Aikido.. The reality?

[Shatteredzen]

First Aikido People can't fight then Aikido People will fight because Aikido People think they can beat up everyone. Prior to that Aikido People are viewed as taking a peaceful path that help develop mind, spirit , and body. But now Aikido People are incapable of knowing the reality about the dangers of fighting against multiple people.

To be honest I think Aikido people have a better understanding of that reality than most as they try to pull off techniques against incoming attacks that they need to flow with. With out messing up. There's nothing about Radori that would make a person think that this is how it really looks when multiple people attack

He probably has a better understanding than most the difficulty with fighting multiple people. I'm sure he also has an excellent understanding the difficulty of fighting multiple people using Aikido techniques. There is just nothing about trying to do Aikido techniques that would suddenly make people think they are ready to beat up 10 attackers

Just like Kung Fu. People go in thinking that they are going to be a Kung Fu Fighter then find that it's a lot more difficult than what they originally had in their mind.

I agree, just gawd that video is cringy... It's not even a good example of a weak Aikido schools black belt randori.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You heard it here first folks, I hereby claim Judo for Aikido. Hanzou, I won't charge you royalties for the guillotine choke anymore.

What on earth are you on about?

 

[Hanzou]

Save that nonsense for someone who doesn't know how you operate in these forums. Try that on one of the new guys that join here.

Where's the nonsense? You're asking me for evidence of a specific person in a n specific encounter when we can't even find examples of those types of people participating in general self defense situations. Just because I can't find your needle in the haystack doesn't mean that the needle isn't actually in there.

A lot of time it's marketing, knowing that once they get people into the school that the teacher will change their mindset on what Aikido is and what it isn't. It wouldn't be the first time that someone joins a martial arts school for one reason and then have a different reason for staying.

So essentially the instructor lies about what their martial art does in order to get people in the door, then after a few months throws their hands up and says it was all BS? You seriously think that happens in the real world? Like someone advertising that their style teaches traditional weapons, the student joins the school hoping to learn about said weapons, then a few months later the student asks about the advertised weapons training and the sensei shrugs their shoulders. You think a student would be okay with that?

Further, you actually think that's marketing?

My first reason for joining a Jow Ga school was because I like Chinese kung fu weapons and I wanted to learn how to use them (not in a fighting sense) The reason I stay in Jow Ga is because I want to be a good representation of Jow Ga. I still like weapons, but now I actually want to be able to use them and not just do them in forms. My purpose and goal shifted after I got into the school. Some people go in as an aggressive person and come out as a pacifist. That's just the way things are.

The older I get, the more I see Jow Ga as being good for my physical and mental health. I'm less stressed when I'm training, A lot of times it's my escape. But that wasn't always the case. Now that my son has taken a big interests. It's how I connect to him a lot of times.

Just because someone joins Aikido, thinking they will beat up 10 attackers (because the school advertised ) doesn't mean that they will have that same perspective 3 months later. That's just the reality of it.

Yeah, those two examples aren't the same thing. You wanted to learn how to use weapons, and you got to learn how to use weapons. Someone joining an Aikido dojo because the school advertised that you can EFFECTIVELY beat multiple attackers will never get what they're paying for.

 

[Shatteredzen]

Where's the nonsense? You're asking me for evidence of a specific person in a n specific encounter when we can't even find examples of those types of people participating in general self defense situations. Just because I can't find your needle in the haystack doesn't mean that the needle isn't actually in there.



So essentially the instructor lies about what their martial art does in order to get people in the door, then after a few months throws their hands up and says it was all BS? You seriously think that happens in the real world? Like someone advertising that their style teaches traditional weapons, the student joins the school hoping to learn about said weapons, then a few months later the student asks about the advertised weapons training and the sensei shrugs their shoulders. You think a student would be okay with that?

Further, you actually think that's marketing?



Yeah, those two examples aren't the same thing. You wanted to learn how to use weapons, and you got to learn how to use weapons. Someone joining an Aikido dojo because the school advertised that you can EFFECTIVELY beat multiple attackers will never get what they're paying for.

How does it feel to win an entire battle with the strawman you have been building? I find it hilarious that you are still arguing from an absence of evidence after complaining about it so thoroughly. You've been shown videos of "those people" participating in self defense situations, you just keep forgetting about it. Here are a few:

here is multiple clips of Remy using it in the bar

there, now you can stop being disingenuous and find another red herring to throw out for us to chase around.

 

[Hanzou]

How does it feel to win an entire battle with the strawman you have been building? I find it hilarious that you are still arguing from an absence of evidence after complaining about it so thoroughly. You've been shown videos of "those people" participating in self defense situations, you just keep forgetting about it. Here are a few:

here is multiple clips of Remy using it in the bar

there, now you can stop being disingenuous and find another red herring to throw out for us to chase around.

Yes, either big men who manhandle generally smaller people, or freak incidents that are somehow labeled "Akido" techniques because they bear a slight resemblance to a random Aikido move. Sorry, I don't consider a cop choke slamming someone to be Aikido. I also don't consider a huge bear of a man pushing around smaller people and being able to muscle them into wrist locks to be evidence of the efficacy of Aikido techniques.

