# The aikido thing



## Finlay (Nov 5, 2018)

Hello

Over the years I have seen more scorn poured on Aikido as a martial art than pretty much any others. This is apart from the qi and kiai masters and macdojos.

It seems that people are always calling the art out for being impractical etc. While other arts, that maybe equally impractical in some ways, escape such criticism.

I guess the criticism may be caused by:

Flashy nature of the techiques. 

Personalities like Segal claiming it is effective and/or superiour to other arts.

There is no resistance involved

Again, other arts can be guilty of the above but dont seem to get the flack that Aikido does.

There is also a gentleman who after many years of training in Aikido has created a whole youtube channel about leaving the art to study MMA.

This is one way of dealing with the issue but another would be to look into the underlying issues and try to solve them.

So, if you were asked how would you change Aikido, would you

Change the strikes for more realistic ones?
Introduce some form of resistive  training?
Make all the movements smaller?

I know that some practioners have already played around with their aikido and come out with some interesting stuff.

What do you think?


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 5, 2018)

Oh boy.... How much time do you have for this one?

I think Aikido would be better off if it positioned itself away from marketing itself as a combative MA into more of a spiritual exercise like Tai Chi, or a dance like Capoeria. You know why Tai Chi and Capoeira don't get any grief? Because you step into those schools and they tell you from the beginning that you're not learning how to fight or defend yourself.

The demonstrations are over the top, and are generally considered fake. When you demonstrate one way, and can't replicate that demonstration when someone is really trying to beat the crap out of you, you have a problem.

I've heard some pretty wacky stuff from Aikido practitioners that they can't seem to back up. All that ki stuff and Eastern magic goes out the window when someone shoots the double leg and starts turning your face into hamburger meat. Then they start dumping out excuses like "You need to practice Aikido for decades to even begin to learn how to use it", or "Your Ki wasn't properly aligned!" Unfortunately for Aikido, nobody buys that crap anymore. It shouldn't take you 10 years to be functional in a MA. You can earn a Bjj black belt in 10 years, and be "functional" a lot sooner than that.

Anyways, you mentioned the Aikido instructor who dumped his school and art completely and went into MMA and Bjj; He actually made a video about why people hate Aikido, and I think its very illustrative:

Why Aikido is Disliked by BJJ and MMA Practitioners? • Martial Arts Journey


----------



## DaveB (Nov 5, 2018)

Ultimately Aikido is incomplete.

It needs someone to take it's philosophy and explore how you employ said philosophy against attacks that aren't a guy charging towards you like a bull.

Figure out what to do against non-committal attacks, like jabs.
Figure out how you handle stuff that doesn't go your way, like people resisting throws or locks.

I imagine the end result would look like some combination of wing chin or bagua, judo and bjj as well as Aikido.

Also I would not dispense with the low percentage techniques. Ultimately being able to apply them is a level of mastery that is worth seeking, but it's the everyday stuff that needs work.


----------



## BrendanF (Nov 5, 2018)

There are multiple approaches to Aikido, that each have benefits and drawbacks.

One point of view is that Ueshiba's original 'Aiki' was Daito ryu (Aikijujutsu/Aiki no jutsu) - some lineages of Daito ryu (which focus [allegedly] on 'aiki' - ie kodokai/roppokai/sagawa) practice in a similar vein to Chinese 'neijia' arts (ie tui/roushou type work), and develop (again.. allegedly) a near magical ability to effect kuzushi/unbalance an opponent immediately on contact (often at arms length.. as opposed to judo/wrasslin type kuzushi).  Proponents of this view emphasise that modern (particularly Aikikai) aikido was actually codified by Kisshomaru, not the founder - and this internal/aiki focus was abandoned (or not taught) for the choreography based, external form we see today.. the implication being that, with the loss of these internal skills, the choreography is robbed of efficacy.  There are several folks who have focused on reintroducing those skills to aikido (Dan Harden, Akuzawa Minoru, Sigman etc).

It always seemed to me that modern aikido was just an exploration of force vectors and kinetic chains - perhaps a cleverly designed introduction to the more complex internal training developed by DR aiki type work, where the lines of force and spiralling power are writ large and explicitly learned.  Quite divorced from fighting, and certainly not a comprehensive 'fighting' art.

A fascinating art and history.. but I'll stick to learning Judo and Sosuishi ryu.


----------



## Martial D (Nov 5, 2018)

Finlay said:


> Hello
> 
> Over the years I have seen more scorn poured on Aikido as a martial art than pretty much any others. This is apart from the qi and kiai masters and macdojos.
> 
> ...



I think aikido is a perfectly fine performance art. You gotta admit it's kinda cool watching them wave their arms around as dudes do facedives by the dozen. Like a live action Donnie Yen movie.

And that's what I have good to say about aikido.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 5, 2018)

Hanzou said:


> Oh boy.... How much time do you have for this one?
> 
> I think Aikido would be better off if it positioned itself away from marketing itself as a combative MA into more of a spiritual exercise like Tai Chi, or a dance like Capoeria. You know why Tai Chi and Capoeira don't get any grief? Because you step into those schools and they tell you from the beginning that you're not learning how to fight or defend yourself.
> 
> ...



I am a little disappointed.  I thought you might tell us how you really feel about the superiority of any other martial art over Aikido.  

I haven't met any Aikido practitioners who have recounted daily encounters where they beat up multiple attackers.  I have known some who recounted one or two instances where they had to suddenly, without warning, defend themselves with the Aikido they studied, and it worked.  I guess your 3rd paragraph doesn't apply to them?  That said, some of the demonstrations appear unrealistic due to some of what you said, and the pathetic desire of the attackers not to be injured.  Shame on them!

If all that ki stuff doesn't work for you, so be it.  Ki is real, but if you don't believe in it, no, it will not work for you.   And in my case, the ki that I can use doesn't move mountains, levitate opponents to defenseless positions so I can beat them at will, or allow me to blow out candles from 20 feet away through a wall.  It does allow me to move faster, and more accurately when I need to, and strike harder.  I can also resist/redirect attacks in ways that seem magical to those who do not know the simplicity of what I am doing, but that is normal Hapkido grappling, normally no ki involved.  Other that is, than once you have an ability to use ki, you will probably use some amount, large or small, in all you do.

So, if it pleases you, continue to disbelieve in ki.  It won't bother me.  I will feel sorry for you, but that shouldn't bother you.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 5, 2018)

Finlay said:


> Hello
> 
> Over the years I have seen more scorn poured on Aikido as a martial art than pretty much any others. This is apart from the qi and kiai masters and macdojos.
> 
> ...



What is seen in demonstrations is indeed often rather flashy.  The demo-attackers moving with the flow of the technique, is often quite discernable.  It is done to prevent injury.  But some people see it and don't realize that, instead thinking the whole art is phony.

Can you define what you mean by "no resistance?".


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 5, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> I am a little disappointed.  I thought you might tell us how you really feel about the superiority of any other martial art over Aikido.
> 
> I haven't met any Aikido practitioners who have recounted daily encounters where they beat up multiple attackers.  I have known some who recounted one or two instances where they had to suddenly, without warning, defend themselves with the Aikido they studied, and it worked.  I guess your 3rd paragraph doesn't apply to them?  That said, some of the demonstrations appear unrealistic due to some of what you said, and the pathetic desire of the attackers not to be injured.  Shame on them!
> 
> ...



It has nothing to do with superiority, it's all about the proper classification and purpose of the art form. Aikido simply isn't a combat art. A self-preservation/improvement art, perhaps, but a combat art? Not even close. Certainly there's some spill over, but saying that Aikido is something akin to Judo, Bjj, Muay Thai, Boxing, etc. is simply a mis-classification. Once Aikido is classified correctly, all the malice towards it will be avoided.

As for Ki, hey, whatever you want to believe in. I once believed in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, so it's all good.


----------



## skribs (Nov 5, 2018)

Finlay said:


> So, if you were asked how would you change Aikido, would you
> 
> Change the strikes for more realistic ones?
> Introduce some form of resistive  training?
> Make all the movements smaller?



Resistive training is the number one for me.  With that, everything else falls into line.  If you don't have resistance, then you don't even know if you're doing the move effectively, let alone are able to find out what the strengths and weaknesses of each technique are. 

If you have resistive training, then all of the others will fall into place.  Your footwork will adjust to what works.  You'll figure out what to do with your hands to keep from being countered.  You'll figure out which techniques leave you vulnerable and which don't.  It all stems from actually training.

My training model is that you have the following steps:

Learn the technique
Drill the technique for muscle memory
Drill the technique for resistance and application
Use the technique in sparring
Experiment with the technique to improve it or find new applications
If you never leave Step 2, it doesn't matter how good or bad the technique is, you won't be able to use it effectively.

This is why I like Hapkido.  Technically it's very similar to Aikido, but in practice we move beyond that second stage of learning.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 5, 2018)

skribs said:


> Resistive training is the number one for me.   ...


When you apply hip throw on me, if I always sink down to the ground, you will never be able to throw me with hip throw no matter how many times that you have tried it.

To train force against force is not the solution. You have to train how to borrow force. The moment that you have detected my sinking force, you change your hip throw into single leg.

To use sport to test Aikido skill is number one for me. Wrestle, wrestle, and still wrestle.


----------



## skribs (Nov 5, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you apply hip throw on me, if I always sink down to the ground, you will never be able to throw me with hip throw no matter how many times that you have tried it.
> 
> To train force against force is not the solution. You have to train how to borrow force. The moment that you have detected my sinking force, you change your hip throw into single leg.
> 
> To use sport to test Aikido skill is number one for me. Wrestle, wrestle, and still wrestle.



That's the 4th step I left out - train for failure.

What I mean is that when someone is just beginning to learn the technique, you kind of go with them to help them build the mechanical understanding and the confidence.  Then you make it harder and harder so they learn how to do it right.

If you never add that resistance then they basically just get an overview of the technique and probably won't be able to use it.  Just like someone who only punches air but never punches the heavy bag won't learn how to put real power into their punch or how to protect their hand when they punch.


----------



## FriedRice (Nov 5, 2018)

When self proclaimed chopsocky masters (not just of Aikido) goes around saying crap about how MMA and fighting in the ring like Boxing, etc. are merely sports with rules and real bad ***es like themselves, train  "real deadly techniques".....but then runs away from challenges when called out, then they really brought it upon themselves mostly. 

Not all Martial Arts are created equal. It's just time to accept that there has always been a pecking order where the strong dominates the weaker. This is especially true with the Asians, who created most of these MA's and often fought each other to prove who's style is better. The ones who hide from challenges, are usually the biggest snake oil salesman. This White guy's version of respecting all arts is just cult-like. Karate Kid is a movie. Mr. Miyagi is really Arnold from Happy Days.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 5, 2018)

skribs said:


> That's the 4th step I left out - train for failure.
> 
> What I mean is that when someone is just beginning to learn the technique, you kind of go with them to help them build the mechanical understanding and the confidence.  Then you make it harder and harder so they learn how to do it right.
> 
> If you never add that resistance then they basically just get an overview of the technique and probably won't be able to use it.  Just like someone who only punches air but never punches the heavy bag won't learn how to put real power into their punch or how to protect their hand when they punch.


