Aikido hate

[Paul_D]

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

Well they were both with a local instructor who shall remain nameless

The second worst was on a seminar and we spent an hour doing oi-tsuki. Don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with oi-tsuki, great technique for certain situations, I like it. But he didn't actually teach anything, we just repeated it, over and over. No explanation of where and how you would use it. It was a seminar ffs, not a karate lesson, think someone forgot to tell him that. I learnt nothing, not a thing.

Biggest waste of time was the same guy. Another seminar, year before last I think it was actually. 50ish people in the room. He spent an hour doing head kicks even though he was the only one in the room flexible enough to do them. I don't see the point of that, an hour doing techniques no one else in the room is physically capable of doing without tearing muscles tissue. He either wasn't paying attention to the people he was supposed to be teaching, or didn't care. Again, learnt nothing.

I given that seminar a miss the last two years needless to say.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's the ownership piece that is relevant. It's the, "that's aikido." If you think it's about the technique, I'm not getting through.

Let's say I teach a style called Belch. It's an offshoot of BJJ. Now, I have a singularly crappy training model. My students, the belchers, can perform all of their techniques in a controlled, compliant setting. But, really, its like that ninja video. They suck.

But, as in this thread, they know enough to identify the techniques when they see them. And, as in this thread, they say, "hey!! That guy is belching!! Woot. I'm a belcher, too! My style works." Validation!

That's what has happened recently.

Simply put, a technique may be the same, but whether it is aikido or BJJ or belching matters in that it speaks to training methodology and skill development.

Ah. That's a valid point. I don't usually think of it as ownership when I identify a technique like that. I'm just identifying it, and I can then say that the technique works and name where it falls within X art. A single technique isn't evidence a style works, of course. If a style has a common training approach (which most do), then that's an important factor. And, of course, there's also the fact that it's a single technique. If I point to a Judo leg sweep that works like ours (same mechanics, same principles), I can say, "See? The technique works." That's not evidence that other NGA techniques work (though it is a piece of evidence in favor of the physical principles involved), and it's not validation of our training methods if we don't train the same way.

 

[jobo]

Ah. That's a valid point. I don't usually think of it as ownership when I identify a technique like that. I'm just identifying it, and I can then say that the technique works and name where it falls within X art. A single technique isn't evidence a style works, of course. If a style has a common training approach (which most do), then that's an important factor. And, of course, there's also the fact that it's a single technique. If I point to a Judo leg sweep that works like ours (same mechanics, same principles), I can say, "See? The technique works." That's not evidence that other NGA techniques work (though it is a piece of evidence in favor of the physical principles involved), and it's not validation of our training methods if we don't train the same way.

I think training methodology has a large part to play, but its not the only requirement or even actually important at all in some circumstances.

let's take soccer as an example, every one can play soccer, its easy. You try to kick the ball to team mate and failing that kick it in the general direction of the opponents goal. You've got that simple concept and your a soccer player. Now some people will never get any better no matter who coaches them and for how long. They have a certain aptitude and that's it. Now obviously if you can get the other team to all stand still, you can convince them they are better than they actually are.

conversely you can take another player, give him bad coaching and his natural abilities will see him through, he may not be as good as he could be, but maybe his is

as a soccer player I am or at least was quite good, no fancy ball skills needed, I could run faster than most, and tackle like a dumper truck. No amount of coaching would turn me in a skilled midfield player. It was pointless even trying. It's much the same with ma, nothing will ever give me a good side kick, nothing. But who cares when I have a knee. High round house that will cut your leg off

 

[JP3]

UFC is mindless violence for money, TMA is about personal growth

I generally agree with the spirit but not the absolute letter of what you've got here. Absolutisms typically to usually fail because... well, because in things like this it is hard to find an "always," or a "never."

UFC does not have to be mindless, it could be, as you pointed in an unquoted part of your post, the mind-ful decision of, or acceptance of, that you are about to engage in violence in exchange for money and/or exaltation/fame. Some folks really do like the idea, some folks find that they are talented and don't have a, to them, better option to make a living, and some people are just fame-hounds. None of these would be mindless.

