Aikido hate

[Brian R. VanCise]

A good friend of mine Bob Orlando a Silat and Kuntao practitioner and a marine often said: “All training is a simulation of violence. The key word is simulation.” He is now deceased and missed by many in the martial community. He was however, correct. It doesn't matter what you train in you are not engaging in violence when you are training. They are not quite the same. Just ask anyone who has worked in a profession that requires the usage of violence day to day or anyone who has been a victim of violence. Training helps but it is not the only factor. Your psychological make up and attributes have a lot to do with your success as well.

While I am totally in agreement with pressure testing. I'm also okay with other martial practitioner's that don't do it or do it in a different manner. I have met people who utilized their training effectively from many different systems including Aikido. Not everyone pressure tested everything they did in a moment of violence.

In the end it does come down to the individual in the moment. You either have it or you don't! Those that have worked in a violence profession will recognize this.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Now here is another Aikido move used in video:

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Yet another Aikido like technique from my locality:

 

[Paul_D]

100% exactly so.. you understand this quite simply.. you can say why other people have no space in their outlook to appreciate such an idea???

I think like any problem there is not one simple answer, but rather a combination of several factors.

When you do not understand that martial arts and fighting are two different things, then there is a tendency to assume that anything that does not work when it comes to fighting/combat sports, does not work full stop. It seems of course obvious to a lot of us that if something is not designed to score points in a combat sport, then the fact that it does not work when you try to use it to score points in a competition is unsurprising.

Some however choose to take this as evidence to support their belief that it simply does not work anywhere at anytime in any context.

If your area of interest is competition combat sport, then it would make sense to concentrate on techniques which will bring you success in that field, hence you wouldn’t train in something which won’t (Kendo, Aikido, self protection). Again however, instead of being obvious to some people, take the lack of “Aikido fighters” in MMA as proof to them of its uselessness. Even experienced martial artist like Joe Rogan and Ronda Rousey don’t seem to be able to differentiate between martial arts and fighting/combat sports, and lump them altogether as one, as both have cited the lack of success of Aikido within the arena of combat sports as proof it doesn’t not work full stop.

Of course what we should be saying is it does not work in situation/context A (because it isn’t designed to) it does however work in situation/context B (where it is designed to work).

The opposite of course is also true. You cannot explain to a cage fighter that a triangle choke does not work for self protection. He has used it successfully in the cage, so he *knows* it works. It is only when he tries to use it outside the chip shop on a Friday night and gets his head stomped flat by the guys mates that he realises just because something works in situation/context A it does not follow that it automatically works in other situations.

Part of the reason is youth. When you are young you just assume that because you train for fighting/combat sports then everyone does too, and that anyone else who trains in other arts for others reason is wasting their time with “**** that doesn’t work”.

Part of the reason also is the way Aikido presents itself. Invariably Aikido is shown without the accompanying atemi required for the techniques to work in a live situation. People who have made no effort to understand Aikido take what they see as being “the whole picture” and say it doesn’t work, not understanding that there are other things happening of which they are ignorant because they are either not shown, or not immediately obvious to the viewer.

Mix these together and you have bunch of people who *Know* it’s **** and doesn’t work. One day they will get older, and wiser, and perhaps appreciate that other people train for other reasons, and that somethings work well in context A but are wholly inappropriate and not designed to work in context B. Problem is, they get replaced by a new generation who think like they used to

That is not to say of course that there isn’t bad Aikido out there. The third biggest waste of time I have spent on the mat was my first experience of Aikido at a multi style seminar. We spent an hour shaking hands and then falling over because we didn’t want to embarrass the instructor.

Fast forward a few years and I have experienced Aikido again on a number of different seminars with a different instructor whose Aikido does work, oh boy does it work!

Aikido isn’t alone in having bad elements though. You can find bad examples of any art, MMA included.

 

[Jenna]

I think like any problem there is not one simple answer, but rather a combination of several factors.

When you do not understand that martial arts and fighting are two different things, then there is a tendency to assume that anything that does not work when it comes to fighting/combat sports, does not work full stop. It seems of course obvious to a lot of us that if something is not designed to score points in a combat sport, then the fact that it does not work when you try to use it to score points in a competition is unsurprising.

