Aikido is the best self defense

[Gerry Seymour]

Which was your definition of too deadly for sparring. That someone cant hit a guy flat knacker with one without hurting them.

It did not apply to the term then. It does not apply to the term now.

I called it a strawman then. And it is still one.

So why are you pursuing this?

"Too deadly" is a straw man.

 

[drop bear]

"Too deadly" is a straw man.

Not at all. Just your definition does not apply to it. It never did. Your definition basically states that if you punch a guy as hard as you can you will probably hurt them.

If we cant see a method work outside a drill. It is too deadly to spar. If we dont see a practitioner of the art ever practitioning is too dealy to spar.

We might see some red hot hapkido guys being awesome. I dont know but saying that there are no elite fignters from hapkido because there are too many rules.

Sorry it just doesn't cut it.

 

[drop bear]

No more from or to you. Imho you only wish to argue. I have better things to do.

It is like people are actively ignoring reality.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not at all. Just your definition does not apply to it. It never did. Your definition basically states that if you punch a guy as hard as you can you will probably hurt them.

If we cant see a method work outside a drill. It is too deadly to spar. If we dont see a practitioner of the art ever practitioning is too dealy to spar.

We might see some red hot hapkido guys being awesome. I dont know but saying that there are no elite fignters from hapkido because there are too many rules.

Sorry it just doesn't cut it.

It fits the definition of a strawman, as does most of your debate in this area. I've never claimed anything was too deadly, yet you insist on applying that language, because it makes it easier to argue against (the purpose of a strawman). I mentioned two techniques which I consider not usable in sparring because they have no use (as we apply them) other than destruction, and you proceeded to argue using other techniques without ever finding out which techniques I was referring to. By substituting what you wished to discuss for my actual argument, you created a textbook strawman argument.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It is like people are actively ignoring reality.

It's also a lot like people are ignoring the actual discussion, creating their own version they wish to argue about, rather than addressing any real issues (and there may be some) with the actual arguments put forth.

 

[lklawson]

Bringing back a ricky martin vibe for you?

My issue was that I have to try something for a year before I can judge if it is good or bad. Seems silly. As I said how do you know meth is bad if you haven't tried it?

When the argument becomes about justifying the technique by the percieved deadlyness of the martial art. Then the martial art should be legitimately deadly.

I have no issue with penis mesurement so long as there is mesurement involved.

There isnt.

And look everybody doesn't like something. I dont like martial arts that rely on mysticism. The same way I dont like voodo being used as medicine.

I would like martial arts to actually do what they say they can do. Not sure why that gets so much opposition. Why there is such a results don't matter vibe.

Who gives a flying fornication whether or not it's "real" enough or "effective" enough? Just go train. You do what you do and let them do what they do. You can feel smug in the knowledge that if one of the Granola-eating Bunnies & Light Akidoka decides to attack you, for some mystifying reason, you can effortlessly kick their butts.

Here, this is for you:

 

[StevenNotSeagal]

Aikido from what I have seen, and I was seriously looking at it when looking for a martial art to study is NOT for people who want to fight, its for people who do not want to fight. I am quite able to punch or headbutt somebody on the nose. Its a very easy and non complicated thing to do, from what I have seen, Aikido is an attempt to create a more peaceful solution.
I see it getting bashed quite a lot on forums but what I will say is this, I do not think starting any martial art would have made me forget how to punch somebody on the nose but add what it teaches to what I already know.

The reason I chose Taekwondo is because I am a natural grappler and have a good left and right. However my kicking and general fitness has much room for improvement (understatement of the year) many people also bash TKD, but depending upon the person and what they need pretty much every martial art bar those whacky ones claiming some magic non touch KO can fit individuals for a great number of diverse reasons.

People tout MMA as the answer, but firstly I have seen a large number of cage fighters who would be utterly crap at legging it when needed and secondly in the real world many people have jobs where turning up with a swollen face from training all the time would wear thin with their employer pretty quickly.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Aikido ..., its for people who do not want to fight.

My friend Sensei Armando Flores will not agree with you on this. Back in 1976, one weekend Armando and another MA instructor visited me. I told them that there was a local Karate tournament. I threw Karate gloves (the soft kind) to both of them. We went to compete in that tournament. Armando was disqualified in the 1st round by making face contact and drew blood. A week later, he was kicked out of his National Aikido Association. After that, he went over sea to further study his Aikido. He told me that "combat" was always his main goal.

