Aikido.. The reality?

[Hanzou]

Some old guy in a grainy video for 18 seconds, even the old black and white footage of Ueshiba is clearer than this. Do you have anything connecting this to Aikido or suggesting that this "no touch" stuff is in a syllabus anywhere?

The founder of Aikido has no connection to Aikido?

We have modern Aikidoka defending this nonsense because the founder did it;

no-touch aikido – a defence

No-touch Aikido techniques: Separating fact and fantasy

No-touch aikido, yes it’s real!

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

We have modern Aikidoka defending this nonsense because the founder did it;

I agree this is the problem for some TMA. It's very easy for someone to destroy his style reputation if he starts to talk about no contact magic.

 

[Shatteredzen]

The founder of Aikido has no connection to Aikido?

We have modern Aikidoka defending this nonsense because the founder did it;

no-touch aikido – a defence

No-touch Aikido techniques: Separating fact and fantasy

No-touch aikido, yes it’s real!

The first is an article talking about Ki in Aikido in the 80's and mainly explains using a leading movement not "no contact" hits

The second is a blog post which starts off saying no touch is ******** and then explains why Uke/Nage demos have students taking a fall as soon as the technique is applied and then you have some random dojo in Sydney that talks about feeling Ki but does not appear to make any claims about no touch hits.

You didn't even read what you were linking. Wow.

 

[Shatteredzen]

I agree this is the problem for some TMA. It's very easy for someone to destroy his style reputation if he starts to talk about no contact magic.

Except he is just searching for another strawman.

 

[Shatteredzen]

Look Hanzou! It's the Loch Ness monster!

 

[Hanzou]

The first is an article talking about Ki in Aikido in the 80's and mainly explains using a leading movement not "no contact" hits

The second is a blog post which starts off saying no touch is ******** and then explains why Uke/Nage demos have students taking a fall as soon as the technique is applied and then you have some random dojo in Sydney that talks about feeling Ki but does not appear to make any claims about no touch hits.

You didn't even read what you were linking. Wow.

Did you?

The end of the first article;

Why would these teachers want to demonstrate this kind of aikido? That is an interesting question. Perhaps they want to show the aikido world that there is something more? That there are other ways of thinking? Or perhaps that aikido doesn’t always have to be so serious! These are teachers with about fifty years of aikido training. If they want to play with ki the world of aikido should be big enough and open enough to accept them.

The second article;

I should also add that I have on many occasions been the recipient of Aikido no-touch techniques. Based on this experience, I can assure the reader they are quite effective and have nothing to do with science fiction or mystic rays.

These would be examples of defending the nonsense.

Also The ENTIRE third article defends the nonsense.

Here’s a video of Rokas drinking the kool-aid before his conversion;

Just to be clear, that stuff doesn’t work, period.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Except he is just searching for another strawman.

I don't understate your statement.

 

[Hanzou]

I agree this is the problem for some TMA. It's very easy for someone to destroy his style reputation if he starts to talk about no contact magic.

Agreed. It’s especially potent when the founder of the system did it, and is so revered that people twist themselves in logical knots trying to defend it.

 

[Shatteredzen]

Did you?

The end of the first article;



The second article;



These would be examples of defending the nonsense.

Also The ENTIRE third article defends the nonsense.

Here’s a video of Rokas drinking the kool-aid before his conversion;

Just to be clear, that stuff doesn’t work, period.

The very next line from the second article

"Essentially what happens is that the nage (i.e. the person doing the technique) neutralises the uke’s attack by executing a strike in such a way that the uke has the option of taking a fall instead of being hit."

Rokas starts that video saying "I am not promoting or endorsing no touch hitting"

come on, your so lazy you are just grasping at straws and not even reading or watching your links. Or you are and are just being blatantly dishonest.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Did you?

The end of the first article;



The second article;



These would be examples of defending the nonsense.

Also The ENTIRE third article defends the nonsense.

Here’s a video of Rokas drinking the kool-aid before his conversion;

Just to be clear, that stuff doesn’t work, period.

I’ve experienced one no-touch technique that worked. It was some rather careful hand-waving that caused some reflex reactions that put me just barely off-balance enough to not keep my balance. I doubt it would be reliable in a fight, but it was cool to experience in a dojo. I expect there’s more of this to be had. I wouldn’t want to learn to do it, but it’s fun to have it done to me.

 

[Shatteredzen]

I don't understate your statement.

