Aikido has no reason to prove itself!

[Dirty Dog]

But there is a such thing as NRA approved firearms training courses, and other things that are "NRA approved.". I don't agree with the politics of the NRA myself, but that's not what I'm focused on. What I'm focused on is some sort of self-defense organization that exists outside of martial arts clubs and associations that give some sort of "seal of approval" that certifies that a particular martial arts program is adequately effective for self-defense purposes.

So what? I can give out a certificate for an "MAC Approved" firearms training course. It'll have every bit as much validity.

 

[Urban Trekker]

So what? I can give out a certificate for an "MAC Approved" firearms training course. It'll have every bit as much validity.

Not perception wise, which is the only thing that matters.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Not perception wise, which is the only thing that matters.

Perception without substance is worthless.

 

[Urban Trekker]

Perception without substance is worthless.

But is it perceived to have substance? Because that's what's going to attract people to something. If people see that something is "MAC Approved," and they have no idea what that means, then it's not going to matter to them.

 

[BrendanF]

The only way to test a person's functional ability with techniques from a system is to have that person use it use it.
View attachment 26662

For something that involves testing form, 2 graders from your system will be the ones to test that. People from other systems will not grade system form of something they do not train.

Those are FMA guys doing short 'unarmoured' blade work. In theory they would not be wearing armour, so sparring like that is applicable.

Our ryuha does not 'spar', as our techniques are designed for fighting in armour. There is no point doing kendo if your techniques all rely on targeting points of weakness in armour. That's the theory, whatever my or your thoughts on it.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Our ryuha does not 'spar', as our techniques are designed for fighting in armour.

Then wear armour and perform your techniques. There are other systems that wear armor as well.

If someone from a system does not wish to participate then they do not have to participate. They can train and practice like they always have.

 

[BrendanF]

Yes - the Japanese have a similar thing; it's called kendo. Like I said, our techniques are specifically designed to circumvent that armour. It's interesting that in the above clip the two participants are using techniques designed to target gaps in the armour, but then being separated before actually completing them. I'm sure I don't fully understand their ruleset and approach.

Also as I said, my school doesn't spar. That's not a choice I get to make, it's an historical one.

 

[drop bear]

Perception without substance is worthless.

Tell that to the kardashians

 

[JowGaWolf]

Also as I said, my school doesn't spar. That's not a choice I get to make, it's an historical one.

I'm not sure on the scoring either or what triggers a break, It looks like the points of their swords have been cut off and padded. So I'm guessing the first person to their target scores.

 

[Anarax]

Hey Guys, please check out my video on why Rokas from the Martial Arts Journey channel got Aikido wrong. Plus, I talk about why providing video evidence of Aikido techniques working against resisting opponents, is not actually proof of Aikido. My argument is that Aikido was never intended as a combat system but for something else.

Here's the link and let me know what you think:

Training a technique to inflict enough trauma/injury to neutralize an opponent is the force dynamic in a self defense situation, for it prevents yourself from being injured by your opponent. The restraint, both in intent and application severity comes second in the training process. Knowing how to throw an opponent so they land on their back or head can change the severity of the injury, but being able to throw a resisting opponent is where the force spectrum training starts, not ends.

The Aikido instructors I've trained with never trained us on how to apply any of the techniques with resistance, this is mostly universal with Aikido. Most of the Aikidoka I've met were very confident in their ability to apply these techniques in a live situation. I've seen these same Aikidoka accept challenges where an opponent resisted them, they weren't able to execute the techniques that they've trained countless times, for the resistance factor changed the entire dynamic. Developing "fight IQ" in martial arts is crucial, it teaches you how to adapt to your opponent and their abilities. However, this will never develop without sparring or live drills, can't learn problem-solving if you never encounter a problem(resistance).

 

[BrendanF]

I'm not sure on the scoring either or what triggers a break, It looks like the points of their swords have been cut off and padded. So I'm guessing the first person to their target scores.

Yeah when I watched that clip I was pleasantly surprised - all of the similar, armoured competition stuff I've seen has essentially been folks bashing each other on armour, where I think a knockdown counts as a win? My guess watching that was same as yours; they seemed to be aiming for up under the neck mail thing, and separated when successful.

 

[Jaz]

Training a technique to inflict enough trauma/injury to neutralize an opponent is the force dynamic in a self defense situation, for it prevents yourself from being injured by your opponent. The restraint, both in intent and application severity comes second in the training process. Knowing how to throw an opponent so they land on their back or head can change the severity of the injury, but being able to throw a resisting opponent is where the force spectrum training starts, not ends.

The Aikido instructors I've trained with never trained us on how to apply any of the techniques with resistance, this is mostly universal with Aikido. Most of the Aikidoka I've met were very confident in their ability to apply these techniques in a live situation. I've seen these same Aikidoka accept challenges where an opponent resisted them, they weren't able to execute the techniques that they've trained countless times, for the resistance factor changed the entire dynamic. Developing "fight IQ" in martial arts is crucial, it teaches you how to adapt to your opponent and their abilities. However, this will never develop without sparring or live drills, can't learn problem-solving if you never encounter a problem(resistance).

That's true. You won't develop the fighting ability without sparring against a resisting training partner - who is also attempting to apply techniques on you. However, I don't believe that this is the point of Aikido - it's nothing at all to do with fighting ability.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The Aikido instructors I've trained with never trained us on how to apply any of the techniques with resistance,

When you apply a

- north direction force and your opponent resists, you change your north direction force into a south direction force,
- linear force and your opponent resists, you change your linear force into circular force,
- circular force and your opponent resists, you change your circular force into linear force,

your opponent's resistance force will no longer be resistance force.

