Aikido against a boxer

[Gerry Seymour]

The real problem faced there is actually convincing people to do that and in effect almost pointing out to them that it is and always was part of Aikido I wouldn't say it was lost it just rarely taught and some will start yelling that it is not part of the training and not taught as they have this ingrained thing that Aikido is all peace and love

I'll reassert that it not being taught means it has been lost in those branches where it's not taught. And I do think there are entire branches that are not teaching these aspects.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I follow you

I'd explain it my way as diff between big and small circles and the diff between making it look good and being effective in real time

I missed something - I don't see how that responds to what I said. Did I miscommunicate something in that post?

 

[now disabled]

I like that. I'll add that it doesn't require nage to do anything wrong. I'm pretty good at recognizing/feeling what is exposed, and taking it away (in the realm of the techniques I know). I actually teach this to students - they are tested on it every next test (so kotegaeshi is tested at yellow belt, and the counter is tested at blue). I think it's that important. I only require they demonstrate one effective counter, and it's to the technique's form (think of how Daito-ryu teaches techniques) rather than the application, but it builds a base for recognizing and thwarting techniques. Real skill comes in recognizing what's available, and that includes recognizing when someone counters a technique so you can move to whatever they've just made available.

Exactly

if a counter is made then you have to be switched on to that and counter the counter be adaptable and not "Oh crap what I do now it went wrong" and even if it did go wrong actually work out why it did and try to make sure if it was a gap in your own tech it gets closed

 

[now disabled]

I'll reassert that it not being taught means it has been lost in those branches where it's not taught. And I do think there are entire branches that are not teaching these aspects.

Oh that the truth ya just need to read on here and you will see that and the rep Aikido gets because of that

 

[now disabled]

I missed something - I don't see how that responds to what I said. Did I miscommunicate something in that post?

not you me

When you described kotegaeshi etc ...I describe the difference in the ways I do it as big circle flowing and nice big breakfall and small circle fast and direct little or no breakfall just a take down

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Exactly

if a counter is made then you have to be switched on to that and counter the counter be adaptable and not "Oh crap what I do now it went wrong" and even if it did go wrong actually work out why it did and try to make sure if it was a gap in your own tech it gets closed

One of the most ironic things I see in NGA - an "aiki" art - is a student trying to "fix" an arm bar that's not working in the moment of application. I teach my students that the answer to that is "do something else - if you don't know what else to do, punch them".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

not you me

When you described kotegaeshi etc ...I describe the difference in the ways I do it as big circle flowing and nice big breakfall and small circle fast and direct little or no breakfall just a take down

Gotcha. I didn't think back to your post when reading that. The "big" version pretty much requires a big breakfall if it is applied well. The "small" version is closer to ours, and you can almost sit out of it rather than doing a full breakfall.

 

[Ryback]

I'll argue that if they are there, they aren't going to be there much longer. What isn't trained in a system gets lost. If only a few places teach good strikes, then students by and large aren't training against good strikes. Give that a couple of generations (literally, two is usually sufficient) without remediation and all the students of that third generation will have ineffective strikes and techniques that generally fail against effective strikes.

An easy solution is a bit of cross-training with friends from other arts. If 5% of Aikidoka did this, and sparred while doing so, then brought the information they gained back to their personal Aikido training, that would reverse the trend. It might take only the same 2 generations.

I agree completely with the first part of your post. It's obvious that in some years from now most of Aikido will be just a philosophical harmonious mumbo jumbo with no martial effectiveness at all if that hasn't already happened...
That's what is really worrying me!!
I can see that and I can clearly see that our dojo and other dojos I know of that are training more or less in the same manner we do are an exception but I don't say that with pride, believe me I'm very honest about that.
To me it's very sad! I wish Aikido could stay as a martial art inside the path of practical application, it wouldn't cost the art neither its harmony, nor its non violent philosophy, on the contrary...
But I can do nothing about it, the only thing I can do is forge my skills to the best of my ability, try to pass it on to any student who is interested, while being aware that I, myself have a long way to go in Aikido skills, even after 20 years on the mat, so I need to study harder, I got a lot of work to do ahead of me.
As for the rest of your post... I have nothing theoretically against others cross training but it's not my cup of tea. I have seen some examples where it causes more confusion but it may be working for other people, I can't really say...
At the end of the day, the only practice that really matters for each one of us is the one that any of us is actually doing. It's the one that is having an effect on his martial arts study, any direction he has chosen.

 

[now disabled]

One of the most ironic things I see in NGA - an "aiki" art - is a student trying to "fix" an arm bar that's not working in the moment of application. I teach my students that the answer to that is "do something else - if you don't know what else to do, punch them".