When I push you, if you resist, should I keep pushing, or should I change my pushing into pulling?

Resistance training seems to encourage "force against force" training. IMO, when your opponent resists, it's time for you to change.

We both agree that resistance training is important. But our goal are different.

- You want to make technique A to work even if your opponent resists.
- I want to change technique A into technique B when resistance happen.

Here is an example of resistance -> change.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 5, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> When self proclaimed chopsocky masters (not just of Aikido) goes around saying crap about how MMA and fighting in the ring like Boxing, etc. are merely sports with rules and real bad ***es like themselves, train  "real deadly techniques".....but then runs away from challenges when called out, then they really brought it upon themselves mostly.
> 
> Not all Martial Arts are created equal. It's just time to accept that there has always been a pecking order where the strong dominates the weaker. This is especially true with the Asians, who created most of these MA's and often fought each other to prove who's style is better. The ones who hide from challenges, are usually the biggest snake oil salesman. This White guy's version of respecting all arts is just cult-like. Karate Kid is a movie. Mr. Miyagi is really Arnold from Happy Days.



That's what always got me about this argument. According to the stories, Ueshiba was an ardent dojo stormer who would beat up on other fighters all the time. He seemingly loved to prove his Aikido against other martial artists. Yet for some reason, his modern disciples claim to be above all of that. Interesting paradigm shift if you ask me.


----------



## skribs (Nov 5, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When I push you, if you resist, should I keep pushing, or should I change my pushing into pulling?
> 
> Resistance training seems to encourage "force against force" training. IMO, when your opponent resists, it's time for you to change.
> 
> ...



I don't mean resist to the point where the technique won't work.  I mean resist to the point where the other person has to have control in order for it to work.

At stage 2, the Uke should be helping the other person out by following the script.  In Stage 3, the Uke should be a dummy that goes where he is made to go.  And if the leverage isn't there, the Uke should just stand there until the leverage is correct.

At Stage 4, (which I left out in my numbering above) you drill for failure.  It is at this point that the Uke can purposefully make the drill fail so the person may learn how to deal with that failing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 5, 2018)

skribs said:


> I don't mean resist to the point where the technique won't work.


Now I agree with you 100% there.

Force against force has value too. Old saying said, "Strength can beat 10 best techniques". If you can hold on your opponent that he can't move, none of his technique can apply on you.

I don't mean you have to change the moment that your opponent resists. You have to change the moment that your opponent's resistance is more than you can handle.


----------



## MetalBoar (Nov 5, 2018)

I studied Aikido for a couple of years in college and then when I moved to a different state took up Hapkido. I've also tried Aikido (in a variety of flavors) again in about 3 different cities.

The Hapkido I did (and having seen a LOT of Hapkido, it's definitely not all the same) had a heavy emphasis on striking that was influenced by our instructor's experience with TKD/TSD, western boxing, and his own experimentation with resisting opponents. Our throwing and grappling techniques, while fundamentally very similar to Aikido, were done with much smaller movements and a lot more focus on breaking the opponent's structure through a variety of means; body mechanics, striking, etc. We also trained them with real resistance, both in isolated grappling drills and in sparring and drills that fully integrated striking, kicking and grappling.

I found the Hapkido that I did to be a lot more effective for my purposes. I think a lot of that was the training method. Integrating the throws and grappling with practical strikes and kicks and training them all together with resistance, did a lot to ingrain the ability to apply those throws and grappling techniques in a broad set of circumstances. It taught us to use the right tool for the job. Aikido frequently felt like I was trying to use a wrench when I needed a hammer or a screwdriver.

On a positive note, I will say that my Aikido training really taught me how to fall and role without getting hurt and that those skills have saved me from injury more often than any of my MA training has helped me in violent confrontations. Also, I found after training in Hapkido that I had a much better idea how to apply the Aikido I had learned. There were times when I could use the larger, more flowing Aikido throws in sparring to great effect and that on those specific occasions they were frequently more effective than the Hapkido way. I'm just not sure that I'd ever have gotten there with the methods most Aikido schools use for training.


----------



## MetalBoar (Nov 5, 2018)

Double post.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 5, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> If all that ki stuff doesn't work for you, so be it. Ki is real, but if you don't believe in it, no, it will not work for you. And in my case, the ki that I can use doesn't move mountains, levitate opponents to defenseless positions so I can beat them at will, or allow me to blow out candles from 20 feet away through a wall. It does allow me to move faster, and more accurately when I need to, and strike harder.



Ki works for wrestlers, judokas, boxers and kick boxers.

Those guys are made of stone and hit like trucks.


----------



## skribs (Nov 5, 2018)

MetalBoar said:


> The Hapkido I did (and having seen a LOT of Hapkido, it's definitely not all the same) had a heavy emphasis on striking that was influenced by our instructor's experience with TKD/TSD, western boxing, and his own experimentation with resisting opponents. Our throwing and grappling techniques, while fundamentally very similar to Aikido, were done with much smaller movements and a lot more focus on breaking the opponent's structure through a variety of means; body mechanics, striking, etc. We also trained them with real resistance, both in isolated grappling drills and in sparring and drills that fully integrated striking, kicking and grappling.



My hapkido experience is the opposite, but for the same reasons.  Hapkido is kind of an elective at my Taekwondo school.  We have 25 martial arts classes every week.  24 Taekwondo classes for different age/belt ranges, and 1 Hapkido class.  So we basically throw all the stuff that Taekwondo does better than Hapkido out the window and focus on what Hapkido does better than Taekwondo.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 5, 2018)

Finlay said:


> Hello
> 
> Over the years I have seen more scorn poured on Aikido as a martial art than pretty much any others. This is apart from the qi and kiai masters and macdojos.
> 
> ...


I'm speaking a little out-of-school on this, because my primary art (Nihon Goshin Aikido) is a close cousin to Aikido - but I've had some playtime at Aikido dojos (both classes and seminars), have taught students who came from Aikido, and have a moderate understanding of the art and the issues.

I'd say yes to all three. The stylized strikes are fine as a starting point and for drills where you're working to develop that "aiki feel" that's so much fun. But they need to progress to more realistic strikes. Adding in some resistance will also go a long way to cleaning up the gaps in movement. Both of those will almost certainly lead to smaller movements in a lot of techniques. I believe the purpose of the large movements was to accentuate the need for aiki, taking away some of the shorter movements that work without it. They need those shorter movements back, and need to learn to operate their techniques both with and without aiki - many techniques function on both sides of that.

I'd also get them back into striking more (of all the schools I've been in, I've never seen an instructor teaching strikes, except with weapons). That opens the door for better resistance, and better understanding of how strikes can open the door for their techniques.

Mind you, some of this is also where I went in refining my NGA curriculum, so the problem (as you said) isn't exclusive to Aikido. I see some schools in NGA heading the same way Aikido schools seem to have gone - getting softer, bigger motions, and less emphasis on strikes (which also leads to worse attacks).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 5, 2018)

Hanzou said:


> Oh boy.... How much time do you have for this one?
> 
> I think Aikido would be better off if it positioned itself away from marketing itself as a combative MA into more of a spiritual exercise like Tai Chi, or a dance like Capoeria. You know why Tai Chi and Capoeira don't get any grief? Because you step into those schools and they tell you from the beginning that you're not learning how to fight or defend yourself.


This, from what I understand, is more or less where Shin Shin Toitsu (Tohei's branch of Aikido) went. I think they still maintain that it can eventually get to defensive use, but it's overtly more about the study of ki and aiki.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 5, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Ultimately Aikido is incomplete.
> 
> It needs someone to take it's philosophy and explore how you employ said philosophy against attacks that aren't a guy charging towards you like a bull.
> 
> ...


I think the answer here is that what we see in most of Aikido should be the advanced work. Get folks to BB (3-5 years, perhaps) with some solid striking and grappling. Include the basics of aiki during that, but don't make it the focus. Once they get to that point, then they can focus on the aiki. Basically, bolt the solid, common basics back onto the beginning of the curriclum.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 5, 2018)

Finlay said:


> Hello
> 
> Over the years I have seen more scorn poured on Aikido as a martial art than pretty much any others. This is apart from the qi and kiai masters and macdojos.
> 
> ...



Who should we be looking at who makes Aikido work?

Who is your Garry Tonnen?


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 5, 2018)

Finlay said:


> Hello
> 
> Over the years I have seen more scorn poured on Aikido as a martial art than pretty much any others. This is apart from the qi and kiai masters and macdojos.
> 
> ...


As someone who has never studied aikido, I have no place in talking about how to “fix” it.

Just because some people like to criticize it, along with virtually all else that they themselves do not do, does not mean it needs to be fixed.   Don’t believe the hype.  Lots of people are idiots.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 5, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I think the answer here is that what we see in most of Aikido should be the advanced work. Get folks to BB (3-5 years, perhaps) with some solid striking and grappling. Include the basics of aiki during that, but don't make it the focus. Once they get to that point, then they can focus on the aiki. Basically, bolt the solid, common basics back onto the beginning of the curriclum.



I still don't see how you can train Aiki without resistance.

You are removing the one thing it takes to perform Aiki.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 5, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you apply hip throw on me, if I always sink down to the ground, you will never be able to throw me with hip throw no matter how many times that you have tried it.


That's not what resistive training is, though. Resistive training is sparring (and the grappling equivalent) where I'm trying to throw you and you're trying to throw me. I don't get to just do whatever I want - I have to work past your efforts to get at me and defend yourself.



> To train force against force is not the solution. You have to train how to borrow force. The moment that you have detected my sinking force, you change your hip throw into single leg.


That's what resistive training is about.



> To use sport to test Aikido skill is number one for me. Wrestle, wrestle, and still wrestle.


Yep. Resistive training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 5, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When I push you, if you resist, should I keep pushing, or should I change my pushing into pulling?
> 
> Resistance training seems to encourage "force against force" training. IMO, when your opponent resists, it's time for you to change.
> 
> ...


You're confusing "resistive" with "force on force". If you push me and I just fall down, that's cooperative training. If you push me and I try not to fall down, we've gotten into resistive training. If I try to use that push to knock you down, we're getting deeper into resistive training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 5, 2018)

Hanzou said:


> That's what always got me about this argument. According to the stories, Ueshiba was an ardent dojo stormer who would beat up on other fighters all the time. He seemingly loved to prove his Aikido against other martial artists. Yet for some reason, his modern disciples claim to be above all of that. Interesting paradigm shift if you ask me.


