Aikido hate

but all these what ifs always seem to depend on your opponent being a derange but highly skilled Mma exponent. They must make up an exceedingly small percentage of the population . Yet on here they seem to be round every corner just itching to attack aikidio people on the flimsiest of excuses. They are to the most part pycotic killing machines. They will win against most arts. Even if you trained bjj. They would still beat you up coz your not phycotic enough and haven't taken enough steroids
It's an odd thing. Self defense guys will lead you to believe you're gonna get mugged or murdered at any time (and lucky it hasn't happened to you already) but that the guy who does it will be untrained. It's an odd combination of hyper-preparedness and disregard.

It seems much more reasonable to me to acknowledge you are unlikely to be attacked, but if so, that guy might be well trained.
 
Ah, I think I see part of the difference you and I have in some of our discussions, DB. You see, the lock (in most aikido arts), isn't the point, at all. If that MMA guy says "I won't let you have that lock" then I won't even try for the lock. Why? Because he knows it's coming, and if he resists it, he has to open up something else. I'd be looking for the "something else". Now, if he's better than me, or just hits better than I defend strikes, I'll end up on the worst end of that. But that's about a difference in skill. If my skill at defending strikes equals or exceeds his ability to deliver strikes, then there's a real chance I'll be able to find a technique he's open for.

I've only talked strikes in this, obviously. For this example, I've just followed your post. He might also go for a double-leg takedown, and the logic is the same there: his attack skill on that thing versus my skill at defending against it. And, of course, there's also his ability to defend against whatever technique I choose, assuming he can perceive it before it's too late. But that's all a matter of comparative skill, not the functionality of the technique.
Yes! The setup is an implied part of the technique.
 
I disagree with the premise, unless I'm misunderstanding you. Let's say I take a student and train them the best possible side kick (technically speaking), but they only ever train either against a heavy bag or against a person doing a very predictable, repetitive pattern. You take an equally capable student, and teach them the best possible side kick, adding in nothing but a randomly moving opponent who will actually try to block or dodge. In the end, your student's kick will almost certainly be more usable than mine. Why? The training method. Your training method brought more variety and adaptability (and reality) to the side kick skill.
not if the kick is equally poorly exicuted they will both be equally rubbish. If my student is so poor that he can't hit the moving targets, then your will be better as at least he has had practise kicking something
people only have so much ability, once you have reach that point you can coach for ever with no improvements'
 
but all these what ifs always seem to depend on your opponent being a derange but highly skilled Mma exponent. They must make up an exceedingly small percentage of the population . Yet on here they seem to be round every corner just itching to attack aikidio people on the flimsiest of excuses. They are to the most part pycotic killing machines. They will win against most arts. Even if you trained bjj. They would still beat you up coz your not phycotic enough and haven't taken enough steroids

You are trying to broaden the range of oponant that you can handle. This would be the essence of getting better at self defence.
 
Ah, I think I see part of the difference you and I have in some of our discussions, DB. You see, the lock (in most aikido arts), isn't the point, at all. If that MMA guy says "I won't let you have that lock" then I won't even try for the lock. Why? Because he knows it's coming, and if he resists it, he has to open up something else. I'd be looking for the "something else". Now, if he's better than me, or just hits better than I defend strikes, I'll end up on the worst end of that. But that's about a difference in skill. If my skill at defending strikes equals or exceeds his ability to deliver strikes, then there's a real chance I'll be able to find a technique he's open for.

I've only talked strikes in this, obviously. For this example, I've just followed your post. He might also go for a double-leg takedown, and the logic is the same there: his attack skill on that thing versus my skill at defending against it. And, of course, there's also his ability to defend against whatever technique I choose, assuming he can perceive it before it's too late. But that's all a matter of comparative skill, not the functionality of the technique.

Ok. If you boxed as an example and you got punched in the face and could not land a punch then you would know what you had to work on to fix that element. If you didn't box you will never know.

If you feel that sport has no bearing on your self defence you would never make that connection and would then rely on what exactly?
 
