Aikido.. The reality?

[JowGaWolf]

In order to know that the claims made by the system are true.

Get your friend. put on some gloves, head gear if you need it. do some light sparring but actually trying to strike and throw each other. Try your techniques. If you can't do your technique in a light environment then the truth should hit you really hard.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

For reference, finger locks are a thing in Aikido.

I have not seen any Aikido technique such as:

- finger bending, or
- fingers splitting.

Do you know any Aikido clip for that?

 

[Hanzou]

If he goes out to see if he can apply aikido techniques then yes he had to be successful. Successful applications during sparring means that you are getting things correct. It's important because it helps you to gauge your level of understanding for a specific technique. Not being successful means there are some gaps in your understanding and possibly your training.

It's like a high dive competition. You don't pick the competition day to figure out if you can actually do a twist with a double front flip. So success matters. And it's stuff like this that drives me crazy. So when it comes to Aikido, or any other TMA, people start pulling out exceptions and saying things like no need to be successful in applying Aikido when it was clear that Roka was testing his Aikido Skills.

Okay, but you can watch Olympic divers to see high diving at the highest competitive levels. You know what a successful application of a high dive looks like because you have objective examples with plenty of evidence to support what is and isn't good high diving.

You don't have that with Aikido. If I said show me an example of an Aikidoka successfully using their skill against a highly skilled wrestler, you couldn't show me that example. What's worse, you'd probably attack me for daring to ask for that example. Thus if I am an Aikidoka looking for answers, I now have pressure on me to find the answers on my own.

Of course there is. Easy.
1. Did you try to use an Aikido technique? If yes, then goto #2
2. Were you able to apply the technique successfully and get the result that the technique was supposed to give you.?

There's nothing more concrete than that.

Again this is nonsense. There should be examples outside of your personal experience to show you how a technique is applied, and there should be exponents who can apply those techniques in multiple contexts. If that isn't the case, then you begin to sow doubts into the efficacy of the system.

The reality about folktales and legends. They are stories about other people, not about you. It's what that person did, not what you did. So if the legend isn't about you , then don't assume that you can do what was in the legend. No one on Martial Talk is going to read the legend of John Henry and then 15 year think they are going to beat a machine laying downing train tracks.

Legends and folktales have lessons and moral values in them that inspire people. If you hear a folktale or legend and then think you can do what they do in the story, then there's a good chance you missed the point of that folktale and legend. But again, we all understand this but make an exception for TMA. We ignore the lesson about how hard they work and sudden assume that because they beat up a Japanese army that we can do the same simply because they did it.

Yeah but here's the problem, in BJJ the Gracies are legends, and we can actually watch and view their feats so we know that the legend is real. What's more, we have modern exponents who are doing what the Gracies did, if not better. So that validates the legends and folktales and the claims of the martial art itself. If you're telling me that Ueshiba was a badass who could beat 10 men with one hand and no Aikidoka has been able to replicate those feats, then I begin to ask questions. This is especially the case if on one hand you're telling me that Aikido is a spiritual exercise, but on the other you brag about what a killer Ueshiba supposedly was.

Nope. that's not what he did. He even admitted that he never "pressure tested" his stuff as part of regular training. Common sense tells you to practice first until you can pull it off in practice then when you get to that then go test your ability against someone else.

Why would you test your ability on something you don't functionally train? That's like not studying for a test and expecting to do well on the test.

Because he had 15 years experience in Aikido and was an instructor. Further, people within Aikido constantly state that their art is on par with other Martial Arts. MMA based martial arts have no problem going outside of their arts and faring well against other martial arts, why would Aikido have a problem with that?

 

[Hanzou]

Get your friend. put on some gloves, head gear if you need it. do some light sparring but actually trying to strike and throw each other. Try your techniques. If you can't do your technique in a light environment then the truth should hit you really hard.