A paradigm shift he created during his lifetime, by most accounts. The result of a religious conversion, apparently.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 5, 2018)

drop bear said:


> I still don't see how you can train Aiki without resistance.
> 
> You are removing the one thing it takes to perform Aiki.


No. The one thing it needs is an attack with intent. I don't need them to try to stop me from doing what I intend for my throw to work (though it sometimes helps). For training purely for that aiki flow/feel, a lack of resistance actually is useful. The issue is when that's all they do - then they know what it should feel like when it works, but not how to get there.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 5, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Resistive training is sparring (and the grappling equivalent) where I'm trying to throw you and you're trying to throw me.


Instead of calling it "resistive training", you should just call it sparring/wrestling. To me, sparring/wrestling is "testing" and not "training".

1. Training (or developing) - your opponent will let you do it.
2. Testing - your opponent won't let you do it.

You have to develop hip throw in "training" before you can "test" your hip throw. Training and testing are different stages.

Aikido has "training (developing)". But Aikido has no "testing".


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 5, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I think the answer here is that what we see in most of Aikido should be the advanced work. Get folks to BB (3-5 years, perhaps) with some solid striking and grappling. Include the basics of aiki during that, but don't make it the focus. Once they get to that point, then they can focus on the aiki. Basically, bolt the solid, common basics back onto the beginning of the curriclum.



That's a good point. Ueshiba's earliest students were some of Kano's toughest Judo black belts. Aikido was more of a "master's course" for advanced martial artists in the early days. So that could definitely explain why so many current Aikidoka aren't getting it; They're starting Aikido without that advanced martial background.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 5, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Instead of calling it "resistive training", you should just call it sparring/wrestling. To me, sparring/wrestling is "testing" and not "training".
> 
> 1. Training (or developing) - your opponent will let you do it.
> 2. Testing - your opponent won't let you do it.
> ...


Sparring/wrestling is part of resistive training. But not all of it. As another poster stated, it also includes simply not falling down until actually made to (I classify this as "passive resistance"). And sometimes, it's just a little added resistance within a drill. So, if a student (beyond the beginners) starts to throw me and doesn't take my balance away on their first movement, nothing they do after that point will work. I give them an opportunity to take that structure, and if they waste it, they may as well start over.

So, some training is resistive. I don't consider that testing, but giving the proper feedback for the technique, which is part of training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 5, 2018)

Hanzou said:


> That's a good point. Ueshiba's earliest students were some of Kano's toughest Judo black belts. Aikido was more of a "master's course" for advanced martial artists in the early days. So that could definitely explain why so many current Aikidoka aren't getting it; They're starting Aikido without that advanced martial background.


Yep. There have been some folks who have suggested otherwise, but most of what I've seen (both history and the result over time) says that's how the curriculum mostly worked and has developed. And most of the folks I've talked to who have significant experience both within and outside of Aikido say their other training makes their Aikido work more realistically.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> No. The one thing it needs is an attack with intent. I don't need them to try to stop me from doing what I intend for my throw to work (though it sometimes helps). For training purely for that aiki flow/feel, a lack of resistance actually is useful. The issue is when that's all they do - then they know what it should feel like when it works, but not how to get there.



That would still only be an understanding of Aiki from a rank beginner's level.

If you were comparing just the understanding of the concept. You would be maby at blue belt.
Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Belts and Meaning | Marcus Soares BJJ


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 6, 2018)

IMO, there are some weakness in the Aikido system.

1. Over emphasize on the wrist control - If you control your opponent wrist, not only his elbow joint is still free, the distance between you and him is too far. It gives your opponent too much space to counter you.

2. The lacking of leg skill - If you just block your opponent's leg, he can step over. If you scoop, sweep, hook, lift, ... your opponent's leg, it will be much harder for him to escape.

3. The lacking of "give before take" - You can't always wait for your opponent to attack you. You have to train how to attack your opponent too. You need to train how to step in, set up, and ...

4. ...


----------



## Finlay (Nov 6, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Instead of calling it "resistive training", you should just call it sparring/wrestling. To me, sparring/wrestling is "testing" and not "training".
> 
> 1. Training (or developing) - your opponent will let you do it.
> 2. Testing - your opponent won't let you do it.
> ...




Perhaps a better term would be 'unco-operative training'

When you push i can resist and push back, or I can pull, or move in any number of ways to stop you doing the technique that you initially want.

The level of unco-operativeness wpuld depend on the stage of training and the aim of the drill


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 6, 2018)

drop bear said:


> That would still only be an understanding of Aiki from a rank beginner's level.
> 
> If you were comparing just the understanding of the concept. You would be maby at blue belt.
> Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Belts and Meaning | Marcus Soares BJJ


I tend to agree with that. To me, it's mostly a beginner's exercise. It can also be useful at advanced levels for exploring and tweaking, but shouldn't be an emphasis except with new techniques and low-level students. I mean, if you do those drills long enough, it can develop higher levels of skill, but I think there would be more benefit even in aiki development - after the beginner level - in one year of training with resistance than 3-4 years of repeating those drills.

Others have pointed out that there were more internal exercises in Daito-ryu, and that when those were included the art was more potent. I can't speak to that, except from some discussions I've had with a Daito-ryu instructor who trained to BB in NGA, which isn't really a comparison to Aikido (don't think he's ever trained in Ueshiba's Aikido).


----------



## jobo (Nov 6, 2018)

Hanzou said:


> It has nothing to do with superiority, it's all about the proper classification and purpose of the art form. Aikido simply isn't a combat art. A self-preservation/improvement art, perhaps, but a combat art? Not even close. Certainly there's some spill over, but saying that Aikido is something akin to Judo, Bjj, Muay Thai, Boxing, etc. is simply a mis-classification. Once Aikido is classified correctly, all the malice towards it will be avoided.
> 
> As for Ki, hey, whatever you want to believe in. I once believed in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, so it's all good.


if he is only using qi for fighting he is missing out big time, my ki gets me served first in bars, stops traffic on busy roads so I can cross and a reasonably constant supply of girls young enough to be my daughter, ( note I am nearly 60 so not that young) if that doesn't happen to you you need more chi in your life


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 6, 2018)

jobo said:


> if he is only using qi for fighting he is missing out big time, my ki gets me served first in bars, stops traffic on busy roads so I can cross and a reasonably constant supply of girls young enough to be my daughter, ( note I am nearly 60 so not that young) if that doesn't happen to you you need more chi in your life



I dont drink and I'm happily married, so I'm good.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2018)

jobo said:


> if he is only using qi for fighting he is missing out big time, my ki gets me served first in bars, stops traffic on busy roads so I can cross and a reasonably constant supply of girls young enough to be my daughter, ( note I am nearly 60 so not that young) if that doesn't happen to you you need more chi in your life


----------



## FriedRice (Nov 6, 2018)

MetalBoar said:


> On a positive note, I will say that my Aikido training really taught me how to fall and role without getting hurt and that those skills have saved me from injury more often than any of my MA training has helped me in violent confrontations. Also, I found after training in Hapkido that I had a much better idea how to apply the Aikido I had learned. There were times when I could use the larger, more flowing Aikido throws in sparring to great effect and that on those specific occasions they were frequently more effective than the Hapkido way. I'm just not sure that I'd ever have gotten there with the methods most Aikido schools use for training.



It certainly still a good tool to have. I had to use a few TJJ wrist locks during my bouncing days. Can't just go for the BJJ TD to mount on a drunk dude who's not violent.


----------



## FriedRice (Nov 6, 2018)

Hanzou said:


> That's a good point. Ueshiba's earliest students were some of Kano's toughest Judo black belts. Aikido was more of a "master's course" for advanced martial artists in the early days. So that could definitely explain why so many current Aikidoka aren't getting it; They're starting Aikido without that advanced martial background.



Holy smokes, you're dropping a lot of knowledge on me about Ueshiba. I never bothered to read up about him b/c Aikido's not my thing...but I do see so many bad***, manly man's memes of him on my Facebook feed. If all this is true, then it's the modern Aikidokas that are full of ****....going the opposite of what Ueshiba's about.


----------



## jobo (Nov 6, 2018)

Hanzou said:


> I dont drink and I'm happily married, so I'm good.



year, seen it a good few times including me twice, bloke thinks he is happy married, wife is cheating with someone with more qi, don't say you weren't warned !


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 6, 2018)

Finlay said:


> While other arts, that maybe equally impractical in some ways, escape such criticism.



A lot of martial arts schools try to be everything to everyone, and that's why they get in trouble.

If I hand you a ham & cheese on whole wheat and advertise it as meat free, gluten free, dairy free & pork free... people are going to call me out on it.

Sometimes the contents can be just fine, but if what's on the packaging doesn't match those contents you'll have problems no matter what you do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 6, 2018)

jobo said:


> year, seen it a good few times including me twice, bloke thinks he is happy married, wife is cheating with someone with more qi, don't say you weren't warned !


Bloke with a sporty car is just making up for weak ki.


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 6, 2018)

Hanzou said:


> That's what always got me about this argument. According to the stories, Ueshiba was an ardent dojo stormer who would beat up on other fighters all the time. He seemingly loved to prove his Aikido against other martial artists. Yet for some reason, his modern disciples claim to be above all of that. Interesting paradigm shift if you ask me.



I always have trouble with these kinds of threads because of looking at what aikido SHOULD be and has in its curriculum versus HOW aikido is trained and taught.  Ueshiba was a legitimate martial artist and fighter who had other martial artists join him and his method.  At one point, Ueshiba's dojo was called the "Hell Dojo" for the tough training that ocurred there.

Fast forward and the focus of the art became self-improvement and a way to create peace (according to Ueshiba's own words).  When that focus started to happen, the type of realistic training also went by the wayside in many cases. 

Ueshiba's original art had LOTS of striking (atemi) in it to vulnerable spots.  If you look at his book, "Budo" you will see the pictures and he is striking the temple etc. with a middle knuckle fist.  He even had the quote (% may be slightly off), but he said Aikido is 75% atemi.  Far cry from what we see today.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Bloke with a sporty car is just making up for weak ki.


Or small...hands.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 6, 2018)

Hanzou said:


> It has nothing to do with superiority, it's all about the proper classification and purpose of the art form. Aikido simply isn't a combat art. A self-preservation/improvement art, perhaps, but a combat art? Not even close. Certainly there's some spill over, but saying that Aikido is something akin to Judo, Bjj, Muay Thai, Boxing, etc. is simply a mis-classification. Once Aikido is classified correctly, all the malice towards it will be avoided.
> 
> As for Ki, hey, whatever you want to believe in. I once believed in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, so it's all good.



I'm going to guess you stopped believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy when they stopped working good for you.  I will do the same if ki ever stops working for me.  So far it hasn't.

One of the things I have yet to see anybody do is actually comment on what it appears Aikido does, at least as I see it.  The Aikido I have seen does not intend to hurt opponents.  An opponent may indeed be hurt, but that is normally not the intent.  Aikido will diligently keep throwing an opponent around, or use some other technique, until the opponent gets tired or too many bumps, and leaves.

