Aikido.. The reality?

[isshinryuronin]

Here's to hoping your imaginary attacker has no idea what he's doing.

Is this just a random statement, or is there some reasoned thinking behind it? You provided no details to back it up.

 

[JowGaWolf]

but to allow students to focus on a specific kind of timing and interaction of momentum that is used in a lot of Aikido's grappling. While some application can end up looking like a blending drill, it's not what I'd expect in most situations. More like the speed bag in boxing.

I look at speed bag as a conditioning exercise. Which is why you don't have boxing drills where the opponent is doing speed bag movement. The same cannot be said about Aikido. If a boxer demonstrated the same speed bag movement in the context of someone attacking him, then I'm calling it an applicable technique.

But because we don't see things like that movie clip of speed bag techniques in application, we can assume that it's just an exercise or separate it from any attack scenario. But with aikido it is always shown as someone attacking or someone defending. Point is, if it's only an exercise then why put it in an Attack / defense scenario? Against attack movement's that aren't realistic. So basically, you are training using timing that doesn't exist in a fight. To me that doesn't make sense and to spend 10+ years on that makes even less sense. So in my mind there has to be something legit there.

 

[drop bear]

From what I know of some techniques that overlap with Ueshiba's Aikido, there is application related to that movement training. It's just not as close to the application as in other approaches, like Judo or BJJ. Those movement drills serve multiple purposes. I don't like how much emphasis I've seen on them in some Aikido schools - doesn't fit what I like - but I've found value (both as a student and as an instructor) in some similar stuff. But yeah, it's not directly related to fighting skill. It's like approaching some of the principles from a tangent. I don't really have good way to explain how they work (the training principle), unfortunately. I understand it, but haven't ever really found a good set of words to voice what I understand.

I have found it messes people up. Not from doing ineffective striking but from good uke training. Which then trains them to break structure all the time or assume there eyes will pop out at the slightest pressure.

They get flinchy. Which is a really bad trait for any contested activity.

 

[Flying Crane]

I look at speed bag as a conditioning exercise. Which is why you don't have boxing drills where the opponent is doing speed bag movement. The same cannot be said about Aikido. If a boxer demonstrated the same speed bag movement in the context of someone attacking him, then I'm calling it an applicable technique.

But because we don't see things like that movie clip of speed bag techniques in application, we can assume that it's just an exercise or separate it from any attack scenario. But with aikido it is always shown as someone attacking or someone defending. Point is, if it's only an exercise then why put it in an Attack / defense scenario? Against attack movement's that aren't realistic. So basically, you are training using timing that doesn't exist in a fight. To me that doesn't make sense and to spend 10+ years on that makes even less sense. So in my mind there has to be something legit there.

It is certainly possible that some practitioners have a poor understanding of how to adjust it for application.

 

[drop bear]

I look at speed bag as a conditioning exercise. Which is why you don't have boxing drills where the opponent is doing speed bag movement. The same cannot be said about Aikido. If a boxer demonstrated the same speed bag movement in the context of someone attacking him, then I'm calling it an applicable technique.

But because we don't see things like that movie clip of speed bag techniques in application, we can assume that it's just an exercise or separate it from any attack scenario. But with aikido it is always shown as someone attacking or someone defending. Point is, if it's only an exercise then why put it in an Attack / defense scenario? Against attack movement's that aren't realistic. So basically, you are training using timing that doesn't exist in a fight. To me that doesn't make sense and to spend 10+ years on that makes even less sense. So in my mind there has to be something legit there.

There is this idea that because there are movements unrelated to martial arts that help martial arts. Then all unrelated movements must have martial benefits.

This is not the case.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Agree with you 100% there.

In Chinese wrestling, we have a move "float" that look like Aikido technique.

My student can't flip his opponent if his opponent doesn't want to. The reason is simple, he only controls his opponent's wrist joint. His opponent's elbow joint is free. Also both of his opponent's legs are free.

Agree with you 100% there.

In Chinese wrestling, we have a move "float" that look like Aikido technique.

My student can't flip his opponent if his opponent doesn't want to. The reason is simple, he only controls his opponent's wrist joint. His opponent's elbow joint is free. Also both of his opponent's legs are free.

But then you see @0:35 A similar throw against a resisting opponent and it works. This goes back to what I've been saying about understanding what's needed in order for it to work. If you are missing important parts, footwork or in this case shoulder placement, then it's not going to work.

 

[JowGaWolf]

It is certainly possible that some practitioners have a poor understanding of how to adjust it for application.