I agree as keeping on with something you know isn't working is pointless and really is gonna get you knocked on ya behind or worse

The worst thing is in my mind going into a tech with your mind so rigidly fixed that this is what I am doing and that it ... To me that is really counter to things as there is no flow there no nothing

Aiki can go so far but it is not the be all and end all

 

[now disabled]

Gotcha. I didn't think back to your post when reading that. The "big" version pretty much requires a big breakfall if it is applied well. The "small" version is closer to ours, and you can almost sit out of it rather than doing a full breakfall.

yup
and it is the more effective as the big one actually leaves you open but don't tell folks that it kinda a secret lol

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree completely with the first part of your post. It's obvious that in some years from now most of Aikido will be just a philosophical harmonious mumbo jumbo with no martial effectiveness at all if that hasn't already happened...
That's what is really worrying me!!
I can see that and I can clearly see that our dojo and other dojos I know of that are training more or less in the same manner we do are an exception but I don't say that with pride, believe me I'm very honest about that.
To me it's very sad! I wish Aikido could stay as a martial art inside the path of practical application, it wouldn't cost the art neither its harmony, nor its non violent philosophy, on the contrary...
But I can do nothing about it, the only thing I can do is forge my skills to the best of my ability, try to pass it on to any student who is interested, while being aware that I, myself have a long way to go in Aikido skills, even after 20 years on the mat, so I need to study harder, I got a lot of work to do ahead of me.
As for the rest of your post... I have nothing theoretically against others cross training but it's not my cup of tea. I have seen some examples where it causes more confusion but it may be working for other people, I can't really say...
At the end of the day, the only practice that really matters for each one of us is the one that any of us is actually doing. It's the one that is having an effect on his martial arts study, any direction he has chosen.

In your situation, cross training is how you tune your Aikido to include what you feel belongs there but wasn't taught. It can cause confusion, but the best martial artists I know in any art are all cross-trained. They improved their ability in each art by the wider understanding from other arts. I apply NGA techniques on the ground differently from most NGA folks, because I have some Judo groundwork training. I'm still doing NGA on the ground.

As for influencing, if you ever had your own classes/school, you absolutely have influence there. You could teach exactly as you are taught, or you could teach exactly as you are taught PLUS teaching some effective strikes and teaching students to work against those strikes. It's a small change - maybe 10% of the curriculum, at most, but would have a profound effect. Same goes for introducing some resistive sparring (think single-man randori, but the other guy is using his Aikido, too). Small changes can change a lot. And if you don't ever have your own classes, you might still be able to influence some current students with that understanding, and maybe one of them goes on to implement those changes when they have their own classes.

 

[Ryback]

Counters are resistance. Resistance does not mean the same thing as tension. Resistance is the thing you need in your training, and relaxation and counters are part of how we resist aiki techniques. As is controlling our weight transfers and keeping center and structure. Have your partner do those things and find out what causes problems. That's training with resistance.

We agree then. If by resistance you mean being relaxed in order to be able to counter the techniques and re-attack then yes, that's part of our practice, an everyday part.
I had my nose badly wounded some years ago when my Uke kept hunting me with continues fast strikes because I was deflecting his strikes but couldn't find any moment to apply the technique before his next strike hit my face.
I finally decided to take my chances and try to apply a technique even though I thought I had no time. And I ended up being struck right on my nose with a broken bone inside of it, the only thing saving me from worst injury being that I absorbed some of the strike's force by falling on my back at the moment I was hit.
The lesson of the day was that I had to study harder in order to be able to be more effective but it felt good to know that my Uke wasn't holding back.
Almost 8years later from that incident I'm much better at that but still have a long way to go. Actually there will always be a long way to go and things to learn in Aikido, so practice, practice, practice is my answer...
If I want my nose intact! Hahaha!

 

[now disabled]

I agree completely with the first part of your post. It's obvious that in some years from now most of Aikido will be just a philosophical harmonious mumbo jumbo with no martial effectiveness at all if that hasn't already happened...
That's what is really worrying me!!
I can see that and I can clearly see that our dojo and other dojos I know of that are training more or less in the same manner we do are an exception but I don't say that with pride, believe me I'm very honest about that.
To me it's very sad! I wish Aikido could stay as a martial art inside the path of practical application, it wouldn't cost the art neither its harmony, nor its non violent philosophy, on the contrary...
But I can do nothing about it, the only thing I can do is forge my skills to the best of my ability, try to pass it on to any student who is interested, while being aware that I, myself have a long way to go in Aikido skills, even after 20 years on the mat, so I need to study harder, I got a lot of work to do ahead of me.
As for the rest of your post... I have nothing theoretically against others cross training but it's not my cup of tea. I have seen some examples where it causes more confusion but it may be working for other people, I can't really say...
At the end of the day, the only practice that really matters for each one of us is the one that any of us is actually doing. It's the one that is having an effect on his martial arts study, any direction he has chosen.

This non violent philosophy hmmmm that kinda got lost in translation a bit imo and honestly Ueshiba latterly did go very much toward the Oomoto in his teachings.

One thing I would guess you have his book Budo you do realize that originally that book was a manual given to the Imperial army and navy and that Ueshiba taught them during the war !!! so all the peace and love bit is imo lost in the sense it was actually meant and or it came from his latter years as his formative ones in Daito ryu most certainly were not peace and love

 

[pdg]

As for the rest of your post... I have nothing theoretically against others cross training but it's not my cup of tea. I have seen some examples where it causes more confusion but it may be working for other people, I can't really say...
At the end of the day, the only practice that really matters for each one of us is the one that any of us is actually doing. It's the one that is having an effect on his martial arts study, any direction he has chosen.

