Aikido hate

[Gerry Seymour]

I have been for my teacher's demo partner for many years. I have not even once to "jump into fall". Even today, I still don't know how to do that.

It's easy to do on some throws. On others, it would be difficult, at best. I've done it for my instructor a few times when he wanted students to see what a jumping fall looked like (when some would ask about the "high throws" they see in movies and demos).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No. If you are talking a full contact competition the attacks are not aproximations of attacks. They are attacks.

This sort of misunderstanding is half the issue.

They are approximations of the attacks likely to occur on the street. They are real attacks, but not the same real attacks. This sort of misunderstanding is more than half of the issue.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not if it is the person and not the style.

Agreed. This is why I say the style does matter. I'm slow to judge styles, even if they don't meet my needs, but there is definitely a fitness to context for styles, if nothing else. BJJ won't be good training for a kickboxing competition, boxing won't be good training for a Judo competition, etc.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

BJ Penn, who is a BJJ specialist, recently got his butt kicked by Yair Rodriguez whose background is TKD. Most uneducated mma fans would have the whole world believing that BJJ is the best thing since sliced bread and that a BJJ specialist would beat a TKD specialist 8 or 9 times out of ten. But Penn lost and lost badly. Does that mean BJJ is worthless and TKD is a better art than BJJ? Of course not. Rodriguez was simply the better fighter and there are REASONS that he was a better fighter. Most of those reasons have to do with Rodriguez having better physical attributes (due to age difference no doubt) and being successful at fighting HIS fight instead of fighting BJ's fight.

In the fight between BJ and Rodriguez it was not TKD being better than BJJ and neither did BJJ lose to TKD. BJ Penn (as an individual fighter) lost to Yair Rodriguez (as an individual fighter).

The thing to remember about this example is that Penn is not just a representative of BJJ and Rodriguez is not just a representative of TKD. They are both MMA practitioners. Penn's original background may be jiu-jitsu, but he is also a solid striker who has won more matches by KO than by submission. Rodriguez's original background may be TKD, but he also trains jiu-jitsu and has won a couple of his matches by submission. In this case, it really is individual vs individual rather than art vs art, because they are both fighting with the same arts, more or less.

I'm a firm believer that in general both the art and the individual count. Some training methods and techniques do work better than others in a given context. If they didn't, there would be no point in even learning any style. Everybody could just make up their own martial art from the comfort of their living room based on our favorite movie scenes and any of those arts would be just as good as any other for purposes of fighting. The only difference in success would be our individual natural ability. This is clearly not the case.

On the other hand, any art is just a tool, and some people learn how to use their tools better than others. If you give me a $2000 guitar and give Willie Nelson a $150 guitar and set us down to play together, Willie is going to sound a whole lot better than me, even though my guitar is objectively better than his.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

No. If you are talking a full contact competition the attacks are not aproximations of attacks. They are attacks.

This sort of misunderstanding is half the issue.

They are approximations of the attacks likely to occur on the street. They are real attacks, but not the same real attacks. This sort of misunderstanding is more than half of the issue.

I'm with Gerry on this. In full contact competition, the attacks are definitely real attacks. On the other hand, the situation as a whole, the likely attacks, the likely setups, the psychology, the tactical and strategic considerations, etc are not the same as they are in the majority of real world violent assaults. There is a lot of useful overlap but there are important differences as well. I think that until we develop holodeck or Matrix technology, any and all training and testing methods are going to be imperfect approximations of real world violence.

 

[Tez3]

The thing to remember is that Penn and Rodriguez are now 'old school' in that MMA was something they did after training their first styles. These days fighters are training MMA as a whole rather than having a base style as many of us did before MMA really existed as it does now. If not now certainly in a couple of years we will have the 'pure' MMA fighters at top level who doesn't have a base style but trains specifically for fights against others like them. We could see this coming a while ago with youngsters coming in to learn to fight in MMA comps rather than learn a specific style then another then another.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

There are martial arts that work better than others.