And, while I agree that, generally, people get into and stay into TMA for the character and developmental benefits, I would wager that, in the beginning, most of them, a some level wanted to learn how to fight/how to defend themselves. So ... imo ... TMA is good for that, too. The benefits derived from long-term practice start out being alesser and lower-priority benefit and end up being the main thing after a few decades.


I see your point, but I delight in showing that black & white issues are actually shades of gray.

 

[JP3]

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!

Question first, then agreement. If going to a seminar and finding your inner-self at war, with the courteous side winning so you fell when there was no need so as to not embarrass the instructor -- was the 3rd biggest waste of time, what were the first and second place results in said comparison?

Go to seminar A, get on the mat, very formal environment, instructor gets out in the middle and does a thing, his uke jumps off of him and takes an impressive, "pretty," fall. Instructor then says some instructor-stuff and has everyone try the technique, and nobody can do it. And I mean Nobody. Even him, when he came back out to answer questions.

Contrasted with Seminar B, similar start to the thing, except that uke didn't go for a nifty flight, but instead seemed to suddenly strain to be as far away from the demonstrator as possible, before just crumpling into a small pile on the ground tapping furiously. That guy also did some instructor-talk, but then he literally walked his way around the ring of people giving them the 3-second version "They do this type of thing, you lift here, push there, move there then drop that." Blam. Every single person had the technique in about ten minutes.

General question for the readers.... Which seminar do you think cost more to attend?

 

[JP3]

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

 

[JP3]

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

By "finding" resistance, giving way to it, then redirecting it, or in some cases, emphasizing/enhancing it beyond where the opponent "thought" they would be.

You've done some judo, Drop? Or, something with an armbrag so you can get behind the person and strike from there or take their back is grappling is the better option?

For judo, just think advanced foot sweep - deashi barai on an opponent just standing still, or for the arm drag, think puncher/striker/boxer in some traditional stance about to pounce/swing.

If you try to sweep the foot out from under an opponent who is not moving, you hit a tree stump with most people of about 75% of your own weight and up (advantage to bigger types for this example) It IS ... possible... to kick the leg out, sure. But, it is really hard to do, and it hurts your foot and nobody wants that. Well, except Jack Reacher and it's why he's always wearing general-issue combat boots, but that's another story.

The giving way is to be mindful of the movement, and when the opponent moves his own front (advanced) foot, in any direction, the ... skill... is to continue such move beyond where the person wanted it to be, halt it a bit short o where they wanted it to be, or redirect it in a direction they did not expect it to go. Any success at all with this will start to break down their posture, causing reactions to get it back under control, which will, in turn, exacerbate the structural problems, and they end up falling. Or, you can really catch the technique right and they look like they just slipped on the cartoon banana peel (though I've never found bananas to be overly slick, myself. *shrug*)

Arm drag, same-same. If person is not throwing punches, but remaining hands-up at guard of some type, if/when you move in and attempt to arm drag, easy for them to defend by simple resistance, by movement or popping you with the other hand. But, wait for them to throw, let's say a straight right.

Step number one, get out of the way, duh. Then out of the way, you put your arm drag on While the person's punch is headed towards where your head was, and it's like you were magically teleported to their back and then you do whatever is next in line for you in this particular tactical situation.

The concept of giving way, blending, harmonizing and generally not combating strength with strength isn't unique to aikido as everyone here knows, or ought to know. It is central to aikido however, and with the possible exception of judo and the arts which led to the development of judo & aikido, like keto-ryu and daito-ryu, I don't think other systems put the blending at the top of the priority list in order to make their techniques work.

There's not much harmony in a good left cross. There is some... however, if your opponent strikes from his right side, and you slip and with he overextended you put the left cross on the button as the opponent goes by. Stylistically, I like to say cool stuff like, "Take that with ya..." as the opponent staggers away, but I think that's just me.

