Aikido.. The reality?

[JowGaWolf]

Those aren't functionally the same level, though, for competion (rememer, we're talking about people preparing for the same competition).

It's same thing. How long do you think it took Raymond Daniels to get his kicking skills to his current level ok kicking efficiency? Compared to how long it takes for someone to to MMA?

How long did Roka's Train MMA compared to how long it took Raymond Daniels to be good at Kicks? Who has the advantage now? The guy that took the short path or the guy that took the long path?

 

[JowGaWolf]

This is Raymond Daniels path before going into MMA. What was Roka's path?

Points fighting (Kickboxing/Sport Karate)​

• North American Sport Karate Association
  • 2004 NASKA World Championship
  • 2002 NASKA World Championship
• National Blackbelt League
  • 2010 NBL World Championship
  • 2009 NBL World Championship
  • 2008 NBL World Championship
  • 2007 NBL World Championship
  • 2006 NBL World Championship
  • 2005 NBL World Championship
  • 2004 NBL World Championship
  • 2003 NBL World Championship
• World Association of Kickboxing Organizations
  • 2015 W.A.K.O. World Champion
  • 2014 Irish Open Grand Champion
  • 2012 Irish Open Grand Champion
  • 2011 Irish Open Grand Champion
  • 2010 Irish Open Grand Champion
  • 2009 Irish Open Grand Champion
  • 2008 Irish Open Grand Champion
  • 2007 Irish Open Grand Champion
  • 2006 Irish Open Grand Champion
  • 2005 Irish Open Grand Champion

Kickboxing (Full Contact)​

• Bellator Kickboxing
  • Bellator Kickboxing Welterweight Championship (One time, current)
• Pain and Glory
  • Pain and Glory -84 kg/185 lb Tournament Championship
• World Combat League
  • 2007–08 WCL Championship –

 

[Steve]

The problem with "If nobody can...."
1. Who are you basing this on? Are you basing it only those who shop up in MMA or are you basing it all who train and use a system?

Joe Rogan thinks like your statement. And he gets proven wrong all the time when someone does what he thought no one could do.

Sort of like the early days of men trying to fly. No one could, until someone did.

Okay. I said I was done, but I would like to address this. While I still don't have a lot of energy to explain, I will point to a helpful NPR article that really speaks to the heart of this discussion.

What Makes Science Science?

Scientific conclusions and scientific methods can change: Understanding how and why these changes occur reveals why science is our best bet for getting the facts right, says Tania Lombrozo.

www.npr.org

Emphasis below is mine.

First, the body of scientific knowledge is continually evolving. Scientists don't simply add more facts to our scientific repository; they question new evidence as it comes in, and they repeatedly reexamine prior conclusions. That means that the body of scientific knowledge isn't just growing, it's also changing.

At first glance, this change can be unsettling. How can we trust science, if scientific conclusions are continually subject to change?


The key is that scientific conclusions don't change on a whim. They change in response to new evidence, new analyses and new arguments — the sorts of things we can publicly agree (or disagree) about, that we can evaluate together. And scientific conclusions are almost always based on induction, not deduction. That is, science involves drawing inferences from premises to conclusion, where the premises can affect the probability of the conclusions but don't establish them with certainty.

This is the difference between faith and science. Trusting science doesn't mean blindly accepting the conclusions of the day and becoming dogmatic in the face of new evidence. That's faith. Science is the opposite of that. It's accepting that what we know now may evolve over time in the face of new evidence, and being open minded about it when it does.

 

[Steve]

I'd just toss in the one qualifier that this is true if the time tradeoff is positive. So, no matter how nice a given system might be to have in the pocket, if it takes too much time to get to a useful level, I doubt any serious competitor will choose to do that. Their time is better spent in other pursuits. This is one of the areas MMA and BJJ drives folks very nicely - toward efficiency of training.

Oh, I don't know. I mean, BJJ takes a long time to master, but you can use some stuff pretty quickly. A BJJ blue belt might be an excellent MMAist, if they have sufficient mastery in other areas. That doesn't mean they are cherry picking their BJJ, nor does it mean that they are unwilling to put in the hard work of mastering BJJ as a discrete art. It simply means that as their mastery of BJJ grows, their overall skillset just gets better.

What I see as underlying this is a belief that proficiency is a spectrum, not a switch. If you believe it is a switch, where you have to keep at something for years before it works at all... well, yeah. I would say that's a problem. You might call it a feature, but I'd call it a bug. Something's not right there. It shouldn't take years for you to see some practical success. If I were learning how to forge knives, I bet with some expert instruction and competent supervision, I could make a functional knife in less than a week. I may take years to master the craft, but it shouldn't take long to see some practical benefit.