 

[ballen0351]

Who gives a flying fornication whether or not it's "real" enough or "effective" enough? Just go train. You do what you do and let them do what they do. You can feel smug in the knowledge that if one of the Granola-eating Bunnies & Light Akidoka decides to attack you, for some mystifying reason, you can effortlessly kick their butts.

Here, this is for you:

I need a bigger ruler.......

 

[drop bear]

It fits the definition of a strawman, as does most of your debate in this area. I've never claimed anything was too deadly, yet you insist on applying that language, because it makes it easier to argue against (the purpose of a strawman). I mentioned two techniques which I consider not usable in sparring because they have no use (as we apply them) other than destruction, and you proceeded to argue using other techniques without ever finding out which techniques I was referring to. By substituting what you wished to discuss for my actual argument, you created a textbook strawman argument.

You specified two techniques both only applied to your definition of too deadly uppercuts and finger bending. That definition does not apply here. And it did not apply then.

But you brought it up anyway. Then when I did apply it to the argument. You then noticed it did not apply and used that fact in some epic back flipping. While still trying to stand by your original point.

You had the opportunity to present other techniques and you didn't or couldn't. Even though you couldn't present these techniques you still tried to count them in as examples. And now you are blaming me that I don't know techniques that you never explained.

There is no strawman if you used one first. That is just silly.

This is pretty simple. Apply an argument that relates to the discussion. Not one that you are having with yourself. Don't suggest that an argument is closed that you basically rage quit from because I pointed out how inconsistent it is.

 

[drop bear]

Who gives a flying fornication whether or not it's "real" enough or "effective" enough? Just go train. You do what you do and let them do what they do. You can feel smug in the knowledge that if one of the Granola-eating Bunnies & Light Akidoka decides to attack you, for some mystifying reason, you can effortlessly kick their butts.

Here, this is for you:

I have seen people thrown under a bus with martial arts that don't work and seen people bashed because of it. Watching and letting that happen so that I can feel smug is scummy.

Seriously I really don't understand what drives some people.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You specified two techniques both only applied to your definition of too deadly uppercuts and finger bending. That definition does not apply here. And it did not apply then.

But you brought it up anyway. Then when I did apply it to the argument. You then noticed it did not apply and used that fact in some epic back flipping. While still trying to stand by your original point.

You had the opportunity to present other techniques and you didn't or couldn't. Even though you couldn't present these techniques you still tried to count them in as examples. And now you are blaming me that I don't know techniques that you never explained.

There is no strawman if you used one first. That is just silly.

This is pretty simple. Apply an argument that relates to the discussion. Not one that you are having with yourself. Don't suggest that an argument is closed that you basically rage quit from because I pointed out how inconsistent it is.

Actually, those were the references I made to try to clarify. But you don't really care what my arguments are - that's why you keep going back to "too deadly". Too bad - I appreciate when you give me something to challenge my view. Here, you're ignoring my actual view, so nothing to challenge it.

 

[drop bear]

Actually, those were the references I made to try to clarify. But you don't really care what my arguments are - that's why you keep going back to "too deadly". Too bad - I appreciate when you give me something to challenge my view. Here, you're ignoring my actual view, so nothing to challenge it.

You actual view isn't challenged. If you judo throw someone off a ten story building. That throw is too deadly to spar.

It is how you are applying that view to this conversion that I am challenging.

Which is there are no examples of a method working because there are too many rules.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You actual view isn't challenged. If you judo throw someone off a ten story building. That throw is too deadly to spar.

It is how you are applying that view to this conversion that I am challenging.

Which is there are no examples of a method working because there are too many rules.

Um, that last sentence has nothing to do with any position I've ever taken.

 

[drop bear]

Um, that last sentence has nothing to do with any position I've ever taken.

Yeah no kidding.

 

[lklawson]

I have seen people thrown under a bus with martial arts that don't work and seen people bashed because of it. Watching and letting that happen so that I can feel smug is scummy.

And you care because of your vast empathy for humanity? Based on what you post here, I call BS. It's penis measuring.

Seriously I really don't understand what drives some people.

I do.

 

[drop bear]

And you care because of your vast empathy for humanity? Based on what you post here, I call BS. It's penis measuring.

I do.