Again, that isn't enough. Some people want to see if their art is effective against other trained people. I could tie my untrained buddies up in pretzels when we goofed around, but there were times when I preferred to go against my other friend who was a former NCAA wrestler. I definitely couldn't tie him in a pretzel so it was a superior challenge for me and my training.

Also I frankly doubt if Rokas had much success goofing around with his untrained friends.

 

[drop bear]

I'm saying it's a high probability it will be a lot easier than mma, if we assume that most street fight have a winner, though admittedly some are an honoury draw( so we can call them both winners), and that almost non of these winners could turn up and compete at even a basic mma tournament( infact only the ones who were already doing mma or similar), then yes there seem a good chance that any particular street fight will be a lot easier than an mma tourment bout( as you probably already realise which is why you stick to fighting drunks)

unless your living in street fighter 2, then obviously its different

I fight drunks because I get paid to.

I do MMA because they are the gold standard of fighting and so get the most bang for buck.

 

[Hanzou]

Because questioning your martial arts makes the assumption that you aren't the problem.

Martial Arts tutor questioned his MA. Trained MMA and a little Kickboxing and discovered. It wasn't the system that was the problem it was him.

Roka question Aikido. Trained MMA, asked some BJJ gues and discovered. He was the one not doing the wrist lock correct. He was the one who wasn't pressure testing. He was the one that wasn't training his Aikido functional. Don't take my word. He even says what I'm saying here. He didn't question his Instructor. If you can't use your martial arts, the first thing you should do is question yourself, then you should question the person teaching you. By the way. All you hear is stuff about Zen and spiritual stuff.

You know how my students saw me as? They saw me as the guy in the school who knew how to actually use Kung Fu. No one ever sees me as the guy with Zen. I got problems just like everyone else.

What was the point of linking this video? This merely shows how TMAs can develop a cult-like following. In fact, that video SUPPORTS the notion that you should always question your MA, because if you just blindly swallow what is fed to you without questioning it, you can develop a cult-like mindset and start doing whatever your instructor tells you to do.

Also like I said before, if Rokas had a foundation to gauge successful Aikido, he'd still be running an Aikido school today. It's easy to view yourself as the problem if you see elite examples of people practicing your art answering your questions. For example, if I'm wondering if Bjj can help me against a wrestler, I have multiple examples of Bjj practitioners doing just fine against wrestlers, so the pressure to answer that question is relieved. I also know that if I do terrible against a wrestler, its on me. However if I don't have that foundation, then I begin to question the system itself.

That is a logical and sensible reaction.

 

[drop bear]

even critical thinking requires to be run through the perception filters of the critical thinker, they cant switch them off no matter how hard they try, hence spock having to be an alien, though some are better than others, this doesnt seem to include you

there a considerable degree of subjectivity ( let's call it interpretation) with in science, which means that scientific facts are also some what open to interpretation, that's why PhD are doctors of philosophy, not say physics, as philosophy is the only actual science 3everything else is just interpretation using philosophical principals.

and that's dealing with actual science, most of the things most people think are factual are most certainly not,

when you run the case that not only are they being subjective, but being subjective,about things that arnt objectively true, you can see how it is that grown men dont know the geometrical shape of the planet

Yeah but there is a base of at least something physical you can gauge the system with.

Exept in martial arts where it is mostly anecdotes dogma and misconception. And it is deliberately that way.

It is like diet and fitness. There are some consistent themes that work. And then there is the willingness to actually do those things.

One is objective one is subjective.

 

[Shatteredzen]

I have not seen any Aikido technique such as:

- finger bending, or
- fingers splitting.

Do you know any Aikido clip for that?

Here is one with a few in it, he's pretty lazily showing them against a very non-resistant student, but he is performing them technically ok, if without force.

To answer your earlier question about what to do against an opponent who attempts to alleviate pressure from his wrist with his elbow, you would transition it towards something like this, gaining control of the elbow and then armbar, this technique goes back to the wrist lock after the arm is exploited.

