Just ran across this and thought I'd post it.
I don't really care so much about the results of the experiment (which are about what I would expect). What I really liked was the friendly, humble, and respectful attitude both martial artists brought to the encounter. In my opinion, that's how it should be done.
Props to both of them for their attitude! I also liked that the MMA guy let the aikidoist express himself in the ring.
I'm not sure how qualified I'd be to criticize given that I'm still a newbie in aikido and that even in "kata form" I can't do the techniques well but here are some things that popped in my mind while watching this:
1) the gloves the MMA guy is wearing would make wrist locks more complicated to do, so it would be a poor tactical choice to try nikkyo or kote gaeshi, for example.
2) why no irimi? (entering)
I mean, every aikido authority stresses the idea that entering and blending are fundamental principles of the art, we apply irimi in like every technique but here Rokas doesn't look like he's trying to enter. It looks like he's trying to keep his partner at bay and grab his wrist if he ever gets the chance. Why practice techniques where you enter and blend with the attack if when you're in the ring you don't use those principles? As drop bear said, there's a problem with the setup.
I liked that the MMA guy pointed out that the Aikido guy wasn't used to taking punches, or being punched, so he began making bigger and bigger mistakes. Additionally his take down defense was non-existent, leaving him wide open to getting taken down and being dominated.
Something I've been thinking about on the lack of takedown defenses in modern aikido is that sumo was more commonly practiced at the time of the founder. Thus it is possible that takedowns and takedown defences (sprawling seems to be a very basic tactic in sumo) were well known back then. After all, it is likely that the sumo wrestlers that O'Sensei fought against have tried to take him down so he must have found some way to deal with those attempts.
I'm really against the concept that certain arts are only made to fight against people who can't fight. What if your attacker CAN fight? Are you suddenly screwed? Wouldn't you be better off learning a style that CAN counter people who can fight?
I agree. And I don't know where this excuse is coming from because the founder and a lot of high ranked teachers fought against people who could fight. Here are two posts from Ellis Amdur on Aikiweb:
"This is an interesting question, really. I just reread Douglas Walker's translation - three parts - on the life of Shirata Rinjiro. And a large part of that was taryu-shiai [fighting other styles]. And in another interview, published by Chris Li on the Sangenkai site, Kuroiwa Yoshio tells how all the uchi-deshi in the 1950's trained to take on dojo challenges, Kuroiwa's intention (besides boxing) being a koshinage dropping the guy on his head. I was at Kuroiwa sensei's house when a yakuza boss came to pay his respects, something he did once a year in memory of being dumped four times with that koshinage when Kuroiwa interrupted the yakuza (Momose, a 4th dan amateur sumo) from breaking up a friends dojo.
There was, in fact, (and probably still is) one or two deshi who are the designated minders of the school, and they handle any dojo challenges in the Aikikai.
It is fair to say that the ring has rules different from a free-fight, but if you flinch from blows in the ring, you will in the street.
Shirata sensei emphasized that beyond technique, irimi was the crucial element requisite to manage an assaultive individual. The young man in the video was back on his heels the entire time - he was catching - or trying to - attacks.
One of my most powerful aikido memories was the first time I took ukemi for Chiba Kazuo - his entry was so powerful that I was destabilized from that point on and never recovered. HIs technique, at that time, I thought was not that high a level (an observation of films over the years shows he continued to develop and refine his skill almost until his death, fwiw). but it was irrelevant, because his irimi was the most explosive and powerful I think I've ever experience in aikido. It is fair to say that Ueshiba Morihei's aikido, tori attacked. These days tori/nage - receives and then techniques. That's very different."
"Shoji Nishio around 1984 - "Right from the start, the value of a Budo is determined by comparisons with other Budo.For the most part, if you set up Kokyu-ho between two Aikido people it's just useless. That will only be effective in the dojo...Even in other Budo, everybody is working hard, you know. When we see that we should make an effort to surpass them with our Aiki. That is the mission of Aikido as a Budo.""
"I generally take issue with the aikido I’ve learned, seen, and come in contact with being advertised as self-defense. Although there are aspects and techniques of aikido that I believe can be gleaned and added to your martial arsenal (i.e. footwork for getting off the line, blending with an overcommitted attack, etc.), I could never recommend it to somebody who wanted to learn self-defense. Not only is there too much silence about what works and what doesn’t, the non-competitive training method doesn’t put students in pressure situations similar enough to real confrontations, breeding a false sense of security in students through tacit affirmations such as:
1) It may take 20 years, but this stuff will work if you just keep practicing.
2) Don’t worry about strength, since physical conditioning isn’t that important.
3) These exercises we’re doing are how attacks really are.
4) If it’s not working, you’re not using your center.
5) Keep extending that ki to keep him at bay!
It’s not fair to your students to misrepresent what your art is capable of. If your average aikido student rolled with a judo or Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu player, or got in the ring with a boxer or kickboxer, he wouldn’t know what to do with that kind of intensity. He’d simply be overwhelmed. I’ve seen this point debated through letters to the editor in Aikido Today Magazine, but there’s only one way to find out. Do it. To paraphrase Bruce Lee, you can’t learn to swim unless you get wet, so how can you learn how to fight without fighting?" - Roy Dean
Well, I don't think that the lack of competition is to blame here. More like the lack of intensity and aliveness in training. In other words, the lack of an "honest" attacker.
The Daito ryu guys and the aikido old timers never competed but they were nonetheless fearsome fighters.
Having honest and intense randori might be a solution to re-discover effectiveness without having to forsake O'Sensei's non competitive ideal.