The closet thing I've seen to speed bag technique in boxing is milling. Edit: If there was a technique beyond conditioning then I think we would have seen it used in boxing. Show me a boxing technique that uses speed bag hand movements.

There is this idea that because there are movements unrelated to martial arts that help martial arts. Then all unrelated movements must have martial benefits.

This is not the case.

I agree, But I bet in all of your "unrelated" movements, you aren't using them against an attack. I don't make a form where I do situps as a way to defend against an attack. I just do sit ups. When I do arm conditioning exercises, I don't demo it as a defense against an attack. When boxer do jump ropes, they don't say. you dodge a punch by doing a jump rope technique. If the Aikido techniques were done minus the attack defense then I would be 100% agreement with you.

I just can't see spending 10 years doing that chop and all you get out of it is a concept? Really? it takes 10 years to understand the concept? I just can't see the entire system as being one big idea that trains against things that don't happen.

 

[Flying Crane]

The closet thing I've seen to speed bag technique in boxing is milling. Edit: If there was a technique beyond conditioning then I think we would have seen it used in boxing. Show me a boxing technique that uses speed bag hand movements.


I agree, But I bet in all of your "unrelated" movements, you aren't using them against an attack. I don't make a form where I do situps as a way to defend against an attack. I just do sit ups. When I do arm conditioning exercises, I don't demo it as a defense against an attack. When boxer do jump ropes, they don't say. you dodge a punch by doing a jump rope technique. If the Aikido techniques were done minus the attack defense then I would be 100% agreement with you.

I just can't see spending 10 years doing that chop and all you get out of it is a concept? Really? it takes 10 years to understand the concept? I just can't see the entire system as being one big idea that trains against things that don't happen.

I’m guessing here as I know little about aikido. But if they do that chop with very specific attention to details and deliberate movement toward full-body unison, then it isn’t about learning a concept. It is about building and honing and constantly polishing a skill. That is something that one should practice for a lifetime, as a regular piece of training. That is what we do with the torso rotation exercise i showed you. It always requires polishing, we never “graduate” beyond it. It is a staple that we always practice, and I can show how the principle that it develops is incorporated into everything that we do.

But I would never demonstrate the torso rotation alone as a viable defense. The principle developed by our rotation exercise would be found in whatever defensive technique that I might demonstrate, but I wouldn’t demonstrate that rotation alone as the defense.

I think it is possible that with some of these Aikido demonstrations, there is a similar concept going on, but they are failing to understand that an adjustment is necessary if they want to use that drill as an actual combat technique. So there may be a lack of understanding with some aikidoka.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I’m guessing here as I know little about aikido. But if they do that chop with very specific attention to details and deliberate movement toward full-body unison, then it isn’t about learning a concept. It is about building and honing and constantly polishing a skill. That is something that one should practice for a lifetime, as a regular piece of training. That is what we do with the torso rotation exercise i showed you. It always requires polishing, we never “graduate” beyond it. It is a staple that we always practice, and I can show how the principle that it develops is incorporated into everything that we do.

But I would never demonstrate the torso rotation alone as a viable defense. The principle developed by our rotation exercise would be found in whatever defensive technique that I might demonstrate, but I wouldn’t demonstrate that rotation alone as the defense.

I think it is possible that with some of these Aikido demonstrations, there is a similar concept going on, but they are failing to understand that an adjustment is necessary if they want to use that drill as an actual combat technique. So there may be a lack of understanding with some aikidoka.

I'll start with that robot chop to where I'm functional with it. I think if I can understand a usable attack then I will have a better chance to understand. The defense for it.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I’m guessing here as I know little about aikido. But if they do that chop with very specific attention to details and deliberate movement toward full-body unison, then it isn’t about learning a concept. It is about building and honing and constantly polishing a skill. That is something that one should practice for a lifetime, as a regular piece of training. That is what we do with the torso rotation exercise i showed you. It always requires polishing, we never “graduate” beyond it. It is a staple that we always practice, and I can show how the principle that it develops is incorporated into everything that we do.

But I would never demonstrate the torso rotation alone as a viable defense. The principle developed by our rotation exercise would be found in whatever defensive technique that I might demonstrate, but I wouldn’t demonstrate that rotation alone as the defense.

I think it is possible that with some of these Aikido demonstrations, there is a similar concept going on, but they are failing to understand that an adjustment is necessary if they want to use that drill as an actual combat technique. So there may be a lack of understanding with some aikidoka.

Take your reply, and see if it holds true for other systems that you are familiar with. Let us know if there is an exception were a system does different than what you have described here.

