Aikido.. The reality?

[JowGaWolf]

With that being said, I have no doubt that I would learn a lot in competition.

Not really. If you are training for function then the only difference between your training and MMA should be that you hit harder, move faster, are more aggressive.

Any problems that you have will be present in sparring. For example, If you spar against a BJJ practitioner, then there should be no unexpected surprises when you get into the MMA competition against a BJJ Practitioner, someone of the same skill level that you spar against in training. I could never understand the assumption that something magical is going to happen in MMA competition that doesn't happen with quality sparring.

People who know me and have seen me spar at higher intensity levels will tell you the same thing. I'm going to fight like I train but I'm going to hit harder, move faster, and be more aggressive. If it didn't happen in sparring then it won't happen in an MMA competition.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

People need to do what they are interested in and not concern themselves with what everyone else is doing and not try to judge other methods by the norms of their own methods.

A: I like the Sanda format better.
B: People need to do what they are interested in ...
A: I said, "I like ...".

 

[Flying Crane]

A: I like the Sanda format better.
B: People need to do what they are interested in ...
A: I said, "I like ...".

Sure. While thread drift is common and generally accepted in this forum, this thread is still about aikido, not sanda.

You are welcome to like sanda format and Shuai Jiao. I expect you would. That is how you train, after all. No surprises there. But if you try to understand aikido through the norms of sanda or shuai jiao, then you will simply fail to understand aikido. That isn’t aikido’s problem. It is yours. Nobody from aikido has any obligation to make aikido like shuai jiao or like sanda, to satisfy you. You will never understand aikido in this way. If you really want to understand aikido, you need to be open to what aikido is and not insist that it be like shuai jiao or like sanda.

 

[drop bear]

Sure. While thread drift is common and generally accepted in this forum, this thread is still about aikido, not sanda.

You are welcome to like sanda format and Shuai Jiao. I expect you would. That is how you train, after all. No surprises there. But if you try to understand aikido through the norms of sanda or shuai jiao, then you will simply fail to understand aikido. That isn’t aikido’s problem. It is yours. Nobody from aikido has any obligation to make aikido like shuai jiao or like sanda, to satisfy you. You will never understand aikido in this way. If you really want to understand aikido, you need to be open to what aikido is and not insist that it be like shuai jiao or like sanda.

What does Aikido claim to teach you? And does it reach those claims?

I think the biggest problem is the disconect between those two concepts.

And this is partly because the measuring stick is so weirdly skewed.

So a theory I have heard is Aikido is atemi. It works due to proficient striking creates an opportunity to make their system work.

Well you do a year of sanda. You will out strike every Aikido guy on the planet.

Technically if there was a yard stick to measure. Then just that would make you a top Aikidoka.

70% according to this random guy. 70% of Aikido is atemi.

Atemi arts (striking)

Where as this I think is very bad for your striking. In that it makes you a collapso tap out monkey.

Then when you are fighting people who are just dying from every hit. You don't have to develop your grappling because they are doing it for you.

So we are back to this disconect. Someone offers the ability to block strike and perform this move whatever it is. But does not provide that ability in any real sense. Someone offers that this will provide some sort of sensitivity or awareness of how to manipulate force or momentum. And it doesn't provide that either.

The measuring stick becomes that, so long as your partner knows how to attack right your techniques are deemed effective.

 

[MetalBoar]

Not really. If you are training for function then the only difference between your training and MMA should be that you hit harder, move faster, are more aggressive.

Any problems that you have will be present in sparring. For example, If you spar against a BJJ practitioner, then there should be no unexpected surprises when you get into the MMA competition against a BJJ Practitioner, someone of the same skill level that you spar against in training. I could never understand the assumption that something magical is going to happen in MMA competition that doesn't happen with quality sparring.

People who know me and have seen me spar at higher intensity levels will tell you the same thing. I'm going to fight like I train but I'm going to hit harder, move faster, and be more aggressive. If it didn't happen in sparring then it won't happen in an MMA competition.

I mostly agree with this. One difference I see is that I've never had a sparring session, even those that were ostensibly "full contact", in which my sparring partner attacked me with the abandon and aggression of some street attacks I experienced in my youth. I haven't done any MMA tournaments but I'm going to guess that at least at the professional level, with a lot of money and prestige on the line, that the levels of aggression and the willingness to do real injury is going to be higher than you'll get in most sparring sessions.

I'm not sold on the idea that MMA is the only way to train or measure the efficacy of your training and I guess I think that there are some false assumptions that the MMA crowd seems to make about the subject but I do think that most people would really learn some things if they were to compete in an MMA tournament with strangers where there was money or prestige to be had. It might not be worth it depending on your goals and I don't think it's necessary, but I think there are definitely things to be learned from the experience that it is hard to get in many other similarly safe, legal and ethical ways.