Steve, I will do that and please take that in a sincere manner. However it is not just this thread. I am basing your posting over several threads and months where you have argued with people who are basically experts at what they do. (Koryu, Self Defense, Aikido, etc.) Now, if you believe the methodology for training in BJJ, Judo, Combat Sports, etc. is the end all be all I don't even have a problem with that. Nor do I have a problem if you don't believe that. As long as someone is not working overtly or subtly to undermine other arts or putting those practitioner's down or negatively talking about their training I don't care.

Think of it this way Steve.
In regards to my exasperation here. You specifically started another thread recently basically saying you wanted to put me on ignore. I on the other hand have tried to engage with you in a friendly positive manner with absolutely no bad intentions on my part and I have gone out of my way to stick up for you in the past. Who should be exasperated here or disappointed?

Having said that, I look forward to your future posts and will reread your posts on this thread and several others when I get a chance. Maybe we are having one of those famous internet misunderstandings? I just wanted you to understand my perspective on how you have come across over the last several months here on MartialTalk. If you wish to carry this on let's move it to conversation as I am sure everyone on this thread could really care less about you or my personal perspectives on each other and frankly it is taking away from the thread. ;)

------------------Back To The Thread---------------------

Now, let's move this thread back to what the OP originally intended and in specifically why does Aikido receive so much hate!

Which personally I do not think it does.

No more or less than any martial system! One only has to look through the internet and you will find threads attacking almost every martial system.

I have said before and I will say it again I have met many Aikidoka that were really good at what they do and proficient with there skill sets which I have no doubt they could use!
 
It's an odd thing. Self defense guys will lead you to believe you're gonna get mugged or murdered at any time (and lucky it hasn't happened to you already) but that the guy who does it will be untrained. It's an odd combination of hyper-preparedness and disregard.

It seems much more reasonable to me to acknowledge you are unlikely to be attacked, but if so, that guy might be well trained.
well yea, there does seem a level of paranoia in some folk.

but they are probably right on the untrained point. If you took the number of criminals in your country and then subtracted the number of criminals who have reached a good standard in a ma. Then you would probably find that a ) not hugely larger than b.)
Not least that the discipline required to get to a good standard and the lack of discipline involved in a life of crime are not really compatable or,, if they had that discipline they would use it to find a better way to make money that robbing passerby. Like bank robbery perhaps
 
What punishment? Even in MMA fights people don't generally walk off with broken limbs.

We have had the submissions vs limb destruction convo.

Submissions are significantly nicer.

If you followed the concept of peace in self defense. You would do sub wrestling not Aikido.
I'm not talking about broken limbs. I'm talking about hitting someone hard enough to end a bout. I just have no interest in that. I could probably (if my knees weren't crap) enjoy getting into BJJ competition. But getting into MMA - I'd just be the guy not fighting hard enough when facing an opponent with a strong striking game. I'm not interested in hitting him hard enough to win that, nor am I interested in taking the beating he'd give me in that bout.
 
Ok. If you boxed as an example and you got punched in the face and could not land a punch then you would know what you had to work on to fix that element. If you didn't box you will never know.

If you feel that sport has no bearing on your self defence you would never make that connection and would then rely on what exactly?
Where have I ever said sport has no bearing on self-defense? This post seems to have no connection to the one you quoted.
 
Is 20 hours a lot as compared to training martial arts?
That's basically 20 hours on a single, basic technique. I'd compare it to 20 hours spent on a basic single-leg and some simple set-up variations, and maybe some distancing drills. The gun has the advantage, of course, that resistance doesn't matter so much if it's pointed the right way when it goes off, so it's less prone to resistance failure than a single-leg. However, that 20 hours still won't make the gun terribly useful if the bad guy grabs the shooter's hand before he clears the holster. He'll need something besides that 20 hours of training, most likely, for that situation.
 
Where have I ever said sport has no bearing on self-defense? This post seems to have no connection to the one you quoted.