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Hanzou has pretty much been doing the whole strawman thing the entire 47 pages of this thread, now he is just linking random things off the internet and claiming they prove his point hoping people don't scrutinize them at all.

 

[Hanzou]

The very next line from the second article

"Essentially what happens is that the nage (i.e. the person doing the technique) neutralises the uke’s attack by executing a strike in such a way that the uke has the option of taking a fall instead of being hit."

In other words, he believes it works.

Rokas starts that video saying "I am not promoting or endorsing no touch hitting"

But then proceeds to do an entire video attempting to show that it does work.

come on, your so lazy you are just grasping at straws and not even reading or watching your links. Or you are and are just being blatantly dishonest.

None of those sources I posted said that this is nonsense and should be ignored, and that would be the correct answer. When you try to split hairs and attempt to justify this ridiculous practice, you legitimize BS.

 

[Shatteredzen]

In other words, he believes it works.



But then proceeds to do an entire video attempting to show that it does work.



None of those sources I posted said that this is nonsense and should be ignored, and that would be the correct answer. When you try to split hairs and attempt to justify this ridiculous practice, you legitimize BS.

Lol, so its dishonesty, check

 

[Hanzou]

I’ve experienced one no-touch technique that worked. It was some rather careful hand-waving that caused some reflex reactions that put me just barely off-balance enough to not keep my balance. I doubt it would be reliable in a fight, but it was cool to experience in a dojo. I expect there’s more of this to be had. I wouldn’t want to learn to do it, but it’s fun to have it done to me.

Yeah, at most it's a trick, like that other Aikido trick where they have you stretch out your arm and open your hand and have someone attempt to bend your arm. Yeah, it's a cool thing to demonstrate to the rubes, but it has zero practical value.

 

[Shatteredzen]

Yeah, at most it's a trick, like that other Aikido trick where they have you stretch out your arm and open your hand and have someone attempt to bend your arm. Yeah, it's interesting and a cool thing to demonstrate to the rubes, but it has zero practical value.

It must be just like all that wrist locking and no touch hitting you were talking about.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah, at most it's a trick, like that other Aikido trick where they have you stretch out your arm and open your hand and have someone attempt to bend your arm. Yeah, it's a cool thing to demonstrate to the rubes, but it has zero practical value.

I will say the unbendable arm technique does have some use. It’s very indirect, unless I don’t fully understand it. To me, it’s mostly a way to teach relaxation and proper tension, which can certainly be done other ways.

And it’s a neat trick for demos.

 

[Hanzou]

I will say the unbendable arm technique does have some use. It’s very indirect, unless I don’t fully understand it. To me, it’s mostly a way to teach relaxation and proper tension, which can certainly be done other ways.

And it’s a neat trick for demos.

If it stopped the arm from bending the opposite way, I could definitely see a practical use for it. However, in the end, it's just a parlor trick.

Just like this no-touch silliness. It's quite telling that there are actually people in the Aikido community who support it's validity, when it should be universally panned and dismissed.

 

[Shatteredzen]

If it stopped the arm from bending the opposite way, I could definitely see a practical use for it. However, in the end, it's just a parlor trick.

Just like this no-touch silliness. It's quite telling that there are actually people in the Aikido community who support it's validity, when it should be universally panned and dismissed.

Since literally no one is here doing that. You brought up this no touch sillyness so you would have something to argue about. No one is here advocating any of this. Your literally making things up.

I found a fun lightsaber fight for you to watch since we are playing make believe (it's also not Aikido)

 

[Hanzou]

Since literally no one is here doing that. You brought up this no touch sillyness so you would have something to argue about. No one is here advocating any of this. Your literally making things up.

I found a fun lightsaber fight for you to watch since we are playing make believe (it's also not Aikido)

I posted articles titled "No-Touch Aikido, A defense", and "No-Touch Aikido, yes it's real!", and your argument is that NO ONE is defending it?

Hilarious.

 

[Shatteredzen]

I posted articles titled "No-Touch Aikido, A defense", and "No-Touch Aikido, yes it's real!", and your argument is that NO ONE is defending it?

Hilarious.

Titles that linked to articles you didn't expect anyone to read (like you didn't) and then you attempted to justify them by cherry picking quotations out of them that fit your argument when I called you out for being dishonest and not even reading what you were linking.

Hilarious indeed, like this clip from your favorite movie