# How appliable is aikido for self-defense?



## kehcorpz

Is aikido more about competitions and not really focused on real self-defense?

And how long does it take to learn enough aikido stuff so that you could defend yourself?

Does aikido also offer solutions for ground fighting?

Also, how hard is aikido on the body? Are you likely to hurt yourself when you're being thrown over
someone's shoulder? Since I'm rather fragile I don't know if I could even withstand such a training. 

I think aikido looks pretty interesting but I don't know if it's good for self-defense.


----------



## Flying Crane

Aikido is no good for you.

Move along.


----------



## kehcorpz

Really, why? 

My list of possible martial arts for self-defense is getting really short now.


----------



## Flying Crane

There is no possibility for you.  Throw your list away.


----------



## Tez3

This is not the martial art you are looking for.


----------



## Paul_D

Tez3 said:


> This is not the martial art you are looking for.


You will bring Captain Solo and the Wookiee to me.


----------



## Flying Crane

"If the door is locked, move on to the next one."

That was actually said by one storm trooper to another, while going door-to-door searching for R2D2 and C3PO in the spaceport on Tattooine.  Who would have guessed it would be so easy to evade the Empire?


----------



## Flying Crane

"Luke, at that speed do you think you can pull out in time?"

"You came in THAT thing?  You are braver than I thought."

Ya know, just because.


----------



## pgsmith

Flying Crane said:


> "Luke, at that speed do you think you can pull out in time?"
> 
> "You came in THAT thing?  You are braver than I thought."
> 
> Ya know, just because.



  So .... were those from the 'X' rated version that I didn't see, or do I just have a dirty mind?


----------



## Flying Crane

pgsmith said:


> So .... were those from the 'X' rated version that I didn't see, or do I just have a dirty mind?


No, those are real quotes from the original.

What you may read into them, taken out of context, is entirely up to you...


----------



## JR 137

You really mean to tell us you haven't yet found an aikido sucks video?

You're better than that.


----------



## Jenna

kehcorpz said:


> Is aikido more about competitions and not really focused on real self-defense?
> 
> And how long does it take to learn enough aikido stuff so that you could defend yourself?
> 
> Does aikido also offer solutions for ground fighting?
> 
> Also, how hard is aikido on the body? Are you likely to hurt yourself when you're being thrown over
> someone's shoulder? Since I'm rather fragile I don't know if I could even withstand such a training.
> 
> I think aikido looks pretty interesting but I don't know if it's good for self-defense.


Most Aikido with the exception of Shodokan is not competitive.  It is generally not the ethos of Aikido as it was designed by Ueshiba to be competitive.

How long does it take to learn Aikido to defend your self?  How long is the definition of pi?  That is a facetious answer, however it is a question with many inherent variables to make a clearer answer.  For any given person, it will take as long as any other martial art to learn.  It is no quicker and no slower.

Does it offer solutions for ground fighting?  Yes, though if you want to do ground fighting you would surely learn BJJ or something like that, no?  Aikido is a stand up art. 

How hard is Aikido on the body? You learn proper ukemi first so you will not hurt your self in a fall.  Nobody will throw you before you know good ukemi.  Your wrists will certainly hurt in the beginning though. If you are a fragile person, sterngthen your wrists prior, esp torsional/rotational strengthening.  There are good videos else where.

Your last point, why do you imagine it is that Aikido might be not good for SD?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

kehcorpz said:


> Is aikido more about competitions and not really focused on real self-defense?
> 
> And how long does it take to learn enough aikido stuff so that you could defend yourself?
> 
> Does aikido also offer solutions for ground fighting?
> 
> Also, how hard is aikido on the body? Are you likely to hurt yourself when you're being thrown over
> someone's shoulder? Since I'm rather fragile I don't know if I could even withstand such a training.
> 
> I think aikido looks pretty interesting but I don't know if it's good for self-defense.


Aikido - like every other art - will be useless to you and anyone else who never studies it.


----------



## hoshin1600

Jenna said:


> How long does it take to learn Aikido to defend your self? , ..... it is a question with many inherent variables to make a clearer answer. For any given person, it will take as long as any other martial art to learn. It is no quicker and no slower.



This is a common answer and a common mistake in thinking. It's somthing I have been pointing out in a few threads now.
Jenna, I am not picking on you. Just using your comments as a starting point and an example .
Notice how the words in the comment,  defend yourself and learn (as in learn the art) are used interchangeably.  These are actually two separate things but people seem to think one equates the other. They dont. Learning your art, in this case I will uses as example irimi nage, implies memorizing all the different ways it can be done and honing the skill of the technique. This is totally separate from actual application.  Learning the techniques only get you half way there. So it would be a mistaken belief that you are able to use it for real.


----------



## Jenna

hoshin1600 said:


> This is a common answer and a common mistake in thinking. It's somthing I have been pointing out in a few threads now.
> Jenna, I am not picking on you. Just using your comments as a starting point and an example .
> Notice how the words in the comment,  defend yourself and learn (as in learn the art) are used interchangeably.  These are actually two separate things but people seem to think one equates the other. They dont. Learning your art, in this case I will uses as example irimi nage, implies memorizing all the different ways it can be done and honing the skill of the technique. This is totally separate from actual application.  Learning the techniques only get you half way there. So it would be a mistaken belief that you are able to use it for real.


Hi, yes I hope I understand what you are saying, though I would say to you that for me always, to learn an Aikido technique was to learn how to use it EXACTLY TO DEFEND my self.  I would have had no other reason to want to know techniques??  Perhaps there are other reasons for learning Aikido?

For me that was why I trained Aikido, it was a means to an troubling end when I was younger.

I would further argue though that Aikido is an wholly defensive art.  Therefore, to have insufficient knowledge of any technique to deploy it in a non-dojo situation is not to have learned that technique at all. In other words, to use your wording, if you are not able to use your irimi nage for real, you have not learned irimi nage at all. You do not agree with me??


----------



## Argus

Jenna said:


> Hi, yes I hope I understand what you are saying, though I would say to you that for me always, to learn an Aikido technique was to learn how to use it EXACTLY TO DEFEND my self.  I would have had no other reason to want to know techniques??  Perhaps there are other reasons for learning Aikido?
> 
> For me that was why I trained Aikido, it was a means to an troubling end when I was younger.
> 
> I would further argue though that Aikido is an wholly defensive art.  Therefore, to have insufficient knowledge of any technique to deploy it in a non-dojo situation is not to have learned that technique at all. In other words, to use your wording, if you are not able to use your irimi nage for real, you have not learned irimi nage at all. You do not agree with me??



I think that application requires a broader experience than just gaining the knowledge or ability to perform a task.

Let's see if I can come up with some good examples...

Okay, programming. Or language learning, even. Yeah - let's use learning a foreign language as an example.

Very few people, even after taking years of classes, are able to speak a foreign language. Actually, I would contend that *noone* can speak a _foreign_ language, but that sentence is misleading without further explanation. More on that later.

It seems that people think that some day, after having mastered all of the content in their textbooks, they will magically be able to speak a foreign language. Usually, they wait until this theoretical moment to use and practice the language outside of the confines of classes and textbooks, because when they hear/read/try to speak it in the real world, it is still much to difficult for them to understand; there's too much adversity. 

But, there's a problem with this approach. Textbooks and classes can be helpful for teaching you the fundamental skills; for giving you the basic knowledge and understanding -- a framework, if you will. But you absolutely have to expand on that knowledge and learn to utilize that framework in the adversity of the real world to make it functional. Language encompasses every aspect of human experience; every emotion, every thought, every thing and every action or condition that we might experience in life. That's far more than anyone could ever pack into any class or textbook, and it's something that you can only gain from using the language in the real world. There's lots of adversity to overcome at first. You won't have the words or the natural expressions to express yourself and your ideas, and you will struggle letting your personality come through. You will struggle using the language naturally, and adapting to any conversation or contect. This is because you have not yet made the language _yours; _it's still foreign to you. It's still a foreign language; one that you have knowledge of, and even competency in; you might even ace a grammar test, but you have not yet made the language your own. To do that, you have to struggle and use it, and use it, and use it in all of the diverse and adverse situations that you have never experienced before. You have to experience every facet of life once again through and in that new language, so that it becomes as intimate and familiar as your first language. It has to cease to become a foreign language, and become a part of you. 

The same is true of martial arts which might be useful in self defense. The demands of self defense in the real world go far beyond what one might practice in the dojo. Traditional practice in the dojo does impart skill and understanding which may be of some applicable use in the real world, but it will be awkward and clumsy and unreliable until you have honed it through a diverse array of real world experience and adversity, or at least come close in your training to replicating and addressing these things. Your average person speaks a very different "language" physically than your fellow aikidoka does, and will not respond or act like your training partners; it's kind of like bringing your textbook Japanese to Japan, only to find that people don't quite speak like that in the real world, and having to adapt. If you've never experienced it before, it will take quite a bit of time to familiarize yourself with and adapt, but your formal knowledge base will serve you well in doing so.


----------



## hoshin1600

If you want an idea of how well your aikido will work, go to an MMA gym or take an okinawan karate class.  Try your aiki on non aikidoka.  Same for any style work with someone from an other style. See how well it works out for you.


----------



## Tez3

hoshin1600 said:


> If you want an idea of how well your aikido will work, go to an MMA gym or take an okinawan karate class.  Try your aiki on non aikidoka.  Same for any style work with someone from an other style. See how well it works out for you.



Our instructor has quite a lot of Aikido which he does use on our MMA fighters and it works very well to their surprise. He also uses it when he's on the doors in what is a very rough area.


----------



## hoshin1600

Tez3 said:


> Our instructor has quite a lot of Aikido which he does use on our MMA fighters and it works very well to their surprise. He also uses it when he's on the doors in what is a very rough area.



That's great. Aikido is part of my own curriculum. I just find that to make it street ready you have to step out of the  bubble of the aiki dojo.  When you need it and your life may be depending on it is not the time you want to be figuring out the details and nuances.


----------



## KangTsai

I am absolutely sure aikido has some applicable techniques. However those techniques are shared with other martial arts I believe is more worth your time.

 Being thrown on soft mats don't hurt that much. 

Also, competitive aikido is a watered down version of competitive judo without submissions.


----------



## Chris Parker

KangTsai said:


> I am absolutely sure aikido has some applicable techniques.



Techniques aren't the important thing… 



KangTsai said:


> However those techniques are shared with other martial arts I believe is more worth your time.



How so? Considering that the primary role of a martial arts techniques is to give you a particular tactical response?



KangTsai said:


> Being thrown on soft mats don't hurt that much.



You get that the throw happens because you're having your wrist broken… and the "throw" (as well as the soft mats) are so you and your partner can practice that safely and repeatedly, yeah? 



KangTsai said:


> Also, competitive aikido is a watered down version of competitive judo without submissions.



Please back this up, as it can be seen as a rather inflammatory (and hugely inaccurate) statement… neither of which are really ideal here…


----------



## Tez3

KangTsai said:


> Being thrown on soft mats don't hurt that much.



Clearly you have never been thrown by someone who is really good, it also depends on whether you know how to breakfall or not. We had a chap who didn't know and when he was thrown he landed with his head first and KO'd himself, serves him right though for thinking that being thrown as you say on 'soft' mats was easy. Not that our mats are actually soft, softer than the ground but not pillow soft lol.


----------



## KangTsai

Tez3 said:


> Clearly you have never been thrown by someone who is really good, it also depends on whether you know how to breakfall or not. We had a chap who didn't know and when he was thrown he landed with his head first and KO'd himself, serves him right though for thinking that being thrown as you say on 'soft' mats was easy. Not that our mats are actually soft, softer than the ground but not pillow soft lol.


I have been hip and arm thrown on a mat with softness just enough to make your ankles ache when you box on top of it for too long. Also I do know how to break falls for the most part, it was the first thing I learned right before a takedown.


----------



## KangTsai

Chris Parker said:


> Techniques aren't the important thing…
> 
> 
> 
> How so? Considering that the primary role of a martial arts techniques is to give you a particular tactical response?
> 
> 
> 
> You get that the throw happens because you're having your wrist broken… and the "throw" (as well as the soft mats) are so you and your partner can pPlease back this up, as it can be seen as a rather inflammatory (and hugely inaccurate) statement… neither of which are really ideal here…





Chris Parker said:


> Please back this up, as it can be seen as a rather inflammatory (and hugely inaccurate) statement… neither of which are really ideal here…



Yep this was inaccurate and I do apologise. The competitive tomiki style includes one designated attacker with a "knife," and only allows 17 techniques. Universally, not just in this style, aikido rulesets state that force applied beyond scoring a point in prohibited; a takedown is a point, is broken up immediately, and there are no submission techniques written as scoring moves.


----------



## Tez3

KangTsai said:


> I have been hip and arm thrown on a mat with softness just enough to make your ankles ache when you box on top of it for too long. Also I do know how to break falls for the most part, it was the first thing I learned right before a takedown.



I didn't say you didn't know how to breakfall, I said that if you ( the generic 'you' not personal) don't it hurts a lot. I can't see how your ankles aching when you are boxing though is relevant, being slammed on your back or side with enough force to wind you won't affect your ankles.


----------



## KangTsai

Tez3 said:


> I didn't say you didn't know how to breakfall, I said that if you ( the generic 'you' not personal) don't it hurts a lot. I can't see how your ankles aching when you are boxing though is relevant, being slammed on your back or side with enough force to wind you won't affect your ankles.



By that I meant that the mat is soft to a degree that my foot slightly sinks into the surface when standing so it strains sometime when boxing while fast, reactive footwork is key and I'm always on my toes.


----------



## Chris Parker

KangTsai said:


> Yep this was inaccurate and I do apologise. The competitive tomiki style includes one designated attacker with a "knife," and only allows 17 techniques. Universally, not just in this style, aikido rulesets state that force applied beyond scoring a point in prohibited; a takedown is a point, is broken up immediately, and there are no submission techniques written as scoring moves.



Tomiki Aikido (Shudokan) is the only competitive form of the art… and to use the rule set of one system to judge another is not an accurate way to do things…so, while Kenji Tomiki was both a Judoka and Aikidoka, and it was his Judo training that inspired much of his ideals with a competitive format, that doesn't mean that it's even close to Judo competition in application, form, design, ideology, and more.

There are no such things as "Aikido rulesets" stating anything you're suggesting, is what I'm getting at… there are no "points" that are scored, so nothing you put there is accurate at all.


----------



## Tez3

KangTsai said:


> By that I meant that the mat is soft to a degree that my foot slightly sinks into the surface when standing so it strains sometime when boxing while fast, reactive footwork is key and I'm always on my toes.



Ah I see, cheers for clearing that up. I've never been on mats that soft before, we've got two types, jigsaw and quite hard, heavy old fashioned Judo mats.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Argus said:


> I think that application requires a broader experience than just gaining the knowledge or ability to perform a task.
> 
> Let's see if I can come up with some good examples...
> 
> Okay, programming. Or language learning, even. Yeah - let's use learning a foreign language as an example.
> 
> Very few people, even after taking years of classes, are able to speak a foreign language. Actually, I would contend that *noone* can speak a _foreign_ language, but that sentence is misleading without further explanation. More on that later.
> 
> It seems that people think that some day, after having mastered all of the content in their textbooks, they will magically be able to speak a foreign language. Usually, they wait until this theoretical moment to use and practice the language outside of the confines of classes and textbooks, because when they hear/read/try to speak it in the real world, it is still much to difficult for them to understand; there's too much adversity.
> 
> But, there's a problem with this approach. Textbooks and classes can be helpful for teaching you the fundamental skills; for giving you the basic knowledge and understanding -- a framework, if you will. But you absolutely have to expand on that knowledge and learn to utilize that framework in the adversity of the real world to make it functional. Language encompasses every aspect of human experience; every emotion, every thought, every thing and every action or condition that we might experience in life. That's far more than anyone could ever pack into any class or textbook, and it's something that you can only gain from using the language in the real world. There's lots of adversity to overcome at first. You won't have the words or the natural expressions to express yourself and your ideas, and you will struggle letting your personality come through. You will struggle using the language naturally, and adapting to any conversation or contect. This is because you have not yet made the language _yours; _it's still foreign to you. It's still a foreign language; one that you have knowledge of, and even competency in; you might even ace a grammar test, but you have not yet made the language your own. To do that, you have to struggle and use it, and use it, and use it in all of the diverse and adverse situations that you have never experienced before. You have to experience every facet of life once again through and in that new language, so that it becomes as intimate and familiar as your first language. It has to cease to become a foreign language, and become a part of you.
> 
> The same is true of martial arts which might be useful in self defense. The demands of self defense in the real world go far beyond what one might practice in the dojo. Traditional practice in the dojo does impart skill and understanding which may be of some applicable use in the real world, but it will be awkward and clumsy and unreliable until you have honed it through a diverse array of real world experience and adversity, or at least come close in your training to replicating and addressing these things. Your average person speaks a very different "language" physically than your fellow aikidoka does, and will not respond or act like your training partners; it's kind of like bringing your textbook Japanese to Japan, only to find that people don't quite speak like that in the real world, and having to adapt. If you've never experienced it before, it will take quite a bit of time to familiarize yourself with and adapt, but your formal knowledge base will serve you well in doing so.


I think the comparison to a foreign language is apt. And after studying in classes (never visiting a fracophone country), I was able to translate for someone who visited the hotel I worked at in college. Was I great at it? No. But then I'd only had a few years of experience and not a lot of practice.

I don't think there's any way to say that "a diverse array of real world experience" is necessary nor to measure its helpfulness, since most people will never have a chance to gain such a diverse array in the real world - at most, they can expect to use their physical skills once or twice unless they are a bouncer, LEO, or other profession that puts them in those situations on a regular basis. Does real world experience help? Yes, that seems almost certain, but it's impossible to tell how much. It might be a lot. It might be a little. There are too many other factors at play to make a valid conclusion on that, since we can find plenty of examples of martial artists from TMAs and similar training who competently handled themselves in real world situations without having any past experience in real world situations of physical defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KangTsai said:


> I am absolutely sure aikido has some applicable techniques. However those techniques are shared with other martial arts I believe is more worth your time.
> 
> Being thrown on soft mats don't hurt that much.
> 
> Also, competitive aikido is a watered down version of competitive judo without submissions.


No, being thrown on soft mats doesn't hurt much, and I'm not sure why that's relevant to a discussion of defense applicability. That's why they are used - so we can take those throws over and over, to get more practice. Taking the throw isn't the part that the student is learning for dealing with an attacker (since the attacker is highly unlikely to bring throwing skills). The throwing is the part of that pairing they are learning to use for defense, and the mats provide the ability to practice that more.


----------



## hoshin1600

in my opinion,  soft mats are cheep and horrible. you get broken toes all the time and your impact points like hips, shoulders and sometimes elbows and knees tend to go right to the sub surface floor.
but to the actual point, what does matting have to do with anything ?   ive worked out on good and bad mats, carpet covered concrete, wood flooring, a specialized rubber vinyl floor for dance, outdoor dirt and grass and even done grappling on the broken up pavement in the parking lot behind the building.  it does effect your training but not in the way you are implying.  training on concrete and asphalt only decreases attendance and those that stay are the ones that ate lead paint chips as a child and been dropped on their head to many times.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> in my opinion,  soft mats are cheep and horrible. you get broken toes all the time and your impact points like hips, shoulders and sometimes elbows and knees tend to go right to the sub surface floor.
> but to the actual point, what does matting have to do with anything ?   ive worked out on good and bad mats, carpet covered concrete, wood flooring, a specialized rubber vinyl floor for dance, outdoor dirt and grass and even done grappling on the broken up pavement in the parking lot behind the building.  it does effect your training but not in the way you are implying.  training on concrete and asphalt only decreases attendance and those that stay are the ones that ate lead paint chips as a child and been dropped on their head to many times.


I'm curious about your first sentence on this one. Perhaps you and I have a different opinion of what is "soft"? The mats I'm currently using (admittedly quite cheap) are very soft to me, but there is no penetration to feel the concrete floor under them. If I set up my older mats (dual-density Swain home mats) next to them, the difference is simply how much of the impact is absorbed (far more in the softer, thicker mats) and the squishiness underfoot. By your description of toe issues, I suspect you're talking about mats even softer than these, which do sound horrible. My personal preference is for somethimg akin to the 2" mats Swain and Zebra offer, which are much firmer than the ones I'm using, but the students prefer the softer ones.


----------



## hoshin1600

I have visited dojos where the mats feel like your walking on sofa cushions. many schools can't afford decent mats and at times they use the older elementary school gym mats or worse and use make shift egg crate covered by vinyl.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I'm curious about your first sentence on this one. Perhaps you and I have a different opinion of what is "soft"? The mats I'm currently using (admittedly quite cheap) are very soft to me, but there is no penetration to feel the concrete floor under them. If I set up my older mats (dual-density Swain home mats) next to them, the difference is simply how much of the impact is absorbed (far more in the softer, thicker mats) and the squishiness underfoot. By your description of toe issues, I suspect you're talking about mats even softer than these, which do sound horrible. My personal preference is for somethimg akin to the 2" mats Swain and Zebra offer, which are much firmer than the ones I'm using, but the students prefer the softer ones.


Wrestling mats will catch your toes.   When I first began training, we had wrestling mats which were very soft.   I caught and broke my little toes so many times, my career as a foot model is over forever.   

When the school moved, we went to zebra mats, which are firmer, but the tatami surface can give the top of your foot a nice friction burn every once in a while.   I'll take that over the broken toe any day, though.


----------



## Argus

gpseymour said:


> I think the comparison to a foreign language is apt. And after studying in classes (never visiting a fracophone country), I was able to translate for someone who visited the hotel I worked at in college. Was I great at it? No. But then I'd only had a few years of experience and not a lot of practice.
> 
> I don't think there's any way to say that "a diverse array of real world experience" is necessary nor to measure its helpfulness, since most people will never have a chance to gain such a diverse array in the real world - at most, they can expect to use their physical skills once or twice unless they are a bouncer, LEO, or other profession that puts them in those situations on a regular basis. Does real world experience help? Yes, that seems almost certain, but it's impossible to tell how much. It might be a lot. It might be a little. There are too many other factors at play to make a valid conclusion on that, since we can find plenty of examples of martial artists from TMAs and similar training who competently handled themselves in real world situations without having any past experience in real world situations of physical defense.



When I say a "diverse array of real world experience" in the context of training Martial Arts, I should probably better define this, because, of course, I'm not expecting practitioners to go out and get in street fights or some nonsense, nor do I think such experience should be limited to LEO and bouncers. What I mean is practicing in a RBSD sort of setting/environment, or even just varying your training with your friends and experimenting; learning to deal with things intuitively, and becoming familiar with using the concepts and instilled habits of your art freely.

The trap that I think many Aikidoka and even TMA artists in general fall into is just practicing rigid technique where A does X and B does Y. I'm speaking of training where A does, and continues to do whatever he/she can to challenge B, and B learns to adapt and flow. But this should not take the form of mutual sparring, if you are attempting to practice skills that may be useful for self-protection (and a sparring format is not really suited to Aikido in the first place) -- rather, A should consciously take the role of the attacker and focus on developing his/her training partner. It's useful to do this with people who have not trained your particular art, because often trained habits of an uke are very different from that of your average person, or even martial artist, and you may find that you have difficulty making many of your locks/controls/throws/etc. work, and need to adapt.

I'm surprised that you had such success with translating French, though! I've mostly studied languages that are not in any way related to English, so I suppose it's more difficult to adapt with them. Granted, you can get by with really basic fluency if you're very creative and are just using communication as a basic means to an end. As for actually being able to use a language naturally and being able to engage in a diverse array of settings and activities that you might meet in every day life with fluency, I still stand by my assertion that you have to experience and familiarize yourself with those things, and I think our goal in martial arts should be somewhat similar.

I think that most people over specialize and refine their practice, whereas our true aim should be to diversify it and make it naturally intuitive and adaptive to any situation (as opposed to one, very specific situation/context). Martial Arts should impart general concepts, mindset, skill, and ability, rather than specific recipes.

One more quick analogy; cooking.

Most people are quite fond of cooking with recipes, and I think that is a sort of low-level, unreliable, and unskilled method of cooking. Recipes are aids for beginners or people who haven't made a particular dish before, but we should aim to be able to cook intuitively, and adapt to the situation (what ingredients we may or may not have at hand).

I actually get quite frustrated with recipes, because it's sometimes difficult to separate the essence of a recipe from the fluff. Recipes given to you might often be very complex and specific, with lots of ingredients and specified amounts. But what ingredients are non-essential additions? What other ingredients might the recipe benefit from? What ingredients are essential for the essence of the dish? What substitutes might work? How might the amounts vary, depending on the quantity that I am making or the varying strength or size of my ingredients? What do I do when I follow the recipe to the T and for some reason it just tastes bland, or the flavors are out of balance?

Formal training is like giving someone a handful of recipes. But how does one use them in real life, intuitively? By becoming familiar with cooking, and the ingredients as a whole, using the general concepts and guidelines found in those recipes. You learn what components are essential, what ingredients are related and how they interact or balance out one another; you get an intuitive feel for how much of this or that to add, and how to balance out flavors when something is amiss. And, you develop an intuition that can go beyond the scope of your current list of recipes, and can create entirely new things on the fly. 

I'm to the point with cooking that, at most, I will glance over recipes for inspiration, if I consult them at all. I don't measure anything, and I can come up with something almost regardless what ingredients I have at hand. I regularly experiment and rely solely on intuition and experience, and rarely do even my boldest experiments go awry.

Martial Arts are no different -- at least, for me, and my goal is to develop them in the same way that I've developed my culinary skills. I want not just the curricula, but the essence of what that curricula is meant to impart.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> I have visited dojos where the mats feel like your walking on sofa cushions. many schools can't afford decent mats and at times they use the older elementary school gym mats or worse and use make shift egg crate covered by vinyl.


Okay, yes. That sounds horrible. I'm now imagining trying to pivot properly on my couch. When my wife complains about my new practice regimen, I'm blaming you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Wrestling mats will catch your toes.   When I first began training, we had wrestling mats which were very soft.   I caught and broke my little toes so many times, my career as a foot model is over forever.
> 
> When the school moved, we went to zebra mats, which are firmer, but the tatami surface can give the top of your foot a nice friction burn every once in a while.   I'll take that over the broken toe any day, though.


Apparently I've never been on a wrestling mat like that one. It sounds doubleplus ungood.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Argus said:


> When I say a "diverse array of real world experience" in the context of training Martial Arts, I should probably better define this, because, of course, I'm not expecting practitioners to go out and get in street fights or some nonsense, nor do I think such experience should be limited to LEO and bouncers. What I mean is practicing in a RBSD sort of setting/environment, or even just varying your training with your friends and experimenting; learning to deal with things intuitively, and becoming familiar with using the concepts and instilled habits of your art freely.
> 
> The trap that I think many Aikidoka and even TMA artists in general fall into is just practicing rigid technique where A does X and B does Y. I'm speaking of training where A does, and continues to do whatever he/she can to challenge B, and B learns to adapt and flow. But this should not take the form of mutual sparring, if you are attempting to practice skills that may be useful for self-protection (and a sparring format is not really suited to Aikido in the first place) -- rather, A should consciously take the role of the attacker and focus on developing his/her training partner. It's useful to do this with people who have not trained your particular art, because often trained habits of an uke are very different from that of your average person, or even martial artist, and you may find that you have difficulty making many of your locks/controls/throws/etc. work, and need to adapt.
> 
> I'm surprised that you had such success with translating French, though! I've mostly studied languages that are not in any way related to English, so I suppose it's more difficult to adapt with them. Granted, you can get by with really basic fluency if you're very creative and are just using communication as a basic means to an end. As for actually being able to use a language naturally and being able to engage in a diverse array of settings and activities that you might meet in every day life with fluency, I still stand by my assertion that you have to experience and familiarize yourself with those things, and I think our goal in martial arts should be somewhat similar.
> 
> I think that most people over specialize and refine their practice, whereas our true aim should be to diversify it and make it naturally intuitive and adaptive to any situation (as opposed to one, very specific situation/context). Martial Arts should impart general concepts, mindset, skill, and ability, rather than specific recipes.
> 
> One more quick analogy; cooking.
> 
> Most people are quite fond of cooking with recipes, and I think that is a sort of low-level, unreliable, and unskilled method of cooking. Recipes are aids for beginners or people who haven't made a particular dish before, but we should aim to be able to cook intuitively, and adapt to the situation (what ingredients we may or may not have at hand).
> 
> I actually get quite frustrated with recipes, because it's sometimes difficult to separate the essence of a recipe from the fluff. Recipes given to you might often be very complex and specific, with lots of ingredients and specified amounts. But what ingredients are non-essential additions? What other ingredients might the recipe benefit from? What ingredients are essential for the essence of the dish? What substitutes might work? How might the amounts vary, depending on the quantity that I am making or the varying strength or size of my ingredients? What do I do when I follow the recipe to the T and for some reason it just tastes bland, or the flavors are out of balance?
> 
> Formal training is like giving someone a handful of recipes. But how does one use them in real life, intuitively? By becoming familiar with cooking, and the ingredients as a whole, using the general concepts and guidelines found in those recipes. You learn what components are essential, what ingredients are related and how they interact or balance out one another; you get an intuitive feel for how much of this or that to add, and how to balance out flavors when something is amiss. And, you develop an intuition that can go beyond the scope of your current list of recipes, and can create entirely new things on the fly.
> 
> I'm to the point with cooking that, at most, I will glance over recipes for inspiration, if I consult them at all. I don't measure anything, and I can come up with something almost regardless what ingredients I have at hand. I regularly experiment and rely solely on intuition and experience, and rarely do even my boldest experiments go awry.
> 
> Martial Arts are no different -- at least, for me, and my goal is to develop them in the same way that I've developed my culinary skills. I want not just the curricula, but the essence of what that curricula is meant to impart.


Okay, I'll need to go back later and re-read to make sure I didn't miss anything, but I think we're on the same page. The RBSD point is very apt. If I trained my students on the classical techniques and set applications, and let them practice those only in that context ("you attack him with a right straight punch, and he'll do an arm bar"), they will get set into very fixed routines that don't adapt well. 

We have a common practice in NGA that is usually called an "attack line", where all of the students line up. One student steps out, and the others attack him/her one at a time without the defender knowing what's coming. This will usually be a lot of the usual suspects (straight and round punches, some backhand and forehand slaps, various grabs and tackles, and some combos, a few kicks, etc.). When the attackers get bored, they start to introduce...um...less-common attacks (ankle grabs from behind, grabbing the belt, goofy 2-hand punches, etc.). I try to keep the weird stuff to a minimum, but I don't want it to vanish, because it lets me and the defender see how good they are at adapting the techniques. I obviously don't teach defenses against goofy 2-hand punches, so if they can defend against those, they are adapting to something new.


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Clearly you have never been thrown by someone who is really good, it also depends on whether you know how to breakfall or not. We had a chap who didn't know and when he was thrown he landed with his head first and KO'd himself, serves him right though for thinking that being thrown as you say on 'soft' mats was easy. Not that our mats are actually soft, softer than the ground but not pillow soft lol.



Hopefully you are not likely to get thrown through the floor before you can deal with it though.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Wrestling mats will catch your toes.   When I first began training, we had wrestling mats which were very soft.   I caught and broke my little toes so many times, my career as a foot model is over forever.
> 
> When the school moved, we went to zebra mats, which are firmer, but the tatami surface can give the top of your foot a nice friction burn every once in a while.   I'll take that over the broken toe any day, though.



Depends on the floor a bit as well. You train in a old building with a wooden floor you get more give than a modern building that has a slab.

The best would be a sprung floor like gymnastics.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Depends on the floor a bit as well. You train in a old building with a wooden floor you get more give than a modern building that has a slab.
> 
> The best would be a sprung floor like gymnastics.


I'd think the gymnastics floor would have too much give for training - it would alter the way you move under load. I've never been on one, so I'm just going on what I can see when watching gymnastics. The less-sprung floors sometimes installed for aerobics studios are great, though. You can't feel the give in them until you are thrown and the floor just isn't as hard as it ought to be. Pairing a decent firm mat with that seems ideal: firm footing and good absorption to keep wear and tear on the body to a minimum.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Depends on the floor a bit as well. You train in a old building with a wooden floor you get more give than a modern building that has a slab.
> 
> The best would be a sprung floor like gymnastics.


This was wrestling mats over concrete.   Never trained on a spring floor.  Sounds fancy.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> This was wrestling mats over concrete.   Never trained on a spring floor.  Sounds fancy.



It is very fancy.

They also have foam pits. Which makes double legs more fun than should be allowed.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Apparently I've never been on a wrestling mat like that one. It sounds doubleplus ungood.


There's a reason Wrestlers wear shoes, I think.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> There's a reason Wrestlers wear shoes, I think.


Yeah, that's what I was thinking as I typed that. At the very least, the shoes are the reason the mats aren't designed not to break toes.


----------



## Jenna

Argus said:


> I think that application requires a broader experience than just gaining the knowledge or ability to perform a task.
> 
> Let's see if I can come up with some good examples...
> 
> Okay, programming. Or language learning, even. Yeah - let's use learning a foreign language as an example.
> 
> Very few people, even after taking years of classes, are able to speak a foreign language. Actually, I would contend that *noone* can speak a _foreign_ language, but that sentence is misleading without further explanation. More on that later.
> 
> It seems that people think that some day, after having mastered all of the content in their textbooks, they will magically be able to speak a foreign language. Usually, they wait until this theoretical moment to use and practice the language outside of the confines of classes and textbooks, because when they hear/read/try to speak it in the real world, it is still much to difficult for them to understand; there's too much adversity.
> 
> But, there's a problem with this approach. Textbooks and classes can be helpful for teaching you the fundamental skills; for giving you the basic knowledge and understanding -- a framework, if you will. But you absolutely have to expand on that knowledge and learn to utilize that framework in the adversity of the real world to make it functional. Language encompasses every aspect of human experience; every emotion, every thought, every thing and every action or condition that we might experience in life. That's far more than anyone could ever pack into any class or textbook, and it's something that you can only gain from using the language in the real world. There's lots of adversity to overcome at first. You won't have the words or the natural expressions to express yourself and your ideas, and you will struggle letting your personality come through. You will struggle using the language naturally, and adapting to any conversation or contect. This is because you have not yet made the language _yours; _it's still foreign to you. It's still a foreign language; one that you have knowledge of, and even competency in; you might even ace a grammar test, but you have not yet made the language your own. To do that, you have to struggle and use it, and use it, and use it in all of the diverse and adverse situations that you have never experienced before. You have to experience every facet of life once again through and in that new language, so that it becomes as intimate and familiar as your first language. It has to cease to become a foreign language, and become a part of you.
> 
> The same is true of martial arts which might be useful in self defense. The demands of self defense in the real world go far beyond what one might practice in the dojo. Traditional practice in the dojo does impart skill and understanding which may be of some applicable use in the real world, but it will be awkward and clumsy and unreliable until you have honed it through a diverse array of real world experience and adversity, or at least come close in your training to replicating and addressing these things. Your average person speaks a very different "language" physically than your fellow aikidoka does, and will not respond or act like your training partners; it's kind of like bringing your textbook Japanese to Japan, only to find that people don't quite speak like that in the real world, and having to adapt. If you've never experienced it before, it will take quite a bit of time to familiarize yourself with and adapt, but your formal knowledge base will serve you well in doing so.


Forgive me, I do not quite get the point you are making.. you are saying that to demonstrate a defensive technique will work in reality outside of the dojo, it must be tried in reality outside of the dojo? Well, yes, I think that is surely a given. I may be missing some other subtleties within your response.. forgive me if so


----------



## Hanzou

kehcorpz said:


> Does aikido also offer solutions for ground fighting?



Nope. I've trained with many former Aikidoka and they're like fish out of water once their backs hit the mat.



> Also, how hard is aikido on the body? Are you likely to hurt yourself when you're being thrown over
> someone's shoulder? Since I'm rather fragile I don't know if I could even withstand such a training.



There's some very soft Aikido out there. I've seen very old people doing Aikido in a very soft and slow manner as to not hurt themselves. If you're worried about getting hurt, there should be a school for you.



> I think aikido looks pretty interesting but I don't know if it's good for self-defense.



I personally wouldn't learn it for self defense, but your mileage may vary. Give it a lesson or two and decide if its right for you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Nope. I've trained with many former Aikidoka and they're like fish out of water once their backs hit the mat.



That depends upon the Aikido. I'm not going to be as formidable as someone who has the same amount of training in BJJ - in my prime, probably competent to roll with a blue belt and to make a purple belt work a bit. Enough, though, to help with most non-BJJ-trained aggressors.



> I personally wouldn't learn it for self defense, but your mileage may vary. Give it a lesson or two and decide if its right for you.



This depends upon the school, and perhaps, the "aikido", as well. I've seen some of what I'd consider the "flowy" aikido styles taught with a good focus on defense (and realistic attacks). And there are styles that are more combative to start with. And that's only within Ueshiba's Aikido. In the other Aikido arts, there's generally more of a focus on realistic attack and defense (depending upon the school and instructor, of course). I'd say the weakest point in the Aikido arts is the attacks - students get into patterns of offering attacks as they would for a new-ish student, and develop bad habits.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> That depends upon the Aikido. I'm not going to be as formidable as someone who has the same amount of training in BJJ - in my prime, probably competent to roll with a blue belt and to make a purple belt work a bit. Enough, though, to help with most non-BJJ-trained aggressors.



A mid-range blue belt in Bjj has roughly the same amount of mat time as a black belt in Aikido. In some cases more due to the set up of Bjj training times in a typical gym.

As for making a Bjj blue belt or purple belt "work a bit" using Aikido.... That's something I would pay to see given that Aikidoka tend to shy away from showing off their skills outside of demonstrations.




> This depends upon the school, and perhaps, the "aikido", as well. I've seen some of what I'd consider the "flowy" aikido styles taught with a good focus on defense (and realistic attacks). And there are styles that are more combative to start with. And that's only within Ueshiba's Aikido. In the other Aikido arts, there's generally more of a focus on realistic attack and defense (depending upon the school and instructor, of course). I'd say the weakest point in the Aikido arts is the attacks - students get into patterns of offering attacks as they would for a new-ish student, and develop bad habits.



Yeah, I'm aware of that. You're right, it definitely depends on the school.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> A mid-range blue belt in Bjj has roughly the same amount of mat time as a black belt in Aikido. In some cases more due to the set up of Bjj training times in a typical gym.
> 
> As for making a Bjj blue belt or purple belt "work a bit" using Aikido.... That's something I would pay to see given that Aikidoka tend to shy away from showing off their skills outside of demonstrations.



I'm aware of the level of training in BJJ. At the time, I'd have been training significantly longer than the average BJJ blue (meaning he'd get to that level more quickly on ground work). I also draw a bit on my Judo groundwork, though I didn't spend enough time on that for it to do more than inform what I learned since.

As for making a purple belt "work a bit", I rolled with some folks back then (both BJJ and MMA folks) and while I was not the equal of folks at that level (BJJ purple equivalent), I made them work more than I expected, and occasionally even managed to get a submission of my own. It was rare, though, and probably as much a result of my athleticism as my technique.

My point is simply that the techniques and movement inherent in aiki arts can be translated to the ground. It's not a perfect translation (there's a reason BJJ uses the movements it does) and won't compete with BJJ, but it's sufficient for basic ground competency for self-defense, if practiced enough.

All this talk has me thinking it's time to get to a friend's school again. He teaches Aikido and BJJ (he might be purple by now) to roll with some of his students. I won't be nearly as good on the ground as I was 15 years ago, but it's time to find out where I am and brush up the worst bits.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm aware of the level of training in BJJ. At the time, I'd have been training significantly longer than the average BJJ blue (meaning he'd get to that level more quickly on ground work). I also draw a bit on my Judo groundwork, though I didn't spend enough time on that for it to do more than inform what I learned since.
> 
> As for making a purple belt "work a bit", I rolled with some folks back then (both BJJ and MMA folks) and while I was not the equal of folks at that level (BJJ purple equivalent), I made them work more than I expected, and occasionally even managed to get a submission of my own. It was rare, though, and probably as much a result of my athleticism as my technique.
> 
> My point is simply that the techniques and movement inherent in aiki arts can be translated to the ground. It's not a perfect translation (there's a reason BJJ uses the movements it does) and won't compete with BJJ, but it's sufficient for basic ground competency for self-defense, if practiced enough.
> 
> All this talk has me thinking it's time to get to a friend's school again. He teaches Aikido and BJJ (he might be purple by now) to roll with some of his students. I won't be nearly as good on the ground as I was 15 years ago, but it's time to find out where I am and brush up the worst bits.



Provided you get out and risk loss by training with these other guys. You will have something you can use. 

If you don't. You will have bugger all.  Doesn't matter how long you train.


----------



## cloud dancing

dEAR Human being---Aikido is KILLING ART. Deadly with3 months study ,you will be able to throw and break arms wrists and dislocate shoulders , all in one move. Your strength will amazingly increase.Please ignore the naysayers. Practise soft  use HARD.  there will always be criticism,even if you are a God/as Lord shiva was.One day Shiva and his wife Parvati wanted simply to walk with Shiva's bull Nandin.When both walked -OMG stupid. you should both ride.Next they is evil both riding that poor bull .so Shiva walked and his queen/Wife walked.Look at him-no respect for his wife.so he walked and parvati rode.LOOK AT HIS WIFE no respect for her husband the king.
Parvati said to her husband the King LORD SHIVA --"We wanted simply to go for a walk.Whatever we do people criticize us.Both ride=Bad.i ride= bad.YOU RIDE =BAD.let us just enjoy and ignore all who insult us and criticize us. so they did.
       When a person is thrown = can break neck.arm shoulder-serious damage.Enjoy as Aiki is a beautiful wonderous art soft becomes hard.Just enjoy and ignore all who say stupid,idiot moron--ignore them and enjoy one truly wondrous art
When LIGHT SHINES== darkness leaves.My Master is PREM lRAWAT  with dvs on youtube-FREE. Live YOUR LIFE  so    that you enjoy feel happy and listen to yourHEART.


----------



## Jenna

cloud dancing said:


> dEAR Human being---Aikido is KILLING ART. Deadly with3 months study ,you will be able to throw and break arms wrists and dislocate shoulders , all in one move. Your strength will amazingly increase.Please ignore the naysayers. Practise soft  use HARD.  there will always be criticism,even if you are a God/as Lord shiva was.One day Shiva and his wife Parvati wanted simply to walk with Shiva's bull Nandin.When both walked -OMG stupid. you should both ride.Next they is evil both riding that poor bull .so Shiva walked and his queen/Wife walked.Look at him-no respect for his wife.so he walked and parvati rode.LOOK AT HIS WIFE no respect for her husband the king.
> Parvati said to her husband the King LORD SHIVA --"We wanted simply to go for a walk.Whatever we do people criticize us.Both ride=Bad.i ride= bad.YOU RIDE =BAD.let us just enjoy and ignore all who insult us and criticize us. so they did.
> When a person is thrown = can break neck.arm shoulder-serious damage.Enjoy as Aiki is a beautiful wonderous art soft becomes hard.Just enjoy and ignore all who say stupid,idiot moron--ignore them and enjoy one truly wondrous art
> When LIGHT SHINES== darkness leaves.My Master is PREM lRAWAT  with dvs on youtube-FREE. Live YOUR LIFE  so    that you enjoy feel happy and listen to yourHEART.


Hey.. Aikido is NOT a killing art.. how do you come by this opinion?? Ueshiba taught martial arts at the time he was using Daito Ryu to the military and but after the war he reconciled his views on killing and his ideas coalesced into what became Aikido.. Aikido is the art of peace, this is plain and simple. To suggest otherwise is incorrect.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

cloud dancing said:


> dEAR Human being---Aikido is KILLING ART. Deadly with3 months study ,you will be able to throw and break arms wrists and dislocate shoulders , all in one move. Your strength will amazingly increase.Please ignore the naysayers. Practise soft  use HARD.  there will always be criticism,even if you are a God/as Lord shiva was.One day Shiva and his wife Parvati wanted simply to walk with Shiva's bull Nandin.When both walked -OMG stupid. you should both ride.Next they is evil both riding that poor bull .so Shiva walked and his queen/Wife walked.Look at him-no respect for his wife.so he walked and parvati rode.LOOK AT HIS WIFE no respect for her husband the king.
> Parvati said to her husband the King LORD SHIVA --"We wanted simply to go for a walk.Whatever we do people criticize us.Both ride=Bad.i ride= bad.YOU RIDE =BAD.let us just enjoy and ignore all who insult us and criticize us. so they did.
> When a person is thrown = can break neck.arm shoulder-serious damage.Enjoy as Aiki is a beautiful wonderous art soft becomes hard.Just enjoy and ignore all who say stupid,idiot moron--ignore them and enjoy one truly wondrous art
> When LIGHT SHINES== darkness leaves.My Master is PREM lRAWAT  with dvs on youtube-FREE. Live YOUR LIFE  so    that you enjoy feel happy and listen to yourHEART.


Um...no. Just no.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> That depends upon the Aikido. I'm not going to be as formidable as someone who has the same amount of training in BJJ - in my prime, probably competent to roll with a blue belt and to make a purple belt work a bit. Enough, though, to help with most non-BJJ-trained aggressors.
> 
> 
> 
> This depends upon the school, and perhaps, the "aikido", as well. I've seen some of what I'd consider the "flowy" aikido styles taught with a good focus on defense (and realistic attacks). And there are styles that are more combative to start with. And that's only within Ueshiba's Aikido. In the other Aikido arts, there's generally more of a focus on realistic attack and defense (depending upon the school and instructor, of course). I'd say the weakest point in the Aikido arts is the attacks - students get into patterns of offering attacks as they would for a new-ish student, and develop bad habits.


Aren't you also a judoka?   Is your comfort level on the ground a function of aikido, or do you think your judo experience was relevant?


----------



## Tez3

cloud dancing said:


> dEAR Human being---Aikido is KILLING ART. Deadly with3 months study ,you will be able to throw and break arms wrists and dislocate shoulders , all in one move. Your strength will amazingly increase.Please ignore the naysayers. Practise soft  use HARD.  there will always be criticism,even if you are a God/as Lord shiva was.One day Shiva and his wife Parvati wanted simply to walk with Shiva's bull Nandin.When both walked -OMG stupid. you should both ride.Next they is evil both riding that poor bull .so Shiva walked and his queen/Wife walked.Look at him-no respect for his wife.so he walked and parvati rode.LOOK AT HIS WIFE no respect for her husband the king.
> Parvati said to her husband the King LORD SHIVA --"We wanted simply to go for a walk.Whatever we do people criticize us.Both ride=Bad.i ride= bad.YOU RIDE =BAD.let us just enjoy and ignore all who insult us and criticize us. so they did.
> When a person is thrown = can break neck.arm shoulder-serious damage.Enjoy as Aiki is a beautiful wonderous art soft becomes hard.Just enjoy and ignore all who say stupid,idiot moron--ignore them and enjoy one truly wondrous art
> When LIGHT SHINES== darkness leaves.My Master is PREM lRAWAT  with dvs on youtube-FREE. Live YOUR LIFE  so    that you enjoy feel happy and listen to yourHEART.




Well, that's different.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Aren't you also a judoka?   Is your comfort level on the ground a function of aikido, or do you think your judo experience was relevant?


The Judo experience is definitely relevant. I came into aikido better equipped for falls (so unafraid of them), with some understanding of body mechanics, with some experience of resistance from a partner, etc. I think the Judo has as much influence as my 11 years of soccer (as a goalie, so I had good balance and was unafraid of bodies coming at me).

That said, in NGA we do train some groundwork. It's rudimentary in my experience in the mainline of the art (to the extent that at least one instructor started studying and teaching GJJ alongside it), and it's left to the student to develop any proficiency. I'm putting more emphasis on it in Shojin-ryu.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Even though original post sounds like a troll post I will add my opinion on if aikido is applicable. 

Aikido isn't really a style meant for tournaments it's more of a form of exercise or self defense  depending on how you train.

First off there's a few variables in making aikido applicable. These variables are the style of aikido, the Sensei that's teaching the aikido, the individual learning aikido amongst many more but those would be the main ones in my opinion. 

If your training in an aikido that teaches it more as a form of exercise along with being a spiritual journey then you probably won't be able to apply it in real life.

If your at a sci-fi aikido school that ki blasts well that's your cup of tea and I hope you don't try to apply it in a self defense situation. 

If your lucky enough to find an aikido Sensei that teaches it as a martial art then yes you can use it as a form of self defense.

About how long does it take to be able to apply aikido in a street situation is more about how quick you personally learn and understand the concepts & applications. 

Aikido can be gentle or brutal so it depends on how your training. My only two injuries I've acquired so far have been dislocated fingers from randori and my back got thrown out of whack from when a newer student let go of me in mid kotegaeshi lock where I couldn't breakfall correctly landing flat on my upper back. 





Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jenna

I think I agree mostly with what you are saying, except you say..



ST1Doppelganger said:


> If your training in an aikido that teaches it more as a form of exercise along with being a spiritual journey then you probably won't be able to apply it in real life.



I think if your Aikido is nought except a bunch of techniques then it is superficially Aikido.  If you do not apprehend the deeper meanings of Aikido as the Way of Harmony then not only are you negating the core of Ueshiba teachings, and but you are also missing many of the subtleties of technique and you techniques are mere stand-alone defensive or offensive manoeuvres.. 

Aikido "on the street" to use the parlance on the internet is NOT as internet people imagine it is about being badass and knowing how to efficiently neutralise opposition! Aikido in REALITY is about harmonising with others, whether that be how to soften day-to-day disagreements, whether it be blending with physically or mentally stressful situations or actually defending oneself in a physical capacity.. Aikido is NOT brutal. Of course you can MAKE it brutal.. then again, you can make a spoon brutal if you grind the edge.. it is not designed that way though! READ more Ueshiba and it make more sense.. to train Aikido to proficiency on the mats alone is nothing more than a beginning.

If THIS is not how your Aikido looks in reality then it is not Aikido you are doing.. it is possibly more akin to Daito Ryu which came before.. and even DR is not just fighting.. Quote from their site..

"Daito-ryu goes beyond mere self-defense, offering the way to temper one's body and spirit, with the aim of developing personal character and contributing to the greater social good"

In Aikido you must NOT be in the common mindset of fighting. That is superficial, that is how the novice do their Aiki.. There is more to it. Jx


----------



## hoshin1600

Jenna said:


> I think I agree mostly with what you are saying, except you say..
> 
> 
> 
> I think if your Aikido is nought except a bunch of techniques then it is superficially Aikido.  If you do not apprehend the deeper meanings of Aikido as the Way of Harmony then not only are you negating the core of Ueshiba teachings, and but you are also missing many of the subtleties of technique and you techniques are mere stand-alone defensive or offensive manoeuvres..
> 
> Aikido "on the street" to use the parlance on the internet is NOT as internet people imagine it is about being badass and knowing how to efficiently neutralise opposition! Aikido in REALITY is about harmonising with others, whether that be how to soften day-to-day disagreements, whether it be blending with physically or mentally stressful situations or actually defending oneself in a physical capacity.. Aikido is NOT brutal. Of course you can MAKE it brutal.. then again, you can make a spoon brutal if you grind the edge.. it is not designed that way though! READ more Ueshiba and it make more sense.. to train Aikido to proficiency on the mats alone is nothing more than a beginning.
> 
> If THIS is not how your Aikido looks in reality then it is not Aikido you are doing.. it is possibly more akin to Daito Ryu which came before.. and even DR is not just fighting.. Quote from their site..
> 
> "Daito-ryu goes beyond mere self-defense, offering the way to temper one's body and spirit, with the aim of developing personal character and contributing to the greater social good"
> 
> In Aikido you must NOT be in the common mindset of fighting. That is superficial, that is how the novice do their Aiki.. There is more to it. Jx


This is your expression of aikido and I would assume the way your teacher taught it to you.  However there are other expressions and they are also legitimate. I would be hesitant to say " this is the way real aikido should be done"  which is the impression I get from your statement.


----------



## Red Sun

I'd go and check out my local Aikido place, but i can't afford $130 for every 10 classes, $80 annual membership fee, and a further $11 annual fee to use their facility (...and i'd have to buy a uniform.)

I think i'll stick to $5 to beat the crap out of bags, pads, balls, and the occassional human.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Red Sun said:


> I'd go and check out my local Aikido place, but i can't afford $130 for every 10 classes, $80 annual membership fee, and a further $11 annual fee to use their facility (...and i'd have to buy a uniform.)
> 
> I think i'll stick to $5 to beat the crap out of bags, pads, balls, and the occassional human.


$13 a class isn't awful for the US, though it sounds steep compared to what I've heard folks in the UK mention. The cost of the uniform is negligible in the long term (some of my uniforms lasted more than 6 years), and the annual fees aren't much (though I'd rather just have those rolled into the monthly/periodic payments, instead). All that said, you do what you can afford. It's part of why I've kept my program where it is.


----------



## Red Sun

gpseymour said:


> $13 a class isn't awful for the US, though it sounds steep compared to what I've heard folks in the UK mention. The cost of the uniform is negligible in the long term (some of my uniforms lasted more than 6 years), and the annual fees aren't much (though I'd rather just have those rolled into the monthly/periodic payments, instead). All that said, you do what you can afford. It's part of why I've kept my program where it is.



Yeah - $1500pa is more than i have in my bank account atm. I forgot to add, though - I was lamenting my inability to try aikido. I didn't mean to just complain about the price


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Red Sun said:


> Yeah - $1500pa is more than i have in my bank account atm. I forgot to add, though - I was lamenting my inability to try aikido. I didn't mean to just complain about the price


You have to pay it all up front? That is expensive.

And I can certainly understand the lamentation. I often lament not being able (whether due to time or money constraints) take up a new art.


----------



## Jenna

hoshin1600 said:


> This is your expression of aikido and I would assume the way your teacher taught it to you.  However there are other expressions and they are also legitimate. I would be hesitant to say " this is the way real aikido should be done"  which is the impression I get from your statement.


