# Aikido has no reason to prove itself!



## Jaz

Hey Guys, please check out my video on why Rokas from the Martial Arts Journey channel got Aikido wrong. Plus, I talk about why providing video evidence of Aikido techniques working against resisting opponents, is not actually proof of Aikido. My argument is that Aikido was never intended as a combat system but for something else.

Here's the link and let me know what you think:


----------



## drop bear

What is that saying?

A good man isn't someone who can't fight. A good man is someone who can but restrains himself.

Or something like that. Probably with a picture of an eagle riding a viking.

The idea expressed in the video suggests Aikido missed the point of what they were setting out to achieve, created a whole new point that doesn't make sense and should basically own that.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Jaz said:


> My argument is that Aikido was never intended as a combat system but for something else.


If this was true, aikidoka would be the ones to know.


----------



## Jaz

Urban Trekker said:


> If this was true, aikidoka would be the ones to know.


Unfortunately, that is the problem. A lot of Aikidoka don't know this. Morihei Ueshiba was a tough guy. Aside from his martial arts training, he had fought in the front lines of the Russo-Japanese war. It was these experiences that developed his ability to fight. Aikido seems to be more like a method for him to escape the horrors of what he had felt, seen and done during that war but still be connected to the movement of the martial arts that he was practising. Almost like abstract artists - they can paint portraits, landscapes etc but choose to paint abstract images. Ueshiba could fight...but chose to practice martial arts but in a non-combatative but philosophical and spiritual way. Thanks for the comment! What did you think of the video?


----------



## JowGaWolf

I'll have to wait to see what the Aikido guys say if they say anything.  I don't train the art so I'm not comfortable with saying what an art is or what it isn't.

I'm not sure what if it ultimately matters because people are using it for health like Tai Chi for health.  But you also have some that are training Tai Chi to be functional.  From what I can see moving forward Aikido is having a similar split.

The truth of  the matter is that Martial Arts evolve in one way or the other.  If it evolves into a practical fighting system that focuses on function then it may keep it's name as Aikido or it may get a new name.

If it Evolves into something that's not about function but health, then it keep it's name or it may change into something else.  There's nothing to stop it from developing into a practical system.  Aikido practitioners who are interested in that will be the ones who will play a role in that.   

If we want to be accurate about Aikido, then it might be best to focus on where Aikido is going, as determined by how it's practitioners train it.  We'll probably discover that it's more than one thing.  I'm not sure about Aikido Practitioners.

But when I train kung fu, I'm not focus on "How it is now"  I'm focused on how I want it to be in the future and I train according to that.  Some of the old ways will continue but new ways will also be introduced.  All martial arts evolved or grew from something smaller, with each teacher adding his or her input into the system.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

I have a simple question here.

Do Aikido guys train how to block a punch? Are there any video to prove that?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have a simple question here.
> 
> Do Aikido guys train how to block a punch? Are there any video to prove that?


Yep. There are videos that show that.  They block punches the same way as most people do.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> Yep. There are videos that show that.  They block punches the same way as most people do.


I find this clip. IMO, he gives his opponent too much free space. What do you guys think?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I find this clip. IMO, he gives his opponent too much free space. What do you guys think?



I'll answer these from a CMA perspective.  It's all that I got. 

*Jab Defense at 0:10* I don't like. But I'm long fist so hands do not wait to intercept punch. Feet do not wait to engage opponent.

*Jab Defense at 0:18* actually works, but does not have the "what next"

*Parry side at :30*  parries are fairly reliable, but footwork is more important.  I don't like the footwork here. Parry the correct way and move the correct way.

Other stuff I'll pass on. 

I train with drills this way. Did a few today.  My over all thought is that the wrong type of guard is being used for the system.  I think a long guard would work better for Aikido vs. jabs


----------



## Hanzou

Practitioners of the art proclaim that it is an effective form of self defense. That's part of the problem really. If it was pushed as something akin to Tai Chi or Yoga, these issues wouldn't exist.

People request video evidence because it would at least provide some proof that Aikido's self defense claims are true.


----------



## isshinryuronin

JowGaWolf said:


> If it Evolves into something that's not about function but health, then it keep it's name or it may change into something else.


Your post takes a very reasonable position.  Your quoted thought above has more or less been adopted. Tai Chi vs Tai Chi Chuan or similarly (I think) Aikido vs Aikijitsu.  One can also refer to Karate_do_ (the _way_ of karate including the philosophy and spiritual aspects) vs Karate_jitsu_ (jitsu being more of an applied _science_ sans most of the other esoteric aspects.  As a karateka, I embrace both of these labels - they need not be mutually exclusive.


JowGaWolf said:


> All martial arts evolved or grew from something smaller, with each teacher adding his or her input into the system. r


All well and good, EXCEPT, rather than "each teacher" adding input to the system, I would revise that to each _master_!  Unless one has spent many decades dedicating their life to their art's system and understanding all its nuances and principles completely, they have no business changing it.  That just potentially invites a bunch of crap to be incorporated into the system and then passed down to future generations.  Too much of that has already been done in some lineages.  IMO, very sad.

An instructor can teach whatever he wants in his own school, but should make clear the difference between his personal whims and the principles of the system created by those with more understanding and mastery.  If he thinks he has come across an amazing new idea for the system he can run it by his 9th or 10th degree Master for approval.  Anything else is irresponsible.


----------



## JowGaWolf

isshinryuronin said:


> I would revise that to each _master_! Unless one has spent many decades dedicating their life to their art's system and understanding all its nuances and principles completely, they have no business changing it.


Yeah I didn't use the word master because there are very few in the martial arts world that would qualify.  Lots of self appointed masters.


----------



## Urban Trekker

When someone has invested so much time and money into learning a certain thing, it's going to be difficult for them to come to grips with the fact that it was all for naught.

I know that people may cite _ad populum, _but if everybody *but* you believes a certain thing, everybody else is probably right.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

By the title of the thread, yes it does.    If you claim to do something you must prove you do it, and to what degree you do it.          To aikidofy it, Aikido claims to be a martial art and one for fighting, so thus needs to prove it can do it and to a accetpable degree.   (disclaimer i use martial art to mean for fighting, not the spirtual etc things that go with it)

Also he seems to sit inbetween two points, as far as i can tell.   The first is, technique and style doesnt matter, as if you train realstically and for results the stuff that doesnt work will filter itself out. (if you let)    the other is that flipped around.  (no i didnt think it through and forgot the best way to word his other point)

His opinion of aikido is dervied from as far as he can see its training is ineffective so means if anything works in it doesnt matter.  (and you cant pull a appeal to authorty on him if his credtials are correct, he is a authroty on aikido)     I think in the block of "aikdio working" there are only a handful of techniques that are usually applied when people "get it to work".

Compeltely unrelated to the base point, but you should applied the engineering design principles here, you set a series of criteria then start building something on it.     Then you assess something on the crtieria it is given, this shows up for weapons and vehciles a lot for the military.  A tank isnt bad if it meets all the crtieria given to it, but the crtieria could be bad and not reflective of what is needed.      this is just some general best way to look at things advise. (that does not mean you slap a 105mm cannon on a APC and call it a "MBT")

Addendum: When i think of the second point i have identified and how to articulate it i will post a seperate post on it.

Addendum 2:   Rokas is also pretty open and honest about everything he does and eleborates his thougt process so you cant knock it there.

Addendum 3:   I had  a brain fart and mis read some things, the points made hold true but seem rambly because of it.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> Yeah I didn't use the word master because there are very few in the martial arts world that would qualify.  Lots of self appointed masters.


How are you defining the term "master?"  I mean, what does it take, in your opinion, to have mastered an art?  I think expertise is a spectrum that ranges from competent journeyman to something like a "master".  In any other complex skill set that is applied, there is a natural and predictable progression of skill from apprentice/novice to journeyman and then to master.  

Don't get me wrong.  I agree with you that in some martial arts styles, masters are probably pretty hard to come by.  But why do you think that is?


----------



## Urban Trekker

I remember a few years ago, when Sylvester Stallone was talking about an incident at house party he was hosting in his home.  Steven Seagal had been publicly claiming for years that he could could kick Van Damme's ***.  Both happened to be at the house party.  When they both ran into each other, Van Damme offered to step outside with him, so he could back up his trash talk.  Seagal didn't want any parts of Van Damme.  The one man who could have proven that aikido works was too scared to do it.  No, Seagal did not refuse out of some sense of avoiding unnecessary violence.  He was *scared* of Van Damme.


----------



## Hanzou

Urban Trekker said:


> I remember a few years ago, when Sylvester Stallone was talking about an incident at house party he was hosting in his home.  Steven Seagal had been publicly claiming for years that he could could kick Van Damme's ***.  Both happened to be at the house party.  When they both ran into each other, Van Damme offered to step outside with him, so he could back up his trash talk.  Seagal didn't want any parts of Van Damme.  The one man who could have proven that aikido works was too scared to do it.  No, Seagal did not refuse out of some sense of avoiding unnecessary violence.  He was *scared* of Van Damme.



That's because Segal is and has always been a bully.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> That's because Segal is and has always been a bully.


If even a fraction of the horror stories told about him are true, he is not a good guy.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> How are you defining the term "master?"  I mean, what does it take, in your opinion, to have mastered an art?  I think expertise is a spectrum that ranges from competent journeyman to something like a "master".  In any other complex skill set that is applied, there is a natural and predictable progression of skill from apprentice/novice to journeyman and then to master.
> 
> Don't get me wrong.  I agree with you that in some martial arts styles, masters are probably pretty hard to come by.  But why do you think that is?


I'm not disagreeing with you about the quality of skill level.  My definition of "Master" would be someone with high level knowledge and high skills application ability beyond drills. But that's just my view..  I've seen too many cases where that title was by someone at a much lower skill and ability level.  As a result I don't look a the tile Master in the same light anymore.  I place it right there with how I sometimes feel about people who have black belt.

I don't have a negative view, I just don't think the titles are accurate so I tend to just view people based on the range of knowledge and ability they have and not define them by title or rank unless it is something that needs to be done out of respect when addressing people.  This way I don't have expectations and I can just accept them where they are instead getting an assumption that their knowledge and skill level match their title.


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you about the quality of skill level.  My definition of "Master" would be someone with high level knowledge and high skills application ability beyond drills. But that's just my view..  I've seen too many cases where that title was by someone at a much lower skill and ability level.  As a result I don't look a the tile Master in the same light anymore.  I place it right there with how I sometimes feel about people who have black belt.
> 
> I don't have a negative view, I just don't think the titles are accurate so I tend to just view people based on the range of knowledge and ability they have and not define them by title or rank unless it is something that needs to be done out of respect when addressing people.  This way I don't have expectations and I can just accept them where they are instead getting an assumption that their knowledge and skill level match their title.


I think we're on the same page.  But again, why do you think actual masters are so rare in martial arts?  We have no shortage of people who have mastered all kinds of other complex skill sets.  Carpenters, plumbers, electricians... lawyers, surgeons, pilots, professional athletes (or perhaps their coaches).  So, what makes martial arts unique?


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> I think we're on the same page.  But again, why do you think actual masters are so rare in martial arts?  We have no shortage of people who have mastered all kinds of other complex skill sets.  Carpenters, plumbers, electricians... lawyers, surgeons, pilots, professional athletes (or perhaps their coaches).  So, what makes martial arts unique?


I agree with you, but in the case of skilled tradesmen, "master" is a defined level.  In other words: apprentice, journeyman, craftsman, master.

I know of no martial art that follows that model.  Granted, boxing and MMA have journeymen, but it has a different meaning.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Hanzou said:


> If it was pushed as something akin to Tai Chi or Yoga, these issues wouldn't exist.


Which is something I don't think can be done convincingly or successfully.  I'm fairly certain that anyone seeking that of experience isn't likely to be interested in simulated fighting with a partner.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> But again, why do you think actual masters are so rare in martial arts?


Not sure. I never really thought about it.


----------



## Hanzou

Urban Trekker said:


> Which is something I don't think can be done convincingly or successfully.  I'm fairly certain that anyone seeking that of experience isn't likely to be interested in simulated fighting with a partner.



I could have sworn that there were Aikido branches that were dedicated solely to kata practice.


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> Yeah I didn't use the word master because there are very few in the martial arts world that would qualify.  Lots of self appointed masters.



I would say guys like Rickson Gracie, Relson Gracie, Renzo Gracie, Keenan Cornelius, Ryan Hall, Garry Tonnon,  Gordan Ryan, Dean Lister, John Danaher, Eddie Bravo, and others are definitely masters.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> I agree with you, but in the case of skilled tradesmen, "master" is a defined level.  In other words: apprentice, journeyman, craftsman, master.
> 
> I know of no martial art that follows that model.  Granted, boxing and MMA have journeymen, but it has a different meaning.


Great point.  Though the formal labels in a trade are really just structured, objective evaluation of skill and experience.  The progression is one that can be seen in any other skill set, novice to journeyman to expert to master.  For example, there are surgeons who are bona fide experts in their field, and then, among those surgeons, there are experts to whom the experts look for guidance.


----------



## Steve

Hanzou said:


> I would say guys like Rickson Gracie, Relson Gracie, Renzo Gracie, Keenan Cornelius, Ryan Hall, Garry Tonnon,  Gordan Ryan, Dean Lister, John Danaher, Eddie Bravo, and others are definitely masters.


There are probably hundreds (possibly thousands) of legitimate, bona fide masters in BJJ.  At the point where someone is evaluating and innovating within the style, you can be pretty confident they are at a very high level of proficiency.  

And you didn't even mention any of the elite female talent that is out there.  Because the skills are applied, people are able to develop the combination of technical expertise and experience that leads to mastery. 

BJJ isn't alone in this.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Hanzou said:


> I could have sworn that there were Aikido branches that were dedicated solely to kata practice.


If there are, I haven't heard of it.  I imagine that they could market themselves as something in between yoga and cardio kickboxing.



Steve said:


> There are probably hundreds (possibly thousands) of legitimate, bona fide masters in BJJ.  At the point where someone is evaluating and innovating within the style, you can be pretty confident they are at a very high level of proficiency.
> 
> And you didn't even mention any of the elite female talent that is out there.  Because the skills are applied, people are able to develop the combination of technical expertise and experience that leads to mastery.
> 
> BJJ isn't alone in this.


I think the whole controversy around the word "master" is that, outside of the skilled trades, it implies that other people within the same activity at lower levels are expected to pay homage to such a person that the word describes.  This conflicts with the humility that is emphasized in TMA.

There's also the implication there's always something to learn, rendering a martial art impossible to "master."  I consider that to be philosophical babble, which is something I never put much weight on.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Hanzou said:


> I would say guys like Rickson Gracie, Relson Gracie, Renzo Gracie, Keenan Cornelius, Ryan Hall, Garry Tonnon,  Gordan Ryan, Dean Lister, John Danaher, Eddie Bravo, and others are definitely masters.


But do they have the title of masters? Or refer to themselves as master?  I don't know how the ranking system works beyond black belt


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> But do they have the title of masters? Or refer to themselves as master?  I don't know how the ranking system works beyond black belt



Rickson definitely is. I'm not sure if he refers to himself as such, but he has damn near mythical status in Bjj. Beyond that, I was say other Coral belt holders  (belt beyond black) like Pedro Sauer would definitely qualify.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> If there are, I haven't heard of it.  I imagine that they could market themselves as something in between yoga and cardio kickboxing.
> 
> 
> I think the whole controversy around the word "master" is that, outside of the skilled trades, it implies that other people within the same activity at lower levels are expected to pay homage to such a person that the word describes.  This conflicts with the humility that is emphasized in TMA.
> 
> There's also the implication there's always something to learn, rendering a martial art impossible to "master."  I consider that to be philosophical babble, which is something I never put much weight on.


Wholeheartedly agree, which is why I try to reclaim the terms and use them in a more concrete way consistent with how the rest of the human activity tends to use them.


----------



## JowGaWolf

What I would really like to see is a International Ranking Martial Arts Body for Functionality.
1. you have to be able to use a certain number of  techniques from the system you train from the areas of Striking, Grappling, Throwing, and Weapons.  (Depending on what the system has) 

2. Then have a concept, strategy/tactics, history, knowledge part about the system.

Waivers for certain parts would be acceptable for things like (too old for sparring, or health issues like permanent injury.  This information can then be used to build an international Lineage / System database, that will be used to assist in the history testing of the lineage that one fall under.  In other words, people who train under the same teacher will have similar  information.  This would help to verify one's lineage and identify shifts in teachings (not for the purpose of stopping the changes).  If changes in teaching can be accurately identified then you can tell when a system starts to head towards "non-combat function teaching" and identify which lineages or branches teach what.

This would stop all of the "What works and what doesn't work." because there would a "Master" that represents the system at a higher quality level and has demonstrated his or her ability to apply the techniques.

Techniques should being used should be identifiable.  When you see it, one would say "That looks like" or one would be able to show the technique in it's Curriculum

Technique application cannot be System A vs System A  It would have to be used against other systems.


----------



## Urban Trekker

JowGaWolf said:


> What I would really like to see is a International Ranking Martial Arts Body for Functionality.


Basically, an accrediting body, right?

I agree, but I don't ever see this happening.  Not only will ineffective martial art schools not seek accreditation, but many schools that teach martial arts that *are* effective probably won't seek it either (due to *insert philosophical babble here*), which would effectively make the ineffective martial arts indistinguishable.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Urban Trekker said:


> When someone has invested so much time and money into learning a certain thing, it's going to be difficult for them to come to grips with the fact that it was all for naught.


Depends on what "naught" refers to.  One must understand that martial arts is a very, very broad topic, like a huge wheel, offering its practitioners a wide variety of benefits, _the hub of which is self-defense._  But there are many spokes radiating out from this hub in all directions:  health, sport, combat, self- development, intellectual; joint locks, pressure points, throws, kicks, strikes, hard, soft......All these spokes support the wheel's total MA rim.

While the hub may be what all else revolves around, the hub is not the whole wheel.  It does support the rest of the wheel and acts as an anchor for the spokes, and each spoke is connected to the self-defense hub.  But the other end of the spoke are connected to the rim/tire at different places.  Different places for different people and goals.

Your quote in many cases may be very true, IF the practitioner has gone into it without understanding where on the rim the school's/system's spokes will lead him.  Since all the spokes radiate out from the self-defense hub, there will be benefit in this area no matter what spokes are chosen.  Each spoke leads to different beneficial qualities on the rim.  We can choose the ones we want to follow to our end goals.

Developing this wheel metaphor was hard work, and I'm a little "tired" so I'll stop here and hope it was not "all for naught."


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> Basically, an accrediting body, right?
> 
> I agree, but I don't ever see this happening.  Not only will ineffective martial art schools not seek accreditation, but many schools that teach martial arts that *are* effective probably won't seek it either (due to *insert philosophical babble here*), which would effectively make the ineffective martial arts indistinguishable.


While some styles do have an accrediting body (in fact, it's national and international governance is a requirement for any olympic sport), it's helpful but not essential.  

BJJ, as an example, has a pretty reliable ranking structure.  Progression is predictable and based on a combination of performance and technical expertise.  TKD has this, too.  So does Judo.  Wrestling, Kyokushin Karate, Sambo, fencing, Savatte, Western Boxing, San Shou... 

It's how two people who have never met, who train with people who have never met, from hundreds or even thousands of miles away, can show up to a tournament on a Saturday morning and compete on a level playing field.  Without some objective standards for performance and expertise, people would get murdered all the time.  It would be unsafe.

But somehow, on local, regional, national, and international scales, this happens all the time.  For some styles.  Not all.  Not Aikido.  I just can't put my finger on the common denominator...  I guess it's a mystery we'll never solve.  

In Aikido, a guy can show up and it's an utter crap shoot.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> why do you think actual masters are so rare in martial arts?


When you were young, you have skill but you don't have ability. When you get older, you have ability, but you no longer fight in the ring (or on the mat).


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> While some styles do have an accrediting body (in fact, it's national and international governance is a requirement for any olympic sport), it's helpful but not essential.
> 
> BJJ, as an example, has a pretty reliable ranking structure.  Progression is predictable and based on a combination of performance and technical expertise.  TKD has this, too.  So does Judo.  Wrestling, Kyokushin Karate, Sambo, fencing, Savatte, Western Boxing, San Shou...


Right, but those are associations that regulate specific martial arts.  Ineffective martial arts can regulate their own ineffectiveness.

What I mean is an accrediting body for *all* martial arts. If we look at colleges, Dartmouth is a liberal arts college and MIT is a polytechnic university - two institutions of higher learning with differing curricula, yet both are accredited by the New England Commission of Higher Education (NECHE).

This hypothetical accrediting body would basically do the same for martial arts.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> Right, but those are associations that regulate specific martial arts.  Ineffective martial arts can regulate their own ineffectiveness.
> 
> What I mean is an accrediting body for *all* martial arts. If we look at colleges, Dartmouth is a liberal arts college and MIT is a polytechnic university - two institutions of higher learning with differing curricula, yet both are accredited by the New England Commission of Higher Education (NECHE).
> 
> This hypothetical accrediting body would basically do the same for martial arts.



I get it.  I don't think it's realistic, and I'm not sure it would be all that helpful for many reasons.  For one, the type of accreditation you're referring to is academic.  In other words, it's governance over the sharing of academic expertise.   Let's just consider academic accreditation:

* Accreditation for a college or university is voluntary.
* The accrediting body is non-governmental and is not itself accountable to any standard.  This means...
* Each accrediting body sets its own standards for accreditation (i.e., it is entirely subjective), and
* there are many accrediting bodies, some more prestigious and reliable than others.

So, as I think about it, it's already analogous to the IBJJF or the International Judo Federation or ITF/WTF Tae Kwon Do.  I mean, they are different governing bodies that carry varying weight and institutional legitimacy depending on who is asking.  And it's also analogous to the sketchy belt by mail, self defense accreditation bodies that will certify that you are 100% lethal and qualified to certify people officially dangerous.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

isshinryuronin said:


> All well and good, EXCEPT, rather than "each teacher" adding input to the system, I would revise that to each _master_! Unless one has spent many decades dedicating their life to their art's system and understanding all its nuances and principles completely, they have no business changing it. That just potentially invites a bunch of crap to be incorporated into the system and then passed down to future generations. Too much of that has already been done in some lineages. IMO, very sad.


Counterpoint - BJJ has evolved tremendously in recent years. Heck, just since I started training a couple of decades ago the "best practices" for a number of fundamental techniques have changed drastically. (For example, the body mechanics for a guillotine choke as taught by the best practitioners now are completely different from what I learned 20 years ago.)

That change has not been primarily driven by "masters" who have spent many decades dedicating their life to the system. Instead, innovations can come from any practitioner who discovers a new technique or a new way of doing an old technique. If they have success on the mats, then other practitioners will try out their idea and experiment to see if they can make it work for themselves, improve upon it, or find counters for it. If that experimentation shows that the innovation holds up, then it will start to spread further and instructors will start teaching it.

I'm not saying that teachers with many decades of experience dedicating themselves to the art never produce innovation, but from what I'm seeing much of this evolution is driven by practitioners with much less time in the art. Often the innovators aren't even black belts when they start contributing to the evolution of the art. For example, Ryan Hall was a 23 year old brown belt when he started producing instructional videos which were hugely influential in the BJJ world.

The key to this is that changes to the art are tested under pressure by the community as a whole. That's what prevents "a bunch of crap being incorporated into the art and passed down to future generations."


----------



## Tony Dismukes

JowGaWolf said:


> But do they have the title of masters? Or refer to themselves as master?  I don't know how the ranking system works beyond black belt


For the most part, no. BJJ doesn't have an official title of "master" and I've never heard a BJJ practitioner (even a very advanced one) refer to themselves as such. I remember a seminar once where the host tried to refer to Renzo Gracie as "Master" and Renzo's response was along the lines of "No, no, no, my name's Renzo."

Helio Gracie is frequently referred to as "Grandmaster" in some circles, but that's more a title referring to his status as one of the original developers of the art.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> I get it.  I don't think it's realistic, and I'm not sure it would be all that helpful for many reasons.  For one, the type of accreditation you're referring to is academic.  In other words, it's governance over the sharing of academic expertise.   Let's just consider academic accreditation:
> 
> * Accreditation for a college or university is voluntary.
> * The accrediting body is non-governmental and is not itself accountable to any standard.  This means...
> * Each accrediting body sets its own standards for accreditation (i.e., it is entirely subjective), and
> * there are many accrediting bodies, some more prestigious and reliable than others.


Not entirely.  Regional accrediting bodies are accountable to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA).  So while they each have some autonomy, they're still regulated.

Here's another idea, and this is possibly even better: you could have a completely independent organization that doesn't register any schools or associations, but recognizes certain martial arts for their effectiveness.  An NRA for martial arts, if you will.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> Not entirely.  Regional accrediting bodies are accountable to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA).  So while they each have some autonomy, they're still regulated.
> 
> Here's another idea, and this is possibly even better: you could have a completely independent organization that doesn't register any schools or associations, but recognizes certain martial arts for their effectiveness.  An NRA for martial arts, if you will.