Interesting that there isn't a single example of a woman or a smaller, weaker man completely utilizing Aikido to defend themselves.

 

[isshinryuronin]

To sum up my take on some of this thread:

Aikido is a wonderful art with many benefits and principles of movement, some of which can aid in actual SD, though many techniques are difficult to execute against resisting opponents, and only then by expert practitioners.

Unarmed defense against a casual or impaired knife wielder is very possible given the defender has some training. Still, there is some risk of getting cut.

Anecdotes of store clerks or others disarming a knife or gun wielder are not the rule, but lucky exceptions against an uncommitted attacker. A small wild pig can turn away a jaguar if the big cat isn't too hungry or without hungry young.

Unarmed defense against an experienced, committed, knife wielder is crazy, unless the defender is well trained and willing to accept the probability of getting cut. There is a risk of lethality or severe injury so engagement should be a last resort.

Low grappling stances are good for grappling, higher upright stances are good for striking/kicking. Sometimes one doesn't know the exact nature of the threat so any combat stance taken must be balanced (both for usage and weight distribution) to allow for fast reaction, distance adjustment, angle changes, launching and receiving strong attacks.

MMA with BJJ is very effective in combat due to the broad skill set, hard contact training and PT done by the serious practitioner. Boxing is very good, too, but with a more narrow skill set as technique is quite constrained by rules.

Sport karate develops many combat skills, but has some rule constraints making it limited in grappling/close-in situations. Pre/non-sport karate has no rules and a different skill set, including close-in fighting.

All MA have something to offer. Not all people want, or are able, to be professional level fighters, take numerous hits, or commit to many hours/wk training and conditioning, but still desire to have some combat oriented physical activity. People are not just apples and oranges, but a whole fruit salad including mangos, bananas, kiwi, pears, and so on.

I am bored with the constant comparisons and evaluations of one art with another. Let's just agree that they all have benefits for each person according to their needs, wants and abilities.

 

[Shatteredzen]

Yes, either big men who manhandle generally smaller people, or freak incidents that are somehow labeled "Akido" techniques because they bear a slight resemblance to a random Aikido move. Sorry, I don't consider a cop choke slamming someone to be Aikido. I also don't consider a huge bear of a man pushing around smaller people and being able to muscle them into wrist locks to be evidence of the efficacy of Aikido techniques.

Interesting that there isn't a single example of a woman or a smaller, weaker man completely utilizing Aikido to defend themselves.

Most police defensive tactics courses have a good bit of Aikido mixed into them, Aikido is used by the Tokyo riot police and metro PD and they have a long history of bringing it to the states to teach here along with Judo/Karate. Now the complaint is "your Aikidoka is too big" gotcha.

 

[Shatteredzen]

To sum up my take on some of this thread:

Aikido is a wonderful art with many benefits and principles of movement, some of which can aid in actual SD, though many techniques are difficult to execute against resisting opponents, and only then by expert practitioners.

Unarmed defense against a casual or impaired knife wielder is very possible given the defender has some training. Still, there is some risk of getting cut.

Anecdotes of store clerks or others disarming a knife or gun wielder are not the rule, but lucky exceptions against an uncommitted attacker. A small wild pig can turn away a jaguar if the big cat isn't too hungry or without hungry young.

Unarmed defense against an experienced, committed, knife wielder is crazy, unless the defender is well trained and willing to accept the probability of getting cut. There is a risk of lethality or severe injury so engagement should be a last resort.

Low grappling stances are good for grappling, higher upright stances are good for striking/kicking. Sometimes one doesn't know the exact nature of the threat so any combat stance taken must be balanced (both for usage and weight distribution) to allow for fast reaction, distance adjustment, angle changes, launching and receiving strong attacks.

MMA with BJJ is very effective in combat due to the broad skill set, hard contact training and PT done by the serious practitioner. Boxing is very good, too, but with a more narrow skill set as technique is quite constrained by rules.

Sport karate develops many combat skills, but has some rule constraints making it limited in grappling/close-in situations. Pre/non-sport karate has no rules and a different skill set, including close-in fighting.

All MA have something to offer. Not all people want, or are able, to be professional level fighters, take numerous hits, or commit to many hours/wk training and conditioning, but still desire to have some combat oriented physical activity. People are not just apples and oranges, but a whole fruit salad including mangos, bananas, kiwi, pears, and so on.

I am bored with the constant comparisons and evaluations of one art with another. Let's just agree that they all have benefits for each person according to their needs, wants and abilities.

Sir, you are making far too much sense for this thread. What are you trying to do here?

 

[JowGaWolf]

I agree, just gawd that video is cringy... It's not even a good example of a weak Aikido schools black belt randori.

So essentially the instructor lies about what their martial art does in order to get people in the door, then after a few months throws their hands up and says it was all BS?

You don't have to state that something is BS in order to change someone's focus. Like I said save that nonsense for someone else.