Sorry Drop, I got carried away. I should have just stopped with the first sentence with too many commas, but I've got my Starbucks shooting lighting through my fingers and that energy has got to go somewhere.

 

[Jenna]

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.

Aikido is not always the easiest philosophy to understand. Of the practitioners I have trained with, rarely is there understanding among them of the simplest of tenets of O'Sensei. People are interested in technique. Yet true Aikido technique is inseparable from pure Aikido philosophy. Where a practitioner claim a disconnect it is their own ignorance of their own art which engender this disconnect.. Is like, I can understand ikkyos and sankyos from dozen different attack and but with these people is like.. I do not understand what I am even trying to do! No, in Aikido I am not ever trying to beat.. or to win.. I am trying to reinstate a peace.. that do not happen by forcing an opponent to do what I want or force him to stop doing what he is trying to do on me.. because it is human will to resist.. Violence lead to violence.. if I match an committed attack with greater it will not facilitate an halt to that violence until sufficient damage is done that they are not able.. I can only reinstate a peace when there is nothing for him to fight against except his self.. If this sound woowoo I can understand.. Aikido is not a fighting system.. Aikido in MMA is absurdity.. Aikido is not to beat, not to win, not to compete..

"As soon as you concern your self with good and bad of your fellows you create an opening in your heart for maliciousness to enter.. Testing, competing with and criticising others weaken and defeat you.. " is Ueshiba say.. I cannot for one moment hear this from the mouth of some one in cage to fight.. horses for courses.. ring fighting, cage fighting, street fighting, youtube dickery, none of this is the realm of Aikido.. is not meant for that.. yet even some moronic Aikidoka who have personal insecurity feel need to try to prove a thing of an art like @Paul_D say is not design for that.. I go so far as to say in my experience only one person I had train with understand Aikido.. every one else practice a system of DRJJ based syllabus of technique and nothing else.. is the problem that result in disconnect like you say

"If you have not linked your self to true emptiness you have not understood the Art of Peace.." is Ueshiba say.. like how the holy hell can some insecure, undertrained muppet in local dojo who seek only to master kotegaeshi so he can put other muppet who try to shove him in a pub, down on his knees.. how can he understand what is Art of Peace? hmm? then run off to some forum and rail about disconnect? pffft.. Aikido people are in their own Aikido famine and yet so fed full of xxxx is a limbo world out of reach of dealing with real violence and disconnected from core philosophy.. </rant>

 

[Gerry Seymour]

agree. The people who keep trotting out the, if your art is any good why isn't it featured in the UFC. Seem to miss out on a few sailient facts, this being that apart from the skill involved. UFC fighter need to like hurting people, or if they don't actually like it, they are prepared to do so for money.
People who have dedicated themselves to mastery of a TMA, have most likely done so for physical and psychological betterment , with the benefit that they can defend themselves and their loved ones if attacked.
The two outlooks are not really compatible. UFC is mindless violence for money, TMA is about personal growth

While I don't agree with the vilification of MMA, I agree with the general idea here, Jobo. I think a lot of folks I've trained with just wouldn't be interested in delivering the kind of punishment that often is necessary in MMA (as it is seen by those not actively training in it), unless someone puts them in a position to have that need (an attack/physical altercation).

 

[JP3]

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 agree, I think this is taking place right now. Instructors such as George Ledyard, Howard Popkin (he's a daito-ryu guy, but he equates with aikido really well with his expression), Nick Lowry and others are... attempting... to get this done.

Personally, and I've had experience here in Houston with this, I think there is a LOT of what my first adult aikido instructor, Ray Williams, called it, was "Pooh-bear and Bunny schools. In these schools, and I have visited one locally and really felt ... saddened... I'd have to call it, by the experience. This example school which will remain nameless is a very pretty place, full of TMA memorabilia, I'd call it, the picture of O-sensei in the place of honor at the forefront of the mat, calligraphy, Japanese-style paintings (prints actually but you get the idea) on the wall, with a real canvas on our new fake American tatami (i.e. not rice) mats. A small gong on a timer announces start and stop of class, everyone who is a dan grade is wearing traditional hakama during practice, thus separating the "in crowd" from the "aspirants." Class is very formal, just Japanese commands, no English, no explanations, just "I do. Now You do," as the pedagogical approach.