Some however choose to take this as evidence to support their belief that it simply does not work anywhere at anytime in any context.

If your area of interest is competition combat sport, then it would make sense to concentrate on techniques which will bring you success in that field, hence you wouldn’t train in something which won’t (Kendo, Aikido, self protection). Again however, instead of being obvious to some people, take the lack of “Aikido fighters” in MMA as proof to them of its uselessness. Even experienced martial artist like Joe Rogan and Ronda Rousey don’t seem to be able to differentiate between martial arts and fighting/combat sports, and lump them altogether as one, as both have cited the lack of success of Aikido within the arena of combat sports as proof it doesn’t not work full stop.

Of course what we should be saying is it does not work in situation/context A (because it isn’t designed to) it does however work in situation/context B (where it is designed to work).

The opposite of course is also true. You cannot explain to a cage fighter that a triangle choke does not work for self protection. He has used it successfully in the cage, so he *knows* it works. It is only when he tries to use it outside the chip shop on a Friday night and gets his head stomped flat by the guys mates that he realises just because something works in situation/context A it does not follow that it automatically works in other situations.

Part of the reason is youth. When you are young you just assume that because you train for fighting/combat sports then everyone does too, and that anyone else who trains in other arts for others reason is wasting their time with “**** that doesn’t work”.

Part of the reason also is the way Aikido presents itself. Invariably Aikido is shown without the accompanying atemi required for the techniques to work in a live situation. People who have made no effort to understand Aikido take what they see as being “the whole picture” and say it doesn’t work, not understanding that there are other things happening of which they are ignorant because they are either not shown, or not immediately obvious to the viewer.

Mix these together and you have bunch of people who *Know* it’s **** and doesn’t work. One day they will get older, and wiser, and perhaps appreciate that other people train for other reasons, and that somethings work well in context A but are wholly inappropriate and not designed to work in context B. Problem is, they get replaced by a new generation who think like they used to

That is not to say of course that there isn’t bad Aikido out there. The third biggest waste of time I have spent on the mat was my first experience of Aikido at a multi style seminar. We spent an hour shaking hands and then falling over because we didn’t want to embarrass the instructor.

Fast forward a few years and I have experienced Aikido again on a number of different seminars with a different instructor whose Aikido does work, oh boy does it work!

Aikido isn’t alone in having bad elements though. You can find bad examples of any art, MMA included.

Is a thoughtful and lucid answer.. Maybe it will help to clarify for some.. Or maybe those same some do not even want any clarification concerning knowledge that they know they know, and just know it Either way, you have comprehension in a thread where it is, in places, self-evidently deficient..

 

[drop bear]

It's not, but the philosophical and technical aspects are somewhat intertwined. To really make aikido "work" you have to learn not to resist your opponent's strength but to redirect it while connecting his center to yours and moving as one. It kind of makes sense that once you start to "get" the principles of an art that revolves around non opposition, you're usually not that interested in entering competitions anymore.

I think that nowadays most aikidoka that could actually use their art in MMA are too busy training aikido. It's a really rich art and they must be more interested in pushing their limits in aikido than in trying to transition into MMA. Dissing aikido because we don't see it in MMA would be like saying that water-polo players suck at handball since they never play handball competitively (even though some things transition really well).

That said, there was a time where some aikidoka were feistier and they had to fight for a reason or another. The founder certainly did fight with all kinds of martial artists (judo champions, pro boxers and whatnot), Gozo Shioda did a "fighting journey" and Tadashi Abe had to pave the way for aikido in a France fond of judo and its "combat effectiveness". But then, times were rougher and those guys used to swing at each other with live blades in the dark.

If you are not using the martial art to fight. I am not sure how you can really suggest the martial art can equip you to fight.

I am not sure how you would functionally apply a martial art that avoids resistance.

 

[Steve]

Do you, @Jenna and @Paul_D , think there might be more than two alternatives? In reading Paul_D's post, you present two reasonable perspectives. The first is that aikido is, in general, a sound training model, acknowledging that there are examples of poor aikido. Because it's not intended for sport, it's not surprising that it is not successful in sport.