Of course I have never studied Aikido nor have I seen every style of Aikido so I may be wrong.


----------



## jobo (Nov 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Bloke with a sporty car is just making up for weak ki.


there  no dennying sporty cars confuse womens qi meter, but unfortunately only till you marry them and decided you don't need a sporty car any more and trade it in for a low chi practcle family car and then suddenly they see you in your chiless glory and immediately start putting out feelers for a male more endowed with ki  (or with a sport car, which ever comes first ,)


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 6, 2018)

Sorry, just some additional thoughts.

One thing that is highly emphasized in Aikido (at least from my experience) is the idea of de-escalation and avoiding the conflict in the first place (not saying others don't btw).  By understanding your "center" in practical terms.  What does it take to make me mad?  What does a person have to do for me to really feel threatened/scared/angry?  How do I put that into place to remain calm to de-escalate a situation instead of feeding into it?


----------



## skribs (Nov 6, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, there are some weakness in the Aikido system.
> 
> 1. Over emphasize on the wrist control - If you control your opponent wrist, not only his elbow joint is still free, the distance between you and him is too far. It gives your opponent too much space to counter you.
> 
> ...



I can't speak for Aikido, but for Hapkido (which I believe is similar) none of these are true.


Wrist control is most often done in close to the opponent.  That's where it causes the most pain.
Footwork is more important than wrist control for take-downs, so how leg skill is lacking is foreign to me.
Probably true of Aikido, in Hapkido we train offensively as well (for us it starts around green belt).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 6, 2018)

skribs said:


> I can't speak for Aikido, but for Hapkido (which I believe is similar) none of these are true.
> 
> 
> Wrist control is most often done in close to the opponent.  That's where it causes the most pain.
> Footwork is more important than wrist control for take-downs, so how leg skill is lacking is foreign to me.


1. If you use both hands to control your opponent's wrist, your opponent's other hand is still free.

2. Leg skill is different from footwork. Leg skill is to use your leg to deal with your opponent's leg.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 6, 2018)

havnt we beat this horse enough.
 the issue as i see it is that Ueshiba changed over time.   his final product , he called Aikido.  but like many asian things the art is only a medium for something else that is more cerebral.  in this case the art of Aikido is a medium that Ueshiba used to express his philosophy.  much like the writer Ann Rand used the medium of novels and writing to express her philosphy.  Aikido was only supposed to be the medium for the philosophy but as more and more learned the art (as far as i can tell) what is missing is the philosophy part because students today dont care about some old guy rambling on about religion and the oneness of the universe.  but you cant separate the two sides and expect the technique to fit and work well for your new philosophy of self defense and the MMA mind set of pressure testing.   the two just do not go well together.  so while it may seem to be a contradiction that Ueshiba is supposed to be a true martial artist but his art kinda fails are fighting its not a contradiction.  he was a martial arts who used the medium for a different purpose and his purpose was to redefine a nation that was set on war and destruction.  dont forget all this was happening in a war time Japan.  the country was war crazy and Ueshiba didnt agree with this so he used martial arts (which was being used as a propaganda by the Government) to show an art of NON CONTENTION.  which by design was anti pressure testing and anti fighting.  so if it dosent hold up to someones standard of effective fighting ....yeah that was the point.


----------



## BrendanF (Nov 6, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> students today dont care about some old guy rambling on about religion and the oneness of the universe.



Can you provide any evidence of him 'rambling about the oneness of the universe'?




hoshin1600 said:


> his purpose was to redefine a nation that was set on war and destruction.  dont forget all this was happening in a war time Japan.  the country was war crazy and Ueshiba didnt agree with this so he used martial arts (which was being used as a propaganda by the Government) to show an art of NON CONTENTION.  which by design was anti pressure testing and anti fighting.  so if it dosent hold up to someones standard of effective fighting ....yeah that was the point.



If so why was he involved with homicidal, right wing nationalist groups such as the genyosha?

He taught Imperial soldiers to kill folks.. during the war.  I've seen photos of him doing this.  I'll find them if you can't.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> I'm going to guess you stopped believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy when they stopped working good for you.  I will do the same if ki ever stops working for me.  So far it hasn't.
> 
> One of the things I have yet to see anybody do is actually comment on what it appears Aikido does, at least as I see it.  The Aikido I have seen does not intend to hurt opponents.  An opponent may indeed be hurt, but that is normally not the intent.  Aikido will diligently keep throwing an opponent around, or use some other technique, until the opponent gets tired or too many bumps, and leaves.
> 
> Of course I have never studied Aikido nor have I seen every style of Aikido so I may be wrong.



Yeah. I heard that. Good for bouncing because you can use it to subdue people with it.

That is apparently a misconception. And about the least practical way of achieving the result you are suggesting.

I can spar people in mma and not cripple people. Let alone jits or wrestling. Aikido can't.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2018)

punisher73 said:


> Sorry, just some additional thoughts.
> 
> One thing that is highly emphasized in Aikido (at least from my experience) is the idea of de-escalation and avoiding the conflict in the first place (not saying others don't btw).  By understanding your "center" in practical terms.  What does it take to make me mad?  What does a person have to do for me to really feel threatened/scared/angry?  How do I put that into place to remain calm to de-escalate a situation instead of feeding into it?



Yeah. I was talking to the parent of a jits kid about this. (And made a mess of it at the time)

But the composure that wins fights is also the composure that keeps you out of fights.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 6, 2018)

BrendanF said:


> Can you provide any evidence of him 'rambling about the oneness of the universe'?



_Budo is a divine path established by the Gods that leads to the truth, goodness. and beauty; it is a spiritual path reflecting the unlimited, absolute nature of the universe and the ultimate grand design or creation._
_Through the virtue aquired from devoted practice, one can percieve the principals of heaven and earth. Such techniques originate from the subtle interaction of water and fire, revealing the path of heaven and earth and the spirit of the imperial way: these applied techniques also play the marvelous functioning of KOTODAMA,  the principal that directs and harmonizes all things in the world, resulting in the unification of heaven, earth, god and humankind._

_Morihei Ueshiba   1938_


_All things , material and spirtual, originate from the one source and are related as if they were one family. The past, present, and future are all contianed in the life force. the universe emerged and developed from one source, and we evolved thought the optimal process of unification and harminization._

kinda sounds like an old man rambling about the universe to me.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 6, 2018)

BrendanF said:


> If so why was he involved with homicidal, right wing nationalist groups such as the genyosha?



are you saying he was Yakuza?
i dont know anything about his ties to the group as you suggest.  i was not implying he was or was not against the war at the time rather after the war and seeing the results he taught the principal of T_he Art of Peace.  
_
so i just looked in one of my books as reference and it seems that Yutaro Yano , a retired naval commander was a Omoto- Kyo follower and had links to the black dragon society...was the one who invited and convinced Onisaburo to travel to Mongolia.  thus Ueshiba also went to Mongolia for the "Great Mongolian Adventure".
i dont think we need to go down this rabbit hole of history.. Ueshiba's political view was not pertinent to my point.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Nov 6, 2018)

every art has an underlying philosophy that everything else is built upon. 
i say:
philosophy gives rise to an inner narrative.
the narrative of what a martial art should look like conditions the methodology and training within the art.

if you separate the philosophy from the technique you are essentially tearing out the soul of the art and playing Dr. Fankenstein.  we know that never works out well.  many have taken out the soul and replaced it with their own views , then they wonder why the results are sub par.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 6, 2018)

Here is an idea:  aikido, like any martial art, can be different things to different people.  Some people like it, others do not.  If it is not to your taste, then do something else.  There are plenty of other things to choose from.  

I wonder how many people who think they have the answers to how to fix aikido, actually have any significant experience with it.   And YouTube does not count.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 6, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Here is an idea:  aikido, like any martial art, can be different things to different people.  Some people like it, others do not.  If it is not to your taste, then do something else.  There are plenty of other things to choose from.
> 
> I wonder how many people who think they have the answers to how to fix aikido, actually have any significant experience with it.   And YouTube does not count.



That is why I never listen to a paramedic on the subject of Reiki.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 6, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> I'm going to guess you stopped believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy when they stopped working good for you.  I will do the same if ki ever stops working for me.  So far it hasn't.
> 
> One of the things I have yet to see anybody do is actually comment on what it appears Aikido does, at least as I see it.  The Aikido I have seen does not intend to hurt opponents.  An opponent may indeed be hurt, but that is normally not the intent.  Aikido will diligently keep throwing an opponent around, or use some other technique, until the opponent gets tired or too many bumps, and leaves.
> 
> Of course I have never studied Aikido nor have I seen every style of Aikido so I may be wrong.



What it appears to do is show someone effortlessly throw multiple attackers with little to no effort involved.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that. The issue is that people want you to be able to demonstrate that incredible ability outside of demonstrations and you just can't do it. That's when people start calling BS.


----------



## Steve (Nov 7, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> I'm going to guess you stopped believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy when they stopped working good for you.  I will do the same if ki ever stops working for me.  So far it hasn't.


what?  This is a pretty silly argument to make.  It is literally an attempt to legitimize superstition .


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 7, 2018)

punisher73 said:


> I always have trouble with these kinds of threads because of looking at what aikido SHOULD be and has in its curriculum versus HOW aikido is trained and taught.  Ueshiba was a legitimate martial artist and fighter who had other martial artists join him and his method.  At one point, Ueshiba's dojo was called the "Hell Dojo" for the tough training that ocurred there.
> 
> Fast forward and the focus of the art became self-improvement and a way to create peace (according to Ueshiba's own words).  When that focus started to happen, the type of realistic training also went by the wayside in many cases.
> 
> Ueshiba's original art had LOTS of striking (atemi) in it to vulnerable spots.  If you look at his book, "Budo" you will see the pictures and he is striking the temple etc. with a middle knuckle fist.  He even had the quote (% may be slightly off), but he said Aikido is 75% atemi.  Far cry from what we see today.


I recall the quote being 70%. Same-same.

But yes, this is the issue. Some defend Aikido as being what it was, rather than what Ueshiba moved it to. I took the point of the OP as, "What would take Aikido back to its roots as a fighting art?".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 7, 2018)

jobo said:


> there  no dennying sporty cars confuse womens qi meter, but unfortunately only till you marry them and decided you don't need a sporty car any more and trade it in for a low chi practcle family car and then suddenly they see you in your chiless glory and immediately start putting out feelers for a male more endowed with ki  (or with a sport car, which ever comes first ,)


Man, another time I wish I could "like" and "funny" the same post.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 7, 2018)

punisher73 said:


> Sorry, just some additional thoughts.
> 
> One thing that is highly emphasized in Aikido (at least from my experience) is the idea of de-escalation and avoiding the conflict in the first place (not saying others don't btw).  By understanding your "center" in practical terms.  What does it take to make me mad?  What does a person have to do for me to really feel threatened/scared/angry?  How do I put that into place to remain calm to de-escalate a situation instead of feeding into it?


