extreme martial arts then you get good at doing Extreme Martial Arts.
> 
> If you don't train to do Extreme martial arts then you won't get good at doing Extreme Martial arts
> 
> If you train to use a staff for fighting function then you get good at using the staff for fighting function
> 
> If you train to use a staff for performance and entertainment purposes then you get get good at the staff in the context of performance and entertainment purpose.
> 
> Training to use a staff for Entertainment purposes does not translate into the ability to use the staff for fighting purposes.  The people who do Extreme MMA would even tell you this,
> 
> Training to use a staff for Entertainment purposes doe snot translate into the ability to use the the staff for Extreme Martial Arts purposes
> 
> I don't know why you make things like this so difficult.



It is because you are selling an ideology. Not scientific method.


----------



## JowGaWolf

BrendanF said:


> Applications of what? That's something Chiba invented.


So what is this then?


----------



## BrendanF

JowGaWolf said:


> So what is this then?



People bashing each other with sticks?


----------



## BrendanF

From the web:



> The aiki-jō techniques taught by Ueshiba were a distillation and modification of that training, with an emphasis upon the use  of the _jō_ as a method for the refinement of one's empty-handed aikido techniques.





> Aiki-jō practice can help uncover errors in the student's empty-handed aikido technique, and provides an opportunity to apply the principles of aikido in different situations.





> Aiki Ken and Aiki Jo are especially created to support taijutsu, and are not intended to be intrinsic arts in themselves.



It's literally what Aikido folks say.  But you are of course welcome to your own opinion.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> It is because you are selling an ideology. Not scientific method.


What ideology am I selling?


----------



## JowGaWolf

BrendanF said:


> From the web:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's literally what Aikido folks say.  But you are of course welcome to your own opinion.


"The aiki-jō techniques taught by Ueshiba"  When I read this I see what "Ueshiba Did"  not what someone who is training Aikido now is doing? 

It's definitely not what these guys are doing.  If you cannot tell that this is different than that statement then it's because you choose to ignore how some people are training Aikido Today


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> What ideology am I selling?



That one automatically leads to the other.

And that the labels are the substance.


----------



## BrendanF

JowGaWolf said:


> "The aiki-jō techniques taught by Ueshiba"  When I read this I see what "Ueshiba Did"  not what someone who is training Aikido now is doing?
> 
> It's definitely not what these guys are doing.  If you cannot tell that this is different than that statement then it's because you choose to ignore how some people are training Aikido Today



No worries.  I'll leave you to it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

The drill at 4:33  is similar to a staff drill that I practice with my son.










HEMA guys using a technique that is more like the Aikido technique than mine because of the grip.  




We see the same principle below









4 different people, 
3 different systems, maybe 4 different systems

Same principle of dealing with someone taking a jab with a staff.


----------



## BrendanF

And?


----------



## Yokozuna514

Flying Crane said:


> I’m gonna say that it depends.  A lot of weapons are pretty intuitive.  Poke him with the blunt end, hit him with the heavy end, stab him with the pointy end, cut him with the edge, swing that floppy thing at him with the weighted end.  Pretty obvious on a simplistic level, and perfectly able to be destructive with it.
> 
> I think some people will be incompetent with nearly anything they pick up and try to use. Others could be genuinely dangerous to nearly anyone, even though they have no training with a particular weapon.  A fellow with a tire iron or a baseball bat can be very dangerous, even if he never trained to use those implements as a weapon.  It is intuitive, even if not at a high level of skill.
> 
> when you are talking about specific martial arts weapons, like sword or spear or tonfa or sai, then their efficient and maximum effect in use definitely requires training.  But they can still be picked up and used to dangerous effect by someone without training.  Stab him with the pointy end, etc.  If some fellow picked up a katana and relied on his little-league baseball history to swing it at you, you might be in trouble. Just because he never trained the katana properly doesn’t mean you are gonna have an easy time with him, particularly if you are unarmed.


Yes, there are a lot of common items that can be used as weapons intuitively, that is true.  In the hands of the untrained, they will more than likely use them......intuitively.   I believe a trained fighter can and will use this knowledge to their advantage and take that weapon away from the untrained fighter.    Will it be risk free ?  No.  Will they be pissed off if they do get wounded in the confrontation ?  More than likely, yes.   Also, an untrained person picking up a weapon is an invitation for their opponent to pick up a weapon.  Trained fighters may also know that the pointy end is the one that goes into their opponent  .


----------



## Flying Crane

Yokozuna514 said:


> Yes, there are a lot of common items that can be used as weapons intuitively, that is true.  In the hands of the untrained, they will more than likely use them......intuitively.   I believe a trained fighter can and will use this knowledge to their advantage and take that weapon away from the untrained fighter.    Will it be risk free ?  No.  Will they be pissed off if they do get wounded in the confrontation ?  More than likely, yes.   Also, an untrained person picking up a weapon is an invitation for their opponent to pick up a weapon.  Trained fighters may also know that the pointy end is the one that goes into their opponent  .


All valid.  My real point boils down to this:  the prior posts were, in my opinion, suggesting that anything less than dedicated training to a weapon was a guarantee that any attempt to use the weapon would result in a disastrous fail.  One can almost imagine a keystone cop type of fumbling and bumbling, tripping over ones own feet, dropping the weapon into the hands of ones enemies.  Ok, I’m being facetious.  But the prior posts were really painting a picture of failure.  I don’t automatically buy it.  Intuitive use of the weapon can be deadly effective.  If his opponent is trained but unarmed, I just might put my money on the untrained but armed fellow.  It depends. There are no guarantees either way.  There is no guarantee the trained follow will be able to take the weapon away and then use it.  To assume he will, I think is a mistake.  Hell, martial training is so common nowadays we can’t even tell immediately who has had some training and who has not, never mind the quality and subject relevance of that training. 

my son and I spar with lightsabers.  He is seven years old.  Of course I have to go easy on him, but his random swinging can find a target often enough.  And that is from a seven year-old just having fun.  If I was unarmed, even though I could overpower him easily, there is a good chance I would get cut in the process, if he had a machete.  Now if he was 15 years old or older, I think the danger to me would become quite real.

the bottom line: if a fellow picks up a weapon or an improvised weapon, with intent to use it, whether he is trained or not (and how would I even know?) you need to take that very seriously.  Assumptions that he will fumble it or that you can get it away from him just might get you killed.


----------



## Yokozuna514

Flying Crane said:


> All valid.  My real point boils down to this:  the prior posts were, in my opinion, suggesting that anything less than dedicated training to a weapon was a guarantee that any attempt to use the weapon would result in a disastrous fail.  One can almost imagine a keystone cop type of fumbling and bumbling, tripping over ones own feet, dropping the weapon into the hands of ones enemies.  Ok, I’m being facetious.  But the prior posts were really painting a picture of failure.  I don’t automatically buy it.  Intuitive use of the weapon can be deadly effective.  If his opponent is trained but unarmed, I just might put my money on the untrained but armed fellow.  It depends. There are no guarantees either way.  There is no guarantee the trained follow will be able to take the weapon away and then use it.  To assume he will, I think is a mistake.  Hell, martial training is so common nowadays we can’t even tell immediately who has had some training and who has not, never mind the quality and subject relevance of that training.
> 
> my son and I spar with lightsabers.  He is seven years old.  Of course I have to go easy on him, but his random swinging can find a target often enough.  And that is from a seven year-old just having fun.  If I was unarmed, even though I could overpower him easily, there is a good chance I would get cut in the process, if he had a machete.  Now if he was 15 years old or older, I think the danger to me would become quite real.
> 
> the bottom line: if a fellow picks up a weapon or an improvised weapon, with intent to use it, whether he is trained or not (and how would I even know?) you need to take that very seriously.  Assumptions that he will fumble it or that you can get it away from him just might get you killed.


Understood and you are right to say that just because they are untrained with the weapon that equates to fumbling it.   The range of weapons that started this discussion included 3 sectional staffs as well as a bat.  Articulated weapons whether they have 2 joints or 1 are not simple to use, imo.  Can you use them ?  Yes.   Will you more than likely bonk yourself in the head or testicles ?  Also a yes.   Bats are more simple and can be used more intuitively and effectively compared to a 3 sectional staff.   People untrained with bats may understand the power that they can posses and may also be reluctant to use them effectively for fear of consequences.   There are a lot of variables to consider for sure but to say that picking up any weapon is better than picking up no weapon is not necessarily a no brainer.   If you pick up a bat and don't know how to use it, you better swing it with some intent because the trained fighter will use all their guile to make you commit to a swing and that is when the odds of being disarmed go in the favour of the trained fighter.


----------



## Flying Crane

Yokozuna514 said:


> Understood and you are right to say that just because they are untrained with the weapon that equates to fumbling it.   The range of weapons that started this discussion included 3 sectional staffs as well as a bat.  Articulated weapons whether they have 2 joints or 1 are not simple to use, imo.  Can you use them ?  Yes.   Will you more than likely bonk yourself in the head or testicles ?  Also a yes.   Bats are more simple and can be used more intuitively and effectively compared to a 3 sectional staff.   People untrained with bats may understand the power that they can posses and may also be reluctant to use them effectively for fear of consequences.   There are a lot of variables to consider for sure but to say that picking up any weapon is better than picking up no weapon is not necessarily a no brainer.   If you pick up a bat and don't know how to use it, you better swing it with some intent because the trained fighter will use all their guile to make you commit to a swing and that is when the odds of being disarmed go in the favour of the trained fighter.


Yes, these are true points, particularly weapons like the three-section staff.  But some of these things are pretty uncommon.  I would wager that most kung fu schools don’t keep three-section staff lying around.   But a tire iron or baseball bat or golf club or kitchen knife or hatchet or broom handle, are all common implements.  You don’t just find them lying around in the street, but they are common in our society and can be easily acquired if someone is looking for something to keep handy. They are also all very intuitive.


----------



## Mr. Scott

"My way is basically 70% atemi and 30% throwing" - Morihei Ueshiba

I have used Aikido techniques 3 times in real situations. 2 times were direct atemi to the nose while performing irimi entrance to counter a frontal attack. Both times the opponent immediately ceased hostility. In the other situation I was able to use relaxation techniques to confuse a much larger opponent. I provided no resistance, kept calm, and waited for the moment I could do something. I was able to to get the opponent into a standing nikkyo position and they submitted before I applied the technique. No one was injured that time.

The reality of Aikido is if you do not use atemi the majority of techniques will not work. Atemi is the key and any instructor worth their salt will tell you that. Unfortunately modern aikido has degraded into a callisthenic exercise for the elderly rather than a martial art.  

I started aikido in 1991 under the direction of Akira Tohei, uchi-deshi to O-Sensei and the highest ranking instructor in the USA until his death, and what I see today can only be described as a shameful farce. I have had instructors try to unlearn me what I have been taught. What hubris to think you know better than the masters. The ranking system is based on money and prolonging and retarding the development of students. I refuse to sit in a dojo where higher ranking students cannot apply an effective nikkyo, etc. and I have to take an instructors role. It is less than encouraging to have members of a dojo tell me they learn more from me than the instructors. I have watched tests that made me feel embarrassed, yet the tested was promoted. Were I the examiner I would have failed them and reprimanded the instructor. But hey, if you spend the time and give the dime you get your rank. The greatest disservice is to the student. 

I have held a 3rd kyu rank since the early 90's yet I have practiced hundreds of hours since that time. When I left the dojo every hour practiced was counted. Now only one hour a day is accepted? With current system I will have to pay dojo fees and association dues for over a decade if not more to achieve a shodan. When I look into the uchi deshi programs in the USA I find the requirement to study Zen, Iaido, and useless Iwama breakdowns of weapon techniques. I don't care about Iaido, though I might if I felt ninjas were going to attack me in my home. Hasn't happened yet.  I don't care for Zen. Tried it. It's not for me, though I use some techniques in my mediations. I have been involved meditative practices for for more than 3 decades. I am more than qualified to speak as an expert on the subject, yet I don't. Why? The expansion of consciousness and realities encountered in meditative practice cannot be explained in words. I encourage all to practice meditation daily. O-Sensei was a mystic in his later years and many of his students had no idea what he was trying to explain when it wasn't about physical technique.

In addition, I have seen no emphasis on the development of Ki or the understanding of how to use it in technique. Ki is the second character in Aikido. I can only assume not many instructors understand it at all. Ki is an esoteric concept that can only be realized through certain practices and disciplines. If one wants to use the full power of aikido, the development of ki power is integral.

And so I end this with Blah, blah, blah. Thanks for listening.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> You don’t just find them lying around in the street,


People usually pack their weapon of choice.  I don't by into the random item just laying around.  How many stores do we walk around in and actually see a broom stick?  Most of that stuff is usually locked in a closet somewhere, or in that Isle in the grocery story that you never go down. 

Hardware stores like Home Depot or retail stores like a sports store, or walmart is going to be a different story, but even there items aren't randomly laying around.  In a sports store you'll have to go to the section where the bats or golf clubs are.  But that's not random.   Where I live, I'd be lucky to find a rock when I need it.  Then it would need to be heavy enough to cause some damage.The concept of a random weapon doesn't sit well with me.  The times in my life where I had a weapon to use was because I bought one with me.. It was always a weapon that I felt comfortable using


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> People usually pack their weapon of choice.  I don't by into the random item just laying around.  How many stores do we walk around in and actually see a broom stick?  Most of that stuff is usually locked in a closet somewhere, or in that Isle in the grocery story that you never go down.
> 
> Hardware stores like Home Depot or retail stores like a sports store, or walmart is going to be a different story, but even there items aren't randomly laying around.  In a sports store you'll have to go to the section where the bats or golf clubs are.  But that's not random.   Where I live, I'd be lucky to find a rock when I need it.  Then it would need to be heavy enough to cause some damage.The concept of a random weapon doesn't sit well with me.  The times in my life where I had a weapon to use was because I bought one with me.. It was always a weapon that I felt comfortable using


I think you are correct in that the random availability of weapons is often very low.  But these things are available if people choose to make them available.  No permits or safe-handling training required.  

And if someone chooses to use them, even without training for such use, the safer bet is to assume they can use them with great effect.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Mr. Scott said:


> "My way is basically 70% atemi and 30% throwing" - Morihei Ueshiba
> 
> I have used Aikido techniques 3 times in real situations. 2 times were direct atemi to the nose while performing irimi entrance to counter a frontal attack. Both times the opponent immediately ceased hostility. In the other situation I was able to use relaxation techniques to confuse a much larger opponent. I provided no resistance, kept calm, and waited for the moment I could do something. I was able to to get the opponent into a standing nikkyo position and they submitted before I applied the technique. No one was injured that time.
> 
> The reality of Aikido is if you do not use atemi the majority of techniques will not work. Atemi is the key and any instructor worth their salt will tell you that. Unfortunately modern aikido has degraded into a callisthenic exercise for the elderly rather than a martial art.
> 
> I started aikido in 1991 under the direction of Akira Tohei, uchi-deshi to O-Sensei and the highest ranking instructor in the USA until his death, and what I see today can only be described as a shameful farce. I have had instructors try to unlearn me what I have been taught. What hubris to think you know better than the masters. The ranking system is based on money and prolonging and retarding the development of students. I refuse to sit in a dojo where higher ranking students cannot apply an effective nikkyo, etc. and I have to take an instructors role. It is less than encouraging to have members of a dojo tell me they learn more from me than the instructors. I have watched tests that made me feel embarrassed, yet the tested was promoted. Were I the examiner I would have failed them and reprimanded the instructor. But hey, if you spend the time and give the dime you get your rank. The greatest disservice is to the student.
> 
> I have held a 3rd kyu rank since the early 90's yet I have practiced hundreds of hours since that time. When I left the dojo every hour practiced was counted. Now only one hour a day is accepted? With current system I will have to pay dojo fees and association dues for over a decade if not more to achieve a shodan. When I look into the uchi deshi programs in the USA I find the requirement to study Zen, Iaido, and useless Iwama breakdowns of weapon techniques. I don't care about Iaido, though I might if I felt ninjas were going to attack me in my home. Hasn't happened yet.  I don't care for Zen. Tried it. It's not for me, though I use some techniques in my mediations. I have been involved meditative practices for for more than 3 decades. I am more than qualified to speak as an expert on the subject, yet I don't. Why? The expansion of consciousness and realities encountered in meditative practice cannot be explained in words. I encourage all to practice meditation daily. O-Sensei was a mystic in his later years and many of his students had no idea what he was trying to explain when it wasn't about physical technique.
> 
> In addition, I have seen no emphasis on the development of Ki or the understanding of how to use it in technique. Ki is the second character in Aikido. I can only assume not many instructors understand it at all. Ki is an esoteric concept that can only be realized through certain practices and disciplines. If one wants to use the full power of aikido, the development of ki power is integral.
> 
> And so I end this with Blah, blah, blah. Thanks for listening.


Good points, I myself find the lack of decent schools disheartening but this has been perpetuated by an unwillingness on the part of the community as a whole to adopt more modern training methods and to learn to apply the techniques against resistance. As far as Ki, yes, it is big in Aikido, but I am not going to waste my breath going into "Ki" as a concept with people who are focusing on demonstrable techniques and this dips into the esoteric side of things.


----------



## jayoliver00

JowGaWolf said:


> I have already shown video supporting what I was saying.



If that's your best argument, then here's a video where the baseball bat worked and refuting it.


----------



## jayoliver00

JowGaWolf said:


> No one is carrying around a 3 sectional staff because it's very difficult to use.  That's not some kind of weapon you just pick up and land successful attacks on someone.



Lol dude, c'mon.  So you think it's not b/c it's ridiculously clownish to be caring around a 3sect staff out in public, on the metro, etc.? What next, nobody carries an 8ft spear anymore for self defense? Or how about, maybe it's also b/c it's illegal & you can't get a permit to carry it? Or there are such things as, subcompact 9MM pistols?


----------



## jayoliver00

Yokozuna514 said:


> Understood and you are right to say that just because they are untrained with the weapon that equates to fumbling it.   The range of weapons that started this discussion included 3 sectional staffs as well as a bat.



With the exception of the baseball, I think he chose those weapons with the purpose of building a strawman argument. I mean, who's going to find a 3sect staff or rope dart lying around on the streets during an altercation? Or who's going to carry those as weapons for the streets, whether trained or not?



Yokozuna514 said:


> Articulated weapons whether they have 2 joints or 1 are not simple to use, imo.  Can you use them ?  Yes.   Will you more than likely bonk yourself in the head or testicles ?  Also a yes.



Why would anyone swing a 3sect staff through their legs for, during a fight? Because they're too long. This is not a technique. I have both the 3sect staff in standard & a set that's a little longer than chucks, but 3 sections; you can't swing them through the legs. I don't remember striking my nuts, ever; when I started playing with any of them, including nunchuks.  And I wasn't gifted or anything; just a kid watching Bruce Lee movies and then buying them. Nobody taught me, no schools, nothing; just movies. It ain't rocket science to hit a guy with 2 sticks on a chain.



Yokozuna514 said:


> Bats are more simple and can be used more intuitively and effectively compared to a 3 sectional staff.   People untrained with bats may understand the power that they can posses and may also be reluctant to use them effectively for fear of consequences.   There are a lot of variables to consider for sure but to say that picking up any weapon is better than picking up no weapon is not necessarily a no brainer.   If you pick up a bat and don't know how to use it, you better swing it with some intent because the trained fighter will use all their guile to make you commit to a swing and that is when the odds of being disarmed go in the favour of the trained fighter.



But you're screwed anyway vs. a trained fighter, if you're not trained; so what's the problem with picking up a bat? If I'm being attacked in the streets & I just happened to have a bat in my hand, I'm not going to think, gee, I better drop this bat b/c he may be a Champion fighter that will take my bat away & kill me with my own bat rather than just kill me with his strikes.


----------



## Yokozuna514

jayoliver00 said:


> With the exception of the baseball, I think he chose those weapons with the purpose of building a strawman argument. I mean, who's going to find a 3sect staff or rope dart lying around on the streets during an altercation? Or who's going to carry those as weapons for the streets, whether trained or not?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone swing a 3sect staff through their legs for, during a fight? Because they're too long. This is not a technique. I have both the 3sect staff in standard & a set that's a little longer than chucks, but 3 sections; you can't swing them through the legs. I don't remember striking my nuts, ever; when I started playing with any of them, including nunchuks.  And I wasn't gifted or anything; just a kid watching Bruce Lee movies and then buying them. Nobody taught me, no schools, nothing; just movies. It ain't rocket science to hit a guy with 2 sticks on a chain.
> 
> 
> 
> But you're screwed anyway vs. a trained fighter, if you're not trained; so what's the problem with picking up a bat? If I'm being attacked in the streets & I just happened to have a bat in my hand, I'm not going to think, gee, I better drop this bat b/c he may be a Champion fighter that will take my bat away & kill me with my own bat rather than just kill me with his strikes.


I watched the video you posted and we do see a guy come out with a bat.  Did he lay anyone out with it ?   Not from what I saw.  Did he make his attackers think ?  Yes.   If he was swinging that bat against a trained fighter, the end of the story may have been very different but we will never know because the video is what it is and the scene plays out one way.  

A trained fighter being attacked by a guy with a bat could have done a myriad of things to take that bat away.   He could have gotten his own weapon (a la Harrison Ford from Raiders of the Lost Ark).   He could have improvised a weapon.   He could have used distraction.   The list goes on but again the video shows a guy pull out a bat and attacks his opponents with it until they scatter.   Were his opponents trained fighters ?   Maybe, maybe not but in this instance the bat made a difference.   Does it prove that a random weapon may increase your chances against an attacker ?  Yes.   Was it take away from the guy ?  No (but we don't know if the opponent was a trained fighter for the purposes of our discussion).   Will the weapon be more dangerous for the person taking it out ?  Well, Lucy will have some splaining to do to Ricky and it may just and that guy in jail but you can decide whether that is "dangerous" to themselves or not.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jayoliver00 said:


> So you think it's not b/c it's ridiculously clownish to be caring around a 3sect staff out in public, on the metro, etc.?


The metro doesn't have to be the public place where someone would carry a spear.  It doesn't even have to be a public place.  It could be a private one.  As for permits on what you can carry.  It just depends on the local laws. 

Ridiculously clownish?  Depends on the person carrying the spear.  I personally don't walk with one because it's inconvenient. Me walking down the street with a spear = a lot of police stops and explaining.  No one is going to let me in the store with it.   Leaving it outside is a no go.  Personally my take on spears is that no one gets randomly stabbed by one.

3 section staff would be easier to walk around with because you can toss it in a bag like this wear it on your back and no one would know. Because of that, it may be necessary to register it as a concealed weapon.  Each state here will determine what's allowed and how.






Man pulls out his sword on a Subway to break up fight.  The sword wasn't random.  The random part were 2 men fighting on that day, while on the same train next to the guy with the sword.  I'm pretty sure that guy ca






You just never know what people prefer






But back to spear and attacks.  Some are recent..

*November 20, 2019 - Man stabbed to death with spear*
Source:  Man stabbed to death with spear identified by Jefferson Parish coroner

*January 21, 2021 - Indiana man charged with attempted murder after allegedly stabbing man with spear*
Source: Indiana man charged with attempted murder after allegedly stabbing man with spear

*August 9, 2020 - Lancaster: Man Stabbed with Spear when Disputes Escalates*
Source:  (Lancaster: Man Stabbed With Spear When Dispute Escalates – ONSCENE.TV)

*November 6th 2020 - Redding man arrested for attempted murder after stabbing victim with spear-like weapon*
Source: (https://krcrtv.com/news/local/redding-man-arrested-for-attempted-murder-after-stabbing-victim-with-spear-like-weapon)

*Sept. 18 2014: Homeower Recounts Stabbing Intruder with Spear*
Source: ( https://www.nwahomepage.com/knwa/homeowner-recounts-stabbing-intruder-with-spear/)

*November 2, 2017  Man Charged in "Antique spear" stabbing *
Source - (Man charged in "antique spear" stabbing | All News, News | Indian River County, sebastian police department, spear stabbing, stabbing, Vero News | Vero News)

*February 2, 2013 - Man accused of stabbing cop with double-headed spear.*
Source - (Man accused of stabbing cop with double-headed spear)

*August 28  2020 Shirtless, spear-weilding man allegedly stabs teens in  Times Square*
Source - (Shirtless, spear-wielding man allegedly stabs teen in Times Square)

*May 27, 2019 Police: Pocatello man used spear in attack on individual
Source* - ( Police: Pocatello man used spear in attack on individual)
*
April 5, 2016 British man stabbed to death with spear in Algarve*
Source - (British man stabbed to death with spear in Algarve)

*September 11. 2013 - Cougar attack thwarted by man with spear*
Source (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cougar-attack-thwarted-by-man-with-spear-1.1701427)


----------



## Shatteredzen

jayoliver00 said:


> Lol dude, c'mon.  So you think it's not b/c it's ridiculously clownish to be caring around a 3sect staff out in public, on the metro, etc.? What next, nobody carries an 8ft spear anymore for self defense? Or how about, maybe it's also b/c it's illegal & you can't get a permit to carry it? Or there are such things as, subcompact 9MM pistols?


Dude I always have my 3 section staff when I'm on the metro, have you not seen under siege 2?


----------



## Steve

Are we speaking in code at this point?  Seems to be a lot of uncomfortable male subtext going on in this thread, all the talk about staves and spears.  I wonder what Freud would say?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Are we speaking in code at this point?  Seems to be a lot of uncomfortable male subtext going on in this thread, all the talk about staves and spears.  I wonder what Freud would say?


ha ha ha.. Dude was weird.  He probably would have a lot of say.  He was never short in that subject matter.  Dr. Ruth probably would probably set him straight.  Freud is a case study within himself lol.


----------



## Martial D

Steve said:


> Are we speaking in code at this point?  Seems to be a lot of uncomfortable male subtext going on in this thread, all the talk about staves and spears.  I wonder what Freud would say?


I carry a toothpick for self defense. Easy to conceal...


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> I carry a toothpick for self defense. Easy to conceal...


oh yeah.. time to put some eyes out.










Not sure about these though


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> Are we speaking in code at this point?  Seems to be a lot of uncomfortable male subtext going on in this thread, all the talk about staves and spears.  I wonder what Freud would say?


He'd probably say sometimes a cigar is just a cigar but don't ride the metro without your three section staff...


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shatteredzen said:


> He'd probably say sometimes a cigar is just a cigar but don't ride the metro without your three section staff...


Wasn't he afraid of trains? or Train travel? something like that

Just looked it up. He had a fear of Train Travel.  Boring stuff until the doctor that was helping him with the fear questioned Freud's dream. Apparently Freud had a dream about his mother in the nude.  So long story short. His friend wonder if it was a repressed memory of him seeing his mom nude when he was 4 years old.. then blah blah blah..usually references. lol.

You could probably could drop Freud out of the plane and it would lead back to something relating to male or female  lol.  

Unfortunately he never traveled to China.  I'm pretty sure that would have taken on a whole new world of theories. lol

Just learned that Freud was a cocaine addict. Now things make sense lol.


----------



## jayoliver00

Yokozuna514 said:


> I watched the video you posted and we do see a guy come out with a bat.  Did he lay anyone out with it ?   Not from what I saw.  Did he make his attackers think ?  Yes.   If he was swinging that bat against a trained fighter, the end of the story may have been very different but we will never know because the video is what it is and the scene plays out one way.



That bald guy was getting beat up until he got the bat & started swinging. You're just nitpicking in trying to tell me that the bat didn't help. 

And what's this, "trained fighter" thingy? Can you define what the qualifications are for being a "trained fighter"?




Yokozuna514 said:


> A trained fighter being attacked by a guy with a bat could have done a myriad of things to take that bat away.   He could have gotten his own weapon (a la Harrison Ford from Raiders of the Lost Ark).   He could have improvised a weapon.   He could have used distraction.   The list goes on but again the video shows a guy pull out a bat and attacks his opponents with it until they scatter.   Were his opponents trained fighters ?   Maybe, maybe not but in this instance the bat made a difference.   Does it prove that a random weapon may increase your chances against an attacker ?  Yes.   Was it take away from the guy ?  No (but we don't know if the opponent was a trained fighter for the purposes of our discussion).   Will the weapon be more dangerous for the person taking it out ?  Well, Lucy will have some splaining to do to Ricky and it may just and that guy in jail but you can decide whether that is "dangerous" to themselves or not.



I guess real life is not like in the movies nor choreographed McDojo training then.


----------



## jayoliver00

JowGaWolf said:


> The metro doesn't have to be the public place where someone would carry a spear.  It doesn't even have to be a public place.  It could be a private one.  As for permits on what you can carry.  It just depends on the local laws.
> Ridiculously clownish?  Depends on the person carrying the spear.  I personally don't walk with one because it's inconvenient. Me walking down the street with a spear = a lot of police stops and explaining.  No one is going to let me in the store with it.   Leaving it outside is a no go.  Personally my take on spears is that no one gets randomly stabbed by one.
> 
> 3 section staff would be easier to walk around with because you can toss it in a bag like this wear it on your back and no one would know. Because of that, it may be necessary to register it as a concealed weapon.  Each state here will determine what's allowed and how.



Name 10 States ins the USA where you can get a permit to carry 3 sectional staffs.  What State are you from & can you get a permit to carry your 3sect staff there?




JowGaWolf said:


> View attachment 26780
> 
> Man pulls out his sword on a Subway to break up fight.  The sword wasn't random.  The random part were 2 men fighting on that day, while on the same train next to the guy with the sword.  I'm pretty sure that guy ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just never know what people prefer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But back to spear and attacks.  Some are recent..
> 
> *November 20, 2019 - Man stabbed to death with spear*
> Source:  Man stabbed to death with spear identified by Jefferson Parish coroner
> 
> *January 21, 2021 - Indiana man charged with attempted murder after allegedly stabbing man with spear*
> Source: Indiana man charged with attempted murder after allegedly stabbing man with spear
> 
> *August 9, 2020 - Lancaster: Man Stabbed with Spear when Disputes Escalates*
> Source:  (Lancaster: Man Stabbed With Spear When Dispute Escalates – ONSCENE.TV)
> 
> *November 6th 2020 - Redding man arrested for attempted murder after stabbing victim with spear-like weapon*
> Source: (https://krcrtv.com/news/local/redding-man-arrested-for-attempted-murder-after-stabbing-victim-with-spear-like-weapon)
> 
> *Sept. 18 2014: Homeower Recounts Stabbing Intruder with Spear*
> Source: ( https://www.nwahomepage.com/knwa/homeowner-recounts-stabbing-intruder-with-spear/)
> 
> *November 2, 2017  Man Charged in "Antique spear" stabbing *
> Source - (Man charged in "antique spear" stabbing | All News, News | Indian River County, sebastian police department, spear stabbing, stabbing, Vero News | Vero News)
> 
> *February 2, 2013 - Man accused of stabbing cop with double-headed spear.*
> Source - (Man accused of stabbing cop with double-headed spear)
> 
> *August 28  2020 Shirtless, spear-weilding man allegedly stabs teens in  Times Square*
> Source - (Shirtless, spear-wielding man allegedly stabs teen in Times Square)
> 
> *May 27, 2019 Police: Pocatello man used spear in attack on individual
> Source* - ( Police: Pocatello man used spear in attack on individual)
> 
> *April 5, 2016 British man stabbed to death with spear in Algarve*
> Source - (British man stabbed to death with spear in Algarve)
> 
> *September 11. 2013 - Cougar attack thwarted by man with spear*
> Source (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cougar-attack-thwarted-by-man-with-spear-1.1701427)



Well yeah, I didn't say that their weren't any mentally ill people and/or those who wanted commit a crime with such weapons, would do so.

And all of these stories you dug up, so you think that these people were all trained Ninjas with their weapons? Or did they just use an edged weapon like an edged weapon; a blunt one, like a blunt one, etc.  I think you're helping me prove my point that stabbing someone with the pointy end is not rocket science.


----------



## geezer

JowGaWolf said:


> The concept of a random weapon doesn't sit well with me.


This is why I've totally "salted" my neighborhood with potential weapons. Went to home depot and bought a bunch of sticks and bricks and planted them all around the area ...behind bushes and the cable boxes, etc. The neighbors keep finding them though and chucking them out. Jeez, it's getting to be almost a full time job just to keep re-stocking the place!


OK  ...maybe I didn't actually do any of that...


----------



## JowGaWolf

jayoliver00 said:


> Name 10 States ins the USA where you can get a permit to carry 3 sectional staffs. What State are you from & can you get a permit to carry your 3sect staff there?


I can only speak for Georgia on this one.  It's almost open carry for anything.  If I want to walk around with a sword, then I would have to get a long knife permit because the blade is longer than 12 inches.

For Georgia, the easiest way to know what you can carry is to first see what is illegal (a much shorter list). 
Georgia bans certain types of operable weapons, including:

sawed-off shotguns and rifles
guns equipped with silencers
machine guns, and
dangerous weapons like rocket launchers, mortars, and hand grenades.
I don't even think the Three section staff would fall under any permit unless it's concealed.  There's a lot of open carry stuff that's allowed both with and without a license.  My spear would be legal without a license since the blade is shorter than 12 inches, concealment license wouldn't be necessary unless it was a short spear that can fit in a pouch.    Staffs are a go without a permit.  Most of Georgia's law seems to be based on concealment.  So brass knuckles are illegal. Billy Clubs are illegal, Switchblades are illegal.  I'm not sure how machetes work though.  If you use them for the yard then or landscaping then yes.  If you plan on using it as weapon then a license is needed I guess.

But other than everything pretty much goes here.  If I want to walk around with metal throwing stars then I'll need a conceal weapon permit unless I just hang them off my shoulder sleeve then that's open carry.  Flame throwers are probably legal here too.  You can own one but will probably get arrested for public endangerment if you walk around with it.

Some states are strange with their weapons law.  I think in Atlanta Sling Shots are illegal but go outside of Atlanta then they may be legal in a different city.  This is the law for the city I live in

"No person shall discharge any firearm, air rifle, BB-gun, bow, or slingshot within the city limits."  I'm not sure how this works being that there are gun ranges within city limits.  The Bow and Slingshot are also strange.  Sometimes City and County law conflict.  So while it may be legal for county, you may still get in trouble with City.   If it's legal for the city, then you may get in trouble with the County.    Georgia is strange that way.  But if I open up a range then all of this can be legal.  Here' it's not illegal to have these weapons, it's just illegal to discharge them, but you can probably do so in the act of self defense.  You just can't do target practice.  

Here's another strange one
*Sec. 42-11. - Fortune telling*
No person shall engage in the business of palmistry, fortune telling, crystal reading, or in any method of predicting future occurrences within the city.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jayoliver00 said:


> Well yeah, I didn't say that their weren't any mentally ill people and/or those who wanted commit a crime with such weapons, would do so.


In a world where there are people willing to believe that one political party eats babies,  Honey Boo Boo is considered entertainment, and kids put Tide Pods in their mouths.  It's probably safe to say that there's more craziness out there than one could ever imagine.  Especially "In the good Ole USA where we do crazy right."

Some of the most normal people you see will have the biggest mental issues.  



jayoliver00 said:


> And all of these stories you dug up, so you think that these people were all trained Ninjas with their weapons? Or did they just use an edged weapon like an edged weapon; a blunt one, like a blunt one, etc. I think you're helping me prove my point that stabbing someone with the pointy end is not rocket science.


Bladed weapons are different because the blade itself is a risk factor you can't absorb a cutting edge the same way you absorb a blunt weapon.  Blunt strikes that people walk away from with minimum injury cannot do the same if the attack was with the blade.

Most people have also handled knives before, so while there may not be any fighting training there is a familiarity with the knife and how to cut with it.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> In a world where there are people willing to believe that one political party eats babies,  Honey Boo Boo is considered entertainment, and kids put Tide Pods in their mouths.  It's probably safe to say that there's more craziness out there than one could ever imagine.  Especially "In the good Ole USA where we do crazy right."
> 
> Some of the most normal people you see will have the biggest mental issues.
> 
> 
> Bladed weapons are different because the blade itself is a risk factor you can't absorb a cutting edge the same way you absorb a blunt weapon.  Blunt strikes that people walk away from with minimum injury cannot do the same if the attack was with the blade.
> 
> Most people have also handled knives before, so while there may not be any fighting training there is a familiarity with the knife and how to cut with it.


Just a "for the record" post (not saying this "to" you or anyone else, but saying it because this topic often leads in this direction).  The idea that mentally ill people are responsible for all or even most violent crime is not correct.  People with mental illness are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime than the perpetrators of it.   I invite anyone interested to do some research, and if I have some more time, I can share some information. 

Point being, there may be a lot of crazy going on in the world (and in the USA), but crazy doesn't equal violent.

And as an aside, we do have a real problem with how we're helping people with mental illness.  It's just one of many horrible issues we have with our health care system.  The myth that people with mental illness are violent is actually a part of that problem, not an explanation for violence.


----------



## Yokozuna514

jayoliver00 said:


> That bald guy was getting beat up until he got the bat & started swinging. You're just nitpicking in trying to tell me that the bat didn't help.
> 
> And what's this, "trained fighter" thingy? Can you define what the qualifications are for being a "trained fighter"?


I think we discussed this in previous posts.   Perhaps you can look back so that we are on the same page.


jayoliver00 said:


> I guess real life is not like in the movies nor choreographed McDojo training then.


No real life is not like in the movies or choreographed McDojo training.   That is for sure.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> This is why I've totally "salted" my neighborhood with potential weapons. Went to home depot and bought a bunch of sticks and bricks and planted them all around the area ...behind bushes and the cable boxes, etc. The neighbors keep finding them though and chucking them out. Jeez, it's getting to be almost a full time job just to keep re-stocking the place!
> 
> 
> OK  ...maybe I didn't actually do any of that...



We actually did that as kids.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Just a "for the record" post (not saying this "to" you or anyone else, but saying it because this topic often leads in this direction). The idea that mentally ill people are responsible for all or even most violent crime is not correct. People with mental illness are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime than the perpetrators of it. I invite anyone interested to do some research, and if I have some more time, I can share some information.


I agree with you on this one.    But you are are right.  Great Point. Post away. Nip it before those assumptions come across.    



Steve said:


> Point being, there may be a lot of crazy going on in the world (and in the USA), but crazy doesn't equal violent.


Mentally ill doesn't equal crazy.   Crazy should only be reserved for those of us who know better but still choose to be stupid.   It doesn't always have result in violence, but sometimes it does.  There is no shortage of people willing to do stupid things.  On a good day, we may get a good laugh or even laugh at ourselves.  On a bad day someone gets hurts be it intentionally or unintentionally.



Steve said:


> And as an aside, we do have a real problem with how we're helping people with mental illness. It's just one of many horrible issues we have with our health care system. The myth that people with mental illness are violent is actually a part of that problem, not an explanation for violence.


I agree with this as well.   I also think the U.S in general has a critical thinking problem as well which is not related to mental illness.  I watched an interview of a lady who believed and act based on the most outlandish stuff she was reading and hearing.  Then she says during the interview that he was able to get out of that "extreme response" was that she sat down, did some research on her own, and sat down and though about it.  Before she said she wasn't thinking, she was just reacting.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> This is why I've totally "salted" my neighborhood with potential weapons. Went to home depot and bought a bunch of sticks and bricks and planted them all around the area ...behind bushes and the cable boxes, etc. The neighbors keep finding them though and chucking them out. Jeez, it's getting to be almost a full time job just to keep re-stocking the place!
> 
> 
> OK  ...maybe I didn't actually do any of that...


This is about as good as it gets in my area.  Might help if the Balloon Clowns attack.






Sometimes you just gotta go all out on the Balloon Clowns


----------



## jayoliver00

JowGaWolf said:


> In a world where there are people willing to believe that one political party eats babies,  Honey Boo Boo is considered entertainment, and kids put Tide Pods in their mouths.  It's probably safe to say that there's more craziness out there than one could ever imagine.  Especially "In the good Ole USA where we do crazy right."
> 
> Some of the most normal people you see will have the biggest mental issues.
> 
> 
> Bladed weapons are different because the blade itself is a risk factor you can't absorb a cutting edge the same way you absorb a blunt weapon.  Blunt strikes that people walk away from with minimum injury cannot do the same if the attack was with the blade.
> 
> Most people have also handled knives before, so while there may not be any fighting training there is a familiarity with the knife and how to cut with it.



so based on my video, the baseball bat worked.


----------



## jayoliver00

Yokozuna514 said:


> I think we discussed this in previous posts.   Perhaps you can look back so that we are on the same page.



Why did you bring it up then?



Yokozuna514 said:


> No real life is not like in the movies or choreographed McDojo training.   That is for sure.



I'm glad you agree.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Are we speaking in code at this point?  Seems to be a lot of uncomfortable male subtext going on in this thread, all the talk about staves and spears.  I wonder what Freud would say?


Your mother.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Are we speaking in code at this point?  Seems to be a lot of uncomfortable male subtext going on in this thread, all the talk about staves and spears.  I wonder what Freud would say?


I'm still trying to figure out the Freudian allegory represented by a three-section staff. Ow.


----------



## Cynik75




----------



## JowGaWolf

Cynik75 said:


>


Glad to hear that I'm not the only one who talks about "The Honesty of Training."


----------



## Martial D

gpseymour said:


> I'm still trying to figure out the Freudian allegory represented by a three-section staff. Ow.


Ever heard of the helicopter?


----------



## drop bear

Cynik75 said:


>



There really is a disconect in Aikido. Where they think if they can argue well enough they can change reality. 

The old, it works because all these reasons. And all this clever wordplay. 

If enough stories come out of Aikido success. Or enough tales about how you are really training personal growth. Then Aikido will work. 

And that method is wrong and if they continue trying to make Aikido work with stories. Aikido will never work.

And I don’t even think it is an effective way to achieve personal growth. As it hinges on fantasy and excuses.


----------



## RagingBull

jobo said:


> why is it my job to disprove your opinions,,
> 
> its your to prove them,  this is the same nonsence the religious trot out where they require you to prove there is no god
> 
> if what you said was factually correct then you can prove it so, if you cant it's an opinion,  you cant  turn an opinion into a fact  by giving me more opinions


Nice to see you are still being the Forum buffoon
The Forum whipping boy


----------



## RagingBull

Bottom line is Aikido in the way most train is not for a street scuffle outside a bar.  No1 will always be boxing. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never been in a real fight. simple as that.


----------



## jks9199

Folks, 
Let's remember to keep things polite, and avoid style bashing.

Jks9199 
Admin


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Glad to hear that I'm not the only one who talks about "The Honesty of Training."



That video is a complete waste of time.

If we took 2 average individuals who were identical twins and had one of them train 5 years in Bjj or Judo and the other train 5 years in Aikido, the twin who practiced Bjj or Judo would simply have more martial prowess than the Aikido twin. We could do this for 10 years, 30 years, or a lifetime, and we’d get the same results.

If you’re some huge burly guy, I’m sure you can make Aikido work on smaller or untrained people. However, if you’re a larger person, pretty much anything you do would work on a smaller untrained person. The goal is to see a much smaller person pull off their techniques effectively against larger people. I have witnessed that in Bjj and Judo. I haven’t witnessed that in Aikido.

Perhaps Aikido is better served as a capstone MA for experienced martial artists? Like if you have a black belt in Bjj or Judo, you should then do Aikido for some spiritual training.


----------



## RagingBull

Hanzou said:


> That video is a complete waste of time.
> 
> If we took 2 average individuals who were identical twins and had one of them train 5 years in Bjj or Judo and the other train 5 years in Aikido, the twin who practiced Bjj or Judo would simply have more martial prowess than the Aikido twin. We could do this for 10 years, 30 years, or a lifetime, and we’d get the same results.
> 
> If you’re some huge burly guy, I’m sure you can make Aikido work on smaller or untrained people. However, if you’re a larger person, pretty much anything you do would work on a smaller untrained person. The goal is to see a much smaller person pull off their techniques effectively against larger people. I have witnessed that in Bjj and Judo. I haven’t witnessed that in Aikido.
> 
> Perhaps Aikido is better served as a capstone MA for experienced martial artists? Like if you have a black belt in Bjj or Judo, you should then do Aikido for some spiritual training.


I have also trained in aikido & i can say 100% forget the steven seagal films ... aints gonna happen.
if this dude did not get it can you imagine aikido?


----------



## JowGaWolf

RagingBull said:


> I have also trained in aikido & i can say 100% forget the steven seagal films ... aints gonna happen.
> if this dude did not get it can you imagine aikido?


In all honesty,  no one is going to be able to fight a gang of people like that regardless of the system you train.  A person who trains Aikido would do better that the coach.  The onlookers who the attackers ignored did a better job than the coach.

In situations like that, it's not always about your fighting skills and this is something that many self-defense classes talk about.  Best skill to have in situations like this is to read the environment.  Don't just rush in.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> A person who trains Aikido would do better that the coach.



No they wouldn’t.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> No they wouldn’t.


There were by standers in that video who did better.  They weren't beat to a pulp and they didn't have to spend the night in the hospital.  The person who video recorded the fight did better than the BJJ coach.  That person not only  didn't get their butt kick, but they were able to provide useful video for the police. 

If you are thinking about that video in terms of who would have been able to fight better in that situation then you are missing the whole point.
1. You can't save everyone.
2. If Fighting is your only answer to how to address stuff like that , then you fail to understand the reality of the situation.

Bjj jumps into a fight where there are multiple attackers in an effort to save someone.  End result.  They beat his but and the person they were originally attacking.  Double loss.    In addition to that, he'll be lucky if he can remember what any of those people look like. Another  loss. 

Streetfights and conflicts on the street don't play by the same rules as fighting in the ring.  I don't know how many times that has to be said in here.   Because of that you can't go into those types of conflicts with the idea that you can fight your way out, or even with the idea that they won't turn on you.  You also can't go into those situations where you think the only trouble you have to worry about is from those who are fighting the guy.  Anyone in that crowd can be allies with the people doing the beating.

I'm pretty sure you'll see more video of BJJ and MMA being used in a street fight than Aikido being used in a street fight.  There is a slim chance that an Aikido person would have engaged in the situation like the BJJ coach would have.  I do  kung fu and there's no way in the world I would have engaged like the BJJ coach did.

Every solution to trying to stop a fight in the street isn't choke hold, a punch, or a kick.  Stopping a fight doesn't require that you get in between the 2 people fighting.  In this case you had multiple people involved so the best thing you can do in this situation is not try to walk in the middle of it "Like you go street Credit."

I don't know anyone's youth background here,  but the stuff that I had to deal with from the streets was always this done with the reality "Pick your conflicts carefully.  Pick your fights with the understanding that you'll lose.  All is fair game in a street fight."  If you still want to fight after considering this then go for it.  Just understand that's the reality of what you are about to enter into.


----------



## JowGaWolf

If the reason why we don't see a lot of Aikido street fights on youtube is because the Aikido Practitioner is more likely to walk away from a fight than be in one.  Then that's a lesson BJJ guy could  have learn.  Dial the cops, wait for the cops,  take video so the cops will know who to arrest.  Sometimes that's the best decision to take.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Just understand what you are getting into when you are about to fight in the streets.  You can go in thinking you are going to choke someone out and leave with with a knife in you, a bullet in you, or you may not leave at all.  Maybe I'm the only who factors things like this before deciding to get into a street fight.


----------



## Cynik75




----------



## paitingman

Cynik75 said:


>


I actually caught a few minutes of this livestream the two of them were doing earlier today and it got me thinking about Aikido and this thread.
(I have no Aikido experience and haven't read up on the subject or this thread)
But Dan was sharing a story from his youth about how he started in Taekwondo and learned just a few basics of Hapkido with that instructor around age 15 and pretty much was wristlocking hooligans from then on.

That's pretty much my experience as well.
I have probably pulled off a wrist lock to full control at least 7 or 8 times in my life since learning them from my Taekwondo teacher when I was about 13. Luckily, I have never gone for one irl and fumbled it (I have in class of course).
But I never had this notion that wrist locks don't work or were low percentage. Everythings low percentage when it doesn't suit the situation. That's just the attitude I learned and always had and I sensed it coming from the Wolfman in the brief clip I saw.


----------



## drop bear

paitingman said:


> I actually caught a few minutes of this livestream the two of them were doing earlier today and it got me thinking about Aikido and this thread.
> (I have no Aikido experience and haven't read up on the subject or this thread)
> But Dan was sharing a story from his youth about how he started in Taekwondo and learned just a few basics of Hapkido with that instructor around age 15 and pretty much was wristlocking hooligans from then on.
> 
> That's pretty much my experience as well.
> I have probably pulled off a wrist lock to full control at least 7 or 8 times in my life since learning them from my Taekwondo teacher when I was about 13. Luckily, I have never gone for one irl and fumbled it (I have in class of course).
> But I never had this notion that wrist locks don't work or were low percentage. Everythings low percentage when it doesn't suit the situation. That's just the attitude I learned and always had and I sensed it coming from the Wolfman in the brief clip I saw.



Aikido success stories tend to be big guys as well. 


I have friends who have no dramas wrist locking people as well.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Aikido success stories tend to be big guys as well.


The requirements for some wrists locks requires at a minimum that you are the same height that you are applying a wrist lock to.  Many of the wrist locks that require leverage will not work if you are not tall enough to create that leverage.

So a wrist lock that I can apply on a person 5'9 isn't going to work on someone who is 6 feet and taller.
That's just the reality of it.  There are some wrist locks that will completely fail simply because the person is too short to apply the appropriate leverage. 

If most of the people who have applied Aikido successfully are bouncers, then most bouncers are taller and stronger than the average guy walking into the club and that's the way that you want your bouncers to be.  Larger and stronger than the average guy is the idea bouncer look.  

Size intimidates.  This is true even without Aikido.  





The reason you can apply so many joint locks in BJJ is because you are on the ground and you can move into positions where the height of someone isn't going to have the same effect on the wrist lock as it would if both were standing up.


Do make the assumption that Aikido only works for Big guys is  just not accurate.  In many martial arts systems everything is taught from the assumption that someone is the same size as you or slightly taller.  That's the default height for instruction.  Everything else are exceptions to the rule.  If you are smaller than the average guy or gal, then you are going to have a lot of exceptions for a lot of standing fighting techniques..


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> If the reason why we don't see a lot of Aikido street fights on youtube is because the Aikido Practitioner is more likely to walk away from a fight than be in one.  Then that's a lesson BJJ guy could  have learn.  Dial the cops, wait for the cops,  take video so the cops will know who to arrest.  Sometimes that's the best decision to take.



Uh, the Bjj guy got into the fight because he was trying to help break it up. If you're saying that the Aikido guy would just walk away from a situation because they don't want to get involved, okay, but if the Aikidoka wanted to intervene because they were trying to stop someone else from being hurt, then yeah, they wouldn't have fared any better than the Bjj guy. In fact, I'd say they'd have a higher chance of faring worse.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Uh, the Bjj guy got into the fight because he was trying to help break it up. If you're saying that the Aikido guy would just walk away from a situation because they don't want to get involved, okay,


This is exactly what I'm saying.  I'll even go beyond that and say not getting involved by directly confronting the attackers is the right choice.

The BJJ guy got into the fight because he was trying to help break up a fight.
1. The BJJ guy didn't read the environment correctly.  
2. He didn't succeed in breaking up the fight.
3. He didn't succeed in helping the other person getting a beat down
4. He didn't protect himself in the process of trying to help someone else.

Total failure and that BJJ guy almost lost his life.  



Hanzou said:


> but if the Aikidoka wanted to intervene because they were trying to stop someone else from being hurt,


I don't think this is in their game plan and based on what I've seen they aren't taught to approach situations like that.  I don't take Aikido and I've actually saved people from being beat up by a gang of people and I would have never done what the BJJ guy did.  Not even drunk.  I have never had so much to drink where I couldn't recognize when there's a situation that would be a total loss even if I got into a physical confrontation.

The fact that we don't hear or see news about Aikido practitioners breaking up fights or stopping criminals,  I think we can safely drop the hypothetical about them putting themselves in that situation where they are biting off more than they can chew.

We often don't he Aikido in any type of fights unless they are in law enforcement restraining someone, a bouncer, or someone in a sports competition.  So yep.  I don't think an Aikido would have gotten involved not unless they could do it from a position that would keep them from being getting beaten up to .  To me that's just smart.

If it was me.  I would have done the following
1.  Call the cops ASAP
2.  Approach from the side with the most room for me to manage distance. I don't want people around me unless it's my crew
3  Main goal would be to distract.  To get them to focus on me, not so much to fight me but if they spend time arguing and yelling at me, then that means they wouldn't be spending time thinking about beating up the person on the ground.

I might not be able to save the guy from a beating but I might be able to delay it or make it less of a beating until the police get there,  But that only works if I can delay or avoid my own beat down. None of my martial arts skills plays into the #1-#3.    If I determine that #3 is a no go then I would pull out my camera and try to get pictures of all of those who involved, which would be safer than trying to fight all those guys.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> The requirements for some wrists locks requires at a minimum that you are the same height that you are applying a wrist lock to. Many of the wrist locks that require leverage will not work if you are not tall enough to create that leverage.



Not really. Because you attack their head or their shoulder first. 

But anyway. Here is more Aikido sparring. And it just seems to be strength moves.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> This is exactly what I'm saying.  I'll even go beyond that and say not getting involved by directly confronting the attackers is the right choice.



Then it's a ridiculous argument, because the decision to get involved in a physical altercation comes down to personal choice, not the type of martial art you take. If an Aikidoka for example came home and saw his wife getting beat up by three men, are you saying he would enter a state of zen and walk away from the physical altercation and let the universe handle the outcome, or would he get in the middle of it?

The point is, IF that person decides to engage, which martial art would serve them better, and it isn't Aikido because the Aikidoka is supposedly "more inclined to walk away".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> The requirements for some wrists locks requires at a minimum that you are the same height that you are applying a wrist lock to.  Many of the wrist locks that require leverage will not work if you are not tall enough to create that leverage.
> 
> So a wrist lock that I can apply on a person 5'9 isn't going to work on someone who is 6 feet and taller.
> That's just the reality of it.  There are some wrist locks that will completely fail simply because the person is too short to apply the appropriate leverage.
> 
> If most of the people who have applied Aikido successfully are bouncers, then most bouncers are taller and stronger than the average guy walking into the club and that's the way that you want your bouncers to be.  Larger and stronger than the average guy is the idea bouncer look.
> 
> Size intimidates.  This is true even without Aikido.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason you can apply so many joint locks in BJJ is because you are on the ground and you can move into positions where the height of someone isn't going to have the same effect on the wrist lock as it would if both were standing up.
> 
> 
> Do make the assumption that Aikido only works for Big guys is  just not accurate.  In many martial arts systems everything is taught from the assumption that someone is the same size as you or slightly taller.  That's the default height for instruction.  Everything else are exceptions to the rule.  If you are smaller than the average guy or gal, then you are going to have a lot of exceptions for a lot of standing fighting techniques..


All the wrist locks I know will work on someone taller. In all cases (unless you're significantly larger than them) you need to break structure on them, anyway. It just takes a bigger structure break on a taller person (also on a stronger person).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> This is exactly what I'm saying.  I'll even go beyond that and say not getting involved by directly confronting the attackers is the right choice.
> 
> The BJJ guy got into the fight because he was trying to help break up a fight.
> 1. The BJJ guy didn't read the environment correctly.
> 2. He didn't succeed in breaking up the fight.
> 3. He didn't succeed in helping the other person getting a beat down
> 4. He didn't protect himself in the process of trying to help someone else.
> 
> Total failure and that BJJ guy almost lost his life.
> 
> 
> I don't think this is in their game plan and based on what I've seen they aren't taught to approach situations like that.  I don't take Aikido and I've actually saved people from being beat up by a gang of people and I would have never done what the BJJ guy did.  Not even drunk.  I have never had so much to drink where I couldn't recognize when there's a situation that would be a total loss even if I got into a physical confrontation.
> 
> The fact that we don't hear or see news about Aikido practitioners breaking up fights or stopping criminals,  I think we can safely drop the hypothetical about them putting themselves in that situation where they are biting off more than they can chew.
> 
> We often don't he Aikido in any type of fights unless they are in law enforcement restraining someone, a bouncer, or someone in a sports competition.  So yep.  I don't think an Aikido would have gotten involved not unless they could do it from a position that would keep them from being getting beaten up to .  To me that's just smart.
> 
> If it was me.  I would have done the following
> 1.  Call the cops ASAP
> 2.  Approach from the side with the most room for me to manage distance. I don't want people around me unless it's my crew
> 3  Main goal would be to distract.  To get them to focus on me, not so much to fight me but if they spend time arguing and yelling at me, then that means they wouldn't be spending time thinking about beating up the person on the ground.
> 
> I might not be able to save the guy from a beating but I might be able to delay it or make it less of a beating until the police get there,  But that only works if I can delay or avoid my own beat down. None of my martial arts skills plays into the #1-#3.    If I determine that #3 is a no go then I would pull out my camera and try to get pictures of all of those who involved, which would be safer than trying to fight all those guys.


I think there are plenty of folks in any art who'd have jumped in to try to help. I don't think that's style-dependent.


----------



## jayoliver00

JowGaWolf said:


> In all honesty,  no one is going to be able to fight a gang of people like that regardless of the system you train.  A person who trains Aikido would do better that the coach.  The onlookers who the attackers ignored did a better job than the coach.
> 
> In situations like that, it's not always about your fighting skills and this is something that many self-defense classes talk about.  Best skill to have in situations like this is to read the environment.  Don't just rush in.



The report said that 2 people were being attacked by that mob and he tried to help them.  Not certain if he used light force, ie. blocking, calming them down or the full force of his MMA skills.

But how do you know he just rushed in? And how long should a "real" Martial Artist watch & wait, while a mob is beating 2 people who are already unconscious and on their way to coma-city and possibly death.

Sounds like you're saying that Aikidokas and Self Defense people would just watch & wait for the Cops. And if they die (those 2 victims), they die.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> I think there are plenty of folks in any art who'd have jumped in to try to help. I don't think that's style-dependent.


If they read that crowd they wouldn't have.  One guy had on brass knuckles.  I think most people would have pick the option not to wade into that fight,

Jumping into a fight where you are clearly out number is not the intelligent thing to do.  No matter how heroic you may want to be.   Which is why the BJJ ended up the way he did.  The fact that he ended up in the hospital pretty much verifies that.


----------



## Cynik75

JowGaWolf said:


> Jumping into a fight where you are clearly out number is not the intelligent thing to do.


This is Sparta!!!


----------



## JowGaWolf

jayoliver00 said:


> But how do you know he just rushed in? And how long should a "real" Martial Artist watch & wait, while a mob is beating 2 people who are already unconscious and on their way to coma-city and possibly death.


1. How do you know just rushed in?  News reported that one of his family members said that he wasn't part of the original fight but jumped in to help the other who were being attacked.  I looked up this incident beyond the video that was posted.

2.  How long should a "Real" Martial Artist while a mob is beating 2 people who are already unconscious and on their way to coma-city and possibly death.  This depends on if you can win against all of them either force or by getting them to stop attacking.   If you can't do this, then it doesn't matter if you are a"Real" Martial artist or not.  The end result will be the same.  The 2 that your tried to save will take a trip to "Coma city" and you will get a free trip to "Coma City" as well .  

If you have 2 people KO'd  by a gang of people, then you jumping in to help means you'll be fighting by yourself.  So what we saw was a "Real" Martial Artist jumping in to save someone, He failed at that and as result he got the same beating as well, a free trip to the hospital.  Not only did he fail, Him getting beaten up added to the list of casualties. 



jayoliver00 said:


> Sounds like you're saying that Aikidokas and Self Defense people would just watch & wait for the Cops. And if they die (those 2 victims), they die.


Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying.  If you can't read a situation correctly then you jumping in won't make things better, it will make things worse.  It won't help the people you are trying to save and it won't help you.  Even if you are going to try to talk them down.  Make sure you got your escape covered, make sure you try to identify if they have weapons or not.  Try to come up with a quick plan.  Is there something you can do to delay the fight or distract them.  Whatever you do you have to be smart about.  Don't assume they won't kill you for interfering. 

Sometimes there's nothing you can do against a gang of people like that regardless of your martial arts background.  Your martial arts and your heroic heart can't save everyone and that's just the reality of it.  And if you still want to jump in.  Know that you will lose and that you may lose your life.  If you can accept that as being the only choice then go for it.

If your martial arts skill level is the first thing that comes to your mind when you see a gang of people beating someone like that, then you clearly aren't reading the situation before you.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> This is exactly what I'm saying.  I'll even go beyond that and say not getting involved by directly confronting the attackers is the right choice.
> 
> The BJJ guy got into the fight because he was trying to help break up a fight.
> 1. The BJJ guy didn't read the environment correctly.
> 2. He didn't succeed in breaking up the fight.
> 3. He didn't succeed in helping the other person getting a beat down
> 4. He didn't protect himself in the process of trying to help someone else.
> 
> Total failure and that BJJ guy almost lost his life.
> 
> 
> I don't think this is in their game plan and based on what I've seen they aren't taught to approach situations like that.  I don't take Aikido and I've actually saved people from being beat up by a gang of people and I would have never done what the BJJ guy did.  Not even drunk.  I have never had so much to drink where I couldn't recognize when there's a situation that would be a total loss even if I got into a physical confrontation.
> 
> The fact that we don't hear or see news about Aikido practitioners breaking up fights or stopping criminals,  I think we can safely drop the hypothetical about them putting themselves in that situation where they are biting off more than they can chew.
> 
> We often don't he Aikido in any type of fights unless they are in law enforcement restraining someone, a bouncer, or someone in a sports competition.  So yep.  I don't think an Aikido would have gotten involved not unless they could do it from a position that would keep them from being getting beaten up to .  To me that's just smart.
> 
> If it was me.  I would have done the following
> 1.  Call the cops ASAP
> 2.  Approach from the side with the most room for me to manage distance. I don't want people around me unless it's my crew
> 3  Main goal would be to distract.  To get them to focus on me, not so much to fight me but if they spend time arguing and yelling at me, then that means they wouldn't be spending time thinking about beating up the person on the ground.
> 
> I might not be able to save the guy from a beating but I might be able to delay it or make it less of a beating until the police get there,  But that only works if I can delay or avoid my own beat down. None of my martial arts skills plays into the #1-#3.    If I determine that #3 is a no go then I would pull out my camera and try to get pictures of all of those who involved, which would be safer than trying to fight all those guys.



I drink a lot of coffee and enjoy eating baked goods.  By your logic, this prepares me for self defense as much as Aikido does (or Jow Ga, by your account).  I should just package up my SD model and sell it.  Our key principle is "Avoid Physical Contact and Call the Cops" followed closely by "Distract the bad guys... offer them a donut."  It's the 1, 2, 3 of self defense.  

Thank you for this.  I'll let you all know how much money I make.


----------



## jayoliver00

JowGaWolf said:


> 1. How do you know just rushed in?  News reported that one of his family members said that he wasn't part of the original fight but jumped in to help the other who were being attacked.  I looked up this incident beyond the video that was posted.



Yes, that's what I just said (b/c I read the same/similar report and not just go by the long winded video commentary that was posted here by some guy with a thick accent; so how did you know he just rushed in?  




JowGaWolf said:


> 2.  How long should a "Real" Martial Artist while a mob is beating 2 people who are already unconscious and on their way to coma-city and possibly death.  This depends on if you can win against all of them either force or by getting them to stop attacking.   If you can't do this, then it doesn't matter if you are a"Real" Martial artist or not.  The end result will be the same.  The 2 that your tried to save will take a trip to "Coma city" and you will get a free trip to "Coma City" as well .



It looked like 5-6 guys jumping him. Can you beat 5-6 guys at once with your Aikido?



JowGaWolf said:


> If you have 2 people KO'd  by a gang of people, then you jumping in to help means you'll be fighting by yourself.  So what we saw was a "Real" Martial Artist jumping in to save someone, He failed at that and as result he got the same beating as well, a free trip to the hospital.  Not only did he fail, Him getting beaten up added to the list of casualties.



How do you know that he jumped in to fight though?




JowGaWolf said:


> Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying.  If you can't read a situation correctly then you jumping in won't make things better, it will make things worse.  It won't help the people you are trying to save and it won't help you.  Even if you are going to try to talk them down.  Make sure you got your escape covered, make sure you try to identify if they have weapons or not.  Try to come up with a quick plan.  Is there something you can do to delay the fight or distract them.  Whatever you do you have to be smart about.  Don't assume they won't kill you for interfering.



After that exhaustive laundry list of things to do as a "Real Martial Artist", shouldn't he double check them all again, just to make sure? And I'm pretty the people that were in trouble are already dead by now.



JowGaWolf said:


> Sometimes there's nothing you can do against a gang of people like that regardless of your martial arts background.  Your martial arts and your heroic heart can't save everyone and that's just the reality of it.  And if you still want to jump in.  Know that you will lose and that you may lose your life.  If you can accept that as being the only choice then go for it.


 
Some people risks their life for others; some are cowards.


----------



## jayoliver00

drop bear said:


> Not really. Because you attack their head or their shoulder first.
> 
> But anyway. Here is more Aikido sparring. And it just seems to be strength moves.



What a video, goodness. I'm going to make a cool video like this vs. an 8 year old in my class to showcase my Muay Thai with some Metallica in the background. I bet I'll look good.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> I drink a lot of coffee and enjoy eating baked goods. By your logic, this prepares me for self defense as much as Aikido does (or Jow Ga, by your account).


1.  I didn't say anything about eating baked goods.  No on has.
2.  In situations like this you have to think beyond your Martial arts, because your Martial Arts isn't going to save you or the people you are trying to help which clearly played out om reality with the BJJ coach..

If what you study teaches you the value of keeping distance and not engaging then your whole mentality is going to be around that function of not engaging.

My self-defense (street smarts) a person will rarely be able to jump into a gang of people and fight their way out without being seriously injured or killed.   What I've personally have seen in the streets during my life informs me of this and not my Martial Arts.   I teach self defense classes and I would never tell a student to jump into a crowd like that.  I don't know any self-defense instructor that would tell their students to jump into a fight like that.   Even law enforcement will tell you, not to jump into a fight light that.  



Steve said:


> Our key principle is "Avoid Physical Contact and Call the Cops" followed closely by "Distract the bad guys... offer them a donut." It's the 1, 2, 3 of self defense.


You are taking my words out of context.  What I said deals with the situation in that video where there are numerous people assaulting two other people.  Do what you want with your Self Defense class.  Tell your students that it's a good idea jump into a fight where they are clearly outnumbered.   That's your class, I don't have any say over that.  If that's how you want to make money then that's up to you.


----------



## Flying Crane

jayoliver00 said:


> Some people risks their life for others; some are cowards.


Oohhhhhhh Kay.  This is one hell of an over-simplification and I think I you know it.


----------



## jayoliver00

Flying Crane said:


> Oohhhhhhh Kay.  This is one hell of an over-simplification and I think I you know it.



Kind of, but look at this guy who's probably not even trained; jumping in vs. some guy with a gigantic knife who's already stabbing someone repeatedly.  Notice he didn't get out his "Self Defense Do's & Don't's" checklist & protractor to first thoroughly access the situation while grandma's getting aerated


----------



## Flying Crane

jayoliver00 said:


> Kind of, but look at this guy who's probably not even trained; jumping in vs. some guy with a gigantic knife who's already stabbing someone repeatedly.  Notice he didn't get out his "Self Defense Do's & Don't's" checklist & protractor to first thoroughly access the situation while grandma's getting aerated


That is all beside the point.  You can’t honestly simplify it down to: either you help someone or you are a coward.  That is intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> That video is a complete waste of time.
> 
> If we took 2 average individuals who were identical twins and had one of them train 5 years in Bjj or Judo and the other train 5 years in Aikido, the twin who practiced Bjj or Judo would simply have more martial prowess than the Aikido twin. We could do this for 10 years, 30 years, or a lifetime, and we’d get the same results.
> 
> If you’re some huge burly guy, I’m sure you can make Aikido work on smaller or untrained people. However, if you’re a larger person, pretty much anything you do would work on a smaller untrained person. The goal is to see a much smaller person pull off their techniques effectively against larger people. I have witnessed that in Bjj and Judo. I haven’t witnessed that in Aikido.
> 
> Perhaps Aikido is better served as a capstone MA for experienced martial artists? Like if you have a black belt in Bjj or Judo, you should then do Aikido for some spiritual training.



 You have both totally missed the point and indirectly hit the nail on the head. Aikido IS a capstone martial art, just as I have been saying this whole thread, just as Remy or Dan the Wolfman say in their interviews with Rokas. Even studying one Aikido technique per week, you would likely get through most schools ENTIRE syllabus in one year. Aikido primarily trains movement and specific principles for controlling a confrontation. The original Aikido students all had their blackbelts in Judo when they stepped into their first Aikido class. If you trained Aikido for 15 years as Rokas did, with no other foundation and especially in its weakened, watered down state and with no physical conditioning you would likely end up where he did. No one is putting Aikido on a pedestal and touting it as the most effective martial art and it does not have to be. Aikido fills a niche, it focuses on the beginning, pre fight phase of a confrontation and it gives tools for an already experienced and well rounded fighter to control the confrontation, hopefully in a way where both parties suffer little to no injuries. 

 The skills learned in Aikido are primarily its principles, its movement and its ways of handling conflict, these principles and methods can be used alongside other martial arts and they should be. All that said, most people are going to end up in situations that can be well served by some of these techniques. If trained correctly, Aikido does what it is supposed to quite well and hence why I have said that I have gotten more mileage out of my Aikido than anything else. Contrary to this discussion, real fights don't usually take place between skilled individuals, they don't last long and most people aren't that committed to finishing them once they start, they tend to look for a way out. Believe it or not, getting tossed onto their butt a few times generally discourages people into moving on with their night. The mental math for how much more pride they want to lose and how not fun hitting the ground is ends most violent confrontations because people can tell when they are outmatched. Simply manhandling someone with a hip throw is going to full stop 90% of bar fights, the guy who gets put on the ground is going to hit the deck, think "oh crap, no thanks" and stand up apologizing or put his hands up in submission. These street ninja fights you kids keep talking about don't happen.

  From an ordinary persons perspective it is very useful to be able to defend yourself from a majority of situations without having to engage the fight to the point where you have to beat the brakes off of someone or risk seriously injuring them. If you are someone like a police officer or security guard or bouncer, it is much better to have options that don't require you to exhert overwhelming force, being able to use the appropriate force for the situation is often both prudent and beneficial for everyone. To make Aikido operative you are going to have to find a good teacher/school and put the time in to learn how to apply the techniques, like anything. Just because you aren't going to win the UFC with your Aikido doesn't mean the system has no value.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> 1.  I didn't say anything about eating baked goods.  No on has.



I literally just mentioned it.



JowGaWolf said:


> 2.  In situations like this you have to think beyond your Martial arts, because your Martial Arts isn't going to save you or the people you are trying to help which clearly played out om reality with the BJJ coach..
> 
> If what you study teaches you the value of keeping distance and not engaging then your whole mentality is going to be around that function of not engaging.



Which has nothing to do with martial arts.  That's my point.  Who are you to tell me that drinking coffee and eating baked goods has nothing to do with self defense?  I do both of these things and have literally never been successfully mugged. 




JowGaWolf said:


> My self-defense (street smarts) a person will rarely be able to jump into a gang of people and fight their way out without being seriously injured or killed.   What I've personally have seen in the streets during my life informs me of this and not my Martial Arts.   I teach self defense classes and I would never tell a student to jump into a crowd like that.  I don't know any self-defense instructor that would tell their students to jump into a fight like that.   Even law enforcement will tell you, not to jump into a fight light that.



John Mulaney does a whole bit on this, which is hilarious.  Check it out.  It's in the Kid Gorgeous special on Netflix.  

And... I teach self defense classes, too.  Except in my classes, we don't talk about fights.  We drink espresso and eat pastries.  My self defense class is at least as effective as yours, because no one I've ever had pastries or espresso with has ever been mugged.  



JowGaWolf said:


> You are taking my words out of context.  What I said deals with the situation in that video where there are numerous people assaulting two other people.  Do what you want with your Self Defense class.  Tell your students that it's a good idea jump into a fight where they are clearly outnumbered.   That's your class, I don't have any say over that.  If that's how you want to make money then that's up to you.


I'm just pointing out how flawed and self serving your rationale is, by showing how it could be used to literally support anything.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> 1.  I didn't say anything about eating baked goods.  No on has.
> 2.  In situations like this you have to think beyond your Martial arts, because your Martial Arts isn't going to save you or the people you are trying to help which clearly played out om reality with the BJJ coach..
> 
> If what you study teaches you the value of keeping distance and not engaging then your whole mentality is going to be around that function of not engaging.
> 
> My self-defense (street smarts) a person will rarely be able to jump into a gang of people and fight their way out without being seriously injured or killed.   What I've personally have seen in the streets during my life informs me of this and not my Martial Arts.   I teach self defense classes and I would never tell a student to jump into a crowd like that.  I don't know any self-defense instructor that would tell their students to jump into a fight like that.   Even law enforcement will tell you, not to jump into a fight light that.
> 
> 
> You are taking my words out of context.  What I said deals with the situation in that video where there are numerous people assaulting two other people.  Do what you want with your Self Defense class.  Tell your students that it's a good idea jump into a fight where they are clearly outnumbered.   That's your class, I don't have any say over that.  If that's how you want to make money then that's up to you.



Some people consider the risk worth it. 

I wouldn't suggest training that creates the sort of person who faces danger to help is necessarily a bad character trait.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> That is all beside the point.  You can’t honestly simplify it down to: either you help someone or you are a coward.  That is intellectually dishonest.


Totally.  It is also an intellectually dishonest oversimplification to suggest that one simply avoids the conflict, as others have done.  

There seems to be a rash of self serving oversimplification going on in this thread over the last few pages.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Aikido success stories tend to be big guys as well.
> 
> 
> I have friends who have no dramas wrist locking people as well.


I'm not sure where you are going with this, big guys tend to have more success stories in fighting, that's why there are weight divisions. No style makes up for physique and size when there is a parity or proximity in skill.


----------



## Steve

Shatteredzen said:


> I'm not sure where you are going with this, big guys tend to have more success stories in fighting, that's why there are weight divisions. No style makes up for physique and size when there is a parity or proximity in skill.



but this presumes that experience training in various styles is equivalent... which is kind of the entire point of the thread.  Right? 

A guy with 10 years of aikido and a similar guy with 10 years of BJJ do not have equivalent functional skill.  The question is, would a 10 year BJJ guy who weighs 150 lbs have sufficient expertise to defend himself from a 200 lbs aikidoka with 10 years of training?   All things considered, the smart money is on the jiu-jitiero.

There are also open weight divisions in BJJ tournaments where you can see how, even at an elite level, some smaller guys can defeat larger guys.  Usually, if you medal in your own division, you can sign up for the "absolute" division.  I've seen relatively small guys beat some giants.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jayoliver00 said:


> so how did you know he just rushed in?


There were multiple reports done on the incident, and that's what his cousin is quoted saying, that he jumped in to help.  That's just the type of person he is.

Another source stated that someone appeared to be intoxicated, bumped into someone then got beaten. But I don't know who they are referring to when they say "He"



jayoliver00 said:


> It looked like 5-6 guys jumping him. Can you beat 5-6 guys at once with your Aikido?


F me more than 3 people = gang and things begin to change drastically for me when there are more than 3 people.  So my default answer is going to be no.  Not just for Aikido but also for Jow Ga or any other open hand combat idea that I can think about doing.  I have 2 eyes 2 hands and 2 feet.  5-6 people would have to total garbage without weapons to make me think I can take on 5 - 6 with no problem.  The more people the more variables and the higher the risk that I will lose.



jayoliver00 said:


> After that exhaustive laundry list of things to do as a "Real Martial Artist", shouldn't he double check them all again, just to make sure?


It doesn't take a long to scan the environment or people.  Our eyes and brains process a lot of data just by driving down the street.


drop bear said:


> I wouldn't suggest training that creates the sort of person who faces danger to help is necessarily a bad character trait.


I never mentioned character traits.   You can have good Character traits without fighting.  Being willing to face danger doesn't mean that a person has good character traits.  There's a lot of people who are willing to face danger who don't have what many would consider good Character traits.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> but this presumes that experience training in various styles is equivalent... which is kind of the entire point of the thread.  Right?
> 
> A guy with 10 years of aikido and a similar guy with 10 years of BJJ do not have equivalent functional skill.  The question is, would a 10 year BJJ guy who weighs 150 lbs have sufficient expertise to defend himself from a 200 lbs aikidoka with 10 years of training?   All things considered, the smart money is on the jiu-jitiero.
> 
> There are also open weight divisions in BJJ tournaments where you can see how, even at an elite level, some smaller guys can defeat larger guys.  Usually, if you medal in your own division, you can sign up for the "absolute" division.  I've seen relatively small guys beat some giants.


I don't think that time spent is equivalent at all, you would have to spend more time in Aikido than most other martial arts to make it operative if you don't have a good base. Also, overall "time spent" is misleading as well. Someone who spends two hours a week training has a very different "10 years" of experience than someone who trains everyday. I would say that most people are better served putting a few years into a combative martial art like Judo, BJJ, Muay Thai, etc before they take time to devote to Aikido. Or do what I did and learn it alongside more functional styles.

Martial Arts are not a 1 for 1 thing, if anything, if you want my opinion, a good syllabus to train someone is "do BJJ first" then pick a striking art and master it, then go from there.


----------



## Steve

Shatteredzen said:


> I don't think that time spent is equivalent at all, you would have to spend more time in Aikido than most other martial arts to make it operative if you don't have a good base. Also, overall "time spent" is misleading as well. Someone who spends two hours a week training has a very different "10 years" of experience than someone who trains everyday. I would say that most people are better served putting a few years into a combative martial art like Judo, BJJ, Muay Thai, etc before they take time to devote to Aikido. Or do what I did and learn it alongside more functional styles.
> 
> Martial Arts are not a 1 for 1 thing, if anything, if you want my opinion, a good syllabus to train someone is "do BJJ first" then pick a striking art and master it, then go from there.


You brought up parity and proximity in skill.  82 pages into this thread, and it seems like we're at a point where the Aikidoka's skill is to call the cops and avoid fighting at all.  The obvious question then, is what exactly does that mean in the context of Aikido?  Is there a point where an aikidoka has demonstrable skill beyond that of an untrained person?  And if so, what is it?   

I'm content to go back to lurking and reading, but this thread has taken a sudden turn into la la land.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> I never mentioned character traits.   You can have good Character traits without fighting.  Being willing to face danger doesn't mean that a person has good character traits.  There's a lot of people who are willing to face danger who don't have what many would consider good Character traits.


The point you seem to be missing is that helping someone who needs help IS generally considered a good character trait.  You didn't bring up the literal topic of character traits, but when you suggest that it's a simple calculus of personal safety vs the safety of others, you did bring up the issue of character. 

When you see a kid drowning in the lake, you can 100% avoid drowning by letting the kid drown.  But most people would recognize that the person who jumps in to save that kid is a hero.  Even if he ends up drowning himself.  Who would call letting the kid drown self defense?  Not me.  But that's precisely your definition.  And just to note, this happens.  People, even really good swimmers, have drowned trying to save others from drowning.  The question then is, do we use this fact as a reason to stop teaching people to swim, and instead start teaching them to just avoid the water?  We will surely be far less likely to drown if we do that.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> You brought up parity and proximity in skill.  82 pages into this thread, and it seems like we're at a point where the Aikidoka's skill is to call the cops and avoid fighting at all.  The obvious question then, is what exactly does that mean in the context of Aikido?  Is there a point where an aikidoka has demonstrable skill beyond that of an untrained person?  And if so, what is it?
> 
> I'm content to go back to lurking and reading, but this thread has taken a sudden turn into la la land.



This thread has been in la la land for most of its 82 pages. What I have been saying about Aikido has remained consistent for the entirety of my participation in this thread and I have explained what its good at many times over now. The thread keeps getting de-railed because we have a specific few people who are desperately working very hard at diverting it. I've already answered every question you pose in the above quote, as have others.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> The point you seem to be missing is that helping someone who needs help IS generally considered a good character trait.


I'm not missing that point.  He went in to help.  Got beaten up Failed to Help. as a result His efforts didn't help.  However the person recording fight on the phone didn't rush into the fight Recorded the video, which the police is now using to make arrests.  So some of the bad guys don't get away.

You seem to miss the point there are more ways to help than to throw fists especially if the odds are stack so heavily against you.



Steve said:


> but when you suggest that it's a simple calculus of personal safety vs the safety of others, you did bring up the issue of character.


That's not a character trait issue.  That's a survival one and recognizing where your limitations lie.  So the person video recording the fight has less of a Good Character trait because he or she didn't jump in to fight?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> When you see a kid drowning in the lake, you can 100% avoid drowning by letting the kid drown.