True it is my expression of Aikido and as true to those original teachings of O'Sensei as I can make it, being as my practice is, unavoidably separated by time and by culture. There are almost infinite expressions of Aikido when by expression you mean how an individual work it yes.  Yet it is a spectrum or scale that can at one end adhere closely to the philosophy of Aikido The Way of Harmony as designed by O'Sensei, or at the other end it can be a fairly destructive methodology.. Were I to forcefully utilise my kotegaeshi to wilfully, and intentionally destroy tendons in your wrist when you deign to put your hand on me in a dance club well you can say I use Aikido technique.. I have however not done Aikido as O'Sensei would have envisioned it. 

As with any MA, there are styles of Aikido which deviate so significantly from the original teachings that they are Aikido by name and recognisable technique and but certainly not by philosophy. If your MA has a philosophy of -or a disregard for- harm to uke then it would be Aikido merely by nomenclature and technique. 

Legitimate? I have no responsibility for apportioning legitimacy to any thing.. I am a practitioner not an arbiter of regulation.. I offer only opinion.. is your prerogative to disagree.


----------



## hoshin1600

I don't want to disagree with you,,but I have to.  Unless you personally sat down and had this discussion with O-sensei than your premise on what aikido should be is mere conjecture. 
Aikido evolved over time. The philosophy that you attribute to "be" aikido is the end result of a man's life of study and practice.
You can no more put your foot in a river and say " this is the river".  The river has passed you by before the words escaped your mouth.  The early years of aikido are far different than the aikido at the end of O-sensei's life.  It is unfortunate that each of his students proclaim to have learnt the "real" aikido.
You cannot jump to the absolute. You must start from where you are.  Ueshiba started on one end of the scale and progressed through the stages of philosophical self awareness.  As a student I believe you have to go through the same journey and process.  You start with the hard and evolve to the soft.  What I see many aikidoka trying to do is jump to the end. You will not arrive at the same destination.  You will find yourself in a self created illusion.  Students will think they have arrived but it is a castle of sand.
If look at aikido as a process of human development rather than a destination and a fixed point than there is no "true" aikido, there is only where each student happens to be at this moment.


----------



## Jenna

hoshin1600 said:


> I don't want to disagree with you,,but I have to.  Unless you personally sat down and had this discussion with O-sensei than your premise on what aikido should be is mere conjecture.
> Aikido evolved over time. The philosophy that you attribute to "be" aikido is the end result of a man's life of study and practice.
> You can no more put your foot in a river and say " this is the river".  The river has passed you by before the words escaped your mouth.  The early years of aikido are far different than the aikido at the end of O-sensei's life.  It is unfortunate that each of his students proclaim to have learnt the "real" aikido.
> You cannot jump to the absolute. You must start from where you are.  Ueshiba started on one end of the scale and progressed through the stages of philosophical self awareness.  As a student I believe you have to go through the same journey and process.  You start with the hard and evolve to the soft.  What I see many aikidoka trying to do is jump to the end. You will not arrive at the same destination.  You will find yourself in a self created illusion.  Students will think they have arrived but it is a castle of sand.
> If look at aikido as a process of human development rather than a destination and a fixed point than there is no "true" aikido, there is only where each student happens to be at this moment.


Well if you do not want to disagree then do not force your self to unless it is for the greater good of mankind  So you have drifted off a little from your accusation that I am conferring illegitimacy upon some Aikido styles and but anyway I will respond to what you have written here..

I think you may be labouring under some misapprehensions in your subjective view of what is or is not Aikido.. First YES! there IS true Aikido.. Let me try to explain for you.. And this is not meant to impugn your knowledge or challenge rather to try to make this point clear so you -or anybody else- is not misunderstanding me.. ok so this does not concern what *I* class as Aikido.. yes? I am just practitioner you are correct I did not know O'Sensei also correct I am not that old! My old sensei back home did train he would have recounted for short time under O'Sensei at our honbu.. Still.. does not matter an iota what I class as any thing.. 

What O'Sensei did is to take a word, a term, already in existence.. Aikido is just a word ok? It is not his word.. was ALREADY a word prior to what is commonly regarded nowadays as the martial art Aikido.. and then form his art AROUND this word Ai-ki-do utilising what he had learned and modified from Takeda Sokaku in his formative days of DRAJJ.. What therefore you maybe are missing fundamentally is that what Aikido actually *IS* has less to do with the who or the when or the where -let alone what *I* decide.. and is specified by the very word Aikido.. Now I am not even slightly fluent in Japanese.. @Chris Parker is our go-to Nihongo translator and can enlighten.. Ai-ki-do as commonly transliterated from its ideograms is the way of Peace/Harmony of Spirit, essentially concerning Heaven and Earth harmonised and the idea of Budo as an expression of the love of God..

So.. therefore.. simply put -and as I have already stated- if your Aikido would intentionally harm your opponent or condone in any way harm to uke then NO, it is not Aikido.. does not matter a toss what Jenna online think of it.. whether it may look like Aikido or feel like Aikido upon the body.. if it is not Ai-Ki-Do the way of Harmony (Chris please help me out with more accurate translations if there are any) then it is NOT Aikido.. So.. is what you practice still legitimate? I do not know.. you tell me as it was you who originated the comment about legitimacy. 

Like I can assemble any selection of throws and say it is Judo.. It look like Judo it perform like judo.. It is just not Kano Judo.. Legitimate? I do not know.. who is adjudicating??

I can buy a pattern manifold for a 3.2 air-cooled and but it is not a Porsche part.. how I feel about that is subjective.. it is legitimate part?? it is not legitimate part?? depend on what you feel..

This is more clear??


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> I don't want to disagree with you,,but I have to.  Unless you personally sat down and had this discussion with O-sensei than your premise on what aikido should be is mere conjecture.
> Aikido evolved over time. The philosophy that you attribute to "be" aikido is the end result of a man's life of study and practice.
> You can no more put your foot in a river and say " this is the river".  The river has passed you by before the words escaped your mouth.  The early years of aikido are far different than the aikido at the end of O-sensei's life.  It is unfortunate that each of his students proclaim to have learnt the "real" aikido.
> You cannot jump to the absolute. You must start from where you are.  Ueshiba started on one end of the scale and progressed through the stages of philosophical self awareness.  As a student I believe you have to go through the same journey and process.  You start with the hard and evolve to the soft.  What I see many aikidoka trying to do is jump to the end. You will not arrive at the same destination.  You will find yourself in a self created illusion.  Students will think they have arrived but it is a castle of sand.
> If look at aikido as a process of human development rather than a destination and a fixed point than there is no "true" aikido, there is only where each student happens to be at this moment.


"Seek not to follow in the footsteps of men of old. Seek, instead, what they sought." (I've forgotten the attribution for this quote.)

This is essentially what you are saying, I think, and it is a good point. We must all walk that path. If someone chooses to follow Ueshiba's philosophical path, they should do so by seeking clarity (which appears to have been his starting point). The technique he used (and taught, when he was teaching) late in life is the same technique as early in life, but filtered through his newfound philosophy. There are many valid paths within his Aikido. I believe it is entirely valid to pursue one's own philosophy with the techniques. That is, after all, what Ueshiba did, himself.
_
(Note: I am not of Ueshiba's Aikido, but have made a study of it - technique, history, and philosophy - because it is closely related to my primary art.)_


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Jenna said:


> Well if you do not want to disagree then do not force your self to unless it is for the greater good of mankind  So you have drifted off a little from your accusation that I am conferring illegitimacy upon some Aikido styles and but anyway I will respond to what you have written here..
> 
> I think you may be labouring under some misapprehensions in your subjective view of what is or is not Aikido.. First YES! there IS true Aikido.. Let me try to explain for you.. And this is not meant to impugn your knowledge or challenge rather to try to make this point clear so you -or anybody else- is not misunderstanding me.. ok so this does not concern what *I* class as Aikido.. yes? I am just practitioner you are correct I did not know O'Sensei also correct I am not that old! My old sensei back home did train he would have recounted for short time under O'Sensei at our honbu.. Still.. does not matter an iota what I class as any thing..
> 
> What O'Sensei did is to take a word, a term, already in existence.. Aikido is just a word ok? It is not his word.. was ALREADY a word prior to what is commonly regarded nowadays as the martial art Aikido.. and then form his art AROUND this word Ai-ki-do utilising what he had learned and modified from Takeda Sokaku in his formative days of DRAJJ.. What therefore you maybe are missing fundamentally is that what Aikido actually *IS* has less to do with the who or the when or the where -let alone what *I* decide.. and is specified by the very word Aikido.. Now I am not even slightly fluent in Japanese.. @Chris Parker is our go-to Nihongo translator and can enlighten.. Ai-ki-do as commonly transliterated from its ideograms is the way of Peace/Harmony of Spirit, essentially concerning Heaven and Earth harmonised and the idea of Budo as an expression of the love of God..
> 
> So.. therefore.. simply put -and as I have already stated- if your Aikido would intentionally harm your opponent or condone in any way harm to uke then NO, it is not Aikido.. does not matter a toss what Jenna online think of it.. whether it may look like Aikido or feel like Aikido upon the body.. if it is not Ai-Ki-Do the way of Harmony (Chris please help me out with more accurate translations if there are any) then it is NOT Aikido.. So.. is what you practice still legitimate? I do not know.. you tell me as it was you who originated the comment about legitimacy.
> 
> Like I can assemble any selection of throws and say it is Judo.. It look like Judo it perform like judo.. It is just not Kano Judo.. Legitimate? I do not know.. who is adjudicating??
> 
> I can buy a pattern manifold for a 3.2 air-cooled and but it is not a Porsche part.. how I feel about that is subjective.. it is legitimate part?? it is not legitimate part?? depend on what you feel..
> 
> This is more clear??


I would point out that, like much in Japanese, the ideograms are not directly translatable to English. It has been explained to me that Japanese is a more conceptual language than English. The term Aikido, as coined by the Dai Nippon Butokkukai, was apparently intended to carry the same meaning as the "aiki" in "aikijujutsu". Ueshiba chose, based upon his exposure to Omoto, I believe, a softer interpretation of the term, which softened even more as he aged. The idea of peace is not necessarily inherent in the term, though it is also not improper to read it


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

gpseymour said:


> I would point out that, like much in Japanese, the ideograms are not directly translatable to English. It has been explained to me that Japanese is a more conceptual language than English. The term Aikido, as coined by the Dai Nippon Butokkukai, was apparently intended to carry the same meaning as the "aiki" in "aikijujutsu". Ueshiba chose, based upon his exposure to Omoto, I believe, a softer interpretation of the term, which softened even more as he aged. The idea of peace is not necessarily inherent in the term, though it is also not improper to read it


Exactly. I had a Sensei at a seminar that does the Japanese calligraphy explain how the characters that make aikido can read with different interpretations. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

Jenna said:


> I think I agree mostly with what you are saying, except you say..
> 
> 
> 
> I think if your Aikido is nought except a bunch of techniques then it is superficially Aikido.  If you do not apprehend the deeper meanings of Aikido as the Way of Harmony then not only are you negating the core of Ueshiba teachings, and but you are also missing many of the subtleties of technique and you techniques are mere stand-alone defensive or offensive manoeuvres..
> 
> Aikido "on the street" to use the parlance on the internet is NOT as internet people imagine it is about being badass and knowing how to efficiently neutralise opposition! Aikido in REALITY is about harmonising with others, whether that be how to soften day-to-day disagreements, whether it be blending with physically or mentally stressful situations or actually defending oneself in a physical capacity.. Aikido is NOT brutal. Of course you can MAKE it brutal.. then again, you can make a spoon brutal if you grind the edge.. it is not designed that way though! READ more Ueshiba and it make more sense.. to train Aikido to proficiency on the mats alone is nothing more than a beginning.
> 
> If THIS is not how your Aikido looks in reality then it is not Aikido you are doing.. it is possibly more akin to Daito Ryu which came before.. and even DR is not just fighting.. Quote from their site..
> 
> "Daito-ryu goes beyond mere self-defense, offering the way to temper one's body and spirit, with the aim of developing personal character and contributing to the greater social good"
> 
> In Aikido you must NOT be in the common mindset of fighting. That is superficial, that is how the novice do their Aiki.. There is more to it. Jx


I agree with what your saying here as well and will admit I find it hard for myself not to fall in to pushing the harmony practices out of aikido.

From the stories I've heared from a few different Sensei's and from what I've read it sounds like old school aikido was brutal then as O Sensei aged he started to bring in his religious views that really softened the art up. 

I have no issues with people training Aikido with what ever goal they have in mind but will say the aiki ki blasters have taken this art and made it a laughable art amongst the ma community. This has happened with the CMA Internal arts as well. In my opinion it is just plain sad that there's a community of people wrongly  representing these martial arts which has defamed the whole aiki or CMA Internal arts community.  

I will say I do partially believe in Ki/Qi concepts but don't believe you will ever be able to blast or control someone with this concept. 

I've also played with other aikido people from different schools that would not be able to lock or throw me if I resisted so is this doing them justice that they think what they have learned will actually be applicable against an opponent in the street? 

Everyone has the rite to train their art the way they want to but it saddens me that a portion of the aikido community can hurt the reputation of aikido greatly by posting insane videos on YouTube which then finds it way to threads that bash aikido.  

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jenna

gpseymour said:


> I would point out that, like much in Japanese, the ideograms are not directly translatable to English. It has been explained to me that Japanese is a more conceptual language than English. The term Aikido, as coined by the Dai Nippon Butokkukai, was apparently intended to carry the same meaning as the "aiki" in "aikijujutsu". Ueshiba chose, based upon his exposure to Omoto, I believe, a softer interpretation of the term, which softened even more as he aged. The idea of peace is not necessarily inherent in the term, though it is also not improper to read it


I like how you have it explained to you that Japanese is -to non-fluent at least- a conceptual language.  That is a succinct way to see it..

While Ai-ki has many independent connotations of its own, Ai-Ki-Do with particular reference to the martial art which take its name from that term is well enough specified to make certain inferences, yes? no? 

You suggest peace is not necessarily inherent in the term.. I understand that you might.. I suggest it might be inferred from our specification of Aikido the martial art..

1. Aikido is a way of harmony with the universal energy or however one chooses to define Ki -and that is a protracted argument perhaps..

So if peace is not as you suggest inherent in Ai-ki-do then it ought to be demonstrably possible to follow such a way of harmony of any universal spirit by a means of aggression or destruction or a way other than non-violently and through peace??

2. Morehei Ueshiba embraced peace. Latterly -and as part of his design for his Aikido- if not formerly. This is plain from any number of his oral recorded teachings and calligraphy.  Further, Ueshiba is the designer of the essence of a martial art named Aikido from which, I would suggest, the great majority of modern Aikido practitioners trace their lineage. 

So if peace is not, as you say, inherent in Aikido as practiced by majority Aikidoka then you would recommend that what was disseminated by Ueshiba ought to be ignored in ones daily practice and ones daily life?

Respectfully if peace is not as you say inherent in Aikido then how is the central meta- and NON-physical core of Aikido to be interpreted and practiced? Or ought it to be ignored also or sidelined? 

As example, Ueshiba said, "A mind to serve for the peace of all peoples of the world is needed in Aikido, and not the mind of one who practices only to be strong and conquer an opponent.  Therefore to compete in techniques, winning or losing is not true Budo. True Budo knows no defeat. Never defeated means never fighting."

Understandably perhaps, you have little time for these things if you are NGA.. Then again, non-adoption or actual eschewing of non-physical Aikido is certainly not exclusively NGA.. Personally I believe many sensei are embarrassed to touch it.. certainly in my own ambit it was the majority of them.. This alas means Aikido as ANY kind of a Way is almost alien to practice.. It become merely muscular repetition of technique..

Of course ultimately, Aikido is just a word. If any person choose to practice a martial art that is named Aikido and it teach to them brutal limb destruction severally and simultaneously without any deference to any variously translated "Way" or recourse to any variously translated "path of Harmonisation of universal spirit" or "bringing together", then heh I am certainly not their mother to scold them for it..


----------



## drop bear

Red Sun said:


> I'd go and check out my local Aikido place, but i can't afford $130 for every 10 classes, $80 annual membership fee, and a further $11 annual fee to use their facility (...and i'd have to buy a uniform.)
> 
> I think i'll stick to $5 to beat the crap out of bags, pads, balls, and the occassional human.



Maybe they are teaching you how not to get robbed in a really ironic way.


----------



## hoshin1600

Jenna said:


> Aikido is the art of peace, this is plain and simple. To suggest otherwise is incorrect


would aikido then be correctly described as a non violent peaceful endeavor? 


Jenna said:


> Aikido in REALITY is about harmonising with others, whether that be how to soften day-to-day disagreements, whether it be blending with physically or mentally stressful situations..........


could it then be described as art for the pacifist?
PACIFISM
"A pacifist is a person who is opposed to war and violence. Pacifists believe that we should not kill or harm other people. "



Jenna said:


> .....or actually defending oneself in a physical capacity..


  how do you use aikido to physically defend yourself if you are a pacifist?  how do you use aikido in a physical way without hurting someone?   this seems to be a major contradiction.   to believe that you can use a kotegashi or iriminage on someone trying to rape or kill you and you will not injure them in some way is naive at best.
if aikido is truly a non violent philosophy then it would be incorrect to call it a martial art.
the term martial itself implies " of ,relating to,or suited for war or warrior"
Definition of MARTIAL

if we assume this to be self evident then back to the OP's post


kehcorpz said:


> I think aikido looks pretty interesting but I don't know if it's good for self-defense.


then aikido is not good for self defense and at its core is in contradiction and polar opposite of using a physical means to defend yourself.








i guess we can just put our hands in the air and make the bad guys fall down.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

hoshin1600 said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i guess we can just put our hands in the air and make the bad guys fall down.



I really dislike you for posting this video Hoshin LOL. 

I personally prefer the tenshin method of aikido or the aikido that has the roots of  pre world war aikido since they are the harder styles of aikido.  This is the stuff that's not my cup of tea and to top it off its O Sensei doing it.  But I guess everyone has the rite to practice the art the way they want to. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## pinklady6000

As a female wrestler I would bounce all you aikido men on your heads!


----------



## hoshin1600

ST1Doppelganger said:


> I really dislike you for posting this video Hoshin LOL.



done for a reason sorry.

i just think many people drink the cool aid and join the club of aikido without questioning it and taking everything as a gospel.  i am not trying to un-validate it rather i am questioning for the sake of clarity.  i feel if we truly understand aikido in its entirety then we may come away with a better perspective and actually validate the art and its philosophy.  the fact that O-sensei has become this mythical figure and aikido has taken on an air of kum ba yah  lets all just get along and if that bully picks on you then try to reason with him and find his better nature, this clouds the subject and makes rational thought and discussion impossible. 
if students want to be pacifists and train in soft aikido as an art from thats fine it doesnt bother me.  but if you then turn and say "but im also learning to defend myself because aikido is a martial art"  then i think that is being disingenuous and a contradiction.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

pinklady6000 said:


> As a female wrestler I would bounce all you aikido men on your heads!


LOL i can see your going to go real far in this martial arts community. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Red Sun

hoshin1600 said:


> i guess we can just put our hands in the air and make the bad guys fall down.



I'm only doing this because i'm an impressionable young lady who was reminded of these by hoshin:






Memorable quotes: Yukiyoshi Takamura on pacifism


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

hoshin1600 said:


> done for a reason sorry.
> 
> i just think many people drink the cool aid and join the club of aikido without questioning it and taking everything as a gospel.  i am not trying to un-validate it rather i am questioning for the sake of clarity.  i feel if we truly understand aikido in its entirety then we may come away with a better perspective and actually validate the art and its philosophy.  the fact that O-sensei has become this mythical figure and aikido has taken on an air of kum ba yah  lets all just get along and if that bully picks on you then try to reason with him and find his better nature, this clouds the subject and makes rational thought and discussion impossible.
> if students want to be pacifists and train in soft aikido as an art from thats fine it doesnt bother me.  but if you then turn and say "but im also learning to defend myself because aikido is a martial art"  then i think that is being disingenuous and a contradiction.


I agree which is why I posted my earlier posts. Like I said Ive trained with other schools students that thought they could lock or throw and couldn't apply it on me. One even asked why I didn't fall down and I was like well you didn't apply the lock proper so I'm just giving you good realistic feedback. 

Unfortunately O Sensei got very esoteric in his later years which made aikido change as a martial arts. Hence why I enjoy the aikido styles that has the roots of pre war Sensei's or tenshin method of aikido because it seems like they are the arts that can handle an assailant allot more effectively in a real life situation. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Jenna said:


> I like how you have it explained to you that Japanese is -to non-fluent at least- a conceptual language.  That is a succinct way to see it..
> 
> While Ai-ki has many independent connotations of its own, Ai-Ki-Do with particular reference to the martial art which take its name from that term is well enough specified to make certain inferences, yes? no?
> 
> You suggest peace is not necessarily inherent in the term.. I understand that you might.. I suggest it might be inferred from our specification of Aikido the martial art..
> 
> 1. Aikido is a way of harmony with the universal energy or however one chooses to define Ki -and that is a protracted argument perhaps..
> 
> So if peace is not as you suggest inherent in Ai-ki-do then it ought to be demonstrably possible to follow such a way of harmony of any universal spirit by a means of aggression or destruction or a way other than non-violently and through peace??
> 
> 2. Morehei Ueshiba embraced peace. Latterly -and as part of his design for his Aikido- if not formerly. This is plain from any number of his oral recorded teachings and calligraphy.  Further, Ueshiba is the designer of the essence of a martial art named Aikido from which, I would suggest, the great majority of modern Aikido practitioners trace their lineage.
> 
> So if peace is not, as you say, inherent in Aikido as practiced by majority Aikidoka then you would recommend that what was disseminated by Ueshiba ought to be ignored in ones daily practice and ones daily life?
> 
> Respectfully if peace is not as you say inherent in Aikido then how is the central meta- and NON-physical core of Aikido to be interpreted and practiced? Or ought it to be ignored also or sidelined?
> 
> As example, Ueshiba said, "A mind to serve for the peace of all peoples of the world is needed in Aikido, and not the mind of one who practices only to be strong and conquer an opponent.  Therefore to compete in techniques, winning or losing is not true Budo. True Budo knows no defeat. Never defeated means never fighting."
> 
> Understandably perhaps, you have little time for these things if you are NGA.. Then again, non-adoption or actual eschewing of non-physical Aikido is certainly not exclusively NGA.. Personally I believe many sensei are embarrassed to touch it.. certainly in my own ambit it was the majority of them.. This alas means Aikido as ANY kind of a Way is almost alien to practice.. It become merely muscular repetition of technique..
> 
> Of course ultimately, Aikido is just a word. If any person choose to practice a martial art that is named Aikido and it teach to them brutal limb destruction severally and simultaneously without any deference to any variously translated "Way" or recourse to any variously translated "path of Harmonisation of universal spirit" or "bringing together", then heh I am certainly not their mother to scold them for it..


Indeed, Ueshiba did not originally seem to place much philosophy within Aikido. That was added later, and seemingly became the more important part of his path. He, himself, pursued Aikido without the "peace" aspect until his religious pursuits altered his course. That original path is not closed off to others simply because Ueshiba chose a different one.

There are, in my opinion, two significant divisions in how one could follow Aikido. One could follow O-sensei's philosophy and the techniques as a method of pursuing that philosophy. Alternatively, one could follow the techniques absent the philosophy. Neither is an invalid approach.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

hoshin1600 said:


> would aikido then be correctly described as a non violent peaceful endeavor?
> 
> could it then be described as art for the pacifist?
> PACIFISM
> "A pacifist is a person who is opposed to war and violence. Pacifists believe that we should not kill or harm other people. "
> 
> how do you use aikido to physically defend yourself if you are a pacifist?  how do you use aikido in a physical way without hurting someone?   this seems to be a major contradiction.   to believe that you can use a kotegashi or iriminage on someone trying to rape or kill you and you will not injure them in some way is naive at best.
> if aikido is truly a non violent philosophy then it would be incorrect to call it a martial art.
> the term martial itself implies " of ,relating to,or suited for war or warrior"
> Definition of MARTIAL
> 
> if we assume this to be self evident then back to the OP's post
> 
> then aikido is not good for self defense and at its core is in contradiction and polar opposite of using a physical means to defend yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i guess we can just put our hands in the air and make the bad guys fall down.


This is the issue many express with Aikido as it is taught in many schools. To be able to perform those techniques effectively without harming someone would take a LOT of skill. This has led many (even within the art) to refer to Aikido as a 20-year art, meaning it only becomes truly effective after a lot of experience. This is not a flaw in the art, it's a flaw in the approach...assuming one is studying/teaching it with an intention of it being used for self-defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

ST1Doppelganger said:


> I really dislike you for posting this video Hoshin LOL.
> 
> I personally prefer the tenshin method of aikido or the aikido that has the roots of  pre world war aikido since they are the harder styles of aikido.  This is the stuff that's not my cup of tea and to top it off its O Sensei doing it.  But I guess everyone has the rite to practice the art the way they want to.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk





ST1Doppelganger said:


> I agree which is why I posted my earlier posts. Like I said Ive trained with other schools students that thought they could lock or throw and couldn't apply it on me. One even asked why I didn't fall down and I was like well you didn't apply the lock proper so I'm just giving you good realistic feedback.
> 
> Unfortunately O Sensei got very esoteric in his later years which made aikido change as a martial arts. Hence why I enjoy the aikido styles that has the roots of pre war Sensei's or tenshin method of aikido because it seems like they are the arts that can handle an assailant allot more effectively in a real life situation.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


I think part of the issue is that what Ueshiba did in his later years required a LOT of skill. People trying to do that from the beginning miss out on all of the highly effective material that is part of Aikido, but doesn't fit the "peace before defense" mindset I've seen in some schools.

To all: Please note that I'm actually a fan of Ueshiba's art. Since my focus is self-defense, I'm only a fan of the flowy stuff in an aesthetic sense. I personally prefer the more combative approach found in schools that focus on self-defense (most common in Shioda's lineage).


----------



## hoshin1600

Old habits die hard for me. its been a long time since I trained with Fumio Toyota.  I no longer have a dog in this fight about aikido.  I incorporate aiki into what I do but it's not aikido.  I shouldn't care what anyone thinks about aikido. Maybe it's not my place anymore to try and defend it.
Some people will watch the joe Rogan clip and think joe just doesn't understand others will think the aikido guy is delusional,  I see in between the lines,,,but what do I know,,I'm just a Combatives guy now.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

gpseymour said:


> I think part of the issue is that what Ueshiba did in his later years required a LOT of skill. People trying to do that from the beginning miss out on all of the highly effective material that is part of Aikido, but doesn't fit the "peace before defense" mindset I've seen in some schools.
> 
> To all: Please note that I'm actually a fan of Ueshiba's art. Since my focus is self-defense, I'm only a fan of the flowy stuff in an aesthetic sense. I personally prefer the more combative approach found in schools that focus on self-defense (most common in Shioda's lineage).


I understand where you going with the skill comments but the no touch stuff is where I just draw the line on trying to be open minded at. Sadly since it comes from O Sensei theres other aikido people that do the no touch stuff which is where allot of the aikido bashing originates from. 

But I don't have a rite to tell people how they should train so good for them getting off their couch and doing something other then watching TV. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

hoshin1600 said:


> Old habits die hard for me. its been a long time since I trained with Fumio Toyota.  I no longer have a dog in this fight about aikido.  I incorporate aiki into what I do but it's not aikido.  I shouldn't care what anyone thinks about aikido. Maybe it's not my place anymore to try and defend it.
> Some people will watch the joe Rogan clip and think joe just doesn't understand others will think the aikido guy is delusional,  I see in between the lines,,,but what do I know,,I'm just a Combatives guy now.


I originaly went in to aikido thinking it would be a good side art for my other styles but my Sensei has actually got me hooked on it and I enjoy the subtle nuances it has to offer me in developing my personal style. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

ST1Doppelganger said:


> I understand where you going with the skill comments but the no touch stuff is where I just draw the line on trying to be open minded at. Sadly since it comes from O Sensei theres other aikido people that do the no touch stuff which is where allot of the aikido bashing originates from.
> 
> But I don't have a rite to tell people how they should train so good for them getting off their couch and doing something other then watching TV.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


I didn't look at the video, but I think I know the stuff you're referring to. I've actually seen several videos of Ueshiba doing "no-touch" techniques. Some of it is just an over-pursuing uke (which is unlikely unless the defender has a gun in his hand or something else the attacker REALLY wants), and the technique is otherwise solid. Others are, from all I can tell, complete bunk. Mind you, I've experienced what I'd call a "no-touch" throw that was surprisingly effective; it was actually just a throw where the hands were used to trigger a reflex to off-balance the uke. It took a very skilled person to make it work, as the timing was extraordinarily precise.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

gpseymour said:


> I didn't look at the video, but I think I know the stuff you're referring to. I've actually seen several videos of Ueshiba doing "no-touch" techniques. Some of it is just an over-pursuing uke (which is unlikely unless the defender has a gun in his hand or something else the attacker REALLY wants), and the technique is otherwise solid. Others are, from all I can tell, complete bunk. Mind you, I've experienced what I'd call a "no-touch" throw that was surprisingly effective; it was actually just a throw where the hands were used to trigger a reflex to off-balance the uke. It took a very skilled person to make it work, as the timing was extraordinarily precise.


Was it like a no touch kokionagi? I could see how Ukis trained response would get tricked in to rolling if they thought they were being thrown by that throw? 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

ST1Doppelganger said:


> Was it like a no touch kokionagi? I could see how Ukis trained response would get tricked in to rolling if they thought they were being thrown by that throw?
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


I'm not familiar with the Japanese names of the techniques. It was performed by Don Angier of Yanagi-ryu. It was based on a pair of principles (one I've forgotten, the other was called "the wall"). Essentially, it used the reflex of moving your head back to avoid getting hit in the face (think of how you'd move if you were walking along and turned your head to see you're about to walk into a horizontal pole) plus the balance problem of not being able to squat quickly without leaning forward. It was not a big throw. In fact, it was such a subtle off-balancing that it was actually kind of embarassing. I ended up just far enough back on my heels that I couldn't maintain balance and had to fall down. I could feel it coming, but couldn't stop it.


----------



## drop bear

ST1Doppelganger said:


> I understand where you going with the skill comments but the no touch stuff is where I just draw the line on trying to be open minded at. Sadly since it comes from O Sensei theres other aikido people that do the no touch stuff which is where allot of the aikido bashing originates from.
> 
> But I don't have a rite to tell people how they should train so good for them getting off their couch and doing something other then watching TV.
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk



Not as much. That is the obvious bashing.

Single level defence is the hidden issue.

So you punch and I block and flip you. At no point do you learn to not fall over. At no point do I learn how to deal with you not falling over. And so on.

You start to wonder why after however many years the students have been training they can't make their instructor sweat for his success.





Some drilling is ok. Some partially resisted is ok. Too much will make you crap.


----------



## Jenna

hoshin1600 said:


> would aikido then be correctly described as a non violent peaceful endeavor?
> 
> could it then be described as art for the pacifist?
> PACIFISM
> "A pacifist is a person who is opposed to war and violence. Pacifists believe that we should not kill or harm other people. "
> 
> how do you use aikido to physically defend yourself if you are a pacifist?  how do you use aikido in a physical way without hurting someone?   this seems to be a major contradiction.   to believe that you can use a kotegashi or iriminage on someone trying to rape or kill you and you will not injure them in some way is naive at best.
> if aikido is truly a non violent philosophy then it would be incorrect to call it a martial art.
> the term martial itself implies " of ,relating to,or suited for war or warrior"
> Definition of MARTIAL
> 
> if we assume this to be self evident then back to the OP's post
> 
> then aikido is not good for self defense and at its core is in contradiction and polar opposite of using a physical means to defend yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i guess we can just put our hands in the air and make the bad guys fall down.


Actually I think your definition of Aikido is absolutely apropos. I would nuance your description not as pacifism, though I think that is perfectly ok.. I would say Aikido is -as a martial art- non-violent activism.  I can certainly understand your point concerning the sense of contradictory terminology in a martial art that is also somehow claiming to be a non-violent art. However, non-violent activism is not dissimilar from pacifism.

I can give you a personal example which may perhaps elucidate the point.. I work currently in refugee camp in northern Greece.. There are several mixed cultures here.. There is much stress.. people are fraught and often angry with how they are treated.. there is a tendency for folk, particularly the young men to be verbally aggressive and but sometime it is also physical.. They regard women often as subordinate.. So my response to a shoulder shove is a nikkyo or gokkyo depending upon their and my placements.. I have many choices in any of these techniques.. I can put him on his face and shame him before all present.. I can destroy his elbow or wrist so he might not repeat this.. Still.. who am I to make these judgements like this? He is who he is because of how his life has gone.. I have not lived that life to know.. His anger is misdirected.. I understand this.  Still.. I wish to keep my self safe.. In order to do that I do not wish to be handled.. in order to achieve that however I have choices..  Yet I need only make a small intervention, the nikkyo is done discreetly my hands upon his hand and his wrist such that he will understand that any pain is conditional only upon his own resistance even if he do not quite know what is going on. I do not try to make him angrier by hurting him, just to arrest his anger on me in a physical sense.

It is not for me to teach him lessons he will not forget.. He may try the same with other people.. I do not know. All I know is I have defended my self IN THAT INSTANCE and I have not harmed him, certainly not to the extent to which my Aikido COULD harm him. 

I do not know if you would read this or anybody would give a flying xxxx and but I will say it anyway.. You have said "to believe that you can use a kotegashi or iriminage on someone trying to rape or kill you and you will not injure them in some way is naive at best."

Well I have like may others been victim of sexual assault attempts.. I had many years of abuse from my father.. I have never been raped. It is only because I have my Aikido.. ironically a place my father sent me to.. I have no desire to kill damage or even hurt the men who executed these crimes.. that is not my call to make.. I have defended my self on several occasions using only what force is needed to stop what they are trying to do.. I do not want to hurt them because having done just that in my youth I know it is a wound that I also must live with. MA is NOT what is seem in movies.. It is simply not possible to damage a person and expect 1. that they will forget all about it and change their ways or 2. that in having damaged them I will go about my life without further thought.. that is what is naive my friend and not believing it is possible to use Aikido in a non-violent manner. If that fact does not suit you, I understand.. it is not for every person.

Good luck to you.


----------



## kehcorpz

Hi folks.

Aikido is out of the race. I heard that for self defense it's not really helpful and that the stuff doesn't work in real life.

Also the injury risk seems to high to me.

Atm I am considering krav maga. But I'm not sure if this is really interesting enough for me. I need something which also
looks cool and interesting. Otherwise it would just bore me like boxing. Boxing is so boring I'd never want to learn it.


----------



## Kickboxer101

kehcorpz said:


> Hi folks.
> 
> Aikido is out of the race. I heard that for self defense it's not really helpful and that the stuff doesn't work in real life.
> 
> Also the injury risk seems to high to me.
> 
> Atm I am considering krav maga. But I'm not sure if this is really interesting enough for me. I need something which also
> looks cool and interesting. Otherwise it would just bore me like boxing. Boxing is so boring I'd never want to learn it.


This is the slowest race I've ever seen. Lets be honest you don't want to learn anything if you did you would've started by now. You joined here in may it's now nearly September and you've done nothing


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

kehcorpz said:


> Hi folks.
> 
> Aikido is out of the race. I heard that for self defense it's not really helpful and that the stuff doesn't work in real life.
> 
> Also the injury risk seems to high to me.




Yep not worth your time. 

It just didn't allow me to safely detain someone till the cops could arrest him  preventing possible  legal issues I would have acquired if I had used my other training. 

All that kept going thru my head when making the citizens arrest was my Sensei's phrase give what you get that he uses in our randori. 


Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## Xue Sheng

kehcorpz said:


> Hi folks.
> 
> Aikido is out of the race. I heard that for self defense it's not really helpful and that the stuff doesn't work in real life.
> 
> Also the injury risk seems to high to me.
> 
> Atm I am considering krav maga. But I'm not sure if this is really interesting enough for me. I need something which also
> looks cool and interesting. Otherwise it would just bore me like boxing. Boxing is so boring I'd never want to learn it.



Then don't train anything, it is all boring if you train it right, nice taking to you....


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> Not as much. That is the obvious bashing.
> 
> Single level defence is the hidden issue.
> 
> So you punch and I block and flip you. At no point do you learn to not fall over. At no point do I learn how to deal with you not falling over. And so on.
> 
> You start to wonder why after however many years the students have been training they can't make their instructor sweat for his success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some drilling is ok. Some partially resisted is ok. Too much will make you crap.



I await the day I see any of that being used in the way you describe. I just want to see someone go full blast on an Aikidoka and see what they do to defend themselves.

It's incredible that after all these years, you still never see that.


----------



## Xue Sheng




----------



## JP3

I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Q1:  "Is aikido more about competitions and not really focused on real self-defense?"

   A1:  Shodokan, or Tomiki-ryu, aikido has competitions, yes. However, even that sub-set of aikido is divided into a competitive line, and a non-competitive line.  By "line" here I mean certain teachers or sets of teachers who favor, or do not favor, competition as "the thing." I don't do competition aikido, but I did do competitive judo, and there are pros and cons to both approaches, IMO. But that's a whole different box to describe.

Q2:  "And how long does it take to learn enough aikido stuff so that you could defend yourself?"

   A2:  Depending on how you're attacked, we have a police training system that can provide you with basic self-defense fundamentals in as little as one weekend, over a period of 8 hours (I know, I know you old guys... look up the Merritt-Stevens self defense system, primarily for cops, in good shape, and highly motivated to learn and learn quickly for a very limited type of attack).  Problem is, the word "attack" is sort of... broad, wouldn't you say? Even O-Sensei himself would have an perhaps unsurmountable issue if approached and triangulated by a couple handgun carrying attackers.  All arts take as long as they take, and reading about them on the internet isn't training, so you are actually losing time when you could be learning.  Go get on a mat. ANY mat, and start doing "something." Best advice I can give you.

Q3:  "Does aikido also offer solutions for ground fighting?"

   A3:  Certain... solutions, yes. But the best solution I was ever offered in aikido class to solve this problem was being offered a chance to go to judo class, and through that, BJJ.

Q4:  "Also, how hard is aikido on the body? Are you likely to hurt yourself when you're being thrown over
someone's shoulder? Since I'm rather fragile I don't know if I could even withstand such a training. "

   A4:  I think you are thinking about judo throws, with the over the shoulder description.  However, most of the initial training in aikido is teaching you how to walk poroperly, and then fall properly. These two skills are proven to be about 20 more times likely to save your life than knowing how to fight (simple falls kill LOTS of people every year).  You don't progress to being thrown with the big air falls until you've got that skill to do so. You might be surprised at how you do...again, once you've started.

Q5 (sorta):  "I think aikido looks pretty interesting but I don't know if it's good for self-defense."

   A5:  Self-defense skill, and skill in a martial art can, but don't have to, move along side-by-side. You've got to be considering both, while you are training, to get them to do that, however... it doesn't just happen.


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


>



I'm judging a fighting style on its ability to fight...

.....or lack thereof?


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> I await the day I see any of that being used in the way you describe. I just want to see someone go full blast on an Aikidoka and see what they do to defend themselves.
> 
> It's incredible that after all these years, you still never see that.



In martial arts it is almost the moment you stop loosing you stop progressing. 
I think the higher up in akido you go the less anyone is willing to make you loose.

They dont understand that it is a gift to be toweled up by someone better.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> In martial arts it is almost the moment you stop loosing you stop progressing.
> I think the higher up in akido you go the less anyone is willing to make you loose.
> 
> They dont understand that it is a gift to be toweled up by someone better.



Completely agree with most of what you've said. But... I think you're making generalizations, eh?  

Some schools regularly quality check themselves, trying to determine if (granted it's a controlled environment so the adrenaline isn't flowing in the "attacker" but we aren't just playing, either) there are places where a a bad guy coming at you full tilt boogie can exploit (or course there, there always are) and we train to work through the breakdown of those things.

Primarily, for the aikido folks, it seems that the hardest thing for them/us to deal with is the basic bum rush... just the rush to close and overpower and bear to the ground and do what is termed ground and pound.  If the aikido guy is standing and can move, he/she is good to go. Close that off, stop the movement, or take to the ground and you lose aikido.

But   the thing is, take the guy to the ground (or try to) you open up judo. Or BJJ if that's your bag.  Every art needs cross training, IMO.  There is no magic sword.


----------



## Red Sun

JP3 said:


> Completely agree with most of what you've said. But... I think you're making generalizations, eh?
> 
> Some schools regularly quality check themselves, trying to determine if (granted it's a controlled environment so the adrenaline isn't flowing in the "attacker" but we aren't just playing, either) there are places where a a bad guy coming at you full tilt boogie can exploit (or course there, there always are) and we train to work through the breakdown of those things.
> 
> Primarily, for the aikido folks, it seems that the hardest thing for them/us to deal with is the basic bum rush... just the rush to close and overpower and bear to the ground and do what is termed ground and pound.  If the aikido guy is standing and can move, he/she is good to go. Close that off, stop the movement, or take to the ground and you lose aikido.
> 
> But   the thing is, take the guy to the ground (or try to) you open up judo. Or BJJ if that's your bag.  Every art needs cross training, IMO.  There is no magic sword.



To be fair, a fully determined bumrush where someone is willing to get hit a few times is hard for anyone to defend against. I agree its more of a problem if you don't have ground skills.

Arent there videos of US marines rushing at a partner who's wearing boxing gloves, using little or no technique to wade through the punches and grab them?


----------



## Hanzou

JP3 said:


> Completely agree with most of what you've said. But... I think you're making generalizations, eh?
> 
> Some schools regularly quality check themselves, trying to determine if (granted it's a controlled environment so the adrenaline isn't flowing in the "attacker" but we aren't just playing, either) there are places where a a bad guy coming at you full tilt boogie can exploit (or course there, there always are) and we train to work through the breakdown of those things.
> 
> Primarily, for the aikido folks, it seems that the hardest thing for them/us to deal with is the basic bum rush... just the rush to close and overpower and bear to the ground and do what is termed ground and pound.  If the aikido guy is standing and can move, he/she is good to go. Close that off, stop the movement, or take to the ground and you lose aikido.
> 
> But   the thing is, take the guy to the ground (or try to) you open up judo. Or BJJ if that's your bag.  Every art needs cross training, IMO.  There is no magic sword.



I think what DB is getting at is that in a Judo or Bjj gym you have an extremely high chance of getting tapped out every time you roll. You're actually fighting someone else who is doing everything (within the rules) they can to stop you from getting them into a compromising position.

I'm not sure that exists in Aikido sparring.


----------



## Jenna

Hanzou said:


> I think what DB is getting at is that in a Judo or Bjj gym you have an extremely high chance of getting tapped out every time you roll. You're actually fighting someone else who is doing everything (within the rules) they can to stop you from getting them into a compromising position.
> 
> I'm not sure that exists in Aikido sparring.


Can be true what you say yes and but it is too general to implicate ALL Aikido schools let alone individual practitioners.. some I know did not even do randori..yes!  just technique after technique.. building sensitivity is crucial in Aikido and but what I would class as full-on randori is paramount if Aikido technique is to be valid and fit for defensive purpose ie. effective in neutralising threat.

So yes what you have said can be true.. some Aikido schools seem to me to still practice in a void.. That is of course up to them. However what Aikido is it then that they believe they know??? the Aikido they know maybe I think it like a delicious chocolate cake.. lovely to look at and but not so good for your health maybe.. 

However, not all Aikido practitioners practice this way. The ones who do unfortunately because they are delicious chocolate cake and look lovely seem to find their way on to the internet or youtube where people rightly say ah it is just chocolate cake and have no substance! I do not know who would want to look at Aikido as I would do it.. it would look as if nothing much was happening.. there is no acrobatics.. and I do not stand around to wait for a threat to put me on my back.. if I perceive a person is a threat then I am justified in being pre-emptive before he try to engage me to his level of expertise. I do not know.. maybe I am off topic.. this whole thread is off topic because the OP is in their words too fragile for it whatever that mean..


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I think what DB is getting at is that in a Judo or Bjj gym you have an extremely high chance of getting tapped out every time you roll. You're actually fighting someone else who is doing everything (within the rules) they can to stop you from getting them into a compromising position.
> 
> I'm not sure that exists in Aikido sparring.


The difficult part for pure aikido (doing only "aiki" techniques) is that aiki arts are NOT designed to work against an aikidoka. Because the principle of aiki depends upon feeling and finding those gaps where aiki works so well, if you practice against someone who is just as skilled at aiki, they are closing those gaps as quickly as you find them. There are two resistance activities we use (both could be called sparring): sparring, which is strikes-only or at least nearly so; and randori, which is grappling-only or nearly so. The randori ends up looking quite a bit more like a Judo competition than anything you'd see in most exercises. This is probably especially true in my program, since I specifically teach how to defeat our techniques and specifically teach non-aiki applications of many techniques.


----------



## the42cop

I'm totally not trying to bash Aikido, but if you're looking for a way to defend yourself you're better off looking at something like Krav Maga which specializes in self defense against actual violence. Aikido isn't awful at self defense, but it is one of the soft arts and focuses on a lot more than self defense. Just my 2 cents! 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Jenna

the42cop said:


> I'm totally not trying to bash Aikido, but if you're looking for a way to defend yourself you're better off looking at something like Krav Maga which specializes in self defense against actual violence. Aikido isn't awful at self defense, but it is one of the soft arts and focuses on a lot more than self defense. Just my 2 cents!
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


Krav Maga and Aikido are very different martial arts with very different derivations and modalities.. 

Why in particular do you pick Krav Maga over Aikido if you wish to defend your self?  

It is confusing for me.. I have been practicing my Aikido for 22yr and am still not dead.  I must be doing something incorrectly? I think I am delusional to practice a supposedly defensive art which like you say is not the best way to go for defence.. I have been wasting my time and I think it is pure luck or guardian angels that have ensured I am not dead nor at least have had my defensive delusions beaten out of me by now.. I cannot go on like this relying on luck, fate and chance.. Help me out.. Help to enlighten my darkness.. throw down your rescue rope into this cavern of Aikido ignorance into which I have apparently fallen and been stuck for 22yr! au secours!  x


----------



## pgsmith

Wow Jenna, sarcasm much?  

That brings to mind a very interesting essay written by Toby Threadgill, the head of Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin ryu, about assumptions. The part in it where he describes his instructor's actions at a seminar is one of my favorite stories.     Assumptions 

 It ranks right behind the one about John Ray sensei performing MJER iaido kata at an American karate tournament weapons kata competition.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

gpseymour said:


> The difficult part for pure aikido (doing only "aiki" techniques) is that aiki arts are NOT designed to work against an aikidoka. Because the principle of aiki depends upon feeling and finding those gaps where aiki works so well, if you practice against someone who is just as skilled at aiki, they are closing those gaps as quickly as you find them. There are two resistance activities we use (both could be called sparring): sparring, which is strikes-only or at least nearly so; and randori, which is grappling-only or nearly so. The randori ends up looking quite a bit more like a Judo competition than anything you'd see in most exercises. This is probably especially true in my program, since I specifically teach how to defeat our techniques and specifically teach non-aiki applications of many techniques.


This is an interesting quandary for any art that specializes in defensive/counter-offensive tactics. In order to get really good at those tactics you have to practice them against good quality attacks. If the curriculum is focused entirely on those defensive/counter-offensive tactics, then where do you get training partners who have the skill to feed you those good attacks? From what I've seen, that seems to be a problem for many schools in the aiki arts, the Takamatsuden arts, and others.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> This is an interesting quandary for any art that specializes in defensive/counter-offensive tactics. In order to get really good at those tactics you have to practice them against good quality attacks. If the curriculum is focused entirely on those defensive/counter-offensive tactics, then where do you get training partners who have the skill to feed you those good attacks? From what I've seen, that seems to be a problem for many schools in the aiki arts, the Takamatsuden arts, and others.


I train students on how to give realistic attacks, so that they don't get into some of those odd attacks. It is a problem, and often stems from the slow-motion work that's necessary to keep the technique moving when they are first learning it. Sparring helps, as long as they bring some of those same attacks to feed the techniques (I've seen some schools where sparring was good, and the decent attacks from sparring never appeared during technique training).

The hardest part of feeding good attacks IMO is to use good attacking skill, but not the skill of specifically countering the techniques (except during randori, when that's the point). We're trying to provide the kind of attack we should expect from someone who is reasonably coordinated (and later, even someone who's reasonably skilled), but who doesn't have that "aiki" experience. I struggle with this all the time, myself, because if I brought even a little of my "feel" to an attack, it would force them to look into the non-aiki techniques and applications every time.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> In martial arts it is almost the moment you stop loosing you stop progressing.
> I think the higher up in akido you go the less anyone is willing to make you loose.
> 
> They dont understand that it is a gift to be toweled up by someone better.


Heard once, if you're the toughest guy in your school, you need to find a new school.


----------



## drop bear

Jenna said:


> Krav Maga and Aikido are very different martial arts with very different derivations and modalities..
> 
> Why in particular do you pick Krav Maga over Aikido if you wish to defend your self?
> 
> It is confusing for me.. I have been practicing my Aikido for 22yr and am still not dead.  I must be doing something incorrectly? I think I am delusional to practice a supposedly defensive art which like you say is not the best way to go for defence.. I have been wasting my time and I think it is pure luck or guardian angels that have ensured I am not dead nor at least have had my defensive delusions beaten out of me by now.. I cannot go on like this relying on luck, fate and chance.. Help me out.. Help to enlighten my darkness.. throw down your rescue rope into this cavern of Aikido ignorance into which I have apparently fallen and been stuck for 22yr! au secours!  x



Self defence doesn't really matter if you are terrible. Most people never use it. 

I have friends who cant fight at all and have lived perfectly happy and productive lives.


----------



## the42cop

Jenna said:


> Krav Maga and Aikido are very different martial arts with very different derivations and modalities..
> 
> Why in particular do you pick Krav Maga over Aikido if you wish to defend your self?
> 
> It is confusing for me.. I have been practicing my Aikido for 22yr and am still not dead.  I must be doing something incorrectly? I think I am delusional to practice a supposedly defensive art which like you say is not the best way to go for defence.. I have been wasting my time and I think it is pure luck or guardian angels that have ensured I am not dead nor at least have had my defensive delusions beaten out of me by now.. I cannot go on like this relying on luck, fate and chance.. Help me out.. Help to enlighten my darkness.. throw down your rescue rope into this cavern of Aikido ignorance into which I have apparently fallen and been stuck for 22yr! au secours!  x


I can't speak for your guardian angels or why you haven't inexplicably dropped dead yet...healthy eating perhaps?  I'm guessing your lack of being beaten, maimed or killed or whatever has a lot less to do with whatever art you choose to practice and a lot more to do with the fact that you are most likely a reasonable, rational person who chooses NOT to place themselves in danger or start fights with random people. I don't know though... I could be wrong and you could be out bar hopping every night "defending" the crap out of yourself!  

Again, my argument isn't an attack of Aikido itself. In my personal experience, most traditional martial arts train people really well on how to defend against people of the same training and style. The real world however is vastly different and what we do in the gym ends up being something completely different when confronted with real violence. The reason I mentioned Krav Maga in particular was because it is a reality based training system that solely practices against blitz attacks, multiple opponents, weapons etc. All under as realistic situations as possible. Even my most current obsession, Brazilian jiu-jitsu is a SPORT and in no way prepares people for real violence. If you are ONLY looking for a way to defend yourself from actual violence, something like Krav Maga is the way to go. If you are looking for the other benefits associated with traditional martial art, then cool... I say more power to you and pick whatever most fits your temperament and goals.


----------



## Jenna

pgsmith said:


> Wow Jenna, sarcasm much?
> 
> That brings to mind a very interesting essay written by Toby Threadgill, the head of Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin ryu, about assumptions. The part in it where he describes his instructor's actions at a seminar is one of my favorite stories.     Assumptions
> 
> It ranks right behind the one about John Ray sensei performing MJER iaido kata at an American karate tournament weapons kata competition.


haha.. ah I am only joking  Hey Paul I did not know you were allowed to garotte the participants at your seminars! You pay extra for this special tuition or get money back lolss  I like this story though.  Thank you for sharing! x

If someone see Aikido as not so great for defence well hey that is ok.. freedom of thought is still allowed! Though I think Paul I am exasperated how a person can with his one tube of red paint, paint a landscape picture and then take his painting around galleries proclaiming that the whole world is actually red.. I mean.. if you follow..

To anyone having studied Aikido specifically to look pretty and get youtube hits or punters in the dojo door then that is fine and but it is of limited efficacy in practical realistic defence.. what other kind is there.. And on the other hand, to anyone having trained their Aikido specifically to handle realistic threat in a realistic manner, then it is a fully specified and functioning and viable solution to neutralising physical threat. That is my experience. And I am still not dead.. so I wait for what the person have to reply  and but thank you for your input and this little story.. you have other stories? I like these because they are clear and concise and no BS  thank you Paul x


----------



## Gerry Seymour

the42cop said:


> I can't speak for your guardian angels or why you haven't inexplicably dropped dead yet...healthy eating perhaps?  I'm guessing your lack of being beaten, maimed or killed or whatever has a lot less to do with whatever art you choose to practice and a lot more to do with the fact that you are most likely a reasonable, rational person who chooses NOT to place themselves in danger or start fights with random people. I don't know though... I could be wrong and you could be out bar hopping every night "defending" the crap out of yourself!
> 
> Again, my argument isn't an attack of Aikido itself. In my personal experience, most traditional martial arts train people really well on how to defend against people of the same training and style. The real world however is vastly different and what we do in the gym ends up being something completely different when confronted with real violence. The reason I mentioned Krav Maga in particular was because it is a reality based training system that solely practices against blitz attacks, multiple opponents, weapons etc. All under as realistic situations as possible. Even my most current obsession, Brazilian jiu-jitsu is a SPORT and in no way prepares people for real violence. If you are ONLY looking for a way to defend yourself from actual violence, something like Krav Maga is the way to go. If you are looking for the other benefits associated with traditional martial art, then cool... I say more power to you and pick whatever most fits your temperament and goals.