It's the spirit that develop from MA style that will make a difference. In Chinese wrestling, it encourages to play offense and lose than to play defense and win. Some Karate system emphasizes "one punch to kill". Some MA system emphasizes "push opponent away". Different MA style do develop different MA spirit and strategy.

 

[Steve]

Okay, this conversation has moved quite a bit over the last few days. I'll try to catch up succinctly:

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.

I don't think we are too far apart. I would say, in your example, it's how you trained. Let's say I train MMA in the manner that aikido is often trained, with compliant exercises and a lack of competition. And let's say you train Aikido in the manner MMA is often trained, with consistent pressure testing and a competitive objective. I would expect you to be better able to apply your skills than I. It just makes sense. Your training model lends itself to application. [/quote]

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!

I'm very leery of using elite level athletes as a comparative. It can be useful, if used judiciously. Lyoto Machida is an elite level athlete, and I'd say an elite level Karateka. Certainly, he is an elite level MMAist. As a black belt in BJJ, he may not be able to dominate other elite MMAists on the ground, but we're talking about a very small universe of martial artists in this group. He certainly could dominate most other grapplers, and I'd argue ALL untrained, non-grapplers on the ground. It's perfectly legitimate to critique his grappling relative to others in the sport, provided we remember the context of the critique. Sure, he's not a Damian Maia, but even the worst grappler in the UFC is better than most grapplers, and certainly able to dominate any non-grappler.

Well, when the context being trained for is self-defense, competition doesn't replicate it any better than well-committed "attacks" in the dojo. Both are approximations. Each has advantages and disadvantages. For me, in the dojo, I can get people to deliver specific attacks to train them, as well as to test them. The guy in the other corner isn't necessarily going to give me what I need to test against. But he will be more surprising than someone I train with all the time, and he's unlikely to wuss out on his attack (unless he just sucks).

I've posted at length on this many times. This is central to why I think self defense training often misses the point entirely. On an individual level, I have seen zero evidence to suggest that training in a martial art (any martial art) makes you safer than doing tae bo, crossfit, parkour or spin class. I have seen evidence that addressing high-risk behaviors, such as drug use/abuse, walking alone at night, etc, do. Also, confidence and a willingness to fight are important.

Also, the bar is not fixed on measuring results. In other words, what "successful self defense" looks like changes depending on the current agenda. If someone is sexually assaulted, but survives, is that successful self defense? Some would say yes. Some would say no (including me).

Getting to the point, I'm suspicious of training "for self defense." I can certainly understand training with self defense in mind, but I believe the best way to do that is to incorporate as much variety in one's training as possible, with clear measurements to gauge progress in mind.

Let's say you and I are golf pros. We each have 100 complete beginners full time for a year. Our goal is the same, teach them to play golf. You have no clear objective. You'll teach them to be "good" at golf, which you intend to measure using video analysis of their swing and computer analytics. You are confident that if you can teach them a technically perfect swing, they will do well. You also never let them hit a ball, as that may corrupt their swing. You are confident that if they have a perfect swing, when they are asked to hit the ball, they will be able to do so.

I measure success by handicap (let's say a 10 handicap or lower), and teach them to play golf as you would expect. I work with them on the driving range and putting green. I give them feedback on their swings in context. And we log some miles on the golf course.

At the end of the year, who do you think will be successful? I think, given 100 unexceptional people full time, it would be remarkable if any of the 100 people in your group could even hit a ball, and if any of the 100 people in my group didn't have a 10 handicap or lower.

They are approximations of the attacks likely to occur on the street. They are real attacks, but not the same real attacks. This sort of misunderstanding is more than half of the issue.

"Attack likely to occur on the street" is an oxymoronic statement. Unless you are professionally at risk, any attack on the street is exceedingly unlikely.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

"Attack likely to occur on the street" is an oxymoronic statement. Unless you are professionally at risk, any attack on the street is exceedingly unlikely.

I interpret that phrase to mean "If you were to be attacked on the street, these are the forms the attack would be most likely to take" as opposed to "One of these attacks is likely to come at you on any given day when you walk out on the street." The first is a reasonable statement. The second one is not so much (for most people).