NRA?  Come on, man.  We don't want or need that.  My opinion only, but your idea is going from bad to worse.  And believe me, I am sympathetic.  Don't get me wrong.  I give zero snots whether folks want to play with crystals, use goop brand yoni eggs, or train in a martial art for emotional and spiritual enlightenment.  Knock yourself out.  

But the idea of inexperienced, ill prepared people selling self defense snake oil is a big problem for me.  I'd love to see some imposed standards.  But I don't see a constructive way to do that.  And the NRA, which is primarily a lobbying organization working for gun manufacturers, is not analogous.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> NRA?  Come on, man.  We don't want or need that.  My opinion only, but your idea is going from bad to worse.  And believe me, I am sympathetic.  Don't get me wrong.  I give zero snots whether folks want to play with crystals, use goop brand yoni eggs, or train in a martial art for emotional and spiritual enlightenment.  Knock yourself out.
> 
> But the idea of inexperienced, ill prepared people selling self defense snake oil is a big problem for me.  I'd love to see some imposed standards.  But I don't see a constructive way to do that.  And the NRA, which is primarily a lobbying organization working for gun manufacturers, is not analogous.


They're not even... they bring in some $400,000,000 per year. In 2020, their spending on politics, including donations and lobbying, was less than $800,000.
The NRA is basically a tool for generating revenue for the NRA.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> They're not even... they bring in some $400,000,000 per year. In 2020, their spending on politics, including donations and lobbying, was less than $800,000.
> The NRA is basically a tool for generating revenue for the NRA.


Both, maybe.  They still send mail for my deceased brother to my address.  I have asked them not to, but can't get him off their mailing list.  The rhetoric they send in their "membership" letters is truly terrifying.  Both because of the actual words, and also that so many people believe it.


----------



## drop bear

Urban Trekker said:


> Not entirely.  Regional accrediting bodies are accountable to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA).  So while they each have some autonomy, they're still regulated.
> 
> Here's another idea, and this is possibly even better: you could have a completely independent organization that doesn't register any schools or associations, but recognizes certain martial arts for their effectiveness.  An NRA for martial arts, if you will.



Or just apply scientific method.

We could do that.






And the premis of this thread suggests that Aikido should prevent this process.

Because we can't really make good observations or create decent experiments.

And of course when we look at people claiming straight up magical powers. It is these experiments that separate claims from reality.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> NRA?  Come on, man.  We don't want or need that.  My opinion only, but your idea is going from bad to worse.  And believe me, I am sympathetic.  Don't get me wrong.  I give zero snots whether folks want to play with crystals, use goop brand yoni eggs, or train in a martial art for emotional and spiritual enlightenment.  Knock yourself out.
> 
> But the idea of inexperienced, ill prepared people selling self defense snake oil is a big problem for me.  I'd love to see some imposed standards.  But I don't see a constructive way to do that.  And the NRA, which is primarily a lobbying organization working for gun manufacturers, is not analogous.



Which by the way is the same issue with the bjj black belt system for MMAers who can grapple kill your average BJJ black. But haven't attended enough seminars.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Or just apply scientific method.
> 
> We could do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the premis of this thread suggests that Aikido should prevent this process.
> 
> Because we can't really make good observations or create decent experiments.
> 
> And of course when we look at people claiming straight up magical powers. It is these experiments that separate claims from reality.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


>



Nice.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Tony Dismukes said:


> BJJ has evolved tremendously in recent years





Tony Dismukes said:


> innovations can come from any practitioner





Tony Dismukes said:


> tested under pressure by the community as a whole.


All these things are true, for BJJ and application to MMA.  Not so much for TMA which have not evolved within a televised sport realm and have a 300 year history in the case of karate (which is a blend of other styles even older,) masters refining and passing down fighting techniques which were pressure tested outside of sports.  

BJJ (and MMA) are a different kind of animal than TMA in a number of ways, many of which have been well discussed in this forum, so comparisons are tricky.

Unfortunately, some "experts" are makings changes to their style in a sterile environment to everyday people not looking to be elite athletic competitors. These teachers and students, not having learned their art properly, don't know how to make these "new techniques" actually work within the structure of their system since they don't really understand it.  Many times these "new" techniques are developed out of ignorance, misinterpreting established technique, or marketing.  They do not have the chance to be pressure tested by the community during their development.  Like peer recognition, it's tougher in the huge, fragmented community of TMA than the still small, closer knit, BJJ one.

Being fairly new in comparison to other MA, as you noted, there is room for more innovation in BJJ/MMA.  Perhaps in another hundred years, if still around and a solid body of technique has been well established, opportunities for true innovation will become rarer.  And its likely, then, self-styled BJJ experts will be hawking their own brand of degraded art to the masses as its principles become forgotten, mutated, or over commercialized.  Time will tell.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Urban Trekker said:


> Basically, an accrediting body, right?
> 
> I agree, but I don't ever see this happening.  Not only will ineffective martial art schools not seek accreditation, but many schools that teach martial arts that *are* effective probably won't seek it either (due to *insert philosophical babble here*), which would effectively make the ineffective martial arts indistinguishable.


Yep and it can be made of the "Top" martial artists in the field (they will have their own type of test to qualify for that position). Like they would need to have strong analytical skills among some other things.  Those who would be grading would come from different back grounds.  So if I'm testing,  I would be graded by 3 Graders from the heads of Jow Ga.  1 grader from my opponents system and 1 graders from 10 other systems.  I can only be Gain a Mastery Title for what I train.  The other graders cannot give me one or affect the one I'm seeking.

I'll get a detail grading on Jow Ga and a comparative grading from the other systems.  This grading would be done independently.  The reason I want the other systems involved so that they can see with their own eyes the function of an system. This way they can "write articles" that are more accurate than the noise that we often hear and debate.  The question should never be about "who is better"  It should be questions like: Was the person functional with the techniques of the system?  Was the person able to meet the challenges of the other system?  It shouldn't be about win or lose. 

The comparative grading of from the other systems is what they see and think about your abilities and how you represented your system.  It is used for Personal Growth and not marketing or business purposes.  It's not for bragging rights.  For example, I'm getting graded and a BJJ grader sees that I'm having trouble dealing with BJJ.  From there the BJJ gives me recommendations of what I can work on. or what I did really well with in terms of going against BJJ.  If I didn't do well with grappling from the BJJ system then the BJJ grader can say something  like "think about how you move your feet an dhow your BJJ took advantages of certain things I was doing.."  They won't give answers or criticize the system.  They will just offer a perspective of things that I may have missed  during testing.   Maybe I played too much of a defensive role which resulted in more stalemates or less opportunity.  Then offer general things that may help.  They should not make recommendations like  (take BJJ).  The students there are there to represent their system.

Part of representing your system includes showing skill set ability against other systems. in Front of other systems.  Having another system Vouche of your skill sets is valuable.  The graders become a Trusted Source.  This would kill most of the debate.  All testing and results should be recorded.and saved as history

The accreditation system should then offer support to the schools and associations that are head by the accredited master.  This will help the school to thrive even if its a small school.  When the master retires then one of his students must seek accreditation in order to continue to receive support.

The reason why I don't think it should be about winning is because it creates a hostile environment.  Here's an example:  If a BJJ can use 100% of BJJ against me, then I should be able to use 100% of Jow against BJJ, but that would include Jow Ga weapons..  A Master has to be accredited on all that she / he trains and teaches.  But if you make it about functionality, then that would include functionality against trained and untrained. Attackers are dangerous too.  Just because a boxer isn't trained in kicking doesn't mean he can't punch your lights out.

Just because BJJ is untrained in the staff, doesn't mean that he cannot take the staff away from you and beat you with your own staff.  By not making it about winning all participants can then focus on  function.

If you lose a fight, you can still be considered functional with your system if you used the techniques you trained, so long as  your lose was not great.


----------



## BrendanF

JowGaWolf said:


> Yep and it can be made of the "Top" martial artists in the field (they will have their own type of test to qualify for that position). Like they would need to have strong analytical skills among some other things.  Those who would be grading would come from different back grounds.  So if I'm testing,  I would be graded by 3 Graders from the heads of Jow Ga.  1 grader from my opponents system and 1 graders from 10 other systems.  I can only be Gain a Mastery Title for what I train.  The other graders cannot give me one or affect the one I'm seeking.
> 
> I'll get a detail grading on Jow Ga and a comparative grading from the other systems.  This grading would be done independently.  The reason I want the other systems involved so that they can see with their own eyes the function of an system. This way they can "write articles" that are more accurate than the noise that we often hear and debate.  The question should never be about "who is better"  It should be questions like: Was the person functional with the techniques of the system?  Was the person able to meet the challenges of the other system?  It shouldn't be about win or lose.
> 
> The comparative grading of from the other systems is what they see and think about your abilities and how you represented your system.  It is used for Personal Growth and not marketing or business purposes.  It's not for bragging rights.  For example, I'm getting graded and a BJJ grader sees that I'm having trouble dealing with BJJ.  From there the BJJ gives me recommendations of what I can work on. or what I did really well with in terms of going against BJJ.  If I didn't do well with grappling from the BJJ system then the BJJ grader can say something  like "think about how you move your feet an dhow your BJJ took advantages of certain things I was doing.."  They won't give answers or criticize the system.  They will just offer a perspective of things that I may have missed  during testing.   Maybe I played too much of a defensive role which resulted in more stalemates or less opportunity.  Then offer general things that may help.  They should not make recommendations like  (take BJJ).  The students there are there to represent their system.
> 
> Part of representing your system includes showing skill set ability against other systems. in Front of other systems.  Having another system Vouche of your skill sets is valuable.  The graders become a Trusted Source.  This would kill most of the debate.  All testing and results should be recorded.and saved as history
> 
> The accreditation system should then offer support to the schools and associations that are head by the accredited master.  This will help the school to thrive even if its a small school.  When the master retires then one of his students must seek accreditation in order to continue to receive support.
> 
> The reason why I don't think it should be about winning is because it creates a hostile environment.  Here's an example:  If a BJJ can use 100% of BJJ against me, then I should be able to use 100% of Jow against BJJ, but that would include Jow Ga weapons..  A Master has to be accredited on all that she / he trains and teaches.  But if you make it about functionality, then that would include functionality against trained and untrained. Attackers are dangerous too.  Just because a boxer isn't trained in kicking doesn't mean he can't punch your lights out.
> 
> Just because BJJ is untrained in the staff, doesn't mean that he cannot take the staff away from you and beat you with your own staff.  By not making it about winning all participants can then focus on  function.
> 
> If you lose a fight, you can still be considered functional with your system if you used the techniques you trained, so long as  your lose was not great.



who is going to judge my performance in a 600 year old Japanese art that uses weaponry?


----------



## JowGaWolf

BrendanF said:


> who is going to judge my performance in a 600 year old Japanese art that uses weaponry?


2 people from the top of your organization and other people from different systems.


----------



## BrendanF

Yeah - the first half is roughly what happens.  No other system would have a clue as to how to assess the quality of our stuff - it is exceptionally proprietary.  Similarly, no one from my ryuha would be in a position to judge the quality of any other.  I can't imagine trying to assess the quality of a capoeirista's performance.  Or someone doing kyudo.  Or silat.  et cetera.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> NRA?  Come on, man.  We don't want or need that.  My opinion only, but your idea is going from bad to worse.  And believe me, I am sympathetic.  Don't get me wrong.  I give zero snots whether folks want to play with crystals, use goop brand yoni eggs, or train in a martial art for emotional and spiritual enlightenment.  Knock yourself out.
> 
> But the idea of inexperienced, ill prepared people selling self defense snake oil is a big problem for me.  I'd love to see some imposed standards.  But I don't see a constructive way to do that.  And the NRA, which is primarily a lobbying organization working for gun manufacturers, is not analogous.



But there is a such thing as NRA approved firearms training courses, and other things that are "NRA approved.". I don't agree with the politics of the NRA myself, but that's not what I'm focused on.  What I'm focused on is some sort of self-defense organization that exists outside of martial arts clubs and associations that give some sort of "seal of approval" that certifies that a particular martial arts program is adequately effective for self-defense purposes.


----------



## JowGaWolf

BrendanF said:


> No other system would have a clue as to how to assess the quality of our stuff


That's why you look at the function of it.  Function doesn't look at quality.  Function looks at results.   I throw a jab.  You use a technique to block it.  In the course of sparring, you are unable to block 10  jabs.  When this happens you have 2 questions that will apply to your results.
1. Is the technique functional
2. Did the person understand the technique enough to apply it properly.

After a couple of years of testing.  You will eventually get an answer to #1.  Even if you don't know anything about the art.  You will have previous video testings showing other testers pulling it off.  Function.

Now if you used the same technique hot hit with 3 jabs in the row and were able to be successful with the technique for 7 more jabs then you would probably see that the tester understood enough about the the technique to make adjustments which in turn made the technique more successful.  You would also have enough video recordings to compare how different testers of the same system executed the technique. Did they execute it the same way or was it unique to one person.

The only people who should measure quality are those within your system, but function can be measured by those outside of your system. Just like the BJJ measured Roka's messed up wrist lock.


----------



## drop bear

Urban Trekker said:


> But there is a such thing as NRA approved firearms training courses, and other things that are "NRA approved.". I don't agree with the politics of the NRA myself, but that's not what I'm focused on.  What I'm focused on is some sort of self-defense organization that exists outside of martial arts clubs and associations that give some sort of "seal of approval" that certifies that a particular martial arts program is adequately effective for self-defense purposes.



Yeah. It's called MMA.


----------



## Urban Trekker

drop bear said:


> Yeah. It's called MMA.



I've seen aikidoka claim that their techniques are "too dangerous for MMA." While that should be cause for any rational human being to throw the BS flag on the play, the aikidoka who say this actually seem to believe it.

I'm sure that your comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but what I have in mind is something that puts and end to excuses, which MMA doesn't do.


----------



## drop bear

Urban Trekker said:


> I've seen aikidoka claim that their techniques are "too dangerous for MMA." While that should be cause for any rational human being to throw the BS flag on the play, the aikidoka who say this actually seem to believe it.
> 
> I'm sure that your comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but what I have in mind is something that puts and end to excuses, which MMA doesn't do.



You will find there is nothing that puts an end to excuses.


----------



## BrendanF

JowGaWolf said:


> That's why you look at the function of it.  Function doesn't look at quality.  Function looks at results.   I throw a jab.  You use a technique to block it.  In the course of sparring, you are unable to block 10  jabs.  When this happens you have 2 questions that will apply to your results.
> 1. Is the technique functional
> 2. Did the person understand the technique enough to apply it properly.
> 
> After a couple of years of testing.  You will eventually get an answer to #1.  Even if you don't know anything about the art.  You will have previous video testings showing other testers pulling it off.  Function.
> 
> Now if you used the same technique hot hit with 3 jabs in the row and were able to be successful with the technique for 7 more jabs then you would probably see that the tester understood enough about the the technique to make adjustments which in turn made the technique more successful.  You would also have enough video recordings to compare how different testers of the same system executed the technique. Did they execute it the same way or was it unique to one person.
> 
> The only people who should measure quality are those within your system, but function can be measured by those outside of your system. Just like the BJJ measured Roka's messed up wrist lock.



As I said, I'm discussing a 600 year old Japanese weaponry art.

How would you 'look at the function of' this?


----------



## JowGaWolf

BrendanF said:


> As I said, I'm discussing a 600 year old Japanese weaponry art.
> 
> How would you 'look at the function of' this?


The only way to test a person's functional ability with techniques from a system is to have that person use it use it.





For something that involves testing form, 2 graders from your system will be the ones to test that.  People from other systems will not grade system form of something they do not train.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Urban Trekker said:


> But there is a such thing as NRA approved firearms training courses, and other things that are "NRA approved.". I don't agree with the politics of the NRA myself, but that's not what I'm focused on.  What I'm focused on is some sort of self-defense organization that exists outside of martial arts clubs and associations that give some sort of "seal of approval" that certifies that a particular martial arts program is adequately effective for self-defense purposes.


So what? I can give out a certificate for an "MAC Approved" firearms training course. It'll have every bit as much validity.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Dirty Dog said:


> So what? I can give out a certificate for an "MAC Approved" firearms training course. It'll have every bit as much validity.


Not perception wise, which is the only thing that matters.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Urban Trekker said:


> Not perception wise, which is the only thing that matters.


Perception without substance is worthless.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Dirty Dog said:


> Perception without substance is worthless.


But is it perceived to have substance?  Because that's what's going to attract people to something.  If people see that something is "MAC Approved," and they have no idea what that means, then it's not going to matter to them.


----------



## BrendanF

JowGaWolf said:


> The only way to test a person's functional ability with techniques from a system is to have that person use it use it.
> View attachment 26662
> 
> For something that involves testing form, 2 graders from your system will be the ones to test that.  People from other systems will not grade system form of something they do not train.



Those are FMA guys doing short 'unarmoured' blade work.  In theory they would not be wearing armour, so sparring like that is applicable.

Our ryuha does not 'spar', as our techniques are designed for fighting in armour.  There is no point doing kendo if your techniques all rely on targeting points of weakness in armour.  That's the theory, whatever my or your thoughts on it.


----------



## JowGaWolf

BrendanF said:


> Our ryuha does not 'spar', as our techniques are designed for fighting in armour.


Then wear armour and perform your techniques.  There are other systems that wear armor as well.






If someone from a system does not wish to participate then they do not have to participate.  They can train and practice like they always have.


----------



## BrendanF

Yes - the Japanese have a similar thing; it's called kendo.  Like I said, our techniques are specifically designed to circumvent that armour.  It's interesting that in the above clip the two participants are using techniques designed to target gaps in the armour, but then being separated before actually completing them.  I'm sure I don't fully understand their ruleset and approach.

Also as I said, my school doesn't spar.  That's not a choice I get to make, it's an historical one.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> Perception without substance is worthless.


Tell that to the kardashians


----------



## JowGaWolf

BrendanF said:


> Also as I said, my school doesn't spar. That's not a choice I get to make, it's an historical one.


I'm not sure on the scoring either or what triggers a break,  It looks like the points of their swords have been cut off and padded.  So I'm guessing the first person to their target scores.


----------



## Anarax

Jaz said:


> Hey Guys, please check out my video on why Rokas from the Martial Arts Journey channel got Aikido wrong. Plus, I talk about why providing video evidence of Aikido techniques working against resisting opponents, is not actually proof of Aikido. My argument is that Aikido was never intended as a combat system but for something else.
> 
> Here's the link and let me know what you think:


Training a technique to inflict enough trauma/injury to neutralize an opponent is the force dynamic in a self defense situation, for it prevents yourself from being injured by your opponent. The restraint, both in intent and application severity comes second in the training process. Knowing how to throw an opponent so they land on their back *or* head can change the severity of the injury, but being able to throw a resisting opponent is where the force spectrum training starts, not ends.  

The Aikido instructors I've trained with never trained us on how to apply any of the techniques with resistance, this is mostly universal with Aikido. Most of the Aikidoka I've met were *very* confident in their ability to apply these techniques in a live situation. I've seen these same Aikidoka accept challenges where an opponent resisted them, they weren't able to execute the techniques that they've trained countless times, for the resistance factor changed the entire dynamic. Developing "fight IQ" in martial arts is crucial, it teaches you how to adapt to your opponent and their abilities. However, this will never develop without sparring or live drills, can't learn problem-solving if you never encounter a problem(resistance).


----------



## BrendanF

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm not sure on the scoring either or what triggers a break,  It looks like the points of their swords have been cut off and padded.  So I'm guessing the first person to their target scores.



Yeah when I watched that clip I was pleasantly surprised - all of the similar, armoured competition stuff I've seen has essentially been folks bashing each other on armour, where I think a knockdown counts as a win?  My guess watching that was same as yours; they seemed to be aiming for up under the neck mail thing, and separated when successful.


----------



## Jaz

Anarax said:


> Training a technique to inflict enough trauma/injury to neutralize an opponent is the force dynamic in a self defense situation, for it prevents yourself from being injured by your opponent. The restraint, both in intent and application severity comes second in the training process. Knowing how to throw an opponent so they land on their back *or* head can change the severity of the injury, but being able to throw a resisting opponent is where the force spectrum training starts, not ends.
> 
> The Aikido instructors I've trained with never trained us on how to apply any of the techniques with resistance, this is mostly universal with Aikido. Most of the Aikidoka I've met were *very* confident in their ability to apply these techniques in a live situation. I've seen these same Aikidoka accept challenges where an opponent resisted them, they weren't able to execute the techniques that they've trained countless times, for the resistance factor changed the entire dynamic. Developing "fight IQ" in martial arts is crucial, it teaches you how to adapt to your opponent and their abilities. However, this will never develop without sparring or live drills, can't learn problem-solving if you never encounter a problem(resistance).


That's true. You won't develop the fighting ability without sparring against a resisting training partner - who is also attempting to apply techniques on you. However, I don't believe that this is the point of Aikido - it's nothing at all to do with fighting ability.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Anarax said:


> The Aikido instructors I've trained with never trained us on how to apply any of the techniques with resistance,


When you apply a

- north direction force and your opponent resists, you change your north direction force into a south direction force,
- linear force and your opponent resists, you change your linear force into circular force,
- circular force and your opponent resists, you change your circular force into linear force,

your opponent's resistance force will no longer be resistance force.

Do Aikido train all techniques in pairs, or same technique be applied in both linear and circular?

Here is a technique that can be applied both in linear and circular. Since your opponent can only resist in one direction, as long as you change your force direction, your opponent's resistance will no longer be resistance.


----------



## Anarax

Jaz said:


> That's true. You won't develop the fighting ability without sparring against a resisting training partner - who is also attempting to apply techniques on you. However, I don't believe that this is the point of Aikido - it's nothing at all to do with fighting ability.


My experience with Aikido shows both the instructors and students lack that understanding. The schools I've trained at emphasized Aikido's combative/self defense ability.


----------



## Anarax

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you apply a
> 
> - north direction force and your opponent resists, you change your north direction force into a south direction force,
> - linear force and your opponent resists, you change your linear force into circular force,
> - circular force and your opponent resists, you change your circular force into linear force,
> 
> your opponent's resistance force will no longer be resistance force.
> 
> Do Aikido train all techniques in pairs, or same technique be applied in both linear and circular?
> 
> Here is a technique that can be applied both in linear and circular. Since your opponent can only resist in one direction, as long as you change your force direction, your opponent's resistance will no longer be resistance.



Knowing how to apply different force dynamics(opposing vs harmonizing, liner vs circular) is vital. However, not practicing those dynamics in a live(non-compliant partner) situation will result in the practitioner unable to apply it against a resisting opponent.


----------



## Jaz

Anarax said:


> My experience with Aikido shows both the instructors and students lack that understanding. The schools I've trained at emphasized Aikido's combative/self defense ability.


It's an important thing for people to understand, as they're getting a false sense of confidence, in regards to training Aikido and developing combat ability.  Did you ever see anyone question this to their instructor, after they were unsuccessful with applying Aikido against a resisting partner? I'm curious to know what the instructors take on this would be.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Jaz said:


> It's an important thing for people to understand, *as they're getting a false sense of confidence*, in regards to training Aikido and developing combat ability.


I'm wondering how likely that is.  Someone who has experience with real fights would know BS if someone was trying to teach it to them.  I imagine that the kind of person that would be fooled by an ineffective art would be very unlikely to find themselves in a situation where they would have to use it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

isshinryuronin said:


> All well and good, EXCEPT, rather than "each teacher" adding input to the system, I would revise that to each _master_! Unless one has spent many decades dedicating their life to their art's system and understanding all its nuances and principles completely, they have no business changing it. That just potentially invites a bunch of crap to be incorporated into the system and then passed down to future generations. Too much of that has already been done in some lineages. IMO, very sad.


I can't agree with this. If someone is teaching, they ARE changing things - there's never 100% accurate transmission. That being the case, at least some of those changes should be purposefully made. Some may be preference, some may be a different focus than their instructor had, and some may be altering training methodologies (different drills, etc.) based on their own experience.

Trying to hold a system at some arbitrary point (the way it was transmitted to them) seems to me to have little value. Of course, at some point the changes become sufficient that it's not really the same art/style, but there's a fair amount that can happen before that.


----------



## isshinryuronin

gpseymour said:


> Trying to hold a system at some arbitrary point (the way it was transmitted to them) seems to me to have little value.


_Gee, see more pee, "point trying system holding some"_ is helpful to retain understanding and effectiveness,  When I change spelling and grammar structure, meaning and comprehension can go out the window (though may be entertaining.  sorry, couldn't help but have some fun with your name.  no disrespect intended.)  

Pretty much everything is "arbitrary" except basic natural laws and principles.  When one starts playing around with a proven established system (*unless one is a very skilled engineer with great understanding, i.e. *_*master*_) components in that system may no longer mesh and the system breaks down.   There is value in keeping hold of a system.  After several rounds of this, the laws and principles of the system will end up impotent.  There must be some accountability and respect for the system.   

