Aikido and Law Enforcement

[drop bear]

I'm curious what you mean when you refer to "MMA style techniques". What I see in MMA is punch/block/kick techniques and some large joint manipulations. I don't see any of those as being out of scope for Ueshiba's art - I think they aren't taught enough in most of the dojos, but they are there.

I also see a lot of ground work, and I can't speak to whether specific ground work was ever part of Ueshiba's art, though the principles certainly aren't foreign to the basics of his art.

What I would categorise as mma style akido.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What I would categorise as mma style akido.

It seems a reasonable application of the physical principle of aiki, but I'm not sure how that is a response to my question to the other poster.

 

[Spinedoc]

Sure. I get it. But I can't think of anything in the realm of human activity that takes 8 to 10 years just to do it at a level of fundamental application. Shoot, it only takes 9 years or so to become a surgeon. And that includes about 5 years of OJT where you're actually doing the job.

PhD physics? You're talking 4 years undergrad….a 2 year master's, and then 5-7 years in PhD……Then 1-2 years postdoc….

Even surgeon varies wildly. Cardiac surgeon? That's 4 years undergrad, 4 years medical school, 3 years general surgery residency, then 5-6 year cardiac fellowship. Neurosurgery is 4, 4, and then 7 years residency. Point is…there are a lot of careers that can take that long.

 

[Steve]

PhD physics? You're talking 4 years undergrad….a 2 year master's, and then 5-7 years in PhD……Then 1-2 years postdoc….

Even surgeon varies wildly. Cardiac surgeon? That's 4 years undergrad, 4 years medical school, 3 years general surgery residency, then 5-6 year cardiac fellowship. Neurosurgery is 4, 4, and then 7 years residency. Point is…there are a lot of careers that can take that long.

lol. Yeah. I understand where you're headed, and I fully acknowledge the idea of lifelong learning. But even a 1st year resident can Perform a successful surgery after 4 years of training and a little ojt. You took great pains to describe the difficulty of successfully applying aikido for all but the most skilled.

Once again, I'm not reacting to the length of time. I'm reacting to your own description of the unlikeliness of success for all but the most experienced.

If it's taking an incredibly long Time for students to achieve even fundamental success, it's one of three things. either the training is inherently flawed, the trainees are in over their heads or you're learning something other than what you think you're learning.

 

[Hanzou]

What I would categorise as mma style akido.

There's also Wakigatame;

 

[drop bear]

It seems a reasonable application of the physical principle of aiki, but I'm not sure how that is a response to my question to the other poster.

You change the methodology so that you are no longer only receiveing energy. But instead also controlling position.

Controlling position is more of wrestling, bjj,mma concept and is sometimes referred to the will game. Where the strongest will wins the scramble.

So they go full noise on you. You respond by going full noise on them.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Its amazing..... bullies seem to be everywhere..... and here... like everywhere...they get really mouthy in groups...... I have little use for bullies.....

And Steve..... I grew up in a healthcare family..... have doctors in it today..... worked in hospitals me self for many years.... you can be a 20 year experienced surgeon.... and still not be that good.......same for any profession......

 

[Buka]

Its amazing..... bullies seem to be everywhere..... and here... like everywhere...they get really mouthy in groups...... I have little use for bullies.....

Yeah, you're right, they generally suck. But you know, sometimes running into a bully can be a whole lot of fun. Breaks up the same old same old.

 

[Steve]

Its amazing..... bullies seem to be everywhere..... and here... like everywhere...they get really mouthy in groups...... I have little use for bullies.....

And Steve..... I grew up in a healthcare family..... have doctors in it today..... worked in hospitals me self for many years.... you can be a 20 year experienced surgeon.... and still not be that good.......same for any profession......

Xue, there are incompetents in every field. I think you missed my point. It's more to do with evaluation of the testing and training model.

If you have a training model that does not reliably produce the expected results, you're either not teaching what you think you're teaching, not testing what you think you're testing, or your trainee pool, as a group, is in over their head.

What stood out was the assertion that it was not the aikido, it was him, coupled with what to me is a pretty detailed explanation of a systemic issue. If it takes 8 to 10 years of continual practice to make the techniques work consistently (my impression from spinedoc's post is that is typical), it suggests that the issue isn't that you have a body of students ill suited for aikido; it's not the students. It could be that the techniques are not suitable for the purpose. Or, it could be that the training methodology is inherently flawed.