And they are... not very good. Well, that's not right. They aren't really learning anything. They don't even know how to fall correctly. My fellow judo people on here, let me put it this way. There were not one, but 3 black belts (judging by hakamas only) who were reaching back for the ground when doing backfalls. No, I don't mean they were doing the cantilevering, soft-style falls and putting their bodies into an accepting posture so as to receive and redirect the fall energy and convert it into a curving roll along the body... they were raching back to Stop Their Fall. Broken-arm anyone?

What we call "Big Falls, those cool-looking flying roll-outs that you see during demonstration... nobody did those -- because when I asked, "Those are too dangerous." Nothing about how they are a safety mechanism for uke so as to get out of a bad position when the opponent is gaining a dominant advantage/position, nothing about redirecting energy, nothing about the offensive use of ukemi... just a whole lot of nothing.

During the technique training time, it did not seem to me that there was ever an attempt to gain a positional advantage by movement, to get offline of the attack, to apply kuzushi to the opponent... I mean stuff that should be taught in the white belt's first week. Missing. Completely.

But, when I tried to gently ask my minder, who was apparently the main instructor's second student about these things, approaching them tangentially... because I'm a sensitive guy and I was already struggling with my "WTF!" response... what I got back was "We practice the traditional art of aikido here, without any of the modern aberrancies present in many other schools. We are striving (he said "striving") to keep O-Sensei's art pure and true to his teachings."

So, at that time I clamped down on talking about Ueshiba's young man/early predilection to send students off the mat bloodied and sometimes broken, and let's not talk about challengers.

When he was 80, sure. He was a different dude by then. How else do we explain Sensei Tohei's Ki Society? But... go into a Yoshinkan school... things are much different.

I must still be amped up because of my coffee.

 

[O'Malley]

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.

First example that comes to mind is people training at the shooting range for self-protection (or even the police). Not all of them go to test their skills in paintball matches, yet this training proves valuable when they have to actually shoot someone, even though they may hope to never have to use it.

One can train technique, timing, distance, position, balance and whatnot without having to compete in MMA.

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

Here's a simple example:

 

[JP3]

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.

OK, I've added you to my list of top people on this board. Anyone who is both a polysyllabist AND who can properly quote, and use the quote, from The Princess Bride is someone to hang out with.

But VW Bugs? OK, to each his own. I'm also an oldschool aircooled guy, but I favor old Porsche, like a sweet '73 911, no turbo. There's a go-cart! End of digression.

I'm still stuck on my trying to "get" your point. I agree with the three tenets you put out, I just didn't quote them again for brevity. My technique can suck, given. But, what I'm trying to say is that the label for the thing... is not the thing itself. A name is not a comment on quality, in and of itself, is it? I understand that Japanese words have layered meanings and English very rarely does (we have alternate, but not layered meanings).

Commenting on techniques in this thread. Let's say we are agreed that whatever the guy doing the armbar in the one (bad) way back in the annals of time...er... pages 1-3 of this thread I think, is bad from a technical standpoint. I think we are.

Now, if we are going to discuss how to correct it, between ourselves on the internet and not in class with the guy, and since we have no contact with and therefore no influence over, his instructor, we can't fix either it, or him, nor his instructor. However, being the savant internet critics that we are... we say he should do this-&-that, and move like-a and like-b, and then his result will prove more effective.

But, in the communication of ideas, we are just using words, which are sounds we use to capture concepts. Sometimes the concepts are simple, sometimes not, such is the limit of words. Names are simply a subset of words... and I use words all day in my profession and the solution to a complex conceptual issue is to use more words until the capture of the concept is completed.