If KM truly  "solely practices against blitz attacks, multiple opponents, weapons etc.", then how does anyone learn anything? You have to start folks off with something that slows down the attack so they can deal with the response, otherwise you can only teach those who already do something useful in that first flinch. KM definitely tends to work more toward higher-speed attacks, more realistic violence, etc., but it mostly uses the same training techniques (mixed in very different proportions) that I've experienced in SD-oriented TMA. That may be just my experience.


----------



## the42cop

gpseymour said:


> If KM truly  "solely practices against blitz attacks, multiple opponents, weapons etc.", then how does anyone learn anything? You have to start folks off with something that slows down the attack so they can deal with the response, otherwise you can only teach those who already do something useful in that first flinch. KM definitely tends to work more toward higher-speed attacks, more realistic violence, etc., but it mostly uses the same training techniques (mixed in very different proportions) that I've experienced in SD-oriented TMA. That may be just my experience.


Of course you have to teach the psychomotor skills before you just start beating on people lol. And most of the actual techniques taught can be interchangeable with many many other styles out there. The difference is in the training methodology and the psychological aspects. If all it took to be able to effectively defend one's self was learning a few moves, you wouldn't have so many black belts in pretty much any discipline getting beat up in street fights.  It's what sets Krav Maga and other reality based systems apart from many other styles. 

If you take a person who practices a different style... For example Aikido since it is the original topic and run them through realistic full contact blitz attack scenarios over and over by people who are attacking them with a variety of very violent and unorthodox attacks, you will quickly find that Aikido practitioner being able to better defend themselves. The difference between being an effective self defense art and being a sport or traditional "art" that is good for fitness and self improvement and lacking in realistic self defense aptitude has almost nothing to do with what "style" you practice and everything to do with HOW you train. 

In my personal experience... And I know there ARE exceptions, most traditional arts poorly prepare their students for violence because of how they train, not because any one system is inherently superior. 

I will be writing some new posts about just this sort of thing on my blog if you ever want to read my babbling nonsense! It's something that I'm obviously passionate about since my ability to train others effectively can be the difference between their survival as well as providing the tools necessary to make an arrest with a minimum amount of force necessary. I'm currently working on what is going to probably end up being a few posts about the strengths...and many problems with training scars created when cops train in Brazilian jiu-jitsu alone. Like all arts, it's important to diversify


----------



## drop bear

the42cop said:


> Of course you have to teach the psychomotor skills before you just start beating on people lol. And most of the actual techniques taught can be interchangeable with many many other styles out there. The difference is in the training methodology and the psychological aspects. If all it took to be able to effectively defend one's self was learning a few moves, you wouldn't have so many black belts in pretty much any discipline getting beat up in street fights.  It's what sets Krav Maga and other reality based systems apart from many other styles.
> 
> If you take a person who practices a different style... For example Aikido since it is the original topic and run them through realistic full contact blitz attack scenarios over and over by people who are attacking them with a variety of very violent and unorthodox attacks, you will quickly find that Aikido practitioner being able to better defend themselves. The difference between being an effective self defense art and being a sport or traditional "art" that is good for fitness and self improvement and lacking in realistic self defense aptitude has almost nothing to do with what "style" you practice and everything to do with HOW you train.
> 
> In my personal experience... And I know there ARE exceptions, most traditional arts poorly prepare their students for violence because of how they train, not because any one system is inherently superior.
> 
> I will be writing some new posts about just this sort of thing on my blog if you ever want to read my babbling nonsense! It's something that I'm obviously passionate about since my ability to train others effectively can be the difference between their survival as well as providing the tools necessary to make an arrest with a minimum amount of force necessary. I'm currently working on what is going to probably end up being a few posts about the strengths...and many problems with training scars created when cops train in Brazilian jiu-jitsu alone. Like all arts, it's important to diversify



if you ran fully resisted drills at a guy then eventually he would be able to do the technique pretty effectively. we train fighters in this manner.

you could invent these drills for any system or martial arts. I have mentioned examples of this where we will just pin a guy against a wall and then person after person will just knock him down on to the mat until he can start to defend himself.

a person will basically fail to defend himself week in week out until he gains the requisite skills to defend himself. and it is quite simply infuriating. these drills cause the most dummy spits,crying,walking out in into the car park screaming nasties at everybody than any other exercise we do. but it will teach a person to defend an attack under pressure.

(and maybe some lessons about character in the process)

I have not seen this sort of drill done in krav. what it seems is very similar to akido in that you do drills that the defender is fixed to win. 

I was going to show an akido grading and suggest that this is where the standard is set. competency is decided is this format. and suggest it is too removed fromantic fighting.

krav can fall into the same trap for the same reasons.


----------



## drop bear

double bubble post.


----------



## Jenna

the42cop said:


> I can't speak for your guardian angels or why you haven't inexplicably dropped dead yet...healthy eating perhaps?  I'm guessing your lack of being beaten, maimed or killed or whatever has a lot less to do with whatever art you choose to practice and a lot more to do with the fact that you are most likely a reasonable, rational person who chooses NOT to place themselves in danger or start fights with random people. I don't know though... I could be wrong and you could be out bar hopping every night "defending" the crap out of yourself!
> 
> Again, my argument isn't an attack of Aikido itself. In my personal experience, most traditional martial arts train people really well on how to defend against people of the same training and style. The real world however is vastly different and what we do in the gym ends up being something completely different when confronted with real violence. The reason I mentioned Krav Maga in particular was because it is a reality based training system that solely practices against blitz attacks, multiple opponents, weapons etc. All under as realistic situations as possible. Even my most current obsession, Brazilian jiu-jitsu is a SPORT and in no way prepares people for real violence. If you are ONLY looking for a way to defend yourself from actual violence, something like Krav Maga is the way to go. If you are looking for the other benefits associated with traditional martial art, then cool... I say more power to you and pick whatever most fits your temperament and goals.


What way were you practicing your Aikido that you realise to your self it was not fit for real world defence?


----------



## Jenna

drop bear said:


> Self defence doesn't really matter if you are terrible. Most people never use it.
> 
> I have friends who cant fight at all and have lived perfectly happy and productive lives.


Of what relevence to me or people I work beside while I am pushing away understandably hostile young men or even some times women in people processing centre is it to know "most people" never use self defence? I cannot even leave in evening without people demand money off of me..

So tell me it is more than platitude to say "most people"?? Who are "most people" in this case and what is the worth of their view of how to defend when they have no need of it nor experience of it??? 

I am confused.. this is not thread about Aikido as effective defence?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

the42cop said:


> Of course you have to teach the psychomotor skills before you just start beating on people lol. And most of the actual techniques taught can be interchangeable with many many other styles out there. The difference is in the training methodology and the psychological aspects. If all it took to be able to effectively defend one's self was learning a few moves, you wouldn't have so many black belts in pretty much any discipline getting beat up in street fights.  It's what sets Krav Maga and other reality based systems apart from many other styles.
> 
> If you take a person who practices a different style... For example Aikido since it is the original topic and run them through realistic full contact blitz attack scenarios over and over by people who are attacking them with a variety of very violent and unorthodox attacks, you will quickly find that Aikido practitioner being able to better defend themselves. The difference between being an effective self defense art and being a sport or traditional "art" that is good for fitness and self improvement and lacking in realistic self defense aptitude has almost nothing to do with what "style" you practice and everything to do with HOW you train.
> 
> In my personal experience... And I know there ARE exceptions, most traditional arts poorly prepare their students for violence because of how they train, not because any one system is inherently superior.
> 
> I will be writing some new posts about just this sort of thing on my blog if you ever want to read my babbling nonsense! It's something that I'm obviously passionate about since my ability to train others effectively can be the difference between their survival as well as providing the tools necessary to make an arrest with a minimum amount of force necessary. I'm currently working on what is going to probably end up being a few posts about the strengths...and many problems with training scars created when cops train in Brazilian jiu-jitsu alone. Like all arts, it's important to diversify


I think we're mostly in agreement here. You made the same point here: "The difference between being an effective self defense art and being a sport or traditional "art" that is good for fitness and self improvement and lacking in realistic self defense aptitude has almost nothing to do with what "style" you practice and everything to do with HOW you train."

That's really my point. KM is effective (when taught well, of course) because of the training methods used. More and more, I'm starting to see many of those same methods show up in TMA dojos, as well. I think it's part of the positive influence KM has had.


----------



## drop bear

Jenna said:


> Of what relevence to me or people I work beside while I am pushing away understandably hostile young men or even some times women in people processing centre is it to know "most people" never use self defence? I cannot even leave in evening without people demand money off of me..
> 
> So tell me it is more than platitude to say "most people"?? Who are "most people" in this case and what is the worth of their view of how to defend when they have no need of it nor experience of it???
> 
> I am confused.. this is not thread about Aikido as effective defence?



if you are willing to put your head on the block. you can use what makes you feel comfortable.


----------



## the42cop

Steve said:


> Heard once, if you're the toughest guy in your school, you need to find a new school.



And I'm just here upset that I didn't think to use your awesome profile pic! Love it lol


----------



## justkool141

No very 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## justkool141

Not*


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JP3

Hanzou said:


> I think what DB is getting at is that in a Judo or Bjj gym you have an extremely high chance of getting tapped out every time you roll. You're actually fighting someone else who is doing everything (within the rules) they can to stop you from getting them into a compromising position.
> 
> I'm not sure that exists in Aikido sparring.


You're right, it doesn't regularly appear in aikido, or any MA type of, sparring, unless you "put it in" as judo and BJJ regularly do.

You've got to go "live" to really check and see if you can do what you're training to do, or if you're just learning a new way to dance.  To be honest, I didn't learn to "fight" in aikido class, but now, when I have to do something, the aikido is definitely there and it works. Maybe I'm just a mean old guy, could be that, too.


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> You're right, it doesn't regularly appear in aikido, or any MA type of, sparring, unless you "put it in" as judo and BJJ regularly do.
> 
> You've got to go "live" to really check and see if you can do what you're training to do, or if you're just learning a new way to dance.  To be honest, I didn't learn to "fight" in aikido class, but now, when I have to do something, the aikido is definitely there and it works. Maybe I'm just a mean old guy, could be that, too.



even drills to a certain degree. resisted drills are not compliant drills done quickly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> You're right, it doesn't regularly appear in aikido, or any MA type of, sparring, unless you "put it in" as judo and BJJ regularly do.
> 
> You've got to go "live" to really check and see if you can do what you're training to do, or if you're just learning a new way to dance.  To be honest, I didn't learn to "fight" in aikido class, but now, when I have to do something, the aikido is definitely there and it works. Maybe I'm just a mean old guy, could be that, too.


There is a persistent problem with going all-out in most arts. I've seen hands broken from someone going a bit too fast on some techniques. If people ever went all-out and actually found some of these techniques (you find them, you don't generate them), there would be too many injuries. Even rolling in BJJ, you can't really go all-out with some techniques; those arm locks can break an arm in a split second, but are applied relatively slowly for safety reasons. And the same goes for striking arts. If you really go "live" and try with everything you have to hurt the other guy...he's probably going to get hurt (or you are). You just can't do things like that in a realistic way without risking injury. How close to "live" you can get really depends upon the skill involved (more skill creates more safety and control), what techniques are in use, and how much risk of injury you are willing to accept.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> There is a persistent problem with going all-out in most arts. I've seen hands broken from someone going a bit too fast on some techniques. If people ever went all-out and actually found some of these techniques (you find them, you don't generate them), there would be too many injuries. Even rolling in BJJ, you can't really go all-out with some techniques; those arm locks can break an arm in a split second, but are applied relatively slowly for safety reasons. And the same goes for striking arts. If you really go "live" and try with everything you have to hurt the other guy...he's probably going to get hurt (or you are). You just can't do things like that in a realistic way without risking injury. How close to "live" you can get really depends upon the skill involved (more skill creates more safety and control), what techniques are in use, and how much risk of injury you are willing to accept.


Just speaking for Bjj, you resist the techniques all out.   I may not break your elbow, but I should be able to get you to the point where you have no option but to submit, while you're working 100% to avoid that.


----------



## jaguarlives

kehcorpz said:


> Hi folks.
> 
> Aikido is out of the race. I heard that for self defense it's not really helpful and that the stuff doesn't work in real life.
> 
> Also the injury risk seems to high to me.
> 
> Atm I am considering krav maga. But I'm not sure if this is really interesting enough for me. I need something which also
> looks cool and interesting. Otherwise it would just bore me like boxing. Boxing is so boring I'd never want to learn it.


Do you know enough about Aikido to say that it doesn't work? Have you been to an actual school and watched what they do? As far as interesting, it is very interesting and looks very beautiful or cool. I suggest that you look at some of the videos on a youtube channel called Aikido Flow , they might give you a little more insight into the art. Also look at Larry Tatum's clips on Kenpo Karate, this system also offers a lot of variety and depth as well as having an aesthetic appeal.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Just speaking for Bjj, you resist the techniques all out.   I may not break your elbow, but I should be able to get you to the point where you have no option but to submit, while you're working 100% to avoid that.


You can resist 100% (and often will), but the guy applying isn't actually applying 100%. He doesn't, because if he did and your resistance wasn't sufficient, he'd simply break your arm.


----------



## Hanzou

JP3 said:


> You're right, it doesn't regularly appear in aikido, or any MA type of, sparring, unless you "put it in" as judo and BJJ regularly do.
> 
> You've got to go "live" to really check and see if you can do what you're training to do, or if you're just learning a new way to dance.  To be honest, I didn't learn to "fight" in aikido class, but now, when I have to do something, the aikido is definitely there and it works. Maybe I'm just a mean old guy, could be that, too.



In all of my interactions with Aikido, it just reminds me of a form of Yoga or dancing. I can definitely see the appeal, since Aikido demonstrations are quite lovely and cool. You get to "throw" people around without getting your hands dirty, or hardly even break a sweat. Judoka and Jiujitieros are sweaty and grimy in comparison where someone is constantly in your face grabbing you, and yanking you around trying turn you into a pretzel.

I don't know... I just find Aikido randori far too soft. You got to get in there and grab that lapel and yank that person around and force them to react. You got to grip their sleeves or pants and force them to stop you from taking them to the mat. You got to put on gloves and start punching and kicking and force them to close the distance. Just once I want to see an Aikido school bring in a Muay Thai, Boxer, or MMA striker into their dojo and have the Aikidoka attempt their counters. Hell, they could do it themselves. One student wears gloves and is the "bad guy" and goes all out with kicks, grabs, and punches, while the other student is the Aikidoka and he has to fight back only using Aikido.

Maybe they already do that in some dojos. I certainly hope they do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> In all of my interactions with Aikido, it just reminds me of a form of Yoga or dancing. I can definitely see the appeal, since Aikido demonstrations are quite lovely and cool. You get to "throw" people around without getting your hands dirty, or hardly even break a sweat. Judoka and Jiujitieros are sweaty and grimy in comparison where someone is constantly in your face grabbing you, and yanking you around trying turn you into a pretzel.
> 
> I don't know... I just find Aikido randori far too soft. You got to get in there and grab that lapel and yank that person around and force them to react. You got to grip their sleeves or pants and force them to stop you from taking them to the mat. You got to put on gloves and start punching and kicking and force them to close the distance. Just once I want to see an Aikido school bring in a Muay Thai, Boxer, or MMA striker into their dojo and have the Aikidoka attempt their counters. Hell, they could do it themselves. One student wears gloves and is the "bad guy" and goes all out with kicks, grabs, and punches, while the other student is the Aikidoka and he has to fight back only using Aikido.
> 
> Maybe they already do that in some dojos. I certainly hope they do.


When you say "he has to fight back only using Aikido", I infer that you're referring to those branches of Ueshiba's art that don't use much (or any) striking, and use soft locks. Within the range of Aikido, there is a lot that doesn't require that "flow". Aikido, if the focus on aiki is missing (which does happen at times when attacks are coming hard), can end up looking a lot like Judo. Or it can end up looking a lot like a striking art (because those strikes set up the aiki). Or it can end up looking like a blend.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You can resist 100% (and often will), but the guy applying isn't actually applying 100%. He doesn't, because if he did and your resistance wasn't sufficient, he'd simply break your arm.



not really. many submissions don't require pain compliance to work. they are also joint immobilizations so so you can holds a guy in that lock forever. so that hold point is the resisted fight. not so much the lock itself.

it gets kind of conceptual a bit from there. the idea is that if you can dominate the fight you don't necessarily have to realistically train the finish moves.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> You can resist 100% (and often will), but the guy applying isn't actually applying 100%. He doesn't, because if he did and your resistance wasn't sufficient, he'd simply break your arm.


I don't know.   In Bjj, that just doesn't happen.  Injuries occur but aren't very common.   Yiuve also done judo.   Hopefully yiu understand what I mean.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> not really. many submissions don't require pain compliance to work. they are also joint immobilizations so so you can holds a guy in that lock forever. so that hold point is the resisted fight. not so much the lock itself.
> 
> it gets kind of conceptual a bit from there. the idea is that if you can dominate the fight you don't necessarily have to realistically train the finish moves.


That's true. I'm talking about the ones that actually put a joint at risk. Anything that simply immobilizes can be used fairly safely, but an arm bar is not among those. And in many self-defense arts, immobilizations are used less than destructions (which are practiced as pain compliance in the dojo).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I don't know.   In Bjj, that just doesn't happen.  Injuries occur but aren't very common.   Yiuve also done judo.   Hopefully yiu understand what I mean.


I agree they don't. And it's because the practitioners use control. I use an arm bar as an example because it is a fairly clean one. If I don't mind breaking an arm, I put it on hard, fast, and past the breaking point. If I'm training with a partner, I can do at least one of those - two if my skill and control is up (and they have good control of their body, too), but not all three.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> When you say "he has to fight back only using Aikido", I infer that you're referring to those branches of Ueshiba's art that don't use much (or any) striking, and use soft locks. Within the range of Aikido, there is a lot that doesn't require that "flow". Aikido, if the focus on aiki is missing (which does happen at times when attacks are coming hard), can end up looking a lot like Judo. Or it can end up looking a lot like a striking art (because those strikes set up the aiki). Or it can end up looking like a blend.



Yeah, I suppose I'm talking about Aikikai branch, since that's the most prevalent.

Example:






I simply don't find any of that very believable.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I agree they don't. And it's because the practitioners use control. I use an arm bar as an example because it is a fairly clean one. If I don't mind breaking an arm, I put it on hard, fast, and past the breaking point. If I'm training with a partner, I can do at least one of those - two if my skill and control is up (and they have good control of their body, too), but not all three.


But you're doing it at full speed against a partner who is defending 100%


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> But you're doing it at full speed against a partner who is defending 100%


Yes, that's one of the great things about Judo and BJJ workouts.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's true. I'm talking about the ones that actually put a joint at risk. Anything that simply immobilizes can be used fairly safely, but an arm bar is not among those. And in many self-defense arts, immobilizations are used less than destructions (which are practiced as pain compliance in the dojo).



all sorts of things are used in self defence martial arts that can't be trained live. and the result is this.





that to a certain point is fine. but the core of what you do can't be theoretical. so in general you do the break theoretically from the arm immobilization. which is trained honestly.

that becomes this idea of position before submission.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> all sorts of things are used in self defence martial arts that can't be trained live. and the result is this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that to a certain point is fine. but the core of what you do can't be theoretical. so in general you do the break theoretically from the arm immobilization. which is trained honestly.
> 
> that becomes this idea of position before submission.


That's one approach. Personally, I don't want any but experienced students coming close to a break position with any speed. They simply don't have the control for it. For immobilizations that don't have a break very close to them, those can be done with speed and full intent.

There's also the issue that "full resistance" is a problematic issue with some arts. The resistance I would offer is nothing like the resistance they're likely to get on the street. I can defeat most techniques with nearly zero strength (and eventually teach students to do the same). The theoretical attacker is unlikely to have that ability, so we have to actually add some simulated resistance. By that I mean offering resistance in other ways, besides the counters. An easy example of this is pulling the arm into a bent position with sheer muscle to prevent an Arm Bar. This opens some new opportunities - some of my favorites - that the aiki-based counters don't offer (obviously, there are different openings presented by those).

So, if I only test with 100% of my resistance, I would only offer the aiki-based counters, and students wouldn't get to learn how to deal with the more likely types of resistance. It's an aggravating issue, because new students could actually produce that resistance (it's what they're more likely to do), but they tend to try to hard, and put themselves at risk, so we bail on the technique and do something different rather than risk the injury.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's one approach. Personally, I don't want any but experienced students coming close to a break position with any speed. They simply don't have the control for it. For immobilizations that don't have a break very close to them, those can be done with speed and full intent.
> 
> There's also the issue that "full resistance" is a problematic issue with some arts. The resistance I would offer is nothing like the resistance they're likely to get on the street. I can defeat most techniques with nearly zero strength (and eventually teach students to do the same). The theoretical attacker is unlikely to have that ability, so we have to actually add some simulated resistance. By that I mean offering resistance in other ways, besides the counters. An easy example of this is pulling the arm into a bent position with sheer muscle to prevent an Arm Bar. This opens some new opportunities - some of my favorites - that the aiki-based counters don't offer (obviously, there are different openings presented by those).
> 
> So, if I only test with 100% of my resistance, I would only offer the aiki-based counters, and students wouldn't get to learn how to deal with the more likely types of resistance. It's an aggravating issue, because new students could actually produce that resistance (it's what they're more likely to do), but they tend to try to hard, and put themselves at risk, so we bail on the technique and do something different rather than risk the injury.



that is still the same dynamic everybody else faces though. sparring hard dosent mean sparring sparking spazzy.







but to give up crazy arm breaks  means you will be courting loss. mabye even against brand new guys.

courting loss makes you better if you can be humble.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> that is still the same dynamic everybody else faces though. sparring hard dosent mean sparring sparking spazzy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but to give up crazy arm breaks  means you will be courting loss. mabye even against brand new guys.
> 
> courting loss makes you better if you can be humble.



That big boy needs to work on his cardio, and learn some Jiujitsu. He'd be a monster with just a little bit of training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> that is still the same dynamic everybody else faces though. sparring hard dosent mean sparring sparking spazzy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but to give up crazy arm breaks  means you will be courting loss. mabye even against brand new guys.
> 
> courting loss makes you better if you can be humble.


All true. Remember, my original comments were to the idea of going 100%. I don't think that's a consistent reality in any training that doesn't include a ton of injuries. You look for where you can go 100%, and accept those losses that happen because you weren't willing to risk more (injury to yourself or your opponent).


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> All true. Remember, my original comments were to the idea of going 100%. I don't think that's a consistent reality in any training that doesn't include a ton of injuries. You look for where you can go 100%, and accept those losses that happen because you weren't willing to risk more (injury to yourself or your opponent).



And this is where stuff becomes complicated. Generally when you are taught a move like a throw you are taught wrong so that you can get your brain around the mechanics of it. So to keep it simple.  You learn a double leg pretty much on the spot.  Which gives you the mechanics but doesn't really give you the throw.

When you actually try to do a double leg you run the guy across the room. There are angle changes and all sorts of added nuance that makes that throw work. 

So the resistance plays an important roll in giving the correct feedback. Which if you don't have you don't train the depth of technique.


----------



## the42cop

gpseymour said:


> Yes, that's one of the great things about Judo and BJJ workouts.


No joke! You can literally take an Olympic athlete and after 5 minutes of sparring they will want to throw up lol. It requires a level of fitness that I haven't found in anything else.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And this is where stuff becomes complicated. Generally when you are taught a move like a throw you are taught wrong so that you can get your brain around the mechanics of it. So to keep it simple.  You learn a double leg pretty much on the spot.  Which gives you the mechanics but doesn't really give you the throw.
> 
> When you actually try to do a double leg you run the guy across the room. There are angle changes and all sorts of added nuance that makes that throw work.
> 
> So the resistance plays an important roll in giving the correct feedback. Which if you don't have you don't train the depth of technique.


Yep. This is the same thing that happens even with more "complex" moves (they're not really as complex as they are taught, but that's another topic). The only real difference with the aiki arts is that we have to go another level (other arts do some of this - it's the major principle for us). When I go for a technique, I'm feeling the whole time for the "void" (my term - don't know if others use it or not).

Here's an example from yesterday's class. I introduced some white belts to a new (for them) drill. It's essentially a one-step attack to defend. The attacker gives a decent (not full-on, by an means - these are white belts) attack, and the defender defends it. The attack is meant to have intent, but to be a bit over-committed (they're not holding back to allow a second attack). If the defender doesn't defend (for instance, just blocks and pauses), the attacker follows up with another attack. Well, I went first to demonstrate it, and the first student resists the technique I was going for (an arm bar, I think). I had shoulder height and weight and her momentum, so I could fairly easily have gotten the arm bar without hurting her, but that's not where aiki is. Instead, I flowed to another technique and then felt "the void" (where her weight was creating an easy opening to make her fall), so I passed her arm further across and took her down by her head. She was resisting the whole time (misunderstanding the instructions), and I could have made either of the first two techniques work, but I naturally flowed with our joined movement until the void showed up.


----------



## justkool141

As long as its not Steven Seagal aikido is fine


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jenna

justkool141 said:


> As long as its not Steven Seagal aikido is fine
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


why is it fine?


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> That's one approach. Personally, I don't want any but experienced students coming close to a break position with any speed. They simply don't have the control for it. For immobilizations that don't have a break very close to them, those can be done with speed and full intent.
> 
> There's also the issue that "full resistance" is a problematic issue with some arts. The resistance I would offer is nothing like the resistance they're likely to get on the street. I can defeat most techniques with nearly zero strength (and eventually teach students to do the same). The theoretical attacker is unlikely to have that ability, so we have to actually add some simulated resistance. By that I mean offering resistance in other ways, besides the counters. An easy example of this is pulling the arm into a bent position with sheer muscle to prevent an Arm Bar. This opens some new opportunities - some of my favorites - that the aiki-based counters don't offer (obviously, there are different openings presented by those).
> 
> So, if I only test with 100% of my resistance, I would only offer the aiki-based counters, and students wouldn't get to learn how to deal with the more likely types of resistance. It's an aggravating issue, because new students could actually produce that resistance (it's what they're more likely to do), but they tend to try to hard, and put themselves at risk, so we bail on the technique and do something different rather than risk the injury.


Jerry, I'm obviously missing something since you do aikidamage as I do, you're describing the arm-curling with resistance, which to me speaks directly to henari and gaeshi things being given to you by the "bad guy."  A really simple one that can show up is bad guy punch, good guy evade/block slap out of the way.....  whatever happens, and good guy ends up with hands on/over bad guy arm, who yanks it back as good guy tries to "do" something.

Right as the arm is coming back there is a huge hole in which a nasty kotegaeshi lives. It's worse with more resistance than less. I accidentally (really, it was) *** over tea-kettled one of my budedies one time when we were checking how/where the kinetic energy ... goes.

So, in your response to Drop above, I'm being thick and missing something you're trying to say.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Jerry, I'm obviously missing something since you do aikidamage as I do, you're describing the arm-curling with resistance, which to me speaks directly to henari and gaeshi things being given to you by the "bad guy."  A really simple one that can show up is bad guy punch, good guy evade/block slap out of the way.....  whatever happens, and good guy ends up with hands on/over bad guy arm, who yanks it back as good guy tries to "do" something.
> 
> Right as the arm is coming back there is a huge hole in which a nasty kotegaeshi lives. It's worse with more resistance than less. I accidentally (really, it was) *** over tea-kettled one of my budedies one time when we were checking how/where the kinetic energy ... goes.
> 
> So, in your response to Drop above, I'm being thick and missing something you're trying to say.


We don't use many Japanese terms, so I'm not at all sure what your first sentence is about. If you translate those for me, maybe I can clear up what I said earlier.

The second paragraph, I agree with entirely. That's where the "void" is. If the attacker pulls back hard, he falls hard. If he stiffens his arm he opens up other techniques, and I have more leverage for some moves (and joint locks generally hurt worse/become more destructive).


----------



## Hanzou

Jenna said:


> why is it fine?



Segal is a strange guy.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> Segal is a strange guy.


He is a strange guy.  Ego-maniacal jerk might be more accurate, from what I understand.

I don't know the current state of his aikido now, but my understanding is that at least once upon a time, his aikido was quite formidable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> He is a strange guy.  Ego-maniacal jerk might be more accurate, from what I understand.
> 
> I don't know the current state of his aikido now, but my understanding is that at least once upon a time, his aikido was quite formidable.


From what I've seen, it looks solid. Of course, all I've seen is demos and some footage from seminars.


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> He is a strange guy.  Ego-maniacal jerk might be more accurate, from what I understand.
> 
> I don't know the current state of his aikido now, but my understanding is that at least once upon a time, his aikido was quite formidable.



I hope he takes Randy Couture's challenge. Randy said he'd come out of retirement just to fight Segal. Bas Rutten was also interested in fighting Segal.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> I hope he takes Randy Couture's challenge. Randy said he'd come out of retirement just to fight Segal. Bas Rutten was also interested in fighting Segal.


Why?


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> Why?



Honestly, I would like to see Segal's Aikido being utilized against Couture's style to see how legit it truly is. As someone else has said, it has only been seen in demos and movies.


----------



## Steve

And spectacle.  Nothing wrong with a little spectacle.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> Honestly, I would like to see Segal's Aikido being utilized against Couture's style to see how legit it truly is. As someone else has said, it has only been seen in demos and movies.



I mean, why do Bas and Randy want to fight him?  He's a fat old man, well past his prime.  Whether his aikido is still good or not, a younger martial athlete who fought professionally, a lot, is going to have a severe advantage.  There's little doubt about the outcome, and even so would do nothing to establish whether Segal's aikido is legit or not, even when he loses.

What caused these guys to even make the suggestion?  I can't imagine what they think they have to gain.  If they win, well they beat up a fat old man, well past his prime.  If they lose, they lost to a fat old man, well past his prime.  Either way, their reputation is stained.  I guess I don't get it.


----------



## Jenna

Hanzou said:


> Segal is a strange guy.


haha maybe.. though this poster he or she say long as it is not Seagal.. "aikido is fine" so I just like to ask what make Aikido "fine" for this poster.. since without elaboration that kind of sound to me like yet more banal commentary of the uninformed, no?


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> I mean, why do Bas and Randy want to fight him?  He's a fat old man, well past his prime.  Whether his aikido is still good or not, a younger martial athlete who fought professionally, a lot, is going to have a severe advantage.  There's little doubt about the outcome, and even so would do nothing to establish whether Segal's aikido is legit or not, even when he loses.
> 
> What caused these guys to even make the suggestion?  I can't imagine what they think they have to gain.  If they win, well they beat up a fat old man, well past his prime.  If they lose, they lost to a fat old man, well past his prime.  Either way, their reputation is stained.  I guess I don't get it.



Couture joked that he was willing to come out of retirement to fight Segal because the latter had popped up helping Anderson prepare for a fight. Segal took it seriously and said that he was willing to fight Couture, but only if no witnesses were present. Couture's response;



> _"I'm the one that started the joke as an off-handed comment I made to Jay Glazer - that I'd only come out of retirement if it were to fight Seagal. Obviously now somebody has talked to him about it and it has gotten some legs. I'm not surprised that he wants to do it in private, remote location where nobody could see it happen. Obviously I intended it as a joke. I don't think it would really happen."_


_
Couture to Seagal: Calm down, bro
_
As for Bas, he said on one of his old shows that he would take Segal by the ponytail and spin him around before beating the crap out of him. No response from Segal on that one.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> Couture joked that he was willing to come out of retirement to fight Segal because the latter had popped up helping Anderson prepare for a fight. Segal took it seriously and said that he was willing to fight Couture, but only if no witnesses were present. Couture's response;
> 
> 
> _
> Couture to Seagal: Calm down, bro
> _
> As for Bas, he said on one of his old shows that he would take Segal by the ponytail and spin him around before beating the crap out of him. No response from Segal on that one.


Got it, thx.  That seems more sensible, that it grew out of a joke and not a genuine challenge.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> I mean, why do Bas and Randy want to fight him?  He's a fat old man, well past his prime.  Whether his aikido is still good or not, a younger martial athlete who fought professionally, a lot, is going to have a severe advantage.  There's little doubt about the outcome, and even so would do nothing to establish whether Segal's aikido is legit or not, even when he loses.
> 
> What caused these guys to even make the suggestion?  I can't imagine what they think they have to gain.  If they win, well they beat up a fat old man, well past his prime.  If they lose, they lost to a fat old man, well past his prime.  Either way, their reputation is stained.  I guess I don't get it.


They're old and fat, too.  And I think they probably figure they can take him.


----------



## pgsmith

Flying Crane said:


> He's a fat old man, well past his prime.



  I thought you were talking about me at first ...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pgsmith said:


> I thought you were talking about me at first ...


Who says he wasn't?


----------



## Hanzou

While the entire Segal thing is amusing, it would be nice to see Aikido being utilized in a more martial context. Roy Dean has created an interesting synthesis of Aikido and Bjj, but even with his stuff it appears that Bjj carries the load for the majority of his martial applications.

Just once I'd just like to see an Aikidoka stand in the center of a ring and make a guy tap from a lock.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> While the entire Segal thing is amusing, it would be nice to see Aikido being utilized in a more martial context. Roy Dean has created an interesting synthesis of Aikido and Bjj, but even with his stuff it appears that Bjj carries the load for the majority of his martial applications.
> 
> Just once I'd just like to see an Aikidoka stand in the center of a ring and make a guy tap from a lock.



You would do akido and wrestling. If you wanted to make a neater mix. they have more of a similar dynamic.

there is much more arm isolation. with arm drags and underhooks. and back control i think gells more with their concept.

here we go. wrestlings wrist lock throw.


----------



## Hanzou

drop bear said:


> You would do akido and wrestling. If you wanted to make a neater mix. they have more of a similar dynamic.
> 
> there is much more arm isolation. with arm drags and underhooks. and back control i think gells more with their concept.
> 
> here we go. wrestlings wrist lock throw.



Yeah, I can definitely see that. I also think Aikido with the no-gi Judo stuff emerging in MMA circles would be a good mix as well.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> Yeah, I can definitely see that. I also think Aikido with the no-gi Judo stuff emerging in MMA circles would be a good mix as well.



yeah. that would work as well.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> They're old and fat, too.  And I think they probably figure they can take him.


Probably not as old and fat as Segal.  I bet he's taller, tho.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> Probably not as old and fat as Segal.  I bet he's taller, tho.



Randy Couture 53 vs Steven Seagal 64...Seagal is 2 inches taller

or

Bas Rutten 51 vs Steven Seagal 64....Seagal is 3 inches taller

put them all back in time to roughly the same age and condition... meaning Seagal in the mid to late 80s then maybe. But today.... you are absolutely right

With that type of logic you could also have proven Muhammad Ali (at 64) was a horrible fighter too


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> Randy Couture 53 vs Steven Seagal 64...Seagal is 2 inches taller
> 
> or
> 
> Bas Rutten 51 vs Steven Seagal 64....Seagal is 3 inches taller
> 
> put them all back in time to roughly the same age and condition... meaning Seagal in the mid to late 80s then maybe. But today.... you are absolutely right
> 
> With that type of logic you could also have proven Muhammad Ali (at 64) was a horrible fighter too



Randy and baz have a bit better pedagree than segal. Which seem to consist of domestic assult charges.


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> Randy Couture 53 vs Steven Seagal 64...Seagal is 2 inches taller
> 
> or
> 
> Bas Rutten 51 vs Steven Seagal 64....Seagal is 3 inches taller
> 
> put them all back in time to roughly the same age and condition... meaning Seagal in the mid to late 80s then maybe. But today.... you are absolutely right
> 
> With that type of logic you could also have proven Muhammad Ali (at 64) was a horrible fighter too



I always figured that size and strength don't matter much to an Aikido master like Segal.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> I always figured that size and strength don't matter much to an Aikido master like Segal.



age is the issue, that is the point being made, size was a side issue and strength was not part of it

Like I implied, put a younger fighter (even 10 years younger) against Muhammad Ali at 64 and judge him based on that and you could say he was a bad fighter too


----------



## Flying Crane

Xue Sheng said:


> Randy Couture 53 vs Steven Seagal 64...Seagal is 2 inches taller
> 
> or
> 
> Bas Rutten 51 vs Steven Seagal 64....Seagal is 3 inches taller
> 
> put them all back in time to roughly the same age and condition... meaning Seagal in the mid to late 80s then maybe. But today.... you are absolutely right
> 
> With that type of logic you could also have proven Muhammad Ali (at 64) was a horrible fighter too


Yeah, there is a big difference in age when you jump from 51 or 53 to 64.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Huge difference!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*Anyways, hypothetical stuff like this is ridiculous*.  Seagal is not going to fight anyone and the guys spouting off against a man past his prime, well they know that they are not going to fight him either.  Just kind've punkish...


----------



## JP3

gpseymour said:


> We don't use many Japanese terms, so I'm not at all sure what your first sentence is about. If you translate those for me, maybe I can clear up what I said earlier.
> 
> The second paragraph, I agree with entirely. That's where the "void" is. If the attacker pulls back hard, he falls hard. If he stiffens his arm he opens up other techniques, and I have more leverage for some moves (and joint locks generally hurt worse/become more destructive).


Jerry, no worries. Sometimes the Japanese, with its layered meanings, actually works better, sometimes not.

Only three fundamental wrist locking "positions," if you will.

Gaeshi (typically associated in wristlocking techniques with kote-gaeshi) can mean, depending on who is doing the translation as "reverse" or "turn."

	A very simple way to see/feel kotegaeshi happening to you is to extend your right arm out in front of you, palm up. Keep the palm up and then bend the right elbow so your right hand gets closer, still palm up. Then reach across and grasp the right hand with the left one, fingers going around the back of the hand and grasping the base of the right thumb, and then attempt to twist your right hand at the wrist to get your own thumb to point down at the ground. That's a simnple kote-gaeshi.

Hineri is the rotational opposite of kotegaeshi. 

	Put your right arm out in front of you, palm up again to start.  Then rotate  the right hand counterclockwise so that the right thumb first points left, then down, then try to keep rotating it until you have to let the elbow bend to allow it to get any farther.  Once you get it so that your right thumb is again pointing to the right, you've most likely got a bent right  elbow (unless you're really flexible at shoulder and wrist).  Now, imagine Segal grabbing your now downwards-pointing fingers at their base (which includes the hand itself), and both lifting and pushing the hand back into your body (consider it a scene from... I think it was Hard to Kill, he's making a mean face while he's doing it). This interesting sensation is kote-hineri.

Mawashi is actually a compression lock on the wrist.

	 Same start position, right hand out in front of you, palm up.  Rotate it over until the palm is now facing down. Keeping the palm facing directly downwards, pull the hand back by bending the elbow, right hand at shoulder height in front of the right shoulder. Reach across the body and put your left palm on the back of your right hand, at the knuckles.  Don't let your elbow go anywhere so you can feel the compression start to get uncomfortable as you press firmly downwards... mawashi.

All three fundamental locking positions can be achieved in a myriad of ways, front, back, this side, that side, inside to out, vice-versa, but the basic "locked" positions of the wrist are anatomically defined.  And of course, you can vary them to get a combination of effect as well.

I'm sure you guys do this stuff, it's just names.  We could call it Smooth Orange Peel Lock if we wanted. it's just that nobody else would know what we were talking about.  For instance, you used the word "void" above where I generally say "hole." Judo background, talking about holes. So, when students are having a hard time with a wrist lock/submission, I usually start out the conversation with something like, "Well... which lock is the end of that, what you are going for?" The proper response from my people is one of the three words above, gaeshi, hineri or mawashi.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I always figured that size and strength don't matter much to an Aikido master like Segal.


The size of your opponent matters less than your own girth, in some cases.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Jerry, no worries. Sometimes the Japanese, with its layered meanings, actually works better, sometimes not.
> 
> Only three fundamental wrist locking "positions," if you will.
> 
> Gaeshi (typically associated in wristlocking techniques with kote-gaeshi) can mean, depending on who is doing the translation as "reverse" or "turn."
> 
> A very simple way to see/feel kotegaeshi happening to you is to extend your right arm out in front of you, palm up. Keep the palm up and then bend the right elbow so your right hand gets closer, still palm up. Then reach across and grasp the right hand with the left one, fingers going around the back of the hand and grasping the base of the right thumb, and then attempt to twist your right hand at the wrist to get your own thumb to point down at the ground. That's a simnple kote-gaeshi.
> 
> Hineri is the rotational opposite of kotegaeshi.
> 
> Put your right arm out in front of you, palm up again to start.  Then rotate  the right hand counterclockwise so that the right thumb first points left, then down, then try to keep rotating it until you have to let the elbow bend to allow it to get any farther.  Once you get it so that your right thumb is again pointing to the right, you've most likely got a bent right  elbow (unless you're really flexible at shoulder and wrist).  Now, imagine Segal grabbing your now downwards-pointing fingers at their base (which includes the hand itself), and both lifting and pushing the hand back into your body (consider it a scene from... I think it was Hard to Kill, he's making a mean face while he's doing it). This interesting sensation is kote-hineri.
> 
> Mawashi is actually a compression lock on the wrist.
> 
> Same start position, right hand out in front of you, palm up.  Rotate it over until the palm is now facing down. Keeping the palm facing directly downwards, pull the hand back by bending the elbow, right hand at shoulder height in front of the right shoulder. Reach across the body and put your left palm on the back of your right hand, at the knuckles.  Don't let your elbow go anywhere so you can feel the compression start to get uncomfortable as you press firmly downwards... mawashi.
> 
> All three fundamental locking positions can be achieved in a myriad of ways, front, back, this side, that side, inside to out, vice-versa, but the basic "locked" positions of the wrist are anatomically defined.  And of course, you can vary them to get a combination of effect as well.
> 
> I'm sure you guys do this stuff, it's just names.  We could call it Smooth Orange Peel Lock if we wanted. it's just that nobody else would know what we were talking about.  For instance, you used the word "void" above where I generally say "hole." Judo background, talking about holes. So, when students are having a hard time with a wrist lock/submission, I usually start out the conversation with something like, "Well... which lock is the end of that, what you are going for?" The proper response from my people is one of the three words above, gaeshi, hineri or mawashi.


Okay, so in order:

Kotegaeshi (the only term in these I already knew) = Front Wrist Throw (or Peel-off, if applied beyond the shoulder)

Hineri sounds like Handshake, and maybe could encompass Reverse Wrist (which name sounds like it belongs with kotegaeshi, but doesn't)

Mawashi sounds like our 3rd Set Wrist Lock, which by definition is nearly the same lock as our First Wrist Lock and Jacket Grab lock.

You know, our English names aren't really any clearer.


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> age is the issue, that is the point being made, size was a side issue and strength was not part of it
> 
> Like I implied, put a younger fighter (even 10 years younger) against Muhammad Ali at 64 and judge him based on that and you could say he was a bad fighter too



That's an apple vs oranges comparison. You're comparing a younger boxer vs an older boxer. I'm comparing two martial artists who use two completely different disciplines, and one discipline supposedly increases its effectiveness as the practitioner ages.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> That's an apple vs oranges comparison. You're comparing a younger boxer vs an older boxer. I'm comparing two martial artists who use two completely different disciplines, and one discipline supposedly increases its effectiveness as the practitioner ages.


It increases its effectiveness as the practitioner becomes better over time. As with any physical endeavor, there is loss with age, too. Aikido (all of the arts under that umbrella term) has two sides. Pure Aikido techniques (those techniques that depend upon the "aiki" principle) aren't always available, and less so against trained fighters who have experience in the right areas. In those moments, a skilled practitioner should be able to fall back on the jujutsu base of Aikido (leverage, mechanics, without full "aiki"). And size, strength, and age matter there as much as they do in any similar art.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> That's an apple vs oranges comparison. You're comparing a younger boxer vs an older boxer. I'm comparing two martial artists who use two completely different disciplines, and one discipline supposedly increases its effectiveness as the practitioner ages.



It is an age issue, that is all, try and justify you argument anyway you wish, but it still is an age issue. It is only a valid comparison if they are all in their fighting prime, otherwise it is age that is all. and to suggest it is, IMHO, silly. I could have just as easily used any other older fighter against any other younger fighters of any style. The issue is still age..... if it makes you feel better a 64 year old Muhammad Ali against the 2 you suggest at their current ages and you would prove what, that a 64 year old Ali was a bad fighter...no, you would prove a 64 year old man should not get in the ring with other trained fighters who are 10 years or more younger than he is. Make them all the same age and then you can find out who is the better fighter. Other than that this type of silly comparison is based purely on speculation, personal opinion and bias


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> It is an age issue, that is all, try and justify you argument anyway you wish, but it still is an age issue. It is only a valid comparison if they are all in their fighting prime, otherwise it is age that is all. and to suggest it is, IMHO, silly. I could have just as easily used any other older fighter against any other younger fighters of any style. The issue is still age..... if it makes you feel better a 64 year old Muhammad Ali against the 2 you suggest at their current ages and you would prove what, that a 64 year old Ali was a bad fighter...no, you would prove a 64 year old man should not get in the ring with other trained fighters who are 10 years or more younger than he is. Make them all the same age and then you can find out who is the better fighter. Other than that this type of silly comparison is based purely on speculation, personal opinion and bias



We should keep in mind that it was Segal himself who said he could take on Couture. So clearly Segal doesn't view his age as an issue.


----------



## drop bear

From the cradle to the grave.  Segal would never have taken randy in a fight.

We are comparing a top level fighter to someone who some guy said was formidable back in the day. 

Katie segal would have better odds.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> We should keep in mind that it was Segal himself who said he could take on Couture. So clearly Segal doesn't view his age as an issue.



Was the quote provided in this thread? If so where? If not, do you have it and can you provide it?

If not then it is hear say

And the reality is still the same, and it does not matter what Seagal said or thinks on the matter, if he said it at all. Age is still the issue and it is still the same, you can try and swing this anyway you wish, attempt to redirect anyway you would like , it is still age. Frankly it does not matter if it is Seagal, at 64, or Ali, or Hagler or Wallace. Proving if they were a fighter is not the issue. What is the issue is that at 64 there is a world of difference from 54.

It still stands, take a fighter at 64, who was talented when he was fighting, and put him against fighters 10 years or more younger and judge the baed on that, and then use it as proof of ability, may give you ammo you desire to make a biased point, but it is far from based in logical reality


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Now, to make this even more absurd in a life or death situation I probably would take Seagal because he is a firearms enthusiast! lol


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> Was the quote provided in this thread? If so where? If not, do you have it and can you provide it?



Steven Seagal: I'd Fight Randy Couture No Rules | UFC NEWS | BJPenn.com

Not that age would matter much. Seagal could be in his 20s and 30s and my money would still be on 50+ Couture rolling him up like a ball of yarn.


----------



## Steve

Xue Sheng said:


> Was the quote provided in this thread? If so where? If not, do you have it and can you provide it?
> 
> If not then it is hear say


Couture to Seagal: Calm down, bro

I think it all started back here.  The drama...  I hope it sold some tickets. 




For the rest, I don't think anyone seriously wants to watch Seagal or Couture fight in a cage anymore... against anyone.  It would be like getting Roger Staubach and Terry Bradshaw together, putting them back in their football gear and getting them out on the football field.  No one wants to see that.

I remember when Bjorn Borg tried to come back to tennis in 1991, using a wood racket and generally hoping no one would notice that 8 years had elapsed since he retired from pro tennis.  That wasn't fun to watch.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> Steven Seagal: I'd Fight Randy Couture No Rules | UFC NEWS | BJPenn.com
> 
> Not that age would matter much. Seagal could be in his 20s and 30s and my money would still be on 50+ Couture rolling him up like a ball of yarn.



Actually age would matter a whole lot if you are talking, Seagal or any fighter at 64 vs Randy Couture at 53, to think otherwise is illogical. That has been my point all along, although you seem to either miss that or do not wish to admit it.

That or you are so blinded by your bias that you have no idea what point I am trying to make here.


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> Actually age would matter a whole lot if you are talking, Seagal or any fighter at 64 vs Randy Couture at 53, to think otherwise is illogical. That has been my point all along, although you seem to either miss that or do not wish to admit it.



You didn't miss my post that you quoted where I said that Seagal could be in his 20s and 30s and it wouldn't mean a hill of beans because Couture would demolish him anyway?



> That or you are so blinded by your bias that you have no idea what point I am trying to make here.



I get your point. You seem to be missing my point that Seagal isn't, and has never been a fighter. You also seem to miss that point that Seagal himself didn't seem to think his age would be a factor in fighting against Couture.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

The reality is that we will never know if Segal would or would not demolish Couture or if it would be the other way around.  Hypothetical again and can never happen.  It is fantasy and a waste of our time!


----------



## drop bear

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Now, to make this even more absurd in a life or death situation I probably would take Seagal because he is a firearms enthusiast! lol



Randy was a real soldier.


----------



## Steve

Okay.  I can't take it anymore.  Can someone fix the typo in the title of the thread?   If i read the word "appliable" I'm going to go nuts.


----------



## Hanzou

Brian R. VanCise said:


> The reality is that we will never know if Segal would or would not demolish Couture or if it would be the other way around.  Hypothetical again and can never happen.  It is fantasy and a waste of our time!



We really don't know if a former professional fighter could demolish an actor who is almost a decade older and grossly out of shape?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> You didn't miss my post that you quoted where I said that Seagal could be in his 20s and 30s and it wouldn't mean a hill of beans because Couture would demolish him anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> I get your point. You seem to be missing my point that Seagal isn't, and has never been a fighter. You also seem to miss that point that Seagal himself didn't seem to think his age would be a factor in fighting against Couture.



I read and understood you perfectly, I am simply not allowing you to redirect the post and doing muy best to keep you on the topic of this discussion, which is 'age'. And you seem to be missing my point about age, or purposely avoiding it, completely. You seem to want to change it to a "for or against", or MMA vs TMA argument, and would prefer to make the is an argument about who is a better fighter, and I am not. As far as I can tell I never even eluded to 'better fighter' or 'winner' of this scenario in any of my posts. 

I am simply making the point that your statement and for that matter Seagal's statement of meeting and fighting a person 11 years younger than him when he is 64 is illogical and just plain silly. However from what I saw in the links "Steve" (not Steven Seagal) provided, Seagal never said he would beat him, he said he would fight him, and one of them would walk out. Of course he did not say he would lose either. 

Now if you want my opinion on who I feel would win based on age, and it would be an opinion, whether current age or if they were both at thier top level of physical conditioning, then feel free to ask, I will be more than happy to tell you and discuss that if you like. But to clear things up and keep this post on point, this conversation is is solely about your's and Seagal's statement being silly based on age.


----------



## Jenna

Steve said:


> Okay.  I can't take it anymore.  Can someone fix the typo in the title of the thread?   If i read the word "appliable" I'm going to go nuts.


Yes I will change it! Where is the case latching pin for it though? While I am in there fettling can I also please change the title completely to some thing else more appropriate? Hmm.. what new title do I give to it??


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Jenna said:


> Yes I will change it! Where is the case latching pin for it though? While I am in there fettling can I also please change the title completely to some thing else more appropriate? Hmm.. what new title do I give to it??


No evil machinations, Jenna.


----------



## Jenna

gpseymour said:


> No evil machinations, Jenna.


Haha.. ok lock me down lolsss  Hey I read some of your things my friend and it sound like you have qualification in psychology maybe? and so can you tell me in this case what is it called that we read something that is incorrect like @Steve astutely point out and but we do not even notice it?? Well maybe just me! I did not notice it.. I read it as it is supposed to be "applicable".. Is like this here below kind of thing..

People | Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit

we see what is not even there some times, right? Like this do create problems for actual police and giving lawful evidence etc, right? Like people say they saw a thing when they did not see it at all??


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Jenna said:


> Haha.. ok lock me down lolsss  Hey I read some of your things my friend and it sound like you have qualification in psychology maybe? and so can you tell me in this case what is it called that we read something that is incorrect like @Steve astutely point out and but we do not even notice it?? Well maybe just me! I did not notice it.. I read it as it is supposed to be "applicable".. Is like this here below kind of thing..
> 
> People | Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit
> 
> we see what is not even there some times, right? Like this do create problems for actual police and giving lawful evidence etc, right? Like people say they saw a thing when they did not see it at all??


I actually didn't notice it until he pointed it out, too.

I've forgotten the term for the cognitive process, but it's fairly common. Our brains love patterns and are very good at filling in gaps. At the simplest level, it's why we perceive a dotted line as a line. If you look at it objectively, it's not a line. It's a bunch of dots, but our brain connects those into a perceived line. That's the same thing you and I did, though in the language center, with the correction of "appliable" to "applicable". Our brains saw the patter (because of the context) and simply read-in the letter that wasn't there.


----------



## Jenna

gpseymour said:


> I actually didn't notice it until he pointed it out, too.
> 
> I've forgotten the term for the cognitive process, but it's fairly common. Our brains love patterns and are very good at filling in gaps. At the simplest level, it's why we perceive a dotted line as a line. If you look at it objectively, it's not a line. It's a bunch of dots, but our brain connects those into a perceived line. That's the same thing you and I did, though in the language center, with the correction of "appliable" to "applicable". Our brains saw the patter (because of the context) and simply read-in the letter that wasn't there.


Our brains think they know better than um.. we do.. whoever we are to think that 

Hey look even you are doing it now.. you have said (if you do not correct it) "our brains saw the patter" (with no "n") haha.. now stop that.. you are making it confusing now!!!  x

Anyway, the matter at hand.. what do we rename this thread? I am forming a secret committee to hash it out


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Couture to Seagal: Calm down, bro
> 
> I think it all started back here.  The drama...  I hope it sold some tickets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the rest, I don't think anyone seriously wants to watch Seagal or Couture fight in a cage anymore... against anyone.  It would be like getting Roger Staubach and Terry Bradshaw together, putting them back in their football gear and getting them out on the football field.  No one wants to see that.
> 
> I remember when Bjorn Borg tried to come back to tennis in 1991, using a wood racket and generally hoping no one would notice that 8 years had elapsed since he retired from pro tennis.  That wasn't fun to watch.



bit of fun though. there is a football match that does specifically that. the ej whitten legends game.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Jenna said:


> Our brains think they know better than um.. we do.. whoever we are to think that
> 
> Hey look even you are doing it now.. you have said (if you do not correct it) "our brains saw the patter" (with no "n") haha.. now stop that.. you are making it confusing now!!!  x
> 
> Anyway, the matter at hand.. what do we rename this thread? I am forming a secret committee to hash it out


I vote for "Random comments about aikido, old celebrities, and cognitive pattern matching"


----------



## Jenna

gpseymour said:


> I vote for "Random comments about aikido, old celebrities, and cognitive pattern matching"


Ooooh you just earn your self a place on the secret ex post facto thread naming committee  x


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Hanzou said:


> We really don't know if a former professional fighter could demolish an actor who is almost a decade older and grossly out of shape?