All MA systems are the result of blending, evolution and refinement.  This is different than a random guy with a few years in the art doing his own thing.  (He is free to do this, but we don't need to approve and encourage it.  Even so, there is room for individuality as explained below" 


gpseymour said:


> some may be a different focus than their instructor had, and some may be altering training methodologies (different drills, etc.)


This is a good thing, and it's advantageous to be exposed to various instructors (and even styles) as each adds its own flavor to one's MA.  To link this quote with my language analogy, it's like substituting one adjective with a (well considered) synonym.   The structure, verb, tense and noun are still the same.  The meaning stays the same.  This is different from ill-informed changes to your MA style.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Jaz said:


> Hey Guys, please check out my video on why Rokas from the Martial Arts Journey channel got Aikido wrong. Plus, I talk about why providing video evidence of Aikido techniques working against resisting opponents, is not actually proof of Aikido. My argument is that Aikido was never intended as a combat system but for something else.
> 
> Here's the link and let me know what you think:



Morihei Ueshiba developed Aikido as a functional system, following world war 2 he became a pacifist and neutered most of the system and began presenting it as an esoteric lesson in conflict for the world. The pre war and world war 2 students were experienced martial artists, Ueshiba taught Aikido as a practical skill set to the Japanese military and helped formalize the doctrine for the Japanese clandestine services at the Nakano school in Manchuria. Until his post war crisis of faith with ultra nationalism, Aikido was developed as a "secret weapon" to teach the Japanese people and to convey "yamato-damashii" or the spirit of ancient Japan as understood by the nationalists. 

This said, functional Aikido was taught to experienced martial artists who understood fighting and already had a good idea about how everything worked. It was never taught alone but as an additive to blend the various styles of Budo together into a "next level" Japanese warrior who could embody the highest ideals of his people. Think, racist, ultra-nationalist Jedi. Aikido was a bridge between arts, that's why it has a very small toolkit of highly situational techniques. The main takeaway from Aikido is the movement, methods of entering/exiting/blending, etc. 

Problem is, we have all the post war baggage and a century of abuse and neglect and Aikido being taught out of context. The system does need to figure out what it wants to be and it needs to update itself with more modern training if it wants to be viewed as practical.


----------



## drop bear

Urban Trekker said:


> I'm wondering how likely that is.  Someone who has experience with real fights would know BS if someone was trying to teach it to them.  I imagine that the kind of person that would be fooled by an ineffective art would be very unlikely to find themselves in a situation where they would have to use it.



I am going to say that surprisingly doesn't happen. 

People who have been in real fights are just as susceptible to being convinced as anyone else.


----------



## Hanshi

I've been in the martial arts for at least 60 years; and if there's one thing I've learned it's that NO empty hand martial art works.  The only thing that will work is the man/woman using that art.  It's the most determined person and not the better trained or experienced person that will prevail in an encounter, the exception that is usually the rule.  

I taught aikido for years and had students who used it in real situations and prevailed.  Aikido goes from mild to wild and yes some teach it as an art form rather than a martial art.  I learned it as a martial art.  O'sensei once said "atemi is 90% of aikido.  I do not believe he was referring simply to raining blows on the opponent but rather that forceful manipulation of the opponent could be used as a means to an end.  I guess this attitude is of a recognition of "hard style vs soft style" approach.


----------



## Jaz

Shatteredzen said:


> Morihei Ueshiba developed Aikido as a functional system, following world war 2 he became a pacifist and neutered most of the system and began presenting it as an esoteric lesson in conflict for the world. The pre war and world war 2 students were experienced martial artists, Ueshiba taught Aikido as a practical skill set to the Japanese military and helped formalize the doctrine for the Japanese clandestine services at the Nakano school in Manchuria. Until his post war crisis of faith with ultra nationalism, Aikido was developed as a "secret weapon" to teach the Japanese people and to convey "yamato-damashii" or the spirit of ancient Japan as understood by the nationalists.
> 
> This said, functional Aikido was taught to experienced martial artists who understood fighting and already had a good idea about how everything worked. It was never taught alone but as an additive to blend the various styles of Budo together into a "next level" Japanese warrior who could embody the highest ideals of his people. Think, racist, ultra-nationalist Jedi. Aikido was a bridge between arts, that's why it has a very small toolkit of highly situational techniques. The main takeaway from Aikido is the movement, methods of entering/exiting/blending, etc.
> 
> Problem is, we have all the post war baggage and a century of abuse and neglect and Aikido being taught out of context. The system does need to figure out what it wants to be and it needs to update itself with more modern training if it wants to be viewed as practical.


You raised some good points. I guess that Aikido could go through an evolution process, where the aim is to make it effective against a resisting opponent. Even with the foot work, it's incredibly difficult for an Aikidoka to maintain the required distance for Aikido to work. Basically, would Aikido start to become more like Judo or BJJ? If that's the case, you might as well just go and train in one of those arts. Aikido seems so far behind, it might as well remain as a philosophical art, rather than try to evolve into a combat system.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Jaz said:


> You raised some good points. I guess that Aikido could go through an evolution process, where the aim is to make it effective against a resisting opponent. Even with the foot work, it's incredibly difficult for an Aikidoka to maintain the required distance for Aikido to work. Basically, would Aikido start to become more like Judo or BJJ? If that's the case, you might as well just go and train in one of those arts. Aikido seems so far behind, it might as well remain as a philosophical art, rather than try to evolve into a combat system.



Aikido is its own thing, its an entirely different way to deal with conflict and its techniques are all very niche because it is not trying to do what BJJ and Judo do. It was originally taught as a bridge between the different "Budo" and I think that's where it should remain. Aikido can and should adopt modern training methods against resistant opponents and it should attempt to refine itself but I don't think it suffers any more than other TMA in that respect, it is being held back by an unwillingness from its community to change and update itself. What Aikido needs is schools focusing on doing the work to bring it up to modern times, if that happens, I think you will see much more "practical" Aikido.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> But is it perceived to have substance?  Because that's what's going to attract people to something.  If people see that something is "MAC Approved," and they have no idea what that means, then it's not going to matter to them.


I think you're both right, which gets back to my original point.  Accrediting bodies are only as credible and prestigious as they are perceived to be.  I think of JD Powers awards...  some time about a decade ago, a car company added a line to their commercial about how they were given the JD Powers award for excellence.  I'd never heard of it before.  But now, apparently, it's a big deal.  I have not once looked them up to figure out why that is.

So, @Dirty Dog comes up with his training and certification, and a school says, "MAC certified as AAA Self Defense certified."  It's credibility is pretty subjective.



Shatteredzen said:


> Aikido is its own thing, its an entirely different way to deal with conflict and its techniques are all very niche because it is not trying to do what BJJ and Judo do. It was originally taught as a bridge between the different "Budo" and I think that's where it should remain. Aikido can and should adopt modern training methods against resistant opponents and it should attempt to refine itself but I don't think it suffers any more than other TMA in that respect, it is being held back by an unwillingness from its community to change and update itself. What Aikido needs is schools focusing on doing the work to bring it up to modern times, if that happens, I think you will see much more "practical" Aikido.



We see karateka ramp up to functional skill in relatively short order.  We see kung fu practitioners ramp up to functional skill in relatively short order.  TKD, too.  I've yet to see any Aikidoka do the same.  I agree with you that Aikido would benefit from a more practical training approach, but it's demonstrably behind just about every other TMA style around, with the possible exception of budo taijutsu.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> I think you're both right, which gets back to my original point.  Accrediting bodies are only as credible and prestigious as they are perceived to be.  I think of JD Powers awards...  some time about a decade ago, a car company added a line to their commercial about how they were given the JD Powers award for excellence.  I'd never heard of it before.  But now, apparently, it's a big deal.  I have not once looked them up to figure out why that is.
> 
> So, @Dirty Dog comes up with his training and certification, and a school says, "MAC certified as AAA Self Defense certified."  It's credibility is pretty subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> We see karateka ramp up to functional skill in relatively short order.  We see kung fu practitioners ramp up to functional skill in relatively short order.  TKD, too.  I've yet to see any Aikidoka do the same.  I agree with you that Aikido would benefit from a more practical training approach, but it's demonstrably behind just about every other TMA style around, with the possible exception of budo taijutsu.


I'm not arguing with you here, it perhaps has the farthest to go of the Budo arts, I'm simply saying there is a baby in the bath water. I also don't advocate training it alone but as a bridge between multiple styles. I've never viewed Aikido as some holistic or particularly dangerous system, its a small tool kit for stuff not covered in the other budo and it adds another layer of complexity and refinement to dealing with combat as well as perspective. In context, Aikido is a methodology more so than a style unto itself. The big problem comes from outside perceptions of what others think Aikido should be or is and poor attempts on the part of the Aikido community to make Aikido something it isn't for outside validation.

I remember having these same arguments about TKD back in the late 90's, early 2000's about how it was not functional at all, a double leg takedown was all that was needed to wreck shop on anyone kicking over their waist, etc. It's fairly common within the martial arts community for a small but loud percentage of the population to rush into whatever is new, popular and shiny and to then loudly proclaim their choice of style's superiority (and by proxy, their own) as if most of this stuff had no basis in reality or practical fighting. The reality is actually that most of this stuff has practical application and comes from a place of hard earned experience, what separates function from form is training and the individual fighter.

The same cognitive dissonance in someone who has just taken some Aikido classes thinking they can equate their skills to MMA is the same as the student of BJJ or MMA who takes a class or two every week and draws a logical line to infer that they can replicate the results of professional athletes they see on TV or execute their techniques with the same skill that they see from the guys doing Youtube videos. Would you take a spin class at your local senior center and then assume you were ready for the tour de France? The guys I know who train to actually use their martial arts don't just go to class once a week, they aren't learning their first or even second martial art in their twenties or older. But now we are talking about a limited sub set of the population, less than a percent, with the spirit and dedication to train and use their martial arts in some kind of "live" format, either in the ring or on the street.


----------



## Steve

Shatteredzen said:


> I'm not arguing with you here, it perhaps has the farthest to go of the Budo arts, I'm simply saying there is a baby in the bath water. I also don't advocate training it alone but as a bridge between multiple styles. I've never viewed Aikido as some holistic or particularly dangerous system, its a small tool kit for stuff not covered in the other budo and it adds another layer of complexity and refinement to dealing with combat as well as perspective. In context, Aikido is a methodology more so than a style unto itself. The big problem comes from outside perceptions of what others think Aikido should be or is and poor attempts on the part of the Aikido community to make Aikido something it isn't for outside validation.
> 
> I remember having these same arguments about TKD back in the late 90's, early 2000's about how it was not functional at all, a double leg takedown was all that was needed to wreck shop on anyone kicking over their waist, etc. It's fairly common within the martial arts community for a small but loud percentage of the population to rush into whatever is new, popular and shiny and to then loudly proclaim their choice of style's superiority (and by proxy, their own) as if most of this stuff had no basis in reality or practical fighting. The reality is actually that most of this stuff has practical application and comes from a place of hard earned experience, what separates function from form is training and the individual fighter.
> 
> The same cognitive dissonance in someone who has just taken some Aikido classes thinking they can equate their skills to MMA is the same as the student of BJJ or MMA who takes a class or two every week and draws a logical line to infer that they can replicate the results of professional athletes they see on TV or execute their techniques with the same skill that they see from the guys doing Youtube videos. Would you take a spin class at your local senior center and then assume you were ready for the tour de France? The guys I know who train to actually use their martial arts don't just go to class once a week, they aren't learning their first or even second martial art in their twenties or older. But now we are talking about a limited sub set of the population, less than a percent, with the spirit and dedication to train and use their martial arts in some kind of "live" format, either in the ring or on the street.


It's actually quite the opposite.  Everyone I've ever known who has trained in a style like wrestling, boxing, bjj, judo, mma, etc has a very realistic understanding of their own skill level.  This is a wonderful benefit of getting crushed every class by people who are more skilled than you are.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> It's actually quite the opposite.  Everyone I've ever known who has trained in a style like wrestling, boxing, bjj, judo, mma, etc has a very realistic understanding of their own skill level.  This is a wonderful benefit of getting crushed every class by people who are more skilled than you are.


Not really, in my experience, its young and inexperienced fighters who call out other styles and take positions like "(insert martial art here) doesn't work." People who have been in real fights tend to not take the road of the absolutist.


----------



## Cynik75

Shatteredzen said:


> Not really, in my experience, its young and inexperienced fighters who call out other styles and take positions like "(insert martial art here) doesn't work." People who have been in real fights tend to not take the road of the absolutist.



I think, Steve was talking about constatn sparings during class, not about so called "real fights". (In da streetz, madafaka )


----------



## Urban Trekker

Shatteredzen said:


> Not really, in my experience, its young and inexperienced fighters who call out other styles and take positions like "(insert martial art here) doesn't work." *People who have been in real fights tend to not take the road of the absolutist.*


Oh, Jesus.  This is like saying "real men carry purses" or "real men do (insert thing usually associated with women here)."  It takes someone from a rural area to say something like this.  I tell you what: go the nearest hood and show a few guys there some videos of aikido.  Then ask them if they're intimidated by it.


----------



## Steve

Cynik75 said:


> I think, Steve was talking about constatn sparings during class, not about so called "real fights". (In da streetz, madafaka )


Yeah,  getting smashed by pretty much everyone cultivates a realistic understanding of your relative skill level.  But that's all made possible through application.   A BJJ school that discourages competition and doesn't engage with the larger BJJ community will see skill level diminish very quickly.  Within a few generations of black belts, I would expect that school to feel a lot like how @Shatteredzen describes Aikido schools.  Fortunately, this doesn't happen often and where it does, the schools are well known.


----------



## Flying Crane

Urban Trekker said:


> I tell you what: go the nearest hood and show a few guys there some videos of aikido.  Then ask them if they're intimidated by it.


Interesting.  

I’m having some difficulty grasping how this is at all relevant.  Go to someone’s neighborhood, show some random fellows a video and ask them if it frightens them.  Somehow, their response is supposed to guide my choice of what martial art I should train?  

interesting.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Flying Crane said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I’m having some difficulty grasping how this is at all relevant.  Go to someone’s neighborhood, show some random fellows a video and ask them if it frightens them.  *Somehow, their response is supposed to guide my choice of what martial art I should train?
> 
> interesting.*


Please quote where I or Cynik75 were discussing choosing a martial art.


----------



## Flying Crane

Urban Trekker said:


> Please quote where I or Cynik75 were discussing choosing a martial art.


It’s implied in what you stated, that how these fellows might react to it is what determines its value and would inform what is worth training.

I do feel like you know that already, though.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Flying Crane said:


> It’s implied in what you stated, that how these fellows might react to it is what determines its value and would inform what is worth training.
> 
> I do feel like you know that already, though.



Um, no.  Cynik75 claimed that people with real fighting experience don't look at a martial art and say whether or not it's effective.  I was giving my rebuttal to that claim.  Stay on topic!


----------



## Flying Crane

Urban Trekker said:


> Um, no.  Cynik75 claimed that people with real fighting experience don't look at a martial art and say whether or not it's effective.  I was giving my rebuttal to that claim.  Stay on topic!





Urban Trekker said:


> Um, no.  Cynik75 claimed that people with real fighting experience don't look at a martial art and say whether or not it's effective.  I was giving my rebuttal to that claim.  Stay on topic!


Um no, you made the comment in response to something said by @Shatteredzen.  

so can you explain to me in simple, easy to understand terms (i am getting old and my brain isn’t as sharp as it once was) why anyone should be concerned with how some random fellows in a neighborhood might react to a video of a martial art?  Why would that be meaningful?


----------



## Urban Trekker

Flying Crane said:


> Um no, you made the comment in response to something said by @Shatteredzen.


Okay, I got the wrong guy.  No biggie.


Flying Crane said:


> so can you explain to me in simple, easy to understand terms (i am getting old and my brain isn’t as sharp as it once was) why anyone should be concerned with how some random fellows in a neighborhood might react to a video of a martial art?  Why would that be meaningful?


No.  I'm handing you a big fat W to the argument with me that's going on in your own mind.  You win.  I refuse to defend a point that I never tried to make.


----------



## Flying Crane

Urban Trekker said:


> Okay, I got the wrong guy.  No biggie.
> 
> No.  I'm handing you a big fat W to the argument with me that's going on in your own mind.  You win.  I refuse to defend a point that I never tried to make.


Ok,so we can let the record shows that you won’t answer my question.


----------



## Flying Crane

Urban Trekker said:


> I tell you what: go the nearest hood and show a few guys there some videos of aikido.  Then ask them if they're intimidated by it.


I’ll try this one more time, and take a different approach:  can you explain a little more clearly, what you mean by this statement?


----------



## Urban Trekker

Flying Crane said:


> I’ll try this one more time, and take a different approach:  can you explain a little more clearly, what you mean by this statement?


It's already been stated, so no.  You can add that to your record too.


----------



## Flying Crane

Urban Trekker said:


> It's already been stated, so no.  You can add that to your record too.


Ok, the record shows that you won’t answer the question.  Thanks for the clarity.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, the record shows that you won’t answer the question.  Thanks for the clarity.


The record shows that he did, but that you didn't like his answer.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Urban Trekker said:


> Oh, Jesus.  This is like saying "real men carry purses" or "real men do (insert thing usually associated with women here)."  It takes someone from a rural area to say something like this.  I tell you what: go the nearest hood and show a few guys there some videos of aikido.  Then ask them if they're intimidated by it.


This is so wrapped up in fantasy its just silly. Do you walk around your city "intimidating" people with videos of your martial arts?


----------



## Urban Trekker

Shatteredzen said:


> This is so wrapped up in fantasy its just silly. Do you walk around your city "intimidating" people with videos of your martial arts?


I was suggesting a way for you to test your statement.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Urban Trekker said:


> I was suggesting a way for you to test your statement.


My statement is based on experience, there's no need to test it, it comes from observation. When my son suggests fanciful things based on childish notions I still correct him too.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> Yeah,  getting smashed by pretty much everyone cultivates a realistic understanding of your relative skill level.  But that's all made possible through application.   A BJJ school that discourages competition and doesn't engage with the larger BJJ community will see skill level diminish very quickly.  Within a few generations of black belts, I would expect that school to feel a lot like how @Shatteredzen describes Aikido schools.  Fortunately, this doesn't happen often and where it does, the schools are well known.


Except discussions like these where someone takes an absolute position like "that style doesn't work" don't happen in martial arts gyms where the person making such a claim can be readily disabused of their viewpoint and people with experience know not to make such claims. These types of "x style is bad" discussions only happen on the internet. Also, the bad schools problem is a thing in most arts, its just much more pervasive in some, hence I have suggested more schools should adopt a more open approach like BJJ has to pressure test and clear the air. The problem is, you have a community of people making a living peddling their art, if all martial arts gyms held themselves accountable, we would have many fewer gyms than there are in all styles.


----------



## Steve

Shatteredzen said:


> Except discussions like these where someone takes an absolute position like "that style doesn't work" don't happen in martial arts gyms where the person making such a claim can be readily disabused of their viewpoint and people with experience know not to make such claims. These types of "x style is bad" discussions only happen on the internet. Also, the bad schools problem is a thing in most arts, its just much more pervasive in some, hence I have suggested more schools should adopt a more open approach like BJJ has to pressure test and clear the air. The problem is, you have a community of people making a living peddling their art, if all martial arts gyms held themselves accountable, we would have many fewer gyms than there are in all styles.


If you weren't so pugnacious, I think you'd realize we agree on more than we disagree.  You're approaching every single post girded for battle.    

As I said earlier, it sounds like you at least intend to try and make Aikido more practical.  I still don't quite know how successful you'll be or how you intend to do it, but I sincerely wish you luck.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Shatteredzen said:


> My statement is based on experience, there's no need to test it, it comes from observation. When my son suggests fanciful things based on childish notions I still correct him too.


Lies.  When I was coming up, I lived in two housing projects, and three trailer parks.  Places where *everyone* has real fighting experience, whether they wanted it or not. Hell, Hampton VA may not be Detroit, but it's not exactly known for being low crime either.  And I can tell you that you have no clue what you're talking about.  Walk into any hood, show Big Pookie a video of some ineffective martial art, and it will be called out accordingly.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Urban Trekker said:


> Lies.  When I was coming up, I lived in two housing projects, and three trailer parks.  Places where *everyone* has real fighting experience, whether they wanted it or not. Hell, Hampton VA may not be Detroit, but it's not exactly known for being low crime either.  And I can tell you that you have no clue what you're talking about.  Walk into any hood, show Big Pookie a video of some ineffective martial art, and it will be called out accordingly.


I know, all those ninja street fights out there in the mean streets of Hampton, VA, I'm sorry bro it sounds like you had it rough. Did big Pookie take your fanta and make you tuck your chain in? I'm sensing a great story.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> If you weren't so pugnacious, I think you'd realize we agree on more than we disagree.  You're approaching every single post girded for battle.
> 
> As I said earlier, it sounds like you at least intend to try and make Aikido more practical.  I still don't quite know how successful you'll be or how you intend to do it, but I sincerely wish you luck.


It's not so much pugnacious as direct. If we were speaking face to face I'd be making goofy faces and doing a bunch of poses and you would see me laughing and joking. The internet loses a lot of this in translation.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Shatteredzen said:


> I know, all those ninja street fights out there in the mean streets of Hampton, VA, I'm sorry bro it sounds like you had it rough. Did big Pookie take your fanta and make you tuck your chain in? I'm sensing a great story.


I am Big Pookie.

And you're dismissing what you have no experience in.  But look on the bright side: at least a guy from a podunk town of 13K agrees with you.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Urban Trekker said:


> I am Big Pookie.
> 
> And you're dismissing what you have no experience in.  But look on the bright side: at least a guy from a podunk town of 13K agrees with you.


Right, here we go on the assumption train to Neverland.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Shatteredzen said:


> Right, here we go on the assumption train to Neverland.


You posted enough material to draw some good conclusions from.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Urban Trekker said:


> You posted enough material to draw some good conclusions from.


Cool story Pook. I gave an abbreviated CV over in the other Aikido thread with my first post. Good luck with the rest of the act.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Shatteredzen said:


> Cool story Pook. I gave an abbreviated CV over in the other Aikido thread with my first post. Good luck with the rest of the act.


Ditto.


----------



## Buka

C'mon fellas, calm down, don't get irritated, it's all good.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Buka said:


> C'mon fellas, calm down, don't get irritated, it's all good.


It's fine here, once again, that internet translation thing, if we were in person we could have the same discussion and it would all be giggles and good natured ribbing with an offer to roll around on a mat in good fun to demonstrate talking points or play grab ***. My apologies that this part of my personality doesn't translate to text. Urban also seems like he isn't crying into his beer either, judging by his laugh emoji. I can't speak to the other end of the conversation but there's no hard feelings on this end.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Buka said:


> C'mon fellas, calm down, don't get irritated, it's all good


Yes, it's all good.  Here's what I want everyone to know: I understand and respect everyone's need to save face.  So if I think that a debate is starting to go where it shouldn't, and I see that someone is trying to save face - even if I believe they're in the wrong - I'll try to create an opportunity for them to exit the argument with their ego intact.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Urban Trekker said:


> Yes, it's all good.  Here's what I want everyone to know: I understand and respect everyone's need to save face.  So if I think that a debate is starting to go where it shouldn't, and I see that someone is trying to save face - even if I believe they're in the wrong - I'll try to create an opportunity for them to exit the argument with their ego intact.


I don't think face came up in that conversation, there was certainly a lot of posturing, but I don't remember having my parking validated, was I supposed to ask for the stamp at the main desk?


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I’m having some difficulty grasping how this is at all relevant.  Go to someone’s neighborhood, show some random fellows a video and ask them if it frightens them.  Somehow, their response is supposed to guide my choice of what martial art I should train?
> 
> interesting.



Yeah. When technically you could go anywhere and see the same results. 

I don't know many reputable fighters who think Aikido has much merit.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Shatteredzen said:


> I don't think face came up in that conversation, there was certainly a lot of posturing, but I don't remember having my parking validated, was I supposed to ask for the stamp at the main desk?


Not sure what the analogy means, but I was referring to my interaction with the guy before you.   I gave him plenty of chances to exit without a scratch on his ego, but some people have to feel like they've _earned_ the W in an internet pissing contest in order to feel good.


----------



## Urban Trekker

drop bear said:


> Yeah. When technically you could go anywhere and see the same results.


I was trying to suggest an area where one is more likely to run into someone with real fighting experience.  Those fights we see on World Star Hip Hop aren't happening in gated communities...


----------



## Shatteredzen

Urban Trekker said:


> I was trying to suggest an area where one is more likely to run into someone with real fighting experience.  Those fights we see on World Star Hip Hop aren't happening in gated communities...


So videos of guys throwing surprise shots at pedestrians, often with their back turned, check.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Yeah. When technically you could go anywhere and see the same results.
> 
> I don't know many reputable fighters who think Aikido has much merit.


So your personal experience is valid, just not anyone elses?


----------



## Urban Trekker

Shatteredzen said:


> So videos of guys throwing surprise shots at pedestrians, often with their back turned, check.


No.  That's not most fights on WSHH.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Shatteredzen said:


> So your personal experience is valid, just not anyone elses?