If I see a kid in the lake drowning and I can't swim.  Guess who is going to drown that day. Not me.  If I can't toss something to that kid that is drowning then I'm not jumping in.    2 people drowning doesn't make things better.  It makes things worse.  There is no intelligence in jumping to save a drowning person, child or not.  If you cannot swim.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> If I see a kid in the lake drowning and I can't swim.  Guess who is going to drown that day. Not me.  If I can't toss something to that kid that is drowning then I'm not jumping in.    2 people drowning doesn't make things better.  It makes things worse.  There is no intelligence in jumping to save a drowning person, child or not.  If you cannot swim.


This isn't analogous.  people who are strong swimmers sometimes drown while trying to save someone else who is drowning.  There is real risk, which is why they are often considered heroes.  that's analogous to someone who is a skilled fighter being seriously injured while trying to save someone else   Unless, we are now accepting that aikidoka can't fight.  I mean, if that's a settled issue, what are we talking about?

Also, you'd just watch the kid drown??  Jesus, man.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> You have both totally missed the point and indirectly hit the nail on the head. Aikido IS a capstone martial art, just as I have been saying this whole thread, just as Remy or Dan the Wolfman say in their interviews with Rokas. Even studying one Aikido technique per week, you would likely get through most schools ENTIRE syllabus in one year. Aikido primarily trains movement and specific principles for controlling a confrontation. The original Aikido students all had their blackbelts in Judo when they stepped into their first Aikido class. If you trained Aikido for 15 years as Rokas did, with no other foundation and especially in its weakened, watered down state and with no physical conditioning you would likely end up where he did. No one is putting Aikido on a pedestal and touting it as the most effective martial art and it does not have to be. Aikido fills a niche, it focuses on the beginning, pre fight phase of a confrontation and it gives tools for an already experienced and well rounded fighter to control the confrontation, hopefully in a way where both parties suffer little to no injuries.
> 
> The skills learned in Aikido are primarily its principles, its movement and its ways of handling conflict, these principles and methods can be used alongside other martial arts and they should be. All that said, most people are going to end up in situations that can be well served by some of these techniques. If trained correctly, Aikido does what it is supposed to quite well and hence why I have said that I have gotten more mileage out of my Aikido than anything else. Contrary to this discussion, real fights don't usually take place between skilled individuals, they don't last long and most people aren't that committed to finishing them once they start, they tend to look for a way out. Believe it or not, getting tossed onto their butt a few times generally discourages people into moving on with their night. The mental math for how much more pride they want to lose and how not fun hitting the ground is ends most violent confrontations because people can tell when they are outmatched. Simply manhandling someone with a hip throw is going to full stop 90% of bar fights, the guy who gets put on the ground is going to hit the deck, think "oh crap, no thanks" and stand up apologizing or put his hands up in submission. These street ninja fights you kids keep talking about don't happen.
> 
> From an ordinary persons perspective it is very useful to be able to defend yourself from a majority of situations without having to engage the fight to the point where you have to beat the brakes off of someone or risk seriously injuring them. If you are someone like a police officer or security guard or bouncer, it is much better to have options that don't require you to exhert overwhelming force, being able to use the appropriate force for the situation is often both prudent and beneficial for everyone. To make Aikido operative you are going to have to find a good teacher/school and put the time in to learn how to apply the techniques, like anything. Just because you aren't going to win the UFC with your Aikido doesn't mean the system has no value.



The problem with this post is that Aikido is not advertised to the masses with these facts in place. I have yet to see any Aikido school state that you need to be a huge burly man to pull off the techniques, or that you need to have already mastered another MA in order to utilize Aikido effectively. What I DO see are Aikido schools saying that you can easily neutralize a threat, that you can be a smaller and weaker individual and stop a stronger assailant, and that you can be effective against multiple opponents. You can supposedly do all of this by practicing only Aikido.

We should also point out that if it requires a big man who is highly skilled in various forms of other martial arts to pull off Aikido techniques, that doesn't bode very well for Aikido as a martial art. A large, muscular or heavy-set man with a high degree of martial arts and fighting experience can make pretty much anything work. I've seen big guys knock someone out by slapping a smaller person across the face. That really isn't a good measure for the efficacy of a particular style. With all due respect to Dan the Wolfman, seeing him wrist lock skinny people half his size isn't a convincing display of Aikido's effectiveness.

Also as someone else has pointed out, we have many examples of smaller people and women in Bjj overcoming larger opponents. I would personally love to see a female Aikidoka use her skills to subdue a male opponent of any size. I have a strong feeling that that is something that simply isn't going to happen. So what does that mean for all of those women who believe the advertising of Aikido and take up its practice believing that can easily subdue a bigger stronger assailant?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> The problem with this post is that Aikido is not advertised to the masses with these facts in place. I have yet to see any Aikido school state that you need to be a huge burly man to pull off the techniques, or that you need to have already mastered another MA in order to utilize Aikido effectively. What I DO see are Aikido schools saying that you can easily neutralize a threat, that you can be a smaller and weaker individual and stop a stronger assailant, and that you can be effective against multiple opponents. You can supposedly do all of this by practicing only Aikido.
> 
> We should also point out that if it requires a big man who is highly skilled in various forms of other martial arts to pull off Aikido techniques, that doesn't bode very well for Aikido as a martial art. A large, muscular or heavy-set man with a high degree of martial arts and fighting experience can make pretty much anything work. I've seen big guys knock someone out by slapping a smaller person across the face. That really isn't a good measure for the efficacy of a particular style. With all due respect to Dan the Wolfman, seeing him wrist lock skinny people half his size isn't a convincing display of Aikido's effectiveness.
> 
> Also as someone else has pointed out, we have many examples of smaller people and women in Bjj overcoming larger opponents. I would personally love to see a female Aikidoka use her skills to subdue a male opponent of any size. I have a strong feeling that that is something that simply isn't going to happen. So what does that mean for all of those women who believe the advertising of Aikido and take up its practice believing that can easily subdue a bigger stronger assailant?


I never said you had to be bigger or able to out muscle an opponent. Show me one martial art where size doesn't matter and a woman can use it to easily defend herself against a larger male? Self Defense and Martial Arts in general are oversold and underdelivered, this isn't unique to Aikido. If you want my opinion, no school should be making these kinds of promises, because they cannot control the individuals ability to deliver. Can a woman learn Aikido to defend herself? Sure. Her ability to apply it to other women and other individuals is going to depend on the quality of her training and her personal ability, like anyone else. 

If anything, a woman would likely benefit more from Aikido under a realistic instructor rather than gaining false self confidence thinking she is going to do some muay thai or BJJ for a few months and then stand toe to toe with a guy one hundred pounds heavier than her. The same can be said for men, I have met plenty of guys who take an MMA class for a few months who develop completely unrealistic expectations of their own competence and ability.

The Aikido community should be marketing itself and training differently, we can agree here. The need for change is not the same as saying it doesn't work. I'm comfortable saying that Aikido probably has the most amount of work to do in the martial arts community, but that doesn't mean that it has nothing to offer. I think everyone interested in MA can benefit from Aikido, I just don't think it should be the first or only art you train. I like to teach it the way I learned it, in conjunction with other styles and techniques, as part of a broad education.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> I never said you had to be bigger or able to out muscle an opponent. Show me one martial art where size doesn't matter and a woman can use it to easily defend herself against a larger male?



No, you pointed out large men being able to use Aikido effectively. The point is that Aikido is advertised for smaller, weaker people being able to beat larger, stronger assailants.

Also while I wouldn't say "easily", female Bjj practitioners have shown the ability to overcome larger male opponents in various situations (competitions, exhibitions, goofing around). Again, this isn't something I've ever seen in Aikido practice.




Shatteredzen said:


> Self Defense and Martial Arts in general are oversold and underdelivered, this isn't unique to Aikido. If you want my opinion, no school should be making these kinds of promises, because they cannot control the individuals ability to deliver. Can a woman learn Aikido to defend herself? Sure. Her ability to apply it to other women and other individuals is going to depend on the quality of her training and her personal ability, like anyone else.



Again, I have yet to see any female Aikidoka utilize her ability effectively against a stronger, fully resisting opponent. This has never been demonstrated even in a controlled environment. So you saying that they can do it seems more like a belief with no evidence to back it up.



Shatteredzen said:


> If anything, a woman would likely benefit more from Aikido under a realistic instructor rather than gaining false self confidence thinking she is going to do some muay thai or BJJ for a few months and then stand toe to toe with a guy one hundred pounds heavier than her. The same can be said for men, I have met plenty of guys who take an MMA class for a few months who develop completely unrealistic expectations of their own competence and ability.



Why would she have false confidence? The female Bjj practitioner would have had more functional experience dealing with larger, resisting male opponents than the Aikidoka, so they would understand the limitations of their skill, and what happens when someone multiple sizes larger than them are sitting on top of them and not moving until they make them move. That is something the female Aikidoka simply doesn't experience, and that experience is invaluable in a self defense situation.

Frankly I don't see how doing choreographed randori with a compliant uke is beneficial for a female practitioner on any level outside of learning how to breakfall.



Shatteredzen said:


> The Aikido community should be marketing itself and training differently, we can agree here. The need for change is not the same as saying it doesn't work. I'm comfortable saying that Aikido probably has the most amount of work to do in the martial arts community, but that doesn't mean that it has nothing to offer. I think everyone interested in MA can benefit from Aikido, I just don't think it should be the first or only art you train. I like to teach it the way I learned it, in conjunction with other styles and techniques, as part of a broad education.



Please highlight the post where anyone said that Aikido has nothing to offer. Aikido has plenty to offer. The problem is that it's saying that it's one thing when it is clearly something else entirely.


----------



## Hanzou

Also there's a history in Bjj of  "giant slayers". It's something that all smaller guys in Bjj aspire to achieve;









						Big Game Hunting In Jiu-Jitsu: 6 Famous BJJ Giant Slayers
					

The claim that a smaller person can beat a bigger person is one of the claims that every martial art in the world clings to. In certain cases, it may even prove to be true. While the concept that someone could beat a bigger person is always there in theory, practice usually begs to differ....




					bjj-world.com


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Unless, we are now accepting that aikidoka can't fight


I'm saying if you can't beat a gang of people up then don't try to do it.


Steve said:


> Also, you'd just watch the kid drown?? Jesus, man.


If you can't swim and there's no way to help the child then what else are you going to do? Jump in the water and drown with the kid?  What does that accomplish.  You'll do that just so someone can call you "heroic"  News flash when you die none of that matters.

Also doing something just for the sake of being seen as "heroic" is also stupid.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm saying if you can't beat a gang of people up then don't try to do it.
> 
> If you can't swim and there's no way to help the child then what else are you going to do? Jump in the water and drown with the kid?  What does that accomplish.  You'll do that just so someone can call you "heroic"  News flash when you die none of that matters.
> 
> Also doing something just for the sake of being seen as "heroic" is also stupid.


"If you can't swim" is an actual straw man.  Watching a kid drown when you CAN swim, is feckless and cowardly.  It goes without saying that you're doing so at some risk to yourself.  

But you are right.  An aikidoka who doesn't fight literally can't lose a fight.  Just like a person who never gets into water literally can't drown.  Whether they can fight or can swim becomes irrelevant.  

Which brings us back to drinking coffee and eating donuts. My donuts are great at preventing drowning... Provided you stay away from water.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> "If you can't swim" is an actual straw man. Watching a kid drown when you CAN swim, is feckless and cowardly. It goes without saying that you're doing so at some risk to yourself.


It's not a straw man.  Not everyone can swim.  Just like there are millions of people who couldn't successfully fight off a gang of people. unarmed.  The 2 people who were originally getting beaten couldn't do it, The BJJ coach couldn't do.  A professional MMA fighter can't do (there's video of this occurring else where.)  A police officer can't do it. (that's why they have a gun and backup, but going in unarmed nah.).  YOU couldn't do it. 

Unlike you and some others I accept my limitations and I understand there's other things that can be done other than fighting a gang to help.  Where you only see fighting as the only "heroic things" There are smarter and less risky things that can be done.

Where I've actually had to help someone escape a gang of people in real life, all of that heroic talk is BS.  Use your head and think of a better way. Your martial arts can't save you from everything no matter how good you are.  Martial arts and fighting skills is not always the answer and that's just reality.

You can't save everyone.  That's just a reality.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> It's not a straw man.  Not everyone can swim.  Just like there are millions of people who couldn't successfully fight off a gang of people. unarmed.  The 2 people who were originally getting beaten couldn't do it, The BJJ coach couldn't do.  A professional MMA fighter can't do (there's video of this occurring else where.)  A police officer can't do it. (that's why they have a gun and backup, but going in unarmed nah.).  YOU couldn't do it.
> 
> Unlike you and some others I accept my limitations and I understand there's other things that can be done other than fighting a gang to help.  Where you only see fighting as the only "heroic things" There are smarter and less risky things that can be done.
> 
> Where I've actually had to help someone escape a gang of people in real life, all of that heroic talk is BS.  Use your head and think of a better way. Your martial arts can't save you from everything no matter how good you are.  Martial arts and fighting skills is not always the answer and that's just reality.
> 
> You can't save everyone.  That's just a reality.



So should Aikido schools advertise stuff like this;


"Aikido practice includes *effective self defense against weapons and multiple opponents and stronger/ larger opponents*, utilizes natural stances and motions, and includes non-lethal techniques for dealing with violence. Our training methods rarely result in practice injuries, less than most active sports."






						About Aikido
					

A short article on the history of Aikido and its philosophy, and what makes it different from other arts.



					tampaaikido.com
				




I seriously doubt someone who has been trained to believe this would walk away from a situation featuring weapons and/or multiple larger/stronger opponents.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> It's not a straw man.  Not everyone can swim.



Right.  But I'm not talking about those folks who can't swim.  I'm talking about those folks who can swim.  

If we're talking about people who can't fight, why are we in a martial arts forum?  As I said before, your argument has morphed, whether you realize it or not, into suggesting that Aikido and Jow Ga are intended not to teach one fighting skills, because you're clinging to this idea that a person can simply avoid fighting, and therefore never be on the wrong end of a fight.  The rest of your post is supporting your strawman argument with anecdotal evidence (another logical fallacy).



JowGaWolf said:


> Just like there are millions of people who couldn't successfully fight off a gang of people. unarmed.  The 2 people who were originally getting beaten couldn't do it, The BJJ coach couldn't do.  A professional MMA fighter can't do (there's video of this occurring else where.)  A police officer can't do it. (that's why they have a gun and backup, but going in unarmed nah.).  YOU couldn't do it.
> 
> Unlike you and some others I accept my limitations and I understand there's other things that can be done other than fighting a gang to help.  Where you only see fighting as the only "heroic things" There are smarter and less risky things that can be done.
> 
> Where I've actually had to help someone escape a gang of people in real life, all of that heroic talk is BS.  Use your head and think of a better way. Your martial arts can't save you from everything no matter how good you are.  Martial arts and fighting skills is not always the answer and that's just reality.
> 
> You can't save everyone.  That's just a reality.



I don't see fighting as "heroic things" at all.  That's...  jesus.  You just can't stay away from the strawman. The point I actually made is that fighting is never without risk.  And when you see someone in trouble and you choose to help, it may not go well for you.  The same as when you see a kid drowning and decide to help.   There is inherent risk.  And if we're talking about a person who is trained in MMA or BJJ or some other practical martial art, it's analogous to someone who is at least a competent swimmer.

So, no.  It's not about accepting one's limitations and choosing personal safety over that of others.  It's just the opposite, and you're the guy over on the sideline saying, "Damn... that guy drowned trying to save that kid.  What a jackwagon.  He should've called the cops and let the kid die.  That's what I would've done."


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> So should Aikido schools advertise stuff like this;
> 
> 
> "Aikido practice includes *effective self defense against weapons and multiple opponents and stronger/ larger opponents*, utilizes natural stances and motions, and includes non-lethal techniques for dealing with violence. Our training methods rarely result in practice injuries, less than most active sports."


I can't say specifically because I don't know what their training consists of.  I can train successful techniques against weapon and do.  One is run away the other is try to get some in between you and the weapon.  Those are valid techniques. If that's what they teach then nothing wrong with that.  There self-defense curriculum may be separate from their Aikikdo.  I teach self defense separate from Kung fu.   When I teach someone to fight I teach Kung fu.

If they are saying that Aikdo is the weapons defense, no I don't think they should advertise that.  I don't think any martial arts school should unless that school is drilling weapons fighting and defense everyday as if they are about to hop in a gladiator coliseum.   If that's not the focus nor the training then I wouldn't advertise that.  My son and I train staff everyday with focus of using the staff as a weapon and I wouldn't advertise that because it far from combat training.  Weapons trIng is one thing. Weapons defense is totally different mindset.  At least in my mind.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I can't say specifically because I don't know what their training consists of.  I can train successful techniques against weapon and do.  One is run away the other is try to get some in between you and the weapon.  Those are valid techniques. If that's what they teach then nothing wrong with that.  There self-defense curriculum may be separate from their Aikikdo.  I teach self defense separate from Kung fu.   When I teach someone to fight I teach Kung fu.
> 
> If they are saying that Aikdo is the weapons defense, no I don't think they should advertise that.  I don't think any martial arts school should unless that school is drilling weapons fighting and defense everyday as if they are about to hop in a gladiator coliseum.   If that's not the focus nor the training then I wouldn't advertise that.  My son and I train staff everyday with focus of using the staff as a weapon and I wouldn't advertise that because it far from combat training.  Weapons trIng is one thing. Weapons defense is totally different mindset.  At least in my mind.



Of course they're talking about catching the weapon with their hands and doing Aikido to disarm them. You can find examples of that craziness all over the place.

No comment about the consistent belief within Aikido about being able to stop multiple attackers from caving your face in? No comment about the consistent belief that Aikido can actually help smaller people against larger/stronger people, despite only huge guys being able to show off any level of Aikido skill?


----------



## Buka

Eighty three pages....makes me wonder what the longest thread on MT has been. Other than the Last Poster thread, obviously.

This should have been called the yada yada thread. But at least it inspired me to grab a donut to go with this wonderful cup of Kona coffee.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Of course they're talking about catching the weapon with their hands and doing Aikido to disarm them. You can find examples of that craziness all over the place.
> 
> No comment about the consistent belief within Aikido about being able to stop multiple attackers from caving your face in? No comment about the consistent belief that Aikido can actually help smaller people against larger/stronger people, despite only huge guys being able to show off any level of Aikido skill?


You are just re-hashing at this point, no one here is saying that Aikido schools should be advertising like that. No martial arts school can claim to produce students that can do those things, its all going to amount to what the individual is capable of. I'm confused as to where you are trying to go with this other than circles, since you are simply arguing with yourself at this point.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> The point I actually made is that fighting is never without risk.


This is my first time seeing you make this point. First time seeing this out of 82 pages of posting.  I see a lot of Aikido bashing in a thread that was originally created to understand Aikido.






Steve said:


> And if we're talking about a person who is trained in MMA or BJJ or some other practical martial art, it's analogous to someone who is at least a competent swimmer.


Based on what standard‽ Just because someone trains a martial arts system doesn't mean that person is skilled enough to use it against multiple attackers.  Does Bjj even do multiple attack training? Do they even know what it's like to be surrounded?  

Not everyone takes a martial arts to learn to fight. And for that reason alone, people shouldn't feel the obligation to fight simply because they take a martial arts system.


----------



## Cynik75

JowGaWolf said:


> Does Bjj even do multiple attack training?


Some, self defence oriented schools do. Most do not. But we still can handle single attacker quite well. Even trained one. Difficult to say this about aikido guys.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> Right.  But I'm not talking about those folks who can't swim.  I'm talking about those folks who can swim.
> 
> If we're talking about people who can't fight, why are we in a martial arts forum?  As I said before, your argument has morphed, whether you realize it or not, into suggesting that Aikido and Jow Ga are intended not to teach one fighting skills, because you're clinging to this idea that a person can simply avoid fighting, and therefore never be on the wrong end of a fight.  The rest of your post is supporting your strawman argument with anecdotal evidence (another logical fallacy).
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see fighting as "heroic things" at all.  That's...  jesus.  You just can't stay away from the strawman. The point I actually made is that fighting is never without risk.  And when you see someone in trouble and you choose to help, it may not go well for you.  The same as when you see a kid drowning and decide to help.   There is inherent risk.  And if we're talking about a person who is trained in MMA or BJJ or some other practical martial art, it's analogous to someone who is at least a competent swimmer.
> 
> So, no.  It's not about accepting one's limitations and choosing personal safety over that of others.  It's just the opposite, and you're the guy over on the sideline saying, "Damn... that guy drowned trying to save that kid.  What a jackwagon.  He should've called the cops and let the kid die.  That's what I would've done."


No one's argument has morphed, there has been a concerted effort to re-frame the argument continuously. Your assumption that just because someone trains a "more practical" martial art breeds some level of competence is logical fallacy itself. I recently had a friends wife ask me if she needed to register her hands as deadly weapons because she had trained BJJ once a week for two months because this same stupid philosophy permeates martial arts schools. Any given fighter is a product more of the quality of their training and conditioning than any style and most people aren't putting in the hours to get anywhere near mastery. If this argument has morphed, its gone from a dogpile on Aikido to a constant stream of what ifs and excuses from the naysayers. We got Remy's videos on here and some of the new Rokas interviews and now Aikido is no longer Reiki inspired battle kabuki, its just only for bouncers and big guys. 

You can take a warrior and put them in any style and get results that are far above the median because most people aren't warriors. Similarly there is a huge difference between people who dedicate themselves to technical mastery of a martial art and the average bear taking classes in a strip mall. The problem with you guys doing the style bashing here is that you link videos of people doing things in the UFC and then equate that to your own level of ability and skill or that it represents some median average when you're just smoking philosophical crack. Just because Aikido isn't going to win the next UFC doesn't put you on the same level of ability and competence as a UFC fighter because you have trained BJJ. Aikido, once again, is a small toolbox meant for specific situations, it just so happens that those situations are widely applicable in the context of the type of conflict that most people will ever get into if they EVER fight.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Cynik75 said:


> Some, self defence oriented schools do. Most do not. But we still can handle single attacker quite well. Even trained one. Difficult to say this about aikido guys.


Right, show me how you handle getting kicked in the head while you are wrestling on the ground, I'm still waiting for that BJJ move.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Right, show me how you handle getting kicked in the head while you are wrestling on the ground, I'm still waiting for that BJJ move.



Yeah. This doesn't work. People get sucker punched standing as well.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Yeah. This doesn't work. People get sucker punched standing as well.


it sure does, its much harder to sucker punch someone who is on their feet and moving around, I can kick a BJJ black belt square in the head with no issues if he is fighting my friend on the ground. That's why anyone sensible will tell you that ground fighting is for fighting back to your feet. That's why people train BJJ and then something else with it to give themselves standing/striking ability. If you think Aikido is useless, go ahead and lay on the ground in a bar with some guy in a choke or submission hoping he doesn't have friends.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> you're the guy over on the sideline saying, "Damn... that guy drowned trying to save that kid. What a jackwagon. He should've called the cops and let the kid die. That's what I would've done."


I'm the guy on the sideline looking for something that  floats or something I can use to help that person.  Be it a near by boat on the lake a floatation device depending on my reasons for being at the lake. Am I hiking or am I'm in the water as well with my family. 

will I still call the police? Yes. Will swim out to the child? Only if I can find something to assist me in my efforts to flt. Or in the efforts to help child float.  It also depends on where in the lake the child is.  The closer to land the better.  Way out in middle of a lake, I'm not going to make it.  I don't consider myself a strong swimmer so going out there to drown as well is not something I'm going to do.  Just because it's a lake doesn't mean swimming out to someone is going to be feasible.  That's why they tell people to wear there life vests.  That's just reality.  People don't have to like that about me.  It's my life and I won't easily throw it away.  I definitely won't throw it away just because someone thinks my character is flawed.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> it sure does, its much harder to sucker punch someone who is on their feet and moving around, I can kick a BJJ black belt square in the head with no issues if he is fighting my friend on the ground. That's why anyone sensible will tell you that ground fighting is for fighting back to your feet. That's why people train BJJ and then something else with it to give themselves standing/striking ability. If you think Aikido is useless, go ahead and lay on the ground in a bar with some guy in a choke or submission hoping he doesn't have friends.



It is about as easy to hit a guy who is tied up dealing with another guy as it is to hit someone on the ground. 

You can't suggest a method is bad without having a better method.


----------



## Cynik75

Shatteredzen said:


> If you think Aikido is useless, go ahead and lay on the ground in a bar with some guy in a choke or submission hoping he doesn't have friends.


Do you know the meaning of word "single" in "single attacker" phrase? I am aware of bjj (especially sport oriented) limitations. But bjj training methodology and constant close contact to MMA results in production of better fighters than aikido methodology and no contact to any kind of violence.


----------



## GreatSayiaman

Martial D said:


> Because an mma ring is the closest thing we have to live fighting, short of actual fighting in the street.
> 
> The rules that are there don't change much about the situation. Those that say 'if only I could bite and eye gouge things would be different' are kidding themselves.


There was something called Vale Tudo in Brazil where it was anything goes. Even in Japan when Rickson Gracie competed in the Vale Tudo Japan in 94 and 95 eye gouging was allowed, Check out a fighter named Yuki Nakai where he was eye gouged in Vale Tudo 95 Japan and still fought until he faced Rickson Gracie.  In America it was No Holds Barred. 

But in Subject when it came to Rokas testing his Aikido good for him.


----------



## Martial D

GreatSayiaman said:


> There was something called Vale Tudo in Brazil where it was anything goes. Even in Japan when Rickson Gracie competed in the Vale Tudo Japan in 94 and 95 eye gouging was allowed, Check out a fighter named Yuki Nakai where he was eye gouged in Vale Tudo 95 Japan and still fought until he faced Rickson Gracie.  In America it was No Holds Barred.
> 
> But in Subject when it came to Rokas testing his Aikido good for him.


Ya..it's like..

Who is going to be better at eye gouging?
The guy that can manipulate your body into a pretzel at will, or the guy stuck on his back with his legs in the air like a dead cockroach?


----------



## GreatSayiaman

Martial D said:


> Ya..it's like..
> 
> Who is going to be better at eye gouging?
> The guy that can manipulate your body into a pretzel at will, or the guy stuck on his back with his legs in the air like a dead cockroach?


Exactly and Yuki Nakai messed up that guys Knee with a Heel Hook. That is why I get so annoyed with individuals saying stuff like that.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> It is about as easy to hit a guy who is tied up dealing with another guy as it is to hit someone on the ground.
> 
> You can't suggest a method is bad without having a better method.


The better method is stay on your feet and move around.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Cynik75 said:


> Do you know the meaning of word "single" in "single attacker" phrase? I am aware of bjj (especially sport oriented) limitations. But bjj training methodology and constant close contact to MMA results in production of better fighters than aikido methodology and no contact to any kind of violence.


It produces skills that are good for making well rounded fighters because there is a chance that any given conflict will end up going to the ground. By itself there is no striking and no standing techniques, making it about as useful on its own as a wet paper bag anywhere outside of a sporting competition. I may or may not dodge a sucker punch, you for sure will take a boot straight in the mouth while you wrestle with someone on the ground. If all you have in your bag of tricks is some BJJ classes, you for sure are better off with only some mild Aikido interpretive dance skills and a plan to run to your car for practical self defense.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm the guy on the sideline looking for something that  floats or something I can use to help that person.  Be it a near by boat on the lake a floatation device depending on my reasons for being at the lake. Am I hiking or am I'm in the water as well with my family.
> 
> will I still call the police? Yes. Will swim out to the child? Only if I can find something to assist me in my efforts to flt. Or in the efforts to help child float.  It also depends on where in the lake the child is.  The closer to land the better.  Way out in middle of a lake, I'm not going to make it.  I don't consider myself a strong swimmer so going out there to drown as well is not something I'm going to do.  Just because it's a lake doesn't mean swimming out to someone is going to be feasible.  That's why they tell people to wear there life vests.  That's just reality.  People don't have to like that about me.  It's my life and I won't easily throw it away.  I definitely won't throw it away just because someone thinks my character is flawed.


no one's said that your character is flawed.  That's another straw man (and a false equivalence).  What people have said is that trying to help people is generally considered a positive character trait.  You suggested that it's not, and that the BJJ guy should have called the cops and walked away.  You further suggested that this is what an Aikidoka would likely have done.  

The rest of your post... just please stop.


----------



## Steve

Shatteredzen said:


> No one's argument has morphed, there has been a concerted effort to re-frame the argument continuously. Your assumption that just because someone trains a "more practical" martial art breeds some level of competence is logical fallacy itself.



Really?  Do tell.  Which logical fallacy do you have in mind?  




Shatteredzen said:


> I recently had a friends wife ask me if she needed to register her hands as deadly weapons because she had trained BJJ once a week for two months because this same stupid philosophy permeates martial arts schools.


So, you have a fictional friend with a fictional wife who attends 8 classes at a fictional BJJ school, and she's not a lawyer.  Okay.  Keep going...  oh, sorry.  That's the entire story?  Cool.  



Shatteredzen said:


> Any given fighter is a product more of the quality of their training and conditioning than any style and most people aren't putting in the hours to get anywhere near mastery.


Anyone who trains regularly at a reputable BJJ school at least 3 days per week for 6 months or more is going to have demonstrable skill.  They may not ever be a UFC fighter, but they will most certainly have skills that they can use.  And the longer they train, the better they will get.  Everyone's individual progress is unique to them, but BJJ and other arts with similar training methods (i.e., competition and application) produce predictable and reliable competence.  This idea that you have to be a master to be competent is malarkey.  



Shatteredzen said:


> If this argument has morphed, its gone from a dogpile on Aikido to a constant stream of what ifs and excuses from the naysayers. We got Remy's videos on here and some of the new Rokas interviews and now Aikido is no longer Reiki inspired battle kabuki, its just only for bouncers and big guys.



I think we agree about the what ifs and excuses, though I'm not sure we agree on who's making them.  



Shatteredzen said:


> You can take a warrior and put them in any style and get results that are far above the median because most people aren't warriors. Similarly there is a huge difference between people who dedicate themselves to technical mastery of a martial art and the average bear taking classes in a strip mall. The problem with you guys doing the style bashing here is that you link videos of people doing things in the UFC and then equate that to your own level of ability and skill or that it represents some median average when you're just smoking philosophical crack. Just because Aikido isn't going to win the next UFC doesn't put you on the same level of ability and competence as a UFC fighter because you have trained BJJ. Aikido, once again, is a small toolbox meant for specific situations, it just so happens that those situations are widely applicable in the context of the type of conflict that most people will ever get into if they EVER fight.



The beauty of a system that has integrity is that you don't have to be a warrior to build competence, though competence fosters confidence, which leads to that warrior spirit.  For the rest, I'll just say your characterization of folks who train in practical styles says more about your own biases than anyone else's.


----------



## jayoliver00

Flying Crane said:


> That is all beside the point.  You can’t honestly simplify it down to: either you help someone or you are a coward.  That is intellectually dishonest.



Then let me rephrase it to, either you're a hero or somewhat of a coward or a complete coward. Because it does comes down to being scared of something.


----------



## jayoliver00

JowGaWolf said:


> There were multiple reports done on the incident, and that's what his cousin is quoted saying, that he jumped in to help.  That's just the type of person he is.
> 
> Another source stated that someone appeared to be intoxicated, bumped into someone then got beaten. But I don't know who they are referring to when they say "He"



So by "multiple reports" you mean just 2 reports; with the 2nd one (that's not the one that I used), being way more inconclusive and obscure.



JowGaWolf said:


> It doesn't take a long to scan the environment or people.  Our eyes and brains process a lot of data just by driving down the street.
> 
> I never mentioned character traits.   You can have good Character traits without fighting.  Being willing to face danger doesn't mean that a person has good character traits.  There's a lot of people who are willing to face danger who don't have what many would consider good Character traits.



But in this case, it was pretty clear what his character traits were when he tried to save 2 people getting jumped; despite overwhelming odds. But you just want to say he's dumb and his styles of MA training sucks; in a passive way.


----------



## jayoliver00

Shatteredzen said:


> Right, show me how you handle getting kicked in the head while you are wrestling on the ground, I'm still waiting for that BJJ move.



Easy.  Double leg, lift high and spike 1st guy's head, head first into the cement.  Release, technical standup & make some distance; this should take 2-3 seconds only.

Now see if the others want to play "head trauma".


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> Really?  Do tell.  Which logical fallacy do you have in mind?
> 
> 
> 
> So, you have a fictional friend with a fictional wife who attends 8 classes at a fictional BJJ school, and she's not a lawyer.  Okay.  Keep going...  oh, sorry.  That's the entire story?  Cool.
> 
> 
> Anyone who trains regularly at a reputable BJJ school at least 3 days per week for 6 months or more is going to have demonstrable skill.  They may not ever be a UFC fighter, but they will most certainly have skills that they can use.  And the longer they train, the better they will get.  Everyone's individual progress is unique to them, but BJJ and other arts with similar training methods (i.e., competition and application) produce predictable and reliable competence.  This idea that you have to be a master to be competent is malarkey.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we agree about the what ifs and excuses, though I'm not sure we agree on who's making them.
> 
> 
> 
> The beauty of a system that has integrity is that you don't have to be a warrior to build competence, though competence fosters confidence, which leads to that warrior spirit.  For the rest, I'll just say your characterization of folks who train in practical styles says more about your own biases than anyone else's.


a) its called a false equivalency

b) my imaginary friends are more real than your imaginary martial arts expertise

c) "anyone" is an appeal to probability, no not anyone, unless your definition of competence is in passing belt tests to show proficiency, which is not the same as actual demonstrable ability or any real competence in fighting. If this were true, we wouldn't be having this argument, you would know better.

d) you can go back and read the thread and pretty easily watch the local BJJ herpa derps trying as hard as they can to shift the argument around to keep this a dogpile instead of a thread about Aikido, which none of you seem to know anything about anyways other than Hanzou really doesn't like his neighborhood dojo's ads.

e) I have no characterization of people who train in practical styles, because every style is practical if the training is good. I have a characterization of people who bandwagon whatever is popular for their self image because those are the people who style bash and spend 80 pages in an Aikido thread arguing about how great they are at BJJ when the topic is Aikido.


----------



## Shatteredzen

jayoliver00 said:


> Easy.  Double leg, lift high and spike 1st guy's head, head first into the cement.  Release, technical standup & make some distance; this should take 2-3 seconds only.
> 
> Now see if the others want to play "head trauma".


You left out the go to jail for murder part, aside from the rest of that fantasy, yet somehow Aikido is imaginary?


----------



## jayoliver00

Shatteredzen said:


> You left out the go to jail for murder part, aside from the rest of that fantasy, yet somehow Aikido is imaginary?



Oh, so you don't know how to double leg TD someone and spiking them on their head in 2-3 seconds, that you find this so amazing? Weak back, weak legs & arms?  I recommend doing some weight & agility training; then some BJJ for the proper techs.

And wait, so those reality self defense Aikido techs aren't really reality then since you just admitted to not willing to do what it takes to survive? Wonder who's living in a fantasy world


----------



## Shatteredzen

jayoliver00 said:


> Oh, so you don't know how to double leg TD someone and spiking them on their head in 2-3 seconds, that you find this so amazing? Weak back, weak legs & arms?  I recommend doing some weight & agility training; then some BJJ for the proper techs.
> 
> And wait, so those reality self defense Aikido techs aren't really reality then since you just admitted to not willing to do what it takes to survive? Wonder who's living in a fantasy world


No no, your entire scenario was imaginary. Despite the arguing back and forth, the rest of us have been having a discussion. This is more creative imagination then all of the Aikido reiki crystals from the rest of the thread.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Cynik75 said:


> Most do not. But we still can handle single attacker quite well. Even trained one. Difficult to say this about aikido guys.


The thing is. we aren't talking about 1 vs 1.  We are talking about 9 people who were beating down 2 guys then a third with possibly 2 other who carried out the beating. 

5 vs 1 in this photo. Yellow Dots are the attackers.  To the right of this scene was a 4 vs 1 situation.






BJJ /MMA Coach.  This is the reality.  There was no 1 vs 1 in this context.


----------



## Shatteredzen

JowGaWolf said:


> The thing is. we aren't talking about 1 vs 1.  We are talking about 9 people who were beating down 2 guys then a third with possibly 2 other who carried out the beating.
> 
> 5 vs 1 in this photo. Yellow Dots are the attackers.  To the right of this scene was a 4 vs 1 situation.
> 
> View attachment 26814
> 
> BJJ /MMA Coach.  This is the reality.  There was no 1 vs 1 in this context.
> View attachment 26815



An over confident BJJ coach who thought he was going to wrestle his way into helping that situation. It's sad and unfortunate because his instinct to help got him hurt.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> The thing is. we aren't talking about 1 vs 1.  We are talking about 9 people who were beating down 2 guys then a third with possibly 2 other who carried out the beating.


This is why the striking skill and weapon skill are important.

My teacher was the best Chinese wrestler in China during his time. One time in a theater fight in Taipei, He had to deal with 6 guys. he used elbow and fist. He didn't use any of his throwing skill.

One time he had to fight against a group of bus drivers in a Shanghai bus station. He got a chair and waited at the bottom of the stair. He used the chair to knock down everybody who came down from that stair. He also didn't use any of his throwing skill.

In a group fight, if you can't drop one opponent with 1 punch (MA training goal), you probably don't have the 2nd chance.

All those throwing skill in this clip are good. It's just not good enough to be used in any group fight.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why the striking skill and weapon skill are important.
> 
> My teacher was the best Chinese wrestler in China during his time. One time in a theater fight in Taipei, He had to deal with 6 guys. he used elbow and fist. He didn't use any of his throwing skill.
> 
> One time he had to fight against a group of bus drivers in a Shanghai bus station. He got a chair and waited at the bottom of the stair. He used the chair to knock down everybody who came down from that stair. He also didn't use any of his throwing skill.
> 
> My teacher told me that in a group fight, if I can't use one punch to drop one opponent, I'm not good enough.


This is something many people don't understand, you use the right tool, for the right job at the right time. Also, which art is that in your video? It looks Chinese but it looks very Judo esque.


----------



## Flying Crane

jayoliver00 said:


> Then let me rephrase it to, either you're a hero or somewhat of a coward or a complete coward. Because it does comes down to being scared of something.


...ok then...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Shatteredzen said:


> which art is that in your video? It looks Chinese but it looks very Judo esque.


That is Chinese wrestling (Shuai Chiao, Shuai Jiao).

Many people don't understand that:

- Sport is the path.
- Combat is the goal.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

jayoliver00 said:


> Some people risks their life for others;


This is why I hate the term "self-defense". It's so selfish. How about helping the other?

Here is my favor video.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> It produces skills that are good for making well rounded fighters because there is a chance that any given conflict will end up going to the ground. By itself there is no striking and no standing techniques, making it about as useful on its own as a wet paper bag anywhere outside of a sporting competition. I may or may not dodge a sucker punch, you for sure will take a boot straight in the mouth while you wrestle with someone on the ground. If all you have in your bag of tricks is some BJJ classes, you for sure are better off with only some mild Aikido interpretive dance skills and a plan to run to your car for practical self defense.



Uh, there are standing throws, chokes, and locks in Bjj. A competent Bjj exponent will be able to choke you out standing just as well as they can choke you out on the floor.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Uh, there are standing throws, chokes, and locks in Bjj. A competent Bjj exponent will be able to choke you out standing just as well as they can choke you out on the floor.


No Hanzou, that's called Judo.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> No Hanzou, that's called Judo. Yeah yeah



Uh no. The Guillotine choke for example is illegal move in Judo and not taught.


----------



## Steve

Shatteredzen said:


> No Hanzou, that's called Judo.


And I think that's about it for this guy.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Uh no. The Guillotine choke for example is illegal move in Judo and not taught.


Mae Hadaka Jime you mean? No sorry, try again.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> And I think that's about it for this guy.


If you get to just wholesale make stuff up and add it to your style then cool, I get to add Judo to Aikido too.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> You are just re-hashing at this point, no one here is saying that Aikido schools should be advertising like that. No martial arts school can claim to produce students that can do those things, its all going to amount to what the individual is capable of. I'm confused as to where you are trying to go with this other than circles, since you are simply arguing with yourself at this point.



Jowga is saying that an Aikidoka wouldn't get involved in a multiple opponent situation, which would seem rather bizarre considering that Aikido advertises itself as a martial art that can EFFECTIVELY deal with multiple attackers. Why would an Aikidoka shy away from a multiple attacker situation if they believe that they've been trained to deal with exactly that situation?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Jowga is saying that an Aikidoka wouldn't get involved in a multiple opponent situation, which would seem rather bizarre considering that Aikido advertises itself as a martial art that can EFFECTIVELY deal with multiple attackers. Why would an Aikidoka shy away from a multiple attacker situation if they believe that they've been trained to deal with exactly that situation?







__





						What is Aikido? | Aikikai Foundation
					

Official Home Page of Aikikai Public-Interest Incorporated Foundation Hombu Dojo. What is Aikido, Introduction to Aikido, History of Aikido, Features of Aikido, News and Activities of Aikikai Foundation. Aikido Dojo across the country, Class, Dojo Search, Avtivities and Information, List of...



					www.aikikai.or.jp
				




Show me where it advertises that on the Aikikai website or its literature.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Mae Hadaka Jime you mean? No sorry, try again.



I would love for you to show an example of a Judoka performing a standing guillotine.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is Aikido? | Aikikai Foundation
> 
> 
> Official Home Page of Aikikai Public-Interest Incorporated Foundation Hombu Dojo. What is Aikido, Introduction to Aikido, History of Aikido, Features of Aikido, News and Activities of Aikikai Foundation. Aikido Dojo across the country, Class, Dojo Search, Avtivities and Information, List of...
> 
> 
> 
> www.aikikai.or.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where it advertises that on the Aikikai website or its literature.



How is that relevant if there are Aikido schools around the world that state that Aikido is effective against multiple attackers?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> I would love for you to show an example of a Judoka performing a standing guillotine.


The chokes can be applied standing, its the same choke. You don't see a guillotine choke in Judo competition because its an illegal move, that doesn't change that its a Judo move that was incorporated into BJJ. Sorry, try again.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> The chokes can be applied standing, its the same choke. You don't see a guillotine choke in Judo competition because its an illegal move, that doesn't change that its a Judo move that was incorporated into BJJ. Sorry, try again.



Except Judoka don't train those chokes because they are illegal. Techniques that become illegal in Judo fall into disuse because they can't be practiced in randori either, so over time they become obsolete. 

If you doubt this, just look at the current (nonexistent) state of Judo leglocks.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Uh no. The Guillotine choke for example is illegal move in Judo and not taught.


Are you saying that the reverse head lock is not taught in Judo? How about head lock?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> How is that relevant if there are Aikido schools around the world that state that Aikido is effective against multiple attackers?


Because that's the Hombu Dojo, not some McDojo in the US, but here we go again with this silly red herring.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Except Judoka don't train those chokes because they are illegal. Techniques that become illegal in Judo fall into disuse because they can't be practiced in randori either, so over time they become obsolete.
> 
> If you doubt this, just look at the current (nonexistent) state of Judo leglocks.


Oh so when the Judo moves become illegal they become BJJ techniques?


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Because that's the Hombu Dojo, not some McDojo in the US, but here we go again with this silly red herring.



Except the vast majority of Aikido practitioners aren't attending the Hombu in Japan, they're attending the Aikido dojo in the strip mall.

Interesting that you would consider any Aikido school advertising that it is effective against multiple attackers to be a "mcdojo", since that would incorporate a LOT of Aikido schools in the US and other countries.




Shatteredzen said:


> Oh so when the Judo moves become illegal they become BJJ techniques?



Bjj comes from Judo, so obviously many Bjj techniques have their roots in its parent art. The difference is that Bjj never had their techniques neutered by a crushing rules system that didn't want to get Judo confused with wrestling, and Kano's personal distaste for certain aspects of newaza/grappling.  Thus, Bjj has been allowed to grow and flourish pretty much unabated, while Judo has lost multiple effective techniques over the years. Leg locks being a pretty major example.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Except the vast majority of Aikido practitioners aren't attending the Hombu in Japan, they're attending the Aikido dojo in the strip mall.
> 
> Interesting that you would consider any Aikido school advertising that it is effective against multiple attackers to be a "mcdojo", since that would incorporate a LOT of Aikido schools in the US and other countries.


I've already stated my opinion on the majority of Aikido schools, like any martial arts school claiming to train people to be effective against multiple opponents, the style would not matter. We are talking about Aikido as a system, not the lousy state of available schools, that's also already been discussed. You are attempting to argue absolutes against a system based on bad behavior from satellite schools. Aikido does teach techniques to use against multiple opponents, that is not the same thing as guaranteeing effectiveness. Aikido as a system does not claim anything other than physical and spiritual development. I can find bad schools in every discipline, that has nothing to do with the overall usefulness or value of the parent system.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Except the vast majority of Aikido practitioners aren't attending the Hombu in Japan, they're attending the Aikido dojo in the strip mall.
> 
> Interesting that you would consider any Aikido school advertising that it is effective against multiple attackers to be a "mcdojo", since that would incorporate a LOT of Aikido schools in the US and other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bjj comes from Judo, so obviously many Bjj techniques have their roots in its parent art. The difference is that Bjj never had their techniques neutered by a crushing rules system that didn't want to get Judo confused with wrestling, and Kano's personal distaste for certain aspects of newaza/grappling.  Thus, Bjj has been allowed to grow and flourish pretty much unabated, while Judo has lost multiple effective techniques over the years. Leg locks being a pretty major example.


BJJ has its own techniques, just because it commonly incorporates Judo techniques or wrestling techniques does not make them part of BJJ. If you get to claim Judo for BJJ then the same can be said for Aikido, since they are both derivative arts from Judo and Aikido was originally intended to be taught to dan level Judoka.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> I've already stated my opinion on the majority of Aikido schools, like any martial arts school claiming to train people to be effective against multiple opponents, the style would not matter. We are talking about Aikido as a system, not the lousy state of available schools, that's also already been discussed. You are attempting to argue absolutes against a system based on bad behavior from satellite schools. Aikido does teach techniques to use against multiple opponents, that is not the same thing as guaranteeing effectiveness. Aikido as a system does not claim anything other than physical and spiritual development. I can find bad schools in every discipline, that has nothing to do with the overall usefulness or value of the parent system.



Wouldn't a huge amount of Aikido schools being "mcdojos" (your classification, not mine) be an indictment on the state of Aikido as a system?




Shatteredzen said:


> BJJ has its own techniques, just because it commonly incorporates Judo techniques or wrestling techniques does not make them part of BJJ. If you get to claim Judo for BJJ then the same can be said for Aikido, since they are both derivative arts from Judo and Aikido was originally intended to be taught to dan level Judoka.



The guillotine choke has been in Bjj probably since it's inception, and Bjj practitioners frankly know the choke far better than Judoka do, so how would that choke not be part of Bjj? 

Back to the point; If you see someone at a bar choking someone out with a standing guillotine, they learned that technique from a Bjj gym, not a Judo dojo. Judo doesn't teach that move, but Bjj does.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't a huge amount of Aikido schools being "mcdojos" (your classification, not mine) be an indictment on the state of Aikido as a system?


Exactly who is arguing with you about the state of the Aikido community being poor? The state of the community is not analogous with the overall value or worth of the system.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Are you saying that the reverse head lock is not taught in Judo? How about head lock?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.bilibili.com/video/av200987573/



That particular throw would more than likely be illegal in Judo.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> The guillotine choke has been in Bjj probably since it's inception, and Bjj practitioners frankly know the choke far better than Judoka do, so how would that choke not be part of Bjj?
> 
> Back to the point; If you see someone at a bar choking someone out with a standing guillotine, they learned that technique from a Bjj gym, not a Judo dojo. Judo doesn't teach that move, but Bjj does.


Lol, I learned it from the guy who taught me Aikido, most certainly not in a BJJ gym.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Exactly who is arguing with you about the state of the Aikido community being poor? The state of the community is not analogous with the overall value or worth of the system.



If a huge swath (if not the majority) of Aikido schools are *falsely* saying that they can teach you how to effectively defeat multiple attackers, or assailants larger/stronger than you, that isn't a very valuable or worthy system.



Shatteredzen said:


> Lol, I learned it from the guy who taught me Aikido, most certainly not in a BJJ gym.



I'm aware that many instructors pull Bjj techniques off of Youtube and teach it to their students.



Shatteredzen said:


> You do of course realize "illegal moves" still get taught in Judo schools and old Judo moves do not become BJJ moves just because they get taught in BJJ gyms?



You do of course realize that illegal moves are also not allowed in randori practice, so Judoka don't practice them. Since they don't practice them, they eventually fade in effectiveness until they're pretty much forgotten. Again, this happened to leg locks almost a century ago. Yeah, they're still in the kata, but good luck finding a Judoka who can perform an effective leglock against a resisting opponent.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> That particular throw would more than likely be illegal in Judo.


You do of course realize "illegal moves" still get taught in Judo schools and old Judo moves do not become BJJ moves just because they get taught in BJJ gyms?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> If a huge swath (if not the majority) of Aikido schools are *falsely* saying that they can teach you how to effectively defeat multiple attackers, or assailants larger/stronger than you, that isn't a very valuable or worthy system.


I don't think a huge swath or a majority of Aikido schools advertise that, most martial arts schools don't advertise much regarding specific "capabilities" nor do they go about guaranteeing them.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> You do of course realize that illegal moves are also not allowed in randori practice, so Judoka don't practice them. Since they don't practice them, they eventually fade in effectiveness until they're pretty much forgotten. Again, this happened to leg locks almost a century ago. Yeah, they're still in the kata, but good luck finding a Judoka who can perform an effective leglock against a resisting opponent.


I'm an Aikido guy who can perform an effective leg lock and a guillotine choke against a resisting opponent, that does not make either of those things Aikido. I know plenty of Judoka who can do this, you act as if people don't train in multiple styles. If you really want to persist with this nonsensical logic then I contend that the guillotine choke is an Aikido move, since that makes as much sense as anything you are arguing.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> I don't think a huge swath or a majority of Aikido schools advertise that, most martial arts schools don't advertise much regarding specific "capabilities" nor do they go about guaranteeing them.



If a huge swath of Aikido schools didn't advertise that, then why do so many Aikidoka believe that they can subdue a larger/stronger opponent with Aikido?


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> I'm an Aikido guy who can perform an effective leg lock and a guillotine choke against a resisting opponent...



Because you cross trained in Bjj.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> If a huge swath of Aikido schools didn't advertise that, then why do so many Aikidoka believe that they can subdue a larger/stronger opponent with Aikido?


Where are you getting these statistics?


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Where are you getting these statistics?



So are you saying that Aikidoka *don't* believe that they can subdue larger/stronger attackers with Aikido?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Because you cross trained in Bjj.


Sure did, but I got into Aikido, Judo and BJJ as separate parts of the same thing.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Sure did, but I got into Aikido, Judo and BJJ as separate parts of the same thing.



Nah. I wouldn't put Aikido in the same category as Bjj and Judo. We have evidence of Bjj and Judo working as advertised. Aikido? Not so much.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> So are you saying that Aikidoka *don't* believe that they can subdue larger/stronger attackers with Aikido?


Some do, I'm sure, I wouldn't be making wagers on Aikido by itself and I'm the only "Aikidoka" here as far as I can tell. People are stupid as hell though, I don't hold BJJ accountable for all the silly *** stuff its students come up with, like Judo moves being BJJ


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Nah. I wouldn't put Aikido in the same category as Bjj and Judo. We have evidence of Bjj and Judo working as advertised. Aikido? Not so much.


Judo is the parent art, Aikido and BJJ are the derivatives. Aikido made some bad decisions and got into drugs back in the day, BJJ ate lots of protein and got tons of exercise. Doesn't mean they don't both have stuff to offer the world.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Judo is the parent art, Aikido and BJJ are the derivatives. Aikido made some bad decisions and got into drugs back in the day, BJJ ate lots of protein and got tons of exercise. Doesn't mean they don't both have stuff to offer the world.



Oh? Since you seem to acknowledge that Aikido can't help a smaller person overcome a larger person (which is odd because that's a hallmark of Jujitsu-based MA), what exactly can Aikido offer?


----------



## Steve

Shatteredzen said:


> If you get to just wholesale make stuff up and add it to your style then cool, I get to add Judo to Aikido too.


I think aikido would be well served to add some judo.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Oh? Since you seem to acknowledge that Aikido can't help a smaller person overcome a larger person (which is odd because that's a hallmark of Jujitsu-based MA), what exactly can Aikido offer?


Sure it can, who told you it couldn't?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Jowga is saying that an Aikidoka wouldn't get involved in a multiple opponent situation, which would seem rather bizarre considering that Aikido advertises itself as a martial art that can EFFECTIVELY deal with multiple attackers.


What I can't understand is that you bash Aikido for not being able to fight, then for whatever logic you are using,  you believe that Aikido practitioners are going to jump into a situation where they are clearly going to have to fight against multiple people. 

So which one is it?  Aikido practitioners can't fight?  or Aikido practitioners can fight which is why they would jump into a fight against 5 or more people?

What some Aikido schools advertise is irrelevant to the reality of fighting against numbers.  While you are at it go ahead and throw Chi Ball fighters, MMA, Kung Fu fighters, and BJJ fighters because they will all tell you that they can fight multiple people as well.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> I think aikido would be well served to add some judo.


I think its imperative. I would love to see BJJ studios bring in the Aikido the way they have Judo and show some love to the foster kid in the family. I would pay good money to get into a big BJJ studio that spent some time theory crafting and practicing with Aikido techniques/principles. The Aikido community doesn't seem to be doing the work to fix itself, it would be great to see the brain trust in BJJ to work on salvaging Aikido from itself. Right now the BJJ community is having too much fun just making fun of it and pretending it doesn't exist.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Sure it can, who told you it couldn't?



Then wheres the evidence? The only people shown to seemingly use Aikido effectively are big burly men who cross train in other MAs.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> What I can't understand is that you bash Aikido for not being able to fight, then for whatever logic you are using,  you believe that Aikido practitioners are going to jump into a situation where they are clearly going to have to fight against multiple people.
> 
> So which one is it?  Aikido practitioners can't fight?  or Aikido practitioners can fight which is why they would jump into a fight against 5 or more people?



They're going to jump into that situation because the Aikido dojo they attended made them believe that they could take on multiple attackers and prevail.



> What some Aikido schools advertise is irrelevant to the reality of fighting against numbers.  While you are at it go ahead and throw Chi Ball fighters, MMA, Kung Fu fighters, and BJJ fighters because they will all tell you that they can fight multiple people as well.



Feel free to find a Bjj school that states that it will teach you how to beat multiple attackers.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Then wheres the evidence? The only people shown to seemingly use Aikido effectively are big burly men who cross train in other MAs.


Do you remember a few weeks ago when this was all theoretical? Now its only effective for big burly men who cross train other MA's since Dan the Wolfman and Remy made their videos. When we started this journey together I was just doing Japanese interpretive dance and none of it worked at all.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> I think its imperative. I would love to see BJJ studios bring in the Aikido the way they have Judo and show some love to the foster kid in the family. I would pay good money to get into a big BJJ studio that spent some time theory crafting and practicing with Aikido techniques/principles. The Aikido community doesn't seem to be doing the work to fix itself, it would be great to see the brain trust in BJJ to work on salvaging Aikido from itself. Right now the BJJ community is having too much fun just making fun of it and pretending it doesn't exist.



The thing is that Judo actually has something to offer Bjj, and can be incorporated into the Bjj regimen rather easily. Aikido simply doesn't have anything practical to offer Bjj that it couldn't pick up from more practical sources.



Shatteredzen said:


> Do you remember a few weeks ago when this was all theoretical? Now its only effective for big burly men who cross train other MA's since Dan the Wolfman and Remy made their videos. When we started this journey together I was just doing Japanese interpretive dance and none of it worked at all.



And nothing's changed. Dan the Wolfman wristlocking teenagers half his size doesn't prove the efficacy of Aikido.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Feel free to find a Bjj school that states that it will teach you how to beat multiple attackers.











						This Is How BJJ Practitioners Can Train For Multiple Opponents
					

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu has been proven to be an effective self dense system, however many of its detractors bring up the case of multiple attackers. In reality, there is no perfect martial art against multiple attackers. As Navy Seal and BJJ black belt Jocko Willink says, the best strategy is to...




					www.bjjee.com


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> This Is How BJJ Practitioners Can Train For Multiple Opponents
> 
> 
> Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu has been proven to be an effective self dense system, however many of its detractors bring up the case of multiple attackers. In reality, there is no perfect martial art against multiple attackers. As Navy Seal and BJJ black belt Jocko Willink says, the best strategy is to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bjjee.com



Do you know what a seminar is?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> The thing is that Judo actually has something to offer Bjj, and can be incorporated into the Bjj regimen rather easily. Aikido simply doesn't have anything practical to offer Bjj that it couldn't pick up from more practical sources.


You BJJ guys seem to love our Aikido guillotine choke so I dunno... lol 

In all seriousness though that's where you are wrong, but learning requires a suspension of the ego and as humble as you guys claim to be there's a fair amount of students who are anything but.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Do you know what a seminar is?


I know exactly what some low intensity randori looks like


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> You BJJ guys seem to love our Aikido guillotine choke so I dunno... lol
> 
> In all seriousness though that's where you are wrong, but learning requires a suspension of the ego and as humble as you guys claim to be there's a fair amount of students who are anything but.



Again, with no evidence showing that Aikido techniques are effective outside of demonstrations, what could it offer Bjj? If someone wishes to practice Aikido for their own personal reasons that's fine, but frankly that time spent learning Aikido would be better served cross training in Boxing or Muay Thai, something that would actually benefit their Bjj training in a practical manner.

Just look at someone like Rokas; 15 years in Aikido and he had zero skill transfer when he entered Bjj. At least a Judo Black Belt would be a terror on their feet and would force everyone to Guard Pull.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Again, with no evidence showing that Aikido techniques are effective outside of demonstrations, what could it offer Bjj? If someone wishes to practice Aikido for their own personal reasons that's fine, but frankly that time spent learning Aikido would be better served cross training in Boxing or Muay Thai, something that would actually benefit their Bjj training in a practical manner.


In your opinion, which is not based on any experience. I think the movement, timing and techniques are all unique to Aikido and if they are trained against resistance they build on your Judo and BJJ. We can watch Tomiki tournaments and see the Aikido applied at full speed and against resisting opponents, what I would like to see is the speed and movement of Tomiki combined with Judo and BJJ. The tanto randori for one is a great exercise for practicing weapon disarms and Aikido works well for teaching unarmed to armed defenses. The Aikido bolts in pretty easily and it doesn't take that much time to teach someone with good fundamentals.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> In your opinion, which is not based on any experience. I think the movement, timing and techniques are all unique to Aikido and if they are trained against resistance they build on your Judo and BJJ. We can watch Tomiki tournaments and see the Aikido applied at full speed and against resisting opponents, what I would like to see is the speed and movement of Tomiki combined with Judo and BJJ. The tanto randori for one is a great exercise for practicing weapon disarms and Aikido works well for teaching unarmed to armed defenses. The Aikido bolts in pretty easily and it doesn't take that much time to teach someone with good fundamentals.



Have you actually seen Tomiki tournaments? The fact that they seem to disallow grips greatly reduce it's practicality in Bjj and Judo.

I would also argue that the tanto randori just teaches you how to get stabbed.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> The better method is stay on your feet and move around.



Yeah. But that method still has to work.
It looks like jose was standing and moving around. Untill he got beaten up.


----------



## Cynik75

Wait two days boys:


----------



## Hanzou

Cynik75 said:


> Wait two days boys:



There's no need. Competitive Aikido simply wouldn't benefit Bjj practice. Frankly, I believe it would actually retard Bjj practice.

At the end of the day, neither Judo or Aikido is really optimal for Bjj stand up. Modern Bjj standup pulls more heavily from wrestling, old school Gracie JJ, and MMA. Judo's standup, while extremely good is also highly technical and takes a lot of practice to be proficient in. Also it can be very difficult to transition to No-gi because of Judo's dependence on gi grips. It's WAY more applicable than Aikido, but I would tell any Bjj practitioner that if they want to improve their stand up, they should learn wrestling. You can use wrestling for every level of Bjj practice, and it's easier to learn.

I've already spoken about Aikido. I'm really struggling hard to find some level of application of Aikido for Bjj practice and I simply can't find it. The level of practicality simply isn't there from what I see. I suppose if you want to add some Japanese flavor to your practice like Roy Dean's group you could take it up. Outside of that....


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> if they want to improve their stand up, they should learn wrestling.


But you will develop bad habit from the wrestling stance. A pure sport can bring you a lot of bad habit.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> They're going to jump into that situation because the Aikido dojo they attended made them believe that they could take on multiple attackers and prevail.


Based on what‽  How many cases do you know of where an Aikido practitioners jumps into a fight?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> There's no need. Competitive Aikido simply wouldn't benefit Bjj practice. Frankly, I believe it would actually retard Bjj practice.
> 
> At the end of the day, neither Judo or Aikido is really optimal for Bjj stand up. Modern Bjj standup pulls more heavily from wrestling, old school Gracie JJ, and MMA. Judo's standup, while extremely good is also highly technical and takes a lot of practice to be proficient in. Also it can be very difficult to transition to No-gi because of Judo's dependence on gi grips. It's WAY more applicable than Aikido, but I would tell any Bjj practitioner that if they want to improve their stand up, they should learn wrestling. You can use wrestling for every level of Bjj practice, and it's easier to learn.
> 
> I've already spoken about Aikido. I'm really struggling hard to find some level of application of Aikido for Bjj practice and I simply can't find it. The level of practicality simply isn't there from what I see. I suppose if you want to add some Japanese flavor to your practice like Roy Dean's group you could take it up. Outside of that....


The movement in Aikido is different to Judo and BJJ, an incorporation of Aikido into Judo/BJJ movement only requires basic rule changes and I'm not suggesting a one for one incorporation either. What I see in current BJJ/MMA schools for weapon defense is laughable and unrealistic and most of it is just wholesale snatched from whatever krav maga class the instructor took although sometimes its polished up a little bit. Aikido techniques work very well on individuals holding weapons because the sympathetic reflex to maintain the grip on the weapon and the mechanics of taking the weapon away are complementary. 

You can see "Aikido" techniques that were invented independently by the Europeans that show up in the medieval fight books for unarmed versus armed opponents and these are still regarded well in the HEMA circles as effective. While it has plenty of post war additions that can be thrown out as ineffective, the core of Aikido is sound, it is the focus on non-competition, out dated training methods and the lack of ability on the part of the students and even teachers within the Aikido community which make it "ineffective". 

I've always taught using the BJJ method of demonstrate one or two techniques at the beginning of class, have everyone spend some time getting comfortable with them, answer any questions and then move straight into rolling. What I would like to do in the future is split this between time doing free grappling with no striking where either student can be the uke or nage and a version of the tanto randori where one person strikes or wields a weapon and the other student attempts to apply techniques against the attacker while evading. 

I have always subscribed to the idea that what makes BJJ so practical and effective from a training standpoint is the amount of time students have to spend actively working through their "toolbox" under pressure and the fact that having to make do with your level of expertise or lack thereof forces you to "figure it out" when it comes to applying what you have been taught. MCMAP for example is really only a handful of techniques pulled from Aikido, Judo, BJJ, Muay Thai and Wrestling but it builds practical results quickly by emphasizing speed and aggression and forcing the students to practically apply what they learn in full contact sparring. What MCMAP lacks in total number of techniques it makes up for by making its students very good at just a few things they can train to failure at and reliably apply. 

If we drop all the extraneous techniques from Aikido that fall outside of the core concepts and just drill the arts core principles you can teach the system itself fairly quickly. This would go a long way to making it a more practical, niche part of Judo/Jujitsu grappling which has always been what Aikijutsu was in the past anyways. I think to save Aikido from itself it is going to have to drop the post war fluff and adopt more modern, more resistance based training methods. I doubt the Hombu dojo would follow along with such a drastic change but I would be fine with Hombu Aikido remaining as a self development art and practical Aikido moving forward as something else which is what Kenji Tomiki was trying to do back in the fifties and sixties anyways.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But that method still has to work.
> It looks like jose was standing and moving around. Untill he got beaten up.


He has no situational awareness, he does nothing to address the people to his flanks and behind him. If anything, he could have definetely benefited from even traditional Aikido randori and had a better chance of coming out of that situation or fleeing.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> He has no situational awareness, he does nothing to address the people to his flanks and behind him. If anything, he could have definetely benefited from even traditional Aikido randori and had a better chance of coming out of that situation or fleeing.



Provided aikido randori does what you state.






I mean if this worked. Then yeah he could have just walked through the crowd just throwing everyone.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> But you will develop bad habit from the wrestling stance. A pure sport can bring you a lot of bad habit.
> 
> View attachment 26817



How is that particular stance "bad"?


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> How is that particular stance "bad"?



Bad for striking.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Based on what‽  How many cases do you know of where an Aikido practitioners jumps into a fight?



Based on the fact that we have Aikido schools telling their students they can beat multiple attackers.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Bad for striking.



Yeah, but if you're a trained wrestler, you'll know not to use that stance for striking. It's an excellent stance for its purpose, which is grappling.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Provided aikido randori does what you state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean if this worked. Then yeah he could have just walked through the crowd just throwing everyone.







instead of a demo lets use live movement where people are not moving to choreography as an example


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> instead of a demo lets use live movement where people are not moving to choreography as an example




How does that fair against multiple opponents?


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but if you're a trained wrestler, you'll know not to use that stance for striking. It's an excellent stance for its purpose, which is grappling.



That would be the solution.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but if you're a trained wrestler, you'll know not to use that stance for striking. It's an excellent stance for its purpose, which is grappling.


Although its horrible for not getting kicked in the face and head in a real fight, so there's that...


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> The movement in Aikido is different to Judo and BJJ, an incorporation of Aikido into Judo/BJJ movement only requires basic rule changes and I'm not suggesting a one for one incorporation either. What I see in current BJJ/MMA schools for weapon defense is laughable and unrealistic and most of it is just wholesale snatched from whatever krav maga class the instructor took although sometimes its polished up a little bit. Aikido techniques work very well on individuals holding weapons because the sympathetic reflex to maintain the grip on the weapon and the mechanics of taking the weapon away are complementary.



If an Aikidoka tries to disarm someone with a knife using Aikido, they're getting sliced up just like everyone else.



Shatteredzen said:


> You can see "Aikido" techniques that were invented independently by the Europeans that show up in the medieval fight books for unarmed versus armed opponents and these are still regarded well in the HEMA circles as effective. While it has plenty of post war additions that can be thrown out as ineffective, the core of Aikido is sound, it is the focus on non-competition, out dated training methods and the lack of ability on the part of the students and even teachers within the Aikido community which make it "ineffective".
> 
> I've always taught using the BJJ method of demonstrate one or two techniques at the beginning of class, have everyone spend some time getting comfortable with them, answer any questions and then move straight into rolling. What I would like to do in the future is split this between time doing free grappling with no striking where either student can be the uke or nage and a version of the tanto randori where one person strikes or wields a weapon and the other student attempts to apply techniques against the attacker while evading.
> 
> I have always subscribed to the idea that what makes BJJ so practical and effective from a training standpoint is the amount of time students have to spend actively working through their "toolbox" under pressure and the fact that having to make do with your level of expertise or lack thereof forces you to "figure it out" when it comes to applying what you have been taught. MCMAP for example is really only a handful of techniques pulled from Aikido, Judo, BJJ, Muay Thai and Wrestling but it builds practical results quickly by emphasizing speed and aggression and forcing the students to practically apply what they learn in full contact sparring. What MCMAP lacks in total number of techniques it makes up for by making its students very good at just a few things they can train to failure at and reliably apply.
> 
> If we drop all the extraneous techniques from Aikido that fall outside of the core concepts and just drill the arts core principles you can teach the system itself fairly quickly. This would go a long way to making it a more practical, niche part of Judo/Jujitsu grappling which has always been what Aikijutsu was in the past anyways. I think to save Aikido from itself it is going to have to drop the post war fluff and adopt more modern, more resistance based training methods. I doubt the Hombu dojo would follow along with such a drastic change but I would be fine with Hombu Aikido remaining as a self development art and practical Aikido moving forward as something else which is what Kenji Tomiki was trying to do back in the fifties and sixties anyways.



I don''t necessarily disagree with any of that, beyond my belief that trying to fit Aikido in a box of practicality is a feat that's simply not worth it. In my view the system is already too far gone and Judo and Bjj more than make up for whatever Aikido's original martial intentions were.. I can understand the desire to turn Aikido into a practical system if you really love it, but frankly if it hasn't happened at this point, why would it ever happen? It would appear that the Aikido community is perfectly happy with how things are currently.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> How does that fair against multiple opponents?


I think it fairs quite well, we can argue over the quality of the training or the individual Aikidoka's personal ability to execute but randori against multiple attackers has its merits, even if it isn't done "right" at full speed. To be able to deal with multiple opponents you need to drill against multiple people trying to maneuver on you and by learning how your movement can effect their movement. People do have the tendency to stack up or come forward one at a time or to hesitate behind their friends and all of that behavior can be exploited provided you know how to read the body language, movement, etc. While you may not appreciate it, no one else really does this and some drilling is still better than none. We used to simply do evasion drills quite a bit when I was learning and the teacher would sometimes randomly toss in a training blade or escrima stick to spice things up or just up the ante. Training against one person and not with multiple people leads to tunnel vision, where even the relatively "low quality" version of randori practiced by many of these Aikido schools is still going to add to the persons situational awareness and movement. 


As much as this guy attributed his kote gaishi takedown here to his time as a bouncer, all of the technique he displays here, his movement, his positioning and manipulation of the other attackers and his ability to peel the guy off and keep from getting surrounded are all 100% textbook Aikido.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> quality of the training or the individual Aikidoka's personal ability to execute but randori against multiple attackers has its merits, even if it isn't done "right" at full speed. To be able to deal with multiple opponents you need to drill against multiple people trying to maneuver on you and by learning how your movement can effect their movement



Ok then show me that drill.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> I think it fairs quite well, we can argue over the quality of the training or the individual Aikidoka's personal ability to execute but randori against multiple attackers has its merits, even if it isn't done "right" at full speed. To be able to deal with multiple opponents you need to drill against multiple people trying to maneuver on you and by learning how your movement can effect their movement. People do have the tendency to stack up or come forward one at a time or to hesitate behind their friends and all of that behavior can be exploited provided you know how to read the body language, movement, etc. While you may not appreciate it, no one else really does this and some drilling is still better than none. We used to simply do evasion drills quite a bit when I was learning and the teacher would sometimes randomly toss in a training blade or escrima stick to spice things up or just up the ante. Training against one person and not with multiple people leads to tunnel vision, where even the relatively "low quality" version of randori practiced by many of these Aikido schools is still going to add to the persons situational awareness and movement.
> 
> 
> As much as this guy attributed his kote gaishi takedown here to his time as a bouncer, all of the technique he displays here, his movement, his positioning and manipulation of the other attackers and his ability to peel the guy off and keep from getting surrounded are all 100% textbook Aikido.



That was of course a classic Russian wrist snap and proof that wrestling works.






He was quite a big guy as well.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Although its horrible for not getting kicked in the face and head in a real fight, so there's that...



Yet wrestlers tend to do just fine in street fights. It's truly amazing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> How is that particular stance "bad"?


When a sport doesn't involve with punching, people don't cover their heads.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but if you're a trained wrestler, you'll know not to use that stance for striking. It's an excellent stance for its purpose, which is grappling.


In sport, it's your opponent's fault to punch your head. It's your fault not to protect your head.

IMO, there is no stance for grappling (or striking). there is only stance for combat. A correct sport stance is not a correct combat stance. You just don't know what your opponent will do to you.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> If an Aikidoka tries to disarm someone with a knife using Aikido, they're getting sliced up just like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> I don''t necessarily disagree with any of that, beyond my belief that trying to fit Aikido in a box of practicality is a feat that's simply not worth it. In my view the system is already too far gone and Judo and Bjj more than make up for whatever Aikido's original martial intentions were.. I can understand the desire to turn Aikido into a practical system if you really love it, but frankly if it hasn't happened at this point, why would it ever happen? It would appear that the Aikido community is perfectly happy with how things are currently.


Look, I understand you don't have any need or reason to take personal anecdote, but I've used it multiple times to take sticks and knives and other deadly implements away from people and I have never been cut or struck. Is this because I drilled better than other Aikidoka's? Had a **** ton of training and experience before doing it? I don't know. I had years of Aikido, Kali sparring, medieval fencing, SCA heavy fighting and HEMA style sparring with fellow European martial arts nerds before I ever saw a live weapon in a street fight but the techniques I used to deflect the attack and disarm the weapon in every case were vanilla Aikido. Was it extremely well drilled Aikido? Yes, but that's all it was. Could I have done the same against another martial artist? I think so, but with a much higher chance of injury albeit I have disarmed others during kali/escrima bouts. Thankfully, the number of trained and skilled melee combatants is low these days and people tend to telegraph with little to no technique. It may be that I just have more practical experience to understand proper application of technique, but that can be trained with better methods.

Your view of what is and isn't worth it is not really an issue, as an outsider to the discipline your observations are theory and you have nothing invested to have an opinion outside of that third party observer status. I would say there is a lot of good stuff in Aikido and it absolutely is worth saving, at least from the viewpoint of someone who enjoys it. The Japanese martial arts have had this very same problem since the end of the Edo period, European martial arts have just started to come back after multiple centuries of literally zero practice, I think there is plenty of time yet to save post world war two Aikido.


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When a sport doesn't involve with punching, people don't cover their heads.



A sport doesn't need to involve punching if it more than makes up for that lack in other areas. If you're a puncher going up against a wrestler, you're going to need to knock that wrestler out before they get their hands on you. Given that a good portion of fist fights end up in clinch, that doesn't make going for a KO a very reliable game plan.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> That was of course a classic Russian wrist snap and proof that wrestling works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was quite a big guy as well.


that was one hundred percent Kote Gaishi, to include the pre-movement to misdirect the opponent and barring the arm afterwords and its obvious he isn't doing the same technique.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Hanzou said:


> A sport doesn't need to involve punching if it more than makes up for that lack in other areas. If you're a puncher going up against a wrestler, you're going to need to knock that wrestler out before they get their hands on you. Given that a good portion of fist fights end up in clinch, that doesn't make going for a KO a very reliable game plan.


Both Royce Gracie and Ken Shamrock don't use wrestling stance.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Yet wrestlers tend to do just fine in street fights. It's truly amazing.


Wrestlers tend to do well in street fights with people who don't wrestle or train to fight. I have seen many of them take a boot right in the mouth using both that stance and going for a double leg. I know that the double leg works, I just have never seen one in the wild where the guy didn't run straight into a foot or knee or get sprawled on and pounded into oblivion.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> A sport doesn't need to involve punching if it more than makes up for that lack in other areas. If you're a puncher going up against a wrestler, you're going to need to knock that wrestler out before they get their hands on you. Given that a good portion of fist fights end up in clinch, that doesn't make going for a KO a very reliable game plan.


More made up statistics. I have seen way fewer fights end up in a clinch than I have guys getting smoked out of their boots with a punch. While wrestling absolutely is a good thing, its nowhere near the silver bullet you are making it out to be. All of this theory crafting you are doing does a lot of assuming that your imaginary fighters are equally matched in height and weight, which isn't reliable outside of professional fighting. Even having something simple like two inches of reach for a competent striker is a gigantic game changer in a confrontation not to mention your wrestler needs the strength to overpower that striker.


----------



## Buka

Hanzou said:


> If an Aikidoka tries to disarm someone with a knife using Aikido, they're getting sliced up just like everyone else.



I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm a good knife fighter. Just one of those things that I took to from the start, had an infinity for it, had a lot of great training. 

But as far as disarming anybody with a knife if I don't already have one in my hand, I have never once even come close to training it successfully. And God knows I've put in the hours. And even if I did have it in hand, we're probably both going to get cut.

I used to teach knife disarms when I was a young instructor, as they were taught to me. Looking back, they were such utter bullship I'm glad nobody ever had to try them in real life.

Knives scare me a hell of a lot more than guns, at least close up.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Buka said:


> I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm a good knife fighter. Just one of those things that I took to from the start, had an infinity for it, had a lot of great training.
> 
> But as far as disarming anybody with a knife if I don't already have one in my hand, I have never once even come close to training it successfully. And God knows I've put in the hours. And even if I did have it in hand, we're probably both going to get cut.
> 
> I used to teach knife disarms when I was a young instructor, as they were taught to me. Looking back, they were such utter bullship I'm glad nobody ever had to try them in real life.
> 
> Knives scare me a hell of a lot more than guns, at least close up.


Well it happens all the time, even with untrained people much less a competent knife fighter. A knife is not some mythical object with superhuman abilities, it is just a sharp piece of metal with a few inches of reach. The "everyone gets cut in a knife fight" routine is fun for old hats to toss around because there's a high probability of getting cut and the stakes are high so people don't do it as much as regular fist fighting. A bayonet for example is a sharp piece of metal on the end of a stick, the actual metrics developed by the military are more akin to "you stick the guy or he sticks you or you both stick each other, the end" this leaves all sorts of room for not actually getting cut to happen. 

I can watch any given full speed Kali match and see a disarm on a stick or a knife, that's not magic and some of those guys don't even have very many hours in on training, its a matter of acting before the other guy touches you with that sharp piece of metal. For saying you put the hours in and never got a disarm off, I find that less believable than anything. Hand any two guys a marker and tell them to take it away from each other, sure they will end up with some marks on each other probably, but I can guarantee there's going to be a lot more times than zero in the span of a few minutes where they take the marker from the other guy without any technique needed. My kid tries as hard as he can to poke me with toy swords and what not and he's a lot quicker than an angry drunk with a bottle. 

Is there FUD out there? Sure. One of the biggest lines of crap in martial arts is that its impossible to take a knife away from someone, people do it all the time, I've gone to plenty of 911 calls where someone's drunk uncle had to be disarmed at a barbecue or someone was holding down a mugger without a scratch on them. Are the stakes high? You bet. I can see why it would behoove you to write off knife defense as impossible and there are plenty of bullshido knife and gun defenses out there but that really means nothing. If a liquor store clerk can take a pistol away from a robber before he can fire it with zero training and nothing but adrenaline on their side then you absolutely can take a stick or a sharp piece of metal away from someone. The level of danger attributed to something has nothing to do with its overall difficulty.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> More made up statistics. I have seen way fewer fights end up in a clinch than I have guys getting smoked out of their boots with a punch. While wrestling absolutely is a good thing, its nowhere near the silver bullet you are making it out to be. All of this theory crafting you are doing does a lot of assuming that your imaginary fighters are equally matched in height and weight, which isn't reliable outside of professional fighting. Even having something simple like two inches of reach for a competent striker is a gigantic game changer in a confrontation not to mention your wrestler needs the strength to overpower that striker.



Well we have Dan Severn smashing everyone in early UFCs except for Royce Gracie. And we have stuff like this;

And we have this (just keep the volume down);


----------



## Hanzou

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Both Royce Gracie and Ken Shamrock don't use wrestling stance.
> 
> View attachment 26818



Why would they? Royce is GJJ and Shamrock was a Shootfighter.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Look, I understand you don't have any need or reason to take personal anecdote....



That would be correct.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Based on the fact that we have Aikido schools telling their students they can beat multiple attackers.


Yet you have no evidence of Aikido practitioners in street fights against a gang of people. Or that people Join Aikido because they think it will allow them to beat up a gang of people.  Just because  school advertises it doesn't mean thats why the student joins or that fighting multiple attackers is their goal.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Yet you have no evidence of Aikido practitioners in street fights against a gang of people. Or that people Join Aikido because they think it will allow them to beat up a gang of people.


An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, just because there are no stats or footage of Aikidokas doing this doesn’t mean that they don’t do it, or believe they can do it.



JowGaWolf said:


> Just because  school advertises it doesn't mean thats why the student joins or that fighting multiple attackers is their goal.



Why would a school advertise that if they didn’t believe that it would draw in potential students?