The only thing we know is this line of talk is fantasy and a derailment of this thread.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> You didn't miss my post that you quoted where I said that Seagal could be in his 20s and 30s and it wouldn't mean a hill of beans because Couture would demolish him anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> I get your point. You seem to be missing my point that Seagal isn't, and has never been a fighter. You also seem to miss that point that Seagal himself didn't seem to think his age would be a factor in fighting against Couture.



You are still missing the point, and your statements show that you are. You are talking about things I never said or even implied, and making assumptions based on whatever it is you think I said. If you want my opinion on the outcome of a fight between Seagal and Couture, both in their prime or otherwise, feel free to ask. But before you do that I would appreciate it if you would stop making assumptions about what you appear to think I am saying.

 As for what Seagal said, based on what I read in the link provided by Steve, you are wrong there as well. He never said he would beat him. He said he would fight him and one would walk out. That is unless you have another source you care to share where Seagal makes the statement you seem to believe he made.


----------



## Hanzou

Xue Sheng said:


> I read and understood you perfectly, I am simply not allowing you to redirect the post and doing muy best to keep you on the topic of this discussion, which is 'age'. And you seem to be missing my point about age, or purposely avoiding it, completely. You seem to want to change it to a "for or against", or MMA vs TMA argument, and would prefer to make the is an argument about who is a better fighter, and I am not. As far as I can tell I never even eluded to 'better fighter' or 'winner' of this scenario in any of my posts.
> 
> I am simply making the point that your statement and for that matter Seagal's statement of meeting and fighting a person 11 years younger than him when he is 64 is illogical and just plain silly. However from what I saw in the links "Steve" (not Steven Seagal) provided, Seagal never said he would beat him, he said he would fight him, and one of them would walk out. Of course he did not say he would lose either.



You don't challenge someone to a fight unless you think you can beat them.


----------



## drop bear

Xue Sheng said:


> You are still missing the point, and your statements show that you are. You are talking about things I never said or even implied, and making assumptions based on whatever it is you think I said. If you want my opinion on the outcome of a fight between Seagal and Couture, both in their prime or otherwise, feel free to ask. But before you do that I would appreciate it if you would stop making assumptions about what you appear to think I am saying.
> 
> As for what Seagal said, based on what I read in the link provided by Steve, you are wrong there as well. He never said he would beat him. He said he would fight him and one would walk out. That is unless you have another source you care to share where Seagal makes the statement you seem to believe he made.



I had this same argument with a guy.  I thought he said he was going to break my jaw.  But he claimed he only said my jaw was going to get broken. Not that he was going to do it. 

He was upset because i suplexed him and he did not understand why. 

True story.


----------



## Hanzou

Brian R. VanCise said:


> The only thing we know is this line of talk is fantasy and a derailment of this thread.



Quite true, let's get back on topic.

This is what Roy Dean said about Aikido and self-defense;

*"I generally take issue with the aikido I’ve learned, seen, and come in contact with being advertised as self-defense. Although there are aspects and techniques of aikido that I believe can be gleaned and added to your martial arsenal (i.e. footwork for getting off the line, blending with an overcommitted attack, etc.), I could never recommend it to somebody who wanted to learn self-defense. Not only is there too much silence about what works and what doesn’t, the non-competitive training method doesn’t put students in pressure situations similar enough to real confrontations, breeding a false sense of security in students through tacit affirmations such as:

1) It may take 20 years, but this stuff will work if you just keep practicing.

2) Don’t worry about strength, since physical conditioning isn’t that important.

3) These exercises we’re doing are how attacks really are.

4) If it’s not working, you’re not using your center.

5) Keep extending that ki to keep him at bay!

It’s not fair to your students to misrepresent what your art is capable of. If your average aikido student rolled with a judo or Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu player, or got in the ring with a boxer or kick boxer, he wouldn’t know what to do with that kind of intensity. He’d simply be overwhelmed. I’ve seen this point debated through letters to the editor in Aikido Today Magazine, but there’s only one way to find out. Do it. To paraphrase Bruce Lee, you can’t learn to swim unless you get wet, so how can you learn how to fight without fighting?"

slideyfoot.com | bjj resources: DVD Review - The White Belt Bible (Roy Dean)*

Quite an interesting perspective, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Flying Crane

I've never heard of Roy Dean.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Hanzou said:


> You don't challenge someone to a fight unless you think you can beat them.



In your opinion.

You might want to check the links Steve supplied and actually listen to what is being said without bias though...but you won't so...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Quite true, let's get back on topic.
> 
> This is what Roy Dean said about Aikido and self-defense;
> 
> *"I generally take issue with the aikido I’ve learned, seen, and come in contact with being advertised as self-defense. Although there are aspects and techniques of aikido that I believe can be gleaned and added to your martial arsenal (i.e. footwork for getting off the line, blending with an overcommitted attack, etc.), I could never recommend it to somebody who wanted to learn self-defense. Not only is there too much silence about what works and what doesn’t, the non-competitive training method doesn’t put students in pressure situations similar enough to real confrontations, breeding a false sense of security in students through tacit affirmations such as:
> 
> 1) It may take 20 years, but this stuff will work if you just keep practicing.
> 
> 2) Don’t worry about strength, since physical conditioning isn’t that important.
> 
> 3) These exercises we’re doing are how attacks really are.
> 
> 4) If it’s not working, you’re not using your center.
> 
> 5) Keep extending that ki to keep him at bay!
> 
> It’s not fair to your students to misrepresent what your art is capable of. If your average aikido student rolled with a judo or Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu player, or got in the ring with a boxer or kick boxer, he wouldn’t know what to do with that kind of intensity. He’d simply be overwhelmed. I’ve seen this point debated through letters to the editor in Aikido Today Magazine, but there’s only one way to find out. Do it. To paraphrase Bruce Lee, you can’t learn to swim unless you get wet, so how can you learn how to fight without fighting?"
> 
> slideyfoot.com | bjj resources: DVD Review - The White Belt Bible (Roy Dean)*
> 
> Quite an interesting perspective, wouldn't you agree?


I agree, though he's talking about the training method, not Ueshiba's art, itself. There's no reason some enterprising instructor couldn't add in elements of appropriate resistance, realistic attacks, etc.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> I agree, though he's talking about the training method, not Ueshiba's art, itself. There's no reason some enterprising instructor couldn't add in elements of appropriate resistance, realistic attacks, etc.



Isn't the training method an integral part of the art?


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> Isn't the training method an integral part of the art?


There are different elements of any training method, and variety does exist.  Are you unable to recognize that?


----------



## Steve

Roy dean is a black belt in jujutsu, aikido and also BJJ.


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> There are different elements of any training method, and variety does exist.  Are you unable to recognize that?



Yes, but every art has unique training methods that separate them from other arts. 

Additionally there's the culture of the system itself. For example, while there are competitive forms of Aikido, the vast majority of Aikido is non-competitive because "O-Sensei" opposed competition and they're never going to change.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> Yes, but every art has unique training methods that separate them from other arts.
> 
> Additionally there's the culture of the system itself. For example, while there are competitive forms of Aikido, the vast majority of Aikido is non-competitive because "O-Sensei" opposed competition and they're never going to change.


But do you understand that anybody can ramp up the intensity of how they train, to whatever level they choose?  That is a decision of the instructor, or even the individual to do on his own if the school does not.  Do you understand that?


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> Roy dean is a black belt in jujutsu, aikido and also BJJ.


Does he have some notoriety or something, for which his comments should be taken seriously by the martial community at large?


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> But do you understand that anybody can ramp up the intensity of how they train, to whatever level they choose?  That is a decision of the instructor, or even the individual to do on his own if the school does not.  Do you understand that?



If the methodology is flawed you can ramp it up as much as you like and it isn't going to help. You have to go to the core of the methodology itself and hammer out the flaws in order to make a real impact. However, that may be more difficult in systems where the founder is heavily revered. There's also a real danger of losing the art's uniqueness in the process.


----------



## Tames D

Steve said:


> Roy dean is a black belt in jujutsu, aikido and also BJJ.


I didn't know Judge Roy Dean was a martial artist. Oh wait...


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> But do you understand that anybody can ramp up the intensity of how they train, to whatever level they choose?  That is a decision of the instructor, or even the individual to do on his own if the school does not.  Do you understand that?



Not the same thing. 

That is actually a trap. That a lot of clubs fall for.  

So i throw an unrealistic punch exactly where and when you want it and then collapse at the right time. 

And then to ramp it up i throw really fast.  And you knock me down really fast. 

Which doesn't really work.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> But do you understand that anybody can ramp up the intensity of how they train, to whatever level they choose?  That is a decision of the instructor, or even the individual to do on his own if the school does not.  Do you understand that?



yup, back about 20 years ago we had a group of people from multiple styles that meant and spared. Too a hell of a beating from a Southern mantis guy who was also an ex-marine. There was also an American Kempo guy that was damn god too. Got slammed to the floor by an Aikidoka and had a real hard time with a Judo guy. It was a great group and a hell of a training experince


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> Does he have some notoriety or something, for which his comments should be taken seriously by the martial community at large?


I would say yes.   He seems to be a thoughtful guy who has been around for a long time, and who has a unique approach to BJJ.   I don't know where he stands within the aikido community, but I would says hat he should absolutely be taken seriously by the martial arts community at large.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*Roy Dean is seems to be a good guy* and he offers a perspective of having trained in several systems including Aikido.  The perspective he offers though is his own and just one opinion.  I recently had a fantastic Aikidoka at our training hall here in Las Vegas.  Everyone that attended including BJJ, Judo, IRT practitioner's etc. left with no doubt that he could utilize his Aikido.  Then again he is on a different level than most Aikidoka having practiced it for around 45 years. 

In regards to methods of practice I personally fall in the group that believes resistence training is important for a practitioner's development.  However, I have been around long enough and experienced people that practiced in systems that did not do this and they were still very, very good and would be effective.  There are more ways to become effective in the Martial Sciences and personal protection than just one training methodology.


----------



## Spinedoc

Steve said:


> Roy dean is a black belt in jujutsu, aikido and also BJJ.



Actually, Judo. I know Roy. He's a good guy. He's doing something a little different.

Another guy that is rather well known that has black belts in both Aikido and BJJ is Bruce Bookman.

Bruce Bookman’s response to Stan Pranin’s article,  “Virtues of Aikido”


----------



## drop bear

Spinedoc said:


> Actually, Judo. I know Roy. He's a good guy. He's doing something a little different.
> 
> Another guy that is rather well known that has black belts in both Aikido and BJJ is Bruce Bookman.
> 
> Bruce Bookman’s response to Stan Pranin’s article,  “Virtues of Aikido”



So going the way of kyokashin a bit.


----------



## Flying Crane

drop bear said:


> Not the same thing.
> 
> That is actually a trap. That a lot of clubs fall for.
> 
> So i throw an unrealistic punch exactly where and when you want it and then collapse at the right time.
> 
> And then to ramp it up i throw really fast.  And you knock me down really fast.
> 
> Which doesn't really work.


Um...where do I even start...

Ok, when I said ramp up the training, I guess what I really meant was, train with both intensity and realism.

What I did not mean was, throw unrealistic attacks and then just move as fast as you can.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> If the methodology is flawed you can ramp it up as much as you like and it isn't going to help. You have to go to the core of the methodology itself and hammer out the flaws in order to make a real impact. However, that may be more difficult in systems where the founder is heavily revered. There's also a real danger of losing the art's uniqueness in the process.


I'm trying to remember what your background in aikido is?


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> I'm trying to remember what your background in aikido is?



It is quite limited, which is why I said "if".  Of course if the methodology was sound, we wouldn't have all this doubt on Aikido's effectiveness from the practitioners themselves, or from outside observers who are experienced in other styles.

What Dean said about Aikido meshes well with my personal experience with the art. The part where he said an Aikidoka would simply be overwhelmed by a MMA, Judoka, or Bjj practitioner is something that I've personally witnessed on several occasions.

That prospect should be troubling to any Aikido practitioner.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> It is quite limited, which is why I said "if".  Of course if the methodology was sound, we wouldn't have all this doubt on Aikido's effectiveness from the practitioners themselves, or from outside observers who are experienced in other styles.
> 
> What Dean said about Aikido meshes well with my personal experience with the art. The part where he said an Aikidoka would simply be overwhelmed by a MMA, Judoka, or Bjj practitioner is something that I've personally witnessed on several occasions.
> 
> That prospect should be troubling to any Aikido practitioner.



I don't have any doubts about the effectiveness of aikido.

I do have some doubts about the practices found in some aikido schools, as instructed by some aikido sensei.  But I have the same feelings about some schools and some teachers of just about any system being taught.

However, I don't see that as any reason to believe that a system itself is flawed, or that all teachers of a particular system are lousy.

And at the same time I can recognize that a certain system may not be my cup of tea.


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> I don't have any doubts about the effectiveness of aikido.
> 
> I do have some doubts about the practices found in some aikido schools, as instructed by some aikido sensei.  But I have the same feelings about some schools and some teachers of just about any system being taught.
> 
> However, I don't see that as any reason to believe that a system itself is flawed, or that all teachers of a particular system are lousy.
> 
> And at the same time I can recognize that a certain system may not be my cup of tea.



Well no one said that all the teachers of Aikido were lousy.

Further, Aikido would be my cup of tea. I'm actually quite fond of the descendant arts of Japanese Jujutsu (Judo, Bjj, Aikido), and I rather like Aikido's Japanese aesthetic and their weapon training. 

Unfortunately when I see Dean's comments, videos like this;






and seasoned Aikido black belts getting demolished by mid-range Judo and Bjj belts in my own experience, I have some serious misgivings. 

Of course, my personal martial goals are not the goals of everyone else, and it goes without saying that Aikido clearly has some benefits for its practitioners.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Um...where do I even start...
> 
> Ok, when I said ramp up the training, I guess what I really meant was, train with both intensity and realism.
> 
> What I did not mean was, throw unrealistic attacks and then just move as fast as you can.



Nobody has an issue with the people who train with intensity and realism.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Does Aikido have "grip fight" training? Can anybody answer this?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Isn't the training method an integral part of the art?


The training method is a feature of the school, perhaps of a sub-group of the art, but not necessarily of the art, itself. There are ways I teach and exercises I use that are not the same as those of my primary instructor, and some of his methods are not the same as those of the instructors within his association.

My point is that an instructor could bring more realistic, modern attacks to Ueshiba's Aikido than I have seen in the schools I visited, without losing the nature of the art. It would look different, to be sure, because the nature of the attack affects the response. It would still be Ueshiba's Aikido, though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Yes, but every art has unique training methods that separate them from other arts.
> 
> Additionally there's the culture of the system itself. For example, while there are competitive forms of Aikido, the vast majority of Aikido is non-competitive because "O-Sensei" opposed competition and they're never going to change.


I don't think realistic training requires competition. True, sparring for points would be one way to introduce resistance, but I'd argue that's actually not the most realistic sort of resistance, anyway (since it's the resistance one gets from an experienced Aikidoka, rather than the natural resistance of those not trained in an "aiki" art).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Does Aikido have "grip fight" training? Can anybody answer this?


What do you mean by "grip fight" training?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not the same thing.
> 
> That is actually a trap. That a lot of clubs fall for.
> 
> So i throw an unrealistic punch exactly where and when you want it and then collapse at the right time.
> 
> And then to ramp it up i throw really fast.  And you knock me down really fast.
> 
> Which doesn't really work.


That is a danger, if all we do is speed it up. With a "good" uke, I can look like a god on the mats, without actually doing anything that resembles real defensive work (cue "demo" reel from most arts).

If we actually increase the intensity (so you actually punch harder, with actual intent to make contact) and with a punch that would be at least moderately effective, then it does actually improve the realism of the scenario. It's not a complete fix at that point, but it's a big step in the right direction.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

gpseymour said:


> What do you mean by "grip fight" training?


Grip fighting is the process of working to obtain dominant* grips on your opponent while preventing him from getting good grips on you.

*"Dominant" in this case refers to grips which most easily allow you to throw your opponent or otherwise control his body while preventing him from doing the same to you. High-level Judo players are particularly adept at this.

It tends to be more of a focus in purely grappling arts than in combined striking/grappling arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> Grip fighting is the process of working to obtain dominant* grips on your opponent while preventing him from getting good grips on you.
> 
> *"Dominant" in this case refers to grips which most easily allow you to throw your opponent or otherwise control his body while preventing him from doing the same to you. High-level Judo players are particularly adept at this.
> 
> It tends to be more of a focus in purely grappling arts than in combined striking/grappling arts.


Ah, so that would refer to the majority of what happens in the Olympic Judo matches?

In that case, again, it depends upon the instructor. I haven't seen it in any of the dojos I visited that taught Ueshiba's art, but I was never a long-term visitor at any of them, and the practice would be reasonable and useful for training in their techniques.

Now that I think of it, I remember one Aikido instructor and one of his senior students playing around during a break at a seminar I attended. They were doing some freestyle standing grappling, and a major part of it was this play for the dominant grip, much like what I'd experienced in Judo.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

gpseymour said:


> Ah, so that would refer to the majority of what happens in the Olympic Judo matches?


Yep. At that level, if a competitor  wins the fight for superior grips, there is an excellent chance that he or she will complete a throw in the next moment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yep. At that level, if a competitor  wins the fight for superior grips, there is an excellent chance that he or she will complete a throw in the next moment.


This is what our "randori" (the term I use to refer to resistive sparring that is primarily grappling) often ends up looking like. Ueshiba's Aikido tends to have a more strict focus on the "aiki" of the art, but there's no reason this type of practice can't be used within that structure.


----------



## Flying Crane

drop bear said:


> Nobody has an issue with the people who train with intensity and realism.


Ok, then how, exactly, did you translate my earlier comment about ramping up the training, into throwing an unrealistic punch so the partner can just move as fast as he can?

Did you just fundamentally misunderstand what I had said?


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, then how, exactly, did you translate my earlier comment about ramping up the training, into throwing an unrealistic punch so the partner can just move as fast as he can?
> 
> Did you just fundamentally misunderstand what I had said?


What he was referring to is something that I have seen way too often in a variety of systems. The demonstrator will have his uke attack extra hard and fast in order to impress, as if that somehow fixed the fact that the attack being defended against was fundamentally incompetent.


----------



## Flying Crane

Tony Dismukes said:


> What he was referring to is something that I have seen way too often in a variety of systems. The demonstrator will have his uke attack extra hard and fast in order to impress, as if that somehow fixed the fact that the attack being defended against was fundamentally incompetent.


I understand that is what he is referring to.  I am asking him why he thinks that is what I was suggesting.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> The training method is a feature of the school, perhaps of a sub-group of the art, but not necessarily of the art, itself. There are ways I teach and exercises I use that are not the same as those of my primary instructor, and some of his methods are not the same as those of the instructors within his association.
> 
> My point is that an instructor could bring more realistic, modern attacks to Ueshiba's Aikido than I have seen in the schools I visited, without losing the nature of the art. It would look different, to be sure, because the nature of the attack affects the response. It would still be Ueshiba's Aikido, though.



Wouldn't changing the nature of the attack change the nature of the response? If for example you go from exaggerated sword and spear style attacks to standardized kicks, punches, and grappling, wouldn't that alter the response from the Aikidoka? Wouldn't that also force a large amount of new techniques to be brought into the Aikido curriculum?

Considering that there are people out there who don't view competitive Aikido as "true Aikido", how would something like that be still considered true to the vision of the founder?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> What do you mean by "grip fight" training?


- Prevent your opponent from getting a grip on you.
- Try to get a grip on your opponent.
- Break your opponent's grip.
- Try to obtain dominate position.
- ...


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, then how, exactly, did you translate my earlier comment about ramping up the training, into throwing an unrealistic punch so the partner can just move as fast as he can?
> 
> Did you just fundamentally misunderstand what I had said?



That is pretty much what you see when you see akido. lots of unrealistic stuff. For some reason the bulk of the realistic training never makes it to you tube.

I have found a bit of actual live Akido. But it is really hard. I have never seen a knock down drag out sparring match between Akido and anybody.

So ramping up training would be ramping up what is. Not turning it into fundamentally something else.


----------



## Flying Crane

drop bear said:


> That is pretty much what you see when you see akido. lots of unrealistic stuff. For some reason the bulk of the realistic training never makes it to you tube.
> 
> I have found a bit of actual live Akido. But it is really hard. I have never seen a knock down drag out sparring match between Akido and anybody.
> 
> So ramping up training would be ramping up what is. Not turning it fundamentally something else.



Your whole premise is wrong.  Ramping up means whatever the individual intends it to mean.  Not what you choose to interpret based on what you see on YouTube.

I'm the one who said ramp it up.  I'm telling you what I mean by that.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Your whole premise is wrong.  Ramping up means whatever the individual intends it to mean.  Not what you choose to interpret based on what you see on YouTube.
> 
> I'm the one who said ramp it up.  I'm telling you what I mean by that.



So if you ramped up Akido to an emphasis on live resisted training and high percentage techniques you would have a system that would be more suited to going out there and using it on people who dont want it used on them.

well yeah. That would work.


----------



## Flying Crane

drop bear said:


> So if you ramped up Akido to an emphasis on live resisted training and high percentage techniques you would have a system that would be more suited to going out there and using it on people who dont want it used on them.
> 
> well yeah. That would work.


All I'm saying is, if you aren't impressed with something you see on YouTube, well that's not a shocker.  I find little on YouTube to impress me as well, regardless of the system, especially the one in which I train.

But there is a whole lot more going on that never gets filmed and never gets put on YouTube for people like you and I to gawk at.  So don't think YouTube establishes the standard for anything.  At most, it is an example of what one guy or one group does.  Perhaps only on that day, at that moment, for some specific purpose that you and I, the gawking audience, is not privy to.

I see a lot of these discussions that hold up YouTube examples as a reason for derision.  Any discussion that uses YouTube as a presumed standard example has a very flimsy premise from the get-go.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> What he was referring to is something that I have seen way too often in a variety of systems. The demonstrator will have his uke attack extra hard and fast in order to impress, as if that somehow fixed the fact that the attack being defended against was fundamentally incompetent.


This. If I deliver an over-telegraphed attack (think "zombie punch") to Tony, it doesn't really get any better just because I come at him full "World War Z" speed, but still acting like a zombie in Shawn of the Dead.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't changing the nature of the attack change the nature of the response? If for example you go from exaggerated sword and spear style attacks to standardized kicks, punches, and grappling, wouldn't that alter the response from the Aikidoka? Wouldn't that also force a large amount of new techniques to be brought into the Aikido curriculum?
> 
> Considering that there are people out there who don't view competitive Aikido as "true Aikido", how would something like that be still considered true to the vision of the founder?


It needn't change _what_ techinques they use, but it will certainly change _how_ they use them. I often teach two wholly different versions of a technique. The first is the true "aiki" version, which requires the feel for that "void" I teach about. The second version (which doesn't always show up right away) is what I refer to as the "Judo" version (think the fast, but highly leveraged throws you see in Judo competitions). Both are the same technique, but each emphasizes different principles of the art, and sometimes are activated by different principles. Both are valid within NGA, and many of them would be valid within Ueshiba's Aikido, as well.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> All I'm saying is, if you aren't impressed with something you see on YouTube, well that's not a shocker.  I find little on YouTube to impress me as well, regardless of the system, especially the one in which I train.
> 
> But there is a whole lot more going on that never gets filmed and never gets put on YouTube for people like you and I to gawk at.  So don't think YouTube establishes the standard for anything.  At most, it is an example of what one guy or one group does.  Perhaps only on that day, at that moment, for some specific purpose that you and I, the gawking audience, is not privy to.
> 
> I see a lot of these discussions that hold up YouTube examples as a reason for derision.  Any discussion that uses YouTube as a presumed standard example has a very flimsy premise from the get-go.



See i would have said any discussion that uses pub war stories was an even more flimsy premise.

So people who say one thing but then can't show that thing kind of loose credibility.

I am certainly not convinced that just because there is no evidence means i have to take someones word that there is this really effective stuff.  I have been around to long for that. Most people have.


----------



## Flying Crane

drop bear said:


> See i would have said any discussion that uses pub war stories was an even more flimsy premise.
> 
> So people who say one thing but then can't show that thing kind of loose credibility.
> 
> I am certainly not convinced that just because there is no evidence means i have to take someones word that there is this really effective stuff.  I have been around to long for that. Most people have.


Pub war stories?  What are you going on about?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> Pub war stories?  What are you going on about?


I suspect he's referring to the stories one tells over a pint: "Yeah, I remember this one time...."


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> I suspect he's referring to the stories one tells over a pint: "Yeah, I remember this one time...."


Ah right.  So...if it isn't on YouTube, then it's just tall tales in a pub.

Is this some kind of nihilism?  "I believe in NOTHING Lebowski, NOTHING!!"

Drop bear must live an exciting life, as I am sure every day he encounters things that he hasnt first seen on YouTube and so did not believe in.  A new adventure lurks around every corner!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> Ah right.  So...if it isn't on YouTube, then it's just tall tales in a pub.
> 
> Is this some kind of nihilism?  "I believe in NOTHING Lebowski, NOTHING!!"
> 
> Drop bear must live an exciting life, as I am sure every day he encounters things that he hasnt first seen on YouTube and so did not believe in.  A new adventure lurks around every corner!


I think his point was more that the stories that survive to be told over a pint are often A) unusual circumstances, and B) not quite as described. He and I have a disagreement over the value of individual experiences versus what can be tested in the gym, but there's a valid point to be made about using pub war stories cautiously.


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> I think his point was more that the stories that survive to be told over a pint are often A) unusual circumstances, and B) not quite as described. He and I have a disagreement over the value of individual experiences versus what can be tested in the gym, but there's a valid point to be made about using pub war stories cautiously.


Who here is using pub war stories?

The guy thinks that if he can't find it on YouTube, then it doesnt exist.  Does that sound reasonable to you?


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> Who here is using pub war stories?
> 
> The guy thinks that if he can't find it on YouTube, then it doesnt exist.  Does that sound reasonable to you?



I can find videos of Big Foot, Aliens, and the Lochness monster on YouTube....so then they must be true


----------



## Flying Crane

Xue Sheng said:


> I can find videos of Big Foot, Aliens, and the Lochness monster on YouTube....so then they must be true


Xue, I can't find you on YouTube.  I don't believe you exist!

I believe in nothing Lebowski...


----------



## Xue Sheng

Flying Crane said:


> Xue, I can't find you on YouTube.  I don't believe you exist!
> 
> I believe in nothing Lebowski...



"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist."

--The Usual Suspects


----------



## pgsmith

drop bear said:


> See i would have said any discussion that uses pub war stories was an even more flimsy premise.
> 
> So people who say one thing but then can't show that thing kind of loose credibility.
> 
> I am certainly not convinced that just because there is no evidence means i have to take someones word that there is this really effective stuff.  I have been around to long for that. Most people have.


  But therein lies the issue. Why do you care? You are obviously not going to be learning Aikido, so why do you care if it is effective or not? Those that are currently practicing Aikido don't really care if you believe them, as you have no impact on their training. Therefore, all I see is you arguing in the aikido forum for someone to prove to you that it's effective. Seems a bit silly to me.


----------



## Flying Crane

pgsmith said:


> But therein lies the issue. Why do you care? You are obviously not going to be learning Aikido, so why do you care if it is effective or not? Those that are currently practicing Aikido don't really care if you believe them, as you have no impact on their training. Therefore, all I see is you arguing in the aikido forum for someone to prove to you that it's effective. Seems a bit silly to me.


And using that great god You Tube as the final authority.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> Ah right.  So...if it isn't on YouTube, then it's just tall tales in a pub!



It goes quite a bit beyond that actually. When the only "proof" of Aikido's effectiveness comes from old wive's tales, and when advanced practitioners of the art say it's not effective for self defense, we have an art whose effectiveness is justifiably suspect.

Is that a problem? If the art is being advertised as a self defense style, then it certainly is a problem.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> It goes quite a bit beyond that actually. When the only "proof" of Aikido's effectiveness comes from old wive's tales, and when advanced practitioners of the art say it's not effective for self defense, we have an art whose effectiveness is justifiably suspect.
> 
> Is that a problem? If the art is being advertised as a self defense style, then it certainly is a problem.


What old wives tales are you referring to?  I've witnessed classes that were plenty convincing for me.

Take the blinders off son.  It's time for you to admit that there is plenty that you don't know.  The rest of us can already see that about you.  It's only you who carries on with the farce.


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> What old wives tales are you referring to?  I've witnessed classes that were plenty convincing for me.
> 
> Take the blinders off son.  It's time for you to admit that there is plenty that you don't know.  The rest of us can already see that about you.  It's only you who carries on with the farce.



Well everything looks convincing within the confines of a dojo. Look at Dillman's no-touch knockout stuff for further evidence of that. Aikido itself has its own brand of no-touch nonsense which also appears within the confines of a dojo or demonstration.

Again, the majority of my experience with Aikido exists outside of an Aikido dojo, and it mirrors Roy Dean and other people's perception of the art.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> Who here is using pub war stories?
> 
> The guy thinks that if he can't find it on YouTube, then it doesnt exist.  Does that sound reasonable to you?


while I Have no doubt this is what you believe, I doubt think it's quite correct.


----------



## drop bear

pgsmith said:


> But therein lies the issue. Why do you care? You are obviously not going to be learning Aikido, so why do you care if it is effective or not? Those that are currently practicing Aikido don't really care if you believe them, as you have no impact on their training. Therefore, all I see is you arguing in the aikido forum for someone to prove to you that it's effective. Seems a bit silly to me.


Why does anyone care about any of it? 
They don't have to be effective. Doesn't phase me.  But that is the discussion.
So i am discussing.
And there are generally pretty generic reasons why any martial isn't effective.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Who here is using pub war stories?
> 
> The guy thinks that if he can't find it on YouTube, then it doesnt exist.  Does that sound reasonable to you?



Ok.  Sorry but i dont believe half the stuff told to me by martial artists.  It is in their intrests to lie or exaggerate.

This is because actual evidence has less weight than what some guy said. And evidence is harder to find and generally less interesting than stuff people make up. So you sort of cant compete.

And that is because people like yourself want to argue in favor of stories.

You are not doing yourself any favors. Because you just fall into my belief vs your belief. Opposing dogmas never solve anything.

This is why people like myself refer to YouTube because it cuts out all the dogma.  You can see something happen. 

Then you can start to see a trend of what is practical and what isn't. Because not everything that seems intuitive actually works.  Some stuff that you would swear doesn't work does.  You need to keep an open mind.


----------



## JP3

drop bear said:


> From the cradle to the grave.  Segal would never have taken randy in a fight.
> 
> Katie segal would have better odds.



Drop, Katie segal's Hot! I bet ya fifty bucks Randy would Totally let her pull guard and reverse to a mount then ground and pound him. C'mon, that's a given. Remember the stretch pants?


----------



## drop bear

JP3 said:


> Drop, Katie segal's Hot! I bet ya fifty bucks Randy would Totally let her pull guard and reverse to a mount then ground and pound him. C'mon, that's a given. Remember the stretch pants?



Thinking more of futurama than married with children.


----------



## Tez3

drop bear said:


> It is in their intrests to lie or exaggerate.



Actually it's in my interest to have people think I am far less good than I am, I don't want people knowing the extent of any skills I have.

You Tube would only prove something if everyone posted up rather than only those who are narcissists. Even then the camera work would all have to be done by the same people so give a level playing field. Most people really really cannot be bothered posting up videos of themselves doing stuff and why should they?


----------



## Hanzou

Tez3 said:


> Actually it's in my interest to have people think I am far less good than I am, I don't want people knowing the extent of any skills I have.
> 
> You Tube would only prove something if everyone posted up rather than only those who are narcissists. Even then the camera work would all have to be done by the same people so give a level playing field. Most people really really cannot be bothered posting up videos of themselves doing stuff and why should they?



No one is posting videos of themselves. What usually happens is that a confrontation occurs and a third party shoots the video.

There are examples of Aikido out there. The problem is that none of the cross-fighting material out there is very good. We have videos of Aikidokas coming up with hilarious counters to grappling holds, we have videos of Aikidoka getting manhandled by wrestlers and Judoka, we have vids of  O'Sensei throwing people without touching them, and we have vids of Steven Seagal goofing around with MMA fighters who largely view him as a joke.

At this point we should be seeing some examples of effective Aikido somewhere.


----------



## Jenna

Hanzou said:


> It goes quite a bit beyond that actually. When the only "proof" of Aikido's effectiveness comes from old wive's tales, and when advanced practitioners of the art say it's not effective for self defense, we have an art whose effectiveness is justifiably suspect.
> 
> Is that a problem? If the art is being advertised as a self defense style, then it certainly is a problem.


I can give you an old wives tale about how Aikido work for me in defence of my self and in defence of someone else.  

And but I am not sure how old I have to be to be old wife? Maybe I am not old enough?  And actually now I think of it, I am not nobodys wife.  Hmm.. so I think that rule me out completely..

I can give you opinion as someone who have practiced Aikido for a long enough while and but I think the criteria that you (and others who espouse similar beliefs) apply to what is "proof of effectiveness" are perhaps skewed towards your way or practice or at the very least set a slanted bar at a level which other MA cannot evenly pass.

I mean maybe you can say what proof do you want that you would count as sufficient proof? Ultimately if you have a faith-based belief that Aikido is ineffective in SD then it is unlikely that any anecdote I can provide can usurp the sovereignty of that faith you already hold as your truth.  Likewise I cannot prove to you that your own art is ineffective in SD because it is a faith-based belief you trust in and cannot be moved. One person find it difficult to convince another out of their faith.  You cannot convince me that my Aikido is ineffective.  Because MY Aikido it has been effective FOR ME. Is simple yes?

Maybe you can answer me another question because all of this effectiveness stuff is lot of something the profanity filter will not allow..  And because some times you speak objectively.. sometimes mind!  Say to me why is there disproportionately more haters for Aikido than say.. well say anything at all even boiled spinach and nobody likes boiled spinach.. well except Popeye and he was more of a stand-up fighter.


----------



## Steve

You can prove something exists with evidence.   That's where a video can be helpful.   I can find very good Bjj on YouTube.  

doesn't work quite the same the other direction.   Without demonstrable evidence, it Becomes a point of faith.  Can't prove something doesn't exist, but it certainly creates a situation where a perspective can seem a little dogmatic, and invites the references to religion.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Steve, there is good Aikido training on youtube.  Just not resistance sparring which is what you are looking for.


----------



## Hanzou

Jenna said:


> I can give you an old wives tale about how Aikido work for me in defence of my self and in defence of someone else.
> 
> And but I am not sure how old I have to be to be old wife? Maybe I am not old enough?  And actually now I think of it, I am not nobodys wife.  Hmm.. so I think that rule me out completely..
> 
> I can give you opinion as someone who have practiced Aikido for a long enough while and but I think the criteria that you (and others who espouse similar beliefs) apply to what is "proof of effectiveness" are perhaps skewed towards your way or practice or at the very least set a slanted bar at a level which other MA cannot evenly pass.
> 
> I mean maybe you can say what proof do you want that you would count as sufficient proof? Ultimately if you have a faith-based belief that Aikido is ineffective in SD then it is unlikely that any anecdote I can provide can usurp the sovereignty of that faith you already hold as your truth.  Likewise I cannot prove to you that your own art is ineffective in SD because it is a faith-based belief you trust in and cannot be moved. One person find it difficult to convince another out of their faith.  You cannot convince me that my Aikido is ineffective.  Because MY Aikido it has been effective FOR ME. Is simple yes?
> 
> Maybe you can answer me another question because all of this effectiveness stuff is lot of something the profanity filter will not allow..  And because some times you speak objectively.. sometimes mind!  Say to me why is there disproportionately more haters for Aikido than say.. well say anything at all even boiled spinach and nobody likes boiled spinach.. well except Popeye and he was more of a stand-up fighter.



A few things:

1. Aikido tends to get picked on because it's in the same vein as Judo and Bjj, in that it is a modern grappling system that derived from older Japanese martial arts. 

2. There's plenty of video evidence to show that Bjj works if properly applied. There are many sport and self defense examples. The same goes for Judo and many other MAs. Aikido, not so much.

3. My personal belief of Aikido's effectiveness comes from sparring and talking with former Aikidoka. It certainly isn't faith based.

4. I DO find some aspects of Aikido intriguing and useful, like the wrist locks and the break falling for example. I rather like Roy Dean's approach of combing Aikido with proper grappling, though I don't see much benefit behind it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> You can prove something exists with evidence.   That's where a video can be helpful.   I can find very good Bjj on YouTube.
> 
> doesn't work quite the same the other direction.   Without demonstrable evidence, it Becomes a point of faith.  Can't prove something doesn't exist, but it certainly creates a situation where a perspective can seem a little dogmatic, and invites the references to religion.


The issue with looking for similar video on YouTube for any aiki art, is that the effectiveness of the aiki-based movements comes at times when there isn't resistance. If there's resistance, we move to where there isn't any, and that's where the "aiki" shows up. So, if you saw me doing defensive work and I stuck to purely aiki-based technique, then it would look odd to you. I'd get someone off-balance, and move around "too much" (moving from one point where there was no "aiki" to another point where there was an opportunity for it). Even with a partner completely committing to the attack in a realistic manner, it will always look suspect.

The only time it doesn't, is if I tell my partner to use what he knows to keep me away from all the aiki opportunities. If she does that, then I feel that type of resistance and respond with non-aiki technique (strikes, Judo-style throws, etc. - all within the purview of any aiki-jujutsu based art). Problem is, it no longer looks like "aikido", because I've moved away from the aiki techniques. Then, it might as well be Jujutsu in that video. Many folks will claim that this is a better test of aikido arts, but it's actually not a realistic sort of resistance. For most techniques, I can remove the aiki opportunities by stepping with the right foot at the right time, and I can often stay one step ahead of the other person, blocking all the "aiki". But that takes a lot of knowledge, and a comprehension of those aiki opportunities, something extraordinarily unlikely to be found in an attacker.

So, I can either practice realistic resistance, giving me access to aiki and producing a video that often looks unrealistic. Or I can practice unrealistic resistance that makes me work more on the other areas of my art, and get a video that looks more realistic. We train both ways, but if you ask me for a video of aikido, well, I'd want you to see the "aiki" part.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> A few things:
> 
> 1. Aikido tends to get picked on because it's in the same vein as Judo and Bjj, in that it is a modern grappling system that derived from older Japanese martial arts.
> 
> 2. There's plenty of video evidence to show that Bjj works if properly applied. There are many sport and self defense examples. The same goes for Judo and many other MAs. Aikido, not so much.
> 
> 3. My personal belief of Aikido's effectiveness comes from sparring and talking with former Aikidoka. It certainly isn't faith based.
> 
> 4. I DO find some aspects of Aikido intriguing and useful, like the wrist locks and the break falling for example. I rather like Roy Dean's approach of combing Aikido with proper grappling, though I don't see much benefit behind it.


The issue with trying to find sport evidence is largely that if you took someone who understood their Aikido well, and who had trained with resistance, they won't often go to the purely "aikI" techniques with most trained fighters, because that's the hard part to get to (and working hard to get to it is contrary to the concept of "aiki"). So, if they understand the techniques in depth, they're more likely to look like Jujutsu much of the time, so you'd not see something that "looks like" Aikido. Add to that the fact that, in most of Ueshiba's Aikido, there are fairly advanced breakfalls to make it easier to take a large number of falls (and which, frankly, make the technique look all the more impressive but are mostly done to make it easier on the receiver)...well, you won't see those same falls from someone who's actually trying NOT to be thrown (as in a competition). So, again, it won't look like Aikido. The reality will almost never look like the practice.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> The issue with looking for similar video on YouTube for any aiki art, is that the effectiveness of the aiki-based movements comes at times when there isn't resistance. If there's resistance, we move to where there isn't any, and that's where the "aiki" shows up. So, if you saw me doing defensive work and I stuck to purely aiki-based technique, then it would look odd to you. I'd get someone off-balance, and move around "too much" (moving from one point where there was no "aiki" to another point where there was an opportunity for it). Even with a partner completely committing to the attack in a realistic manner, it will always look suspect.
> 
> The only time it doesn't, is if I tell my partner to use what he knows to keep me away from all the aiki opportunities. If she does that, then I feel that type of resistance and respond with non-aiki technique (strikes, Judo-style throws, etc. - all within the purview of any aiki-jujutsu based art). Problem is, it no longer looks like "aikido", because I've moved away from the aiki techniques. Then, it might as well be Jujutsu in that video. Many folks will claim that this is a better test of aikido arts, but it's actually not a realistic sort of resistance. For most techniques, I can remove the aiki opportunities by stepping with the right foot at the right time, and I can often stay one step ahead of the other person, blocking all the "aiki". But that takes a lot of knowledge, and a comprehension of those aiki opportunities, something extraordinarily unlikely to be found in an attacker.
> 
> So, I can either practice realistic resistance, giving me access to aiki and producing a video that often looks unrealistic. Or I can practice unrealistic resistance that makes me work more on the other areas of my art, and get a video that looks more realistic. We train both ways, but if you ask me for a video of aikido, well, I'd want you to see the "aiki" part.





> The issue with trying to find sport evidence is largely that if you took someone who understood their Aikido well, and who had trained with resistance, they won't often go to the purely "aikI" techniques with most trained fighters, because that's the hard part to get to (and working hard to get to it is contrary to the concept of "aiki"). So, if they understand the techniques in depth, they're more likely to look like Jujutsu much of the time, so you'd not see something that "looks like" Aikido. Add to that the fact that, in most of Ueshiba's Aikido, there are fairly advanced breakfalls to make it easier to take a large number of falls (and which, frankly, make the technique look all the more impressive but are mostly done to make it easier on the receiver)...well, you won't see those same falls from someone who's actually trying NOT to be thrown (as in a competition). So, again, it won't look like Aikido. The reality will almost never look like the practice.



How about just a vid of an Aikidoka submitting someone who is trying to knock their head off or take them to the ground? 

A challenge match along these lines;


----------



## drop bear

Tez3 said:


> Actually it's in my interest to have people think I am far less good than I am, I don't want people knowing the extent of any skills I have.
> 
> You Tube would only prove something if everyone posted up rather than only those who are narcissists. Even then the camera work would all have to be done by the same people so give a level playing field. Most people really really cannot be bothered posting up videos of themselves doing stuff and why should they?



When you are selling a product you generally want it to sound as good as you can. Martial arts is a product that does not have a standard.

On you tube you still get to see a representation of what is out there. there are thousands of akido videos from different practitioners. It is not like there is not Akido evidence out there.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The issue with looking for similar video on YouTube for any aiki art, is that the effectiveness of the aiki-based movements comes at times when there isn't resistance. If there's resistance, we move to where there isn't any, and that's where the "aiki" shows up. So, if you saw me doing defensive work and I stuck to purely aiki-based technique, then it would look odd to you. I'd get someone off-balance, and move around "too much" (moving from one point where there was no "aiki" to another point where there was an opportunity for it). Even with a partner completely committing to the attack in a realistic manner, it will always look suspect.
> 
> The only time it doesn't, is if I tell my partner to use what he knows to keep me away from all the aiki opportunities. If she does that, then I feel that type of resistance and respond with non-aiki technique (strikes, Judo-style throws, etc. - all within the purview of any aiki-jujutsu based art). Problem is, it no longer looks like "aikido", because I've moved away from the aiki techniques. Then, it might as well be Jujutsu in that video. Many folks will claim that this is a better test of aikido arts, but it's actually not a realistic sort of resistance. For most techniques, I can remove the aiki opportunities by stepping with the right foot at the right time, and I can often stay one step ahead of the other person, blocking all the "aiki". But that takes a lot of knowledge, and a comprehension of those aiki opportunities, something extraordinarily unlikely to be found in an attacker.
> 
> So, I can either practice realistic resistance, giving me access to aiki and producing a video that often looks unrealistic. Or I can practice unrealistic resistance that makes me work more on the other areas of my art, and get a video that looks more realistic. We train both ways, but if you ask me for a video of aikido, well, I'd want you to see the "aiki" part.



So when I described ramped up. that was kind of on the mark.

When someone wants to see a martial art. they want to see it work on someone who does not want it to work. This is the whole self defence thing.

You even do it in Akido. but it is an example of how it might work.
so if i look up Akido self defence. I get what should be a person attacking and an akido person stopping them.





But those of us who have been around know that a demonstration like that does not work like that in a fight. And so want to see resisted training. So that we can get an idea that it does work.

You have to understand that lots of people have spent years training some systems. (not just akido) with the idea that at some point this sort of training will pay off. Then go do a boxing,kickboxing,judo,basically anything live and get man handled by some noob. And start to get a skeptical. 

There is a point where the old excuses become just that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So when I described ramped up. that was kind of on the mark.
> 
> When someone wants to see a martial art. they want to see it work on someone who does not want it to work. This is the whole self defence thing.
> 
> You even do it in Akido. but it is an example of how it might work.
> so if i look up Akido self defence. I get what should be a person attacking and an akido person stopping them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But those of us who have been around know that a demonstration like that does not work like that in a fight. And so want to see resisted training. So that we can get an idea that it does work.
> 
> You have to understand that lots of people have spent years training some systems. (not just akido) with the idea that at some point this sort of training will pay off. Then go do a boxing,kickboxing,judo,basically anything live and get man handled by some noob. And start to get a skeptical.
> 
> There is a point where the old excuses become just that.



I think part of the issue with videos is simply that aikidoka want to post videos that show Aikido. And the self-defense side doesn't show it well - the aiki gets buried in the movements. I've worked out with folks from Ueshiba's Aikido who could handle a good, commited attack with intension, but it rarely _*looked *_anything like the videos you see. 

I'm just guessing, because I've not seen many videos that show the messy-looking results when Aikido's aiki principles are used against an attacker who's giving a relatively realistic attack (meaning continuing the attack with whatever's logically next, trying to take the defender out). The ones I have seen, there are usually a lot of comments like, "That's not Aikido." I think they want it to look like a Seagal film, or they don't believe it's Aikido.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think part of the issue with videos is simply that aikidoka want to post videos that show Aikido. And the self-defense side doesn't show it well - the aiki gets buried in the movements. I've worked out with folks from Ueshiba's Aikido who could handle a good, commited attack with intension, but it rarely _*looked *_anything like the videos you see.
> 
> I'm just guessing, because I've not seen many videos that show the messy-looking results when Aikido's aiki principles are used against an attacker who's giving a relatively realistic attack (meaning continuing the attack with whatever's logically next, trying to take the defender out). The ones I have seen, there are usually a lot of comments like, "That's not Aikido." I think they want it to look like a Seagal film, or they don't believe it's Aikido.



Yeah. And it is a rude shock to someone who has drilled and scenarioed to go live. happens to our students as well. Great on the pads sucks when the punches are going both ways.

Everybody wants it to look like a segal film. MMA fighters would like martial arts to work like that.

It doesn't. And the reality does not sell as well as the fantasy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> How about just a vid of an Aikidoka submitting someone who is trying to knock their head off or take them to the ground?
> 
> A challenge match along these lines;


The problem is that none of the Aikido I've seen (frankly, any of the aiki arts) has much in the way of submissions that are safe to use on a resisting opponent. I don't teach submissions - I teach destructions. I can't even do those safely at speed against someone who's at my skill level if they are trying to resist me, because there's a small angular difference between them stopping me and me breaking their hand. The relatively few usable submissions we would have means they're unlikely to show up. I'd be limited to strikes, maybe some throws (most sport-trained folks will know how to stay away from most of those), and the few submission-able locks. I'd mostly just depend upon body movement and play a defensive game. Someone with sport training will have a lot more weapons that are usable for a challenge, because the challenge is really a sport situation.

The challenge match (or any kind of sparring) just isn't a good analog to defending against an attack in the street. It's the best we have for doing resistive training, but it's not the same, at all. What I teach and train in would suck for competition, because it's not trained for it. Heck, I'd probably spend all of my time thinking through possibilities of what I can actually use without risking injury to them (if I don't stop in time) or to me (if I do stop in time, and they don't stop).


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The problem is that none of the Aikido I've seen (frankly, any of the aiki arts) has much in the way of submissions that are safe to use on a resisting opponent. I don't teach submissions - I teach destructions. I can't even do those safely at speed against someone who's at my skill level if they are trying to resist me, because there's a small angular difference between them stopping me and me breaking their hand. The relatively few usable submissions we would have means they're unlikely to show up. I'd be limited to strikes, maybe some throws (most sport-trained folks will know how to stay away from most of those), and the few submission-able locks. I'd mostly just depend upon body movement and play a defensive game. Someone with sport training will have a lot more weapons that are usable for a challenge, because the challenge is really a sport situation.
> 
> The challenge match (or any kind of sparring) just isn't a good analog to defending against an attack in the street. It's the best we have for doing resistive training, but it's not the same, at all. What I teach and train in would suck for competition, because it's not trained for it. Heck, I'd probably spend all of my time thinking through possibilities of what I can actually use without risking injury to them (if I don't stop in time) or to me (if I do stop in time, and they don't stop).



This does my head in. So the art that is billed as being able to defeat an attacker without doing unnecessary damage to him. Cant spar because their moves are too deadly.


----------



## Steve

Just to he clear.  I said YouTube is evidence but im not suggesting its the only kind of evidence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. And it is a rude shock to someone who has drilled and scenarioed to go live. happens to our students as well. Great on the pads sucks when the punches are going both ways.


Yep. This is why I'm an advocate of eventually adding in some sparring of some sort, to let folks get a chance to see what will be different when they are facing a trained opponent. But be clear, that's what they're working on when they spar. An untrained opponent will have different movements, different reactions. I don't know if that matters as much in non-aiki arts, but it's a vital difference for us. If I only train to encourage my opponent into reactions by anticipating the reactions of trained martial artists, I'll get the "wrong" reactions from untrained, undisciplined folks, and will miss the aiki opportunities there. Since the latter are the more likely attackers, I have to spend a lot of my time there, and learn to make the adjustments to trained fighters.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> This does my head in. So the art that is billed as being able to defeat an attacker without doing unnecessary damage to him. Cant spar because their moves are too deadly.


I didn't say too deadly. I said not safe to use against a resistive opponent. I can't speak entirely to Ueshiba's art, as my experience there is limited. But I do know that many of the techniques they use have the same issue. If I have you in a hand lock (3rd Set Wrist Lock for us, not sure what the Japanese name is they'd use, but I know they have it), you could probably defeat it. If I keep going at it (like I could with an Arm Bar), there's  a VERY short distance between your successful resistance and you having a broken bone in your hand. This technique is the one I've seen cause the most injuries in the dojo, even without resistance. Techniques like that aren't safe to use in a challenge, because who wants to injure someone just to show it works?

This isn't anything unusual about Ueshiba's Aikido, nor any other aiki arts. Most arts contain things like this. The issue is when we expect an art to convert to sporting use, and we expect all to be able to do so similarly. I suppose if I were sadistic or sociopathic, so that I didn't care about hurting others, I'd be able to use all my weapons, and I'd be on a more even footing with folks who train for sport (none of us would have to second-think our instincts during the match). But I have a conscience, so I have to edit what I use, just like I do when "defending" against a white belt (where at least 40 of the 50 Classical Techniques aren't usable, because they don't know them).

I'll be clear on my view of the philosophy you're referring to. That philosophy, so far as I can tell, came later in Ueshiba's teaching, as a result of increasing influence from the Omoto religion. His earliest students show little evidence of it. It's an ethical principle, which I feel got out of hand: the highest ethical ground is to be able to defend yourself without harming your attacker. It's an ideal, and requires a large disparity in skill between attacker and defender, in my opinion. I do not subscribe to that philosophy, and I think most in NGA subscribe to it only as an ideal, since we teach breaks and other destructions as a matter of course. Too much emphasis on that principle will certainly render the art unusable for self-defense, except to the most skilled practitioners.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yep. This is why I'm an advocate of eventually adding in some sparring of some sort, to let folks get a chance to see what will be different when they are facing a trained opponent. But be clear, that's what they're working on when they spar. An untrained opponent will have different movements, different reactions. I don't know if that matters as much in non-aiki arts, but it's a vital difference for us. If I only train to encourage my opponent into reactions by anticipating the reactions of trained martial artists, I'll get the "wrong" reactions from untrained, undisciplined folks, and will miss the aiki opportunities there. Since the latter are the more likely attackers, I have to spend a lot of my time there, and learn to make the adjustments to trained fighters.



We just spar untrained guys. untill they are trained. then spar trained guys.

There is a difference but it is a nuanced one. But we rely on positional dominance. So it is easier to get on to a guy who isnt attacking in the right way.