 

[Tgace]

I'm curious what you mean when you refer to "MMA style techniques". What I see in MMA is punch/block/kick techniques and some large joint manipulations. I don't see any of those as being out of scope for Ueshiba's art - I think they aren't taught enough in most of the dojos, but they are there.

I also see a lot of ground work, and I can't speak to whether specific ground work was ever part of Ueshiba's art, though the principles certainly aren't foreign to the basics of his art.

Gross vs fine

Greco Style Wrestling, BJJ Style Groundwork, Muay Thai Style Kick boxing, Western Boxing......

A few months in almost anyone of those and (IMO) a person fresh off the streets has a better chance of coming out on top in a fight than months or years of almost any other "skilled technique based" martial art.

While timing and technique is obviously important in any martial art/sport, arts that don't require exquisitely precise timing/technique to work give a person something they can hit the streets and use far faster.

 

[Tgace]

Of course "philosophy" in an Art is going to vary.

But...

I've always thought that if actual fighting ability is what you claim to teach, your students better be able to fight pretty quickly. If you are touting the "it takes years of practice and a lifetime of dedication" line it better mean to achieve the higher level techniques of your art...not to attain simple "surviveability ".

No Army would ever have been fielded if all the soldiers needed 10 years of training to be combat worthy. Sure it may take years of experience/training to become a veteran Special Forces operator, but there is a difference between proficiency and expertise.

 

[Spinedoc]

While timing and technique is obviously important in any martial art/sport, arts that don't require exquisitely precise timing/technique to work give a person something they can hit the streets and use far faster.

Agreed, which is why we (our dojo at least) no longer advertise Aikido for self defense purposes. We used to do that in the community education classes, but then everyone was confused when they realized that they couldn't just come for a couple weeks and learn how to master self defense.

We advertise it as a Japanese martial art. We tell students when they come that learning Aikido is a long, long process, and that it will take a lot of time to become proficient. For me? That is the single best thing about Aikido. That subtlety, that nuance. That's what I love.

Even the owner of the facility we rent space from, who runs TKD and HKD schools and is 6th dan in TKD and 4th dan in HKD and who studied Aikido back in the 1970's, said about Aikido several years ago. "Aikido is a great martial art, but it just takes so damn long to become pretty good at it".

For me, I'm in no rush. I love the long, slow route.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Xue, there are incompetents in every field. I think you missed my point.

actually, I think you missed mine

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Sure. I get it. But I can't think of anything in the realm of human activity that takes 8 to 10 years just to do it at a level of fundamental application. Shoot, it only takes 9 years or so to become a surgeon. And that includes about 5 years of OJT where you're actually doing the job.

I get the point you're trying to make, but there's a problem with your comparison. A surgeon is studying full time (with tons of overtime) to become qualified. You won't find many aikidoka who train 70 hours per week for 9 years straight. If you did find someone like that, I wouldn't mess with him.

 

[Steve]

I get the point you're trying to make, but there's a problem with your comparison. A surgeon is studying full time (with tons of overtime) to become qualified. You won't find many aikidoka who train 70 hours per week for 9 years straight. If you did find someone like that, I wouldn't mess with him.

Thanks, Tony. I think you guys are getting a little hung up on the length of time, and yes, that's part of it. But once again, it's the length of time coupled with the insistence that the system is not at fault for the lack of results. I am saying that, in my opinion, if it takes 8 to 10 years to possibly achieve some consistent success, that it is not the student at that point. There is something systemic at work.

And once again, this isn't necessarily an Aikido thing. I mentioned earlier that it could be one of three things. Really, it's four, but I'm presuming that aikido CAN work and isn't inherently flawed. That suggests that the training model is flawed and you aren't learning what you think you're learning, or the measurement of proficiency isn't consistent with what you are actually being taught. Or the students are out of their depth, such as if you took a bunch of high school freshmen and threw them into medical school. Nothing else would account for the lack of results.

Someone mentioned in an earlier thread that the original intent of Aikido was that people start by becoming proficient martial artists in some other style... that the training presumes a level of expertise. That might make sense. I mean, if this is true, it COULD be like taking high school freshmen and throwing them into the deep end at med school. Some few might make it, but most would lack the foundation to make sense of what they're learning and also lack the skills to cope with the volume of work.

 

[Steve]

actually, I think you missed mine

Maybe so, Xue. When you referred to an individual instance of incompetence (alliteration is completely by accident there), I presumed you missed that central to my point is that spinedoc wasn't talking about a one-off, but was speaking to a consistent trend.