I spend as much time trying to clean up peoples messes as I do expaining people are a mess in the first place.

I am surprised how effectiveness has such a low priority in martial arts discussion. To the point where discussing effectiveness is offensive? I just dont understand that concept.

Mabye that is where the disconnect is occuring. For me martial arts is a functional skill.

 

[lklawson]

I spend as much time trying to clean up peoples messes as I do expaining people are a mess in the first place.

I am surprised how effectiveness has such a low priority in martial arts discussion. To the point where discussing effectiveness is offensive? I just dont understand that concept.

Mabye that is where the disconnect is occuring. For me martial arts is a functional skill.

For YOU.

"Martial Arts" is an exceptionally broad and over-arching phrase meaning anything from an effective modern fighting system to a Philosophy with elements of "moving meditation." It encompass ancient and antique fighting styles and concepts no longer applicable to modern fighting as well as Social Combat, Dueling, and Military Combat, all of which have different contexts and different rules in every varied geography and time period.

Complicating things even more, frequently people claim they want something out of martial arts which they really don't (most often "self defense").

And then to top off this crap sandwich, there is the extremely common theme of male chest thumping, competition, and one-upmanship which you seem to be exhibiting for us while cloaking with the laughable mantle of charity.

So when you and others go on about "effectiveness" of martial arts, I often wonder "effective" in what context, when, where, and why? When you claim that martial arts should be a "functional skill" the question should be "functional for WHAT?" Oral history has that Buddha taught the martial arts to the monks at Shaolin not out of a need for self defense or need for fighting but as an exercise system to fulfill a specific need for fitness.

So, no, I'm not buying what you're selling.

 

[StevenNotSeagal]

For YOU.

"Martial Arts" is an exceptionally broad and over-arching phrase meaning anything from an effective modern fighting system to a Philosophy with elements of "moving meditation." It encompass ancient and antique fighting styles and concepts no longer applicable to modern fighting as well as Social Combat, Dueling, and Military Combat, all of which have different contexts and different rules in every varied geography and time period.

Complicating things even more, frequently people claim they want something out of martial arts which they really don't (most often "self defense").

And then to top off this crap sandwich, there is the extremely common theme of male chest thumping, competition, and one-upmanship which you seem to be exhibiting for us while cloaking with the laughable mantle of charity.

So when you and others go on about "effectiveness" of martial arts, I often wonder "effective" in what context, when, where, and why? When you claim that martial arts should be a "functional skill" the question should be "functional for WHAT?" Oral history has that Buddha taught the martial arts to the monks at Shaolin not out of a need for self defense or need for fighting but as an exercise system to fulfill a specific need for fitness.

So, no, I'm not buying what you're selling.

I will offer an example. I do not know you from Adam. I have travelled to America to see the old Colonies and we happen to be in same bar. (In this scenario we are not our own personas) I announce in a conversation that "we won the war of 1812" a heated debate ensues, I have had a few too many and in typical Brit in a foreign town style I shove you. You say "dont shove me again", I shove you.........and at this point I can certainly see Aikido cleaning my clock quite quickly.

 

[drop bear]

For YOU.

"Martial Arts" is an exceptionally broad and over-arching phrase meaning anything from an effective modern fighting system to a Philosophy with elements of "moving meditation." It encompass ancient and antique fighting styles and concepts no longer applicable to modern fighting as well as Social Combat, Dueling, and Military Combat, all of which have different contexts and different rules in every varied geography and time period.

Complicating things even more, frequently people claim they want something out of martial arts which they really don't (most often "self defense").

And then to top off this crap sandwich, there is the extremely common theme of male chest thumping, competition, and one-upmanship which you seem to be exhibiting for us while cloaking with the laughable mantle of charity.

So when you and others go on about "effectiveness" of martial arts, I often wonder "effective" in what context, when, where, and why? When you claim that martial arts should be a "functional skill" the question should be "functional for WHAT?" Oral history has that Buddha taught the martial arts to the monks at Shaolin not out of a need for self defense or need for fighting but as an exercise system to fulfill a specific need for fitness.

So, no, I'm not buying what you're selling.

As I said. This removal of functionality from martial arts conversation is a real suprise to me. I always considered it important. Now I suddenly find I have to argue the point of functionality in martial arts to people.

I honestly thought that was a given.

I dont consider your aproach to martial arts ethical.