But what if the attacker doesn't commit to that punch? I've never seen videos of aikido training that account for that. If they fight the way I see them train, they're going to get baited by a fake jab and get hit with a cross every time.
Whose arguing for Aikido in the MMA?
Wow. That says it all. The instructor can't get his technique to work and blames the student, saying that he's "looking for a fight." It's that kind of bully tactic, to keep the myth going, that goes against the very philosophy of Aikido. Not the technique failing...but the reaction of the instructor. That's actually depressing. Thanks for sharing that though.
It goes against the martial arts in general but that kind of conduct is not bound to Aikido studios. I walked out of my YMCA karate class as a young teen when the instructor tried to explain that her red belt kata was to teach you how to rip open someone's rib cage and rip their heart out. I asked her if she had ever heard of that working and she flipped out about how disrespectful it was to question her kata and I could fight her if I wanted to find out if it worked. Bad schools and instructors are a thing.
I have a theory that many of these punching attacks were intended to make the timing of the technique more difficult, to sharpen them for grappling rather than being intended as counters to punches. Of course, some of them will also work against awful punches, and a few work well against committed haymakers by untrained folks, but that’s limited.
I would tend to agree there are some things I look at and just go "this has to be an abstract exercise" and the peaceful, post war schooling is mostly this abstraction. My personal theory is that Aikido students used to spend a lot more time getting hit than they do now and I think that philosophy aside, this non competitive stuff has ultimately led to the current crisis Aikido finds itself in and its time to throw off the koombaya routine in favor of maybe an approach as the gentler form of Budo. The original point of this non-competitiveness was to be above competition because you are supposed to be above conflict. Unfortunately, for some of us to be able to carry an Aikido worth saving into the next century, Aikido is going to have to compromise with our western barbarism and give us more of the dynamic updating that some of the more "live" martial arts have received.
Which is often the case. I've seen numerous videos of BJJ guys being introduced to aikido techniques, and tweaking them to make them useful.
Because the BJJ guys have practical experience in resistance based grappling. For years Aikido was something taught to guys who were already accomplished in Judo/Ju-Jitsu with Dan rankings. Post war, the reformed, peaceful Ueshiba makes the change and rebrands it as a big old hug for the world. I think the original way it was taught was the better way, or at least how I learned it, alongside Judo/BJJ with the same training methods instead of just uke/nage drills and randori.
They are better at getting the techniques to work, they also make the better Aikido students, because they understand conflict. I don't think Aikido should be trained by itself for anyone interested in being an all around fighter, just like you pick some kind of striking art to pair with the BJJ. You can't make a hot dog with just relish.
Nobody here either
There’s a significant overlap with my primary art (Nihon Goshin Aikido - a cousin, with heavy Daito-Ryu influence). It gives me some insight into Aikido, though I’ve learned in the last couple of years that I understood it less than I thought.
It all comes from conceptual Aikijutsu with Diato-Ryu as the root. If you are that deep in the Koryu to know all that stuff, Aikido is to Judo what Iado gives to Kendo in my opinion, although I really do think its good for ALL the budo as a bridging methodology and philosophy.
That seems like an apt analogy.