 

[drop bear]

Thanks, Tony. I think you guys are getting a little hung up on the length of time, and yes, that's part of it. But once again, it's the length of time coupled with the insistence that the system is not at fault for the lack of results. I am saying that, in my opinion, if it takes 8 to 10 years to possibly achieve some consistent success, that it is not the student at that point. There is something systemic at work.

And once again, this isn't necessarily an Aikido thing. I mentioned earlier that it could be one of three things. Really, it's four, but I'm presuming that aikido CAN work and isn't inherently flawed. That suggests that the training model is flawed and you aren't learning what you think you're learning, or the measurement of proficiency isn't consistent with what you are actually being taught. Or the students are out of their depth, such as if you took a bunch of high school freshmen and threw them into medical school.

But if ten years is the time it takes then it isn't anyone's fault. It is what the system produces in that time frame.

If it take longer to be an akido fighter than a rocket scientist. That would just be considered a given. Wouldn't it?

 

[Steve]

But if ten years is the time it takes then it isn't anyone's fault. It is what the system produces in that time frame.

If it take longer to be an akido fighter than a rocket scientist. That would just be considered a given. Wouldn't it?

If you could document success in that time, sure. But if the margin of error is so small that even a competent aikidoka would need to manage the range and avoid the clinch or his aikido would break down, such as spinedoc said, I don't get the impression that there is reliable success, even after 8 to 10 years.

As I said, it's not the time frame. It's the time frame combined with dubious results, and this occurred to me only after reading spinedoc's account of the difficulty in applying aikido. I'm not (or not trying to) add anything to it.

 

[drop bear]

If you could document success in that time, sure. But if the margin of error is so small that even a competent aikidoka would need to manage the range and avoid the clinch or his aikido would break down, such as spinedoc said, I don't get the impression that there is reliable success, even after 8 to 10 years.

As I said, it's not the time frame. It's the time frame combined with dubious results, and this occurred to me only after reading spinedoc's account of the difficulty in applying aikido. I'm not (or not trying to) add anything to it.

You would definitely want to see 10 year akidoka clean house before you made that commitment. Or be more focused on the process than the result.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Thanks, Tony. I think you guys are getting a little hung up on the length of time, and yes, that's part of it. But once again, it's the length of time coupled with the insistence that the system is not at fault for the lack of results. I am saying that, in my opinion, if it takes 8 to 10 years to possibly achieve some consistent success, that it is not the student at that point. There is something systemic at work.

And once again, this isn't necessarily an Aikido thing. I mentioned earlier that it could be one of three things. Really, it's four, but I'm presuming that aikido CAN work and isn't inherently flawed. That suggests that the training model is flawed and you aren't learning what you think you're learning, or the measurement of proficiency isn't consistent with what you are actually being taught. Or the students are out of their depth, such as if you took a bunch of high school freshmen and threw them into medical school. Nothing else would account for the lack of results.

Someone mentioned in an earlier thread that the original intent of Aikido was that people start by becoming proficient martial artists in some other style... that the training presumes a level of expertise. That might make sense. I mean, if this is true, it COULD be like taking high school freshmen and throwing them into the deep end at med school. Some few might make it, but most would lack the foundation to make sense of what they're learning and also lack the skills to cope with the volume of work.

Speaking as an outsider, I suspect that it's a bit of each.

1) Some Aikido practitioners train as a spiritual path and/or a cultural art. For those people the length of time necessary to become reliably combatively proficient is beside the point.

2) Aikido's strengths as a martial art are (IMO) focused on certain niche areas of application. If you are trying to force it outside of those areas it is not going to be so reliable.

3) I really do suspect there is something to the idea of Aikido as a graduate level art for people who already have solid combative skills. As I mentioned earlier, I can look at high-level Aikido practitioners and see useful stuff I might be able to learn from them - but I have 34 years of a fairly well rounded martial arts career under my belt.

Another thought related to #3. Ueshiba spent a lot of years as a rough-and-tumble martial artist who fought challenge matches and worked as a mercenary before he moved into his "peace and harmony with the universe" phase. Many Aikido practitioners may be trying to practice what he taught in those later years - but I suspect it may not work so well (combatively) for those who don't have the prior combative background that Ueshiba had.

That's speculation from an outsider, though. I'd be curious what Spinedoc thinks of my theorizing.