The second is that aikido is a poor training model, because it doesn't work in sport. The idea being that, if it were effective for self defense, it would fare well in combat sport.

One other perspective is not sport-centric (i.e., sport or not sport). It's application-centric. As background, I'm thinking about the articles and videos posted by aikidoka referencing a crisis within the art. I take it from these that at least some aikidoka believe there is some disconnect within the art between the techniques and the ability of students to apply them. And also some concern over the future of the art.

Thinking this through, it seems to me that we (or maybe I) have been thinking about this wrong. Perhaps Aikido is just simply not suitable for the average citizen, just as it is unsuitable for a combat sport competitor. The latter will find that the style itself doesn't lend itself to a ritualized sport. The former will find that the style doesn't afford any opportunity to apply the skills outside of real world encounters.

A fourth perspective is the one Roy Dean suggested, which is that aikido is progressing through a predictable and common arc, and is in need of a reset to bring it back to its martial roots.

I'm sure there are more. Ultimately, just want to keep this from becoming a "Your side is stupid and young and naïve, and my side is smart and wise, and everyone is either on your team or on mine." There is room for much more here than that.

 

[drop bear]

I think like any problem there is not one simple answer, but rather a combination of several factors.

When you do not understand that martial arts and fighting are two different things, then there is a tendency to assume that anything that does not work when it comes to fighting/combat sports, does not work full stop. It seems of course obvious to a lot of us that if something is not designed to score points in a combat sport, then the fact that it does not work when you try to use it to score points in a competition is unsurprising.

Some however choose to take this as evidence to support their belief that it simply does not work anywhere at anytime in any context.

If your area of interest is competition combat sport, then it would make sense to concentrate on techniques which will bring you success in that field, hence you wouldn’t train in something which won’t (Kendo, Aikido, self protection). Again however, instead of being obvious to some people, take the lack of “Aikido fighters” in MMA as proof to them of its uselessness. Even experienced martial artist like Joe Rogan and Ronda Rousey don’t seem to be able to differentiate between martial arts and fighting/combat sports, and lump them altogether as one, as both have cited the lack of success of Aikido within the arena of combat sports as proof it doesn’t not work full stop.

Of course what we should be saying is it does not work in situation/context A (because it isn’t designed to) it does however work in situation/context B (where it is designed to work).

The opposite of course is also true. You cannot explain to a cage fighter that a triangle choke does not work for self protection. He has used it successfully in the cage, so he *knows* it works. It is only when he tries to use it outside the chip shop on a Friday night and gets his head stomped flat by the guys mates that he realises just because something works in situation/context A it does not follow that it automatically works in other situations.

Part of the reason is youth. When you are young you just assume that because you train for fighting/combat sports then everyone does too, and that anyone else who trains in other arts for others reason is wasting their time with “**** that doesn’t work”.

Part of the reason also is the way Aikido presents itself. Invariably Aikido is shown without the accompanying atemi required for the techniques to work in a live situation. People who have made no effort to understand Aikido take what they see as being “the whole picture” and say it doesn’t work, not understanding that there are other things happening of which they are ignorant because they are either not shown, or not immediately obvious to the viewer.

Mix these together and you have bunch of people who *Know* it’s **** and doesn’t work. One day they will get older, and wiser, and perhaps appreciate that other people train for other reasons, and that somethings work well in context A but are wholly inappropriate and not designed to work in context B. Problem is, they get replaced by a new generation who think like they used to

That is not to say of course that there isn’t bad Aikido out there. The third biggest waste of time I have spent on the mat was my first experience of Aikido at a multi style seminar. We spent an hour shaking hands and then falling over because we didn’t want to embarrass the instructor.

Fast forward a few years and I have experienced Aikido again on a number of different seminars with a different instructor whose Aikido does work, oh boy does it work!

Aikido isn’t alone in having bad elements though. You can find bad examples of any art, MMA included.

Ok. lets look at two types of context.

Resisted

Compliant.

Because there is examples of a triangle choke working to stop robberies and rape Which seem a pretty reasonable definition of works to me in context A and context B.