 

[drop bear]

I'm talking about whole systems, rather than techniques. I'd agree entirely with your statement, where techniques and tactics are concerned. But if a system delivers on a slow learning curve, it means a competitor learning that system are always "behind" compared to someone learning a system that delivers significantly faster results. So, if you and I both train in systems that are capable of producing a similar result at an "intermediate" level, where "intermediate" is matters. If you can get to that functional level in 2 years, and I need 5 to get there, I'll never remain competitive with you. Because by the time I get to that point in 5 years, you're 3 years past it.

So, no, just because it is functional, that doesn't mean it's a good path for someone who wants to really be competitive.

I think you are describing one system that is just better than the other.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's same thing. How long do you think it took Raymond Daniels to get his kicking skills to his current level ok kicking efficiency? Compared to how long it takes for someone to to MMA?

How long did Roka's Train MMA compared to how long it took Raymond Daniels to be good at Kicks? Who has the advantage now? The guy that took the short path or the guy that took the long path?

I'm speaking of reaching the same functional level for the given competition. So, somoene who trains boxing-only needs a much higher boxing skill level for MMA competition than someone who trains a wider skill set, because they have to depend only upon their punching and footwork. So to be functionally the same level for MMA, the boxer must be a more skilled boxer.

So when talking about competition, a system that is significantly slower for developing functional skill for that competition is a disadvantage.

 

[drop bear]

This is Raymond Daniels path before going into MMA. What was Roka's path?

Points fighting (Kickboxing/Sport Karate)​

• North American Sport Karate Association
  • 2004 NASKA World Championship
  • 2002 NASKA World Championship
• National Blackbelt League
  • 2010 NBL World Championship
  • 2009 NBL World Championship
  • 2008 NBL World Championship
  • 2007 NBL World Championship
  • 2006 NBL World Championship
  • 2005 NBL World Championship
  • 2004 NBL World Championship
  • 2003 NBL World Championship
• World Association of Kickboxing Organizations
  • 2015 W.A.K.O. World Champion
  • 2014 Irish Open Grand Champion
  • 2012 Irish Open Grand Champion
  • 2011 Irish Open Grand Champion
  • 2010 Irish Open Grand Champion
  • 2009 Irish Open Grand Champion
  • 2008 Irish Open Grand Champion
  • 2007 Irish Open Grand Champion
  • 2006 Irish Open Grand Champion
  • 2005 Irish Open Grand Champion

Kickboxing (Full Contact)​

• Bellator Kickboxing
  • Bellator Kickboxing Welterweight Championship (One time, current)
• Pain and Glory
  • Pain and Glory -84 kg/185 lb Tournament Championship
• World Combat League
  • 2007–08 WCL Championship –

Ok. But we could do Bec Rawlings and her bare knuckle boxing success. That was in part because of her years of MMA.

I have a karate friend called Cooper Royal who is doing really well in MMA at the moment. But regardless of his style his training has always just been good.

And I think that is the super secret difference between say him doing well and Rokus not doing well.

Aikido training basically isn't good. It is taught by people who don't understand the mechanics of what they are trying to achieve. And trained in a way that does not develop that understanding.

And this is before we get to the idea that they are trying to achieve some inefficient fighting ideas.

I mean even a really good Capoeira guy can Capoeira people. Even though they are taking basically the hardest way to achieve that end. That is inefficient but they understand there process.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Oh, I don't know. I mean, BJJ takes a long time to master, but you can use some stuff pretty quickly. A BJJ blue belt might be an excellent MMAist, if they have sufficient mastery in other areas. That doesn't mean they are cherry picking their BJJ, nor does it mean that they are unwilling to put in the hard work of mastering BJJ as a discrete art. It simply means that as their mastery of BJJ grows, their overall skillset just gets better.

I wasn't suggesting either of those things, Steve. I think that process is true of any functional system. That doesn't change that spending 5 years of 2 hours a day for a 2% improvement (from where you were before that) is probably not worth it for a competitor, if there's something else you can be doing with that time that will provide a 10% improvement. So, for that BJJ blue, taking up Aikido doesn't offer enough of a gain to be worth taking the time they could otherwise use to progress in BJJ.