Ramsey Dewey has spoken out on aikido as well.  No need to feel bad, though.  He doesn't bash aikido nearly as much as be bashes krav maga.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Urban Trekker said:


> No.  That's not most fights on WSHH.


I know, there's also people getting jumped, drunk idiots boxing and a variety of other street crimes.





__





						Worldstarhiphop Search - FIGHT COMP
					





					worldstarhiphop.com
				




But hey, I guess when you walk around your sub division, I mean, "hood", sorry, showing people video of your sweet martial arts to intimidate them that's part of the scene huh?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Urban Trekker said:


> Ramsey Dewey has spoken out on aikido as well.  No need to feel bad, though.  He doesn't bash aikido nearly as much as be bashes krav maga.


Ramsey Dewey gave his opinion on the state of Aikido, his arguments with anything are training and the behavior of the community. Dewey would be one of the first people to tell you its about the quality of your personal training, you are misrepresenting his complaints with your absolute position that Aikido doesn't work.


----------



## Anarax

Jaz said:


> It's an important thing for people to understand, as they're getting a false sense of confidence, in regards to training Aikido and developing combat ability.  Did you ever see anyone question this to their instructor, after they were unsuccessful with applying Aikido against a resisting partner? I'm curious to know what the instructors take on this would be.


I saw the instructor try a technique on a resisting opponent and he failed at effectively executing the technique. He told the resisting student, who he told to resist the technique, to get out of the class for he was "looking for a fight".


----------



## Anarax

Hanshi said:


> if there's one thing I've learned it's that NO empty hand martial art works. The only thing that will work is the man/woman using that art.


I agree with you the individual plays a factor in how effective *they* will be in an encounter . However, each style has it's own training culture and methods on skill development. The methodology/culture that emphasizes contact drills(pad work, randori, combo exchanges) opposed to those that emphasize *only *no-contact or cooperative drills will result in two different outcomes. The first method will produce a more combatively capable martial artist, while the other not as much. 


Hanshi said:


> It's the most determined person and not the better trained or experienced person that will prevail in an encounter


The more determined in training will result in those that are more combatively capable. However, in an encounter, training and experience play a tremendous factor. You can be more determined, but if you're receiving hard face shots or are thrown into the ground head first by a better trained opponent, your determination is going to give out either mentally or physically.  


Hanshi said:


> yes some teach it as an art form rather than a martial art.


Aikido itself is almost universally known as the cooperative training style for that's the one most common.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Shatteredzen said:


> I know, there's also people getting jumped, drunk idiots boxing and a variety of other street crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Worldstarhiphop Search - FIGHT COMP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> worldstarhiphop.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But hey, I guess when you walk around your sub division, I mean, "hood", sorry, showing people video of your sweet martial arts to intimidate them that's part of the scene huh?



I could, but then again, you're the one who trains in a martial art that has much to prove.  I'm not saying _to_ intimate anyone, I'm saying you need to see _if_ they're intimidated.  That is, to substantiate your claim that people with real fighting experience won't say that aikido doesn't work.  If you want to mock me for suggesting that you substantiate your claim, it's all good.  It's just proof that you can't.

But I can save you time by giving you the answer to that question, with regards to how people view a bunch of dudes in hakamas ballroom dancing with each other.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Shatteredzen said:


> Ramsey Dewey gave his opinion on the state of Aikido, his arguments with anything are training and the behavior of the community. Dewey would be one of the first people to tell you its about the quality of your personal training, you are misrepresenting his complaints with your absolute position that Aikido doesn't work.


*Wrong.*

You need to watch his videos again.


----------



## Steve

I think it's most useful and instructive to look at the average students.  That's going to give you a sense of the quality of the training model. Drop the bottom 25% and the top.  How well do the average students perform?  Are they making predictable progress developing reliable, repeatable skills? 

I think in some styles, if we are being honest, the answer is no.  In others, the answer is yes.

What are the common denominators in each of these categories?  I'll tell you, it's not the age of the style.  It's not striking or grappling.  It's not where it comes from, or if it feels traditional.  We all know what it is.  And we all know where aikido fits in.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Urban Trekker said:


> *Wrong.*
> 
> You need to watch his videos again.


I did, he isnt saying anything I havent said myself, right here or in the other thread.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> I think it's most useful and instructive to look at the average students.  That's going to give you a sense of the quality of the training model. Drop the bottom 25% and the top.  How well do the average students perform?  Are they making predictable progress developing reliable, repeatable skills?
> 
> I think in some styles, if we are being honest, the answer is no.  In others, the answer is yes.
> 
> What are the common denominators in each of these categories?  I'll tell you, it's not the age of the style.  It's not striking or grappling.  It's not where it comes from, or if it feels traditional.  We all know what it is.  And we all know where aikido fits in.


Now we are arguing about the quality of available schools, not the system. Unless we are going to equate the system itself to the current body of schools. If you learn to apply the techniques with resistive training, it works for what its designed to do. This is more of the false premise that a martial art needs to be unilaterally effective in all conditions. It doesnt, it merely has to perform the way it is intended. Once again, BJJ has no striking, yet that fact seems to get forgotten everytime this discussion comes up. The bulk of Aikido is in its philosophy, movement and methodology, the sixty or so techniques which make up its forms fill the gaps in Judo and Ju-Jitsu the way they were intended to.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> So your personal experience is valid, just not anyone elses?



Look if you can find a reputable fighter who has something good to say. I will change my opinion. 

I mean I can find reputable people who don't pretty easily.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Shatteredzen said:


> I did, he isnt saying anything I havent said myself, right here or in the other thread.


What's the timestamp of where he said anything about the quality of the training?


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Look if you can find a reputable fighter who has something good to say. I will change my opinion.
> 
> I mean I can find reputable people who don't pretty easily.



That's Bas being as respectful as he can possibly be.


----------



## Ivan

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have a simple question here.
> 
> Do Aikido guys train how to block a punch? Are there any video to prove that?


They train to use the momentum of the punch to take down the opponent. This is prominent in Traditional Jiujitsu too. Common techniques when countering the punch are hip throws, wrist locks and arm lock takedowns. Here:


----------



## Steve

Shatteredzen said:


> Now we are arguing about the quality of available schools, not the system. Unless we are going to equate the system itself to the current body of schools. If you learn to apply the techniques with resistive training, it works for what its designed to do. This is more of the false premise that a martial art needs to be unilaterally effective in all conditions. It doesnt, it merely has to perform the way it is intended. Once again, BJJ has no striking, yet that fact seems to get forgotten everytime this discussion comes up. The bulk of Aikido is in its philosophy, movement and methodology, the sixty or so techniques which make up its forms fill the gaps in Judo and Ju-Jitsu the way they were intended to.


Whether there is striking or grappling is irrelevant to whether the training model is sound.  You don't have to learn everything.  I think you just need to learn to do what you think you're learning to do.  In BJJ you lean to apply reliable grappling skills.  In aikido, you said yourself that this isn't so.

Its not the schools.  It's the style writ large.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Ivan said:


> They train to use the momentum of the punch to take down the opponent. This is prominent in Traditional Jiujitsu too. Common techniques when countering the punch are hip throws, wrist locks and arm lock takedowns. Here:


But what if the attacker doesn't commit to that punch?  I've never seen videos of aikido training that account for that.  If they fight the way I see them train, they're going to get baited by a fake jab and get hit with a cross every time.


----------



## Hanzou

Ivan said:


> They train to use the momentum of the punch to take down the opponent. This is prominent in Traditional Jiujitsu too. Common techniques when countering the punch are hip throws, wrist locks and arm lock takedowns. Here:



That's pure fantasy.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Look if you can find a reputable fighter who has something good to say. I will change my opinion.
> 
> I mean I can find reputable people who don't pretty easily.


Whose arguing for Aikido in the MMA?


----------



## Shatteredzen

Urban Trekker said:


> But what if the attacker doesn't commit to that punch?  I've never seen videos of aikido training that account for that.  If they fight the way I see them train, they're going to get baited by a fake jab and get hit with a cross every time.



The counter to the straight punch or jab is spacing/movement. The lack of timing and the "fist catching" comes from people not practicing against someone trying to hit or feint on them.


----------



## Jaz

Anarax said:


> I saw the instructor try a technique on a resisting opponent and he failed at effectively executing the technique. He told the resisting student, who he told to resist the technique, to get out of the class for he was "looking for a fight".


Wow. That says it all. The instructor can't get his technique to work and blames the student, saying that he's "looking for a fight." It's that kind of bully tactic, to keep the myth going, that goes against the very philosophy of Aikido. Not the technique failing...but the reaction of the instructor. That's actually depressing. Thanks for sharing that though.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Jaz said:


> Wow. That says it all. The instructor can't get his technique to work and blames the student, saying that he's "looking for a fight." It's that kind of bully tactic, to keep the myth going, that goes against the very philosophy of Aikido. Not the technique failing...but the reaction of the instructor. That's actually depressing. Thanks for sharing that though.


It goes against the martial arts in general but that kind of conduct is not bound to Aikido studios. I walked out of my YMCA karate class as a young teen when the instructor tried to explain that her red belt kata was to teach you how to rip open someone's rib cage and rip their heart out. I asked her if she had ever heard of that working and she flipped out about how disrespectful it was to question her kata and I could fight her if I wanted to find out if it worked. Bad schools and instructors are a thing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Shatteredzen said:


> The counter to the straight punch or jab is spacing/movement. The lack of timing and the "fist catching" comes from people not practicing against someone trying to hit or feint on them.


I have a theory that many of these punching attacks were intended to make the timing of the technique more difficult, to sharpen them for grappling rather than being intended as counters to punches. Of course, some of them will also work against awful punches, and a few work well against committed haymakers by untrained folks, but that’s limited.


----------



## Shatteredzen

gpseymour said:


> I have a theory that many of these punching attacks were intended to make the timing of the technique more difficult, to sharpen them for grappling rather than being intended as counters to punches. Of course, some of them will also work against awful punches, and a few work well against committed haymakers by untrained folks, but that’s limited.


I would tend to agree there are some things I look at and just go "this has to be an abstract exercise" and the peaceful, post war schooling is mostly this abstraction. My personal theory is that Aikido students used to spend a lot more time getting hit than they do now and I think that philosophy aside, this non competitive stuff has ultimately led to the current crisis Aikido finds itself in and its time to throw off the koombaya routine in favor of maybe an approach as the gentler form of Budo. The original point of this non-competitiveness was to be above competition because you are supposed to be above conflict. Unfortunately, for some of us to be able to carry an Aikido worth saving into the next century, Aikido is going to have to compromise with our western barbarism and give us more of the dynamic updating that some of the more "live" martial arts have received.

You are not wrong though, because now you are getting what Aikido is for, its for the awful punches, wild haymakers, telegraphed knife thrusts, etc, because believe it or not, that's what 99% of people will ever face if they ever have a real altercation. If your opponent comes in visibly knowing what they were doing or your Aikido failed you, the original intent was that you would transition through your Judo and Ju-Jitsu as needed, with the ultimate goal being to reach a level of mastery that allowed you to use the least amount of force possible. This is why I am pretty adamant about the art. I have used some small percentage of everything I have trained but by far the Aikido has gotten the most mileage and its done more work than all the rest of it put together. Does that mean beating opponents into the ground in the octagon? No. It has helped me and others come out of lots of altercations with no one getting seriously injured, sued, arrested, etc and that's a huge win in my book. I am more thankful for the damage I have been able to prevent from learning Aikido than the damage I have ever done with the rest of my martial arts, if that makes sense, that's Aikido.


----------



## Steve

What if people who have never trained in aikido, but instead train in other grappling arts, are better at aiki principles than people who do train aikido?  That's another study I wish we could conduct.  I have a hypothesis.


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Whose arguing for Aikido in the MMA?



Nobody reputable.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> What if people who have never trained in aikido, but instead train in other grappling arts, are better at aiki principles than people who do train aikido?  That's another study I wish we could conduct.  I have a hypothesis.


Which is often the case.  I've seen numerous videos of BJJ guys being introduced to aikido techniques, and tweaking them to make them useful.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Urban Trekker said:


> Which is often the case.  I've seen numerous videos of BJJ guys being introduced to aikido techniques, and tweaking them to make them useful.


Because the BJJ guys have practical experience in resistance based grappling. For years Aikido was something taught to guys who were already accomplished in Judo/Ju-Jitsu with Dan rankings. Post war, the reformed, peaceful Ueshiba makes the change and rebrands it as a big old hug for the world. I think the original way it was taught was the better way, or at least how I learned it, alongside Judo/BJJ with the same training methods instead of just uke/nage drills and randori.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Steve said:


> What if people who have never trained in aikido, but instead train in other grappling arts, are better at aiki principles than people who do train aikido?  That's another study I wish we could conduct.  I have a hypothesis.


They are better at getting the techniques to work, they also make the better Aikido students, because they understand conflict. I don't think Aikido should be trained by itself for anyone interested in being an all around fighter, just like you pick some kind of striking art to pair with the BJJ. You can't make a hot dog with just relish.


----------



## Shatteredzen

drop bear said:


> Nobody reputable.


Nobody here either


----------



## drop bear

Shatteredzen said:


> Nobody here either



Well no. Because that would be a verifiable statement. We need it all occurring somewhere we can't see it.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> What if people who have never trained in aikido, but instead train in other grappling arts, are better at aiki principles than people who do train aikido?  That's another study I wish we could conduct.  I have a hypothesis.



Yeah so we get rokus back with MMA guy and tell MMA guy he has to get some wristlocks on or something.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Shatteredzen said:


> I would tend to agree there are some things I look at and just go "this has to be an abstract exercise" and the peaceful, post war schooling is mostly this abstraction. My personal theory is that Aikido students used to spend a lot more time getting hit than they do now and I think that philosophy aside, this non competitive stuff has ultimately led to the current crisis Aikido finds itself in and its time to throw off the koombaya routine in favor of maybe an approach as the gentler form of Budo. The original point of this non-competitiveness was to be above competition because you are supposed to be above conflict. Unfortunately, for some of us to be able to carry an Aikido worth saving into the next century, Aikido is going to have to compromise with our western barbarism and give us more of the dynamic updating that some of the more "live" martial arts have received.
> 
> You are not wrong though, because now you are getting what Aikido is for, its for the awful punches, wild haymakers, telegraphed knife thrusts, etc, because believe it or not, that's what 99% of people will ever face if they ever have a real altercation. If your opponent comes in visibly knowing what they were doing or your Aikido failed you, the original intent was that you would transition through your Judo and Ju-Jitsu as needed, with the ultimate goal being to reach a level of mastery that allowed you to use the least amount of force possible. This is why I am pretty adamant about the art. I have used some small percentage of everything I have trained but by far the Aikido has gotten the most mileage and its done more work than all the rest of it put together. Does that mean beating opponents into the ground in the octagon? No. It has helped me and others come out of lots of altercations with no one getting seriously injured, sued, arrested, etc and that's a huge win in my book. I am more thankful for the damage I have been able to prevent from learning Aikido than the damage I have ever done with the rest of my martial arts, if that makes sense, that's Aikido.


There’s a significant overlap with my primary art (Nihon Goshin Aikido - a cousin, with heavy Daito-Ryu influence). It gives me some insight into Aikido, though I’ve learned in the last couple of years that I understood it less than I thought.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

.


----------



## Shatteredzen

gpseymour said:


> There’s a significant overlap with my primary art (Nihon Goshin Aikido - a cousin, with heavy Daito-Ryu influence). It gives me some insight into Aikido, though I’ve learned in the last couple of years that I understood it less than I thought.


It all comes from conceptual Aikijutsu with Diato-Ryu as the root. If you are that deep in the Koryu to know all that stuff, Aikido is to Judo what Iado gives to Kendo in my opinion, although I really do think its good for ALL the budo as a bridging methodology and philosophy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Shatteredzen said:


> It all comes from conceptual Aikijutsu with Diato-Ryu as the root. If you are that deep in the Koryu to know all that stuff, Aikido is to Judo what Iado gives to Kendo in my opinion, although I really do think its good for ALL the budo as a bridging methodology and philosophy.


That seems like an apt analogy.


----------



## Anarax

Jaz said:


> Not the technique failing...but the reaction of the instructor.


Though I agree with you that the instructor failed to effectively execute the technique, the training methodology is what shaped his inability to do so effectively.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Yeah. When technically you could go anywhere and see the same results.
> 
> I don't know many reputable fighters who think Aikido has much meril


you could go anywhere and see the same result as something which hasnt been done to give a result.

how exactly does that work


----------



## Ivan

Hanzou said:


> That's pure fantasy.


These are genuine techniques which are being demonstrated, and that is one of the philosophies they abide by too. As to whether they work or not, that's not for me to say as I have never tried them out myself.


----------



## Ivan

Urban Trekker said:


> But what if the attacker doesn't commit to that punch?  I've never seen videos of aikido training that account for that.  If they fight the way I see them train, they're going to get baited by a fake jab and get hit with a cross every time.


I don't know. That's one of the primary ways they counter it, as to whether it works or not is something else which I can't give an informed answer on. But do consider, that many of the throws in Judo (a much more repsected martial art) are applied to fully commited punches too, yet I have no doubts a Judoka could manhandle a boxer if they were skilled enough.


----------



## Hanshi

Well, whatever the various "sides" are trying to prove is somehow missing the target.  A few principles first:  1. If the attacker doesn't commit to his punch, you commit to yours.  2. Anyone can resist aikido techniques, even I can do that.  3. Resistance; when a road is blocked logic says take an alternate route.  4. Having a black belt means only that you have a black belt, nothing more.  5. NO style wins a fight!  Only a person can win a fight.  

Every martial art I'm aware of has been ridiculed and criticized at some point.  Yes, I know black belts who couldn't punch their way out of a paper bag.  I've known black belt judoka who couldn't slip a punch if they were dipped in motor oil.  Sport karate/tkd/judo/mma/boxing, you name it; there are two sides to every martial art coin.  I've taught both judo and aikido and consider the falls in aikido to be the much rougher of the two.  Judo as well as aikido/hapkido/karate and boxing can be either a sport or a martial art and sometimes can be both at once.  I'll always remember what my aikido sensei taught and this was always weapons first before empty hands.  Our specialty just happened to be "environmental weapons" or any and every thing.


----------



## Buka

I worked in a overnight arrest unit for a time. A woman, a brown belt in Karate, heard I was also a Karateka. She started to debate me on something or other.

I asked her how often they spar in her school. I will never forget her answer.

She said, “I’ve never actually seen sparring.”

I still can’t believe it. There is bs just about everywhere.


----------



## Shatteredzen

Buka said:


> I worked in a overnight arrest unit for a time. A woman, a brown belt in Karate, heard I was also a Karateka. She started to debate me on something or other.
> 
> I asked her how often they spar in her school. I will never forget her answer.
> 
> She said, “I’ve never actually seen sparring.”
> 
> I still can’t believe it. There is bs just about everywhere.


Man, the living creature, the creating *individual*, is always more important than any established *style* or system. - Bruce Lee

Said by the man who dropped the fixed forms, advocated strength and physical conditioning when everyone else said it made you slow, actively encouraged people to blend and mix their styles and to create their own paradigm.


----------



## Jaz

Buka said:


> I worked in a overnight arrest unit for a time. A woman, a brown belt in Karate, heard I was also a Karateka. She started to debate me on something or other.
> 
> I asked her how often they spar in her school. I will never forget her answer.
> 
> She said, “I’ve never actually seen sparring.”
> 
> I still can’t believe it. There is bs just about everywhere.


Yeah, that's crazy!!! I've spoken to a lot of people from different martial art styles who say similar things.


----------



## RagingBull

If you look at Tomiki aikido he has a system with Judo Randori ..tanto dori.
i see this as not bad & the tai sabaki to use to avoid a punch as does Wado ryu karate (shindo yoshin ryu) principles.  However Wado ryu attacks straight away. nice .


----------



## Deleted member 39746

JowGaWolf said:


> Then wear armour and perform your techniques.  There are other systems that wear armor as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone from a system does not wish to participate then they do not have to participate.  They can train and practice like they always have.




TLDR from since i saw this.   But the funny thing is most HEMA is simulated unarmoured combat.  Some groups and sports do armoured combat, but the bulk is just nessisary protection for unarmoured. and not in peroid armour. 

Also as far as japan goes last i heard their training system would be, you do it right or you get hit with a bokken or shinai at close to full speed or full speed.  (working up to that level at least)      Need to look that one up to see if its true though, i think they did that is all i can say.   In a similar way you would get thawaked in HEMA if you did something wrong.      Great incentive to do it right though.  And it also helps the person attacking learning as well if they just pull the last second.

Addendum:  But yes you should use what ever PPE you deem appriapriate and nesssiary or the law dicates you should use.


----------



## Mider

Every art has to prove itself, having said that I think it does prove itself effective, the issue is how people train and lean how to use it.

There are decent Aikido channels in YouTube like Aikidoflow or Warriors TV

Rokas failed in aikido, that’s on him, he should have pressure tested it, made it work rather then gently toss or be tossed around. I’m not insulting him I’m just saying there are people who make it work just fine 

having said that, I think it would best when cross trained with stuff like a striking art and BJJ etc.


----------



## Cynik75

Mider said:


> There are decent Aikido channels in YouTube like Aikidoflow or Warriors TV


Both are theoreticians. Rokas stepped into the ring with his aikido. 
This makes difference.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Aikido has been scrutinized for a long time.  Long before Rokas was born.  And, to be Frank, aikidokas feel betrayed by Rokas.  That's why they're says that he's the reason his aikido doesn't work.  Anything to take the spotlight off of where it belongs.


----------



## Mider

Cynik75 said:


> Both are theoreticians. Rokas stepped into the ring with his aikido.
> This makes difference.


Ok but not every art is for the ring...and no those guys use it at their work

i understand the thought that everything has to go in the ring but I don’t agree, if a martial art works against the average guy then it still works.

will it work in the ring etc? No, that’s why I say aikido is great with cross trained.


----------



## Mider

Urban Trekker said:


> Aikido has been scrutinized for a long time.  Long before Rokas was born.  And, to be Frank, aikidokas feel betrayed by Rokas.  That's why they're says that he's the reason his aikido doesn't work.  Anything to take the spotlight off of where it belongs.


There is no spot light, either learn it don’t, who cares what Rokas thinks...learn it or don’t don’t watch a YouTube video or movie and think wow that looks cool I’ll waste years learning it then having it fail


----------



## Cynik75

Mider said:


> if a martial art works against the average guy then it still works.


Untrained average Joe has 50% chance against other untrained average Johny.  Untrained average Joe with the fork has more than 50%. Agressive average Joe with fork has even more. Why anybody should learn MA? Fighting untrained people is easy. The true combat value of any Martial Art we see only if the adepts are repetably able to deal with oponents more dangerous than average Joe.


----------



## Mider

Cynik75 said:


> Untrained average Joe has 50% chance against other untrained average Johny.  Untrained average Joe with the fork has more than 50%. Agressive average Joe with fork has even more. Why anybody should learn MA? Fighting untrained people is easy. The true combat value of any Martial Art we see only if the adepts are repetably able to deal with oponents more dangerous than average Joe.


wasn’t talking about an average Joe though was talking about a black belt who trains seriously in any art vs average joe

who says everyone wants to train for competition...i Mean using your logic most who train any combat sport will never be as good as the guys who make it to ufc 

instead of criticizing an art I’m 9f the opinion that every art has something to offer,


----------



## Urban Trekker

Mider said:


> There is no spot light, either learn it don’t, who cares what Rokas thinks...learn it or don’t don’t watch a YouTube video or movie and think wow that looks cool I’ll waste years learning it then having it fail



Yes, there is a spotlight. That's why this thread, and many others like it, exists here on MT.  That's also why this discussion has existed long before MT, and is as old as aikido itself.

The denial that aikidokas live in never ceases to amaze me.


----------



## drop bear

Mider said:


> Ok but not every art is for the ring...and no those guys use it at their work
> 
> i understand the thought that everything has to go in the ring but I don’t agree, if a martial art works against the average guy then it still works.
> 
> will it work in the ring etc? No, that’s why I say aikido is great with cross trained.



The problem is we can't see it working and we should be able to.


----------



## Urban Trekker

drop bear said:


> The problem is we can't see it working and we should be able to.



We've certainly seen it fail, many times against BJJ in sparring matches all over YouTube.  I mean, striking arts have a valid excuse for losing to BJJ: in a sparring session, a grappler can go full-on without injuring the sparring partner, but the striker can't do the same.  Aikido guys don't have that excuse.


----------



## Mider

Urban Trekker said:


> Yes, there is a spotlight. That's why this thread, and many others like it, exists here on MT.  That's also why this discussion has existed long before MT, and is as old as aikido itself.
> 
> The denial that aikidokas live in never ceases to amaze me.


This isn’t a spot light...it’s a thread online 

again...I said it should be cross trained


----------



## Mider

Urban Trekker said:


> We've certainly seen it fail, many times against BJJ in sparring matches all over YouTube.  I mean, striking arts have a valid excuse for losing to BJJ: in a sparring session, a grappler can go full-on without injuring the sparring partner, but the striker can't do the same.  Aikido guys don't have that excuse.


yes we’ve seen it fail and I’ve seen guys make it work.

do you guys not read when I say...it should be cross trained etc?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Mider said:


> do you guys not read when I say...it should be cross trained etc?