 

[drop bear]

Here is one with a few in it, he's pretty lazily showing them against a very non-resistant student, but he is performing them technically ok, if without force.

To answer your earlier question about what to do against an opponent who attempts to alleviate pressure from his wrist with his elbow, you would transition it towards something like this, gaining control of the elbow and then armbar, this technique goes back to the wrist lock after the arm is exploited.

The big issue is if they keep their arms mostly in and tight, you really are not going to move them. And why you have to break their structure via their head first.

Only half of what needs to be taught gets taught and why as soon as you leave the demo you run in to road blocks.

It is like the double leg. It works fine against strikes if you set it up so they don't have time to strike. Or have posture so they cannot guillotine. But if you just fling your arms out yelling double leg that is where you get countered.

 

[Shatteredzen]

Okay, but you can watch Olympic divers to see high diving at the highest competitive levels. You know what a successful application of a high dive looks like because you have objective examples with plenty of evidence to support what is and isn't good high diving.

You don't have that with Aikido. If I said show me an example of an Aikidoka successfully using their skill against a highly skilled wrestler, you couldn't show me that example. What's worse, you'd probably attack me for daring to ask for that example. Thus if I am an Aikidoka looking for answers, I now have pressure on me to find the answers on my own.



Again this is nonsense. There should be examples outside of your personal experience to show you how a technique is applied, and there should be exponents who can apply those techniques in multiple contexts. If that isn't the case, then you begin to sow doubts into the efficacy of the system.



Yeah but here's the problem, in BJJ the Gracies are legends, and we can actually watch and view their feats so we know that the legend is real. What's more, we have modern exponents who are doing what the Gracies did, if not better. So that validates the legends and folktales and the claims of the martial art itself. If you're telling me that Ueshiba was a badass who could beat 10 men with one hand and no Aikidoka has been able to replicate those feats, then I begin to ask questions. This is especially the case if on one hand you're telling me that Aikido is a spiritual exercise, but on the other you brag about what a killer Ueshiba supposedly was.



Because he had 15 years experience in Aikido and was an instructor. Further, people within Aikido constantly state that their art is on par with other Martial Arts. MMA based martial arts have no problem going outside of their arts and faring well against other martial arts, why would Aikido have a problem with that?

I'll go point by point so you can't get lost or claim anyone dodged your question, out of respect that your attempting to ask questions.

- You do have the ability to watch all those uke/nage drills and see who is using good technique if you have the experience. I can watch the "interpretive dance" version of Aikido and point out problems or good technique, you can't because you are not familiar with the system. Yes, other than this Chris Hein school that I literally found yesterday while watching Rokas's videos, I couldn't point you to a good Aikido school in the states, Hein seems to get it and he has awesome technique in his videos, so I would say he's probably the best place to start for someone looking for a good school who may want to see what applies and what doesn't apply for them. The work required to update or fix problems in the system that would be required for it to somehow be competitive how YOU want has not been done. Again you are attempting to make Aikido stand up to something other than what it is, it was never sold or advertised as something to go out and dominate MMA, that's your expectation, full stop.

- You have a very obscure system that was specifically "pacified" before it came to the states to spread philosophy and personal development, yet you expect it to perform flawlessly, by itself, in a mixed style format where it was never intended even from its start.

- Ueshiba was not just using Aikido, he developed Aikido later in life after studying and mastering Judo/Kenjutsu and other Japanese ryu, he was also a soldier. Asking some 19 year old with no life experience, no military experience and no similar background to replicate the achievements of a man who was awarded his nations equivalent to the medal of honor is stupid. Just like expecting other martial artists within BJJ to live up to the Gracie clans legend, if its happend, I havent seen it.