Therefore, to me, to try to do what you are attempting to get me to do with my "label" is to just add another word or three, e.g. "That guy's doing an armbar." would be changed/added/edited to be, "Man, that guys doing a sh**ty armbar. Who taught him that, it's awful."

 

[jobo]

While I don't agree with the vilification of MMA, I agree with the general idea here, Jobo. I think a lot of folks I've trained with just wouldn't be interested in delivering the kind of punishment that often is necessary in MMA (as it is seen by those not actively training in it), unless someone puts them in a position to have that need (an attack/physical altercation).

yes, but I'm not villifying mma, its to much of a mixed bag for that, rather ufc type events and training. I cant spar my skill set, its too deadly. Or rather if I smash some in the face with an elbow their going to hospital, if I pull them forward and knee them in the chest their going to need some assistance to get home. Now apart from my wish not to hurt people my dojo would quickly run out of punters if I was to do so. One guy had to go home with a dead arm as I kick the pad he wad holding to hard.

 

[JP3]

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.

Absolutes don't really work in this regard, though I get what you are driving at.

Let's say a person was trained by his dad as a boxer, to protect himself/herself while in school-age years. Such training would cross-pollenate into pro-style boxing, right? Into MMA as the striking component of that person's game? Into part of an arsenal of techniques in the UFC's Octagon?

And, let's say it is actually a She, and this she is approached after class one night n the parking lot by a bad guy. (The thought strikes me that it is a particularly stupid bad guy, to approach a lady who just got done with a MMA workout, but hey... bad guys are typically dumb so it works.)

Bad guy sneaks up, She spots him almost when it's too late, but just in time to avoid "the grab" and she turns and Whop-Whop-Whap! Jab-cross-hook which dents the guy's nose, starting it to bleeding, cuts him above his right eye (She's a southpaw), and cracks his jaw. He spins and drops to a knee and in a very ladylike fashion she kicks him in the head thus ending the confrontation. Two weeks later she's in an amateur bout, and though her ground game is still kind of weak, it is sufficient to wear her opponent down, then escape to stand up, then she uses the exact same jab-cross-hook combo to rock her opponent, who she then takes her back and gets a submission with a rear naked choke.

Thus, in this real-world example (which has actually happened (the initial part of the episode only -- I'm not sure anyone like Ronda got attacked after class then went on to fight a match ina couple weeks!) at least a few hundred times I'm sure... though often times the outcome isn't nearly so comic book awesome) The fact that the Lady's Dad-taught, then coach-taught, boxing is effective for self defence has had a bearing on its success or otherwise in combat sport, and vice versa.

It is the absolutisms that bother me, y'all.

 

[JP3]

I given that seminar a miss the last two years needless to say.

Understandably so.

 

[Juany118]

Aikido is not always the easiest philosophy to understand. Of the practitioners I have trained with, rarely is there understanding among them of the simplest of tenets of O'Sensei. People are interested in technique. Yet true Aikido technique is inseparable from pure Aikido philosophy. Where a practitioner claim a disconnect it is their own ignorance of their own art which engender this disconnect.. Is like, I can understand ikkyos and sankyos from dozen different attack and but with these people is like.. I do not understand what I am even trying to do! No, in Aikido I am not ever trying to beat.. or to win.. I am trying to reinstate a peace.. that do not happen by forcing an opponent to do what I want or force him to stop doing what he is trying to do on me.. because it is human will to resist.. Violence lead to violence.. if I match an committed attack with greater it will not facilitate an halt to that violence until sufficient damage is done that they are not able.. I can only reinstate a peace when there is nothing for him to fight against except his self.. If this sound woowoo I can understand.. Aikido is not a fighting system.. Aikido in MMA is absurdity.. Aikido is not to beat, not to win, not to compete..