MMA Is being used in the context you suggest it is not being used.

 

[drop bear]

A good friend of mine Bob Orlando a Silat and Kuntao practitioner and a marine often said: “All training is a simulation of violence. The key word is simulation.” He is now deceased and missed by many in the martial community. He was however, correct. It doesn't matter what you train in you are not engaging in violence when you are training. They are not quite the same. Just ask anyone who has worked in a profession that requires the usage of violence day to day or anyone who has been a victim of violence. Training helps but it is not the only factor. Your psychological make up and attributes have a lot to do with your success as well.

While I am totally in agreement with pressure testing. I'm also okay with other martial practitioner's that don't do it or do it in a different manner. I have met people who utilized their training effectively from many different systems including Aikido. Not everyone pressure tested everything they did in a moment of violence.

In the end it does come down to the individual in the moment. You either have it or you don't! Those that have worked in a violence profession will recognize this.

You opened this door. So fine I wiil walk through. I worked in a violence proffession. So lets ask me.

You dont have to have it. you can train to get it. That is the primary point of training.

Having worked in a violence proffession and bodily throwing people who didn't have it in to fights untill they did have it. Having it helps. But if you don't have it work untill you do have it.

 

[jobo]

If you are not using the martial art to fight. I am not sure how you can really suggest the martial art can equip you to fight.

I am not sure how you would functionally apply a martial art that avoids resistance.

lot of non marshal things make you MORE equiped to fight. Playing football(soccer) gives better balance anticipation and co ordination, all important elliments of fighting. Tennis gives you fantastic hand eye co ordination and reactions. Rugby or NFL gets you good at dodging people and or dragging them to the ground

 

[drop bear]

lot of non marshal things make you MORE equiped to fight. Playing football(soccer) gives better balance anticipation and co ordination, all important elliments of fighting. Tennis gives you fantastic hand eye co ordination and reactions. Rugby or NFL gets you good at dodging people and or dragging them to the ground

Was that supposed to be quoted to me. Or Guy b?

 

[Buka]

The third biggest waste of time I have spent on the mat was my first experience of Aikido at a multi style seminar. We spent an hour shaking hands and then falling over because we didn’t want to embarrass the instructor.

That must have been an uncomfortable situation, Paul. If I may, what were two bigger wastes of time?

 

[jobo]

Was that supposed to be quoted to me. Or Guy b?

Was that supposed to be quoted to me. Or Guy b?

your words so I'm guessing you

 

[drop bear]

your words so I'm guessing you

You may not want to be kicking own goals then.

 

[drop bear]

I think like any problem there is not one simple answer, but rather a combination of several factors.

When you do not understand that martial arts and fighting are two different things, then there is a tendency to assume that anything that does not work when it comes to fighting/combat sports, does not work full stop. It seems of course obvious to a lot of us that if something is not designed to score points in a combat sport, then the fact that it does not work when you try to use it to score points in a competition is unsurprising.

Some however choose to take this as evidence to support their belief that it simply does not work anywhere at anytime in any context.

If your area of interest is competition combat sport, then it would make sense to concentrate on techniques which will bring you success in that field, hence you wouldn’t train in something which won’t (Kendo, Aikido, self protection). Again however, instead of being obvious to some people, take the lack of “Aikido fighters” in MMA as proof to them of its uselessness. Even experienced martial artist like Joe Rogan and Ronda Rousey don’t seem to be able to differentiate between martial arts and fighting/combat sports, and lump them altogether as one, as both have cited the lack of success of Aikido within the arena of combat sports as proof it doesn’t not work full stop.

Of course what we should be saying is it does not work in situation/context A (because it isn’t designed to) it does however work in situation/context B (where it is designed to work).

The opposite of course is also true. You cannot explain to a cage fighter that a triangle choke does not work for self protection. He has used it successfully in the cage, so he *knows* it works. It is only when he tries to use it outside the chip shop on a Friday night and gets his head stomped flat by the guys mates that he realises just because something works in situation/context A it does not follow that it automatically works in other situations.