Agreed. I think - and this is entirely supposition - this was part of Ueshiba's change in attitude. It seems he went from "be able to end it fast" to "be the kind of person they can't start a fight with".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 7, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, there are some weakness in the Aikido system.
> 
> 1. Over emphasize on the wrist control - If you control your opponent wrist, not only his elbow joint is still free, the distance between you and him is too far. It gives your opponent too much space to counter you.
> 
> ...


Just some thoughts...

Proper wrist control locks the elbow (a principle I learned as "conjunctive locking") and even the shoulder. And that control can happen at any distance from arm's length to near-clinch.
Yes.
This is a weakness in the approach, and probably in the choice of techniques. Adding the striking back in would be enough to give back the first-response option.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 7, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> 1. If you use both hands to control your opponent's wrist, your opponent's other hand is still free.
> 
> 2. Leg skill is different from footwork. Leg skill is to use your leg to deal with your opponent's leg.


I'd agree on the legwork issue, from what I've seen. I've not seen even basic sweeps used in Aikido, though I'd expect them to be there. They may exist in some of the branches I don't see as often.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 7, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> havnt we beat this horse enough.
> the issue as i see it is that Ueshiba changed over time.   his final product , he called Aikido.  but like many asian things the art is only a medium for something else that is more cerebral.  in this case the art of Aikido is a medium that Ueshiba used to express his philosophy.  much like the writer Ann Rand used the medium of novels and writing to express her philosphy.  Aikido was only supposed to be the medium for the philosophy but as more and more learned the art (as far as i can tell) what is missing is the philosophy part because students today dont care about some old guy rambling on about religion and the oneness of the universe.  but you cant separate the two sides and expect the technique to fit and work well for your new philosophy of self defense and the MMA mind set of pressure testing.   the two just do not go well together.  so while it may seem to be a contradiction that Ueshiba is supposed to be a true martial artist but his art kinda fails are fighting its not a contradiction.  he was a martial arts who used the medium for a different purpose and his purpose was to redefine a nation that was set on war and destruction.  dont forget all this was happening in a war time Japan.  the country was war crazy and Ueshiba didnt agree with this so he used martial arts (which was being used as a propaganda by the Government) to show an art of NON CONTENTION.  which by design was anti pressure testing and anti fighting.  so if it dosent hold up to someones standard of effective fighting ....yeah that was the point.


I think the issue is that some (not sure what proportion) of practitioners - including some instructors - still see it as a defensive fighting art. I think that's what the OP is talking about.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 7, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> every art has an underlying philosophy that everything else is built upon.
> i say:
> philosophy gives rise to an inner narrative.
> the narrative of what a martial art should look like conditions the methodology and training within the art.
> ...


I like the first half of this. I'm not sure I agree with the last half. Many arts show a different philosophy in different groups - much of that is the interpretation and approach of the CI. Approaching an art with a drastically different philosophy should change the art, but it need not be a change for the worse.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 7, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Here is an idea:  aikido, like any martial art, can be different things to different people.  Some people like it, others do not.  If it is not to your taste, then do something else.  There are plenty of other things to choose from.
> 
> I wonder how many people who think they have the answers to how to fix aikido, actually have any significant experience with it.   And YouTube does not count.


I think it's a thought experiment, if nothing else. It's an interesting discussion, even if folks never plan to do anything with it.


----------



## FriedRice (Nov 7, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Here is an idea:  aikido, like any martial art, can be different things to different people.  Some people like it, others do not.  If it is not to your taste, then do something else.  There are plenty of other things to choose from.
> 
> I wonder how many people who think they have the answers to how to fix aikido, actually have any significant experience with it.   And YouTube does not count.



Why doesn't Youtube count? Because someone has the balls to put themselves on video and express their thoughts...risking their reputation, business, future business(es) and name + actually demonstrating their skills to prove their point vs. you saying otherwise, on a lesser credible medium which is through a post on a lesser known forum of its type + anonymity and no video demo, etc?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 7, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> your new philosophy of self defense and the MMA mind set of pressure testing.   the two just do not go well together.


According to the

- Tao philosophy, if you promote someone, you will make others unhappy. This philosophy does not encourage competition.
- Christian philosophy, I'm the only true God, all other Gods are fake. This philosophy does not encourage equality.
- Buddhism philosophy, If you own nothing, you will have nothing to lose. This philosophy does not encourage possession.
- Aikido/Taiji philosophy, You always wait for your opponent's attack. This philosophy does not encourage "give before take".

If you apply Aikido/Taiji philosophy through your life, you just stay home and wait for your girlfriend to knock on your door, you will never be able to find any girlfriend.

Philosophy can be wrong too.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Nov 7, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Christian philosophy, I'm the only true God, all other Gods are fake. This philosophy does not encourage equality.


Perhaps in the context of your discussion these characterizations make sense but the way you describe the philosophy of Christianity is incorrect.   The philosophy of Christianity as it pertains to other religions is the idea of having 'one God' as opposed to a 'pantheon' of Gods AND the idea that one should 'turn the other cheek' when facing transgression.  

There are perhaps sects in Christianity that vehemently believe that all other Gods are fake but this is not a concept that is widely accepted by Christians.  Not to turn your discussion to religion but essentially the concept you outlined for Christian philosophy was not a widely held belief.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 7, 2018)

Yokazuna514 said:


> Perhaps in the context of your discussion these characterizations make sense but the way you describe the philosophy of Christianity is incorrect.   The philosophy of Christianity as it pertains to other religions is the idea of having 'one God' as opposed to a 'pantheon' of Gods AND the idea that one should 'turn the other cheek' when facing transgression.
> 
> There are perhaps sects in Christianity that vehemently believe that all other Gods are fake but this is not a concept that is widely accepted by Christians.  Not to turn your discussion to religion but essentially the concept you outlined for Christian philosophy was not a widely held belief.



It is in the ten commandments.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Nov 7, 2018)

drop bear said:


> It is in the ten commandments.


Yes I know.  The Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 7, 2018)

FriedRice said:


> Why doesn't Youtube count? Because someone has the balls to put themselves on video and express their thoughts...risking their reputation, business, future business(es) and name + actually demonstrating their skills to prove their point vs. you saying otherwise, on a lesser credible medium which is through a post on a lesser known forum of its type + anonymity and no video demo, etc?


Not even close to his comment. You’re trolling again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 7, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> According to the
> 
> - Tao philosophy, if you promote someone, you will make others unhappy. This philosophy does not encourage competition.
> - Christian philosophy, I'm the only true God, all other Gods are fake. This philosophy does not encourage equality.
> ...


That’s a fairly shallow interpretation of the aiki philosophy.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 7, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> That’s a fairly shallow interpretation of the aiki philosophy.


Should MA always have to be mixed with philosophy?

Today, how many people still associate MA with "侠 (Xia) - Help the weak to defeat the strong"?


----------



## Finlay (Nov 7, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I think it's a thought experiment, if nothing else. It's an interesting discussion, even if folks never plan to do anything with it.




Yes basically that was the point.

I just noticed the aikido gets more scorn poured on it than other martial arts. As a teacher, both in martial arts and other things, i don't think it is enough to just cast criticism.


The orginal question was an aim to look a little deeper


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 7, 2018)

Finlay said:


> Yes basically that was the point.
> 
> I just noticed the aikido gets more scorn poured on it than other martial arts. As a teacher, both in martial arts and other things, i don't think it is enough to just cast criticism.
> 
> ...


So what, if it gets scorn from people who know nothing about it? That a bunch of uninformed people on the internet don’t like it, in no way means there is anything wrong with it. And how could people who have no experience with it be in a position to comment on how it ought to be corrected?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 7, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> So what, if it gets scorn from people who know nothing about it? That a bunch of uninformed people on the internet don’t like it, in no way means there is anything wrong with it. And how could people who have no experience with it be in a position to comment on how it ought to be corrected?



Because those people do a tested system that works.

And you adopt as many elements as you can live with.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 7, 2018)




----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 7, 2018)

I’ll tell you all how to fix aikido:  it needs more cow bell.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 7, 2018)

drop bear said:


>


At 2.20 - 3.14, if he uses right leg to spring back his opponent's left leg, the take down will be much easier. It's more fun to discuss how to make a technique more effective.

When you use your right leg to "spring" your opponent's left leg, you have just restricted his left leg mobility. It will be much difficult for him to escape that left leg.

By adding the "leg skill", Aikido take down skill can be enhanced big time.


----------



## _Simon_ (Nov 7, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> I’ll tell you all how to fix aikido:  it needs more cow bell.


XD

I think everything could be improved with a bit more cow bell.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 8, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> So what, if it gets scorn from people who know nothing about it? That a bunch of uninformed people on the internet don’t like it, in no way means there is anything wrong with it. And how could people who have no experience with it be in a position to comment on how it ought to be corrected?



My art shares a root with Aikido, and Bjj and Aikido share some principles that are simply executed differently. Thus what they attempt to do isn't completely alien to what I do.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 8, 2018)

drop bear said:


>



Good grief, that kid's self-loathing is annoying as hell. We get it bro, you think Aikido doesn't work! That doesn't mean you need to disparage every technique you're demonstrating.

Beyond that, good vid. I like the explanation of attachment versus connection and how that adds some difference between the systems.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 8, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Should MA always have to be mixed with philosophy?
> 
> Today, how many people still associate MA with "侠 (Xia) - Help the weak to defeat the strong"?


I don't think they have to be. I'm not sure boxing is.

I'm not sure how that's linked to my post, though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 8, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> So what, if it gets scorn from people who know nothing about it? That a bunch of uninformed people on the internet don’t like it, in no way means there is anything wrong with it. And how could people who have no experience with it be in a position to comment on how it ought to be corrected?


That's why I used the term "thought experiment". There's no harm in anything done wrong in a thought experiment. It's just exploring an idea. In this case, exploring what folks think - from whatever perspective they have - would improve Aikido, in their eyes.

We could ask the same about MMA, Kyokushin, Savate, Boxing, or embroidery. Sometimes, hearing what folks from outside a specialty think is a good way to break ingrained thought patterns.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 8, 2018)

Hanzou said:


> Good grief, that kid's self-loathing is annoying as hell. We get it bro, you think Aikido doesn't work! That doesn't mean you need to disparage every technique you're demonstrating.
> 
> Beyond that, good vid. I like the explanation of attachment versus connection and how that adds some difference between the systems.


