Aikido.. The reality?

[drop bear]

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.

Learning any sort of nuance related to fighting involves competitive drills. We are talking timing, balance being able to read or predict the other guys movements. Any of that esoteric feels stuff. The other guy just falling over is where you learn enough technique to be able to start training.

 

[drop bear]

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

It's common. It's a lot more common than we give it credit for.

There is this insidious thing where we let people who are better than us have the structural advantage. And because we let them do it. We think they have the better skills.

And quite often training compounds this circumstance.

So while that is an extreme example of what can happen. Don't think it isn't happening to you.

So this is no different.

She spent a month of hard charging krav And finished thinking she can do what exactly?

Or BJJ grading.

And it is literally the guy just getting smashed for whatever that time limit is.

 

[Martial D]

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.

Serious question..do you know how science works? Secondary to that, do you think science is applicable to martial arts?

I'm not being facetious or condecending, this is going somewhere if you answer seriously.

 

[JowGaWolf]

There is this insidious thing where we let people who are better than us have the structural advantage. And because we let them do it. We think they have the better skills.

That's crazy. You can't learn if you don't resist. Part of learning is trying to resist then fail at doing it. Just don't break your (general) own stuff in the process. But yeah resisting is part of the learning process. That way you get an idea of what to do when others start resisting you (general).

And finished thinking she can do what exactly?

Cardio?

 

[Steve]

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.

Personally, thinking that you have what you need to succeed is a limiting mindset. I would think even a very skilled BJJ'er or wrestler would realize that they need to develop additional skills to succeed. The traditional MAists in MMA who are successful all embrace this simple truth.

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.

This is something you and I have talked about at length in the past. I don't think you can develop aiki principles at all without applying skills. AND, I think if you want to experience aiki, you should roll with an elite grappler. They develop what you're talking about, but it comes with hard work, and doing it less perfectly thousands of times.

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.

Toward the beginning of a learning curve, you should be making huge leaps. At the beginning of any new activity, everything you learn has a profound effect on your overall performance. If you graph performance in anything, the early stages are where you should see the most dramatic leaps in ability.

So, I think you missed my point. If it's a 5 year journey to application in any human endeavor, there is something amiss. Or more directly, if it takes you 5 years to realize a "2% improvement from where you were before that)" it's not bias that's the issue. It's an honest assessment of real value added.

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.

No, we definitely agree that marginal gain is not worthwhile. In particular in the early stages where the learning curve is steepest. If you see marginal gain at the beginning, you will at some point see progress stall completely, because something is most definitely up.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Serious question..do you know how science works? Secondary to that, do you think science is applicable to martial arts?

I'm not being facetious or condecending, this is going somewhere if you answer seriously.

I hope I know.
2 years of oceanography
3 years of biology
1 year of chemistry
1 Year of physics
2 Years of Astronomy
3 years of creating environmental education classes for the Gwinnett County K-12 education system.

So.. feel free to go wherever you want to go.

 

[Steve]

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.

Wait, what? I asked you if you believe in things without evidence? I really don't recall that.

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

I think how people look and dress is pretty superficial, personally. I don't know that kid, but I'd presume he could be successful and have a job. Maybe not, but I can't tell from a snapshot. Your question says a lot about you, more than about the kid in the picture, IMO.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Wait, what? I asked you if you believe in things without evidence? I really don't recall that.

Yeah sorry about that one. I was thinking that I was reading something form a different poster. I was stop and go and doing some other stuff while trying to post. My bad

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think how people look and dress is pretty superficial, personally.

ha ha ha. I agree with you. But that's how things go. Right or wrong that's human behavior, and a lot of standards for success and failure are built on that very thing.

Your question says a lot about you, more than about the kid in the picture, IMO.

ha ha ha. yes it does say a lot about me. Like I know who this guy is, which is why I put a picture of him in the first place lol

 

[Oily Dragon]

do you think science is applicable to martial arts?

I'll answer for him, since I know how he trains (very realistically).

Science is applicable to all things, but it can't explain a lot of them.

Imagination, for starters, which is (arguably) the source of all creation.

 

[Oily Dragon]

There is this insidious thing where we let people who are better than us have the structural advantage. And because we let them do it. We think they have the better skills.

And quite often training compounds this circumstance.

It's almost like you can read my mind.

I...have a hard time dealing with trainers. Anybody of that ilk. It's because I've dealt with so many, for so long, I can't remember. It's also why I never want to train anyone, ever.

I don't hate them, ( don't hate anybody), but I found a way to route around them. That took years and years of conditioning.