- Rokas 15 years wasn't 15 good years. I can say "I have ten years experience" but that doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does. How many hours a week was he training? If he did one class a week for two hours like most people do, he did about 1560 hours total, that's nothing, its where most would consider entry Journeyman for most skills and that's maybe six months of full time training, it's not even what a good Japanese school would let you test for Shodan. His mere choice of techniques, posture, footwork, lack of guard, etc, in his wrist lock video shows me someone who has never been in a fight, who has never been punched in the face, even in training. Theres too much hesitance, trepidation, too much looking around and thinking about what to do, then he picks a technique, botches it and has the BJJ show him the right way to do a wristlock. You give him all the credit he says he has for 15 years of anecdotal training, then apply it as gospel, yet you won't listen to a critique about it without flying into a rage and demanding proof, yet you do not question the quality or veracity of his experience. Thats not critical thinking.

MMA does have issues in practical application outside of its schools, the ring, etc, you are just choosing to ignore it. You can almost pick a ticket for the UFC and watch at least one undercard fight where a fighter doesn't even learn basic striking or is horrible on the ground because they aren't well rounded enough. The individual matters. You are applying what you have seen on television and youtube to your vision of reality, based on limited or no experience (which is why you are hanging onto this video thing) and then stating that MMA works that way in all situations, in all cases, which it does not, then you are holding the other martial arts to the same imagined standard in your head, without thought for circumstance, individual experience, training, any of it. You aren't posting videos of yourself doing any of these things, your pointing to Gracies and other people on the internet and claiming 1+1 =2 in reference to your ability or the system as a whole, which is not in fact how any of this works. Just based on the thought and technical level of discussion you show, I'd eagerly take a class from Jowgawolf in Jowga Kung Fu and probably get much better results from that lesson than spending the same time in any school, under anyone you have trained with, I can tell, because you use all these false prepositions in your argument. Think back to what I said to drop bear before you even jumped into the discussion, you can't prove a martial arts discussion on the internet.

Let's assume your right, let's assume, hands down, MMA as a system is the gold standard, the most practical, the best all around method of fighting. You can go study under the best teachers, as long as you want and if you don't put the requisite work in, it won't matter. You can put any belt you want around your waist, even if you think you "earned it" and did everything expected of you, that belt won't stop you from getting thumped in an actual fight. I've seen plenty of black belts who were a disgrace to the concept, who ultimately fell apart the moment someone landed a punch in their teeth or broke their nose. Not everyone is a warrior, belt or no.

Don't want to train Aikido? Don't. Think its all fake arm waving and crystals? Cool. No one is forcing you to come here and ***** about it, no one is claiming Aikido is a perfect martial art or one that's effective in the UFC. No one is making these claims. The only thing anyone has said, is that Aikido works fine, as advertised and the only claim being made is that it provides a set of tools, to deal with conflict in a different and less dangerous way and that it will work for most people in most realistic scenarios that they are likely to encounter. So there's no need to "prove" to you, that it is superior to MMA, no one is saying that, you are simply trying to **** on the system and make false claims and say it doesn't work or that it claims something that it doesn't. I have lots of anecdotal experience and that's good enough for me to be happy with the system and to feel happy endorsing it and telling other people its worth training in. I don't need your approval for that or for the system to work, martial arts do not require external validation. Don't like that? Fine, go spend some time bothering someone else instead of arguing the same circular logic over and over.

 

[Shatteredzen]

The big issue is if they keep their arms mostly in and tight, you really are not going to move them. And why you have to break their structure via their head first.

Only half of what needs to be taught gets taught and why as soon as you leave the demo you run in to road blocks.

It is like the double leg. It works fine against strikes if you set it up so they don't have time to strike. Or have posture so they cannot guillotine. But if you just fling your arms out yelling double leg that is where you get countered.