He doesn't appear to have reached a point of trying to find what is useful in his Aikido training. That'd drive me nuts, but maybe it's a good thing - might keep him more focused on learning the BJJ principles and approach for now. At some point, he'd do well to reach back for that Aikido and see what he understands better about how to use those principles, with BJJ as a base to put it on.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 8, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> He doesn't appear to have reached a point of trying to find what is useful in his Aikido training. That'd drive me nuts, but maybe it's a good thing - might keep him more focused on learning the BJJ principles and approach for now. At some point, he'd do well to reach back for that Aikido and see what he understands better about how to use those principles, with BJJ as a base to put it on.



I think he's been reaching out to Roy Dean, so that will definitely help him bridge Aikido and Bjj.

We'll see soon enough.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 8, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> That's why I used the term "thought experiment". There's no harm in anything done wrong in a thought experiment. It's just exploring an idea. In this case, exploring what folks think - from whatever perspective they have - would improve Aikido, in their eyes.
> 
> We could ask the same about MMA, Kyokushin, Savate, Boxing, or embroidery. Sometimes, hearing what folks from outside a specialty think is a good way to break ingrained thought patterns.


Fair enough and people can discuss whatever they want.

The problem is this:  when people with little or no aikido background discuss how to improve aikido, what they are really discussing is how to make it into what they already do.  Underneath it all, the BJJ guy wants to turn it into a variety of BJJ, the Kyokushin guy wants to turn it into a variant of Kyokushin, etc.

Everyone has the right to an opinion, but if the opinion is uninformed, the opinion is worthless.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 8, 2018)

Do your guys think that "leg skill" can enhance the Aikido system?


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 8, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you guys think that "leg skill" can enhance the Aikido system?



You mean leg sweeps and reaps?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 8, 2018)

Hanzou said:


> You mean leg sweeps and reaps?


You stand on one leg and use your other leg to deal with your opponent's leg/legs.

PRO: You have better control on your opponent's leg.
CON: You stand on one leg and with poor balance.

Here is an example of "inner hooking".


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 8, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do your guys think that "leg skill" can enhance the Aikido system?


So do you feel aikido ought to be more like Shuai Chiao?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 8, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> So do you feel aikido ought to be more like Shuai Chiao?


It has nothing to do with MA style. If you give your opponent's legs too much freedom, that's your mistake no matter which MA system that you may train.

Should a

- Karate guy wraps a boxer's punching arm?
- TKD guy catch a MT guys roundhouse kicking leg?
- Aikido guy uses foot sweep?
- ...

There is only a more effective way of fighting that we are all interested in.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 8, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It has nothing to do with MA style. If you give your opponent's legs too much freedom, that's your mistake no matter which MA system that you may train.
> 
> Should a
> 
> ...


Ok, but you are suggesting it ought to proceed with things that are more akin to Shuai Chiao and less typical of aikido.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 8, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Fair enough and people can discuss whatever they want.
> 
> The problem is this:  when people with little or no aikido background discuss how to improve aikido, what they are really discussing is how to make it into what they already do.  Underneath it all, the BJJ guy wants to turn it into a variety of BJJ, the Kyokushin guy wants to turn it into a variant of Kyokushin, etc.
> 
> Everyone has the right to an opinion, but if the opinion is uninformed, the opinion is worthless.


That is what most folks will do - that, or something they wish existed that isn't really Aikido. The latter is probably more of what I end up doing, even though I have more grasp of (Ueshiba's) Aikido than most would. That still highlights what people think Aikido is and what they wish it would be (to suit them better). Might never change Aikido, but it can be useful when thinking about what folks like in their training.

There would be some who would like to see Aikido go quite the opposite direction - more away from any kind of combat effectiveness, and more into the study of ki, philosophy, and character development. I think that's a lot of what happened with Tohei's Aikido.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 8, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do your guys think that "leg skill" can enhance the Aikido system?


Not in and of itself - it wouldn't fit well if it were simply cobbled on. But doing the work to blend it in - adjusting entry and finding how to fit leg sweeps, etc. with Aikido's core movement - would be a useful exercise toward rediscovering the combat roots of the art.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 8, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Not in and of itself - it wouldn't fit well if it were simply cobbled on. But doing the work to blend it in - adjusting entry and finding how to fit leg sweeps, etc. with Aikido's core movement - would be a useful exercise toward rediscovering the combat roots of the art.



I am stunned Aikido doesn't already do leg sweeps though.  It just seems so Aikidoy


----------



## Martial D (Nov 8, 2018)

drop bear said:


> I am stunned Aikido doesn't already do leg sweeps though.  It just seems so Aikidoy


I'm not. Leg sweeps work.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 8, 2018)

Martial D said:


> I'm not. Leg sweeps work.



Yeah. But Aikido don't do them.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 8, 2018)

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, but you are suggesting it ought to proceed with things that are more akin to Shuai Chiao and less typical of aikido.


Shuai Chiao is not the only style that has foot sweep. Judo, Karate, long fist, preying mantis, ... all have foot sweep. To suggest to add foot sweep into Aikido is not trying to say which style is better but to say, "Why is foot sweep not used in Aikido?"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 8, 2018)

drop bear said:


> I am stunned Aikido doesn't already do leg sweeps though.  It just seems so Aikidoy


I’m not sure why they aren’t in there. Maybe they just don’t work close enough for those to be a fit.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 8, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I’m not sure why they aren’t in there. Maybe they just don’t work close enough for those to be a fit.


A: Why didn't you use hook punch, upper cut, roundhouse kick, foot sweep in your sparring?
B: Those are not in my MA system.
A: Why do you allow your MA system to set such restriction on you?
B: ???


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 8, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Shuai Chiao is not the only style that has foot sweep. Judo, Karate, long fist, preying mantis, ... all have foot sweep. To suggest to add foot sweep into Aikido is not trying to say which style is better but to say, "Why is foot sweep not used in Aikido?"


You like foot sweep, from your other training; that makes sense. How much experience do you have with aikido?  There may be a good reason they do not use foot sweep (if that is even true, which I do not know).

Whether you realize it or not, or simply do not wish to admit it, you think that the way to “fix” aikido is to make it like the system you do.  That is not fixing aikido,  that is just doing Shuai Chiao. If you like Shuai Chiao, then just do Shuai Chiao and don’t worry about “fixing” aikido.

Seriously, how much more cowbell do you think it needs?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 8, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A: Why didn't you use hook punch, upper cut, roundhouse kick, foot sweep in your sparring?
> B: Those are not in my MA system.
> A: Why do you allow your MA system to set such restriction on you?
> B: ???


You’ve moved from discussing a system to a single person.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 8, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> You’ve moved from discussing a system to a single person.


That person can be the Aikido system.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 8, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I’m not sure why they aren’t in there. Maybe they just don’t work close enough for those to be a fit.



It even seems to fit in the whole Aikido ethos.


----------



## Martial D (Nov 8, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But Aikido don't do them.


Exactly


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 8, 2018)

Martial D said:


> I'm not. Leg sweeps work.



Ice cold.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 9, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That person can be the Aikido system.


I disagree. What one person does/doesn't do is not a way of defining the system. There are things I do that are not part of the NGA system. If I went and studied BJJ, I'd certainly still have in my bag a bunch of stuff not from BJJ - that doesn't suddenly make them BJJ (though if they work in that context, the folks around me will probably absorb them into BJJ).


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Nov 9, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> If I went and studied BJJ, I'd certainly still have in my bag a bunch of stuff not from BJJ - that doesn't suddenly make them BJJ (though if they work in that context, the folks around me will probably absorb them into BJJ).


Off the topic a little but I found this statement interesting.   I come from the school of thought that if I am training in something new, I need to 'empty my cup' to be able to comprehend what is being taught to me.   If I come in to the training with the perspective that I can use what I have learned from somewhere else, I may miss the subtleties of the lessons given.   Not to say we can be separated from our past experiences but I believe one of the challenges of picking up a new understanding of an MA is to immerse oneself in the lessons and to NOT allow past experiences to colour them until such time as you have mastered the basics.


----------



## Martial D (Nov 9, 2018)

Yokazuna514 said:


> Off the topic a little but I found this statement interesting.   I come from the school of thought that if I am training in something new, I need to 'empty my cup' to be able to comprehend what is being taught to me.   If I come in to the training with the perspective that I can use what I have learned from somewhere else, I may miss the subtleties of the lessons given.   Not to say we can be separated from our past experiences but I believe one of the challenges of picking up a new understanding of an MA is to immerse oneself in the lessons and to NOT allow past experiences to colour them until such time as you have mastered the basics.



BJJ is different in it's philosophical core than most systems though. 

Most systems are a proprietary set of interconnected techniques and the (sometimes) strategies to use them. 

BJJ is just an objective, or series of objectives. Get it to the ground, get superior position, get a submission. The best bjj techniques, or rather, the most effective bjj, is one that uses the most effective techniques. The origin and history of them isn't too important.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Nov 9, 2018)

Martial D said:


> BJJ is different in it's philosophical core than most systems though.
> 
> Most systems are a proprietary set of interconnected techniques and the (sometimes) strategies to use them.
> 
> BJJ is just an objective, or series of objectives. Get it to the ground, get superior position, get a submission. The best bjj techniques, or rather, the most effective bjj, is one that uses the most effective techniques. The origin and history of them isn't too important.


I'm not quite sure we are talking about the same thing.  I only meant to say, that I feel it is best to go into a MA with no preconceived notions from other systems you have trained in.  

I'm not certain if BJJ is any more different in its philosophical core than most systems.  Never thought of it in those terms.  On the surface, I would think every system can be described equally by stating they have an objective or series of objectives.   I would also tend to agree that the origin and history isn't important but then again, I think I am missing the context of this statement so I'm not 100% sure if I agree or disagree with this final thought.


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 9, 2018)

Bjj is a very eclectic system. Essentially if it works, and fits within Bjj's general objectives, it will be adopted. For example, if Aikido had some wrist locks that would make established positions stronger or weaker, Bjj would absorb it and make it its own.

Just like what happened with leg locks about 10 years ago. For whatever reason though, Wrist Locks never really caught fire in Bjj circles like leg locks did.


----------



## Martial D (Nov 9, 2018)

Yokazuna514 said:


> I'm not quite sure we are talking about the same thing.  I only meant to say, that I feel it is best to go into a MA with no preconceived notions from other systems you have trained in.
> 
> I'm not certain if BJJ is any more different in its philosophical core than most systems.  Never thought of it in those terms.  On the surface, I would think every system can be described equally by stating they have an objective or series of objectives.   I would also tend to agree that the origin and history isn't important but then again, I think I am missing the context of this statement so I'm not 100% sure if I agree or disagree with this final thought.


Oh no, I get you alright. I agree with the point of using an empty cup to learn new techniques. 

My point is that with bjj that isn't as important. If you have other stuff that works in a roll, it's helpful to bring it with you.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Nov 9, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Oh no, I get you alright. I agree with the point of using an empty cup to learn new techniques.
> 
> My point is that with bjj that isn't as important. If you have other stuff that works in a roll, it's helpful to bring it with you.