Part of the reason is youth. When you are young you just assume that because you train for fighting/combat sports then everyone does too, and that anyone else who trains in other arts for others reason is wasting their time with “**** that doesn’t work”.

Part of the reason also is the way Aikido presents itself. Invariably Aikido is shown without the accompanying atemi required for the techniques to work in a live situation. People who have made no effort to understand Aikido take what they see as being “the whole picture” and say it doesn’t work, not understanding that there are other things happening of which they are ignorant because they are either not shown, or not immediately obvious to the viewer.

Mix these together and you have bunch of people who *Know* it’s **** and doesn’t work. One day they will get older, and wiser, and perhaps appreciate that other people train for other reasons, and that somethings work well in context A but are wholly inappropriate and not designed to work in context B. Problem is, they get replaced by a new generation who think like they used to

That is not to say of course that there isn’t bad Aikido out there. The third biggest waste of time I have spent on the mat was my first experience of Aikido at a multi style seminar. We spent an hour shaking hands and then falling over because we didn’t want to embarrass the instructor.

Fast forward a few years and I have experienced Aikido again on a number of different seminars with a different instructor whose Aikido does work, oh boy does it work!

Aikido isn’t alone in having bad elements though. You can find bad examples of any art, MMA included.

Even jo jo disagrees with that one.

lot of non marshal things make you MORE equiped to fight. Playing football(soccer) gives better balance anticipation and co ordination, all important elliments of fighting. Tennis gives you fantastic hand eye co ordination and reactions. Rugby or NFL gets you good at dodging people and or dragging them to the ground

 

[JP3]

I'm really speaking to how your comment regarding nomenclature is being used to imply validity by association. Many aikidoists acknowledge that there is a troubling gap between knowledge and application in that style. what someone thinks isn't up to you, but certainly, when you dismiss the crucial distinction between how a hapkidoist trains and how an aikidoist trains, you're creating a false impression that is entirely up to you.

in your example, what is happening is like if you (not your student) are using an example of a savate practitioner effectively applying a roundhouse kick, and Intentionally conflating the two styles. "Hey, that's a roundhouse kick, and so he's doing what we do! Yay us!"

And not just you. Others are doing this now, too. I haven't seen this tactic before, and it just doesn't work for me. It's specious.

Steve, first let me congratulate you on being a fellow polysyllabist. Nobody uses the word conflating, and you used it in the same post as specious. I'm not kidding and I'm smiling, that was great.

But, I think you should have said, that you "find it to be specious." As what we're talking about is not fact, but the two of our opinions, therefore no one can be "actually wrong," which is part of the definition of specious.

To your point, at least trying to get to your point as I understand it. First of all, I've never trained in Savate, so I don't know the first thing about how they train their kicks. I have had a full-contact amateur bout per PKA rules with a savate guy for fun and training once, and I recognized everything he was doing. He had French names, and barring a 2004 trip I took with my wife and used the Pimmsler CD's to learn a little, I don't speak French at all. So, when I described the savate guy's stuff I fought to my coach the next week during a workout, I used my usual TKD/HKD and Muay Thai terminology and nomenclature to do so. I had ready-made labels for the techniques which he was attacking me with, to me they applied, so I used them and my coach understood. I see no problem whatsoever with this. I can't see how you would have a problem with this either, so I think I am totally failing to see what your perceived issue... is.

I can attest first hand that a Muay Thai round kick is very different fundamentally from a TKD/HKD round kick, and when I'm talking with someone who has enough data background to understand (or to give a flying flip) about the difference, I do use the term (sorry, Fried Rice) the TKD round kick, or the Thai round kick, to explain in short form nomenclature what I'm describing.

When I'm talking to students, people learning, or people asking questions though, I always make sure they know the difference - often going so far as to demonstrate the different rotation plan, impact point/striking surface, target locations and so forth to drive home the separate-ness of the two. Is that what you mean?

 

[JP3]

maybe its phylosopicaly unsuitable to take in to ufc . any one who masters aikidio would then not want to take part in bararic blood sport for the enjoyment of a baying crowd. TMA can grow you emotionally as well as physically

Maybe it's just that, by the time we get good enough at it, we've rendered ourselves old and decrepit, and therefore using the wisdom we've generated.... we steer clear of folks who deliberately go out to fight.