Yes, I only show that video to answer the question. Personally, I'd for sure emphasize more force in the execution and tell the student to resist. I think he's demoing it to those kids a s a basic intro, I prefer to show things slow, medium, full speed so they see it correct and dont develop bad habits. Also, I have never gotten a finger lock to work pretty, its far easier to try and stop jabs then to grab fingers, a thumb war proves this out. I generally show the finger exercises in the context of "ok the wristlock failed, he is pulling away, spread the fingers and try this". I also tend to show each wrist lock and emphasize splaying the fingers to make them good grab handles if you start slipping and I have gotten the finger holds to work when a slimy sweaty hand started to slip out of my hand and I was going to lose the grab.

Your observation with the double leg is true for the Aikido stuff, if I telegraph it, if I don't move and execute part of the technique at the same time as I enter or blend, then its gone and I'm taking a punch to the face. The video that had the UK guys doing wristlocks, showed him blocking the punches with his shoulder. off arm and body positioning, I try and show the same thing, I don't like entering with the little Aikido robot chop arm, I enter with both arms and maneuver the off arm to take the off side strikes.

 

[Shatteredzen]

The big issue is if they keep their arms mostly in and tight, you really are not going to move them. And why you have to break their structure via their head first.

Only half of what needs to be taught gets taught and why as soon as you leave the demo you run in to road blocks.

It is like the double leg. It works fine against strikes if you set it up so they don't have time to strike. Or have posture so they cannot guillotine. But if you just fling your arms out yelling double leg that is where you get countered.

Also, this is the issue with Atemi not being taught in Aikido anymore. Two or three strikes BEFORE the technique makes the landing/execution much more plausible, also, if you lose the hold, you should be practicing to move straight into strikes, I never see other schools do that. I intercepted the jab but missed the frontal/revers grab for an arm bar? I should be throwing knees and elbows since I'm still inside your guard.

 

[Shatteredzen]

Get your friend. put on some gloves, head gear if you need it. do some light sparring but actually trying to strike and throw each other. Try your techniques. If you can't do your technique in a light environment then the truth should hit you really hard.

This! The same should be done for any training, all of it. You don't know, till you know.

 

[Shatteredzen]

Yeah but there is a base of at least something physical you can gauge the system with.

Exept in martial arts where it is mostly anecdotes dogma and misconception. And it is deliberately that way.

It is like diet and fitness. There are some consistent themes that work. And then there is the willingness to actually do those things.

One is objective one is subjective.

Yes, and no one is going to argue that the martial arts has a ton of BS floating through it. The ultimate truth however is in those personal anecdotes. Sure you should choose what to believe or maybe only use your own, but you will develop those anecdotes and that is still what formed all of these martial arts and styles.

 

[Shatteredzen]

I fight drunks because I get paid to.

I do MMA because they are the gold standard of fighting and so get the most bang for buck.

Or is it just for the Bundy in a can?

 

[JowGaWolf]

Okay, but you can watch Olympic divers to see high diving at the highest competitive levels. You know what a successful application of a high dive looks like because you have objective examples with plenty of evidence to support what is and isn't good high diving.

Just because they have success in it doesn't mean you will be the same. It's your skills that you need to test not theirs.

Again, that isn't enough. Some people want to see if their art is effective against other trained people. I could tie my untrained buddies up in pretzels when we goofed around, but there were times when I preferred to go against my other friend who was a former NCAA wrestler. I definitely couldn't tie him in a pretzel so it was a superior challenge for me and my training.

Also I frankly doubt if Rokas had much success goofing around with his untrained friends.

If you can't beat those on the lower level with your skills then what makes you think that you will do any better against trained people?

 

[Shatteredzen]

Again, that isn't enough. Some people want to see if their art is effective against other trained people. I could tie my untrained buddies up in pretzels when we goofed around, but there were times when I preferred to go against my other friend who was a former NCAA wrestler. I definitely couldn't tie him in a pretzel so it was a superior challenge for me and my training.

Also I frankly doubt if Rokas had much success goofing around with his untrained friends.

Then fight, ultimately, all of martial arts is what you can personally get to work, under stress, while another human does mean things to you. If you are not in a profession that requires you to be proficient in unarmed combat, then you are only training up to that "higher standard" as a method of personal gratification, which is fine. In the end, you can watch all the videos you want, in a real confrontation its going to come down to whatever you can use at your lowest level of training.