----------



## Buka

Shatteredzen said:


> Well it happens all the time, even with untrained people much less a competent knife fighter. A knife is not some mythical object with superhuman abilities, it is just a sharp piece of metal with a few inches of reach. The "everyone gets cut in a knife fight" routine is fun for old hats to toss around because there's a high probability of getting cut and the stakes are high so people don't do it as much as regular fist fighting. A bayonet for example is a sharp piece of metal on the end of a stick, the actual metrics developed by the military are more akin to "you stick the guy or he sticks you or you both stick each other, the end" this leaves all sorts of room for not actually getting cut to happen.
> 
> I can watch any given full speed Kali match and see a disarm on a stick or a knife, that's not magic and some of those guys don't even have very many hours in on training, its a matter of acting before the other guy touches you with that sharp piece of metal. For saying you put the hours in and never got a disarm off, I find that less believable than anything. Hand any two guys a marker and tell them to take it away from each other, sure they will end up with some marks on each other probably, but I can guarantee there's going to be a lot more times than zero in the span of a few minutes where they take the marker from the other guy without any technique needed. My kid tries as hard as he can to poke me with toy swords and what not and he's a lot quicker than an angry drunk with a bottle.
> 
> Is there FUD out there? Sure. One of the biggest lines of crap in martial arts is that its impossible to take a knife away from someone, people do it all the time, I've gone to plenty of 911 calls where someone's drunk uncle had to be disarmed at a barbecue or someone was holding down a mugger without a scratch on them. Are the stakes high? You bet. I can see why it would behoove you to write off knife defense as impossible and there are plenty of bullshido knife and gun defenses out there but that really means nothing. If a liquor store clerk can take a pistol away from a robber before he can fire it with zero training and nothing but adrenaline on their side then you absolutely can take a stick or a sharp piece of metal away from someone. The level of danger attributed to something has nothing to do with its overall difficulty.


Like I said, "I can't speak for anyone else". Just myself. 

You're not the first person more talented than I, and probably won't be the last.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, just because there are no stats or footage of Aikidokas doing this doesn’t mean that they don’t do it, or believe they can do it.


Yet the same argument isn't honored by you, hmmm.


----------



## Shatteredzen

JowGaWolf said:


> Yet you have no evidence of Aikido practitioners in street fights against a gang of people. Or that people Join Aikido because they think it will allow them to beat up a gang of people.  Just because  school advertises it doesn't mean thats why the student joins or that fighting multiple attackers is their goal.


It's just another red herring to shift the argument. I also have never seen the "florida man loses gang fight because of bad Aikido" newspaper article.


----------



## Buka

Shatteredzen said:


> Well it happens all the time, even with untrained people much less a competent knife fighter. A knife is not some mythical object with superhuman abilities, it is just a sharp piece of metal with a few inches of reach. The "everyone gets cut in a knife fight" routine is fun for old hats to toss around because there's a high probability of getting cut and the stakes are high so people don't do it as much as regular fist fighting. A bayonet for example is a sharp piece of metal on the end of a stick, the actual metrics developed by the military are more akin to "you stick the guy or he sticks you or you both stick each other, the end" this leaves all sorts of room for not actually getting cut to happen.
> 
> I can watch any given full speed Kali match and see a disarm on a stick or a knife, that's not magic and some of those guys don't even have very many hours in on training, its a matter of acting before the other guy touches you with that sharp piece of metal. For saying you put the hours in and never got a disarm off, I find that less believable than anything. Hand any two guys a marker and tell them to take it away from each other, sure they will end up with some marks on each other probably, but I can guarantee there's going to be a lot more times than zero in the span of a few minutes where they take the marker from the other guy without any technique needed. My kid tries as hard as he can to poke me with toy swords and what not and he's a lot quicker than an angry drunk with a bottle.
> 
> Is there FUD out there? Sure. One of the biggest lines of crap in martial arts is that its impossible to take a knife away from someone, people do it all the time, I've gone to plenty of 911 calls where someone's drunk uncle had to be disarmed at a barbecue or someone was holding down a mugger without a scratch on them. Are the stakes high? You bet. I can see why it would behoove you to write off knife defense as impossible and there are plenty of bullshido knife and gun defenses out there but that really means nothing. If a liquor store clerk can take a pistol away from a robber before he can fire it with zero training and nothing but adrenaline on their side then you absolutely can take a stick or a sharp piece of metal away from someone. The level of danger attributed to something has nothing to do with its overall difficulty.





> Well it happens all the time, even with untrained people much less a competent knife fighter. A knife is not some mythical object with superhuman abilities, it is just a sharp piece of metal with a few inches of reach. The "everyone gets cut in a knife fight" routine is fun for old hats to toss around because there's a high probability of getting cut and the stakes are high so people don't do it as much as regular fist fighting. A bayonet for example is a sharp piece of metal on the end of a stick, the actual metrics developed by the military are more akin to "you stick the guy or he sticks you or you both stick each other, the end" this leaves all sorts of room for not actually getting cut to happen.


_I can watch any given full speed Kali match and see a disarm on a stick or a knife, that's not magic and some of those guys don't even have very many hours in on training, its a matter of acting before the other guy touches you with that sharp piece of metal. _

So have I. But I wasn’t talking about Kali matches, was I?
_
For saying you put the hours in and never got a disarm off, I find that less believable than anything._

Are you as polite in police work as you’ve been on this forum? I’ve been in Law Enforcement since before you were born. I don’t think I’d want you as a partner.


_ Hand any two guys a marker and tell them to take it away from each other, sure they will end up with some marks on each other probably, but I can guarantee there's going to be a lot more times than zero in the span of a few minutes where they take the marker from the other guy without any technique needed. My kid tries as hard as he can to poke me with toy swords and what not and he's a lot quicker than an angry drunk with a bottle. 

Is there FUD out there? Sure. One of the biggest lines of crap in martial arts is that its impossible to take a knife away from someone, people do it all the time, I've gone to plenty of 911 calls where someone's drunk uncle had to be disarmed at a barbecue or someone was holding down a mugger without a scratch on them. Are the stakes high? _

I think you comment before realizing what you’re saying. I wasn’t referring to drunk uncles at a barbecue, I was talking about disarming other knife fighters _without a blade in my hand.


You bet. I can see why it would behoove you to write off knife defense as impossible and there are plenty of bullshido knife and gun defenses out there but that really means nothing. If a liquor store clerk can take a pistol away from a robber before he can fire it with zero training and nothing but adrenaline on their side then you absolutely can take a stick or a sharp piece of metal away from someone. The level of danger attributed to something has nothing to do with its overall difficulty._

I’m sure you can, and good for you. I can’t. Again, I was speaking about my skills, not yours.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Yet the same argument isn't honored by you, hmmm.



If you're talking about me pointing out that I have never personally witnessed a smaller male or woman impose their will on a bigger, stronger person utilizing Aikido, I stand by that observation. Considering we have examples of smaller BJJ or submission grappling practitioners overcoming larger opponents, but no such examples in the history of Aikido doing the same, I feel that that belief is warranted.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, just because there are no stats or footage of Aikidokas doing this doesn’t mean that they don’t do it, or believe they can do it.


Save that nonsense for someone who doesn't know how you operate in these forums.  Try that on one of the new guys that join here.



Hanzou said:


> Why would a school advertise that if they didn’t believe that it would draw in potential students?


A lot of time it's marketing, knowing that once they get people into the school that the teacher will change their mindset on what Aikido is and what it isn't.  It wouldn't be the first time that someone joins a martial arts school for one reason and then have a different reason for staying.  My first reason for joining a Jow Ga school was because I like Chinese kung fu weapons and I wanted to learn how to use them (not in a fighting sense)  The reason I stay in Jow Ga is because I want to be a good representation of Jow Ga.  I still like weapons, but now I actually want to be able to use them and not just do them in forms.  My purpose and goal shifted after I got into the school.  Some people go in as an aggressive person and come out as a pacifist.  That's just the way things are.  

The older I get, the more I see Jow Ga as being good for my physical and mental health.  I'm less stressed when I'm training,  A lot of times it's my escape.  But that wasn't always the case.  Now that my son has taken a big interests. It's how I connect to him a lot of times. 

Just because someone joins Aikido, thinking they will beat up 10 attackers (because the school advertised ) doesn't mean that they will have that same perspective 3 months later.  That's just the reality of it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shatteredzen said:


> Yet the same argument isn't honored by you, hmmm.


Some may call that Irony.  lol


----------



## Shatteredzen

Buka said:


> So have I. But I wasn’t talking about Kali matches, was I?
> 
> Are you as polite in police work as you’ve been on this forum? I’ve been in Law Enforcement since before you were born. I don’t think I’d want you as a partner.


1) Full contact sparring is almost the same as doing it live but with less consequences. Grabbing a training blade versus a real one doesn't change except in the potential risk posed by failure.

2) My apologies for the impoliteness. If you are having this much fun already, I doubt you would want to push a black and white around with me. I'm even more fun in person and would probably make you cranky. Maybe you would enjoy the energy though like how old dogs live longer when they get around a puppy. After your last response I can guarantee we would spend the entire rest of the shift arguing knife disarms


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> If you're talking about me pointing out that I have never personally witnessed a smaller male or woman impose their will on a bigger, stronger person utilizing Aikido, I stand by that observation. Considering we have examples of smaller BJJ or submission grappling practitioners overcoming larger opponents, but no such examples in the history of Aikido on youtube, I feel that that belief is warranted.


fixed it for you


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> If they read that crowd they wouldn't have.  One guy had on brass knuckles.  I think most people would have pick the option not to wade into that fight,
> 
> Jumping into a fight where you are clearly out number is not the intelligent thing to do.  No matter how heroic you may want to be.   Which is why the BJJ ended up the way he did.  The fact that he ended up in the hospital pretty much verifies that.


I’m not debating whether it’s smart or not. I’m just saying I think it’s something not really style-dependent.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Of course they're talking about catching the weapon with their hands


I’ve literally never seen an Aikido demo or class with this in it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Shatteredzen said:


> No Hanzou, that's called Judo.


Which is the original base of BJJ. What’s your point?


----------



## Shatteredzen

gpseymour said:


> Which is the original base of BJJ. What’s your point?


We were talking about where the moves come from, not if they are included in BJJ


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Shatteredzen said:


> BJJ has its own techniques, just because it commonly incorporates Judo techniques or wrestling techniques does not make them part of BJJ. If you get to claim Judo for BJJ then the same can be said for Aikido, since they are both derivative arts from Judo and Aikido was originally intended to be taught to dan level Judoka.


Firstly, Judo moves were the first BJJ moves (BJJ folks correct me if I’m overstating here). Secondly, if a move is incorporated i to a system, it becomes part of that system. Thirdly, BJJ is not defined by techniques, but by their approach - which includes incorporating new techniques from elsewhere if they work for BJJ.


----------



## Shatteredzen

gpseymour said:


> Firstly, Judo moves were the first BJJ moves (BJJ folks correct me if I’m overstating here). Secondly, if a move is incorporated i to a system, it becomes part of that system. Thirdly, BJJ is not defined by techniques, but by their approach - which includes incorporating new techniques from elsewhere if they work for BJJ.


You heard it here first folks, I hereby claim Judo for Aikido. Hanzou, I won't charge you royalties for the guillotine choke anymore.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shatteredzen said:


> It's just another red herring to shift the argument. I also have never seen the "florida man loses gang fight because of bad Aikido" newspaper article.


First Aikido People can't fight then Aikido People will fight because Aikido People think they can beat up everyone.  Prior to that Aikido People are viewed as taking a peaceful path that help develop mind, spirit , and body.  But now Aikido People are incapable of knowing the reality about the dangers of fighting against multiple people.

To be honest I think Aikido people have a better understanding of that reality than most as they try to pull off techniques against incoming attacks that they need to flow with.  With out messing up.  There's nothing about Radori that would make a person think that this is how it really looks when multiple people attack





He probably has a better understanding than most the difficulty with fighting multiple people.  I'm sure he also has an excellent understanding the difficulty of fighting multiple people using Aikido techniques.  There is just nothing about trying to do Aikido techniques  that would suddenly make people think they are ready to beat up 10 attackers

Just like Kung Fu.  People go in thinking that they are going to be a Kung Fu Fighter then find that it's a lot more difficult than what they originally had in their mind.


----------



## Shatteredzen

JowGaWolf said:


> First Aikido People can't fight then Aikido People will fight because Aikido People think they can beat up everyone.  Prior to that Aikido People are viewed as taking a peaceful path that help develop mind, spirit , and body.  But now Aikido People are incapable of knowing the reality about the dangers of fighting against multiple people.
> 
> To be honest I think Aikido people have a better understanding of that reality than most as they try to pull off techniques against incoming attacks that they need to flow with.  With out messing up.  There's nothing about Radori that would make a person think that this is how it really looks when multiple people attack
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He probably has a better understanding than most the difficulty with fighting multiple people.  I'm sure he also has an excellent understanding the difficulty of fighting multiple people using Aikido techniques.  There is just nothing about trying to do Aikido techniques  that would suddenly make people think they are ready to beat up 10 attackers
> 
> Just like Kung Fu.  People go in thinking that they are going to be a Kung Fu Fighter then find that it's a lot more difficult than what they originally had in their mind.


I agree, just gawd that video is cringy... It's not even a good example of a weak Aikido schools black belt randori.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Shatteredzen said:


> You heard it here first folks, I hereby claim Judo for Aikido. Hanzou, I won't charge you royalties for the guillotine choke anymore.


What on earth are you on about?


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Save that nonsense for someone who doesn't know how you operate in these forums.  Try that on one of the new guys that join here.



Where's the nonsense? You're asking me for evidence of a specific person in a n specific encounter when we can't even find examples of those types of people participating in general self defense situations. Just because I can't find your needle in the haystack doesn't mean that the needle isn't actually in there.



JowGaWolf said:


> A lot of time it's marketing, knowing that once they get people into the school that the teacher will change their mindset on what Aikido is and what it isn't.  It wouldn't be the first time that someone joins a martial arts school for one reason and then have a different reason for staying.



So essentially the instructor lies about what their martial art does in order to get people in the door, then after a few months throws their hands up and says it was all BS? You seriously think that happens in the real world? Like someone advertising that their style teaches traditional weapons, the student joins the school hoping to learn about said weapons, then a few months later the student asks about the advertised weapons training and the sensei shrugs their shoulders. You think a student would be okay with that?

Further, you actually think that's _marketing_?



JowGaWolf said:


> My first reason for joining a Jow Ga school was because I like Chinese kung fu weapons and I wanted to learn how to use them (not in a fighting sense)  The reason I stay in Jow Ga is because I want to be a good representation of Jow Ga.  I still like weapons, but now I actually want to be able to use them and not just do them in forms.  My purpose and goal shifted after I got into the school.  Some people go in as an aggressive person and come out as a pacifist.  That's just the way things are.
> 
> The older I get, the more I see Jow Ga as being good for my physical and mental health.  I'm less stressed when I'm training,  A lot of times it's my escape.  But that wasn't always the case.  Now that my son has taken a big interests. It's how I connect to him a lot of times.
> 
> Just because someone joins Aikido, thinking they will beat up 10 attackers (because the school advertised ) doesn't mean that they will have that same perspective 3 months later.  That's just the reality of it.



Yeah, those two examples aren't the same thing. You wanted to learn how to use weapons, and you got to learn how to use weapons. Someone joining an Aikido dojo because the school advertised that you can EFFECTIVELY beat multiple attackers will *never *get what they're paying for.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Where's the nonsense? You're asking me for evidence of a specific person in a n specific encounter when we can't even find examples of those types of people participating in general self defense situations. Just because I can't find your needle in the haystack doesn't mean that the needle isn't actually in there.
> 
> 
> 
> So essentially the instructor lies about what their martial art does in order to get people in the door, then after a few months throws their hands up and says it was all BS? You seriously think that happens in the real world? Like someone advertising that their style teaches traditional weapons, the student joins the school hoping to learn about said weapons, then a few months later the student asks about the advertised weapons training and the sensei shrugs their shoulders. You think a student would be okay with that?
> 
> Further, you actually think that's _marketing_?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those two examples aren't the same thing. You wanted to learn how to use weapons, and you got to learn how to use weapons. Someone joining an Aikido dojo because the school advertised that you can EFFECTIVELY beat multiple attackers will *never *get what they're paying for.


How does it feel to win an entire battle with the strawman you have been building? I find it hilarious that you are still arguing from an absence of evidence after complaining about it so thoroughly. You've been shown videos of "those people" participating in self defense situations, you just keep forgetting about it. Here are a few:
















here is multiple clips of Remy using it in the bar






there, now you can stop being disingenuous and find another red herring to throw out for us to chase around.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> How does it feel to win an entire battle with the strawman you have been building? I find it hilarious that you are still arguing from an absence of evidence after complaining about it so thoroughly. You've been shown videos of "those people" participating in self defense situations, you just keep forgetting about it. Here are a few:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here is multiple clips of Remy using it in the bar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there, now you can stop being disingenuous and find another red herring to throw out for us to chase around.



Yes, either big men who manhandle generally smaller people, or freak incidents that are somehow labeled "Akido" techniques because they bear a slight resemblance to a random Aikido move. Sorry, I don't consider a cop choke slamming someone to be Aikido. I also don't consider a huge bear of a man pushing around smaller people and being able to muscle them into wrist locks to be evidence of the efficacy of Aikido techniques.

Interesting that there isn't a single example of a woman or a smaller, weaker man completely utilizing Aikido to defend themselves.


----------



## isshinryuronin

To sum up my take on some of this thread:

Aikido is a wonderful art with many benefits and principles of movement, some of which can aid in actual SD, though many techniques are difficult to execute against resisting opponents, and only then by expert practitioners.

Unarmed defense against a casual or impaired knife wielder is very possible given the defender has some training.  Still, there is some risk of getting cut. 

Anecdotes of store clerks or others disarming a knife or gun wielder are not the rule, but lucky exceptions against an uncommitted attacker.  A small wild pig can turn away a jaguar if the big cat isn't too hungry or without hungry young.

Unarmed defense against an experienced, committed, knife wielder is crazy, unless the defender is well trained and willing to accept the probability of getting cut.  There is a risk of lethality or severe injury so engagement should be a last resort.

Low grappling stances are good for grappling, higher upright stances are good for striking/kicking.  Sometimes one doesn't know the exact nature of the threat so any combat stance taken must be balanced (both for usage and weight distribution) to allow for fast reaction, distance adjustment, angle changes, launching and receiving strong attacks.

MMA with BJJ is very effective in combat due to the broad skill set, hard contact training and PT done by the serious practitioner.  Boxing is very good, too, but with a more narrow skill set as technique is quite constrained by rules.   

Sport karate develops many combat skills, but has some rule constraints making it limited in grappling/close-in situations. Pre/non-sport karate has no rules and a different skill set, including close-in fighting.

All MA have something to offer.  Not all people want, or are able, to be professional level fighters, take numerous hits, or commit to many hours/wk training and conditioning, but still desire to have some combat oriented physical activity. People are not just apples and oranges, but a whole fruit salad including mangos, bananas, kiwi, pears, and so on.

I am bored with the constant comparisons and evaluations of one art with another.  Let's just agree that they all have benefits for each person according to their needs, wants and abilities.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Yes, either big men who manhandle generally smaller people, or freak incidents that are somehow labeled "Akido" techniques because they bear a slight resemblance to a random Aikido move. Sorry, I don't consider a cop choke slamming someone to be Aikido. I also don't consider a huge bear of a man pushing around smaller people and being able to muscle them into wrist locks to be evidence of the efficacy of Aikido techniques.
> 
> Interesting that there isn't a single example of a woman or a smaller, weaker man completely utilizing Aikido to defend themselves.


Most police defensive tactics courses have a good bit of Aikido mixed into them, Aikido is used by the Tokyo riot police and metro PD and they have a long history of bringing it to the states to teach here along with Judo/Karate. Now the complaint is "your Aikidoka is too big" gotcha.


----------



## Shatteredzen

isshinryuronin said:


> To sum up my take on some of this thread:
> 
> Aikido is a wonderful art with many benefits and principles of movement, some of which can aid in actual SD, though many techniques are difficult to execute against resisting opponents, and only then by expert practitioners.
> 
> Unarmed defense against a casual or impaired knife wielder is very possible given the defender has some training.  Still, there is some risk of getting cut.
> 
> Anecdotes of store clerks or others disarming a knife or gun wielder are not the rule, but lucky exceptions against an uncommitted attacker.  A small wild pig can turn away a jaguar if the big cat isn't too hungry or without hungry young.
> 
> Unarmed defense against an experienced, committed, knife wielder is crazy, unless the defender is well trained and willing to accept the probability of getting cut.  There is a risk of lethality or severe injury so engagement should be a last resort.
> 
> Low grappling stances are good for grappling, higher upright stances are good for striking/kicking.  Sometimes one doesn't know the exact nature of the threat so any combat stance taken must be balanced (both for usage and weight distribution) to allow for fast reaction, distance adjustment, angle changes, launching and receiving strong attacks.
> 
> MMA with BJJ is very effective in combat due to the broad skill set, hard contact training and PT done by the serious practitioner.  Boxing is very good, too, but with a more narrow skill set as technique is quite constrained by rules.
> 
> Sport karate develops many combat skills, but has some rule constraints making it limited in grappling/close-in situations. Pre/non-sport karate has no rules and a different skill set, including close-in fighting.
> 
> All MA have something to offer.  Not all people want, or are able, to be professional level fighters, take numerous hits, or commit to many hours/wk training and conditioning, but still desire to have some combat oriented physical activity. People are not just apples and oranges, but a whole fruit salad including mangos, bananas, kiwi, pears, and so on.
> 
> I am bored with the constant comparisons and evaluations of one art with another.  Let's just agree that they all have benefits for each person according to their needs, wants and abilities.


Sir, you are making far too much sense for this thread. What are you trying to do here?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Shatteredzen said:


> I agree, just gawd that video is cringy... It's not even a good example of a weak Aikido schools black belt randori.





Hanzou said:


> So essentially the instructor lies about what their martial art does in order to get people in the door, then after a few months throws their hands up and says it was all BS?


You don't have to state that something is BS in order to change someone's focus.  Like I said save that nonsense for someone else.


----------



## Shatteredzen

BTW if you are coming into this thread right now for the purpose of talking about Aikido which is what the thread is supposed to be about, here is a pretty great talk on the foundational principles of what Aikido actually is:






The other guys here don't actually do or have a background in Aikido so this might save some people some time.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Most police defensive tactics courses have a good bit of Aikido mixed into them, Aikido is used by the Tokyo riot police and metro PD and they have a long history of bringing it to the states to teach here along with Judo/Karate. Now the complaint is "your Aikidoka is too big" gotcha.



I highly doubt a running choke slam is standard police procedure in any police department. I also doubt that it is standard practice in Aikido. The fact that that particular video of police brutality is used as an example of the effectiveness of Aikido is pretty laughable. As for the "too big" stuff, that should be rather obvious. If you're far bigger and far stronger than the person you're demonstrating on, you can pretty much do anything to them. Hell, I can pick up a book on Aikido, learn a few moves and use them on a 10-15 year old without much effort because my size and strength give me a massive advantage. That wouldn't make me an Aikido master, that would just make me a bully.

It's almost like Aikido only works if you're bullying someone else with your size or authority. That says a lot.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> You don't have to state that something is BS in order to change someone's focus.  Like I said save that nonsense for someone else.



Which is completely irrelevant to the point. The point is that if something is being advertised that really isn't being offered, that company is running a *scam*. To make this relevant to the thread; An Aikido dojo that is advertising that it can teach you to beat multiple attackers and stronger/larger opponents is also running a *scam*.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> I highly doubt a running choke slam is standard police procedure in any police department. I also doubt that it is standard practice in Aikido. The fact that that particular video of police brutality is used as an example of the effectiveness of Aikido is pretty laughable. As for the "too big" stuff, that should be rather obvious. If you're far bigger and far stronger than the person you're demonstrating on, you can pretty much do anything to them. Hell, I can pick up a book on Aikido, learn a few moves and use them on a 10-15 year old without much effort because my size and strength give me a massive advantage. That wouldn't make me an Aikido master, that would just make me a bully.
> 
> It's almost like Aikido only works if you're bullying someone else with your size or authority. That says a lot.


Not really, you just don't understand the faintest hint of what you are talking about. Either that or you are just dedicated to constantly attempting to reframe the argument, which is itself the tactic of someone who is arguing in bad faith. Thankfully, I am not the only person here who has called you out on the lack of intellectual honesty you are displaying, so it should be obvious for the readers.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Which is completely irrelevant to the point. The point is that if something is being advertised that really isn't being offered, that company is running a *scam*.


So now we have gone from Aikido People can't fight, to Aikido People would try to fight a gang of 10 people in the street, to Scams and advertising and this change in focus all occurred without you declaring BS.



Hanzou said:


> To make this relevant to the thread; An Aikido dojo that is advertising that it can teach you to beat multiple attackers and stronger/larger opponents is also running a *scam*.


But none of that is relevant to the thread, It is also not relevant to exploring Aikido or the techniques found in Aikido which was the original purpose when I first created the thread.  You switch the focus again.  As if 82 pages of posts were created just to make a statement that someone who lies about what they teach is scam.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> So now we have gone from Aikido People can't fight, to Aikido People would try to fight a gang of 10 people in the street, to Scams and advertising and this change in focus all occurred without you declaring BS.



Where is the change of focus? All of those aspects are related to one another. It's a scam to tell people that you will teach them to beat multiple opponents when you can't, the student develops a false sense of confidence because they believe that they can pull off this feat when they more than likely can't even beat a single person.



JowGaWolf said:


> But none of that is relevant to the thread, It is also not relevant to exploring Aikido or the techniques found in Aikido which was the original purpose when I first created the thread.  You switch the focus again.  As if 82 pages of posts were created just to make a statement that someone who lies about what they teach is scam.



Except discussing the efficacy of Aikido is an exploration of the art and its techniques.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> As if 82 pages of posts were created just to make a statement that someone who lies about what they teach is scam.


At least people respond to this thread. In another thread, OP doesn't respond to people's questions. It makes me wonder why OP wants to start a thread but don't want to participate in any discussion.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> [





That is a choke slam. From pro wrestling.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Not really, you just don't understand the faintest hint of what you are talking about. Either that or you are just dedicated to constantly attempting to reframe the argument, which is itself the tactic of someone who is arguing in bad faith. Thankfully, I am not the only person here who has called you out on the lack of intellectual honesty you are displaying, so it should be obvious for the readers.



Is this not the video you posted?






Which contains mainly big guys manhandling smaller guys into "Aikido" moves?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> Where is the change of focus? All of those aspects are related to one another. It's a scam to tell people that you will teach them to beat multiple opponents when you can't, the student develops a false sense of confidence because they believe that they can pull off this feat when they more than likely can't even beat a single person.
> 
> 
> 
> Except discussing the efficacy of Aikido is an exploration of the art and its techniques.


I find it hard to believe you are getting lost here and no, you are not. Nor have you been discussing Aikido. You have been loudly screeching about some strip mall Aikido school you have beef with over a civil advertising dispute and then making strawman arguments you want people to play with you in, then getting upset when we point out what you are doing.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> That is a choke slam. From pro wrestling.


But I have bundy in a can. No comment on the rest of those links I see.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> I find it hard to believe you are getting lost here and no, you are not. Nor have you been discussing Aikido. You have been loudly screeching about some strip mall Aikido school you have beef with over a civil advertising dispute and then making strawman arguments you want people to play with you in, then getting upset when we point out what you are doing.



So discussing multiple Aikido schools falsely advertising that they teach effective self defense that can help you overcome multiple and larger/stronger attackers isn't discussing Aikido?

Here's another one;



> Aikido emphasizes more than fighting skill. Rather it aims to resolve conflict through dissipating attack by controlling the aggressor's energy. The emphasis is on method versus strength *making Aikido particularly effective for women, children and the elderly.*







__





						Aikido of Dallas  - About Aikido
					





					www.aikido.org


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> So discussing multiple Aikido schools falsely advertising that they teach effective self defense that can help you overcome multiple and larger/stronger attackers isn't discussing Aikido?
> 
> Here's another one;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aikido of Dallas  - About Aikido
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aikido.org


Lol, read that again, its not claiming anything really, other than it works for people like kids, the elderly, women, etc and that its about more than fighting, looks fine to me.

The problem here is you don't understand even the basic premise of Aikido, you should go watch the video I linked with Chris Hein, it does a great job of framing what Aikido is.


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Lol, read that again, its not claiming anything really, other than it works for people like kids, the elderly, women, etc and that its about more than fighting, looks fine to me.
> 
> The problem here is you don't understand even the basic premise of Aikido, you should go watch the video I linked with Chris Hein, it does a great job of framing what Aikido is.



It’s claiming rather openly that it is an effective form of fighting that emphasizes method over strength, thus weaker individuals (women, children (LOL) and the elderly) can utilize its techniques to defend themselves against larger and stronger assailants.

A claim that is completely and utterly false.

As for Hein, I’d rather not waste time listening to someone making excuses for Aikido’s effectiveness. Thanks, but no thanks.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> It’s claiming rather openly that it is an effective form of fighting that emphasizes method over strength, thus weaker individuals (women, children (LOL) and the elderly) can utilize its techniques to defend themselves against larger and stronger assailants.
> 
> A claim that is completely and utterly false.
> 
> As for Hein, I’d rather not waste time listening to someone making excuses for Aikido’s effectiveness. Thanks, but no thanks.


Mhmm, thats a stretch by any imagination. Now you dont like teaching martial arts to kids? Or I suppose you will now argue that those BJJ classes for 8 year olds are churning out armies of lethal child soldiers and how a hundred pound woman is going to ground and pound a two hundred pound attacker. K bro, cool story...


----------



## Shatteredzen

Hanzou said:


> As for Hein, I’d rather not waste time listening to someone making excuses for Aikido’s effectiveness. Thanks, but no thanks.


Yes, you would rather waste your time in a 90 page internet thread ranting about strip mall dojo advertising practices. My bad, I forgot how important your time is...


----------



## drop bear

Double post


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> But I have bundy in a can. No comment on the rest of those links I see.



Yeah? Sort of?

It seems more of a dedicated marketing strategy than an effort to actually create a viable method to be honest. I mean atemi is Aikido so he belted the guy aikido works? 

That's grasping to be honest. 

You have two guys who are Mabye ok enough at what they do to handle some random guys. And look, that's cool. 

But they are your two best guys. These are literally your flagships. Doing what I could find ten guys doing locally. 

And some random street fight vids of mabye Aikido or Mabye not. from guys we know nothing about. 

And it is presented as like hey look at me look how effective we are. 

And it all comes across as kind of cute. 

And look if that is the bar you want to set for your entire system. Then that is cool I guess. 

But there are thousands of guys literally doing that every day in other systems and it isn't that big a deal. 

So I am not really sure it has the wow factor you are expecting it to.


----------



## Buka

Shatteredzen said:


> 1) Full contact sparring is almost the same as doing it live but with less consequences. Grabbing a training blade versus a real one doesn't change except in the potential risk posed by failure.
> 
> 2) My apologies for the impoliteness. If you are having this much fun already, I doubt you would want to push a black and white around with me. I'm even more fun in person and would probably make you cranky. Maybe you would enjoy the energy though like how old dogs live longer when they get around a puppy. After your last response I can guarantee we would spend the entire rest of the shift arguing knife disarms


Nah, we’d get along just fine on the job as well as in the dojo.

I don’t think we’d be arguing disarms, we’d probably be having a hell of a lot of fun discussing them though.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Yeah? Sort of?
> 
> It seems more of a dedicated marketing strategy than an effort to actually create a viable method to be honest. I mean atemi is Aikido so he belted the guy aikido works?
> 
> That's grasping to be honest.
> 
> You have two guys who are Mabye ok enough at what they do to handle some random guys. And look, that's cool.
> 
> But they are your two best guys. These are literally your flagships. Doing what I could find ten guys doing locally.
> 
> And some random street fight vids of mabye Aikido or Mabye not. from guys we know nothing about.
> 
> And it is presented as like hey look at me look how effective we are.
> 
> And it all comes across as kind of cute.
> 
> And look if that is the bar you want to set for your entire system. Then that is cool I guess.
> 
> But there are thousands of guys literally doing that every day in other systems and it isn't that big a deal.
> 
> So I am not really sure it has the wow factor you are expecting it to.


No one is trying to sell you on Aikido or advertise it as some kind of super competitive fighting system, it isn't that. Aikido is its own thing, its not my entire system and it really shouldn't be anyone else's if they want to be a well rounded fighter. Aikido can add things to other martial arts and in my opinion it has a lot of value. That's not the same as trying to flex or one up anyone, Aikido isn't that at all. Its simply another set of options instead of having to beat the holy heck out of someone, its another way of dealing with and interacting with conflict.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Buka said:


> Nah, we’d get along just fine on the job as well as in the dojo.
> 
> I don’t think we’d be arguing disarms, we’d probably be having a hell of a lot of fun discussing them though.


I have a feeling we would get along fine also


----------



## Cynik75

Shatteredzen said:


> 1) Full contact sparring is almost the same as doing it live but with less consequences. Grabbing a training blade versus a real one doesn't change except in the potential risk posed by failure.


love me, man. The awareness of consequences changers everything. Fighting a knife wielder on the street I will do only small part of techniques, only in perfect moment, with 100% speed and power. During sparring I can do whatever I think about whenever I want. It changes the way of fight very very very much.
Even in competition fight people behave other way than in gym sparrings. 

BTW. I was cut by the blade 2 times in my live, and I beat two knife armed opponents with bats (not the same situations). Both time I was cut - razor to my right cheek (7 stiches), second one the attempt to stab me, I luckily bounced the knife with left hand (4 stiches) - I was empty handed.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> No one is trying to sell you on Aikido or advertise it as some kind of super competitive fighting system, it isn't that. Aikido is its own thing, its not my entire system and it really shouldn't be anyone else's if they want to be a well rounded fighter. Aikido can add things to other martial arts and in my opinion it has a lot of value. That's not the same as trying to flex or one up anyone, Aikido isn't that at all. Its simply another set of options instead of having to beat the holy heck out of someone, its another way of dealing with and interacting with conflict.



I think when someone is creating videos of street fights to find a coincidental Aikido move to have their Ahah moment. They really are trying to sell an image. 

Rather than say just training realistically with other systems like everyone else does. 

I am sorry but those videos are just super cringy.


----------



## Attitude

JowGaWolf said:


> I went spent a few hours on you tube trying to find old sparring videos of Aikido.  This was done with my understanding that Fighting is Abrasive. Which basically means that it's rough and it that it doesn't flow smooth like what we often see in Aikido or Tai Chi.  When these martial arts are practice they often look as if they are flowing and easy.  I think this training concept is similar to Tai Chi /Tajiquan.  The free flowing and easy look seems to be how you learn to relax and to flow.  It is not fighting, and it's not how the fighting is supposed to look.  I also think this is where people screw up with the systems and get it wrong.
> 
> So since I don't actually know anything about Aikido, I decided to use my very limited Tajiquan knowledge to make assumption and guesses, and to find some old footage of Aikido Sparring.
> 
> Here's the first first one. I found. To me this looks like Aikido concepts applied and it looks abrasive. It doesn't flow the same way that we see it in a demo.  I personally think the "Flow" part is something that you have to experienced.  I know that's the case with Muay thai.  To the outside it may look like a simple clinch but to the person in the clinch it could feel like your balance is easily being robbed from you before the throw occurs.
> This is what I expect to see in a fight on the street (the struggle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In contrast. We can see that he's trying "flow" similar to what they do in training and demos (not sparring).  You can also see that he's uncomfortable with punches coming towards him.  It's clear that he doesn't quite know how to handle them.  From a function perspective it would make sense that Aikido would have some kind of striking  or understanding of "how to enter into grappling"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another example.  Not the best, but he's got one arm.  What you do see here is punching as a way to enter into grappling.  BJJ does it, Muay Thai does it.  Sanda does it.  So I'm just following some of the things we already know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2nd Video Same guy,
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts?


A few screenshots from our topic documenting the history of Takeda Sokaku's lineage including influences from Morihei Ueshiba.

Full 1h23m 4.92GB video documenting 1,100 Years of Lineage here: Mid Coast Circle New Guys





__





						1,100 Years of Lineage - Documenting the Legends - Version 6
					

Our 6th version going back 1,100 years to Emporer Seiwa Tenno has been released on Telegram. We have completely transitioned away from Youtube as it appears Youtube is now promoting a distorted version of history and has an agenda which includes harming and misleading the public.  Mid Coast...



					www.martialtalk.com


----------



## Hanzou

Shatteredzen said:


> Mhmm, thats a stretch by any imagination. Now you dont like teaching martial arts to kids?Or I suppose you will now argue that those BJJ classes for 8 year olds are churning out armies of lethal child soldiers and how a hundred pound woman is going to ground and pound a two hundred pound attacker. K bro, cool story...



Women choking out men twice their size isn’t unheard of in Bjj.

I’m not really aware of any female Aikidoka being able to overcome men twice their size with Aikido. 

That’s the point.

As for Hein. Yes I would rather post in a forum then listen to a guy attempt to explain that Aikido isn’t what it appears to be, thus martial standards can’t be applied to it.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> No one is trying to sell you on Aikido or advertise it as some kind of super competitive fighting system, it isn't that. Aikido is its own thing, its not my entire system and it really shouldn't be anyone else's if they want to be a well rounded fighter. Aikido can add things to other martial arts and in my opinion it has a lot of value. That's not the same as trying to flex or one up anyone, Aikido isn't that at all. Its simply another set of options instead of having to beat the holy heck out of someone, its another way of dealing with and interacting with conflict.



Out of your top guys. Two of them are randoms.

I wonder if fluoro shirt cop dude does seminars? Cos he is one of an elite few that make Aikido functional.


----------



## JowGaWolf

isshinryuronin said:


> To sum up my take on some of this thread:
> 
> Aikido is a wonderful art with many benefits and principles of movement, some of which can aid in actual SD, though many techniques are difficult to execute against resisting opponents, and only then by expert practitioners.
> 
> Unarmed defense against a casual or impaired knife wielder is very possible given the defender has some training.  Still, there is some risk of getting cut.
> 
> Anecdotes of store clerks or others disarming a knife or gun wielder are not the rule, but lucky exceptions against an uncommitted attacker.  A small wild pig can turn away a jaguar if the big cat isn't too hungry or without hungry young.
> 
> Unarmed defense against an experienced, committed, knife wielder is crazy, unless the defender is well trained and willing to accept the probability of getting cut.  There is a risk of lethality or severe injury so engagement should be a last resort.
> 
> Low grappling stances are good for grappling, higher upright stances are good for striking/kicking.  Sometimes one doesn't know the exact nature of the threat so any combat stance taken must be balanced (both for usage and weight distribution) to allow for fast reaction, distance adjustment, angle changes, launching and receiving strong attacks.
> 
> MMA with BJJ is very effective in combat due to the broad skill set, hard contact training and PT done by the serious practitioner.  Boxing is very good, too, but with a more narrow skill set as technique is quite constrained by rules.
> 
> Sport karate develops many combat skills, but has some rule constraints making it limited in grappling/close-in situations. Pre/non-sport karate has no rules and a different skill set, including close-in fighting.
> 
> All MA have something to offer.  Not all people want, or are able, to be professional level fighters, take numerous hits, or commit to many hours/wk training and conditioning, but still desire to have some combat oriented physical activity. People are not just apples and oranges, but a whole fruit salad including mangos, bananas, kiwi, pears, and so on.
> 
> I am bored with the constant comparisons and evaluations of one art with another.  Let's just agree that they all have benefits for each person according to their needs, wants and abilities.


I get tired of the System A is better than System B conversation when no one is asking that question.  I also get tired of System A doesn't do what System B does when someone wants to know what system A does.


----------



## Steve

Shatteredzen said:


> No one is trying to sell you on Aikido or advertise it as some kind of super competitive fighting system, it isn't that. Aikido is its own thing, its not my entire system and it really shouldn't be anyone else's if they want to be a well rounded fighter. Aikido can add things to other martial arts and in my opinion it has a lot of value. That's not the same as trying to flex or one up anyone, Aikido isn't that at all. Its simply another set of options instead of having to beat the holy heck out of someone, its another way of dealing with and interacting with conflict.


So after over 90 pages, I think we can all agree that if martial arts that teach you to fight are like food, Aikido is like cilantro.  It provides no real nutrition, but can make an already good dish taste a little better.

Now that we've solved Aikido, let's do ninjutsu.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I get tired of the System A is better than System B conversation when no one is asking that question.  I also get tired of System A doesn't do what System B does when someone wants to know what system A does.



The question of the efficacy of Aikido was asked in your OP. Thus, *you asked* for Aikido to be compared to other martial arts systems right off the bat.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> The question of the efficacy of Aikido was asked in your OP.


I never questioned the efficacy of Akidio. That's not even my style.  I try to understand martial arts from what it teaches vs  what I think is best.  Efficacy is how you think about things.  Me training Jow Ga is my statement on what I think is best for me.   Not once have I made a statement that another system should do what Jow Ga does.  Any comparison that I make is for the purpose of trying to understand a system that I don't train.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I never questioned the efficacy of Akidio. That's not even my style.  I try to understand martial arts from what it teaches vs  what I think is best.  Efficacy is how you think about things.



Wrong.

Efficacy-
noun, plural ef·fi·ca·cies.​capacity for producing a desired result or effect; effectiveness









						Definition of efficacy | Dictionary.com
					

Efficacy definition, capacity for producing a desired result or effect; effectiveness: a remedy of great efficacy. See more.




					www.dictionary.com
				




Your original post was littered with how Aikidoka intended to do things one way, yet ended up getting varied results. You even posted a video of Rokas getting embarrassed in a sparring match with a MMA fighter. You then questioned Rokas' knowledge of a martial art he had studied for 15 years because he wasn't looking very good against various fighters. Those are questions of efficacy, because it shows that Aikidoka are attempting to get a desired result, but for whatever reason are falling short of that goal. Further, since we were talking about Rokas, who himself often compares Aikido to other martial arts, a system comparison was unavoidable. Aikido's efficacy is questioned, so it's a no-brainer that it would be compared to martial arts whose efficacy is not questioned and asked what the latter is doing correct and what Aikido is not doing correctly.



JowGaWolf said:


> Me training Jow Ga is my statement on what I think is best for me.   Not once have I made a statement that another system should do what Jow Ga does.  Any comparison that I make is for the purpose of trying to understand a system that I don't train.



It's troubling that every discussion must always circle back to you and your personal training. Your personal training in Jow Ga isn't the topic of this discussion. We're talking about Aikido. If you want to discuss the efficacy of Jow Ga, create "Jow Ga the Reality" thread, and I'll happily make some comments.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> It’s claiming rather openly that it is an effective form of fighting that emphasizes method over strength, thus weaker individuals (women, children (LOL) and the elderly) can utilize its techniques to defend themselves against larger and stronger assailants.


I must have missed something. That page doesn't refer to women, children, or the elderly (or any group) that I can see. It also doesn't actually make the claim (though I'd say it's implied) that Aikido is effective for self-defense for those groups. It never uses a direct reference to fighting, though I think you and I would both read an implication of fighting in that wording.

Are the movements and principles of Aikido effective for self-defense? They've worked for me the few times I've used them (referring to the principles and movements I see as shared between Aikido and NGA), though they probably weren't necessary there. Others who use them more regularly (where being attacked and needing to control are part of their jobs) report more usefulness than I've had a need for.

I think we sometimes get lost in comparing to something else, which is actually arguing about "best". But "best for" isn't the same things as "good for", or even "can be used for". You won't find a lot of competition evidence (except within Tomiki), because Aikido isn't a good path for that - it takes too long and has too much focus on specific principles, rather than direct fighing effectiveness. Recognizing Aikido principles and movement in video also requires an understanding of those principles and movement, which makes it difficult to discuss with folks who don't have any experience related to it. Note that nobody looks at a jab in a video titled "MMA in a street fight" and says, "that's a jab - it comes from boxing". Sure it does. Also comes from other places, and is part of MMA.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> It's troubling that every discussion must always circle back to you and your personal training. Your personal training in Jow Ga isn't the topic of this discussion. We're talking about Aikido. If you want to discuss the efficacy of Jow Ga, create "Jow Ga the Reality" thread, and I'll happily make some comments.


This is how some people try to relate to a subject at hand. It's not about making it about them - it's just how their brain explains things through their own story.


----------



## RagingBull

gpseymour said:


> I must have missed something. That page doesn't refer to women, children, or the elderly (or any group) that I can see. It also doesn't actually make the claim (though I'd say it's implied) that Aikido is effective for self-defense for those groups. It never uses a direct reference to fighting, though I think you and I would both read an implication of fighting in that wording.
> 
> Are the movements and principles of Aikido effective for self-defense? They've worked for me the few times I've used them (referring to the principles and movements I see as shared between Aikido and NGA), though they probably weren't necessary there. Others who use them more regularly (where being attacked and needing to control are part of their jobs) report more usefulness than I've had a need for.
> 
> I think we sometimes get lost in comparing to something else, which is actually arguing about "best". But "best for" isn't the same things as "good for", or even "can be used for". You won't find a lot of competition evidence (except within Tomiki), because Aikido isn't a good path for that - it takes too long and has too much focus on specific principles, rather than direct fighing effectiveness. Recognizing Aikido principles and movement in video also requires an understanding of those principles and movement, which makes it difficult to discuss with folks who don't have any experience related to it. Note that nobody looks at a jab in a video titled "MMA in a street fight" and says, "that's a jab - it comes from boxing". Sure it does. Also comes from other places, and is part of MMA.


yeah...yeah we don´t understand bro. I have trained in Tendo ryu & Iwama Ryu , from a sensei who trained with Saito in Iwama. Trust me i know the principles. Iwama ryu was shorter that Tendo ryu but not for outside fighting in a modern "arena" on the streets.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I must have missed something. That page doesn't refer to women, children, or the elderly (or any group) that I can see. It also doesn't actually make the claim (though I'd say it's implied) that Aikido is effective for self-defense for those groups. It never uses a direct reference to fighting, though I think you and I would both read an implication of fighting in that wording.
> 
> Are the movements and principles of Aikido effective for self-defense? They've worked for me the few times I've used them (referring to the principles and movements I see as shared between Aikido and NGA), though they probably weren't necessary there. Others who use them more regularly (where being attacked and needing to control are part of their jobs) report more usefulness than I've had a need for.
> 
> I think we sometimes get lost in comparing to something else, which is actually arguing about "best". But "best for" isn't the same things as "good for", or even "can be used for". You won't find a lot of competition evidence (except within Tomiki), because Aikido isn't a good path for that - it takes too long and has too much focus on specific principles, rather than direct fighing effectiveness. Recognizing Aikido principles and movement in video also requires an understanding of those principles and movement, which makes it difficult to discuss with folks who don't have any experience related to it. Note that nobody looks at a jab in a video titled "MMA in a street fight" and says, "that's a jab - it comes from boxing". Sure it does. Also comes from other places, and is part of MMA.



Sorry, it's on this page;





__





						Aikido of Dallas
					





					www.aikido.org
				




Here's the entire snippet;

"Aikido emphasizes more than fighting skill. Rather it aims to resolve conflict through dissipating attack by controlling the aggressor's energy. The emphasis is on method versus strength making Aikido particularly effective for women, children and the elderly. In addition to improving self-defense skills and physical fitness, the discipline of Aikido enjoys two fundamental commitments: a peaceful resolution of conflict, whenever possible, and self-improvement from Aikido membership."

Essentially that skill trumps strength, thus you don't need to be strong to use Aikido effectively. Hence weaker people can use said art effectively against stronger people.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> This is how some people try to relate to a subject at hand. It's not about making it about them - it's just how their brain explains things through their own story.



That's great, but proficiency in Jow Ga really has nothing to do with the efficacy of Aikido unless we're directly comparing Jow Ga to Aikido, which no one is doing.


----------



## RagingBull

I wish people would just train in Aikido for the harmony & Ki. Forget all the Hollywood crap. You will thank me later !


----------



## Gerry Seymour

RagingBull said:


> yeah...yeah we don´t understand bro. I have trained in Tendo ryu & Iwama Ryu , from a sensei who trained with Saito in Iwama. Trust me i know the principles. Iwama ryu was shorter that Tendo ryu but not for outside fighting in a modern "arena" on the streets.


I never said you didn't understand. In fact, by your statement here, you'd be more likely to undertsand than me.


----------



## RagingBull

gpseymour said:


> I never said you didn't understand. In fact, by your statement here, you'd be more likely to undertsand than me.


I have nothing against Aikido ir Daito ryu but for our modern world no way. I would rather do Judo & Boxing.  also look at Kosen Judo. Aikido has some sabaki which can be used but if i was looking for a more effective system, wado ryu.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Sorry, it's on this page;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aikido of Dallas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aikido.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the entire snippet;
> 
> "Aikido emphasizes more than fighting skill. Rather it aims to resolve conflict through dissipating attack by controlling the aggressor's energy. The emphasis is on method versus strength making Aikido particularly effective for women, children and the elderly. In addition to improving self-defense skills and physical fitness, the discipline of Aikido enjoys two fundamental commitments: a peaceful resolution of conflict, whenever possible, and self-improvement from Aikido membership."
> 
> Essentially that skill trumps strength, thus you don't need to be strong to use Aikido effectively. Hence weaker people can use said art effectively against stronger people.


Thanks.

I'll say that this statement holds water to me.......depending upon how they teach and view the art. I've seen some that would emphasize the escape possibilities (which the dissipation of an attacker's momentum enhances) over the control possibilities (which I see less potential for in Aikido by itself, from the parts I've experienced). Knowing how some places approach the art, this could actually be a reasonable statement. Or it might not. I'd consider it problematic, in any case, because of how it can be read.

There does seem to be a misunderstanding (per my view) among many Aikidoka - including instructors - that strength doesn't much matter. Some have even taken that a bit further to think getting strong makes Aikido less effective. The principles and techniques can actually benefit (as can all in other arts I'm aware of) from more strength being available, of course.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

RagingBull said:


> I have nothing against Aikido ir Daito ryu but for our modern world no way. I would rather do Judo & Boxing.  also look at Kosen Judo. Aikido has some sabaki which can be used but if i was looking for a more effective system, wado ryu.


That's nice for you. I don't recall anyone here asking for alternative art recommendations, though.


----------



## RagingBull

gpseymour said:


> That's nice for you. I don't recall anyone here asking for alternative art recommendations, though.


they don´t have to i am giving my opinion.


----------



## jayoliver00

Shatteredzen said:


> No no, your entire scenario was imaginary. Despite the arguing back and forth, the rest of us have been having a discussion. This is more creative imagination then all of the Aikido reiki crystals from the rest of the thread.



Wrong, I can do this and have done it in the streets and plenty of times in the gym (minus the intentional head spiking, although we're trained to breakfall and tuck our chin). You just need to train something that works and spar; you know, spar for real.


----------



## jayoliver00

Shatteredzen said:


> An over confident BJJ coach who thought he was going to wrestle his way into helping that situation. It's sad and unfortunate because his instinct to help got him hurt.



How do you know he "was going to wrestle his way into helping"?  He's an MMA coach; do you know what that means?


----------



## Steve

PSA: efficacy and effectiveness are not the same thing. A quick Google will help some folks out.  

I just went back and reread the OP and the question it raises is fundamentally about the efficacy of aikido.  In other words, the thrust was that we all know aikido isn't effective as trained.  But can it be effective?


----------



## jayoliver00

Shatteredzen said:


> No Hanzou, that's called Judo.



You're ignorant of what BJJ entails.


----------



## jayoliver00

JowGaWolf said:


> What I can't understand is that you bash Aikido for not being able to fight, then for whatever logic you are using,  you believe that Aikido practitioners are going to jump into a situation where they are clearly going to have to fight against multiple people.
> 
> So which one is it?  Aikido practitioners can't fight?  or Aikido practitioners can fight which is why they would jump into a fight against 5 or more people?
> 
> What some Aikido schools advertise is irrelevant to the reality of fighting against numbers.  While you are at it go ahead and throw Chi Ball fighters, MMA, Kung Fu fighters, and BJJ fighters because they will all tell you that they can fight multiple people as well.



Sounds like he's making a followup point about Aikido; 1st, they can't fight & 2nd, they often falsely advertise that their system was designed specifically for such multiple opponent situations despite rarely being able to really fight.  His 2nd point was due to the Akidos not accepting his 1st point.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I'll say that this statement holds water to me.......depending upon how they teach and view the art. I've seen some that would emphasize the escape possibilities (which the dissipation of an attacker's momentum enhances) over the control possibilities (which I see less potential for in Aikido by itself, from the parts I've experienced). Knowing how some places approach the art, this could actually be a reasonable statement. Or it might not. I'd consider it problematic, in any case, because of how it can be read.
> 
> There does seem to be a misunderstanding (per my view) among many Aikidoka - including instructors - that strength doesn't much matter. Some have even taken that a bit further to think getting strong makes Aikido less effective. The principles and techniques can actually benefit (as can all in other arts I'm aware of) from more strength being available, of course.



Well that's really the fundamental point; It is a rather large question mark that a weak person can utilize Aikido effectively against a larger/stronger person. Thus advertising that your art can in fact perform that feat is rather insidious.

And yes, the muscle= bad martial arts is a common fantasy in martial arts. Even Bjj had that nonsense swirling around for a time (though they have evidence to actually back it up to some degree).


----------



## jayoliver00




----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> What I can't understand is that you bash Aikido for not being able to fight, then for whatever logic you are using,  you believe that Aikido practitioners are going to jump into a situation where they are clearly going to have to fight against multiple people.
> 
> So which one is it?  Aikido practitioners can't fight?  or Aikido practitioners can fight which is why they would jump into a fight against 5 or more people?
> 
> What some Aikido schools advertise is irrelevant to the reality of fighting against numbers.  While you are at it go ahead and throw Chi Ball fighters, MMA, Kung Fu fighters, and BJJ fighters because they will all tell you that they can fight multiple people as well.


There's another possibility here.  I think some folks like the idea of being able to fight, but don't like the idea of actual fighting.  They like the trappings of being able to say to folks, "I'm a fighter, and I train in a very serious martial art.  I don't compete, and I don't pussyfoot around with ritualized drills and monkey dancing.  I am a fighter. I train to defend against multiple attackers... with weapons."  They like all of that.  But when it comes to actual fighting, they're like, "I'm good."  So, when it comes to a situation where they may actually need to use those serious fighting skills, they don't have them. 

To get back to the analogy of a swimmer.  It's like a person who likes the idea of swimming, and goes through all the motions.  But they really can't swim... and on some level whether consciously or subconsciously, they know it.  And so when they see a kid drowning, they call the cops and watch the kid die, and tell themselves that it was the smart choice to make.

Truly, the one thing about this entire thread that really irritates me is the tacit endorsement of cowardice.  The rest is same old, same old, but this codification of cowardice is a new wrinkle.


----------



## Hanzou

jayoliver00 said:


>



Yeah, I really wish the MT guy just started blasting that idiot. Him catching the dude's legs because he was going slow was dirty.


----------



## jayoliver00

Shatteredzen said:


> Mhmm, thats a stretch by any imagination. Now you dont like teaching martial arts to kids? Or I suppose you will now argue that those BJJ classes for 8 year olds are churning out armies of lethal child soldiers and how a hundred pound woman is going to ground and pound a two hundred pound attacker. K bro, cool story...



You're making gross exaggerations in  poor attempts at making strawman arguments.  (1) These "8 year olds" aren't advertised as killers vs. adults or even teens. Real life is not a movie. When 8 year olds have problems, it's usually with other 8 year olds or somewhat older.  (2) You obviously never been in a real fighting gym as there are plenty of 100 lb women that can beat up 200 lb men; especially when the average 200 lb man is pretty fat, sloppy and can't fighting.  I have a 13 year old girl that's about 90 lbs that can knockout adults and her grappling is much better; at Pan Ams medalist level. The 100 lb boys at 12-14 are even more lethal.


----------



## RagingBull

Steve said:


> There's another possibility here.  I think some folks like the idea of being able to fight, but don't like the idea of actual fighting.  They like the trappings of being able to say to folks, "I'm a fighter, and I train in a very serious martial art.  I don't compete, and I don't pussyfoot around with ritualized drills and monkey dancing.  I am a fighter. I train to defend against multiple attackers... with weapons."  They like all of that.  But when it comes to actual fighting, they're like, "I'm good."  So, when it comes to a situation where they may actually need to use those serious fighting skills, they don't have them.
> 
> To get back to the analogy of a swimmer.  It's like a person who likes the idea of swimming, and goes through all the motions.  But they really can't swim... and on some level whether consciously or subconsciously, they know it.  And so when they see a kid drowning, they call the cops and watch the kid die, and tell themselves that it was the smart choice to make.
> 
> Truly, the one thing about this entire thread that really irritates me is the tacit endorsement of cowardice.  The rest is same old, same old, but this codification of cowardice is a new wrinkle.


I will just say this i have been in bars where drunken people have Glassed others. seen it often. you do not need any fancy "KI" or training. Bang ..straight in the face or under the chin. I was in the British Army at the time. I was involved in a few punch ups & did Army Boxing. All this Aikido training is nice i enjoyed it rolling on the mats but it´s not going to help you in a bar brawl. it happens too fast. Wing Tsun, boxing will help. fast reactions & a boxer will immediatly protect his vital organs & face. fast reactions from sparring. real sparring.  I am talking from my experiences here. not a fantasy Dojo world. This might upset some dreamers on here but i am talking reality here.


----------



## jayoliver00

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, I really wish the MT guy just started blasting that idiot. Him catching the dude's legs because he was going slow was dirty.



He also starts giving MT tips on how to counter the leg catch. But now I realize the reason for the sock-hop bottoms, to hide the awkwardness.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> I’m not debating whether it’s smart or not. I’m just saying I think it’s something not really style-dependent.


It's not style dependant it's based on the mentality.  So you take the mentality that most Aikido practitioners have in terms of Aikido and the purpose of it.  Then you take that shared mentality about Aikido to get a good idea of what people in that system is most likely to do.

Similar to how people in a gang have the same mentality and make similar decisions and get into similar trouble.

Think of how Kung Fu Wang and I think similar about somethings because of how we see CMA


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

RagingBull said:


> a boxer will immediatly protect his vital organs & face.


The moment that you see a punch coming toward your face, most people may think just to protect their heads. I prefer to shot down the incoming missile.

What else MA training can be more important than this?


----------



## RagingBull

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The moment that you see a punch coming toward your face, most people may think just to protect their heads. I prefer to shot down the incoming missile.
> 
> What else MA training can be more important than this?


some people are either too slow to see it coming or just do not react. 
The other situation is most people if going to stab you or smash a glass in your face will do it when you are off guard. I think a lot of self defence is reading into a situation very quickly ...if you can. If not you need to then react to stop more damage being done. 
Common sense is another thing. If you have heard a bar is bad or an area avoid it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> It's not style dependant it's based on the mentality.  So you take the mentality that most Aikido practitioners have in terms of Aikido and the purpose of it.  Then you take that shared mentality about Aikido to get a good idea of what people in that system is most likely to do.


When an Aikido guy sees a punch coming toward his face, he will never use his arm to hurt his opponent's punching arm. The style limitation will restrict the Aikido system to have anti-missile system.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Well that's really the fundamental point; It is a rather large question mark that a weak person can utilize Aikido effectively against a larger/stronger person. Thus advertising that your art can in fact perform that feat is rather insidious.
> 
> And yes, the muscle= bad martial arts is a common fantasy in martial arts. Even Bjj had that nonsense swirling around for a time (though they have evidence to actually back it up to some degree).


I suspect the “strength is bad” started with the difficulty many strong (untrained) people have in learning not to depend upon their strength. That and the lack of mobility common among bodybuilders.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jayoliver00 said:


> Sounds like he's making a followup point about Aikido; 1st, they can't fight & 2nd, they often falsely advertise that their system was designed specifically for such multiple opponent situations despite rarely being able to really fight.  His 2nd point was due to the Akidos not accepting his 1st point.


Just because a person trains Aikido doesn't mean he can't fight.  It just means he takes Aikido. Some people don't take Aikido to learn to fight.    Because he may already know how to fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When an Aikido guy sees a punch coming toward his face, he will never use his arm to hurt his opponent's punching arm. The style limitation will restrict the Aikido system to have anti-missile system.


Never?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> They like all of that. But when it comes to actual fighting, they're like, "I'm good." So, when it comes to a situation where they may actually need to use those serious fighting skills, they don't have them


Of course people talk junk and talk big all the time and lack the skills to make it happen.  Appear to be dangerous in hopes others will think twice about trying to harm you.



Steve said:


> To get back to the analogy of a swimmer. It's like a person who likes the idea of swimming, and goes through all the motions. But they really can't swim... and on some level whether consciously or subconsciously, they know it. And so when they see a kid drowning, they call the cops and watch the kid die, and tell themselves that it was the smart choice to make.


If they can't swim then it is a smart decision. Let's reverse the role.  You are 400 yards away from the shore drawing. Your 12 year old child is on the shore because he or she can't swim.  Would you want your child to drown trying to swim out to you?

Or would you rather have your child to call the police and yell for help‽  So is you child a jerk or scum for not drowning in an effort to save you‽


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I suspect the “strength is bad” started with the difficulty many strong (untrained) people have in learning not to depend upon their strength. That and the lack of mobility common among bodybuilders.



As a mid-large person myself, I often had to make sure my technique was sound, because I knew that if I tapped out a smaller person, I might be doing it because of strength instead of technique.

I almost envied smaller/weaker guys in Bjj because when they tapped someone out, they actually did it with technique almost every time.


----------



## RagingBull

gpseymour said:


> I suspect the “strength is bad” started with the difficulty many strong (untrained) people have in learning not to depend upon their strength. That and the lack of mobility common among bodybuilders.


people used to say weight training was bad for boxers too..they were wrong.  If you think some kind of KI will protect you from a Mr Mike tyson in his prime then you are dreaming. of course not all people are like him in his prime but.. the lack of mobility is bull too. look up Tom plat or a few other bodybuilders who were martial artists.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

RagingBull said:


> people used to say weight training was bad for boxers too..they were wrong.  If you think some kind of KI will protect you from a Mr Mike tyson in his prime then you are dreaming. of course not all people are like him in his prime but.. the lack of mobility is bull too. look up Tom plat or a few other bodybuilders who were martial artists.


You seem to be trying to disagree with something you think I’ve said.


----------



## RagingBull

gpseymour said:


> You seem to be trying to disagree with something you think I’ve said.


i understand you. weight training for a martial artist must not be like a bodybuilder perfecting "weak bodyparts" but look at Neil adams my boyhood hero in judo. He was strong and fast.


----------



## RagingBull

Neil Adams


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Just because a person trains Aikido doesn't mean he can't fight.  It just means he takes Aikido. Some people don't take Aikido to learn to fight.    Because he may already know how to fight.



Yeah. Not a great place to argue from when discussing a skill though.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Of course people talk junk and talk big all the time and lack the skills to make it happen.  Appear to be dangerous in hopes others will think twice about trying to harm you.
> 
> 
> If they can't swim then it is a smart decision. Let's reverse the role.  You are 400 yards away from the shore drawing. Your 12 year old child is on the shore because he or she can't swim.  Would you want your child to drown trying to swim out to you?
> 
> Or would you rather have your child to call the police and yell for help‽  So is you child a jersey or scum for not drowning in an effort to save you‽



But we are not necessarily putting the smart decision above the right decision. And we are not condemning kids who can't swim or Aikidoka's who can't fight for not jumping in. 

We are suggesting condemning a guy for jumping in as a bit duchebaggy.

That is the difference.

Eg. Kid saves his sister from dog attack. Gets really badly hurt doing it. 









						After Heroic Boy is Injured Saving Little Sis from Dog Attack, He Wins Praise–And Surprises–From Avengers (Watch)
					

Days after saving his little sister, Bridger Walker is welcomed into superhero ranks with praise and surprises from his favorite celebrities.




					www.goodnewsnetwork.org
				




I don't think the shouldn't do that crowd would get much traction.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Of course people talk junk and talk big all the time and lack the skills to make it happen.  Appear to be dangerous in hopes others will think twice about trying to harm you.
> 
> 
> If they can't swim then it is a smart decision. Let's reverse the role.  You are 400 yards away from the shore drawing. Your 12 year old child is on the shore because he or she can't swim.  Would you want your child to drown trying to swim out to you?
> 
> Or would you rather have your child to call the police and yell for help‽  So is you child a jersey or scum for not drowning in an effort to save you‽


Dude.  That's not reversing the role.  It's a text book straw man, with a disingenuous appeal to emotion thrown in at the end.  

To actually reverse the roles, let's say I'm drowning.  If I'm drowning and there is a person who is a competent swimmer, who chooses not to help because he is a coward, I'm going to be pissed.  Dead... but also very angry, the last thing I see being him on his cell phone calling 911 and watching me die.  

What you're saying is that the guy on the shore isn't just any guy.  He's a lifeguard.  But not just any lifeguard.  This lifeguard may very well not be able to swim, if he gets certified by a school that focuses on things other than swimming ability (as if such a certification would be just fine).  And further, that this person is actually smart to avoid the water, because even though he presents himself to the public as a very good swimmer who is lifeguard certified, he knows he cannot swim and would just end up drowning himself.  Your position is, to your credit, very consistent.  It's just fundamentally broken.  





gpseymour said:


> I suspect the “strength is bad” started with the difficulty many strong (untrained) people have in learning not to depend upon their strength. That and the lack of mobility common among bodybuilders.


I am positive I've heard some wing chun guys suggest that strength is actually bad for wing chun... and that it makes their wing chun less effective.


----------



## jayoliver00

JowGaWolf said:


> Just because a person trains Aikido doesn't mean he can't fight.  It just means he takes Aikido. Some people don't take Aikido to learn to fight.    Because he may already know how to fight.



Obviously if you nitpick over every variable, then you will find something.  We are obviously talking about the general concensus of Aikidos being able to fight, using their Aikido training. 

And knowing how to fight is pretty vague. Beating up some random guy in the street is pretty easy as most are fat & untrained. If someone trains in an MA for 3 years, they should be able to beat up the average joe. A good test of not just your skills & aptitude but also their style of MA as well as their MA school/Instructor, is to let someone untrained go full power at your head/body/legs with gloves/shinguards on while you just touch/tap back. Would the average Akido allow this?


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Yeah. Not a great place to argue from when discussing a skill though.


No one is talking about the skill of anything and you know it.  Have an honest conversation about skill and you'll won't get any of these side track arguments.



drop bear said:


> But we are not necessarily putting the smart decision above the right decision. And we are not condemning kids who can't swim or Aikidoka's who can't fight for not jumping in.


But they are willing to condem someone who isn't going to step into a fight against multiple people or a man who isn't a strong swimmer for not jumping into water to drown himself in an effort to save someone else

I'm not the one doing the condemning here.  I posted simple question  by flipping roles where it was an adult that was drowning and a child who cannot swim.  To see if anyone would say that the child should take the same risk that some in here think I should take.  And yet instead of answering  people say it's a strawman, and it's not.  It's an honest question.  I've notice when people here don't want to answer the hard question, the first thing they say is it's a strawman.  

I don't look at things as "Smart Decision" vs "Right Decision."  Because to do is to act as if both are opposite and they aren't.  For example,  Trying to break up a fight by yourself where there are multiple attackers is not Smart and it's Not the Right way to do that.  

A smarter decision would be to get some assistance in trying to deescalate meaning you don't go in at it alone.  That would be both smart and the right way to go about it.  The framing that  "Smart decisions" and "Right decisions" are on opposite ends is false and it often leads people to stupid decisions.  BJJ /MMA guy already proved that and we saw the result.


----------



## RagingBull

Steve said:


> Dude.  That's not reversing the role.  It's a text book straw man, with a disingenuous appeal to emotion thrown in at the end.
> 
> To actually reverse the roles, let's say I'm drowning.  If I'm drowning and there is a person who is a competent swimmer, who chooses not to help because he is a coward, I'm going to be pissed.  Dead... but also very angry, the last thing I see being him on his cell phone calling 911 and watching me die.
> 
> What you're saying is that the guy on the shore isn't just any guy.  He's a lifeguard.  But not just any lifeguard.  This lifeguard may very well not be able to swim, if he gets certified by a school that focuses on things other than swimming ability (as if such a certification would be just fine).  And further, that this person is actually smart to avoid the water, because even though he presents himself to the public as a very good swimmer who is lifeguard certified, he knows he cannot swim and would just end up drowning himself.  Your position is, to your credit, very consistent.  It's just fundamentally broken.  I am positive I've heard *some wing chun guys suggest that strength is actually bad for wing chun... and that it makes their wing chun less effective*







__





						Krafttraining für Kung Fu und Karate: Mit grossem Ernährungsteil : Schneider, Eberhard: Amazon.de: Bücher
					

Krafttraining für Kung Fu und Karate: Mit grossem Ernährungsteil | Schneider, Eberhard | ISBN: 9783927553033 | Kostenloser Versand für alle Bücher mit Versand und Verkauf duch Amazon.



					www.amazon.de
				



read this book, there is a full PDF online.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Dude. That's not reversing the role. It's a text book straw man, with a disingenuous appeal to emotion thrown in at the end.


So a drowning child isn't an emotional situation?  Save it for someone else dude.  



Steve said:


> To actually reverse the roles, let's say I'm drowning. If I'm drowning and there is a person who is a competent swimmer, who chooses not to help because he is a coward, I'm going to be pissed.


I never gave the scenario of what a competent swimmer should do.  I've only talked about someone who doesn't know how to swim or someone who isn't a strong swimmer.  Read what type.  Don't fall for these other arguments that some of the others are making.  They don't care about the reality man.  All they want to is debate and score gotcha points.



Steve said:


> I'm going to be pissed. Dead... but also very angry, the last thing I see being him on his cell phone calling 911 and watching me die.


Yeah but if water patrol came around the corner in a boat to save your butt, you'll be glad that he made that call.  Like I said before, you got people on here who only care about having a debate.  They take about things so that people have a narrow scope.



Steve said:


> What you're saying is that the guy on the shore isn't just any guy. He's a lifeguard. But not just any lifeguard. This lifeguard may very well not be able to swim, if he gets certified by a school that focuses on things other than swimming ability (as if such a certification would be just fine). And further, that this person is actually smart to avoid the water, because even though he presents himself to the public as a very good swimmer who is lifeguard certified, he knows he cannot swim and would just end up drowning himself. Your position is, to your credit, very consistent. It's just fundamentally broken.


I didn't say anything about a life guard.  Lifeguards are trained to save people who are drowning.  They also have equipment to help them safely do that.  Life guards are also put into position of duty and responsibility for the safety of those in their area.  Sort of like the responsibilities and duty that Police take on.  In both cases, those individuals are trained for that purpose.  You wouldn't hire a Lifeguard that couldn't swim or a lifeguard that wasn't a strong swimmer.



Steve said:


> And further, that this person is actually smart to avoid the water,


I think this is a smart decision for anyone who cannot swim.   I also think that regardless of swimming ability things like life vest should be required, depending on the distance one may be away from the shore.  That's just me because I'm not a strong swimmer.  I swim well enough to not drown on my own so long as I don't cramp up, black out, or have a heart attack.  If I'm in a boat or further out then this is what I'm wearing





I have no misconceptions or delusions about where my swimming skills begin or end.



Steve said:


> Your position is, to your credit, very consistent. It's just fundamentally broken.


Its consistent because I'm not selling crap to people in here just for the purpose of having a debate for debate sakes.  If you go back and read what I state without reading what other's post, you would see that say anything in the context of what you stated.

This is why I told Hanzou to save that nonsense for someone who doesn't know how he operates.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

RagingBull said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Krafttraining für Kung Fu und Karate: Mit grossem Ernährungsteil : Schneider, Eberhard: Amazon.de: Bücher
> 
> 
> Krafttraining für Kung Fu und Karate: Mit grossem Ernährungsteil | Schneider, Eberhard | ISBN: 9783927553033 | Kostenloser Versand für alle Bücher mit Versand und Verkauf duch Amazon.
> 
> 
> 
> www.amazon.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read this book, there is a full PDF online.


That link is apparently to a German version of the page.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jayoliver00 said:


> Obviously if you nitpick over every variable, then you will find something.


Fighting is a variable and those variable multiple greatly for each person you have to fight with.

The guy on the right train Aikido.  But he also knows other things.  Just because he knows and trains Aikido doesn't mean he doesn't know how to fight.  If I start training Aikido today, do you really think I'll lose the fighting skills that I have and still train?  There's no nitpick.  I'm willing to bet there are multiple people in here who have taken more than 1 martial arts and have been in more than one fight (regardless of what they train)







jayoliver00 said:


> And knowing how to fight is pretty vague.


But if you know how to fight, then  you know how to fight regardless of how vague that comment is.



jayoliver00 said:


> Beating up some random guy in the street is pretty easy as most are fat & untrained.


Yeah I wouldn't know because I've never gone and had fights with fat people.  All the fights that I've been in could have gone either way for me.  None of them were fat,



jayoliver00 said:


> If someone trains in an MA for 3 years, they should be able to beat up the average joe


Not true.  If you don't train martial arts for the purpose of using it fight then you get no guarantee that you can beat up "the average joe".  The funny thing about your use of phrase "the average Joe"  is that you call me out for being vague.  But the "the average joe" is so vague that you couldn't possibly define that. 

My next door neighbor is fat and would probably what you would consider the average Joe.  You can feel free to fight him.  He won't fight you.  So it be easy right up to the point where he makes use of that gun that I always carries on him. 

When you say "The average Joe"  I have no idea of what type of person you are talking about.



jayoliver00 said:


> A good test of not just your skills & aptitude but also their style of MA as well as their MA school/Instructor, is to let someone untrained go full power at your head/body/legs with gloves/shinguards on while you just touch/tap back. Would the average Akido allow this?


I don't drain Aikido, But I train Kung Fu and the only way I'll let anyone go full power on me  without me returning the aggression is if the person is significantly weaker or less skilled than me.   Other than that, the rule is "you get with what you give."  Hit me hard and I'm going to hit you hard too.

As for the Average Aikido practitioners,  my guess is that they would respond in a similar manner.  "You get what you give."  Even if I trained Aikido that would still be my rule.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When an Aikido guy sees a punch coming toward his face, he will never use his arm to hurt his opponent's punching arm. The style limitation will restrict the Aikido system to have anti-missile system.


Based on some of the things I've seen this is the case. But with some other Aikido practitioners, they may not have the same issue.  From those who say "the goal is to get your opponent to over extend" I would say they would have a tough time if there opponent never extends.  Anyone who "sneaks steps / steal steps"  isn't going to over extend


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Based on some of the things I've seen this is the case. But with some other Aikido practitioners, they may not have the same issue.  From those who say "the goal is to get your opponent to over extend" I would say they would have a tough time if there opponent never extends.  Anyone who "sneaks steps / steal steps"  isn't going to over extend


Anyone can be made to overextend or be put out of position. Fights are chaotic.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> So a drowning child isn't an emotional situation?  Save it for someone else dude.
> 
> 
> I never gave the scenario of what a competent swimmer should do.  I've only talked about someone who doesn't know how to swim or someone who isn't a strong swimmer.  Read what type.  Don't fall for these other arguments that some of the others are making.  They don't care about the reality man.  All they want to is debate and score gotcha points.
> 
> 
> Yeah but if water patrol came around the corner in a boat to save your butt, you'll be glad that he made that call.  Like I said before, you got people on here who only care about having a debate.  They take about things so that people have a narrow scope.
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about a life guard.  Lifeguards are trained to save people who are drowning.  They also have equipment to help them safely do that.  Life guards are also put into position of duty and responsibility for the safety of those in their area.  Sort of like the responsibilities and duty that Police take on.  In both cases, those individuals are trained for that purpose.  You wouldn't hire a Lifeguard that couldn't swim or a lifeguard that wasn't a strong swimmer.
> 
> 
> I think this is a smart decision for anyone who cannot swim.   I also think that regardless of swimming ability things like life vest should be required, depending on the distance one may be away from the shore.  That's just me because I'm not a strong swimmer.  I swim well enough to not drown on my own so long as I don't cramp up, black out, or have a heart attack.  If I'm in a boat or further out then this is what I'm wearing
> View attachment 26833
> 
> I have no misconceptions or delusions about where my swimming skills begin or end.
> 
> 
> Its consistent because I'm not selling crap to people in here just for the purpose of having a debate for debate sakes.  If you go back and read what I state without reading what other's post, you would see that say anything in the context of what you stated.
> 
> This is why I told Hanzou to save that nonsense for someone who doesn't know how he operates.


Lol.  It's consistent.  Doesn't mean it isn't crap.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> Anyone can be made to overextend or be put out of position. Fights are chaotic.


While some people will overextend those who train mentally and physical aren't going to overextend.

Chaotic fight, The first guy to attack doesn't over extend.    Through the chaos he keeps good footwork and a solid stance.  Good luck on trying to make someone like that overextend.  First thing he's going to do is use is footwork to close the gap so he doesn't have to overextend





Again.  He doesn't overextend






When people specifically train into habit not to overextend, it's going to be very difficult to make them do so.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Lol.  It's consistent.  Doesn't mean it isn't crap.


You can't even quote back correctly what I've been saying.  You only hear what you want hear and read what you want to read. So there's that. 

You claim stuff that I didn't say is crap.  Yeah that works for me.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> You can't even quote back correctly what I've been saying.  You only hear what you want hear and read what you want to read. So there's that.
> 
> You claim that stuff that I didn't say is crap.  Yeah that works for me.


Maybe I'm not trying to quite back what you're saying.  Why would I even do that?  I promise you, it's all there.  If you take some time to read it and understand it, I think you'll figure it out.  It's all there.  

Try this.  Reread the posts but this time presuming you're the one seeing what you want to see and reading what you want to read. It may be enlightening.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> No one is talking about the skill of anything and you know it. Have an honest conversation about skill and you'll won't get any of these side track arguments.



Wow. That is even worse. I would at least accept Aikido is trying to teach something.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Reread the posts but this time presuming you're the one seeing what you want to see and reading what you want to read. It may be enlightening.


I did that already.  That's step 1 for me.  When someone claims that I said something. I first go back to check to see if that's what I stated.  

I do this, just in case. I've said something incorrectly.  Jobo called me out on something that I said that was incorrect and I thanked him for correcting me.  Questions is.  Do you do the same?


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> I did that already.  That's step 1 for me.  When someone claims that I said something. I first go back to check to see if that's what I stated.
> 
> I do this, just in case. I've said something incorrectly.  Jobo called me out on something that I said that was incorrect and I thanked him for correcting me.  Questions is.  Do you do the same?


Of course you did.  🙄


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Wow. That is even worse. I would at least accept Aikido is trying to teach something.


We had a good 25 pages talking about the techniques in Aikido and the various principles.  However, somewhere after page 25 the tone of the discussion began to change and it changed from looking at Aikido to bashing it.  I get that things go off the track here, but rarely if ever do the conversation towards the end of such a long thread have anything to do with what was discussed at the beginning.  

The thing about accepting Aikido is that they have many different views of what Aikido should be about.  Which is were we were originally with one Aikido Camp stating that it's for purpose A and the other states that it's for Purpose B.

I watched a couple of Akido Randori videos.  After watching a few dozen of them, I began to recognize a common theme that I didn't realize before.  Which made thing think differently about Randori.

Some see Randori as "Fighting multiple attackers"  Now I'm starting to see it as a drill where you have to respond to various attacks quickly.  I say this because I thought that it would be a good drill to have people take turns in attacking differently one after the other which creates random attacks that you have to deal with.  Not in the context of fighting multiple people, but in the context of "what do you do if one person uses attack A"  then the next person attacks and the scenario changes "what do you do if one person uses attack B"  

You can have one person just go through a bunch of random attacks but at that point, you a watching for that one person to do something.  A person that is standing in front of you cannot attack you unexpectedly from the side in order to give you a chance to deal with something that you truly didn't know was coming.

If this is what Randori is about, the ability to quickly respond to unexpected attacks from random directions then I'll probably add a similar training to my Kung Fu training as that would go well with my concept that a person should be able to do some type of Kung Fu from any position they find themselves in.

If I'm not correct about Randori, then I'm still using it because that way, I don't know what the attack will be and I have to quickly respond to it with a kung fu technique.    If I'm correct, then I've learned something from Aikido.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Of course you did.  🙄










As much as Jobo gets on my nerves sometime.  I still thanked him for correcting me.  I hated every moment of it. lol.  So yes.  I go back and read what I say.  If I'm wrong I'll admit or thank the person for correcting me.  So yep.  I'm consistent.  Ironically I'm so consistant that I thanked the same person almost a year later on about something else on the same post count #117.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> We had a good 25 pages talking about the techniques in Aikido and the various principles.  However, somewhere after page 25 the tone of the discussion began to change and it changed from looking at Aikido to bashing it.  I get that things go off the track here, but rarely if ever do the conversation towards the end of such a long thread have anything to do with what was discussed at the beginning.





No one in here is bashing Aikido.  No one said it is a worthless practice that no one should partake in. People are simply questioning its effectiveness after decades of dubious behavior from the Aikido community at large. Rokas (who you used in your OP) simply renewed the discussion since he had 15 years of Aikido experience yet looked like he had never stepped in a martial school in his life.