Note: The above is said toungue-in-cheek. DOn't set fire to me please.

 

[JP3]

I've never seen or experienced your kick, of course. But trust me, it ain't.

That's right, I said it.

That's right! Man... I totally forgot that. I should have said Phillip Rhee. He's got some good-looking stuff.

 

[Steve]

Steve, first let me congratulate you on being a fellow polysyllabist. Nobody uses the word conflating, and you used it in the same post as specious. I'm not kidding and I'm smiling, that was great.

But, I think you should have said, that you "find it to be specious." As what we're talking about is not fact, but the two of our opinions, therefore no one can be "actually wrong," which is part of the definition of specious.

To your point, at least trying to get to your point as I understand it. First of all, I've never trained in Savate, so I don't know the first thing about how they train their kicks. I have had a full-contact amateur bout per PKA rules with a savate guy for fun and training once, and I recognized everything he was doing. He had French names, and barring a 2004 trip I took with my wife and used the Pimmsler CD's to learn a little, I don't speak French at all. So, when I described the savate guy's stuff I fought to my coach the next week during a workout, I used my usual TKD/HKD and Muay Thai terminology and nomenclature to do so. I had ready-made labels for the techniques which he was attacking me with, to me they applied, so I used them and my coach understood. I see no problem whatsoever with this. I can't see how you would have a problem with this either, so I think I am totally failing to see what your perceived issue... is.

I can attest first hand that a Muay Thai round kick is very different fundamentally from a TKD/HKD round kick, and when I'm talking with someone who has enough data background to understand (or to give a flying flip) about the difference, I do use the term (sorry, Fried Rice) the TKD round kick, or the Thai round kick, to explain in short form nomenclature what I'm describing.

When I'm talking to students, people learning, or people asking questions though, I always make sure they know the difference - often going so far as to demonstrate the different rotation plan, impact point/striking surface, target locations and so forth to drive home the separate-ness of the two. Is that what you mean?

I understand. In the words of Inigo Montoya, "Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up."

A kick isn't just a kick. The execution of a technique is the culmination of many things. I'm sure we can think of more factors that come into play, but these are the three biggies, in my opinion.

First, the technique itself is present. If the technique is junk, it's just going to be junk. A remarkable person might be able to do something with a junk technique, but the technique will always be flawed. An example would be some of the techniques highlighted in this thread: Most Dangerous (as in Useless) Self-Defense Technique Taught?

It also represents the individual. When a person executes a kick, their skill level is present. Their aptitude for the kick (physically and intellectually). If they have a hip problem, it will be there in the execution of the technique. If they haven't practiced. If they are new. All of that is there.

Also present (and most relevant to the point I'm trying to make above), is the training and instruction. How is the technique taught? How is it learned? How is proficiency measured? How does the student transfer theory to application? What does success look like? We know that there are wildly divergent philosophies on this board. Right or wrong.

What I was referring to as specious is to disregard some or all of the three factors above.

A roundhouse kick taught in TKD represents a body of instruction, a training philosophy and expectations that are not the same as for a karateka or a MMAist. The techniques may look the same, and contain the same mechanics, but that is superficial. In every meaningful way, they are not the same technique.

I like analogies, so here's my attempt. I'm an old aircooled VW guy. I have had many bugs, a van and my favorite was a 1974 Karmann Ghia (I know... '67 would have been awesome). Anyway. The 74 Karmann Ghia was sexy. It had nice lines. Driving it was a product of the driver, but also a product of the engineering. Regardless of what it looked like, it did not drive like a Porsche. It drove like a Beetle, because that's what was under the hood.

 

[Paul_D]

Do you think there might be more than two alternatives

Oh yes, I am sure there are many alternatives, not just the ones that came to my mind

The idea being that, if it were effective for self defense, it would fare well in combat sport.

I'd never say that. The fact that something is effective for self defence has no bearing on its success or otherwise in combat sport, and vice versa.

There is room for everything, problems only start when people think that one thing is designed for something it is not.