 

[Hanzou]

I'll go point by point so you can't get lost or claim anyone dodged your question, out of respect that your attempting to ask questions.

- You do have the ability to watch all those uke/nage drills and see who is using good technique if you have the experience. I can watch the "interpretive dance" version of Aikido and point out problems or good technique, you can't because you are not familiar with the system. Yes, other than this Chris Hein school that I literally found yesterday while watching Rokas's videos, I couldn't point you to a good Aikido school in the states, Hein seems to get it and he has awesome technique in his videos, so I would say he's probably the best place to start for someone looking for a good school who may want to see what applies and what doesn't apply for them. The work required to update or fix problems in the system that would be required for it to somehow be competitive how YOU want has not been done. Again you are attempting to make Aikido stand up to something other than what it is, it was never sold or advertised as something to go out and dominate MMA, that's your expectation, full stop.

Judo, Bjj, Boxing, Wrestling, Muay Thai, Kyokushin, etc. does just in the MMA space. What's the problem with Aikido? Is it a martial art designed for fighting or not? If not, then it should be advertised as such along the lines of Yoga or Tai Chi.

- You have a very obscure system that was specifically "pacified" before it came to the states to spread philosophy and personal development, yet you expect it to perform flawlessly, by itself, in a mixed style format where it was never intended even from its start.

Cool. Where are the Japanese exponents then who are utilizing the "unpacified" version?

- Ueshiba was not just using Aikido, he developed Aikido later in life after studying and mastering Judo/Kenjutsu and other Japanese ryu, he was also a soldier. Asking some 19 year old with no life experience, no military experience and no similar background to replicate the achievements of a man who was awarded his nations equivalent to the medal of honor is stupid. Just like expecting other martial artists within BJJ to live up to the Gracie clans legend, if its happend, I havent seen it.

Except we have modern exponents of Bjj who are actually superior to the Gracies. Where's the Aikidoka mirroring Ueshiba's martial feats?

- Rokas 15 years wasn't 15 good years. I can say "I have ten years experience" but that doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does. How many hours a week was he training? If he did one class a week for two hours like most people do, he did about 1560 hours total, that's nothing, its where most would consider entry Journeyman for most skills and that's maybe six months of full time training, it's not even what a good Japanese school would let you test for Shodan. His mere choice of techniques, posture, footwork, lack of guard, etc, in his wrist lock video shows me someone who has never been in a fight, who has never been punched in the face, even in training. Theres too much hesitance, trepidation, too much looking around and thinking about what to do, then he picks a technique, botches it and has the BJJ show him the right way to do a wristlock. You give him all the credit he says he has for 15 years of anecdotal training, then apply it as gospel, yet you won't listen to a critique about it without flying into a rage and demanding proof, yet you do not question the quality or veracity of his experience. Thats not critical thinking.

I give him credit for stepping up to the plate and testing his art on the world stage. I wish others in the Aikido community would do the same.

MMA does have issues in practical application outside of its schools, the ring, etc, you are just choosing to ignore it. You can almost pick a ticket for the UFC and watch at least one undercard fight where a fighter doesn't even learn basic striking or is horrible on the ground because they aren't well rounded enough. The individual matters. You are applying what you have seen on television and youtube to your vision of reality, based on limited or no experience (which is why you are hanging onto this video thing) and then stating that MMA works that way in all situations, in all cases, which it does not, then you are holding the other martial arts to the same imagined standard in your head, without thought for circumstance, individual experience, training, any of it. You aren't posting videos of yourself doing any of these things, your pointing to Gracies and other people on the internet and claiming 1+1 =2 in reference to your ability or the system as a whole, which is not in fact how any of this works. Just based on the thought and technical level of discussion you show, I'd eagerly take a class from Jowgawolf in Jowga Kung Fu and probably get much better results from that lesson than spending the same time in any school, under anyone you have trained with, I can tell, because you use all these false prepositions in your argument. Think back to what I said to drop bear before you even jumped into the discussion, you can't prove a martial arts discussion on the internet.