Why should one cross train Aikido instead of Judo, or wrestling?


----------



## Mider

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why should one cross train Aikido instead of Judo, or wrestling?


Because every art has something useful


----------



## Urban Trekker

Mider said:


> Because every art has something useful



The intent of that question was for you to say what edge over the other two in a fight that aikido gives.  And... go!


----------



## Mider

Urban Trekker said:


> The intent of that question was for you to say what edge over the other two in a fight that aikido gives.  And... go!


I gave an answer, if you’re not happy with the answer, too bad.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Mider said:


> I gave an answer, if you’re not happy with the answer, too bad.



Cop out.  You lose.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Mider said:


> I think it would best when cross trained with stuff like a striking art and BJJ etc.


I fully agree with your logic of cross training. You say that it's a good idea for an Aikido guy to cross train a striking art and BJJ. My question is why it's a good idea for a boxer (or a BJJ guy) to cross train Aikido instead of Judo, or wrestling?

What's missing in Judo or wrestling that one can only get from Aikido training?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Cynik75 said:


> Untrained average Joe has 50% chance against other untrained average Johny.  Untrained average Joe with the fork has more than 50%. Agressive average Joe with fork has even more. Why anybody should learn MA? Fighting untrained people is easy. The true combat value of any Martial Art we see only if the adepts are repetably able to deal with oponents more dangerous than average Joe.


For a lot of folks, it's more about changing the percentages. If an average Joe has a 50% chance against another average Joe, then with training he can make that more like 80%. For many of us, that's the kind of progression we're considering first.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The problem is we can't see it working and we should be able to.


Why should we be able to? If I want to find out more about Aikido, I go to an Aikido school. I don't think they owe me any more than that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Why should one cross train Aikido instead of Judo, or wrestling?


Because it's what they want to do. If it's not, they should do something else.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I fully agree with your logic of cross training. You say that it's a good idea for an Aikido guy to cross train a striking art and BJJ. My question is why it's a good idea for a boxer (or a BJJ guy) to cross train Aikido instead of Judo, or wrestling?
> 
> What's missing in Judo or wrestling that one can only get from Aikido training?


It depends what they want to train _for_. 

If they want to improve their chances in a BJJ competition, I can't think of much Aikido would bring that would add insight (I think it's more likely to add to Judo, because of the stand-up focus). Someone with more experience in it might have more to add. 

If they want to improve their chances in a boxing competition, I can't really think of anything Aikido would add.

But if they want to learn a different way of grappling or a different approach to body mechanics, because that would be interesting to them, anyone could enjoy Aikido trained apropriately.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> But if they want to learn a different way of grappling or a different approach to body mechanics, because that would be interesting to them, anyone could enjoy Aikido trained apropriately.


A: Why do you like the long fist system?
B: Because it helps me to build up strong foundation.

A: Why do you like the Baji system?
C: Because it helps me to build up power generation.

A: Why do you like the praying mantis system?
D: Because it helps me to build up speed generation.

A: Why do you like the Chinese wrestling system?
E: Because it helps me to build up throwing skill.

A: Why do you like Aikido?
F: Because it's different, more interest, and more fun.

I will expect similar answer from F as from B, C, D, and E.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Why should we be able to? If I want to find out more about Aikido, I go to an Aikido school. I don't think they owe me any more than that.



It is the wrong way to find out. You could go to a school and not know if it works.

People train for twenty years and not know if it works. 

Hence Rokus.


----------



## BrendanF

drop bear said:


> It is the wrong way to find out. You could go to a school and not know if it works.
> 
> People train for twenty years and not know if it works.
> 
> Hence Rokus.



Would you say the same thing about kendo?


----------



## Mider

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I fully agree with your logic of cross training. You say that it's a good idea for an Aikido guy to cross train a striking art and BJJ. My question is why it's a good idea for a boxer (or a BJJ guy) to cross train Aikido instead of Judo, or wrestling?
> 
> What's missing in Judo or wrestling that one can only get from Aikido training?


Idk, I don’t know, I just know that in aikido there’s things that don’t focus on strength, i don’t train it, honestly I’d love training all of those if I could


----------



## Mider

gpseymour said:


> Why should we be able to? If I want to find out more about Aikido, I go to an Aikido school. I don't think they owe me any more than that.


YouTube is also not the best place to learn the truth

i mean sure they’ll show an aikido guy getting beat up by an mma guy, my reaction is REALLY YA THINK?! then the critics will focus on that

yet they ignore guys who use it as guards, bouncers etc


----------



## Mider

gpseymour said:


> It depends what they want to train _for_.
> 
> If they want to improve their chances in a BJJ competition, I can't think of much Aikido would bring that would add insight (I think it's more likely to add to Judo, because of the stand-up focus). Someone with more experience in it might have more to add.
> 
> If they want to improve their chances in a boxing competition, I can't really think of anything Aikido would add.
> 
> But if they want to learn a different way of grappling or a different approach to body mechanics, because that would be interesting to them, anyone could enjoy Aikido trained apropriately.


Exactly, I mean you learn everything in BJJ in judo that doesn’t mean both are great


----------



## Mider

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A: Why do you like the long fist system?
> B: Because it helps me to build up strong foundation.
> 
> A: Why do you like the Baji system?
> C: Because it helps me to build up power generation.
> 
> A: Why do you like the praying mantis system?
> D: Because it helps me to build up speed generation.
> 
> A: Why do you like the Chinese wrestling system?
> E: Because it helps me to build up throwing skill.
> 
> A: Why do you like Aikido?
> F: Because it's different, more interest, and more fun.
> 
> I will expect similar answer from F as from B, C, D, and E.


Because it shows you leverage, how to fight without having to use power, because if trained properly it works.

like I said Rokas couldn’t make it work...odd others who actually do deal with security situations make it work fine, but I guess that don’t count because They’re the average Joe. Lol very flawed logic


----------



## Mider

drop bear said:


> It is the wrong way to find out. You could go to a school and not know if it works.
> 
> People train for twenty years and not know if it works.
> 
> Hence Rokus.


No ids not lol...you use you brain n go to a school n say well that wouldn’t work. Rokas also admitted he never fought when he did aikido...he’s not the best judge


----------



## Mider

BrendanF said:


> Would you say the same thing about kendo?


So what’s wrong with kendo?

So every art that isn’t mma sucks...wow


----------



## Urban Trekker

Mider said:


> So what’s wrong with kendo?
> 
> So every art that isn’t mma sucks...wow


Well, MMA has kind of been established as the "proving ground" for martial arts.  There's no denying that.


----------



## Steve

Mider said:


> This isn’t a spot light...it’s a thread online
> 
> again...I said it should be cross trained


I went to the Culinary Institute for two years, but when I wanted to actually learn to cook I had to cross train at the Cordon Bleu.



gpseymour said:


> Why should we be able to? If I want to find out more about Aikido, I go to an Aikido school. I don't think they owe me any more than that.


This is true, until the school on a micro level or the style on a macro level start making claims that could be dangerous.  



gpseymour said:


> It depends what they want to train _for_.
> [snip]
> But if they want to learn a different way of grappling or a different approach to body mechanics, because that would be interesting to them, anyone could enjoy Aikido trained apropriately.


This would be great, but I don't see this on the literature of a lot of self defense schools, including Aikido.  Seems like Aikido schools that don't emphasize self defense are a lot more up front about what you'll learn.  For example, I read the front page of this Aikido school and think it's a great model to use. Aikido Northshore  No crazy claims, and a lot of emphasis on the non-violent, non-competitive, cooperative goal of spiritual development.  




BrendanF said:


> Would you say the same thing about kendo?


Kendo's very different, because people who train in Kendo are applying their technique.


----------



## BrendanF

Mider said:


> So what’s wrong with kendo?
> 
> So every art that isn’t mma sucks...wow



You misread my point entirely.  I was trying to point out that 'not knowing if it works' establishes absolutely a standard that not all martial artists need apply.  In my example I intended to highlight that few kendo students study the art with any consideration as to whether 'it works (on the mean streets)'.



Steve said:


> Kendo's very different, because people who train in Kendo are applying their technique.



Do you not think aikido people are applying their techniques when they train?


----------



## Flying Crane

Urban Trekker said:


> Well, MMA has kind of been established as the "proving ground" for martial arts.  There's no denying that.


I deny it.


----------



## Steve

BrendanF said:


> You misread my point entirely.  I was trying to point out that 'not knowing if it works' establishes absolutely a standard that not all martial artists need apply.  In my example I intended to highlight that few kendo students study the art with any consideration as to whether 'it works (on the mean streets)'.


I think I understand your point, but disagree.   Speaking for myself, I don't need to know if it works "on the mean streets."  I'm satisfied knowing whether or not it works for what it's intended to do.   

Does BJJ work on the streets?  I think in some situations, it does.  But that's not my real concern.  I can tell you for sure that it is effective grappling because I've seen it and also done it.  

Judo is very effective at learning to throw people, pin them, and submit them.  Wrestling is very effective at doing similar things in a different way.  Sambo is effective. 

On the striking side, we know that boxing is effective, and so is Muay Thai, because we can see people training in these styles and then applying the skills in context.  This leads every individual who trains to be able to demonstrate clear, visible improvement in their skills over time that they can apply in context against other skilled practitioners who are actively attempting to do the same.  

Aikido doesn't have a vehicle for application.  


BrendanF said:


> Do you not think aikido people are applying their techniques when they train?



I do not.  Unless you're saying that Aikido is intended to be trained for demonstration purposes only, like modern Wushu, in which case I would agree. 

Look at it this way.  I have a lot more confidence that a person who trains and is skilled in Kendo will be able to transfer that learning to a different context (e.g., "the street") because they apply their skills in context.

To be clear, this isn't a knock on Aikido.  It's a knock on training without application.


----------



## BrendanF

Steve said:


> I think I understand your point, but disagree.   Speaking for myself, I don't need to know if it works "on the mean streets."  I'm satisfied knowing whether or not it works for what it's intended to do.



And what is aikido intended to do?  Kyudo?  Capoeira?  Iaido?



Steve said:


> Aikido doesn't have a vehicle for application... Unless you're saying that Aikido is intended to be trained for demonstration purposes only, like modern Wushu, in which case I would agree.



Why only demonstration?  What makes you think that there are no aikido people training, completely aware that they are not learning 'to fight', and completely fulfilled and content with their art and it's training?

My point was that value judgements applied to martial arts are for the short sighted and juvenile.


----------



## Steve

BrendanF said:


> And what is aikido intended to do?  Kyudo?  Capoeira?  Iaido?



Exactly.  What is aikido intended to do?  And does it do that?  

You can independently verify Kendo does what it's supposed to do, even if you never train Kendo.  It's easily seen, because individuals who train in Kendo routinely apply their skills.  



BrendanF said:


> Why only demonstration?  What makes you think that there are no aikido people training, completely aware that they are not learning 'to fight', and completely fulfilled and content with their art and it's training?



If they are, I think that's great.  If you think I'm saying otherwise, I really don't think you understand my point.  



BrendanF said:


> My point was that value judgements applied to martial arts are for the short sighted and juvenile.



Sure, and most (if not all) here agree.  This is not a values based discussion.  I don't think less of anyone who trains and enjoys Aikido. 

This is a practical discussion.  It's like if I say I train yoga for self defense.  Is yoga fun?  Well, I mean, I guess so.  Is it good for me?  Sure.  Is it teaching me fighting skills?  Nope.  

So, if I were to assert that yoga is a martial art, but when challenged on that I tout all of the ancillary benefits of yoga, I'm kind of missing the point of the question.  Don't you think?


----------



## Cynik75

Mider said:


> Mean using your logic most who train any combat sport will never be as good as the guys who make it to ufc


1. UFC fighters train combat sports.
2. 


Mider said:


> okas also admitted he never fought when he did aikido...he’s not the best judge


Show me better judge than Rokas. Show me aikido stylists who spar and fight in regular way.


----------



## Steve

Mider said:


> wasn’t talking about an average Joe though was talking about a black belt who trains seriously in any art vs average joe
> 
> who says everyone wants to train for competition...i Mean using your logic most who train any combat sport will never be as good as the guys who make it to ufc
> 
> instead of criticizing an art I’m 9f the opinion that every art has something to offer,


Holding the UFC out as the standard is definitely misleading.  I would say that the quality of the training is better evaluated based on the performance and skill development of regular people who train in that style.  Sure, it's helpful to be able to look at the apex of the style and see what elite level practitioners are able to do.  But the rank and file practitioners are going to tell you more about how effective the training will be.

Having said that, any style that has a clear purpose will perform better overall than styles that do not.  In other words, if a style is being trained in a vacuum, teaching things that no one in the school does outside of the school, the style would benefit from some kind of competitive element to build practical skill.  For example, Aikido would benefit from some kind of Aikido appropriate competition. 

Now, we can discuss whether this is inconsistent with the philosophical underpinnings of the style, but that's a different thread that can't really even get started unless we can first agree that a philosophy of cooperative non-violence is counterproductive if learning to defend oneself is the goal.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Flying Crane said:


> I deny it.


The only possible motives for denying it are self-serving.


----------



## Mider

Cynik75 said:


> 1. UFC fighters train combat sports.
> 2.
> 
> Show me better judge than Rokas. Show me aikido stylists who spar and fight in regular way.


Aikidoflow and warriors tv...they use aikido in their work 

id Say they’d have a better opinion then Rokas


----------



## Mider

BrendanF said:


> You misread my point entirely.  I was trying to point out that 'not knowing if it works' establishes absolutely a standard that not all martial artists need apply.  In my example I intended to highlight that few kendo students study the art with any consideration as to whether 'it works (on the mean streets)'.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not think aikido people are applying their techniques when they train?


Yes I do...I mean you’re acting like you’ve met every Aikidoa or been yo every aikido school...none of them spar or make it work? Oooookkk


----------



## Cynik75

Mider said:


> Aikidoflow and warriors tv...they use aikido in their work


Show me them in real sparring or fight. Both od them talk, talk, talk but they do not show anything similar to judo randori, wrestling match, BJJ roll, sambo sparring. 
When boxers show the idea of right cross it is quite easy to find footage of this punch succesfully used in full contact sport matches or street brawls. The same with muai thai knees and elbows, judo and wrestling throws, karate kicks etc. Can anybody do the same for aikido?


----------



## Mider

Cynik75 said:


> Show me them in real sparring or fight. Both od them talk, talk, talk but they do not show anything similar to judo randori, wrestling match, BJJ roll, sambo sparring.
> When boxers show the idea of right cross it is quite easy to find footage of this punch succesfully used in full contact sport matches or street brawls. The same with muai thai knees and elbows, judo and wrestling throws, karate kicks etc. Can anybody do the same for aikido?


Why don’t you go look yourself lol...I just gave you examples of a real fight they’ve had lol...they work in security, bouncers, I believe Lenny Sly is in security

But you’ll move the goal post, oh does it work in the street, I’ll say yes they used it in the street then you’ll say oh  they fought but they fought untrained guy, lol

on it’s not on YouTube so there’s no proof...so on n so on


----------



## Steve

Mider said:


> Aikidoflow and warriors tv...they use aikido in their work
> 
> id Say they’d have a better opinion then Rokas


Can you explain how they're better than Rokas?  I checked out some of the videos and they seem like your typical self defense fare.  I do like the Aikidoflow guy's accent.  He reminds me of Idris Elba.


----------



## Steve

Mider said:


> Why don’t you go look yourself lol...I just gave you examples of a real fight they’ve had lol...they work in security, bouncers, I believe Lenny Sly is in security
> 
> But you’ll move the goal post, oh does it work in the street, I’ll say yes they used it in the street then you’ll say oh  they fought but they fought untrained guy, lol
> 
> on it’s not on YouTube so there’s no proof...so on n so on


This is where a discussion like this usually breaks down into tribes arguing about YouTube videos and proof.  Hopefully we can skip that part. 

Let's say we accept that Aikido works pretty well for bouncers or people who work security.  Absent evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to believe a bouncer who says that he uses Aikido techniques all the time in his job.  He learned techniques and he applies them in a context.

The question then becomes, are his skills and abilities transferrable?  I'd say yes, provided that his students are also bouncers or security.  I mean, if you're a bouncer teaching other bouncers how to use technique specific to that context, it makes perfect sense.  You have experience and you're sharing that with others who are accumulating their own experience.

But is it transferrable to someone who isn't a bouncer?  Well now... that's a different story completely.  That's where things start to get squirrelly.


----------



## Mider

Steve said:


> This is where a discussion like this usually breaks down into tribes arguing about YouTube videos and proof.  Hopefully we can skip that part.
> 
> Let's say we accept that Aikido works pretty well for bouncers or people who work security.  Absent evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to believe a bouncer who says that he uses Aikido techniques all the time in his job.  He learned techniques and he applies them in a context.
> 
> The question then becomes, are his skills and abilities transferrable?  I'd say yes, provided that his students are also bouncers or security.  I mean, if you're a bouncer teaching other bouncers how to use technique specific to that context, it makes perfect sense.  You have experience and you're sharing that with others who are accumulating their own experience.
> 
> But is it transferrable to someone who isn't a bouncer?  Well now... that's a different story completely.  That's where things start to get squirrelly.


that makes no sense, just more goal post moving


----------



## Mider

Steve said:


> Can you explain how they're better than Rokas?  I checked out some of the videos and they seem like your typical self defense fare.  I do like the Aikidoflow guy's accent.  He reminds me of Idris Elba.


How are they better then Rokas? Um they make their stuff work? I’ve only said that 20 times

is Rokas some big name in martial arts that I should care what he says?

I mean instead of trying it yourself you want to argue over what some guy says then claim it’s a useless art...thats Tribal on your part not open minded


----------



## Flying Crane

Urban Trekker said:


> The only possible motives for denying it are self-serving.


Wow.  That is funny.


----------



## Cynik75

Mider said:


> Why don’t you go look yourself lol...I just gave you examples of a real fight they’ve had lol...they work in security, bouncers, I believe Lenny Sly is in security





Mider said:


> Um they make their stuff work? I’ve only said that 20 times


And I have lazers in my eyes. This is true, because I say so.
One video of Lenny from WarrorTV smashing medium level amateur full contact sportsman would shut people like me up.


----------



## Steve

Mider said:


> that makes no sense, just more goal post moving


In what way am I moving goal posts?  


Mider said:


> How are they better then Rokas? Um they make their stuff work? I’ve only said that 20 times



So, is it Rokas or is it the Aikido that Rokas learned and the system in which Rokas learned it?  I don't see this as a personality driven discussion.  

But I am trying to figure out what you mean.  Is there something unique about the brand of Aikido that these guys you like are promoting that makes it different?  



Mider said:


> is Rokas some big name in martial arts that I should care what he says?



I'd never heard of him before these threads.  But then again, I didn't know Idris Elba's body double taught Aikido, either.  



Mider said:


> I mean instead of trying it yourself you want to argue over what some guy says then claim it’s a useless art...thats Tribal on your part not open minded



I think I'd enjoy Aikido and have no problems with it or anyone who trains in it.  But I don't think I'd expect to learn how to fight by doing it.  Sorry if I missed it, but do you train Aikido?  This seems to be winding you up a little.


----------



## Mider

Steve said:


> This is where a discussion like this usually breaks down into tribes arguing about YouTube videos and proof.  Hopefully we can skip that part.
> 
> Let's say we accept that Aikido works pretty well for bouncers or people who work security.  Absent evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to believe a bouncer who says that he uses Aikido techniques all the time in his job.  He learned techniques and he applies them in a context.
> 
> The question then becomes, are his skills and abilities transferrable?  I'd say yes, provided that his students are also bouncers or security.  I mean, if you're a bouncer teaching other bouncers how to use technique specific to that context, it makes perfect sense.  You have experience and you're sharing that with others who are accumulating their own experience.
> 
> But is it transferrable to someone who isn't a bouncer?  Well now... that's a different story completely.  That's where things start to get squirrelly.





Cynik75 said:


> And I have lazers in my eyes. This is true, because I say so.
> One video of Lenny from WarrorTV smashing medium level amateur full contact sportsman would shut people like me up.


Ok, I don’t think there’s any point in continuing this discussion, you guys seem to want to argue more then actually find out for yourself

Laters


----------



## Steve

Mider said:


> Ok, I don’t think there’s any point in continuing this discussion, you guys seem to want to argue more then actually find out for yourself
> 
> Laters


----------



## Mider

Steve said:


>


And I’m sure you feel bad *** posting that, you can tell your friends how bad *** you are arguing online lol


----------



## Steve

Mider said:


> And I’m sure you feel bad *** posting that, you can tell your friends how bad *** you are arguing online lol


I was really just trying to be a little funny... lighten the mood a little.  I thought we were having a friendly discussion.  Didn't mean to rile you up.  

If you would like to respond to the actual posts, I'd be happy to chat with you further.  Or not.  It's okay either way.  

But either way, I sincerely hope you have a good day.  Nothing on this forum is important enough to ruin your mood.


----------



## BrendanF

Mider said:


> Yes I do...I mean you’re acting like you’ve met every Aikidoa or been yo every aikido school...none of them spar or make it work? Oooookkk



Say what?  Can you explain what you mean by that?  Where or how do I give that impression?  That's twice you've completely missed what I was saying.

To repeat, I was simply pointing out that people do not need to have the same priorities or standards that Drop Bear declared they should.

Seems like you need to return to school and brush up on your reading comprehension.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A: Why do you like the long fist system?
> B: Because it helps me to build up strong foundation.
> 
> A: Why do you like the Baji system?
> C: Because it helps me to build up power generation.
> 
> A: Why do you like the praying mantis system?
> D: Because it helps me to build up speed generation.
> 
> A: Why do you like the Chinese wrestling system?
> E: Because it helps me to build up throwing skill.
> 
> A: Why do you like Aikido?
> F: Because it's different, more interest, and more fun.
> 
> I will expect similar answer from F as from B, C, D, and E.


Not everyone will have the same kinds of motivations you have. What you expect won't change why some folks are interested in other arts.

From my viewpoint, there are some things that simply take too long to be worth it from a purely practical standpoint. But I rather like them, personally, regardless. The body movement utilization in my primary art and other aiki arts (as I understand them) is on that list. There are much faster ways to learn to throw (I use some of those methods as well, as they're also part of NGA). If someone already knows those methods (from Judo, for instance), what aiki adds will take too long to look at from a competition viewpoint. It's simply not worth the time for that level of improvement. A Judo player will almost certainly get more improvement over the same period fo time from catch wrestling to get new grappling foundations.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is the wrong way to find out. You could go to a school and not know if it works.
> 
> People train for twenty years and not know if it works.
> 
> Hence Rokus.


Which is why we might want to be able to see more universally. I'm debating the use of "should". I don't think they owe the world that. If I'm curious, I take my curiosity to an Aikido school (and have done so on multiple occasions). My opinions on the art are based mostly on those experiences. I don't see where they owe me more than that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Mider said:


> Idk, I don’t know, I just know that in aikido there’s things that don’t focus on strength, i don’t train it, honestly I’d love training all of those if I could


It's my opinion that this is partially a misconception (by folks within the art, as well). There are things in aiki arts that focus on how to use things other than strength (which doesn't necessarily imply not using strength with them), and how to use strength differently. Keeping strength out of drills I believe was originally to force focus on other principles, so those principles could be combined with strength in application. Over time, that last part seems to have gotten lost, and the drills are seen as application.

I could be wrong on significant parts of this - I'm going mainly on what I understand from training a related art and looking at the progression of Aikido.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Mider said:


> Exactly, I mean you learn everything in BJJ in judo that doesn’t mean both are great


Just a small note on this. In Judo (at the time), you'd have learned everything that formed the original basis of BJJ. The two have diverged quite a bit since them. Some of that material is far less prominent in most Judo schools, from what I hear (I haven't trained Judo in decades), and BJJ has moved on in a lot of ways.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Which is why we might want to be able to see more universally. I'm debating the use of "should". I don't think they owe the world that. If I'm curious, I take my curiosity to an Aikido school (and have done so on multiple occasions). My opinions on the art are based mostly on those experiences. I don't see where they owe me more than that.



But then they get what they get.

Crystal healing doesn't owe me anything either.  But I am not just going to support the idea that it works.

Or that they are like doctors but with different motivations.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Cynik75 said:


> And I have lazers in my eyes. This is true, because I say so.
> One video of Lenny from WarrorTV smashing medium level amateur full contact sportsman would shut people like me up.


Except that's not the context he uses it in, and not a claim I'm aware he has ever made. Most of the bouncers and prison guards I've trained with never competed in anything (a few did, back in the days of "tough man" contests).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> But then they get what they get.


Yes.



> Crystal healing doesn't owe me anything either.  But I am not just going to support the idea that it works.


Agreed.


> Or that they are like doctors but with different motivations.