What I see as underlying this is a belief that proficiency is a spectrum, not a switch. If you believe it is a switch, where you have to keep at something for years before it works at all... well, yeah. I would say that's a problem. You might call it a feature, but I'd call it a bug. Something's not right there. It shouldn't take years for you to see some practical success. If I were learning how to forge knives, I bet with some expert instruction and competent supervision, I could make a functional knife in less than a week. I may take years to master the craft, but it shouldn't take long to see some practical benefit.

I don't see this suggested anywhere, Steve. It's all progression. But it's hard to argue that a slow, marginal increase is worthwhile for competition when a bigger increase can be had elsewhere in the same time.

 

[Steve]

I'm speaking of reaching the same functional level for the given competition. So, somoene who trains boxing-only needs a much higher boxing skill level for MMA competition than someone who trains a wider skill set, because they have to depend only upon their punching and footwork. So to be functionally the same level for MMA, the boxer must be a more skilled boxer.

So when talking about competition, a system that is significantly slower for developing functional skill for that competition is a disadvantage.

I don't think a pure boxer should expect to see a lot of success in MMA, regardless of how skilled they are as a boxer. While boxing is a complimentary art in a lot of ways, there are a lot of gaps.

Roping this back to Aikido, this is what an Aikidoka would need to do in order to succeed in MMA. They would need to honestly evaluate what they know and what they can actually do and contrast that to what they NEED to know in order to be successful. Just like everyone else.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think you are describing one system that is just better than the other.

Better for that purpose, yes, which has been my point.

Here's where we get into prefernce. I enjoy the challenge of aiki development. It's finicky and fun to play with. I could develop my fighting ability much faster by picking up a new art or expanding the ones I know a bit (Judo, BJJ). But I have a lot of fun digging deeper into what I'm doing. And I've always enjoyed that element of slow progression in part of the art. So I stuck with the system that's better for me, because it's what I like.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't think a pure boxer should expect to see a lot of success in MMA, regardless of how skilled they are as a boxer. While boxing is a complimentary art in a lot of ways, there are a lot of gaps.

Agreed. Something like BJJ or catch wrestling might make it as a single base, but boxing....they'd have to be fantastically better to succeed much at all.

Roping this back to Aikido, this is what an Aikidoka would need to do in order to succeed in MMA. They would need to honestly evaluate what they know and what they can actually do and contrast that to what they NEED to know in order to be successful. Just like everyone else.

Agreed. And I don't really think an aiki art can translate that way. I've never seen anyone demonstrate that aiki principles can be developed very fast. It's a finicky thing, and it's much faster to learn to do functional techniques without that. So Aikido is unlikely to have a path to MMA. It's too slow a path, if it stays Aikido.

 

[Oily Dragon]

Oh, I don't know. I mean, BJJ takes a long time to master, but you can use some stuff pretty quickly. A BJJ blue belt might be an excellent MMAist, if they have sufficient mastery in other areas. That doesn't mean they are cherry picking their BJJ, nor does it mean that they are unwilling to put in the hard work of mastering BJJ as a discrete art. It simply means that as their mastery of BJJ grows, their overall skillset just gets better.

What I see as underlying this is a belief that proficiency is a spectrum, not a switch. If you believe it is a switch, where you have to keep at something for years before it works at all... well, yeah. I would say that's a problem. You might call it a feature, but I'd call it a bug. Something's not right there. It shouldn't take years for you to see some practical success. If I were learning how to forge knives, I bet with some expert instruction and competent supervision, I could make a functional knife in less than a week. I may take years to master the craft, but it shouldn't take long to see some practical benefit.

Yeah. If you can't learn the fighting basics of an art in under 20 lessons, run don't walk away.

Getting good at anything takes time. But it should click on day 1, or at least day 20.

 

[drop bear]

Better for that purpose, yes, which has been my point.

Here's where we get into prefernce. I enjoy the challenge of aiki development. It's finicky and fun to play with. I could develop my fighting ability much faster by picking up a new art or expanding the ones I know a bit (Judo, BJJ). But I have a lot of fun digging deeper into what I'm doing. And I've always enjoyed that element of slow progression in part of the art. So I stuck with the system that's better for me, because it's what I like.

Yeah but the purpose is understanding basic fighting mechanisms. Or understanding positional or mechanical advantage. Or understanding striking timing. These fundamental building blocks required to make martial arts work on a guy that doesn't want it to work.

And I am sorry but even though Aiki ranges from just being really slick at grappling to mystical hoodoo nonsense. Even that is improved by a good fundamental understanding of how to operate your own body.