I should also point out that not everyone is lucky enough to live in a relatively crime-free area where avoiding violence can mostly be accomplished by not hanging out in dive bars and acting stupid. There are plenty of people living in environments where violence is much harder to avoid and they probably will be the target of an attack at some point - perhaps not every day, but not once in a lifetime either.

 

[Steve]

I interpret that phrase to mean "If you were to be attacked on the street, these are the forms the attack would be most likely to take" as opposed to "One of these attacks is likely to come at you on any given day when you walk out on the street." The first is a reasonable statement. The second one is not so much (for most people).

I should also point out that not everyone is lucky enough to live in a relatively crime-free area where avoiding violence can mostly be accomplished by not hanging out in dive bars and acting stupid. There are plenty of people living in environments where violence is much harder to avoid and they probably will be the target of an attack at some point - perhaps not every day, but not once in a lifetime either.

It's the kind of statement that leads to unreasonable conversations about one martial art being more applicable for self defense than another. There is only anecdotal evidence one way or the other, and anecdotally, there are examples of pretty much every martial art both succeeding and failing in real life encounters, and also plenty of examples of non-martial arts training succeeding and failing. It's essentially, "Look. My attack bears a superficial resemblance to something that feels more realistic. Ergo, it is more realistic training."

And while the chances of being a victim of violent crime goes up in high crime areas, these are not the majority of people who are training for self defense. Also, in those areas, avoiding high risk behaviors will not guarantee safety, but it still helps.

In favor of self defense by common sense is the statistical fact that violent crime is relatively rare, and murder is exceedingly rare. Even if you are a drug addicted person living in a homeless encampment, your chance of being murdered is exceedingly low. "But you're saying there's a chance." Yes. And I would say that if you are in a high-crime area, a sport art still has every advantage over a non-sport art. BJJ, Judo, some Karate, wrestling, boxing, muay thai, whatever. You learn skills that you can reliably repeat under pressure. You build self esteem. Your fitness level is improved. And, particularly where kids are involved, it gives you a positive community to participate in and keeps you busy. Some of those benefits can be imparted by a non-sport art, but not all of them.

 

[Flying Crane]

I personally rarely think about "self defense" when I train. It just isn't the motivation that drives my engines.

I personally have zero interest in actual competition. It also is not the motivation that drives my engines.

I personally simply enjoy the training. And I am convinced that some level of combative skill development comes out of the training. Realistic training can be defined in many ways, and the more realistic the training, probably the better the skills that come of it. But there is no single definition of what that means.

These discussions are weird, really. People entrench themselves into one camp or the other, and it becomes this polarized either/or thing. I think reality is somewhere on the continuum, and elements of both have a place in the picture.

Sports martial arts can lead to skills that are useful for self defense. Non sport martial arts can also lead to skills that are useful in self defense.

Everyone ought to really do what they find interesting and enjoyable, because to do otherwise is a guarantee that you will not keep doing it.

And everyone should be honest with themselves about the kinds of skills they are developing, and what their motivations are in training. Be honest with yourself, and what someone else thinks is irrelevant. How someone else defines "realistic" does not matter. People don't come to the forums to be convinced of something.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

In favor of self defense by common sense is the statistical fact that violent crime is relatively rare, and murder is exceedingly rare. Even if you are a drug addicted person living in a homeless encampment, your chance of being murdered is exceedingly low. "But you're saying there's a chance." Yes. And I would say that if you are in a high-crime area, a sport art still has every advantage over a non-sport art. BJJ, Judo, some Karate, wrestling, boxing, muay thai, whatever. You learn skills that you can reliably repeat under pressure. You build self esteem. Your fitness level is improved. And, particularly where kids are involved, it gives you a positive community to participate in and keeps you busy. Some of those benefits can be imparted by a non-sport art, but not all of them.