I'm not sure where that came from, nor how it's analogous to anything in this discussion.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Except that's not the context he uses it in, and not a claim I'm aware he has ever made. Most of the bouncers and prison guards I've trained with never competed in anything (a few did, back in the days of "tough man" contests).



I work in Seattle, and can tell you that there are a lot of software developers who do not train in any martial art.  And you know what?  They do just fine, for the most part... never miss those martial skills that they don't have.  Should they ever need them, though, they might wish they had trained and competed in MMA (or some other competitive style).  And I can tell you that the converse is true, as well.  Those software developers who do train in MMA, BJJ, boxing, etc, are much better prepared than those who do not.  

Experience is cumulative, and it's about logging hours doing things.  In the same way as above, a bouncer that competes will benefit from the competition.  Or said another way, a bouncer, who also trains and competes in MMA will have a more well rounded and reliable skillset than one who doesn't.   A bouncer that competes will benefit from the competition.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure where that came from, nor how it's analogous to anything in this discussion.


People who promote healing crystals sell a questionable product and try to promote themselves as health care gurus.  In the same way that some martial arts experts do the same with fighting skills.  It's a very straightforward analogy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I work in Seattle, and can tell you that there are a lot of software developers who do not train in any martial art.  And you know what?  They do just fine, for the most part... never miss those martial skills that they don't have.  Should they ever need them, though, they might wish they had trained and competed in MMA (or some other competitive style).  And I can tell you that the converse is true, as well.  Those software developers who do train in MMA, BJJ, boxing, etc, are much better prepared than those who do not.
> 
> Experience is cumulative, and it's about logging hours doing things.  In the same way as above, a bouncer that competes will benefit from the competition.  Or said another way, a bouncer, who also trains and competes in MMA will have a more well rounded and reliable skillset than one who doesn't.   A bouncer that competes will benefit from the competition.


Agreed, on all points. My point was simply that folks who are training for work purposes aren't necessarily interested in competition. It might benefit them, but like everyone they're going to make decisions based upon time commitment (among other things).

Given a solid trianing environment with sufficient live resistance, I expect someone who uses the skills regularly on the job would get marginal improvement with a bit of competition. Additional training for the competition would have more benefit than the actual competition, but is more time commitment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> People who promote healing crystals sell a questionable product and try to promote themselves as health care gurus.  In the same way that some martial arts experts do the same with fighting skills.  It's a very straightforward analogy.


Perhaps.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Perhaps.


You may not agree, but I at least hope you now understand where it came from and how it is analogous and relevant to the discussion.


----------



## InfiniteLoop

Is Aikido marketed as a self defense? If yes, then it does have reason to prove itself. If no, then it has no reason to do so.


----------



## drop bear

InfiniteLoop said:


> Is Aikido marketed as a self defense? If yes, then it does have reason to prove itself. If no, then it has no reason to do so.



I have an issue with even this because it is this constant shifting of goal posts.

I mean imagine if I said I was learning piano. And at some point someone
Asked me to play. And I was like I can't. I don't do it for self defense.


----------



## Urban Trekker

InfiniteLoop said:


> Is Aikido marketed as a self defense? If yes, then it does have reason to prove itself. If no, then it has no reason to do so.



I've never seen an aikidoka claim that aikido was not meant for self-defense in order to shield it from criticism.  In fact, they double down on the claim that it IS an effective system for self-defense.  And if that's what they believe, then that's how aikido is being marketed.


----------



## InfiniteLoop

Urban Trekker said:


> I've never seen an aikidoka claim that aikido was not meant for self-defense in order to shield it from criticism.  In fact, they double down on the claim that it IS an effective system for self-defense.  And if that's what they believe, then that's how aikido is being marketed.



If you to to the Q and A on some Aikido sites when asked if can be used for self defense, it says no, at any recreational level.


----------



## O'Malley

drop bear said:


> I have an issue with even this because it is this constant shifting of goal posts.
> 
> I mean imagine if I said I was learning piano. And at some point someone
> Asked me to play. And I was like I can't. I don't do it for self defense.


It depends on the goals of your training. There are lots of aikido people who can't fight but are skilled at what they seek to achieve (e.g. fluid cooperative choreography, soft falls, etc.). They may not play the songs you expect from an MMA fighter, but they still play the piano.






Same with other martial arts:


















Urban Trekker said:


> I've never seen an aikidoka claim that aikido was not meant for self-defense in order to shield it from criticism.  In fact, they double down on the claim that it IS an effective system for self-defense.  And if that's what they believe, then that's how aikido is being marketed.


One has to distinguish between three things:
A) What aikido was meant to be. That is, what was the goal pursued by the founder of the art when he put together his system. Here we get into historical arguments.
B) How aikido is marketed. Which means how (most? highest-level?) practitioners present it. As there is no authority in aikido and everybody does his own thing for different reasons, there is no uniform way that "aikido is being marketed".
C) What practitioners train for and whether they achieve their goals or not. As above, everyone's in it for different reasons so generalisations will just miss the point. That said, there are practitioners that think they train for self-defense without making actual progress.


----------



## Steve

O'Malley said:


> It depends on the goals of your training. There are lots of aikido people who can't fight but are skilled at what they seek to achieve (e.g. fluid cooperative choreography, soft falls, etc.). They may not play the songs you expect from an MMA fighter, but they still play the piano.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same with other martial arts:


This is a fair point provided the instructor is transparent.  “O’Malley, if you’re looking for self defense, this isn’t for you.  I can teach you some pretty cool, stylized fight choreography, but you aren’t going to learn to fight here.”  I don’t see a lot of that.  Instead, what we see are vague allusions to developing a self defense mindset in a friendly, comfortable, non competitive environment.   



O'Malley said:


> One has to distinguish between three things:
> A) What aikido was meant to be. That is, what was the goal pursued by the founder of the art when he put together his system. Here we get into historical arguments.


I think this one is pretty well covered over the years 


O'Malley said:


> B) How aikido is marketed. Which means how (most? highest-level?) practitioners present it. As there is no authority in aikido and everybody does his own thing for different reasons, there is no uniform way that "aikido is being marketed".


Errr.  That’s not really true.  Is it?  We can acknowledge the positive exceptions to the rule without throwing out the rule.  Or said another way, where aikido schools are fully transparent, overtly marketing the lack of fighting, we can praise them as examples of what we would like to see more of.  


O'Malley said:


> C) What practitioners train for and whether they achieve their goals or not. As above, everyone's in it for different reasons so generalisations will just miss the point. That said, there are practitioners that think they train for self-defense without making actual progress.


Only if they’re told overtly that aikido is not for learning any fighting or self defense.  Like telling someone who plays the piano, you will learn to play music and there is value in that, but playing the piano will not help you in a fight.


----------



## Urban Trekker

The major problem I have with the claim that "the purpose of aikido is (insert non-self defense relating things here)" is that, even if this was stated in the marking, the ostentation of it being for self-defense is still in the training.  And then you have to think about the fact that if the same things can be achieved though other activities, like learning to play a musical instrument, then why would a person who is *not* interested in learning self-defense take up aikido?  At least if you learn how to play a musical instrument, you may gain discipline and other attributes, but you're also learning how to do exactly what it looks like you're learning how to do: play the musical instrument.

And if aikido is not for self-defense, then people who are fully aware of this and want to learn self-defense will go elsewhere.

So if aikido explicitly markets itself as not being for self-defense, then who could it possibly be attracting?

This is why it's hard for me to believe that aikido is marketing itself as not being for self-defense.


----------



## O'Malley

Steve said:


> This is a fair point provided the instructor is transparent.  “O’Malley, if you’re looking for self defense, this isn’t for you.  I can teach you some pretty cool, stylized fight choreography, but you aren’t going to learn to fight here.”  I don’t see a lot of that.  Instead, what we see are vague allusions to developing a self defense mindset in a friendly, comfortable, non competitive environment.


Happened to me on my first/second aikido class. I asked whether it would help on the streets and the head instructor said "It's not meant for fighting. Principles like positioning or going with the flow may help but it's not meant for fighting." I've been in four schools so far and only in one of them did the instructor mention self-defense as a goal (and yes, IMO, their training is unrealistic from that POV).


Steve said:


> I think this one is pretty well covered over the years


I disagree. I've read most of what's out there on aikido history and the revisionist narrative that went mainstream under the founder's son is still predominant among practitioners. The authors that have challenged that narrative, relying on historical sources (like Stanley Pranin or Christopher Li) are very marginal in the aikido world and are virtually unknown among non-English speakers. At best, it's been poorly covered.


Steve said:


> Errr.  That’s not really true.  Is it?  We can acknowledge the positive exceptions to the rule without throwing out the rule.  Or said another way, where aikido schools are fully transparent, overtly marketing the lack of fighting, we can praise them as examples of what we would like to see more of.


There is really no authority on what aikido is, or on what it should be. You have tons of organisations with different focuses, and no one speaks for all practitioners. Hence, there is no rule to be made about aikido's marketing because it would only apply to an undefined number of schools. For what it's worth, the largest organisation (the Aikikai) does not list self-defense as a goal. Quite the contrary, the official website states that aikido does not aim to perfect a skill but is a way to develop character: About Aikido | Aikikai Foundation.


Steve said:


> Only if they’re told overtly that aikido is not for learning any fighting or self defense.  Like telling someone who plays the piano, you will learn to play music and there is value in that, but playing the piano will not help you in a fight.


I agree.


----------



## Flying Crane

This thread reminds me of the Shingrix commercial.

“I eat right and get lots of exercise.”

Shingles doesn’t care.

“I think aikido needs to convince me it is useful.”

Aikido doesn’t care.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Flying Crane said:


> This thread reminds me of the Shingrix commercial.
> 
> “I eat right and get lots of exercise.”
> 
> Shingles doesn’t care.
> 
> “I think aikido needs to convince me it is useful.”
> 
> Aikido doesn’t care.



Because there are enough people who are convinced to keep aikido dojos in business.  Much like the guy named Billy Johnson, who can barely speak English, trying to sell you an extended car warranty doesn't care to convince you that he's not scammer.  Because there are plenty of people who don't require such convincing to keep "Billy Johnson" doing what he's doing.


----------



## Flying Crane

Urban Trekker said:


> Because there are enough people who are convinced to keep aikido dojos in business.  Much like the guy named Billy Johnson, who can barely speak English, trying to sell you an extended car warranty doesn't care to convince you that he's not scammer.  Because there are plenty of people who don't require such convincing to keep "Billy Johnson" doing what he's doing.


I am not at all clear on what you are trying to say here.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> This thread reminds me of the Shingrix commercial.
> 
> “I eat right and get lots of exercise.”
> 
> Shingles doesn’t care.
> 
> “I think aikido needs to convince me it is useful.”
> 
> Aikido doesn’t care.


Exactly.  Like folks who say, “I train for self defense”.  Fighting doesn’t care.  Good point.


----------



## drop bear

O'Malley said:


> It depends on the goals of your training. There are lots of aikido people who can't fight but are skilled at what they seek to achieve (e.g. fluid cooperative choreography, soft falls, etc.). They may not play the songs you expect from an MMA fighter, but they still play the piano.


I have done pro wrestling I do understand the mentally of that.


----------



## Hanzou

InfiniteLoop said:


> Is Aikido marketed as a self defense? If yes, then it does have reason to prove itself. If no, then it has no reason to do so.



Indeed it is. I've even seen Aikido schools claim that learning Aikido will make you capable of defeating multiple attackers.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Hanzou said:


> Indeed it is. I've even seen Aikido schools claim that learning Aikido will make you capable of defeating multiple attackers.



A GRAPPLING art is making this claim? 😯

BJJ, a grappling art whose effectiveness is almost never questioned, doesn't even make this claim.

I'd put an experienced untrained fighter who has experienced getting jumped over an aikidoka against multiple attackers.  Neither would come out on top, but the aikidoka is probably going to walk away with the worse beating.


----------



## InfiniteLoop

Urban Trekker said:


> A GRAPPLING art is making this claim? 😯


Good point. Grappling a knife isn't a good idea


----------



## Hanzou

Urban Trekker said:


> A GRAPPLING art is making this claim? 😯
> 
> BJJ, a grappling art whose effectiveness is almost never questioned, doesn't even make this claim.
> 
> I'd put an experienced untrained fighter who has experienced getting jumped over an aikidoka against multiple attackers.  Neither would come out on top, but the aikidoka is probably going to walk away with the worse beating.



Here’s one right here;



> 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.







__





						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


----------



## Instructor

Do I want to drag Hapkido into this conversation??? I guess I will.

Hapkido and Aikido are different martial arts but have some commonality.

I believe Hapkido is useful for self defense as defined as one or more hostile people trying to accost or otherwise do physical harm to self. I come to this belief because I've had to use Hapkido in a couple of real world attacks and it worked.  Additionally many law enforcement folks use Hapkido to subdue violent people daily.

I've never trained Aikido so I won't comment on it. I suspect if an Aikido school focused on real attack strategies and defenses it would be fairly practical.


----------



## drop bear

InfiniteLoop said:


> Good point. Grappling a knife isn't a good idea


Not really the consensus though. Most people teach grappling as a counter to knife. 

I am not completely sold.


----------



## InfiniteLoop

drop bear said:


> Not really the consensus though. Most people teach grappling as a counter to knife.
> 
> I am not completely sold.



Most SD people teach not so good things... Wildly optimistic, idealistic, with parkinson level attack scenarios


----------



## Urban Trekker

When someone says "I've used x on the streets, and it works;" the best thing you can do is let it go in one ear and out the other.

The more controversial the art, the more likely someone is to make that claim.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Urban Trekker said:


> And then you have to think about the fact that if the same things can be achieved though other activities, like learning to play a musical instrument, then why would a person who is *not* interested in learning self-defense take up aikido?


Because they want something more physical than a musical instrument, for fitness or other reasons? Your argument seems to be based on a premise that anything martial-arty must be for self-defense, then loops back to reinforce its own premise. If we insert "gymnastics" in place of "Aikido", this argument never comes up. And there are schools (and, I think, an entire association) that market Aikido as being about peace and flow. If they aren't marketing it for fighting, then I'd assume most of the folks training there chose it for some reason other than that - perhaps even the reasons mentioned in the marketing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Indeed it is. I've even seen Aikido schools claim that learning Aikido will make you capable of defeating multiple attackers.


There definitely are schools that make such claims. I've never been able to figure out if they are a majority or minority. The associations seem less likely to make such claims, though some high-ranking folks used to make a point about that (like Tohei).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not really the consensus though. Most people teach grappling as a counter to knife.
> 
> I am not completely sold.


Yeah, I think it may have its moments, but defense-oriented arts with a heavy grappling component seem to be entirely focused there.


----------



## drop bear

InfiniteLoop said:


> Most SD people teach not so good things... Wildly optimistic, idealistic, with parkinson level attack scenarios


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, I think it may have its moments, but defense-oriented arts with a heavy grappling component seem to be entirely focused



I think most systems try to grab the knife arm.


----------



## Hanzou

Instructor said:


> Do I want to drag Hapkido into this conversation??? I guess I will.
> 
> Hapkido and Aikido are different martial arts but have some commonality.
> 
> I believe Hapkido is useful for self defense as defined as one or more hostile people trying to accost or otherwise do physical harm to self. I come to this belief because I've had to use Hapkido in a couple of real world attacks and it worked.  Additionally many law enforcement folks use Hapkido to subdue violent people daily.
> 
> I've never trained Aikido so I won't comment on it. I suspect if an Aikido school focused on real attack strategies and defenses it would be fairly practical.



I wonder what would make Hapkido more effective than Aikido. Perhaps the striking component?

Combat Hapkido is..... weird.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I think most systems try to grab the knife arm.


Which makes sense to me if you think of instinctual responses - if you can lay hands on that arm, you want to keep it. But as an only option, it doesn't focus enough on defense and high-percentage controls - tries to jump right to a disarm. And that's just a critique of the concept from someone who has never needed to defend against an actual knife.

The issue, IMO, is in how it's trained. It's either a single attack (one stab, for instance), or a face-off with the reward to whomever wins (no real cost for being overly aggressive). The outcome (and participants' understanding) changes when the training is better focused.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I wonder what would make Hapkido more effective than Aikido. Perhaps the striking component?
> 
> Combat Hapkido is..... weird.


I think any grappling is more effective with a solid grappling foundation paired to it.

From the small amount of Hapkido I've seen, it's also less focused on smooth flow. They can do that, but their responses are more direct and....I guess "harsher" is the word I'm looking for. But my view into Hapkido is pretty limited.


----------



## caped crusader

gpseymour said:


> I think any grappling is more effective with a solid grappling foundation paired to it.
> 
> From the small amount of Hapkido I've seen, it's also less focused on smooth flow. They can do that, but their responses are more direct and....I guess "harsher" is the word I'm looking for. But my view into Hapkido is pretty limited.


do they use the high kicks like Tae Kwon Do ?


----------



## caped crusader

all these high kicks are no real use in a real brawl.  maybe if you train every day like a pro but for most pretty much a waste of time. I remember a friend telling me about his Tae Kwon Do training. He said, "yeah i can keep the attacker(s) at a distance"  
I took him to our training and he got his *** whooped big time.   sorry but that´s reality. not everyone is chuck norris..lol  but even he learned BJJ. Go figure.


----------



## Urban Trekker

BigBalls said:


> I remember a friend telling me about his Tae Kwon Do training. He said, "yeah i can keep the attacker(s) at a distance"
> I took him to our training and he got his *** whooped big time.



Your friend is talking about against untrained attackers, not against kosen judoka - in which case he'd be right the majority of the time.


----------



## caped crusader

Urban Trekker said:


> Your friend is talking about against untrained attackers, not against kosen judoka - in which case he'd be right the majority of the time.


most people will close the gap quickly. do not get me wrong if you are very, very good and train every day maybe you can KO someone like Bill Wallace  but c´mon man how many have that skill or dedication/time to achieve this skill?


----------



## Instructor

Hanzou said:


> I wonder what would make Hapkido more effective than Aikido. Perhaps the striking component?
> 
> Combat Hapkido is..... weird.


Since I haven't trained Aikido I am not entirely sure what the major differences are.  I'm told that Hapkido is more like small circle jujitsu and Aikido favors large circles but it's just talk. We do spar one another and have a lot of Jeet Kun Do style interception drills which we transition into standing grappling.  Also the punching and kicking as you mentioned which are pretty much the same as TKD.


----------



## Instructor

gpseymour said:


> I think any grappling is more effective with a solid grappling foundation paired to it.
> 
> From the small amount of Hapkido I've seen, it's also less focused on smooth flow. They can do that, but their responses are more direct and....I guess "harsher" is the word I'm looking for. But my view into Hapkido is pretty limited.


Harsher is a good way to put it.  We will get a basic lock and then pound the crap out of our opponent with whatever isn't currently in use kicks or off hand punches etc, or just pound them into the ground again and again. Hapkido is like more Rated R I guess.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

BigBalls said:


> do they use the high kicks like Tae Kwon Do ?


The school I saw did, though I think they also trained TKD, so they may have been TKD kicks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

BigBalls said:


> all these high kicks are no real use in a real brawl.  maybe if you train every day like a pro but for most pretty much a waste of time. I remember a friend telling me about his Tae Kwon Do training. He said, "yeah i can keep the attacker(s) at a distance"
> I took him to our training and he got his *** whooped big time.   sorry but that´s reality. not everyone is chuck norris..lol  but even he learned BJJ. Go figure.


If you try to high-kick a lot, they require a lot more skill. If you use them selectively, they are a nice knock-out "punch".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Instructor said:


> Since I haven't trained Aikido I am not entirely sure what the major differences are.  I'm told that Hapkido is more like small circle jujitsu and Aikido favors large circles but it's just talk. We do spar one another and have a lot of Jeet Kun Do style interception drills which we transition into standing grappling.  Also the punching and kicking as you mentioned which are pretty much the same as TKD.


I'd say that's a reasonable distinction. Probably not the only one, but the circles in the Hapkido I saw were definitely smaller than I've seen used in Aikido. Mind you, that's a pretty low bar.


----------



## Instructor

BigBalls said:


> do they use the high kicks like Tae Kwon Do ?


Some of the older Hapkido Systems do high kicks  and jump spinning kicks.  The system I'm in uses low kicks, we don't even teach the high ones.  Highest kick I see routinely is maybe solar plexus level, most are groin or knees.


----------



## Steve

BigBalls said:


> all these high kicks are no real use in a real brawl.  maybe if you train every day like a pro but for most pretty much a waste of time. I remember a friend telling me about his Tae Kwon Do training. He said, "yeah i can keep the attacker(s) at a distance"
> I took him to our training and he got his *** whooped big time.   sorry but that´s reality. not everyone is chuck norris..lol  but even he learned BJJ. Go figure.


I hear stories like this and think the wrong lesson is being learned.  The lesson here isn't that TKD doesn't work.  The lesson is, this guy needs to keep training with people who can whoop his ***, and the more he does, the better his TKD will work.


----------



## dancingalone

Instructor said:


> Some of the older Hapkido Systems do high kicks  and jump spinning kicks.  The system I'm in uses low kicks, we don't even teach the high ones.  Highest kick I see routinely is maybe solar plexus level, most are groin or knees.


Certainly the hapkido that comes from Ji Han Jae (arguably the founder of hapkido but I don't care to have that argument here) does.  GM Ji 'invented' many kicks that aren't generally trained in taekwondo.


----------



## Cynik75

InfiniteLoop said:


> Good point. Grappling a knife isn't a good idea


Much better than trade punches with knife wielder. Much much better.


----------



## Steve

I don't understand.  Why don't you guys just kick the knife out of the bad guy's hand?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> I don't understand.  Why don't you guys just kick the knife out of the bad guy's hand?


I believe that's what the inside crescent kick is designed for. If you have shoes on, that's much safer than to use your hand. I still remember that in high school, we trained to use the inside crescent kick to slap opponent's face. IMO, the outside crescent kick (or hook kick) can also do the job.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I don't understand.  Why don't you guys just kick the knife out of the bad guy's hand?


That's not sporting.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> That's not sporting.


You get bonus points if you can make the knife stick in a wall across the room.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> You get bonus points if you can make the knife stick in a wall across the room.


For some reason, I'm now remembering a scene in a MA movie where one of the heroes uses a sawblade as a throwing star. Kills a guy, then says "Thank god for Black & Decker." No idea why this post brought that to mind.


----------



## Instructor

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I believe that's what the inside crescent kick is designed for. If you have shoes on, that's much safer than to use your hand. I still remember that in high school, we trained to use the inside crescent kick to slap opponent's face. IMO, the outside crescent kick (or hook kick) can also do the job.


Well that is it, we found the secret ingredient that Hapkido has and Aikido doesn't, crescent kicks.. LOL.


----------



## caped crusader

Instructor said:


> Some of the older Hapkido Systems do high kicks  and jump spinning kicks.  The system I'm in uses low kicks, we don't even teach the high ones.  Highest kick I see routinely is maybe solar plexus level, most are groin or knees.


yeah ok...fair one.


----------



## caped crusader

Instructor said:


> Well that is it, we found the secret ingredient that Hapkido has and Aikido doesn't, crescent kicks.. LOL.


I did see a guy one time try a head kick outside a bar after a lot of ranting about being a kick boxer...  he got his *** whooped ! and this was by a non martial arts guy. 
It all looks great in Tae Kwon Do the board breaking and high kicks which is the Korean tradition but flying kick are not needed. we do not need to kick horse riders off their horse these days.


----------



## caped crusader

anyway i´m more of a built small guy at 5 7"  and i pack a good right hand. most fights i win in a couple of punches.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

BigBalls said:


> anyway i´m more of a built small guy at 5 7"  and i pack a good right hand. most fights i win in a couple of punches.


I'm not really sure what this comment has to do with the topic.


----------



## Urban Trekker

gpseymour said:


> I'm not really sure what this comment has to do with the topic.



Fighting on the streets.  He does it all the time.  And with punches, even though he's a yondan in kosen judo.


----------



## Cynik75

Steve said:


> You get bonus points if you can make the knife stick in a wall across the room.


It works: 



But my personal opinion is that it is better to control hand with the knife. 
But everything can happened in the fight.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Cynik75 said:


> It works:
> 
> 
> 
> But my personal opinion is that it is better to control hand with the knife.
> But everything can happened in the fight.


Well, of course it worked in this video.  For two reasons:

1.  He was keeping his hand out there in place so that she could kick it.  No knife wielding attacker is just going leave his hand there.
2.  Because of #1, she had all the time in the world to determine the correct distancing and to generate the necessary power in the kick to get the knife out.  You're not going to have that in a real scenario.

In my estimation, knife-wielding attackers are already taking into account the possibility that their victim will try to wrestle the knife away from them, so the expectation should be that the attacker will have a firm grip on that knife.

The other thing I'll add is that if there's enough distance between you and the attacker to kick the knife out, then the attacker is not close enough to attack you with the knife.  I can't imagine an attacker displaying the knife before closing that distance.  Displaying it before closing that distance gives the victim time and space to run.  And the attacker knows this.  What the attacker will likely do is get close enough to the victim to stab them if they try to run, before displaying the knife.  They'll be too close for you to kick their hand like that.