JowGaWolf said:


> The thing about accepting Aikido is that they have many different views of what Aikido should be about.  Which is were we were originally with one Aikido Camp stating that it's for purpose A and the other states that it's for Purpose B.
> 
> I watched a couple of Akido Randori videos.  After watching a few dozen of them, I began to recognize a common theme that I didn't realize before.  Which made thing think differently about Randori.
> 
> Some see Randori as "Fighting multiple attackers"  Now I'm starting to see it as a drill where you have to respond to various attacks quickly.  I say this because I thought that it would be a good drill to have people take turns in attacking differently one after the other which creates random attacks that you have to deal with.  Not in the context of fighting multiple people, but in the context of "what do you do if one person uses attack A"  then the next person attacks and the scenario changes "what do you do if one person uses attack B"
> 
> You can have one person just go through a bunch of random attacks but at that point, you a watching for that one person to do something.  A person that is standing in front of you cannot attack you unexpectedly from the side in order to give you a chance to deal with something that you truly didn't know was coming.
> 
> If this is what Randori is about, the ability to quickly respond to unexpected attacks from random directions then I'll probably add a similar training to my Kung Fu training as that would go well with my concept that a person should be able to do some type of Kung Fu from any position they find themselves in.
> 
> If I'm not correct about Randori, then I'm still using it because that way, I don't know what the attack will be and I have to quickly respond to it with a kung fu technique.    If I'm correct, then I've learned something from Aikido.



This is utter nonsense. The randori is literally called multiple opponent randori, so yes it is practice against fighting multiple opponents. We know this because we have multiple schools believing that their Aikido is effective against multiple attackers.

 The reason people create new meaning behind something that is obvious is because it doesn't actually work as intended. Making up esoteric mumbo jumbo about what this is supposed to be or mean is simply a deflection. It's like you fancy yourself as a sword maker, yet every sword you make is deficient and breaks when someone uses it in combat. Instead of simply admitting you're a bad sword maker, and that your process is flawed, you deflect and say that you never intended to make swords for battle in the first place. This is what people are doing with Aikido.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> No one in here is bashing Aikido. No one said it is a worthless practice that no one should partake in. People are simply questioning its effectiveness after decades of dubious behavior from the Aikido community at large. Rokas (who you used in your OP) simply renewed the discussion since he had 15 years of Aikido experience yet looked like he had never stepped in a martial school in his life.


My issue about Roka is that he poor performance is everyone else's fault but his own.  Even when he sees that he isn't training correctly for learning how to fight, he will still be delusional about his ability.  Like when he made the statement that he was a white belt but felt like he could handle most people.  Maybe that's what white belts say these days.  Or maybe that's just what Roka's say.  As far as Rokas goes, I wouldn't look for him as a measurement on any martial arts.   Like when he said that he learned that is better to spar wit someone around his skill level or slightly higher because he couldn't learn anything when the person was too good.  Most people who spar already know this.  We don't need Roka's stamp of approval to enlighten us about that.

People aren't questioning the effectiveness of Aikido.  That would require that we understand what is actually being taught and measured.  I used to think Aikido Randori was about multiple attacker scenario but now I don't.  Now I see it more as a reaction drill.  If it's a reaction drill then there's no need to talk about the effectiveness of it with fighting against multiple people because that's not what it's about or measuring.  Even if someone from Aikido told me that it was a multiple attacker scenario.  I would tell them that they misunderstood what is actually going on.

The reason Aikido Randori doesn't look like real fighting is because it's not trying to simulate real fighting.  I could be wrong, but after watching a bunch of Randori and the fact that it doesn't simulate what real attacks looking like, I would think I'm on the right track.  

No body fights like this.  The purpose of this drill isn't about fighting with it.  It's addressing agility and coordination so your body moves without thinking about what comes next.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> This is utter nonsense. The randori is literally called multiple opponent randori, so yes it is practice against fighting multiple opponents. We know this because we have multiple schools believing that their Aikido is effective against multiple attackers.


This is what I found when I looked up Randori


Randori is looked at differently depending on the system the person trains

The meaning of Randori, you can see in the translation of the Japanese Kanji. It says "Ran" is: chaos, random, at random, and "Dori" as take or grab. So we are dealing with chaotic or random handles or grips. The lump sum can be interpreted as "free practice".

*Randori* (乱取り), (רנדורי), is a free-style practice or sparring, a Japanese term used in Ninjutsu and other martial arts. The term literally means "chaos against an opponent", and implies leaving the structured reactions dictated at the level of the kata.

Randori may be practiced in various ways. If the object be simply training in the method of attack and defense, the attention should be especially directed to the training in the most efficient ways of throwing, bending or twisting, without special reference to developing the body or to mental and moral culture.

Randori promotes a variety of judo specific aspects, such as:                 

    Decide power; Learning to use situations properly                             
    Variety; Practice with different partners                             
    Willingness to learn; Learn together in opposition                             
    Critical skills; You trains with opponents who are bette                             
    Tolerance; As UKE give in sometimes and let TORI throw   

What is Randori?
Randori?

Out of all of the definitions I found for Randori.  None of them said anything about fighting.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> The reason people create new meaning behind something that is obvious is because it doesn't actually work as intended.


I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Especially if you didn't bother looking at what Randori means,



Hanzou said:


> Making up esoteric mumbo jumbo about what this is supposed to be or mean is simply a deflection. It's like you fancy yourself as a sword maker, yet every sword you make is deficient and breaks when someone uses it in combat. Instead of simply admitting you're a bad sword maker, and that your process is flawed, you deflect and say that you never intended to make swords for battle in the first place. This is what people are doing with Aikido.


I've never had someone who trains Aikido tell me this. Even in this thread I didn't see any of these statements..  when Aikido Practitioners were interviewed on youtube, they didn't say that either.  Are there people out there who thinks like this.  Of course there are. Does it  means the all Aikido schools think like this,  Definitely not.  I've already mention that there are 2 camps of Aikido thought.  

Other martial arts also have different camps of thought too.  I've heard kung fu people say similar things about systems that are actually functional and valid as a fighting system.  It wasn't the system that was flawed, it was the person and his training.   Just like some people say Kung Fu is honorable and then say stuff like "A true martial arts master can win a fighting without fighting."   Not what I would say.  I wouldn't even say Kung fu is honorable.  I actually tell people that Kung Fu has a lot of dirty fighting.   But because some are "too dangerous to use kung fu."  doesn't mean that I buy into the same mentality.  From what I can tell tell Aikido is the same way.

One group sees it as a way to peace. The other group sees it as something functional.  We have even seen this distinction from Aikido practitioners who have participated in this thread.


----------



## jayoliver00

JowGaWolf said:


> Fighting is a variable and those variable multiple greatly for each person you have to fight with.
> 
> The guy on the right train Aikido.  But he also knows other things.  Just because he knows and trains Aikido doesn't mean he doesn't know how to fight.  If I start training Aikido today, do you really think I'll lose the fighting skills that I have and still train?  There's no nitpick.  I'm willing to bet there are multiple people in here who have taken more than 1 martial arts and have been in more than one fight (regardless of what they train)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if you know how to fight, then  you know how to fight regardless of how vague that comment is.



Talking about their base MA training and not Mike Tyson dabbling with Aikido; beating dozens of people & suddenly Aikido is the premiere MA.



JowGaWolf said:


> Yeah I wouldn't know because I've never gone and had fights with fat people.  All the fights that I've been in could have gone either way for me.  None of them were fat,



Are you talking street fights or gym fights or competition fights?



JowGaWolf said:


> Not true.  If you don't train martial arts for the purpose of using it fight then you get no guarantee that you can beat up "the average joe".  The funny thing about your use of phrase "the average Joe"  is that you call me out for being vague.  But the "the average joe" is so vague that you couldn't possibly define that.



Sure you can. Most Americans are out of shape because the CDC states that, "In the United States, 36.5 *percent* of adults are *obese*. Another 32.5 *percent of American* adults are *overweight*."... that's 69 percent that can be classified as "fat". Your state of Georgia is #17 on the fattest people list, so chances are, the average joe within your surroundings that you run into for a street fight, are fat.




JowGaWolf said:


> My next door neighbor is fat and would probably what you would consider the average Joe.  You can feel free to fight him.  He won't fight you.  So it be easy right up to the point where he makes use of that gun that I always carries on him.
> 
> When you say "The average Joe"  I have no idea of what type of person you are talking about.



That's nice, but we're talking about which MA styles being effective in a fight vs. an average joe and not a gun.



JowGaWolf said:


> I don't drain Aikido, But I train Kung Fu and the only way I'll let anyone go full power on me  without me returning the aggression is if the person is significantly weaker or less skilled than me.   Other than that, the rule is "you get with what you give."  Hit me hard and I'm going to hit you hard too.
> 
> As for the Average Aikido practitioners,  my guess is that they would respond in a similar manner.  "You get what you give."  Even if I trained Aikido that would still be my rule.




Well of course they'd have to be untrained or little trained, that's the whole point about what I said about testing out your skills against untrained people. If you spent years in Aikido and can't let an untrained average joe go full power on you, head to toe, while you only tap or go light back; then your style is seriously suspect.  Even bigger guys too, like up to 50 lbs or maybe more.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> My issue about Roka is that he poor performance is everyone else's fault but his own.  Even when he sees that he isn't training correctly for learning how to fight, he will still be delusional about his ability.  Like when he made the statement that he was a white belt but felt like he could handle most people.  Maybe that's what white belts say these days.  Or maybe that's just what Roka's say.  As far as Rokas goes, I wouldn't look for him as a measurement on any martial arts.   Like when he said that he learned that is better to spar wit someone around his skill level or slightly higher because he couldn't learn anything when the person was too good.  Most people who spar already know this.  We don't need Roka's stamp of approval to enlighten us about that.





Yeah, but the question is where was his poor fighting performance coming from? When he switched over to BJJ and MMA he was far more competent overall. So what changed when he left Aikido?

The methodology of course.



JowGaWolf said:


> People aren't questioning the effectiveness of Aikido.  That would require that we understand what is actually being taught and measured.  I used to think Aikido Randori was about multiple attacker scenario but now I don't.  Now I see it more as a reaction drill.  If it's a reaction drill then there's no need to talk about the effectiveness of it with fighting against multiple people because that's not what it's about or measuring.  Even if someone from Aikido told me that it was a multiple attacker scenario.  I would tell them that they misunderstood what is actually going on.



Uh, people have been questioning the effectiveness of Aikido for decades. Frankly I would argue that the verdict on the effectiveness of Aikido has already been decided. For example, no one was surprised that Rokas got destroyed by an MMA practitioner, the big surprise was that an experienced Aikidoka actually wanted to publicly test their skills.

As for whether the multiple attacker stuff is a scenario or a reaction drill, why does it matter? Either way it isn't effective by any measurable standard.


JowGaWolf said:


> The reason Aikido Randori doesn't look like real fighting is because it's not trying to simulate real fighting.  I could be wrong, but after watching a bunch of Randori and the fact that it doesn't simulate what real attacks looking like, I would think I'm on the right track.
> 
> No body fights like this.  The purpose of this drill isn't about fighting with it.  It's addressing agility and coordination so your body moves without thinking about what comes next.



Yeah, you're on the wrong track. Think about this for a moment; What other purpose would such a drill serve in a* martial art*? What are you developing those reflexes for? Why are you supposedly learning coordination while multiple people are "attacking" you? It's obviously for a fighting application, but just because it's for a fighting application and is in a popular MA doesn't mean that it works.

The fallacy here is that you're operating under the belief that if it is contained in a MA then it must be effective or useful for _something_, when that isn't necessarily true. This training could be in this MA and could be complete and utter nonsense that people simply follow because it's tradition and O'Sensei used to do it.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> This is what I found when I looked up Randori
> 
> 
> Randori is looked at differently depending on the system the person trains
> 
> The meaning of Randori, you can see in the translation of the Japanese Kanji. It says "Ran" is: chaos, random, at random, and "Dori" as take or grab. So we are dealing with chaotic or random handles or grips. The lump sum can be interpreted as "free practice".
> 
> *Randori* (乱取り), (רנדורי), is a free-style practice or sparring, a Japanese term used in Ninjutsu and other martial arts. The term literally means "chaos against an opponent", and implies leaving the structured reactions dictated at the level of the kata.
> 
> Randori may be practiced in various ways. If the object be simply training in the method of attack and defense, the attention should be especially directed to the training in the most efficient ways of throwing, bending or twisting, without special reference to developing the body or to mental and moral culture.
> 
> Randori promotes a variety of judo specific aspects, such as:
> 
> Decide power; Learning to use situations properly
> Variety; Practice with different partners
> Willingness to learn; Learn together in opposition
> Critical skills; You trains with opponents who are bette
> Tolerance; As UKE give in sometimes and let TORI throw
> 
> What is Randori?
> Randori?
> 
> Out of all of the definitions I found for Randori.  None of them said anything about fighting.



In Judo and Bjj randori (rolling) is simply free sparring. A place for you to test what you learned and develop your individual "game". It is the source of the effectiveness of those systems, since it forces the individual to develop a high level of skill through rigorous sparring with fully resisting opponents.

Now, with Aikido I do believe their randori is less full contact and random and revolves around more compliance between partners. So I wouldn't be surpirsed if randori is different in Aikido. Of course a randori that revolves more around compliance than resistance is simply an inferior version of randori, and could be an explanation of some of the issues we see in Aikido.



JowGaWolf said:


> I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Especially if you didn't bother looking at what Randori means,



Hilarious.



JowGaWolf said:


> I've never had someone who trains Aikido tell me this. Even in this thread I didn't see any of these statements..  when Aikido Practitioners were interviewed on youtube, they didn't say that either.  Are there people out there who thinks like this.  Of course there are. Does it  means the all Aikido schools think like this,  Definitely not.  I've already mention that there are 2 camps of Aikido thought.



Who said all Aikido schools think like this? The point is that people make excuses for the lack of visible effectiveness in Aikido. This includes stuff like "Aikido is a spiritual pursuit", or "That person wasn't doing _real _Aikido", or "You don't understand what Aikido is", and other such nonsense. You've really had no one who trains in Aikido tell you this? Multiple people have linked videos where Aikido instructors say that crap in his very thread.

Heck, _you_ attempted to do it with the nonsense about the multiple attacker randori not being done for fighting purposes, but being done to "develop reflexes" for some unknown purpose.




JowGaWolf said:


> Other martial arts also have different camps of thought too.  I've heard kung fu people say similar things about systems that are actually functional and valid as a fighting system.  It wasn't the system that was flawed, it was the person and his training.   Just like some people say Kung Fu is honorable and then say stuff like "A true martial arts master can win a fighting without fighting."   Not what I would say.  I wouldn't even say Kung fu is honorable.  I actually tell people that Kung Fu has a lot of dirty fighting.   But because some are "too dangerous to use kung fu."  doesn't mean that I buy into the same mentality.  From what I can tell tell Aikido is the same way.
> 
> One group sees it as a way to peace. The other group sees it as something functional.  We have even seen this distinction from Aikido practitioners who have participated in this thread.



Yeah, but they all believe that their martial art is effective at defeating larger/stronger opponents or multiple attackers. Whether they believe that their art is a way of peace, or makes them into the reincarnation of Steven Seagal, they're all operating from the standpoint that they're utilizing a system of fighting.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> When he switched over to BJJ and MMA he was far more competent overall. So what changed when he left Aikido?


easy. His training was geared towards fighting where his Aikido training wasn't. He sparred more and did more conditioning in his 2 years of mma than his 15+ years of aikido. He could have done conditioning and sparring in Aikido but he didn't.  Everything in his first MMA fight was basic stuff not enough to say that one system was better than the other.



Hanzou said:


> For example, no one was surprised that Rokas got destroyed by an MMA practitioner, the big surprise was that an experienced Aikidoka actually wanted to publicly test their skills


No one was suprised because he spent 15 years without doing any sparring dealing with punches and kicks, then assumed he was going to magically make stuff work.  It even showed in how he moved that he never had to evade a good punch or kick.  A lot of people test their skills in public regardless of skill level.  That's nothing new.



Hanzou said:


> As for whether the multiple attacker stuff is a scenario or a reaction drill, why does it matter? Either way it isn't effective by any measurable standard.


because if it's  not meant for fighting then but to train reaction then it shouldn't be evaluated as fight skill. Just like kung fu form shouldn't be evaluated as fighting skills.  Kung fu form doesn't teach application.  That's not what it's for.  Same thing for Randori. 



Hanzou said:


> What other purpose would such a drill serve in a* martial art*? What are you developing those reflexes for?


Developing reflexes is not the same as application.  You can develop reflexes until you are an expert at  it.  It's still not application.  I have a kung fu solo drill that teaches students how to do kung fu from any position, but it's only part of the training.  One cannot only do that and expect to fight.  They would still have to practice application through free sparring.   The same way a boxer only punching a heavy bag and working on the speed bag is not the same as the application of skills in sparring.  



Hanzou said:


> It's obviously for a fighting application, but just because it's for a fighting application and is in a popular MA doesn't mean that it works.


Fighting application is only when you spar against a resisting opponent outside of your fighting system.  Sparring against someone in your system is predictable you are familiar with what will be used against you.  Sparring against someone outside of your system is random and requires a deeper understanding of the techniques you train.  This is why I was so big in sparring when I was teaching.


Hanzou said:


> The fallacy here is that you're operating under the belief that if it is contained in a MA then it must be effective or useful for _something_, when that isn't necessarily true.


I don't have a fallacy about which is why I ask about it and share my thoughts about what I think is going on.  I don't train Aikido so I can't champion it the same way I do Jow Ga.  There are a few mindsets that I don't agree with Aikido and for me that's my biggest issue long before I get into the techniques or effectiveness.  Peace in Harmony for me is not the same as what is often presented in Aikido.  When I look at and analyze Aikido, I do so without the concept of Peace and Harmony.  Which from what I've read is the incorrect approach.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Of course a randori that revolves more around compliance than resistance is simply an inferior version of randori, and could be an explanation of some of the issues we see in Aikido.


I think this way too and I think it may be attached to that peace and harmony concept and the respect for your opponent talk.  Like me having respect for my opponent isn't how some Aikido schools see it.  For me, respect for my opponent is more about acknowledging the danger that my opponent presents even if I don't think there is any.   Respect it like a black widow, don't be foolish are careless around it.  Destroy it and be done with it, no fooling around (in a competitive or physical self-defense context).  But Aikido seems more like not harming the opponent yet they apply painful joint locks.  These are opposites for me so in my mind it cannot exist. 

I'll give the Randori concept a try based on what I think I'm seeing to see how that works, that way I'll have a solo and an applications drill based on random strikes.  I don't want to call them attacks because in my mind it would seem like identifying key body positions is probably more reliable and easier to track than waiting for a strike to be launched before reacting.  My idea of flow is also different so I won't be doing any Aikido flow.  Even though I'll have multiple coming at me.  I'm going to treat it as various 1 vs 1 situations and not multiple.

What I'm expecting to see is me getting stuck often as I was taught to encourage my opponent to attack me the way I want him to attack.  With Randori it seems like a lot of reacting vs leading the fight.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> But Aikido seems more like not harming the opponent yet they apply painful joint locks.  These are opposites for me so in my mind it cannot exist.


One way to say, "I want to kill you." is to say, "I'll help you to go to heaven."

When people said, "MA is good for health." When your fist meet your opponent's face, it's not healthy for your hand, it's also not healthy for his face either.


----------



## Cynik75

JowGaWolf said:


> My issue about Roka is that he poor performance is everyone else's fault but his own


He was promoted to BB by somebody else. Another aikido master-level artis recognized Rokas as skilled enough to be promoted. Is it Rokas fault?


----------



## RagingBull

gpseymour said:


> That link is apparently to a German version of the page.


the book is in German. I can´t find an english translation i saw a while back. never mind, the author suggests a simple programme of

Barbell Squats (working up to at least squatting your bodyweight on the bar)
close grip bench press with a Triceps bar. (parallel grip is used a lot in Wing Tsun)
Incline sit ups / old school on an incline board.

Why no lat work? because he explains in the book that working the Biceps, directly(curls) or indirectly such as lat work (rows, chin ups) will hinder your chain punches or some call then arrow punches in Wing Tsun.

is this correct you decide. I myself train back/lats/biceps.

Triceps bar/ i have one myself.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> easy. His training was geared towards fighting where his Aikido training wasn't. He sparred more and did more conditioning in his 2 years of mma than his 15+ years of aikido. He could have done conditioning and sparring in Aikido but he didn't.  Everything in his first MMA fight was basic stuff not enough to say that one system was better than the other.



So if Aikido isn't geared towards fighting, what is it geared towards? How can it make claims that a smaller/weaker person can beat a larger/strong person if it isn't geared towards fighting?



JowGaWolf said:


> No one was suprised because he spent 15 years without doing any sparring dealing with punches and kicks, then assumed he was going to magically make stuff work.  It even showed in how he moved that he never had to evade a good punch or kick.  A lot of people test their skills in public regardless of skill level.  That's nothing new.




Yeah, so if you don't know how to deal with punches and kicks, yet your system is designed to deal with punches and kicks, what does that say about the system?



JowGaWolf said:


> because if it's  not meant for fighting then but to train reaction then it shouldn't be evaluated as fight skill. Just like kung fu form shouldn't be evaluated as fighting skills.  Kung fu form doesn't teach application.  That's not what it's for.  Same thing for Randori.




What is the purpose of this reaction training? Why are they learning wrist locks, strikes, and throws if the goal isn't for fighting?



JowGaWolf said:


> Developing reflexes is not the same as application.  You can develop reflexes until you are an expert at  it.  It's still not application.  I have a kung fu solo drill that teaches students how to do kung fu from any position, but it's only part of the training.  One cannot only do that and expect to fight.  They would still have to practice application through free sparring.   The same way a boxer only punching a heavy bag and working on the speed bag is not the same as the application of skills in sparring.
> 
> 
> Fighting application is only when you spar against a resisting opponent outside of your fighting system.  Sparring against someone in your system is predictable you are familiar with what will be used against you.  Sparring against someone outside of your system is random and requires a deeper understanding of the techniques you train.  This is why I was so big in sparring when I was teaching.
> 
> I don't have a fallacy about which is why I ask about it and share my thoughts about what I think is going on.  I don't train Aikido so I can't champion it the same way I do Jow Ga.  There are a few mindsets that I don't agree with Aikido and for me that's my biggest issue long before I get into the techniques or effectiveness.  Peace in Harmony for me is not the same as what is often presented in Aikido.  When I look at and analyze Aikido, I do so without the concept of Peace and Harmony.  Which from what I've read is the incorrect approach.



Again, then what is the application? If it isn't for fighting purposes then what purpose is this reaction training trying to fulfill? 

Ballroom dancing?

They're doing this reaction training alongside wristlocks, strikes, and throws. The purpose of this training should be obvious.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> No one in here is bashing Aikido.  No one said it is a worthless practice that no one should partake in. People are simply questioning its effectiveness after decades of dubious behavior from the Aikido community at large. Rokas (who you used in your OP) simply renewed the discussion since he had 15 years of Aikido experience yet looked like he had never stepped in a martial school in his life.
> 
> 
> 
> This is utter nonsense. The randori is literally called multiple opponent randori, so yes it is practice against fighting multiple opponents. We know this because we have multiple schools believing that their Aikido is effective against multiple attackers.
> 
> The reason people create new meaning behind something that is obvious is because it doesn't actually work as intended. Making up esoteric mumbo jumbo about what this is supposed to be or mean is simply a deflection. It's like you fancy yourself as a sword maker, yet every sword you make is deficient and breaks when someone uses it in combat. Instead of simply admitting you're a bad sword maker, and that your process is flawed, you deflect and say that you never intended to make swords for battle in the first place. This is what people are doing with Aikido.


My belief (from the outside, trying to decipher a logical path to what I see now) is that randori seen in Aikido was originally all about movement. That makes sense of the fact that the "attackers" don't really use any significant skill - they're just feeding attacks while using movement to force the subject to work on movement. I don't think that's how it's seen by most of the Aikidoka I've been around, but that's my view of it. And I think it's pretty good for that purpose, and is probably one of the more useful tools for developing movement to control a multiple-opponent scenario (where movement, controlling distance, and keeping as many as possible in front of you are important). If there were also Judo-style randori at other times, I wouldn't have an issue with this drill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> My issue about Roka is that he poor performance is everyone else's fault but his own.  Even when he sees that he isn't training correctly for learning how to fight, he will still be delusional about his ability.  Like when he made the statement that he was a white belt but felt like he could handle most people.  Maybe that's what white belts say these days.  Or maybe that's just what Roka's say.  As far as Rokas goes, I wouldn't look for him as a measurement on any martial arts.   Like when he said that he learned that is better to spar wit someone around his skill level or slightly higher because he couldn't learn anything when the person was too good.  Most people who spar already know this.  We don't need Roka's stamp of approval to enlighten us about that.
> 
> People aren't questioning the effectiveness of Aikido.  That would require that we understand what is actually being taught and measured.  I used to think Aikido Randori was about multiple attacker scenario but now I don't.  Now I see it more as a reaction drill.  If it's a reaction drill then there's no need to talk about the effectiveness of it with fighting against multiple people because that's not what it's about or measuring.  Even if someone from Aikido told me that it was a multiple attacker scenario.  I would tell them that they misunderstood what is actually going on.
> 
> The reason Aikido Randori doesn't look like real fighting is because it's not trying to simulate real fighting.  I could be wrong, but after watching a bunch of Randori and the fact that it doesn't simulate what real attacks looking like, I would think I'm on the right track.
> 
> No body fights like this.  The purpose of this drill isn't about fighting with it.  It's addressing agility and coordination so your body moves without thinking about what comes next.


I'd argue that his lack of realistic view of his own skill is a predictable outcome of not having resistive training in the curriculum. If a white belt grapples/rolls/spars with new students, they get a chance to find out some of those folks still give them a lot of trouble. I place responsibility for that lack on the instructor.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, but the question is where was his poor fighting performance coming from? When he switched over to BJJ and MMA he was far more competent overall. So what changed when he left Aikido?
> 
> The methodology of course.


And I think this is part of where the back-and-forth is in this thread. Some folks are talking about the art, while others are talking about the system (my use of the terms, explained below).

Art: the principles, techniques, and traditions.
System: the art, plus the way it is trained.

There's a difference between these, though it's not a clear border between the terms. I think some folks here are saying the art has a lot of merit if trained properly, while others are saying the system is badly flawed. I don't think those positions are necessarily in disagreement.

I also think there's some discussion of the efficiency of training (this is what I think whenever someone starts talking about years-in-service, comparing two arts, as has happened in this thread). Literally everyone I know who is involved in Aikido will readily state that Aikido is the long path (even when done "right", as I would define that). I don't know if it always was, but that's the expectation now. It's part of the identify of the art, I think. Unfortunately, having that view of an art likely removes most incentives to improve on training practices.


----------



## RagingBull

I have never ..ever seen Aikido being used in a real fight.
I wonder why ?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> But Aikido seems more like not harming the opponent yet they apply painful joint locks. These are opposites for me so in my mind it cannot exist.


They don't mean "cause pain" they mean "cause serious injury". The idea/ideal is that they'd use pain compliance, rather than a break/tear. I don't think that's the way it was originally taught by Ueshiba, and I certainly don't think that's from the Daito-ryu base.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Cynik75 said:


> He was promoted to BB by somebody else. Another aikido master-level artis recognized Rokas as skilled enough to be promoted. Is it Rokas fault?


Promotion has nothing to do with a person's willingness to explore deeper into a system in an effort to get a good understanding.  Long before I was an instructor, I would spend time trying to figure the simple techniques from Kung Fu.  I always wanted to know how to apply it, when to apply it, what's the best way to apply, what is for.  I had a classmate and we would try to figure out what we were taught after class and how many ways we could use it.  We did this on our own.  After we had a theory, we would test that theory out in sparring.  No one told us to do this.

A lot of what Roka is doing now with wondering how Aikido operates and how things work in the context of fighting, is something that he probably did without someone telling him to do so.  This is something that he should have been doing on his own long before now.

People who are interested in learning how to use their system in the context of fighting, will explore their system deeper without anyone telling them to do so.


----------



## RagingBull

sorry but this is the truth. you see Gozo Shioda (yoshinkan) at the start.


----------



## RagingBull

I think the most absurd Aikido was from Tohei Koichi .  If people believe this they will get badly hurt or killed outside on the streets.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> They don't mean "cause pain" they mean "cause serious injury". The idea/ideal is that they'd use pain compliance, rather than a break/tear. I don't think that's the way it was originally taught by Ueshiba, and I certainly don't think that's from the Daito-ryu base.


Other's may be having similar interpretations which is why some schools are headed in one direction and other schools lean more to the meaning you just gave.  What you stated makes more sense to me.  I'm also wondering if "Peace" is also misinterpreted.  I wonder if Peace is more of a state of mind and not an emotion.   Peace = Calm mind instead of Peace = not violent in actions.


----------



## JowGaWolf

RagingBull said:


> sorry but this is the truth. you see Gozo Shioda (yoshinkan) at the start.


If a person knows that is not realistic then they should avoid Aikido that claims such things.  Instead focus more on the Aikido that doesn't claim those things.  Not all Martial Arts Teachers are honest good people.  There are plenty that will scam someone and not feel bad about it.


----------



## RagingBull

JowGaWolf said:


> If a person knows that is not realistic then they should avoid Aikido that claims such things.  Instead focus more on the Aikido that doesn't claim those things.  Not all Martial Arts Teachers are honest good people.  There are plenty that will scam someone and not feel bad about it.


yeah i mean i am not hating on Aikido but anyone who has a brain knows this is just all crap. no way you will use it outside. sure if you like it do it for maybe peace & meditation. not for fighting. I trained years ago with a guy who was in the 60, 70s in Iwama with Saito Sensei. The locks in Iwama ryu are painful but even he said (he was also a high ranking Judoka) that you are better with a real striking system for outside. 
try all this KI stuff in a bar & you will get hurt. simple as that.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> My belief (from the outside, trying to decipher a logical path to what I see now) is that randori seen in Aikido was originally all about movement. That makes sense of the fact that the "attackers" don't really use any significant skill - they're just feeding attacks while using movement to force the subject to work on movement. I don't think that's how it's seen by most of the Aikidoka I've been around, but that's my view of it. And I think it's pretty good for that purpose, and is probably one of the more useful tools for developing movement to control a multiple-opponent scenario (where movement, controlling distance, and keeping as many as possible in front of you are important). If there were also Judo-style randori at other times, I wouldn't have an issue with this drill.



There's a similar principle in Bjj and Judo where the movement and motion of an exercise during randori  can be interpreted into multiple types of actual attacks. In Bjj a major example of this would be positional dominance, where even though there isn't any striking, the basic principle is still sound, so you can easily apply the principles you learned in randori practice to a real situation.

From what I'm seeing in Aikido randori, the general forward movement can be interpreted as a punch, a charge, a kick, a tackle attempt, etc. Thus during randori you can do this forward charging attack and practice the principle, and then use this principle in a self defense situation. However, the foundation of this principle appears to be flawed, because it doesn't take into account the boxing style striking that is employed by modern martial arts, and instead relies on the style of striking commonly found in traditional Japanese and Chinese martial arts.



gpseymour said:


> I also think there's some discussion of the efficiency of training (this is what I think whenever someone starts talking about years-in-service, comparing two arts, as has happened in this thread). Literally everyone I know who is involved in Aikido will readily state that Aikido is the long path (even when done "right", as I would define that). I don't know if it always was, but that's the expectation now. It's part of the identify of the art, I think. Unfortunately, having that view of an art likely removes most incentives to improve on training practices.



And even that is a dubious metric, because I'm not seeing any ancient Aikido wizards effortlessly tossing people around either.


----------



## Hanzou

RagingBull said:


> I think the most absurd Aikido was from Tohei Koichi .  If people believe this they will get badly hurt or killed outside on the streets.



If Aikido labeled itself as a spiritual exercise instead of functional martial art, stuff like this wouldn't be a problem.

If you're doing stuff like this and claiming to be a functional martial art, then yeah that's a problem.


----------



## RagingBull

Hanzou said:


> If Aikido labeled itself as a spiritual exercise instead of functional martial art, stuff like this wouldn't be a problem.
> 
> If you're doing stuff like this and claiming to be a functional martial art, then yeah that's a problem.


yeah i agree... i remember the first Aikido group i visited near where i live. The Aikido "master" really wanted to be treated like some kind of Guru.
was like he was the big master.. he said to me, "we must be the better human being and not hurt the aggressor". I thought WTF?  it was like dancing around the mats. I mean i get that the partner has to go with the technique in Aikido to practice. One of his students was a real jerk and when i tried to do anything he just purposely messed it up. I eventually just said to him if you carry on i will punch your face in. he moved away and was never my partner again. was a freak thought he was some spirituell god or something. was weird. I guess i am just a down to earth guy. anyway... the other group Iwama Ryu were better. normal people and it was fun to train but not for self defence.
I suppose the mentality of the Sensei rubs off on their students.


----------



## RagingBull

Bottom line is Aikido was changed from Daito Ryu to...Aiki Budo.... then Aikido as we know it today. The founder of Aikido wanted it to be spirtiuell & not for real fighting. The only Aikido i really think is of any use to a Caveman   like me is Tomiki Aikido.


----------



## RagingBull

even then the Tanto Randori raises question marks . Look at the 1:53 mark.
A knife is very fast can change an angle in a split second. I see his Randori as competition. maybe useful for other things but if you have any chance against a knife in my opinion, escrima,kali...etc.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> So if Aikido isn't geared towards fighting, what is it geared towards?


Once I can get an honest answer about this then I'll know what aspects of fighting it applies to.  I'm not willing to accept an answer "just because someone says so.  It has "to add up when I do the math."  I'm fine with it having an indirect or direct effect on fighting so long as it "adds up" realistically.  If it doesn't make sense realistically then either I'm looking at it correctly or the person who is telling me is incorrect about the interpretation.

I don't like complications in my martial arts.  If something looks complicated in the context of fighting then usually something isn't being interpreted correctly either by the person telling me or by me.  That's the positive side of thing.  The negative side of things is that someone is full of it.


Hanzou said:


> How can it make claims that a smaller/weaker person can beat a larger/strong person if it isn't geared towards fighting?


Once I understand more about some of the basics and foundations of Aikido, the better that I'll be able to answer this.  I don't know if this is something that is based on assumptions from what they saw in video footage of Morihei Ueshiba or if this was actually something the founder said and believed. People automatically assume that someone who is smaller is also weaker and that's not always the case.  I have tons of idea of why this is said and not all of it is good.  I'll I'll just focus on the simple stuff for now.  If the simple stuff can't be explained, then I don't think something as difficult as being effective as a person is smaller and weaker can be explained.


----------



## JowGaWolf

RagingBull said:


> The founder of Aikido wanted it to be spirtiuell & not for real fighting.


Yeah anything spiritual is a complexity within itself, adding fighting to it just adds to the many doors of misrepresentations, assumptions, and opportunities to mislead.  Trying to find "real spirituality"  among a world willing to misuse it, can be very challenging.  The same can be said about a good  TMA martial arts school that actually focuses on fighting application.


----------



## RagingBull

JowGaWolf said:


> Once I can get an honest answer about this then I'll know what aspects of fighting it applies to.  I'm not willing to accept an answer "just because someone says so.  It has "to add up when I do the math."  I'm fine with it having an indirect or direct effect on fighting so long as it "adds up" realistically.  If it doesn't make sense realistically then either I'm looking at it correctly or the person who is telling me is incorrect about the interpretation.
> 
> I don't like complications in my martial arts.  If something looks complicated in the context of fighting then usually something isn't being interpreted correctly either by the person telling me or by me.  That's the positive side of thing.  The negative side of things is that someone is full of it.
> 
> Once I understand more about some of the basics and foundations of Aikido, the better that I'll be able to answer this.  I don't know if this is something that is based on assumptions from what they saw in video footage of Morihei Ueshiba or if this was actually something the founder said and believed. People automatically assume that someone who is smaller is also weaker and that's not always the case.  I have tons of idea of why this is said and not all of it is good.  I'll I'll just focus on the simple stuff for now.  If the simple stuff can't be explained, then I don't think something as difficult as being effective as a person is smaller and weaker can be explained.


it´s as simple as this a smaller guy can win because he is from nature more aggressive & probably has more fights under his belt. real fights not Dojo dancing. We can talk about physics all day , leverage ..etc but bottom line is a guy like say Gozo Shioda would never beat Mike Tyson in his prime !


----------



## JowGaWolf

RagingBull said:


> even then the Tanto Randori raises question marks . Look at the 1:53 mark.
> A knife is very fast can change an angle in a split second. I see his Randori as competition. maybe useful for other things but if you have any chance against a knife in my opinion, escrima,kali...etc.


out of all of the Randori.  I dislike the Tanto Randori the most


----------



## JowGaWolf

RagingBull said:


> it´s as simple as this a smaller guy can win because he is from nature more aggressive & probably has more fights under his belt. real fights not Dojo dancing. We can talk about physics all day , leverage ..etc but bottom line is a guy like say Gozo Shioda would never beat Mike Tyson in his prime !


I'm not asking how a smaller person can defeat a larger person.  I'm asking how does Aikido interpret this

For example,  If I teach a class on manipulating people, then me saying that a smaller weaker person can defeat a larger stronger person doesn't have the same interpretation.

If I teach a class on gun self-defense then it changes again.


----------



## RagingBull

JowGaWolf said:


> out of all of the Randori.  I dislike the Tanto Randori the most


it´s laughable when some Senseis say ..yeah we take his wrist & do this & that. A knife moves so fast & cuts quickly. look at some of these guys in jails with "shanks" stab a guy 10 times in seconds. people need to realise this !


----------



## RagingBull

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not asking how a smaller person can defeat a larger person.  I'm asking how does Aikido interpret this


they say in my opinion it´s with KI or centrifugal force. like a spinning top.


----------



## RagingBull

JowGaWolf said:


> If I teach a class on gun self-defense then it changes again.


this is not your original question it was about Aikido. weapons are a totally different animal. I am sure you know this as you edited your post. 
sure in Aikido you have ken,jo,tanto but a gun or a knife is totally different.
even in these modern times the British Army still teaches Bayonet drills & the japanese called it Junkendo. not Aikido.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> If Aikido labeled itself as a spiritual exercise instead of functional martial art, stuff like this wouldn't be a problem.


I think a more honest label is needed as well.  TMA schools seem to get into trouble along similar lines.  Some people are up front about which makes it easier for people who are interested in stuff like that to find them.


----------



## RagingBull

old video with the SLR but still tought even today & for good reason.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> While some people will overextend those who train mentally and physical aren't going to overextend.
> 
> Chaotic fight, The first guy to attack doesn't over extend.    Through the chaos he keeps good footwork and a solid stance.  Good luck on trying to make someone like that overextend.  First thing he's going to do is use is footwork to close the gap so he doesn't have to overextend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again.  He doesn't overextend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When people specifically train into habit not to overextend, it's going to be very difficult to make them do so.


I think if you trained with real resistance your views would be different. I can find you a bunch of videos of one punch knockouts too, but that doesn't mean it will unfold that way every time.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Once I can get an honest answer about this then I'll know what aspects of fighting it applies to.  I'm not willing to accept an answer "just because someone says so.  It has "to add up when I do the math."  I'm fine with it having an indirect or direct effect on fighting so long as it "adds up" realistically.  If it doesn't make sense realistically then either I'm looking at it correctly or the person who is telling me is incorrect about the interpretation.
> 
> I don't like complications in my martial arts.  If something looks complicated in the context of fighting then usually something isn't being interpreted correctly either by the person telling me or by me.  That's the positive side of thing.  The negative side of things is that someone is full of it.
> 
> Once I understand more about some of the basics and foundations of Aikido, the better that I'll be able to answer this.  I don't know if this is something that is based on assumptions from what they saw in video footage of Morihei Ueshiba or if this was actually something the founder said and believed. People automatically assume that someone who is smaller is also weaker and that's not always the case.  I have tons of idea of why this is said and not all of it is good.  I'll I'll just focus on the simple stuff for now.  If the simple stuff can't be explained, then I don't think something as difficult as being effective as a person is smaller and weaker can be explained.



We can look at the demonstrations and randori to see what aspect of fighting it applies to, and what the ideal of Aikido application is. You fight like you train.

This really isn't as difficult as you're trying to make it out to be.


----------



## RagingBull

Hanzou said:


> This really isn't as difficult as you're trying to make it out to be.


he´s a thinker/philosopher not a practioner   
but what ..if...or maybe this.... meanwhile he is dying


----------



## Martial D

So.. following the logic contained in jowgawolfs posts ..

Ballet is a system. Since it's a system with scripted movements it would be good for fighting, it just needs to be trained that way.

If ballet dancers can't fight, it's not that ballet isn't a good way of fighting, it's that the dancers aren't trying hard enough.

Extreme example? Maybe. Maybe not. Aikido has far more in common with ballet(scripted cooperative dance) than it does with fighting.


----------



## JowGaWolf

RagingBull said:


> this is not your original question it was about Aikido. weapons are a totally different animal. I am sure you know this as you edited your post.
> sure in Aikido you have ken,jo,tanto but a gun or a knife is totally different.
> even in these modern times the British Army still teaches Bayonet drills & the japanese called it Junkendo. not Aikido.


I was just giving examples of how "a smaller person can defeat a larger person."  If focus of Aikido is spiritual then "a smaller person beating a larger stronger person" may not even relate to fighting.


----------



## JowGaWolf

JowGaWolf said:


> I was just giving examples of how "a smaller person can defeat a larger person."  If focus of Aikido is spiritual then "a smaller person beating a larger stronger person" may not even relate to fighting.


If a system isn't designed for fighting then there's no sense to keep asking "how does a smaller person physically beat up a larger person"  or "How do physically beat up multiple people"  Those questions are based on the perspective that the system is used for fighting.  Most of the spiritual people that I know don't come out and directly say what they mean.  They often use symbolism.  Which is why religion is often says things that doesn't make sense when taken out of context "God's warriors."  "Spiritual Warriors"  "Spiritual Combat"  "Good vs Evil"   So the context of things is important.  

If you "know" and "believe" that Aikido isn't for fighting then, there's no need to continue to look at it from the perspective of fighting.  If it's for spiritual development then statements like "smaller person defeating a larger person"  needs to be viewed in the context of spiritual development.   However, if the school claims spiritual context and self-defense context.  Then I would probably remove that school off the list of functional Akido for fighting.


----------



## Flying Crane

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When an Aikido guy sees a punch coming toward his face, he will never use his arm to hurt his opponent's punching arm. The style limitation will restrict the Aikido system to have anti-missile system.


Well, I don’t know much about aikido.  But this notion of “style limitation” is a concept that you keep bringing up.  I don’t see it though.    I think it’s a manufactured result of either your approach to training or the training that you have received.  But the way I see it, a style isn’t a collection of specific techniques.  There are no techniques that cannot be part of a particular style.  But I see a style as an approach to training based on a foundation of driving principles.  So any technique that is compatible with those principles can be or become part of that style.  

We have talked about this before, but I think you see a style as imposing limitations, while I see a style as opening doors and creating possibilities.  But I guess we have had different training experiences.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> Ballet is a system. Since it's a system with scripted movements it would be good for fighting, it just needs to be trained that way.


Ballet is a system, it's not a fighting system, but it's good for flexibility and that flexibility can be beneficial to fighting.
Weight lifting is a system. It's not a fighting system, but it's good for building strength and can be beneficial to fighting.
Running is a system.  It's not a fighting system, but it's good for building cardio endurance and can be beneficial to fighting.

I'm not sure why you don't understand this, or why you need me to explain this.


----------



## JowGaWolf

RagingBull said:


> it´s laughable when some Senseis say ..yeah we take his wrist & do this & that. A knife moves so fast & cuts quickly. look at some of these guys in jails with "shanks" stab a guy 10 times in seconds. people need to realise this !


Yeah and I've never seen video of them over extending when they are shanking lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf

RagingBull said:


> he´s a thinker/philosopher not a practioner
> but what ..if...or maybe this.... meanwhile he is dying


I'm not a practitioner of Aikido that's why I ask the questions so I can hear from those who practice Aikido.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> I think if you trained with real resistance your views would be different. I can find you a bunch of videos of one punch knockouts too, but that doesn't mean it will unfold that way every time.


There wouldn't be any difference for me.  If I can't get you within in a certain range, I don't overextend to reach you.  My greatest risk for over extending is when I'm exhausted and at that point everything falls apart.  Other than that I'm not going to over extend as it cause causes functional issues for me.  

I know how I fight.  I know I I've fought in street fights (as real as it gets).  That's just something that I'm not going to and it would be very difficult to make me over extend.   If I punch out of range then overextending isn't going to make it better.  I know other people who are the same way.  When you train habit so that it greatly decreases the likely hood that you will do something that is considered harmful for you.


----------



## Hanzou

Speaking of Rokas, it's good to see that he's still doing Bjj;






I thought he had quit when he returned to Europe.


----------



## RagingBull

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not a practitioner of Aikido that's why I ask the questions so I can hear from those who practice Aikido.


ok mate


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Flying Crane said:


> We have talked about this before, but I think you see a style as imposing limitations, while I see a style as opening doors and creating possibilities.  But I guess we have had different training experiences.


Grapplers don't want to talk about fist flying. Strikers don't want to talk about under hook, over hook, ...

In a

- Judo forum, I suggest no-gi training. People in that forum were all mad at me big time.
- WC thread, I suggest to integrate arm drag into WC sticky hand, people are not interested.

I just don't understand why some people don't want to "opening doors and creating possibilities."


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> We had a good 25 pages talking about the techniques in Aikido and the various principles.  However, somewhere after page 25 the tone of the discussion began to change and it changed from looking at Aikido to bashing it.  I get that things go off the track here, but rarely if ever do the conversation towards the end of such a long thread have anything to do with what was discussed at the beginning.
> 
> The thing about accepting Aikido is that they have many different views of what Aikido should be about.  Which is were we were originally with one Aikido Camp stating that it's for purpose A and the other states that it's for Purpose B.
> 
> I watched a couple of Akido Randori videos.  After watching a few dozen of them, I began to recognize a common theme that I didn't realize before.  Which made thing think differently about Randori.
> 
> Some see Randori as "Fighting multiple attackers"  Now I'm starting to see it as a drill where you have to respond to various attacks quickly.  I say this because I thought that it would be a good drill to have people take turns in attacking differently one after the other which creates random attacks that you have to deal with.  Not in the context of fighting multiple people, but in the context of "what do you do if one person uses attack A"  then the next person attacks and the scenario changes "what do you do if one person uses attack B"
> 
> You can have one person just go through a bunch of random attacks but at that point, you a watching for that one person to do something.  A person that is standing in front of you cannot attack you unexpectedly from the side in order to give you a chance to deal with something that you truly didn't know was coming.
> 
> If this is what Randori is about, the ability to quickly respond to unexpected attacks from random directions then I'll probably add a similar training to my Kung Fu training as that would go well with my concept that a person should be able to do some type of Kung Fu from any position they find themselves in.
> 
> If I'm not correct about Randori, then I'm still using it because that way, I don't know what the attack will be and I have to quickly respond to it with a kung fu technique.    If I'm correct, then I've learned something from Aikido.



It is not the drill. It is the massive gap between concept and reality.

You train a skill. And at some point you get better at that skill.







Or you train a skill and you don't get better at that skill. But say you get better at some different skill. Which was really the skill you were training all along. But we still don't know if you got better at any skill. Because we never see the end result.

So Aikido trains grappling.

 Let's see them grapple.

 No? That is because atemi or striking is 90% of Aikido.

Ok let's see them strike.

No. Aikido is about developing character and spirituality.

Ok. Let's see that development.

You can't see spiritual development. You have to experience it.

So at the end what have we actually got?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> So Aikido trains grappling.
> 
> Let's see them grapple.


I had an Aikido brown belt in my class before. On the mat, he wrestled the same as everybody else.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I had an Aikido brown belt in my class before. On the mat, he wrestled the same as everybody else.


Yeah. But not one or two random guys. It should be so common as to not even be worth commenting on. 

I mean I don't have to find video of  Lachlan Guiles to sho live training. 

It is literally everywhere.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Ballet is a system, it's not a fighting system, but it's good for flexibility and that flexibility can be beneficial to fighting.
> Weight lifting is a system. It's not a fighting system, but it's good for building strength and can be beneficial to fighting.
> Running is a system.  It's not a fighting system, but it's good for building cardio endurance and can be beneficial to fighting.
> 
> I'm not sure why you don't understand this, or why you need me to explain this.


I do understand that. That is you attacking a strawman.

The only way that follows from what I said is if you are saying scripted martial arts such as aikido or Kung Fu aren't fighting systems unto themselves. I somehow doubt that is a concession you are willing to make.


----------



## Martial D

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I had an Aikido brown belt in my class before. On the mat, he wrestled the same as everybody else.


I've trained with two shodan level aikidokas..the second had his two daughters that were also ranked. None of them could be distinguished from completely untrained people in terms of striking or grappling, although the fella with his two daughters put on a cool show for us.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But not one or two random guys. It should be so common as to not even be worth commenting on.
> 
> I mean I don't have to find video of  Lachlan Guiles to sho live training.
> 
> It is literally everywhere.


What I'm trying to say is when an Aikido guy gets on the mat, the harmony (Ai), spiritual strength (Ki), peace, and following the *Aikido* way (Do) just don't exist.

Why?


----------



## jayoliver00

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not a practitioner of Aikido that's why I ask the questions so I can hear from those who practice Aikido.



Then why did you dismiss that Roka guy's testimony and his mega-ton of videos about Aikido on his channel?

Not only was he an Aikido school instructor/owner, but it looked like he had  30-50 active students and was in his prime while doing Aikido; young, strong & agile. 

I doubt that any Aikidoka here is at his level of accomplishment in Aikido. And he threw it all away b/c he saw the reality of it as being ineffective.


----------



## jayoliver00

Martial D said:


> I've trained with two shodan level aikidokas..the second had his two daughters that were also ranked. None of them could be distinguished from completely untrained people in terms of striking or grappling, although the fella with his two daughters put on a cool show for us.



I don't get it.  Are you saying that they were great when doing their Aikido flowing/choreography (with each other) but when it was time for sparring, you kicked their butts easily?


----------



## JowGaWolf

jayoliver00 said:


> Then why did you dismiss that Roka guy's testimony and his mega-ton of videos about Aikido on his channel?


Because he did not dig deeper into his system to understand it.  A few months.  There's a big difference between trying to understanding a system and dismissing it as flawed.  Things like "Make kung fu work,"  "Make Aikido Work,"  "Make Tai Chi,"  "Make TKD functional." are all things that people say when they just skim the top of what they train and fail to look at how they train and fail to understand what they were training.   I've hear the same tune about other systems as well.  I'll take him serious when he takes his martial arts serious.

At the moment he only cares about people viewing his videos.  I get that.  People gotta make money.  

Then there's stuff like this.  "Well damn Roka.  This sounds like some of the same stuff you did to Aikido and when you called out Wing Chun. "


----------



## JowGaWolf

jayoliver00 said:


> Then why did you dismiss that Roka guy's testimony and his mega-ton of videos about Aikido on his channel?
> 
> Not only was he an Aikido school instructor/owner, but it looked like he had  30-50 active students and was in his prime while doing Aikido; young, strong & agile.
> 
> I doubt that any Aikidoka here is at his level of accomplishment in Aikido. And he threw it all away b/c he saw the reality of it as being ineffective.


By the way, the numbers of years that someone trains a martial arts doesn't matter if they aren't training how to apply it.  I could do a Jow Ga form for 50 years and be come very good at it, and still be horrible with actually using it.   A good form or application demo does not mean you actually know how to use the techniques in a fight.  It just means that you are good at doing a demo.


----------



## jayoliver00

JowGaWolf said:


> Because he did not dig deeper into his system to understand it.  A few months.  There's a big difference between trying to understanding a system and dismissing it as flawed.  Things like "Make kung fu work,"  "Make Aikido Work,"  "Make Tai Chi,"  "Make TKD functional." are all things that people say when they just skim the top of what they train and fail to look at how they train and fail to understand what they were training.   I've hear the same tune about other systems as well.  I'll take him serious when he takes his martial arts serious.



Are you saying that the Aikido guy who runs the Martial Arts Journey channel on Youtube only has "a few months" of digging into Aikido? 

He spent most of his life, training then teaching Aikido; owning his own school with 30-50 students.  Do you teach? I bet you have less than 1/4 of his active, paying student roster.



JowGaWolf said:


> At the moment he only cares about people viewing his videos.  I get that.  People gotta make money.
> 
> Then there's stuff like this.  "Well damn Roka.  This sounds like some of the same stuff you did to Aikido and when you called out Wing Chun. "



You need to prove this. If he had 30-50 paying, Aikido students then that would've been seriously dumb for him to throw it all away to start up a Youtube channel just for the chance of being more profitable. Do you understand how Youtube's monetization work? You don't just get paid $$$ as soon as you make a channel and get views.


----------



## jayoliver00

JowGaWolf said:


> By the way, the numbers of years that someone trains a martial arts doesn't matter if they aren't training how to apply it.  I could do a Jow Ga form for 50 years and be come very good at it, and still be horrible with actually using it.   A good form or application demo does not mean you actually know how to use the techniques in a fight.  It just means that you are good at doing a demo.



By the way, that's the exact problem with Aikido; b/c they don't fight other MA's in competition and it's uncertain if they even spar hard.  That Roka guy was teaching & doing  exactly what the Aikido system trained him to do. 

And he did go out and trained his Aikido vs. other styles such as BJJ, MMA, etc. and he recorded & posted videos of himself losing most of it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jayoliver00 said:


> Are you saying that the Aikido guy who runs the Martial Arts Journey channel on Youtube only has "a few months" of digging into Aikido?


yes. That's what I'm saying.  When you total up all of his efforts, then it's only going to be a few months.



jayoliver00 said:


> He spent most of his life, training then teaching Aikido. Do you teach? I bet you have less than 1/4 of his active, paying student roster.


Not sure how me teaching and a class size has to do with his training.   I knew a kung fu guy who got kicked out of a school because he focused too much on fighting.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jayoliver00 said:


> That Roka guy was teaching & doing exactly what the Aikido system trained him to do.


Teachers can train however they want to train.  If they think the system is liking then they have enough knowledge to make improvements in it, regardless of what their teacher taught them.

My teacher taught me how to do sweeps in a low stance.  I do do sweep in a high stance, my teacher didn't teach me that.    I use combos and applications that weren't taught by my teacher or his teacher.   But I learned it on my own using the knowledge I have and by digging deeper.

Everyone who fights or spars will eventually make the system "Their own."  and have their own style for deploying it.


----------



## jayoliver00

JowGaWolf said:


> yes. That's what I'm saying.  When you total up all of his efforts, then it's only going to be a few months.



Man, are you purposefully lying or just making this up b/c you didn't even research. Hell, I didn't even research (other than have watched 4-5 of his vids, years ago); I just went to his channel and scanned the videos. Looks like he started his channel over 9 YEARS ago doing Aikido videos. Then 4 years ago was when he started questioning Aikido and started trying out & sparring other styles; leading to him shutting down his Aikido school.  So he's been training, sparring and fighting in the last 4 years against BJJ, MMA, Muay Thai, etc.  trying t o apply his Aikido.....and you're saying it's only a "few months"???

And I don't even like listening to this guy. He has a weird, monotone voice; sounding like a White guy trying to sound like a Japanese guy from Japan, speaking English. It puts me to sleep.



JowGaWolf said:


> Not sure how me teaching and a class size has to do with his training.   I knew a kung fu guy who got kicked out of a school because he focused too much on fighting.



Because then you'd know how difficult it is to keep a running TMA school w/paying students in this climate of BJJ domination. Rarely would someone throwaway a TMA roster of 30-50 paying students like this.  If he was in it just for the money, he would've kept his Aikido gym running to pay the bills while experimenting with his MMA endeavors; to then slowly meld the 2.

Doing it the way he did, by throwing away a school that was profitable, showed the conviction of a true Martial Artist.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

I asked the following question without respond.

What are the Aikido principles? Can someone provide this information?


----------



## JowGaWolf

jayoliver00 said:


> Man, are you purposefully lying or just making this up b/c you didn't even research. Hell, I didn't even research (other than have watched 4-5 of his vids, years ago); I just went to his channel and scanned the videos. Looks like he started his channel over 9 YEARS ago doing Aikido videos. Then 4 years ago was when he started questioning Aikido and started trying out & sparring other styles; leading to him shutting down his Aikido school. So he's been training, sparring and fighting in the last 4 years against BJJ, MMA, Muay Thai, etc. trying t o apply his Aikido.....and you're saying it's only a "few months"???


Yep and all through that he blamed the system and didn't even realize he wasn't doing a proper wrist lock.  Oh then I think he came back and said that he was wrong about Aikido and that it's not the system and points out





Now his statement is "not every Aikdo technique is functional"  "Not every Aikidoka can use the techniques."  But all of that was after he bashed Aikido and other martial arts.    I'm not surprised about this as it's normal for any system that mixes non-functional stuff among the functional stuff.   Oh is final words were "He was wrong to some degree."   

I've watched his Channel for a long time now.  Not all the videos but enough to see the change.  



jayoliver00 said:


> And I don't even like listening to this guy. He has a weird, monotone voice; sounding like a White guy trying to sound like a Japanese guy from Japan, speaking English. It puts me to sleep.


Not how I would describe it, but if you watch some of his first videos you'll here him sound like that even more so.  Also English isn't is first language.  But that probably doesn't have anything to do with his tone.    But he's not as bad as he used to be.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I asked the following question without respond.
> 
> What are the Aikido principles? Can someone provide this information?


Answer is some where on pages 1 - 20 lol but that all depends which Aikido Camp the person trains under.   You have those who train application and those who train peace.


----------



## JowGaWolf

jayoliver00 said:


> Because then you'd know how difficult it is to keep a running TMA school w/paying students in this climate of BJJ domination.


Still don't know what this has to do with how someone else trains function in their martial arts.  Just some background info on me.

I was the applications / fight instructor of a school that I helped run.  I handled all of the marking an out reach for the school.  None of that has anything to do with  Roka training.  Just like his Roster didn't affect my training nor my teaching.



jayoliver00 said:


> Doing it the way he did, by throwing away a school that was profitable, showed the conviction of a true Martial Artist.


Not sure where you guys get this romantic idea about Martial Artists.   Based on his video, his student's abandon him.  Most likely they probably ran into other Aikido practioners and compared their training to how other Aikido practitioner's train and left.   But  Rokas said they abandoned him because they feared him.   His words not mine.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Because he did not dig deeper into his system to understand it.  A few months.  There's a big difference between trying to understanding a system and dismissing it as flawed.  Things like "Make kung fu work,"  "Make Aikido Work,"  "Make Tai Chi,"  "Make TKD functional." are all things that people say when they just skim the top of what they train and fail to look at how they train and fail to understand what they were training.   I've hear the same tune about other systems as well.  I'll take him serious when he takes his martial arts serious.
> 
> At the moment he only cares about people viewing his videos.  I get that.  People gotta make money.
> 
> Then there's stuff like this.  "Well damn Roka.  This sounds like some of the same stuff you did to Aikido and when you called out Wing Chun. "



No. 

Because you have to have something to dig deeper into. 

We still have this huge black pit of nothing where the Aikido guys who have dug deep in to the concept live. 

This is the main issue. 

I could say leg locks don't work. But because there are heaps of people who make leg locks work. Then we can look back at my ability.

Now let's go the other way. Sai I suggest magical levitation doesn't work. Why is that not just because I have studied it hard enough.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> I could say leg locks don't work. But because there are heaps of people who make leg locks work. Then we can look back at my ability.


When I started to learn how to fight using Jow Ga.  There were no reference points or videos, or anyone else that I could look at and say Jow Ga works.

Even now there aren't heaps of people using Jow Ga techniques when sparring. The only ability I can look at is my own.



drop bear said:


> Now let's go the other way. Sai I suggest magical levitation doesn't work. Why is that not just because I have studied it hard enough.


Depends.  Are you trying to be a magician,  a religious man that does levitation, or a scientist"

Based on your answer I will tell you what you can do to get better results or I'll tell you that you are doing it wrong and I'll show you.   Sort of like how Roka did the wrist lock wrong and the BJJ guy showed him the correct way.

Did Aikido have an incorrect wrist lock or was Roka just doing a wrist lock incorrectly?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Magical levitation

1. First define what "Magical Levitation" is as this will frame the context of purpose  and if it works for that purpose.
2.  Learn from people who actually train according to the purpose you are trying to achieve.

3.  If there is no one available then dig deeper into what you know through trial and error and figure it out.  In terms of Magic.  New magic tricks are always being create where no one else has done them before.  Sort of like how the creation of fighting systems and fighting methods were once new and never seen before.  Someone figured it out.

Whatever you do there will be 3 outcomes.  
1. The system is flawed
2 Your understanding of the system is flawed
3. The system is not designed for the goal that you seek

1. The system is flawed - would be a system that is designed for fighting but doesn't work well as a fighting system.

2. Your understanding of the system is flawed - You may not understand the purpose in which the system was created and it's intended use. Even if your teacher teaches you the wrong thing, your understanding will be flawed.  It may also be flawed because you aren't using training methods that will allow you to use the system in a particular context.

3.  The system is not designed for the goal that you seek.  In cases like this a person is trying to use a system outside of the context of what it was created for.  In this case, the system isn't flawed.  It just wasn't made for the purpose that I'm trying to use it for.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> yes. That's what I'm saying.  When you total up all of his efforts, then it's only going to be a few months.



Wouldn't it be fair to say that since Rokas is a far more proficient martial artist now after a little under 2 years of BJJ/MMA that there's something significantly wrong with the methodology of Aikido?


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> When I started to learn how to fight using Jow Ga.  There were no reference points or videos, or anyone else that I could look at and say Jow Ga works.
> 
> Even now there aren't heaps of people using Jow Ga techniques when sparring. The only ability I can look at is my own.
> 
> 
> Depends.  Are you trying to be a magician,  a religious man that does levitation, or a scientist"
> 
> Based on your answer I will tell you what you can do to get better results or I'll tell you that you are doing it wrong and I'll show you.   Sort of like how Roka did the wrist lock wrong and the BJJ guy showed him the correct way.
> 
> Did Aikido have an incorrect wrist lock or was Roka just doing a wrist lock incorrectly?



Aikido mostly doesn't have the depth of talent to do wristlocks right. So the experts, if you could even find them are not that great in the scale of things. 

So the argument that Rokus is good or not at practical Aikido is a celestial tea cup. 

There is this idea that Aikido works at whatever level and that people are using it effectively. But we never really see that level. 

For all we now. Rokus might be the best Aikido fighter for his weight class.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> So the argument that Rokus is good or not at practical Aikido is a celestial tea cup.


I don't know about the celestial tea cup or Rokus training.  But here's some insight.  As you watch or listen you'll start to pick up a lot of red flags.





9:14 is what I've been saying  all along. "finding answers by myself"  His words not mine.  You can also see that he did not identify his goal of "best martial artist in the world."   He keeps thinking that it means  being the "best student"  You can hear him repeat it over and over.

This is what I was saying about Aikido.  First identify what Aikido is.  Aikido isn't just one thing.  It is not the same for all Aikido Practioners.  This is why I keep saying that I see 2 camps of Aikido.  So while we say that it doesn't work in one camp, this may not be true for the other camp.



drop bear said:


> For all we now. Rokus might be the best Aikido fighter for his weight class.



No he's not..  He pretty much says so in his video as there is no mentioning any sparring in any of the schools he trained under.  He comes from the Aikido Camp that doesn't believe in competition.  Because of that there is no way to be the best fighter or worst fighter.  When everyone wins a trophy then no one is better or worst as defined by "Wining a trophy."

He also made some TMA mistakes.  Like never ask the teacher can he improve the techniques and never tell the teacher that you are going to train in another martial arts system.   It's better to just do it without telling the teacher everything you do with your life.

There are a lot of aspects of my own training of Jow Ga that I didn't share with my teacher.  I figured it was none of his business.  It was my personal journey into Jow Ga.   I know it shouldn't be like this, but if you understand TMA environments.  They have more EGO than they claim.  So it's just better to just keep some things to yourself.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't it be fair to say that since Rokas is a far more proficient martial artist now after a little under 2 years of BJJ/MMA that there's something significantly wrong with the methodology of Aikido?


yeah I've been saying that all along both in directly through my comments about how important it is to spar, and directly that he wasn't training to fight using Aikido.  He was training to be the best student in aikido which isn't the same thing as being good in fighting.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't know about the celestial tea cup or Rokus training.  But here's some insight.  As you watch or listen you'll start to pick up a lot of red flags.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9:14 is what I've been saying  all along. "finding answers by myself"  His words not mine.  You can also see that he did not identify his goal of "best martial artist in the world."   He keeps thinking that it means  being the "best student"  You can hear him repeat it over and over.
> 
> This is what I was saying about Aikido.  First identify what Aikido is.  Aikido isn't just one thing.  It is not the same for all Aikido Practioners.  This is why I keep saying that I see 2 camps of Aikido.  So while we say that it doesn't work in one camp, this may not be true for the other camp.
> 
> 
> 
> No he's not..  He pretty much says so in his video as there is no mentioning any sparring in any of the schools he trained under.  He comes from the Aikido Camp that doesn't believe in competition.  Because of that there is no way to be the best fighter or worst fighter.  When everyone wins a trophy then no one is better or worst as defined by "Wining a trophy."
> 
> He also made some TMA mistakes.  Like never ask the teacher can he improve the techniques and never tell the teacher that you are going to train in another martial arts system.   It's better to just do it without telling the teacher everything you do with your life.
> 
> There are a lot of aspects of my own training of Jow Ga that I didn't share with my teacher.  I figured it was none of his business.  It was my personal journey into Jow Ga.   I know it shouldn't be like this, but if you understand TMA environments.  They have more EGO than they claim.  So it's just better to just keep some things to yourself.



You are using martial arts logic to determine ability. Which seems to be all preconceptions and other unnecessary junk added to this question.

It doesn't matter what camp of Aikido we are discussing so long as they have a definable objective. 

Then we see if he meets that objective better or worse than anyone else. In a manner that is able to be demonstrated in an experiment.


----------



## RagingBull

*no touch Aikido 




*


----------



## Gerry Seymour

RagingBull said:


> I think the most absurd Aikido was from Tohei Koichi .  If people believe this they will get badly hurt or killed outside on the streets.


My understanding of Kohei's Ki Society approach is that it isn't focused at all on fighting application. It is - as the group name implies - about developing ki.


----------



## RagingBull

gpseymour said:


> My understanding of Kohei's Ki Society approach is that it isn't focused at all on fighting application. It is - as the group name implies - about developing ki.


well if that is the case then let them do it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> There's a similar principle in Bjj and Judo where the movement and motion of an exercise during randori  can be interpreted into multiple types of actual attacks. In Bjj a major example of this would be positional dominance, where even though there isn't any striking, the basic principle is still sound, so you can easily apply the principles you learned in randori practice to a real situation.
> 
> From what I'm seeing in Aikido randori, the general forward movement can be interpreted as a punch, a charge, a kick, a tackle attempt, etc. Thus during randori you can do this forward charging attack and practice the principle, and then use this principle in a self defense situation. However, the foundation of this principle appears to be flawed, because it doesn't take into account the boxing style striking that is employed by modern martial arts, and instead relies on the style of striking commonly found in traditional Japanese and Chinese martial arts.
> 
> 
> 
> And even that is a dubious metric, because I'm not seeing any ancient Aikido wizards effortlessly tossing people around either.


I think most Aikido instructors would argue it ignores the striking of pretty much all styles. While some of the early practitioners were competent against other styles (and likely some current ones are, too), I've only ever heard Aikido argued as being designed for an untrained attacker. I think the style is (like many TMA, as I understand them) designed with that idea.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> If Aikido labeled itself as a spiritual exercise instead of functional martial art, stuff like this wouldn't be a problem.
> 
> If you're doing stuff like this and claiming to be a functional martial art, then yeah that's a problem.


I think the Ki Society does exactly that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

RagingBull said:


> Bottom line is Aikido was changed from Daito Ryu to...Aiki Budo.... then Aikido as we know it today. The founder of Aikido wanted it to be spirtiuell & not for real fighting. The only Aikido i really think is of any use to a Caveman   like me is Tomiki Aikido.


As I understand it, Yoshinkan is closer to the Daitor-ryu roots.


----------



## RagingBull

gpseymour said:


> I think most Aikido instructors would argue it ignores the striking of pretty much all styles. While some of the early practitioners were competent against other styles (and likely some current ones are, too), I've only ever heard Aikido argued as being designed for an untrained attacker. I think the style is (like many TMA, as I understand them) designed with that idea.


The only Ryu i have tried that uses Atemi waza is Iwama ryu.


----------



## RagingBull

gpseymour said:


> As I understand it, Yoshinkan is closer to the Daitor-ryu roots.


yes & no. Most people i have spoken to say Saito Sensei was more practical than Shioda. Even though Saito Sensei tought a style that was more from 1940s onwards. He learned all the Jo/ Ken suburi from the founder of Aikido, hence why he was givem the Iwama Dojo.


----------



## RagingBull

a lot of Jo/Ken in Iwama ryu.


----------



## RagingBull

you can see the huge difference in say Tendo ryu. a very dynamic sabaki. Saito was very direct & short in his Aikido.
Tendo Ryu i also did & it has a lot of Hip throws as Shimizu Sensei was a high ranking Judoka too. He was a later Uchi Dechi


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> yeah I've been saying that all along both in directly through my comments about how important it is to spar, and directly that he wasn't training to fight using Aikido.  He was training to be the best student in aikido which isn't the same thing as being good in fighting.



He stated that he got into Aikido because gangs in his home country were running around attacking people, and Aikido was advertised as a viable self defense system. Obviously his goal was always to utilize Aikido in a self defense manner.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I think most Aikido instructors would argue it ignores the striking of pretty much all styles. While some of the early practitioners were competent against other styles (and likely some current ones are, too), I've only ever heard Aikido argued as being designed for an untrained attacker. I think the style is (like many TMA, as I understand them) designed with that idea.



When I trained in TMAs in my formative years, this argument was never brought up. I think this argument began to pop up as UFC and MMA came to dominate the martial arts scene and some old school instructors were looking to avoid conflict. The legends of many TMAs are of their styles fighting against samurai warriors and Manchu soldiers. In addition, during the age of imperialism, many Kung Fu and Karate stylists eagerly tested their styles against western fighters in a variety of challenge matches, so obviously defeating trained opponents was part of these classical systems at some point.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> You are using martial arts logic to determine ability. Which seems to be all preconceptions and other unnecessary junk added to this question.


I don't understand what you mean by martial arts logic



drop bear said:


> It doesn't matter what camp of Aikido we are discussing so long as they have a definable objective.


It does matter because if your camp isn't interested in learning how to use Aikido then you aren't going to get any fighting ability from that mindset.  If your camp is interested then you are going to training  with people who are interested in using things that do work.  This means that the teacher will most likely separate elements of Aikido into thing that can be used and things that shouldn't be used.  We have already seen this play out so we don't have to guess about this.

People interested in application tend to move and look like this.





If I want to learn how to make war, then I can't train in a camp that only cares about making peace.


drop bear said:


> Then we see if he meets that objective better or worse than anyone else. In a manner that is able to be demonstrated in an experiment.


Actually he reached his objective multiple times.   To him being the best student = being the best martial artist.  Each time he went for it, he became "the best student."  So by what he defined as "the best martial artist" he reached his objective.  This is why I keep saying how we define or identify our goals matters.   "the best martial artist" to you may mean beating people in competition.  This would send you on a different path based on how you define it.

If someone came to me and said the want to be the best martial artist in the world, I would ask "best in doing what? Forms? Weapons, Fighting? Tricks kicks? Breaking?  If the teacher can't be honest in these areas and admit when they aren't the best to teach in that area then find a new teacher or train that aspect at a different school while still training at the Aikido school. 

When I'm trying to understand Aikido. I'm not trying to look at the peaceful camp because I'm so against that mindset.  For me I can and have found peace in fighting.  But my definition of peace is not the same as their definition.  The Aikido I try to focus on is from the camp that tries to use it.  So when I see a video of Aikido I try to first identity which camp made the video.



gpseymour said:


> My understanding of Kohei's Ki Society approach is that it isn't focused at all on fighting application. It is - as the group name implies - about developing ki.


This is what I keep bringing up.  It makes no sense to compare that to fighting if the purpose of the techniques used isn't about fighting.  This is why it's important to identify what is used for fighting and what isn't.   It's make no sense to pick something that was never created as a fighting application and to hold that to the application of fighting.

It drives me nuts.   That's why at the beginning of this tread I was so intent on trying to understand if that "Aikido chop" was for fighting application or not.  If the chop isn't a fighting application then there's no need for me to continue to look at it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

RagingBull said:


> it´s as simple as this a smaller guy can win because he is from nature more aggressive & probably has more fights under his belt. real fights not Dojo dancing. We can talk about physics all day , leverage ..etc but bottom line is a guy like say Gozo Shioda would never beat Mike Tyson in his prime !


Neither would nearly any boxer.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

RagingBull said:


> it´s laughable when some Senseis say ..yeah we take his wrist & do this & that. A knife moves so fast & cuts quickly. look at some of these guys in jails with "shanks" stab a guy 10 times in seconds. people need to realise this !


Stealth attacks and surprise attacks are a different animal. Knives can be defended against. We have some folks on MT who've done it successfully.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't it be fair to say that since Rokas is a far more proficient martial artist now after a little under 2 years of BJJ/MMA that there's something significantly wrong with the methodology of Aikido?


The methodology depends on the ideology that you train from.

For example,  If you train from the peace camp then the methodology that he train is the right one.  If you want to use Aikido to fight then definitely don't train from this camp.  That's not what this camp is for. This camp uses the wrong methodology for learning how to fight.  So if you are looking for proof that Aikido is functional for fighting then don't waste time looking at the peace camp.

Rokas was clearly part of the Aikido for peace camp (his old schools) which is the clearly the wrong methodology for for fighting. 

I'm not dodging the question, I'm just answering your question with the understanding that not all Aikido schools use the same methodology or even have the same idea of what Aikido is and what it isn't.  Some schools don't believe in competition and other do.

But for the schools that Rokas learned from,  Yes clearly the wrong methodology for fighting.  But it was the correct Methodology for the peace focus that they have


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What I'm trying to say is when an Aikido guy gets on the mat, the harmony (Ai), spiritual strength (Ki), peace, and following the *Aikido* way (Do) just don't exist.
> 
> Why?


What would you expect those to look like on the mat?


----------



## JowGaWolf

RagingBull said:


> The only Ryu i have tried that uses Atemi waza is Iwama ryu.


Thanks for sharing this video.  I'm going to check out that camp since they are punching people.  I'm interested in understanding their approach to Aikido


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't it be fair to say that since Rokas is a far more proficient martial artist now after a little under 2 years of BJJ/MMA that there's something significantly wrong with the methodology of Aikido?


If you're referring to the training methodology commonly seen, I'd say definitely yes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Aikido mostly doesn't have the depth of talent to do wristlocks right.


I think what you're saying here is the pratitioners typically lack the foundation. I agree. What I've seen of Aikido training lacked grappling fundamentals you'd see in wrestling or Judo.


----------



## RagingBull

JowGaWolf said:


> Thanks for sharing this video.  I'm going to check out that camp since they are punching people.  I'm interested in understanding their approach to Aikido


His son has taken over as Saito Sensei is dead. Not sure how he trains but as i learned it, it was pretty much as the video showed. As i wrote the Sensei i had trained in Iwama & not just once under saito. he was an older guy but had that mentality. he hated round dancing aikido.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

RagingBull said:


> yes & no. Most people i have spoken to say Saito Sensei was more practical than Shioda. Even though Saito Sensei tought a style that was more from 1940s onwards. He learned all the Jo/ Ken suburi from the founder of Aikido, hence why he was givem the Iwama Dojo.


I'm not sure if I missed something - none of that specifically addresses whether Iwama or Yoshinkan is closer to the Daito roots.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> When I trained in TMAs in my formative years, this argument was never brought up. I think this argument began to pop up as UFC and MMA came to dominate the martial arts scene and some old school instructors were looking to avoid conflict. The legends of many TMAs are of their styles fighting against samurai warriors and Manchu soldiers. In addition, during the age of imperialism, many Kung Fu and Karate stylists eagerly tested their styles against western fighters in a variety of challenge matches, so obviously defeating trained opponents was part of these classical systems at some point.


I heard it long before UFC (and MMA) became well known across the community. Someone would ask one of the "what if" questions about an attacker who is a skilled _____ (boxer, karateka, wrestler, etc.), and instructors would often reply that at a high level of skill there were answers to some of that, but that the style was designed around the idea of relatively untrained attackers.


----------



## JowGaWolf

RagingBull said:


> His son has taken over as Saito Sensei is dead. Not sure how he trains but as i learned it, it was pretty much as the video showed. As i wrote the Sensei i had trained in Iwama & not just once under saito. he was an older guy but had that mentality. he hated round dancing aikido.


Are there many schools under that branch?


----------



## RagingBull

JowGaWolf said:


> Are there many schools under that branch?


yes he has schools in the USA. remember Saito Sensei saw all the changes from pre WW2 upwards.  The system was then Aiki Budo.


----------



## RagingBull




----------



## RagingBull




----------



## drop bear

I really like this video because it is a very common result of people trying to secure an arm (and not being super great at it.)

And the answer to " But we train bouncers and police"


----------



## O'Malley

gpseymour said:


> As I understand it, Yoshinkan is closer to the Daitor-ryu roots.


So are Tomiki and Iwama. Morihei Ueshiba kept doing Daito-ryu all his life, so anyone who'd studied primarily with him would be doing DR. Aikido was just a rebranding because he didn't care much about names. And, in a sense, Ki Society is much closer to DR than one may think, it might be one of the closest.

"When I move it becomes Aiki. The goal (of our techniques) is the creation of the Aiki Body. It’s not individual techniques. The body itself becomes Aiki." - Yukiyoshi Sagawa, January 12th, 1975. Sagawa was Morihei Ueshiba's peer under Takeda.



JowGaWolf said:


> Thanks for sharing this video.  I'm going to check out that camp since they are punching people.  I'm interested in understanding their approach to Aikido


I've done almost all my aikido training in that lineage, and with good references (there are many top-level instructors in Italy, and more generally in Europe).

The Iwama approach is done with physical resistance (for example, when uke grabs your wrist/shoulder, he does so with all his strength and with the intent of stopping you in your tracks) but no tactical resistance (= no sparring, we stay in the framework of the kata). There is also an emphasis on conditioning with kokyu ho (breath power exercises) and ken (sword) and jo (staff) exercises. Talented people may also improve tactics/reflexes with the weapon work but most do rote repetition. Iwama people are typically able to project a lot of power and their technique is mechanically sound (like other styles that work with resistance such as Yoshinkan or Tomiki). However, the randori model is similar to other styles (except Tomiki), with the same drawbacks.











As for "punching people", meh. As a general rule, we don't train striking. The opportunities for strikes during techniques and entries are shown, and they double as ways to ensure proper distancing.







Some exercises are interesting to explore. For example, I've been thinking about how this one might teach you power projection for a jab:






And this one for a karate-like cross-step-and-punch (oi zuki?):






But these are just personal reflections.


----------



## O'Malley

Edited to reply to @gpseymour 's comment.


----------



## RagingBull

remember i had a couple of VHS videos from this guy. His UKI took some serious pain in the videos...LOL


----------



## RagingBull

I had a good collection of films given to me. Even from my Aikido sensei who filmed it himself in Iwama.  He died but before it gave me his films. He aslo asked if i wanted to go to Iwama with him and two others. He never made it as he died of Liver problems. liked his drink too much. such is life sadly.
My wife threw out all my films without telling me. i was not pleased to say the least. women


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> I really like this video because it is a very common result of people trying to secure an arm (and not being super great at it.)
> 
> And the answer to " But we train bouncers and police"


I'm assuming that this is in the U.S by the comment made.
1. The U.S. is the worst when applying wrist locks.

2.  Standing wrist locks and arm locks should be done without notice which leads to #3.  This is no different than BJJ. When the person realizes that they are about to be put into a lock they start resisting and now you have to work harder to do this.  BJJ has the advantage of taking the legs away from the equation

3. Police often try to apply the technique's slowly which give the person a chance to fight against it.  Things change when this happens.  My assumption is that police only know a couple of locks.  So if they are trying to put his arms behind the back and get too much resistance then they may not know how to flow into another technique.  Similar to BJJ.  When too much resistance is in one direction they simply flow into a different lock.

