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?
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.
www.npr.org
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
Better for that purpose, yes, which has been my point.
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.
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.
Yeah. If you can't learn the fighting basics of an art in under 20 lessons, run don't walk away.
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.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.
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.
Does it? You go tatoo your face and use the same method and let me know how that works out for you.
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.
See what you don't understand is that you have to have a gut so you can create and manipulate your own gravity lol.