This is why my money would be on a MMA hard charger with 10 minutes wrist lock training being able to surpass rokus's knowledge of 20 years.

Now if you like to train the way you feel comfortable. That is still a different argument to training in a way that increases your depth of understanding. I like to train 3 days a week. But I will have less understanding than someone who trains 6 days a week.

I don't like to run. So I will have less understanding than someone with the fitness to train longer, harder and can do more in that time frame.

 

[JowGaWolf]

H

Okay. I said I was done, but I would like to address this. While I still don't have a lot of energy to explain, I will point to a helpful NPR article that really speaks to the heart of this discussion.

What Makes Science Science?

Scientific conclusions and scientific methods can change: Understanding how and why these changes occur reveals why science is our best bet for getting the facts right, says Tania Lombrozo.

www.npr.org

Emphasis below is mine.


This is the difference between faith and science. Trusting science doesn't mean blindly accepting the conclusions of the day and becoming dogmatic in the face of new evidence. That's faith. Science is the opposite of that. It's accepting that what we know now may evolve over time in the face of new evidence, and being open minded about it when it does.

The problem with all of what you posted was that it has nothing to do with the belief in something without evidence, which is what you asked me. You asked me if I believe in things without evidence. I also agree with science. I just don't think science is everything, because a lot happens outside of the world of science.

For example: The belief that one can reach a goal even though there's currently no evidence that it's possible.

Kind of how people grow up poor and disadvantage and all the evidence points to the fact that they won't reach their dreams or be the best in their profession. Then that same person, powered by belief and determination (not science) accomplish the goals. While others who have more advantages will fail to reach that same success.

What would science say about this guy's ability to be successful and have a job?

 

[drop bear]

H

The problem with all of what you posted was that it has nothing to do with the belief in something without evidence, which is what you asked me. You asked me if I believe in things without evidence. I also agree with science. I just don't think science is everything, because a lot happens outside of the world of science.

For example: The belief that one can reach a goal even though there's currently no evidence that it's possible.

Kind of how people grow up poor and disadvantage and all the evidence points to the fact that they won't reach their dreams or be the best in their profession. Then that same person, powered by belief and determination (not science) accomplish the goals. While others who have more advantages will fail to reach that same success.

What would science say about this guy's ability to be successful and have a job?
View attachment 28002

You are looking at it backwards.

That guy is successful. So therefore the scientific evidence says that guy can be successful with whatever method he used.

 

[drop bear]

So Aiki as an example.

This is a stylistic compliant example of what fighters achieve through good technique.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You are looking at it backwards.

That guy is successful. So therefore the scientific evidence says that guy can be successful with whatever method he used.

Does it? You go tatoo your face and use the same method and let me know how that works out for you.

If it's all scientific, then you should be able to produce the same results right?

 

[drop bear]

Does it? You go tatoo your face and use the same method and let me know how that works out for you.

If it's all scientific, then you should be able to produce the same results right?

If it is scientific it should be repeatable.

So say some weirdly tattooed guys started signing Island boys or something. Then that might have a reoccurring theme that we could discern and duplicate.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah but the purpose is understanding basic fighting mechanisms. Or understanding positional or mechanical advantage. Or understanding striking timing. These fundamental building blocks required to make martial arts work on a guy that doesn't want it to work.

And I am sorry but even though Aiki ranges from just being really slick at grappling to mystical hoodoo nonsense. Even that is improved by a good fundamental understanding of how to operate your own body.

This is why my money would be on a MMA hard charger with 10 minutes wrist lock training being able to surpass rokus's knowledge of 20 years.

Now if you like to train the way you feel comfortable. That is still a different argument to training in a way that increases your depth of understanding. I like to train 3 days a week. But I will have less understanding than someone who trains 6 days a week.

I don't like to run. So I will have less understanding than someone with the fitness to train longer, harder and can do more in that time frame.

I don't disagree that functional locking understanding requires something more than the cooperative drills commonly found in Aikido training. I think those can work.....but it's rare that someone only doing those (with no resistive training at all) will grok the grappling fundamentals behind them. And the aiki isn't really necessary to make basic locks work, as you know. So learning to operate most of those techniques just doesn't require the aiki study. It's another layer. In fact, it's my understanding that's how it was/is done in Daito-ryu: aikijujutsu as a layer on top of jujutsu.

 

[JowGaWolf]

So Aiki as an example.

See what you don't understand is that you have to have a gut so you can create and manipulate your own gravity lol.

Where do you find this stuff? lol