 

[Flying Crane]

Take your reply, and see if it holds true for other systems that you are familiar with. Let us know if there is an exception were a system does different than what you have described here.

Conceptually it holds true for my own system, although the specifics of the drill are different. Of course I am making what I feel is an educated guess with aikido, I’ve never actually studied it and am definitely not an expert on it. But the concept is sound in my opinion. In my own experience, I feel the Tracy Kenpo that Ive studied did not have a similar approach to what I am describing, and I felt that was one of its shortcomings. When I began to understand the concept within White Crane, that filled in what I felt were holes in the training. As a methodology it just made more sense to me.

I can’t really speak to other systems beyond that. But I think that isn’t really the point. The point is, aikido has a methodology and a pedagogy and that may differ from other systems. You need to be open to those methods and that pedagogy or you will not understand aikido. Whether or not you ultimately like aikido and wish to train it, is an entirely different matter.

 

[drop bear]

The closet thing I've seen to speed bag technique in boxing is milling. Edit: If there was a technique beyond conditioning then I think we would have seen it used in boxing. Show me a boxing technique that uses speed bag hand movements.


I agree, But I bet in all of your "unrelated" movements, you aren't using them against an attack. I don't make a form where I do situps as a way to defend against an attack. I just do sit ups. When I do arm conditioning exercises, I don't demo it as a defense against an attack. When boxer do jump ropes, they don't say. you dodge a punch by doing a jump rope technique. If the Aikido techniques were done minus the attack defense then I would be 100% agreement with you.

I just can't see spending 10 years doing that chop and all you get out of it is a concept? Really? it takes 10 years to understand the concept? I just can't see the entire system as being one big idea that trains against things that don't happen.

If it taught a concept then it would be worth it. Again say you did 10 years of portal movement and you walk away understanding how to make your body work the way you want.

But with portal for example people can demonstratively produce results.

With training that chop they can't,

sort of.

(The results are fundamentally different. You look at it and say that if someone wanted to chop you with intent to hurt you then you stop them is a result. Where the results for others is a movement pattern that resembles perfect as per a pre determined criteria. )

So for example. You might look at this and wonder what the application is. But you are actually looking at the application.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Conceptually it holds true for my own system, although the specifics of the drill are different. Of course I am making what I feel is an educated guess with aikido, I’ve never actually studied it and am definitely not an expert on it. But the concept is sound in my opinion.

All I'm doing is guessing as well. I'm taking things that holds true for most and using that to help guide me with my guesses with Aikido. Instead of me looking at what's different, I try to find out what's true across the board so I don't get way out there with my guesses or completely dismiss it. If I look at what's different, then I won't be able to get anywhere with this effort. I can't understand a punch by looking at a kick because they are different. But I can compare a variety of punches and identify universal requirements / similarities and use that to help me understand other punches.

Not picking on Drop Bear, but when you look at at his posts you'll see that it's about differences and not about what may be the same. There's a place for that type of thinking, but when trying to figure stuff out, you have to see if there are some universal truths and Drop Bear has not done so, which is why all of comments are about the Differences.

When you look at my comments. I actually throw out the differences because if it's truly functional then there should be some similarities to things that happen in other systems. Like magic chi ball fighter only happens in a magic chi ball system it doesn't happen anywhere else. I don't think Aikido was built in a vacuum with totally new stuff that no one knows about and only Aikido can do it.

If I couldn't see similarities in Aikido then I would be the first one that says "Nah that stuff is fake." But I don't see that and if GpSeymour grabs my wrist then I'm going to do my best to deny him the ability to do what ever technique he's trying to do. If I had to fight a chi ball master then I probably wouldn't bother to fight. I wouldn't give it the credit of even taking a defensive stance.

 

[Flying Crane]

All I'm doing is guessing as well. I'm taking things that holds true for most and using that to help guide me with my guesses with Aikido. Instead of me looking at what's different, I try to find out what's true across the board so I don't get way out there with my guesses or completely dismiss it. If I look at what's different, then I won't be able to get anywhere with this effort. I can't understand a punch by looking at a kick because they are different. But I can compare a variety of punches and identify universal requirements / similarities and use that to help me understand other punches.

Not picking on Drop Bear, but when you look at at his posts you'll see that it's about differences and not about what may be the same. There's a place for that type of thinking, but when trying to figure stuff out, you have to see if there are some universal truths and Drop Bear has not done so, which is why all of comments are about the Differences.