4. Training for wrist locks in the police force is not long enough, not even close.  Think  of how long it takes for you learn what you know.  How many hours does it take to get good at it.?  They get far less than that.

Listen to this video.  Pay attention to what is said about the results.  When training was was longer.  Ignore all of the Selling hype.


----------



## RagingBull

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm assuming that this is in the U.S by the comment made.
> 1. The U.S. is the worst when applying wrist locks.
> 
> 2.  Standing wrist locks and arm locks should be done without notice which leads to #3.  This is no different than BJJ. When the person realizes that they are about to be put into a lock they start resisting and now you have to work harder to do this.  BJJ has the advantage of taking the legs away from the equation
> 
> 3. Police often try to apply the technique's slowly which give the person a chance to fight against it.  Things change when this happens.  My assumption is that police only know a couple of locks.  So if they are trying to put his arms behind the back and get too much resistance then they may not know how to flow into another technique.  Similar to BJJ.  When too much resistance is in one direction they simply flow into a different lock.
> 
> 4. Training for wrist locks in the police force is not long enough, not even close.  Think  of how long it takes for you learn what you know.  How many hours does it take to get good at it.?  They get far less than that.
> 
> Listen to this video.  Pay attention to what is said about the results.  When training was was longer.  Ignore all of the Selling hype.


I think a problem is the Police in the US are even more under scrutiny now.  Can you imagine if they did a fast wrist lock openly & the suspect screamed. Remember there is always a person filming. 
Rather than going for a wrist i would rather go for an arm bar or shoulder. wrist locks are very hard to do on a drugged up or drunk person who feels it later. a whole arm or shoulder lock immobilizes them. Even some Judo body hold downs are better. 
Remember talking reality here not Dojo fantasy.


----------



## RagingBull

it´s like when i was in the British Army they tought us "Aikido" but when we went on a Tour of N Ireland we were tought strikes & locks with batons more escrima. hitting wrist even sticking it between the legs to make the guy move fast. reality is not like in a dojo.


----------



## JowGaWolf

How many hours do you thing it takes to effectively pull thi


RagingBull said:


> I think a problem is the Police in the US are even more under scrutiny now. Can you imagine if they did a fast wrist lock openly & the suspect screamed.


Yep, I can imagine but that's the only I know how to apply those.  If they don't want that then, they definitely don't want train standing wrist locks. Go with BJJ or learn how to lock larger joints.  I was never taught that wrist locks were for restraining so for me it's all about destroying that joint.  The restraint comes after the join has been destroyed.  I personally wouldn't try to use a wrist lock unless I was ok with destroying that joint.  If they clinch their fist then the wrist lock is lost.  I don't care what type of wrist lock a person is doing.  A clinch fist will void any attempt to lock the wrist, hence is the reason it can't be slowly done.  It's gotta be in the works before the person realizes what's going on.



RagingBull said:


> Rather than going for a wrist i would rather go for an arm bar or shoulder.


Totally agree with you.  A larger joint lock would world.  Most people who resist often do so in a way that actually leads them into those type of locks. I rather use something where resisting causes that person to head in the right direction that's needed for the lock. 



RagingBull said:


> wrist locks are very hard to do on a drugged up or drunk person who feels it later.


Wrist locks are hard to do period.  Anyone that is actually good in applying them has have years of training.  There are actual grip strength exercises that are needed in order to pull off wrist locks.  Add how long it takes to develop muscle strength + how long it takes to get the technique down.  We could literally be talking years of consistent training


----------



## RagingBull

yeah the locks we used with a baton worked & fast. The surface area of a baton against any part of your arm inflicts pain.  I know this sounds rather nasty given the recent events in the US but put it over the throat hands crossed behind the the head holding the baton the guy will move with you & fast. in some situations you have to do it fast...& yes aggressive. otherwise we would have been cought by a violent mob, dragged away & tortured, shot.  no room for any sentiments here.


----------



## O'Malley

Here's a better example of atemi used upon entry:







Also, the throw features "hidden" elbow and knee strikes. The elbow strike can be done to the ribs of your partner when you enter under his arm. The knee strike can either be done when you bring your partner down, or when you advance your foot to project him. The second way is taught so that you get the right feeling and footwork for the throw.

I like this sequence because it shows the multi-faced study of atemi in Iwama aikido (as entry, striking opportunities during the technique or teaching device).


----------



## jayoliver00

JowGaWolf said:


> I've watched his Channel for a long time now.  Not all the videos but enough to see the change.



OK, based on this, I will take your word for it and concede. Because I can't stand listening to that Roka guy's voice and his videos are way too long & boring; so I can't bring myself to watching more of his videos just to debate you. 

And I apologize for calling you a liar.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

RagingBull said:


> remember i had a couple of VHS videos from this guy. His UKI took some serious pain in the videos...LOL


I have some others of his videos. I think that uke is his younger brother.


----------



## JowGaWolf

RagingBull said:


> remember i had a couple of VHS videos from this guy. His UKI took some serious pain in the videos...LOL


That is the first time I've seen someone yell in pain in Aikido.  I guess he got the technique right. lol.


----------



## Cynik75

Wrestling and aikido by Rokas:


----------



## O'Malley

This only confirms my thoughts about Rokas. Although he's researching this with enthusiasm, his aikido was crap to begin with so he's starting with wrong assumptions.


----------



## angelariz

From my very limited experience visiting an aikido school in NYC many years ago, I found it to be a great way to train relaxation, rolling, falling, and being mindful of relaxing while being thrown.
However, in my experience, i found all of those things in aikiJu Jutsu and switched over to a school that worked on a hybrid of Aiki Jujitsu, Shotokan, bujutsu type class.


----------



## drop bear

O'Malley said:


> This only confirms my thoughts about Rokas. Although he's researching this with enthusiasm, his aikido was crap to begin with so he's starting with wrong assumptions.



They are common assumptions.

Aikido quite often doesn't have the back of house fundamentals to be able to do Aikido.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> This only confirms my thoughts about Rokas. Although he's researching this with enthusiasm, his aikido was crap to begin with so he's starting with wrong assumptions.


I don’t know their Aikido, but all the things he has said so far (I’m about halfway) have me thinking he doesn’t understand the same Aiki principles I do. That connection he talks about is a vital part, and his comments about controlling with the arms doesn’t match how I understand the principles.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

angelariz said:


> From my very limited experience visiting an aikido school in NYC many years ago, I found it to be a great way to train relaxation, rolling, falling, and being mindful of relaxing while being thrown.
> However, in my experience, i found all of those things in aikiJu Jutsu and switched over to a school that worked on a hybrid of Aiki Jujitsu, Shotokan, bujutsu type class.


Most of Aikido is Aikijujutsu, named differently, from what I understand.


----------



## O'Malley

drop bear said:


> They are common assumptions.
> 
> Aikido quite often doesn't have the back of house fundamentals to be able to do Aikido.


I think we need to distinguish the fundamentals of fighting and the fundamentals of aikido: they do overlap to some degree but not completely. I agree that some fundamentals of fighting (e.g. live training, flowing from one movement/technique to another) are missing from the typical aikido curriculum - that's where one can "improve" the method if that's one's goal.

However, aikido has fundamental principles as an art (e.g. maintain body structure, use whole-body power, enter and take the centerline, etc.) and, likewise, aikido techniques have principles that make them work mechanically (e.g. enter deeply in iriminage, which he doesn't do in that video). Rokas does not demonstrate a good grasp of these. I've found discussions from his pre-MMA-stuff period where he shared instructional videos and lots of other aikidoka would say "look it doesn't work because X, Y and Z". He never adressed the technical criticism. His poor aikido knowledge and ability puts him in a bad position to do his research. You won't know how good your vacuum cleaner is if you use it like this:








Gerry Seymour said:


> I don’t know their Aikido, but all the things he has said so far (I’m about halfway) have me thinking he doesn’t understand the same Aiki principles I do. That connection he talks about is a vital part, and his comments about controlling with the arms doesn’t match how I understand the principles.


I lost it at the connection part. As you said, it's basic. If, as he says, "no one taught [him] that", then his aikido knowledge is clearly not up to scratch. For comparison:

Here we see shiho nage done without slack in the opponent:






Here we see the basic form of irimi nage, with the triangular footwork that allows the hip entry to prevent uke from stepping backwards:






I voluntarily chose examples from two different styles to show that it's not school-specific.



Gerry Seymour said:


> Most of Aikido is Aikijujutsu, named differently, from what I understand.


Yep, Morihei Ueshiba taught the same art under different names (Daito Ryu, Aikibudo, Aikido, etc.). There are manuals by Ueshiba with the same technical content but different names. So yes Morihei Ueshiba's aikido is just Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu.

That said, there are a number of modern systems called "aikijujutsu/aikijujitsu/aikijitsu" put together by people with an aikido background, in an attempt to make it more effective at fighting. The approaches are very heterogeneous and it can range from aikido techniques done harder and with a mean face, to a synthesis of aikido and other styles (judo, boxing, etc.).

To distinguish between the Daito Ryu lines and modern systems, I usually ask "who do you train under"?


----------



## Cynik75

As usual: Rokas aikido doesn't work because he does not know true aikido. Where are all those aikidokas (who know true aikido) able to prove themselves in combat against medium amateur lever MMA hobbists?
As usual: words, words, words. One video of aikidoka in a ring like Rokas on the beginning of his journey will be worth more than 8766576554654 words.
Maybe his aikido is a crap. But who can show me non-crap aikido (without support of 15 years of full contact MA training) in combat against medium amateur lever full contact sport hobbists?


----------



## O'Malley

Cynik75 said:


> As usual: Rokas aikido doesn't work because he does not know true aikido. Where are all those aikidokas (who know true aikido) able to prove themselves in combat against medium amateur lever MMA hobbists?
> As usual: words, words, words. One video of aikidoka in a ring like Rokas on the beginning of his journey will be worth more than 8766576554654 words.
> Maybe his aikido is a crap. But who can show me non-crap aikido (without support of 15 years of full contact MA training) in combat against medium amateur lever full contact sport hobbists?



Quality control in aikido is difficult since there is no competition, no common goal and no common standards across aikido schools. Everybody is doing his own thing. That said, there are technical teachings which are consistently taught by several authoritative aikido teachers, and it is easy to demonstrate that Rokas' aikido has never complied with these teachings. Furthermore, the same wrestling principles that he uses to "fix" it correspond exactly to the correct application of these aikido teachings, as seen in the videos I have posted. Simply put, from a technical perspective, he's bad at aikido.

So Rokas does not represent the aikido community as a whole, as lots of them don't share his goals. Moreover, he does not even represent correct aikido technique, as he demonstrably lacks very basic technical skills. Because of this, it's impossible to draw general conclusions on aikido from his videos.

The lack of videos of aikidoka "proving themselves in combat" against whatever is another topic. First of all, I don't think many aikidoka are interested in this. Among these, few would be willing to go through the hassle. And among these, even fewer would be capable of pulling it off. On top of that, in the end it would not prove much about aikido as a whole, as said above.

Yu Shiori is a Shodokan (Tomiki) aikido champion with a 9-3-0 record in MMA. He now teaches aikido and MMA. One can see him pull off a waki-gatame from standing at 3:33 in the video below. So what now?






As an aside, I'm puzzled as to how Rokas, who claims to have studied BJJ and judo to "improve aikido", seems to only discover the action-reaction principle now that he's done the wrestling video with Oliver Enkamp. That's the whole point of judo, it's in the name of the art, FFS. This is telling.


----------



## Steve

O'Malley said:


> Quality control in aikido is difficult since there is no competition, no common goal and no common standards across aikido schools. Everybody is doing his own thing. That said, there are technical teachings which are consistently taught by several authoritative aikido teachers, and it is easy to demonstrate that Rokas' aikido has never complied with these teachings. Furthermore, the same wrestling principles that he uses to "fix" it correspond exactly to the correct application of these aikido teachings, as seen in the videos I have posted. Simply put, from a technical perspective, he's bad at aikido.
> 
> So Rokas does not represent the aikido community as a whole, as lots of them don't share his goals. Moreover, he does not even represent correct aikido technique, as he demonstrably lacks very basic technical skills. Because of this, it's impossible to draw general conclusions on aikido from his videos.
> 
> The lack of videos of aikidoka "proving themselves in combat" against whatever is another topic. First of all, I don't think many aikidoka are interested in this. Among these, few would be willing to go through the hassle. And among these, even fewer would be capable of pulling it off. On top of that, in the end it would not prove much about aikido as a whole, as said above.
> 
> Yu Shiori is a Shodokan (Tomiki) aikido champion with a 9-3-0 record in MMA. He now teaches aikido and MMA. One can see him pull off a waki-gatame from standing at 3:33 in the video below. So what now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As an aside, I'm puzzled as to how Rokas, who claims to have studied BJJ and judo to "improve aikido", seems to only discover the action-reaction principle now that he's done the wrestling video with Oliver Enkamp. That's the whole point of judo, it's in the name of the art, FFS. This is telling.


His BJJ looks pretty good, and his striking is pretty sharp.  I'm not trying to stir the pot, but when I look at that video, I see a lot of what is obviously boxing, a lot of what is obviously BJJ, a lot of what is obviously pretty standard MMA training, and maybe some cross-training in Judo (which is where I would presume he learned that waki-gatame). 

So, all of that said, if he has trained his aikido in such a way that it now resembles functional BJJ and Judo, good on him.  Truly.


----------



## Steve

Cynik75 said:


> As usual: Rokas aikido doesn't work because he does not know true aikido. Where are all those aikidokas (who know true aikido) able to prove themselves in combat against medium amateur lever MMA hobbists?
> As usual: words, words, words. One video of aikidoka in a ring like Rokas on the beginning of his journey will be worth more than 8766576554654 words.
> Maybe his aikido is a crap. But who can show me non-crap aikido (without support of 15 years of full contact MA training) in combat against medium amateur lever full contact sport hobbists?


Yeah, this seems very familiar.  It's circular logic.  Because their Aikido didn't work, they are not skilled... because if they were skilled, it would have worked.  I'm skilled, and my Aikido works, because I actually understand these fundamental concepts. 

I am sincerely interested in whether Rokas could also explain these concepts to us.  I'm guessing he could, but maybe not.  Anyone have his email?  If so, I'll email him some of the concepts outlined in this thread and ask him directly whether he learned them in his Aikido training.


----------



## O'Malley

Steve said:


> His BJJ looks pretty good, and his striking is pretty sharp.  I'm not trying to stir the pot, but when I look at that video, I see a lot of what is obviously boxing, a lot of what is obviously BJJ, a lot of what is obviously pretty standard MMA training, and maybe some cross-training in Judo (which is where I would presume he learned that waki-gatame).
> 
> So, all of that said, if he has trained his aikido in such a way that it now resembles functional BJJ and Judo, good on him.  Truly.


Shiori competed in MMA and Shodokan aikido during the same period, and now teaches both so yes he obviously cross-trained. Waki gatame is a standard technique in Shodokan aikido competitions:








> Yeah, this seems very familiar.  It's circular logic.  Because their Aikido didn't work, they are not skilled... because if they were skilled, it would have worked.  I'm skilled, and my Aikido works, because I actually understand these fundamental concepts.



Please refrain from making straw man arguments. 

I have not said_ "Because their Aikido didn't work, they are not skilled... because if they were skilled, it would have worked."_

I have said that 1) his aikido misses some basic technical elements; and 2) what he claims "fixed" the technique were the very basic elements that were missing in the first place. These two claims are objectively verifiable (see above).

_I'm skilled, and my Aikido works, because I actually understand these fundamental concepts._

I've never mentioned myself. Don't put words in my mouth.



Steve said:


> I am sincerely interested in whether Rokas could also explain these concepts to us.  I'm guessing he could, but maybe not.  Anyone have his email?  If so, I'll email him some of the concepts outlined in this thread and ask him directly whether he learned them in his Aikido training.



Pretty sure you could reach out to the guy on his YouTube channel. But again, what would that demonstrate?


----------



## Steve

O'Malley said:


> Shiori competed in MMA and Shodokan aikido during the same period, and now teaches both so yes he obviously cross-trained. Waki gatame is a standard technique in Shodokan aikido competitions:


That's very interesting.  Thanks for sharing, and to be clear, I think it's great to see.  I also am not surprised to learn that Aikido, when trained for performance and applied in context, looks like BJJ and Judo.  My point wasn't to question whether he trained Aikido. 



O'Malley said:


> Please refrain from making straw man arguments.
> 
> I have not said_ "Because their Aikido didn't work, they are not skilled... because if they were skilled, it would have worked."_



pointing out your circular logic is not a straw man argument. You can't dismiss your own fallacious logic by tossing around another random logical fallacy.  That's not how logic works.



O'Malley said:


> I have said that 1) his aikido misses some basic technical elements; and 2) what he claims "fixed" the technique were the very basic elements that were missing in the first place. These two claims are objectively verifiable (see above).


Right.  If you don't see it, I can't make you see it.  But the circle... it's there.



O'Malley said:


> _I'm skilled, and my Aikido works, because I actually understand these fundamental concepts._
> 
> I've never mentioned myself. Don't put words in my mouth.


Okay.  I'll just refer you to what you wrote in the two sentences above.



O'Malley said:


> Pretty sure you could reach out to the guy on his YouTube channel. But again, what would that demonstrate?


Well, it would answer the question whether he "learned" these "fundamentals" when he was studying Aikido.   The assertion seems to be that if he learned them, he would have sound Aikido technique.  Clearly he doesn't, ergo, he didn't learn them.

I'm suggesting that a third possibility is that he learned them just like most (or all) other Aikido learn them, which is at a superficial, conceptual level, that they never move past because they don't apply their techniques.  And so, the fix isn't in the philosophy or theory, it's in the training model.

The guy you post above.  Do you think he trains his Aikido in the same way almost all other Aikidoka train?  I don't get that impression, and others in this thread have said so, too (even aikidoka).  Point being, perhaps Rokas' Aikido training was very typical, and what he found outside of Aikido wasn't new technique or new theory, but more the miracle of application.  The dude in the YouTube video you posted above seems to get it.


----------



## Mider

Cynik75 said:


> As usual: Rokas aikido doesn't work because he does not know true aikido. Where are all those aikidokas (who know true aikido) able to prove themselves in combat against medium amateur lever MMA hobbists?
> As usual: words, words, words. One video of aikidoka in a ring like Rokas on the beginning of his journey will be worth more than 8766576554654 words.
> Maybe his aikido is a crap. But who can show me non-crap aikido (without support of 15 years of full contact MA training) in combat against medium amateur lever full contact sport hobbists?


Dan the Wolfman has used it in mma, he even said that Gene Lebell taught him a few of moves from Aikido. I think the issue here is too many people here say oh I never saw this when they never actually researched people using aikido working ...it’s just an echo chamber.

not trying to be rude but when it’s repeated 100 times it gets old. when I hear a martial artist disparage another art i Just roll my eyes.


----------



## Cynik75

O'Malley said:


> ....
> Yu Shiori is a Shodokan (Tomiki) aikido champion with a 9-3-0 record in MMA. He now teaches aikido and MMA. One can see him pull off a waki-gatame from standing at 3:33 in the video below. So what now?


I am not native english speaker and I do not know how to explain to you meaning of my words *"*_who can show me non-crap aikido_* (without support of 15 years of full contact MA training)*"


O'Malley said:


> ...Yu Shiori is a Shodokan (Tomiki) aikido champion with a 9-3-0 record in MMA. He now teaches aikido and MMA. One can see him pull off a waki-gatame from standing at 3:33 in the video below. So what now?
> .


I am not native english speaker and I do not know how to explain to you meaning of my words *"*_who can show me non-crap aikido_* (without support of 15 years of full contact MA training)*"

Both Shori and Wolfman are MMA practitioners. They can use elements of aikido in fights, but the core of they trainig is MMA. Yuri won fight by punches (5), RNC ( 1), guillotine (1), decisions (2) - NOW I UNDERSTAND!!! ATEMIWAZA - the secret weapon of aikido!!!
Please show me aikido purists in a fight against decent opponent.


----------



## Steve

Mider said:


> Dan the Wolfman has used it in mma, he even said that Gene Lebell taught him a few of moves from Aikido. I think the issue here is too many people here say oh I never saw this when they never actually researched people using aikido working ...it’s just an echo chamber.
> 
> not trying to be rude but when it’s repeated 100 times it gets old. when I hear a martial artist disparage another art i Just roll my eyes.


Honest question.  Is Aikido discrete techniques or is Aikido a system? 

BJJ, Judo, and Sambo... when I think of these systems, I think they're in the same family.  They share many techniques, but it's the training philosophy and culture that links them.  Aikido and ninjutsu share many of these same techniques, but the training models, culture, and philosophy of the styles is dramatically different.

And we can see this in the video above.  A guy who purportedly uses Aikido in MMA, he trains his Aikido differently than most Aikidoka.  As his training and philosophy morphs to more closely align with BJJ and Judo, his application looks just like Judo or BJJ.  Indistinguishable, IMO.  It no longer looks like Aikido, unsurprisingly, because the techniques are the same, but most or all of the rest is different.

Conceptually, at what point does his Aikido actually become something else, because the things that are uniquely "aikido" are all gone and what is left is Basically Just Judo.

Edit:  To close the loop, I guess what I'm really asking above is, if Dan the Wolfman doesn't know anything more about Aikido than a few moves he learned from his pal (who was a Judoka)... is that really Aikido?  I wouldn't have thought so.


----------



## Cynik75

BTW: I am not impressed with Dan's 2-3 record (defeated opponents are 0-2, <0-0 before fighting Dan> and 10-14 ,1-2 before fighting Dan.)


----------



## O'Malley

Steve said:


> pointing out your circular logic is not a straw man argument. You can't dismiss your own fallacious logic by tossing around another random logical fallacy.  That's not how logic works.
> 
> 
> Right.  If you don't see it, I can't make you see it.  But the circle... it's there.



I'll try to be clearer. 



Steve said:


> Okay.  I'll just refer you to what you wrote in the two sentences above.
> 
> 
> Well, it would answer the question whether he "learned" these "fundamentals" when he was studying Aikido.   The assertion seems to be that if he learned them, he would have sound Aikido technique.  Clearly he doesn't, ergo, he didn't learn them.


He said it in the video. At 4:14 he starts talking about irimi nage, and how cutting behind uke with your hip makes it "effortless". At 4:27 he textually says "But no one taught me that."

I've just found a video of Patrick Cassidy, Rokas's aikido teacher, doing irimi nage with the hip cut at 4:36.






I have also found a video where Cassidy performs shiho nage multiple times (at 0:52): he does not allow slack in his partner as he keeps her arm in extension. "Not allowing slack" was the "wrestling principle" used by Rokas to "fix" shiho nage (see the Rokas wrestling video from 3:16).






So we have two instances of technical elements that Rokas claims are missing in the aikido he was taught, but are present in his teacher's aikido. This means that either he didn't get taught, or he didn't learn properly. This is a problem when one tries to use Rokas to draw general conclusions on aikido, since he is obviously missing technical elements that he should have learnt from his teacher and that - according to his own claims - make aikido much more functional.



Steve said:


> I'm suggesting that a third possibility is that he learned them just like most (or all) other Aikido learn them, which is at a superficial, conceptual level, that they never move past because they don't apply their techniques.  And so, the fix isn't in the philosophy or theory, it's in the training model.
> 
> The guy you post above.  Do you think he trains his Aikido in the same way almost all other Aikidoka train?  I don't get that impression, and others in this thread have said so, too (even aikidoka).  Point being, perhaps Rokas' Aikido training was very typical, and what he found outside of Aikido wasn't new technique or new theory, but more the miracle of application.  The dude in the YouTube video you posted above seems to get it.


Again, there is no common training model, because there are no common goals or standards. So, if one wants to fix an aikido school's training model, that fix will only apply to that particular school. It will not apply to the vast majority of aikido schools that train differently for different purposes.

And to be clear, just like Rokas doesn't train the same way as almost all other aikidoka, Yu Shiori does not either. That's why I said "so what?". Can't draw any general conclusion from either case. One has to take responsibility for one's training, establish goals and see how to get there.

That said, if someone claims to train for fighting application, then that person will have to put himself to the test and see if the goal was reached.



Cynik75 said:


> I am not native english speaker and I do not know how to explain to you meaning of my words *"*_who can show me non-crap aikido_* (without support of 15 years of full contact MA training)*"
> 
> I am not native english speaker and I do not know how to explain to you meaning of my words *"*_who can show me non-crap aikido_* (without support of 15 years of full contact MA training)*"
> 
> Both Shori and Wolfman are MMA practitioners. They can use elements of aikido in fights, but the core of they trainig is MMA. Yuri won fight by punches (5), RNC ( 1), guillotine (1), decisions (2) - NOW I UNDERSTAND!!! ATEMIWAZA - the secret weapon of aikido!!!
> Please show me aikido purists in a fight against decent opponent.


No worries, I'm not a native speaker either. That said, I don't have to show you anything, and you don't get to dictate anything.


----------



## lklawson

O'Malley said:


> Here we see the basic form of irimi nage, with the triangular footwork that allows the hip entry to prevent uke from stepping backwards:








Here's the boxer Billy Edwards doing irimi in his 1888 book, _The Art of Boxing and the Science of Self-Defense together with a Manual of Training_.  But he messed up and called it "Back-Heeling."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Cynik75

O'Malley said:


> He said it in the video. At 4:14 he starts talking about irimi nage, and how cutting behind uke with your hip makes it "effortless". At 4:27 he textually says "But no one taught me that."
> 
> I've just found a video of Patrick Cassidy, Rokas's aikido teacher, doing irimi nage with the hip cut at 4:36.
> 
> ....
> 
> I have also found a video where Cassidy performs shiho nage multiple times (at 0:52): he does not allow slack in his partner as he keeps her arm in extension. "Not allowing slack" was the "wrestling principle" used by Rokas to "fix" shiho nage (see the Rokas wrestling video from 3:16).
> 
> ...
> 
> So we have two instances of technical elements that Rokas claims are missing in the aikido he was taught, but are present in his teacher's aikido.


Nope. You do not see the difference. There is no body-to-body connection on footage you have posted. Rokas and Olivier are talking about torso touching torso.


----------



## JowGaWolf

He still has stuff to learn.  My guess is that he'll soon learn that the high guard that he's using will often make it difficult to pull off some of the applications he's trying to do.

The reality about TMA is that the stance and hand position are critical because it invites the punches that you need in order to pull of certain techniques.  From a kung fu perspective.  If I want to grab a punch or a kick then I must have my hands and my stance in the right place to do so.  It's not going to happen from a high guard because it takes way too much time to get the hands and stance into position.

To put it in simple terms.  It's like trying to bait someone for an under hook by holding your hands up high to cover your head.  It's a much easier thing to do if one arm is already in position to do an under hook.

Most of my under hooks were the result of my opponent walking into the under hook.  Where they saw an opportunity to pin my arm against my body,  I saw an opportunity to underhook.  All I had to do was to send an "Invite" which is easier than "Trying to go get the under hook"

Rokas still hasn't learn the simple concept, that if you want to grab someone's harm then punch or kick. Don't just go for the grab.

If you want to punch someone go for the grab, then punch them.  Misdirection is key.  It's normal for me to tell someone that I can land any punch that I want to.  So I'll say.  I'm going to punch you on the right side of your face.  Then I'll kick the legs.  My sparring partner would say. "See I told you , that you can't punch the right side of my face."  I grin and tell them. "I just told you that because what I really was going for were your legs and I was successful with that."

To this date, I've been able to punch and kick someone where ever I wanted, so long as my opponent didn't know my true target.  One day Rokas will learn this.


----------



## JowGaWolf

The one thing I like about what I see in Rokas now is that he no longer seems to have that "Aikido is the problem"  mentality.  He seems to have accepted that his inability to do Aikido was due to his lack of understanding.  

He showed one of his classes and you can see it in how he teaches now.  You can see how he understands more by how he now describe things vs how he used to talk before he left Aikido. 

Now he's back into teaching Aikido and will most likely be a better teacher than he was previously.  He's no longer bashing Aikido.


----------



## Flying Crane

This thread is starting to feel a bit like The Truman Show, looking in from the outside.  It’s a The Rokas Show.  We are following his life, noting milestones, cheering for his success…


----------



## O'Malley

Cynik75 said:


> Nope. You do not see the difference. There is no body-to-body connection on footage you have posted. Rokas and Olivier are talking about torso touching torso.


In the footage I posted, the body-to-body connection is between Tori (the "doer")'s shoulders and uke (the "receiver")'s extended arm and shoulder. It acts as a leverage point and allows Tori to keep the arch of uke's back. That way the arm is extended and uke cannot regain his structure. It is more obvious in the first shiho nage video I have posted (katate mochi shiho nage ni).

On that note, Rokas's version is too far in front and the initial balance breaking is wrong: he just tries to bend Oliver sideways instead of locking the shoulder to arch his posture backwards. This leaves uke stronger and exposes his back. Moreover, his bent-over posture is quite bad for power generation and gives him inferior leverage. Finally, the angle at which he does the throw is dangerous for uke: in training, it should be done straight back, not to the outside, as this can tear the shoulder joint badly. Fortunately for Enkamp, there is no shoulder-to-shoulder connection so he has the room to turn with the throw and avoid injury. Compare this with the above-mentioned katate mochi shiho nage ni video, where the throw goes straight down safely into a control position.



Flying Crane said:


> This thread is starting to feel a bit like The Truman Show, looking in from the outside.  It’s a The Rokas Show.  We are following his life, noting milestones, cheering for his success…


An aptly named thread indeed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> His BJJ looks pretty good, and his striking is pretty sharp.  I'm not trying to stir the pot, but when I look at that video, I see a lot of what is obviously boxing, a lot of what is obviously BJJ, a lot of what is obviously pretty standard MMA training, and maybe some cross-training in Judo (which is where I would presume he learned that waki-gatame).
> 
> So, all of that said, if he has trained his aikido in such a way that it now resembles functional BJJ and Judo, good on him.  Truly.


This is something I’ve brought up before. Aikido in action doesn’t look like the drills. It’s not meant to - the drills are purposely exaggerated to emphasize (and attempt to require) specific principles. For folks who know the principles, it’s possible to spot some of them, but the overall “look” will be closer to Judo than to the drills and forms seen in most Aikido classes. 

I think there are Aikidoka who don’t understand this, too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Yeah, this seems very familiar.  It's circular logic.  Because their Aikido didn't work, they are not skilled... because if they were skilled, it would have worked.  I'm skilled, and my Aikido works, because I actually understand these fundamental concepts.
> 
> I am sincerely interested in whether Rokas could also explain these concepts to us.  I'm guessing he could, but maybe not.  Anyone have his email?  If so, I'll email him some of the concepts outlined in this thread and ask him directly whether he learned them in his Aikido training.


That’s not the argument being made. Independent of whether proper Aikido would work or not, what Rokas’ comments describe is not proper Aikido. So his assessment of the art is flawed.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> I think there are Aikidoka who don’t understand this, too.


I don't train it, but I know this statement is true.  In general it's true for all TMA.  There will always be a set who don't understand what they are training and will often try to get it to do something that it was never intended to do.  The first signs of this is when someone says "they fixed the technique."


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> That’s not the argument being made. Independent of whether proper Aikido would work or not, what Rokas’ comments describe is not proper Aikido. So his assessment of the art is flawed.


I think Rokas has even acknowledge this in so many words


----------



## Steve

Gerry Seymour said:


> That’s not the argument being made. Independent of whether proper Aikido would work or not, what Rokas’ comments describe is not proper Aikido. So his assessment of the art is flawed.


Is it?  I took his comments as practical, not philosophical.  What it is; not what is is supposed to be.  You say similar from time to time, yourself.    I would suspect, if asked a few years ago, he would sound very much like an aikidoka.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Is it?  I took his comments as practical, not philosophical.  What it is; not what is is supposed to be.  You say similar from time to time, yourself.    I would suspect, if asked a few years ago, he would sound very much like an aikidoka.


He missed very basic principles. So, yes, his assessment is flawed.

Mind you, I suspect his flawed development is at least partly due to flaws in the common delivery model used in Aikido.

One thing that might get in the way of our understanding each other in this is how we identify the art. As I understand BJJ, it is formless. There are principles, of course, but a fundamental background principle is to follow what works, wherever it comes from. So the training methodology pretty much is the art.

For arts with a more “classical” (my term) approach, the training method can vary a good deal, without it becoming a different art. So I tend to differentiate between the art (the collection of principles and classical drills) and the system (how that art is trained, which may be specific to a school).


----------



## drop bear

O'Malley said:


> However, aikido has fundamental principles as an art (e.g. maintain body structure, use whole-body power, enter and take the centerline, etc.) and, likewise, aikido techniques have principles that make them work mechanically (e.g. enter deeply in iriminage, which he doesn't do in that video). Rokas does not demonstrate a good grasp of these. I've found discussions from his pre-MMA-stuff period where he shared instructional videos and lots of other aikidoka would say "look it doesn't work because X, Y and Z". He never adressed the technical criticism. His poor aikido knowledge and ability puts him in a bad position to do his research. You won't know how good your vacuum cleaner is if you use it like this:



Sort of. 

I like this concept when it comes to any practical application of martial arts.

And a look. I don't think aikido achieved this very well.


----------



## Hanzou

Rokas' consistent push to prove the effectiveness of Aikido is getting tiresome. Dude trained in it for over a decade and couldn't fight his way out of a paperbag. He takes BJJ and MMA for about a year and he can actually protect himself. Case closed. Let it go, or pull a Roy Dean and mix it with BJJ (which pretty much only amounts to forcing students to take insanely hard belt tests). 

Also the Karate Nerd gives me hives.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Sort of.
> 
> I like this concept when it comes to any practical application of martial arts.
> 
> And a look. I don't think aikido achieved this very well.


Yeah I'm going to say no to that.  I understand the value he tries to place on timing.  But anyone who tells you that technique doesn't matter when doing a back flip has never done a back flip.  






Timing is important, but without technique, timing won't matter.  Timing needed to kick someone in the head doesn't matter if you don't have the ability to kick someone in the head.  When you train MMA, Boxing, or anything else in life. You first learn technique, then you learn timing.

To break it down even more I would say. 
1. Learn the technique -  Concept, structure, Basics
2. Learn the applied technique - Function, structure, Basics (light sparring)
3. Learn timing - Application, Fuction, Structure, Basics (advance sparring / fighting)

Most people who aren't interested in fighting or being able to use stop at #1.  Then you have the set of people who make the assumption that because they are good at #1 that they possess the skills that can only be developed by #2 and #3.

If you look at Aikido and some other TMA systems you will see that same patter where most will stop at #1.  Those who get good at #1 think they have acquired Skills that can only be developed in #2 and #3.  Roka's fits this. The Martial Art Tutor Fits this.  DK Yoo fits this. He learned #1 and #2. But never actually applied his techniques in #3.

I do agree that timing is important.  That's how slower older guys deal with faster younger guys.  But if you have good timing and bad technique, you can still fail.  You can have good timing to dodge a punch to your face only to find yourself catching a knee to the face.

I think I understand where the quote was going, but really didn't agree with how it was said.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Yeah I'm going to say no to that.  I understand the value he tries to place on timing.  But anyone who tells you that technique doesn't matter when doing a back flip has never done a back flip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Timing is important, but without technique, timing won't matter.  Timing needed to kick someone in the head doesn't matter if you don't have the ability to kick someone in the head.  When you train MMA, Boxing, or anything else in life. You first learn technique, then you learn timing.
> 
> To break it down even more I would say.
> 1. Learn the technique -  Concept, structure, Basics
> 2. Learn the applied technique - Function, structure, Basics (light sparring)
> 3. Learn timing - Application, Fuction, Structure, Basics (advance sparring / fighting)
> 
> Most people who aren't interested in fighting or being able to use stop at #1.  Then you have the set of people who make the assumption that because they are good at #1 that they possess the skills that can only be developed by #2 and #3.
> 
> If you look at Aikido and some other TMA systems you will see that same patter where most will stop at #1.  Those who get good at #1 think they have acquired Skills that can only be developed in #2 and #3.  Roka's fits this. The Martial Art Tutor Fits this.  DK Yoo fits this. He learned #1 and #2. But never actually applied his techniques in #3.
> 
> I do agree that timing is important.  That's how slower older guys deal with faster younger guys.  But if you have good timing and bad technique, you can still fail.  You can have good timing to dodge a punch to your face only to find yourself catching a knee to the face.
> 
> I think I understand where the quote was going, but really didn't agree with how it was said.



The issue is it is easy to a point to see if a person can do a backflip.

Where with Aikido we are trying to tell without ever having all to pieces. 

This is a black belt Aikido randori grading. And I couldn't even tell you what this is trying to develop. 





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1682408021779926


----------



## drop bear

Gerry Seymour said:


> This is something I’ve brought up before. Aikido in action doesn’t look like the drills. It’s not meant to - the drills are purposely exaggerated to emphasize (and attempt to require) specific principles. For folks who know the principles, it’s possible to spot some of them, but the overall “look” will be closer to Judo than to the drills and forms seen in most Aikido classes.
> 
> I think there are Aikidoka who don’t understand this, too.



What do you think that over emphasis achieves?

I have never heard Aikido principles to be that partner has to be the more highly trained fall guy.

Yet this sort of training leads people to develop in that way.

And you see this with stunt work. That the guy who is loosing is the guy who has put all the work in.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Rokas' consistent push to prove the effectiveness of Aikido is getting tiresome. Dude trained in it for over a decade and couldn't fight his way out of a paperbag. He takes BJJ and MMA for about a year and he can actually protect himself. Case closed. Let it go, or pull a Roy Dean and mix it with BJJ (which pretty much only amounts to forcing students to take insanely hard belt tests).
> 
> Also the Karate Nerd gives me hives.



I think he goes about it the wrong way. Give a MMA hard charger 20 minutes to learn an Aikido move and then see if he can drop Rokus with it.

Then you see Aikido with all the relevant back of house needed to make a move work.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> What do you think that over emphasis achieves?
> 
> I have never heard Aikido principles to be that partner has to be the more highly trained fall guy.
> 
> Yet this sort of training leads people to develop in that way.
> 
> And you see this with stunt work. That the guy who is loosing is the guy who has put all the work in.


This stuntman is legit on gymnastics and Parkour stuff. MA's skills? Not so much. 
That said, I imagine he could give most anyone a run for their money.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> This is a black belt Aikido randori grading. And I couldn't even tell you what this is trying to develop.


Well here are some realities that would make this difficult
1. You don't train Aikido (this includes me)
2. You don't train at that school (this includes me)
3. We don't any one who trains at that school (this includes me.

Without one of those three things then it's going to be difficult to know what they are testing or what they are trying to develop.  The most I can tell you is that the movements that they are doing are similar to grappling with a staff.  I recognize hints of what I train (the twisting of the staff not the footwork).

Do I think it will work the way that they are showing it. No. There's a lot of of key elements missing.  It would be like trying to jump over a ditch without knowing anything about the ditch or what elements that may affect it.   There are key elements that will make it possible. I'm basing this on my use of a staff and I don't see it here,  just hints of what it is or may be. 

For example, they seize the wrist instead of the staff.  I can tell you that in reality, trying to seize the hand is not the best choice, not even close.  I use sliding hands on a staff that size.  My hands will not be in the same position.  In the video you can see that one uses sliding hands and the other doesn't.  It's easier to grab the wrist or hand if they aren't moving.  If the hands are sliding then you'll never be in range to grab one, unless you are in close range or grappling range. There is more stick to grab, and so a larger contact with the staff, would be better to use than to pluck the staff out of the air.  After you contact the staff, you can follow it to seize the wrist if you like and depending on the technique that you are using.  Side stepping a staff jab is also difficult.  It's this difficult





Another key issue. Over committing. You only advance as far as you need to land the strike.  This is also displayed in Aikido drills.  Notice they only as far as needed to land the strike.  They are not trying to run through their opponent.  The energy from their flow will stop before you'll have a chance to use it against them. They understand this and practice this










Here it's easier to see that there are key elements missing.  Even at a slow speed he misses the grab. The strikes used break the rules that I stated above.





Knowing the context in which they are training.  Are they training against a bayonet charge? or a staff?  But even Bayonet fighting advances only has far as needed to make contact.   But without knowing more about what that school does, how they train and how they grade, there's no way we can say one way or the other.


----------



## Mider

Steve said:


> Honest question.  Is Aikido discrete techniques or is Aikido a system?
> 
> BJJ, Judo, and Sambo... when I think of these systems, I think they're in the same family.  They share many techniques, but it's the training philosophy and culture that links them.  Aikido and ninjutsu share many of these same techniques, but the training models, culture, and philosophy of the styles is dramatically different.
> 
> And we can see this in the video above.  A guy who purportedly uses Aikido in MMA, he trains his Aikido differently than most Aikidoka.  As his training and philosophy morphs to more closely align with BJJ and Judo, his application looks just like Judo or BJJ.  Indistinguishable, IMO.  It no longer looks like Aikido, unsurprisingly, because the techniques are the same, but most or all of the rest is different.
> 
> Conceptually, at what point does his Aikido actually become something else, because the things that are uniquely "aikido" are all gone and what is left is Basically Just Judo.
> 
> Edit:  To close the loop, I guess what I'm really asking above is, if Dan the Wolfman doesn't know anything more about Aikido than a few moves he learned from his pal (who was a Judoka)... is that really Aikido?  I wouldn't have thought so.


It’s a system of techniques that one should learn after already mastering other systems...those aren’t my words. That’s the thing people don’t seem to get into their thick heads, there’s plenty of things in other arts that don’t work well in the street or cage. 

great for him but I’m talking about Dan the Wolfman AND you’re not suppose to use certain techniques from Aikido in mma...no small joint manipulation.

also I don’t get this attitude, well it doesn’t work in a cafe it must not work at all...the cops, prison guards, bouncers make it work because it works against drunks or layman. I once heard someone say that, I was like huh, Lol huh, is every guy in a fight suppose to be a wrestling champ etc?

people make this huge thing about BJJ as though it’s the end all be all, though I actually speak to masters who say that’s not so and one needs to learn how to defend against say multiple attackers.

also for some reason you assume Dan the wolfman Doesn’t know aikido...lol. That’s another big thing in this forum, goal post moving. Well aikido doesn’t work, oh well it doesn’t work in mma, well that guys not an aikido expert.

Dan the wolfman used Aikido in mma, is he a black be,t in the system? No but he has Several black belts and trains to this day, 

also his friend you mentioned...you mean Judo Gene Lebell...who helped train Ronda Rousey?


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> I think he goes about it the wrong way. Give a MMA hard charger 20 minutes to learn an Aikido move and then see if he can drop Rokus with it.


It'll take longer than 20 minutes. lol. But I get your point. I think the difference there is the training mentality.  An MMA fighter would be more likely to practice the technique in sparring and will continue to work it until he understands it enough to get the right timing and situation for the technique.  But I think that's true with anyone that does this with their training.  

I watch Roka's spar with the karate guy and he's still trying to do the technique with the same approach where he's trying to grab a jab out of the air. I believe that in Aikido the movement is against a strike going to the body and not a jab going to the face.  If I were going to try that technique, then I would think of punches where the strike is targeting that area. Then test to see if the technique works against any of those punch.

Maybe the technique is easier against these types of punches. I'm just guessing because I've never tried to grab a punch in the way that Rokas is trying to grab it. If look at this picture then I would need to spin off the center line and grab wrist as I move off center line.  Maybe my opponent will turn his punch into a long guard in an effort to keep distance.  This should give me enough time to complete the grab.  But it's all theory for me until I can learn the technique then try to use it in sparring.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Mider said:


> That’s another big thing in this forum, goal post moving.


umm I take offense sir.  I don't move the goal post. I change the subject  ha ha ha ha.  but yeah.  goal post moving is a thing here lol


----------



## Steve

Mider said:


> It’s a system of techniques that one should learn after already mastering other systems...those aren’t my words. That’s the thing people don’t seem to get into their thick heads, there’s plenty of things in other arts that don’t work well in the street or cage.
> 
> great for him but I’m talking about Dan the Wolfman AND you’re not suppose to use certain techniques from Aikido in mma...no small joint manipulation.
> 
> also I don’t get this attitude, well it doesn’t work in a cafe it must not work at all...the cops, prison guards, bouncers make it work because it works against drunks or layman. I once heard someone say that, I was like huh, Lol huh, is every guy in a fight suppose to be a wrestling champ etc?
> 
> people make this huge thing about BJJ as though it’s the end all be all, though I actually speak to masters who say that’s not so and one needs to learn how to defend against say multiple attackers.
> 
> also for some reason you assume Dan the wolfman Doesn’t know aikido...lol. That’s another big thing in this forum, goal post moving. Well aikido doesn’t work, oh well it doesn’t work in mma, well that guys not an aikido expert.
> 
> Dan the wolfman used Aikido in mma, is he a black be,t in the system? No but he has Several black belts and trains to this day,
> 
> also his friend you mentioned...you mean Judo Gene Lebell...who helped train Ronda Rousey?


If it helps, let's just start with you winning the argument. I'm fine with that.  So, no more goal posts to move since we all know who won. 

Regarding Dan the Wolfman, yeah, I do think it's a valid question whether he actually knew any aikido.  I know how to do an RNC.  Do I know ninjutsu, aikido, judo, or sambo?  They all teach the same technique.  So, yeah, it doesn't make sense to me that Dan learns a trick and then says he knows Aikido.  I don't get it.  Maybe you could explain it to me.

And regarding Gene LeBell... yeah, the famous judoka.  I had know idea he was an aikidoka.  Is that what you're suggesting?  Not saying it's wrong... just saying I've never heard it before.  News to me, and a quick google search didn't turn up anything linking Gene LeBell and aikido.  So, if you could point me to some information, I would appreciate it.  I'm curious.

Regarding BJJ, if it works, it's BJJ.


drop bear said:


> What do you think that over emphasis achieves?
> 
> I have never heard Aikido principles to be that partner has to be the more highly trained fall guy.
> 
> Yet this sort of training leads people to develop in that way.
> 
> And you see this with stunt work. That the guy who is loosing is the guy who has put all the work in.


That is a great video.  Really fun to watch that guy fall with style. 

As I was watching that video, it occurred to me that falling is one thing aikidoka actually do train a lot.  They fall a lot, and with style.  I bet aikido, along with tricking, parkour, and TKD, would be an excellent compliment to stunt work.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if we learned that many of them do train in aikido.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> What do you think that over emphasis achieves?
> 
> I have never heard Aikido principles to be that partner has to be the more highly trained fall guy.
> 
> Yet this sort of training leads people to develop in that way.
> 
> And you see this with stunt work. That the guy who is loosing is the guy who has put all the work in.


The exaggeration is to force/emphasize body movement in a specific way. The idea is that it's hard to lean on other principles when moving that way (those other principles being a solid foundation, but lacking what makes it "aiki"). 

I find this difficult to explain, because it's never been something expressed in words in my training - the folks I discuss it with know some of the same drills and exercises I do, and we're able to discuss it with that shared experience. And, yes, I see that lack of verbal explanation as a hole in my training. I know how  to develop the principles, and once a student gets them a little, we can talk about them more easily. But I lack the vocabulary to discuss it well with anyone who hasn't studied it deeply. That bugs me.

Back to your point, the over-cooperation is partly due to the exaggeration of the drills, and partly due to how exposed uke's joints are in some of the techniques. They are trained to protect their joints by going for the fall, but I'm not sure enough of them learn to recognize when it wouldn't have worked, to be able to either not go for the fall, or to at least express to their partner afterwards that the lock wasn't there. And many people get so cooperative they fall even when they're not being properly controlled. That last part can absolutely be fixed with some regular resistive training - it breaks the habit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I think he goes about it the wrong way. Give a MMA hard charger 20 minutes to learn an Aikido move and then see if he can drop Rokus with it.
> 
> Then you see Aikido with all the relevant back of house needed to make a move work.


It wouldn't be Aikido, though, it would be a technique used in Aikdio, without the aiki development. I know of no short way to develop those body principles. So I can teach a hip throw to almost anyone, and it'll look like you'd expect (rather Judo-ish). But to teach them to do it with aiki principles requires a foundation of exercises that develop those.

So, while that'd be a valid test, it'd be testing not Aikido, but the technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> It'll take longer than 20 minutes. lol. But I get your point. I think the difference there is the training mentality.  An MMA fighter would be more likely to practice the technique in sparring and will continue to work it until he understands it enough to get the right timing and situation for the technique.  But I think that's true with anyone that does this with their training.
> 
> I watch Roka's spar with the karate guy and he's still trying to do the technique with the same approach where he's trying to grab a jab out of the air. I believe that in Aikido the movement is against a strike going to the body and not a jab going to the face.  If I were going to try that technique, then I would think of punches where the strike is targeting that area. Then test to see if the technique works against any of those punch.
> 
> Maybe the technique is easier against these types of punches. I'm just guessing because I've never tried to grab a punch in the way that Rokas is trying to grab it. If look at this picture then I would need to spin off the center line and grab wrist as I move off center line.  Maybe my opponent will turn his punch into a long guard in an effort to keep distance.  This should give me enough time to complete the grab.  But it's all theory for me until I can learn the technique then try to use it in sparring.
> View attachment 27976


My assertion is that the grab isn't meant to be what it is in the drill. This, again, goes to to the nature of a lot of classical training, as I understand it. The grab started from, I think, a defense against a sword thrust or similar attack, where there was more inertia on the hand movement, so it was easier to time that grab. Can it still be done against a punch? Sure, kinda. But not if you just try to grab a punch. The idea isn't - again, my take - to try to grab the punch, but to wait until your defense ends up with a punch that hangs out (they miss and overextend, for instance) and you find your hand on the arm and can disrupt structure. From there, the transition to the technique is more realistic.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> And regarding Gene LeBell... yeah, the famous judoka. I had know idea he was an aikidoka. Is that what you're suggesting? Not saying it's wrong... just saying I've never heard it before. News to me, and a quick google search didn't turn up anything linking Gene LeBell and aikido. So, if you could point me to some information, I would appreciate it. I'm curious.


I seem to recall hearing a story of LeBell grading in Aikido after several months of training. Can't recall who from, though, so can't begin to guess if it was accurate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> As I was watching that video, it occurred to me that falling is one thing aikidoka actually do train a lot. They fall a lot, and with style. I bet aikido, along with tricking, parkour, and TKD, would be an excellent compliment to stunt work. It wouldn't surprise me at all if we learned that many of them do train in aikido.


I've always wanted to learn the falls they use. I learned one of them - their version of a front fall. Never really could wrap my head around the others. I always spooked folks when I visited Aikido dojos, because my falls are so much harder (ours are Judo-style) than theirs.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> Yeah, this seems very familiar.  It's circular logic.  Because their Aikido didn't work, they are not skilled... because if they were skilled, it would have worked.  I'm skilled, and my Aikido works, because I actually understand these fundamental concepts.
> 
> I am sincerely interested in whether Rokas could also explain these concepts to us.  I'm guessing he could, but maybe not.  Anyone have his email?  If so, I'll email him some of the concepts outlined in this thread and ask him directly whether he learned them in his Aikido training.


His email is rokasleo@gmail.com


----------



## Oily Dragon

Gerry Seymour said:


> Never really could wrap my head around the others.


Front falls? You kind of have to.

I Agree.


----------



## Steve

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> His email is rokasleo@gmail.com


Hey, I'm happy to email him, but would appreciate some help with the language.  What exactly is it we think he doesn't know or wasn't taught? I want to be sure I get the jargon right.  I'll be happy to take on writing the actual email and all that... just looking for some teamwork.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> Hey, I'm happy to email him, but would appreciate some help with the language.  What exactly is it we think he doesn't know or wasn't taught? I want to be sure I get the jargon right.  I'll be happy to take on writing the actual email and all that... just looking for some teamwork.


I've got no clue. I'd have to read through like 8 pages of this thread and parse them to figure it out, otherwise I would have just emailed him directly. I'm on the same page as you-some of the stuff he's said seems pretty similar to stuff Gerry has said so not sure where exactly the distinction is. Hopefully @Gerry Seymour @Mider or @O'Malley can help with that.

Alternatively, we could also ask him to pop on here and talk to a few of us, I get the feeling he might be willing to visit a martial arts forum. Not sure the kind of welcome he'd get here though..


----------



## drop bear

Gerry Seymour said:


> It wouldn't be Aikido, though, it would be a technique used in Aikdio, without the aiki development. I know of no short way to develop those body principles. So I can teach a hip throw to almost anyone, and it'll look like you'd expect (rather Judo-ish). But to teach them to do it with aiki principles requires a foundation of exercises that develop those.
> 
> So, while that'd be a valid test, it'd be testing not Aikido, but the technique.



So you don't think an athletic competitive fighter would have developed aiki anyway?

I mean you try to move a really good wrestler he is like a rock. And he is like that because he shuts down your mechanical advantage.


Here we go you can see it a bit easier with a mis match.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> This stuntman is legit on gymnastics and Parkour stuff. MA's skills? Not so much.
> That said, I imagine he could give most anyone a run for their money.



Martial arts are teaching the partner who gets owned more skills than the guy doing the owning.

His job is harder.

Hapkido seems to be an extreme example of this.


----------



## Mider

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I've got no clue. I'd have to read through like 8 pages of this thread and parse them to figure it out, otherwise I would have just emailed him directly. I'm on the same page as you-some of the stuff he's said seems pretty similar to stuff Gerry has said so not sure where exactly the distinction is. Hopefully @Gerry Seymour @Mider or @O'Malley can help with that.
> 
> Alternatively, we could also ask him to pop on here and talk to a few of us, I get the feeling he might be willing to visit a martial arts forum. Not sure the kind of welcome he'd get here though..


Who?


----------



## Mider

Steve said:


> If it helps, let's just start with you winning the argument. I'm fine with that.  So, no more goal posts to move since we all know who won.
> 
> Regarding Dan the Wolfman, yeah, I do think it's a valid question whether he actually knew any aikido.  I know how to do an RNC.  Do I know ninjutsu, aikido, judo, or sambo?  They all teach the same technique.  So, yeah, it doesn't make sense to me that Dan learns a trick and then says he knows Aikido.  I don't get it.  Maybe you could explain it to me.
> 
> And regarding Gene LeBell... yeah, the famous judoka.  I had know idea he was an aikidoka.  Is that what you're suggesting?  Not saying it's wrong... just saying I've never heard it before.  News to me, and a quick google search didn't turn up anything linking Gene LeBell and aikido.  So, if you could point me to some information, I would appreciate it.  I'm curious.
> 
> Regarding BJJ, if it works, it's BJJ.
> 
> That is a great video.  Really fun to watch that guy fall with style.
> 
> As I was watching that video, it occurred to me that falling is one thing aikidoka actually do train a lot.  They fall a lot, and with style.  I bet aikido, along with tricking, parkour, and TKD, would be an excellent compliment to stunt work.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if we learned that many of them do train in aikido.


Yes, he knows Aikido. From my understanding each system has similarities but nuanced differences.

explain what? He learned some aikido, what Part of that don’t you get?

 I said he was taught aikido moves by Gene Lebell, he knows moves from many arts, again what’s your point, if I throw a Muay Thai elbow it’s suddenly not right because I don’t know the whole system?

 No one system works, BJJ black belts lose all the time.


----------



## Mider

JowGaWolf said:


> umm I take offense sir.  I don't move the goal post. I change the subject  ha ha ha ha.  but yeah.  goal post moving is a thing here lol


Of course it is, half the guys here who act like their experts like,y have no credentials.

one guy told me to look up his profile, I did then looked up his school, sparring consisted of playing patty cake but to him that’s good cause at least the kids are getting a work out.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Mider said:


> Who?


This was regarding the issues that one/all of the three of you brought up that rokas doesn't appear to understand/discuss specific aikido principles. Steve offered to write an email to him about those principles, to determine if they are part of his aikido/if he does actually understand them, so that's what that response was referring to.


----------



## Mider

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> This was regarding the issues that one/all of the three of you brought up that rokas doesn't appear to understand/discuss specific aikido principles. Steve offered to write an email to him about those principles, to determine if they are part of his aikido/if he does actually understand them, so that's what that response was referring to.


I’m not a fan of Rokas


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Mider said:


> I’m not a fan of Rokas


Yes, I read that from the earlier posts. Something one of you wrote about how he doesn't follow basic aiki principles, among other things. Which is why Steve offered to email him asking him about said principles to see if he does know of them/why he doesn't appear to demonstrate them in his videos.


----------



## Steve

Mider said:


> Yes, he knows Aikido. From my understanding each system has similarities but nuanced differences.
> 
> explain what? He learned some aikido, what Part of that don’t you get?
> 
> I said he was taught aikido moves by Gene Lebell, he knows moves from many arts, again what’s your point, if I throw a Muay Thai elbow it’s suddenly not right because I don’t know the whole system?
> 
> No one system works, BJJ black belts lose all the time.


I think my point was that I have heard of Gene LeBell, the judoka.  I have never  heard of Gene LeBell, the aikidoka.  My request was that you help a guy out by giving me some additional background on his connect to aikido, rather than making unsubstantiated claims and then getting defensive when asked about it.    

My other point is that I don't agree that learning a move means you've learned an art, and think you have it all backwards.  The question is, if you throw an elbow, does that mean you are trained in Muay Thai?  I think we can all agree that the answer is obviously not.  

My last point is, BJJ works because it's not dogmatic.  BJJ guys win all the time, too.  

You seem defensive.


----------



## Steve

Mider said:


> Of course it is, half the guys here who act like their experts like,y have no credentials.
> 
> one guy told me to look up his profile, I did then looked up his school, sparring consisted of playing patty cake but to him that’s good cause at least the kids are getting a work out.


Hey, I'll on record as a cuddly, old guy well past my prime.  My shoulders are shot, and I'm much happier baking and building things than fighting anymore.  But this is a discussion forum, and hopefully we're not looking to scrap with each other here.  That just seems unnecessary.


----------



## Steve

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Yes, I read that from the earlier posts. Something one of you wrote about how he doesn't follow basic aiki principles, among other things. Which is why Steve offered to email him asking him about said principles to see if he does know of them/why he doesn't appear to demonstrate them in his videos.


Exactly.  My guess is that he does, and if asked, he could probably explain them just fine.


----------



## Mider

Steve said:


> Hey, I'll on record as a cuddly, old guy well past my prime.  My shoulders are shot, and I'm much happier baking and building things than fighting anymore.  But this is a discussion forum, and hopefully we're not looking to scrap with each other here.  That just seems unnecessary.


But I didn’t mention you?


----------



## Mider

Steve said:


> I think my point was that I have heard of Gene LeBell, the judoka.  I have never  heard of Gene LeBell, the aikidoka.  My request was that you help a guy out by giving me some additional background on his connect to aikido, rather than making unsubstantiated claims and then getting defensive when asked about it.
> 
> My other point is that I don't agree that learning a move means you've learned an art, and think you have it all backwards.  The question is, if you throw an elbow, does that mean you are trained in Muay Thai?  I think we can all agree that the answer is obviously not.
> 
> My last point is, BJJ works because it's not dogmatic.  BJJ guys win all the time, too.
> 
> You seem defensive.
> 
> View attachment 27981


What unsubstantiated claim did I make, lol I said what someone who learned under him said. Dan the Wolfman is a black belt under Gokor, Gene Lebell top student, but again you must resort to moving the goal Post.  Well I never heard he did Aikido it must be false...lol 

it’s still a must thai elbow, an aikido lock is still an aikido lock...you changed the subject because you said well ive never seen it used in mma, so I said it’s not allowed in mma.

of course its dogmatic, the gravies and many BJJ black belts think BJJ is the ultimate art and have said some pretty stupid things IMO.

im not defensive I’m just wondering why you’re saying baseless and irrelevant things.


----------



## Mider

Steve said:


> Hey, I'll on record as a cuddly, old guy well past my prime.  My shoulders are shot, and I'm much happier baking and building things than fighting anymore.  But this is a discussion forum, and hopefully we're not looking to scrap with each other here.  That just seems unnecessary.


Then why would I listen to your opinion on martial arts?


----------



## Martial D

This thread is the religiousforums.com of martial talk. It makes me giggle.


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Yes, I read that from the earlier posts. Something one of you wrote about how he doesn't follow basic aiki principles, among other things. Which is why Steve offered to email him asking him about said principles to see if he does know of them/why he doesn't appear to demonstrate them in his videos.



I think this is an easy call to make and a really tough one to prove.


----------



## Steve

Mider said:


> What unsubstantiated claim did I make, lol I said what someone who learned under him said.


Right. You said it.  And when asked about it, you kind of freaked out.  



Mider said:


> Dan the Wolfman is a black belt under Gokor, Gene Lebell top student, but again you must resort to moving the goal Post.  Well I never heard he did Aikido it must be false...lol


Okay.  But really, all I’m asking for is something I can read that talks about Gene LeBe and aikido.  I’m not saying you’re wrong or right.  You just seem weirdly angry.  



Mider said:


> it’s still a must thai elbow,



It is?  All elbows are Muay Thai elbows?  


Mider said:


> an aikido lock is still an aikido lock...you changed the subject


I did?



Mider said:


> because you said well ive never seen it used in mma,



I did?


Mider said:


> so I said it’s not allowed in mma.


It isn’t?  What are we even talking about here?  I’m totally lost.  



Mider said:


> of course its dogmatic,



It is?




Mider said:


> the gravies



Mmmm.  Gravy.  


Mider said:


> and many BJJ black belts think BJJ is the ultimate art


They do?



Mider said:


> and have said some pretty stupid things IMO.


Yeah.  Okay.  That’s true.  


Mider said:


> im not defensive I’m just wondering why you’re saying baseless and irrelevant things.


Ummmm.


----------



## Steve

Mider said:


> Then why would I listen to your opinion on martial arts?


I’m not asking you to do anything, really, other than maybe provide some support for your claims.  I’m genuinely curious about gene lebell and aikido.  The more you freak out, the more I’m inclined to believe you’re just making it up.


----------



## Mider

Steve said:


> I’m not asking you to do anything, really, other than maybe provide some support for your claims.  I’m genuinely curious about gene lebell and aikido.  The more you freak out, the more I’m inclined to believe you’re just making it up.


But as you said you’re not asking me to do anything  

you can research it yourself you’re a big boy


----------



## Mider

Steve said:


> Right. You said it.  And when asked about it, you kind of freaked out.
> 
> 
> Okay.  But really, all I’m asking for is something I can read that talks about Gene LeBe and aikido.  I’m not saying you’re wrong or right.  You just seem weirdly angry.
> 
> 
> 
> It is?  All elbows are Muay Thai elbows?
> 
> I did?
> 
> 
> 
> I did?
> 
> It isn’t?  What are we even talking about here?  I’m totally lost.
> 
> 
> 
> It is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mmmm.  Gravy.
> 
> They do?
> 
> 
> Yeah.  Okay.  That’s true.
> 
> Ummmm.


I think you're just trolling now, toodles


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So you don't think an athletic competitive fighter would have developed aiki anyway?
> 
> I mean you try to move a really good wrestler he is like a rock. And he is like that because he shuts down your mechanical advantage.
> 
> 
> Here we go you can see it a bit easier with a mis match.


Those are components of good grappling, but not usually through the body principles of aiki. So, no, most elite grapplers will have developed other body principles to achieve their results.


----------



## Steve

Mider said:


> But as you said you’re not asking me to do anything
> 
> you can research it yourself you’re a big boy


Sure.  I did google Gene LeBell and Aikido and couldn’t find anything.  That alone strikes me as odd.  

Serious question.  Do you know what unsubstantiated means?  


Mider said:


> I think you're just trolling now, toodles


See ya, I guess.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Mider said:


> Yes, he knows Aikido. From my understanding each system has similarities but nuanced differences.
> 
> explain what? He learned some aikido, what Part of that don’t you get?
> 
> I said he was taught aikido moves by Gene Lebell, he knows moves from many arts, again what’s your point, if I throw a Muay Thai elbow it’s suddenly not right because I don’t know the whole system?
> 
> No one system works, BJJ black belts lose all the time.


Knowing some Aikido moves isn’t the same as knowing Aikido. There’s a foundation of body principles that aren’t found in a lot of grappling arts. They aren’t important to grappling, but are important to Aikido grappling.


----------



## Steve

Gerry Seymour said:


> Those are components of good grappling, but not usually through the body principles of aiki. So, no, most elite grapplers will have developed other body principles to achieve their results.


Wait.  What is aiki now?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Yes, I read that from the earlier posts. Something one of you wrote about how he doesn't follow basic aiki principles, among other things. Which is why Steve offered to email him asking him about said principles to see if he does know of them/why he doesn't appear to demonstrate them in his videos.


The ones referred to, he specifically said he discovered in other training after Aikido. He seems aware of them now, but not that they are supposed to be in Aikido.


----------



## Mider

Gerry Seymour said:


> Knowing some Aikido moves isn’t the same as knowing Aikido. There’s a foundation of body principles that aren’t found in a lot of grappling arts. They aren’t important to grappling, but are important to Aikido grappling.


The question was has anyone used Aikido in mma...the answer was yes by Dan the Wolfman. I think He knows a good deal of many arts including aikido he’s just not a black belt in aikido.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> This thread is the religiousforums.com of martial talk. It makes me giggle.


I just typed 5 responses today that I haven't sent. I've come to the realization I'm just too tired for this one


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Gerry Seymour said:


> Knowing some Aikido moves isn’t the same as knowing Aikido. There’s a foundation of body principles that aren’t found in a lot of grappling arts. They aren’t important to grappling, but are important to Aikido grappling.


Some principles are commonly used among all grappling art.

For example, you spin your opponent into one direction, you then spin him into the opposite direction.


----------



## Martial D

I just spent 20 mins searching for Gene LeBell and aikido. No mention anywhere, not even on his wikipedia page or his own website.

The only tie to aikido he seems to have is his rather famous story about making Seagal poop himself.


----------



## O'Malley

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I've got no clue. I'd have to read through like 8 pages of this thread and parse them to figure it out, otherwise I would have just emailed him directly. I'm on the same page as you-some of the stuff he's said seems pretty similar to stuff Gerry has said so not sure where exactly the distinction is. Hopefully @Gerry Seymour @Mider or @O'Malley can help with that.
> 
> Alternatively, we could also ask him to pop on here and talk to a few of us, I get the feeling he might be willing to visit a martial arts forum. Not sure the kind of welcome he'd get here though..


So the idea would be for us to give Rokas an aikido test on an internet forum? We'd be listing the principles that we wish to test him on and he'd somehow demonstrate his intellectual understanding of the principles and his ability to apply them physically? That's his teacher's job.

My points were very simple.

Rokas said that aikido's shiho nage is flawed as it lacks the body connection principle, which he claims he found in wrestling but not in the aikido that he was taught. Then I found a video of his own teacher doing shiho nage and found that he was applying that principle.

Rokas said that aikido's irimi nage is flawed in the same way, as "no one taught him" the footwork and use of the hip to prevent backstepping. Then I found a video of his own teacher doing irimi nage that way. That's not a "fix", that's how the technique is done in the first place.





__





						Redirect Notice
					





					images.app.goo.gl
				




Aikido founder Morihei Ueshiba fixing irimi nage with wrestling.

So we can conclude that, in those two instances, Rokas is trying to fix flaws that don't originate from the method itself but from his own understanding of it.


----------



## dvcochran

Mider said:


> Then why would I listen to your opinion on martial arts?


Sir, I can see where the back and forth is going between you and certain people. Some folks on here love to goat, insinuate, and outright lie to bait people in. Happens all the time. I encourage you to just step back and walk away from the debate. It is a truly fruitless and pointless venture. 
There are much better threads/topics to spend your time on. 
Using 'ignore member' is a great feature.


----------



## Cynik75

O'Malley said:


> Rokas said that aikido's shiho nage is flawed as it lacks the body connection principle, which he claims he found in wrestling but not in the aikido that he was taught. Then I found a video of his own teacher doing shiho nage and found that he was applying that principle.
> 
> Rokas said that aikido's irimi nage is flawed in the same way, as "no one taught him" the footwork and use of the hip to prevent backstepping. Then I found a video of his own teacher doing irimi nage that way. That's not a "fix", that's how the technique is done in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redirect Notice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> images.app.goo.gl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aikido founder Morihei Ueshiba fixing irimi nage with wrestling.


Nope once again.  You have written earlier:


O'Malley said:


> In the footage I posted, the body-to-body connection is between Tori (the "doer")'s shoulders and uke (the "receiver")'s extended arm and shoulder. It acts as a leverage point and allows Tori to keep the arch of uke's back.


But this is not this kind of connection Rokas is talking about. He is describing torso-to- torso, hip-to-torso very close connection. Without extending anything. Everything is tight and close to the body like just like here:


----------



## Hanzou

Mider said:


> The question was has anyone used Aikido in mma...the answer was yes by Dan the Wolfman. I think He knows a good deal of many arts including aikido he’s just not a black belt in aikido.


He did? I'd like to see the match footage if you don't mind.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I've got no clue. I'd have to read through like 8 pages of this thread and parse them to figure it out, otherwise I would have just emailed him directly. I'm on the same page as you-some of the stuff he's said seems pretty similar to stuff Gerry has said so not sure where exactly the distinction is. Hopefully @Gerry Seymour @Mider or @O'Malley can help with that.
> 
> Alternatively, we could also ask him to pop on here and talk to a few of us, I get the feeling he might be willing to visit a martial arts forum. Not sure the kind of welcome he'd get here though..


Not worth it. He's on his Journey to understand Aikido.  That would be like me being on a Journey to understand Jow Ga.  That idea within itself means there are significant gaps in one's knowledge. He made this clear when he went on his TMA bashing spree.  The one thing he's transparent about is his knowledge gaps.

When he gets the mindset that he wants to be a good representation of Aikido function then he can be asked those questions.  

Based on my kung fu experience. One doesn't truly understand the system they train until they are able to actually use it.  Until then everything is going to be second hand knowledge with gaps. This is why I say I spar to learn.

This isn't a dig. It's the truth. It applies to me as well. There is no exception.  This truth is part of the reason why I get bent out of shape when I see others not trying to use what they train.  

I wouldn't ask Rokas anything about Aikido at this stage.  Give him 5 years and he may have a reliable answer. But that's only if he continues to try to be functional with Aikido.


----------



## Steve

O'Malley said:


> So the idea would be for us to give Rokas an aikido test on an internet forum? We'd be listing the principles that we wish to test him on and he'd somehow demonstrate his intellectual understanding of the principles and his ability to apply them physically? That's his teacher's job.
> 
> My points were very simple.
> 
> Rokas said that aikido's shiho nage is flawed as it lacks the body connection principle, which he claims he found in wrestling but not in the aikido that he was taught. Then I found a video of his own teacher doing shiho nage and found that he was applying that principle.
> 
> Rokas said that aikido's irimi nage is flawed in the same way, as "no one taught him" the footwork and use of the hip to prevent backstepping. Then I found a video of his own teacher doing irimi nage that way. That's not a "fix", that's how the technique is done in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redirect Notice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> images.app.goo.gl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aikido founder Morihei Ueshiba fixing irimi nage with wrestling.
> 
> So we can conclude that, in those two instances, Rokas is trying to fix flaws that don't originate from the method itself but from his own understanding of it.


Alternatively, he may be talking about a lack of body connection tin aikido because it is only practiced on a superficial level.  Whereas in wrestling, the skills are applied under pressure, so the body connection is actually internalized by the individual and not learned superficially.  

 I’m not saying this is absolutely correct.  I’m saying, that’s how I took his comments, because that is a real difference.  

 Maybe the real observation is that we took his comments differently because we are either inclined or disinclined to presume he is competent.  If we don’t like what he’s saying, and want to discredit him, we will interpret his statements as though he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

  However, if we start with the idea that he knows as much as an average aikidoka with roughly the same level of experience, it’s pretty obvious what he means.  In my opinion, at least.


----------



## Flying Crane

O'Malley said:


> So the idea would be for us to give Rokas an aikido test on an internet forum? We'd be listing the principles that we wish to test him on and he'd somehow demonstrate his intellectual understanding of the principles and his ability to apply them physically? That's his teacher's job. that way.


Yup, that is the level to which this discussion has sunk.  Seriously, some of this debate is idiotic.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> It wouldn't be Aikido, though, it would be a technique used in Aikdio, without the aiki development. I know of no short way to develop those body principles. So I can teach a hip throw to almost anyone, and it'll look like you'd expect (rather Judo-ish). But to teach them to do it with aiki principles requires a foundation of exercises that develop those.
> 
> So, while that'd be a valid test, it'd be testing not Aikido, but the technique.


I completely agree with this.  This very statement is similar to what I tell people who tell me that I need to take BJJ.  I always telling people, "Jow Ga has grappling. If I learn to BJJ then I'm not doing Jow Ga."   Even if the the techniques are the same, the approaches to that technique may not be.  

BJJ may do a hip throw in this order:  Grapple -> Hip toss
Jow Ga has this order: Punch -> Grapple -> Grapple+Strike+Hip toss

People say "oh you should learn how to box, because boxing has the best punching skill set."  But Boxing will never be able to teach someone how to jab and then follow up with a kick or knee.  Or how to Jab, then quickly defend against a knee or single leg shoot.  Same technique but different approaches.

This is how it is for a lot of techniques from jabs to kicks and everything in between.  There are some things that are the same no matter what system it is and one can learn that because the approach is the same in all systems that use it.

I think if someone wants to truly understand Aikidio then they have to use it.  If they take from other systems in order to patch it up then they really aren't doing Aikido.  They can learn from other systems on how to do the technique, but the approach must remain Aikido.  

I'm not painting when I pick up a crayon to help me keep the colors in the line.


----------



## Mider

Hanzou said:


> He did? I'd like to see the match footage if you don't mind.


At around 1:40


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> Yup, that is the level to which this discussion has sunk.  Seriously, some of this debate is idiotic.


Yeah.  Especially when we have people here who train that system, but then we have people who don't train it, ignore the people who do.  

I know that must be frustrating for them.  Even the BJJ, MMA, and Karate people didn't try to tell Rokas what Aikido does and doesn't do.  The most they did was to give him different perspectives on how a techniques works in their system or how they may try to work the type of technique that Rokas was showing.

I don't train Aikido so I'm definitely not going to try to tell someone what the principles of Aikido are.  The only thing can tell are things that are set in stone.  For example: A wrist must meets a certain structure requirement before it will lock.  How you get there may very, but when it locks, it need to achieve that structure.  That locking structure is the same in all systems. So from a body mechanics perspective one doesn't need to train the system to know if a wrist has achieved that locking structure.   That's the easy part.  How to get to that locking structure is usually where the debate is.  Unless I train in that system, then there's no way I can say that the approach works or not.  I can make assumptions and guess.  But I won't be able to make statements like  "That's not the system principle."


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> I completely agree with this.  This very statement is similar to what I tell people who tell me that I need to take BJJ.  I always telling people, "Jow Ga has grappling. If I learn to BJJ then I'm not doing Jow Ga."   Even if the the techniques are the same, the approaches to that technique may not be.



I think I’ll just tell them that they need to take white crane.  I suggest you tell them that they need to take Jow Ga .



> People say "oh you should learn how to box, because boxing has the best punching skill set."



Aaaand once again, “no, you should learn JowGa.”  This idiotic “you need to learn XYZ because it is the best [meaning: it’s what I do, or it fits my vision of martial arts/sport/competition and I lack the sophistication to acknowledge anything that falls outside of my own narrow vision of how things work”] line of BS is just that: BS.


----------



## Mider

JowGaWolf said:


> I completely agree with this.  This very statement is similar to what I tell people who tell me that I need to take BJJ.  I always telling people, "Jow Ga has grappling. If I learn to BJJ then I'm not doing Jow Ga."   Even if the the techniques are the same, the approaches to that technique may not be.
> 
> BJJ may do a hip throw in this order:  Grapple -> Hip toss
> Jow Ga has this order: Punch -> Grapple -> Grapple+Strike+Hip toss
> 
> People say "oh you should learn how to box, because boxing has the best punching skill set."  But Boxing will never be able to teach someone how to jab and then follow up with a kick or knee.  Or how to Jab, then quickly defend against a knee or single leg shoot.  Same technique but different approaches.
> 
> This is how it is for a lot of techniques from jabs to kicks and everything in between.  There are some things that are the same no matter what system it is and one can learn that because the approach is the same in all systems that use it.
> 
> I think if someone wants to truly understand Aikidio then they have to use it.  If they take from other systems in order to patch it up then they really aren't doing Aikido.  They can learn from other systems on how to do the technique, but the approach must remain Aikido.
> 
> I'm not painting when I pick up a crayon to help me keep the colors in the line.


The issue with the martial arts community is they seem to think they know Everything these days. 

More so their so called teachers act just as bad, what I don’t understand is why people gravitate to guys Rokas, Icy Mike, Ramsey Dewey who are no body in the MA community. Even the big names are guilty though like the Gracies

i once heard the Gracies say if you’re say attacked by a group...ask the group to fight you one on one. I’m sure they know better but their students will fight you over this silly stuff.

also there are other aikido masters one can refer to...Lenny Sly, Aikidoflow, martial arts 1on1


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> I think I’ll just tell them that they need to take white crane. I suggest you tell them that they need to take Jow Ga .


ha ha ha.. deal.


----------



## Steve

Seems like some folks woke up grumpy. 🤣


----------



## Mider

Steve said:


> Seems like some folks woke up grumpy. 🤣


I’m sure you’ll interject your expertise Soon though.


----------



## Steve

Mider said:


> The issue with the martial arts community is they seem to think they know Everything these days.
> 
> More so their so called teachers act just as bad, what I don’t understand is why people gravitate to guys Rokas, Icy Mike, Ramsey Dewey who are no body in the MA community. Even the big names are guilty though like the Gracies
> 
> i once heard the Gracies say if you’re say attacked by a group...ask the group to fight you one on one. I’m sure they know better but their students will fight you over this silly stuff.
> 
> also there are other aikido masters one can refer to...Lenny Sly, Aikidoflow, martial arts 1on1


I once heard a Gracie say you should add 6 tbs of baking soda to your buttermilk biscuits so they rise every time.   Terrible advice.  Don’t ask me to substantiate that statement.


----------



## Flying Crane

Mider said:


> The issue with the martial arts community is they seem to think they know Everything these days.
> 
> More so their so called teachers act just as bad, what I don’t understand is why people gravitate to guys Rokas, Icy Mike, Ramsey Dewey who are no body in the MA community. Even the big names are guilty though like the Gracies
> 
> i once heard the Gracies say if you’re say attacked by a group...ask the group to fight you one on one. I’m sure they know better but their students will fight you over this silly stuff.
> 
> also there are other aikido masters one can refer to...Lenny Sly, Aikidoflow, martial arts 1on1


And it has become a zero-sum argument: If my stuff works, then your stuff cannot work. 

Jeezuz, what a stupid mindset.


----------



## Steve

Mider said:


> I’m sure you’ll interject your expertise Soon though.


I’m just trying to enjoy a discussion, learn a few things, and have a laugh along the way.  I know a few things, but try not to let that get in the way.


----------



## Mider

Steve said:


> I once heard a Gracie say you should add 6 tbs of baking soda to your buttermilk biscuits so they rise every time.   Terrible advice.  Don’t ask me to substantiate that statement.


I once heard Gene Lebell liked pizza and had to use the restroom...but don’t ask me, it’s possible He doesn’t use the restroom like the rest of us


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> And it has become a zero-sum argument: If my stuff works, then your stuff cannot work.
> 
> Jeezuz, what a stupid mindset.



Lol. What??


----------



## Mider

Steve said:


> I’m just trying to enjoy a discussion, learn a few things, and have a laugh along the way.  I know a few things, but try not to let that get in the way.


Also yeah the gracies couldn’t have lied, I mean it’s impossible to upload a YouTube vid then take it down later.


----------



## Steve

Mider said:


> I once heard Gene Lebell liked pizza and had to use the restroom...but don’t ask me, it’s possible He doesn’t use the restroom like the rest of us


I heard that too.


----------



## Steve

Mider said:


> Also yeah the gracies couldn’t have lied, I mean it’s impossible to upload a YouTube vid then take it down later.


Pretty much anything is possible.  Which is why, if we can, it’s nice to be able to support statements with some evidence.  Absent that, this is little more than a creative writing exercise.   And don’t get me wrong, I love to write fiction.   but I don’t think that’s what we’re trying to do here.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Mider said:


> The issue with the martial arts community is they seem to think they know Everything these days.


That's always the case.  Nothing has changed about that and it doesn't matter what system a person trains.  There will always be people like that.  Joe Rogan can be seen taking this same attitude when he comments.  One year kung fu doesn't work then someone does a simple kick "Oblique kick" and he sees it, and his whole perspective is changed.