I think there's another bit you're not understanding here too.

Cross training, in this context.

The mention I've made could be interpreted in the same way as I've interpreted what @gpseymour has said.

I'm (we're?) not talking about cross training as in going and training another art in an attempt to augment or change your own art.

What I'm (we're?) on about is using your art against different techniques that you'll never see from your usual training partners.

You're not taking techniques from other arts, you're exploring how to apply your own techniques against someone who doesn't also know them.

You're also looking into what happens when the rules change - how does what you know hold up?

For me, can I take my TKD techniques and make them work under different restrictions? Sure, I can get a spinning heel against a boxer, but can I use the appropriate parts of my TKD under boxing rules?

Can I use the TKD techniques I know under judo rules? If I'm not allowed to kick, can I reapply a block or strike as a grab and takedown instead?

Also, can I look at, say, judo moves and identify things that I know from TKD and see "new" ways to use them?

Quite honestly, I think you're too programmed into the dogma of sparring being bad and cross training diluting your art to have an open enough mind to see the massive possibilities that could become available.

 

[now disabled]

In your situation, cross training is how you tune your Aikido to include what you feel belongs there but wasn't taught. It can cause confusion, but the best martial artists I know in any art are all cross-trained. They improved their ability in each art by the wider understanding from other arts. I apply NGA techniques on the ground differently from most NGA folks, because I have some Judo groundwork training. I'm still doing NGA on the ground.

As for influencing, if you ever had your own classes/school, you absolutely have influence there. You could teach exactly as you are taught, or you could teach exactly as you are taught PLUS teaching some effective strikes and teaching students to work against those strikes. It's a small change - maybe 10% of the curriculum, at most, but would have a profound effect. Same goes for introducing some resistive sparring (think single-man randori, but the other guy is using his Aikido, too). Small changes can change a lot. And if you don't ever have your own classes, you might still be able to influence some current students with that understanding, and maybe one of them goes on to implement those changes when they have their own classes.

Ueshiba was cross trained and not in just one discipline he may have left out bits however he still knew them.

His original Deshi all did too so @gpseymour has a very valid point

 

[now disabled]

I think there's another bit you're not understanding here too.

Cross training, in this context.

The mention I've made could be interpreted in the same way as I've interpreted what @gpseymour has said.

I'm (we're?) not talking about cross training as in going and training another art in an attempt to augment or change your own art.

What I'm (we're?) on about is using your art against different techniques that you'll never see from your usual training partners.

You're not taking techniques from other arts, you're exploring how to apply your own techniques against someone who doesn't also know them.

You're also looking into what happens when the rules change - how does what you know hold up?

For me, can I take my TKD techniques and make them work under different restrictions? Sure, I can get a spinning heel against a boxer, but can I use the appropriate parts of my TKD under boxing rules?

Can I use the TKD techniques I know under judo rules? If I'm not allowed to kick, can I reapply a block or strike as a grab and takedown instead?

Also, can I look at, say, judo moves and identify things that I know from TKD and see "new" ways to use them?

Quite honestly, I think you're too programmed into the dogma of sparring being bad and cross training diluting your art to have an open enough mind to see the massive possibilities that could become available.

Actually @Ryback does probably spar only he may call it and look on it in a different light

I assume he does Randori although not technically sparring as you might call it but it is there or should be

 

[pdg]

Actually @Ryback does probably spar only he may call it and look on it in a different light

I assume he does Randori although not technically sparring as you might call it but it is there or should be

From my understanding of the concept of randori, it is what I would term free sparring.

 

[now disabled]

Also Ueshiba did a far bit of that (randori) as did I think Kano (judo) @gpseymour may correct me on that as he has judo experience and if memory serves Kano did send students of his to Ueshiba to study their names I cannot remember and it was before the name Aikido was used I can't remember if it was when he was still with Takeda or just after (I don't mean in Hokkaido) so they cross trained ... they didn't give up there art just learned from another so cross training is no evil and it has gone on for years it just gets glossed over mostly

 

[now disabled]

From my understanding of the concept of randori, it is what I would term free sparring.

Yes in essence it is and can be one on one or multiple on one but the essence of having to apply techs is there and to flow and be adaptable as you should not know what coming (ok take out the demos as they are or mostly are prearranged lol)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Actually @Ryback does probably spar only he may call it and look on it in a different light

I assume he does Randori although not technically sparring as you might call it but it is there or should be

The way some (maybe most - I'm not sure) Aikido schools do randori, it's not sparring, because the "attackers" aren't allowed to use their Aikido. If it is randori like Judo does randori, then it's really free-sparring for grapplers. That's something Aikido students need. I can tell pretty quickly if an Aikido student (of any level) has done true free randori, because if they have, they won't be grabbing for wrists - they'll know that doesn't work when you go grabbing.