The issue you would have is they would clam up. And just hold a position. On the ground that is called lay and pray. And is tactic no.1 for noobs.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I didn't say too deadly. I said not safe to use against a resistive opponent. I can't speak entirely to Ueshiba's art, as my experience there is limited. But I do know that many of the techniques they use have the same issue. If I have you in a hand lock (3rd Set Wrist Lock for us, not sure what the Japanese name is they'd use, but I know they have it), you could probably defeat it. If I keep going at it (like I could with an Arm Bar), there's  a VERY short distance between your successful resistance and you having a broken bone in your hand. This technique is the one I've seen cause the most injuries in the dojo, even without resistance. Techniques like that aren't safe to use in a challenge, because who wants to injure someone just to show it works?
> 
> This isn't anything unusual about Ueshiba's Aikido, nor any other aiki arts. Most arts contain things like this. The issue is when we expect an art to convert to sporting use, and we expect all to be able to do so similarly. I suppose if I were sadistic or sociopathic, so that I didn't care about hurting others, I'd be able to use all my weapons, and I'd be on a more even footing with folks who train for sport (none of us would have to second-think our instincts during the match). But I have a conscience, so I have to edit what I use, just like I do when "defending" against a white belt (where at least 40 of the 50 Classical Techniques aren't usable, because they don't know them).
> 
> I'll be clear on my view of the philosophy you're referring to. That philosophy, so far as I can tell, came later in Ueshiba's teaching, as a result of increasing influence from the Omoto religion. His earliest students show little evidence of it. It's an ethical principle, which I feel got out of hand: the highest ethical ground is to be able to defend yourself without harming your attacker. It's an ideal, and requires a large disparity in skill between attacker and defender, in my opinion. I do not subscribe to that philosophy, and I think most in NGA subscribe to it only as an ideal, since we teach breaks and other destructions as a matter of course. Too much emphasis on that principle will certainly render the art unusable for self-defense, except to the most skilled practitioners.



Yet there are arts that can do that. virtually anything grappling can put a guy on the deck and keep them there.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Yep. This is why I'm an advocate of eventually adding in some sparring of some sort, to let folks get a chance to see what will be different when they are facing a trained opponent. But be clear, that's what they're working on when they spar. An untrained opponent will have different movements, different reactions. I don't know if that matters as much in non-aiki arts, but it's a vital difference for us. If I only train to encourage my opponent into reactions by anticipating the reactions of trained martial artists, I'll get the "wrong" reactions from untrained, undisciplined folks, and will miss the aiki opportunities there. Since the latter are the more likely attackers, I have to spend a lot of my time there, and learn to make the adjustments to trained fighters.


The inherent flaw here is that you're presuming to know how an undisciplined and untrained person will attack.   That raises all kinds of issues..


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> We just spar untrained guys. untill they are trained. then spar trained guys.
> 
> There is a difference but it is a nuanced one. But we rely on positional dominance. So it is easier to get on to a guy who isnt attacking in the right way.
> 
> The issue you would have is they would clam up. And just hold a position. On the ground that is called lay and pray. And is tactic no.1 for noobs.


That makes sense. It's a different issue with aiki arts - we have to be able to reliably predict where the "voids" are going to show up, which give us aiki opportunities. And since we have to train new students to take falls in order to safely throw them much, by the time we get to most of the techniques, they no longer react entirely like an untrained person. By the time we're trying 5th Set techniques on them, they are nothing like untrained folks. We have to spend a lot of effort learning and understanding what creates different untrained reactions (is it a reaction to pain, an attempt to cover up from an attack, etc.?) so we can replicate those and practice each later. The trained reactions are a bit easier - we get students in who have training in other arts, and if we compare their early reactions (and even some they keep later) to those of us who have been training in NGA a long time, we can see a reasonable range of "trained" responses. And, of course, all of those tend to show up in sparring and randori.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That makes sense. It's a different issue with aiki arts - we have to be able to reliably predict where the "voids" are going to show up, which give us aiki opportunities. And since we have to train new students to take falls in order to safely throw them much, by the time we get to most of the techniques, they no longer react entirely like an untrained person. By the time we're trying 5th Set techniques on them, they are nothing like untrained folks. We have to spend a lot of effort learning and understanding what creates different untrained reactions (is it a reaction to pain, an attempt to cover up from an attack, etc.?) so we can replicate those and practice each later. The trained reactions are a bit easier - we get students in who have training in other arts, and if we compare their early reactions (and even some they keep later) to those of us who have been training in NGA a long time, we can see a reasonable range of "trained" responses. And, of course, all of those tend to show up in sparring and randori.



Judo does that more than us. But then they cant double leg. So it evens out.






And you could walk into a judo school and get manhandled by their black belt. without having to count your limbs afterwards.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> The inherent flaw here is that you're presuming to know how an undisciplined and untrained person will attack.   That raises all kinds of issues..


I don't presume any such thing. I study it. Some of the study is from new students (how do their reactions differ from those with training), some are from observing videos, some are from just trying stuff on other students without warning them (poke someone in the kidney, and you get a specific reaction that gives a clue to part of their reaction to being punched there). There are innate reactions (the way people's bodies react to pains and impacts in certain areas) and there are some that are more variable (some people cover, some people flinch away, some people orient toward). These are all reactions that can be studied and replicated with some reasonable realism. It's not quite the same as having a truly untrained person reacting naturally, but there's no way to get those in a regular stream, so we do what we can. It's certainly not perfect, but what is?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yet there are arts that can do that. virtually anything grappling can put a guy on the deck and keep them there.


Yes, and if they don't train destructions, then they can pull out all their weapons in a contest. I can't. My brain wants to go for the destructions, but I can't go there, so my reactions are slowed, and some of my best-trained pathways aren't usable.

I never said we can't submit someone. But submission is not a self-defense strategy in most cases. I'll either put them down and get away, or I'll put them down so they stay there (destructions, etc.). So I have a few submissions (as I said earlier), but they are a very small part of my toolbox. I could train differently and be able to compete, but competition isn't my objective, so I don't train for that.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yes, and if they don't train destructions, then they can pull out all their weapons in a contest. I can't. My brain wants to go for the destructions, but I can't go there, so my reactions are slowed, and some of my best-trained pathways aren't usable.
> 
> I never said we can't submit someone. But submission is not a self-defense strategy in most cases. I'll either put them down and get away, or I'll put them down so they stay there (destructions, etc.). So I have a few submissions (as I said earlier), but they are a very small part of my toolbox. I could train differently and be able to compete, but competition isn't my objective, so I don't train for that.



Cop out.

 I train an art that does as much damage as anybody elses and somehow manage not to leave a trail of broken bodies in my wake.

And I don think I am the exception.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Judo does that more than us. But then they cant double leg. So it evens out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you could walk into a judo school and get manhandled by their black belt. without having to count your limbs afterwards.


Yes, and that is kind of my point. They don't practice destructions, so they just do their thing. Nothing wrong with what they do. It's not what we do, and there's just much of ours that doesn't belong in a competion. I won't use wrist locks in randori with someone in NGA because of the risk of injury, so it's not about our art versus someone else's. We just have some tools that don't translate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Cop out.
> 
> I train an art that does as much damage as anybody elses and somehow manage not to leave a trail of broken bodies in my wake.
> 
> And I don think I am the exception.


Do you practice destructions?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Do you practice destructions?



Yes they are called joint locks done fast. Have you seen a double leg over arm bar done fast. that is a bodyweight rolling into a joint.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yes they are called joint locks done fast. Have you seen a double leg over arm bar done fast. that is a bodyweight rolling into a joint.


That doesn't make it a destruction, but it's a good example of a lock that can be used as a destruction. It's partly about intent. If you are specifically trianing it so it can be done fast WITHOUT destruction (as submissions are used), then you're training so it can be used reasonably safely in competition. That's a good thing, by the way, if you plan to compete. But the Arm Bar is a good example of a lock that can be used as a submission. There's a fairly long range of pain before any significant damage occurs. There are shoulder locks that do that, too. Here's the issue, though: we don't spend much time training those for submission. Can I use them that way? Sure. But probably about as well as a BJJ blue belt, because I'm more focused on how to apply it to actually injure. There's a difference in the approach, in where you want their weight, and in some other small considerations in the technique. Because I train to use it as a break, I'm not as good at using it to submit. Then, on top of that, I'm spending some attention to make sure I'm using it right to submit, so I will miss some of the openings you would probably see (both openings to do something else, and opening I've given to you).

There are some locks that, so far as I can tell, cannot be reasonably used for submission, because the difference between pain and break is too slight. Of course, for that very reason, you don't see these show up in competitions.

This isn't a personal thing. It's a technical thing. I practice for a context that's not the context you practice for. You should be better than me in your context. You have more tools that apply there (or, more to the point, fewer that don't apply there). You've practiced scenarios that are likely to occur in that context, and many of those haven't been a regular part of my practice, because I'm practicing scenarios that aren't likely to happen in that context.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That doesn't make it a destruction, but it's a good example of a lock that can be used as a destruction. It's partly about intent. If you are specifically trianing it so it can be done fast WITHOUT destruction (as submissions are used), then you're training so it can be used reasonably safely in competition. That's a good thing, by the way, if you plan to compete. But the Arm Bar is a good example of a lock that can be used as a submission. There's a fairly long range of pain before any significant damage occurs. There are shoulder locks that do that, too. Here's the issue, though: we don't spend much time training those for submission. Can I use them that way? Sure. But probably about as well as a BJJ blue belt, because I'm more focused on how to apply it to actually injure. There's a difference in the approach, in where you want their weight, and in some other small considerations in the technique. Because I train to use it as a break, I'm not as good at using it to submit. Then, on top of that, I'm spending some attention to make sure I'm using it right to submit, so I will miss some of the openings you would probably see (both openings to do something else, and opening I've given to you).
> 
> There are some locks that, so far as I can tell, cannot be reasonably used for submission, because the difference between pain and break is too slight. Of course, for that very reason, you don't see these show up in competitions.
> 
> This isn't a personal thing. It's a technical thing. I practice for a context that's not the context you practice for. You should be better than me in your context. You have more tools that apply there (or, more to the point, fewer that don't apply there). You've practiced scenarios that are likely to occur in that context, and many of those haven't been a regular part of my practice, because I'm practicing scenarios that aren't likely to happen in that context.



For 20 years I practiced to beat the tar out of people bouncing. And have broken limbs In really real fights. And can still train with a guy without crippling him.

I train with pro fighters. Ex soldiers. Police And people who could cripple me if they chose to. And they train for the ring. Or for the street. And some of them for war.  And they can train without crippiling each other.

What context do you train for that requires you to be such a finely tuned hurtin, machine?

There are no more Akido guys training for self defence as there are guys from any other style. Never has been. There are no more Akido guys with any more real self defence experience than any other style. Also never has been.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

gpseymour said:


> That doesn't make it a destruction, but it's a good example of a lock that can be used as a destruction. It's partly about intent. If you are specifically trianing it so it can be done fast WITHOUT destruction (as submissions are used), then you're training so it can be used reasonably safely in competition. That's a good thing, by the way, if you plan to compete. But the Arm Bar is a good example of a lock that can be used as a submission. There's a fairly long range of pain before any significant damage occurs. There are shoulder locks that do that, too. Here's the issue, though: we don't spend much time training those for submission. Can I use them that way? Sure. But probably about as well as a BJJ blue belt, because I'm more focused on how to apply it to actually injure. There's a difference in the approach, in where you want their weight, and in some other small considerations in the technique. Because I train to use it as a break, I'm not as good at using it to submit. Then, on top of that, I'm spending some attention to make sure I'm using it right to submit, so I will miss some of the openings you would probably see (both openings to do something else, and opening I've given to you).
> 
> There are some locks that, so far as I can tell, cannot be reasonably used for submission, because the difference between pain and break is too slight. Of course, for that very reason, you don't see these show up in competitions.


I'd put it a bit differently.

"Submission" is the term for the application of a joint lock in competition. If I ever have to apply one in a self-defense scenario, it will be a destruction, because I don't trust a mugger to tap out and then not try to hurt me again if I let go.

We have joint attacks in BJJ where the margin between pain and injury is just as small as for an Aikido wrist lock. The heel hook would be a prime example. In fact, even some of the locks which are usually considered to have a wider transition between pain and damage can have that margin made really small if applied with the right technique.

The difference that I see, is in the control of the opponents body which can be established _before_ the actual lock is applied. In order to both improve my students' success rate and reduce the incidence of damage, I teach them that every "submission" can be regarded first as a control position. If I'm showing how to apply an arm bar from mount, I don't have the students spin into the arm bar position and then drop their weight immediately into cranking on the arm. I show how I can enter into the juji-gatame position, but not lay back or apply any force at all to the elbow. Then I invite the other person to try to escape. Unless they are extremely skilled and/or incredibly strong I can hold them for a long, long time without applying any damaging pressure to the arm. This means that when I do apply the arm bar I can do it as slowly as possible to give my partner time to tap and not worry about him escaping. Likewise for the afore-mentioned heel hook. If I have the proper leg entanglement applied, I can invite my partner to try escaping, punching me, whatever he wants to do. Then I can apply the heel hook nice and slowly. (Actually, I generally don't need to really apply the heel hook. Once I have the position secured, most experienced training partners know to tap before I even apply pressure.)

(I've been thinking about making a short video to illustrate this concept. Maybe I can put one together this week if I have time.)

In aiki arts, it seems that such control of your opponents body that you have for applying the locks is temporary and dynamic, based on how well you've managed to momentarily disrupt their structure by capturing their energy. This is what makes the margin between pain and injury so small for a resisting opponent - you don't have the option of applying the lock slowly while adjusting to counter full-speed escape attempts. Unfortunately, that also means you don't get the experience of safely practicing thousands of locks against fully resisting opponents. If we had holodeck technology so that Aikido practitioners could practice fully applying their techniques against non-compliant attackers without any real people getting hurt, then we'd probably have a lot more badass Aikido practitioners walking around.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> For 20 years I practiced to beat the tar out of people bouncing. And have broken limbs In really real fights. And can still train with a guy without crippling him.
> 
> I train with pro fighters. Ex soldiers. Police And people who could cripple me if they chose to. And they train for the ring. Or for the street. And some of them for war.  And they can train without crippiling each other.
> 
> What context do you train for that requires you to be such a finely tuned hurtin, machine?
> 
> There are no more Akido guys training for self defence as there are guys from any other style. Never has been. There are no more Akido guys with any more real self defence experience than any other style. Also never has been.


You're confusing my argument. I never said someone who trains for competition can't cripple. It's easier to add force to the end of a technique than to remove before you get there (we all have to do that with most of our techniques). Many competition-trained individuals have the capability to destroy joints and do a lot of damage - they just train specifically NOT to do that under high speed and resistance. We don't. Destructions can never be practiced fully, since full practice would destroy a joint, nor can most of them be practiced safely at anything resembling full speed.

The main difference is that many of those training for competition train more hours than those training in other contexts. That higher level of training is the primary advantage of training for competition. More training and higher intensity will usually yield a better result.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'd put it a bit differently.
> 
> "Submission" is the term for the application of a joint lock in competition. If I ever have to apply one in a self-defense scenario, it will be a destruction, because I don't trust a mugger to tap out and then not try to hurt me again if I let go.
> 
> We have joint attacks in BJJ where the margin between pain and injury is just as small as for an Aikido wrist lock. The heel hook would be a prime example. In fact, even some of the locks which are usually considered to have a wider transition between pain and damage can have that margin made really small if applied with the right technique.
> 
> The difference that I see, is in the control of the opponents body which can be established _before_ the actual lock is applied. In order to both improve my students' success rate and reduce the incidence of damage, I teach them that every "submission" can be regarded first as a control position. If I'm showing how to apply an arm bar from mount, I don't have the students spin into the arm bar position and then drop their weight immediately into cranking on the arm. I show how I can enter into the juji-gatame position, but not lay back or apply any force at all to the elbow. Then I invite the other person to try to escape. Unless they are extremely skilled and/or incredibly strong I can hold them for a long, long time without applying any damaging pressure to the arm. This means that when I do apply the arm bar I can do it as slowly as possible to give my partner time to tap and not worry about him escaping. Likewise for the afore-mentioned heel hook. If I have the proper leg entanglement applied, I can invite my partner to try escaping, punching me, whatever he wants to do. Then I can apply the heel hook nice and slowly. (Actually, I generally don't need to really apply the heel hook. Once I have the position secured, most experienced training partners know to tap before I even apply pressure.)
> 
> (I've been thinking about making a short video to illustrate this concept. Maybe I can put one together this week if I have time.)
> 
> In aiki arts, it seems that such control of your opponents body that you have for applying the locks is temporary and dynamic, based on how well you've managed to momentarily disrupt their structure by capturing their energy. This is what makes the margin between pain and injury so small for a resisting opponent - you don't have the option of applying the lock slowly while adjusting to counter full-speed escape attempts. Unfortunately, that also means you don't get the experience of safely practicing thousands of locks against fully resisting opponents. If we had holodeck technology so that Aikido practitioners could practice fully applying their techniques against non-compliant attackers without any real people getting hurt, then we'd probably have a lot more badass Aikido practitioners walking around.


This, as is often the case, appears to be a better explanation than I was giving, Tony! 

Specifically, your reference to entering the technique in a way that is designed to allow the person to tap out. For me to have someone tap out, I have to slow down A LOT near the end of the technique (which is our normal way of ending), because we often enter the technique with the intent to destroy the joint. 

As for the short transition, someday when I'm out that way I'll need you to show me that in some of the submissions, because the ones I'm familiar with have a transition similar to the Arm Bar. There are wrist locks that rival that transition, but I haven't experienced (that I recall, anyway) a submission lock that has a transition as short as the hand-lock I mentioned earlier. I've seen this one result in breaks on 3 occasions - two with resistance, and one simply because the recipient felt the pain too late. If you can show me a submission that has as short a transition, and how you move into it safely, then I may be able to allow some additional techniques during randori.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> You're confusing my argument. I never said someone who trains for competition can't cripple. It's easier to add force to the end of a technique than to remove before you get there (we all have to do that with most of our techniques). Many competition-trained individuals have the capability to destroy joints and do a lot of damage - they just train specifically NOT to do that under high speed and resistance. We don't. Destructions can never be practiced fully, since full practice would destroy a joint, nor can most of them be practiced safely at anything resembling full speed.
> 
> The main difference is that many of those training for competition train more hours than those training in other contexts. That higher level of training is the primary advantage of training for competition. More training and higher intensity will usually yield a better result.


you are really confusing me here.   You don't trian to destroy a joint.   You train to pretend to destroy joints with partners who are pretending they are untrained.   It may or may not work should you ever give it an actual go, but until then, it's theory.   

In most schools, untrained sparring partners are called white belts.   Maybe newbie, new guy or something else, if it's like boxing where there are no belts.   No one pretends to be untrained or simulates attacking unpredictably.  It just is unpredictable, because they are actually untrained.   

Don't get me wrong.  My impression is you probably run a pretty awesome program.   But this specific line of reasoning is really shaky.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> This, as is often the case, appears to be a better explanation than I was giving, Tony!
> 
> Specifically, your reference to entering the technique in a way that is designed to allow the person to tap out. For me to have someone tap out, I have to slow down A LOT near the end of the technique (which is our normal way of ending), because we often enter the technique with the intent to destroy the joint.
> 
> As for the short transition, someday when I'm out that way I'll need you to show me that in some of the submissions, because the ones I'm familiar with have a transition similar to the Arm Bar. There are wrist locks that rival that transition, but I haven't experienced (that I recall, anyway) a submission lock that has a transition as short as the hand-lock I mentioned earlier. I've seen this one result in breaks on 3 occasions - two with resistance, and one simply because the recipient felt the pain too late. If you can show me a submission that has as short a transition, and how you move into it safely, then I may be able to allow some additional techniques during randori.



you are talking about s locks?




MMA has that mechanic. in some movements. but does not allow that sort of gratuitous use. bjj will wrist lock the crap out of you if they get the chance.

so these sort of wrist locks you can't do live?





The issue here is that you are setting up perfect scenarios for these locks then comparing them to resisted locks. And suggesting that there is more time in the resisted verson. Part of that dynamic is because it is resisted.

I have muscled on wrist locks and finger locks all sorts of things.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> you are really confusing me here.   You don't trian to destroy a joint.   You train to pretend to destroy joints with partners who are pretending they are untrained.   It may or may not work should you ever give it an actual go, but until then, it's theory.
> 
> In most schools, untrained sparring partners are called white belts.   Maybe newbie, new guy or something else, if it's like boxing where there are no belts.   No one pretends to be untrained or simulates attacking unpredictably.  It just is unpredictable, because they are actually untrained.
> 
> Don't get me wrong.  My impression is you probably run a pretty awesome program.   But this specific line of reasoning is really shaky.


As I said before, you can't perform most techniques on a new person. They can't take the throws, so by the time you get to practice the technique on them, they are no longer untrained. You lose that element, so you have to study how people react before training and use those reactions in simulations later. It's not about unpredictability in physical reactions - untrained people are more driven by natural reflex than trained people are, so the reactions I'm speaking to are actually more predictable with them. They're just not always the first reaction of a trained person (they are part of what we train away).

As for the first point, don't confuse training method with what you train to do. We train to break, and have methods of avoiding the break during training. The three most important (not all used at the same time) are: 1) the uke escapes the break because he knows the technique that's being used, 2) we slow way the hell down at the very end of the technique (requires the uke become compliant at the end, so that we can go slow-motion at that point) and apply the technique to the point of pain, 3) we release the grip and simulate the follow-through at speed (so, I loosen my grip and let the hand go, but complete the motion as if I were still holding it). None of these is perfect, but the combination creates a workable solution to the problem of training destructions without hurting anyone. There's a fourth solution for some of the locks, like the Arm Bar and our shoulder lock called Come-Along, in that we can train them as submissions (which, of course, can be extended into a destruction if desired). Some of the locks, however, aren't realistic as submissions (with some arm bars, you'd be trying to hold a position that's untenable), so this ends up being another example of the first solution in those cases.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> you are talking about s locks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MMA has that mechanic. in some movements. but does not allow that sort of gratuitous use. bjj will wrist lock the crap out of you if they get the chance.
> 
> so these sort of wrist locks you can't do live?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue here is that you are setting up perfect scenarios for these locks then comparing them to resisted locks. And suggesting that there is more time in the resisted verson. Part of that dynamic is because it is resisted.
> 
> I have muscled on wrist locks and finger locks all sorts of things.


Where did I suggest there is more time in the resisted version? That's the opposite of the point I've been making. Time gets compressed, so there's less time to control the lock - that's what makes some of these more risky to the recipient when they resist.

With the exception of the shoulder lock (interesting use of what we call the Come-Along!), those in the BJJ video are all joint compressions of one sort or another. The one in the other video is the dangerous one - that's actually acting on the small bone in the hand. Part of the issue, too, comes with the positions used for destructions. If I'm planning to submit you, I have to get into a position where I can hold the lock and apply at the point where the pain tells you I've won. Destructions don't require I be able to hold it. Two of my favorite Arm Bar destructions have positions that give great leverage for breaking, but are lousy positions to try to stand in and submit them. Those destructions simply cannot be used effectively as submissions. There are some other destruction uses where the leverage applied comes in too sharply, with too much of the body weight committed into it (I'm thinking of a wrist compression I teach that drops the entire body weight into the wrist on the ground). Those can't be applied gradually at speed, because they depend upon the body weight drop to be effective. If someone resists those, you either don't use them, or you destroy with them, which means they aren't useful for sparring.

To get back to the original point of this thread, here's the larger issue for me. The resistance you'd see if the BJJ guy's partner was resisting is NOT the same resistance you'd likely get in the street. He knows what's coming, so he's already shifting shoulders and starting to move in a direction that protects his wrist. The attacker on the street normally won't see it coming, won't know what it is you're doing to them, so their resistance will often run INTO the destruction (trying to punch while you're starting the lock, for instance). This is what I was talking about earlier with needing to simulate untrained reactions. If I only train for someone who can recognize the lock, I miss training for a whole set of reactions that are actually more likely to occur. So, in addition to training with a partner who's trying to stop you (sparring/randori), we also train with a partner who's continuing to attack, regardless of what we do, rather than countering the technique. This is where things get really dicey and practice has to slow down, because this requires the "attacker" ignore what he can see (because of his training) is coming, and give a reasonable continuation of his attack, regardless of the fact that it's going to lead his wrist right into the lock/destruction.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> Well everything looks convincing within the confines of a dojo. Look at Dillman's no-touch knockout stuff for further evidence of that. Aikido itself has its own brand of no-touch nonsense which also appears within the confines of a dojo or demonstration.
> 
> Again, the majority of my experience with Aikido exists outside of an Aikido dojo, and it mirrors Roy Dean and other people's perception of the art.


I've never seen anything like a no-touch knockout in an aikido class.  Just hands-on, rough-and-tumble.

I have witnessed some classes that I was unimpressed with.  But that is an issue with the teacher, not the style.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> Just to he clear.  I said YouTube is evidence but im not suggesting its the only kind of evidence.


It documents an event.  Whether or not that video is truly evidence of anything, other than the event itself, is debatable.  Maybe yes, maybe no.


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> I've never seen anything like a no-touch knockout in an aikido class.  Just hands-on, rough-and-tumble.
> 
> I have witnessed some classes that I was unimpressed with.  But that is an issue with the teacher, not the style.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> It documents an event.  Whether or not that video is truly evidence of anything, other than the event itself, is debatable.  Maybe yes, maybe no.



Just as with anything else, one example is evidence.  Several examples can suggest a trend.   A lack of evidence leaves a void that leads to reasonable skepticism. 

Context matters, certainly.   But saying YouTube videos aren't helpful at all is a stretch.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> somehow, when you write it, it sounds like you mean the opposite.
> 
> Just as with anything else, one example is evidence.  Several examples can suggest a trend.   A lack of evidence leaves a void that leads to reasonable skepticism.
> 
> Context matters, certainly.   But saying YouTube videos aren't helpful at all is a stretch.


They are less helpful than a lot of people believe.  They are helpful within a limited context.

If I show you a video of a BMW with engine problems, do you automatically believe that all BMWs are junky cars, or are you insightful enough to understand that while some may have problems, that doesn't mean the brand as a whole is no good?  Even if I saw a dozen or two dozen such videos, I would never jump to the conclusion that BMW sucks.

It's easy to find bad examples.  YouTube is filled with them.  That doesn't mean it all sucks.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> They are less helpful than a lot of people believe.  They are helpful within a limited context.
> 
> If I show you a video of a BMW with engine problems, do you automatically believe that all BMWs are junky cars, or are you insightful enough to understand that while some may have problems, that doesn't mean the brand as a whole is no good?  Even if I saw a dozen or two dozen such videos, I would never jump to the conclusion that BMW sucks.
> 
> It's easy to find bad examples.  YouTube is filled with them.  That doesn't mean it all sucks.



Says the car salesman.

Actually kind of aplicable.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


>


I'm on my phone and not going to waste my data on watching videos, but for the moment I will accept on faith that the video shows what you suggest it shows. 

Do you believe all aikido schools do that?  As I've said, I've never witnessed it.  Are you insightful enough to recognize that bad schools and bad teachers exist, as well as good ones?  Are you insightful enough to understand that?  A simple yes or no will do.


----------



## Spinedoc

Hanzou said:


>



Watanabe isn't really taken seriously anymore in the greater Aikido community because of this. Here was the eminent Tissier Shihan's statement on this a few years back...

Sensei Christian Tissier visited South America last December, Article, Christian Tissier Shihan 7° Dan Aikïkaï, Aïkido

*"Mario Lorenzo - In South America we can see that those who emphasize too much on the “KI” in their practice are not technically serious. Do you see this in other countries? And what do you think of Watanabe Sensei‘s “no touch Aikido”?*
Sensei Tissier : They are two different things. On the one hand people who talk about ki, and on the other the ones who practise aikido like Sensei Watanabe. He developed something in which he is especially interested in: it isn’t a ki work but one of anticipation, sensations, whether you like it or not, or whether it works or not. It works when you know the code, but martially it doesn’t work. Being in Japan I worked a lot with him, Watanabe wasn’t like this before. He is a physically solid practicant who wanted to develop something different.* I think that if I were head of an examination table I wouldn’t take what he produces.*

Now, people who talk and make constant reference on ki around the world are looking for something to justify their lack of technique. Because we all have ki, everything is ki (opening his arms), the problem with ki is its fluency. How does ki flow? When there is no block. When somebody is doing a technique and doesn’t handle it, this person doesn’t have an unblocked body. The objective of the technical aspect of the sport is to unlock every body part where there might exist a block. Someone who performs an exercise with stiff shoulders will not have a real ki flow."

Essentially, he is calling Watanabe's ki practice a fraud, just a in a rather polite way. Are there people like this in the Aikido world? Absolutely.....just like there are some in the Karate world, and fraudulent BJJ blackbelts...

That being said, I think many of you are missing something. I know of virtually no one in the Aikido world that is training to fight. No one. They are training for a whole host of other reasons...for some, it is a meditative practice, for others exercise and camaraderie, among a whole host of personal reasons.. In my dojo we actually tell new people that Aikido isn't really a self defense course that you can learn quickly and be good at. We try and downplay the self defense aspect. I tell people if that is all they are interested in, buy a good handgun.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> They are less helpful than a lot of people believe.  They are helpful within a limited context.
> 
> If I show you a video of a BMW with engine problems, do you automatically believe that all BMWs are junky cars, or are you insightful enough to understand that while some may have problems, that doesn't mean the brand as a whole is no good?  Even if I saw a dozen or two dozen such videos, I would never jump to the conclusion that BMW sucks.
> 
> It's easy to find bad examples.  YouTube is filled with them.  That doesn't mean it all sucks.


The problem isn't the YouTube videos.  It's that you are trying to prove something doesn't exist.  Of course that's not going to work.  

The connection to an MA discussion isn't "prove to me that all {insert style here} training is bad."  Rather, it's "show me that SOME {insert style here} training is good."    You can show me videos of bad BJJ or BJJ not working in various contexts.  But I can also show many videos of very good, high level BJJ working in a variety of contexts, from street fights to MMA matches to BJJ matches to "style vs style" challenge matches.  While we can be sure that some BJJ is not good, we can also determine without doubt that some is VERY good.   

YouTube is great for substantiating the affirmative.  

If you continually asserted that electric cars are slow, and I told you an all electric Datsun 1200 could run 10.4 seconds in the 1/4 Mile topping out at 117+MPH.  Hard to believe.  If I show you a video, we now have evidence. 






If I said that it routinely beat the crap out of a lot of other cars, including corvettes:
[MEDIA]




Masaratis:





And even other electric cars, like this Tesla (quietest drag race EVER)





I could show you dozens of videos, and can invite you to find your own.  I have provided, I think, AMPLE evidence that an electric car can be VERY fast.  This video footage will support all of the other evidence, such as discussions about consistent torque, which also support a position. 

The only thing that can't be recorded in this day and age are vampires.  Are you saying that vampires are involved somehow?


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> The problem isn't the YouTube videos.  It's that you are trying to prove something doesn't exist.  Of course that's not going to work.
> 
> The connection to an MA discussion isn't "prove to me that all {insert style here} training is bad."  Rather, it's "show me that SOME {insert style here} training is good."    You can show me videos of bad BJJ or BJJ not working in various contexts.  But I can also show many videos of very good, high level BJJ working in a variety of contexts, from street fights to MMA matches to BJJ matches to "style vs style" challenge matches.  While we can be sure that some BJJ is not good, we can also determine without doubt that some is VERY good.
> 
> YouTube is great for substantiating the affirmative.
> 
> If you continually asserted that electric cars are slow, and I told you an all electric Datsun 1200 could run 10.4 seconds in the 1/4 Mile topping out at 117+MPH.  Hard to believe.  If I show you a video, we now have evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I said that it routinely beat the crap out of a lot of other cars, including corvettes:
> [MEDIA]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Masaratis:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And even other electric cars, like this Tesla (quietest drag race EVER)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could show you dozens of videos, and can invite you to find your own.  I have provided, I think, AMPLE evidence that an electric car can be VERY fast.  This video footage will support all of the other evidence, such as discussions about consistent torque, which also support a position.
> 
> The only thing that can't be recorded in this day and age are vampires.  Are you saying that vampires are involved somehow?


To be honest, I no longer know what you are trying to assert.  All I know is, most of what happens in the world is never filmed and posted on YouTube.  Is that something you can agree with?


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> To be honest, I no longer know what you are trying to assert.  All I know is, most of what happens in the world is never filmed and posted on YouTube.  Is that something you can agree with?




Lots of Akido is Filmed and posted on you tube. It is not a Tasmanian Tiger.


----------



## Flying Crane

drop bear said:


> Lots of Akido is Filmed and posted on you tube. It is not a Tasmanian Tiger.


It was a yes-or-no question.  Can you give a yes-or-no answer?


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> It was a yes-or-no question.  Can you give a yes-or-no answer?



Ok. Fine i will play along.  

I Agree.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> To be honest, I no longer know what you are trying to assert.  All I know is, most of what happens in the world is never filmed and posted on YouTube.  Is that something you can agree with?


I'm suggesting that what is posted on YouTube is evidence.  It feels a little like you're being intentionally obstinate.   

And I'm not sure that, in 2016, it's true that most of what happens is never filmed and out on YouTube.   There are something like 300 hours of video being added every minute.   Billions of videos are available, and growing exponentially.  

10 years ago?  Sure.   I hear you.  But YouTube is pervasive, and the odd of not being able to find at least one example of pretty much anything is pretty low.  The odds are that someone, somewhere, has pulled out their phone, tablet, or camera, and recorded it.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Ok. Fine i will play along.
> 
> I Agree.


If our only choices are yes or no, I'd land on no.  It's to the point where it's a little odd NOT to find at least one example on YouTube.   Not impossible, but kind of odd.


----------



## Flying Crane

drop bear said:


> Ok. Fine i will play along.
> 
> I Agree.


Thanks.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> If our only choices are yes or no, I'd land on no.  It's to the point where it's a little odd NOT to find at least one example on YouTube.   Not impossible, but kind of odd.


Ok, so every one of your training sessions are posted on YouTube?  Every competition you entered?  When you learned to ride a bike is posted on YouTube?  The last 6000 times you took a crap is posted on YouTube?

Really Steve, you can't agree that most of what happens in life never makes it into YouTube?


----------



## Hanzou

Spinedoc said:


> Watanabe isn't really taken seriously anymore in the greater Aikido community because of this. Here was the eminent Tissier Shihan's statement on this a few years back...
> 
> Sensei Christian Tissier visited South America last December, Article, Christian Tissier Shihan 7° Dan Aikïkaï, Aïkido
> 
> *"Mario Lorenzo - In South America we can see that those who emphasize too much on the “KI” in their practice are not technically serious. Do you see this in other countries? And what do you think of Watanabe Sensei‘s “no touch Aikido”?*
> Sensei Tissier : They are two different things. On the one hand people who talk about ki, and on the other the ones who practise aikido like Sensei Watanabe. He developed something in which he is especially interested in: it isn’t a ki work but one of anticipation, sensations, whether you like it or not, or whether it works or not. It works when you know the code, but martially it doesn’t work. Being in Japan I worked a lot with him, Watanabe wasn’t like this before. He is a physically solid practicant who wanted to develop something different.* I think that if I were head of an examination table I wouldn’t take what he produces.*
> 
> Now, people who talk and make constant reference on ki around the world are looking for something to justify their lack of technique. Because we all have ki, everything is ki (opening his arms), the problem with ki is its fluency. How does ki flow? When there is no block. When somebody is doing a technique and doesn’t handle it, this person doesn’t have an unblocked body. The objective of the technical aspect of the sport is to unlock every body part where there might exist a block. Someone who performs an exercise with stiff shoulders will not have a real ki flow."
> 
> Essentially, he is calling Watanabe's ki practice a fraud, just a in a rather polite way. Are there people like this in the Aikido world? Absolutely.....just like there are some in the Karate world, and fraudulent BJJ blackbelts....




Well the difference here is that Nobuyuki Watanabe is a senior instructor at the Aikikai, so it's a little different than some random clown wrapping a black belt around his waist and claiming that he's an expert. It would be the equivalent of one the Gracie brothers beginning to do no-touch ki nonsense, and large numbers of Bjj practitioners actually believing it. 



> That being said, I think many of you are missing something. I know of virtually no one in the Aikido world that is training to fight. No one. They are training for a whole host of other reasons...for some, it is a meditative practice, for others exercise and camaraderie, among a whole host of personal reasons.. In my dojo we actually tell new people that Aikido isn't really a self defense course that you can learn quickly and be good at. We try and downplay the self defense aspect. I tell people if that is all they are interested in, buy a good handgun



Thank you for that insight. That's pretty much what Aikidokas I've rolled with have told me as well.


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> I'm on my phone and not going to waste my data on watching videos, but for the moment I will accept on faith that the video shows what you suggest it shows.
> 
> Do you believe all aikido schools do that?  As I've said, I've never witnessed it.  Are you insightful enough to recognize that bad schools and bad teachers exist, as well as good ones?  Are you insightful enough to understand that?  A simple yes or no will do.



Again, Nobuyuki Watanabe is a senior instructor at the Aikikai Hombu Dojo in Japan, the largest branch of Aikido in the world, and the branch of the art's founder. This isn't some random clown in a strip mall.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, so every one of your training sessions are posted on YouTube?  Every competition you entered?  When you learned to ride a bike is posted on YouTube?  The last 6000 times you took a crap is posted on YouTube?
> 
> Really Steve, you can't agree that most of what happens in life never makes it into YouTube?


Come on, man.  You're completely around the bend.   Are you truly so close to this?

In the billions of videos posted, there are examples of just about everything.  Is every wedding posted?  No, but weddings are posted, so we can know they occur.

Said another way, your position is essentially that aikido for self defense is as rare as the yeti or Sasquatch.   That seems a bit extreme to me.


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> Again, Nobuyuki Watanabe is a senior instructor at the Aikikai Hombu Dojo in Japan, the largest branch of Aikido in the world, and the branch of the art's founder. This isn't some random clown in a strip mall.


It's a yes or no question.  Are you capable of an answer?


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> It's a yes or no question.  Are you capable of an answer?



It actually isn't, unless you want to argue that the largest and most widespread branch of Aikido in the world is a "bad".


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> Come on, man.  You're completely around the bend.   Are you truly so close to this?
> 
> In the billions of videos posted, there are examples of just about everything.  Is every wedding posted?  No, but weddings are posted, so we can know they occur.
> 
> Said another way, your position is essentially that aikido for self defense is as rare as the yeti or Sasquatch.   That seems a bit extreme to me.


No, my position is that whatever gets posted on YouTube is a very small fraction of the total training that happens.  So small as to be an unreliable sample of the whole.  And a high likelihood of being a skewed sample, at that.

How many postings are done by someone with an axe to grind, who cherry-picks the worst examples he can find?  Or posted by people with an ego inflated enough that they think they are good, when they are not.  YouTube is a bizarre phenomenon in that it is a channel that appeals to the exhibitionist in human nature.  A shockingly high number of people give in to that temptation and post their crap on YouTube, because they think they've got something good, when most don't, and they think the world wants to see it, when most of the world doesn't.  

As I've said countless times, bad samples are rampant on YouTube.  

But there are far far more schools and people who quietly go about their training and don't care what the world thinks and have no urge to show it off and never post on YouTube.  Vastly far more than who do post.  And that is what you and Hanzou and Drop Bear will never see.  But you want to judge the whole based on a very small and unreliable sample.

Are you so myopic that you really believe that most of aikido is on YouTube?  That the best that aikido has to offer is on YouTube?  Do you really believe that?

Or have you really filmed and posted every time you took a crap?


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> It actually isn't, unless you want to argue that the largest and most widespread branch of Aikido in the world is a "bad".


Oh, it's very simple, actually.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> No, my position is that whatever gets posted on YouTube is a very small fraction of the total training that happens.  So small as to be an unreliable sample of the whole.  And a high likelihood of being a skewed sample, at that.
> 
> How many postings are done by someone with an axe to grind, who cherry-picks the worst examples he can find?  Or posted by people with an ego inflated enough that they think they are good, when they are not.  YouTube is a bizarre phenomenon in that it is a channel that appeals to the exhibitionist in human nature.  A shockingly high number of people give in to that temptation and post their crap on YouTube, because they think they've got something good, when most don't, and they think the world wants to see it, when most of the world doesn't.
> 
> As I've said countless times, bad samples are rampant on YouTube.
> 
> But there are far far more schools and people who quietly go about their training and don't care what the world thinks and have no urge to show it off and never post on YouTube.  Vastly far more than who do post.  And that is what you and Hanzou and Drop Bear will never see.  But you want to judge the whole based on a very small and unreliable sample.
> 
> Are you so myopic that you really believe that most of aikido is on YouTube?  That the best that aikido has to offer is on YouTube?  Do you really believe that?
> 
> Or have you really filmed and posted every time you took a crap?


Whoa.  Okay.  My opinion is that the person with an axe to grind here is you.  You're not making any sense whatsoever.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Thanks.



So.  My lazer eyes system of self defence.  Is also a viable form of martial arts used by special forces around the world. 

The thing is because of its incredible effectiveness it is trained  secretly and it has never been documented on you tube. 

Luckily not everything has neen documented on you tube.  So we have to assume I am legit.  

Right?


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Whoa.  Okay.  My opinion is that the person with an axe to grind here is you.  You're not making any sense whatsoever.



No axe. The celestial tea cup argument is the benchmark for discerning dogma.

The dude believes it.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> So.  My lazer eyes system of self defence.  Is also a viable form of martial arts used by special forces around the world.
> 
> The thing is because of its incredible effectiveness it is trained  secretly and it has never been documented on you tube.
> 
> Luckily not everything has neen documented on you tube.  So we have to assume I am legit.
> 
> Right?


I'm in.   Can I buy your DVDs?


----------



## punisher73

At about the 9 minute mark.

Most of the people I know that train in Aikido, train to get OUT of fights and not get into them.  They usually don't frequent the places that violence occurs.  Most of what is posted on youtube is "consensual" ego fights.  The exact type of thing that someone who studies aikido is going to try and avoid.  How many videos do you see posted on youtube where one guy de-escalates with another guy and they both just walk away?  Probably not going to be on there.

I agree though, that many people mistrain/misapply their aikido and forget that Ueshiba said that you must use atemi (strikes) before applying the rest of the technique.  But, if we showed someone sidestepping and striking or moving in and striking people would say that it wasn't aikido.  

I think that Aikido falls into the same trap as many other MA's though.  Because there is such subtlety that is worked on with compliant people, many places don't put it back into context or train for an uncooperative person.


----------



## moonhill99

kehcorpz said:


> Is aikido more about competitions and not really focused on real self-defense?
> 
> And how long does it take to learn enough aikido stuff so that you could defend yourself?
> 
> Does aikido also offer solutions for ground fighting?
> 
> Also, how hard is aikido on the body? Are you likely to hurt yourself when you're being thrown over
> someone's shoulder? Since I'm rather fragile I don't know if I could even withstand such a training.
> 
> I think aikido looks pretty interesting but I don't know if it's good for self-defense.



You should spend some more time reading past threads here and elsewhere all these questions have been talk about.

But it going come down to you if you like throws and take downs. If you hate throws and take downs than Aikido or Judo is not for you.


----------



## moonhill99

Steve said:


> Come on, man.  You're completely around the bend.   Are you truly so close to this?
> 
> In the billions of videos posted, there are examples of just about everything.  Is every wedding posted?  No, but weddings are posted, so we can know they occur.
> 
> Said another way, your position is essentially that aikido for self defense is as rare as the yeti or Sasquatch.   That seems a bit extreme to me.



Sorry want videos his he after? Is he looking for aikido used for self defense on the street? Even if there was many videos he probably say they got lucky.

 And those arguments will not go away and he will ask for more videos.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> Whoa.  Okay.  My opinion is that the person with an axe to grind here is you.  You're not making any sense whatsoever.


Are you saying that aikido is useless for self defense?  Because that is the question in the OP.

Are you saying that aikido doesn't work well in MMA type competitions?

Are you saying something else?

What is your position, exactly?


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> Are you saying that aikido is useless for self defense?  Because that is the question in the OP.
> 
> Are you saying that aikido doesn't work well in MMA type competitions?
> 
> Are you saying something else?
> 
> What is your position, exactly?



He is saying your argument isnt sound. Regardless as to whether Akido is or isn't good for self defence.


----------



## Flying Crane

drop bear said:


> He is saying your argument isnt sound. Regardless as to whether Akido is or isn't good for self defence.


Thanks for the input, I'd like to hear it from Steve

I'm actually trying to figure out if we are having two different discussions, without realizing it.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> Are you saying that aikido is useless for self defense?  Because that is the question in the OP.
> 
> Are you saying that aikido doesn't work well in MMA type competitions?
> 
> Are you saying something else?
> 
> What is your position, exactly?



With regards to self defense, can aikido be used?  I don't know, because I've not seen much evidence of that.  I believe it can be theoretically, but that's based upon the word of people who I believe are credible, like GPSeymour, who have a solid foundation in training theory and also trained in arts like Judo.  I know he is well versed with the pros *and cons* of pressure testing technique, sparring and competition.  Even here, though, it gets dicey when he has moved into discussions about "pure aiki" and the distinction between a submission and a destruction.   So, all of that to say, I know you're looking for a black and white answer, but I can only offer you something in the middle.

With regards to YouTube, I really tried to articulate my thoughts and also show you where you and I disagree.  My belief is that you have a problem with a couple of posters, and that it clouds your better judgment, to the point where you say things you don't mean (I get it.  I have a similar problem with a poster, myself).  When I say that YouTube is a way of providing evidence, and you ask me if I have posted videos every time I have used the bathroom, something has gone horribly awry. 

What is your position, FC?  I have a lot of opinions about the many different trains of thought that have come up in this thread.  So, given your three questions above, I'd say yes, I'm saying something else.


----------



## Flying Crane

My position is actually pretty simple.

1. Aikido can definitely be useful in self defense.

2. However, it may not be the best approach if someone is interested in combat sports, such as MMA.  

3. The fact that YouTube video is apparently not to be found showing aikido being used in real self defense, in no way negates point number 1.  As I keep saying, most of what happens in the world is not filmed and posted on YouTube.

4. If video is to be found showing aikido being defeated in a combat sports type setting, that is not surprising, and also in no way negates point number 1.

5. If some people aren't impressed with the training methods they have seen in aikido, well they should not train aikido. There's not much more to say about that.

6. No matter how much video one watches, they have not seen all, or even a small percentage of the training that goes on in the world.  Passing judgement on the whole, based on what is seen in YouTube, is a mistake.

7. That being said, people are welcome to like or dislike anything they want, for whatever good or bad reason they come up with.  If you don't like it, don't train it.  Personally, I have zero interest in BJJ and other grappling methods.  But I don't believe I have ever come on here and run a campaign trying to smear grappling methods as somehow unworthy.  It does get tiresome when some people habitually so it with other systems.


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> My position is actually pretty simple.
> 
> 1. Aikido can definitely be useful in self defense.
> 
> 2. However, it may not be the best approach if someone is interested in combat sports, such as MMA.
> 
> 3. The fact that YouTube video is apparently not to be found showing aikido being used in real self defense, in no way negates point number 1.  As I keep saying, most of what happens in the world is not filmed and posted on YouTube.
> 
> 4. If video is to be found showing aikido being defeated in a combat sports type setting, that is not surprising, and also in no way negates point number 1.
> 
> 5. If some people aren't impressed with the training methods they have seen in aikido, well they should not train aikido. There's not much more to say about that.
> 
> 6. No matter how much video one watches, they have not seen all, or even a small percentage of the training that goes on in the world.  Passing judgement on the whole, based on what is seen in YouTube, is a mistake.
> 
> 7. That being said, people are welcome to like or dislike anything they want, for whatever good or bad reason they come up with.  If you don't like it, don't train it.  Personally, I have zero interest in BJJ and other grappling methods.  But I don't believe I have ever come on here and run a campaign trying to smear grappling methods as somehow unworthy.  It does get tiresome when some people habitually so it with other systems.



I am with you.  People have unjustly mocked my laser eyes defence method as well.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> I am with you.  People have unjustly mocked my laser eyes defence method as well.


I have a self defense method called chimpanzyu that involves soiling oneself and flinging poo as its primary skillsets.  But FC has correctly stated that there is not a single video of me pooping on YouTube.  I assure you all that it works very well, even though there is zero video footage available to corroborate my statement.


----------



## Flying Crane

For the record, I will repeat, as I have said this numerous times in the forums here, that poor instruction and bad examples are easy to find.  It is easy to find on YouTube, and it is easy to find in the real world.  In my opinion, the majority of schools are actually mediocre at best, and mostly downright poor, at least from what I've seen.  When I first moved to San Francisco in 1994, I made a point of visiting and watching some classes in many of the schools here, and there are a lot of them, teaching many different systems.  I did a similar thing in the cities where I was in college, before that.  So that is my sample size, and that is my opinion, based on what I have seen.

So, yeah, poor instruction abounds.  No disagreement there.

But I do distinguish a bad example, or even many bad examples, from the system as a whole. I know that there are some really skilled and talented people out there, in all systems.

But the quality of instruction has to be high, and I don't see that in many of the schools I've visited.  Unfortunately that seems to be the state of martial arts: a lot of junk, with an occasional diamond.

I visited at least three different aikido schools here, as far as I can remember.  One seemed quite poor to me, in spite of a head instructor ranked at 6th Dan. Everything seemed very cooperative, with people falling over before a technique was really applied.  The other two schools were very impressive to me.  The contact was solid, and bodies were flying for real.  My wife visited a school in Berkeley, because a friend of hers from law school trained there.  What she saw was rough and potentially brutal.  At that time her prior background was in Tae kwon do, hapkido, and capoeira, so she has an experienced eye as well.

Regarding the method that I train, Tibetan White Crane, I have seen many YouTube videos.  In my opinion, not a single one of those videos showed quality white crane.  None.  Some of them were downright embarrassing to watch.  But I have absolute confidence in the method and in the instruction that I have received, regardless of my own personal shortcomings and inabilities.  Nothing about what is found on YouTube in any way discourages me in my training, because I know that there is a lot of junk out there, but I got lucky and found an excellent sifu who was willing to accept me as his student.

So, for what it's worth.


----------



## Hanzou

Flying Crane said:


> My position is actually pretty simple.
> 
> 1. Aikido can definitely be useful in self defense.
> 
> 2. However, it may not be the best approach if someone is interested in combat sports, such as MMA.
> 
> 3. The fact that YouTube video is apparently not to be found showing aikido being used in real self defense, in no way negates point number 1.  As I keep saying, most of what happens in the world is not filmed and posted on YouTube.
> 
> 4. If video is to be found showing aikido being defeated in a combat sports type setting, that is not surprising, and also in no way negates point number 1.
> 
> 5. If some people aren't impressed with the training methods they have seen in aikido, well they should not train aikido. There's not much more to say about that.
> 
> 6. No matter how much video one watches, they have not seen all, or even a small percentage of the training that goes on in the world.  Passing judgement on the whole, based on what is seen in YouTube, is a mistake.
> 
> 7. That being said, people are welcome to like or dislike anything they want, for whatever good or bad reason they come up with.  If you don't like it, don't train it.  Personally, I have zero interest in BJJ and other grappling methods.  But I don't believe I have ever come on here and run a campaign trying to smear grappling methods as somehow unworthy.  It does get tiresome when some people habitually so it with other systems.



1. And yet we have experts in the field saying the exact opposite.

2. Why not?

3. Except that wasn't the only point being made. There are people with first-hand experience who agree that Aikido is not a good choice for self defense.

4. Why is it not surprising?

5. Agreed, but that doesn't mean that they aren't permitted to criticize those training methods.

6.Who did that?

7. I think the problem is that people like yourself view a little healthy skepticism as "smearing".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

In another forum, someone asked people's opinion about this clip.






IMO, the issue of this clip are the following.

- When you use your hand to grab on your opponent's wrist, your opponent twists his arm, puts pressure on your wrist, and you are still "*stupid enough*" to hold on your grip, you should get a rope, find a quite place, and hang yourself.
- If people are "*stupid enough*" to assume that people on the street will respond like this, there is big problem in this "training method".

Common sense tells us when you grab on your opponent's wrist and your opponent twist his arm and try to break your grip, you should

- release your wrist grip and move your hand onto his elbow joint, or
- move your hand and meet his face.

My biggest concern is why such kind of "normal" respond are not in the regular training?

Is there any other MA system on earth that students only train throw and never train counter-throw (the counter-throw can be as simple as to release your own wrist grip)?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Can someone find any Aikido "counter-throw" clip online (something like the following clip)?

Amazing counter throw


----------



## Flying Crane

Hanzou said:


> 1. And yet we have experts in the field saying the exact opposite.
> 
> 2. Why not?
> 
> 3. Except that wasn't the only point being made. There are people with first-hand experience who agree that Aikido is not a good choice for self defense.
> 
> 4. Why is it not surprising?
> 
> 5. Agreed, but that doesn't mean that they aren't permitted to criticize those training methods.
> 
> 6.Who did that?
> 
> 7. I think the problem is that people like yourself view a little healthy skepticism as "smearing".


You are a tedious individual.  Have a good life.


----------



## pgsmith

Hanzou said:


> 7. I think the problem is that people like yourself view a little healthy skepticism as "smearing".



  So, you are posting (alot) in the aikido forum saying that aikido is garbage in response to most threads, but that qualifies in your mind as "a little healthy skepticism?"  

  Some people just aren't happy when things aren't done the way they want them to be done.


----------



## Steve

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In another forum, someone asked people's opinion about this clip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, the issue of this clip are the following.
> 
> - When you use your hand to grab on your opponent's wrist, your opponent twists his arm, puts pressure on your wrist, and you are still "*stupid enough*" to hold on your grip, you should get a rope, find a quite place, and hang yourself.
> - If people are "*stupid enough*" to assume that people on the street will respond like this, there is big problem in this "training method".
> 
> Common sense tells us when you grab on your opponent's wrist and your opponent twist his arm and try to break your grip, you should
> 
> - release your wrist grip and move your hand onto his elbow joint, or
> - move your hand and meet his face.
> 
> My biggest concern is why such kind of "normal" respond are not in the regular training?
> 
> Is there any other MA system on earth that students only train throw and never train counter-throw (the counter-throw can be as simple as to release your own wrist grip)?


I'm also very interested in thoughts from the aikido guys.  Is this video good aikido?


----------



## Hanzou

pgsmith said:


> So, you are posting (alot) in the aikido forum saying that aikido is garbage in response to most threads, but that qualifies in your mind as "a little healthy skepticism?"
> 
> Some people just aren't happy when things aren't done the way they want them to be done.



Where did I say that Aikido was "garbage"?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

When you learn a MA system,

1st - you learn how to apply a technique (such as a side kick),
2nd - you learn how to counter that technique (such as to block a side kick),
3rd - you learn how to counter a counter (such as when your opponent blocks your side kick, you borrow his blocking force, spin your body and give him a back spinning fist).
4th - ...