People are just funny that way.  They never seen a space alien before and some believe that.  Yet tell them that you can kung fu and now they want visual evidence.   Go figure. 

In general the best mindset for a lot of what is done is "That is not the only way but just one way."  I think the martial arts community would be better if people said this before they say what they are thinking.  



Mider said:


> I don’t understand is why people gravitate to guys Rokas, Icy Mike, Ramsey Dewey who are no body in the MA community.


Each is different.  People go to them for different reasons.  Rokas mainly because he called people out and he shared through video his quest to "Test Aikido"

I don't know Icy Mike. ha ha ha.  but will check him out just because you said his name lol.   But Ramsey Dewey is level headed about his comments and has a good radio voice. 

In terms of people not being big names.  I've learned more about fighting from people who would be seen as a "Nobody" in martial arts.  I'm actually more cautious with the "big names" but that's just me.

But over all Google has made us all 30 minute experts, with no real world experience in the subject we are talking about.  It's not always bad, sometimes you just need the correct info.  But it doesn't work so well with martial arts because there's so many types, schools, and paths to shift through.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> That's always the case.  Nothing has changed about that and it doesn't matter what system a person trains.  There will always be people like that.  Joe Rogan can be seen taking this same attitude when he comments.  One year kung fu doesn't work then someone does a simple kick "Oblique kick" and he sees it, and his whole perspective is changed.
> 
> People are just funny that way.  They never seen a space alien before and some believe that.  Yet tell them that you can kung fu and now they want visual evidence.   Go figure.
> 
> In general the best mindset for a lot of what is done is "That is not the only way but just one way."  I think the martial arts community would be better if people said this before they say what they are thinking.
> 
> 
> Each is different.  People go to them for different reasons.  Rokas mainly because he called people out and he shared through video his quest to "Test Aikido"
> 
> I don't know Icy Mike. ha ha ha.  but will check him out just because you said his name lol.   But Ramsey Dewey is level headed about his comments and has a good radio voice.
> 
> In terms of people not being big names.  I've learned more about fighting from people who would be seen as a "Nobody" in martial arts.  I'm actually more cautious with the "big names" but that's just me.
> 
> But over all Google has made us all 30 minute experts, with no real world experience in the subject we are talking about.  It's not always bad, sometimes you just need the correct info.  But it doesn't work so well with martial arts because there's so many types, schools, and paths to shift through.


Keep in mind: if it isn’t on YouTube, then it didn’t happen and does not exist.  True gospel, that.

I guess I don’t ever take a poop.  Go figure.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> And it has become a zero-sum argument: If my stuff works, then your stuff cannot work.
> 
> Jeezuz, what a stupid mindset.


ha ha ha.  yep and it happens so much that you can map out the ending.

Those who put down their own art go through a period of bashing it, then they get proof from the community  that it works, then they go back to doing what they originally started out with, but with the understanding that they didn't know as much as they thought they did.  Ego busted, Humility Achieved.

Those who don't believe go through patterns as well.  They start off with , it doesn't work.  Then they see someone get wrecked with that thing that doesn't work.  They are surprised.  They lose credibility. Ego busted, Humility Achieved.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> Keep in mind: if it isn’t on YouTube, then it didn’t happen and does not exist.  True gospel, that.
> 
> I guess I don’t ever take a poop.  Go figure.


yeah that's a bad mindset as well.  It's not a good trust builder to always ask for such evidence.  If everything has to be "Show me on video" then it's just best not to train under that person.  If the evidence is out there, the show it share it as a reference.  Just don't demand it.

If I can't do it, If I don't know anyone that can do it, then it must not be possible. Is just not a healthy mindset.  A bunch of things in this world exist simply because no one else was able to do it, until someone did.


----------



## Flying Crane

JowGaWolf said:


> ha ha ha.  yep and it happens so much that you can map out the ending.
> 
> Those who put down their own art go through a period of bashing it, then they get proof from the community  that it works, then they go back to doing what they originally started out with, but with the understanding that they didn't know as much as they thought they did.  Ego busted, Humility Achieved.
> 
> Those who don't believe go through patterns as well.  They start off with , it doesn't work.  Then they see someone get wrecked with that thing that doesn't work.  They are surprised.  They lose credibility. Ego busted, Humility Achieved.


I dunno.  I think a lot of people are just sitting in their own silo and can’t see the forest for the trees.  They see what they do, they like it (nothing wrong with that) and they see how it is effective within the context of how they engage.  They come to believe that this is the only thing that matters and insist that their experience is the single yardstick against which all martial training must be measured.  They cannot conceive of other approaches to training.  They cannot conceive that other methods are also effective.  They become idiots.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flying Crane said:


> I dunno.  I think a lot of people are just sitting in their own silo and can’t see the forest for the trees.  They see what they do, they like it (nothing wrong with that) and they see how it is effective within the context of how they engage.  They come to believe that this is the only thing that matters and insist that their experience is the single yardstick against which all martial training must be measured.  They cannot conceive of other approaches to training.  They cannot conceive that other methods are also effective.  They become idiots.


Stop reading my mind lol


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Stop reading my mind lol


Get a room, you two.   😂


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Alternatively, he may be talking about a lack of body connection tin aikido because it is only practiced on a superficial level.  Whereas in wrestling, the skills are applied under pressure, so the body connection is actually internalized by the individual and not learned superficially.
> 
> I’m not saying this is absolutely correct.  I’m saying, that’s how I took his comments, because that is a real difference.
> 
> Maybe the real observation is that we took his comments differently because we are either inclined or disinclined to presume he is competent.  If we don’t like what he’s saying, and want to discredit him, we will interpret his statements as though he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
> 
> However, if we start with the idea that he knows as much as an average aikidoka with roughly the same level of experience, it’s pretty obvious what he means.  In my opinion, at least.


From what I've seen, I think it's likely he does have the common level of understanding. Because of the training method commonly used in Aikido (and what it lacks), it's easy for folks to miss some of the principles. Putting those principles under any kind of actual pressure (e.g., Judo-style randori) tends to show that quickly, which leads to improved understanding over time (which I think is your main point).

My initial inclination was that Rokas understood Aikido well, but lacked understanding of how it translates to application, because he'd only been exposed to the drills. And that he had what I consider an unrealistic expectation of what that training prepares him for (again, something less likely to happen with any exposure to pressure). I hadn't paid a lot of attention to his actual Aikido until this thread, and those comments he made surprised me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I completely agree with this.  This very statement is similar to what I tell people who tell me that I need to take BJJ.  I always telling people, "Jow Ga has grappling. If I learn to BJJ then I'm not doing Jow Ga."   Even if the the techniques are the same, the approaches to that technique may not be.
> 
> BJJ may do a hip throw in this order:  Grapple -> Hip toss
> Jow Ga has this order: Punch -> Grapple -> Grapple+Strike+Hip toss
> 
> People say "oh you should learn how to box, because boxing has the best punching skill set."  But Boxing will never be able to teach someone how to jab and then follow up with a kick or knee.  Or how to Jab, then quickly defend against a knee or single leg shoot.  Same technique but different approaches.
> 
> This is how it is for a lot of techniques from jabs to kicks and everything in between.  There are some things that are the same no matter what system it is and one can learn that because the approach is the same in all systems that use it.
> 
> I think if someone wants to truly understand Aikidio then they have to use it.  If they take from other systems in order to patch it up then they really aren't doing Aikido.  They can learn from other systems on how to do the technique, but the approach must remain Aikido.
> 
> I'm not painting when I pick up a crayon to help me keep the colors in the line.


Good points. 

I will say that it's my experience that exposure to other systems can also clarify what we learn in our primary arts. Firstly, the overlap between systems (and there's always some) means you're getting some similar principles taught a different way. And then, where there are significant differences in the principles of two systems, exposure to those different principles often makes the primary art's principles clearer by contrast. And sometimes you just improve your foundation when you get into a different system, and that improvement benefits your primary art - for instance, if boxing footwork gives you a transition you didn't learn (whether it's there or not) in JG, and that transition fits well with JG principles.

That, of course, assumes competent instruction in each case.


----------



## Martial D

Am I the only one here that thinks system loyalty is just...strange?

I mean..I guess it depends on your goal.

Do you do martial arts to preserve the vision of someone that is long dead, that lived in a time where we knew much less about hand to hand combat than we know now?

To dispute this last part you would have to argue that martial arts don't advance and improve as a whole. That would be a tough one as all things that people do with any function improves over time. Don't believe me? Go light a torch in your drafty stone or mud house and read it yourself on a stone tablet..or hop in your model T Ford and drive to the library on a dirt road.

Anyway. ..I digress ..

Is your goal to preserve a system or become the best you can at any and all given aspects of martial arts.. whether it be punching, kicking, grappling, theory..anything.

At this point why would you not want to draw from everything available. To..as Bruce Lee said...keep what works and discard the rest.

And how do we know what that is? By putting ourselves in any given situation and trying everything...over and over...with a vast segment of martial artists across every possible discipline and style.

Now no one person can do this...but a large community can..and thus refine and learn and take the most effective things in every position and scenario and combine them. 

And this has been being done now, in a mainstream sense, for almost 30 years, with millions of participants. 

Yet, even now there are still those that would turn away from that and prefer to have faith the long centuries dead guy had it right and that's that. It actually boggles my mind.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> That, of course, assumes competent instruction in each case.


If that instructor doesn't understand then a lot of strange things come out of it. I just finished looking at a new video that shows what happens when the principles aren't understood.  A new system was created but it doesn't address the things that you mention and as a result, the outcome is not a good one.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> Am I the only one here that thinks system loyalty is just...strange?
> 
> I mean..I guess it depends on your goal.
> 
> Do you do martial arts to preserve the vision of someone that is long dead, that lived in a time where we knew much less about hand to hand combat than we know now?
> 
> To dispute this last part you would have to argue that martial arts don't advance and improve as a whole. That would be a tough one as all things that people do with any function improves over time. Don't believe me? Go light a torch in your drafty stone or mud house and read it yourself on a stone tablet..or hop in your model T Ford and drive to the library on a dirt road.
> 
> Anyway. ..I digress ..
> 
> Is your goal to preserve a system or become the best you can at any and all given aspects of martial arts.. whether it be punching, kicking, grappling, theory..anything.
> 
> At this point why would you not want to draw from everything available. To..as Bruce Lee said...keep what works and discard the rest.
> 
> And how do we know what that is? By putting ourselves in any given situation and trying everything...over and over...with a vast segment of martial artists across every possible discipline and style.
> 
> Now no one person can do this...but a large community can..and thus refine and learn and take the most effective things in every position and scenario and combine them.
> 
> And this has been being done now, in a mainstream sense, for almost 30 years, with millions of participants.
> 
> Yet, even now there are still those that would turn away from that and prefer to have faith the long centuries dead guy had it right and that's that. It actually boggles my mind.


I think there's a middle ground between these two approaches, but I'm not as flummoxed as you by those who want to work within the art they've chosen, though training a single art to the exclusion of other exposure just doesn't make sense to me.

So, firstly, I think there are a lot of us who aren't really concerned about being the best possible fighter we can. We want to develop some skill in that area (for those of us who have that interest), and to do something we find interesting. For me, I enjoy the challenge of working within my primary art. There's a reason I've continued to explore that art for more than 30 years, and I suspect others have similar reactions. I like trying to improve the delivery of my primary art, because I see things that can be improved in that delivery. Sure, I could just dump the art and do an art-agnostic system of some sort, but I have this foundation already there. I do my best teaching within this structure, because it's what I have the most tools for. So I stick with it.

I wholly agree with your point about having too much faith in individual instructors (be they founders or whatnot). They were all humans, and all were limited by what they knew at the time (which in many cases included flawed societal knowledge).


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> Am I the only one here that thinks system loyalty is just...strange?


I would have to say you must first describe what you mean by system loyalty.  Is it system loyalty if you only want to learn how to paint, but don't want to learn how to take photos?

Is it system loyalty to only want to be a baseball coach and not a football coach?

This how I think of martial arts and the development of a system.
 A martial arts starts off at the beginning looking like this.





Because people where only interest in doing this and not taking from another system like " Cycling"  Bmx trick developed into this





Now.  The question is. Would BMX tricks be where they are today if they decided to use this bike instead?




You have to have enough loyalty to a system that you stay in it long enough to develop it.

Do you think Raymond Daniels would be as good with the system he trains, if he is always running to another system for something easy, when things in his system gets difficult to do? You have to have some kind of loyalty.


----------



## drop bear

Mider said:


> At around 1:40



Aikido is an art for bigger guys.

The fight might be one of those Bart Vale wwe scripted style fights.






Anyway. I think this is the wolfman. But he was up against a militech gym guy. So.....


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Do you think Raymond Daniels would be as good with the system he trains, if he is always running to another system for something easy, when things in his system gets difficult to do? You have to have some kind of loyalty.



Because you don't think Raymond Daniels wouldn't have a boxing coach or a wrestling coach or do sessions at tiger? 

(I also don't know if he does or not. Going to look now)


----------



## Hanzou

Mider said:


> At around 1:40



Ah, so we're doing the "one technique that vaguely represents martial art X" routine. I should have guessed.


----------



## Mider

Hanzou said:


> Ah, so we're doing the "one technique that vaguely represents martial art X" routine. I should have guessed.


oh so what Is the technique then?


----------



## Mider

drop bear said:


> Aikido is an art for bigger guys.
> 
> The fight might be one of those Bart Vale wwe scripted style fights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway. I think this is the wolfman. But he was up against a militech gym guy. So.....


You can always email him


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Aikido is an art for bigger guys.


Is it really?

Most martial arts train with the standard that you are fighting someone who is about the same size and height as you.  When you throw jabs to the head in shadow boxing, the punches to the head is based on your height.  

I don't see boxers shadow box as if they are fighting someone who is bigger than they are. Doesn't Boxing and MMA have a weight class?




drop bear said:


> Because you don't think Raymond Daniels wouldn't have a boxing coach or a wrestling coach or do sessions at tiger?
> 
> (I also don't know if he does or not. Going to look now)


It wouldn't matter since other martial arts teach you how to punch as well.  But I can guarantee that you won't find a boxing school that teaches you to punch coming out of a spin.

You may not be familiar with him, but he's known for his kicking and not his punching.  You'll find more KO's from his kicks than his punches






Most of his martial arts training was this.  This is where his journey started.  You can also see him punch as he's coming out of the kick.  That's something you'll never get out of a Boxing Gym. Raymond Daniels is TMA.





I don't care much for the personality he displays.  It could be all hype and not real. But even if it's real, I can't deny his skills.  The same stuff he was tagging people with back then is almost the same medicine he's been tagging MMA fighters with.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Mider said:


> You can always email him


I wouldn't waste Dan's time with such questions.  He's already commented plenty of times on the topic of Aikido.






I would caution asking other martial artist to chime in on any debate happening here in Martial Talk.  I've yet to see very many things that would be worth the time for someone to come in for the purpose of  "settling disagreements." 

There's nothing wrong with asking questions for the sake of knowledge but for the purpose of settling a disagreement doesn't sit well with a lot of people.  As a martial artist, I just wouldn't get into that. 

Just my two cents on this. Asking Dan questions about this will probably result in Dan sending you this link and then following up with a statement "Grow up"





A lot of what he says here reflects the same thing about what I was saying about asking Rokas and his "Journey"

I now know who ICY Mike is ha ha ha. I've seen his videos.  I never knew that was ICY Mike ha ha ha.  I guess that says a lot about to watch a video and not know who I'm watching lol. 

I didn't know there was this Martial Arts beef going on between them ha ha ha.




He has beef with the Karate Nerd Jesse.. Nooooo ha ha ha.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

O'Malley said:


> So the idea would be for us to give Rokas an aikido test on an internet forum? We'd be listing the principles that we wish to test him on and he'd somehow demonstrate his intellectual understanding of the principles and his ability to apply them physically? That's his teacher's job.
> 
> My points were very simple.
> 
> Rokas said that aikido's shiho nage is flawed as it lacks the body connection principle, which he claims he found in wrestling but not in the aikido that he was taught. Then I found a video of his own teacher doing shiho nage and found that he was applying that principle.
> 
> Rokas said that aikido's irimi nage is flawed in the same way, as "no one taught him" the footwork and use of the hip to prevent backstepping. Then I found a video of his own teacher doing irimi nage that way. That's not a "fix", that's how the technique is done in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redirect Notice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> images.app.goo.gl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aikido founder Morihei Ueshiba fixing irimi nage with wrestling.
> 
> So we can conclude that, in those two instances, Rokas is trying to fix flaws that don't originate from the method itself but from his own understanding of it.


It's not really a test. You guys are making claims about what he does not have, so we'd be asking him about it. The alternative is making judgments without letting him defend himself.

I don't really care all that much though. I was just skimming this thread and saw a request for his email address, which I happened to know. If you want to continue making assumptions about his understanding of the style, without asking him about his understanding of the style, that's fine by me.


----------



## Hanzou

Mider said:


> oh so what Is the technique then?



You tell me, since you think it's Aikido. To me it's a wrestler 2 arming a guy's wrist and taking him to the ground. In short, it's the type of power move that big guys can pull off sometimes, and big grapplers pull off quite often. The problem is that Aikido makes people believe that little old ladies can do that against big guys, and that simply isn't reality.

BTW, when I asked you to show me Dan using Aikido, I want to see a systemized response, not one technique in isolation. Dan's style is what I like to call "Wrestle-Jutsu" where he essentially is combining Judo, Wrestling, and submission grappling. In that approach, he's learned how to throw someone, so it isn't hard for him to pull off a take down you might see in Aikido from time to time. However, it's important to note that that isn't Aikido he's doing, it's really "Wrestle-Jutsu".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Mider said:


> At around 1:40


At 1.48, the "hand reverse" is a general MA wrist locking technique. It exists in many different MA systems. It's not unique in Aikido.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Is it really?
> 
> Most martial arts train with the standard that you are fighting someone who is about the same size and height as you. When you throw jabs to the head in shadow boxing, the punches to the head is based on your height.
> 
> I don't see boxers shadow box as if they are fighting someone who is bigger than they are. Doesn't Boxing and MMA have a weight class?



Most martial arts are not trying to torque your wrist all the time. 

You see guys who are successful at that. They are big guys. 

Mma not only have a weight class but also a skill class. So yeah. It will work if the other guy is as skilled and as big and athletic as you are.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> You see guys who are successful at that. They are big guys.


Are we talking about the "hand reverse" wrist lock? It has nothing to do with body size.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> It wouldn't matter since other martial arts teach you how to punch as well. But I can guarantee that you won't find a boxing school that teaches yo



My boxing coach does an excellent spinning punch combination.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Are we talking about the "hand reverse" wrist lock? It has nothing to do with body size.



Really?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Really?


How much pressure can a big guy's wrist take? If a 100 lb guy put all his body weight behind his 'hand reverse" against a 200 lb guy, it should work as well.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How much pressure can a big guy's wrist take? If a 100 lb guy put all his body weight behind his 'hand reverse" against a 200 lb guy, it should work as well.



You still have linkage issues.

Or find a small guy who can Aikido anyone.


----------



## drop bear

Mider said:


> You can always email him



Or just check out his fight record on sherdog. I think the fight was legit. There is a pancrase match he lost by knee bar

On a guy that he had 20kg on.

This guy. I believe.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Or just check out his fight record on sherdog. I think the fight was legit. There is a pancrase match he lost by knee bar


We should not give all joint lock as Aikido credit. I have 0 Aikido training. But I pretty much know all the Aikido joint locking skill through my CMA training. My long fist teacher's teacher was a joint locking master. 

The joint locking is a must training skill in my long fist system.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We should not give all joint lock as Aikido credit. I have 0 Aikido training. But I pretty much know all the Aikido joint locking skill through my CMA training. My long fist teacher's teacher was a joint locking master.
> 
> The joint locking is a must training skill in my long fist system.



Aikidos approach to joint locking requires you to be bigger and stronger than the other guy.

I mean Mabye some of the catch wrestling versions not so much.

So this would be an entire body weight wrist lock that may work against a bigger opponent.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Most martial arts are not trying to torque your wrist all the time.


Depends on one's perspective on their value







drop bear said:


> You see guys who are successful at that. They are big guys.


Are they really big guys?





Did he just say that it looks Aikidoish?






People have to understand that Joint Locks by nature = Joint Destruction.  So if you don't see many people using wrist locks then that's a good thing.  Think about it.  What happens if the BJJ practitioner doesn't tap out on a joint lock?





If you are training the wrist locks all the time, then it's wise to have a cooperative partner that won't accidentally destroy their own joints. You'll also need to have some control of applying and releasing the lock.

Something to understand this.   Regardless of what people may think about TMA, TMA teachers are always talking about Control.  They may not know how to do them but they understand the dangers of them.  When you are fighting against an attacker you don't care about the control.  The goal is to bust that wrist so that the hand is of no more use.





Many of the stuff found in TMA wasn't developed in order to be a sport. The fact that they have weapons makes it clear what the mindset is.  I personally wouldn't want someone to apply an effective wrist lost on me 3 times a week for 10 + years.  Eventually your wrist will be trash even if it doesn't break.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> My boxing coach does an excellent spinning punch combination.


Your boxing coach teaches boxers how to kick and then throw a punch using the spin from the kick to power the punch?


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Your boxing coach teaches boxers how to kick and then throw a punch using the spin from the kick to power the punch?



No. He does a hook spin up behind the back number which is hilarious when it lands.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> If you are training the wrist locks all the time, then it's wise to have a cooperative partner that won't accidentally destroy their own joints. You'll also need to have some control of applying and releasing the lock.
> 
> Something to understand this. Regardless of what people may think about TMA, TMA teachers are always talking about Control. They may not know how to do them but they understand the dangers of them. When you are fighting against an attacker you don't care about the control. The goal is to bust that wrist so that the hand is of no more use.



I do train wristlocks all the time. Bjj wristlocks are not Aikido wristlocks. They rely more on securing the position and then applying body weight. Rather than just having gorilla hands and being able to overpower the other guy.

So this is how a bjj wristlock works.





And TMA weistlockers are some of the spazzyest wristlockers I have ever seen. Is is not very hard at all to find them unnecessarily jerkiing on submissions to compliant partners.



"People have to understand that Joint Locks by nature = Joint Destruction. So if you don't see many people using wrist locks then that's a good thing. Think about it. What happens if the BJJ practitioner doesn't tap out on a joint lock?"

I let the lock go and move on to something else.

Even that is covered in your video.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> We should not give all joint lock as Aikido credit. I have 0 Aikido training. But I pretty much know all the Aikido joint locking skill through my CMA training. My long fist teacher's teacher was a joint locking master.
> 
> The joint locking is a must training skill in my long fist system.


I think it's important to point out a couple of things about 2 man sets in CMA.  The sets often contains 4 possibility. The possibility that you are able to successfully apply a joint lock and the possibility that you aren't successful.  The successful part is only played out to where the Joint lock can be applied.  It isn't actually applied. You just get to that point where you could.  Sort of like a bullet in the chamber but you don't pull the trigger.

The other 2 possibilities is from a defensive perspective.  The possibility that someone will try to put you in a joint lock and the possibility that you escape/ counter.

The reason why these locks aren't practiced with full force and full resistance is because your body cannot take that type of damage day in and day out.  The more a joint is damaged the weaker it will become.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> And TMA weistlockers are some of the spazzyest wristlockers I have ever seen. Is is not very hard at all to find them unnecessarily jerkiing on submissions to compliant partners.


This I agree. I always watch how people respond to getting a wrist lock.  Those who are getting the real thing will show anxiety and watchfulness on their face. Even if they trust the partner that look still comes to the face. The ones that you are talking about go in and out of them as if it's nothing.  Also the ones who are actually applying the wrist locks are gentle in training with them.

I don't practice any types of locks with people who don't believe that they work, who jerk around during the application of a lock.  I want my partner to be compliant when I'm at the point that I can apply the lock fully, then I want them to stop so I can safely release the lock.  This also goes for me.  If I'm complaint then don't take it as an opportunity to proceed with the lock.  Sort of like if your sparring partner suddenly stops the struggle, don't take it as an opportunity to body slam him lol.



drop bear said:


> I let the lock go and move on to something else.


This is what makes a good training partner , but what would happen to the joint if you didn't let the lock go?


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Or just check out his fight record on sherdog. I think the fight was legit. There is a pancrase match he lost by knee bar
> 
> On a guy that he had 20kg on.
> 
> This guy. I believe.


yeah just look up the stats.  I'm not sure what's up with this "email someone" vibe going on.   If I'm going to email someone it's not going to be about that.  I would like to get more information than asking him how much someone weighed way back when.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> This I agree. I always watch how people respond to getting a wrist lock. Those who are getting the real thing will show anxiety and watchfulness on their face. Even if they trust the partner that look still comes to the face. The ones that you are talking about go in and out of them as if it's nothing. Also the ones who are actually applying the wrist locks are gentle in training with them.
> 
> I don't practice any types of locks with people who don't believe that they work, who jerk around during the application of a lock. I want my partner to be compliant when I'm at the point that I can apply the lock fully, then I want them to stop so I can safely release the lock. This also goes for me. If I'm complaint then don't take it as an opportunity to proceed with the lock. Sort of like if your sparring partner suddenly stops the struggle, don't take it as an opportunity to body slam him lol.



I figure 4 the arm or two on one Russian so they can't go anywhere. And then take about 5 or 10 seconds to set the lock in. 

So they can't go anywhere. If they break out of the lock in that time I just take the back.


----------



## Mider

Kung Fu Wang said:


> At 1.48, the "hand reverse" is a general MA wrist locking technique. It exists in many different MA systems. It's not unique in Aikido.


Well I guess you can ask Dan the wolfman he said it was aikido...


----------



## Mider

Hanzou said:


> You tell me, since you think it's Aikido. To me it's a wrestler 2 arming a guy's wrist and taking him to the ground. In short, it's the type of power move that big guys can pull off sometimes, and big grapplers pull off quite often. The problem is that Aikido makes people believe that little old ladies can do that against big guys, and that simply isn't reality.
> 
> BTW, when I asked you to show me Dan using Aikido, I want to see a systemized response, not one technique in isolation. Dan's style is what I like to call "Wrestle-Jutsu" where he essentially is combining Judo, Wrestling, and submission grappling. In that approach, he's learned how to throw someone, so it isn't hard for him to pull off a take down you might see in Aikido from time to time. However, it's important to note that that isn't Aikido he's doing, it's really "Wrestle-Jutsu".


Oh I guess Dan 8s lying then...lol wtf

Um the whole video is him using aikido...lmao. So now you’re telling him what style he uses ok.

you can always ask him bro, you know more about what he does then him obviously


----------



## Mider

JowGaWolf said:


> I wouldn't waste Dan's time with such questions.  He's already commented plenty of times on the topic of Aikido.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would caution asking other martial artist to chime in on any debate happening here in Martial Talk.  I've yet to see very many things that would be worth the time for someone to come in for the purpose of  "settling disagreements."
> 
> There's nothing wrong with asking questions for the sake of knowledge but for the purpose of settling a disagreement doesn't sit well with a lot of people.  As a martial artist, I just wouldn't get into that.
> 
> Just my two cents on this. Asking Dan questions about this will probably result in Dan sending you this link and then following up with a statement "Grow up"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of what he says here reflects the same thing about what I was saying about asking Rokas and his "Journey"
> 
> I now know who ICY Mike is ha ha ha. I've seen his videos.  I never knew that was ICY Mike ha ha ha.  I guess that says a lot about to watch a video and not know who I'm watching lol.
> 
> I didn't know there was this Martial Arts beef going on between them ha ha ha.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has beef with the Karate Nerd Jesse.. Nooooo ha ha ha.


People here are saying it’s not aikido n that he’s lying so they must know more about his life then him.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> I figure 4 the arm or two on one Russian so they can't go anywhere. And then take about 5 or 10 seconds to set the lock in.
> 
> So they can't go anywhere. If they break out of the lock in that time I just take the back.


That wouldn't fall into my definition of a lock.  5 or 10 seconds for a lock is a long time.  If it takes 5 or 10 seconds then it's not locked.  If someone escapes from a lock then it's not locked.  People can escape before a lock or during a poorly implement one.  The only other option is a release by the person applying it.

Locked is locked.  Not halfway locked and not improperly locked.  If 3 of 4 doors on my car then my car isn't locked.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Mider said:


> People here are saying it’s not aikido n that he’s lying so they must know more about his life then him.


Yeah I think much of that is coming from the Aikido crowd unfortunately.  Probably from Rokas' "camp"  I think Rokas was offended in the Interview that he did with Dan.  Dan may have said somethings that indirectly put Rokas in the same group.   When you watch the interview you can see the look on Rokas' face and you can tell that he doesn't like what he's saying. 

It's all too much drama for me.  I'm just glad I don't have to personally deal with stuff like that in my life.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Most martial arts are not trying to torque your wrist all the time.
> 
> You see guys who are successful at that. They are big guys.
> 
> Mma not only have a weight class but also a skill class. So yeah. It will work if the other guy is as skilled and as big and athletic as you are.


I do think being bigger is an advantage, even with proper aiki. Perhaps especially so. If nothing else, the mass makes some of the principles easier to apply and more reliable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How much pressure can a big guy's wrist take? If a 100 lb guy put all his body weight behind his 'hand reverse" against a 200 lb guy, it should work as well.


Bigger arms will take more pressure to activate. And bigger bodies deliver more pressure more easily.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Aikidos approach to joint locking requires you to be bigger and stronger than the other guy.
> 
> I mean Mabye some of the catch wrestling versions not so much.
> 
> So this would be an entire body weight wrist lock that may work against a bigger opponent.


I don’t think most of the locks require you to be bigger or stronger, though if your opponent is bigger/stronger, you need a lot of positional/structural advantage.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I do train wristlocks all the time. Bjj wristlocks are not Aikido wristlocks. They rely more on securing the position and then applying body weight. Rather than just having gorilla hands and being able to overpower the other guy.
> 
> So this is how a bjj wristlock works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And TMA weistlockers are some of the spazzyest wristlockers I have ever seen. Is is not very hard at all to find them unnecessarily jerkiing on submissions to compliant partners.
> 
> 
> 
> "People have to understand that Joint Locks by nature = Joint Destruction. So if you don't see many people using wrist locks then that's a good thing. Think about it. What happens if the BJJ practitioner doesn't tap out on a joint lock?"
> 
> I let the lock go and move on to something else.
> 
> Even that is covered in your video.


Properly done, Aikido wrist locks shouldn’t require that, either. Body mechanics and structure are what does the work.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> I don’t think most of the locks require you to be bigger or stronger, though if your opponent is bigger/stronger, you need a lot of positional/structural advantage.


Bigger isn't as important as stronger grip strength.  None of this is happening with weak hands.  A bigger person gains no advantage on a wrist lock if their hands do not have the strength to perform the lock.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Bigger isn't as important as stronger grip strength.  None of this is happening with weak hands.  A bigger person gains no advantage on a wrist lock if their hands do not have the strength to perform the lock.


Mostly true. Their greater mass does give them advantages, even if there’s no additional hand strength. The advantage comes in using that mass to affect their structure.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> Properly done, Aikido wrist locks shouldn’t require that, either. Body mechanics and structure are what does the work.


This is the strength training for CMA  Joint locks .  Key phrase "none of these skills can be effective if you cannot grab your opponent."  @35 mark





Joints in the wrist and fingers can't take a heavy load, especially if the muscle in the hands are not developed so that they can resist the pressure more before failing.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> The advantage comes in using that mass to affect their structure.


yeah but if you don't know how to do this then the size won't matter.  BJJ has already proven this. If their hands are weak then they won't have the strength to maintain their structure or apply it.

Edit: other than just being heavier, taller, or wider a finger is a finger a wrist is a wrist. Unless the size comes with more muscle.  I say this because I do an exercise with my staff for twisting power in Chin na, and I've had people who were taller and bigger than me but unable to do this exercise.  They even made comments that their wrist hurt because they lack the muscle to maintain their wrist structure.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> I would have to say you must first describe what you mean by system loyalty.


I mean believing you can be as good drawing only from one guy from antiquities vision and solutions versus drawing from the whole of what fighting science has to offer. Limiting yourself to that and only that, in all scenarios and situations.

If your only goal is to be the best reflection of that man's vision, it makes sense. If your goal is to have the best skillset possible, it's a major self imposed handicap.

For those that do it with the latter goal in mind, it's just...weird.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> yeah but if you don't know how to do this then the size won't matter.  BJJ has already proven this. If their hands are weak then they won't have the strength to maintain their structure or apply it.


Oh. Size and strength is a huge thing in BJJ too. I've seen people that are just unnaturally strong or big or both ragdoll belted BJJ guys just by being spazzy and strong. In addition if all else is equal the stronger guy still usually wins in grappling and the bigger guy in striking.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> yeah but if you don't know how to do this then the size won't matter.  BJJ has already proven this. If their hands are weak then they won't have the strength to maintain their structure or apply it.
> 
> Edit: other than just being heavier, taller, or wider a finger is a finger a wrist is a wrist. Unless the size comes with more muscle.  I say this because I do an exercise with my staff for twisting power in Chin na, and I've had people who were taller and bigger than me but unable to do this exercise.  They even made comments that their wrist hurt because they lack the muscle to maintain their wrist structure.


Oh, technique and strength definitely matter. And mass does, too. All else being equal, a bigger guy has a significantly easier time with some aspects of locking.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Most martial arts are not trying to torque your wrist all the time.


Old CMA saying said, "A bad punch is still better than a good lock".

If you break someone's wrist, he can still pull out a gun and shot you. If you knock your opponent out, you can walk away safely.

IMO, the joint lock cannot be considered as "finish move". non-finish move may have sport value, but it has little combat value.

The best opponent is the opponent who is unconscious under your knees.


----------



## Mider

Strength is always important


----------



## Hanzou

Mider said:


> Oh I guess Dan 8s lying then...lol wtf
> 
> Um the whole video is him using aikido...lmao. So now you’re telling him what style he uses ok.
> 
> you can always ask him bro, you know more about what he does then him obviously



I'm not talking about the ENTIRE video (where he randomly wristlocks dudes smaller than him), I'm talking about the MMA fight where he clearly uses wrestling to enable the entry that allowed him to pull off that takedown.

Saying that he was doing "Aikido" is similar in silliness to when Steven Segal claimed that he taught Anderson Silva a "special kick" that was really just a front kick that Silva obviously knew how to do already.


----------



## Hanzou

Martial D said:


> Oh. Size and strength is a huge thing in BJJ too. I've seen people that are just unnaturally strong or big or both ragdoll belted BJJ guys just by being spazzy and strong. In addition if all else is equal the stronger guy still usually wins in grappling and the bigger guy in striking.



I feel bad when I bench press smaller people off of me when I'm under side control.


----------



## Mider

Hanzou said:


> I'm not talking about the ENTIRE video (where he randomly wristlocks dudes smaller than him), I'm talking about the MMA fight where he clearly uses wrestling to enable the entry that allowed him to pull off that takedown.
> 
> Saying that he was doing "Aikido" is similar in silliness to when Steven Segal claimed that he taught Anderson Silva a "special kick" that was really just a front kick that Silva obviously knew how to do already.


I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree then.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Does Aikido guy also train how to 

- counter a joint lock?
- counter a counter?

Are there any video for that?


----------



## drop bear

Gerry Seymour said:


> Properly done, Aikido wrist locks shouldn’t require that, either. Body mechanics and structure are what does the work.



People say that. And yet Aikido wristlocks are done successfully by bigger guys.


----------



## drop bear

Gerry Seymour said:


> I don’t think most of the locks require you to be bigger or stronger, though if your opponent is bigger/stronger, you need a lot of positional/structural advantage.



Correct.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> That wouldn't fall into my definition of a lock.  5 or 10 seconds for a lock is a long time.  If it takes 5 or 10 seconds then it's not locked.  If someone escapes from a lock then it's not locked.  People can escape before a lock or during a poorly implement one.  The only other option is a release by the person applying it.
> 
> Locked is locked.  Not halfway locked and not improperly locked.  If 3 of 4 doors on my car then my car isn't locked.



It is a long time. And if you can do it. Then you know you have the technique.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> I mean believing you can be as good drawing only from one guy from antiquities vision and solutions versus drawing from the whole of what fighting science has to offer. Limiting yourself to that and only that, in all scenarios and situations.
> 
> If your only goal is to be the best reflection of that man's vision, it makes sense. If your goal is to have the best skillset possible, it's a major self imposed handicap.
> 
> For those that do it with the latter goal in mind, it's just...weird.


If the goal is to have the best skillset, then I pretty much win with my ancient stuff. I can fight with a staff.  That's a fighting skill set.  Take those skill sets and I'll have a knife.  Throw away all of that and use a gun then I still win against modern BJJ.  So when you say "Best skillset possible" then BJJ wouldnt' be better than me with a gun. Or me with a staff.

Ancient people did more manual labor than people today so they would have been very strong.  It would be difficult to be weak if this is your daily workday and this isn't even warrior training.





Science has helped us in with some areas but not all. Having science on your side doesn't make a person a good fighter by default.  I'll pick the ancient spartan who has fought for his life multiple times in hand-to-hand combat over the best MMA fighter of today.  

When you said loyalty.  I'm thought you meant "blind loyalty."  Where everything must stay the same and that new teachers can not add their experiences  and improvements that they learned about the system.  For example,  If I learn another application for a Jow Ga techniques that makes it impossible to be taken down  (extreme but needed for the example), but I don't use that technique because that's not what the original teachers taught then that I don't agree with.  I say this because I use a punching technique as a grappling technique against a front kick.  I've had success using it and it allows me to hook the kick and throw my opponent off balance onto the floor. To my knowledge no Jow Ga teacher that I know of teaches this technique.  I'm not saying it it's new but for me,  this is like a new Jow Ga application for that punching technique.  I only say that it's new because I've don't know any Jow Ga teacher that teaches to use the punching technique in that way. I learned this by accident so it's not like a great mind at work.  But for me. that's my application and my contribution to Jow Ga.

I also do sweeps from a high stance. Again Jow Ga doesn't teach this as far as I know of .  I "developed it" through Jow Ga without any influence from any other system.  I simply wanted to do a more mobile sweep that works well against a boxer's footwork.  The end result was this sweep.  I found that the lower sweep  was too static for me.  Even if the sweep is quick, it doesn't have the ability to pursue an opponent.  The sweeps that I've developed allow me to use them to chase down an opponent tor to retreat if needed.    It would be stupid for me to discard these simply because the old teachers didn't do it that way.  I'm not like that and I don't think the founder would appreciate me finding away to use a technique in another way.  Martial arts in general has never stayed still like that in terms of development.  Does it make me a better fighter than the founder of Jow Ga.  Heck no.  For starters I don't even train like a fighter so how am I going to be better than someone who trained it and used it in a life and death situation.   Jow Ga is the combination of 3 other martial arts systems, so for me not to continue to develop Jow Ga would be stupid considering how Jow Ga was created.

Literally the founder knew multiple martial arts and he took what he like the best in each, based on his ability to do them and created a hybrid system.  If that's not development then I don't know what is.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> If the goal is to have the best skillset, then I pretty much win with my ancient stuff. I can fight with a staff.  That's a fighting skill set.  Take those skill sets and I'll have a knife.  Throw away all of that and use a gun then I still win against modern BJJ.  So when you say "Best skillset possible" then BJJ wouldnt' be better than me with a gun. Or me with a staff.
> 
> Ancient people did more manual labor than people today so they would have been very strong.  It would be difficult to be weak if this is your daily workday and this isn't even warrior training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science has helped us in with some areas but not all. Having science on your side doesn't make a person a good fighter by default.  I'll pick the ancient spartan who has fought for his life multiple times in hand-to-hand combat over the best MMA fighter of today.
> 
> When you said loyalty.  I'm thought you meant "blind loyalty."  Where everything must stay the same and that new teachers can not add their experiences  and improvements that they learned about the system.  For example,  If I learn another application for a Jow Ga techniques that makes it impossible to be taken down  (extreme but needed for the example), but I don't use that technique because that's not what the original teachers taught then that I don't agree with.  I say this because I use a punching technique as a grappling technique against a front kick.  I've had success using it and it allows me to hook the kick and throw my opponent off balance onto the floor. To my knowledge no Jow Ga teacher that I know of teaches this technique.  I'm not saying it it's new but for me,  this is like a new Jow Ga application for that punching technique.  I only say that it's new because I've don't know any Jow Ga teacher that teaches to use the punching technique in that way. I learned this by accident so it's not like a great mind at work.  But for me. that's my application and my contribution to Jow Ga.
> 
> I also do sweeps from a high stance. Again Jow Ga doesn't teach this as far as I know of .  I "developed it" through Jow Ga without any influence from any other system.  I simply wanted to do a more mobile sweep that works well against a boxer's footwork.  The end result was this sweep.  I found that the lower sweep  was too static for me.  Even if the sweep is quick, it doesn't have the ability to pursue an opponent.  The sweeps that I've developed allow me to use them to chase down an opponent tor to retreat if needed.    It would be stupid for me to discard these simply because the old teachers didn't do it that way.  I'm not like that and I don't think the founder would appreciate me finding away to use a technique in another way.  Martial arts in general has never stayed still like that in terms of development.  Does it make me a better fighter than the founder of Jow Ga.  Heck no.  For starters I don't even train like a fighter so how am I going to be better than someone who trained it and used it in a life and death situation.   Jow Ga is the combination of 3 other martial arts systems, so for me not to continue to develop Jow Ga would be stupid considering how Jow Ga was created.
> 
> Literally the founder knew multiple martial arts and he took what he like the best in each, based on his ability to do them and created a hybrid system.  If that's not development then I don't know what is.


But still..if you compare everything that is in your system to everything that is available, you are left with a sliver of the pie. And if you compare the jow ga solution to any given problem or scenario to every other possible response offered by every other system how often will it come out as the most effective?

I would expect for every time it did that solution would become the meta for everyone that doesn't care about style or origin, but you don't see that in practice.


----------



## Hanzou

Gerry Seymour said:


> I don’t think most of the locks require you to be bigger or stronger, though if your opponent is bigger/stronger, you need a lot of positional/structural advantage.



Which is why in BJJ, smaller people tend to develop better technique overall than larger people. They really have to, because you simply can't outmuscle someone who is bigger and stronger than you. On the flip side, if you're a larger person, you will be using strength and weight even when you're training, it's unavoidable. When I rolled against women, I could just sit on them and impose my will, even if they were higher rank, because I had that innate advantage. What develops is that women (and smaller guys) become excellent escape artists to the point where you simply can't hold them down, and those escapes open up opportunities for them to submit you. It's a really interesting dynamic to see, and it's extremely frustrating to deal with as a larger grappler.


----------



## Martial D

Hanzou said:


> Which is why in BJJ, smaller people tend to develop better technique overall than larger people. They really have to, because you simply can't outmuscle someone who is bigger and stronger than you. On the flip side, if you're a larger person, you will be using strength and weight even when you're training, it's unavoidable. When I rolled against women, I could just sit on them and impose my will, even if they were higher rank, because I had that innate advantage. What develops is that women (and smaller guys) become excellent escape artists to the point where you simply can't hold them down, and those escapes open up opportunities for them to submit you. It's a really interesting dynamic to see, and it's extremely frustrating to deal with as a larger grappler.


So much truth. For context I'm 6'4" and about 220 so that reflects my experience, but my fav guy to roll with was this dude that was (well still is but I haven't been training for a while) 6'7" and close to 300 pounds. He forced me to improve my subtle movements and technique in ways most people couldn't..and the fact he was also a brown belt (I never got past purple) didn't help. Out of our 50 or 60 rolls I got him twice, but he is probably more responsible for my technical game improving than any other one person.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> People say that. And yet Aikido wristlocks are done successfully by bigger guys.


Oh, being bigger definitely increases success rate, as you'd expect. It's just not necessary, technically speaking.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is a long time. And if you can do it. Then you know you have the technique.


If you can hold it that long, you have broken their structure and have removed their ability to change their position. Without that, it can only be a transitional technique.


----------



## drop bear

Gerry Seymour said:


> Oh, being bigger definitely increases success rate, as you'd expect. It's just not necessary, technically speaking.



We really only see bigger guys hitting those techniques live though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> But still..if you compare everything that is in your system to everything that is available, you are left with a sliver of the pie. And if you compare the jow ga solution to any given problem or scenario to every other possible response offered by every other system how often will it come out as the most effective?
> 
> I would expect for every time it did that solution would become the meta for everyone that doesn't care about style or origin, but you don't see that in practice.


While I agree with the concept, can we agree nobody has time to explore every available system, and most of us don’t have the time (within our priorities) to even explore everything system in our immediate area. 

One advantage of a system is that it presents a set of ready-packaged solutions. If those solutions are valid, it’s a short path to finding that set of knowledge.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> We really only see bigger guys hitting those techniques live though.


Against a highly skilled opponent, a size advantage is probably necessary.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> But still..if you compare everything that is in your system to everything that is available, you are left with a sliver of the pie.


1. Jow Ga has so much in the system that there is no way for me to know how to do everything in that system.  As of such there's no way for me to tell you all the solutions that are available. I can only tell you the things I know.

2. A sliver of the pie is fine.  It's the same thing that BJJ and everyone else ends up with. BJJ is a sliver of the pie when compared to what all of the systems offer. Bjj would have to do it all in order for it to be considered more than a sliver.  BJJ doesn't do it all and as a result, it's only a sliver.  Even though Jow Ga is made of 3 different systems it's still a sliver. I could add 3 systems of wrestling to it, and it would still be a sliver.

3. No person is going to be more than a sliver of all that's available.



Martial D said:


> And if you compare the jow ga solution to any given problem or scenario to every other possible response offered by every other system how often will it come out as the most effective?


I don't know because that all depends on the ability of the person using Jow Ga and the ability of the person that Jow Ga is facing.  Are weapons involves, knives, swords, spears, staffs, canes, chains, chairs, sticks, or guns?  Does the Jow Ga practitioner actually know how to use Jow Ga?  Is this a sporting competition or a street fight? And before you say that the weapons thing isn't realistic.  Then my answer to that is.  Depends on where you live.  Go to India and you'll see alot of fights with staffs.  Go to the UK, you'll see knives.  Go to Dominican republican and you get a chance to be attack with a machete. Go to the US and it's guns.

As for my skill level.  I've never fought in an MMA competition so how will I even be able to tell you how well I would hold up in an MMA competition.  Out of the entire Jow Ga community I have only seen 2 people use Jow Ga in sparring.  I only know one person who says he successfully used it in a street fight.  Other than that I don't know who else has used Jow Ga to fight with.

So how am I going to do a comparison in the way that you are asking?  There's no solid answer for what you are asking.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> nobody has time to explore every available system, and most of us don’t have the time (within our priorities) to even explore everything system in our immediate area.


No one has the time or the life span to explore everything in their own system.  No one is going to completely learn everything and be functional with everything that is found in Karate, TKD, Jow Ga, Hung Ga, Judo, or even Boxing.  People by default are going to take the techniques that they can use and leave off the techniques that they can't use.  From there, those techniques will be personalized.  Not every boxer uses the same footwork. Boxers have their own favorite defense, offense, and footwork.  To the point that we talk about the footwork as Ali's footwork. Pacquiao's footwork, Tyson's footwork. Mayweather's Philly shell.  

There's just too much out there in the Martial Arts world to think that it's possible that anyone is going to know more than a sliver.


----------



## Martial D

Gerry Seymour said:


> While I agree with the concept, can we agree nobody has time to explore every available system, and most of us don’t have the time (within our priorities) to even explore everything system in our immediate area.
> 
> One advantage of a system is that it presents a set of ready-packaged solutions. If those solutions are valid, it’s a short path to finding that set of knowledge.


No one person...no. but we aren't talking about one person. We are talking about everyone, as a whole..that actually tests their given style. When that happens, and a thing is super effective..others pick up on it and add it to their game because competition drives improvement.

Boxing . BJJ ..wrestling ..Thai..karate to some extent...

These styles weren't just picked out of a hat to be foundational to competition fighting. They became foundational because they provided the best solutions when compared with everything else that was tried and tested. Believe me, all the traditional guys were there too, their solutions just proved less useful.


----------



## Steve

Martial D said:


> No one person...no. but we aren't talking about one person. We are talking about everyone, as a whole..that actually tests their given style. When that happens, and a thing is super effective..others pick up on it and add it to their game because competition drives improvement.
> 
> Boxing . BJJ ..wrestling ..Thai..karate to some extent...
> 
> These styles weren't just picked out of a hat to be foundational to competition fighting. They became foundational because they provided the best solutions when compared with everything else that was tried and tested. Believe me, all the traditional guys were there too, their solutions just proved less useful.


Agreed.  

And it works if we flip it around, too.  Professional athletes are always looking for an edge.  It is a profession in which being better than the next guy or gal is as much tactics as it is skill and technique.  

Point is, there is no more open minded and receptive group of people than competitive mixed martial artists.  If it works, it's in.  And if it works regularly and reliably (even if it takes time to develop), it will be picked up rapidly by everyone.  Because everyone is looking for a competitive advantage.  Very pragmatic and open minded group, really.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> We are talking about everyone, as a whole..that actually tests their given style. When that happens, and a thing is super effective..others pick up on it and add it to their game because competition drives improvement.


Not true. People don't pick up the system.  They pick up techniques from the system and add the techniques, and that's totally different than training a system. For example, a BJJ practitioner may learn Muay Thai low leg kicks and leg checks. But that's not the system that's just 2 techniques from a system.

MMA is full of fighters who have added techniques from other systems but not the entire system.   There's a difference between adding a technique and training a system.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> No one person...no. but we aren't talking about one person. We are talking about everyone, as a whole..that actually tests their given style. When that happens, and a thing is super effective..others pick up on it and add it to their game because competition drives improvement.
> 
> Boxing . BJJ ..wrestling ..Thai..karate to some extent...
> 
> These styles weren't just picked out of a hat to be foundational to competition fighting. They became foundational because they provided the best solutions when compared with everything else that was tried and tested. Believe me, all the traditional guys were there too, their solutions just proved less useful.


This has been a lot of my personal thought. I love training with and sparring againsts folks who are trained in something else, because they usually bring something worth learning, even if it's only something I want to learn _against_.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Not true. People don't pick up the system.  They pick up techniques from the system and add the techniques, and that's totally different than training a system. For example, a BJJ practitioner may learn Muay Thai low leg kicks and leg checks. But that's not the system that's just 2 techniques from a system.
> 
> MMA is full of fighters who have added techniques from other systems but not the entire system.   There's a difference between adding a technique and training a system.


This is true, but if a given foundation (the base principles of a system) was particularly helpful in that context, there would be competitors training in that system. Of course, for competition, the learning curve matters a lot. If you and I are going to compete against each other, and start at a simlar age, etc., then the shorter learning curve has the edge. So a lot of stuff that works over time, simply isn't efficient enough (in learning hours) to be worth getting into - as a system - for competitors.

That's actually one of the things I love about MMA's development model. For someone who wants the steepest learning curve, MMA has helped drive a lot of places to figure that out.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Not true. People don't pick up the system.  They pick up techniques from the system and add the techniques, and that's totally different than training a system. For example, a BJJ practitioner may learn Muay Thai low leg kicks and leg checks. But that's not the system that's just 2 techniques from a system.
> 
> MMA is full of fighters who have added techniques from other systems but not the entire system.   There's a difference between adding a technique and training a system.


Is what you are saying supportable with evidence?


----------



## drop bear

Gerry Seymour said:


> This is true, but if a given foundation (the base principles of a system) was particularly helpful in that context, there would be competitors training in that system. Of course, for competition, the learning curve matters a lot. If you and I are going to compete against each other, and start at a simlar age, etc., then the shorter learning curve has the edge. So a lot of stuff that works over time, simply isn't efficient enough (in learning hours) to be worth getting into - as a system - for competitors.
> 
> That's actually one of the things I love about MMA's development model. For someone who wants the steepest learning curve, MMA has helped drive a lot of places to figure that out.



I think that you are making too many assumptions. 

There are MMA fighters with years of experience utilising techniques that are taught on their first day of training. 

There are techniques that are statistically more successful.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> This is true, but if a given foundation (the base principles of a system) was particularly helpful in that context, there would be competitors training in that system.


There are competitors training in those systems. Not every competition is an MMA competition. Full contact sports that aren't MMA

Full contact Karate
Full contact Kick boxing
Full contact Muay Thai
Full contact Lei tai
Full contact Muay Boran
Full contact Sanda
Full contact Silate
Full contact TKD

Just because we don't "see it in our backyward" doesn't mean it doesn't exists. Just becasue we don't see it with our own eyes doesn't mean it's  impossible to be effective with it.


Gerry Seymour said:


> If you and I are going to compete against each other, and start at a simlar age, etc., then the shorter learning curve has the edge.


The shorter learning curve has the edge only in the context of level of experience. I say that because not everything is going to be short learning curve.  Here's an example,  If you learn how to punch in a shorter period than I learn how to punch and kick, then  you'll have an advantage over me.  But once I master the my punch and kick I will have an advantage over you.

 If it was all about the shorter learning curve then we all would have stopped at basic punching and kicking.  When it comes to fighting, your ability to do well in fighting is tied directly into the amount of time you spend using your techniques in active sparring, and in fighting.  

CIf BJJ practitioners only train using Solo forms then they would suck butt and get dogged out every time. There is no exception to this.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Is what you are saying supportable with evidence?


Yes there are exceptions. There are always exceptions.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Yes there are exceptions. There are always exceptions.



Ok. So which mma fighter are you suggesting does this?


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> There are techniques that are statistically more successful.


This is mainly due to experience level of the fighter.  The more experience a fighter is the more successful they will be when using a technique.  Techniques that are similar to what they already know are picked up faster.  Techniques that are far from what they already know will have take longer to learn.

I'm good with sweeps so any motion that is like a sweep will be easy for me.  You may not be good with sweeps and because of that any technique that uses that motion is going to take a while for you to learn.  You not only have to learn the motion, but the timing, and application of it.  But there are exceptions.

It took me almost a year to of teaching the other Instructor at the school that I used to teach at, on how to sweep.  He already knew how to do the motion but he had a hard time with the application part.  Part because he didn't try to use it often when he was sparring and the other part was due to him trying to sweep me.  I wouldn't allow him to try to sweep the other students because he lacked the control needed to do a low power sweep.  When he was finally able to sweep me, I fell back and he thought I was about to hit my head on a metal railing that was behind me.  Had it been a full sweep, and had he not tried to slow my fall, I probably would have hit it.  It was light sparring so we weren't going at it.

Sweeps are highly effective, high success rate techniques, but only if you know how to do them.  You can probably sweep someone 6 or 7 times before it becomes a challenge to sweep them.  The more variation of sweeps you can do the easier it will be to sweep someone, multiple times.

Most people aren't patient enough to learn sweeps or they only use one type of sweep or only one approach to sweeps, and that lowers the success rate greatly.  So in this case, the issue isn't that the technique isn't good.  The issue is that most people just don't want to spend the time to be good in the technique.  Just like I don't want to spend the time to be good with 360 kicks.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm good with sweeps so any motion that is like a sweep will be easy for me.


I like foot sweep too. Most of the time, my intention is not trying to sweep my opponent down, but to force him to lift up his foot so all his weight is on his back leg. To attack my opponent's fully weight back leg is my goal.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Ok. So which mma fighter are you suggesting does this?


Anyone that does the "Superman punch"  or jumping punch that doesn't train the Sanda or Muay Thai system. 

Training one or 2 or 3 techniques from a system is not training the system.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like foot sweep too. Most of the time, my intention is not trying to sweep my opponent down, but to force him to lift up his foot so all his weight is on his back leg. To attack my opponent's fully weight back leg is my purpose.


I do that as well.  Once they lift their foot, they can no longer advance or retreat. It freezes their movement.  Some times I sweep the front leg enough to where they get into the habit of lifting that front leg.  This gives me access to the back leg.  I guess if a someone asked me how would I sweep that back leg.  I would just say "He will lift his front leg for me " lol. 

If I sweep the front leg and that fails, then I just utilize the foot hook.  If the foot hoot fails, then I just utilize the shin bite. If the shin bite fails and his foot is still there then I can use the foot hook.  But it will never go that far.  Somewhere my opponent will forget about their legs.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> Once they lift their foot, they can no longer advance or retreat. It freezes their movement.


IMO, one of the best entering strategies is to use:

- foot sweep to force your opponent to lift up his leading leg.
- arm guide to force your opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm.

You will then be safe to do your attack.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I think that you are making too many assumptions.
> 
> There are MMA fighters with years of experience utilising techniques that are taught on their first day of training.
> 
> There are techniques that are statistically more successful.


I'm not sure where that is contrary to anything I said. Can you help me out?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> There are competitors training in those systems. Not every competition is an MMA competition. Full contact sports that aren't MMA
> 
> Full contact Karate
> Full contact Kick boxing
> Full contact Muay Thai
> Full contact Lei tai
> Full contact Muay Boran
> Full contact Sanda
> Full contact Silate
> Full contact TKD
> 
> Just because we don't "see it in our backyward" doesn't mean it doesn't exists. Just becasue we don't see it with our own eyes doesn't mean it's  impossible to be effective with it.
> 
> The shorter learning curve has the edge only in the context of level of experience. I say that because not everything is going to be short learning curve.  Here's an example,  If you learn how to punch in a shorter period than I learn how to punch and kick, then  you'll have an advantage over me.  But once I master the my punch and kick I will have an advantage over you.
> 
> If it was all about the shorter learning curve then we all would have stopped at basic punching and kicking.  When it comes to fighting, your ability to do well in fighting is tied directly into the amount of time you spend using your techniques in active sparring, and in fighting.
> 
> CIf BJJ practitioners only train using Solo forms then they would suck butt and get dogged out every time. There is no exception to this.


I wasn't speaking only of MMA, but any inter-system competition. To me, that at least includes kickboxing and many full-contact Karate tournaments. Oh, and NAGA tournaments. Competitions that are centered around a single system (like Shotokan Aikido tournaments) don't kick off the same process.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> I wasn't speaking only of MMA, but any inter-system competition. To me, that at least includes kickboxing and many full-contact Karate tournaments. Oh, and NAGA tournaments. Competitions that are centered around a single system (like Shotokan Aikido tournaments) don't kick off the same process.


Thanks for the clarification


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Not true. People don't pick up the system.  They pick up techniques from the system and add the techniques, and that's totally different than training a system. For example, a BJJ practitioner may learn Muay Thai low leg kicks and leg checks. But that's not the system that's just 2 techniques from a system.
> 
> MMA is full of fighters who have added techniques from other systems but not the entire system.   There's a difference between adding a technique and training a system.


Ok. Since that's exactly what I said I guess we agree. When I named those styles it was in the context of those styles providing the best solutions. There is literally nothing Chinese martial arts does that isn't done better in one of those named styles. If there was, people would be using it competitively.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Anyone that does the "Superman punch"  or jumping punch that doesn't train the Sanda or Muay Thai system.
> 
> Training one or 2 or 3 techniques from a system is not training the system.



And who is that?


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> yeah that's a bad mindset as well.  It's not a good trust builder to always ask for such evidence.  If everything has to be "Show me on video" then it's just best not to train under that person.  If the evidence is out there, the show it share it as a reference.  Just don't demand it.
> 
> If I can't do it, If I don't know anyone that can do it, then it must not be possible. Is just not a healthy mindset.  A bunch of things in this world exist simply because no one else was able to do it, until someone did.


You think it is a 'healthy mindset' to just believe something without any evidence it might be true?


----------



## drop bear

Gerry Seymour said:


> I'm not sure where that is contrary to anything I said. Can you help me out?



"f you and I are going to compete against each other, and start at a simlar age, etc., then the shorter learning curve has the edge. So a lot of stuff that works over time, simply isn't efficient enough (in learning hours) to be worth getting into - as a system - for competitors."

This. If the stuff works. Even over time it is still worth knowing for competitors.

It is where stuff doesn't work over time that would be the issue.


----------



## Mider

drop bear said:


> Is what you are saying supportable with evidence?


Mma


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Not true. People don't pick up the system.  They pick up techniques from the system and add the techniques, and that's totally different than training a system. For example, a BJJ practitioner may learn Muay Thai low leg kicks and leg checks. But that's not the system that's just 2 techniques from a system.
> 
> MMA is full of fighters who have added techniques from other systems but not the entire system.   There's a difference between adding a technique and training a system.


I don’t think this is true, necessarily. It’s about ROI.  BJJ guys who want to be successful in MMA don’t just pick up a few techniques from must Thai. They train the entire style. Wrestlers train all of BJJ.  Etc.

Those guys are nuts.  I believe They would meditate  with a yogi in the snow x5 days a week if they thought it would help them gain a competitive edge.

If a professional MMAist believes training Aikido would benefit them, they will do it all the way.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> There is literally nothing Chinese martial arts does that isn't done better in one of those named styles.


It's not the  System it's the person.  I think my Chinese sweeps are better than BJJ sweeps.  I would out perform Muay Thai in that area.  I think my foot hooks are exceptionally well in comparison too.   As a matter of fact the sweeps I do are illegal in Boxing, Muay Thai, in TKD competitions, is some Karate competitions.  They are definitely better than wrestlers sweeps. 

If we talk about the Complete Kung Fu system. Then you would have to include the weapons as well.  We talk about Arnis weapons, so it should be fair that if a kung fu student knows how to use a staff then it's a fighting skill.

But just because I know how to use it doesn't mean every kung fu person knows how to use the same techniques I train.  It's not about CMA.  It's about the individual training it.  Which is why to this day, I can only show you 2 people who actually fight using Jow Ga kung fu.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> I don’t think this is true, necessarily. It’s about ROI. BJJ guys who want to be successful in MMA don’t just pick up a few techniques from must Thai. They train the entire style. Wrestlers train all of BJJ. Etc.


Those would be the exceptions.  There are some MMA fighters who appreciate the system and they want to learn the system and not just a technique.  You can always tell who is just picking up the technique, because when they throw it in the fight it looks like someone who has trained it for a few months.   Most famous would be Ronda Rousey. You can tell by her technique, which system she trains and which system she was just trying to pick up techniques from.  



Steve said:


> If a professional MMAist believes training Aikido would benefit them, they will do it all the way


Only some would do it all the way.  No one learns to be a good fighter in a few months. It takes time and learning to be functional in Aikido, Kung Fu, TKD and some other martial arts isn't 1 year crash course and your good..


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> You think it is a 'healthy mindset' to just believe something without any evidence it might be true?


Let's see. I believe in God. Ask me to prove that God is real.  I can't.   I have healthy mindset.  So to answer your question.  Yes.

I train Jow Ga kung fu. My teacher told me that the long fist punches work like  A. and I've never seen anyone actually use them before in my life.  I've never seen my Jow Ga teacher use the kung fu.  The first person I've ever seen use Jow Ga Kung Fu is myself, and the only reason I was able to use it, is because I believed in what my teachers were telling me.  Not only do I have a healthy mindset, but I know how to use Jow Ga and it works like my teachers told me it would.

@Ivan asks for advice from people in this forum.  He doesn't know us personally. He listened to the people who said they had some good advice for him.  He's never seen you guys fight, but he listened.  He has a healthy mindset even though he's never seen any of us do what we recommend.  

If your trust in people is so shallow that you don't have some kind of trust in someone, then your mindset is probably really bad, and you probably have some other issues that need attention.

So to answer your question.  Yes I think it's a healthy mindset. to believe something without evidence.  The problem isn't the evidence.  The concern you should be more focused on is where you get your sources from.  If you have good sources then it's less of an issue to "believe without evidence."

Keep in mind some of that "Evidence" that people claim is BS.  Which is why you see Joe Rogan's attitude about TMA shift.


----------



## dvcochran

JowGaWolf said:


> Let's see. I believe in God. Ask me to prove that God is real.  I can't.   I have healthy mindset.  So to answer your question.  Yes.
> 
> I train Jow Ga kung fu. My teacher told me that the long fist punches work like  A. and I've never seen anyone actually use them before in my life.  I've never seen my Jow Ga teacher use the kung fu.  The first person I've ever seen use Jow Ga Kung Fu is myself, and the only reason I was able to use it, is because I believed in what my teachers were telling me.  Not only do I have a healthy mindset, but I know how to use Jow Ga and it works like my teachers told me it would.
> 
> @Ivan asks for advice from people in this forum.  He doesn't know us personally. He listened to the people who said they had some good advice for him.  He's never seen you guys fight, but he listened.  He has a healthy mindset even though he's never seen any of us do what we recommend.
> 
> If your trust in people is so shallow that you don't have some kind of trust in someone, then your mindset is probably really bad, and you probably have some other issues that need attention.
> 
> So to answer your question.  Yes I think it's a healthy mindset. to believe something without evidence.  The problem isn't the evidence.  The concern you should be more focused on is where you get your sources from.  If you have good sources then it's less of an issue to "believe without evidence."
> 
> Keep in mind some of that "Evidence" that people claim is BS.  Which is why you see Joe Rogan's attitude about TMA shift.


Fantastic post!

When "progressive thinkers" as me about God, I usually apply negative logic. "Prove to me God does not exist. Firsthand proof of God's existences is old, but compared to most of the arguments against it, this evidence is almost brand new. The conversations usually end pretty quick.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Those would be the exceptions.  There are some MMA fighters who appreciate the system and they want to learn the system and not just a technique.  You can always tell who is just picking up the technique, because when they throw it in the fight it looks like someone who has trained it for a few months.   Most famous would be Ronda Rousey. You can tell by her technique, which system she trains and which system she was just trying to pick up techniques from.


Really?  I disagree.  Don't get me wrong... in a universe of individuals, I'm sure there are a few folks who represent just about every possible motivation.  That said, I think what is far more likely is that they're just not very skilled yet and are still learning stuff.  

Point is that what you see probably isn't cherry picking.  It's just the normal learning process where people who are less skilled apply those skills in context until they become more skilled and eventually are experts. 

Let me say it another way.  If aikidoka were to apply their skills in a fight regularly throughout their learning of the style, they would probably look like they are cherry picking techniques.  If you watch BJJ white belts compete, they know how to do about 4 things.  In their matches, they do those four things pretty much over and over.  They're not cherry picking... that's just what they've learned so far, and it's perfectly natural. 

What you don't see are BJJ practitioners not competing until they are black belts, and then unleashing a fully developed arsenal of skills on their components at a high level.  That's unrealistic.  And yet we are told that this is the status quo for styles like aikido. 


JowGaWolf said:


> Only some would do it all the way.  No one learns to be a good fighter in a few months. It takes time and learning to be functional in Aikido, Kung Fu, TKD and some other martial arts isn't 1 year crash course and your good..


Exactly, only some _wouldn't _do it all the way.  No one learns to be a good fighter in a few months. It takes time and learning... and real practice in context applying skills... in Aikido, Kung Fu, TKD, and some other martial arts isn't 1 year crash course.  The issue here isn't the medium.  It's that I don't think you don't recognize application when you see it.  And so when you see less skilled martial artists actually developing practical skills, it seems foreign.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Let's see. I believe in God. Ask me to prove that God is real.  I can't.   I have healthy mindset.  So to answer your question.  Yes.
> 
> I train Jow Ga kung fu. My teacher told me that the long fist punches work like  A. and I've never seen anyone actually use them before in my life.  I've never seen my Jow Ga teacher use the kung fu.  The first person I've ever seen use Jow Ga Kung Fu is myself, and the only reason I was able to use it, is because I believed in what my teachers were telling me.  Not only do I have a healthy mindset, but I know how to use Jow Ga and it works like my teachers told me it would.
> 
> @Ivan asks for advice from people in this forum.  He doesn't know us personally. He listened to the people who said they had some good advice for him.  He's never seen you guys fight, but he listened.  He has a healthy mindset even though he's never seen any of us do what we recommend.
> 
> If your trust in people is so shallow that you don't have some kind of trust in someone, then your mindset is probably really bad, and you probably have some other issues that need attention.
> 
> So to answer your question.  Yes I think it's a healthy mindset. to believe something without evidence.  The problem isn't the evidence.  The concern you should be more focused on is where you get your sources from.  If you have good sources then it's less of an issue to "believe without evidence."
> 
> Keep in mind some of that "Evidence" that people claim is BS.  Which is why you see Joe Rogan's attitude about TMA shift.


So, faith and a direct comparison to religion.  Is that really where we're at?  Well, I guess it's to be expected.

When you say faith, I would replace that with trust.  Whether your inclination is to be trusting or not, the goal is to not be a rube by being blindly trusting.  When you trust people who are not trustworthy, you are naive and foolish.  

We could talk for weeks about what makes folks trustworthy.  But insisting that folks should have faith in practical skillsets for which there is no actual evidence of results is not one of those.  

I hate that I'm in some way defending Joe Rogan, whom I think is a total d-bag.  But when Joe Rogan's attitude about a TMA shifts, what do you think caused that?  Two things, IMO.  A mind open to learning something new AND evidence.  And the evidence is usually in the form of an individual in that style breaking away from tradition and doing the hard work, as an individual, to be able to develop the skillset beyond theory... which usually means learning a lot of stuff that's not part of that style.  

The lesson within MMA is to evaluate whether learning the style is worth the effort.  Some folks jump all the way in.  Some don't.    

The lesson by traditional practitioners of the style is often an unrealistic sense of validation that is completely disconnected from the training and application that individual took to bridge the gap between conceptual understanding and actual skill.  

All that said, I think if we're at the god stage of the discussion, this is a good time for me to bid this thread adieu.  I just don't have the energy for it.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Let's see. I believe in God. Ask me to prove that God is real.  I can't.   I have healthy mindset.  So to answer your question.  Yes.
> 
> I train Jow Ga kung fu. My teacher told me that the long fist punches work like  A. and I've never seen anyone actually use them before in my life.  I've never seen my Jow Ga teacher use the kung fu.  The first person I've ever seen use Jow Ga Kung Fu is myself, and the only reason I was able to use it, is because I believed in what my teachers were telling me.  Not only do I have a healthy mindset, but I know how to use Jow Ga and it works like my teachers told me it would.
> 
> @Ivan asks for advice from people in this forum.  He doesn't know us personally. He listened to the people who said they had some good advice for him.  He's never seen you guys fight, but he listened.  He has a healthy mindset even though he's never seen any of us do what we recommend.
> 
> If your trust in people is so shallow that you don't have some kind of trust in someone, then your mindset is probably really bad, and you probably have some other issues that need attention.
> 
> So to answer your question.  Yes I think it's a healthy mindset. to believe something without evidence.  The problem isn't the evidence.  The concern you should be more focused on is where you get your sources from.  If you have good sources then it's less of an issue to "believe without evidence."
> 
> Keep in mind some of that "Evidence" that people claim is BS.  Which is why you see Joe Rogan's attitude about TMA shift.


This explains so much.


----------



## Martial D

dvcochran said:


> Fantastic post!
> 
> When "progressive thinkers" as me about God, I usually apply negative logic. "Prove to me God does not exist. Firsthand proof of God's existences is old, but compared to most of the arguments against it, this evidence is almost brand new. The conversations usually end pretty quick.











						Russell's teapot - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> It's not the  System it's the person.  I think my Chinese sweeps are better than BJJ sweeps.  I would out perform Muay Thai in that area.  I think my foot hooks are exceptionally well in comparison too.   As a matter of fact the sweeps I do are illegal in Boxing, Muay Thai, in TKD competitions, is some Karate competitions.  They are definitely better than wrestlers sweeps.
> 
> If we talk about the Complete Kung Fu system. Then you would have to include the weapons as well.  We talk about Arnis weapons, so it should be fair that if a kung fu student knows how to use a staff then it's a fighting skill.
> 
> But just because I know how to use it doesn't mean every kung fu person knows how to use the same techniques I train.  It's not about CMA.  It's about the individual training it.  Which is why to this day, I can only show you 2 people who actually fight using Jow Ga kung fu.


If one person can't make something work ...it's the person

If nobody can...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> "f you and I are going to compete against each other, and start at a simlar age, etc., then the shorter learning curve has the edge. So a lot of stuff that works over time, simply isn't efficient enough (in learning hours) to be worth getting into - as a system - for competitors."
> 
> This. If the stuff works. Even over time it is still worth knowing for competitors.
> 
> It is where stuff doesn't work over time that would be the issue.


I'm talking about whole systems, rather than techniques. I'd agree entirely with your statement, where techniques and tactics are concerned. But if a system delivers on a slow learning curve, it means a competitor learning that system are always "behind" compared to someone learning a system that delivers significantly faster results. So, if you and I both train in systems that are capable of producing a similar result at an "intermediate" level, where "intermediate" is matters. If you can get to that functional level in 2 years, and I need 5 to get there, I'll never remain competitive with you. Because by the time I get to that point in 5 years, you're 3 years past it.

So, no, just because it is functional, that doesn't mean it's a good path for someone who wants to really be competitive.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I don’t think this is true, necessarily. It’s about ROI.  BJJ guys who want to be successful in MMA don’t just pick up a few techniques from must Thai. They train the entire style. Wrestlers train all of BJJ.  Etc.
> 
> Those guys are nuts.  I believe They would meditate  with a yogi in the snow x5 days a week if they thought it would help them gain a competitive edge.
> 
> If a professional MMAist believes training Aikido would benefit them, they will do it all the way.


I'd just toss in the one qualifier that this is true if the time tradeoff is positive. So, no matter how nice a given system might be to have in the pocket, if it takes too much time to get to a useful level, I doubt any serious competitor will choose to do that. Their time is better spent in other pursuits. This is one of the areas MMA and BJJ drives folks very nicely - toward efficiency of training.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> That said, I think what is far more likely is that they're just not very skilled yet and are still learning stuff.


This is realistic and possible.  It would apply to both use Advanced and Beginner practitioners.  If they never use there techniques to actually fight with then there's a lot of learning.  I know I ate my fair share of punches, ate some kicks too.



Steve said:


> If aikidoka were to apply their skills in a fight regularly throughout their learning of the style, they would probably look like they are cherry picking techniques.


I get your point here.  If they were applying their skills in a fight regularly I think they would have a better understanding of the techniques.  They would learn without a doubt which ones are for actual fighting and which ones are to train some other aspect.  Like Jow Ga has stuff in the forms that is conditioning and not actually a fighting technique.  The only difference is that I know which is which.  But in the world of Aikido.  It appears that there is confusion as to what is used for fighting and what isn't.  In my opinion that's a big problem.  That task will be up to the Aikido world to figure that out and have those debates.  

It's like you stated. "It's just the normal learning process where people who are less skilled apply those skills in context until they become more skilled and eventually are experts."  They will just need to get hit in the face a lot.  If I had to do such a task.  I would work my way up to MMA.  I wouldn't use the MMA arena to try to test my theories and concepts.   Get into some open sparring, and open competition.  I think Style A vs Style A is a horrible way to learn one's martial arts applications.  Aikido vs Aikido just isn't going to get it.  Jow Ga vs Jow Ga just isn't going to get it.  Generally speaking there's only a handful of people that fight in either one of these systems.  So these systems need to be develop in the context of using it against systems that most people use. 

I think many of the TMA tournaments should be Style A vs Style B vs Style C.  Sort of like MMA but on a lower level.  The intensity should be enough where people can make mistakes without causing too much damage.  Light enough to take chances, but hard enough so that the participants don't want to get punch or kicked often.


----------



## Oily Dragon

JowGaWolf said:


> Aikido vs Aikido just isn't going to get it.  Jow Ga vs Jow Ga just isn't going to get it.  Generally speaking there's only a handful of people that fight in either one of these systems.  So these systems need to be develop in the context of using it against systems that most people use.
> 
> I think many of the TMA tournaments should be Style A vs Style B vs Style C.  Sort of like MMA but on a lower level.  The intensity should be enough where people can make mistakes without causing too much damage.  Light enough to take chances, but hard enough so that the participants don't want to get punch or kicked often.


Speaking for Chinese tournaments, they never embraced Style A vs A from the old lei Tai days up thru the present Guoshu federations.  They have always mixed styles.  That's how we got the ones we still have.

As far as Aikido vs Jow Ga, no way dude.  Plenty of Jow Ga people in San Shou for many years.  Zero Aikidoka that I know of.

Jow Ga training may not be commonplace but it's a well proven fighting system. It already represents a style(s) that has competed with others for centuries.  That goes for most Family styles that include san da, where they already spar and compete inside the same style.  Then these people go to Guoshu and kick other styles buttocks.

This guy BJ (red gloves) is out of Richmond Virginia Jow Ga.  Amazing fist sets, even better free fighting.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> So, faith and a direct comparison to religion. Is that really where we're at? Well, I guess it's to be expected.


You asked me a question and I answered it honestly.  I thought of all the things where I believe others without evidence.  So in the context of your question.  It doesn't matter if it's faith or religion or some guy's new girlfriend or wife telling him that she loves him. 

If you didn't want me to include my example of faith and religion then you should have told me to give you an example of it, excluding religion.  



Steve said:


> When you say faith, I would replace that with trust. Whether your inclination is to be trusting or not, the goal is to not be a rube by being blindly trusting. When you trust people who are not trustworthy, you are naive and foolish.


1. I rarely believe people who I don't trust. 
2. People who I trust, I'm often willing to trust them without evidence.
3. I tend to not hang around people who are not trust worthy.  I still run into a few who get by my "spidey senses" but that's like 1 or 2 people every 10 years so it's tolerable.
4. I don't trust the same person in all topics.  In general, issues that are personal, are by default things that people are less honest about.  I can trust a doctor about medicine, but I may not be able to have that same level of trust about his politics or about his own marriage.
5. Everyone gets a trust box.  There are some things I'm going to trust a person on and somethings that I won't. 

People who are trust worthy usually fill up the boxes really fast until there's nothing I can trust them on.  I do my best to stay away from those people.  People like that I try to stay away from because they will only make my life miserable.  Nothing good can come from people like that.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> This explains so much.


I'm glad your confusion about me is finally over.  lol


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> If one person can't make something work ...it's the person
> 
> If nobody can...


The problem with "If nobody can...."
1. Who are you basing this on?  Are you basing it only those who shop up in MMA or are you basing it all who train and use a system?

Joe Rogan thinks like your statement. And he gets proven wrong all the time when someone does what he thought no one could do.

Sort of like the early days of men trying to fly.  No one could, until someone did.


----------



## Oily Dragon

JowGaWolf said:


> The problem with "If nobody can...."
> 1. Who are you basing this on?  Are you basing it only those who shop up in MMA or are you basing it all who train and use a system?
> 
> Joe Rogan thinks like your statement. And he gets proven wrong all the time when someone does what he thought no one could do.
> 
> Sort of like the early days of men trying to fly.  No one could, until someone did.


Somebody who I can't remember (Cung Le?  Somebody in FMA?  Argh) once said something really funny about kung fu along the lines of "OK Chinese don't get to own fighting anymore, but if so, then nobody else does".

I'll never get the "West works, East doesn't until you prove it.  New works, old doesn't work..." mentality.  It's so backward, and easily disproven.  It amazes me people still believe an art works or not based on its country of origin...

Joe Rogan's exposure to Asian fighting arts was so limited, no wonder he's often off base with his statements.  He just doesn't know what he lectures people on. He even met a guy who works with mental patients and uses primarily Aikido.  Made sense to me that the guy wouldn't use Jow Ga Fu Jow Gong.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> If you can get to that functional level in 2 years, and I need 5 to get there, I'll never remain competitive with you. Because by the time I get to that point in 5 years, you're 3 years past it.


That depends on what you are learning in those 5 years.  For example, Boxing may take a person 2 years to get  to intermediate.  It may take you 5 years to get to intermediate, but what else are you learning. Kicking, weapons, locks, knees, strikes that the boxer doesn't learn.  So while it takes you longer, you may be walking away with more options of attack and defense.  No matter how fast a boxer progresses, he will never learn how to defend a kick in modern boxing.  Nor will he ever learn how to use a kick.   So in that context. It took you longer but you came out better for it because now you have learned to integrate punching with kicking.

The boxer will still be a better puncher than you, but you will be a better kicker.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> Fantastic post!
> 
> When "progressive thinkers" as me about God, I usually apply negative logic. "Prove to me God does not exist. Firsthand proof of God's existences is old, but compared to most of the arguments against it, this evidence is almost brand new. The conversations usually end pretty quick.


This is bad logic. Negatives (like non-existence) are usually unprovable, by definition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> That depends on what you are learning in those 5 years.  For example, Boxing may take a person 2 years to get  to intermediate.  It may take you 5 years to get to intermediate, but what else are you learning. Kicking, weapons, locks, knees, strikes that the boxer doesn't learn.  So while it takes you longer, you may be walking away with more options of attack and defense.  No matter how fast a boxer progresses, he will never learn how to defend a kick in modern boxing.  Nor will he ever learn how to use a kick.   So in that context. It took you longer but you came out better for it because now you have learned to integrate punching with kicking.
> 
> The boxer will still be a better puncher than you, but you will be a better kicker.