"As soon as you concern your self with good and bad of your fellows you create an opening in your heart for maliciousness to enter.. Testing, competing with and criticising others weaken and defeat you.. " is Ueshiba say.. I cannot for one moment hear this from the mouth of some one in cage to fight.. horses for courses.. ring fighting, cage fighting, street fighting, youtube dickery, none of this is the realm of Aikido.. is not meant for that.. yet even some moronic Aikidoka who have personal insecurity feel need to try to prove a thing of an art like @Paul_D say is not design for that.. I go so far as to say in my experience only one person I had train with understand Aikido.. every one else practice a system of DRJJ based syllabus of technique and nothing else.. is the problem that result in disconnect like you say

"If you have not linked your self to true emptiness you have not understood the Art of Peace.." is Ueshiba say.. like how the holy hell can some insecure, undertrained muppet in local dojo who seek only to master kotegaeshi so he can put other muppet who try to shove him in a pub, down on his knees.. how can he understand what is Art of Peace? hmm? then run off to some forum and rail about disconnect? pffft.. Aikido people are in their own Aikido famine and yet so fed full of xxxx is a limbo world out of reach of dealing with real violence and disconnected from core philosophy.. </rant>

I would go even further and say that one can debate if there is one overarching Aikido Philosophy. The Aikido I studied the most years ago was Yoshinkan Aikido. My Sensei moved out of State and so I briefly went to another school. I was constantly getting "talking to" by the Sensei, not so much for my technique but the Philosophy behind the technique. We had a rather circular argument that involved him saying Yoshinkan Aikido wasn't true Aikido, I would point out Sensei Gozo Shioda was award his 10 Dan by the O'Sensei while teaching this style and it was simply a matter of when Sensei Shioda learned (pre-war vs post war Aikido.). It was an interesting conversation, I mention it only to point out the Philosophy of Aikido can be different depending on the lineage that leads to your Sensei.

 

[JP3]

[QUOTE="Jenna, post: 1829092, member: 8768""If you have not linked your self to true emptiness you have not understood the Art of Peace.." is Ueshiba say.. like how the holy hell can some insecure, undertrained muppet in local dojo who seek only to master kotegaeshi so he can put other muppet who try to shove him in a pub, down on his knees.. how can he understand what is Art of Peace? hmm? then run off to some forum and rail about disconnect? pffft.. Aikido people are in their own Aikido famine and yet so fed full of xxxx is a limbo world out of reach of dealing with real violence and disconnected from core philosophy.. </rant> [/QUOTE]

I agree with you, Jenna. Personally, as we discussed in your thread On Fighting, I'm flawed and I admit it as it applies to being a true aikido practitioner. If I'm asked what I do nowadays, if it is a prospective student, I tell them "aikido & judo, but I've done a lot of other things as well." And I stop. But with people who know what's what, even my own instructor pipeline, I know, and they know, I'm very much an aikijutsu person. I just enjoy the way it is possible, sometimes even easy, to end something with hardly any physical effort. You need to have skill, of course, but I still get a kick out of it.

I hope that doesn't make me a muppet.

 

[Paul_D]

Absolutes don't really work in this regard, though I get what you are driving at.

Let's say a person was trained by his dad as a boxer, to protect himself/herself while in school-age years. Such training would cross-pollenate into pro-style boxing, right? Into MMA as the striking component of that person's game? Into part of an arsenal of techniques in the UFC's Octagon?

And, let's say it is actually a She, and this she is approached after class one night n the parking lot by a bad guy. (The thought strikes me that it is a particularly stupid bad guy, to approach a lady who just got done with a MMA workout, but hey... bad guys are typically dumb so it works.)

Bad guy sneaks up, She spots him almost when it's too late, but just in time to avoid "the grab" and she turns and Whop-Whop-Whap! Jab-cross-hook which dents the guy's nose, starting it to bleeding, cuts him above his right eye (She's a southpaw), and cracks his jaw. He spins and drops to a knee and in a very ladylike fashion she kicks him in the head thus ending the confrontation. Two weeks later she's in an amateur bout, and though her ground game is still kind of weak, it is sufficient to wear her opponent down, then escape to stand up, then she uses the exact same jab-cross-hook combo to rock her opponent, who she then takes her back and gets a submission with a rear naked choke..