Should all MA systems train this way?

If you only train step 1 and never train step 2 and step 3, your MA training is not complete.


----------



## Spinedoc

Hanzou said:


> 1. And yet we have experts in the field saying the exact opposite.
> 
> 2. Why not?
> 
> 3. Except that wasn't the only point being made. There are people with first-hand experience who agree that Aikido is not a good choice for self defense.
> 
> 4. Why is it not surprising?
> 
> 5. Agreed, but that doesn't mean that they aren't permitted to criticize those training methods.
> 
> 6.Who did that?
> 
> 7. I think the problem is that people like yourself view a little healthy skepticism as "smearing".



I think you are misinterpreting what I said. What I said was "In my dojo we actually tell new people that Aikido isn't really a self defense course that you can learn quickly and be good at."

That is not the same as saying that Aikido is not a good choice for self defense. Aikido can be very effective, but takes a longer time to really be able to use that way. When I have new students, I tell them that if they want a fast self defense course, which many Americans seem to want, that they are better off buying a handgun.


----------



## Spinedoc

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Can someone find any Aikido "counter-throw" clip online (something like the following clip)?
> 
> Amazing counter throw



Yes, Kaeshi Waza or reversals/counters are a cornerstone along with Henka Waza (counter to the counter) at higher level Aikido practice. We don't generally practice these below 2nd kyu, but on most Yudansha tests, especially at Nidan and above, you will be expected to know a fair amount of these....

Here are some basic examples from Nemoto Sensei. Keep in mind, he is teaching these, so they are being done at a lower speed without full resistance.


----------



## Spinedoc

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you learn a MA system,
> 
> 1st - you learn how to apply a technique (such as a side kick),
> 2nd - you learn how to counter that technique (such as to block a side kick),
> 3rd - you learn how to counter a counter (such as when your opponent blocks your side kick, you borrow his blocking force, spin your body and give him a back spinning fist).
> 4th - ...
> 
> Should all MA systems train this way?
> 
> If you only train step 1 and never train step 2 and step 3, your MA training is not complete.



Again, we do steps 2 and 3, but not for several years...


----------



## Flying Crane

Spinedoc said:


> I think you are misinterpreting what I said. What I said was "In my dojo we actually tell new people that Aikido isn't really a self defense course that you can learn quickly and be good at."
> 
> That is not the same as saying that Aikido is not a good choice for self defense. Aikido can be very effective, but takes a longer time to really be able to use that way. When I have new students, I tell them that if they want a fast self defense course, which many Americans seem to want, that they are better off buying a handgun.


I'm going to hazard a guess that any comments that aikido isn't meant for fighting really is in reference to attitude.  Meaning that people don't train aikido in order to enter combat sports competitions, or it's not the best method for someone who wants to be an aggressive petty thug.  But the techniques and methods are intended for fighting and self defense if one finds oneself in need.

Aikido is not simply a physical exercise deliberately devoid of fighting possibilities.

Would you agree with that?


----------



## Hanzou

Spinedoc said:


> I think you are misinterpreting what I said. What I said was "In my dojo we actually tell new people that Aikido isn't really a self defense course that you can learn quickly and be good at."
> 
> That is not the same as saying that Aikido is not a good choice for self defense. Aikido can be very effective, but takes a longer time to really be able to use that way. When I have new students, I tell them that if they want a fast self defense course, which many Americans seem to want, that they are better off buying a handgun.



Actually I wasn't talking about you when I was talking about experts. I was talking about Roy Dean and other Aikido black belts that I know who have told me that Aikido isn't for self defense.

Interestingly, those admissions tended to come from Aikidoka who have a high amount of experience in other systems.


----------



## moonhill99

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, then how, exactly, did you translate my earlier comment about ramping up the training, into throwing an unrealistic punch so the partner can just move as fast as he can?
> 
> Did you just fundamentally misunderstand what I had said?



What unrealistic punch or attacks do you speak of? What are you criticizing on the way aikido attacks.

The older aikido just uses lot more strikes than the aikido  today. But it not like they don't strike it just downplayed so you don't see many strikes being emphasized.



Hanzou said:


> Wouldn't changing the nature of the attack change the nature of the response? If for example you go from exaggerated sword and spear style attacks to standardized kicks, punches, and grappling, wouldn't that alter the response from the Aikidoka? Wouldn't that also force a large amount of new techniques to be brought into the Aikido curriculum?
> 
> Considering that there are people out there who don't view competitive Aikido as "true Aikido", how would something like that be still considered true to the vision of the founder?




Well just look bit more gritty the Aikido.

Bit more gritty like this.
























drop bear said:


> That is pretty much what you see when you see akido. lots of unrealistic stuff. .



What unrealistic stuff? What would you do different what would add or do different?


----------



## drop bear

moonhill99 said:


> What unrealistic stuff? What would you do different what would add or do different?



Train against people who are trying to stop me from doing my techniques. 

As a start anyway.


----------



## marques

drop bear said:


> Train against people who are trying to stop me from doing my techniques.
> As a start anyway.


When the lock (pain) is already there, the best to do is let it go, actually (in training, at least).

The UKE in the 'attacks' is just exposing himself to the Aikido technique. So the thing here is not only the resistance missing but too much help. I find it ok as a beginner's stage. But it continues the same on the very high grades. It is the habit (rule?) of 'Aikido attack style', it is the respect for the master (don't embarrass him), ...

This flaw can be extended to many other styles, especially where joint pain is involved. It happened to me in a 'ju-jitsu' seminar. We were training 'too fast', and I was just letting it go in order to save my wrist. I was sure the lock was terrible (from a black belt) but what could I do? Resisting in order to show him his technique is useless or risk my wrist in case he put more force or speed to compensate the missing of technique? No... My hand (and job next week) was  far more important.

To conclude I understand they are protecting themselves in training, avoiding surprises and let it go as expected. But it would be nice to see something more convincing (and there is).


----------



## Hanzou

moonhill99 said:


> Well just look bit more gritty the Aikido.
> 
> Bit more gritty like this.



No. That boxing vs Aikido vid for example is hilarious. The guy is essentially doing Aikido practice in boxing gloves and making a sad attempt at imitating a boxer. Both are wasting their training time with that nonsense.


----------



## Flying Crane

moonhill99 said:


> What unrealistic punch or attacks do you speak of? What are you criticizing on the way aikido attacks.
> 
> The older aikido just uses lot more strikes than the aikido  today. But it not like they don't strike it just downplayed so you don't see many strikes being emphasized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well just look bit more gritty the Aikido.
> 
> Bit more gritty like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What unrealistic stuff? What would you do different what would add or do different?


I was not.  My comments were in respons to what someone else was saying.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> I've never seen anything like a no-touch knockout in an aikido class.  Just hands-on, rough-and-tumble.
> 
> I have witnessed some classes that I was unimpressed with.  But that is an issue with the teacher, not the style.


There are a few techniques I've seen where they expect the uke (attacker) to over-commit so much that they end up chasing a grip for several steps. This is fine for working on timing and such, and is a useful training tool, but is no more realistic than a no-touch throw.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> It documents an event.  Whether or not that video is truly evidence of anything, other than the event itself, is debatable.  Maybe yes, maybe no.


It is evidence of *something*, inarguably - but of what? The debate should be whether it is valid evidence of a specific point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


>


This is a demonstration of the body mechanics of a technique. The grip is removed from the technique to avoid using strength and weight-dropping. The uke complies to a high level in this kind of drill, by acting like he is actually gripping the wrists (notice his hand positions), so you can see what the movement would do to him. If he actually has that grip, the movement alone (no strength added, no dropping of weight needed) should take him off-balance enough to make him fall.

We have to be careful not to confuse drills that work on a single principle with actually teaching no-touch throws/KO's.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> They are less helpful than a lot of people believe.  They are helpful within a limited context.
> 
> If I show you a video of a BMW with engine problems, do you automatically believe that all BMWs are junky cars, or are you insightful enough to understand that while some may have problems, that doesn't mean the brand as a whole is no good?  Even if I saw a dozen or two dozen such videos, I would never jump to the conclusion that BMW sucks.
> 
> It's easy to find bad examples.  YouTube is filled with them.  That doesn't mean it all sucks.


If I can find a dozen different videos showing that kind of trouble with the same engine model, I assume there are probably other problems (and other engines of that model that didn't make it onto videos). So, now I'm more cautious in evaluating the value of a car with that model of engine. I'll do more research to figure out if it's worth the risk.

The same goes for videos of fights, martial arts, etc. They are evidence. It's up to the consumer to dig deeper to find out if that evidence accompanied by enough other evidence to draw a conclusion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I'm suggesting that what is posted on YouTube is evidence.  It feels a little like you're being intentionally obstinate.
> 
> And I'm not sure that, in 2016, it's true that most of what happens is never filmed and out on YouTube.   There are something like 300 hours of video being added every minute.   Billions of videos are available, and growing exponentially.
> 
> 10 years ago?  Sure.   I hear you.  But YouTube is pervasive, and the odd of not being able to find at least one example of pretty much anything is pretty low.  The odds are that someone, somewhere, has pulled out their phone, tablet, or camera, and recorded it.


That's still not "most". I've put up maybe 10 hours of video on YouTube in the last year. I've experienced a lot more hours than that. I know many people who never put up videos. Much still doesn't make it.

That said, your point is a good one. There is so much on YouTube that any claim for which there isn't support there seems extraordinary, whether it actually is or not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Again, Nobuyuki Watanabe is a senior instructor at the Aikikai Hombu Dojo in Japan, the largest branch of Aikido in the world, and the branch of the art's founder. This isn't some random clown in a strip mall.


Nonetheless, he isn't representative of the art. He's an off-shoot, and probably should give his branch its own name to properly distinguish it from the mainline of that art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So.  My lazer eyes system of self defence.  Is also a viable form of martial arts used by special forces around the world.
> 
> The thing is because of its incredible effectiveness it is trained  secretly and it has never been documented on you tube.
> 
> Luckily not everything has neen documented on you tube.  So we have to assume I am legit.
> 
> Right?


Point goes to Drop Bear.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I'm in.   Can I buy your DVDs?


No. A DVD would mean the possibility of it ending up on YouTube. What part of "secret" didn't you get??


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In another forum, someone asked people's opinion about this clip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, the issue of this clip are the following.
> 
> - When you use your hand to grab on your opponent's wrist, your opponent twists his arm, puts pressure on your wrist, and you are still "*stupid enough*" to hold on your grip, you should get a rope, find a quite place, and hang yourself.
> - If people are "*stupid enough*" to assume that people on the street will respond like this, there is big problem in this "training method".
> 
> Common sense tells us when you grab on your opponent's wrist and your opponent twist his arm and try to break your grip, you should
> 
> - release your wrist grip and move your hand onto his elbow joint, or
> - move your hand and meet his face.
> 
> My biggest concern is why such kind of "normal" respond are not in the regular training?
> 
> Is there any other MA system on earth that students only train throw and never train counter-throw (the counter-throw can be as simple as to release your own wrist grip)?


This sort of thing can be useful in very specific circumstances in training, but should be used VERY sparingly. This might have been a demonstration, in which case it paints an unrealistic portrait of what the art can do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Can someone find any Aikido "counter-throw" clip online (something like the following clip)?
> 
> Amazing counter throw


I can't think of one I've seen online, though I've seen some taught in Aikikai dojos. They weren't nearly this athletic, but were effective counter-throws.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Spinedoc said:


> Yes, Kaeshi Waza or reversals/counters are a cornerstone along with Henka Waza (counter to the counter) at higher level Aikido practice. We don't generally practice these below 2nd kyu, but on most Yudansha tests, especially at Nidan and above, you will be expected to know a fair amount of these....
> 
> Here are some basic examples from Nemoto Sensei. Keep in mind, he is teaching these, so they are being done at a lower speed without full resistance.


That's similar to what I've seen in their teaching, as well.


----------



## Spinedoc

gpseymour said:


> That's similar to what I've seen in their teaching, as well.



Yeah, we generally don't practice Kaeshi waza until much more advanced levels because most students below 2nd kyu are still learning how to unbalance their opponent and execute the myriad of basic throws/techniques. Around 2nd, sometimes 3rd kyu you start getting introduce to them, but you won't really be tested on them or expected to really know them until Shodan.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Spinedoc said:


> Yeah, we generally don't practice Kaeshi waza until much more advanced levels because most students below 2nd kyu are still learning how to unbalance their opponent and execute the myriad of basic throws/techniques. Around 2nd, sometimes 3rd kyu you start getting introduce to them, but you won't really be tested on them or expected to really know them until Shodan.


This is something I'm experimenting with right now in NGA. I've taught a few counters to white belts, and will continue to increase the number. I'm looking to find the point at which they seem to be actually ready for them. I didn't start picking them up in any quantity until probably ikkyu (brown belt, just before black), and I think they can start earlier. One thing I'm doing is using simple counters (things like putting a foot in a position that makes the technique a bad choice) to make them change techniques mid-stream. Of course, to practice this, they have to practice that simple counter. So, even though I'm not teaching a counter, I'm teaching a counter. Next comes full counter-techniques.


----------



## Spinedoc

gpseymour said:


> This is something I'm experimenting with right now in NGA. I've taught a few counters to white belts, and will continue to increase the number. I'm looking to find the point at which they seem to be actually ready for them. I didn't start picking them up in any quantity until probably ikkyu (brown belt, just before black), and I think they can start earlier. One thing I'm doing is using simple counters (things like putting a foot in a position that makes the technique a bad choice) to make them change techniques mid-stream. Of course, to practice this, they have to practice that simple counter. So, even though I'm not teaching a counter, I'm teaching a counter. Next comes full counter-techniques.




Well, speaking for our dojo, we practice kaeshi and henka waza on occasion, and the junior students are expected to practice it as well (we only have one practice, it's not divided into advanced or regular or anything like that)...so even 6th kyu might be shown them. The problem is retention. Our Sensei expects them to practice, but doesn't really expect to call a student below 2nd kyu up to demonstrate them. The brain can only focus on so many things, and I know that he has said that junior students can be shown them, but usually won't retain them, because they are still focusing on the basic technique itself. At higher levels, however, he expects you to be able to make them work, and to remember them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Spinedoc said:


> Well, speaking for our dojo, we practice kaeshi and henka waza on occasion, and the junior students are expected to practice it as well (we only have one practice, it's not divided into advanced or regular or anything like that)...so even 6th kyu might be shown them. The problem is retention. Our Sensei expects them to practice, but doesn't really expect to call a student below 2nd kyu up to demonstrate them. The brain can only focus on so many things, and I know that he has said that junior students can be shown them, but usually won't retain them, because they are still focusing on the basic technique itself. At higher levels, however, he expects you to be able to make them work, and to remember them.


That was my experience in retention, too. However, I take a different approach to teaching the techniques, and am curious if it makes the principles of the counters easier to incorporate or not. Thus far, I've seen no evidence of a difference, but I'm early in the process.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> That's still not "most". I've put up maybe 10 hours of video on YouTube in the last year. I've experienced a lot more hours than that. I know many people who never put up videos. Much still doesn't make it.
> 
> That said, your point is a good one. There is so much on YouTube that any claim for which there isn't support there seems extraordinary, whether it actually is or not.


I never suggested "most".  I said "some."  That other was a peculiar kind of straw man from an alternate reality where I wanted to post videos of my bowel movements.  Let me assure you, I do not.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> No. A DVD would mean the possibility of it ending up on YouTube. What part of "secret" didn't you get??


Exactly the point.  Try as you might, you can't keep anything off of YouTube.  Will EVERYONE post videos of their lazer eye self defense?  No.  Will at least ONE person post the videos?  Absolutely.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> Exactly the point.  Try as you might, you can't keep anything off of YouTube.  Will EVERYONE post videos of their lazer eye self defense?  No.  Will at least ONE person post the videos?  Absolutely.


True.

However, if a thousand people have it, or even a hundred or even ten, and only one posts, you only have one example.  The guy may be good, bad, or indifferent, but that's just him.  As good, bad, or indifferent he may be typical, or he may be an exception.  But you don't know what the others are doing, you can't judge the whole from the limited example youve seen.

I'll keep saying it, while a lot of stuff gets onto YouTube, much much more does not, and we never see what else is going on.

You can judge what you see.  I don't even have a problem if you say "everything I've seen of XYZ has been junk, I would never train it and I would never recommend it, based on what I've seen".  Sure that's fine.  But don't pretend you know all about it, because whatever you've seen is a tiny fraction of what is actually out there.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> I never suggested "most".  I said "some."  That other was a peculiar kind of straw man from an alternate reality where I wanted to post videos of my bowel movements.  Let me assure you, I do not.


I'm glad you didn't.  I did a search to make sure, before I brought that into the discussion.  Glad I didn't find anything.

Of course it might be on a different site from YouTube...


----------



## drop bear

Flying Crane said:


> True.
> 
> However, if a thousand people have it, or even a hundred or even ten, and only one posts, you only have one example.  The guy may be good, bad, or indifferent, but that's just him.  As good, bad, or indifferent he may be typical, or he may be an exception.  But you don't know what the others are doing, you can't judge the whole from the limited example youve seen.
> 
> I'll keep saying it, while a lot of stuff gets onto YouTube, much much more does not, and we never see what else is going on.
> 
> You can judge what you see.  I don't even have a problem if you say "everything I've seen of XYZ has been junk, I would never train it and I would never recommend it, based on what I've seen".  Sure that's fine.  But don't pretend you know all about it, because whatever you've seen is a tiny fraction of what is actually out there.



Ok then here is an idea.  If i say there is bad akido out there then it is my responsibility to provide evidence. 

If you say otherwise you can provide evidence.

I will invent this idea called the burden of proof.  And we can use it like a little rule during arguments.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok then here is an idea.  If i say there is bad akido out there then it is my responsibility to provide evidence.
> 
> If you say otherwise you can provide evidence.
> 
> I will invent this idea called the burden of proof.  And we can use it like a little rule during arguments.


Of course, there's an inherent difficulty in this, when we're talking about effective self-defense. The only full-on evidence would be videos of it being used for self-defense, and that's not something someone can provide on demand. The video either exists or it doesn't, but lack of proof is not proof of lack.


----------



## Flying Crane

drop bear said:


> Ok then here is an idea.  If i say there is bad akido out there then it is my responsibility to provide evidence.
> 
> If you say otherwise you can provide evidence.
> 
> I will invent this idea called the burden of proof.  And we can use it like a little rule during arguments.


You can say there is bad aikido, and I agree.  I said as much in an earlier post in this thread.  I witnessed it, a school that left me unimpressed.

Once again tho, not everything in life makes it into YouTube.  I guess I have to keep saying it.  There is good aikido out there.  I'm sorry you have been unable to see it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

I like to look at a MA system this way. Does this MA system have methods to

- "develop" a certain skill?
- "test" a certain skill?
- "polish" a certain skill?
- "enhance" a certain skill?


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> You can say there is bad aikido, and I agree.  I said as much in an earlier post in this thread.  I witnessed it, a school that left me unimpressed.
> 
> Once again tho, not everything in life makes it into YouTube.  I guess I have to keep saying it.  There is good aikido out there.  I'm sorry you have been unable to see it.


We have a consensus that there is bad aikido.   Is there good Aikido?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Of course, there's an inherent difficulty in this, when we're talking about effective self-defense. The only full-on evidence would be videos of it being used for self-defense, and that's not something someone can provide on demand. The video either exists or it doesn't, but lack of proof is not proof of lack.



Yeah but you base a claim on what you can prove. Not what you can,t.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> We have a consensus that there is bad aikido.   Is there good Aikido?


Of course.

Is it your belief that there is actually none?  That the method offers nothing useful for self defense or fighting?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah but you base a claim on what you can prove. Not what you can,t.


You base a conclusion on the best evidence you can provide. There are plenty of claims made in science that do not yet have proof, but which have sufficient evidence to make them reasonable. Those are the claims that produce the best research. The same is true in any area. Just because one cannot prove something doesn't mean there's no evidence to support it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> We have a consensus that there is bad aikido.   Is there good Aikido?


There is. I've experienced Aikido that worked on reasonably realistic attacks.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> Of course.
> 
> Is it your belief that there is actually none?  That the method offers nothing useful for self defense or fighting?


I don't know.   I am an aikido agnostic, I guess.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Well, if you don't train Aikido and do not really find it as your thing then frankly who care's. (not directed at you Steve just people in general)  Really guys, if you do not want to train Aikido then why are you carrying on like this?  You don't like the training method.  *Okay, that is your choice and your opinon*.  However, to sit here *thread after thread* goin on about how this system or that system doesn't do this or that or doesn't train alive gets really old.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> I don't know.   I am an aikido agnostic, I guess.


Then I guess your position is predetermined.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> Then I guess your position is predetermined.


How is "agnostic" (which means "unknown" or "unknowable") the same as "predetermined"?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> How is "agnostic" (which means "unknown" or "unknowable") the same as "predetermined"?


This is right.   Agnostic is more precisely a religious term, but this is exactly what I was getting at.  So there good aikido?  I can guess so, but from the outside, I'm told that if I want to know for sure, I have to join the church.... Err.... I mean, train in the system.    It's set up so that the lack of independent evidence is explained away.  In the same way I can't prove God doesn't  persist, therefore God must exist... At least according to some.     And to be clear, good aikido meaning good for self defense, which is the context of this thread.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You base a conclusion on the best evidence you can provide. There are plenty of claims made in science that do not yet have proof, but which have sufficient evidence to make them reasonable. Those are the claims that produce the best research. The same is true in any area. Just because one cannot prove something doesn't mean there's no evidence to support it.



Ok.  That is still fine. And why i don't like the specific to self defence, as this general throw away term.  There are just too many made up conditions that make or break the viability of an art.  Otherwise  you base your argument on the evidence you do have.

What evidence do you have?

And by the way.  I am not having a discussion on what is or isn't my thing.  I would have thought suitable for self defence would be an objective discussion as much as a subjective discussion. Mabye that is the issue.

Striking is much more my thing than wrestling. But there are objectivly holes in the wrestling game.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> This is right.   Agnostic is more precisely a religious term, but this is exactly what I was getting at.  So there good aikido?  I can guess so, but from the outside, I'm told that if I want to know for sure, I have to join the church.... Err.... I mean, train in the system.    It's set up so that the lack of independent evidence is explained away.  In the same way I can't prove God doesn't  persist, therefore God must exist... At least according to some.     And to be clear, good aikido meaning good for self defense, which is the context of this thread.


And this is a reasonable stance when you haven't seen or experienced Aikido that meets that definition. So much of the practice in Ueshiba's art is around pure aiki application (which I've referred to in other posts, in reference to NGA). That type of practice is what makes it into nearly every video I've seen, because it's so iconic and dominates so much of the practice. And those videos don't provide evidence of martial effectiveness.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok.  That is still fine. And why i don't like the specific to self defence, as this general throw away term.  There are just too many made up conditions that make or break the viability of an art.  Otherwise  you base your argument on the evidence you do have.
> 
> What evidence do you have?
> 
> And by the way.  I am not having a discussion on what is or isn't my thing.  I would have thought suitable for self defence would be an objective discussion as much as a subjective discussion. Mabye that is the issue.
> 
> Striking is much more my thing than wrestling. But there are objectivly holes in the wrestling game.


The evidence I have is from me giving hard, realistic attacks and ending up hitting the ground hard. It's not evidence I can share, obviously, since it's my personal experience. I've only experienced it a few times with Ueshiba's art, but I've only spent small amounts of time training in and around that art, so I'm satisfied that it *can be* effective for self-defense. I do think most practitioners aren't training it in a way that facilitates that use.


----------



## moonhill99

Hanzou said:


> No. That boxing vs Aikido vid for example is hilarious. The guy is essentially doing Aikido practice in boxing gloves and making a sad attempt at imitating a boxer. Both are wasting their training time with that nonsense.



But that the think than anyone can put up video on the internet and call it Aikido vs xx you would not know if the video is bias or fake or not.

With out some third party, board like sports tournaments or MMA you would not know if the video is fake or not or bias.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

moonhill99 said:


> But that the think than anyone can put up video on the internet and call it Aikido vs xx you would not know if the video is bias or fake or not.
> 
> With out some third party, board like sports tournaments or MMA you would not know if the video is fake or not or bias.


MMA and sports tournaments won't help you figure out if a video is real or fake, though it may help you figure out if a technique can be used in those contexts. And "fake" is not a proper term for the video in question. It's not a fake, it's just apparently not showing good boxing, though they probably think they are.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> MMA and sports tournaments won't help you figure out if a video is real or fake, though it may help you figure out if a technique can be used in those contexts. And "fake" is not a proper term for the video in question. It's not a fake, it's just apparently not showing good boxing, though they probably think they are.



Sort of.  There are videos designed to look like legitimate self defence situations. At least with a sanctioned bout you can chase up if it ever happened.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The evidence I have is from me giving hard, realistic attacks and ending up hitting the ground hard. It's not evidence I can share, obviously, since it's my personal experience. I've only experienced it a few times with Ueshiba's art, but I've only spent small amounts of time training in and around that art, so I'm satisfied that it *can be* effective for self-defense. I do think most practitioners aren't training it in a way that facilitates that use.



Because you couldn't video that? 

I think there is a culture at play there by the way.  Where you dont want to Present as looking foolish. And realism has foolish built in a bit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Sort of.  There are videos designed to look like legitimate self defence situations. At least with a sanctioned bout you can chase up if it ever happened.


When you refer to a sanctioned bout, I assume you're referring also to a video of that bout. That's true, though it won't help determine if a video is fake unless it's about that bout. Those videos that are trying to simulate a self-defense situation are the ones that are problematic. Most of the ones I've seen appear to be honestly trying. Most have issues, but those issues are often at least partly due to safety issues. It's damnably difficult to accurately simulate a full-on attack without creating the same safety hazards of the actual attack.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> When you refer to a sanctioned bout, I assume you're referring also to a video of that bout. That's true, though it won't help determine if a video is fake unless it's about that bout. Those videos that are trying to simulate a self-defense situation are the ones that are problematic. Most of the ones I've seen appear to be honestly trying. Most have issues, but those issues are often at least partly due to safety issues. It's damnably difficult to accurately simulate a full-on attack without creating the same safety hazards of the actual attack.



Sorry there are ones that are not a demonstration of technique with realism.  But an actual attempt at trying to pass as a real self defence.  

That chick who gets mugged in the subway is probably one of those.  I will try to hunt it down.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Because you couldn't video that?
> 
> I think there is a culture at play there by the way.  Where you dont want to Present as looking foolish. And realism has foolish built in a bit.


I never said it couldn't be video'd. But it wasn't, so I can't use a video as evidence. I don't train regularly with anyone from that art, so have no real opportunity (nor, frankly, any need) to produce a video of it. If I was so inclined, I could produce some video using NGA if I got together with some other highly-skilled practitioners so we could turn off some of the safety settings for a while. Unfortunately, I never really think about it until right after something really nice happens. 

For instance, I visited a friend's dojo a couple of months ago. Only three students attended that day, and all were yellow belts (first colored rank), so class was fairly calm and kept slow and within safe constraints. At the end of class, he called for an attack line (self-defense simulations). When the yellow belts were attacking or defending, the pace was still kept slow and smooth to protect them. Then I got to attack Daniel. I moved in fast and grabbed his lapels with both hands, intending to shove him back toward the back was as hard and fast as I could. I never had a chance to move him - he planted me in the ground hard and fast from my initial move in. I'd love to have video of that one, just to see what he actually did. It was so fast and so well-executed that even I wasn't entirely sure what technique he used.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Sorry there are ones that are not a demonstration of technique with realism.  But an actual attempt at trying to pass as a real self defence.
> 
> That chick who gets mugged in the subway is probably one of those.  I will try to hunt it down.


Oh, I definitely agree that there are many out there that fail to be realistic for reasons beyond safety. My point was that safety issues are usually one factor that contribute. An attack can be made more realistic than many I've seen without becoming less safe. You know the usual issues: over-telegraphed, over-committed (in a situation where it doesn't seem likely), slowed at the moment of impact to make time for the technique, attacks with no chance to contact and/or no intent behind them, and no attempt to continue the attack after first contact.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Because you couldn't video that?
> 
> I think there is a culture at play there by the way.  Where you dont want to Present as looking foolish. And realism has foolish built in a bit.


I forgot to reply to the last bit here. Spot on. I tell my students constantly that our techniques, used in defense, will not look so nice. We take falls in a way that protects us, and that happens to make the defender look really good. The guy on the street will sometimes stumble where we're doing a front roll (just as effective for us, but not very impressive to look at). Where we use a side fall to escape the technique, the attacker will likely fight it (facilitating a destruction) or drop to a knee (putting him in range of a strike) or something else equally unimpressive for video.

Reality doesn't often look cool.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I never said it couldn't be video'd. But it wasn't, so I can't use a video as evidence. I don't train regularly with anyone from that art, so have no real opportunity (nor, frankly, any need) to produce a video of it. If I was so inclined, I could produce some video using NGA if I got together with some other highly-skilled practitioners so we could turn off some of the safety settings for a while. Unfortunately, I never really think about it until right after something really nice happens.
> 
> For instance, I visited a friend's dojo a couple of months ago. Only three students attended that day, and all were yellow belts (first colored rank), so class was fairly calm and kept slow and within safe constraints. At the end of class, he called for an attack line (self-defense simulations). When the yellow belts were attacking or defending, the pace was still kept slow and smooth to protect them. Then I got to attack Daniel. I moved in fast and grabbed his lapels with both hands, intending to shove him back toward the back was as hard and fast as I could. I never had a chance to move him - he planted me in the ground hard and fast from my initial move in. I'd love to have video of that one, just to see what he actually did. It was so fast and so well-executed that even I wasn't entirely sure what technique he used.



Well to very easily defend these anti Akido claims all that really has to happen is people see more of that.

People see truck loads of it in the bjj,s mma,s boxing and so on. It is a convincing argument. That is why new guys roll wrestle and spar experienced guys. to show the stuff works.

I have a video of one of the best martial artists in the country. Doing exactly this to some goober.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Well to very easily defend these anti Akido claims all that really has to happen is people see more of that.
> 
> People see truck loads of it in the bjj,s mma,s boxing and so on. It is a convincing argument. That is why new guys roll wrestle and spar experienced guys. to show the stuff works.
> 
> I have a video of one of the best martial artists in the country. Doing exactly this to some goober.


I think part of the issue is that most folks in the Aikikai don't seem to care too much about the anti-Aikido claims. There are a few who post videos of more realistic scenarios (as opposed to the primary training methods), but they seem to be few. I suspect that those who really want more realistic defensive training are combining their classical Aikido training with other arts, rather than reinventing the training methods for Aikido. And then, of course, if those folks put up a realistic video, it's a mix of arts and looks nothing like what we've come to recognize as Aikido, even though some of the techniques and principles used are from their Aikido training.

Heck, if I did an NGA video with fairly realistic attacks, parts of it would look like Karate (we do a fair amount of striking), some would look like Jujutsu (our base is from Daito-ryu's Jujutsu), and seeing the "aiki" in it would be difficult, even for someone who knows it, because the difference between something being "aiki" or not is mostly in how much force is needed and whether the defender found a spot where the attacker wasn't providing resistance. That's easy to feel (from either side), but hard to see in a video. We need the "feelies" that a sci-fi author wrote about (Piers Anthony, I think, in a quintology I read 20 years ago).


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I forgot to reply to the last bit here. Spot on. I tell my students constantly that our techniques, used in defense, will not look so nice. We take falls in a way that protects us, and that happens to make the defender look really good. The guy on the street will sometimes stumble where we're doing a front roll (just as effective for us, but not very impressive to look at). Where we use a side fall to escape the technique, the attacker will likely fight it (facilitating a destruction) or drop to a knee (putting him in range of a strike) or something else equally unimpressive for video.
> 
> Reality doesn't often look cool.



This is the example I was thinking of by the way.






The instructor looks eats a shot and looks foolish. And suddenly they are fighting for the realz. Now what that does is creates a culture of letting the instructor win. And that diminishes everyone.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think part of the issue is that most folks in the Aikikai don't seem to care too much about the anti-Aikido claims. There are a few who post videos of more realistic scenarios (as opposed to the primary training methods), but they seem to be few. I suspect that those who really want more realistic defensive training are combining their classical Aikido training with other arts, rather than reinventing the training methods for Aikido. And then, of course, if those folks put up a realistic video, it's a mix of arts and looks nothing like what we've come to recognize as Aikido, even though some of the techniques and principles used are from their Aikido training.
> 
> Heck, if I did an NGA video with fairly realistic attacks, parts of it would look like Karate (we do a fair amount of striking), some would look like Jujutsu (our base is from Daito-ryu's Jujutsu), and seeing the "aiki" in it would be difficult, even for someone who knows it, because the difference between something being "aiki" or not is mostly in how much force is needed and whether the defender found a spot where the attacker wasn't providing resistance. That's easy to feel (from either side), but hard to see in a video. We need the "feelies" that a sci-fi author wrote about (Piers Anthony, I think, in a quintology I read 20 years ago).



See I think Judo does aiki as much as akido does it really. but their training doesn't look so forced all the time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> This is the example I was thinking of by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The instructor looks eats a shot and looks foolish. And suddenly they are fighting for the realz. Now what that does is creates a culture of letting the instructor win. And that diminishes everyone.


I think something that contributes to this is the nearly mystical expectation of an instructor in a TMA, at least from the general public. I tell my students I expect to get hit some when we spar - I'm not invincible, so even a white belt has a chance of getting one in on me (heck, I might even let one in if it opens another opportunity for me). If a spectator is watching and I get hit, they don't understand that, and I think many instructors want to protect against that perceived loss of face.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> See I think Judo does aiki as much as akido does it really. but their training doesn't look so forced all the time.


This is where I struggle to define the difference between "ju" and "aiki" as I use the terms (I'm probably not accurate translations, for anyone who knows the actual Japanese usage). Judo uses "ju", which is leverage that makes a technique easier and smoother. It's efficient use of leverage and finding gaps. "Aiki" is a bit harder to define, because it's about feeling a spot where there's no resistance at all. It's part active and part passive. "Ju" is what I use when I don't find an opportunity for "aiki".

As for looking forced (by which, I understand you to refer to the highly compliant training with stylized technique), that's not specifically about aiki, but is common where folks focus a lot on only working purely aiki, since pure aiki opportunities are rarer in realistic scnearios. Last night I was teaching the use of aiki in a realistic scenario: you've just managed to take away a knife (that's the starting point - this doesn't include the take-away), and you're still close enough that the guy is afraid you'll use it and feels like he has a good chance at getting it back. So, he lunges for that hand. It's active, has the opportunity for resistance (though we don't give them time to resist), and isn't stylized. It's also not "cool", because the only result we're likely to get is that they stumble a few steps away, rather than a nice dynamic fall or roll. 

I still have a few stylized training methods that students use to study and learn specific principles, but I'm more focused on getting them to technical applications that respond to realistic attacks and reactions from the attacker. There's still plenty of aiki to be found in those scenarios.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> See I think Judo does aiki as much as akido does it really. but their training doesn't look so forced all the time.





gpseymour said:


> This is where I struggle to define the difference between "ju" and "aiki" as I use the terms (I'm probably not accurate translations, for anyone who knows the actual Japanese usage). Judo uses "ju", which is leverage that makes a technique easier and smoother. It's efficient use of leverage and finding gaps. *"Aiki" is a bit harder to define, because it's about feeling a spot where there's no resistance at all.* It's part active and part passive. "Ju" is what I use when I don't find an opportunity for "aiki".



I think we're on the same page regarding aiki. It's that moment when you feel like your opponent is throwing himself and you're just helping steer where he goes with no effort whatsoever. I've had that happen occasionally in sparring. Generally it's been a moment when my sparring partner comes forward with a little too much commitment and I've been able to blend with his energy while applying a Judo technique like Harai Goshi or Tai Otoshi. It really does feel magical.

The thing about those occurrences is that they are dependent on the other person screwing up and providing that over-committed motion at a moment when you are prepared to take advantage of it. A skilled fighter is not going to provide very many of those opportunities. That's why if you put a master of an aiki based art into a cage fight he'll have to use something else 99.9% of the time.

Presumably an untrained attacker in a street assault would be more likely to provide those opportunities. However I think it is a mistake to train under the assumptions that the option will always be there.

BTW - my theory about the purpose of the Nage no Kata in Judo is to provide a reminder to be ready for that "aiki" moment when the opponent gives you exactly what you need for an effortless throw. In competition a judoka will be facing a skilled opponent who knows how to maintain a solid base and will be unlikely to put himself off-balance. Therefore Judo competition becomes more a game of _forcing_ that off-balanced moment and it's possible to forget about the possibility of an effortless throw being just handed to you on a silver platter.


----------



## Hanzou

moonhill99 said:


> But that the think than anyone can put up video on the internet and call it Aikido vs xx you would not know if the video is bias or fake or not.



My issue with that video isn't the Aikido, its the "boxer" not giving the Aikidoka a more realistic boxer response. He's not incorporating the footwork, evasiveness, the flanking, and the rapid punching combinations that a boxer would bring to the table. For example, if an Aikidoka advanced like that on a boxer, the boxer would quickly flank to the side and drop 2-3 punches directly in the Aikidoka's face. A boxer isn't just going to sit there and allow you to grab their arms multiple times.

Thus, that particular exercise is a waste of time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think we're on the same page regarding aiki. It's that moment when you feel like your opponent is throwing himself and you're just helping steer where he goes with no effort whatsoever. I've had that happen occasionally in sparring. Generally it's been a moment when my sparring partner comes forward with a little too much commitment and I've been able to blend with his energy while applying a Judo technique like Harai Goshi or Tai Otoshi. It really does feel magical.
> 
> The thing about those occurrences is that they are dependent on the other person screwing up and providing that over-committed motion at a moment when you are prepared to take advantage of it. A skilled fighter is not going to provide very many of those opportunities. That's why if you put a master of an aiki based art into a cage fight he'll have to use something else 99.9% of the time.
> 
> Presumably an untrained attacker in a street assault would be more likely to provide those opportunities. However I think it is a mistake to train under the assumptions that the option will always be there.
> 
> BTW - my theory about the purpose of the Nage no Kata in Judo is to provide a reminder to be ready for that "aiki" moment when the opponent gives you exactly what you need for an effortless throw. In competition a judoka will be facing a skilled opponent who knows how to maintain a solid base and will be unlikely to put himself off-balance. Therefore Judo competition becomes more a game of _forcing_ that off-balanced moment and it's possible to forget about the possibility of an effortless throw being just handed to you on a silver platter.


That's a pretty close definition, Tony. And your comment about the trained fighter is one I've made, too. If I do randori with someone trained in a grappling art, much of the aiki opportunities go away. If they are trained in an aiki art, they should be able to remove pretty much all of them unless I'm a lot more skilled than them.

One distinction is that it is possible to nudge someone into an aiki moment. It doesn't work well with trained fighters, because they've replaced many predictable reflex responses with movement into techniques. With untrained individuals, however, their range of responses to some input is more predictable. I verify this when I get a new student who has no (or at least little) prior training. I can verify parts of it even with folks trained in other arts. For instance, those who train in striking only tend toward some reactions more than the untrained population, and more reliably than those with a grappling background.

And many of the things that cause aiki opportunities just don't come up in competition. If someone reaches for my phone/wallet/the knife I just managed to take away, they use a motion (and level of commitment) that's unlikely to occur in any competition. The same goes for a barroom shove, or an enraged tackle. All are good examples of movements unlikely to have close analogs in sparring or competition because the opponent is purposely maintaining control of his body to avoid giving those opportunities.

As you say, it's not a good idea to assume those will always be handy. This is my problem with some of the stylized drills used in some aiki arts. If they are used too often, you're only training for aiki movements. I teach versions of techniques that I refer to as "the Judo version" as a shorthand for indicating there's no real aiki "void" there, but a good place to apply leverage and technique that they can't easily counter. I also teach students that if they head toward a technique and it goes away (meaning the opening vanishes) that their first response should be to hit them. This is an oversimplification of the principle, but it gets new students away from chasing aiki and into finishing the defense.


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> How is "agnostic" (which means "unknown" or "unknowable") the same as "predetermined"?


He has already decided it is unknowable.  So he will never acknowledge good aikido.

If Steve wants to clarify his position, that's fine.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> This is right.   Agnostic is more precisely a religious term, but this is exactly what I was getting at.  So there good aikido?  I can guess so, but from the outside, I'm told that if I want to know for sure, I have to join the church.... Err.... I mean, train in the system.    It's set up so that the lack of independent evidence is explained away.  In the same way I can't prove God doesn't  persist, therefore God must exist... At least according to some.     And to be clear, good aikido meaning good for self defense, which is the context of this thread.


It is unfortunate that you have not had the opportunity to see good aikido.  I suggest you gather more of your info from outside of YouTube.

If, that is, you are actually open to the possibility and don't simply have your mind made up.

If your mind is simply made up, then further discussion is pointless.


----------



## moonhill99

gpseymour said:


> MMA and sports tournaments won't help you figure out if a video is real or fake, though it may help you figure out if a technique can be used in those contexts. And "fake" is not a proper term for the video in question. It's not a fake, it's just apparently not showing good boxing, though they probably think they are.



But like YOU SAID in other post Aikido *can not be made into sports* like tournament, olympics, ‪Grapplers Quest‬, North American Grappling Association, MMA so on like Judo, BJJ, Gracie Barra, wrestling or 10th planet jiu jitsu so on.

Because people have broken wrist if they resist.

That people don't criticize Judo, BJJ, Gracie Barra, wrestling  or 10th planet jiu jitsu so on because it pressure tested with resistance in hard Randori and in competition and it works in competition. That if such school everyone does really bad in competition like tournament, Olympics, ‪Grapplers Quest‬, North American Grappling Association, MMA  than some thing is wrong with school or the way they teach.

Well yes tournament, Olympics, ‪Grapplers Quest‬, North American Grappling Association, MMA  so on does not mean it can be used for say self defense has you lack training on weapons, illegal moves in street, ban moves not allowed in sports, many  attackers so on. All you know is your art is pressure tested with hard resistance.

But like you say if people started posting videos on youtube of Aikido in hard Randori there will be broken bones so the way Aikido is you can't have hard Randori or be used in sports competition as hard resistance you have broken bone.

That some people criticize it not pressure tested like those arts.


----------



## moonhill99

Flying Crane said:


> It is unfortunate that you have not had the opportunity to see good aikido.  I suggest you gather more of your info from outside of YouTube.
> 
> If, that is, you are actually open to the possibility and don't simply have your mind made up.
> 
> If your mind is simply made up, then further discussion is pointless.



Because like Gpseymour said if Aikido was used on the street in self defense it will not look like how it is in Aikido school. It will be more gritty the Aikido and look different.

That people look at Aikido videos and see them throwing them self to NOT have broken bones and think they don't resist and thus bad Aikido. 

And Gpseymour saying if we train like that in class we will all have broken bones if we all go out and resist.

And faster go at it more chance of broken bones if you resist Gpseymour said.


----------



## Touch Of Death

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think we're on the same page regarding aiki. It's that moment when you feel like your opponent is throwing himself and you're just helping steer where he goes with no effort whatsoever. I've had that happen occasionally in sparring. Generally it's been a moment when my sparring partner comes forward with a little too much commitment and I've been able to blend with his energy while applying a Judo technique like Harai Goshi or Tai Otoshi. It really does feel magical.
> 
> The thing about those occurrences is that they are dependent on the other person screwing up and providing that over-committed motion at a moment when you are prepared to take advantage of it. A skilled fighter is not going to provide very many of those opportunities. That's why if you put a master of an aiki based art into a cage fight he'll have to use something else 99.9% of the time.
> 
> Presumably an untrained attacker in a street assault would be more likely to provide those opportunities. However I think it is a mistake to train under the assumptions that the option will always be there.
> 
> BTW - my theory about the purpose of the Nage no Kata in Judo is to provide a reminder to be ready for that "aiki" moment when the opponent gives you exactly what you need for an effortless throw. In competition a judoka will be facing a skilled opponent who knows how to maintain a solid base and will be unlikely to put himself off-balance. Therefore Judo competition becomes more a game of _forcing_ that off-balanced moment and it's possible to forget about the possibility of an effortless throw being just handed to you on a silver platter.


Speaking of magic, I have been attacked a few times, over the years, and on more than one occasion, I just stuck my knee out to an incoming kick, and somehow my attackers ended up flying through the air and landing quite badly. They were effortless wins; in fact, I didn't even know I was in a fight, until after it was over, and man, was it over.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> It is unfortunate that you have not had the opportunity to see good aikido.  I suggest you gather more of your info from outside of YouTube.
> 
> If, that is, you are actually open to the possibility and don't simply have your mind made up.
> 
> If your mind is simply made up, then further discussion is pointless.


Where do you recommend?


----------



## Hanzou

moonhill99 said:


> But like you say if people started posting videos on youtube of Aikido in hard Randori there will be broken bones so the way Aikido is you can't have hard Randori or be used in sports competition as hard resistance you have broken bone.
> .



Eh.... There's wrist, ankle, elbow, knee, and shoulder locks in Bjj and very seldom do people end up with broken bones.

I suppose the difference is that Aikido uses the joint to control the body, whereas Bjj, Judo, Sambo, Catch, etc. uses the body to control the joint.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Flying Crane said:


> He has already decided it is unknowable.  So he will never acknowledge good aikido.
> 
> If Steve wants to clarify his position, that's fine.


That would not be an agnostic stance. By your assumption there, nobody can ever change their minds. If we go by the way agnostic is commonly used, he has decided he doesn't know and has accepted that the answer may be unknowable. That doesn't mean he'll reject evidence of good Aikido, but that he'll be skeptical of it - which we should all be skeptical when reviewing any MA. That skeptical analysis is what lets us learn from other styles.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

moonhill99 said:


> But like YOU SAID in other post Aikido *can not be made into sports* like tournament, olympics, ‪Grapplers Quest‬, North American Grappling Association, MMA so on like Judo, BJJ, Gracie Barra, wrestling or 10th planet jiu jitsu so on.
> 
> Because people have broken wrist if they resist.
> 
> That people don't criticize Judo, BJJ, Gracie Barra, wrestling  or 10th planet jiu jitsu so on because it pressure tested with resistance in hard Randori and in competition and it works in competition. That if such school everyone does really bad in competition like tournament, Olympics, ‪Grapplers Quest‬, North American Grappling Association, MMA  than some thing is wrong with school or the way they teach.
> 
> Well yes tournament, Olympics, ‪Grapplers Quest‬, North American Grappling Association, MMA  so on does not mean it can be used for say self defense has you lack training on weapons, illegal moves in street, ban moves not allowed in sports, many  attackers so on. All you know is your art is pressure tested with hard resistance.
> 
> But like you say if people started posting videos on youtube of Aikido in hard Randori there will be broken bones so the way Aikido is you can't have hard Randori or be used in sports competition as hard resistance you have broken bone.
> 
> That some people criticize it not pressure tested like those arts.


You are working off two bad assumptions.

1) That folks in Aikido much care what is said about the effectiveness. Most of those I've met who study that art have their own opinions and aren't terribly concerned about others'. I think that attitude is part of what draws them to the art.

2) That what doesn't work in competition cannot work outside competition. This is demonstrably false. There are many things that should not be used in competition. Would you argue that those moves that have been banned from GJJ competition, Judo competition, and MMA fights were banned because they don't work? The issue with saying competition is the only measurement of effectiveness is that it depends upon A) people wanting to compete (which many of us don't), and B) training for responses and techniques that are valid for competition.

I spent most of the last two classes training my students on how to deal with someone trying to grab their wrist (to take a phone, wallet, keys, knife, whatever). This type of grab has no analog in competition, because there's nothing in the hand the opponent would want. None of that training has any use in the ring. The same goes for many other areas I train my students in.

And some techniques can be trained in ways that are usable in competition. We don't train them for competition, so they aren't executed in a way that's safe to resist. If someone resists they will either succeed in escaping, or they will get hurt, and that's not good for competition. It's fine for self-defense, though. If I were training folks for competition, I'd adjust the techniques, leaving some applications out, entirely, because they have no submission base (a way to hold the lock long enough to submit someone) and are only usable in that application if they are used as destructions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

moonhill99 said:


> Because like Gpseymour said if Aikido was used on the street in self defense it will not look like how it is in Aikido school. It will be more gritty the Aikido and look different.
> 
> That people look at Aikido videos and see them throwing them self to NOT have broken bones and think they don't resist and thus bad Aikido.
> 
> And Gpseymour saying if we train like that in class we will all have broken bones if we all go out and resist.
> 
> And faster go at it more chance of broken bones if you resist Gpseymour said.


I did say that. About SOME techniques. And yes, the big falls are for self-protection, but AS I SAID EARLIER, they often offer too little resistance in training.

You're trying really hard to stretch my points to cover everything. They were points about specific areas of training, and do not overlap at all the way you're trying to make them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> Eh.... There's wrist, ankle, elbow, knee, and shoulder locks in Bjj and very seldom do people end up with broken bones.
> 
> I suppose the difference is that Aikido uses the joint to control the body, whereas Bjj, Judo, Sambo, Catch, etc. uses the body to control the joint.


That's a pretty good comparison, Hanzou. In fact, one of the principles I teach is "small to large" - meaning we use a small part of the body to get a larger part to move. One execution of that would be a wrist lock being used to move a shoulder, to get the spine off-center for a throw. 

I think the BJJ and Judo versions are just as effective where they overlap. The main difference is that they seem to have been designed to be safe for submission - there's a good base to hold the pain/lock to give the opponent time to resist a bit then give up and tap out. I don't see any that wouldn't be usable within NGA (some in fact are pretty much the same for us), though many wouldn't fit into the larger circles I see used in Aikido. The main difference is that we (in NGA, and to some extent in Aikido) tend not to look for a submission base with them. We depend upon the pain to work (similar thought process to some submissions) or we move directly to destruction. Where the pain doesn't work, the attacker resists himself directly into the destruction.


----------



## Spinedoc

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think we're on the same page regarding aiki. It's that moment when you feel like your opponent is throwing himself and you're just helping steer where he goes with no effort whatsoever. I've had that happen occasionally in sparring. Generally it's been a moment when my sparring partner comes forward with a little too much commitment and I've been able to blend with his energy while applying a Judo technique like Harai Goshi or Tai Otoshi. It really does feel magical.
> 
> The thing about those occurrences is that they are dependent on the other person screwing up and providing that over-committed motion at a moment when you are prepared to take advantage of it. A skilled fighter is not going to provide very many of those opportunities. That's why if you put a master of an aiki based art into a cage fight he'll have to use something else 99.9% of the time.



Exactly. My Sensei has said over and over again, that Aikido does NOT work without a committed attack. If someone is not willing to commit, we simply don't do anything. Simply just walk away. Until someone commits, and is willing to completely commit to an attack, Aikido doesn't work. This is exactly why, being ex-military, I think Aikido works well in combative type situations where someone is REALLY trying to hurt or kill you, but does not work well at all in sport applications, where you are trying to win a match.

True Aikido never, ever, ever, meets resistance with resistance. You cannot force a technique, or "make" it work. You have to blend with whatever energy they give you and find that spot where there is no balance or resistance.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Spinedoc said:


> Exactly. My Sensei has said over and over again, that Aikido does NOT work without a committed attack. If someone is not willing to commit, we simply don't do anything. Simply just walk away. Until someone commits, and is willing to completely commit to an attack, Aikido doesn't work. This is exactly why, being ex-military, I think Aikido works well in combative type situations where someone is REALLY trying to hurt or kill you, but does not work well at all in sport applications, where you are trying to win a match.
> 
> True Aikido never, ever, ever, meets resistance with resistance. You cannot force a technique, or "make" it work. You have to blend with whatever energy they give you and find that spot where there is no balance or resistance.


It's not just committing to an attack which is necessary. It's *over*-committing in such a way that the attackers balance or structure is compromised. A good boxer can knock an opponent out without compromising his base. A good wrestler can take an opponent down without giving up his structure. A good Kali practitioner can cut someone to ribbons without over-extending.

Admittedly in the heat of an tough match, even a skilled fighter can make a mistake and put himself at risk. It's just not something you can count on. It's good to be ready to take advantage of the opportunity if it occurs, but you can't assume that will always happen - even in a non-sportive context.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's not just committing to an attack which is necessary. It's *over*-committing in such a way that the attackers balance or structure is compromised. A good boxer can knock an opponent out without compromising his base. A good wrestler can take an opponent down without giving up his structure. A good Kali practitioner can cut someone to ribbons without over-extending.
> 
> Admittedly in the heat of an tough match, even a skilled fighter can make a mistake and put himself at risk. It's just not something you can count on. It's good to be ready to take advantage of the opportunity if it occurs, but you can't assume that will always happen - even in a non-sportive context.


This is why I talk about pure-aiki being rare against a trained opponent. A pure striker (not trained in throws) may give me some opportunities around it since they are perhaps more focused on power and speed in strikes than in reserving weight, but someone with any sensible training in grappling, takedowns, or throws will carry their weight in a way that makes it really unlikely they give me those opportunities unless I prod them into it (with a strike, push, etc.). As you said in a prior post, these things even happen between Judoka, but they become rare because each is guarding his weight commitment precisely to avoid this...until the moment when he sees an opportunity to throw me, and then it's a race to see who executes on the opportunity faster.


----------



## Spinedoc

Tony Dismukes said:


> It's not just committing to an attack which is necessary. It's *over*-committing in such a way that the attackers balance or structure is compromised. A good boxer can knock an opponent out without compromising his base. A good wrestler can take an opponent down without giving up his structure. A good Kali practitioner can cut someone to ribbons without over-extending.
> 
> Admittedly in the heat of an tough match, even a skilled fighter can make a mistake and put himself at risk. It's just not something you can count on. It's good to be ready to take advantage of the opportunity if it occurs, but you can't assume that will always happen - even in a non-sportive context.