Those aren't functionally the same level, though, for competion (rememer, we're talking about people preparing for the same competition).


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> Those aren't functionally the same level, though, for competion (rememer, we're talking about people preparing for the same competition).


It's same thing.  How long do you think it took Raymond Daniels to get his kicking skills to his current level ok kicking efficiency?  Compared to how long it takes for someone to to MMA?





How long did Roka's Train MMA compared to how long it took Raymond Daniels to be good at Kicks?  Who has the advantage now?  The guy that took the short path or the guy that took the long path?


----------



## JowGaWolf

This is Raymond Daniels path before going into MMA.  What was Roka's path?
Points fighting (Kickboxing/Sport Karate)​
*North American Sport Karate Association*
2004 NASKA World Championship
2002 NASKA World Championship

*National Blackbelt League*
2010 NBL World Championship
2009 NBL World Championship
2008 NBL World Championship
2007 NBL World Championship
2006 NBL World Championship
2005 NBL World Championship
2004 NBL World Championship
2003 NBL World Championship

*World Association of Kickboxing Organizations*
2015 W.A.K.O. World Champion
2014 Irish Open Grand Champion
2012 Irish Open Grand Champion
2011 Irish Open Grand Champion
2010 Irish Open Grand Champion
2009 Irish Open Grand Champion
2008 Irish Open Grand Champion
2007 Irish Open Grand Champion
2006 Irish Open Grand Champion
2005 Irish Open Grand Champion

Kickboxing (Full Contact)​
*Bellator Kickboxing*
Bellator Kickboxing Welterweight Championship (One time, current)

*Pain and Glory*
Pain and Glory -84 kg/185 lb Tournament Championship

*World Combat League*
2007–08 WCL Championship –


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> The problem with "If nobody can...."
> 1. Who are you basing this on?  Are you basing it only those who shop up in MMA or are you basing it all who train and use a system?
> 
> Joe Rogan thinks like your statement. And he gets proven wrong all the time when someone does what he thought no one could do.
> 
> Sort of like the early days of men trying to fly.  No one could, until someone did.


Okay. I said I was done, but I would like to address this.  While I still don't have a lot of energy to explain, I will point to a helpful NPR article that really speaks to the heart of this discussion.









						What Makes Science Science?
					

Scientific conclusions and scientific methods can change: Understanding how and why these changes occur reveals why science is our best bet for getting the facts right, says Tania Lombrozo.




					www.npr.org
				




Emphasis below is mine.  



> First, the body of scientific knowledge is continually evolving. Scientists don't simply add more facts to our scientific repository; *they question new evidence as it comes in, and they repeatedly reexamine prior conclusions. That means that the body of scientific knowledge isn't just growing, it's also changing.*
> 
> At first glance, this change can be unsettling. How can we trust science, if scientific conclusions are continually subject to change?
> 
> 
> The key is that scientific conclusions don't change on a whim. They change in response to new evidence, new analyses and new arguments — *the sorts of things we can publicly agree (or disagree) about, that we can evaluate together. And scientific conclusions are almost always based on induction, not deduction*. That is, science involves drawing inferences from premises to conclusion, where the premises can affect the probability of the conclusions but don't establish them with certainty.


This is the difference between faith and science.  Trusting science doesn't mean blindly accepting the conclusions of the day and becoming dogmatic in the face of new evidence.  That's faith.  Science is the opposite of that.  It's accepting that what we know now may evolve over time in the face of new evidence, and being open minded about it when it does.


----------



## Steve

Gerry Seymour said:


> I'd just toss in the one qualifier that this is true if the time tradeoff is positive. So, no matter how nice a given system might be to have in the pocket, if it takes too much time to get to a useful level, I doubt any serious competitor will choose to do that. Their time is better spent in other pursuits. This is one of the areas MMA and BJJ drives folks very nicely - toward efficiency of training.


Oh, I don't know.  I mean, BJJ takes a long time to master, but you can use some stuff pretty quickly.  A BJJ blue belt might be an excellent MMAist, if they have sufficient mastery in other areas.  That doesn't mean they are cherry picking their BJJ, nor does it mean that they are unwilling to put in the hard work of mastering BJJ as a discrete art.  It simply means that as their mastery of BJJ grows, their overall skillset just gets better.  

What I see as underlying this is a belief that proficiency is a spectrum, not a switch.  If you believe it is a switch, where you have to keep at something for years before it works at all... well, yeah.  I would say that's a problem.  You might call it a feature, but I'd call it a bug.  Something's not right there.  It shouldn't take years for you to see some practical success.  If I were learning how to forge knives, I bet with some expert instruction and competent supervision, I could make a functional knife in less than a week.  I may take years to master the craft, but it shouldn't take long to see some practical benefit.


----------



## drop bear

Gerry Seymour said:


> I'm talking about whole systems, rather than techniques. I'd agree entirely with your statement, where techniques and tactics are concerned. But if a system delivers on a slow learning curve, it means a competitor learning that system are always "behind" compared to someone learning a system that delivers significantly faster results. So, if you and I both train in systems that are capable of producing a similar result at an "intermediate" level, where "intermediate" is matters. If you can get to that functional level in 2 years, and I need 5 to get there, I'll never remain competitive with you. Because by the time I get to that point in 5 years, you're 3 years past it.
> 
> So, no, just because it is functional, that doesn't mean it's a good path for someone who wants to really be competitive.



I think you are describing one system that is just better than the other.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> It's same thing.  How long do you think it took Raymond Daniels to get his kicking skills to his current level ok kicking efficiency?  Compared to how long it takes for someone to to MMA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long did Roka's Train MMA compared to how long it took Raymond Daniels to be good at Kicks?  Who has the advantage now?  The guy that took the short path or the guy that took the long path?


I'm speaking of reaching the same functional level for the given competition. So, somoene who trains boxing-only needs a much higher boxing skill level for MMA competition than someone who trains a wider skill set, because they have to depend only upon their punching and footwork. So to be functionally the same level for MMA, the boxer must be a more skilled boxer.

So when talking about competition, a system that is significantly slower for developing functional skill _for that competition _is a disadvantage.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> This is Raymond Daniels path before going into MMA.  What was Roka's path?
> Points fighting (Kickboxing/Sport Karate)​
> *North American Sport Karate Association*
> 2004 NASKA World Championship
> 2002 NASKA World Championship
> 
> *National Blackbelt League*
> 2010 NBL World Championship
> 2009 NBL World Championship
> 2008 NBL World Championship
> 2007 NBL World Championship
> 2006 NBL World Championship
> 2005 NBL World Championship
> 2004 NBL World Championship
> 2003 NBL World Championship
> 
> *World Association of Kickboxing Organizations*
> 2015 W.A.K.O. World Champion
> 2014 Irish Open Grand Champion
> 2012 Irish Open Grand Champion
> 2011 Irish Open Grand Champion
> 2010 Irish Open Grand Champion
> 2009 Irish Open Grand Champion
> 2008 Irish Open Grand Champion
> 2007 Irish Open Grand Champion
> 2006 Irish Open Grand Champion
> 2005 Irish Open Grand Champion
> 
> Kickboxing (Full Contact)​
> *Bellator Kickboxing*
> Bellator Kickboxing Welterweight Championship (One time, current)
> 
> *Pain and Glory*
> Pain and Glory -84 kg/185 lb Tournament Championship
> 
> *World Combat League*
> 2007–08 WCL Championship –



Ok. But we could do Bec Rawlings and her bare knuckle boxing success. That was in part because of her years of MMA. 

I have a karate friend called Cooper Royal who is doing really well in MMA at the moment. But regardless of his style his training has always just been good. 

And I think that is the super secret difference between say him doing well and Rokus not doing well. 

Aikido training basically isn't good. It is taught by people who don't understand the mechanics of what they are trying to achieve. And trained in a way that does not develop that understanding. 

And this is before we get to the idea that they are trying to achieve some inefficient fighting ideas. 

I mean even a really good Capoeira guy can Capoeira people. Even though they are taking basically the hardest way to achieve that end. That is inefficient but they understand there process.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Oh, I don't know.  I mean, BJJ takes a long time to master, but you can use some stuff pretty quickly.  A BJJ blue belt might be an excellent MMAist, if they have sufficient mastery in other areas.  That doesn't mean they are cherry picking their BJJ, nor does it mean that they are unwilling to put in the hard work of mastering BJJ as a discrete art.  It simply means that as their mastery of BJJ grows, their overall skillset just gets better.


I wasn't suggesting either of those things, Steve. I think that process is true of any functional system. That doesn't change that spending 5 years of 2 hours a day for a 2% improvement (from where you were before that) is probably not worth it for a competitor, if there's something else you can be doing with that time that will provide a 10% improvement. So, for that BJJ blue, taking up Aikido doesn't offer enough of a gain to be worth taking the time they could otherwise use to progress in BJJ.



> What I see as underlying this is a belief that proficiency is a spectrum, not a switch.  If you believe it is a switch, where you have to keep at something for years before it works at all... well, yeah.  I would say that's a problem.  You might call it a feature, but I'd call it a bug.  Something's not right there.  It shouldn't take years for you to see some practical success.  If I were learning how to forge knives, I bet with some expert instruction and competent supervision, I could make a functional knife in less than a week.  I may take years to master the craft, but it shouldn't take long to see some practical benefit.


I don't see this suggested anywhere, Steve. It's all progression. But it's hard to argue that a slow, marginal increase is worthwhile for competition when a bigger increase can be had elsewhere in the same time.


----------



## Steve

Gerry Seymour said:


> I'm speaking of reaching the same functional level for the given competition. So, somoene who trains boxing-only needs a much higher boxing skill level for MMA competition than someone who trains a wider skill set, because they have to depend only upon their punching and footwork. So to be functionally the same level for MMA, the boxer must be a more skilled boxer.
> 
> So when talking about competition, a system that is significantly slower for developing functional skill _for that competition _is a disadvantage.


I don't think a pure boxer should expect to see a lot of success in MMA, regardless of how skilled they are as a boxer.  While boxing is a complimentary art in a lot of ways, there are a lot of gaps.

Roping this back to Aikido, this is what an Aikidoka would need to do in order to succeed in MMA.  They would need to honestly evaluate what they know and what they can actually do and contrast that to what they NEED to know in order to be successful.  Just like everyone else.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I think you are describing one system that is just better than the other.


Better for that purpose, yes, which has been my point. 

Here's where we get into prefernce. I enjoy the challenge of aiki development. It's finicky and fun to play with. I could develop my fighting ability much faster by picking up a new art or expanding the ones I know a bit (Judo, BJJ). But I have a lot of fun digging deeper into what I'm doing. And I've always enjoyed that element of slow progression in part of the art. So I stuck with the system that's better for me, because it's what I like.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I don't think a pure boxer should expect to see a lot of success in MMA, regardless of how skilled they are as a boxer.  While boxing is a complimentary art in a lot of ways, there are a lot of gaps.


Agreed. Something like BJJ or catch wrestling might make it as a single base, but boxing....they'd have to be fantastically better to succeed much at all.



> Roping this back to Aikido, this is what an Aikidoka would need to do in order to succeed in MMA.  They would need to honestly evaluate what they know and what they can actually do and contrast that to what they NEED to know in order to be successful.  Just like everyone else.


Agreed. And I don't really think an aiki art can translate that way. I've never seen anyone demonstrate that aiki principles can be developed very fast. It's a finicky thing, and it's much faster to learn to do functional techniques without that. So Aikido is unlikely to have a path to MMA. It's too slow a path, if it stays Aikido.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Steve said:


> Oh, I don't know.  I mean, BJJ takes a long time to master, but you can use some stuff pretty quickly.  A BJJ blue belt might be an excellent MMAist, if they have sufficient mastery in other areas.  That doesn't mean they are cherry picking their BJJ, nor does it mean that they are unwilling to put in the hard work of mastering BJJ as a discrete art.  It simply means that as their mastery of BJJ grows, their overall skillset just gets better.
> 
> What I see as underlying this is a belief that proficiency is a spectrum, not a switch.  If you believe it is a switch, where you have to keep at something for years before it works at all... well, yeah.  I would say that's a problem.  You might call it a feature, but I'd call it a bug.  Something's not right there.  It shouldn't take years for you to see some practical success.  If I were learning how to forge knives, I bet with some expert instruction and competent supervision, I could make a functional knife in less than a week.  I may take years to master the craft, but it shouldn't take long to see some practical benefit.


Yeah.  If you can't learn the fighting basics of an art in under 20 lessons, run don't walk away.

Getting good at anything takes time.  But it should click on day 1, or at least day 20.


----------



## drop bear

Gerry Seymour said:


> Better for that purpose, yes, which has been my point.
> 
> Here's where we get into prefernce. I enjoy the challenge of aiki development. It's finicky and fun to play with. I could develop my fighting ability much faster by picking up a new art or expanding the ones I know a bit (Judo, BJJ). But I have a lot of fun digging deeper into what I'm doing. And I've always enjoyed that element of slow progression in part of the art. So I stuck with the system that's better for me, because it's what I like.



Yeah but the purpose is understanding basic fighting mechanisms. Or understanding positional or mechanical advantage. Or understanding striking timing. These fundamental building blocks required to make martial arts work on a guy that doesn't want it to work.

And I am sorry but even though Aiki ranges from just being really slick at grappling to mystical hoodoo nonsense. Even that is improved by a good fundamental understanding of how to operate your own body.

This is why my money would be on a MMA hard charger with 10 minutes wrist lock training being able to surpass rokus's knowledge of 20 years.

Now if you like to train the way you feel comfortable. That is still a different argument to training in a way that increases your depth of understanding. I like to train 3 days a week. But I will have less understanding than someone who trains 6 days a week.

I don't like to run. So I will have less understanding than someone with the fitness to train longer, harder and can do more in that time frame.


----------



## JowGaWolf

H


Steve said:


> Okay. I said I was done, but I would like to address this.  While I still don't have a lot of energy to explain, I will point to a helpful NPR article that really speaks to the heart of this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Makes Science Science?
> 
> 
> Scientific conclusions and scientific methods can change: Understanding how and why these changes occur reveals why science is our best bet for getting the facts right, says Tania Lombrozo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis below is mine.
> 
> 
> This is the difference between faith and science.  Trusting science doesn't mean blindly accepting the conclusions of the day and becoming dogmatic in the face of new evidence.  That's faith.  Science is the opposite of that.  It's accepting that what we know now may evolve over time in the face of new evidence, and being open minded about it when it does.


The problem with all of what you posted was that it has nothing to do with the belief in something without evidence, which is what you asked me.  You asked me if I believe in things without evidence.  I also agree with science. I just don't think science is everything, because a lot happens outside of the world of science.

For example:  The belief that one can reach a goal even though there's currently no evidence that it's possible.

Kind of how people grow up poor and disadvantage and all the evidence points to the fact that they won't reach their dreams or be the best in their profession. Then that same person, powered by belief and determination (not science) accomplish the goals.  While others who have more advantages will fail to reach that same success.

What would science say about this guy's ability to be successful and have a job?


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> H
> 
> The problem with all of what you posted was that it has nothing to do with the belief in something without evidence, which is what you asked me.  You asked me if I believe in things without evidence.  I also agree with science. I just don't think science is everything, because a lot happens outside of the world of science.
> 
> For example:  The belief that one can reach a goal even though there's currently no evidence that it's possible.
> 
> Kind of how people grow up poor and disadvantage and all the evidence points to the fact that they won't reach their dreams or be the best in their profession. Then that same person, powered by belief and determination (not science) accomplish the goals.  While others who have more advantages will fail to reach that same success.
> 
> What would science say about this guy's ability to be successful and have a job?
> View attachment 28002



You are looking at it backwards.

That guy is successful. So therefore the scientific evidence says that guy can be successful with whatever method he used.


----------



## drop bear

So Aiki as an example.






This is a stylistic compliant example of what fighters achieve through good technique.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> You are looking at it backwards.
> 
> That guy is successful. So therefore the scientific evidence says that guy can be successful with whatever method he used.


Does it?  You go tatoo your face and use the same method and let me know how that works out for you.

If it's all scientific, then you should be able to produce the same results right?


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Does it?  You go tatoo your face and use the same method and let me know how that works out for you.
> 
> If it's all scientific, then you should be able to produce the same results right?



If it is scientific it should be repeatable.

So say some weirdly tattooed guys started signing Island boys or something. Then that might have a reoccurring theme that we could discern and duplicate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah but the purpose is understanding basic fighting mechanisms. Or understanding positional or mechanical advantage. Or understanding striking timing. These fundamental building blocks required to make martial arts work on a guy that doesn't want it to work.
> 
> And I am sorry but even though Aiki ranges from just being really slick at grappling to mystical hoodoo nonsense. Even that is improved by a good fundamental understanding of how to operate your own body.
> 
> This is why my money would be on a MMA hard charger with 10 minutes wrist lock training being able to surpass rokus's knowledge of 20 years.
> 
> Now if you like to train the way you feel comfortable. That is still a different argument to training in a way that increases your depth of understanding. I like to train 3 days a week. But I will have less understanding than someone who trains 6 days a week.
> 
> I don't like to run. So I will have less understanding than someone with the fitness to train longer, harder and can do more in that time frame.


I don't disagree that functional locking understanding requires something more than the cooperative drills commonly found in Aikido training. I think those can work.....but it's rare that someone only doing those (with no resistive training at all) will grok the grappling fundamentals behind them. And the aiki isn't really necessary to make basic locks work, as you know. So learning to operate most of those techniques just doesn't require the aiki study. It's another layer. In fact, it's my understanding that's how it was/is done in Daito-ryu: aikijujutsu as a layer on top of jujutsu.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> So Aiki as an example.


See what you don't understand is that you have to have a gut so you can create and manipulate your own gravity lol. 

Where do you find this stuff? lol


----------



## drop bear

Gerry Seymour said:


> I don't disagree that functional locking understanding requires something more than the cooperative drills commonly found in Aikido training. I think those can work.....but it's rare that someone only doing those (with no resistive training at all) will grok the grappling fundamentals behind them. And the aiki isn't really necessary to make basic locks work, as you know. So learning to operate most of those techniques just doesn't require the aiki study. It's another layer. In fact, it's my understanding that's how it was/is done in Daito-ryu: aikijujutsu as a layer on top of jujutsu.



Learning any sort of nuance related to fighting involves competitive drills. We are talking timing, balance being able to read or predict the other guys movements. Any of that esoteric feels stuff. The other guy just falling over is where you learn enough technique to be able to start training.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> See what you don't understand is that you have to have a gut so you can create and manipulate your own gravity lol.
> 
> Where do you find this stuff? lol



It's common. It's a lot more common than we give it credit for.

There is this insidious thing where we let people who are better than us have the structural advantage. And because we let them do it. We think they have the better skills.

And quite often training compounds this circumstance.

So while that is an extreme example of what can happen. Don't think it isn't happening to you.

So this is no different.





She spent a month of hard charging krav And finished thinking she can do what exactly?

Or BJJ grading.






And it is literally the guy just getting smashed for whatever that time limit is.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> The problem with "If nobody can...."
> 1. Who are you basing this on?  Are you basing it only those who shop up in MMA or are you basing it all who train and use a system?
> 
> Joe Rogan thinks like your statement. And he gets proven wrong all the time when someone does what he thought no one could do.
> 
> Sort of like the early days of men trying to fly.  No one could, until someone did.


Serious question..do you know how science works? Secondary to that, do you think science is applicable to martial arts?

I'm not being facetious or condecending, this is going somewhere if you answer seriously.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> There is this insidious thing where we let people who are better than us have the structural advantage. And because we let them do it. We think they have the better skills.


That's crazy.  You can't learn if you don't resist.  Part of learning is trying to resist then fail at doing it.  Just don't break your (general) own stuff in the process. But yeah resisting is part of the learning process.   That way you get an idea of what to do when others start resisting you (general).




drop bear said:


> And finished thinking she can do what exactly?


Cardio?


----------



## Steve

Gerry Seymour said:


> Agreed. Something like BJJ or catch wrestling might make it as a single base, but boxing....they'd have to be fantastically better to succeed much at all.



Personally, thinking that you have what you need to succeed is a limiting mindset.  I would think even a very skilled BJJ'er or wrestler would realize that they need to develop additional skills to succeed.  The traditional MAists in MMA who are successful all embrace this simple truth.



Gerry Seymour said:


> Agreed. And I don't really think an aiki art can translate that way. I've never seen anyone demonstrate that aiki principles can be developed very fast. It's a finicky thing, and it's much faster to learn to do functional techniques without that. So Aikido is unlikely to have a path to MMA. It's too slow a path, if it stays Aikido.



This is something you and I have talked about at length in the past.  I don't think you can develop aiki principles at all without applying skills.  AND, I think if you want to experience aiki, you should roll with an elite grappler.  They develop what you're talking about, but it comes with hard work, and doing it less perfectly thousands of times.


Gerry Seymour said:


> I wasn't suggesting either of those things, Steve. I think that process is true of any functional system. That doesn't change that spending 5 years of 2 hours a day for a 2% improvement (from where you were before that) is probably not worth it for a competitor, if there's something else you can be doing with that time that will provide a 10% improvement. So, for that BJJ blue, taking up Aikido doesn't offer enough of a gain to be worth taking the time they could otherwise use to progress in BJJ.


Toward the beginning of a learning curve, you should be making huge leaps.  At the beginning of any new activity, everything you learn has a profound effect on your overall performance.  If you graph performance in anything, the early stages are where you should see the most dramatic leaps in ability. 

So, I think you missed my point.  If it's a 5 year journey to application in any human endeavor, there is something amiss.  Or more directly, if it takes you 5 years to realize a "2% improvement from where you were before that)" it's not bias that's the issue.  It's an honest assessment of real value added.  



Gerry Seymour said:


> I don't see this suggested anywhere, Steve. It's all progression. But it's hard to argue that a slow, marginal increase is worthwhile for competition when a bigger increase can be had elsewhere in the same time.


No, we definitely agree that marginal gain is not worthwhile.  In particular in the early stages where the learning curve is steepest.  If you see marginal gain at the beginning, you will at some point see progress stall completely, because something is most definitely up.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> Serious question..do you know how science works? Secondary to that, do you think science is applicable to martial arts?
> 
> I'm not being facetious or condecending, this is going somewhere if you answer seriously.


I hope I know.
2 years of oceanography
3 years of biology
1 year of chemistry
1 Year of physics
2 Years of Astronomy
3 years of creating environmental education classes for the Gwinnett County K-12 education system.

So.. feel free to go wherever you want to go.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> H
> 
> The problem with all of what you posted was that it has nothing to do with the belief in something without evidence, which is what you asked me.  You asked me if I believe in things without evidence.  I also agree with science. I just don't think science is everything, because a lot happens outside of the world of science.



Wait, what?  I asked you if you believe in things without evidence?  I really don't recall that.  



JowGaWolf said:


> For example:  The belief that one can reach a goal even though there's currently no evidence that it's possible.
> 
> Kind of how people grow up poor and disadvantage and all the evidence points to the fact that they won't reach their dreams or be the best in their profession. Then that same person, powered by belief and determination (not science) accomplish the goals.  While others who have more advantages will fail to reach that same success.
> 
> What would science say about this guy's ability to be successful and have a job?
> View attachment 28002


I think how people look and dress is pretty superficial, personally.  I don't know that kid, but I'd presume he could be successful and have a job.  Maybe not, but I can't tell from a snapshot.    Your question says a lot about you, more than about the kid in the picture, IMO.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Wait, what? I asked you if you believe in things without evidence? I really don't recall that.


Yeah sorry about that one.  I was thinking that I was reading something form a different poster.  I was stop and go and doing some other stuff while trying to post.   My bad


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> I think how people look and dress is pretty superficial, personally.


ha ha ha.  I agree with you.   But that's how things go. Right or wrong that's human behavior, and a lot of standards for success and failure are built on that very thing. 



Steve said:


> Your question says a lot about you, more than about the kid in the picture, IMO.


ha ha ha.  yes it does say a lot about me.  Like I know who this guy is, which is why I put a picture of him in the first place lol


----------



## Oily Dragon

Martial D said:


> do you think science is applicable to martial arts?


I'll answer for him, since I know how he trains (very realistically).

Science is applicable to all things, but it can't explain a lot of them.

Imagination, for starters, which is (arguably) the source of all creation.


----------



## Oily Dragon

drop bear said:


> There is this insidious thing where we let people who are better than us have the structural advantage. And because we let them do it. We think they have the better skills.
> 
> And quite often training compounds this circumstance.


It's almost like you can read my mind.

I...have a hard time dealing with trainers.  Anybody of that ilk.   It's because I've dealt with so many, for so long, I can't remember.  It's also why I never want to train anyone, ever.  

I don't hate them, ( don't hate anybody), but I found a way to route around them.  That took years and years of conditioning.


----------



## dvcochran

Gerry Seymour said:


> This is bad logic. Negatives (like non-existence) are usually unprovable, by definition.


Exactly. Prove God does Not exist.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> Exactly. Prove God does Not exist.



You can with logic rather than science.

But the point of scientific approach is you don't have to prove something doesn't exist. You have to prove it does.

And basically the premise is the world is made up of stuff that exists. Rather than is made up of infinite potentially. And the reason for that is you kind of need some sort of structure to function.

And this goes back to martial arts. That there are elements in martial arts that work. And if you learn those elements your martial arts will work. 

Rather than If you explore every infinite combination of possibilities. Your martial arts won't work.

Imagine you are in a concrete room with a doorway. And to escape that room you attempt every conceivable action you could possibly do in that room. Chances are you will never leave.


----------



## dvcochran

Martial D said:


> Russell's teapot - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org


Haha!!! Scientist/astronomers have been doing this for centuries.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Oily Dragon said:


> I'll answer for him, since I know how he trains (very realistically).
> 
> Science is applicable to all things, but it can't explain a lot of them.
> 
> Imagination, for starters, which is (arguably) the source of all creation.


That's pretty good. ha ha ha.  On spot too.  

The thing about martial arts is that there's a lot more science in it than what people give it credit from.  From bio mechanics, to physics, chemistry, and human behavior. I often comment on how I'm amazed at how well they understood the body the way it moves and the behaviors of humans and the mind.  I'm always impressed.  I only wished that some cultures didn't try to wipe out others and the knowledge that they had. 

You are also correct about imagination.  Something from nothing.  To create some real from a thought of something that never existed.  We got lots of that stuff in the world.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Imagine you are in a concrete room with a doorway. And to escape that room you attempt every conceivable action you could possibly do in that room. Chances are you will never leave.


This is why I don't go crazy with trying to learn a bunch of forms.  It used to frustrate my teacher.  He would tell me that I'm good enough to learn a new form every 3 months or so.   Learning the form is one thing but being able to fight using what's in the form is something totally different.   My reasoning for this slow pace was simple.  What good is it for me to know all of those forms and not have the ability to use any of what's in the forms.

The thought of that reality was just unacceptable to me. Still is. I'm too old to learn everything, but what I can do is share what I've learned with my son and students so that their training path is much shorter than mine.  A lot of Kung Fu schools don't have that teacher with the experience of using the technique that will make that learning path shorter.   If the teacher doesn't have it then the student will need to figure a lot of stuff out.   Most of it being in the department of application, timing, set up, etc..


----------



## Steve

as an fyi to the group, logically, the way to prove something doesn’t exist is to consider the agreed upon traits of the thing and then articulate a cogent argument against a trait or combination of traits.  At its simplest and most obvious, if something were alleged to be 1 mile tall and simultaneously 1 foot tall,  you could argue that it cannot exist because no thing that exists outside of our imagination can be huge and tiny at the same time.  

This is the fundamental strategy behind the problem of evil, which argues that while A god may exist, the theistic God does not because he cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent while senseless and inecessary pain and suffering exist.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> I hope I know.
> 2 years of oceanography
> 3 years of biology
> 1 year of chemistry
> 1 Year of physics
> 2 Years of Astronomy
> 3 years of creating environmental education classes for the Gwinnett County K-12 education system.
> 
> So.. feel free to go wherever you want to go.


Ok. So then I assume you must know that to move something from an educated guess(hypothesis) to a working theory requires rigorous, repeatable testing, and the resultant theory must be falsifiable to qualify as knowledge, correct?


----------



## Martial D

dvcochran said:


> Haha!!! Scientist/astronomers have been doing this for centuries.


I'm not sure you understand the point of this particular thought experiment. It shows that trying to prove something does not exist is not epistemologically equal to showing that it does, and that nothing can be gained that way. You can't prove there isn't an invisible unicorn whispering in my ear right now, telling me what to type. That doesn't make such an assertion reasonable.

But in the context of martial arts, the proposition is falsifiable. People have been testing them all live for quite some time, with some coming out as useful and others not so much. Yet in the case of the latter group we still get people demanding proof they do not work, even as their systems fail over and over in any and all live testing situations. It's basically religion at this point.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> as an fyi to the group, logically, the way to prove something doesn’t exist is to consider the agreed upon traits of the thing and then articulate a cogent argument against a trait or combination of traits.  At its simplest and most obvious, if something were alleged to be 1 mile tall and simultaneously 1 foot tall,  you could argue that it cannot exist because no thing that exists outside of our imagination can be huge and tiny at the same time.
> 
> This is the fundamental strategy behind the problem of evil, which argues that while A god may exist, the theistic God does not because he cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent while senseless and inecessary pain and suffering exist.



That.

Can he create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> you could argue that it cannot exist because no thing that exists outside of our imagination can be huge and tiny at the same time.


Depends on your perspective.  To an ant a human would be huge.  To a Blue whale that same human would be tiny.    That would satisfy being huge and tiny at the same time.




Martial D said:


> Ok. So then I assume you must know that to move something from an educated guess(hypothesis) to a working theory requires rigorous, repeatable testing, and the resultant theory must be falsifiable to qualify as knowledge, correct?


Yeah but nothing in that says you have to be the one to do the repeated testing.  If other's have done it before you then there's no need for you to do it in order to declare it to be true.

For example, there's no need to burn yourself multiple times with fire in order to know that fire can burn you.  You don't even have to see evidence of this.  If others in the past tell of stories of what fire does then you can choose to believe that without evidence of it.  With this you don't have to do repeatable testing because others have already been burned long ago.  Which is how the stories came about.  The only thing that you need is a reliable source and your willingness to believe it. 

I always like stuff like this because I've seen it occur many times.  Especially in the field of medicine where traditional medicines do a better job and has fewer side effects than modern medicine.   Just like modern medicine you just have to have a good source for information.
Science Finally Shows What Grandma Knew All Along​


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Learning any sort of nuance related to fighting involves competitive drills. We are talking timing, balance being able to read or predict the other guys movements. Any of that esoteric feels stuff. The other guy just falling over is where you learn enough technique to be able to start training.


There’s a layer of body principles to aiki (not feel or timing) that I don’t know a way to develop without compliant drills. Once you own it, you can tune it and improve application with competitive drills, but it’s a long time before it gets to that point.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> There’s a layer of body principles to aiki (not feel or timing) that I don’t know a way to develop without compliant drills. Once you own it, you can tune it and improve application with competitive drills, but it’s a long time before it gets to that point.


The reason I like this because you are someone who train Aikido explaining something you understand to someone who doesn't train it and won't understand unless he trains it.

Sort of like my "light bulb moments" Where certain concepts are foreign and unrealistic at first.  Then one day I get some clarity and it all makes sense.  Then when I try to explain it to someone else, it's the most difficult thing to do.  I eventually say to the student.  Just keep training.  It will come to you.  Then when they finally get it, I know because it's not what they say it's how they say it and how they say is often the same impression I got when I first understood.

It's like explaining the taste of chocolate.  If someone asks "What does chocolate tastes like."  Other than sweet or bitter.  What do you say?  Lots of stuff tastes sweet and bitter, but it doesn't taste like chocolate.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Depends on your perspective.  To an ant a human would be huge.  To a Blue whale that same human would be tiny.    That would satisfy being huge and tiny at the same time.


this is the problem.  You read quickly, looking to respond, and as a result you missed some really important details.  I defined tiny and also defined huge.  You can go back if you like and very easily see it for yourself.  

If folks would slow down just a little, and READ what other people take the time to write, there would be a lot less drama around here.  i think all the arguments on this forum are really just folks explaining the same things over and over for this very reason.


----------



## Steve

Gerry Seymour said:


> There’s a layer of body principles to aiki (not feel or timing) that I don’t know a way to develop without compliant drills. Once you own it, you can tune it and improve application with competitive drills, but it’s a long time before it gets to that point.



Cool. Can you share an example of someone who has applied aiki?  What does that look like?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> this is the problem.  You read quickly, looking to respond, and as a result you missed some really important details.  I defined tiny and also defined huge.  You can go back if you like and very easily see it for yourself.
> 
> If folks would slow down just a little, and READ what other people take the time to write, there would be a lot less drama around here.  i think all the arguments on this forum are really just folks explaining the same things over and over for this very reason.


I didn't miss it.  You defined measurements. I didn't not disagree nor comment about the measurements you stated. I commented about Tiny and Huge because those are not measurements.  

Your words.
"At its simplest and most obvious, if something were alleged to be 1 mile tall and simultaneously 1 foot tall,  you could argue that it cannot exist *because no thing that exists outside of our imagination can be huge and tiny at the same time.*"  

That statement in bold is not the same thing as something that is 1 foot tall and that same thing being 1 mile tall at the same time.  Tiny and Huge are size comparisons and not measurements.  Whether you did it on purpose or not, you picked 1 think that is true and applied an assumption to another and spoke of it as it was the same. They are not.


You also did the same when speaking of a theistic god.  That a theistic god cannot be "omnipotent", "omniscient", and "omnibenevolent" "while senseless and inecessary pain and suffering exist."

Again, words that depend on one's perspective on how to see the world.  Sort of like how some see forest fires as being bad and a biologist will tell you the good of them.  In reality forest fires are only seen as bad when human life is in the mix and when material things are destroyed.  Otherwise people see it as a natural course of nature, which biologist would agree that it is good.  A biologist would probably say that it keeps forests from being over crowded and returns nutrients back to the soil.  It allows for new growth and helps sterilize and limit the spread of any plant disease that may be in the area.

The same can be said about death and disease. It sucks, but it's true.  5.61 million deaths have occurred because of Covid. That doesn't include the 9.5 million or so cancer deaths a year, nor does it include accidents, war, other illnesses, murder, and suicides that check out each year.  It all sounds bad. But it makes room for new growth.  It helps to manage population size and helps to prevent over crowding.  It helps to ensue that resources are not over used.  If we were buried in the ground without chemicals then our bodies would return nutrients back into the earth.

No one dying sounds good until you run out of space and run out of resources and run out of patience.  For me personally, I'm ok with limited life span for humans especially since not all humans care about other humans.  All of this and nature just runs in harmony in many ways that man nor scientist has yet to completely understand.

So your perspective on what's considered benevolent, senseless, and unnecessary pain and suffering is just that, your perspective.  One which other do not have.  Then there's there's the limitation of a human.

Humans are not Omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.  So what makes you think a human would have the ability to know what would qualify as such when a human has never possess any of it.

This is the limitations of science.  Science is limited by human understanding.  Beliefs, Emotions, and imaginations do not have such limits.  Science must make sense.  Beliefs, Emotions, and imaginations do not.  Yet people still try to place such limitations on them.  Science is reliable to the extent of our knowledge. It explains a lot of things, but not everything.


----------



## drop bear

Gerry Seymour said:


> There’s a layer of body principles to aiki (not feel or timing) that I don’t know a way to develop without compliant drills. Once you own it, you can tune it and improve application with competitive drills, but it’s a long time before it gets to that point.



Yeah. But you basically have this ability that is developed in this special way that nobody can demonstrate. (Or the demonstration is obviously hinky.)

Rokus did not have some unique power in any of his resisted matches. He was just really bad at all aspects of fighting. 

There are like 3 guys who we can pull out and say they can probably use Aikido effectively. Basically all of those guys are big. Or have trained in other disciplines. I don't think any of those guys have claimed some secret ability. 

Where for example we might be able to make the argument that say a circus performer may not be a game changer in combat sports but say has some interesting unique abilities developedin a uniqueway. So they might be super flexible or something. But that could be demonstrated.


----------



## JowGaWolf

@Gerry Seymour 
I think I understand a little more about the flow of Aikido.  Not saying that I have a complete understanding of it, but I think I may have a better understanding than what I had previously.  You can tell me if I'm off or not.  I'm hoping to land in the same universe with this observation.

I came across this video tonight and it's one of the few videos that I felt that I'm seeing enough to give it a try. I tried @7:33. I first tested on my son without telling him what I was doing and then I had him do the same to me, so I can experience it.





  My first attempt it felt like I was forcing it and then I remember all of that talk about blending and flowing so I gave that a try and it was more effective.

The best way that I can describe it is that it was like emptiness but I wasn't the one falling into it.  There is resistance but because I'm moving with it, I don't get the same feeling of trying to move or redirect it.  I also notice that when my son was trying to apply it (I told him to go with the direction of my push) it felt like falling and that made me want to hold on and not let go.  It's that same concept about using the brain's desire to maintain balance.  If you can make the body feel as if it's falling it will abandon all other thoughts and actions and focus on regaining balance.  My son had a good giggle because he was like WTF.  I could see it on his face lol.  I didn't try to apply a lot of strength too it as I'm always cautious about this stuff.

Things that I noticed.
1.  I was able to use my strength to "force things" to go my way.  I could tell when I was using muscle and when I was going with the flow.

2. I could feel my elbows lock up. Especially since they are sore from the heavy bags.

3. The weaker someone is in comparison to the person holding the arms, the more that person has to be able to flow with the movement.

4. using too much muscle gives the person a hand rail to hold themselves up and maintain balance making it less effective. 

It seems that the key for that one technique is to keep your opponent in emptiness.  I can also see how that would be beneficial if you could do that in a fight.  Basically, constantly falling into emptiness will keep the person from trying to fight back.  Instead it would get them super focused on retaining balance. 

It's like stumbling down the steps.  When we loose our footing on the steps and loose our balance, we don't let go of the hand rail.  We seek to grab it with force and to support it.  But when I tried the technique in the video it was like that support was always being removed.

This is the best I can explain it.  I took what I know in Tai Chi and kind of used it to help me with the blending effort that you or someone else spoke of.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> You defined measurements.



I’m glad you went back and saw it on the second run.  You should have just stopped here.

Just to be more clear, the entire point is that we can agree on meaning of words, even subjective ones.  I defined what I meant by tiny and huge. You made a choice to ignore what I meant and instead muddy the waters. 

and now I’m wasting my time explaining something to you because I can’t really tell if you are being intentionally argumentative for no real purpose, or unintentionally obtuse.


----------



## JowGaWolf

In the video it doesn't work on the MMA . I'm thinking it doesn't work on him because he starts the grab in the position that he would finish in.  This means his grip is adjusted to the end position not to the beginning position.  When I was doing it, it felt as if there was something going on with my hand and my son's thumb, as if I was locking the thumb with the movement.  I didn't try to explore it deeply.  






I also tried this on my wife who is shorter to me and has smaller hands and an interesting thing happened. Instead of her trying maintain the grip she let her grip relax and I had no resistance to work with.  So it appears that the escape for this would be somewhere along those lines of relaxing.  If I hold on too tight then it gives the resistance that is needed.  If I relax my hand then the person applying the technique would be the one in emptiness.  I can see how something like this would be esoteric.

By the way this move is similar to a Jow ga technique where we bring our hands into a praying position.  The difference is that in Jow Ga this escapes a wrist grab.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> I defined what I meant by tiny and huge.


You defined 1 foot and 1 mile.   Which is not the same as Tiny and Huge.   Again like I stated.  I never commented about the 1 foot and 1 mile comment.  I only commented about the Tiny and Huge.    



Steve said:


> You made a choice to ignore what I meant and instead muddy the waters.


1 foot is always 1 foot.  1 mile is always one mile.  Is Tiny always 1 foot? is Huge always 1 mile? I did not muddy the waters.  If you want to make a point then stick with measurements.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> I tried @7:33.


This is why the "reverse wrist grip" is superior than the "forward wrist grip". You have to think 1 step ahead. What will you do if your opponent tries to break your grip?

When your opponent uses

- "forward wrist grip", if you break his grip by turning against his thumb, your hand will end up on top of his hand.
- "reverse wrist grip", if you break his grip by turning against his thumb, your hand will end up below his hand.

The on top hand always has advantage (such as just punch on your opponent's face).

Forward wrist grip:






Reverse wrist grip:






Even if your opponent may break your wrist grip, since your hand is on top, you can easily control his elbow joint.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why the "reverse wrist grip" is superior than the "forward wrist grip". You have to think 1 step ahead. What will you do if your opponent tries to break your grip?
> 
> When your opponent uses
> 
> - "forward wrist grip", if you break his grip by turning against his thumb, your hand will end up on top of his hand.
> - "reverse wrist grip", if you break his grip by turning against his thumb, your hand will end up below his hand.
> 
> The on top hand always has advantage (such as just punch on your opponent's face).
> 
> Forward wrist grip:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reverse wrist grip:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if your opponent may break your wrist grip, since your hand is on top, you can easily control his elbow joint.


Good point


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Personally, thinking that you have what you need to succeed is a limiting mindset.  I would think even a very skilled BJJ'er or wrestler would realize that they need to develop additional skills to succeed.  The traditional MAists in MMA who are successful all embrace this simple truth.


Agreed.




> This is something you and I have talked about at length in the past.  I don't think you can develop aiki principles at all without applying skills.  AND, I think if you want to experience aiki, you should roll with an elite grappler.  They develop what you're talking about, but it comes with hard work, and doing it less perfectly thousands of times.


So, let me start by clarifying that how I define "aiki" is probably not correct by the original definition - others here more familiar with the original use of the term, please be kind. 

So, to me, "aiki" has two parts to it. One is the part you're talking about here - it's timing and feel. The timing can only be started in cooperative drills (where all skills are started - a partner feeds an input without any real intent, so you can get the motion and the beginning of the timing), but can't really advance reliably without some intent being added, which is easiest to do by the partner actually trying to do whatever the "feed" is (actually tries to shove you back, do a single-leg, punch you in the gut, or whatever). The "feel" part develops best in my experience with a long path of varying "feed" drills that lead to that same point - where there's real intent from the partner. Without that last step, you're learning to feel for something without knowing what leads to it.

There's a second component in my definition of "aiki", and it might be the only part that was originally in the term (though what I've seen  from other sources really confuses these two, suggesting both might be part of the original term...dunno). And this part is a specific use of body mechanics. These, you probably won't find randomly developed by an elite grappler, because there are other ways to accomplish what we use aiki mechanics for. I've looked for these mechanics in BJJ videos, for instance, and only see glimpses of them. BJJ (and Judo) use different mechanics in these places. And I don't know a way to develop these without a long path of cooperative drills. They simply take a long time to develop beyond the beginner stage, so they can be used non-cooperatively.

Of course, once they get beyond the beginner stage, they become usable in a non-cooperative environment. Unfortunately, a lot of Aikido eschews any form of non-cooperation. This appears to be a philosophical stance, rather than one based in any practical principal of skill development.



> Toward the beginning of a learning curve, you should be making huge leaps.  At the beginning of any new activity, everything you learn has a profound effect on your overall performance.  If you graph performance in anything, the early stages are where you should see the most dramatic leaps in ability.


In most things, this is true. I don't see this in that second part of aiki development. Most students will work for quite a while before they start to grok what this body mechanic is. I've gotten better at explaining parts of it to students, but I've still never seen a student - mine or anyone else's - start to understand it within their first year. So it's a plodding path until they have a foundation to understand it. Once they reach that first point of acquisition, that's when the curve suddenly steepens. But maybe that's saying the same thing. Maybe all that other work is just what it takes to get them to the starting point on those principles, so that is the actual starting point. I know many instructors won't even approach those principles early in training, and wait until there's a foundation to place it on.



> So, I think you missed my point.  If it's a 5 year journey to application in any human endeavor, there is something amiss.  Or more directly, if it takes you 5 years to realize a "2% improvement from where you were before that)" it's not bias that's the issue.  It's an honest assessment of real value added.
> 
> No, we definitely agree that marginal gain is not worthwhile.  In particular in the early stages where the learning curve is steepest.  If you see marginal gain at the beginning, you will at some point see progress stall completely, because something is most definitely up.


I think I wasn't clear. I'm not saying the entirety of the learning is useless to that point. So, for instance with my students, long before they are able to apply the aiki principles (and, thus, the aiki version of a technique), they have the fundamental grappling principles. So they are able to do a seoi nage, and later learn to do it "properly" with aiki principles. Early on, they learn effective grip-fighting, and later learn to do it "properly" with aiki principles. And here, when I say "properly", I mean by aiki standards - the non-aiki version is fully functional (it's usually pretty close to what you'd see in Judo, for instance).

Students often comment that when I do some of the throws and control movements, it looks like I'm using a lot less effort than they are. And they are correct. Part of that, of course, is just better fundamentals (you can see this in how much effort is expended in a BJJ guard pass, comparing a blue belt to a black belt, for instance). Another part of it is that I'm using those aiki body mechanics, which mean less muscular effort in many of the techniques.

But that addition of aiki to them isn't a huge advantage. And it takes a long time to get to that. If I was starting from scratch and wanted to learn to compete in NAGA competitions, I don't need the extra training load of aiki. I'd actually get to "competitive" without it.

[
[/QUOTE]


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> Exactly. Prove God does Not exist.


Prove a ruby teapot out in space does NOT exist.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> The reason I like this because you are someone who train Aikido explaining something you understand to someone who doesn't train it and won't understand unless he trains it.
> 
> Sort of like my "light bulb moments" Where certain concepts are foreign and unrealistic at first.  Then one day I get some clarity and it all makes sense.  Then when I try to explain it to someone else, it's the most difficult thing to do.  I eventually say to the student.  Just keep training.  It will come to you.  Then when they finally get it, I know because it's not what they say it's how they say it and how they say is often the same impression I got when I first understood.
> 
> It's like explaining the taste of chocolate.  If someone asks "What does chocolate tastes like."  Other than sweet or bitter.  What do you say?  Lots of stuff tastes sweet and bitter, but it doesn't taste like chocolate.


Just a reminder to all reading this - I train/teach in the body of arts classified as Aikido (my primary art is Nihon Goshin Aikido), which is different from the specific art named Aikido (a specific branch from Daito-ryu, previously known by various names). So it's probably more correct to say I train aiki, just for clarity.

And I get frustrated with my inability to describe the full range of aiki principles. I've tried on multiple occasions to codify them, and have always ended up with either a small set of principles that had a lot of gaps, or a too-long list with lots of overlaps. I feel like if I could put the principles into concise wording, I'd be able to communicate better in discussions like this.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Cool. Can you share an example of someone who has applied aiki?  What does that look like?


All the video examples I can find that show those principles are from compliant drills. And some of them have been posted on these forums in the past. But without understanding the principles, they don't show what you want me to show you. Which bugs me. On the mats, I could show a couple of things that would shortcut this discussion, because you'd be able to feel the effect of the mechanics. It's subtle - so much so that it's hard to see, but it's farily easy to feel in specific uses. Feeling that is one of the fundamental parts of learning the principles. We all learned to recognize them as uke well before we were able to perform them reliably.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But you basically have this ability that is developed in this special way that nobody can demonstrate. (Or the demonstration is obviously hinky.)


[/QUOTE]
The problem in seeing them is that they are visually really subtle, and where you can see them, you can't really _see_ the effect they have. And trying to replicate the look doesn't result in getting the same effect.


drop bear said:


> Rokus did not have some unique power in any of his resisted matches. He was just really bad at all aspects of fighting.


[/QUOTE]
Agreed. I haven't seen much video of him doing Aikido, so I don't have an opinion on whether he uses the principles I'm talking about. What I do know is that I saw him doing a lot of grabbing to try to get a technique, rather than controlling the situation until he could use the grappling principles (both aiki and not) he should have been learning. He lacked the tactics and strategy for fighting, so we never got to see more. And that's where compliant training has its biggest weakness, IMO.


drop bear said:


> There are like 3 guys who we can pull out and say they can probably use Aikido effectively. Basically all of those guys are big. Or have trained in other disciplines. I don't think any of those guys have claimed some secret ability.


[/QUOTE]
For anything, bigger guys will have the advantage in application, so this shouldn't surprise us. And there's not some secret ability to it. Aiki is just a different set of mechanics that can be applied. Nothing magic about it.


drop bear said:


> Where for example we might be able to make the argument that say a circus performer may not be a game changer in combat sports but say has some interesting unique abilities developedin a uniqueway. So they might be super flexible or something. But that could be demonstrated.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> @Gerry Seymour
> I think I understand a little more about the flow of Aikido.  Not saying that I have a complete understanding of it, but I think I may have a better understanding than what I had previously.  You can tell me if I'm off or not.  I'm hoping to land in the same universe with this observation.
> 
> I came across this video tonight and it's one of the few videos that I felt that I'm seeing enough to give it a try. I tried @7:33. I first tested on my son without telling him what I was doing and then I had him do the same to me, so I can experience it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My first attempt it felt like I was forcing it and then I remember all of that talk about blending and flowing so I gave that a try and it was more effective.
> 
> The best way that I can describe it is that it was like emptiness but I wasn't the one falling into it.  There is resistance but because I'm moving with it, I don't get the same feeling of trying to move or redirect it.  I also notice that when my son was trying to apply it (I told him to go with the direction of my push) it felt like falling and that made me want to hold on and not let go.  It's that same concept about using the brain's desire to maintain balance.  If you can make the body feel as if it's falling it will abandon all other thoughts and actions and focus on regaining balance.  My son had a good giggle because he was like WTF.  I could see it on his face lol.  I didn't try to apply a lot of strength too it as I'm always cautious about this stuff.
> 
> Things that I noticed.
> 1.  I was able to use my strength to "force things" to go my way.  I could tell when I was using muscle and when I was going with the flow.
> 
> 2. I could feel my elbows lock up. Especially since they are sore from the heavy bags.
> 
> 3. The weaker someone is in comparison to the person holding the arms, the more that person has to be able to flow with the movement.
> 
> 4. using too much muscle gives the person a hand rail to hold themselves up and maintain balance making it less effective.
> 
> It seems that the key for that one technique is to keep your opponent in emptiness.  I can also see how that would be beneficial if you could do that in a fight.  Basically, constantly falling into emptiness will keep the person from trying to fight back.  Instead it would get them super focused on retaining balance.
> 
> It's like stumbling down the steps.  When we loose our footing on the steps and loose our balance, we don't let go of the hand rail.  We seek to grab it with force and to support it.  But when I tried the technique in the video it was like that support was always being removed.
> 
> This is the best I can explain it.  I took what I know in Tai Chi and kind of used it to help me with the blending effort that you or someone else spoke of.


This is one side of aiki, and yes, what you describe is the "feel" we're looking for. If there's any resistance within the technique, ideally we'll change direction or technique to go where there isn't any (there are situations, of course, where we practically may choose to add force, instead).

Your 4th point is one that a lot of students struggle with. Within many of the techniques, there are points where your own structure - if rigid - provides structure to uke. I think we jointly become a bit of a flying buttress. There are even points where just moving a foot out of the way (without significant shift of the upper body) removes that last bit of structure that lets them resist.

To be clear, these principles are likely to be seen in a lot of grappling. They're simply more the focus in aiki arts - I think because they make the aiki body principles more available and effective. And because it's cool to work on. I've always enjoyed the feeling - from both sides - of a really good, flowing technique where uke loses control without feeling controlled. And that last part is an important tactic, because when you don't feel where you're controlled, it's harder to figure out what to resist against.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> In the video it doesn't work on the MMA . I'm thinking it doesn't work on him because he starts the grab in the position that he would finish in.  This means his grip is adjusted to the end position not to the beginning position.  When I was doing it, it felt as if there was something going on with my hand and my son's thumb, as if I was locking the thumb with the movement.  I didn't try to explore it deeply.
> 
> View attachment 28008
> 
> I also tried this on my wife who is shorter to me and has smaller hands and an interesting thing happened. Instead of her trying maintain the grip she let her grip relax and I had no resistance to work with.  So it appears that the escape for this would be somewhere along those lines of relaxing.  If I hold on too tight then it gives the resistance that is needed.  If I relax my hand then the person applying the technique would be the one in emptiness.  I can see how something like this would be esoteric.
> 
> By the way this move is similar to a Jow ga technique where we bring our hands into a praying position.  The difference is that in Jow Ga this escapes a wrist grab.


So, a couple of points. First, it actually worked on the guy in the yellow shirt (the grip was diffused, which is the primary goal)- it just didn't turn into a fall. And, yes, that's partly because he started with a bent grip, so his arm structure was different - can't lead the arm into the desired structure if it doesn't start from a point that allows the conjunctive locking. But if you take away the structure of the grip (so it is no longer useful) and/or are able to affect posture, then the technique had a useful effect from a grappling perspective, even if it dosesn't end with the desired throw. In fact, the same movement can be used simply as a grip escape, as part of grip-fighting (similar to the Jow Ga application you mentioned).

And, yes, relaxing is one way to escape a lot of this. That also applies in other grappling. I've seen some excellent video of folks trying to do something to well-trained BJJers, who relaxed at the right point and took away the leverage needed at that critical moment. Watch a blue belt rolling with a black belt, and you'll see a lot of the blue's initial probing (and actual attempts) is foiled simply by the black belt being too relaxed for that. And I think subtler moves are especially susceptible to this. And of course, anything that requires someone holding on is foiled if they let go - those techniques are intended for when someone is trying to own an arm, for instance, and will hold on long enough to make the transition.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> You defined 1 foot and 1 mile.   Which is not the same as Tiny and Huge.   Again like I stated.  I never commented about the 1 foot and 1 mile comment.  I only commented about the Tiny and Huge.
> 
> 
> 1 foot is always 1 foot.  1 mile is always one mile.  Is Tiny always 1 foot? is Huge always 1 mile? I did not muddy the waters.  If you want to make a point then stick with measurements.


Okay, I didn't realize that this is really confusing you.  I made a presumption that you understood, but it's pretty clear now that you're just not getting it.  It's not a very difficult concept, but I will try to really spell this out for you.  I guess it got just a little abstract.

Try to stay with me now.  I'm going step by step here, so if I lose you at any point, just let me know.  I didn't define a foot or a mile.  We already understand what those mean.   Well, let me go back.  When I said 1 foot... do you understand that I wasn't talking about my foot?  I was talking about a measurement.  12 inches (an inch is also a unit of measurement that is smaller than a foot).  So, not a person's foot... not my foot.  But a foot which is 12 inches.  Right?  With me so far?  You're struggling to understand, so I can get some pictures of a ruler or something if you're lost.

In the same way, do you know what I mean when I say 1 mile?  That's also a unit of measurement.  It's longer than a foot, by a lot! You might be surprised to learn that there are 5,280 feet in a single mile!  That's a lot.

So, here's where you are getting stuck.  I used those very specific terms, and then in context, drew an obvious (well, maybe not to you) connection between those terms and some more subjective terms.  It's how language works.  I'm struggling to find a word for this, kind of a casual form of metonymy, I'd say.  But it's something that most people learn very early in life.  It doesn't usually cause problems.

Which is why I initially thought you were just being a troll, trying to stir the pot a little by derailing the thread and starting a pointless argument.  I see now that something else is going on and you just don't seem to have the capacity to understand.

Here, if you're really having a hard time and struggling to understand, go back and re-read my post and ignore the metonymy.  Just pretend it isn't there, because it's tripping you up.  It's causing you all kinds of problems.  If you re-read it, and for yourself, stick with the measurements, I think you might understand the actual point and stop swirling around.

I hope this helps you and open up a whole new world of abstract thought.  And in the future, I'll try to remember that you get lost when things aren't super literal.  If I respond to you again, I'll try and keep things really simple and straightforward.


----------



## dvcochran

Gerry Seymour said:


> Prove a ruby teapot out in space does NOT exist.


Prove God does Not exist.


----------



## Oily Dragon

dvcochran said:


> Prove God does Not exist.


Humans can't even agree on how to define existence, let alone what a "god" is. Good luck with the downstream logic.

Defining "aiki" is no different.  Heck there are at least 30 different words for it in hanzi.  It's a very subjective term.

Aiki also contains a naughty little joke, if anybody knows what I mean.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> I used those very specific terms, and then in context, drew an obvious (well, maybe not to you) connection between those terms and some more subjective terms. It's how language works.


This is where you don't understand what you said.  . You make a statement about one thing that is true and try to use as proof of something that is not related.   you went from Measurements to size comparison to how it's impossible to be benevolent  and allow suffering at the same time as if they were equal, but they are not.   What is the standard measurement for Tiny? What is the standard measurement for Huge?  How do you know all that is benevolent when you don't have all knowledge?


----------



## Steve

Gerry Seymour said:


> Prove a ruby teapot out in space does NOT exist.


That's a tough one.  But as I mentioned before, you CAN prove negatives.  In philosophy, people prove the lack of things all the time.  But the way to do it is to approach it from the positive.  What I mean is, you provide a proof that its existence, whatever "it" might be, is paradoxical or internally inconsistent.  Said another way, you just provide evidence (a positive) that something can't exist.

So, for example, when it comes to a deity, proving there is no divine source for the universe is a tough one.  I mean, the trump card is you can always say, "Yeah but" to anything.  Big bang?  Yeah, but what if the deity caused the Big Bang?   Evolution?  Yeah, but what if the diety created evolution?  

But you can start to look at how some folks define their deity and see internally incompatible things.  Theistic God, for example, is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.  As St. Thomas Aquinas said, "God is that than which no greater can be conceived."

So, then, you start to dig into the problem of evil.  That's the readers digest version.


----------



## drop bear

Gerry Seymour said:


> For anything, bigger guys will have the advantage in application, so this shouldn't surprise us. And there's not some secret ability to it. Aiki is just a different set of mechanics that can be applied. Nothing magic about it.



Yeah. It is when a smaller boxer or wrestler beats a bigger one because the bigger guy has the advantage that surprises us.

Haven't seen this in Aikido.


----------



## drop bear

Gerry Seymour said:


> There's a second component in my definition of "aiki", and it might be the only part that was originally in the term (though what I've seen from other sources really confuses these two, suggesting both might be part of the original term...dunno). And this part is a specific use of body mechanics. These, you probably won't find randomly developed by an elite grappler, because there are other ways to accomplish what we use aiki mechanics for. I've looked for these mechanics in BJJ videos, for instance, and only see glimpses of them. BJJ (and Judo) use different mechanics in these places. And I don't know a way to develop these without a long path of cooperative drills. They simply take a long time to develop beyond the beginner stage, so they can be used non-cooperatively.



I read this about three times and couldn't figure out what the second part of Aiki actually is or does.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> So, for example, when it comes to a deity, proving there is no divine source for the universe is a tough one. I mean, the trump card is you can always say, "Yeah but" to anything. Big bang? Yeah, but what if the deity caused the Big Bang? Evolution? Yeah, but what if the diety created evolution?



Yeah but that argument also means jeasus steals socks from the washing machine.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> Prove God does Not exist.



God can't. Because he can't be omnipotent and also morally good.

Because if say I could act and cure cancer in a baby. But didn't for whatever sadistic reason. I would not be a good guy.

And if you suggest that God is to concerned with the universe to micro manage. He is also the guy who cares who you root, what day you rest and the level of linen to cotton ratio you wear.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> This is where you don't understand what you said.  . You make a statement about one thing that is true and try to use as proof of something that is not related.   you went from Measurements to size comparison to how it's impossible to be benevolent  and allow suffering at the same time as if they were equal, but they are not.   What is the standard measurement for Tiny? What is the standard measurement for Huge?  How do you know all that is benevolent when you don't have all knowledge?


What is the standard measurement for Tiny?  in the context of my post, it was pretty obviously 1 foot.  What is the standard measurement for Huge?  In the context of my post, it was pretty obviously 1 mile. 

What we're running into here is the difference between wanting to discuss something and wanting to win an argument.  The former can be pretty interesting.  The latter is just a waste of everyone's time. 

If you're trying to win an argument, it's to your advantage to create confusion.  You start intentionally misunderstanding statements, clearly focusing on things that are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. 

If you're trying to have a discussion, it's to your benefit to come to a shared understanding of what the terms mean so that you understand what folks are trying to say.

I'll share a common example that happens ALL THE TIME around here.  We have trouble with discussions regarding Self Defense.  The term "self defense" can mean a lot of things.  So, if you're trying to win an argument, you will pick a definition that suits your needs, ignore any other proposed definitions, and stir the pot.  If you're trying to have a discussion, you would acknowledge what proposed clarification of the term, and then move on.  It's really that simple.

Here's a short vignette to illustrate the difference. 
Argument:
Person 1:  "When I say self defense, here's what I mean."
Person 2:  "That's not right.  Self defense is clearly this, and if I use my definition, what you said makes no sense at all.  You're wrong and I'm right, and you just don't understand self defense." 
(I literally could use direct quotes from your posts above, as this is exactly what you're doing)

Discussion:
Person 1:  "When I say self defense, here's what I mean."
Person 2:  "Oh, that's not how I would define it, but I get your point now." 

It's really that simple.  So, I guess the ball is in your court.  Are you looking for an argument or are you looking for a discussion?

Edit:  Just want to add one last thing.  Argument means different things, too.  I'm always down for a good debate, in which folks share arguments for or against different positions.  I don't like arguments like this, where you are just stirring the pot, intentionally misunderstanding, and basically creating conflict where none need exist.  It's petty and doesn't make anyone look or feel particularly good.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Yeah but that argument also means jeasus steals socks from the washing machine.


Ha.  I mean, I can imagine taking a solid run at proving _something _steals socks from washing machines.  But it's a hard road to hoe to prove (logically) that it's Jesus.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> God can't. Because he can't be omnipotent and also morally good.
> 
> Because if say I could act and cure cancer in a baby. But didn't for whatever sadistic reason. I would not be a good guy.
> 
> And if you suggest that God is to concerned with the universe to micro manage. He is also the guy who cares who you root, what day you rest and the level of linen to cotton ratio you wear.


omnipotence is the capacity to do everything... not just anything.  And omniscience is knowing everything, all at once, past, present, and future, no matter how insignificant.

This is where free will gets dicey, too.  If your fate is known and unchangeable, you really cannot have free will.  You have a destiny.


----------



## Martial D

dvcochran said:


> Prove God does Not exist.


You seem to have missed the point and are going in circles lol.


----------



## Steve

Martial D said:


> You seem to have missed the point and are going in circles lol.


Intentionally missing the point seems to be a tactic recently.  Makes having a conversation pretty hard.  We don't have to agree on stuff, but it's disrespectful to everyone when folks play games.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> Prove God does Not exist.


I see. Debates end, because you stop debating, and just keep repeating the same nonsense statement.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> That's a tough one.  But as I mentioned before, you CAN prove negatives.  In philosophy, people prove the lack of things all the time.  But the way to do it is to approach it from the positive.  What I mean is, you provide a proof that its existence, whatever "it" might be, is paradoxical or internally inconsistent.  Said another way, you just provide evidence (a positive) that something can't exist.
> 
> So, for example, when it comes to a deity, proving there is no divine source for the universe is a tough one.  I mean, the trump card is you can always say, "Yeah but" to anything.  Big bang?  Yeah, but what if the deity caused the Big Bang?   Evolution?  Yeah, but what if the diety created evolution?
> 
> But you can start to look at how some folks define their deity and see internally incompatible things.  Theistic God, for example, is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.  As St. Thomas Aquinas said, "God is that than which no greater can be conceived."
> 
> So, then, you start to dig into the problem of evil.  That's the readers digest version.


You can prove a thing can't exist under certain assumptions, but as far as I know, you can't logically prove a thing doesn't exist outside those assumptions (if it did, the assumptions would have to be untrue). And sometimes the contradictions are somewhat unexplainable, like working with multiple infinities, so simplified logic may not be able to handle them.

The simplified version of this is the thought problem of an omnipotent being: can they create something so massive they cannot lift it. Both "yes" and "no" make them not omnipotent, which would mean an omnipotent being is impossible. But what if that's just too simplistic? Both omnipotent ability to move things and omnipotent ability to create things are expressions of infinity. And we know that infinity isn't measurable, but can be used mathematically (infinity X infinity = infinity) in ways that create other logical errors.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. It is when a smaller boxer or wrestler beats a bigger one because the bigger guy has the advantage that surprises us.
> 
> Haven't seen this in Aikido.


We also don't have much live Aikido to draw from. I'd be beyond surprised if there weren't some examples of this in the history of Tomiki Aikido, for instance, since it happens in Judo from time to time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I read this about three times and couldn't figure out what the second part of Aiki actually is or does.


Yeah, like I said, I find it impossible to express clearly in words, and that frustrates me. The simplest explanation I can give (which is a poor explanation) is that it is - in part - a method of removing slack to connect the core of the body to movement, in a specific way. It's why posture in Aikido often looks so rigid, when it actually isn't.


----------



## Steve

Gerry Seymour said:


> You can prove a thing can't exist under certain assumptions, but as far as I know, you can't logically prove a thing doesn't exist outside those assumptions (if it did, the assumptions would have to be untrue). And sometimes the contradictions are somewhat unexplainable, like working with multiple infinities, so simplified logic may not be able to handle them.
> 
> The simplified version of this is the thought problem of an omnipotent being: can they create something so massive they cannot lift it. Both "yes" and "no" make them not omnipotent, which would mean an omnipotent being is impossible. But what if that's just too simplistic? Both omnipotent ability to move things and omnipotent ability to create things are expressions of infinity. And we know that infinity isn't measurable, but can be used mathematically (infinity X infinity = infinity) in ways that create other logical errors.


Overall, I appreciate the post and agree with most of it.  It's just brain exercise for the most part, but I do enjoy philosophy of religion and logic in particular.  It's enjoyable.  And nice to use my liberal arts education once in awhile.

Regarding your first paragraph, I would replace "assumptions" with "premises" and then say, "it depends."  For example, it depends on whether we can both agree that a premise is true.  It's just how arguments are built.

So, for example, I misquoted St. Anselm before... I think I attributed to Thomas Aquinas.  Anyway, I love the language involved in that argument.  The entire thing builds on agreement on definitions (from memory, so it is paraphrased from the original):


God is that than which no greater can be conceived. 
If God is all power, all knowing, and all good, but doesn't exist, than we can conceive of something greater... a being that is all of those things... but DOES exist.
Bingo, bango, bongo, God must exist. 
This argument only works if we agree that the definition of God is quite literally THE best, most amazing, powerful, awesome thing we can possibly imagine. 

So, in the same way, when you think about the problem of evil, and start to consider how theists define their own god (core elements, without which it isn't the theistic god), you run across things like omniscience and omnipotence. Point is, we can start to argue that god doesn't exist by agreeing on things that, without which, it would not be God.  It might be something pretty cool, but not god.   Like it's very powerful, but not all powerful... dangerous, cool... but can't be God, because God is all powerful (that than which no greater can be conceived). 

Interesting aside, not all theists have agreed on whether God is benevolent... for example, many of the founding fathers of America were deists.

In other news, I realize this is completely off topic, but I dig this ****.  I understand if we need to get back on track.


----------



## dvcochran

Gerry Seymour said:


> I see. Debates end, because you stop debating, and just keep repeating the same nonsense statement.


Not at all. I am just making the same argument you are.
I am a lifetime engineering and science nerd. My work demands that much of what I do is explained in the physical sense. The majority of martial arts is ground in the physical. But I am big enough of a person to acknowledge that we are limited as humans to explain everything.
Can you honestly say you can explain everything that has happened in your lifetime?
C'mon man.


----------



## dvcochran

Martial D said:


> You seem to have missed the point and are going in circles lol.


Okay, explain the point to me.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> God can't. Because he can't be omnipotent and also morally good.
> 
> Because if say I could act and cure cancer in a baby. But didn't for whatever sadistic reason. I would not be a good guy.
> 
> And if you suggest that God is to concerned with the universe to micro manage. He is also the guy who cares who you root, what day you rest and the level of linen to cotton ratio you wear.


I am not saying that, but I will say it does not work that way. Crack a book.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Ha.  I mean, I can imagine taking a solid run at proving _something _steals socks from washing machines.  But it's a hard road to hoe to prove (logically) that it's Jesus.



But can science explain it?

Then it must be jesus


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> omnipotence is the capacity to do everything... not just anything.  And omniscience is knowing everything, all at once, past, present, and future, no matter how insignificant.
> 
> This is where free will gets dicey, too.  If your fate is known and unchangeable, you really cannot have free will.  You have a destiny.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


>


Now we are getting somewhere.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


>


To sum up, God precludes free will. So if free will exists, theistic god cannot.  Unless you also believe in the multiverse.  I can get down with that.  If you are okay with the idea that there are an infinite number of versions of you representing every possible outcome of everything you did, didn’t do, or was done or not done to, for or against you… dang it.  I think we hit our snag.  The Christian belief in unique souls and the idea of humans being created perfect, in god’s image might kill the multiverse idea.

Personally, I think it’s more reasonable to believe we are accountable because we have free will, and that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.


----------



## Martial D

Double post


----------



## Martial D

Steve said:


> omnipotence is the capacity to do everything... not just anything.  And omniscience is knowing everything, all at once, past, present, and future, no matter how insignificant.
> 
> This is where free will gets dicey, too.  If your fate is known and unchangeable, you really cannot have free will.  You have a destiny.


And to make it even more sticky and messy... omnipotence, free will, and omniscience contradict eachother to such a level they couldn't really exist in the same being.

If you know everything that is going to happen before it happens it's set in stone..and you are powerless to change it. If you can change it at will you don't know what will happen. If you know everything you are going to do ahead of time it's no longer choice.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> What is the standard measurement for Tiny? in the context of my post, it was pretty obviously 1 foot. What is the standard measurement for Huge? In the context of my post, it was pretty obviously 1 mile.


So if Tiny = 1ft then then is it still Tiny from the perspective of 1 micrometer? It's still 1 foot, but is it Tiny now when compared to a micrometer?

Here's your claim.  Your words. 
.."if something were alleged to be 1 mile tall and simultaneously 1 foot tall,  you could argue that it cannot exist *because no thing that exists outside of our imagination can be huge and tiny at the same time.*"

Just because an object cannot be 1 mile tall and simultaneously 1 foot tall, does not prove that something that's real cannot be huge and tiny at the same time.  I have given you real world examples of how something can be Tiny and Huge at the same time.  You then try to apply that same logic to  the statement below.

Then you make the claim "*that a theistic god cannot be "omnipotent", "omniscient", and "omnibenevolent" "while senseless and inecessary pain and suffering exist.*"  How would you know this without being omniscient yourself?

How one can be benevolent and inflict unnecessary pain and suffering.  A kind child meets another child who is hungry and shares his sandwich with the hungry child. The hungry child thankfully accepts the food and the benevolence that was shown and given. The hungry child bites the sandwich to satisfy his hunger.   After  3 bites the hungry child coughs and gasps for air and dies shortly after.  Unknown to the kind child, the hungry child was allergic to peanuts.

A benevolent action or unnecessary suffering? Is it one thing or simultaneously both?


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> So if Tiny = 1ft then then is it still Tiny from the perspective of 1 micrometer? It's still 1 foot, but is it Tiny now when compared to a micrometer?
> 
> Here's your claim.  Your words.
> .."if something were alleged to be 1 mile tall and simultaneously 1 foot tall,  you could argue that it cannot exist *because no thing that exists outside of our imagination can be huge and tiny at the same time.*"
> 
> Just because an object cannot be 1 mile tall and simultaneously 1 foot tall, does not prove that something that's real cannot be huge and tiny at the same time.  I have given you real world examples of how something can be Tiny and Huge at the same time.  You then try to apply that same logic to  the statement below.
> 
> Then you make the claim "*that a theistic god cannot be "omnipotent", "omniscient", and "omnibenevolent" "while senseless and inecessary pain and suffering exist.*"  How would you know this without being omniscient yourself?
> 
> How one can be benevolent and inflict unnecessary pain and suffering.  A kind child meets another child who is hungry and shares his sandwich with the hungry child. The hungry child thankfully accepts the food and the benevolence that was shown and given. The hungry child bites the sandwich to satisfy his hunger.   After  3 bites the hungry child coughs and gasps for air and dies shortly after.  Unknown to the kind child, the hungry child was allergic to peanuts.
> 
> A benevolent action or unnecessary suffering? Is it one thing or simultaneously both?


Dude. I’m going to be totally honest.  I don’t plan to waste my time reading this post of yours.  Just let it go.  It’s clear you aren’t interested in adult conversation.


----------



## Steve

Martial D said:


> And to make it even more sticky and messy... omnipotence, free will, and omniscience contradict eachother to such a level they couldn't really exist in the same being.
> 
> If you know everything that is going to happen before it happens it's set in stone..and you are powerless to change it. If you can change it at will you don't know what will happen. If you know everything you are going to do ahead of time it's no longer choice.


It’s a pretty interest mind love if you take some time to think it through.  And to get at what @Gerry Seymour was saying, the contradiction is self inflicted due to a belief in  things that can only be accepted if reason is abandoned and you are willing to shrug your shoulders and say, “Faith.  Amiright?”

And with that, we are back on topic!  The idea of faith in martial arts in lieu of evidence.


----------



## Martial D

Steve said:


> It’s a pretty interest mind love if you take some time to think it through.  And to get at what @Gerry Seymour was saying, the contradiction is self inflicted due to a belief in  things that can only be accepted if reason is abandoned and you are willing to shrug your shoulders and say, “Faith.  Amiright?”
> 
> And with that, we are back on topic!  The idea of faith in martial arts in lieu of evidence.


For the record I called this like 5 pages before it happened XD 

The parallels are definitely right there for all to see though.

Some practice based in faith. Some based in reason, logic, and evidence.  And regardless what the subject matter happens to be in this context..one of these methods leads to advancement and betterment..and one does not.


----------



## Martial D

dvcochran said:


> Okay, explain the point to me.


I already did..but you ignored that post


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> If you know everything you are going to do ahead of time it's no longer choice.


It's still a choice.  It's just a known choice.  Regardless of what choice you pick, you know that you are going to pick it and for the most part you know what is going to happen.

We do this all the time on a small scale.  Throw a ball in the air you have a choice to either catch it or don't. You also know what will happen to the ball if you catch it or if you don't catch it.  The known path that you take is still an option.

You can add variables and more details about what will happen provided that you have correct information that can be used to determine what will happen.

For example,  I'm going to use the restroom in a few minutes.  I can choose to use it in my pants or in the toilet.  I already know what will happen (It will stink).  I not only know what will happen but I know which of the 3 toilets in the house that I will use.  And I will still make a choice about something I already know before it happens.


----------



## Oily Dragon

drop bear said:


> I read this about three times and couldn't figure out what the second part of Aiki actually is or does.


合気道.

The middle part is Qi, the tail end is "The Way".

The first glyph is the most interesting on infinite levels.  This is what often gets lost in translation into English.


----------



## AIKIKENJITSU

JowGaWolf said:


> I went spent a few hours on you tube trying to find old sparring videos of Aikido.  This was done with my understanding that Fighting is Abrasive. Which basically means that it's rough and it that it doesn't flow smooth like what we often see in Aikido or Tai Chi.  When these martial arts are practice they often look as if they are flowing and easy.  I think this training concept is similar to Tai Chi /Tajiquan.  The free flowing and easy look seems to be how you learn to relax and to flow.  It is not fighting, and it's not how the fighting is supposed to look.  I also think this is where people screw up with the systems and get it wrong.
> 
> So since I don't actually know anything about Aikido, I decided to use my very limited Tajiquan knowledge to make assumption and guesses, and to find some old footage of Aikido Sparring.
> 
> Here's the first first one. I found. To me this looks like Aikido concepts applied and it looks abrasive. It doesn't flow the same way that we see it in a demo.  I personally think the "Flow" part is something that you have to experienced.  I know that's the case with Muay thai.  To the outside it may look like a simple clinch but to the person in the clinch it could feel like your balance is easily being robbed from you before the throw occurs.
> This is what I expect to see in a fight on the street (the struggle)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In contrast. We can see that he's trying "flow" similar to what they do in training and demos (not sparring).  You can also see that he's uncomfortable with punches coming towards him.  It's clear that he doesn't quite know how to handle them.  From a function perspective it would make sense that Aikido would have some kind of striking  or understanding of "how to enter into grappling"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another example.  Not the best, but he's got one arm.  What you do see here is punching as a way to enter into grappling.  BJJ does it, Muay Thai does it.  Sanda does it.  So I'm just following some of the things we already know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2nd Video Same guy,
> 
> 
> Parts of Aikido is good as a add on to a punching and kicking art like American Kenpo. I use the circular motion of Aikido and some of it's joints locks and others as a add on to my American Kenpo.
> Thoughts?


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Unknown to the kind child, the hungry child was allergic to peanuts



That's your sticking point. We would screw up omnipotence because we don't know everything. God does.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> It's still a choice.  It's just a known choice.  Regardless of what choice you pick, you know that you are going to pick it and for the most part you know what is going to happen.
> 
> We do this all the time on a small scale.  Throw a ball in the air you have a choice to either catch it or don't. You also know what will happen to the ball if you catch it or if you don't catch it.  The known path that you take is still an option.
> 
> You can add variables and more details about what will happen provided that you have correct information that can be used to determine what will happen.
> 
> For example,  I'm going to use the restroom in a few minutes.  I can choose to use it in my pants or in the toilet.  I already know what will happen (It will stink).  I not only know what will happen but I know which of the 3 toilets in the house that I will use.  And I will still make a choice about something I already know before it happens.


Nope. If you know everything ahead of time, you aren't choosing. There is of course an argument to be made whether choice exists at all...but regardless of that it can't exist if you know every result. The concept of choice requires 'either this or that'. Remove that element and you are merely watching events play out, not choosing them.

Even in your ball example..you could drop it. You choose to try to catch the ball but you don't know if you will; and even if you did you still have the option to not try to catch it. If you know for sure you are going to catch the ball you are powerless to do otherwise...else you didn't really know to begin with.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> If you know for sure you are going to catch the ball you are powerless to do otherwise


 Think of it like this..  You have 4 roads (a single road with no addition side streets)  that you can take to get to the same destination. (your house).  Without a doubt you know where these 4 roads lead.  You are free to choose which way you want to go home.  Even though you choose different paths, You will end up in the same place.  So no matter which road you take your destination will always be your house. 

As long as you choose one of those 4 paths, your destination will always be your house.  One road may be longer or shorter, easy or difficult, but the destination will always be the same.  While you may be able to choose the Journey you may or may not be able to change the destination.

It sounds impossible but it's not.  We all walk different paths in life but we all arrive at the same destination - Death.  Depending on the person's perspective  some believe that we map our our lives and hardships before we are even born and that life is nothing but a lesson we agreed to take.  For me personally that stuff gets too complicated.  So I stick with my paths and the single destination that we all arrive at no matter what path we take.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> That's your sticking point. We would screw up omnipotence because we don't know everything.


Look at how much we screw up with the little power that we have now.  Think of all the screw ups of the past and present that were due to the lack of knowledge, or the rejection of knowledge.  I couldn't imagine that more power would make us less of a screw up.  I'm my opinion I think we just become more effective at messing things up.

"Radium Girls" pretty much sums it up.  Also  the saying "If I only knew back then what I know now."

Just my perspective.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> we don't know everything. God does.


I make no claims one way or another on this one.  How can I claim that second statement when I can barely tell what you know and what you don't know.  With the exception of a few things we have discussed on this forum, the most I can do is either believe what is said about you or don't believe.  Believe what you say or don't believe.

The thing about spiritual beliefs is that people believe it for themselves. Not because someone else believes or doesn't believe.  Spiritual belief in general is an inward activity.  It needs no confirmation from others and it becomes who we are. regardless of what the belief is. Which is why people can believe in the same thing differently.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Look at how much we screw up with the little power that we have now.  Think of all the screw ups of the past and present that were due to the lack of knowledge, or the rejection of knowledge.  I couldn't imagine that more power would make us less of a screw up.  I'm my opinion I think we just become more effective at messing things up.
> 
> "Radium Girls" pretty much sums it up.  Also  the saying "If I only knew back then what I know now."
> 
> Just my perspective.



The point with omniscients is we would know back then what we know know.

So you understand everything. You can do everything. And for some reason you not only gave nuts to an allergic kid. You also made that kid allergic in the first place. 

Are you a moral person?


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> I make no claims one way or another on this one.  How can I claim that second statement when I can barely tell what you know and what you don't know.  With the exception of a few things we have discussed on this forum, the most I can do is either believe what is said about you or don't believe.  Believe what you say or don't believe.
> 
> The thing about spiritual beliefs is that people believe it for themselves. Not because someone else believes or doesn't believe.  Spiritual belief in general is an inward activity.  It needs no confirmation from others and it becomes who we are. regardless of what the belief is. Which is why people can believe in the same thing differently.