 

[JowGaWolf]

But if you try to understand aikido through the norms of sanda or shuai jiao, then you will simply fail to understand aikido.

This is definitely true if the point of comparing systems is to say one is better than the other. There's a big difference between trying to understand and trying to "write off."

I think there's enough similarities among all fighting systems to give valid clues to how Aikido works in application. The only way this wouldn't be true is if it was developed in a vacuum. I just can't see that.

Things like this video below seem to be consistent across systems including BJJ. Generally speaking, because I Know there are variations. It almost always starts as
1. Strike -> Grapple -> Strike = when not within grappling range. The strike is what hides the Grappling
2. Grapple -> Strike - Grapple = when engaged in grappling

We see this play out in almost every martial arts competition. If this is the norm, the assumption is that Aikido would follow similar principles. One of the things I see Aikido, Taijiquan, and Chin Na practitioners make is that they give away their attack. If I sit there and make it clear that I'm trying to grab your wrist then it will be easy for me to defend against any attempts to grab my wrists.
@:22 you see a strike to the face with allows him to get the wrist. I'm not trying to validate this guy. I'm just pointing out things that are fairly constant.

We even see strikes to the head here. The strikes "hide" the grappling technique

We see it here as well. BJJ has a similar approach. With that in mind. My assumption is that Aikido application would have to follow the same rules or strategy.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So, in other words, you use Aikido in the context of MMA and, in doing so, presumably learn what is practical, what isn't, and how/when to apply the stuff that is.

Kinda. I wouldn't call it the context of MMA, but with the idea of a similar scope. I think MMA's general approach of having good striking, good takedown defense, and good ground work is a solid approach for many contexts.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Do you have evidence for that statement?

In that video, if you have a watch. It goes on to explain that the common theist counter argument is to be offended. Rather than just providing the evidence needed to support their statements.

And why the offence as an argument is also dismissed.

Evidence of your assumption? Yeah, it's in every thread you've ever referred to my training. Evidence you lack support for your claim? Yeah, in the fact that there's literally no video of my training available to support your chosen assumption. Evidence you've called me a liar? Yep - in those same threads, where you make repeated claims about what my training is like, when I described it as something else.

You choose to be a douche. This isn't about you refusing to accept without evidence. Either side would be equally without evidence, except that one side is at least backed by anecdotal claims (my own). You simply decided it'd be more fun to assume I'm a liar and keep pushing that view.

 

[JowGaWolf]

. One difference I see is that I've never had a sparring session, even those that were ostensibly "full contact", in which my sparring partner attacked me with the abandon and aggression of some street attacks I experienced in my youth.

Sparring sessions shouldn't be that aggressive. MMA fighter don't have full out aggression in their sparring sessions either. Years back, they tried that and learned the hard way that it caused too many injuries and the last thing that you want to do, is to enter a full contact competitive fight injured. Now MMA fighters train like they have sense. Spar to learn. Fight to Win.

As for learning stuff in an MMA ring. You can get good experience by sparing outside of the system that you train and by sparring against people who are of a high skill level. Whatever lessons you need to learn you'll get it in sparring without all of the damage.

Case in point. This guy abandon Aikido because it wasn't effect. This is him after training MMA Skip to 1:00. He says the sparring was brutal. It wasn't. It was very light and he still sucks. lol.

Here's what he looks like trying to use Aikido.

When I see things like these 2 comparisons, I'll immediately "blame" the fighter and not the system. I think the same way that you do, because of what these 2 videos highlight. If the fighter can't gather important information about his or her performance in sparring then they, probably won't gain it in a fight. Ronda Rousey comes to mind. Made the same mistake twice and didn't learn from the first lost or the second loss, with that bum Coach she had.

I'm not sold on the idea that MMA is the only way to train or measure the efficacy of your training

The fighters that scare me the most are those who are relaxed I understand aggressive fighters but those who are so relaxed that I don't know when they will flip the switch are the ones that shake me mentally.

 

[JowGaWolf]

choose to assume I’m lying - without evidence.

Yet you choose to believe specific things about my training, also without evidence.

I wasn't going to jump in, but I agree with you in general and specific as some of the comments made me think about my first months on MT. The months worth of the assumption that I couldn't do what I claim or that certain techniques don't work when I was able to work them. The only difference between my ability and understanding is I showed a video. My ability and understanding didn't change. I was still able and still did the things I claimed even if I didn't show the video.

