Aikido hate

[Ironbear24]

and even if he is an accomplished fighter ( jury is still out, we do know that he has never fought MMA though however 'good' his TKD and BJJ is) it doesn't make him a 'better person', he's still the fan boys hero, the guru of the UFC who they follow and make people's lives a misery.
A friend of mine fought in the UFC and lost, Rogan made some very harsh remarks, personal ones not relevant to the fight while commentating. My friend remonstrated with him on Twitter afterwards. Rogan laughed my friend off but his followers, well they went to town on my friend, death threats, personal remarks including those about my friend's son along with threats to him, really nasty stuff, all on Twitter all hash tagged to add Rogan so he knew but did nothing to stop his little friends sustained attacks. It was nasty. It's not the first time this has happened, now people can say Rogan isn't responsible, it's arguable but on the other hand he knew about this campaign and did nothing to try and stop it. Being politically incorrect is actually just another way of being rude and nasty and very hurtful. I guess he takes his money and laughs all the way to the bank.

Yeah this doesn't surprise me at all sadly. I always got the the impression he was the king of douche bros.

He's a comedian/commentator, being good at BJJ and TKD doesn't make him a be all and end all MMA commentator,

I never been impressed with commentating either, I recall watching an old chuck lidel fight and he said something like "excellent Thai kicks." I'm like, ok well he has never done any muay thai sooo.

 

[Flying Crane]

Even in that scenario I STILL say that it is the person. As a fighter your goal is to fight TO WIN. Since it's your goal to win then you must put yourself through whatever training regimen that is necessary to ensure that. If you do that and you still get beat by another person by whatever means then that person is just a better fighter than you. With no offense or disrespect intended I have learned that I am not the only one who does not consider Capoeira as legitimate fighting art; at least not one on the same scale as Judo, BJJ or muay Thai. But if a Capoeira person manages to beat the snot out of a mma fighter I will not be so quick to say that Capoeira outperformed mma, I will say the person who had fought using Capoeira outperformed the person who used mma in the fight. It was the individual who had won or lost and not the art.

In discussions like this one of my favorite examples I like to bring up is UFC fighter Lyoto Machida. Before he started competing in mma Karate had a reputation for being all but useless in the cage. The along comes Lyoto defeating people left and right using primarily his Karate skills. And NOW Lyoto seems to be in somewhat of a slump. In the entire ebbs and flows of Lyoto's fighting career it was never so much the superiority or inferiority of Karate as fighting art it was the superiority (and now inferiority) of Lyoto Machida as a fighter compared to his past, present and possibly future opponent's. If Karate was an inferior or useless art then Lyoto would have never won so many fights. But if Karate was such a superior unbeatable martial art then Lyoto would have never lost the fights that he has. It's not the Karate it's Lyoto as an individual and how good or not so good of a fighter he is compared to other fighters.



Or it could be that guy IS JUST A BETTER FIGHTER THAN YOU! And by that I mean, martial art aside, he's stronger, more aggressive, faster, lacks fear and empathy, has had way more street fights than you can possibly imagine, may have done 10 years upstate and just has a better overall fight IQ than you. In such case it's definitely the person. I have seen this happen so many times. I really don't think martial artists who practice for self protection should disregard this.

As martial artists we train to protect ourselves against untrained people. I think this mindset is obscuring our vision a little bit. Just because a person has never stepped foot inside of a dojo does not mean that he is "untrained". Fighting for your life and surviving upstate for 10 or 15 years is possibly the most brutal, adrenaline filled training one can get. Same thing if a 33 year old athletically gifted man spent his entire life fighting on the streets. If he's still alive to talk about those experiences you can bet your last that he knows a thing or two about fighting. He may not know much if anything at all about TMAs that we train but he knows a thing or two about ACTUALLY FIGHTING. I don't want to make the mistake of assuming that just because I train and am very good at the martial art that I practice that automatically means that I know how to fight. I'm afraid it's not that simple and it's not the same thing.

If a person wants to get good at sparring and competing then he should spar and compete. If a person wants to be good at really fighting where the stakes are way higher than a sporting match then the only way to do that is to really fight. There are some people who do just that and have done just that. We never know if the person we're about to mix it up with is that guy or not.

Take Care My Friend and Have A Good One,
Osu!

Regarding capoeira, it is my opinion, as a former student of capoeira, that many people in the US practice for the roda, the game of caopeira, which can be rough and combative, but often is not. I agree that this is not true combat, but can share many aspects of sparring and can develop fighting ability if done with proper intent and intensity.

As to the art itself being viable as a combat method, I could put you in touch with a number of people who could readily convince you of the fighting value that the method holds. There are capoeiristas who most definitely can fight, the system does have what it takes to be a viable fighting method.