 

[dvcochran]

This is bad logic. Negatives (like non-existence) are usually unprovable, by definition.

Exactly. Prove God does Not exist.

 

[drop bear]

Exactly. Prove God does Not exist.

You can with logic rather than science.

But the point of scientific approach is you don't have to prove something doesn't exist. You have to prove it does.

And basically the premise is the world is made up of stuff that exists. Rather than is made up of infinite potentially. And the reason for that is you kind of need some sort of structure to function.

And this goes back to martial arts. That there are elements in martial arts that work. And if you learn those elements your martial arts will work.

Rather than If you explore every infinite combination of possibilities. Your martial arts won't work.

Imagine you are in a concrete room with a doorway. And to escape that room you attempt every conceivable action you could possibly do in that room. Chances are you will never leave.

 

[dvcochran]

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Haha!!! Scientist/astronomers have been doing this for centuries.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I'll answer for him, since I know how he trains (very realistically).

Science is applicable to all things, but it can't explain a lot of them.

Imagination, for starters, which is (arguably) the source of all creation.

That's pretty good. ha ha ha. On spot too.

The thing about martial arts is that there's a lot more science in it than what people give it credit from. From bio mechanics, to physics, chemistry, and human behavior. I often comment on how I'm amazed at how well they understood the body the way it moves and the behaviors of humans and the mind. I'm always impressed. I only wished that some cultures didn't try to wipe out others and the knowledge that they had.

You are also correct about imagination. Something from nothing. To create some real from a thought of something that never existed. We got lots of that stuff in the world.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Imagine you are in a concrete room with a doorway. And to escape that room you attempt every conceivable action you could possibly do in that room. Chances are you will never leave.

This is why I don't go crazy with trying to learn a bunch of forms. It used to frustrate my teacher. He would tell me that I'm good enough to learn a new form every 3 months or so. Learning the form is one thing but being able to fight using what's in the form is something totally different. My reasoning for this slow pace was simple. What good is it for me to know all of those forms and not have the ability to use any of what's in the forms.

The thought of that reality was just unacceptable to me. Still is. I'm too old to learn everything, but what I can do is share what I've learned with my son and students so that their training path is much shorter than mine. A lot of Kung Fu schools don't have that teacher with the experience of using the technique that will make that learning path shorter. If the teacher doesn't have it then the student will need to figure a lot of stuff out. Most of it being in the department of application, timing, set up, etc..

 

[Steve]

as an fyi to the group, logically, the way to prove something doesn’t exist is to consider the agreed upon traits of the thing and then articulate a cogent argument against a trait or combination of traits. At its simplest and most obvious, if something were alleged to be 1 mile tall and simultaneously 1 foot tall, you could argue that it cannot exist because no thing that exists outside of our imagination can be huge and tiny at the same time.

This is the fundamental strategy behind the problem of evil, which argues that while A god may exist, the theistic God does not because he cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent while senseless and inecessary pain and suffering exist.

 

[Martial D]

I hope I know.
2 years of oceanography
3 years of biology
1 year of chemistry
1 Year of physics
2 Years of Astronomy
3 years of creating environmental education classes for the Gwinnett County K-12 education system.

So.. feel free to go wherever you want to go.

Ok. So then I assume you must know that to move something from an educated guess(hypothesis) to a working theory requires rigorous, repeatable testing, and the resultant theory must be falsifiable to qualify as knowledge, correct?

 

[Martial D]

Haha!!! Scientist/astronomers have been doing this for centuries.

I'm not sure you understand the point of this particular thought experiment. It shows that trying to prove something does not exist is not epistemologically equal to showing that it does, and that nothing can be gained that way. You can't prove there isn't an invisible unicorn whispering in my ear right now, telling me what to type. That doesn't make such an assertion reasonable.

But in the context of martial arts, the proposition is falsifiable. People have been testing them all live for quite some time, with some coming out as useful and others not so much. Yet in the case of the latter group we still get people demanding proof they do not work, even as their systems fail over and over in any and all live testing situations. It's basically religion at this point.

 

[drop bear]

as an fyi to the group, logically, the way to prove something doesn’t exist is to consider the agreed upon traits of the thing and then articulate a cogent argument against a trait or combination of traits. At its simplest and most obvious, if something were alleged to be 1 mile tall and simultaneously 1 foot tall, you could argue that it cannot exist because no thing that exists outside of our imagination can be huge and tiny at the same time.

This is the fundamental strategy behind the problem of evil, which argues that while A god may exist, the theistic God does not because he cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent while senseless and inecessary pain and suffering exist.

That.

Can he create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift?