Aikido against a boxer

[Tez3]

When you have traveled 300k to fight and the other guy disappears. You find a fight.

Boxing is notorious for flexible weight classes and random strangers.

It is just part of it.

You are not selling boxing as being worth doing you know.

 

[drop bear]

You are not selling boxing as being worth doing you know.

It isn't all glory and no heavy lifting.

 

[Martial D]

I pretty much say they train 'cause they go to their dojo thing like everyday. Well that's what they say.


Well there's 3 of them (one on one of course. Not me against 3). All of them are trying to test their skills against someone with different form of combat sports.
I just play them around using successive quick jobs. Whenever I see them planning to do the wrist lock thing I just simply feint with my right then they go into covering their faces. As they do that I'd be out of the pocket.


They definitely lack any fighting skills I agree.

Aikido may be effective if they can grab their opponent. But how are you going to deal with someone who has the stamina to fight for long hours? Someone who can circle around you, moving from side to side, jump in and out in short burst. How can you deal with someone who can keep on feinting and throw combinations of punches that's faster than a blink of the eye. Punches that even a jab can know you out. And the moment you realized you've been hit, they'd be out of your range laughing at you. How can you deal to fight someone like that if you're too afraid to even get hit with a light jabs.

Just watch Manny Pacquiao in his prime and see how he throws powerful combinations. The moment his opponents recover he'd be behind them waiting. You can also watch Amir Khan's lightning handspeed. If you can handle these guys then you got our respect.

Ok so how do you think straight boxers fair against straight bjj men?

Would the fact that most boxers would get their clothes folded while they are still wearing them in this scenario imply that bjj is better?

Is the bread the best part of a PB&j sandwich? Is it the jam? Or is it the PB?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It is also ammy boxing. The only people in the crowd are other fighters.

Have you watched a golden gloves?

Neither has anyone else.

I was going to actually answer that question. Shows how much I know.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Ok so how do you think straight boxers fair against straight bjj men?

Would the fact that most boxers would get their clothes folded while they are still wearing them in this scenario imply that bjj is better?

Would they? I dunno. I think it's a simple matter of exposure. And I think you'd find it difficult to find someone with extensive training in one art that hasn't at least touched on others. Not impossible, but difficult.

Back when I was fighting rapier, I recall a couple encounters with people who were really top notch Olympic style fencers. All I had to do to win was take one step to the side. Or parry with the empty hand.

Similarly, I've sparred people who are purely Olympic style taekwondoin. Punch them in the head and they fall apart.

But in both cases, MOST people are far more adaptable than those examples, and I think most will have at least tried other rule sets.

[/QUOTE]
Is the bread the best part of a PB&j sandwich? Is it the jam? Or is it the PB?[/QUOTE]

It's the jam. I don't like PB, and since my salivary glands were destroyed by throat surgery and radiation, eating bread really isn't an option. So the jam. Definitely the jam.

 

[Martial D]

Would they? I dunno. I think it's a simple matter of exposure. And I think you'd find it difficult to find someone with extensive training in one art that hasn't at least touched on others. Not impossible, but difficult.

Back when I was fighting rapier, I recall a couple encounters with people who were really top notch Olympic style fencers. All I had to do to win was take one step to the side. Or parry with the empty hand.

Similarly, I've sparred people who are purely Olympic style taekwondoin. Punch them in the head and they fall apart.

But in both cases, MOST people are far more adaptable than those examples, and I think most will have at least tried other rule sets.

Well, the world before MMA says they would. They did. The Gracie's ran ham on everyone for a very long time. When bjj finally came to North America with the initial UFC's, for years many people wrote off pure boxing/striking as useless. Now we have people that are proficient in everything, and teachers and examples of striking that are modified and aware of the ground and what to do there. Wider stances, more protected legs, different weight distribution and movement.

And striking is better for it.

Boxing brings an element to fighting, the same as bjj does, but sometimes one pure element can trump another. I do not train aikido, and from what I've seen the vast majority do not train it for sparring or fighting, but I've also been exposed now to some that do. Aikido too, can add an element.

Even if pure boxing beats pure aikido every time, the man that is equally proficient in both will beat the boxer.

 

[Spinedoc]

Okay, having been a boxer back when I was young and in the military, and now being a long term Aikidoka, and BJJ student, I think I might offer some perspective. Aikido isn't designed for sparring. I'm sorry, it just isn't. Here's why. Aikido NEEDS a committed attack. If you are not willing to step into your punch and commit, I can't affect your kuzushi and/or disrupt your center. It's ancestor worked great on the battlefield, where soldiers committed to their attacks (often with weapons). Aikido works well against the guy in the bar who just took a full swing at you with a pool cue....or the guy trying to smash you in the face with a bottle. One on one against a trained fighter? Not the best choice. Here's the thing. NO art is perfect...none. In a one on one sparring/sporting match, BJJ, Judo, Wrestling, Boxing, MMA, are all far, far better choices than Aikido. But how about against multiple attackers? How about against weapons? In Aikido we always, ALWAYS assume 2 things. 1. The attacker has a weapon....it could be a brick, a baseball bat, a knife, etc., we assume they have something. 2. They have friends. It won't be a one on one fight. In those situations, not that they are ideal for ANY martial art, Aikido is probably a better choice than any of the above...why? Because we actually train against multiple attackers, and against weapons all the time. I've been training BJJ for awhile now as well....have never trained for EITHER of those things in BJJ.

So, if a boxer wanted to probe and throw some jabs....a real Aikido practitioner wouldn't do anything...they would just back up out of range, and wait for the boxer to step in and commit. Which won't work well. It's akin to asking why your championship rally car isn't able to race against formula one cars on a formula one track and win? Different arts with different purposes. YMMV.

 

[drop bear]

I was going to actually answer that question. Shows how much I know.

It is like rocking up to any tournament.

 

[drop bear]

. Aikido isn't designed for sparring. I'm sorry, it just isn't.

Which is insane considering Aikido is also designed to defend against people without hurting them.

 

[drop bear]

Okay, having been a boxer back when I was young and in the military, and now being a long term Aikidoka, and BJJ student, I think I might offer some perspective. Aikido isn't designed for sparring. I'm sorry, it just isn't. Here's why. Aikido NEEDS a committed attack. If you are not willing to step into your punch and commit, I can't affect your kuzushi and/or disrupt your center. It's ancestor worked great on the battlefield, where soldiers committed to their attacks (often with weapons). Aikido works well against the guy in the bar who just took a full swing at you with a pool cue....or the guy trying to smash you in the face with a bottle. One on one against a trained fighter? Not the best choice. Here's the thing. NO art is perfect...none. In a one on one sparring/sporting match, BJJ, Judo, Wrestling, Boxing, MMA, are all far, far better choices than Aikido. But how about against multiple attackers? How about against weapons? In Aikido we always, ALWAYS assume 2 things. 1. The attacker has a weapon....it could be a brick, a baseball bat, a knife, etc., we assume they have something. 2. They have friends. It won't be a one on one fight. In those situations, not that they are ideal for ANY martial art, Aikido is probably a better choice than any of the above...why? Because we actually train against multiple attackers, and against weapons all the time. I've been training BJJ for awhile now as well....have never trained for EITHER of those things in BJJ.

So, if a boxer wanted to probe and throw some jabs....a real Aikido practitioner wouldn't do anything...they would just back up out of range, and wait for the boxer to step in and commit. Which won't work well. It's akin to asking why your championship rally car isn't able to race against formula one cars on a formula one track and win? Different arts with different purposes. YMMV.

OK. Here is my theory. You have 90% of fighting and 10% of fighting.

90% is being able to impose your will on another person. So the BJJer who can grab a boxer and tie him up or the boxer who can KTFO the BJJer. This is the bare essentials of self defence.

The other 10% is multiple attackers, weapons, fighting in a car or on stairs. All that sexy street stuff.

Without that 90% the 10% is useless.

So the idea that while Aikido can't defeat one boxer but will suddenly rise to the challenge of three guys with weapons.

Is pretty ambitious.

 

[Spinedoc]

OK. Here is my theory. You have 90% of fighting and 10% of fighting.

90% is being able to impose your will on another person. So the BJJer who can grab a boxer and tie him up or the boxer who can KTFO the BJJer. This is the bare essentials of self defence.

The other 10% is multiple attackers, weapons, fighting in a car or on stairs. All that sexy street stuff.

Without that 90% the 10% is useless.

So the idea that while Aikido can't defeat one boxer but will suddenly rise to the challenge of three guys with weapons.

Is pretty ambitious.

Agreed, which is why I have said for awhile, that Aikido was NEVER designed to be a standalone art....EVER. All of O'Sensei's original students (with a couple of exceptions) had substantial martial arts training already. They came to study Aikido because O'Sensei moved in a way that they had never seen. It was designed to augment what they were already doing. If you were a Judoka, it would make you a better Judoka, if you were a Karateka, it would make you a better Karateka, hell, O'Sensei even had famous Sumo guys coming to train with him. I personally believe Aikido techniques were not designed to be effective, I think they can be, but that was not their primary purpose. Their primary purpose was to act as scaffolding to teach you to move better and differently, to blend with your opponent.....but Aikido was not designed to be a primary art. It was designed to be your PhD after you had already studied something else. That's my thoughts....at least at this point after many years......it could change.

 

[drop bear]

Agreed, which is why I have said for awhile, that Aikido was NEVER designed to be a standalone art....EVER. All of O'Sensei's original students (with a couple of exceptions) had substantial martial arts training already. They came to study Aikido because O'Sensei moved in a way that they had never seen. It was designed to augment what they were already doing. If you were a Judoka, it would make you a better Judoka, if you were a Karateka, it would make you a better Karateka, hell, O'Sensei even had famous Sumo guys coming to train with him. I personally believe Aikido techniques were not designed to be effective, I think they can be, but that was not their primary purpose. Their primary purpose was to act as scaffolding to teach you to move better and differently, to blend with your opponent.....but Aikido was not designed to be a primary art. It was designed to be your PhD after you had already studied something else. That's my thoughts....at least at this point after many years......it could change.

Its a drill?

 

[Tez3]

It isn't all glory and no heavy lifting.

It ain't all macho gypsy fighting either.

 

[Spinedoc]

Its a drill?

It's not a drill, the techniques can be effective if used properly, but I don't personally think that was ever the point. It's an entire system of body movement...I will concede that the way it is trained today, leaves a bit to be desired.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Which is insane considering Aikido is also designed to defend against people without hurting them.

I think I've talked about this before. The issue is (for straight Aikido - where the focus is training aiki methods only), if your partner knows how it works (even vaguely), the counters are pretty easy. It all starts with never reaching for the long attack (no overhand right, for instance, which is usually thrown for range). If you bring strikes and some of the Judo-style push-pull (like you see in Shotokan Aikido tournaments), it can adapt to sparring, and to skilled/controlled fighters.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Its a drill?

That would be one way of looking at it. I think Aikido (and any work on "aiki") is heavy on what I call "fiddling". Get two BJJ black belts together and let them share some thoughts, and at some point they probably get around to fiddling with some move or other, to see why one guy's version seems to work better in one situation, and the other guy's is better in a slightly different situation. Fiddling is fun, and actually makes us better (incrementally) at whatever art we are fiddling with. Well, aiki work is mostly fiddling. If you have a strong base already (like Spinedoc is suggesting), that fiddling can improve how you use that base, and make some useful transitions and add options. If you start with the fiddling, it takes a long time to get to competency (a common comment about Aikido), and will have trouble with the stuff that base would have covered.

 

[_Simon_]

OH I was scrolling through the new posts and I thought for a second that the title was "Aikido against a bear", now THAT would make for an interesting discussion! XD

Apologies... carry on!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

OH I was scrolling through the new posts and I thought for a second that the title was "Aikido against a bear", now THAT would make for an interesting discussion! XD

Apologies... carry on!

I see I'm not the only one who reads like that. Glad to have company.

 

[Martial D]

OH I was scrolling through the new posts and I thought for a second that the title was "Aikido against a bear", now THAT would make for an interesting discussion! XD

Apologies... carry on!

Alternate title "Bears like Japanese food too"

 

[lianxi]

I wondered what the aiki way of defence would be against this style of attack, where its difficult to respond directly to specific attacks that are designed to wear down the opponent (jabs) and also the fairly fast footwork of a boxer.

I posted a similar question about baguazhang on the chinese martial arts forum today - I'm fascinated by internal arts like baguazhang, shimgumdo and aikido that use the core and whole body as a unit, because their practice provides so many health and fitness benefits to mind and body of the practitioner, and the core can generate a lot of focused power. But when it comes down to a real fight, it always seems tough to defend against a skilled boxer.