Not necessarily, I can create the over-commitment, and in fact we practice "leading" the attacker into a compromised position, as well as using atemi to create it. Yokomenuchi Shihonage comes to mind, where nage does a front foot tenshin, forcing uke to extend his strike, and then nage hits uke with atemi, and executes the technique.

Without that front foot tenshin, it would never work. And if uke does not extend his strike, but withdraws, then we don't do anything.

Tai sabaki is key. You can create over commitment, but, you have to understand why you are moving the way you are. Uke does not have to over commit initially, but he must be serious in his attack, and then using tai sabaki and atemi, you can "create" that balance compromise.

Mike


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Spinedoc said:


> Not necessarily, I can create the over-commitment, and in fact we practice "leading" the attacker into a compromised position, as well as using atemi to create it. Yokomenuchi Shihonage comes to mind, where nage does a front foot tenshin, forcing uke to extend his strike, and then nage hits uke with atemi, and executes the technique.
> 
> Without that front foot tenshin, it would never work. And if uke does not extend his strike, but withdraws, then we don't do anything.
> 
> Tai sabaki is key. You can create over commitment, but, you have to understand why you are moving the way you are. Uke does not have to over commit initially, but he must be serious in his attack, and then using tai sabaki and atemi, you can "create" that balance compromise.
> 
> Mike


Have you tried doing that with an experienced boxer?

In my experience, a skilled boxer will close the distance using footwork that allows him to maintain a solid base while punching without overextending. If you change the range in an attempt to make him overextend, he will adjust his footwork to compensate. He will also be prepared for counterstrikes (atemi) and will be difficult to hit and will be less prone than most people to compromise his position even if you do manage to hit him.

Some high level boxers will use footwork and psychology to lure their opponents into overextending, although they punish the overextension with a counter-punch rather than an aiki throw. It takes time to make that work against a skilled opponent though. In the meantime you have to deal with a lot of dangerous strikes coming your way.


----------



## Spinedoc

Tony Dismukes said:


> Have you tried doing that with an experienced boxer?
> 
> In my experience, a skilled boxer will close the distance using footwork that allows him to maintain a solid base while punching without overextending. If you change the range in an attempt to make him overextend, he will adjust his footwork to compensate. He will also be prepared for counterstrikes (atemi) and will be difficult to hit and will be less prone than most people to compromise his position even if you do manage to hit him.
> 
> Some high level boxers will use footwork and psychology to lure their opponents into overextending, although they punish the overextension with a counter-punch rather than an aiki throw. It takes time to make that work against a skilled opponent though. In the meantime you have to deal with a lot of dangerous strikes coming your way.




Actually, I've played around a little with my friend who won the Golden Gloves boxing title back in Ohio in the late 80's...I boxed with him back then, and usually lost.. It's really, really hard to get him to commit. To be honest, I simply wouldn't fight someone like that with my bare hands. I'd use a weapon. There are times when any unarmed approach is simply untenable....but that's my opinion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> Have you tried doing that with an experienced boxer?
> 
> In my experience, a skilled boxer will close the distance using footwork that allows him to maintain a solid base while punching without overextending. If you change the range in an attempt to make him overextend, he will adjust his footwork to compensate. He will also be prepared for counterstrikes (atemi) and will be difficult to hit and will be less prone than most people to compromise his position even if you do manage to hit him.
> 
> Some high level boxers will use footwork and psychology to lure their opponents into overextending, although they punish the overextension with a counter-punch rather than an aiki throw. It takes time to make that work against a skilled opponent though. In the meantime you have to deal with a lot of dangerous strikes coming your way.


A good example of what I said earlier. With an opponent like that, we get into the kinds of takedowns you see in MMA, for obvious reasons. The more skilled they are, the more likely they are to only commit weight when they see a huge opening. There's an iconic picture of Ali far over-extended into a punch, probably at a moment when there was little risk of being countered, because he'd already put the opponent on his heels with a previous punch. An experienced striker - even one without grappling experience - naturally reserves weight because it keeps more options open and gives him a way to counter quickly. That takes away many of the otherwise-easy methods of leading him into an aiki technique.

One interesting thing I've noticed is that some of the ways people counter takedowns can leave them open to an aiki technique. I'm not sure if it's a flaw in the approach of the individual or a truism of some takedown counters, but I remember some instances of someone preventing a takedown I was trying, but ending up with a big enough "void" for me to drop into aiki-mode. It has been rare, and I keep hoping a student will do that during class so I can explore what really happened, because I didn't stop to do so at the time.


----------



## Flying Crane

V


Steve said:


> Where do you recommend?


Visit some schools perhaps, and see what actually goes on, instead of what is isolated for posting on YouTube.

And yeah, some of those will be bad too. 

Are you open to the possibility of seeing something that is good, even if what you see challenges your notions of what fighting/combat/self-defense ought to look like?


----------



## Flying Crane

gpseymour said:


> That would not be an agnostic stance. By your assumption there, nobody can ever change their minds. If we go by the way agnostic is commonly used, he has decided he doesn't know and has accepted that the answer may be unknowable. That doesn't mean he'll reject evidence of good Aikido, but that he'll be skeptical of it - which we should all be skeptical when reviewing any MA. That skeptical analysis is what lets us learn from other styles.


This is not worth debating.


----------



## Flying Crane

To Gpseymour: seriously?  You want to debate the definition of agnostic in the context of this, and compare it's meaning in a religious sense with what is being discussed here?

My point was, if Steve has decided that good aikido is unknowable, well then he has made up his mind and likely is not open to acknowledging good aikido even if he sees it.  

I really don't care if anyone thinks I've mis-defined agnostic.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

gpseymour said:


> One interesting thing I've noticed is that some of the ways people counter takedowns can leave them open to an aiki technique. I'm not sure if it's a flaw in the approach of the individual or a truism of some takedown counters, but I remember some instances of someone preventing a takedown I was trying, but ending up with a big enough "void" for me to drop into aiki-mode. It has been rare, and I keep hoping a student will do that during class so I can explore what really happened, because I didn't stop to do so at the time.


What sort of takedown defenses are you seeing that with?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> What sort of takedown defenses are you seeing that with?


I'm not sure what they did to counter the takedowns - as I said, I didn't stop at the time to explore it, but I wish I had. As I recall, a couple of them were counters to variations of an arm drag, and the others were to single-leg takedowns and hip throws. In each of the cases I remember, as soon as they stymied the takedown and I started moving my weight out of it (to close the opening it had presented), I immediately felt that "void" that tells me there's an easy aiki opportunity. I shifted their weight into it and they dropped without effort. I can only remember this occurring a handful of times.

It might have been simply an overcommitment to the counter by shifting their weight against it (which would easily produce the effect), or it might be that whatever counter they used would put their weight in the right spot every time. I wish I knew, both as a possible opening and as something to avoid, myself.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

The key to getting someone to commit is to do some thing that makes them enraged.  A boxer will box and not over commit until you have triggered his adrenaline, enraged him and gotten him to commit because of it.  People when enraged, not thinking clearly, riding adrenaline will commit and you can take advantage of it.   You just need to know how to get them there!  Or they might already be there and you can take advantage of it.  Remember, we are talking about self=defense and not sparring!


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Spinedoc said:


> Actually, I've played around a little with my friend who won the Golden Gloves boxing title back in Ohio in the late 80's...I boxed with him back then, and usually lost.. It's really, really hard to get him to commit. To be honest, I simply wouldn't fight someone like that with my bare hands. I'd use a weapon. There are times when any unarmed approach is simply untenable....but that's my opinion.


That's why I made the distinction between "committing" and "*over*committing". If someone can land a hard blow on an opponent who is trying to defend, then they have _committed_ to the attack. If they compromise their balance or structure while attempting to do so, then they have _overcommitted_. A skilled fighter will be good at doing the first without doing the second.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Brian R. VanCise said:


> The key to getting someone to commit is to do some thing that makes them enraged.  A boxer will box and not over commit until you have triggered his adrenaline, enraged him and gotten him to commit because of it.  People when enraged, not thinking clearly, riding adrenaline will commit and you can take advantage of it.   You just need to know how to get them there!  Or they might already be there and you can take advantage of it.  Remember, we are talking about self=defense and not sparring!


That's the key difference for me between sparring/competition and self-defense. There's much more likely to be anger, etc. already present in a defense situation. That, as you point out, leads to more over-commitment.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

gpseymour said:


> There's an iconic picture of Ali far over-extended into a punch, probably at a moment when there was little risk of being countered, because he'd already put the opponent on his heels with a previous punch.


That's a good point. There are some professional fighters who seem to overcommit to punches more than you would expect of someone at that level. The key is that they have the experience to know when they can take that chance because their opponent isn't in a good position to take advantage.

Of course, sometimes they are incorrect in that assessment and get knocked out as a result.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure what they did to counter the takedowns - as I said, I didn't stop at the time to explore it, but I wish I had. As I recall, a couple of them were counters to variations of an arm drag, and the others were to single-leg takedowns and hip throws. In each of the cases I remember, as soon as they stymied the takedown and I started moving my weight out of it (to close the opening it had presented), I immediately felt that "void" that tells me there's an easy aiki opportunity. I shifted their weight into it and they dropped without effort. I can only remember this occurring a handful of times.
> 
> It might have been simply an overcommitment to the counter by shifting their weight against it (which would easily produce the effect), or it might be that whatever counter they used would put their weight in the right spot every time. I wish I knew, both as a possible opening and as something to avoid, myself.


I can relate. On the rare occasions when I've had a perfect "aiki moment" that sent my sparring partner flying without effort, I've had only the roughest memory of what just happened. It seemed that I was so much in the "zone" of moving intuitively that my analytic brain was shut off.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> I can relate. On the rare occasions when I've had a perfect "aiki moment" that sent my sparring partner flying without effort, I've had only the roughest memory of what just happened. It seemed that I was so much in the "zone" of moving intuitively that my analytic brain was shut off.


And that's more likely to happen when you're in what I call "the grey areas between techniques" - that space we end up in when two nearby techniques are not available, but some composite of the two is. That's usually the result of mostly un-conscious reactions, making memory not terribly useful in recreating it.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Brian R. VanCise said:


> The key to getting someone to commit is to do some thing that makes them enraged.  A boxer will box and not over commit until you have triggered his adrenaline, enraged him and gotten him to commit because of it.  People when enraged, not thinking clearly, riding adrenaline will commit and you can take advantage of it.   You just need to know how to get them there!  Or they might already be there and you can take advantage of it.  Remember, we are talking about self=defense and not sparring!





gpseymour said:


> That's the key difference for me between sparring/competition and self-defense. There's much more likely to be anger, etc. already present in a defense situation. That, as you point out, leads to more over-commitment.



This is why you occasionally find footage of a professional fighter doing poorly in a street encounter. It's typically a situation where the fighter is intoxicated and enraged rather than fighting smart the way he would in the ring or cage.

The fighters who would do a better job of staying calm and using their professional skills probably aren't the ones who would be getting drunk and getting into street fights in the first place.


----------



## frank raud

Steve said:


> Where do you recommend?


I'm NOT Flying Crane, but according to Moonboy, I might be Most of my experience with Aikido is via seminars with Yoseikan or Chudokan Aikido. Patrick Auge used to teach in a dojo in walking distance of my house. My favourite Aikido instructor is Kevin Blok.


----------



## frank raud

moonhill99 said:


> But like YOU SAID in other post Aikido *can not be made into sports* like tournament, olympics, ‪Grapplers Quest‬, North American Grappling Association, MMA so on like Judo, BJJ, Gracie Barra, wrestling or 10th planet jiu jitsu so on.
> 
> Because people have broken wrist if they resist..


 *Shodokan Aikido* (昭道館合気道, _Shōdōkan Aikidō_?) is the style of Aikido founded in 1967 by Kenji Tomiki (富木 謙治 _Tomiki Kenji_, 1900–1979).[1] Shodokan Aikido is sometimes referred to as "Sport Aikido" because of its use of regular competitions,  from   Shodokan Aikido - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tony has  already mentioned you are working on some bad assumptions. Another is that Aikido cannot be made into a sport, when it has been done for nearly 50 years.
 MOST styles of Aikido choose not to have competitions, does not mean it can't be done.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

frank raud said:


> *Shodokan Aikido* (昭道館合気道, _Shōdōkan Aikidō_?) is the style of Aikido founded in 1967 by Kenji Tomiki (富木 謙治 _Tomiki Kenji_, 1900–1979).[1] Shodokan Aikido is sometimes referred to as "Sport Aikido" because of its use of regular competitions,  from   Shodokan Aikido - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Tony has  already mentioned you are working on some bad assumptions. Another is that Aikido cannot be made into a sport, when it has been done for nearly 50 years.
> MOST styles of Aikido choose not to have competitions, does not mean it can't be done.


I might point out that I never said Aikido couldn't be made into a sport (contrary to Moonhill's assertion). My points were about how parts of the art (and parts of NGA) don't move well into sport, and that creates a disadvantage, since someone training in those arts wouldn't be training for sport. Tomiki's version of Aikido looks different (IMO, less "aiki" in it) because it's designed to work against someone who knows the art (much as with Judo, BJJ, etc. where in-style competition is very common).

What I did say was that the training from NGA and Ueshiba's Aikido didn't translate well to sport, and that some of the techniques are simply not usable (at least not the way we train them) in sport.


----------



## Hanzou

gpseymour said:


> That's a pretty good comparison, Hanzou. In fact, one of the principles I teach is "small to large" - meaning we use a small part of the body to get a larger part to move. One execution of that would be a wrist lock being used to move a shoulder, to get the spine off-center for a throw.
> 
> I think the BJJ and Judo versions are just as effective where they overlap. The main difference is that they seem to have been designed to be safe for submission - there's a good base to hold the pain/lock to give the opponent time to resist a bit then give up and tap out. I don't see any that wouldn't be usable within NGA (some in fact are pretty much the same for us), though many wouldn't fit into the larger circles I see used in Aikido. The main difference is that we (in NGA, and to some extent in Aikido) tend not to look for a submission base with them. We depend upon the pain to work (similar thought process to some submissions) or we move directly to destruction. Where the pain doesn't work, the attacker resists himself directly into the destruction.



I'm curious Gpseymour, is the issue that Aikido was originally taught as a capstone for Judo training, but many modern Aikido practitioners don't learn Judo first? Has that caused a degradation of the art? 

I'd be very curious to see what the difference would be between an Aikido black belt with a Judo background, and an Aikido black belt without a Judo background.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's the key difference for me between sparring/competition and self-defense. There's much more likely to be anger, etc. already present in a defense situation. That, as you point out, leads to more over-commitment.



If you are fighting for the realz regardless of it being competition or self defence. then there is more over-commitment. You are also more likley to be more conservative and so not be as able to take advantage of that over-commitment.

So you are more likley to want to knock a guys head off with a big punch. But are less likley to want to risk eating that punch to counter with something clever.


----------



## drop bear

Hanzou said:


> I'm curious Gpseymour, is the issue that Aikido was originally taught as a capstone for Judo training, but many modern Aikido practitioners don't learn Judo first? Has that caused a degradation of the art?
> 
> I'd be very curious to see what the difference would be between an Aikido black belt with a Judo background, and an Aikido black belt without a Judo background.



Parallel to krav that by the way. Imi. had all sorts of a solid background in stuff.
Imi Lichtenfeld - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually also parallel to how the military is training a bit at the moment as well.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> This is why you occasionally find footage of a professional fighter doing poorly in a street encounter. It's typically a situation where the fighter is intoxicated and enraged rather than fighting smart the way he would in the ring or cage.
> 
> The fighters who would do a better job of staying calm and using their professional skills probably aren't the ones who would be getting drunk and getting into street fights in the first place.



As a side note. This is why I think that those who train as if they are going to get killed in a street fight work against themselves a bit. And while it sounds good in the dojo when you are training to crush throats. It messes with your flow when you actually have to use it.

Imagine if you were prepping a guy for comp and focus on how he could get his arm broken.

Being able to mentally cope with being bashed in a street fight. Is a trick I had to learn from street fighters.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I'm curious Gpseymour, is the issue that Aikido was originally taught as a capstone for Judo training, but many modern Aikido practitioners don't learn Judo first? Has that caused a degradation of the art?
> 
> I'd be very curious to see what the difference would be between an Aikido black belt with a Judo background, and an Aikido black belt without a Judo background.


My view - drawn much from Stan Pranin's work - is that the bigger issue for Aikido is that most of the early students were already seasoned martial artists, including having a strong striking base. Given that, Ueshiba apparently didn't teach a lot of striking, though he emphasized its use. The next generation of instructors often taught as they were taught, but many of their students lacked that existing base. (It would be like me training you in NGA, given your depth of knowledge in MA, then you using precisely the same training system to teach someone with no knowledge. They'd come out lacking things I didn't have to teach you, because you already had them.) That lead to the next generation not having an understanding of how strikes fit into it, which softened the art dramatically over the third and fourth generation of instructors.

If, in fact, many of the original students had Judo (or similar) background, that explains why Ueshiba seems to have taught with such a focus on pure-aiki. Many students may have already understood the side of the technique I call "the Judo approach" (how fitting for our discussion, here!), so he was teaching advanced practitioners how to find the aiki.

If you look at Yoshinkan, you see the same techniques taught with a very different approach (from what I've heard from others, similar to NGA, which looks unlike Ueshiba's Aikido).


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure what they did to counter the takedowns - as I said, I didn't stop at the time to explore it, but I wish I had. As I recall, a couple of them were counters to variations of an arm drag, and the others were to single-leg takedowns and hip throws. In each of the cases I remember, as soon as they stymied the takedown and I started moving my weight out of it (to close the opening it had presented), I immediately felt that "void" that tells me there's an easy aiki opportunity. I shifted their weight into it and they dropped without effort. I can only remember this occurring a handful of times.
> 
> It might have been simply an overcommitment to the counter by shifting their weight against it (which would easily produce the effect), or it might be that whatever counter they used would put their weight in the right spot every time. I wish I knew, both as a possible opening and as something to avoid, myself.



No that is an actual thing. The point of doing a takedown is to force a counter. And the counter sets up the takedown. And why throws are done in combination.

So you will see throw counter repeat a lot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If you are fighting for the realz regardless of it being competition or self defence. then there is more over-commitment. You are also more likley to be more conservative and so not be as able to take advantage of that over-commitment.
> 
> So you are more likley to want to knock a guys head off with a big punch. But are less likley to want to risk eating that punch to counter with something clever.


That's certainly true of someone trained, and of someone who is in control of himself. The guy at the bar who decides you've been looking at his girl too long and goes around the bend will often over-commit in bigger ways. The limbic brain is not very good at risk assessment nor risk management, so the part about avoiding the consequences of the over-commitment is left out at that point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No that is an actual thing. The point of doing a takedown is to force a counter. And the counter sets up the takedown. And why throws are done in combination.
> 
> So you will see throw counter repeat a lot.


As Tony has pointed out (and he's done more of that type of sparring/randori than I have), it's rare to run into one of those golden opportunities I refer to as "pure aiki". What you're describing is very true, but their counter is usually controlled enough to make me need leverage or weight dropping or such to move them beyond the recovery point and get the throw that lives beyond the counter. Every now and then, though, you feel that "void" where you know a tiny amount of input just drops them into a hole where they can't recover their balance. It's rare, and gets rarer the more skilled the opponent is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hanzou said:


> I'm curious Gpseymour, is the issue that Aikido was originally taught as a capstone for Judo training, but many modern Aikido practitioners don't learn Judo first? Has that caused a degradation of the art?
> 
> I'd be very curious to see what the difference would be between an Aikido black belt with a Judo background, and an Aikido black belt without a Judo background.


Oh, and Hanzou, feel free to call me Gerry. You and I have agreed and disagreed enough that you ought to know my name by now.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> As Tony has pointed out (and he's done more of that type of sparring/randori than I have), it's rare to run into one of those golden opportunities I refer to as "pure aiki". What you're describing is very true, but their counter is usually controlled enough to make me need leverage or weight dropping or such to move them beyond the recovery point and get the throw that lives beyond the counter. Every now and then, though, you feel that "void" where you know a tiny amount of input just drops them into a hole where they can't recover their balance. It's rare, and gets rarer the more skilled the opponent is.



See I dont see it as feel so much as a mechanical response. As a science. Not an art.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's certainly true of someone trained, and of someone who is in control of himself. The guy at the bar who decides you've been looking at his girl too long and goes around the bend will often over-commit in bigger ways. The limbic brain is not very good at risk assessment nor risk management, so the part about avoiding the consequences of the over-commitment is left out at that point.



That is a very simple explanation for what will turn out to be a very complicated motivation.

Eg. street fighting responses.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> See I dont see it as feel so much as a mechanical response. As a science. Not an art.


That spot, though, is one you can't often manufacture. The force/input needed to manufacture it is usually as much as would be needed to do a technique without it, so if it's not there, it's more dependable to go with what I call the "Judo version" of the technique. Equally effective, just not "aiki".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> That is a very simple explanation for what will turn out to be a very complicated motivation.
> 
> Eg. street fighting responses.


Anger is not so complicated. It's an instinctive activation of the limbic system, and overrides much of the executive function of the prefrontal cortex. The reactions are more predictable, because it's driven by the "reptile brain".

I'm not saying there aren't other motivations for attacks. But that's the most common, and it's usually caused by either some perceived slight, an actual insult, or a real or perceived physical threat. The video shows exactly what I mean. The guy who attacked him was open to a couple of things specifically because he chose an attack that isn't terribly effective. He committed his weight forward, then joined it with the guy he attacked to move him around in a circle to the wall. There are aiki opportunities in that sort of movement that wouldn't be likely in a match.


----------



## adadses ginsberg

Aikido techniques are not unique to the art. They come from karate, jiu jitsu etc. What is unique is the application of ying and yang or aiki. The techniques are therefore used to develop this 'force' and therefore Aikido is not used for fighting or self defence (of course, it can be and you can kick *** with it if you want). When I got to Shodan in Aikido, I had only learnt the techniques, I am only now beginning to learn Aiki. I feel very much like I have walked through the dojo door all over again.

If you want to use Aikido to fight only then practice it in this way. Put sparring gloves on, head guards, you name it and train your Aikido for this end. Believe you me, you will learn to fight with it just like any martial art.

My Aikido can be used to fight and I have used it in real situations but I am 36 years old and have only used it twice in this context and have been in violent altercations a few times in my life. In light of this I don't see the point in learning an art where I get kicked, strangled, punched as I did when I was younger.


----------



## the42cop

Everyone is here having a serious conversation and stuff... And I'm over here secretly thinking the only REAL self defense system out there is this Uber secret, special forces, ninja assassin, Jedi master style!! If you don't prance around a dark gym with a lightsaber you just aren't a true martial artist!  






Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Real Aikido in Action on live video:

The Instinctive Edge


----------



## O'Malley

Looks like shiho nage. He extends the arm then redirects that extension towards uke and takes him down. I can notice the little twist towards his own "center" that finishes to take away uke's balance.

The element of surprise played a big part though.


----------



## drop bear

Real BJJ in action on live video.
The Instinctive Edge







Or is it TKD?


----------



## O'Malley

Do they do it while standing in BJJ?

The way he pulled the arm into extension before redirecting it was in line with what you learn in aikido.

But yes, kote gaeshi (not shiho nage, as I corrected in the other thread) is a form that's seen in a lot of systems (saw it in JJJ, Eskrima, Aikido and Kajukenbo for example).


----------



## drop bear

O'Malley said:


> Do they do it while standing in BJJ?
> 
> The way he pulled the arm into extension before redirecting it was in line with what you learn in aikido.
> 
> But yes, kote gaeshi (not shiho nage, as I corrected in the other thread) is a form that's seen in a lot of systems (saw it in JJJ, Eskrima, Aikido and Kajukenbo for example).




They definitely do wrist locks standing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> Do they do it while standing in BJJ?
> 
> The way he pulled the arm into extension before redirecting it was in line with what you learn in aikido.
> 
> But yes, kote gaeshi (not shiho nage, as I corrected in the other thread) is a form that's seen in a lot of systems (saw it in JJJ, Eskrima, Aikido and Kajukenbo for example).


BJJ has a reasonable standing repertoire. We mostly see the ground game, because they're experts at getting people to the ground so most BJJ matches end up there.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> BJJ has a reasonable standing repertoire. We mostly see the ground game, because they're experts at getting people to the ground so most BJJ matches end up there.


It's a ground fighting system.  Where in MMA, if I am sanding and you are on the mat, the refs will stand you up.  in a BJJ match, if I'm on the ground and you are standing, you are the one fleeing combat and will be penalized for failing to engage.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> It's a ground fighting system.  Where in MMA, if I am sanding and you are on the mat, the refs will stand you up.  in a BJJ match, if I'm on the ground and you are standing, you are the one fleeing combat and will be penalized for failing to engage.



There are pure grappling comps that reward standing back up as well.

Otherwise in MMA the primary motivation for standing up is still punching. You just have to be so much better than the guy you are fighting to hang out down there.


----------



## Hyoho

Is this aikido? Not that I would expect the person that did the disarm to move to the front. Not to question what he did. But is it aikido?

Japanese arts deal with things like Sen. Stanley sums up here well.

“Go no Sen” — The Path to Defeat by Stanley Pranin

There has to be committal from an opponent towards you yourself. You then use that committal against them. It "must" be seen, even for a split second. In seeing that physical action it mean they have already committed themselves mentally to a point of no return. Aikido is not the only art that uses this method.

The idea in practice is to try and simulate a real attack. A method that can be speeded up as people become more proficient in dealing with a situation. Ultimately as seen (should be seen) in embu we really attack. Even then we still have the perogative of knowing what is coming.

There are others that use "sen only". Some incorporate it among other methods such as simply attack first feign an attack etc. etc. But sen remains to be the epitome of most of the arts.

The point is if two people confront each other and the one using sen sees no attack? Then there is no conflict. We can all safely go home.


----------



## JP3

Jerry, I just wanted to point something out to you about the apparent perceived difference you have for aikido vs. judo, with apparently more muscle being used in the judo technique than in the aikido technique.

To be "good judo" the technique should happen in a manner which would feel very, very similar to you as an aikido technique done correct, i.e. very little actual "feeling" of what just took place. IF you did it right.  The way judo is set up though, e.g. closer positions, hands in positions that tend to assist in outright lifting the opponent at times, structure demolition not just posture breaking, etc... those are more towards the sport side of judo, where the young turbo-power button dudes are playing and going to tournaments, etc.  Us old dudes like it to be very.... aiki.  IF we can get it there.  When someone does in practice, it's cause for celebration, albeit short. ("Man, nice throw! I didn't even feel the entry at all, next thing I know I better find the ground... smooth...").  Like that.

I can crank an aikido technique with wrist and arm power and it will "work," but it isn't "working right," I'm sure you'll agree with that. Same-same.  Judo is ... supposed ... to have a very similar.... affect, or feel to it.

But, that's for folks who've been playing judo for more than 20 years, whose fingers are all gnarled up, knees shot, toes ugly, etc, from doing the turbo-power way for too long...

*snort*  I resemble that remark.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hyoho said:


> Is this aikido? Not that I would expect the person that did the disarm to move to the front. Not to question what he did. But is it aikido?
> 
> Japanese arts deal with things like Sen. Stanley sums up here well.
> 
> “Go no Sen” — The Path to Defeat by Stanley Pranin
> 
> There has to be committal from an opponent towards you yourself. You then use that committal against them. It "must" be seen, even for a split second. In seeing that physical action it mean they have already committed themselves mentally to a point of no return. Aikido is not the only art that uses this method.
> 
> The idea in practice is to try and simulate a real attack. A method that can be speeded up as people become more proficient in dealing with a situation. Ultimately as seen (should be seen) in embu we really attack. Even then we still have the perogative of knowing what is coming.
> 
> There are others that use "sen only". Some incorporate it among other methods such as simply attack first feign an attack etc. etc. But sen remains to be the epitome of most of the arts.
> 
> The point is if two people confront each other and the one using sen sees no attack? Then there is no conflict. We can all safely go home.


I don't know whether they were trained in Aikido, but the response is consistent with it. When he grabs the hand, the guy has an initial reaction to pull his arm back, which feeds the "aiki" of the technique. Aikido doesn't require an attack - it requires input from the "attacker".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Jerry, I just wanted to point something out to you about the apparent perceived difference you have for aikido vs. judo, with apparently more muscle being used in the judo technique than in the aikido technique.
> 
> To be "good judo" the technique should happen in a manner which would feel very, very similar to you as an aikido technique done correct, i.e. very little actual "feeling" of what just took place. IF you did it right.  The way judo is set up though, e.g. closer positions, hands in positions that tend to assist in outright lifting the opponent at times, structure demolition not just posture breaking, etc... those are more towards the sport side of judo, where the young turbo-power button dudes are playing and going to tournaments, etc.  Us old dudes like it to be very.... aiki.  IF we can get it there.  When someone does in practice, it's cause for celebration, albeit short. ("Man, nice throw! I didn't even feel the entry at all, next thing I know I better find the ground... smooth...").  Like that.
> 
> I can crank an aikido technique with wrist and arm power and it will "work," but it isn't "working right," I'm sure you'll agree with that. Same-same.  Judo is ... supposed ... to have a very similar.... affect, or feel to it.
> 
> But, that's for folks who've been playing judo for more than 20 years, whose fingers are all gnarled up, knees shot, toes ugly, etc, from doing the turbo-power way for too long...
> 
> *snort*  I resemble that remark.


(I assume this is directed at me.)

This is not a difference in perception, at all. Judo, when everything falls into place, will have the same "aiki" moments. The main obstacle to aiki in Judo  is that you're practicing Judo on someone who knows what you're doing and is using the same training to counter it. In styles that take a pure-aiki approach, they only practice to work with that pure flow. Some aiki arts (like NGA) split the difference. We practice what I call "Judo style" versions of many techniques. These are versions that work with or without aiki (like Judo techniques do). They can be countered (like Judo), but are effective against unskilled counters (like Judo). We also practice pure-aiki versions of some techniques, which we would only use when that certain feel is there - there's zero resistance, a gap (what I refer to as "the void") in their structure, which allows us to effortlessly execute the technique. We'll almost never find the latter against another NGA practitioner (nor, likely against anyone with similar training), so we'd depend more on the Judo-style versions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> It's a ground fighting system.  Where in MMA, if I am sanding and you are on the mat, the refs will stand you up.  in a BJJ match, if I'm on the ground and you are standing, you are the one fleeing combat and will be penalized for failing to engage.


Mostly, but not entirely. While some places practice it as such, there is reasonable standing work in BJJ (at least in GJJ), too. My view is that it's rather rudimentary (most likely because it doesn't get the same attention as the ground work), but the principles are sound. From what I've seen, the standing work in BJJ is mostly about controlling what's going on while standing unless and until things hit the ground. Kind of the opposite of those who train ground work mostly to be able to get back up.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

This could be Aikido, Hapkido, Budo Taijutsu, a plethora of Japanese systems and from a lot more martial systems from around the world.  In IRT we call this a Horizontal Wrist Takedown.  However, this is video evidence of an Aikido like technique being used. ie. kote gaeshi

Earlier in this thread people were bagging on Aikido and here we have an Aikido technique utilized very well.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Mostly, but not entirely. While some places practice it as such, there is reasonable standing work in BJJ (at least in GJJ), too. My view is that it's rather rudimentary (most likely because it doesn't get the same attention as the ground work), but the principles are sound. From what I've seen, the standing work in BJJ is mostly about controlling what's going on while standing unless and until things hit the ground. Kind of the opposite of those who train ground work mostly to be able to get back up.


Are you telling me what BJJ is?  Really? 

And I didnt say there is no standing technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Are you telling me what BJJ is?  Really?
> 
> And I didnt say there is no standing technique.


I'm debating the terms. From what I've seen of the standing work in BJJ, there's enough there I wouldn't call it a ground fighting system. That's its primary strength, no doubt, but I consider it broader than just that.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> (I assume this is directed at me.)
> 
> This is not a difference in perception, at all. Judo, when everything falls into place, will have the same "aiki" moments. The main obstacle to aiki in Judo  is that you're practicing Judo on someone who knows what you're doing and is using the same training to counter it. In styles that take a pure-aiki approach, they only practice to work with that pure flow. Some aiki arts (like NGA) split the difference. We practice what I call "Judo style" versions of many techniques. These are versions that work with or without aiki (like Judo techniques do). They can be countered (like Judo), but are effective against unskilled counters (like Judo). We also practice pure-aiki versions of some techniques, which we would only use when that certain feel is there - there's zero resistance, a gap (what I refer to as "the void") in their structure, which allows us to effortlessly execute the technique. We'll almost never find the latter against another NGA practitioner (nor, likely against anyone with similar training), so we'd depend more on the Judo-style versions.



So pure aki will never do that first probing attack.  Where in Judo they will.  And this comes up a bit with combination throws.  You can stand there like a glob and defeat some martial concepts where you are kind of relying on them to defend.

And the basic premis there is if they don't want to defend then the first attack will drop them. 

Of course there won't be much aki involved.


----------



## O'Malley

Actually in the older versions of aikido you don't wait for the attack but you do that "probing" with an atemi. It's a strike that forces your opponent to move and give you something to work with.







Not everyone does it but from what I know there's still a rather large consensus on the need to do atemi to make the techniques work.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> It's a ground fighting system.  Where in MMA, if I am sanding and you are on the mat, the refs will stand you up.  in a BJJ match, if I'm on the ground and you are standing, you are the one fleeing combat and will be penalized for failing to engage.


I'd say rather that the current competition rules define a ground fighting sport. The martial art as a whole covers both standing and groundwork, it's just specialized so we're excellent on the ground and only average standing. (To be fair, the current widespread emphasis on competition has produced lots of practitioners who are excellent on the ground and crappy at standup, but someone who practices the whole martial art and not just the sport should have at least basic competence at stand up.)


----------



## drop bear

O'Malley said:


> Actually in the older versions of aikido you don't wait for the attack but you do that "probing" with an atemi. It's a strike that forces your opponent to move and give you something to work with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone does it but from what I know there's still a rather large consensus on the need to do atemi to make the techniques work.



Which then becomes consistent methodology with any of those aiki style thows in any style


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'd say rather that the current competition rules define a ground fighting sport. The martial art as a whole covers both standing and groundwork, it's just specialized so we're excellent on the ground and only average standing. (To be fair, the current widespread emphasis on competition has produced lots of practitioners who are excellent on the ground and crappy at standup, but someone who practices the whole martial art and not just the sport should have at least basic competence at stand up.)


Aren't we picking nits just a little?  I don't think it's controversial to refer to BJJ as a ground fighting system, even though it has standing application (because, after all, you can't fight on the ground if you aren't there).  And I wasn't at all trying to start a sport vs street deal.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> Aren't we picking nits just a little?  I don't think it's controversial to refer to BJJ as a ground fighting system, even though it has standing application (because, after all, you can't fight on the ground if you aren't there).  And I wasn't at all trying to start a sport vs street deal.


Just a quibble over terminology. I think of it as a fighting system with a strong specialization in ground fighting rather than just a ground fighting system. I do teach my students some moves and tactics which don't involve going to the ground and discourage them from fixating on the idea of always trying to take the fight to the ground.

Then again, my personal BJJ is an expression of everything I've learned in martial arts over the last 35 years, so my perspective isn't necessarily universal.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just a quibble over terminology. I think of it as a fighting system with a strong specialization in ground fighting rather than just a ground fighting system. I do teach my students some moves and tactics which don't involve going to the ground and discourage them from fixating on the idea of always trying to take the fight to the ground.
> 
> Then again, my personal BJJ is an expression of everything I've learned in martial arts over the last 35 years, so my perspective isn't necessarily universal.


Just for clarity, a reference to BJJ as a ground fighting system also does not preclude techniques and tactics for returning to one's feet from the ground. 

As I said, I didn't intend for this to be controversial.  I think if you got 1000 BJJ practitioners in a room and referred to BJJ as a ground fighting system, it wouldn't even cause a ripple.  It's only here, where every word is dissected, that it matters at all.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> There are pure grappling comps that reward standing back up as well.
> 
> Otherwise in MMA the primary motivation for standing up is still punching. You just have to be so much better than the guy you are fighting to hang out down there.


The point is that the rules favor striking over grappling because MMA is a commercially driven sport.  BJJ competitions, similar to wrestling competitions, are intended to be exercises of skill in ground fighting within the rule set.  In the former, if you back out of guard, the ref stands both up and fighting continues.  In the latter, if you back out of guard, the ref will ask you to engage, and if you don't you will be penalized and eventually DQ'd for lack of combativeness.

I appreciate your point about other rule sets for grappling/BJJ.  That's one of the things I like about it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Just for clarity, a reference to BJJ as a ground fighting system also does not preclude techniques and tactics for returning to one's feet from the ground.
> 
> As I said, I didn't intend for this to be controversial.  I think if you got 1000 BJJ practitioners in a room and referred to BJJ as a ground fighting system, it wouldn't even cause a ripple.  It's only here, where every word is dissected, that it matters at all.


It's definitely nitpicking a bit, Steve, but I just want to be clear that I'm not arguing. I see BJJ as containing a ground fighting system. BJJ as a whole encompasses more than that, as you said, so I think maybe we're saying the same thing and I'm just picking the nits that are lying about.


----------



## JP3

Jerry, here's a question for you.

Clearly, O-Sensei used atemi-waza in his aikido, but I've heard/read a crowd of people come out and say that strikes aren't aiki/aikido and they can't BE aiki/aikido, which I admit, confuses me.  If the dude who "invented" the art (I know he didn't invent the techniques but the methodology is... his, IMO) himself used strikes and he was calling it all aikido... then it's all aikido.

Of course, strikes aren't unique, so maybe that's it?

Personally, I blend in strikes to create kuzushi all the time, of all the varieties I've learned.  What do you think?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Jerry, here's a question for you.
> 
> Clearly, O-Sensei used atemi-waza in his aikido, but I've heard/read a crowd of people come out and say that strikes aren't aiki/aikido and they can't BE aiki/aikido, which I admit, confuses me.  If the dude who "invented" the art (I know he didn't invent the techniques but the methodology is... his, IMO) himself used strikes and he was calling it all aikido... then it's all aikido.
> 
> Of course, strikes aren't unique, so maybe that's it?
> 
> Personally, I blend in strikes to create kuzushi all the time, of all the varieties I've learned.  What do you think?


I'm with Stan Pranin on this one. I think the atemi were lost. Here's my theory (backed by some historical knowledge). Ueshiba's early students were mostly very experienced martial artists. They already knew how to strike, so he likely didn't teach that. Some of them went on to teach what he taught, which means they also didn't teach strikes. Follow that for another generation or two, and you have people who may never have seen strikes used in any significant way in Ueshiba's art.

My experience with aiki is straightforward: most of the time, you have to help manufacture the aiki moment (the "void"). Strikes are a handy way to change a person's focus, encourage them to move in a certain direction, shift their weight to open "the void", etc. Without strikes, Ueshiba's art becomes the "20 year art" some refer to it as, because only after extensive experience is it likely to be consistently usable on someone bringing violence and intent without strikes.


----------



## O'Malley

Or maybe the "aiki" part is so challenging/interesting that the guys teaching it didn't bother with the strikes as the "meat" of the matter is the aiki. There might also have been drifts due to philosophical considerations. But O Sensei and G. Shioda stressed the importance of atemi in aikido ("70-90% of aikido is atemi").

My teachers are from the Sugano lineage I think (at least he was the one who did the gradings) and we have atemi. We don't train them as an independent part of the curriculum but the teacher tells us where they fall into the techniques and uke has to respect them (I'm really bad at this, I tend to take the blow rather than shift my position to avoid it).

Oftentimes atemi also helps with the positioning, like when you drop under the guy's arm in shiho nage, if you position yourself as if to elbow him in the ribs your position is better.

My humble 2 cents.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> Or maybe the "aiki" part is so challenging/interesting that the guys teaching it didn't bother with the strikes as the "meat" of the matter is the aiki. There might also have been drifts due to philosophical considerations. But O Sensei and G. Shioda stressed the importance of atemi in aikido ("70-90% of aikido is atemi").
> 
> My teachers are from the Sugano lineage I think (at least he was the one who did the gradings) and we have atemi. We don't train them as an independent part of the curriculum but the teacher tells us where they fall into the techniques and uke has to respect them (I'm really bad at this, I tend to take the blow rather than shift my position to avoid it).
> 
> Oftentimes atemi also helps with the positioning, like when you drop under the guy's arm in shiho nage, if you position yourself as if to elbow him in the ribs your position is better.
> 
> My humble 2 cents.


Oh, there's definitely some of this. Once you dig into the finer points of aiki, there's a lot to investigate and play with. There's a danger for anyone who likes digging deep like that to drop some of the basics. In NGA, we specifically teach strikes - they are core in our curriculum. From a combat perspective, this opens up more options. For the first 2-3 years of their training, I tell students not to try to correct a failed technique. Rather, I have them use strikes to either finish the defense, or to lead them into something else. Eventually, their flow gets good enough that fixing failed techniques and switching to other techniques to recover becomes a viable option.

(NOTE: NGA is not directly related to Ueshiba's Aikido. Both are primarily derived from Daito-ryu, so are close cousins.)


----------



## O'Malley

It's like when you watch an advanced aikido master "fooling around" with aiki concepts. 

Yamaguchi sensei required his uke to move and react in a certain way and if one were to look at some of his demonstrations he'd think that aikido is worthless without a cooperative partner. Yet, he could pin any non cooperative uke face down, then lay on that person back-to-back and prevent him to get up by matching his movements. ( It Had to Be Felt #7: Yamaguchi Seigo: Suburi with People - AikiWeb Aikido Forums )

If you look at the video below, it seems that Watanabe sensei is doing no touch throws. One could see him and believe that it's how aikido should look like then start to teach no touch throws. Or one could believe that Watanabe sensei is unable to protect himself on the street or do "aikido that works". However, according to advanced practicioners he's the kind of guy who'd take basically anyone as an uke and make his techniques work: AikiWeb Aikido Forums - No-touch aikido: defence






At my level, I can't understand what he's doing. I hope to do so one day.

Btw I've done a no touch throw in the dojo once (like on my 6th lesson or so): uke was supposed to grab my wrist and just before he made contact I pulled it back while keeping it nearly in reach of uke, he chased it, stumbled past me and lost his balance. I've been doing this to my cat since twelve years, he's a great teacher.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> It's like when you watch an advanced aikido master "fooling around" with aiki concepts.
> 
> Yamaguchi sensei required his uke to move and react in a certain way and if one were to look at some of his demonstrations he'd think that aikido is worthless without a cooperative partner. Yet, he could pin any non cooperative uke face down, then lay on that person back-to-back and prevent him to get up by matching his movements. ( It Had to Be Felt #7: Yamaguchi Seigo: Suburi with People - AikiWeb Aikido Forums )
> 
> If you look at the video below, it seems that Watanabe sensei is doing no touch throws. One could see him and believe that it's how aikido should look like then start to teach no touch throws. Or one could believe that Watanabe sensei is unable to protect himself on the street or do "aikido that works". However, according to advanced practicioners he's the kind of guy who'd take basically anyone as an uke and make his techniques work: AikiWeb Aikido Forums - No-touch aikido: defence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At my level, I can't understand what he's doing. I hope to do so one day.
> 
> Btw I've done a no touch throw in the dojo once (like on my 6th lesson or so): uke was supposed to grab my wrist and just before he made contact I pulled it back while keeping it nearly in reach of uke, he chased it, stumbled past me and lost his balance. I've been doing this to my cat since twelve years, he's a great teacher.


I do understand what he's doing for the most part, and much of what he's doing is, in fact, no-touch throws built on solid mechanics but with overly-compliant execution. The body mechanics the ukes are going through are quite solid, and that's what's making them fall. His movement is simply their lead (as in dancing) to tell them which way to move their bodies. In that demo, almost nothing he does actually initiates their movement.

Now, if he's teaching the actual techniques that use those body mechanics, there's likely nothing wrong with his (or his students') Aikido. But, as you said, those who see it done this way may decide this is what Aikido is, and leave out the actual techniques.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I do understand what he's doing for the most part, and much of what he's doing is, in fact, no-touch throws built on solid mechanics but with overly-compliant execution. The body mechanics the ukes are going through are quite solid, and that's what's making them fall. His movement is simply their lead (as in dancing) to tell them which way to move their bodies. In that demo, almost nothing he does actually initiates their movement.
> 
> Now, if he's teaching the actual techniques that use those body mechanics, there's likely nothing wrong with his (or his students') Aikido. But, as you said, those who see it done this way may decide this is what Aikido is, and leave out the actual techniques.



Ok. So I look at that and think what is the point?

What is it even training? or what is it showing even?


----------



## O'Malley

gpseymour said:


> I do understand what he's doing for the most part, and much of what he's doing is, in fact, no-touch throws built on solid mechanics but with overly-compliant execution. The body mechanics the ukes are going through are quite solid, and that's what's making them fall. His movement is simply their lead (as in dancing) to tell them which way to move their bodies. In that demo, almost nothing he does actually initiates their movement.
> 
> Now, if he's teaching the actual techniques that use those body mechanics, there's likely nothing wrong with his (or his students') Aikido. But, as you said, those who see it done this way may decide this is what Aikido is, and leave out the actual techniques.





drop bear said:


> Ok. So I look at that and think what is the point?
> 
> What is it even training? or what is it showing even?



What I meant by "I don't understand what he's doing" is closer to what drop bear asked.

Did some research on him, his demonstrations are controversial. Regarding his aikido ability, people seem to agree that he can make the classic techniques work really well even though E. Amdur says that Watanabe doesn't really bother with correct positioning. And he is reported to offer very good technical advice and some of his students are outstanding at conventional aikido.

So maybe he's just having fun with the concepts?
Maybe he's really good at connecting with people and does "sympathy throws" like "would you please fall down here"?
Maybe he's delusional?
Maybe he messes with their sense of distance/movement in a very subtle way?
Maybe it's just an exercise to teach his students sensitivity and responsiveness?
Maybe he is trying to push the limits of the connection that happens between him and uke?
Maybe he's experimenting and not caring about keeping it martial anymore?
Maybe it's a combination of the above?

Anyway this sensei is certainly intriguing, I hope I'll get good soon enough to go feel his aikido for myself.

For those interested here are reports/discussions about what he does:

It Had To Be Felt #9: Watanabe Nobuyuki:  How the Mighty Have Fallen - AikiWeb Aikido Forums

Weird No Touch Aikido With Sensei Watanabe, Is It Real!? (recent video reposted from a Russian channel) • /r/aikido

And an interview: Interview with Aikido Shihan Nobuyuki Watanabe, Part 1 and Interview with Aikido Shihan Nobuyuki Watanabe, Part 2


----------



## Gerry Seymour

O'Malley said:


> Maybe it's just an exercise to teach his students sensitivity and responsiveness?
> Maybe he is trying to push the limits of the connection that happens between him and uke?
> Maybe he's experimenting and not caring about keeping it martial anymore?



I think these three are quite likely, as is the "combination thereof". All of these are things many instructors will do at times, perhaps only in their own investigations, and all are places where movement like shown in that demo would be appropriate.


----------



## JP3

Sorry for misspelling your name Gerry, I've a bud who is "Jerry" and the fingers automatically do that.

In my/our own Tomiki aikido, we talk about the strikes all the time. In fact, 1st five techniques of the first actual kata are strikes...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JP3 said:


> Sorry for misspelling your name Gerry, I've a bud who is "Jerry" and the fingers automatically do that.
> 
> In my/our own Tomiki aikido, we talk about the strikes all the time. In fact, 1st five techniques of the first actual kata are strikes...


No worries. I changed the spelling in 3rd grade (there's a short story behind that), and my grandmother still calls me "Jerry with a G". For about 30 years most of my birthday cards from her had "Jerry" with a G written over the J.

I think the offshoots of Ueshiba's Aikido that have a specific emphasis on strikes have a tactical advantage. Practicing good strikes, with proper intent not only opens opportunities for better use of Aikido techniques, it also tends to breed better attacks.


----------



## Spinedoc

Tony Dismukes said:


> I can relate. On the rare occasions when I've had a perfect "aiki moment" that sent my sparring partner flying without effort, I've had only the roughest memory of what just happened. It seemed that I was so much in the "zone" of moving intuitively that my analytic brain was shut off.


 LOL...yes, my sensei's spend a great deal of time discussing how mushin is so important. No thought. No focus, simply reaction. One of the yudansha was saying the other day how you spend years and years learning tai sabaki and all of these techniques and how to execute them, etc....and then, after you reach shodan, you spend all of your time trying to forget all of that and simply execute without thought...it takes time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Spinedoc said:


> LOL...yes, my sensei's spend a great deal of time discussing how mushin is so important. No thought. No focus, simply reaction. One of the yudansha was saying the other day how you spend years and years learning tai sabaki and all of these techniques and how to execute them, etc....and then, after you reach shodan, you spend all of your time trying to forget all of that and simply execute without thought...it takes time.


I'm curious about how others have experienced that transition. In my experience (in NGA, a related art), it's not all during a single period. One technique will get to that point early on, then a few months later another, and so on. The pace picks up somewhere around ikkyu in mainline NGA. The difference may be partly due to how we define "technique", which is somewhat different (and more visually-based, IMO) than the conceptual divisions between techniques I see in Ueshiba's Aikido.


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

gpseymour said:


> I do understand what he's doing for the most part, and much of what he's doing is, in fact, no-touch throws built on solid mechanics but with overly-compliant execution. The body mechanics the ukes are going through are quite solid, and that's what's making them fall. His movement is simply their lead (as in dancing) to tell them which way to move their bodies. In that demo, almost nothing he does actually initiates their movement.
> 
> Now, if he's teaching the actual techniques that use those body mechanics, there's likely nothing wrong with his (or his students') Aikido. But, as you said, those who see it done this way may decide this is what Aikido is, and leave out the actual techniques.



I highly agree about the overly-compliant uke's in the video and find it mind boggling how a large percentage of aikido practitioners hold the no touch manipulation concepts so close to their hearts since O-Sensei became very esoteric in his later years. 

 I've had several training sessions where I have come across over compliant uke's that will flip or drop before you have even started the actual portion of the  lock/throw that manipulates their center or balance. 


Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## ST1Doppelganger

gpseymour said:


> I do understand what he's doing for the most part, and much of what he's doing is, in fact, no-touch throws built on solid mechanics but with overly-compliant execution. The body mechanics the ukes are going through are quite solid, and that's what's making them fall. His movement is simply their lead (as in dancing) to tell them which way to move their bodies. In that demo, almost nothing he does actually initiates their movement.
> 
> Now, if he's teaching the actual techniques that use those body mechanics, there's likely nothing wrong with his (or his students') Aikido. But, as you said, those who see it done this way may decide this is what Aikido is, and leave out the actual techniques.



I highly agree about the overly-compliant uke's in the video and find it mind boggling how a large percentage of aikido practitioners hold the no touch manipulation concepts so close to their hearts since O-Sensei became very esoteric in his later years. 

 I've had several training sessions where I have come across over compliant uke's that will flip or drop before you have even started the actual portion of the  lock/throw that manipulates their center or balance. 


Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk


----------



## drop bear

ST1Doppelganger said:


> I highly agree about the overly-compliant uke's in the video and find it mind boggling how a large percentage of aikido practitioners hold the no touch manipulation concepts so close to their hearts since O-Sensei became very esoteric in his later years.
> 
> I've had several training sessions where I have come across over compliant uke's that will flip or drop before you have even started the actual portion of the  lock/throw that manipulates their center or balance.
> 
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk



Everything works when it is a drill.


----------



## JP3

Yeah, Drop ... when in drill mode lots of things work because that's the purpose of drills, so you learn the steps of the dance.

But later on, when you've learned the dance and are starting to DO the dance, the challenge is to forget the dance steps and just make it rain.

I've had a similar experience as Gerry, and I'm not doing NGA of course, but certain techniques internalize faster in some people than in others, and those have techniques which internalize for them faster than I "get" them. It's a neat phenomenon.

For me, kotegaeshi to throw, not to crumble-submit, is still very challenging. I just had one spontaneously happen in last Tuesday's class that felt ...hardly anything at all and yet the uke I was dealing with at the time went for a big ride. But, I can do the compliance version on just about any body type without thought now that I've been working on it for... 18 years? Makes sense, I think. Maybe I'm right on schedule. My original Tomiki sensei said that kotegaeshi is a "20 year throw," and if that's accurate, then OK. I'm on target, I suppose. But, let me get into the hand/wrist/elbow locking things that corss over between hapkido and aikido and judo, and it all is pretty natural, relaxed and unconscious.  But... those big throws... Ah well. You look up the mountain while climbing.


----------



## Hanshi

Certainly one does have to learn to do ukemi so one can train without injury; it's not learned so one can fall on the street.  One of my best students is now in her late 70s and still takes falls; it is truly mind over matter.  I've had a few students who had to defend themselves using aikido techniques.  As far as defending against karate goes there's no need to do anything unless attacked with force.  Walking away from confrontations works perfectly well.  If you're then attacked it means the attacker is giving you his energy and that's all you need.  There is never a reason to _fight, _only a reason to stop violence quickly and assure the attacker is rendered null and void.  Most importantly, NEVER fight the "style"; fight the man.


----------



## GreatUniter

In my opinion, very appliable! But, it's all in the way you train, who is your teacher and what you train in the dojo. Modern aikido teachers reject "martial" from aikido. It's shame that nowadays it is no longer trained like before. So, that is main reason why aikido is underrated and most people think that it's not appliable.


----------



## Juany118

GreatUniter said:


> In my opinion, very appliable! But, it's all in the way you train, who is your teacher and what you train in the dojo. Modern aikido teachers reject "martial" from aikido. It's shame that nowadays it is no longer trained like before. So, that is main reason why aikido is underrated and most people think that it's not appliable.



It really depends on the sub-style of Aikido.  Yoshinkan (which is a lot closer to the Daito origins) Tomiki Ryu (which has actual randori) are both very effective and embrace the "martial" aspect.  Shioda Sensei explained that his Aikido is different because he left studying directly under the O'Sensei before he started down the more metaphysical path.  I think this timing is one of the reasons Yoshinkan still has good relations with Aikikai.  He taught what he was taught, no more or less, so there was not as much "drama" as he wasn't "perverting" what Aikido had become.