----------



## Cynik75

Urban Trekker said:


> No knife wielding attacker is just going leave his hand there.


----------



## Cynik75

Urban Trekker said:


> 1.  He was keeping his hand out there in place so that she could kick it.  No knife wielding attacker is just going leave his hand there.


Many knife wielder keeps hand in front - especially if they do not want to attack for real- just to show the knife and intimidate the victim. Or for the defence purposes - to drive the opponent away - once ( about 25 years ago) during tussle with naziskinhead my coleague and I chased one nazi to the corner of the bus stop, he pulled out a knife and waved blindly in front of him, so we couldn't get him withou high risk.

A few stones from 3-4 metres closed the case...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Cynik75 said:


> It works:
> 
> 
> 
> But my personal opinion is that it is better to control hand with the knife.
> But everything can happened in the fight.


It's worth noting in that test, he was holding it to try to stop that from happening. He was holding _tight_. It probably takes less than that to make it release in most cases, because unless someone is raging in place (not much movement), it's really unlikely they are holding as tight as that. I've seen knives knocked out of grip in training enough to believe it's very possible. Maybe even a target of opportunity in some cases, but not something to depend upon.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Urban Trekker said:


> Well, of course it worked in this video.  For two reasons:
> 
> 1.  He was keeping his hand out there in place so that she could kick it.  No knife wielding attacker is just going leave his hand there.
> 2.  Because of #1, she had all the time in the world to determine the correct distancing and to generate the necessary power in the kick to get the knife out.  You're not going to have that in a real scenario.
> 
> In my estimation, knife-wielding attackers are already taking into account the possibility that their victim will try to wrestle the knife away from them, so the expectation should be that the attacker will have a firm grip on that knife.
> 
> The other thing I'll add is that if there's enough distance between you and the attacker to kick the knife out, then the attacker is not close enough to attack you with the knife.  I can't imagine an attacker displaying the knife before closing that distance.  Displaying it before closing that distance gives the victim time and space to run.  And the attacker knows this.  What the attacker will likely do is get close enough to the victim to stab them if they try to run, before displaying the knife.  They'll be too close for you to kick their hand like that.


Most of that was actually covered in the video.

As for the last point, it's unlikely an attacker is holding as hard as he can at most times (perhaps during an actual stab, especially if they have training/experience), simply because it's an unnatural way to hold. If they are at distance like this, they probably aren't gripping as tight as he was.


----------



## Instructor

A surprise sewing machine style knife attack is my worst nightmare. I've not seen much of anything short of wearing ring mail or something that would stop the first couple of stabs.


----------



## caped crusader

Urban Trekker said:


> Fighting on the streets.  He does it all the time.  And with punches, even though he's a yondan in kosen judo.


OK i will explain it to you and please leave out your sarcastic comments. 
First of all i do not do it all the time but my experiences have shown me that to shock the opponent you need a fast hard punch. Even in Aikido you use Atemi to distract the opponent. 
Sometimes in a close quarter situation you can use an upper cut which has always worked for me. If he goes down and is not a threat why would i roll around a street with him? Also there might be other opponents. 
I hope this helps bro


----------



## caped crusader

gpseymour said:


> Most of that was actually covered in the video.
> 
> As for the last point, it's unlikely an attacker is holding as hard as he can at most times (perhaps during an actual stab, especially if they have training/experience), simply because it's an unnatural way to hold. If they are at distance like this, they probably aren't gripping as tight as he was.


have you ever yourself been in a real situation against a knife?


----------



## Urban Trekker

Instructor said:


> A surprise sewing machine style knife attack is my worst nightmare. I've not seen much of anything short of wearing ring mail or something that would stop the first couple of stabs.



Ah yes, getting shanked in prison.  Doesn't matter how badass you are, anybody can get it.


----------



## caped crusader

Urban Trekker said:


> Ah yes, getting shanked in prison.  Doesn't matter how badass you are, anybody can get it.


speaking from experience Urban Trekker? 
are U Badass ? Please tell us your stories. 
This is not a wind up post i am assuming you are an expert?


----------



## caped crusader

Cynik75 said:


> It works:
> 
> 
> 
> But my personal opinion is that it is better to control hand with the knife.
> But everything can happened in the fight.


this sort of rubbish on youtube and tought in so called dojos gets people killed.  Kicking a knife out of a hand...first of all a knife can move fast and even a slight change of angle can cause you a bad situation.  
My suggestion carry a telescopic baton. A compact model.


----------



## Flying Crane

Urban Trekker said:


> Ah yes, getting shanked in prison.  Doesn't matter how badass you are, anybody can get it.


As long as you are in prison, I guess.


----------



## Urban Trekker

BigBalls said:


> speaking from experience Urban Trekker?
> are U Badass ? Please tell us your stories.
> This is not a wind up post i am assuming you are an expert?



Take off your symbiote suite there, Venom.  You're one person.

Oh, and look at this quote here:



BigBalls said:


> have you ever yourself been in a real situation against a knife?



I'm sure you're going tell everyone about YOUR experience with defending against knife attacks, right? 🤣🤣🤣


----------



## caped crusader




----------



## Instructor

An unskilled crazy person tried to stick me with a pair of sewing shears once.  I survived unscathed.


----------



## caped crusader

Instructor said:


> An unskilled crazy person tried to stick me with a pair of sewing shears once.  I survived unscathed.


ahh...you must have trained under Dillman... blew the guy away with no touch karate.


----------



## caped crusader

Urban Trekker said:


> Take off your symbiote suite there, Venom.  You're one person.
> 
> Oh, and look at this quote here:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you're going tell everyone about YOUR experience with defending against knife attacks, right? 🤣🤣🤣


No not at all but yeah i have certainly more experience than you kid.


----------



## Urban Trekker

BigBalls said:


> No not at all but yeah i have certainly more experience than you kid.


The fact that you're saying this to random strangers on the internet that you know absolutely nothing about indicates otherwise.  But you go on with your bad self!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Instructor said:


> A surprise sewing machine style knife attack is my worst nightmare. I've not seen much of anything short of wearing ring mail or something that would stop the first couple of stabs.


Yeah, not much you can do if you don't see it coming.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

BigBalls said:


> have you ever yourself been in a real situation against a knife?


Nope. Hopefully never will.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

BigBalls said:


> this sort of rubbish on youtube and tought in so called dojos gets people killed.  Kicking a knife out of a hand...first of all a knife can move fast and even a slight change of angle can cause you a bad situation.
> My suggestion carry a telescopic baton. A compact model.


You didn't really watch the video, did you?


----------



## caped crusader

gpseymour said:


> You didn't really watch the video, did you?


to be fair i skimmed through it. It´s all the same BS.  either pro or critical about some self defence stuff which is just nonsense.


----------



## caped crusader

Urban Trekker said:


> The fact that you're saying this to random strangers on the internet that you know absolutely nothing about indicates otherwise.  But you go on with your bad self!


the fact that you said i have fights non stop to a random stranger is beyond me..listen i am not on here to discuss stuff which will upset a few wanna be Dojo kings here. 
peace ..


----------



## Cynik75

BigBalls said:


> to be fair i skimmed through it. It´s all the same BS.  either pro or critical about some self defence stuff which is just nonsense.


I skimmed through your posts. Looks like you have no idea about self defence


----------



## caped crusader

Cynik75 said:


> I skimmed through your posts. Looks like you have no idea about self defence


no problem. teach us your know how and real life experiences. I am sure we can all learn an benefit from it.  What is your take on the video? what would you do?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

BigBalls said:


> to be fair i skimmed through it. It´s all the same BS.  either pro or critical about some self defence stuff which is just nonsense.


Actually, it makes the points you assume it doesn't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

*REMINDER TO ALL MEMBERS*

MartialTalk is (as the tagline states) a "friendly martial arts community". So keep it friendly and cordial.

________________
Gerry Seymour
*MartialTalk Moderator*
@gpseymour


----------



## drop bear

BigBalls said:


> I did see a guy one time try a head kick outside a bar after a lot of ranting about being a kick boxer...  he got his *** whooped ! and this was by a non martial arts guy.
> It all looks great in Tae Kwon Do the board breaking and high kicks which is the Korean tradition but flying kick are not needed. we do not need to kick horse riders off their horse these days.



Flying kicks are pretty common and pretty successful in street fights. 

More common and successful than say low kicks to the knee. 

We just have this preconceived idea that it isn't the case.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It's worth noting in that test, he was holding it to try to stop that from happening. He was holding _tight_. It probably takes less than that to make it release in most cases, because unless someone is raging in place (not much movement), it's really unlikely they are holding as tight as that. I've seen knives knocked out of grip in training enough to believe it's very possible. Maybe even a target of opportunity in some cases, but not something to depend upon.



No. That is an unfounded assumption.

And regardless the concept worked in testing anyway.


----------



## drop bear

Instructor said:


> A surprise sewing machine style knife attack is my worst nightmare. I've not seen much of anything short of wearing ring mail or something that would stop the first couple of stabs.



Counter striking. It is still low percentage but there is a chance you can overwhelm the guy before he gets you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No. That is an unfounded assumption.
> 
> And regardless the concept worked in testing anyway.


It did. 

I'm curious why you think folks would be holding a knife as tightly as they possibly can if just being threatening (not actually attacking, so at that distance), or if moving in with it (not at the actual point of stabbing). Maybe I spend too much time around folks who are trained, but it's my experience that people don't tend to hold anything as tightly as they can unless they expect at that moment it may be pushed/pulled/knocked out of their hand. When using it, they tend to hold about as firmly as they feel is necessary. Holding REALLY tight makes it hard to do much.


----------



## Dirty Dog

gpseymour said:


> It did.
> 
> I'm curious why you think folks would be holding a knife as tightly as they possibly can if just being threatening (not actually attacking, so at that distance), or if moving in with it (not at the actual point of stabbing). Maybe I spend too much time around folks who are trained, but it's my experience that people don't tend to hold anything as tightly as they can unless they expect at that moment it may be pushed/pulled/knocked out of their hand. When using it, they tend to hold about as firmly as they feel is necessary. Holding REALLY tight makes it hard to do much.


Holding a blade super tight will make attacks more difficult and less effective. Especially a thrusting weapon. Point control with a super tight grip is pretty much non-existant.


----------



## Urban Trekker

gpseymour said:


> It did.
> 
> I'm curious why you think folks would be holding a knife as tightly as they possibly can if just being threatening (not actually attacking, so at that distance), or if moving in with it (not at the actual point of stabbing). Maybe I spend too much time around folks who are trained, but it's my experience that people don't tend to hold anything as tightly as they can unless they expect at that moment it may be pushed/pulled/knocked out of their hand. When using it, they tend to hold about as firmly as they feel is necessary. Holding REALLY tight makes it hard to do much.



I've never personally witnessed anyone being stabbed, but in all of the cases I've heard of, it was never a situation where someone was being robbed at knifepoint, being told "do x or I'll stab you," or otherwise even being able to see the knife in time to react to it.  In every case, the stabber gets into the victim's personal space before taking out the knife and stabbing the person.

In my estimation, people threatening you with a knife before doing anything with it (thus, presenting an opportunity for you to kick the knife out or otherwise disarm the attacker) is probably more likely to happen outside of the US, where people have less access to guns.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It did.
> 
> I'm curious why you think folks would be holding a knife as tightly as they possibly can if just being threatening (not actually attacking, so at that distance), or if moving in with it (not at the actual point of stabbing). Maybe I spend too much time around folks who are trained, but it's my experience that people don't tend to hold anything as tightly as they can unless they expect at that moment it may be pushed/pulled/knocked out of their hand. When using it, they tend to hold about as firmly as they feel is necessary. Holding REALLY tight makes it hard to do much.



Because you have your super mad rage on?  Or you don't want the knife to come out when you hit something with it?

I think loosey goosey grips are a mistake. 

Regardless. It is not an assumption we can make based on what our mates might do in the dojo.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Because you have your super mad rage on?  Or you don't want the knife to come out when you hit something with it?
> 
> I think loosey goosey grips are a mistake.
> 
> Regardless. It is not an assumption we can make based on what our mates might do in the dojo.


Have you ever trained full on with knives (rubber/blunted/training vlades)? If you do, I think you'd find that a super tight grip is not desirable.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It did.
> 
> I'm curious why you think folks would be holding a knife as tightly as they possibly can if just being threatening (not actually attacking, so at that distance), or if moving in with it (not at the actual point of stabbing). Maybe I spend too much time around folks who are trained, but it's my experience that people don't tend to hold anything as tightly as they can unless they expect at that moment it may be pushed/pulled/knocked out of their hand. When using it, they tend to hold about as firmly as they feel is necessary. Holding REALLY tight makes it hard to do much.


I think if you are just going to hit the guy as hard as you can. You want a tight grip. You might loose versatility. But I don't think it is necessarily about versatility.


----------



## caped crusader

most people who pull out a blade will attack quickly and do not give you any chance. They won´t say, "Hey are you ready" ?


----------



## Dirty Dog

BigBalls said:


> most people who pull out a blade will attack quickly and do not give you any chance. They won´t say, "Hey are you ready" ?


And you base this on what?


----------



## caped crusader

Dirty Dog said:


> And you base this on what?


experience & maybe for most common sense ?


----------



## Dirty Dog

BigBalls said:


> experience & maybe for most common sense ?


And how many knife fights have you been involved with?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Urban Trekker said:


> I've never personally witnessed anyone being stabbed, but in all of the cases I've heard of, it was never a situation where someone was being robbed at knifepoint, being told "do x or I'll stab you," or otherwise even being able to see the knife in time to react to it.  In every case, the stabber gets into the victim's personal space before taking out the knife and stabbing the person.
> 
> In my estimation, people threatening you with a knife before doing anything with it (thus, presenting an opportunity for you to kick the knife out or otherwise disarm the attacker) is probably more likely to happen outside of the US, where people have less access to guns.


Agreed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Because you have your super mad rage on?  Or you don't want the knife to come out when you hit something with it?
> 
> I think loosey goosey grips are a mistake.
> 
> Regardless. It is not an assumption we can make based on what our mates might do in the dojo.


This isn't a binary thing. There's a huge range between "super tight" and "loosey goosey". My training is that grip tightens before impact, with both blunt and edged weapons, but never gets "tight as you can", because that causes other muscles to tighten. But that's about technique, and we're talking about what people are likely to do.

The rage thing, I agree on, but I don't think someone's likely to be at that distance with a knife in hand and blind raging. They could be, and I agree it's really likely they're holding tight in that situation. But absent that rage (which I included in my original comment on this), I don't think that super-tight grip he was using is likely. He was focused on trying to protect against a hard kick he knew was coming.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I think if you are just going to hit the guy as hard as you can. You want a tight grip. You might loose versatility. But I don't think it is necessarily about versatility.


Yeah, the grip tightens before impact. But probably not the situation at that distance.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

BigBalls said:


> most people who pull out a blade will attack quickly and do not give you any chance. They won´t say, "Hey are you ready" ?


Again, that was also mentioned in the video.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Urban Trekker said:


> I've never personally witnessed anyone being stabbed, but in all of the cases I've heard of, it was never a situation where someone was being robbed at knifepoint, being told "do x or I'll stab you," or otherwise even being able to see the knife in time to react to it.  In every case, the stabber gets into the victim's personal space before taking out the knife and stabbing the person.
> 
> In my estimation, people threatening you with a knife before doing anything with it (thus, presenting an opportunity for you to kick the knife out or otherwise disarm the attacker) is probably more likely to happen outside of the US, where people have less access to guns.


And yet, during the three occasions I've had a knife pulled on me, I had time to react. The first was exactly the scenario you describe; a mugging at knifepoint.
And I've seen plenty of people in the ER who also had time to react. And some who didn't. And some who reacted effectively. And some who reacted ineffectively. All in the US.
There are certainly no reliable statistics to quantify your chances. 
So the bottom line is, if your opponent has a knife, you're going to get hurt. Except when you don't. And you'll see it coming. Except when you don't.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Dirty Dog said:


> And yet, during the three occasions I've had a knife pulled on me, I had time to react. The first was exactly the scenario you describe; a mugging at knifepoint.
> And I've seen plenty of people in the ER who also had time to react. And some who didn't. And some who reacted effectively. And some who reacted ineffectively. All in the US.
> There are certainly no reliable statistics to quantify your chances.
> So the bottom line is, if your opponent has a knife, you're going to get hurt. Except when you don't. And you'll see it coming. Except when you don't.



Two key phrases that I used, that should be pointed out:

1.  "in all of the cases I've heard of"
2.  "in my estimation"

In other words, I never ruled out the possibility or probability of certain things happening.

I don't know what's been going on for the past few days, but it looks like people have been quick to try to look good at someone else's expense here lately.


----------



## Steve

BigBalls said:


> have you ever yourself been in a real situation against a knife?


I have, a few times.  Talked my way out of a couple, and in the one situation where a guy pulled out a big kitchen knife, I bravely ran away.  Wish I had thought of kicking it out of his hands, though.  Would've been legendary.


Dirty Dog said:


> And yet, during the three occasions I've had a knife pulled on me, I had time to react. The first was exactly the scenario you describe; a mugging at knifepoint.
> And I've seen plenty of people in the ER who also had time to react. And some who didn't. And some who reacted effectively. And some who reacted ineffectively. All in the US.
> There are certainly no reliable statistics to quantify your chances.
> So the bottom line is, if your opponent has a knife, you're going to get hurt. Except when you don't. And you'll see it coming. Except when you don't.


Me too, interestingly enough.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> This isn't a binary thing. There's a huge range between "super tight" and "loosey goosey". My training is that grip tightens before impact, with both blunt and edged weapons, but never gets "tight as you can", because that causes other muscles to tighten. But that's about technique, and we're talking about what people are likely to do.
> 
> The rage thing, I agree on, but I don't think someone's likely to be at that distance with a knife in hand and blind raging. They could be, and I agree it's really likely they're holding tight in that situation. But absent that rage (which I included in my original comment on this), I don't think that super-tight grip he was using is likely. He was focused on trying to protect against a hard kick he knew was coming.



That is a big bunch of nobody really knows one way or another though.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I have, a few times.  Talked my way out of a couple, and in the one situation where a guy pulled out a big kitchen knife, I bravely ran away.  Wish I had thought of kicking it out of his hands, though.  Would've been legendary.
> 
> Me too, interestingly enough.



The one where my mate was attacked with scissors was kind of an ambush.


This one








						French national quizzed over security guard stabbing
					

Police are questioning a French national after he allegedly stabbed a security guard in the Whitsundays.




					mobile.abc.net.au
				




But this one where a not so much a mate went mad and attacked a couple of people with a knife had all sorts of preamble and threats.






						No Cookies | The Courier Mail
					

No Cookies




					www.couriermail.com.au
				




Which the guy got off on the excuse that he was only threatening people with a knife when he slipped or something.


----------



## caped crusader

Dirty Dog said:


> And how many knife fights have you been involved with?


well i am not going into details but one bad one was getting a knife in my hand. I made the mistake most do of just going for the blade but it was better than getting it in my gut. I survived it. 
and you ? any stories to tell?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> That is a big bunch of nobody really knows one way or another though.


I've given what I think is good reasoning. If you have a reason why any part of that isn't reasonable, I'm interested.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I've given what I think is good reasoning. If you have a reason why any part of that isn't reasonable, I'm interested.



It's made up. Based on experience that nobody really has. 

It doesn't matter if it sounds reasonable.


----------



## JowGaWolf

BigBalls said:


> this sort of rubbish on youtube and tought in so called dojos gets people killed.  Kicking a knife out of a hand...first of all a knife can move fast and even a slight change of angle can cause you a bad situation.
> My suggestion carry a telescopic baton. A compact model.


I think kicking a knife out of someone's hand is realistic.  But like with all strikes, timing is Key.  Using the right technique at the right matters.  There's a good time to try to kick a knife and there's a bad time.  You have to use the right kick at the right time.

My experience is that most people don't hold knifes as firm as they should.  Sometimes I see staffs get knocked out of peoples hands, swords fly, people drop stuff out of their hands all the time.  I think the natural "Programming for holding things" is to hold an object only as tight as you need to hold it.  We tend to naturally use light grips with light objects and stronger grips with heavier objects.

Trying to kick a knife out of someone's hand while they are trying to stab you is always a bad idea.  Moving targets are hard to hit and it gets worse when there is a pointy object.  Strikes should come when a person isn't expecting it.  This holds true for trying to kick a knife


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It's made up. Based on experience that nobody really has.
> 
> It doesn't matter if it sounds reasonable.


So, your point is that it may not be true, but may. I'm okay with that. It was a side note to the experiment, which was noted to be pretty situational, at best, anyway.


----------



## Cynik75

I do not want to create new topic, so here some quite interesting things from Rokas and pro-MMA fighter Oliver Enkamp:


----------



## Hanzou

Cynik75 said:


> I do not want to create new topic, so here some quite interesting things from Rokas and pro-MMA fighter Oliver Enkamp:



So in conclusion, just learn MMA?


----------



## Cynik75

My conclusion is: sport combat athletes are better in aikido that aikidokas themself.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Cynik75 said:


> My conclusion is: sport combat athletes are better in aikido that aikidokas themself.


It's probably more that people who learn to fight are taught how do use techniques. Most people who take Akido seem to only show the concept of a technique.  I see this in Kung Fu as well.  There were a lot of things that I taught in my sparring classes that weren't taught in the regular class.  

As for Rokas the more he talks the more I see just how shallow his understanding of martial arts is.  

Simple concept All martial arts come from the same tree.  IT uses 2 arms, two legs, and two hands along with footwork.  There are only so many ways such a creature can move.  Find any animal on the planet that fits that description to see similar movements.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Cynik75 said:


> My conclusion is: sport combat athletes are better in aikido that aikidokas themself.


Having any kind of fighting experience helps in any martial arts but it's not necessary because it's something that can be gained. The major problem is that Rokas was trying to make Aikido work. When he lack any personal experience with fighting.

I don't think it's possible to teach yourself how to fight without having been in one.  And I don't mean getting beat down in the streets.  There's very little you can learn from being dominated.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> It's probably more that people who learn to fight are taught how do use techniques. Most people who take Akido seem to only show the concept of a technique.  I see this in Kung Fu as well.  There were a lot of things that I taught in my sparring classes that weren't taught in the regular class.
> 
> As for Rokas the more he talks the more I see just how shallow his understanding of martial arts is.
> 
> Simple concept All martial arts come from the same tree.  IT uses 2 arms, two legs, and two hands along with footwork.  There are only so many ways such a creature can move.  Find any animal on the planet that fits that description to see similar movements.



Not really. Because martial arts doesn't necessarily rely on human anatomy.

So yes if two people grappled or boxed they would look pretty similar. But martial artists don't necessarily do that. They do anything they want. 

Martial artists can throw chi balls at each other.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Not really. Because martial arts doesn't necessarily rely on human anatomy.


I'm sorry, what? Can you provide examples of MA that don't rely on human anatomy?


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> I'm sorry, what? Can you provide examples of MA that don't rely on human anatomy?


Yellow bamboo.

Or any martial art where your partner just collapses.






So the throws at the end of this are quite varied because they don't rely on  human anatomy.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Not really. Because martial arts doesn't necessarily rely on human anatomy.
> 
> So yes if two people grappled or boxed they would look pretty similar. But martial artists don't necessarily do that. They do anything they want.
> 
> Martial artists can throw chi balls at each other.


Ha ha that's a mental thing that humans suffer from.  The inability to separate fantasy from reality.


----------



## drop bear

JowGaWolf said:


> Ha ha that's a mental thing that humans suffer from.  The inability to separate fantasy from reality.



It is that big a leap from compliant training.





I mean your partner is playing a role or they aren't.


----------



## Hanzou

The problem is that Rokas would have to fundamentally change everything about what Aikido actually is in order to achieve his goals. What he wants Aikido to do isn’t actually what Aikido is built to do. It’s not about him having a shallow understanding of MA, it’s that he was duped into believing his martial art was more martial than it actually was.

IMO, he should stick to Bjj. It’s a Jujutsu derived system already doing exactly what he wants Aikido to be able to do.


----------



## O'Malley

Cynik75 said:


> I do not want to create new topic, so here some quite interesting things from Rokas and pro-MMA fighter Oliver Enkamp:


I have mixed feelings about the video. In itself, it's actually quite good. The topic is interesting, the production quality is great and Oliver's insights are thought-provoking.

That said, Rokas has no business publicly explaining aikido, as he does not have a good grasp of its principles. I see conceptual errors (e.g. re tenkan, moving off the line, etc.) and historical errors (the BS about Ueshiba's students being top level martial artists).


Hanzou said:


> The problem is that Rokas would have to fundamentally change everything about what Aikido actually is in order to achieve his goals. What he wants Aikido to do isn’t actually what Aikido is built to do. It’s not about him having a shallow understanding of MA, it’s that he was duped into believing his martial art was more martial than it actually was.
> 
> IMO, he should stick to Bjj. It’s a Jujutsu derived system already doing exactly what he wants Aikido to be able to do.


