Aikido hate

[Gerry Seymour]

You get less black eyes after a while. And I have found nobody really cares that much. Hell we train with a model. And she spars.

Otherwise yeah make them wear the hat if they are that concerned.

The problem for most of them is the time before "You get less black eyes after a while." Probably less of an issue if I make them wear gloves with more padding (I start them on very light sparring, using just those fabric-and-foam jobs, to reduce the bruising on rib hits).

For me, it's just the glasses thing. Those are a *****, even if none of the hits ever lands with any power. Hell, I bend them up once or twice a year, myself, just demonstrating an arm motion for a technique. I prefer to spar without headgear most of the time, but the worse my eyes get, the more the glasses matter.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Because I believed as Gpseymor does that the punch will be obvious and sit out there. For me to do something neat-O with.

Sometimes it will. Many times it won't. It's just a matter of whether you can recognize it in the moment and capitalize on it, or not.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

First, what is roda, or a roda?

Next... why did those guys try that stuff "outside?" Intentionally not using "street" as people get wound up by that word.

A roda is, IIRC, what they call the get-togethers for sparring among the Capo folks.

 

[drop bear]

Sometimes it will. Many times it won't. It's just a matter of whether you can recognize it in the moment and capitalize on it, or not.

I basically bet you can't. And you could test that pretty easily.

Either statically by just firing off a lot of different shots and letting you try to enter on the ones you like.

Or by sparring and firing off a shot you want and seeing if you can enter on that.

Which we basically do for double legs. Which is still really hard to stick that timing and it is a fundamentally higher percentage move.

 

[drop bear]

The problem for most of them is the time before "You get less black eyes after a while." Probably less of an issue if I make them wear gloves with more padding (I start them on very light sparring, using just those fabric-and-foam jobs, to reduce the bruising on rib hits).

For me, it's just the glasses thing. Those are a *****, even if none of the hits ever lands with any power. Hell, I bend them up once or twice a year, myself, just demonstrating an arm motion for a technique. I prefer to spar without headgear most of the time, but the worse my eyes get, the more the glasses matter.

I take mine off. A mate of mine wears contacts.

 

[drop bear]

I take that personally, Drop. Making fun of my attempts to euphemize, that's not right. I am stung.

However, a light when on. I think I've figured out the disconnect.

Everyone trains for trained fighters. At least, they should, imo. But, we talk about the mistakes untrained people make... we talk about that all the time. When? When we're converting untrained fighters into trained fighters, that's when. In class, training, sparring, mat time, free-roll, whatever it is. A student, training partner, whoever... does something incorrectly, we talk about why it's wrong, why it can be taken advantage of, how to fix it etc. So, the whole, entire time we're training people we are experiencing, talking about, and training to deal with untrained fighters.... while at the same time we are creating, and therefore having to learn to deal with, trained fighters.

At the core, the only difference between a trained fighter and an untrained one is fewer mistakes. We're agreed that if I/you/he/she can deal with the trained guy, then the untrained guy is/should be easier/simpler. There truly is no difference in what you're saying, and what, for example, Gerry is saying. You two are standing on the edge of a piece of paper arguing about which side is flat. They both are.

Hence the video of the brophy tent. Trained fighters dealing with brawlers.

Now gpseymor trains a system to deal with a trained attack and another to deal with an untrained attack. Because untrained attacks are different feeds And in the street he is more likely to face an untrained attacker.

And I still think this dual method is because Aikido is more likely to work if the attack has a certain aspect.

I spar roll and wrestle untrained fighters. Because we spar early. I use pretty much the same method as I use on everyone else.

 

[drop bear]

Let's try this again, after a re-boot. Maybe it'll work.

OK! Clarification sought....

"Blond?"

Did you mean Blind... or Blonde? Either one works, but the sub-text isn't the same.

Too blonde is a scene after that where he just runs out of things to insult the guy with. So he is like. "And. and your too gosh darn blonde"

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I basically bet you can't. And you could test that pretty easily.

Either statically by just firing off a lot of different shots and letting you try to enter on the ones you like.

Or by sparring and firing off a shot you want and seeing if you can enter on that.

Which we basically do for double legs. Which is still really hard to stick that timing and it is a fundamentally higher percentage move.

I've done a lot of that. Remember that I use new students as a chance to play with "untrained" attackers. What they give me during attacks, times when I tell them to "just hit me", and when we spar - that tells me a bit of how things work. It's not perfect, because some of them are afraid of what's about to happen, so they don't commit to the punch (no real intent in it). And sometimes I'm asking for something specific (so I can demonstrate a specific technique), and they almost always get more stilted and awkward then. In any case, I take that input and combine it with input from sparring and working with more experienced folks (most of whom don't commit the same mistakes as the new students, though some still do).

Not everything is about entering, by the way. Some things can be entered, some cannot. Sometimes you enter on purpose (recognizing the attack and seeing the opening) and sometimes you enter by accident (you were moving when they started the attack, and you managed an "oh crap!" block as you came in. There are also times when retreating movements are what lead into locks and throws. For instance, if someone is really over-committed forward, I might be able to enter on that, but I don't have to. Entering may take more effort than a slow retreating step that lets them bring all that weight to me, where I can add to it and over-extend them into a throw.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I take mine off most of the time. I'm just concerned about that time when my vision gets bad enough to cause problems in sparring. And, of course, I need to be able to see to keep an eye on the class I'm teaching. Perhaps soon I'll opt for contacts, too.