Like Russell's teapot or aiki.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> The point with omniscients is we would know back then what we know know.


I don't think people are like this.  But if something like that were possible, then forgetting would be a thing.  We know things and we forget things. Sometimes on purpose and sometimes not.

Again I'm not saying that is something that I believe.  Just that we forget things.  Someone asked me if I had the choice to know everything, would I want to know everything.  I thought I would answer yes. But then I thought about how it fills to learn about something that I didn't know before and how exciting that is.  It would be like knowing everything that will happen in a movie before you see it.  I don't think I would find much enjoyment in that.  I don't think there would be much enjoyment in life to take away all of the surprises.  



drop bear said:


> Are you a moral person?


The problem with "moral" is that there doesn't seem to be an agree upon standard of what that is.  What is "moral" for one group may be "the worst thing ever" for another group.  Just look at how religions have fought each other over the years. Find a war or conflict and you'll find two sides that think differently about what makes a "moral person"  



drop bear said:


> Like Russell's teapot or aiki.


yep.  It is what it is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Overall, I appreciate the post and agree with most of it.  It's just brain exercise for the most part, but I do enjoy philosophy of religion and logic in particular.  It's enjoyable.  And nice to use my liberal arts education once in awhile.
> 
> Regarding your first paragraph, I would replace "assumptions" with "premises" and then say, "it depends."  For example, it depends on whether we can both agree that a premise is true.  It's just how arguments are built.
> 
> So, for example, I misquoted St. Anselm before... I think I attributed to Thomas Aquinas.  Anyway, I love the language involved in that argument.  The entire thing builds on agreement on definitions (from memory, so it is paraphrased from the original):
> 
> 
> God is that than which no greater can be conceived.
> If God is all power, all knowing, and all good, but doesn't exist, than we can conceive of something greater... a being that is all of those things... but DOES exist.
> Bingo, bango, bongo, God must exist.
> This argument only works if we agree that the definition of God is quite literally THE best, most amazing, powerful, awesome thing we can possibly imagine.
> 
> So, in the same way, when you think about the problem of evil, and start to consider how theists define their own god (core elements, without which it isn't the theistic god), you run across things like omniscience and omnipotence. Point is, we can start to argue that god doesn't exist by agreeing on things that, without which, it would not be God.  It might be something pretty cool, but not god.   Like it's very powerful, but not all powerful... dangerous, cool... but can't be God, because God is all powerful (that than which no greater can be conceived).
> 
> Interesting aside, not all theists have agreed on whether God is benevolent... for example, many of the founding fathers of America were deists.
> 
> In other news, I realize this is completely off topic, but I dig this ****.  I understand if we need to get back on track.


Yeah, we probably should have gotten back on track a few posts ago, but like you, I enjoy this kind of discussion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> Not at all. I am just making the same argument you are.
> I am a lifetime engineering and science nerd. My work demands that much of what I do is explained in the physical sense. The majority of martial arts is ground in the physical. But I am big enough of a person to acknowledge that we are limited as humans to explain everything.
> Can you honestly say you can explain everything that has happened in your lifetime?
> C'mon man.


Except that you made it first, and I used another example to demonstrate that it's a non-functional argument. So you just repeated the argument - with no adjustment or reasoning why it might actually be functional. Which isn't at all the same thing I did.

So, yeah, you abandoned the debate.


----------



## dvcochran

Gerry Seymour said:


> Except that you made it first, and I used another example to demonstrate that it's a non-functional argument. So you just repeated the argument - with no adjustment or reasoning why it might actually be functional. Which isn't at all the same thing I did.
> 
> So, yeah, you abandoned the debate.


Please use another example..

Your example, as strange as it is, is still grounded in physical possibilities. Someone could shoot a teapot out in space for all we know. 

Dismissively ending a discussion because it did not end the way you think it should says a lot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> Please use another example..
> 
> Your example, as strange as it is, is still grounded in physical possibilities. Someone could shoot a teapot out in space for all we know.
> 
> Dismissively ending a discussion because it did not end the way you think it should says a lot.


That's the point. There could be one out there, and you can't prove otherwise. But the example doesn't become less cogent if we replace the teapot with an invisible snow golem.

Now, find a better argument than simply repeating yourself, or acting as if you weren't the one abandoning debate.


----------



## Dirty Dog

ATTENTION ALL USERS:
MartialTalk is not the appropriate forum for religious debates. Please don't make us lock the thread.

Mark A Cochran
@Dirty Dog 
MartialTalk Senior Moderator


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dirty Dog said:


> ATTENTION ALL USERS:
> MartialTalk is not the appropriate forum for religious debates. Please don't make us lock the thread.
> 
> Mark A Cochran
> @Dirty Dog
> MartialTalk Senior Moderator


Understood


----------



## Oily Dragon

Oily Dragon said:


> 合気道.
> 
> The middle part is Qi, the tail end is "The Way".
> 
> The first glyph is the most interesting on infinite levels.  This is what often gets lost in translation into English.



Bumping myself, why not.

Nobody is interested in the naughty bits of Aikido???  Come on, I learned them all in a single day.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Oily Dragon said:


> Bumping myself, why not.
> 
> Nobody is interested in the naughty bits of Aikido???  Come on, I learned them all in a single day.


Makes me not want to ask just because I know you are waiting for someone to ask lol


----------



## Oily Dragon

JowGaWolf said:


> Makes me not want to ask just because I know you are waiting for someone to ask lol


You've always shown a lot of discipline.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Think of it like this..  You have 4 roads (a single road with no addition side streets)  that you can take to get to the same destination. (your house).  Without a doubt you know where these 4 roads lead.  You are free to choose which way you want to go home.  Even though you choose different paths, You will end up in the same place.  So no matter which road you take your destination will always be your house.
> 
> As long as you choose one of those 4 paths, your destination will always be your house.  One road may be longer or shorter, easy or difficult, but the destination will always be the same.  While you may be able to choose the Journey you may or may not be able to change the destination.
> 
> It sounds impossible but it's not.  We all walk different paths in life but we all arrive at the same destination - Death.  Depending on the person's perspective  some believe that we map our our lives and hardships before we are even born and that life is nothing but a lesson we agreed to take.  For me personally that stuff gets too complicated.  So I stick with my paths and the single destination that we all arrive at no matter what path we take.


Fair..but neither here nor there with regards to the point I made.


----------



## Steve

Wait.  If we can't have a religious discussion, how can we talk about traditional martial arts?  Nevermind, I'm actually cool with that.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Martial D said:


> You think it is a 'healthy mindset' to just believe something without any evidence it might be true?


You mean like that every art does what Chinese martial arts does but better? I assume that You, of course, must realize that there are quite a large number of Chinese martial arts out there. You must also be able to agree you haven’t experienced them all. Thus, you must be engaging in the ”healthy mindset” that you mentioned above.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Steve said:


> Wait.  If we can't have a religious discussion, how can we talk about traditional martial arts?  Nevermind, I'm actually cool with that.


Lol!


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> You think it is a 'healthy mindset' to just believe something without any evidence it might be true?


Yes. Just not everything you hear or see.  It's impossible to have evidence before belief for every single thing.  Even science doesn't follow evidence before belief.  

What's is a hypothesis? Basically something that you think or believe to be true based on little evidence or observations. As you work through the process you'll either evidence for your belief or you gain evidence that your belief is inaccurate.  The belief that man can fly came before the evidence of it.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> If it is scientific it should be repeatable.
> 
> So say some weirdly tattooed guys started signing Island boys or something. Then that might have a reoccurring theme that we could discern and duplicate.


Oh no! You brought the island boys into this?! Aaaaarrrrggghhh!


----------



## JowGaWolf

Wing Woo Gar said:


> You must also be able to agree you haven’t experienced them all. Thus, you must be engaging in the ”healthy mindset” that you mentioned above.


Exactly. You get it.  Belief before evidence.  For a moment I thought I was the only one to see this.   The belief that there was life and water on Mars existed long before we landed a craft on Mars.  Belief before evidence.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Oh no! You brought the island boys into this?! Aaaaarrrrggghhh!


Ha ha.  Best song never. But drop bear did get me with that one.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Steve said:


> That's a tough one.  But as I mentioned before, you CAN prove negatives.  In philosophy, people prove the lack of things all the time.  But the way to do it is to approach it from the positive.  What I mean is, you provide a proof that its existence, whatever "it" might be, is paradoxical or internally inconsistent.  Said another way, you just provide evidence (a positive) that something can't exist.
> 
> So, for example, when it comes to a deity, proving there is no divine source for the universe is a tough one.  I mean, the trump card is you can always say, "Yeah but" to anything.  Big bang?  Yeah, but what if the deity caused the Big Bang?   Evolution?  Yeah, but what if the diety created evolution?
> 
> But you can start to look at how some folks define their deity and see internally incompatible things.  Theistic God, for example, is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.  As St. Thomas Aquinas said, "God is that than which no greater can be conceived."
> 
> So, then, you start to dig into the problem of evil.  That's the readers digest version.


St. Thomas Aquinas statement is defining the deity as the God of gaps. As Scientific discovery grows, the gaps in human knowledge as we currently define it, consistently shrink. This means that that which we thought of as the deity’s realm (things greater than our conception at any given time) is consistently shrinking along with our ignorance of the universe around us.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> But can science explain it?
> 
> Then it must be jesus


🤣


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> But can science explain it?
> 
> Then it must be jesus


You mean I have to pray to get my socks back? When you said it must be Jesus I heard the “ it must be Santa Claus” song in my head. I’m all in a swirl now.


----------



## Martial D

Wing Woo Gar said:


> You mean like that every art does what Chinese martial arts does but better? I assume that You, of course, must realize that there are quite a large number of Chinese martial arts out there. You must also be able to agree you haven’t experienced them all. Thus, you must be engaging in the ”healthy mindset” that you mentioned above.


This is a non sequitur.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Exactly. You get it.  Belief before evidence.  For a moment I thought I was the only one to see this.   The belief that there was life and water on Mars existed long before we landed a craft on Mars.  Belief before evidence.


Seriously? Lol 

This is exactly backwards to how rational thought works.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Even science doesn't follow evidence before belief.


Either you are using your own special definition of belief, or you don't know what science is or how it works.

be·lief
/bəˈlēf/


_noun_

1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his *belief in* the value of hard work"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"I've still got belief in myself
This is the definition I am using. Science doesn't deal in beliefs at all. Science simply accepts the preponderance of evidence and postulates theories that fit the evidence.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Wing Woo Gar said:


> St. Thomas Aquinas statement is defining the deity as the God of gaps.



He's dead.  We're not.

That fits right into Aikido.  Everything does, in the end.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Steve said:


> Wait.  If we can't have a religious discussion, how can we talk about traditional martial arts?  Nevermind, I'm actually cool with that.


How much do you know about "Grandpa Guan"?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> Seriously? Lol
> 
> This is exactly backwards to how rational thought works.


Backwards according to who?  Everything I've stated follows the following definitions.

Definition of rational:
1. based on *facts or reason* and not on emotions or feelings.
2. having the ability to reason or think about things clearly.

*Facts or reason*:  This means Rational can be facts or it can be reason.  Facts and reasons are 2 different things. They do not mean the same.  Below shows the Webster definition of both.  Here you can see that reason does not have to meet the standard of fact.  It can simply be a statement of why something is the way it is. Why someone does, thinks, or says something, or why someone behaves a certain way.  As shown here.  Reason is also rational even if it does not meat the qualification of a fact.

Definition of fact -
1. something that truly exists or happens *: *something that has actual existence
2. A true piece of information

Definition of reason:
1. * a statement or fact* that explains why something is the way it is, why someone does, thinks, or says something, or why someone behaves a certain way.
2. the power of the mind to think and understand *in a logical way

Reason:*  Here we see that reason can be a statement or a fact.  A statement and a fact are not the same thing.  A statement is "a single declaration or remark."

Definition of logic
1.  a particular way of thinking about something

Definition of Thought
1*. *an idea, plan, opinion, picture, etc., *that is formed in your mind : something that you think of*
2. the act or process of thinking
3. the act of carefully thinking about the details of something


----------



## Oily Dragon

Tonight, someone I love dearly is doing reiki, to heal wounds.

I don't have the heart to criticize why she's choosing to do this, but even better, my mind already knew not to.

Why is that?  Ai ki.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> Either you are using your own special definition of belief, or you don't know what science is or how it works.
> 
> be·lief
> /bəˈlēf/
> 
> 
> _noun_
> 
> 1.
> an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
> "his *belief in* the value of hard work"
> 2.
> trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
> "I've still got belief in myself
> This is the definition I am using. Science doesn't deal in beliefs at all. Science simply accepts the preponderance of evidence and postulates theories that fit the evidence.


1. an* acceptance that a statement is true* or t*hat something exists*. 
There are 2 parts to this.
1. A statement that is true
2. That something exists.

When scientist use the scientific method.  The Hypothesis can be a statement that something exists or it can be something that they believe is true.

Definition of Hypothesis
1. a supposition *or* proposed explanation made on the *basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation*."

Those who believe are the same ones who further investigate.  Does who do not believe are often the ones who discard.  For example.  Aikido has awesome fighting techniques.  There are some who will believe this and as a result, they will further investigate it by learning Aikido.  Example:  When I saw an Aikido technique I believed that there was something legit about it.  So I tried it (investigated it.) and came back to the thread to speak of my experience (investigation) of trying the technique.  On the other other hand. There are some who did not investigate.  They simply watched the video and made comments based on their beliefs.

There are those who don't believe that Aikido has awesome fighting techniques.  this and they will discard it.  They will not not participate in it. They will not investigate it.  They will form a belief.


Definition of Hypothesis
2. *an idea or theory that is not proven* but that leads to further study or discussion

An idea or theory that is not proven, but that leads to further study or discussion.  

Before man could fly there was no proof or evidence that he could. There was only a statement, a beliefe is that a way exists.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Martial D said:


> This is a non sequitur.





Martial D said:


> Ok. Since that's exactly what I said I guess we agree. When I named those styles it was in the context of those styles providing the best solutions. There is literally nothing Chinese martial arts does that isn't done better in one of those named styles. If there was, people would be using it competitively.


Forgive me, my lack of formal education leads me to err in many regards. Your statement above was the cause of my comment. You say that there is literally nothing that chinese martial arts does that isn’t done better in several named styles. First, while I assume you are a experienced martial artist, you have probably not seen, nor experienced all of the different Chinese martial arts. You then said that if there was , people would be using it competitively. My question to you is, what led you to this assertion? Belief Or facts? Since you can’t possibly have seen or experienced every chinese martial art, how could you credibly say that every named art in the comment does what Chinese arts do, but better?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Oily Dragon said:


> tonight, someone I love dearly is doing reiki,


My wife does it. I don't think it's something that everyone can do.  I think one must have a gift for it.  She surprised a lot of people including my Sifu who was just starting it.  He became scared because it got too real.  It can get really uncomfortable when someone can see the "real you" Flaws and all.

The guy that fixed my knees told me that he only approached me, because he could feel my pain.  He said his ability to feel where my pain was made it easier for him to locate the problem and fix it.  No surgery needed.  He fix 20+ years of aching knees in15 minutes after a Tai Chi class.  I didn't even need rehab.  Two other people from the school witness this.

This wouldn't be the strangest thing I've experienced.  I figure with all of the strange stuff that's in the deepest part of the ocean.  Why not?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Martial D said:


> Science simply accepts the preponderance of evidence and postulates theories that fit the evidence.


Which is ironic since science has been wrong about their evidence many times before.  Things that they accepted as fact proven incorrect.

This is the definition of belief is it not.  To accept a statement to be true.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Oily Dragon said:


> He's dead.  We're not.
> 
> That fits right into Aikido.  Everything does, in the end.


I’m feeling half dead after class tonite, does that count for something?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Oily Dragon said:


> Tonight, someone I love dearly is doing reiki, to heal wounds.
> 
> I don't have the heart to criticize why she's choosing to do this, but even better, my mind already knew not to.
> 
> Why is that?  Ai ki.
> 
> View attachment 28015


Wise choices.


----------



## Martial D

Wing Woo Gar said:


> Forgive me, my lack of formal education leads me to err in many regards. Your statement above was the cause of my comment. You say that there is literally nothing that chinese martial arts does that isn’t done better in several named styles. First, while I assume you are a experienced martial artist, you have probably not seen, nor experienced all of the different Chinese martial arts. You then said that if there was , people would be using it competitively. My question to you is, what led you to this assertion? Belief Or facts? Since you can’t possibly have seen or experienced every chinese martial art, how could you credibly say that every named art in the comment does what Chinese arts do, but better?


The world is bigger than any individual. I don't need to personally train in every Chinese martial art to know those systems fail when used in a competitive sense. The nature of competition is such that no advantage that is available will be overlooked, and as such if it was there it would be used with success by at least a portion of the vast competitive martial arts community. But instead, you can see what is done, what is used, and what does work. Tested rigorously day in and out by a vast demographic of people that collectively have experienced every martial art under the sun.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

I've got no idea what y'all are talking about at this point-from skimming, it seems to be god, philosophy, and/or science. Just want to say I'm impressed you're all still going strong 118 pages in, on a thread initially about aikido practitioners having difficulty in live situations.


----------



## Martial D

JowGaWolf said:


> Which is ironic since science has been wrong about their evidence many times before.  Things that they accepted as fact proven incorrect.
> 
> This is the definition of belief is it not.  To accept a statement to be true.


LOL 

You really have no idea what science is or how it works. The fact that things must be falsifiable is what makes it science in the first place.

It's clear I am wasting my time, and there is no rational conversation to be had with you.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I’m feeling half dead after class tonite, does that count for something?


Every day is a class.  If you're still breathing right now, you're winning.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Martial D said:


> . I don't need to personally train in every Chinese martial art to know those systems fail when used in a competitive sense.


What do you mean by "those systems".

Chinese?  Chinese systems have stood the test of thousands of years.  If I named a hundred of them, which could you point to as "failed" in competition?  One?  Two?  So name them.

Are there any other countries you mean?  Or are you just after China.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Martial D said:


> The world is bigger than any individual. I don't need to personally train in every Chinese martial art to know those systems fail when used in a competitive sense. The nature of competition is such that no advantage that is available will be overlooked, and as such if it was there it would be used with success by at least a portion of the vast competitive martial arts community. But instead, you can see what is done, what is used, and what does work. Tested rigorously day in and out by a vast demographic of people that collectively have experienced every martial art under the sun.


I see now that you are not understanding my rudimentary use of language. You berated jow ga for his view point. You insulted all Chinese martial arts in a generalized and indefensible comment that shows how full of your own opinion you are. You refuse to acknowledge using the same type of argument that you referred to as unscientific and based on belief when it was used by others. You are attempting to bludgeon your way past having an erudite discussion in favor of displaying your intellect. I’m sorry sir, but you lost me when you lacked the ability to accept that you might be engaging in the very thing that apparently inflamed you in the first place. I take umbrage with your tone, your manner, and the lack of substance or fact in some of your statements. I could show you some proof of CMA working well in competition, but i doubt it would make a difference to your uninformed yet strong opinions. It’s clear you missed a very important part of CMA, it’s known as emptying your cup. Look it up, you may find it useful.


----------



## Dirty Dog

JowGaWolf said:


> Yes. Just not everything you hear or see.  It's impossible to have evidence before belief for every single thing.  Even science doesn't follow evidence before belief.


Umm... yes it does. That's the very definition of science.


JowGaWolf said:


> What's is a hypothesis?


A hypothesis is a theory formed on the basis of limited evidence that serves as a starting point for further investigation.
The scientific method can be summarized as:
Evidence -> Theory -> More Evidence -> Refine Theory -> Repeat.

Belief without evidence is religion.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Dirty Dog said:


> Umm... yes it does. That's the very definition of science.
> 
> A hypothesis is a theory formed on the basis of limited evidence that serves as a starting point for further investigation.
> The scientific method can be summarized as:
> Evidence -> Theory -> More Evidence -> Refine Theory -> Repeat.
> 
> Belief without evidence is religion.


To be more specific, I think this is merely a minor misunderstanding of terms used in this discussion. The first step in the scientific method is observation. The observation leads to a problem or question. The problem or question leads to gathering of data. The gathering of data leads to hypothesis. The hypothesis leads to experimentation. If the experimentation leads to repeatable consistent results over a period of time, the hypothesis can become a theory. A theory can also become a law under certain circumstances.  I am not suggesting that the people involved here don’t know this. I am suggesting that consistently using the same terminology can preclude some of the pointless arguing that is going on regarding scientific method In this thread.


----------



## Steve

Oily Dragon said:


> That fits right into Aikido.  Everything does, in the end.





Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I've got no idea what y'all are talking about at this point-from skimming, it seems to be god, philosophy, and/or science. Just want to say I'm impressed you're all still going strong 118 pages in, on a thread initially about aikido practitioners having difficulty in live situations.


On a phone so I can’t flip it, but I think @Oily Dragon said it best above.


Dirty Dog said:


> Umm... yes it does. That's the very definition of science.
> 
> A hypothesis is a theory formed on the basis of limited evidence that serves as a starting point for further investigation.
> The scientific method can be summarized as:
> Evidence -> Theory -> More Evidence -> Refine Theory -> Repeat.
> 
> Belief without evidence is religion.



This ^^.  I'll just add that the point where you decide that the science you have is what you want, and start ignoring subsequent evidence, is the point where your science becomes religion.


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I've got no idea what y'all are talking about at this point-from skimming, it seems to be god, philosophy, and/or science. Just want to say I'm impressed you're all still going strong 118 pages in, on a thread initially about aikido practitioners having difficulty in live situations.



Honestly it isn't that big a jump.

The truth vs feels argument is at the core of martial arts.


----------



## drop bear

Oily Dragon said:


> What do you mean by "those systems".
> 
> Chinese?  Chinese systems have stood the test of thousands of years.  If I named a hundred of them, which could you point to as "failed" in competition?  One?  Two?  So name them.
> 
> Are there any other countries you mean?  Or are you just after China.



I don't think the test of a thousand years is really all that definitive.

Astrology has stood the test of a thousand years and it is straight up bunk.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> I don't think the test of a thousand years is really all that definitive.
> 
> Astrology has stood the test of a thousand years and it is straight up bunk.


I think saying something has withstood the test of time sort of implies that it's been shown to be correct. A lot of things that have been around forever have stood the test of time. A lot of others have failed miserably.


----------



## Oily Dragon

drop bear said:


> I don't think the test of a thousand years is really all that definitive.
> 
> Astrology has stood the test of a thousand years and it is straight up bunk.


Astrology is fake though.  Stood the test of a thousand years?  Not really, it was discredited hundreds of years ago.

How can you compare hand to hand fighting styles with made up fantasy?


----------



## Steve

Oily Dragon said:


> Astrology is fake though.  Stood the test of a thousand years?  Not really, it was discredited hundreds of years ago.
> 
> How can you compare hand to hand fighting styles with made up fantasy?


I don't want to put words in @drop bear's mouth, but it makes sense to me.  While you and I look at astrology and it appears obvious that it's bunk, a lot of people believe in it.  I mean, they really believe that it's a true science.  

In the same way, some folks look at some of the claims of some martial arts styles, and to us, it appears obvious that it's bunk. But a lot of people really believe it.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I don't want to put words in @drop bear's mouth, but it makes sense to me.  While you and I look at astrology and it appears obvious that it's bunk, a lot of people believe in it.  I mean, they really believe that it's a true science.
> 
> In the same way, some folks look at some of the claims of some martial arts styles, and to us, it appears obvious that it's bunk. But a lot of people really believe it.



Yeah. I use healing crystals a lot as you can actually get an accreditation in using them. As if there is some sort of method that is better than any other method.



			https://www.udemy.com/course/crystal-healing-practitioners-course-with-certificate/?utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=udemyads&utm_campaign=DSA_Catchall_la.EN_cc.AU&utm_content=deal4584&utm_term=_._ag_89561531492_._ad_450725086798_._kw__._de_m_._dm__._pl__._ti_dsa-41729884224_._li_9068914_._pd__._&matchtype=&gclid=Cj0KCQiAxc6PBhCEARIsAH8Hff0xa1nW6fwKKMwEq4L32DpOBJBdn0FmWE7AoS79B4HK9LugOEApPEAaAkgyEALw_wcB
		


It is a very weird mindset.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Dirty Dog said:


> I think saying something has withstood the test of time sort of implies that it's been shown to be correct. A lot of things that have been around forever have stood the test of time. A lot of others have failed miserably.


Practically all of the claims that "CMA fails under pressure" are basically directed at a single Chinese art (Wing Chun), because of cherry picking and the popularity of Ip Man and Bruce Lee.  Yet all of Wing Chun is also part of Hung Ga Kuen, Jow Ga, Choy Li Fut, all of which are hundreds of years old with a long competition history going back to the 19th century at least, before we even get to older lineages of the Ming and late Ching dynasties, and the even older Taijiquan, Tibetan, Mongolian, etc. lineages.

It's not like you can't find video online of practically every CMA, including Wing Chun, also participating in full contact rulesets.  The people who believe this isn't true are the real fantasists.  They saw a video where a Wing Chun guy got leveled once, so that's all they know.

And they never stop demanding you "prove" to them that CMA works.  But hop just a few miles over the border to Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Phillipines (all of whom were heavily influenced by Chinese art) everything suddenly works.  Let's face it, anti- Asian sentiment runs deep everywhere, and it's mostly directed at China and Japan because of their history as adversaries to the West.

I think a lot of people really hate on Aikido specifically because it's so different than Japan's militarization in the early to mid 20th century.  It represents the failure of peace in Japanese society, and we all know what happened next.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> I think saying something has withstood the test of time sort of implies that it's been shown to be correct. A lot of things that have been around forever have stood the test of time. A lot of others have failed miserably.



Yes that is the implication. The implication is wrong.

Time is not a good way to determine effectiveness.  Pre scientific method medicine is a good example here.

Which has stood the test of time and was even battlefield tested.


----------



## drop bear

Oily Dragon said:


> Astrology is fake though.  Stood the test of a thousand years?  Not really, it was discredited hundreds of years ago.
> 
> *How can you compare hand to hand fighting styles with made up fantasy?*



Seriously?


----------



## Oily Dragon

drop bear said:


> Seriously?


Yeah, seriously.

Which hand to hand styles are made up like Astrology?  In my experience I have yet to find a "fake" Chinese martial art.  Or a Japanese one for that matter, that wasn't just made up for a movie.

Even classic Hong Kong cinema used real martial arts styles 99% of the time.  They didn't need to make things up, they had huge legacies to work with.  I can only think of a very small number of totally made up ones (e.g. Snake in Eagle's Shadow's "Cat Claw", created from watching a pet cat kill a cobra), and even those are objectively visually and athletically impressive.

People have told me "bow and arrow stance doesn't work!  You'll get taken down!!!" but here it is.  This stance is fundamental to practically every CMA aside from Wing Chun.  It's even in Tai Chi to a degree (although I'm sure the Tai Chi people will beat me for saying so..)






How about Zenkutsu-dachi?  Shotokan, Isshin Ryu, or Tae Kwan Do's Ap Kubi, Tang Soo Do's Chun Gul Chase.





In Aikido?  This form even has Chinese names.  Because it's all connected, because all fighting between humans is fundamentally the same.

I'll grant you, no idea what's going on under the hakama.  Don't want to know, that old dude looks like a BAMF.  Look at those biceps.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Yeah. I use healing crystals a lot as you can actually get an accreditation in using them. As if there is some sort of method that is better than any other method.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.udemy.com/course/crystal-healing-practitioners-course-with-certificate/?utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=udemyads&utm_campaign=DSA_Catchall_la.EN_cc.AU&utm_content=deal4584&utm_term=_._ag_89561531492_._ad_450725086798_._kw__._de_m_._dm__._pl__._ti_dsa-41729884224_._li_9068914_._pd__._&matchtype=&gclid=Cj0KCQiAxc6PBhCEARIsAH8Hff0xa1nW6fwKKMwEq4L32DpOBJBdn0FmWE7AoS79B4HK9LugOEApPEAaAkgyEALw_wcB
> 
> 
> 
> It is a very weird mindset.


I mean, the GOOP yoni egg is my go to.  goop Wellness Jade Egg | Goop

Some folks really believe it's going to provide some medicinal benefit.  GOOP got sued, and were required to stop making medical claims, but they do still sell it.  And people do still believe it works.


Oily Dragon said:


> Yeah, seriously.
> 
> Which hand to hand styles are made up like Astrology?  In my experience I have yet to find a "fake" Chinese martial art.  Or a Japanese one for that matter, that wasn't just made up for a movie.
> 
> Even classic Hong Kong cinema used real martial arts styles 99% of the time.  They didn't need to make things up, they had huge legacies to work with.  I can only think of a very small number of totally made up ones (e.g. Snake in Eagle's Shadow's "Cat Claw", created from watching a pet cat kill a cobra), and even those are objectively visually and athletically impressive.
> 
> People have told me "bow and arrow stance doesn't work!  You'll get taken down!!!" but here it is.  This stance is fundamental to practically every CMA aside from Wing Chun.  It's even in Tai Chi to a degree (although I'm sure the Tai Chi people will beat me for saying so..)
> 
> View attachment 28018
> 
> How about Zenkutsu-dachi?
> 
> View attachment 28020
> 
> In Aikido?  This form even has Chinese names.  Because it's all connected, because all fighting between humans is fundamentally the same.
> 
> View attachment 28019



Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to the group for your consideration toad style kung fu:






Edit:  Does this count as fraud busting?  I don't think we have any toad kung fu stylists on the board, so hopefully not.  I am, in fact, hoping that toad style kung fu seems as ridiculous to everyone else as it does to me.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Steve said:


> Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to the group for your consideration toad style kung fu:


_"Toad style is immensely strong...and immune to...."_

Rule #1 of kung fu: if it takes practice to do, it's real.

I need to learn Toad style, it'd really step up my b-boy game, not to mention my wrestling prowess.


----------



## Oily Dragon

Steve said:


> Edit:  Does this count as fraud busting?  I don't think we have any toad kung fu stylists on the board, so hopefully not.  I am, in fact, hoping that toad style kung fu seems as ridiculous to everyone else as it does to me.


Would you want him landing on you?  I wouldn't....


----------



## drop bear

Oily Dragon said:


> Yeah, seriously.
> 
> Which hand to hand styles are made up like Astrology?  In my experience I have yet to find a "fake" Chinese martial art.  Or a Japanese one for that matter, that wasn't just made up for a movie.
> 
> Even classic Hong Kong cinema used real martial arts styles 99% of the time.  They didn't need to make things up, they had huge legacies to work with.  I can only think of a very small number of totally made up ones (e.g. Snake in Eagle's Shadow's "Cat Claw", created from watching a pet cat kill a cobra), and even those are objectively visually and athletically impressive.
> 
> People have told me "bow and arrow stance doesn't work!  You'll get taken down!!!" but here it is.  This stance is fundamental to practically every CMA aside from Wing Chun.  It's even in Tai Chi to a degree (although I'm sure the Tai Chi people will beat me for saying so..)
> 
> View attachment 28018
> 
> How about Zenkutsu-dachi?  Shotokan, Isshin Ryu, or Tae Kwan Do's Ap Kubi, Tang Soo Do's Chun Gul Chase.
> 
> View attachment 28020
> 
> In Aikido?  This form even has Chinese names.  Because it's all connected, because all fighting between humans is fundamentally the same.
> 
> I'll grant you, no idea what's going on under the hakama.  Don't want to know, that old dude looks like a BAMF.  Look at those biceps.
> 
> View attachment 28019



Ok. So imagine you see a small snippet of what Chuck Liddell does and then use that to rationalise what is the opposite of what actually works.  And then I assume never ever test it against anyone good.

And incorporate that in to your training.

That would be a made up like astrology. 

Now what chuck actually does.


----------



## Steve

Oily Dragon said:


> Would you want him landing on you?  I wouldn't....


Ha. Probably not, but to be serious for a moment, we're getting into something that I've been just hammered for in the past.  Which is to take your train of thought just a little further to its logical conclusion. 

If we're talking about activities that are tangentially helpful in a fight, then as you say, breakdancing could be a better martial art than some actual martial arts.  We could also look at 'ninja warrior" training (aka, parkour, agility training), hell, I mean, gymnastics could be a better self defense system than some martial arts.  I mean, with a little thought, I am pretty sure I could come up with several activities which would, if trained seriously, better prepare people for a fight than some martial arts styles. 

Put gymnasts in a gi, call it gymkata... same stuff, but sexy dance fighting, and it's capoeria.  Focus on the floor routine, and it's toad style kung fu or some such.  Folks get understandably sensitive when you compare their martial arts style to break dancing, gymnastics, or parkour, but it's really all about the costume sometimes.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dirty Dog said:


> Umm... yes it does. That's the very definition of science.


Man believed humans could fly long before there was evidence of it.  Belief before evidence.



Dirty Dog said:


> Belief without evidence is religion.


Not true. What you believe has nothing to do with religion.  Case in point.  Use science to prove that your statement is true.  Then tell me what religion your statement proves that you are in..


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Steve said:


> I mean, the GOOP yoni egg is my go to.  goop Wellness Jade Egg | Goop
> 
> Some folks really believe it's going to provide some medicinal benefit.  GOOP got sued, and were required to stop making medical claims, but they do still sell it.  And people do still believe it works.
> 
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, I submit to the group for your consideration toad style kung fu:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit:  Does this count as fraud busting?  I don't think we have any toad kung fu stylists on the board, so hopefully not.  I am, in fact, hoping that toad style kung fu seems as ridiculous to everyone else as it does to me.


Where is the tongue lashing technique?


----------



## Oily Dragon

drop bear said:


> Ok. So imagine you see a small snippet of what Chuck Liddell does and then use that to rationalise what is the opposite of what actually works.  And then I assume never ever test it against anyone good.
> 
> And incorporate that in to your training.
> 
> That would be a made up like astrology.


Astrology is a pseudoscience.  Kung fu isn't a pseudoscience at all.  I can't think of one Chinese style that is not, at its core, a taxing physical discipline (OK, Wing Chun is kind of easy)..   If you want me to hook you up with a Taijiquan master who is stacked like Lou Ferrigno and measures his practice with a half a dozen medical instruments...I'm that dude.  I live for it.

What Chuck is using is the same Gong Ji Bo/Ji Ng Ma found in like, two dozen Chinese styles, almost every Japanese style.  Front toe, back heel, 70/30 split.  Works every time.  "Fake" according to people who have never been able to sit low in that stance for more than 60 seconds without crying from all the lactic acid.  The enemy within.  That's how Chuck Liddel came to tattoo 幸栄館 on his scalp.

It's been tested in a thousand matches, over and over again.  Unless you believe Kung fu tournaments are make believe, which some do.

Granted, since we're talking Aikido, I know that the underlying philosophy is harder to grasp for some.  It's not for me, I've lived through every martial pain, and I still dig Aikido for what it attempted (and failed) to do in Japan.

#sadface


----------



## Oily Dragon

Steve said:


> Ha. Probably not, but to be serious for a moment, we're getting into something that I've been just hammered for in the past.  Which is to take your train of thought just a little further to its logical conclusion.
> 
> If we're talking about activities that are tangentially helpful in a fight, then as you say, breakdancing could be a better martial art than some actual martial arts.  We could also look at 'ninja warrior" training (aka, parkour, agility training), hell, I mean, gymnastics could be a better self defense system than some martial arts.  I mean, with a little thought, I am pretty sure I could come up with several activities which would, if trained seriously, better prepare people for a fight than some martial arts styles.
> 
> Put gymnasts in a gi, call it gymkata... same stuff, but sexy dance fighting, and it's capoeria.  Focus on the floor routine, and it's toad style kung fu or some such.  Folks get understandably sensitive when you compare their martial arts style to break dancing, gymnastics, or parkour, but it's really all about the costume sometimes.


Well, you chose a famous and powerful style to make fun of.   Could you move like that?  It's an awful hubris to chitter away at real skill like that, especially when we were talking about "fake" things like astrology.

Not only is Toad style a legitimate Shaolin art (one of so many), you picked a video where a monk is literally doing standing jumps 4 feet in the air, and landing supine, over and over again.  It's applicable to wrestling too, see that last video I posted.

Toad style is albeit a little narrowly focused.  You won't find the usual choi style punches in Toad, but you will find (depending on the source):

Bone breaking kicks
leaping collisions
take-downs
throws
fast spear hand strikes
ripping, raking, stabbing grips with the hands. 
reaps
sweeps that hook, pull, and capture. 
swimming style blocks

Now THIS is what fake, movie-fu Toad looks like.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Oily Dragon said:


> What do you mean by "those systems".
> 
> Chinese?  Chinese systems have stood the test of thousands of years.  If I named a hundred of them, which could you point to as "failed" in competition?  One?  Two?  So name them.
> 
> Are there any other countries you mean?  Or are you just after China.


ha ha ha ha.  Warriors of Sugar you and I.  but this is the first time I've seen this tone before lol  Good thing I like CMA lol


----------



## drop bear

Oily Dragon said:


> Astrology is a pseudoscience. Kung fu isn't a pseudoscience at all. I can't think of one Chinese style that is not, at its core, a taxing physical discipline (OK, Wing Chun is kind of easy).. If you want me to hook you up with a Taijiquan master who is stacked like Lou Ferrigno and measures his practice with a half a dozen medical instruments...I'm that dude. I live for it.



So if crystal healing used bigger rocks then it would be scientifically valid?


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> So if crystal healing used bigger rocks then it would be scientifically valid?


Uranium rocks, try that. Bigger the better. I hear they give off some vibrations that can rock your whole world. BELIEVE me. You can’t see it but I swear it’s real.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

JowGaWolf said:


> Man believed humans could fly long before there was evidence of it.  Belief before evidence.
> 
> 
> Not true. What you believe has nothing to do with religion.  Case in point.  Use science to prove that your statement is true.  Then tell me what religion your statement proves that you are in..


I think the issue is you're using belief different than other people. I think a better word, depending on which specific "belief" you're discussing, is either hope, expectation, or ambition. Man had an ambition to be able to fly, so they set out to try and prove that they could. Belief (at least how it's commonly used), implies that you will take it as fact that x exists/is possible/is true, and when it's already fact in someone's mind, there's no real need to prove it. 

Another example would be how maggots breed. Once upon a time, people thought they were born around garbage. If they believed that, in the common use of the word, they'd say okay, and that would be that. There'd be no reason to test something that you already believe to be true, because why waste the effort? But they expected that it's true, which leaves room for doubt. From there, they decided to test to see if they were correct or not, ran a test, and found out that no, they were not correct.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Man believed humans could fly long before there was evidence of it. Belief before evidence.



How do you think humans flew? Did they believe their way in to the sky


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Astrology has stood the test of a thousand years and it is straight up bunk.


Depends on what aspect you are looking at and in what context.  The Mayans used it. Sailors used it to navigate. Cultures used it to forecast the beginning and end of seasons.  They didn't care about the nature of the planets and stars themselves.  They just cared about the relationship and effect that the stars and planets had on the planet, their villages, which ultimately affected their lives. Watching the moon would be an example but at a closer ranger that help people know when there would be a high tided and low tide.  It's what we would do in the absence of technology.   That is stuff is legit.

So I'm assuming that you are referring to the other department where it gets into horoscopes and fortune tellers who look at a calendar and not the actual stars.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Edit: Does this count as fraud busting? I don't think we have any toad kung fu stylists on the board, so hopefully not. I am, in fact, hoping that toad style kung fu seems as ridiculous to everyone else as it does to me.


Nah he's doing it wrong.  That's why you don't understand it.  This is the right way to do it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> How do you think humans flew? Did they believe their way in to the sky


Actually yes. Because for thousands of years there was no evidence or capability to fly.   So it definitely wasn't evidence that man could fly that made them continue to try.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Oily Dragon said:


> _"Toad style is immensely strong...and immune to...."_
> 
> Rule #1 of kung fu: if it takes practice to do, it's real.
> 
> I need to learn Toad style, it'd really step up my b-boy game, not to mention my wrestling prowess.


Makes sense now.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Oily Dragon said:


> Astrology is a pseudoscience.  Kung fu isn't a pseudoscience at all.  I can't think of one Chinese style that is not, at its core, a taxing physical discipline (OK, Wing Chun is kind of easy)..   If you want me to hook you up with a Taijiquan master who is stacked like Lou Ferrigno and measures his practice with a half a dozen medical instruments...I'm that dude.  I live for it.
> 
> What Chuck is using is the same Gong Ji Bo/Ji Ng Ma found in like, two dozen Chinese styles, almost every Japanese style.  Front toe, back heel, 70/30 split.  Works every time.  "Fake" according to people who have never been able to sit low in that stance for more than 60 seconds without crying from all the lactic acid.  The enemy within.  That's how Chuck Liddel came to tattoo 幸栄館 on his scalp.
> 
> It's been tested in a thousand matches, over and over again.  Unless you believe Kung fu tournaments are make believe, which some do.
> 
> Granted, since we're talking Aikido, I know that the underlying philosophy is harder to grasp for some.  It's not for me, I've lived through every martial pain, and I still dig Aikido for what it attempted (and failed) to do in Japan.
> 
> #sadface


Ive quite literally never heard anyone call that stance “fake”.


----------



## Martial D

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I see now that you are not understanding my rudimentary use of language. You berated jow ga for his view point. You insulted all Chinese martial arts in a generalized and indefensible comment that shows how full of your own opinion you are. You refuse to acknowledge using the same type of argument that you referred to as unscientific and based on belief when it was used by others. You are attempting to bludgeon your way past having an erudite discussion in favor of displaying your intellect. I’m sorry sir, but you lost me when you lacked the ability to accept that you might be engaging in the very thing that apparently inflamed you in the first place. I take umbrage with your tone, your manner, and the lack of substance or fact in some of your statements. I could show you some proof of CMA working well in competition, but i doubt it would make a difference to your uninformed yet strong opinions. It’s clear you missed a very important part of CMA, it’s known as emptying your cup. Look it up, you may find it useful.


Wow. So sorry about your feelings, but your accusations are baseless and your ad hominem argument is dismissed. Try to focus on the topic.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Oily Dragon said:


> Astrology is a pseudoscience.


Astrology has multiple perspectives.  You have to be specific about which perspective you are talking about and not lump everything into Astrology.  
For example:
Astrology is the name given to a series of *diverse practices* based in the idea that the stars, planets, and other celestial phenomena possess significance and meaning for events on Earth. - Source : Astrology in Ancient Greek and Roman Culture


Does the moon and the sun not possess significance and meaning for events on Earth?  Today's calendars literally are examples of how a start, a planet, and a moon have significance and meaning for events on Earth.  Seasons, Low tides, birthdays, eclipses, holidays, work days, deliveries and the sort all affected by celestial phenomena.  Will crops grow without sun. Do some animals breed based on the position of the moon and how it affects the tides of the oceans?

Then you have that other type of Astrology that has more to do about fortune telling.  Many of them probably couldn't look up in the sky and tell you if the tide would be high or low or when Salmon migrate.  What they can tell you is if Jane should wear that read dress and hook up with Virgo. lol.

The biggest problem with Astrology is that too many people claim it, but not understand the original functions of it. Martial arts in general have that same issue.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Actually yes. Because for thousands of years there was no evidence or capability to fly.   So it definitely wasn't evidence that man could fly that made them continue to try.



So you don't think flight was an evidence based endever? 

Sorry can you walk me through how you think flight happened? Without using the process of experimentation and evidence.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Depends on what aspect you are looking at and in what context.  The Mayans used it. Sailors used it to navigate. Cultures used it to forecast the beginning and end of seasons.  They didn't care about the nature of the planets and stars themselves.  They just cared about the relationship and effect that the stars and planets had on the planet, their villages, which ultimately affected their lives. Watching the moon would be an example but at a closer ranger that help people know when there would be a high tided and low tide.  It's what we would do in the absence of technology.   That is stuff is legit.
> 
> So I'm assuming that you are referring to the other department where it gets into horoscopes and fortune tellers who look at a calendar and not the actual stars.



Are you describing Astronomy?


----------



## Martial D

Oily Dragon said:


> How can you compare hand to hand fighting styles with made up fantasy?


When the entirety of the training is cooperative larping fantasy is exactly what it is.


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> Are you describing Astronomy?


They are the same thing if you believe they are. Evidence isn't important 🤣


----------



## Martial D

drop bear said:


> So you don't think flight was an evidence based endever?
> 
> Sorry can you walk me through how you think flight happened? Without using the process of experimentation and evidence.


People just believed they could until the 50th guy that stepped off the cliff happened to be wearing a wingsuit he thought looked snazzy.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I think the issue is you're using belief different than other people. I think a better word, depending on which specific "belief" you're discussing, is either hope, expectation, or ambition.


The way that I'm using belief is correct.
"I hope that I will win the lottery  when I play it, but I don't ever believe that I will."

Hope and belief are not the same thing.  Hope is a desire or expectation that something will happen. 
*I hope I won't get sick*. (if you get sick then you might say this.
*is not the same as 
I believe I won't get sick*. (if you are rarely or never sick, then you might say this.)



Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Man had an ambition to be able to fly, so they set out to try and prove that they could. Belief (at least how it's commonly used), implies that you will take it as fact that x exists/is possible/is true, and when it's already fact in someone's mind, there's no real need to prove it.


Have you ever had an ambition in something that you don't believe?

Just because when something is already a fact in someone's mind doesn't mean that they don't feel the need to prove it.

Some people believe in climate change. In their minds, yet they still go out to prove it.

Some people believed that the earth is flat in their minds, yet they still go out to prove it.

Some people believed that witches are real and evil and they burned and drown people at the stake for that.  

I believed that kung fu was an effective fighting system before I experienced it.  I still believe kung fu is a good effective fighting system.  I'm always saying that I want to be a good representation of Jow Ga to show that kung fu can be used.  The reason I say belief because there is still some Jow Ga that I know know how to use.  The only thing I have to go on is that someone told me it could be used, and on the hope that my understanding of Jow Ga is enough for me to figure it out.

The only things that I don't try to prove in my life are internal things.  For example.  I don't try to prove the reasoning of my spiritual beliefs.  Why?  Because my spiritual beliefs don't have anything to do with anyone else.   I don't try to prove that I'm a nice guy.  I'm not nice to please others.  I'm nice because I see some personal benefit in being so. For example, being nice means that I'm less likely to be punched in the mouth.

The more internal something is the less I care about proving it.  The more external something is the more important it becomes for me to show the proof.  I teach kung fu, so it's not good enough for me to not care if what I believe is fact.  Other people may depend on me being accurate about my knowledge and understanding of Kung Fu.

If I were to train you how to fight with Jow Ga Kung Fu.  I would only teach you what I can use. I would never teach you what I believe could be use.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> So you don't think flight was an evidence based endever?


Only when there was evidence. 

 Maybe you accept Icarus as evidence? Maybe angels? A lot of cultures have winged humans long before actual flight.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Sorry can you walk me through how you think flight happened? Without using the process of experimentation and evidence.


Sure.  Very easy.  You can see for yourself. 

Design something that has never existed on this planet before.  Meaning that there is no evidence that it is possible there is no evidence that it isn't possible.  

Start there.  Once you are there.  You let me know where your idea comes from in the absence of evidence.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Sure.  Very easy.  You can see for yourself.
> 
> Design something that has never existed on this planet before.  Meaning that there is no evidence that it is possible there is no evidence that it isn't possible.
> 
> Start there.  Once you are there.  You let me know where your idea comes from in the absence of evidence.


i think people saw things fly before they figured out how to get us up there.  We could observe that flight was possible.


----------



## Dirty Dog

JowGaWolf said:


> Man believed humans could fly long before there was evidence of it.  Belief before evidence.


People HOPED humans could fly, because they could see that flying was possible.


JowGaWolf said:


> What you believe has nothing to do with religion.


Wow. Just...wow. 
I nominate this for most ridiculous statement of the week. Or month. Actually, of the year.
Religion is 100% about belief. Religions are defined by the beliefs held by their adherents. 


JowGaWolf said:


> Case in point.  Use science to prove that your statement is true.  Then tell me what religion your statement proves that you are in..


I cannot find a way to parse this that even begins to make sense.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Martial D said:


> Wow. So sorry about your feelings, but your accusations are baseless and your ad hominem argument is dismissed. Try to focus on the topic.


I call em like I see em.  It’s evidence based.


----------



## Steve

Wing Woo Gar said:


> I call em like I see em.  It’s evidence based.


I believe you believe that it’s evidence based.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Sure.  Very easy.  You can see for yourself.
> 
> Design something that has never existed on this planet before.  Meaning that there is no evidence that it is possible there is no evidence that it isn't possible.
> 
> Start there.  Once you are there.  You let me know where your idea comes from in the absence of evidence.



I think you are potentially missing the massive amount of work that turns an idea in to a practicality. 

Nobody just went. Hey flying would be cool and just flew.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> I think you are potentially missing the massive amount of work that turns an idea in to a practicality.
> 
> Nobody just went. Hey flying would be cool and just flew.


Superman did. And he’s real.  I believe that.


----------



## Dirty Dog

JowGaWolf said:


> Sure.  Very easy.  You can see for yourself.
> 
> Design something that has never existed on this planet before.  Meaning that there is no evidence that it is possible there is no evidence that it isn't possible.


So sticking with your example of flying... nobody did this.
There was an abundance of evidence that flying was possible. Because birds. Because leaves. Because paper.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> i think people saw things fly before they figured out how to get us up there. We could observe that flight was possible.


I think it played out like that too.  But man would have only tried to figure a way to fly if they believed that it was possible.  Seeing birds fly is only evidence that birds fly. It is not evidence that man can fly.  Sort of like a spider spinning web from his butt, doesn't mean humans can do it.

Historically pictures from all cultures show human figures with wings.  So that suggest that mans would need wings to fly only because birds had them.  Much of the early design for flying machines were bird like in design.  Ironically the first flight was a hot air balloon if you want to call floating flying.

about 20 years ago I read a debate that the first flying machine was created by Leonardo Da Vinci as described by some written account.  My personal thought is that he wasn't trying to reproduce how birds fly.  If birds fly like A, then humans must fly like A.
I think if we took him out of the past, he would rather create this type of stuff than to  create planes.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> I think it played out like that too.  But man would have only tried to figure a way to fly if they believed that it was possible.  Seeing birds fly is only evidence that birds fly. It is not evidence that man can fly.  Sort of like a spider spinning web from his butt, doesn't mean humans can do it.
> 
> Historically pictures from all cultures show human figures with wings.  So that suggest that mans would need wings to fly only because birds had them.  Much of the early design for flying machines were bird like in design.  Ironically the first flight was a hot air balloon if you want to call floating flying.
> 
> about 20 years ago I read a debate that the first flying machine was created by Leonardo Da Vinci as described by some written account.  My personal thought is that he wasn't trying to reproduce how birds fly.  If birds fly like A, then humans must fly like A.
> I think if we took him out of the past, he would rather create this type of stuff than to  create planes.


Look man. I really think you’ve allowed yourself to get out on a limb, trying desperately to justify an extreme, unreasonable position, and are just too stubborn to admit it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dirty Dog said:


> People HOPED humans could fly, because they could see that flying was possible.


I believe it's true. But I don't think the people who hoped it were the ones who pursued it.  There's a lot of stuff that I hope for, but I only go after the stuff that I believe. 

I hope for world peace but what am I'm doing to make that a reality.  Am I'm activity trying to create world peace?

I hope for a cure for cancer.  But want am I doing to make that reality. I may pay donate money because I hope that money will help discover a cure for cancer.  

I hope to be a good martial artist.  But that's a different mindset than if I believed that I can be a good martial artist.  

When people say Affirmations they say "I am" not "I hope I am."  Hope often doesn't come with a plan.  Don't get me wrong.  Hope is good to have.  It just often doesn't involve a plan in making things happen.



Dirty Dog said:


> Religion is 100% about belief.


Religion is always about belief, but belief isn't always about religion.  Religion is always about faith, but faith isn't always about religion.

*Religion* - "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.  As you can see. This is specific."

*Belief.* - "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. trust, faith, or confidence i*n someone* or *something*

It doesn't say anything about religion.  
This is the definition of faith
*Faith* - complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Read quotes and essays about these 2 things you will see that they are not the same and that I'm not the only one who thinks this.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dirty Dog said:


> So sticking with your example of flying... nobody did this.
> There was an abundance of evidence that flying was possible. Because birds. Because leaves. Because paper.


If you take my challenge then you will be one of the many who have done it.  The first thing that will come to your mind is the idea void of evidence, then the belief that it is something that you can make true.  

There is an abundance of evidence that animals live in the deepest parts of the ocean.  Name one human that lives there?  Yet there is a lot of evidence that life is there.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> I think you are potentially missing the massive amount of work that turns an idea in to a practicality.
> 
> Nobody just went. Hey flying would be cool and just flew.


Nope.  I'm not missing it.  I know it's there. But the idea and the belief comes before the work and sometimes it comes before the evidence.

Why would you put hard work into something that you don't believe was possible?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> I believe you believe that it’s evidence based.


And there you have it.  Your belief.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Look man. I really think you’ve allowed yourself to get out on a limb, trying desperately to justify an extreme, unreasonable position, and are just too stubborn to admit it.


What is the extreme that I'm trying to justify?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> unreasonable position, and are just too stubborn to admit it.


ha ha ha too stubborn.

Things I've done on more than one occasion since I've been in this forum.
1. Apologize when I unintentionally offended someone.
2. Admit when I'm wrong.
3. Thanked people who corrected me.

I'm pretty sure I made a comment about Drop Bear bring up a valid point about the "Island Boys"   If my memory is correct I think I've said " Drop bear got me with the Island Boys" or something to that measure.

I'm actually curious to know what you think the unreasonable position is.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> And there you have it.  Your belief.


I was making a joke. I believe you didn’t get it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Dirty Dog said:


> So sticking with your example of flying... nobody did this.



Are you sure? Someone didn't think it was cool. Lots of stories about flying things
The dream of flight
Source: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/dreamofflight/dream-dream.html


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> What is the extreme that I'm trying to justify?


Oh my man.  If you don’t see it , I won’t be able to explain it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> I was making a joke. I believe you didn’t get it.


 ha ha ha. I got.  But I also know that as soon, as I tell you that this statement is your belief.  That you will create another belief without evidence. lol.


----------



## drop bear

Anyway men flew on kites in Ancient China. 



			Manned Flight in Ancient China
		


So it was possible well before the Wright brothers or even Divinchi.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> Oh my man.  If you don’t see it , I won’t be able to explain it.


That's fine.  A claim you can't explain.  I can live with that.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Steve said:


> I believe you believe that it’s evidence based.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Anyway men flew on kites in Ancient China.
> 
> 
> 
> Manned Flight in Ancient China
> 
> 
> 
> So it was possible well before the Wright brothers or even Divinchi.


Yep.  The idea of flying has been around for a long time.  According to some sources Egyptians had success with it too, not on kites but gliders.  I don't the full story of it's one of those things you hear on a history channel in passing.   I listed just enough to say "hmmm interesting" and then turned the channel.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Are you describing Astronomy?


Definition of Astronomy
"the branch of science which deals with celestial objects, space, and the physical universe as a whole."

Astrology doesn't fit this definition.
It deals with celestial objects, but it doesn't say anything about space or the physical universe as a whole.  When you keep track of the sun to tell time.  Are you studying space or the physical universe as a whole?  Or are you using the sun as a marker for the purpose of earthly events such as seasons, time, and in some cases religious events.  Does a Sun Dial have any baring on space?  Or is it only for earthly concepts and measurements of time?


----------



## Oily Dragon

Martial D said:


> When the entirety of the training is cooperative larping fantasy is exactly what it is.


Is that even a complete sentence in English?

Please, tell me, which cooperative larping fantasy touched you, and where.


----------



## Oily Dragon

drop bear said:


> So if crystal healing used bigger rocks then it would be scientifically valid?


I don't understand what you're trying to say.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> The way that I'm using belief is correct.
> "I hope that I will win the lottery  when I play it, but I don't ever believe that I will."
> 
> Hope and belief are not the same thing.  Hope is a desire or expectation that something will happen.
> *I hope I won't get sick*. (if you get sick then you might say this.
> *is not the same as
> I believe I won't get sick*. (if you are rarely or never sick, then you might say this.)
> 
> 
> Have you ever had an ambition in something that you don't believe?
> 
> Just because when something is already a fact in someone's mind doesn't mean that they don't feel the need to prove it.
> 
> Some people believe in climate change. In their minds, yet they still go out to prove it.
> 
> Some people believed that the earth is flat in their minds, yet they still go out to prove it.
> 
> Some people believed that witches are real and evil and they burned and drown people at the stake for that.
> 
> I believed that kung fu was an effective fighting system before I experienced it.  I still believe kung fu is a good effective fighting system.  I'm always saying that I want to be a good representation of Jow Ga to show that kung fu can be used.  The reason I say belief because there is still some Jow Ga that I know know how to use.  The only thing I have to go on is that someone told me it could be used, and on the hope that my understanding of Jow Ga is enough for me to figure it out.
> 
> The only things that I don't try to prove in my life are internal things.  For example.  I don't try to prove the reasoning of my spiritual beliefs.  Why?  Because my spiritual beliefs don't have anything to do with anyone else.   I don't try to prove that I'm a nice guy.  I'm not nice to please others.  I'm nice because I see some personal benefit in being so. For example, being nice means that I'm less likely to be punched in the mouth.
> 
> The more internal something is the less I care about proving it.  The more external something is the more important it becomes for me to show the proof.  I teach kung fu, so it's not good enough for me to not care if what I believe is fact.  Other people may depend on me being accurate about my knowledge and understanding of Kung Fu.
> 
> If I were to train you how to fight with Jow Ga Kung Fu.  I would only teach you what I can use. I would never teach you what I believe could be use.


Going back to where you used flight as an example of belief before evidence, I think you're limiting what would have been evidence prior to powered human flight. First, there had been birds, bats, and squirrels flying and gliding all around them. Long before powered flight, gliding was a thing, which was preceded by gliding toys. There was evidence all around that flight was possible.

I don't have to be able to do something myself to have evidence it's possible I could.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Only when there was evidence.
> 
> Maybe you accept Icarus as evidence? Maybe angels? A lot of cultures have winged humans long before actual flight.


Yes, and no doubt at least some of them actually believed that with wings (as demonstrated by the evidence of bird flight all around them), humans would be able to fly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Sure.  Very easy.  You can see for yourself.
> 
> Design something that has never existed on this planet before.  Meaning that there is no evidence that it is possible there is no evidence that it isn't possible.
> 
> Start there.  Once you are there.  You let me know where your idea comes from in the absence of evidence.


At what point in human flight was something designed that wasn't supported by any prior evidence?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> If you take my challenge then you will be one of the many who have done it.  The first thing that will come to your mind is the idea void of evidence, then the belief that it is something that you can make true.
> 
> There is an abundance of evidence that animals live in the deepest parts of the ocean.  Name one human that lives there?  Yet there is a lot of evidence that life is there.


I think you're confounding evidence and conclusion, now. Evidence is a starting point that leads to a conclusion. There is evidence that pressure in water is bad for humans beyond a point, and that building and maintaining structures to resist that pressure is expensive. Put that with the evidence that mammals can live deep in the ocean, and you end up with a conclusion that it's likely possible for people to live deep in the ocean, but that it's difficult and expensive.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Nope.  I'm not missing it.  I know it's there. But the idea and the belief comes before the work and sometimes it comes before the evidence.
> 
> Why would you put hard work into something that you don't believe was possible?


Sometimes, just to find out if it is. Some people are like that. But that's not really the point. Vanishingly few advancements jump past the evidence. Most big advancements are because someone finally figured out how to solve a problem that had been stumping others who'd also been trying to solve (like the Wright brothers recalculating lift).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Oily Dragon said:


> Is that even a complete sentence in English?
> 
> Please, tell me, which cooperative larping fantasy touched you, and where.


It is a complete sentence - just missing a comma.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> How do you think humans flew? Did they believe their way in to the sky


In a sense. Through trial and error, they believed certain methods after proof of concept. Take Daedalus for example.
While some were attempts to directly duplicate birds (gluing on feathers) others were very far removed from the flying wing of a bird (rotors, hot air balloons).

I get where you are going. You could argue SM was applied. I would argue a similar approach (in man's understanding) has been used in Christianity (I cannot speak for all religion) since the inception.

So go ahead and lay it on me.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> Going back to where you used flight as an example of belief before evidence, I think you're limiting what would have been evidence prior to powered human flight.


I intentionally did this on purpose. Because when you speak of kites and human flight, you may have to introduce accidental discoveries.  Things that are discovered to be true when evidence nor belief was needed.  

For example, history doesn't show that kites were originally designed for human flight.  The chances that discovering that a kite can lift a man in the air is something that a kite maker who was interested in seeing how big he can make a kite would have probably experienced.  The bigger the kite the more likely this becomes a reality.  





Eventually you'll have ask yourself. Was the kite originally designed for the intention of human flight. Or was it something that was discovered by accident when someone decided to make a big kite and fly it.  You will also have to ask about the history of kites and how it came about.  Was it something that was created by sailors?  No one knows.  Because of that lack of knowledge you'll end up with a bunch of people having theories and beliefs about how the first kite was created and how did it come about.  So I picked a specific area about flying that would make it possible to research and actually find how it came about.  

For marital artists we have the worst focus.  The title of the thread is about Aikido  and here we are talking about kites.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> I don't have to be able to do something myself to have evidence it's possible I could.


Depends on where your knowledge exists.  Are you creating something new that has never existed or are you seeing what others have already created and building off on that knowledge.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> At what point in human flight was something designed that wasn't supported by any prior evidence?


At the beginning.  We can used the Chinese story about a ruler throwing people off a cliff to their deaths.  He wasn't trying get them to fly.  He was just trying to execute them there was plenty of evidence that they wouldn't fly.  That is until one did one person did.  Based on that story there was no evidence that a human could fly using a kite before that point which is supposed to be the historical reference of when the.  Everything before that point about kites are best guesses assumptions and beliefs.  Which makes it difficult to verify or check assumptions, theories and beliefs.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> I intentionally did this on purpose. Because when you speak of kites and human flight, you may have to introduce accidental discoveries.  Things that are discovered to be true when evidence nor belief was needed.
> 
> For example, history doesn't show that kites were originally designed for human flight.  The chances that discovering that a kite can lift a man in the air is something that a kite maker who was interested in seeing how big he can make a kite would have probably experienced.  The bigger the kite the more likely this becomes a reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually you'll have ask yourself. Was the kite originally designed for the intention of human flight. Or was it something that was discovered by accident when someone decided to make a big kite and fly it.  You will also have to ask about the history of kites and how it came about.  Was it something that was created by sailors?  No one knows.  Because of that lack of knowledge you'll end up with a bunch of people having theories and beliefs about how the first kite was created and how did it come about.  So I picked a specific area about flying that would make it possible to research and actually find how it came about.
> 
> For marital artists we have the worst focus.  The title of the thread is about Aikido  and here we are talking about kites.


Yes, accidental discoveries are absolutely a part of the evidence in the chain. And likely the origin of the kite was accidental - someone's sheet (or paper, or whatever) blew in the wind, while tangled in something.

But theories are not the same as belief. Scientists come up with theories all the time that fit the available evidence, which they say are the most likely (or sometimes, just, "a likely") answer to how something happened. Sometimes their conclusions lead to beliefs. And sometimes those conclusions (and even beliefs) are wrong. This is built into science - you're expected to challenge your own and others' conclusions.

I'm not sure how any of that changes the fact that we can see a chain of evidence that would easily lead to the point where we have knowledge of the progression. There's absolutely no reason I should believe someone had to make a leap past the available evidence, except in their experiments (which are an attempt to gain evidence, so can have hypotheses that go beyond the limits of existing evidence).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Depends on where your knowledge exists.  Are you creating something new that has never existed or are you seeing what others have already created and building off on that knowledge.


That's an entirely different question. I can't for the life of me think of a single advancement that isn't incremental. Everything that is created is a step beyond something that existed before it, so uses the evidence of those prior things.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> At the beginning.  We can used the Chinese story about a ruler throwing people off a cliff to their deaths.  He wasn't trying get them to fly.  He was just trying to execute them there was plenty of evidence that they wouldn't fly.  That is until one did one person did.  Based on that story there was no evidence that a human could fly using a kite before that point which is supposed to be the historical reference of when the.  Everything before that point about kites are best guesses assumptions and beliefs.  Which makes it difficult to verify or check assumptions, theories and beliefs.


Let's assume that is a factual story (I've no idea if it is or not). Do you think that person had never seen a kite before? Was this the first kite ever flown in their presence? Or had they seen kites, and knew that a larger kite, in a stiff wind, could pull a man hard enough to make him take a step? Which makes it a step - not a leap - to say that a large, well-designed kite, in the right wind could carry a man (or at least let him down gently). 

It seems you're trying to limit evidence to an exact thing already done. But that's not how evidence works in inductive reasoning. If I see someone do a hip throw on the left side (and it's the first hip throw I've ever seen), I will likely conclude that a hip throw can also be done on the right side. I have the evidence of the throw I saw, plus my knowledge that the body is roughly symmetrical. Assuming no very different physiology between myself and the person I observe (they aren't massively stronger, I don't have different obvious physical limitations, etc.), I could also conclude that it's probably possible for me to do a throw like that with some practice (since past experience provides me evidence that most skills take some practice).


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> I think you're confounding evidence and conclusion, now.


No I'm not confounding the two. What conclusion have I made? Lets take a look about what I stated.  "There is an abundance of evidence that animals live in the deepest parts of the ocean.  Name one human that lives there?  Yet there is a lot of evidence that life is there.        "

1. "There is an abundance of evidence that animals live in the deepest parts of the ocean."  Is this not true?

2. "Name one human that lives there?"  What conclusion is this?  Can you name one human that lives there?  Is it true that human's don't live there?

I state this question because in order for you to make #2 a reality, then you will have to believe that there's a way to make it possible for people to live there. Ironically all of the the things you listed were reasons why? we don't live there vs why it would be possible to.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> No I'm not confounding the two. What conclusion have I made? Lets take a look about what I stated.  "There is an abundance of evidence that animals live in the deepest parts of the ocean.  Name one human that lives there?  Yet there is a lot of evidence that life is there.        "
> 
> 1. "There is an abundance of evidence that animals live in the deepest parts of the ocean."  Is this not true?
> 
> 2. "Name one human that lives there?"  What conclusion is this?  Can you name one human that lives there?  Is it true that human's don't live there?
> 
> I state this question because in order for you to make #2 a reality, then you will have to believe that there's a way to make it possible for people to live there. Ironically all of the the things you listed were reasons why? we don't live there vs why it would be possible to.


I didn't say anyting about you drawing a conclusion.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> Vanishingly few advancements jump past the evidence.


I think this is because humans created so many things that previous technologies and solution provide a lot of information to build on.  I would say very few areas are brand new areas in which a previous knowledge doesn't serve as a driving force.  We now know multiple ways of flying and all of that information can help create new ways to fly.  People who were creating new flying machines had to learn through trial and error  the things that today's 10 yr olds know.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> But theories are not the same as belief.


Yeah that's an entirely different rabbit hole.  I wouldn't call beliefs theories either..


Gerry Seymour said:


> That's an entirely different question. I can't for the life of me think of a single advancement that isn't incremental.


You would have to think of inventions and then trace it back through it's origins in order to see if it was created new, or if it was influenced by something else. 

 look at inventions that were designed to solve a problem.  Traffic light, phone, cotton gin. Helicopter maybe? The bicycle?


----------



## Martial D

Oily Dragon said:


> Is that even a complete sentence in English?
> 
> Please, tell me, which cooperative larping fantasy touched you, and where.


I'm not responsible for your lack of reading comprehension. Let me break it down in a way that maybe even you can understand.

If you train in a way that involves 0 live resistance ( that is when the other guy is allowed to react in a non scripted way, if my wording is too difficult) , as most traditional styles tend to do ( a style being a particular martial art, to clarify), then what you are doing is larping(this means live action roll playing).

If this is still too difficult for you to understand, please let me know and I will explain it again slowly using smaller words.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Yeah that's an entirely different rabbit hole.  I wouldn't call beliefs theories either..
> 
> You would have to think of inventions and then trace it back through it's origins in order to see if it was created new, or if it was influenced by something else.
> 
> look at inventions that were designed to solve a problem.  Traffic light, phone, cotton gin. Helicopter maybe? The bicycle?


None of those would be without prior evidence. A traffic light was simply a light that rotated, with different colored lenses. Mechanical rotation, light, and colored lenses were all established technology. The phone was an advancement built upon knowledge that frequencies could be transmitted over wire, and that sound could be created from vibrations, and those two lined up with other knowledge that made it possible to take the next step- someone just had to figure out the last technical bits to get there. 

The helicopter is an interesting one. There are seeds that use a similar shape to a rotor blade, to drift long distances. And the rotor principles have been used in toys for a long time (again, some history of this in China).

It would be amazing to find a single invention that actually wasn't based on conclusions drawn from existing evidence. The most surprising inventions are just that, paired with either a new step in technology (like the phone) or a new concept in use (like the iPod).


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> In a sense. Through trial and error, they believed certain methods after proof of concept. Take Daedalus for example.
> While some were attempts to directly duplicate birds (gluing on feathers) others were very far removed from the flying wing of a bird (rotors, hot air balloons).
> 
> I get where you are going. You could argue SM was applied. I would argue a similar approach (in man's understanding) has been used in Christianity (I cannot speak for all religion) since the inception.
> 
> So go ahead and lay it on me.



Exept we can't discuss religion.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Steve said:


> I believe you believe that it’s evidence based.


Well yes, and that is quite an astute o


Steve said:


> I was making a joke. I believe you didn’t get it.


you are actually quite funny. I like your jokes.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Gerry Seymour said:


> None of those would be without prior evidence. A traffic light was simply a light that rotated, with different colored lenses. Mechanical rotation, light, and colored lenses were all established technology. The phone was an advancement built upon knowledge that frequencies could be transmitted over wire, and that sound could be created from vibrations, and those two lined up with other knowledge that made it possible to take the next step- someone just had to figure out the last technical bits to get there.
> 
> The helicopter is an interesting one. There are seeds that use a similar shape to a rotor blade, to drift long distances. And the rotor principles have been used in toys for a long time (again, some history of this in China).
> 
> It would be amazing to find a single invention that actually wasn't based on conclusions drawn from existing evidence. The most surprising inventions are just that, paired with either a new step in technology (like the phone) or a new concept in use (like the iPod).


I don’t know this to be a fact but how about Archimedes screw?


----------



## Oily Dragon

Martial D said:


> I'm not responsible for your lack of reading comprehension. Let me break it down in a way that maybe even you can understand.
> 
> If you train in a way that involves 0 live resistance ( that is when the other guy is allowed to react in a non scripted way, if my wording is too difficult) , as most traditional styles tend to do ( a style being a particular martial art, to clarify), then what you are doing is larping(this means live action roll playing).
> 
> If this is still too difficult for you to understand, please let me know and I will explain it again slowly using smaller words.


"Most traditional styles...LARP"?  Again, can you name a couple?

Once again buddy, your problem seems to be that you're mired in "0 live resistance" fantasy land of Wing Chun.  Great news!  I've been sent here through time by the dragon gods to tell you there's live resistance Wing Chun out there, waiting for you.  You have to want it though.

I'm not responsible for your unwillingness.  Aikido is all about acceptance, after all.  Oh yeah.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> None of those would be without prior evidence. A traffic light was simply a light that rotated, with different colored lenses. Mechanical rotation, light, and colored lenses were all established technology. The phone was an advancement built upon knowledge that frequencies could be transmitted over wire, and that sound could be created from vibrations, and those two lined up with other knowledge that made it possible to take the next step- someone just had to figure out the last technical bits to get there.


This is why I say it's necessary to trace it back to the origins.  You have to determine if there was something that already exists or if it was a variation. Then you have to determine why it was created. Was it created because someone saw a light, or knew of mechanical rotation.  Or was it something that was created to solve a problem where it's necessary to come up with ideas that you think would work.  

For example.  The invention process for the original traffic light might have followed as such. 
1. How do we direct traffic
2. Ideas come up idea 1, idea 2, idea 3, 
3. How would we make the ideas that we believe will work a reality?  This is where evidence in technology come into play to turn what is in the brain and what is believed to be the solution to work.  You have to have the idea first so you know what evidence (if any) you'll need to look at.
4. You build a prototype.  This is where the testing come in to see if your idea and belief in it will work as you believe it would.

The first light ran on gas and it blew up on an officer.  According to what I've been able to find, there was nothing before this.  And it was based on how officers were directing traffic with their arms.  The lights were seem to be a feature that came later in the design. After they had the idea for it, someone probably wondered how to see the signals at night.   I don't know if officers used gas lights at night to signal traffic. I didn't dig that deep.  Point is. It came about due to a a problem and someone came up for an idea that they believed would work, then went about finding evidence on the best way to make it work.






I couldn't find any information on if the idea of a traffic signal existed before Other than man directing traffic.  It turned out that gas and making a traffic signal based on the arm signals of an officer was not the best way to go about it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Gerry Seymour said:


> None of those would be without prior evidence. A traffic light was simply a light that rotated, with different colored lenses. Mechanical rotation, light, and colored lenses were all established technology. The phone was an advancement built upon knowledge that frequencies could be transmitted over wire, and that sound could be created from vibrations, and those two lined up with other knowledge that made it possible to take the next step- someone just had to figure out the last technical bits to get there.
> 
> The helicopter is an interesting one. There are seeds that use a similar shape to a rotor blade, to drift long distances. And the rotor principles have been used in toys for a long time (again, some history of this in China).
> 
> It would be amazing to find a single invention that actually wasn't based on conclusions drawn from existing evidence. The most surprising inventions are just that, paired with either a new step in technology (like the phone) or a new concept in use (like the iPod).


Remember the idea of for the training equipment that I want to build?  The idea of it came before the evidence.  It started out very simple.

1. I want training equipment that I can build and use for A, B, C.
2. I want it to be portable but not heavy

I had the idea first and then came into the forum to ask gather the evidence of what might work   "What can I use for..."  based on how I believed the equipment should look and function.


----------



## drop bear

Oily Dragon said:


> "Most traditional styles...LARP"?  Again, can you name a couple?
> 
> Once again buddy, your problem seems to be that you're mired in "0 live resistance" fantasy land of Wing Chun.  Great news!  I've been sent here through time by the dragon gods to tell you there's live resistance Wing Chun out there, waiting for you.  You have to want it though.
> 
> I'm not responsible for your unwillingness.  Aikido is all about acceptance, after all.  Oh yeah.



There is live resistance in Wing chun. But where there isn't the style suffers for it.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Exept we can't discuss religion.


Haha. I thought we already have been.


----------



## dvcochran

Gerry Seymour said:


> Yes, accidental discoveries are absolutely a part of the evidence in the chain. And likely the origin of the kite was accidental - someone's sheet (or paper, or whatever) blew in the wind, while tangled in something.
> 
> But theories are not the same as belief. Scientists come up with theories all the time that fit the available evidence, which they say are the most likely (or sometimes, just, "a likely") answer to how something happened. Sometimes their conclusions lead to beliefs. And sometimes those conclusions (and even beliefs) are wrong. This is built into science - you're expected to challenge your own and others' conclusions.
> 
> I'm not sure how any of that changes the fact that we can see a chain of evidence that would easily lead to the point where we have knowledge of the progression. There's absolutely no reason I should believe someone had to make a leap past the available evidence, except in their experiments (which are an attempt to gain evidence, so can have hypotheses that go beyond the limits of existing evidence).


I don't mean to, and I know this may derail the thread but, this line of discussion makes me wonder about how/when someone figured out it is good to cook meat over fire. 
I am glad that it happened, but it always makes me wonder how that sequence of events came about.


----------



## JowGaWolf

dvcochran said:


> I don't mean to, and I know this may derail the thread but, this line of discussion makes me wonder about how/when someone figured out it is good to cook meat over fire.
> I am glad that it happened, but it always makes me wonder how that sequence of events came about.


Maybe frozen food wast the spark? If man new how to make fire then they would know that it kept them warm.

Say it's winter and your clan/ tribe hunts in the winter as well.  Temperatures would cause the meet to harden.  Think of frozen steak in the freezer.  I can see them keeping the meat close to the fire in order to keep it from freezing.  Depending on how close the meat was to the fire, it would have cooked it.

I'm not saying that's what happened, just trying to think of ways to accidentally cook meat.  The problem that is it makes the assumption that human in warm climates didn't cook their food.

Edit:  This train has been off the tracks for a while now lol


----------



## Martial D

Oily Dragon said:


> "Most traditional styles...LARP"?  Again, can you name a couple?
> 
> Once again buddy, your problem seems to be that you're mired in "0 live resistance" fantasy land of Wing Chun.  Great news!  I've been sent here through time by the dragon gods to tell you there's live resistance Wing Chun out there, waiting for you.  You have to want it though.
> 
> I'm not responsible for your unwillingness.  Aikido is all about acceptance, after all.  Oh yeah.


 Ok, I will preface this by saying I fully realize you are not interested in anything resembling adult discussion, and the fact that you are entirely focussed on me rather than what I'm saying tells the whole story here. But for the rest that may be reading...

Yes, there are some wing chun schools that train with live resistance..such as what Alan Orr is doing. Yet if you watch his fighters fight, they don't do anything resembling standard wing chun. Once the system is adapted into something that works...it is always a very different animal. And there is the rub, fighting is fighting. Certain movements, techniques, and strategies are simply objectively better under live resistance than others, and once they have been modified to that point you are left with what is basically kickboxing, wrestling, and jui jitsu, or some combination thereof. The evidence for this (for those of you that believe in evidence) is overwhelming and undeniable.

Take any style that lacks this sort of live training and you are left with something that is untested, people that have no idea what to do if they are being attacked and the 'opponent' doesn't cooperate. This is the bulk of traditional schools.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

dvcochran said:


> I don't mean to, and I know this may derail the thread but, this line of discussion makes me wonder about how/when someone figured out it is good to cook meat over fire.
> I am glad that it happened, but it always makes me wonder how that sequence of events came about.


Wow! Now that’s an original thought! Thanks for that!


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

Martial D said:


> I'm not responsible for your lack of reading comprehension. Let me break it down in a way that maybe even you can understand.
> 
> If you train in a way that involves 0 live resistance ( that is when the other guy is allowed to react in a non scripted way, if my wording is too difficult) , as most traditional styles tend to do ( a style being a particular martial art, to clarify), then what you are doing is larping(this means live action roll playing).
> 
> If this is still too difficult for you to understand, please let me know and I will explain it again slowly using smaller words.


You can’t even name the styles that deride.


----------



## Wing Woo Gar

drop bear said:


> There is live resistance in Wing chun. But where there isn't the style suffers for it.





Martial D said:


> Ok, I will preface this by saying I fully realize you are not interested in anything resembling adult discussion, and the fact that you are entirely focussed on me rather than what I'm saying tells the whole story here. But for the rest that may be reading...
> 
> Yes, there are some wing chun schools that train with live resistance..such as what Alan Orr is doing. Yet if you watch his fighters fight, they don't do anything resembling standard wing chun. Once the system is adapted into something that works...it is always a very different animal. And there is the rub, fighting is fighting. Certain movements, techniques, and strategies are simply objectively better under live resistance than others, and once they have been modified to that point you are left with what is basically kickboxing, wrestling, and jui jitsu, or some combination thereof. The evidence for this (for those of you that believe in evidence) is overwhelming and undeniable.
> 
> Take any style that lacks this sort of live training and you are left with something that is untested, people that have no idea what to do if they are being attacked and the 'opponent' doesn't cooperate. This is the bulk of traditional schools.


More vast generalizations about things you haven’t the slightest clue about. How impressive. You have no experience, yet you are an expert on TMA? What a sad joke.


----------



## Martial D

Wing Woo Gar said:


> You can’t even name the styles that deride.


I think you are attempting to say 'you can't even name the styles you are trying to deride', as what you wrote is grammatically incoherent. 

Assuming you were, that's a weird and baseless accusation that has nothing to do with any point I have made. Any and all styles or more specifically, the schools that teach them, that do not train alive and with actual resistance and sparring. Naming 50 different styles that are generally known for this would add nothing to the discussion.

Thanks for coming out though.


----------



## jks9199

Folks,
At this point, this thread has wandered far and wide, circling many topics... and it seems to have really lost the original focus.  A warning was posted, with less than the desired effect.  And, when you try something and it doesn't get the desired effect, you try something else...

There's no practical way to cull and split this into separate threads.  Various folks are treading close to getting points, and our philosophy has always been that less moderation is more...

So...  I'm closing the thread, right after I finish this post.

jks9199
MartialTalk Administrator


----------