Just because we don't see evidence doesn't mean that it's not true or that it's not possible. Sometimes we have to see who is claiming it and either have some level of trust to take that person on their word. If not then we'll all end like flat earthers who say the world isn't flat with the reasoning that they haven't seen it with their own eyes. Those people won't believe until you shoot them into space so they can see with their own eyes. But some people won't believe until it happens to them. So they don't believe drinking bleach is bad until they suffer from doing it.

If I haven't had as many conversations with Gpseymour then I would be skeptical, but the way people say things and how they say will often add validity of what they actually know or don't know.

 

[drop bear]

Evidence of your assumption? Yeah, it's in every thread you've ever referred to my training. Evidence you lack support for your claim? Yeah, in the fact that there's literally no video of my training available to support your chosen assumption. Evidence you've called me a liar? Yep - in those same threads, where you make repeated claims about what my training is like, when I described it as something else.

You choose to be a douche. This isn't about you refusing to accept without evidence. Either side would be equally without evidence, except that one side is at least backed by anecdotal claims (my own). You simply decided it'd be more fun to assume I'm a liar and keep pushing that view.

Show me where I called you a liar? Show me a quote.

I will continue to dismiss theist arguments of emotional bullying and insults. Not because I care or am gettingupset. But because they fundamentally are not arguments.

You are not making a legitimate point.

 

[JowGaWolf]

What does Aikido claim to teach you? And does it reach those claims?

I think the biggest problem is the disconect between those two concepts.

I agree with you here. Not just with Aikido but with Kung Fu as well.

So a theory I have heard is Aikido is atemi. It works due to proficient striking creates an opportunity to make their system work.

Well you do a year of sanda. You will out strike every Aikido guy on the planet.

I'm not sure about this. The Sanda practitioners will be better in striking, but if you are using a strike to set up something else then we aren't looking at the same things. An example will be how BJJ uses strikes to help them set their techniques up. Sanda are better strikers, but the type of striking BJJ does, gets the job done.

Boxers are better strikers but non of there strikes are design to implement a joint lock. So when I mention the need to set up joint locks and grappling techniques, I have showed various types of strikes from different systems that did just that.

Sanda follows the same Rule. Strikes hide the grappling technique.

It's not a foreign concept. If it's found in other systems, then why would someone think Aikido is the exception to that?

The Sanda school that I sparred against used this same concept here. Using punches to enter into a grappling position to hide what your grappling attack is nothing new. What would be new is that Aikido is the only system that doesn't need to use striking in a similar manner and that doesn't make sense to me. It's flawed thinking

 

[JowGaWolf]

Here's my logic.

Drop Aikidio and focus on technique. If you were going to do a wrist lock of your choosing as an attack and not a counter, then what are the things you'll need to do to make it successful and to make it easier to get the lock when your opponent is not aware.

If you Answer that question then you will see that other systems follow that same logic. To say Aikido wouldn't need to follow the same logic is what we often see when it fails. If I were to use Chin Na on you, It would be done as I'm punching you in the face or to the body. Your instinct would be to grab my arms to stop me from punching and that's what I want you do to do so I can apply the Chin Na. You wouldn't have any clue that's what I'm thinking because I would be busing nailing you with hard punches. If you let me punch you, then I'll keep doing it. No need to let good punches go to waste.

Anyone who know's how to sweep understand this same thing in the context of sweeping. Hit that person in the face really hard and often, when your opponent is too concerned with his face then take his legs. If these concepts are common across many fighting systems. Then we can assume that Aikido would follow the same logic and concept.

Aikido being 70% striking seems to fit well with that concept.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

I generally find that having something to "minimise dmaage doen to the enemy" or a fighting system for peace to be contary to what you want in actually fighting someone, you would want to maximise the damage doen so they dont end up getting up again as you are busy and stabbing you in the back.

That sjust on face value of what people say the ideology is, its just contradictory to what you want.

 

[drop bear]

I'm not sure about this. The Sanda practitioners will be better in striking, but if you are using a strike to set up something else then we aren't looking at the same things. An example will be how BJJ uses strikes to help them set their techniques up. Sanda are better strikers, but the type of striking BJJ does, gets the job done.

Bjj doesn't need effective striking to get submissions off. They use more of a smother approach. And then positional dominance.

So their striking can be a bit lame.

Now if a bjj guy can strike really well they are a lot more effective which is why competitively that bjj striking has almost gone out the window.

Aikido has to win the striking. There is no dynamic I have seen for when an Aikido guy is getting mauled. Unlike BJJ which sort of works off that

Otherwise the example is these styles effectively strike.

You straight up box a sanda guy and he can hold his composure for 5 seconds to do something.

 

[drop bear]

Boxers are better strikers but non of there strikes are design to implement a joint lock. So when I mention the need to set up joint locks and grappling techniques, I have showed various types of strikes from different systems that did just that.