I'm intrigued by your supposition that bjj is different in this regard.  Will put more thought into it the next time I have a chance to roll.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 9, 2018)

Yokazuna514 said:


> 'empty my cup'.


Here is a good example that for some philosophy, if you look at from one angle, it makes sense. When you look at from a different angle, it doesn't.

If today you are a Christian liberal, tomorrow you will not suddenly become a Muslim conservative. Why? Because there is a such thing that's called "faith".


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Nov 9, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is a good example that for some philosophy, if you look at from one angle, it makes sense. When you look at from a different angle, it doesn't.
> 
> If today you are a Christian liberal, tomorrow you will not suddenly become a Muslim conservative. Why? Because there is a such thing that's called "faith".


I think language may be letting us down here because I have no idea what you are trying to say.  I do not understand the analogy that you are trying to make.  

If you are saying that two people can look at something and 'see' something completely different, I can understand that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 9, 2018)

Yokazuna514 said:


> Off the topic a little but I found this statement interesting.   I come from the school of thought that if I am training in something new, I need to 'empty my cup' to be able to comprehend what is being taught to me.   If I come in to the training with the perspective that I can use what I have learned from somewhere else, I may miss the subtleties of the lessons given.   Not to say we can be separated from our past experiences but I believe one of the challenges of picking up a new understanding of an MA is to immerse oneself in the lessons and to NOT allow past experiences to colour them until such time as you have mastered the basics.


During class, that'd be true. If I took up BJJ and competed - or even just during "serious" rolling in class - I'd use everything I have. I think that's pretty much in line with the way a lot of folks view BJJ, anyway: use what works. With 30 years in NGA, it's a cinch something would show up in my rolling, or perhaps in my takedowns. If nothing else, I'd occasionally want to try some of it out to see how it holds up against other folks in class.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 9, 2018)

Martial D said:


> BJJ is different in it's philosophical core than most systems though.
> 
> Most systems are a proprietary set of interconnected techniques and the (sometimes) strategies to use them.
> 
> BJJ is just an objective, or series of objectives. Get it to the ground, get superior position, get a submission. The best bjj techniques, or rather, the most effective bjj, is one that uses the most effective techniques. The origin and history of them isn't too important.


You said that better than I did.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 9, 2018)

Yokazuna514 said:


> I'm not quite sure we are talking about the same thing.  I only meant to say, that I feel it is best to go into a MA with no preconceived notions from other systems you have trained in.
> 
> I'm not certain if BJJ is any more different in its philosophical core than most systems.  Never thought of it in those terms.  On the surface, I would think every system can be described equally by stating they have an objective or series of objectives.   I would also tend to agree that the origin and history isn't important but then again, I think I am missing the context of this statement so I'm not 100% sure if I agree or disagree with this final thought.


The main difference I see is the willingness to both absorb and reject techniques. Most systems - and I speak here mainly of "traditional" systems from Asia, since that's my main experience - are not fast to do the former, and extremely reluctant to do the latter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 9, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is a good example that for some philosophy, if you look at from one angle, it makes sense. When you look at from a different angle, it doesn't.
> 
> If today you are a Christian liberal, tomorrow you will not suddenly become a Muslim conservative. Why? Because there is a such thing that's called "faith".


I fail to see the link to MA in that. Can you help me out?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 9, 2018)

Yokazuna514 said:


> I think language may be letting us down here because I have no idea what you are trying to say.  I do not understand the analogy that you are trying to make.
> 
> If you are saying that two people can look at something and 'see' something completely different, I can understand that.


Empty cut means to pour out all the content in that cup. What if that cup contains all your life saving?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 9, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Empty cut means to pour out all the content in that cup. What if that cup contains all your life saving?


I'm still not seeing the link to MA. I can walk into a class and set aside, as best I can, all that I know, and just try to learn what they are doing. I've done it many times when visiting other schools, attending seminars, etc. All that stuff I set aside isn't gone - I just don't leverage it during that time, and can go back to it later to figure out how to work it with the new material.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Nov 9, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> During class, that'd be true. If I took up BJJ and competed - or even just during "serious" rolling in class - I'd use everything I have. I think that's pretty much in line with the way a lot of folks view BJJ, anyway: use what works. With 30 years in NGA, it's a cinch something would show up in my rolling, or perhaps in my takedowns. If nothing else, I'd occasionally want to try some of it out to see how it holds up against other folks in class.


I am far from being able to say I have a great deal of experience in the BJJ community to know if this is true or not.  It may very well be ingrained in the culture but I would think that would be more prevalent in 10th Planet Jiujitsu vs BJJ from the Gracies or Machado where they seem to prize unorthodox techniques.   It's not my world so my opinion on it would be just as good as any other person who isn't immersed in the culture.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Nov 9, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> The main difference I see is the willingness to both absorb and reject techniques. Most systems - and I speak here mainly of "traditional" systems from Asia, since that's my main experience - are not fast to do the former, and extremely reluctant to do the latter.


I think most of these things exist on a spectrum in any event.  To say that BJJ has a more acceptable approach to this concept that other MA seems a little odd to me.  True, there are MA that are very strict in terms of their interpretation of technique but I would think that lies in a spectrum too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 9, 2018)

Yokazuna514 said:


> I am far from being able to say I have a great deal of experience in the BJJ community to know if this is true or not.  It may very well be ingrained in the culture but I would think that would be more prevalent in 10th Planet Jiujitsu vs BJJ from the Gracies or Machado where they seem to prize unorthodox techniques.   It's not my world so my opinion on it would be just as good as any other person who isn't immersed in the culture.


Could be. My exposure is all around the periphery, so this is just what I've perceived from the folks I've had a chance to roll with or chat with. I will say there's one branch of the Gracies (Ryron and Rener, I think?) where there's a pretty well-scripted first part of the curriculum, and I think _at least_ that portion is likely subject to the same tendencies as most TMA. Whether they hold that tendency later in the curriculum/ranks, I do not know.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 9, 2018)

Yokazuna514 said:


> I think most of these things exist on a spectrum in any event.  To say that BJJ has a more acceptable approach to this concept that other MA seems a little odd to me.  True, there are MA that are very strict in terms of their interpretation of technique but I would think that lies in a spectrum too.


I can agree with all that. It would probably be more accurate for me to say "on average" they are more wiling to absorb/reject, as compared to other styles from Japan/of Japanese derivation. Probably there are some within BJJ that are less willing than the average of JMA, and some within JMA who are more willing than the average of BJJ.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Nov 9, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Empty cut means to pour out all the content in that cup. What if that cup contains all your life saving?


Ok, yes, we both can agree with that definition.  The analogy is meant to demonstrate that an empty cup can be filled with more knowledge than a cup that is full.   Thus if you choose to 'empty your cup' you can learn more compared to someone who already has answers from training in another MA that may or may not be consistent to what is being taught in your new place.   

What I am describing is not an 'ultimate truth' but an approach to learning.   If you choose not to empty your cup, that would be your choice and I would be fine with that.  It would be interesting to see how far these two approaches would take each participant over time to see how both approaches worked out in the end.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 9, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I'm still not seeing the link to MA.


When you apply a hip throw, your

- old teacher taught you that you need to control your opponent's elbow joint.
- new teacher teach you that you need to control your opponent's wrist joint.

What will you do right at that moment? Change your normal elbow control to wrist control? Or "have faith" in your elbow control and believe it's the right thing to do.

Empty cut seems to allow anything to be poured into your cut. I just don't think that's a smart thing to do.

Trying to ask Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh to empty their cut when they talk to each other will never happen in this real world.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 9, 2018)

Yokazuna514 said:


> I'm not quite sure we are talking about the same thing.  I only meant to say, that I feel it is best to go into a MA with no preconceived notions from other systems you have trained in.
> 
> I'm not certain if BJJ is any more different in its philosophical core than most systems.  Never thought of it in those terms.  On the surface, I would think every system can be described equally by stating they have an objective or series of objectives.   I would also tend to agree that the origin and history isn't important but then again, I think I am missing the context of this statement so I'm not 100% sure if I agree or disagree with this final thought.



Bjj as a system is advanced by the students rather than the founders.


----------



## Yokozuna514 (Nov 9, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Bjj as a system is advanced by the students rather than the founders.


I still feel as if this statement can be applied to many MA and not only to BJJ.  Kyokushin has been advanced by its students as well.  There are probably many MA that have a large 'sport' aspect to them that prize innovation and functionality over the static repetition of movements created by the founder.  That is my only contention here.  BJJ does not hold the monopoly on the acceptance of innovation but this is also off topic as interesting as this discussion is.


----------



## Martial D (Nov 9, 2018)

Yokazuna514 said:


> I'm intrigued by your supposition that bjj is different in this regard.  Will put more thought into it the next time I have a chance to roll.


Not just bjj. Pretty much any system with a primary focus on competition is the same.

Boxing, muithai, kickboxing, MMA, Sanda, wrestling etc.

The difference is rather than focusing on a syllabus, you are focussing on improving your game..which leads to innovation. This is in Stark contrast to many traditional systems that discourage  changing the syllabus in any way, insisting that the parts that don't visibly 'work' actually have hidden, secret applications or some such thing, rather than bin them or modify them for effectiveness.

Pretty much any style that looks the same today as the day it was created(unless it was created today) fits that bill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 9, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you apply a hip throw, your
> 
> - old teacher taught you that you need to control your opponent's elbow joint.
> - new teacher teach you that you need to control your opponent's wrist joint.
> ...


Try the new way to see why they like it. It might be better, or might just give mean option for whenI end up with a wrist instead of a elbow. I don’t think it needs to be a matter of faith.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 9, 2018)

Yokazuna514 said:


> I still feel as if this statement can be applied to many MA and not only to BJJ.  Kyokushin has been advanced by its students as well.  There are probably many MA that have a large 'sport' aspect to them that prize innovation and functionality over the static repetition of movements created by the founder.  That is my only contention here.  BJJ does not hold the monopoly on the acceptance of innovation but this is also off topic as interesting as this discussion is.


Ah, if that was the impression I gave earlier (that this was unique to BJJ). I just consider BJJ a really good example of it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 9, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Try the new way to see why they like it. It might be better, or might just give mean option for whenI end up with a wrist instead of a elbow. I don’t think it needs to be a matter of faith.


What if you know the new way is wrong?

For example, you have always believed that "body should push/pull the limbs". One day a new teacher teaches you to "freeze your body and only move your arm". Will you "empty your cup" and allow the wrong idea to get into your cup?

Which one is more important?

1. Willing to empty your cup.
2. Have faith in your person believe.

If you want me to empty my cup, you have to show me you have something worthwhile for me to do so.

I had emptied my cup for MT roundhouse kick because it meets my believe that "body push/pull limbs".