I have no problem with any of that, other than to say I don't see it being an either/or choice. You can live your life in as safe a way as possible to minimize the chances of encountering violence and train an art with a "sport/competition" component in order to build attributes/reliable skills and practice methods for breaking the "sport" rules when the situation calls for it and study common forms of real-world violence which you aren't likely to encounter in competition so you can train ways of applying your "sport" skills to that context and practice scenario training to optimize your chances of appropriate tactical response under pressure (which may or may not involve physical fighting techniques).

 

[Steve]

I personally rarely think about "self defense" when I train. It just isn't the motivation that drives my engines.

I personally have zero interest in actual competition. It also is not the motivation that drives my engines.

I personally simply enjoy the training. And I am convinced that some level of combative skill development comes out of the training. Realistic training can be defined in many ways, and the more realistic the training, probably the better the skills that come of it. But there is no single definition of what that means.

These discussions are weird, really. People entrench themselves into one camp or the other, and it becomes this polarized either/or thing. I think reality is somewhere on the continuum, and elements of both have a place in the picture.

Sports martial arts can lead to skills that are useful for self defense. Non sport martial arts can also lead to skills that are useful in self defense.

Everyone ought to really do what they find interesting and enjoyable, because to do otherwise is a guarantee that you will not keep doing it.

And everyone should be honest with themselves about the kinds of skills they are developing, and what their motivations are in training. Be honest with yourself, and what someone else thinks is irrelevant. How someone else defines "realistic" does not matter. People don't come to the forums to be convinced of something.

I agree with you mostly, particularly about what is interesting and enjoyable.

Where I get entrenched is when people start talking about skill development. When you think you're learning something you aren't actually learning, that's a problem for me. Martial arts shouldn't be faith based, in my opinion. Or, maybe it's more fair to say, if you approach martial arts as a faith based activity, hopefully you are self aware.

 

[Steve]

I have no problem with any of that, other than to say I don't see it being an either/or choice. You can live your life in as safe a way as possible to minimize the chances of encountering violence and train an art with a "sport/competition" component in order to build attributes/reliable skills and practice methods for breaking the "sport" rules when the situation calls for it and study common forms of real-world violence which you aren't likely to encounter in competition so you can train ways of applying your "sport" skills to that context and practice scenario training to optimize your chances of appropriate tactical response under pressure (which may or may not involve physical fighting techniques).

Yes. I've said this many times that all of those are great. Let's discuss omission. removing one or more of the above will have a greater or lesser impact on the practical effect of your training, if your goal is self defense. What is the biggest bang for your buck? Opinions vary. I think lifestyle is, statistically, the most imortant factor. And given a choice between rbsd training without a reliable context for application or sport, i think sport gives you the most reliable path to skill development.

It's not all or nothing, but absent all, what's the most likely to give the desired result, for the average, unexceptional student?

 

[Flying Crane]

I agree with you mostly, particularly about what is interesting and enjoyable.

Where I get entrenched is when people start talking about skill development. When you think you're learning something you aren't actually learning, that's a problem for me. Martial arts shouldn't be faith based, in my opinion. Or, maybe it's more fair to say, if you approach martial arts as a faith based activity, hopefully you are self aware.

True, but who are you to tell someone else that they arent learning what they say they are learning? Have you attended their training sessions? You know with certainty what they are doing and what they are not doing?

To say that you must engage in competition or you do not have good fighting/defense ability is a crock of ****.

To say that you do not have street self defense abilities because you train for sports martial arts, is a crock of ****.

That is what these discussions boil down to: only my way works, and yours does not. And that is a crock of ****.

If you cannot recognize a huge amount of overlap in these, then you are full of ****.

Be honest with yourself about your training. If someone else cannot be honest with himself, that is his problem.

 

[Flying Crane]

Yes. I've said this many times that all of those are great. Let's discuss omission. removing one or more of the above will have a greater or lesser impact on the practical effect of your training, if your goal is self defense. What is the biggest bang for your buck? Opinions vary. I think lifestyle is, statistically, the most imortant factor. And given a choice between rbsd training without a reliable context for application or sport, i think sport gives you the most reliable path to skill development.

It's not all or nothing, but absent all, what's the most likely to give the desired result, for the average, unexceptional student?

Yes, opinions vary.