I'd be curious to hear what you think that aikido is, and what it's built to do.


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> I'd be curious to hear what you think that aikido is, and what it's built to do.



It isn’t built to deal with western style boxing, that’s for sure. It appears to rely on countering the striking found in Kung Fu and Karate.


----------



## O'Malley

Hanzou said:


> It isn’t built to deal with western style boxing, that’s for sure. It appears to rely on countering the striking found in Kung Fu and Karate.


I would go further than this.

As we're discussing technique I'll separate the body conditioning and the Jujutsu aspects (= looking at aikido drills/kata as a delivery system). The caveat is that body conditioning and principles are actually the core of the art, nothing prevents you from using them with a more effective delivery system (e.g. judo), I know some people do.

Aikido is mostly Daito Ryu aikijujutsu (DR). The creator of DR was an excellent swordsman with a lot of experience in sumo, who wandered around the country to challenge martial artists and cross-train. At that time, there was little to no striking knowledge in Japan. Traditional Jujutsu was practiced in the context of armoured fighting, where striking makes little sense. Karate made it quite late to the mainland and was certainly not widespread while Takeda was creating DR. Same with Kung Fu and boxing. Also, most men did sumo to some extent and consequently street fights, or more exactly the "cultural idea of fighting" looked more like sumo than, say, boxing.

Many aikido techniques were just taken from traditional Jujutsu styles that Takeda encountered and imitated (e.g. kote gaeshi). The others he made up. So aikido mostly has either techniques coming from an armoured fighting context or techniques coming from a sumo context (at best). 

You can see it from the strikes, for example, which could represent sword strikes or sumo slaps and thrusts. Yokomen uchi is sometimes referred to as equivalent to a boxing hook but the trajectory and elbow position are different (and thus aikido responses to yokomen uchi lose applicability against an actual boxing hook). But it makes more sense if you think of it as a sword strike or a sumo slap (the downward elbow makes sense in a sumo context because that's consistent with sumo striking technique and it's also safer when grappling is involved).

Finally, I think that both Takeda and Ueshiba had other goals than putting together a coherent curriculum of techniques to use in a fight. They saw the value elsewhere (e.g. in the aforementioned conditioning).

I hope this helps.


----------



## Hanzou

O'Malley said:


> I would go further than this.
> 
> As we're discussing technique I'll separate the body conditioning and the Jujutsu aspects (= looking at aikido drills/kata as a delivery system). The caveat is that body conditioning and principles are actually the core of the art, nothing prevents you from using them with a more effective delivery system (e.g. judo), I know some people do.



I would argue that Judo also doesn't do very well in a MMA setting. That's really what Rokas is shooting for; Aikido to work in a MMA setting.

While I did limit the functionality of Aikido being limited against western (Kick)boxing, I would argue that Aikido also has fundamental issues when going up against western and modern grappling as well. Especially the rapidly evolving grappling systems coming out of competitive submission grappling and MMA.




O'Malley said:


> Aikido is mostly Daito Ryu aikijujutsu (DR). The creator of DR was an excellent swordsman with a lot of experience in sumo, who wandered around the country to challenge martial artists and cross-train. At that time, there was little to no striking knowledge in Japan. Traditional Jujutsu was practiced in the context of armoured fighting, where striking makes little sense. Karate made it quite late to the mainland and was certainly not widespread while Takeda was creating DR. Same with Kung Fu and boxing. Also, most men did sumo to some extent and consequently street fights, or more exactly the "cultural idea of fighting" looked more like sumo than, say, boxing.
> 
> Many aikido techniques were just taken from traditional Jujutsu styles that Takeda encountered and imitated (e.g. kote gaeshi). The others he made up. So aikido mostly has either techniques coming from an armoured fighting context or techniques coming from a sumo context (at best).
> 
> You can see it from the strikes, for example, which could represent sword strikes or sumo slaps and thrusts. Yokomen uchi is sometimes referred to as equivalent to a boxing hook but the trajectory and elbow position are different (and thus aikido responses to yokomen uchi lose applicability against an actual boxing hook). But it makes more sense if you think of it as a sword strike or a sumo slap (the downward elbow makes sense in a sumo context because that's consistent with sumo striking technique and it's also safer when grappling is involved).
> 
> Finally, I think that both Takeda and Ueshiba had other goals than putting together a coherent curriculum of techniques to use in a fight. They saw the value elsewhere (e.g. in the aforementioned conditioning).
> 
> I hope this helps.



While Karate arrived in mainland Japan relatively late. if you look at the Atemi-waza in Judo kata, it shares similarities to chambered style of strikes found throughout East Asian martial arts. Additionally, the attacks that Uke performs in Aikido also fall in line with that style of striking. It is a very different striking style than what you see in western Boxing and latter kickboxing styles. It is easy to see why Aikido would have fundamental issues dealing with it, since the system was designed to deal with a different system of striking.

You mention this yourself when you say that men in Japan at the time of Aikido's formation would use Sumo striking. It's important to note that with the advent of more global contact in the late 19th and early 20th century, western boxing was the striking system that won out. In modern times, it's the standard striking you're likely going to encounter in professional, amateur, and even street fighting situations. I have yet to see some punk attack someone with a sumo strike, but I've seen numerous examples of jackasses attacking people with a boxing style. So in that sense, I think we're agreeing here. Aikido seemingly not being able to deal with that is a huge problem.

Back to the point; In order for Rokas to make Aikido what he wants it to be, he's going to  have to change Aikido from the ground up, and frankly create an entire new martial art. I don't think he's prepared to do that, and I don't think there's a huge push in the Aikido community to change what they've been doing. So in the end, he should stick to MMA styles that have already done the hard part for him. BJJ would be the optimal choice.


----------



## drop bear

O'Malley said:


> I have mixed feelings about the video. In itself, it's actually quite good. The topic is interesting, the production quality is great and Oliver's insights are thought-provoking.
> 
> That said, Rokas has no business publicly explaining aikido, as he does not have a good grasp of its principles. I see conceptual errors (e.g. re tenkan, moving off the line, etc.) and historical errors (the BS about Ueshiba's students being to



Yeah. But who would even know if people understand the concepts or don't?

The criteria for understanding the concept is so vague and removed from reality. That it is impossible to tell.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I would argue that Judo also doesn't do very well in a MMA setting. That's really what Rokas is shooting for; Aikido to work in a MMA setting.
> 
> While I did limit the functionality of Aikido being limited against western (Kick)boxing, I would argue that Aikido also has fundamental issues when going up against western and modern grappling as well. Especially the rapidly evolving grappling systems coming out of competitive submission grappling and MMA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While Karate arrived in mainland Japan relatively late. if you look at the Atemi-waza in Judo kata, it shares similarities to chambered style of strikes found throughout East Asian martial arts. Additionally, the attacks that Uke performs in Aikido also fall in line with that style of striking. It is a very different striking style than what you see in western Boxing and latter kickboxing styles. It is easy to see why Aikido would have fundamental issues dealing with it, since the system was designed to deal with a different system of striking.
> 
> You mention this yourself when you say that men in Japan at the time of Aikido's formation would use Sumo striking. It's important to note that with the advent of more global contact in the late 19th and early 20th century, western boxing was the striking system that won out. In modern times, it's the standard striking you're likely going to encounter in professional, amateur, and even street fighting situations. I have yet to see some punk attack someone with a sumo strike, but I've seen numerous examples of jackasses attacking people with a boxing style. So in that sense, I think we're agreeing here. Aikido seemingly not being able to deal with that is a huge problem.
> 
> Back to the point; In order for Rokas to make Aikido what he wants it to be, he's going to  have to change Aikido from the ground up, and frankly create an entire new martial art. I don't think he's prepared to do that, and I don't think there's a huge push in the Aikido community to change what they've been doing. So in the end, he should stick to MMA styles that have already done the hard part for him. BJJ would be the optimal choice.


The question, in my mind, becomes how we define an art. I do think Aikido's principles can be used against the kinds of grappling and striking you're talking about. But not the techniques in the kata and drills (which, as I understand it, are really about developing principles - the body conditioning @O'Malley refers to - rather than necessarily being the target application of those principles).

I see this with applying similar principles (NGA also being largely derived from Daito-ryu) in ground fighting. I don't use the techniques I was taught in NGA, but the way I use them is just translating the body movement principles into other techniques. I suspect any difference from how other arts apply some them is only nuance.

So if we define a style by the core principles and how we develop those, Aikido could be taught and used in a way that works better for MMA-style application, while still being Aikido. I'm certain there are folks - especially within Aikido - who would disagree.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> The question, in my mind, becomes how we define an art. I do think Aikido's principles can be used against the kinds of grappling and striking you're talking about. But not the techniques in the kata and drills (which, as I understand it, are really about developing principles - the body conditioning @O'Malley refers to - rather than necessarily being the target application of those principles).
> 
> I see this with applying similar principles (NGA also being largely derived from Daito-ryu) in ground fighting. I don't use the techniques I was taught in NGA, but the way I use them is just translating the body movement principles into other techniques. I suspect any difference from how other arts apply some them is only nuance.
> 
> So if we define a style by the core principles and how we develop those, Aikido could be taught and used in a way that works better for MMA-style application, while still being Aikido. I'm certain there are folks - especially within Aikido - who would disagree.



Okay, but is it fair to argue that running drills and kata that are counterproductive to producing a desired result something that should be removed entirely? You fight like you train, and if you're spending your training time devoted to drills and kata that don't have a straight forward application in a fight/self defense situation, wouldn't a revamp of the training model be necessary?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Okay, but is it fair to argue that running drills and kata that are counterproductive to producing a desired result something that should be removed entirely? You fight like you train, and if you're spending your training time devoted to drills and kata that don't have a straight forward application in a fight/self defense situation, wouldn't a revamp of the training model be necessary?


Sure. We'd have to go back to the question of what the desired result is, though. If someone wants to use Aikido principles in an effective manner, they'd have to leave the "Aikido" in there - removing it would be counterproductive. If their result is just to be as effective as possible in an MMA-style competition, style doesn't really belong in that, because it creates a competing priority. I don't think the aiki-style development is really a good fit for "most efficient" path to much of anything. It's too nuanced, and there's too little payoff for that nuance. But for those of us who like the nuance, we're okay with that tradeoff. I'm okay with "effective", without really needing to look for "most effective. I'm pretty sure I'm more of a limiting factor in the effectiveness of a style (commitment, consistency, physical ability, etc.) than the style, itself (for any style/training method with reasonable potential).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Okay, but is it fair to argue that running drills and kata that are counterproductive to producing a desired result something that should be removed entirely? You fight like you train, and if you're spending your training time devoted to drills and kata that don't have a straight forward application in a fight/self defense situation, wouldn't a revamp of the training model be necessary?


Forgot to finish my thought.

Part of what you might be trying to grasp here is really hard for me to explain. Best I can use is analogy from Rocky. The chicken-chasing really didn't even look like boxing, but developed some quality (I've no idea what) that Mickey wanted Rocky to develop, and which he'd then put to use with the tools of boxing.

When I pick up a new-to-me technique from somewhere outside NGA (no new techniques for me within the core of NGA), I translate it through the principles and body movement concepts I learned in NGA's kata. When I do free randor (Judo-style) or roll, I rarely try for an actual, recognizable NGA technique. I mostly just use the concepts and principles to control structure and position, until something useful shows up (which may or may not be a recognizable NGA technique). Because I believe that's what the training system was meant to teach. So, though we have no standard hip throw in the 50 Classical Techniques (short kata derived from Daito-ryu), I have no trouble doing or teaching one. The kata let me practice the level changes, bodyweight shifts, structure control, and other parts needed to make that technique happen.

If you trained a few years, you'd recognize some of the concept, as I see it in BJJ, though expressed differently. The focus on position and structure (though I don't know I've heard the word "structure" used) is the same basic idea. The classical approach simply gets there differently.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> Forgot to finish my thought.
> 
> Part of what you might be trying to grasp here is really hard for me to explain. Best I can use is analogy from Rocky. The chicken-chasing really didn't even look like boxing, but developed some quality (I've no idea what) that Mickey wanted Rocky to develop, and which he'd then put to use with the tools of boxing.
> 
> When I pick up a new-to-me technique from somewhere outside NGA (no new techniques for me within the core of NGA), I translate it through the principles and body movement concepts I learned in NGA's kata. When I do free randor (Judo-style) or roll, I rarely try for an actual, recognizable NGA technique. I mostly just use the concepts and principles to control structure and position, until something useful shows up (which may or may not be a recognizable NGA technique). Because I believe that's what the training system was meant to teach. So, though we have no standard hip throw in the 50 Classical Techniques (short kata derived from Daito-ryu), I have no trouble doing or teaching one. The kata let me practice the level changes, bodyweight shifts, structure control, and other parts needed to make that technique happen.
> 
> If you trained a few years, you'd recognize some of the concept, as I see it in BJJ, though expressed differently. The focus on position and structure (though I don't know I've heard the word "structure" used) is the same basic idea. The classical approach simply gets there differently.



Well in regards to Rokas, it appears that he wants to make Aikido work for MMA. It seems that the general principles are there, they just need to be updated for modern fighting. I think you only get there by fundamentally changing how Aikido is practiced. 

Unfortunately, as is the case with many Asian Martial arts, practitioners of a given system tend to vehemently oppose such changes, even in the case with something clearly effective coming along and fundamentally challenging the system. Look what happened with Judo after the 2008 Olympics when a Mongolian wrestler pretty much broke competitive Judo with traditional Mongolian wrestling techniques. He broke it so thoroughly that is negated nage-waza and grip-fighting completely. Instead of the Judo community coming up with a method to stop this challenge they banned the entire family of techniques altogether, greatly crippling Judo in the process.

In the case of Aikido, a similar thing would happen. We already know that the system has great difficulty dealing with the rapid strikes from western boxing. I haven't seen much in how Aikido deals with upper and lower grappling, but some of the counters to grappling I've seen from Aikido are.... questionable. Further, ground grappling is pretty much non-existent. In order to address these "holes" you'd have to revamp the system. Again, I don't think the Aikido as a community much cares about filling those holes, and are perfectly happy where they are currently as a martial art. That means that we're looking at "creating a new martial art" territory.

That said, I do see your point about how Aikido gives you the space to apply it differently across a variety of situations. Such as the ability of Irimi Nage to be applicable to multiple types of attacks. Perhaps the issue then is Randori? Maybe making randori more free-form like in Judo and BJJ would force the changes that Rokas desires?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Well in regards to Rokas, it appears that he wants to make Aikido work for MMA. It seems that the general principles are there, they just need to be updated for modern fighting. I think you only get there by fundamentally changing how Aikido is practiced.
> 
> Unfortunately, as is the case with many Asian Martial arts, practitioners of a given system tend to vehemently oppose such changes, even in the case with something clearly effective coming along and fundamentally challenging the system. Look what happened with Judo after the 2008 Olympics when a Mongolian wrestler pretty much broke competitive Judo with traditional Mongolian wrestling techniques. He broke it so thoroughly that is negated nage-waza and grip-fighting completely. Instead of the Judo community coming up with a method to stop this challenge they banned the entire family of techniques altogether, greatly crippling Judo in the process.
> 
> In the case of Aikido, a similar thing would happen. We already know that the system has great difficulty dealing with the rapid strikes from western boxing. I haven't seen much in how Aikido deals with upper and lower grappling, but some of the counters to grappling I've seen from Aikido are.... questionable. Further, ground grappling is pretty much non-existent. In order to address these "holes" you'd have to revamp the system. Again, I don't think the Aikido as a community much cares about filling those holes, and are perfectly happy where they are currently as a martial art. That means that we're looking at "creating a new martial art" territory.
> 
> That said, I do see your point about how Aikido gives you the space to apply it differently across a variety of situations. Such as the ability of Irimi Nage to be applicable to multiple types of attacks. Perhaps the issue then is Randori? Maybe making randori more free-form like in Judo and BJJ would force the changes that Rokas desires?


I agree that - as I’ve seen it, at least - you’d have to fundamentally change how it’s practiced. The kata do what they were meant to, but need the context of resistance to translate consistently to application. I do think a change to Judo/BJJ-style tandoori would help for that purpose.

I really think too many people (not just in Aikido - this happens in NGA, too) have bought into the “no competition, because competition is bad” vibe. Resistive training isn’t opposing your partner’s development.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I agree that - as I’ve seen it, at least - you’d have to fundamentally change how it’s practiced. The kata do what they were meant to, but need the context of resistance to translate consistently to application. I do think a change to Judo/BJJ-style tandoori would help for that purpose.
> 
> I really think too many people (not just in Aikido - this happens in NGA, too) have bought into the “no competition, because competition is bad” vibe. Resistive training isn’t opposing your partner’s development.



Also the less is more idea. So the less effort they put in the more it shows that their techniques work.

And then you get these smug bastards dropping people with two finger takedowns thinking that they have such an amazing handle on what they are doing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Also the less is more idea. So the less effort they put in the more it shows that their techniques work.
> 
> And then you get these smug bastards dropping people with two finger takedowns thinking that they have such an amazing handle on what they are doing.


I think that's largely a misunderstanding of a principle (of course, it could be that I am the one with the misunderstanding, but that's another story). Being _able_ to do the drills/kata without putting muscle into them forces focus on other principles (which pretty much keeps the strength in reserve). So, the better you are, the more you should be _able_ to perform kata with minimal muscle input. But it's not the minimal input that makes it better - it's being better that makes the minimal input possible. And it's not a straight line to application.

Think of it like working a basic hip throw. If you are good, you can demonstrate it on a compliant partner with very little effort. The better you are, the more easily you "read" their structure and alter it to get them _just enough_ off-balance to bring them into the throw, which you execute smoothly and drop them fairly softly to the ground. But you'd never expect it to work that way in even really light randori.

I think that's kind of what happens with some of this in Aikido (and I've seen it in NGA, too). Folks mistake this effort toward _being able to_ perform drills this way, with the _expectation they should_ do the drills this way (and that this will reflect application).


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I think that's largely a misunderstanding of a principle (of course, it could be that I am the one with the misunderstanding, but that's another story). Being _able_ to do the drills/kata without putting muscle into them forces focus on other principles (which pretty much keeps the strength in reserve). So, the better you are, the more you should be _able_ to perform kata with minimal muscle input. But it's not the minimal input that makes it better - it's being better that makes the minimal input possible. And it's not a straight line to application.
> 
> Think of it like working a basic hip throw. If you are good, you can demonstrate it on a compliant partner with very little effort. The better you are, the more easily you "read" their structure and alter it to get them _just enough_ off-balance to bring them into the throw, which you execute smoothly and drop them fairly softly to the ground. But you'd never expect it to work that way in even really light randori.
> 
> I think that's kind of what happens with some of this in Aikido (and I've seen it in NGA, too). Folks mistake this effort toward _being able to_ perform drills this way, with the _expectation they should_ do the drills this way (and that this will reflect application).


I think it's possible to get to a point where you can generally rely on technique over strength, but you only get there by applying the technique over and over against people who are doing their best to keep you from being successful... even (and maybe especially) going at close to 100%.  Sweeps and submissions can be effortless... if you set them up well, executive them them well, and get the timing right.  And if you don't get it exactly right, it's nice to be able to fall back on a little muscle.  

The point, though, is that this aiki you talk about sometimes.  I think it's only possible where there is application in the art.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> It is that big a leap from compliant training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean your partner is playing a role or they aren't.


I knew it would be a train wreck when she said Easy.  Her definition of easy and my definition of easy aren't the same thing lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf

O'Malley said:


> That said, Rokas has no business publicly explaining aikido, as he does not have a good grasp of its principles.


I think he's now learning this the hard way.  He's learning that he didn't know as much about martial arts as he thought he did including his own.  His analysis skills is really low level.   Not something I would expect to see from someone who really took a look at their training beyond forms and movements. I would have expected someone of his knowledge of Aikido to have something higher than a beginner analysis level of understanding of what he's seeing and what he's doing.

I also don't like how he uses another system to validate his own.  It's one thing to recognize similarities, but even with what he was claiming he he should be able to take knowledge and apply it to Aikido in a functional way.  Having non-Aikido people explain Aikido to someone of his level is not a good thing at all. He probably means well, but when I watched the video I'm thinking.

So if you want to learn Aikido then ask someone who doesn't train it.  In my opinion that's not good at all for his development or for Aikido as a system.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> Also the less is more idea. So the less effort they put in the more it shows that their techniques work.


I martial arts in general I have always understood "less is more" meaning that one should not meet force with force.  My goal should not be to overpower my opponent by going directly against the force he applies towards me. 

The gold simply means "you'll get more and better results if you attach where your opponent's strength is not."  So if you were to push me, my goal should not be to stand there and resist all of your strength like a "Tai Chi master" being pushed by 20 people lined up.  If you are pushing towards me at 100% then my goal is to let your force pass so I can push where you aren't pushing.  

Real life example,  someone comes at me for a take down. I let that energy pass and at the same time, I twists my opponent's torso.  The reason I twist because he's not applying any force to prevent his torso from being twisted.  As a result, I use less to get a good counter by attacking my opponent where there is least resistance.   Foot sweeps and foot hooks work the same way.  A small movement with less power can yield bigger results than me trying to attack your force directly.

Parries and Jams work the same way against straight punches and jabs.  The force that one uses to counter or prevent it, is less than what the attacker is using to hit you with.   This conserves energy.  Sort of how BJJ doesn't try to brute force things.  They are willing to make lesser movements and smaller force if it leads to quicksand.

What qualifies as less?  It's simply means less effort and use of strength than what is needed to confront your attacker head on.  50% less force doesn't mean that it's weak.  I'm pretty sure there are guys who still hit really hard at 50%.   Many kung fu people interpret "Less is more" and it makes their training lazy.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> It is that big a leap from compliant training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean your partner is playing a role or they aren't.


That...  Hmmm... not a fan of that video.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> That...  Hmmm... not a fan of that video.


why not? It's Easy. What could go wrong?


----------



## Steve

JowGaWolf said:


> why not? It's Easy. What could go wrong?


It's easy.  All you do is put your leg behind theirs, execute four more steps, then pick them up and drop them gently to the ground.  And while you control them with one arm, they will meekly submit to your will.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Steve said:


> It's easy.  All you do is put your leg behind theirs, execute four more steps, then pick them up and drop them gently to the ground.  And while you control them with one arm, they will meekly submit to your will.


Do you think they actually think this stuff through or do you think they think it through with 100% belief that something like that is easy?  May they know the risk and just assume. That anyone who believes what they just sold would be an easy sale on some martial arts classes.  Sort of like.  "If you believe the crap I just showed, then I know I can take your money."


----------



## Hanzou

JowGaWolf said:


> I think he's now learning this the hard way.  He's learning that he didn't know as much about martial arts as he thought he did including his own.  His analysis skills is really low level.   Not something I would expect to see from someone who really took a look at their training beyond forms and movements. I would have expected someone of his knowledge of Aikido to have something higher than a beginner analysis level of understanding of what he's seeing and what he's doing.
> 
> I also don't like how he uses another system to validate his own.  It's one thing to recognize similarities, but even with what he was claiming he he should be able to take knowledge and apply it to Aikido in a functional way.  Having non-Aikido people explain Aikido to someone of his level is not a good thing at all. He probably means well, but when I watched the video I'm thinking.
> 
> So if you want to learn Aikido then ask someone who doesn't train it.  In my opinion that's not good at all for his development or for Aikido as a system.



If there was someone within Aikido who could demonstrate the skills on the level he desires (MMA) then he could do that. Unfortunately, Aikidoka being functional in MMA is non-existent, so yeah he has to go outside of Aikido to find what he's looking for.

That said, him linking up with Jesse Enkamp has made his videos as insufferable as Enkamp's videos. For shame.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> Do you think they actually think this stuff through or do you think they think it through with 100% belief that something like that is easy?  May they know the risk and just assume. That anyone who believes what they just sold would be an easy sale on some martial arts classes.  Sort of like.  "If you believe the crap I just showed, then I know I can take your money."


I think a lot of this starts honestly, with someone who can do a technique against resistance teaching it to others. One of those "others" then teaches it, but hasn't worked with resistance, so adds a bit that works well and seems really nice with a compliant partner. This continues a few generations (of students) and can quickly lead to techniques that seem like they'd require time stoppage to work.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> I think a lot of this starts honestly, with someone who can do a technique against resistance teaching it to others. One of those "others" then teaches it, but hasn't worked with resistance, so adds a bit that works well and seems really nice with a compliant partner. This continues a few generations (of students) and can quickly lead to techniques that seem like they'd require time stoppage to work.


I can see this as a possibility.  I just wish some people take the time to actually use this stuff so they can be better representations of what they train.  I guess it's like cooking to me.  Just having good ingredients doesn't mean the finished product will be tasted.  Martial Arts is like that.  How does someone know the ingredients work unless they cook it. It doesn't mean that one has to be professional cook in order to understand how things work and fit together.  Many get pleasure of being able to understand cooking enough to get good results.

It seems that in Martial Arts one would want to understand enough to at least pick out things that are truly easy vs the 10 steps combo plan that looks nice in a demo, but is far from easy.


----------