----------



## O'Malley

Yoshinkan is indeed an awesome style but even in his later years O'Sensei's aikido was very martial, the fluffy modern stuff came from his son (Kisshomaru)'s teachings (the current Doshu recently recognized that Kisshomaru changed the techniques: Budoka no Kotae - Talking to Kisshomaru Ueshiba Sensei - Aikido Sangenkai Blog, Honolulu, Hawaii and you can read a more detailed account of the history here: The Ueshiba Legacy - Part 2, by Mark Murray - Aikido Sangenkai Blog ).

Another martial line of aikido is Morihiro Saito's line, also called Iwama-ryu aikido. Saito is the person who studied the most with the Founder and stayed with him until his death (well after he started being all metaphysical). Saito was extremely loyal to O'Sensei and was hung up on teaching exactly was the Founder had taught him, so what you said ("He taught what he was taught, no more or less, so there was not as much "drama" as he wasn't "perverting" what Aikido had become") would apply to him _a fortiori_.

Yet there is much more tension between the Iwama line and the Aikikai Hombu than between Aikikai and Yoshinkan. My uneducated guess would be that Shioda left early and it was pretty clear (even to the Founder) that he was doing his own thing, which everybody accepted, whereas the Saito line kept teaching what they claim is "the traditional, unaltered aikido of the Founder". Even if it is technically true, it doesn't make the Aikikai happy...

To get back to the applicability of aikido, I think that live training (with the right timing, energy and movement) is essential but uke needs to be able to receive the live techniques without hurting himself. I've got barely two years of training under my belt and I don't think I could do randori yet, my ukemi skills are not good enough. For now I'll stick to my teacher's Iwama methodology: study distance with the jo, study timing with the sword, get the movements, structure and mechanics right through strong and slow kihon, put the techniques in a dynamic framework with ki no nagare, and only then you'll be able to put it all together.


----------



## Juany118

I definitely did enjoy Yoshinkan when I studied it.  I was rather upset when my Sensei moved out of the area.  Now all the schools around me say "we don't teach for self defense but many of the techniques we teach can be used as such."

I will say one thing initially frustrated me about Yoshinkan, at least where I studied it, but I eventually understood why.  With the exception of basic entries, striking and standing grappling the first however many months was basically ukemi for new students.  I probably flopped around on the mat for at least half of each class.  I stuck it out though and once the Sensei felt I "had it" I realized why he had such a focus on it.

I concur with your assessment btw.  Shioda Sensei left with the O'Sensei's permission.  So much so even after he was doing his "own thing" the O'Sensei promoted him to 10th Dan AFAIK.  He also made it clear that he was simply teaching what he was taught in the pre-war era and didn't make any grandiose claims.


----------



## GreatUniter

Juany118 said:


> It really depends on the sub-style of Aikido.  Yoshinkan (which is a lot closer to the Daito origins) Tomiki Ryu (which has actual randori) are both very effective and embrace the "martial" aspect.  Shioda Sensei explained that his Aikido is different because he left studying directly under the O'Sensei before he started down the more metaphysical path.  I think this timing is one of the reasons Yoshinkan still has good relations with Aikikai.  He taught what he was taught, no more or less, so there was not as much "drama" as he wasn't "perverting" what Aikido had become.



Aikikai is also good line, but it really depends on that who is teaching. It's really disappointing how today Aikikai line is taught. I saw many Aikikai teachers that put aikido to shame and teach some bullshido (instead of aikido). Sensei Tamura, Isoyama, Yamada and Suga are great aikido masters and their Aikikai aikido is deadly. On the other hand, I don't really see the differences in Yoshinkan and Aikikai line (Tamura's way) except in small differences in techniques names. Those two are lines that I know of (Aikikai, Tamura's line as practiced by my sensei and I have visited some seminars with Yoshinkan teachers). Other styles of aikido I saw only on videos. 

So, all in one point, I think that really that matters is the martial art practitioner, as I'm aware of really potentially good aikidokas from other aikido styles. Personally, I find surprising that I know some people that train aikido (and only aikido) but know lots of kicks and punches aside from that "aikido is peaceful martial art that only teaches hand flapping and ballet" - talk from uneducated people when there is topic of aikido - that really defend themselves on the streets. So, as great masters say: "never underestimate or overestimate anybody, including yourself". Also, what Toshiro Suga said on one seminar: "this [aikido] is martial art, this is for killing people" as referring to that even if aikido (as all martial arts) can be deadly and when someone attacks you, there is no time for peace (even so all we aikidokas strive for not hurting or killing people, but defend ourselves if attacked).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

GreatUniter said:


> that "aikido is peaceful martial art that only teaches hand flapping and ballet" - talk from uneducated people when there is topic of aikido - that really defend themselves on the streets


That's not only from the uneducated. There are a lot of Aikido instructors - including some with high ranks (5th dan and up) who say that about Aikido. That's part of the problem Aikido is dealing with, IMO.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> That's not only from the uneducated. There are a lot of Aikido instructors - including some with high ranks (5th dan and up) who say that about Aikido. That's part of the problem Aikido is dealing with, IMO.



Exactly.  I don't know where, when or how it happened but somewhere along the way many in the community started to see Aikido in a way similar to "exercise" Tai Chi.  It is seen by them as being for health, fitness and spiritual cultivation through mindfulness.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Exactly.  I don't know where, when or how it happened but somewhere along the way many in the community started to see Aikido in a way similar to "exercise" Tai Chi.  It is seen by them as being for health, fitness and spiritual cultivation through mindfulness.


I have even heard instructors say that in a defensive situation, the aim is to gently subdue with no injury. They seemed to expect it to work like the stylized drills in class.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I have even heard instructors say that in a defensive situation, the aim is to gently subdue with no injury. They seemed to expect it to work like the stylized drills in class.



Well that is where O'Sensei was in the end himself 





> _To injure an opponent is to injure yourself. To control aggression without inflicting injury is the Art of Peace. _



His son I believe took it to the next level when he took over the organization.  So while i am sure you do have some Aikikia instructors who teach something more "physical" but  I know there are none in my area who are affiliated with that organization who are truly "martial".  Then you look at something like Shinshin Aikido and you get into the whole "everyone else forgot it's about the cultivation of Ki" and their Taigi Competitions which, and sorry if this sounds snarky, is basically the Martial Art equivalent of pairs figure skating.


----------



## GreatUniter

gpseymour said:


> That's not only from the uneducated. *There are a lot of Aikido instructors - including some with high ranks (5th dan and up) who say that about Aikido. *That's part of the problem Aikido is dealing with, IMO.





gpseymour said:


> I have even heard instructors say that in a defensive situation, the aim is to gently subdue with no injury. They seemed to expect it to work like the stylized drills in class.



1. And some of them even say that aikido is a style of japanese tango (on one of seminars that I visited and still regret over the money that I have spent).

2. It's not possible to subdue somebody without injury in a street attack that happens so fast. It's rarity to not hurt the attacker or somebody to not even touch you like many aikidokas preach.  

Now I'm really disappointed that when I visit seminars, I rarely see very good aikido practitioners that have indeed good techniques and many quasi - practitioners and instructors out there. 



Juany118 said:


> Exactly.  I don't know where, when or how it happened but somewhere along the way many in the community started to see Aikido in a way similar to "exercise" Tai Chi.  It is seen by them as being for health, fitness and spiritual cultivation through mindfulness.



One time, 4-5 years ago, there was a middle - aged Chinese that rented a flat in my neighborhood in a big house. I personally witnessed how 3 guys tried to break into his flat and before me and my friend can call the police, we hear male screaming and breaking noise from the house and shortly after, 3 injured males running wildly from the house and this short Chinese chasing them. We learned that he was tai chi practitioner and instructor for long period in his hometown. He explain to us that tai chi, even if nowadays it's no longer practiced in martial way, it is rich with martial applications if you know how to use it. I underestimated aikido and tai chi before, laughing on that "dancing - like" moves, but there were people that prove me wrong. So, neither aikido nor tai chi is just "exercise".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

GreatUniter said:


> 1. And some of them even say that aikido is a style of japanese tango (on one of seminars that I visited and still regret over the money that I have spent).
> 
> 2. It's not possible to subdue somebody without injury in a street attack that happens so fast. It's rarity to not hurt the attacker or somebody to not even touch you like many aikidokas preach.
> 
> Now I'm really disappointed that when I visit seminars, I rarely see very good aikido practitioners that have indeed good techniques and many quasi - practitioners and instructors out there.
> 
> 
> 
> One time, 4-5 years ago, there was a middle - aged Chinese that rented a flat in my neighborhood in a big house. I personally witnessed how 3 guys tried to break into his flat and before me and my friend can call the police, we hear male screaming and breaking noise from the house and shortly after, 3 injured males running wildly from the house and this short Chinese chasing them. We learned that he was tai chi practitioner and instructor for long period in his hometown. He explain to us that tai chi, even if nowadays it's no longer practiced in martial way, it is rich with martial applications if you know how to use it. I underestimated aikido and tai chi before, laughing on that "dancing - like" moves, but there were people that prove me wrong. So, neither aikido nor tai chi is just "exercise".


Agreed on that last point, with one caveat. They can be just exercise, and I have no problem with folks using them that way (similar to what Billy Blanks did with Tae Bo). They can be effective for that. But that shouldn't be confused with combat/defensive training. They can overlap, but aren't the same.


----------



## Juany118

GreatUniter said:


> 1. And some of them even say that aikido is a style of japanese tango (on one of seminars that I visited and still regret over the money that I have spent).
> 
> 2. It's not possible to subdue somebody without injury in a street attack that happens so fast. It's rarity to not hurt the attacker or somebody to not even touch you like many aikidokas preach.
> 
> Now I'm really disappointed that when I visit seminars, I rarely see very good aikido practitioners that have indeed good techniques and many quasi - practitioners and instructors out there.
> 
> 
> 
> One time, 4-5 years ago, there was a middle - aged Chinese that rented a flat in my neighborhood in a big house. I personally witnessed how 3 guys tried to break into his flat and before me and my friend can call the police, we hear male screaming and breaking noise from the house and shortly after, 3 injured males running wildly from the house and this short Chinese chasing them. We learned that he was tai chi practitioner and instructor for long period in his hometown. He explain to us that tai chi, even if nowadays it's no longer practiced in martial way, it is rich with martial applications if you know how to use it. I underestimated aikido and tai chi before, laughing on that "dancing - like" moves, but there were people that prove me wrong. So, neither aikido nor tai chi is just "exercise".



Agreed on the last part.  Hence why I put "exercise" in front of Tai Chi, and dropped the Chuan.  To my mind there is Tai Chi, the mind, body spirit exercise, and Tai Chi Chuan the martial art.  A similar dynamic is at play in Aikido


----------



## drop bear

GreatUniter said:


> 2. It's not possible to subdue somebody without injury in a street attack that happens so fast. It's rarity to not hurt the attacker or somebody to not even touch you like many aikidokas preach.



Really?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Really?


It's overstated in his post, but I think that's because he was contrasting the attitude found in much of Aikido, where the expectation is that every attacker (with and without weapons) can be safely and quickly subdued with no harm to anyone. That belief is the product of too much stylized training, and not enough resistance.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Here's an article written by an NGA instructor who also dabbles in Aikikai training, related to this thread.

Our Aikido Cousins Are Having a Crisis of  Belief


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> It's overstated in his post, but I think that's because he was contrasting the attitude found in much of Aikido, where the expectation is that every attacker (with and without weapons) can be safely and quickly subdued with no harm to anyone. That belief is the product of too much stylized training, and not enough resistance.


I actually think that overstatement comes out of the conflict within the Aikido community.  One side says "if you injure your opponent you injure yourself so do not hurt them." That attitude doesn't work in real self defense BUT people are often governed by Newton's 3rd Law.  The equal and opposite reaction to that is "you can't subdue an opponent without injury."


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> I actually think that overstatement comes out of the conflict within the Aikido community.  One side says "if you injure your opponent you injure yourself so do not hurt them." That attitude doesn't work in real self defense BUT people are often governed by Newton's 3rd Law.  The equal and opposite reaction to that is "you can't subdue an opponent without injury."



I have done it heaps of times.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Here's an article written by an NGA instructor who also dabbles in Aikikai training, related to this thread.
> 
> Our Aikido Cousins Are Having a Crisis of  Belief



You can't just walk up and wristlock someone. Just like I can't just throw an armbar on a guy. I have to understand so many more things than arm locks to do arm locks. It is seriously the last 2 percent of my necessary skill set.


----------



## GreatUniter

drop bear said:


> Really?



Yes.



drop bear said:


> I have done it heaps of times.



You done what? Overstatement or subduing someone without injury?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You can't just walk up and wristlock someone. Just like I can't just throw an armbar on a guy. I have to understand so many more things than arm locks to do arm locks. It is seriously the last 2 percent of my necessary skill set.


Agreed. I think much of the training I've seen in Aikido (perhaps in all of the aiki arts) forgets/ignores the importance of position, structure, even defense and other fundamentals to make an arm lock available - really, truly a good idea in the moment. I'm far more likely to be using arm and wrist locks after someone is down than when they are standing, excepting the few that contribute to throws and takedowns (wrist throw, perhaps, definitely come along shoulder lock).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

GreatUniter said:


> You done what? Overstatement or subduing someone without injury?


Probably both.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> I have done it heaps of times.



Agreed, but some people see it as an "either/or" proposition.  Hence what Gerry and I were saying.  You can't correct a misapprehension until you identify the initial error.


----------



## GreatUniter

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. I think much of the training I've seen in Aikido (perhaps in all of the aiki arts) forgets/ignores the importance of position, structure, even defense and other fundamentals to make an arm lock available - really, truly a good idea in the moment. I'm far more likely to be using arm and wrist locks after someone is down than when they are standing, excepting the few that contribute to throws and takedowns (wrist throw, perhaps, definitely come along shoulder lock).



That's why we should be all taught that if one technique doesn't work for somebody, doesn't mean that other technique or even punch or kick won't either. I know that the techniques won't work 100% on everybody (there are more agile, stronger, faster, etc. opponents, even between untrained ones). Single, slight movement from the opponent is enough to block your technique (or make you do wrong movement). What will probably work 100% on the streets from aikido is only the aiki footwork from real, long - time, expertly trained aikido practitioner, with a lot of experience. Aikido is not magic, no - touch knockdown, chi - force martial art, like there are teachers that preach it. There is no 100% perfectly working technique with perfect outcome for the practitioner when there is real combat.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. I think much of the training I've seen in Aikido (perhaps in all of the aiki arts) forgets/ignores the importance of position, structure, even defense and other fundamentals to make an arm lock available - really, truly a good idea in the moment. I'm far more likely to be using arm and wrist locks after someone is down than when they are standing, excepting the few that contribute to throws and takedowns (wrist throw, perhaps, definitely come along shoulder lock).



I would absolutely agree with this in a typical "self-defense" situation.  Luckily I have, at work, the advantage of authority so 8 times out of 10 the person isn't resisting until I am already half way to a lock before I say "put your hands behind your back". Essentially the authority, and the inate hesitance to resist it, provides an element of surprise.  I always tell rookies to "go easy" so they can exploit it vs being aggressive out of the gate which hinders it.

If it's coming from a fight/foot pursuit initiation though, the lock isn't happening until they are "down" or "softened up" by striking though.


----------



## Juany118

GreatUniter said:


> That's why we should be all taught that if one technique doesn't work for somebody, doesn't mean that other technique or even punch or kick won't either. I know that the techniques won't work 100% on everybody (there are more agile, stronger, faster, etc. opponents, even between untrained ones). Single, slight movement from the opponent is enough to block your technique (or make you do wrong movement). What will probably work 100% on the streets from aikido is only the aiki footwork from real, long - time, expertly trained aikido practitioner, with a lot of experience. Aikido is not magic, no - touch knockdown, chi - force martial art, like there are teachers that preach it. There is no 100% perfectly working technique with perfect outcome for the practitioner when there is real combat.



I think the problem lies here.  The Aikido I studied is like this video, that I shared on another thread.






The problem is most Aikido (at least in my area) is taught like this






Without pressure, any system fails.  This I feel is more important with Aikido than say a striking art because the concept of pressure is immediately understood (though perhaps not experienced) when you picture punching someone.  When trying to control someone though you need pressure, to "tap out" in order to truly understand what's going on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

GreatUniter said:


> That's why we should be all taught that if one technique doesn't work for somebody, doesn't mean that other technique or even punch or kick won't either. I know that the techniques won't work 100% on everybody (there are more agile, stronger, faster, etc. opponents, even between untrained ones). Single, slight movement from the opponent is enough to block your technique (or make you do wrong movement). What will probably work 100% on the streets from aikido is only the aiki footwork from real, long - time, expertly trained aikido practitioner, with a lot of experience. Aikido is not magic, no - touch knockdown, chi - force martial art, like there are teachers that preach it. There is no 100% perfectly working technique with perfect outcome for the practitioner when there is real combat.


IMO, one of the biggest factors that's often missing in Aikido training (and this isn't unique to Aikido training) is an understanding of a technique's availability. The drills shouldn't just teach how to perform the technique, but should be used to understand what will make that technique unavailable. The more "aiki" a technique or application is, the more important this becomes. Working with a resisting partner goes a  long way to point out this problem.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> I would absolutely agree with this in a typical "self-defense" situation.  Luckily I have, at work, the advantage of authority so 8 times out of 10 the person isn't resisting until I am already half way to a lock before I say "put your hands behind your back". Essentially the authority, and the inate hesitance to resist it, provides an element of surprise.  I always tell rookies to "go easy" so they can exploit it vs being aggressive out of the gate which hinders it.
> 
> If it's coming from a fight/foot pursuit initiation though, the lock isn't happening until they are "down" or "softened up" by striking though.


Yep. You're already getting position and structure before they resist, in most cases. That was the main point, and something that's not always covered well in Aikido.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> I think the problem lies here.  The Aikido I studied is like this video, that I shared on another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is most Aikido (at least in my area) is taught like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without pressure, any system fails.  This I feel is more important with Aikido than say a striking art because the concept of pressure is immediately understood (though perhaps not experienced) when you picture punching someone.  When trying to control someone though you need pressure, to "tap out" in order to truly understand what's going on.


Shinshin Toitsu, as I understand it, is more about cultivation of ki/aiki, than about martial effectiveness. If that's a correct understanding (and is understood as such by practitioners), I have no problem with what I see there. But you're right that I see similar approaches outside that branch of the art.


----------



## GreatUniter

Juany118 said:


> I think the problem lies here.  The Aikido I studied is like this video, that I shared on another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is most Aikido (at least in my area) is taught like this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without pressure, any system fails.  This I feel is more important with Aikido than say a striking art because the concept of pressure is immediately understood (though perhaps not experienced) when you picture punching someone.  When trying to control someone though you need pressure, to "tap out" in order to truly understand what's going on.



Do you know master Kazuo Chiba (may he rest in peace)? Not sure if there is videos on youtube on this subject, but I have seen old videos from him by teachers that went to his seminars (I have never visited any of his seminars), where he uses kicks and punches with explanation on low and high atemi. I have never seen an aikidoka that uses kicks like atemi (apart from my teachers). Master Toshiro Suga, when there is seminars here, always say that aikido (like all traditional martial arts) is for killing people, but in modern times we strive not for killing, but for self - cultivation and if we are attacked, we probably will injure the opponent, because street is not the same like the dojo and aikido for demonstrations is way different from real life aikido (on demos, usually there are kihon techniques and variations shown). He always preach that we must be good people and all that philosophy stuff, but always say that if we are attacked hard and fast, we respond the same, no questions asked. When I saw masters Isoyama, Chiba, Saito, Tissier and other very skilled masters (only from videos, I don't have any luck to meet them in real life), I thought that all aikido instructors are like that. But there is real life, way different from videos. 

Overall, aikido lost popularity real fast, though maybe the real reason are many youtube videos with a lot of flying and nonsensical demonstrations (still, there are really good ones) and there are quasi - teachers and self - declared masters. Still, there are many real good masters that are not so well known. Even on this forum, I'm sure there are really good martial artists that have rich experience. IMO, all traditional, unarmed martial arts are the same, with the same techniques, only differences in basic techniques, philosophies, preaching, forms (if there are), etc. They all have the same punching/kicking/grappling techniques (yes, we speak for *traditional martial arts*). Punch is a punch, kick is a kick. To learn to defend, first you must learn to attack, period.


----------



## drop bear

GreatUniter said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> You done what? Overstatement or subduing someone without injury?



Subdued someone without injury.

It is the main component of a lot of systems.


----------



## Juany118

@GreatUniter 

I am familiar with Chiba, I also would not dare to say how Aikido is taught in Japan.  Here is my thoughts, just based on what I have seen, so it's anecdotal in the extreme.

As I understand Shinshin Aikido was the first one that made its way to the West.  Perhaps Shinshin sort of set the tone for the training.  You tend to try and fill a "gap" when moving into a new market.  So as Aikido spreads they are going to places where there was already judo, jujitsu, BJJ etc.  So maybe most Aikido decided to be "softer" to differentiate itself?

Some however couldn't do that as easily due their nature.  What makes Yoshinkan different is that in the finer points of the techniques it's really only have a step from Daito.  Tomiki Aikido is very focused on the randori etc.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. I think much of the training I've seen in Aikido (perhaps in all of the aiki arts) forgets/ignores the importance of position, structure, even defense and other fundamentals to make an arm lock available - really, truly a good idea in the moment. I'm far more likely to be using arm and wrist locks after someone is down than when they are standing, excepting the few that contribute to throws and takedowns (wrist throw, perhaps, definitely come along shoulder lock).



They forget it is a fight.

This is generally the example of how you get an arm in to a position so you can actually do something with it.





Of course he then chose the safer option of not trying to lock the arm.


----------



## drop bear

GreatUniter said:


> That's why we should be all taught that if one technique doesn't work for somebody, doesn't mean that other technique or even punch or kick won't either. I know that the techniques won't work 100% on everybody (there are more agile, stronger, faster, etc. opponents, even between untrained ones). Single, slight movement from the opponent is enough to block your technique (or make you do wrong movement). What will probably work 100% on the streets from aikido is only the aiki footwork from real, long - time, expertly trained aikido practitioner, with a lot of experience. Aikido is not magic, no - touch knockdown, chi - force martial art, like there are teachers that preach it. There is no 100% perfectly working technique with perfect outcome for the practitioner when there is real combat.



It should be pretty consistent though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

GreatUniter said:


> IMO, all traditional, unarmed martial arts are the same, with the same techniques, only differences in basic techniques, philosophies, preaching, forms (if there are), etc. They all have the same punching/kicking/grappling techniques (yes, we speak for *traditional martial arts*). Punch is a punch, kick is a kick. To learn to defend, first you must learn to attack, period.


I definitely mostly agree with this. There are only so many ways to hit, kick, choke, lock, and throw a human. Most were discovered long ago. The main differences when the arts remain functional are often overall approach, rather than which techniques. So, the approach to a kote gaeshi is different in Ueshiba's Aikido than in Nihon Goshin Aikido (where it's either Front Wrist Throw or Peel Off), but the basic technique is the same. And the entry to techniques in Judo is different from Daito-ryu, but there are still many similar techniques.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I definitely mostly agree with this. There are only so many ways to hit, kick, choke, lock, and throw a human. Most were discovered long ago. The main differences when the arts remain functional are often overall approach, rather than which techniques. So, the approach to a kote gaeshi is different in Ueshiba's Aikido than in Nihon Goshin Aikido (where it's either Front Wrist Throw or Peel Off), but the basic technique is the same. And the entry to techniques in Judo is different from Daito-ryu, but there are still many similar techniques.



Tbh I always forget about this because I see it as the one essential truth of physical combat, "biomechanics are biomechanics."

Keep forgetting if you haven't watch this yet Gerry, and now @GreatUniter, check out the video in this thread.  I focused on the WC similarities between hubud and chi sau but when you get to the take downs and locks later I think you may see things familiar between FMA and Aikido as well.  As Ron says "they are the same but different."

An interesting take on "sticky hands."


----------



## GreatUniter

Juany118 said:


> @GreatUniter
> 
> I am familiar with Chiba, I also would not dare to say how Aikido is taught in Japan.  Here is my thoughts, just based on what I have seen, so it's anecdotal in the extreme.
> 
> As I understand Shinshin Aikido was the first one that made its way to the West.  Perhaps Shinshin sort of set the tone for the training.  You tend to try and fill a "gap" when moving into a new market.  So as Aikido spreads they are going to places where there was already judo, jujitsu, BJJ etc.  So maybe most Aikido decided to be "softer" to differentiate itself?
> 
> Some however couldn't do that as easily due their nature.  *What makes Yoshinkan different is that in the finer points of the techniques it's really only have a step from Daito.*  Tomiki Aikido is very focused on the randori etc.




But then again, there are few questions: what is the difference between Yoshinkan, Tomiki and some other "style" of aikido, except the names of the techniques? Are you familiar with a something that is called real aikido? Or something that is called applied aikido (modern variant from real aikido)? Or something that is called combat ("black", "street") aikido?

As I have heard, been taught and read a few books, there was only one thing first, Daito (when we speak of aikido origin). Then from Daito, it's aikido. Then from aikido is all "sub-styles" that really doesn't have differences, only personal "touch" from masters of those styles (adding other martial arts or subtract some techniques) and voila, there is "new martial art" (there are still teachers that preach that they are founders of something "new". They commercialized the "new" and "modernized" concept and there is like I said, "new aikido". Everybody that trains aikido (or other martial art), have unique way of interpretation. There are many martial art styles, but the sub - styles are not that different, even so there is some differences in training or philosophy or don't know, more practical or more complex way of doing techniques. Even between practitioners of one single sub - style have many differences in doing the techniques, but that doesn't mean it is wrong way of doing martial arts. You can't invent hot water, because there are many types of boilers already invented. Many types of water - heaters, warmers etc., but they only have one function - to warm the water. This is also with aikido, or any martial art that have sub - styles. You have the core concept, you can "invent" only the school, even though it doesn't matter what is the name (Aikikai, Tomiki, Yoshinkan...). The name is for popularization only, to offer something "new" to the audience, something not that typical. You can take as an example the new martial art systems that are popping up almost everyday.


----------



## Juany118

GreatUniter said:


> But then again, there are few questions: what is the difference between Yoshinkan, Tomiki and some other "style" of aikido, except the names of the techniques? Are you familiar with a something that is called real aikido? Or something that is called applied aikido (modern variant from real aikido)? Or something that is called combat ("black", "street") aikido?
> 
> As I have heard, been taught and read a few books, there was only one thing first, Daito (when we speak of aikido origin). Then from Daito, it's aikido. Then from aikido is all "sub-styles" that really doesn't have differences, only personal "touch" from masters of those styles (adding other martial arts or subtract some techniques) and voila, there is "new martial art" (there are still teachers that preach that they are founders of something "new". They commercialized the "new" and "modernized" concept and there is like I said, "new aikido". Everybody that trains aikido (or other martial art), have unique way of interpretation. There are many martial art styles, but the sub - styles are not that different, even so there is some differences in training or philosophy or don't know, more practical or more complex way of doing techniques. Even between practitioners of one single sub - style have many differences in doing the techniques, but that doesn't mean it is wrong way of doing martial arts. You can't invent hot water, because there are many types of boilers already invented. Many types of water - heaters, warmers etc., but they only have one function - to warm the water. This is also with aikido, or any martial art that have sub - styles. You have the core concept, you can "invent" only the school, even though it doesn't matter what is the name (Aikikai, Tomiki, Yoshinkan...). The name is for popularization only, to offer something "new" to the audience, something not that typical. You can take as an example the new martial art systems that are popping up almost everyday.




I did study under the Aikikia umbrella for sometime.  What I thibk the difference is based on is this.

For Tomiki has built into it competition.  That's why sometimes it's call Shotokan Aikido.  If you are going to have competitions like that, it can't really soften.

Yoshinkan is different, in my mind, because of where it came from.  First, closer to the orginial Daito roots, which were then "hardened" by Shioda Sensei's wartime experience.  Not much room for softness there.

However other forms, have the room to go soft.  Especially if you read the later writings of O'Sensei Ueshiba, and then where is son took it, there is A LOT more waxing on the metaphysical aspects.  Shioda Sensei even said he went off on his own BEFORE O'Sensei started focusing on the metaphysical aspects.  Many people believe this is why Yoshinkan still has a good relationship with Aikika.  Where say Tomiki is seen as going against some/many of the metaphysical aspects he was actually taught or Shinshin claims that everyone else lost O'Sensei's thoughts on Ki cultivation, Yoshinkan just says "hey this is what I was taught, I left before O'Sensei added to it."

I think it is the focus on the metaphysical that O'Sensei added post WWII that allows some branches to take a "softer" less combative route.  I suppose we will have to agree to disagree because I see fundamental differences in mindset between more than a couple of the Aikido organizations.  I don't think O'Sensei intended it, but it happened.  It happens with all Martial Arts.  It's why I wasn't shocked to see ideological pissing matches when I started studying one of the sub-Lineages of Yip Man Wing Chun and these pissing matches have actually led to different approaches to strategy, even forms.

tl;dr .Martial arts are not about a set of given techniques alone.  They are also governed by the mindset and philosphy that underpin them and there are significant differences in mindset behind many of the Aikido organizations.


----------



## GreatUniter

drop bear said:


> Subdued someone without injury.
> 
> It is the main component of a lot of systems.



We talk about street attack that is dirty and full - force, or from bigger, stronger or faster opponent, not some drunkard that doesn't know how to walk when he's drunk. Anybody with some training can and probably will subdue somebody without a injury when there is pure 1 on 1 fight or if you surprise your opponent. But we talk about streets. There are low chances (still have some) that you'd be attacked from one attacker without weapon. Usually there are 2 or more against 1, or 1 attacker behind your back and other situations that you will need luck to not injure anybody or scratch yourself. There can't be perfect situation that you can do perfect throw for example and the attacker will know how to fall without injuring himself. Or where you can do perfect lock with compliant opponent. There are possibilities, let's say 1 in 100. Don't get me wrong, I don't laugh at you, because I really believe that you subdued someone without injury. I have seen few people from our police that really have subdued someone without injuring him (1 on 1).

Right now can't find an old video that I have seen long ago. Probably you won't find it on youtube either (I couldn't) and I doesn't remember where I saw it. There, an ex street fighter and I think he was also a football player talked about street fights (I think they called him Bulletman or something like that). He challenged around 10 black belts on the stage to subdue him, one at a time (he was very big and scary looking gorilla - like person). No one dared to go near him, they were all afraid. He talked about size, strength, fear, speed, adrenaline rush, body - freezing and other useful things and why martial artists doesn't look good on the streets. I'm really sorry that I can't show you the video, I searched for it for some days now but can't remember where I have seen it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Tbh I always forget about this because I see it as the one essential truth of physical combat, "biomechanics are biomechanics."
> 
> Keep forgetting if you haven't watch this yet Gerry, and now @GreatUniter, check out the video in this thread.  I focused on the WC similarities between hubud and chi sau but when you get to the take downs and locks later I think you may see things familiar between FMA and Aikido as well.  As Ron says "they are the same but different."
> 
> An interesting take on "sticky hands."


I definitely see some of the techniques I know. Different entry to them, and some different distancing (the leg sweep's a good example of the latter - I teach it mostly as clinch distance), but definitely recognizable.


----------



## GreatUniter

Juany118 said:


> I did study under the Aikikia umbrella for sometime.  What I thibk the difference is based on is this.
> 
> For Tomiki has built into it competition.  That's why sometimes it's call Shotokan Aikido.  If you are going to have competitions like that, it can't really soften.
> 
> Yoshinkan is different, in my mind, because of where it came from.  First, closer to the orginial Daito roots, which were then "hardened" by Shioda Sensei's wartime experience.  Not much room for softness there.
> 
> However other forms, have the room to go soft.  Especially if you read the later writings of O'Sensei Ueshiba, and then where is son took it, there is A LOT more waxing on the metaphysical aspects.  Shioda Sensei even said he went off on his own BEFORE O'Sensei started focusing on the metaphysical aspects.  Many people believe this is why Yoshinkan still has a good relationship with Aikika.  Where say Tomiki is seen as going against some/many of the metaphysical aspects he was actually taught or Shinshin claims that everyone else lost O'Sensei's thoughts on Ki cultivation, Yoshinkan just says "hey this is what I was taught, I left before O'Sensei added to it."
> 
> I think it is the focus on the metaphysical that O'Sensei added post WWII that allows some branches to take a "softer" less combative route.  I suppose we will have to agree to disagree because I see fundamental differences in mindset between more than a couple of the Aikido organizations.  I don't think O'Sensei intended it, but it happened.  It happens with all Martial Arts.  It's why I wasn't shocked to see ideological pissing matches when I started studying one of the sub-Lineages of You Man Wing Chun and these pissing matches have actually led to different approaches to strategy, even forms.
> 
> tl;dr .Martial arts are not about a set of given techniques alone.  They are also governed by the mindset and philosphy that underpin them and there are significant differences in mindset behind many of the Aikido organizations.



It's a fact that aikido nowadays is raped like nothing else. It's really true with all that philosophical change in O'sensei's thinking. But I learn from other people's experiences and thing that they say when there are martial arts, not only by the books from masters. That's why I told you about differences that I think doesn't exist except minor changes. I learned that even that O'sensei changed his looks on the things, with all metaphysical things, he still had very brutal and hard aikido techniques in his older years (not as hard as when he were younger, but still very hard and demanding teacher). This was told by sensei Suga that is one of O'sensei's last uchi - deshi.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I definitely see some of the techniques I know. Different entry to them, and some different distancing (the leg sweep's a good example of the latter - I teach it mostly as clinch distance), but definitely recognizable.



I think the main reason for the differences is that the grappling was designed around weapons.  You don't want to "clinch" for a sweep if your opponent has a blade, it might get you stabbed.  I think you see it in some of the locks as well, legs being used in a kneeling position, one hand often free, so you can transition to a weapon to finish or defend against another warrior coming on the battlefield with your weapon.

I tend to use the following adjectives to draw a general line.  I picture martial arts as a series of concentric circles.  There are "warrior arts" where the inner circle is weapons.  The circles that build upon are thus very much influenced by those weapons.  There are then "fighting arts" where the inner circle starts with the empty hand and this influences the circles built upon it as well.


----------



## GreatUniter

Juany118 said:


> Tbh I always forget about this because I see it as the one essential truth of physical combat, "biomechanics are biomechanics."
> 
> Keep forgetting if you haven't watch this yet Gerry, and now @GreatUniter, check out the video in this thread.  I focused on the WC similarities between hubud and chi sau but when you get to the take downs and locks later I think you may see things familiar between FMA and Aikido as well.  As Ron says "they are the same but different."
> 
> An interesting take on "sticky hands."



The video is great, thank you. Really useful stuff.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> I did study under the Aikikia umbrella for sometime.  What I thibk the difference is based on is this.
> 
> For Tomiki has built into it competition.  That's why sometimes it's call Shotokan Aikido.  If you are going to have competitions like that, it can't really soften.
> 
> Yoshinkan is different, in my mind, because of where it came from.  First, closer to the orginial Daito roots, which were then "hardened" by Shioda Sensei's wartime experience.  Not much room for softness there.
> 
> However other forms, have the room to go soft.  Especially if you read the later writings of O'Sensei Ueshiba, and then where is son took it, there is A LOT more waxing on the metaphysical aspects.  Shioda Sensei even said he went off on his own BEFORE O'Sensei started focusing on the metaphysical aspects.  Many people believe this is why Yoshinkan still has a good relationship with Aikika.  Where say Tomiki is seen as going against some/many of the metaphysical aspects he was actually taught or Shinshin claims that everyone else lost O'Sensei's thoughts on Ki cultivation, Yoshinkan just says "hey this is what I was taught, I left before O'Sensei added to it."
> 
> I think it is the focus on the metaphysical that O'Sensei added post WWII that allows some branches to take a "softer" less combative route.  I suppose we will have to agree to disagree because I see fundamental differences in mindset between more than a couple of the Aikido organizations.  I don't think O'Sensei intended it, but it happened.  It happens with all Martial Arts.  It's why I wasn't shocked to see ideological pissing matches when I started studying one of the sub-Lineages of Yip Man Wing Chun and these pissing matches have actually led to different approaches to strategy, even forms.
> 
> tl;dr .Martial arts are not about a set of given techniques alone.  They are also governed by the mindset and philosphy that underpin them and there are significant differences in mindset behind many of the Aikido organizations.


Given that NGA is directly derived from Daito-ryu, and Shiota's branch is the most similar to NGA, I do think it is the one that stayed closest to Daito-ryu. The progression of Ueshiba's approach - both his philosophy and its impact on his teaching of Aikido - is pretty well recognized. For the most part, it's reflected in the progression of off-shoots from students of his. The earlier students tended to produce more "martial" branches.


----------



## GreatUniter

gpseymour said:


> Given that NGA is directly derived from Daito-ryu, and Shiota's branch is the most similar to NGA, I do think it is the one that stayed closest to Daito-ryu. The progression of Ueshiba's approach - both his philosophy and its impact on his teaching of Aikido - is pretty well recognized. For the most part, it's reflected in the progression of off-shoots from students of his. The earlier students tended to produce more "martial" branches.



Can you send me some links from videos of NGA? I'm afraid that I found something on the subject, but I feel it's not what I was looking for. Books or articles are also welcomed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

GreatUniter said:


> There are low chances (still have some) that you'd be attacked from one attacker without weapon. Usually there are 2 or more against 1, or 1 attacker behind your back and other situations that you will need luck to not injure anybody or scratch yourself.


While those do happen, what is more usual depends on how you define "attack". Altercations between people seem to most often produce 1-1 situations, including the posturing and "monkey dance". Predators seem to most often work singly. The most common "multiple" situations are when a second person steps in, or when an altercation draws the ire of more than one at a time.

But 1-1 situations aren't all that unlikely. More so, in some situations - and Drop Bear has put a fair amount of time in dealing with them, from what I understand.


----------



## Juany118

GreatUniter said:


> We talk about street attack that is dirty and full - force, or from bigger, stronger or faster opponent, not some drunkard that doesn't know how to walk when he's drunk. Anybody with some training can and probably will subdue somebody without a injury when there is pure 1 on 1 fight or if you surprise your opponent. But we talk about streets. There are low chances (still have some) that you'd be attacked from one attacker without weapon. Usually there are 2 or more against 1, or 1 attacker behind your back and other situations that you will need luck to not injure anybody or scratch yourself. There can't be perfect situation that you can do perfect throw for example and the attacker will know how to fall without injuring himself. Or where you can do perfect lock with compliant opponent. There are possibilities, let's say 1 in 100. Don't get me wrong, I don't laugh at you, because I really believe that you subdued someone without injury. I have seen few people from our police that really have subdued someone without injuring him (1 on 1).
> 
> Right now can't find an old video that I have seen long ago. Probably you won't find it on youtube either (I couldn't) and I doesn't remember where I saw it. There, an ex street fighter and I think he was also a football player talked about street fights (I think they called him Bulletman or something like that). He challenged around 10 black belts on the stage to subdue him, one at a time (he was very big and scary looking gorilla - like person). No one dared to go near him, they were all afraid. He talked about size, strength, fear, speed, adrenaline rush, body - freezing and other useful things and why martial artists doesn't look good on the streets. I'm really sorry that I can't show you the video, I searched for it for some days now but can't remember where I have seen it.


I would just say that it is determined by how you define "attack.". The following is based on 20 years (officially this month, damn I am getting old) as a police officer in a small City with a per capita crime rate = Philadelphia and Chicago in everything but homicides (thank God for small favors). 

Strongarm Robberies, Domestic Assaults, street fights, sexual assaults.  These are usually 1 v 1.  Yes you will have the retaliation for the street fight where the previous loser shows up with friends, or the bar fight where one, or both, participants have friends but in my anecdotal experience it's largely 1 v 1.  

I have trained in many Martial Arts over the years and what I have found that makes Martial Arts not look good on street is a product of HOW the art is trained.  Sadly for many teachers it is simply a business, sometimes their only business.  Because of this they want to keep students, so the credit card keeps getting debited each month.  That means little, if any pressure testing.  As an example I have a Gracie school that teaches BJJ and Muay Thai near me.  You would think that school would be awesome due to the reputation of the name.  They specifically say on the web site they don't do full Muay Thai sparring because of the risk of injury.  The you go to my not for profit school (because my Sifu/Mataw Guro simply rents extra space at a discount from the same land lord as his private business) and we full spar not just with gloves but training knives and sticks in WC in FMA.

One school taught to pay the mortgage, the other taught simply for the passion of teaching martial arts.  I think this makes a big difference.


----------



## GreatUniter

gpseymour said:


> While those do happen, what is more usual depends on how you define "attack". Altercations between people seem to most often produce 1-1 situations, including the posturing and "monkey dance". Predators seem to most often work singly. The most common "multiple" situations are when a second person steps in, or when an altercation draws the ire of more than one at a time.
> 
> *But 1-1 situations aren't all that unlikely*. More so, in some situations - and Drop Bear has put a fair amount of time in dealing with them, from what I understand.



Usually when you subdue a person, he will give up his desire to fight if he feels pain. Most of people will. Still, there are people that won't give up even when there is big pain or bad injury (for example junkers or alcoholics under heavy influences, usually they don't feel the pain at first if it's not too late for them). 

And I'm not denying what you talk about Drop Bear, I really believe that he has put a good amount of time subduing people without injury. There are many skilled people. Like I said before, I learn from other experiences aside from mine. Don't know there, but here, you are most likely to be attacked by 2 people minimum on the streets, be attacked from behind or if there is one attacker - to be attacked with a weapon, but a rarity to be attacked 1 on 1 from unarmed attacker.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> I think the main reason for the differences is that the grappling was designed around weapons.  You don't want to "clinch" for a sweep if your opponent has a blade, it might get you stabbed.  I think you see it in some of the locks as well, legs being used in a kneeling position, one hand often free, so you can transition to a weapon to finish or defend against another warrior coming on the battlefield with your weapon.
> 
> I tend to use the following adjectives to draw a general line.  I picture martial arts as a series of concentric circles.  There are "warrior arts" where the inner circle is weapons.  The circles that build upon are thus very much influenced by those weapons.  There are then "fighting arts" where the inner circle starts with the empty hand and this influences the circles built upon it as well.


I tend to look at techniques as what we use when we are in a position, rather than what position we go to in order to access them. It's a distinction that works for me, because I wouldn't go into a clinch if I know there's a blade involved, but quite like it when I'm reasonably sure one is not yet. Since I favor a Judo-style leg sweep, I'd most likely use other tools at the distance of the sweep in that video.


----------



## GreatUniter

Juany118 said:


> I would just say that it is determined by how you define "attack.". The following is based on 20 years (officially this month, damn I am getting old) as a police officer in a small City with a per capita crime rate = Philadelphia and Chicago in everything but homicides (thank God for small favors).
> 
> Strongarm Robberies, Domestic Assaults, street fights, sexual assaults.  These are usually 1 v 1.  Yes you will have the retaliation for the street fight where the previous loser shows up with friends, or the bar fight where one, or both, participants have friends but in my anecdotal experience it's largely 1 v 1.
> 
> I have trained in many Martial Arts over the years and what I have found that makes Martial Arts not look good on street is a product of HOW the art is trained.  Sadly for many teachers it is simply a business, sometimes their only business.  Because of this they want to keep students, so the credit card keeps getting debited each month.  That means little, if any pressure testing.  As an example I have a Gracie school that teaches BJJ and Muay Thai near me.  You would think that school would be awesome due to the reputation of the name.  They specifically say on the web site they don't do full Muay Thai sparring because of the risk of injury.  The you go to my not for profit school (because my Sifu/Mataw Guro simply rents extra space at a discount from the same land lord as his private business) and we full spar not just with gloves but training knives and sticks in WC in FMA.
> 
> One school taught to pay the mortgage, the other taught simply for the passion of teaching martial arts.  I think this makes a big difference.



I absolutely agree with your point there. Only one difference is remaining: there is usually 1 on 1 fight where you live, here is most unlikely that you will be attacked 1 on 1, and if attacked by one, usually it will be from one that will provoke you and his group from 2 to 3 minimum will jump from the back and will attack you (or just scare you).


----------



## Juany118

GreatUniter said:


> I absolutely agree with your point there. Only one difference is remaining: there is usually 1 on 1 fight where you live, here is most unlikely that you will be attacked 1 on 1, and if attacked by one, usually it will be from one that will provoke you and his group from 2 to 3 minimum will jump from the back and will attack you (or just scare you).


Where is here generally?  And what kind of fight/crime.  The later makes a BIG difference.  My town does have flash mob/swarm attacks by boredbored M School students during the spring and summer.  Those always make the papers.  The 2 am street robberies however are so common that the local news barely blinks.

If you give me a general area, that is in the US, I can perhaps give you links to sources that are objective vs the news.  In the US the FBI UCR code listings are a good starting point.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I tend to look at techniques as what we use when we are in a position, rather than what position we go to in order to access them. It's a distinction that works for me, because I wouldn't go into a clinch if I know there's a blade involved, but quite like it when I'm reasonably sure one is not yet. Since I favor a Judo-style leg sweep, I'd most likely use other tools at the distance of the sweep in that video.



I think my issue is that I take a paranoid route.  I always assume my opponent has a weapon that I haven't seen yet, even if we are the only two people within a mile.  Being trained to see the knife as "your opponent should feel it before they see it" over the last number of years does a good job at making you paranoid about weapons


----------



## Gerry Seymour

GreatUniter said:


> Can you send me some links from videos of NGA? I'm afraid that I found something on the subject, but I feel it's not what I was looking for. Books or articles are also welcomed.


The best books I know of are the one published by the NGAA and its predecessor (nearly identical) by Jim Giorgi (who co-authored the NGAA version): Integral Aikido: The Science, Art and Spirit of Nihon Goshin Aikido. I also see that there's another one out now, co-authored by Richard Bowe, who studied under the founder and brought the art to the US (and became the _de facto _head-of-style when the art died out in Japan): Nihon Goshin Aikido: The Art and Science of Self Defense. 

Good video of NGA is tough to come by. It's a small art (by population), and not a lot of instructors posting much video. On YouTube, John Carter (senseicarter) has a few videos that show some of the techniques (also some BJJ videos, I think - he teaches both). 

Here's one with Robert MacEwen (one of the most senior instructors in the art) showing some of the Classical Techniques (what I refer to as the Classical Forms of the techniques):





There are also some decent ones posted in the past by Walt Kopitov (ronin10562) on YouTube. Also mostly Classical forms.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

GreatUniter said:


> Usually when you subdue a person, he will give up his desire to fight if he feels pain. Most of people will. Still, there are people that won't give up even when there is big pain or bad injury (for example junkers or alcoholics under heavy influences, usually they don't feel the pain at first if it's not too late for them).
> 
> And I'm not denying what you talk about Drop Bear, I really believe that he has put a good amount of time subduing people without injury. There are many skilled people. Like I said before, I learn from other experiences aside from mine. Don't know there, but here, you are most likely to be attacked by 2 people minimum on the streets, be attacked from behind or if there is one attacker - to be attacked with a weapon, but a rarity to be attacked 1 on 1 from unarmed attacker.


Where is "here" to you? I'm in the Southeastern US.


----------



## GreatUniter

In almost all Balkan Peninsula. No, there is not so big crime rate here, but usually many street assaults, street robberies and sexual assaults on the streets (rarest from contact crimes here). These are the crimes that are highly existing here. Usually there are street attacks (not robberies or sexual assaults) that happen for no reason (for example, walking down the street alone and seeing group of 4-5 guys and they attack you because you saw them, or any banal reason that they can think of). It's almost everyday thing. Most of the times street attacks are from highschool students. But more dangerous are street robberies, that are usually done from armed attackers (usually with knives, knuckledusters and/or bats).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> I think my issue is that I take a paranoid route.  I always assume my opponent has a weapon that I haven't seen yet, even if we are the only two people within a mile.  Being trained to see the knife as "your opponent should feel it before they see it" over the last number of years does a good job at making you paranoid about weapons


I probably fall just short of that, myself. If they punch with both hands, it's less likely they have a knife. If they grab with both, it's not in their hands, and tight control and fast action can keep it that way - as long as it's not one of your training partners. FMA guys and their knives...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

GreatUniter said:


> In almost all Balkan Peninsula. No, there is not so big crime rate here, but usually many street assaults, street robberies and sexual assaults on the streets (rarest from contact crimes here). These are the crimes that are highly existing here. Usually there are street attacks (not robberies or sexual assaults) that happen for no reason (for example, walking down the street alone and seeing group of 4-5 guys and they attack you because you saw them, or any banal reason that they can think of). It's almost everyday thing. Most of the times street attacks are from highschool students. But more dangerous are street robberies, that are usually done from armed attackers (usually with knives, knuckledusters and/or bats).


A bit like what I've heard (from my Ukrainian wife) is not uncommon in Ukraine. There are places where group attacks are more common than here.


----------



## GreatUniter

gpseymour said:


> A bit like what I've heard (from my Ukrainian wife) is not uncommon in Ukraine. There are places where group attacks are more common than here.



Exactly.


----------



## GreatUniter

gpseymour said:


> The best books I know of are the one published by the NGAA and its predecessor (nearly identical) by Jim Giorgi (who co-authored the NGAA version): Integral Aikido: The Science, Art and Spirit of Nihon Goshin Aikido. I also see that there's another one out now, co-authored by Richard Bowe, who studied under the founder and brought the art to the US (and became the _de facto _head-of-style when the art died out in Japan): Nihon Goshin Aikido: The Art and Science of Self Defense.
> 
> Good video of NGA is tough to come by. It's a small art (by population), and not a lot of instructors posting much video. On YouTube, John Carter (senseicarter) has a few videos that show some of the techniques (also some BJJ videos, I think - he teaches both).
> 
> Here's one with Robert MacEwen (one of the most senior instructors in the art) showing some of the Classical Techniques (what I refer to as the Classical Forms of the techniques):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are also some decent ones posted in the past by Walt Kopitov (ronin10562) on YouTube. Also mostly Classical forms.



Thank you for the stuff. Are there any possibilities that these books can be downloaded from somewhere in pdf?


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I probably fall just short of that, myself. If they punch with both hands, it's less likely they have a knife. If they grab with both, it's not in their hands, and tight control and fast action can keep it that way - as long as it's not one of your training partners. FMA guys and their knives...



We are knife freaks.  It's funny actually.  On my new squad, on Tuesday just past, I  drove with a partner to a place we couldn't enter with weapons.  He dumps his in the trunk of the car in the parking lot and then saw me dump our issued gear plus 4 knives from different locations.  His reaction was priceless lol.


----------



## Juany118

GreatUniter said:


> In almost all Balkan Peninsula. No, there is not so big crime rate here, but usually many street assaults, street robberies and sexual assaults on the streets (rarest from contact crimes here). These are the crimes that are highly existing here. Usually there are street attacks (not robberies or sexual assaults) that happen for no reason (for example, walking down the street alone and seeing group of 4-5 guys and they attack you because you saw them, or any banal reason that they can think of). It's almost everyday thing. Most of the times street attacks are from highschool students. But more dangerous are street robberies, that are usually done from armed attackers (usually with knives, knuckledusters and/or bats).


I think you point out another important issue.  "Train for where you live" because different regions have different social dynamics, hence different needs overall.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

GreatUniter said:


> Thank you for the stuff. Are there any possibilities that these books can be downloaded from somewhere in pdf?


Probably not. They're fairly new, and I'm not aware of any of them being published even as an e-book.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> We are knife freaks.  It's funny actually.  On my new squad, on Tuesday just past, I  drove with a partner to a place we couldn't enter with weapons.  He dumps his in the trunk of the car in the parking lot and then saw me dump our issued gear plus 4 knives from different locations.  His reaction was priceless lol.


I remember a friend and his instructor and a training partner going to a government office to get visas to do a demo somewhere (might have been China). Before they got out of the car, Ken got out a box and all three dumped their knives in it. I think there were 13 total. Me? I have a key-shaped knife/tool on my keyring for opening boxes.


----------



## GreatUniter

Juany118 said:


> I think you point out another important issue.  "Train for where you live" because different regions have different social dynamics, hence different needs overall.



Yes, that's why I'm trying to grasp some other things that are useful beside my normal training. Thank you for your tips. Really useful talking with you.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I remember a friend and his instructor and a training partner going to a government office to get visas to do a demo somewhere (might have been China). Before they got out of the car, Ken got out a box and all three dumped their knives in it. I think there were 13 total. Me? I have a key-shaped knife/tool on my keyring for opening boxes.



Yep we are like that.  I still had two tactical pens on me, the FMA equivalent would be a dulo dulo, aka palm stick.


----------



## vince1

gpseymour said:


> The best books I know of are the one published by the NGAA and its predecessor (nearly identical) by Jim Giorgi (who co-authored the NGAA version): Integral Aikido: The Science, Art and Spirit of Nihon Goshin Aikido. I also see that there's another one out now, co-authored by Richard Bowe, who studied under the founder and brought the art to the US (and became the _de facto _head-of-style when the art died out in Japan): Nihon Goshin Aikido: The Art and Science of Self Defense.
> 
> Good video of NGA is tough to come by. It's a small art (by population), and not a lot of instructors posting much video. On YouTube, John Carter (senseicarter) has a few videos that show some of the techniques (also some BJJ videos, I think - he teaches both).
> 
> Here's one with Robert MacEwen (one of the most senior instructors in the art) showing some of the Classical Techniques (what I refer to as the Classical Forms of the techniques):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are also some decent ones posted in the past by Walt Kopitov (ronin10562) on YouTube. Also mostly Classical forms.


Looks very similar to what I am currently learning Aiki Jiu Jitsu.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

vince1 said:


> Looks very similar to what I am currently learning Aiki Jiu Jitsu.


The times I've been in an (Ueshiba's) Aikido dojo and used any of my NGA, I've been told it looks like Shioda's students. I've gotten that enough that when I explain NGA to folks who have trained in Aikido for any length of time, I use Yoshinkan to describe it.


----------

