Aikido is the best self defense

[lklawson]

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.

And as I wrote, your use of the term "functional" is artificially narrow and, at this point, deliberately ignores reality of the broad application of martial arts. I'll try one last time, though I am coming to believe that it is a futile effort and you will, once again, deliberately ignore the evidence in favor of advancing your own artificially excluding "definition."

I know you like MMA. Let's call it circa UFC 3. In your standard definition it is "functional" and "effective." So a MMA player challenges an 18th Century Smallsword Maestro, a duelist, to a fight. Unsurprisingly, the Maestro jams three feet of steel into the bare-handed MMA player's face. This happened because the context was different. Despite the fact that Smallsword duels were often tightly controlled with rules and social conventions managing everything from time of day, to "Seconds," to number of "passes," and may have disallowed "pommelling"

How many times do you see anyone in a modern 1st World Nation swaggering down the street with a Smallsword on his side? (I'm guessing "never.") Context.

Time period, location, social requirements, legal requirements, etc., are all important.

Today, studying Smallsword in the theory that it is an "effective" and "functional" self defense system is laughable. Yet it is still studied by many for sundry other, often esoteric, reasons. Nevertheless, Smallsword is still a "martial art" regardless of what you seem to claim.

Again, no, I'm not buying what you are selling.

I dont consider your aproach to martial arts ethical.

Honestly, at this point I don't give a fat fiddler's foreskin what you claim you believe is ethical. It's pretty clear that you're engaged in the internet version of the Monkey Dance; vying for position in the pecking order. Feh.

 

[drop bear]

And as I wrote, your use of the term "functional" is artificially narrow and, at this point, deliberately ignores reality of the broad application of martial arts. I'll try one last time, though I am coming to believe that it is a futile effort and you will, once again, deliberately ignore the evidence in favor of advancing your own artificially excluding "definition."

I know you like MMA. Let's call it circa UFC 3. In your standard definition it is "functional" and "effective." So a MMA player challenges an 18th Century Smallsword Maestro, a duelist, to a fight. Unsurprisingly, the Maestro jams three feet of steel into the bare-handed MMA player's face. This happened because the context was different. Despite the fact that Smallsword duels were often tightly controlled with rules and social conventions managing everything from time of day, to "Seconds," to number of "passes," and may have disallowed "pommelling"

How many times do you see anyone in a modern 1st World Nation swaggering down the street with a Smallsword on his side? (I'm guessing "never.") Context.

Time period, location, social requirements, legal requirements, etc., are all important.

Today, studying Smallsword in the theory that it is an "effective" and "functional" self defense system is laughable. Yet it is still studied by many for sundry other, often esoteric, reasons. Nevertheless, Smallsword is still a "martial art" regardless of what you seem to claim.

Again, no, I'm not buying what you are selling.

Honestly, at this point I don't give a fat fiddler's foreskin what you claim you believe is ethical. It's pretty clear that you're engaged in the internet version of the Monkey Dance; vying for position in the pecking order. Feh.

If you are going to learn sword fighting then at the end of your training after all time effort and money you have given up. You really should expect to be a competent sword fighter. If someone shoots you. That is not a reflection of your sword fighting training.

That to me is the pretty clear difference between between functional and non functional.

Providing a service that does what you say it does is a pretty clear example of an ethical standard.

If you don't do what you say you can do. And then suggest that is because what you said you can do is such an obscure idea that technically the other guy is a dick for expecting that. Is clearly to me unethical.

That you don't give a fat fiddlers foreskin about what I consider ethical would make sense as ethics generally needs empathy.

From a MMA perspective people get hurt if they try to fight with a system that is non functional. So functionality becomes more important ethically. You get to watch the guy you have trained get his face smashed in.

Something you apparently don't feel it is important to concern yourself about.

So yes. If your priorities are not functionality you will not buy what I am selling and will sell whatever it is you sell.

If your concern is the pecking order or whatever. Good luck with that. If that was my thing I would agree with people more often and become one of the mean girls.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

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.

In some CMA forums, people will look down on you if you ever talk about "fighting". People may just say, "If you care about fighting, you should buy yourself a gun". People in those forums are only interested in health, self-cultivation, inner peace, world peace, new world order, ...". All Aikido thread discussion may lead into that direction. You should not be surprised at all.

At least in this forum, more people are interested in "fight".

 

[Tarrycat]

I'm learning Aikido for its beautiful defense. No fancy movements, no wasting of energy, and the very important thing is it is able to make you calm. It's elegant yet deadly Martial Art.

It's the perfect martial art for women; hence it doesn't require strength or force. We do the exact same in Ninjutsu & use a lot of Aikido-based kata.

I looooove it!

 

[Fuhrer Drumpf]

Remember that time an aikido guy beat a jujitsu guy?

Neither do I.

 

[Fuhrer Drumpf]

Remember that time an aikido guy beat a jujitsu guy?

Neither do I.

 

[Fuhrer Drumpf]

And as I wrote, your use of the term "functional" is artificially narrow and, at this point, deliberately ignores reality of the broad application of martial arts. I'll try one last time, though I am coming to believe that it is a futile effort and you will, once again, deliberately ignore the evidence in favor of advancing your own artificially excluding "definition."

I know you like MMA. Let's call it circa UFC 3. In your standard definition it is "functional" and "effective." So a MMA player challenges an 18th Century Smallsword Maestro, a duelist, to a fight. Unsurprisingly, the Maestro jams three feet of steel into the bare-handed MMA player's face. This happened because the context was different. Despite the fact that Smallsword duels were often tightly controlled with rules and social conventions managing everything from time of day, to "Seconds," to number of "passes," and may have disallowed "pommelling"

How many times do you see anyone in a modern 1st World Nation swaggering down the street with a Smallsword on his side? (I'm guessing "never.") Context.