 

[Psilent Knight]

Every individual you mention has something very critical in common. They all apply the skills in context. Even the guy who doesn't have any formal training will see his skill level improve by simply performing the skill

Yes, but I don't think this observation negates my viewpoint though. Let's say, hypothetically, you and I decide to have a go at it on the pavement arena due to me swiping a parking spot from you. You train Aikido and I train mma (BJJ, boxing, wrestling and muay Thai) and you use my face to sweep the parking lot. To me that does not mean Aikido is better than mma and/or mma sucks compared to Aikido. I would see that as you being better at what you do than I am at what I do.

Also, want to point out that Lyoto Machida is, in addition to being a high level karateka, a black belt in BJJ and trained in sumo.

4 Things....

#1 - Shotokan Karate is the art that he has trained the longest by far. He's trained it since age three. It is his DeFacto base fighting style. He's trained it more than the other two, for much longer than the other two and uses it in the cage more than the other two.

#2 - Of Lyoto's 22 wins half of them are by decision and the other half are by finishes. Only two of those finishes were by submission while the remaining nine were by knockout. That's not a grappler's finishing ratio, that's a striker's finishing ratio.

#3 - I have never seen Lyoto dominate on the ground anyone who is/was considered an elite level grappler in any of his matches. Which brings me to...

#4 - I'm definitely a fan of Lyoto. But as a fan I will say that I have seen his "BJJ" in his mma fights and it leaves a whole lot to be desired. This is closely related to #3 above.

Take Care My Friend and Have A Good One,
Osu!

 

[Psilent Knight]

Regarding capoeira, it is my opinion, as a former student of capoeira, that many people in the US practice for the roda, the game of caopeira, which can be rough and combative, but often is not. I agree that this is not true combat, but can share many aspects of sparring and can develop fighting ability if done with proper intent and intensity.

If by "can develop fighting ability" you mean can help develop the physical attributes that are needed to fight well, I can go for that.

There are capoeiristas who most definitely can fight,

I only highlighted this part of your quote because it's the one that I deem most relevant and further agrees with my point, although I realize that wasn't your intent.

Take Care,
Osu!

 

[Flying Crane]

If by "can develop fighting ability" you mean can help develop the physical attributes that are needed to fight well, I can go for that.



I only highlighted this part of your quote because it's the one that I deem most relevant and further agrees with my point, although I realize that wasn't your intent.

Take Care,
Osu!

Believe what you wish. It is only my intention to offer an education.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

With no offense or disrespect intended I have learned that I am not the only one who does not consider Capoeira as legitimate fighting art; at least not one on the same scale as Judo, BJJ or muay Thai.

Regarding capoeira, it is my opinion, as a former student of capoeira, that many people in the US practice for the roda, the game of caopeira, which can be rough and combative, but often is not. I agree that this is not true combat, but can share many aspects of sparring and can develop fighting ability if done with proper intent and intensity.

As to the art itself being viable as a combat method, I could put you in touch with a number of people who could readily convince you of the fighting value that the method holds. There are capoeiristas who most definitely can fight, the system does have what it takes to be a viable fighting method.

Capoeira is an interesting case. I've been studying the art for about 8-9 months now, with an instructor who definitely regards it as a fighting art and teaches the combative applications. The thing is, it's not just a fighting art. It's also a cultural art and a game. For that reason I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to an average person who just wanted to develop fighting ability as quickly as possible. Some of the time and energy spent on the cultural art/game aspects of the art is time not spent on immediate optimization of fighting skills. (Some of it does have carry-over because it builds physical attributes which are useful for all aspects of the art including fighting.)

Speaking as someone whose primary martial foundation is in BJJ and Muay Thai, I do think that Capoeira will improve my abilities as a fighter, but it will probably always be a supplemental art for me.

BTW - Capoeira and MMA are not mutually exclusive. Only a few fighters have had much success in the cage with pure Capoeira, but these days no one in MMA fights with a pure style. Several high-level MMA fighters have Capoeira skills - Jose Aldo and Conor McGregor come to mind.

 

[Flying Crane]

Capoeira is an interesting case. I've been studying the art for about 8-9 months now, with an instructor who definitely regards it as a fighting art and teaches the combative applications. The thing is, it's not just a fighting art. It's also a cultural art and a game. For that reason I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to an average person who just wanted to develop fighting ability as quickly as possible. Some of the time and energy spent on the cultural art/game aspects of the art is time not spent on immediate optimization of fighting skills. (Some of it does have carry-over because it builds physical attributes which are useful for all aspects of the art including fighting.)