You would still have to be handy with just striking. So there are these cheeky shots you Chan hit from say a clinch. But they are not dominant over basic striking.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I generally find that having something to "minimise dmaage doen to the enemy" or a fighting system for peace to be contary to what you want in actually fighting someone, you would want to maximise the damage

This is how I see martial arts which is why I don't like like the peaceful concept of zen. Zen to me is like "being in the zone" everything is working, flowing, and timing of your attacks and defenses are excellent and you get that feeling that you are unstoppable. That is "Zen" to me. That's the way I want to feel if I'm in a fight on the streets or in the ring. That comfortable calmness and not the panic.

This is one of the definitions for Zen, which is more in line with the above view point of martial arts. I know some of you have played sports when this has kicked off and things just flowed without conscious effort. One of the things we often say about martial arts is to not think so much. Practice repetition so that your actions flow without thought.
Zen - "a state of calm attentiveness in which one's actions are guided by intuition rather than by conscious effort "
Definition of ZEN
Not one mention of peace, and what he says fits more with the definition above then the one below. Just my 2 cents.

But unfortunately so many people see Zen as "having or showing qualities (such as meditative calmness and an attitude of acceptance) popularly associated with practitioners of Zen Buddhism "
You'll see this projection often with similar system. Yet when we think of Japanese Warrior Monks or Shaolin Monks, this guy doesn't come to mind.

 

[drop bear]

I generally find that having something to "minimise dmaage doen to the enemy" or a fighting system for peace to be contary to what you want in actually fighting someone, you would want to maximise the damage doen so they dont end up getting up again as you are busy and stabbing you in the back.

That sjust on face value of what people say the ideology is, its just contradictory to what you want.

It is about proportionate use of force. Which is theoretically more moral but practically keeps you out of jail.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I generally find that having something to "minimise dmaage doen to the enemy" or a fighting system for peace to be contary to what you want in actually fighting someone, you would want to maximise the damage doen so they dont end up getting up again as you are busy and stabbing you in the back.

That sjust on face value of what people say the ideology is, its just contradictory to what you want.

A praying mantis teacher will teach his

- beginner students to strike on those place that can cause minor injure.
- advantage students to strike on those place that can cause serious injury.

To be kind to your enemy is to be cruel to yourself.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Bjj doesn't need effective striking to get submissions off. They use more of a smother approach. And then positional dominance.

But they do use striking, yes? I don't limit striking to jabs or low kicks. Any use of the hands or legs to make contact or to distract or mislead I consider a strike. This is due some of the techniques that Jow Ga uses. So while I may do a punch to set up a grappling opportunity, if my opponent doesn't get out of the way of this punch then it will land for real. Best way I can describe is is that I throw a punch that will cause you to move backwards which is what I really want you to do. But I'm equally happy if you don't move backwards and get smashed in the face. When my technique fails, you don't move backwards but you get hit in the face. If my technique works, then you'll move backwards and I'll get to set up the technique I was going for., but you don't get hit in the face. So to me that is a strike. We have a softer one that can be used as an ear slap or to thread my hand between your guard. In either scenario my target is your ear.

So that's where I'm coming from when I think of strikes. If the purpose of your strike is tap me on the head to distract me, then to me that is a strike. So while BJJ doesn't have the boxer strike damage. They are still effective in making the opponent move the way that you need them to move in order to advance or grapple. Is it needed all the time? Of course not but the fact that it exists gives me a direction to look towards. If I want to grab someone then I want do it when they least expected it so that they are least able to defend against it.

Aikido has to win the striking. There is no dynamic I have seen for when an Aikido guy is getting mauled. Unlike BJJ which sort of works off that

To be honest most of the Aikido sparring that I've seen, seems to abandon striking. They wade in with the intent to grab a wrist. Which is like me telling you. I'm going to grab your wrist and put you in a wrist lock, then I proceed and only try to get the wrist lock. There's no need for you to defend against anything else because you by my focus that I'm only going to do 1 thing.

If I take my kung fu approach then I would tell you that I'm going to embarrass you and put you in a wrist lock and make you tap out. Then while you are looking for my wrist lock I will punch you in your face. Then I will tell you that I will still go for the wrist lock. I would feit a punch to your face, go for your hand and then I'll kick you in your gut. Will I eventually go for the wristlock. Only if you aren't looking for it. You will have bragging rights that I couldn't put you in a wrist lock, but I will have bragging rights that I did a lot of kung fu on you. But the moment you forget about your wrist, I will try to take it. But Aikido doesn't do that. right off the back you know they want to grab your wrist, so you defend your wrist and they will fail.

Now if gpseymour step into the ring with me or you and nailed us with combos, and kicks that make us forget our wrist, then he'll probably get our wrist.