But I'll say this much: competition gives me zero bang for my buck, because I have no interest and will not do it.

But that's just me, and I am comfortable with that.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Yes. I've said this many times that all of those are great. Let's discuss omission. removing one or more of the above will have a greater or lesser impact on the practical effect of your training, if your goal is self defense. What is the biggest bang for your buck? Opinions vary. I think lifestyle is, statistically, the most imortant factor. And given a choice between rbsd training without a reliable context for application or sport, i think sport gives you the most reliable path to skill development.

It's not all or nothing, but absent all, what's the most likely to give the desired result, for the average, unexceptional student?

I'd agree with your order of priority, in general, given a broad enough interpretation of "sport."

I do think there is room for an intermediate step in-between the fundamentals of establishing a generally safe lifestyle and the development of reliable physical skills, especially for women. Unfortunately even women who live in affluent, low-crime areas and who don't engage in especially high-risk behaviors can have a significant chance of being sexually assaulted at one point or another - typically by someone they know. Developing the non-physical skills and attributes to detect and deter or avoid such predators is an area which presents a lot of potential bang for the buck. Unfortunately, I don't know how well proven any particular approach to building those skills and attributes is. I know there have been some studies done, but there are a lot of practical (and ethical) difficulties in this sort of research.

 

[Steve]

True, but who are you to tell someone else that they arent learning what they say they are learning? Have you attended their training sessions? You know with certainty what they are doing and what they are not doing?

To say that you must engage in competition or you do not have good fighting/defense ability is a crock of ****.

To say that you do not have street self defense abilities because you train for sports martial arts, is a crock of ****.

That is what these discussions boil down to: only my way works, and yours does not. And that is a crock of ****.

If you cannot recognize a huge amount of overlap in these, then you are full of ****.

Be honest with yourself about your training. If someone else cannot be honest with himself, that is his problem.

Let's be clear. If you're having fun and enjoying yourself, knock yourself out. I would never (here or in person) presume to rain on your parade.

I mentioned before the statistical unlikelihood that you will ACTUALLY be attacked in your life. Chances are, even if you aren't learning what you think you are, no biggie. However, IF we consider the small chance that you actually ARE attacked, it becomes relevant to YOU that you have learned what you think you've learned.

Said another way, if we buy into the rationale for self defense training (that you might be attacked), then we must also buy into the potential that you will have a real world need to use the skills you believe you have been taught. Does that make sense?

 

[Steve]

I'd agree with your order of priority, in general, given a broad enough interpretation of "sport."

I do think there is room for an intermediate step in-between the fundamentals of establishing a generally safe lifestyle and the development of reliable physical skills, especially for women. Unfortunately even women who live in affluent, low-crime areas and who don't engage in especially high-risk behaviors can have a significant chance of being sexually assaulted at one point or another - typically by someone they know. Developing the non-physical skills and attributes to detect and deter or avoid such predators is an area which presents a lot of potential bang for the buck. Unfortunately, I don't know how well proven any particular approach to building those skills and attributes is. I know there have been some studies done, but there are a lot of practical (and ethical) difficulties in this sort of research.

Totally agree, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish, given the real world circumstances of sexual assault. It can be the "stranger danger" kind of assault, but isn't usually.

And, based on what I've seen in my local area, and also read here over the years, most "women's self defense" courses do not address what sexual assault really looks like. Some do, but I get the impression that these are the minority.

 

[Flying Crane]

Let's be clear. If you're having fun and enjoying yourself, knock yourself out. I would never (here or in person) presume to rain on your parade.

I mentioned before the statistical unlikelihood that you will ACTUALLY be attacked in your life. Chances are, even if you aren't learning what you think you are, no biggie. However, IF we consider the small chance that you actually ARE attacked, it becomes relevant to YOU that you have learned what you think you've learned.

Said another way, if we buy into the rationale for self defense training (that you might be attacked), then we must also buy into the potential that you will have a real world need to use the skills you believe you have been taught. Does that make sense?

Sure it does. And your training method, while probably highly effective, is not the only effective training method. Does that make sense?