Speaking as someone whose primary martial foundation is in BJJ and Muay Thai, I do think that Capoeira will improve my abilities as a fighter, but it will probably always be a supplemental art for me.

BTW - Capoeira and MMA are not mutually exclusive. Only a few fighters have had much success in the cage with pure Capoeira, but these days no one in MMA fights with a pure style. Several high-level MMA fighters have Capoeira skills - Jose Aldo and Conor McGregor come to mind.

Well said, Tony. I think you have described the issue very accurately.

 

[Psilent Knight]

Believe what you wish. It is only my intention to offer an education.

Right back at you.

Osu!

 

[Psilent Knight]

Capoeira is an interesting case. I've been studying the art for about 8-9 months now, with an instructor who definitely regards it as a fighting art and teaches the combative applications. The thing is, it's not just a fighting art. It's also a cultural art and a game. For that reason I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to an average person who just wanted to develop fighting ability as quickly as possible. Some of the time and energy spent on the cultural art/game aspects of the art is time not spent on immediate optimization of fighting skills. (Some of it does have carry-over because it builds physical attributes which are useful for all aspects of the art including fighting.)

Speaking as someone whose primary martial foundation is in BJJ and Muay Thai, I do think that Capoeira will improve my abilities as a fighter, but it will probably always be a supplemental art for me.

BTW - Capoeira and MMA are not mutually exclusive. Only a few fighters have had much success in the cage with pure Capoeira, but these days no one in MMA fights with a pure style. Several high-level MMA fighters have Capoeira skills - Jose Aldo and Conor McGregor come to mind.

Good post. Thank you for the insights.

Speaking as someone whose primary martial foundation is in BJJ and Muay Thai, I do think that Capoeira will improve my abilities as a fighter, but it will probably always be a supplemental art for me.

The attributes that I envision can be developed through the practice of Capoeira I think can be equally developed through the practice of WTF Taekwondo. No?

 

[Flying Crane]

The attributes that I envision can be developed through the practice of Capoeira I think can be equally developed through the practice of WTF Taekwondo. No?

On a basic level, yes, in that they both put a heavy emphasis on kicking. However capoeira has some kicking techniques that are somewhat unique to that system.
But beyond that, capoeira has a unique way of developing a broad and unusual way of moving, that could be very useful in fighting. And I am not referring to the acrobatics. It is a lot of move and change and positioning, that is not necessarily acrobatics.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

There are some strategies used in Aikido that I don't agree with.

1. You always wait for your opponent to attack you. If you have this kind of attitude, you will never get a date with any girlfriend. If you want to take, you have to give first.
2. The contact point is mainly on the wrist. Even if you may have controlled on your opponent's wrist, since his elbow is free, you don't have a full control on that arm.
3. The wrist control keep you and your opponent distance a bit too far. It's not a "clinch". This will give your opponent too much freedom to counter you.
4. If you don't use your leg skill such as cut, spring, sweep, lift, hook, twist, scoop, ... you give your opponent's legs too much freedom. Only use your hand to throw your opponent is not as effective as to use both of your hand and leg to throw. To push/pull the head down and to sweep/hook the leg off is much better strategy.

 

[Spinedoc]

I've heard this before, but in 99% of the Aikido demonstrations I see on video, the striking attacks delivered by uke appear to me like they would represent very poor swordmanship body mechanics (as well as being delivered at the wrong range for a sword cut). Admittedly my own sword skills are rudimentary at best, but I see some pretty glaring issues if the attacks are supposed to represent sword cuts. (The defenses against wrist grabs do make more sense if we imagine the context is an attacker trying to prevent your from drawing your sword. I could buy that explanation.)

Have you noticed the same thing? If so, do you think it has something to do with the fact that the majority of Aikido practitioners don't also practice a sword art? I know some people do cross-train with Aikido and a sword art, so I would expect those individuals might teach uke to present a better simulation of a sword based attack.

Yeah, I have. Not as much at first, but after studying Iaido for a bit, it's noticeable. That being said, most of the original Aikido students back in the day had studied other martial arts, and many had Iaido or Kendo backgrounds. That being said, I'm not really sure how much difference it makes most of the time. For very precise movements, it makes a big difference, but not many Aikido practitioners drill down that far. Takeguchi Sensei has said for many years that he can watch someone practicing Aikido and tell if they practice weapons or not by watching their Aikido. Those that do practice weapons extensively seem to have much crisper, sharper Aikido overall.

 

[Spinedoc]

There are some strategies that's used in Aikido that I don't agree with.