Time period, location, social requirements, legal requirements, etc., are all important.

Today, studying Smallsword in the theory that it is an "effective" and "functional" self defense system is laughable. Yet it is still studied by many for sundry other, often esoteric, reasons. Nevertheless, Smallsword is still a "martial art" regardless of what you seem to claim.

Again, no, I'm not buying what you are selling.

Honestly, at this point I don't give a fat fiddler's foreskin what you claim you believe is ethical. It's pretty clear that you're engaged in the internet version of the Monkey Dance; vying for position in the pecking order. Feh.

No offense, but what you wrote is a lot of nonsense. Martial arts in every culture outside of the Chinese/Japanese paradigm were (and are) about fighting skill.

Also, most people who begin martial arts do so for self-defense skills. What's unethical is when instructors try to sell an impractical martial art like aikido as a viable self-defense system.

 

[MA_Student]

No offense, but what you wrote is a lot of nonsense. Martial arts in every culture outside of the Chinese/Japanese paradigm were (and are) about fighting skill.

Also, most people who begin martial arts do so for self-defense skills. What's unethical is when instructors try to sell an impractical martial art like aikido as a viable self-defense system.

Do they? Well I started just to get out the house and do some exercise not to become a fighter and I know a lot of people who have done the same thing

 

[MA_Student]

Remember that time an aikido guy beat a jujitsu guy?

Neither do I.

I do actually a guy came into my Jiu Jitsu club as a black belt in aikido and beat a number of people there in the white belt class

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No offense, but what you wrote is a lot of nonsense. Martial arts in every culture outside of the Chinese/Japanese paradigm were (and are) about fighting skill.

Martial arts in the Chinese and Japanese cultures also started around fighting skill. There are some that have deviated from that (either on purpose or by lack of focus). I suspect that can be found in other combat-derived training, as well, regardless of cultural origin.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Do they? Well I started just to get out the house and do some exercise not to become a fighter and I know a lot of people who have done the same thing

Thinking back, that's probably why I started the first time (at about age 11/12). I'm pretty sure that's why I started Judo, that and it just seemed cool. Second time I started Karate it was just because it was available and I enjoyed the classes (Judo instructor started teaching Karate classes - ranked in both). NGA was the first time I remember choosing a class/art specifically for self-defense.

 

[Fuhrer Drumpf]

I do actually a guy came into my Jiu Jitsu club as a black belt in aikido and beat a number of people there in the white belt class

An aikido black belt beat a bunch of white belt children? Ok.

 

[MA_Student]

An aikido black belt beat a bunch of white belt children? Ok.

Where did I say they were children...learn to read

 

[lklawson]

If you are going to learn sword fighting then at the end of your training after all time effort and money you have given up. You really should expect to be a competent sword fighter. If someone shoots you. That is not a reflection of your sword fighting training.

That's only because you assume that all "swordfighting" is the same and the goals are all identical.

 

[lklawson]

No offense, but what you wrote is a lot of nonsense. Martial arts in every culture outside of the Chinese/Japanese paradigm were (and are) about fighting skill.

"No offense" but you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Martial arts for sports, health, recreation, and not-necessarily-lethal conflict resolution (aka "dueling") dates back as far as we can track martial arts.

Also, most people who begin martial arts do so for self-defense skills.

Well, that's what they claim anyway.

What's unethical is when instructors try to sell an impractical martial art like aikido as a viable self-defense system.

"Impractical" for what and by who's narrow definition?

 

[drop bear]

That's only because you assume that all "swordfighting" is the same and the goals are all identical.

I assume that the goals of martial arts will be achievable.

Fluid outcomes give people the opportunity to say they delivered. Even if they did not deliver on any of the outcomes the promise or imply.

 

[lklawson]

I assume that the goals of martial arts will be achievable.

Fluid outcomes give people the opportunity to say they delivered. Even if they did not deliver on any of the outcomes the promise or imply.

"Fluid outcomes?" Seriously? How 'bout this: Some martial arts have different goals. Are you seriously going to tell me that the goal of Kick Boxing is the same as that of Smallsword, which is the same as the goal of Kydo, which is the same as Tai Chi?

ft:

If you are unwilling to admit that some martial are for sport, some are for health, some are for recreation, some are for dueling, some are for specific military use, and some are for civilian self defense, insisting that they're all the same then, 1) you've got some pretty severe conative dissonance problems and 2) it's not worth even trying to have a discussion with you.

Ball's in your court.

 

[drop bear]

"Fluid outcomes?" Seriously? How 'bout this: Some martial arts have different goals. Are you seriously going to tell me that the goal of Kick Boxing is the same as that of Smallsword, which is the same as the goal of Kydo, which is the same as Tai Chi?

ft:

If you are unwilling to admit that some martial are for sport, some are for health, some are for recreation, some are for dueling, some are for specific military use, and some are for civilian self defense, insisting that they're all the same then, 1) you've got some pretty severe conative dissonance problems and 2) it's not worth even trying to have a discussion with you.

Ball's in your court.

I have been saying that during the whole conversation.

Specific aims of martial arts is not the issue.

 

[lklawson]

I have been saying that during the whole conversation.

Specific aims of martial arts is not the issue.

That's not what you wrote here: Aikido is the best self defense

Now, if you've decided to change your definition, then all well and good.

Ball is still in your court.

 

[drop bear]

That's not what you wrote here: Aikido is the best self defense

Now, if you've decided to change your definition, then all well and good.

Ball is still in your court.

Functionality isn't just fighting. If martial arts is designed to provide happiness. Then that is it's function. And the discussion would be how it provides that.

If its function is self defence and it provides happiness then it is not doing its job.

The function specifically here from memory was dealing with an arm grab.