I take mine off. A mate of mine wears contacts.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Now gpseymor trains a system to deal with a trained attack and another to deal with an untrained attack. Because untrained attacks are different feeds And in the street he is more likely to face an untrained attacker.

Not accurate. It's not two systems. It's two different inputs to the same system.

 

[drop bear]

I've done a lot of that. Remember that I use new students as a chance to play with "untrained" attackers. What they give me during attacks, times when I tell them to "just hit me", and when we spar - that tells me a bit of how things work. It's not perfect, because some of them are afraid of what's about to happen, so they don't commit to the punch (no real intent in it). And sometimes I'm asking for something specific (so I can demonstrate a specific technique), and they almost always get more stilted and awkward then. In any case, I take that input and combine it with input from sparring and working with more experienced folks (most of whom don't commit the same mistakes as the new students, though some still do).

Not everything is about entering, by the way. Some things can be entered, some cannot. Sometimes you enter on purpose (recognizing the attack and seeing the opening) and sometimes you enter by accident (you were moving when they started the attack, and you managed an "oh crap!" block as you came in. There are also times when retreating movements are what lead into locks and throws. For instance, if someone is really over-committed forward, I might be able to enter on that, but I don't have to. Entering may take more effort than a slow retreating step that lets them bring all that weight to me, where I can add to it and over-extend them into a throw.

My entering is your blending pretty much. Slow retreating means you have to catch an arm in mid air?

Either one exposes you a bit because as you move in to a stable position to work from you have given them energy as well.

Or in boxing terms you run into a punch.

 

[drop bear]

Not accurate. It's not two systems. It's two different inputs to the same system.

In context it is accurate.

You are not using the same techniques. So last night we were drilling round kick and front kick defense. Because there are two different systems.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

My entering is your blending pretty much. Slow retreating means you have to catch an arm in mid air?

Either one exposes you a bit because as you move in to a stable position to work from you have given them energy as well.

Or in boxing terms you run into a punch.

I've never in my life caught an arm in mid-air. Slow retreating can lead some folks to extend further. My block may trap their striking arm, so I can transition to a grab.

And entering isn't the same thing as blending - at least, not always. I was practicing a set of entering force-on-force blocks last night at a friend's school. That was entering, but definitely not blending. Blending can happen in any direction (mostly entering on a spiral or retreating), depending upon the situation.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In context it is accurate.

You are not using the same techniques. So last night we were drilling round kick and front kick defense. Because there are two different systems.

Actually, there's a huge overlap in what the finish (technique) can be. Either entry point can lead to leg sweeps (among my favorites) or counter-punches, for instance. It's the transitions that are different, and even those overlap. You seem to be looking at it as a binary thing in my training, but it's not. There's a continuum. At one end of the continuum is a super-compact, tight, focused strike that offers almost no openings. At the other end is a sloppy, over-extended, off-balance strike. Between are infinite variations. Nearly nothing falls to either extreme.

 

[JP3]

Actually, there's a huge overlap in what the finish (technique) can be. Either entry point can lead to leg sweeps (among my favorites) or counter-punches, for instance. It's the transitions that are different, and even those overlap. You seem to be looking at it as a binary thing in my training, but it's not. There's a continuum. At one end of the continuum is a super-compact, tight, focused strike that offers almost no openings. At the other end is a sloppy, over-extended, off-balance strike. Between are infinite variations. Nearly nothing falls to either extreme.

I don't think Drop can understand you.... or he doesn't want to understand you.

 

[drop bear]

I've never in my life caught an arm in mid-air. Slow retreating can lead some folks to extend further. My block may trap their striking arm, so I can transition to a grab.

And entering isn't the same thing as blending - at least, not always. I was practicing a set of entering force-on-force blocks last night at a friend's school. That was entering, but definitely not blending. Blending can happen in any direction (mostly entering on a spiral or retreating), depending upon the situation.

Operating inside the arc of the strike?

 

[drop bear]

I don't think Drop can understand you.... or he doesn't want to understand you.

You see the punch. Then make a judgement on what sort of defense you are going to apply.

Cover if you don't have time. Neat-o move if you do.

Again they do it in the brophy tents in the third round when the trained guy has worked out what the inexperienced guy is going to do. Or like Michael page did to Cyborg when he worked out what he was going to do.

Bloody stupid risk for Aikido with its limited striking exposure to try against an unknown guy in self defence. Especially when you have to make your partner mess up intentionally to be even able to pull those moves off in training.

I understand it. I have trained it. Then I got out and used it. Especially in bouncing because the aim isn't to stand and trade. It is to apply standing arm locks.

Which is the definition of Neat-o.

And I got punched in the head a lot. When I made basic positional mistakes made due exactly to the methodology Gerry trains.

Because I trained these specific bad punching which were the only thing I could enter on.

So we get back to Aikido vs MMA guy. And he could enter fine. He could take control of Aikido guy. And secure him without hurting him. All those things Aikido wanted to do. Not because MMA is better.(we didn't even reach a point where we could judge.)

But because the training is fundamentally different.

Now I keep getting told that the Aikido training doesn't match my expectations. But I keep jumping on you tube and it does.

 

[drop bear]

So untill you can change my perceptions through evidence. Why shouldn't I filter my expectations of training through this?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't think Drop can understand you.... or he doesn't want to understand you.

It has long been my opinion that the latter is the case. It's how he keeps the topic moving where he wants it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Operating inside the arc of the strike?

I'm not sure which part of my post this was replying to, so I'm not sure how to respond.