Ok. Different idea. I get the impression that people want their cake and 6 pack abs. It is not unusual we get it a bit as well.

So in a similar vein People want to become a proficient striker but not want to do hard rounds with absolute mongrels.

Do you feel you are selling that idea to a certain extent.
 
not if the kick is equally poorly exicuted they will both be equally rubbish. If my student is so poor that he can't hit the moving targets, then your will be better as at least he has had practise kicking something
people only have so much ability, once you have reach that point you can coach for ever with no improvements'
Remember that your student has all the training mine has. You added the moving target. As long as you train him as well as I train mine, yours will be superior (unless we both suck as teachers, then we both need to quit and go wait tables).
 
not if the kick is equally poorly exicuted they will both be equally rubbish. If my student is so poor that he can't hit the moving targets, then your will be better as at least he has had practise kicking something
people only have so much ability, once you have reach that point you can coach for ever with no improvements'
or another way of looking at it, one of the black belts I spar with has beautifully exicuted kicks. They are high they are accurate, they are power full. Unfortunately for him, they don't hit me as I have moved, he just isn't fast enough. And worse than that every time he does one I sweep his standing leg, so he falls over. He gets quite cross about it. You cant coach him faster, he is limited by what god gave him
 
That's basically 20 hours on a single, basic technique. I'd compare it to 20 hours spent on a basic single-leg and some simple set-up variations, and maybe some distancing drills. The gun has the advantage, of course, that resistance doesn't matter so much if it's pointed the right way when it goes off, so it's less prone to resistance failure than a single-leg. However, that 20 hours still won't make the gun terribly useful if the bad guy grabs the shooter's hand before he clears the holster. He'll need something besides that 20 hours of training, most likely, for that situation.

Which is kind of what I originally said. And then everyone drop beared that idea.
 
I'm not talking about broken limbs. I'm talking about hitting someone hard enough to end a bout. I just have no interest in that. I could probably (if my knees weren't crap) enjoy getting into BJJ competition. But getting into MMA - I'd just be the guy not fighting hard enough when facing an opponent with a strong striking game. I'm not interested in hitting him hard enough to win that, nor am I interested in taking the beating he'd give me in that bout.

Your whole philosophy of applying locks is different to sub wrestlers.

If he doesn't go with the technique he will get hurt. Which is why you can't train in certain ways.

Has that changed?
 
well yea, there does seem a level of paranoia in some folk.

but they are probably right on the untrained point. If you took the number of criminals in your country and then subtracted the number of criminals who have reached a good standard in a ma. Then you would probably find that a ) not hugely larger than b.)
Not least that the discipline required to get to a good standard and the lack of discipline involved in a life of crime are not really compatable or,, if they had that discipline they would use it to find a better way to make money that robbing passerby. Like bank robbery perhaps
Fair enough. It's incongruent, though, because in every other way, the training is over engineered with knives, guns, gangs, needles, grenades, tactical nukes and MMA thugs. :)
 
Fair enough. It's incongruent, though, because in every other way, the training is over engineered with knives, guns, gangs, needles, grenades, tactical nukes and MMA thugs. :)

You mean like where someone doesn't like a technique because it leaves them vulnerable to three guys coming out of the woodwork and beating you up?

Ummm.


Thats every technique isn't it?
 
Fair enough. It's incongruent, though, because in every other way, the training is over engineered with knives, guns, gangs, needles, grenades, tactical nukes and MMA thugs. :)
yea, people selling self defence are selling a) paranoia and b) easy answers . It matters not if the thug is trained , if he is stronger faster with better cardio you have probably lost. To pretend otherwise is fraud by those who run these courses, most of the people doing self defence would actually be more capable of defending themself if they did step aerobics' . Theyshould be told to go away and come back when they have a reasonable level of fitness, but no money in that.
they work just fine if you are 22 healthy and just passed basic training for the army, less so if your over weight and middle aged
 
Last edited:

Latest Discussions

Back
Top