----------



## geezer (Nov 9, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What if you know the new way is wrong?
> 
> For example, you have always believed that "body should push/pull the limbs". One day a new teacher teaches you to "freeze your body and only move your arm". Will you "empty your cup" and allow the wrong idea to get into your cup?
> 
> ...



This is a real problem. I think the way it's supposed to work is that if you observe that another style or system produces very desirable results, that you want to learn, then you will consciously set aside your preconceptions and "empty your cup" in order to learn those skills. However, if after a reasonable amount of time, you don't find the desired results worth the investment, a reasonable person will stop "investing in loss" and return to other training methods that yield success ...so, you "empty your cup" for a time and test out the new method, like a scientific experiment. Then gather your data, and determine whether the experiment validates the new method or not. 

Or, you could just become a "true believer" and empty out your common sense with along with your cup, and spend a lifetime pursuing fantasies. Speaking of which, has anybody watched the videos by "Martial Man" on this Adam Mizner guy? Guess I'm not totally ready to dump out my brains ...er "cup" on this stuff yet.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 9, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What if you know the new way is wrong?
> 
> For example, you have always believed that "body should push/pull the limbs". One day a new teacher teaches you to "freeze your body and only move your arm". Will you "empty your cup" and allow the wrong idea to get into your cup?
> 
> ...


Jeezuz, man.

If you feel you are being taught stuff that is incorrect, then stop learning it and go back to what you already know.

But IFFFF you decide to learn something new, you need to be willing to learn it on its own merits.  You need to be willing to understand the method on its own terms.  You don’t make it into a modified version of Shuai Jiao.  Otherwise you have learned nothing and there is no point to what you have done.

If you find compatibilities between the methods, that comes later after you understand the new method.

This really is not a difficult concept.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 9, 2018)

geezer said:


> Speaking of which, has anybody watched the videos by "Martial Man" on this Adam Mizner guy? Guess I'm not totally ready to dump out my brains ...er "cup" on this stuff yet.


I'm a strong believer that one should keep his friend close but his enemy closer.

One time if I didn't stopped one guy from getting back to his car, I could be killed that day. That guy had a hand gun in his glove compartment. He tried to get back to his car. I got hold of him until the police came.

If a MA style teaches me how to push my opponent away, I don't even have to try it. I already know that I won't like it.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 9, 2018)

So we need to look at the evidence rather than preconceptions or dogma.

Big surprise there.

High kicks for example. The preconception is you can't do them or you will be taken down.

The reality is different.


----------



## MetalBoar (Nov 9, 2018)

drop bear said:


> So we need to look at the evidence rather than preconceptions or dogma.
> 
> Big surprise there.
> 
> ...


Well, I have the preconception that if I do high kicks I'll be taken down.

The reality is, if I do high kicks I'll take MYSELF down!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 9, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What if you know the new way is wrong?
> 
> For example, you have always believed that "body should push/pull the limbs". One day a new teacher teaches you to "freeze your body and only move your arm". Will you "empty your cup" and allow the wrong idea to get into your cup?
> 
> ...


If the new way is wrong, I'll figure it out by trying it out. Not trying something new assumes it is less valuable than something I already know. And I don't like making assumptions in either direction on that. Information removes the need to assume.

I empty my cup every time I step into a learning situation as a student, unless and until I see a benefit to bringing what I already know. If I'm not going to do that, there's not much sense in stepping in as a student.


----------



## Finlay (Nov 13, 2018)

What do people think of this:






There seems to be less co operation with techniques and the guys seem to actually have to work for the movement in some ways. 

I think i heard somewhere that the Tomiki style of Aikido is not thought so highly of among other branches of Aikido. Would be interested to hear opinions


----------



## _Simon_ (Nov 13, 2018)

Finlay said:


> What do people think of this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was darn cool to watch! I didn't even know there were aikido tournaments, but it makes sense! What was the stick they had? And did they have to disarm them, or take them down?

It very much resembled judo in ways. Very cool


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 13, 2018)

Finlay said:


> What do people think of this:


I'm very surprised to see that the Chinese wresting single leg (push shoulder, pull leg) has been used in this clip over and over. I don't see it used very much in MMA, BJJ, Judo, or western wrestling.






Here is the Chinese wrestling single leg.


----------



## dunc (Nov 13, 2018)

I never really liked the phrase "empty the cup" as it has an hint of blind faith about it

I prefer "open minded critical thinking"


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 13, 2018)

dunc said:


> I never really liked the phrase "empty the cup" as it has an hint of blind faith about it
> 
> I prefer "open minded critical thinking"


How many times do you want to pour your water out of your cup in your life time? One day when you are 80, will you empty your cup for a 20 years old?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 13, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm very surprised to see that the Chinese wresting single leg (push shoulder, pull leg) has been used in this clip over and over. I don't see it used very much in MMA, BJJ, Judo, or western wrestling.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The second one gets used a bit. It is called a knee tap,





I use it off a failed single leg,


----------



## Hanzou (Nov 13, 2018)

Finlay said:


> What do people think of this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, that stuff isn't bad. However, it's just not as refined as what you see out of Judo or Bjj.

It wouldn't surprise me if the more traditional styles of Aikido look down on Tomiki style. Ueshiba supposedly detested competitive sports.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 13, 2018)

Finlay said:


> What do people think of this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't get to see a lot of the flowing, smooth movements, and the competitions are somehow contrary to how many folks see Aikido, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Tomiki branch is less accepted. Personally, I quite like seeing them pull off those techniques. Much more Judo-ish than most of Aikido. I think what holds it back from developing further is they seem to be trying to hold to the "Aikido techniques", rather than working on developing aiki with any techniques that would work in that competition context.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 13, 2018)

dunc said:


> I never really liked the phrase "empty the cup" as it has an hint of blind faith about it
> 
> I prefer "open minded critical thinking"


I've never found anything about blind faith in "empty the cup". It's more about taking the time to learn something before trying to alter or judge it. And that's important if you're trying to learn something. The purpose of a movement, drill, or instruction might not be immediately clear, and it might even seem stupid or "wrong" to someone with other information. So, if I go into a new style and start judging everything by what I already know - maybe deciding I already have a better technique than that - then I never get to learn anything well enough to find out how good it actually is (or isn't).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 13, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How many times do you want to pour your water out of your cup in your life time? One day when you are 80, will you empty your cup for a 20 years old?


If I want to learn a new style - even for the day - then yes.


----------



## Finlay (Nov 14, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How many times do you want to pour your water out of your cup in your life time? One day when you are 80, will you empty your cup for a 20 years old?




I can empty my cup... but i keep the cup and it changes as i get older


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 14, 2018)

Finlay said:


> What do people think of this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like what I’ve seen of Tomiki Aikido. If there was a good school near me I would want to check it out.



Hanzou said:


> Yeah, that stuff isn't bad. However, it's just not as refined as what you see out of Judo or Bjj.


Tomiki has a much smaller competitive talent pool to draw on than Judo or BJJ, so it doesn’t surprise me that they may not have had as much technical development. However the difference in competition rules means that they are developing some skills that you don’t see used as much in Judo and BJJ. Specifically, they spend more time working on entering and finishing a takedown from distance rather than staying clinched. There are real world situations where that could come in handy. The bare hands vs knife rules nerf the knife wielder considerably compared to reality (otherwise the guy with the knife would win 95% of the time), but I can see where that style of sparring would do a lot to develop functionality in a certain style of defense against a certain style of knife attack.

BJJ and Judo handle their respective domains very well. I’m always interested to see what people can do within a different set of limitations.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 16, 2018)

Steve said:


> what?  This is a pretty silly argument to make.  It is literally an attempt to legitimize superstition .



You got me on that one.  Can you elaborate so I understand what you are trying to say.  Please use simple words to help me.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 16, 2018)

Yokazuna514 said:


> Perhaps in the context of your discussion these characterizations make sense but the way you describe the philosophy of Christianity is incorrect.   The philosophy of Christianity as it pertains to other religions is the idea of having 'one God' as opposed to a 'pantheon' of Gods AND the idea that one should 'turn the other cheek' when facing transgression.
> 
> There are perhaps sects in Christianity that vehemently believe that all other Gods are fake but this is not a concept that is widely accepted by Christians.  Not to turn your discussion to religion but essentially the concept you outlined for Christian philosophy was not a widely held belief.



@Kung Fu Wang I agree your statement of a philosophy of Christianity is incorrect.

@Yokazuna514, Well there are many religions that are loosely based on Christianity.  But what would normally be accepted as main stream, would not say they believing in one God (which it does) is a philosophy so much as a tenant of faith.  

Turning the other cheek was part of the Sermon on the Mount.  There is debate on what is meant, is it a literal teaching or intended as an example of being willing not to be confrontational with evil or evil doers, and set a better example?  But again, not a philosophy so much as a teaching of a better way to live.

And I know of no main stream, nor even many way out of the main stream religion that would accept that there are many gods that are not fake.  I believe that would be anathema to Bible believing Christians.

Note that like you, I don't intend to turn this thread to a debate on Christianity, simply give my beliefs as you have given yours.  Others can accept them or not, and I mean no argument with anyone else''s beliefs.  We all get to make those choices of beliefs, just as some of us believe in ki and some don't.  Ki isn't a religious belief, but it is one that is accepted on faith and by observed application (at least for me).  I cannot prove it any more than anyone else can disprove it.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Nov 16, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I've never found anything about blind faith in "empty the cup". It's more about taking the time to learn something* before trying to alter or judge it.* And that's important if you're trying to learn something. The purpose of a movement, drill, or instruction might not be immediately clear, and it might even seem stupid or "wrong" to someone with other information. So, if I go into a new style and start judging everything by what I already know - maybe deciding I already have a better technique than that - then I never get to learn anything well enough to find out how good it actually is (or isn't).



I agree.  Until we try a new concept with an open mind, I don't think we are sufficiently knowledgeable to really say it isn't good.  Maybe only for us, but without that "emptying of the cup," we may miss something that seemed utterly stupid at first, but turns out to be very useful in some if not all circumstances.  Or of course, we may decide it isn't a good concept and we already know better; but we have the experience to justify saying that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 16, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> I agree.  Until we try a new concept with an open mind, I don't think we are sufficiently knowledgeable to really say it isn't good.  Maybe only for us, but without that "emptying of the cup," we may miss something that seemed utterly stupid at first, but turns out to be very useful in some if not all circumstances.  Or of course, we may decide it isn't a good concept and we already know better; but we have the experience to justify saying that.


Yep, that's what I was getting at. Mind you, I don't have an issue with someone who decides there's not enough evidence (for their use) to suggest something is worth learning. But once you decide to dig into something, often the only way to judge it well is to learn enough to make an informed decision. And you can't do that if you compare each new thing to what you know, to decide if what you know is better_ before_ you know how to do the new thing properly. In most cases, throws I already know will be much easier for me to apply than a new throw I learn. But if I put in the effort to learn the new throw well enough to get to application, it might become more useful than something I have now.


----------