A good punch is always a good punch, and is useful for fighting, self proteciton and martial arts. No one would deny that.

 

[JP3]

I would go even further and say that one can debate if there is one overarching Aikido Philosophy. The Aikido I studied the most years ago was Yoshinkan Aikido. My Sensei moved out of State and so I briefly went to another school. I was constantly getting "talking to" by the Sensei, not so much for my technique but the Philosophy behind the technique. We had a rather circular argument that involved him saying Yoshinkan Aikido wasn't true Aikido, I would point out Sensei Gozo Shioda was award his 10 Dan by the O'Sensei while teaching this style and it was simply a matter of when Sensei Shioda learned (pre-war vs post war Aikido.). It was an interesting conversation, I mention it only to point out the Philosophy of Aikido can be different depending on the lineage that leads to your Sensei.

Gozo Shioda was trained in aikido by a Very different Morehei Ueshiba. Adding decades of life does hat to a person. Same thing with Kenji Tomiki. I wonder which branch of aikido that instructor, the one you were havin the circular discussion with, was from?

 

[Steve]

OK, I've added you to my list of top people on this board. Anyone who is both a polysyllabist AND who can properly quote, and use the quote, from The Princess Bride is someone to hang out with.

But VW Bugs? OK, to each his own. I'm also an oldschool aircooled guy, but I favor old Porsche, like a sweet '73 911, no turbo. There's a go-cart! End of digression.

I'm still stuck on my trying to "get" your point. I agree with the three tenets you put out, I just didn't quote them again for brevity. My technique can suck, given. But, what I'm trying to say is that the label for the thing... is not the thing itself. A name is not a comment on quality, in and of itself, is it? I understand that Japanese words have layered meanings and English very rarely does (we have alternate, but not layered meanings).

Commenting on techniques in this thread. Let's say we are agreed that whatever the guy doing the armbar in the one (bad) way back in the annals of time...er... pages 1-3 of this thread I think, is bad from a technical standpoint. I think we are.

Now, if we are going to discuss how to correct it, between ourselves on the internet and not in class with the guy, and since we have no contact with and therefore no influence over, his instructor, we can't fix either it, or him, nor his instructor. However, being the savant internet critics that we are... we say he should do this-&-that, and move like-a and like-b, and then his result will prove more effective.

But, in the communication of ideas, we are just using words, which are sounds we use to capture concepts. Sometimes the concepts are simple, sometimes not, such is the limit of words. Names are simply a subset of words... and I use words all day in my profession and the solution to a complex conceptual issue is to use more words until the capture of the concept is completed.

Therefore, to me, to try to do what you are attempting to get me to do with my "label" is to just add another word or three, e.g. "That guy's doing an armbar." would be changed/added/edited to be, "Man, that guys doing a sh**ty armbar. Who taught him that, it's awful."

i will surely disappoint you at some point.

Honestly, I may have misread your initial point. It's not, "that guy is doing an armbar," that is concerning. It's how that example can be used or misused to validate one's own training model.

Simply put, it's what comes after identifying a technique, around here. In judo it's called x, and in aikido, it's called y. In budo taijutsu, it's called z. See? All styles are awesome, and can't we all get along?

I'm all for getting along, and I can agree with identifying techniques. But an armbar in bjj is taught differently than an armbar in budo taijutsu. Even different from judo. The setups, the feints, the strategies, and the execution are all going to be different, even among close cousins like judo and BJJ. The technique may be identical, but that's the least important part of the equation.

So, when I see someone post a video and say, see? Aikido/judo/BJJ works because YouTube, I'm interested in seeing if these other intangibles are present. Without that context, you don't have enough information to evaluate the video. For example, in a video where a guy does an armbar, is there enough there to know if it's BJJ or aikido or ninjutsu? If not, you can't presume it's validation of them all. That's questionable logic.

And this even more recent trend to referring to things as "like" (aikido-like) as though that's validation. Forget about it.