1. You always wait for your opponent to attack you. If you have this kind of attitude, you will never get a date with any girlfriend. If you want to take, you have to give first.
2. The contact point is mainly on the wrist. Even if you may have controlled on your opponent's wrist, since his elbow is free, you don't have a full control on that arm.
3. The wrist control keep you and your opponent distance a bit too far. This will give your opponent too much freedom to counter you.
4. If you don't use your leg skill such as cut, spring, sweep, lift, hook, twist, scoop, ... you give your opponent's legs too much freedom. Only use your hand to throw your opponent is not as effective as to use both of your hand and leg to throw. push/pull the head down, sweep/hook the leg off is much better strategy.

A few thoughts....

1. Not really. Pranin Sensei who just died 2 weeks ago, would state that the principle of "Go No Sen" was essential to Aikido. While you are not attacking first, you are also not simply receiving...it can be thought of as....anticipation, sensing an attack, and attacking back at essentially the same time as someone attacks you. In other words, at the very first movement or initiation, you are already moving as nage. If you are not, and you are waiting....well, you aren't doing Aikido.

2. Not at all. We are not trying to control the wrist at all...but rather our opponents hara or center. You have to connect with your uke when they attack, and you have to ground yourself while connecting them to YOUR center, not theirs. All the power comes from the center, not peripherally.

3. Not really, If you are doing it properly, you are touching shoulders, and keeping them close, using your center to manipulate theirs.

4. HA....I remember Ikeda Shihan once saying when asked about kicks....."Man who kicks, is man on one leg" Again though, we aren't throwing with our arms...if you are....you are not doing Aikido. Aikido throws from the center, it's hard, and takes a long time to develop and understand, but if you are doing it properly, it should almost seem effortless.

 

[Spinedoc]

Here's one of my favorite Japanese teachers currently, and next time I go to Japan, I hope to study with him.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

"Man who kicks, is man on one leg"

You are right that when you use one leg to sweep/hook your opponent's leg/legs off the ground, you only have 1 leg for your balance. But your opponent also has 1 leg or no leg at that moment. The risk and reward are always related.

When you throw your opponent, you can throw him:

1. use your arms - Since you have both feet on the ground, you have the best balance. Since you have no control on your opponent's leg, your opponent's legs has full freedom.
2. use your arms and trap your leg with your opponent's leg - You still have both feet on the ground. But your opponent can still step out of your leg blocking.
3. use your leg to sweep/hook/... your opponent's leg off the ground - You only have 1 leg for your balance. But since your use your leg to knock your opponent's leg off the ground, it's hard for your opponent to escape.

 

[Spinedoc]

You are right that when you use one leg to sweep/hook your opponent's leg/legs off the ground, you only have 1 leg for your balance. But your opponent also has 1 leg or no leg at that moment.

When you throw your opponent, you can throw him:

1. use your arms - Since you have both feet on the ground, you have the best balance. Since you have no control on your opponent's leg, your opponent's legs has full freedom.
2. use your arms and trap your leg with your opponent's leg - You still have both feet on the ground. But your opponent can still step out of your leg blocking.
3. use your arms and sweep/hook/... with your opponent's leg - You only have 1 leg for your balance. But since your use your leg to knock your opponent's leg off the ground, it's hard for your opponent to escape.

This is why, at least what my teachers DRILL into my brain, that nage HAS to disrupt uke's center prior to trying to throw them. If you haven't unbalanced their center, they aren't going anywhere, so the first movement is to extend or unbalance them, then often, as they are trying to re-gain their balance, you throw them. Often the leg work isn't needed....

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Often the leg work isn't needed....

You can spin a ball with one hand. You can also spin a ball with both hands that go into opposite directions. To limit your opponent's leg mobility is only "strategy". It has nothing to do with MA system.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

There are some strategies used in Aikido that I like.

1. Try to throw your opponent to the east, when he resists, you borrow his force, throw him to the west.
2. Try to throw your opponent to the east, when he yield/follow, you borrow his force, still throw him to the east.
3. Move out of your opponent's attacking path, give him all the space that he needs, and lead him into the emptiness.
4. Use "water" strategy that only respond when outside force arrives. Good strategy to use against "fire" strategy fighter who moves around with good/fast footwork.

 

[Spinedoc]

If so, do you think it has something to do with the fact that the majority of Aikido practitioners don't also practice a sword art? I know some people do cross-train with Aikido and a sword art, so I would expect those individuals might teach uke to present a better simulation of a sword based attack.

Oh and by the way, this is why some high ranking Aikido teachers have insisted on sword study as well. Nishio Sensei even went so far as to develop his own Aikido/Iaido system.

 

[KangTsai]

I'm just not a fan of how the majority is trained. The full co-operation, voluntarily-do-a-front-flip type of thing. Most techniques can work obviously (although to this day I'm skeptical about wrist throws).
But the way most aikido is trained is dumb.