I have no idea what you're referring to here. If you're trying to argue against my point that there is no foundational gauge for what is successful Aikido, then you simply missed the point entirely. Yes the individual matters, however so does the community who is also taking the martial art. If the entire community is incapable of producing elite practitioners, then there's something wrong with the style in of itself. If Aikido for example isn't producing martial artists on par with Bjj or Judo practitioners, then there's something going on with Aikido. Now you may argue that isn't Aikido's goals, but then the next question is, what exactly are Aikido's goals? If you're telling me that an Aikidoka can handle themselves on the street, why can't they handle themselves against another trained martial artist?

Let's assume your right, let's assume, hands down, MMA as a system is the gold standard, the most practical, the best all around method of fighting. You can go study under the best teachers, as long as you want and if you don't put the requisite work in, it won't matter. You can put any belt you want around your waist, even if you think you "earned it" and did everything expected of you, that belt won't stop you from getting thumped in an actual fight. I've seen plenty of black belts who were a disgrace to the concept, who ultimately fell apart the moment someone landed a punch in their teeth or broke their nose. Not everyone is a warrior, belt or no.

Yeah but here's the thing; If you're in a MMA or Bjj gym you're going to improve. The methodology behind those systems almost force you to do so. The same pretty much applies to Boxing, Basketball, and any other sport. Will you be the next Mike Tyson, Michael Jordan or Jon Jones? Probably not, but you'll be a better Boxer, basketball player or fighter than the average person on the street. In terms of MMA, if you're in there constantly getting taken down and punched in the face, you're going to get to the point where you figure out how to stop getting taken down, or stop getting punched in the face, or both. That's simply common sense. If you don't learn how to do that, you're going to quit because no one wants to get punched in the face over and over again. Arts like Aikido simply aren't like that.

Don't want to train Aikido? Don't. Think its all fake arm waving and crystals? Cool. No one is forcing you to come here and ***** about it, no one is claiming Aikido is a perfect martial art or one that's effective in the UFC. No one is making these claims. The only thing anyone has said, is that Aikido works fine, as advertised and the only claim being made is that it provides a set of tools, to deal with conflict in a different and less dangerous way and that it will work for most people in most realistic scenarios that they are likely to encounter. So there's no need to "prove" to you, that it is superior to MMA, no one is saying that, you are simply trying to **** on the system and make false claims and say it doesn't work or that it claims something that it doesn't. I have lots of anecdotal experience and that's good enough for me to be happy with the system and to feel happy endorsing it and telling other people its worth training in. I don't need your approval for that or for the system to work, martial arts do not require external validation. Don't like that? Fine, go spend some time bothering someone else instead of arguing the same circular logic over and over.

If Aikido works fine as advertised, where's the evidence?

Again, this is like arguing against a religion where if someone simply asks questions, the zealots come out and scream heretic. If Aikido works as advertised where are the elite Aikidoka who can compete against boxers, wrestlers, Bjjers, or MMA practitioners? Due to Aikido's popularity they should exist in high numbers.

It's okay, I'm prepared for more excuses.

 

[Hanzou]

Just because they have success in it doesn't mean you will be the same. It's your skills that you need to test not theirs.

Not the point. Whether or not I can reach that level is irrelevant. The point is that an objective standard exists.

If you can't beat those on the lower level with your skills then what makes you think that you will do any better against trained people?

Because not all trained people are equal.

 

[Shatteredzen]

Not the point. Whether or not I can reach that level is irrelevant. The point is that an objective standard exists.



Because not all trained people are equal.

Awesome, that saved me time from having to respond, thanks for proving you understand the point and are just choosing to be a lump.