When you look at my comments. I actually throw out the differences because if it's truly functional then there should be some similarities to things that happen in other systems. Like magic chi ball fighter only happens in a magic chi ball system it doesn't happen anywhere else. I don't think Aikido was built in a vacuum with totally new stuff that no one knows about and only Aikido can do it.

If I couldn't see similarities in Aikido then I would be the first one that says "Nah that stuff is fake." But I don't see that and if GpSeymour grabs my wrist then I'm going to do my best to deny him the ability to do what ever technique he's trying to do. If I had to fight a chi ball master then I probably wouldn't bother to fight. I wouldn't give it the credit of even taking a defensive stance.

I’m actually looking at similarities that I see in the approach to training. That foundational stuff is what I feel is most important, and the notion that aikido may practice drills that reinforce the foundation even if those drills are not meant to have direct combat application, makes sense to me and is consistent with my system.

The drills are different and the combat applications may be different, but that is what makes aikido unique and makes it not Tibetan White crane. The approach to foundation-building is what makes sense to me. I can step back and accept that I don’t have a thorough understanding of all that they do. I’m perfectly ok with that and assume that if I trained with a good teacher that would come clear. I can accept that their approach to the engagement may be quite different. That doesn’t bother me at all.

 

[JowGaWolf]

So for example. You might look at this and wonder what the application is. But you are actually looking at the application.

Nope. It breaks a lot of Universal Truths about staff application for fighting (striking and defending).

kick me the groin if I ever try to reason that as fighting application.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

aikido may practice drills that reinforce the foundation even if those drills are not meant to have direct combat application,..

This is what I don't like about some of those TMA training method. In TMA, there are foundation training. There are also technique training. If I can use one training to achieve both, I'll use that training method.

If a partner training uses a principle, when you do partner training without partner, you will get solo training. This way, you can kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

I have discarded many TMA training method that have no direct combat application. I don't even teach those training to my students.

For example, I don't teach this drill no matter how traditional it may be.

But I teach this partner drill. When my students do partner drill without partner, they have solo drill. Those solo drill is combat application.

 

[JowGaWolf]

How close is this to the Aikdo Chop. I just found it

Or is this concept correct? If this is correct then I'll stop trying understand. All I need to be able to do is run away if this is the concept

Or is this the correct way

@6:43. I'm prefer stepping to the outside of punches much safer bu you can see how the strike lands
@:7:40 If you do the same technique on the outside of a jab then you will never get hit. If you do it like he says @7:40 then you will get hit. This is where I have problems. Universally fighting systems says don't enter on the inside of punches like that. But here he says they do it differently. My thoughts is that the reason so many systems don't enter like @7:40 is because it's dangerous to do so, as a universal reality.

Based on what I saw, moving to the inside only works if you can pin the arm against the chest upon the strike. I don't think that's possible as that rear hand is already in a position to defend the strike to the head. I'm more opened to @6:43. and would be scared to try to strike or block someone doing punch combos like is shown @7:40.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Yokomen Uchi is the strike right?

 

[Flying Crane]

This is what I don't like about some of those TMA training method. In TMA, there are foundation training. There are also technique training. If I can use one training to achieve both, I'll use that training method.

If a partner training uses a principle, when you do partner training without partner, you will get solo training. This way, you can kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

I have discarded many TMA training method that have no direct combat application. I don't even teach those training to my students.

For example, I don't teach this drill no matter how traditional it may be.

But I teach this partner drill. When my students do partner drill without partner, they have solo drill. Those solo drill is combat application.

That can work as well.

Some foundation training includes technique on a functional level. That can incorporate application more readily.

Some isolates certain foundational concepts and movements in order to focus on those specifically, without being cluttered by application. That is a clue as to how important they are. I appreciate the curriculum structure in isolating those components for focused attention.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Some isolates certain foundational concepts and movements in order to focus on those specifically, without being cluttered by application.

The "cluttered by application" part caught my eye. I don't know about other systems but this is definitely a common issue for CMA's were the body is doing more than one thing at once. Show a regular person a kung fu technique that's simple and their head will explode and they will have trouble getting their body to do what they want it to do. The concept of "coordination between mind and body" is dominate when it comes to CMA. It's easier for kids because they do not have a long history of other movements to get in the way or interfere with the new movements being learned. And that's only just the movement's that I'm talking about. Add application and you have another set of things you have to get used to. It's one of the reasons why some martial artists can do the movements perfectly but fail horribly when it comes to actual application. Then there's timing and now you have added another challenge.

There's no way to learn all of this at once. Even boxers don't learn that way.