Do Aikido train all techniques in pairs, or same technique be applied in both linear and circular?

Here is a technique that can be applied both in linear and circular. Since your opponent can only resist in one direction, as long as you change your force direction, your opponent's resistance will no longer be resistance.

 

[Anarax]

That's true. You won't develop the fighting ability without sparring against a resisting training partner - who is also attempting to apply techniques on you. However, I don't believe that this is the point of Aikido - it's nothing at all to do with fighting ability.

My experience with Aikido shows both the instructors and students lack that understanding. The schools I've trained at emphasized Aikido's combative/self defense ability.

 

[Anarax]

When you apply a

- north direction force and your opponent resists, you change your north direction force into a south direction force,
- linear force and your opponent resists, you change your linear force into circular force,
- circular force and your opponent resists, you change your circular force into linear force,

your opponent's resistance force will no longer be resistance force.

Do Aikido train all techniques in pairs, or same technique be applied in both linear and circular?

Here is a technique that can be applied both in linear and circular. Since your opponent can only resist in one direction, as long as you change your force direction, your opponent's resistance will no longer be resistance.

Knowing how to apply different force dynamics(opposing vs harmonizing, liner vs circular) is vital. However, not practicing those dynamics in a live(non-compliant partner) situation will result in the practitioner unable to apply it against a resisting opponent.

 

[Jaz]

My experience with Aikido shows both the instructors and students lack that understanding. The schools I've trained at emphasized Aikido's combative/self defense ability.

It's an important thing for people to understand, as they're getting a false sense of confidence, in regards to training Aikido and developing combat ability. Did you ever see anyone question this to their instructor, after they were unsuccessful with applying Aikido against a resisting partner? I'm curious to know what the instructors take on this would be.

 

[Urban Trekker]

It's an important thing for people to understand, as they're getting a false sense of confidence, in regards to training Aikido and developing combat ability.

I'm wondering how likely that is. Someone who has experience with real fights would know BS if someone was trying to teach it to them. I imagine that the kind of person that would be fooled by an ineffective art would be very unlikely to find themselves in a situation where they would have to use it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

All well and good, EXCEPT, rather than "each teacher" adding input to the system, I would revise that to each master! Unless one has spent many decades dedicating their life to their art's system and understanding all its nuances and principles completely, they have no business changing it. That just potentially invites a bunch of crap to be incorporated into the system and then passed down to future generations. Too much of that has already been done in some lineages. IMO, very sad.

I can't agree with this. If someone is teaching, they ARE changing things - there's never 100% accurate transmission. That being the case, at least some of those changes should be purposefully made. Some may be preference, some may be a different focus than their instructor had, and some may be altering training methodologies (different drills, etc.) based on their own experience.

Trying to hold a system at some arbitrary point (the way it was transmitted to them) seems to me to have little value. Of course, at some point the changes become sufficient that it's not really the same art/style, but there's a fair amount that can happen before that.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Trying to hold a system at some arbitrary point (the way it was transmitted to them) seems to me to have little value.

Gee, see more pee, "point trying system holding some" is helpful to retain understanding and effectiveness, When I change spelling and grammar structure, meaning and comprehension can go out the window (though may be entertaining. sorry, couldn't help but have some fun with your name. no disrespect intended.)

Pretty much everything is "arbitrary" except basic natural laws and principles. When one starts playing around with a proven established system (unless one is a very skilled engineer with great understanding, i.e. master) components in that system may no longer mesh and the system breaks down. There is value in keeping hold of a system. After several rounds of this, the laws and principles of the system will end up impotent. There must be some accountability and respect for the system.

All MA systems are the result of blending, evolution and refinement. This is different than a random guy with a few years in the art doing his own thing. (He is free to do this, but we don't need to approve and encourage it. Even so, there is room for individuality as explained below"

some may be a different focus than their instructor had, and some may be altering training methodologies (different drills, etc.)

This is a good thing, and it's advantageous to be exposed to various instructors (and even styles) as each adds its own flavor to one's MA. To link this quote with my language analogy, it's like substituting one adjective with a (well considered) synonym. The structure, verb, tense and noun are still the same. The meaning stays the same. This is different from ill-informed changes to your MA style.

 

[Shatteredzen]

Hey Guys, please check out my video on why Rokas from the Martial Arts Journey channel got Aikido wrong. Plus, I talk about why providing video evidence of Aikido techniques working against resisting opponents, is not actually proof of Aikido. My argument is that Aikido was never intended as a combat system but for something else.

Here's the link and let me know what you think:

Morihei Ueshiba developed Aikido as a functional system, following world war 2 he became a pacifist and neutered most of the system and began presenting it as an esoteric lesson in conflict for the world. The pre war and world war 2 students were experienced martial artists, Ueshiba taught Aikido as a practical skill set to the Japanese military and helped formalize the doctrine for the Japanese clandestine services at the Nakano school in Manchuria. Until his post war crisis of faith with ultra nationalism, Aikido was developed as a "secret weapon" to teach the Japanese people and to convey "yamato-damashii" or the spirit of ancient Japan as understood by the nationalists.

This said, functional Aikido was taught to experienced martial artists who understood fighting and already had a good idea about how everything worked. It was never taught alone but as an additive to blend the various styles of Budo together into a "next level" Japanese warrior who could embody the highest ideals of his people. Think, racist, ultra-nationalist Jedi. Aikido was a bridge between arts, that's why it has a very small toolkit of highly situational techniques. The main takeaway from Aikido is the movement, methods of entering/exiting/blending, etc.

Problem is, we have all the post war baggage and a century of abuse and neglect and Aikido being taught out of context. The system does need to figure out what it wants to be and it needs to update itself with more modern training if it wants to be viewed as practical.