 

[Shatteredzen]

BTW if you are coming into this thread right now for the purpose of talking about Aikido which is what the thread is supposed to be about, here is a pretty great talk on the foundational principles of what Aikido actually is:

The other guys here don't actually do or have a background in Aikido so this might save some people some time.

 

[Hanzou]

Most police defensive tactics courses have a good bit of Aikido mixed into them, Aikido is used by the Tokyo riot police and metro PD and they have a long history of bringing it to the states to teach here along with Judo/Karate. Now the complaint is "your Aikidoka is too big" gotcha.

I highly doubt a running choke slam is standard police procedure in any police department. I also doubt that it is standard practice in Aikido. The fact that that particular video of police brutality is used as an example of the effectiveness of Aikido is pretty laughable. As for the "too big" stuff, that should be rather obvious. If you're far bigger and far stronger than the person you're demonstrating on, you can pretty much do anything to them. Hell, I can pick up a book on Aikido, learn a few moves and use them on a 10-15 year old without much effort because my size and strength give me a massive advantage. That wouldn't make me an Aikido master, that would just make me a bully.

It's almost like Aikido only works if you're bullying someone else with your size or authority. That says a lot.

 

[Hanzou]

You don't have to state that something is BS in order to change someone's focus. Like I said save that nonsense for someone else.

Which is completely irrelevant to the point. The point is that if something is being advertised that really isn't being offered, that company is running a scam. To make this relevant to the thread; An Aikido dojo that is advertising that it can teach you to beat multiple attackers and stronger/larger opponents is also running a scam.

 

[Shatteredzen]

I highly doubt a running choke slam is standard police procedure in any police department. I also doubt that it is standard practice in Aikido. The fact that that particular video of police brutality is used as an example of the effectiveness of Aikido is pretty laughable. As for the "too big" stuff, that should be rather obvious. If you're far bigger and far stronger than the person you're demonstrating on, you can pretty much do anything to them. Hell, I can pick up a book on Aikido, learn a few moves and use them on a 10-15 year old without much effort because my size and strength give me a massive advantage. That wouldn't make me an Aikido master, that would just make me a bully.

It's almost like Aikido only works if you're bullying someone else with your size or authority. That says a lot.

Not really, you just don't understand the faintest hint of what you are talking about. Either that or you are just dedicated to constantly attempting to reframe the argument, which is itself the tactic of someone who is arguing in bad faith. Thankfully, I am not the only person here who has called you out on the lack of intellectual honesty you are displaying, so it should be obvious for the readers.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Which is completely irrelevant to the point. The point is that if something is being advertised that really isn't being offered, that company is running a scam.

So now we have gone from Aikido People can't fight, to Aikido People would try to fight a gang of 10 people in the street, to Scams and advertising and this change in focus all occurred without you declaring BS.

To make this relevant to the thread; An Aikido dojo that is advertising that it can teach you to beat multiple attackers and stronger/larger opponents is also running a scam.

But none of that is relevant to the thread, It is also not relevant to exploring Aikido or the techniques found in Aikido which was the original purpose when I first created the thread. You switch the focus again. As if 82 pages of posts were created just to make a statement that someone who lies about what they teach is scam.

 

[Hanzou]

So now we have gone from Aikido People can't fight, to Aikido People would try to fight a gang of 10 people in the street, to Scams and advertising and this change in focus all occurred without you declaring BS.

Where is the change of focus? All of those aspects are related to one another. It's a scam to tell people that you will teach them to beat multiple opponents when you can't, the student develops a false sense of confidence because they believe that they can pull off this feat when they more than likely can't even beat a single person.

But none of that is relevant to the thread, It is also not relevant to exploring Aikido or the techniques found in Aikido which was the original purpose when I first created the thread. You switch the focus again. As if 82 pages of posts were created just to make a statement that someone who lies about what they teach is scam.

Except discussing the efficacy of Aikido is an exploration of the art and its techniques.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

As if 82 pages of posts were created just to make a statement that someone who lies about what they teach is scam.

At least people respond to this thread. In another thread, OP doesn't respond to people's questions. It makes me wonder why OP wants to start a thread but don't want to participate in any discussion.

 

[drop bear]

[

That is a choke slam. From pro wrestling.

 

[Hanzou]

Not really, you just don't understand the faintest hint of what you are talking about. Either that or you are just dedicated to constantly attempting to reframe the argument, which is itself the tactic of someone who is arguing in bad faith. Thankfully, I am not the only person here who has called you out on the lack of intellectual honesty you are displaying, so it should be obvious for the readers.

Is this not the video you posted?

Which contains mainly big guys manhandling smaller guys into "Aikido" moves?

 

[Shatteredzen]

Where is the change of focus? All of those aspects are related to one another. It's a scam to tell people that you will teach them to beat multiple opponents when you can't, the student develops a false sense of confidence because they believe that they can pull off this feat when they more than likely can't even beat a single person.



Except discussing the efficacy of Aikido is an exploration of the art and its techniques.

I find it hard to believe you are getting lost here and no, you are not. Nor have you been discussing Aikido. You have been loudly screeching about some strip mall Aikido school you have beef with over a civil advertising dispute and then making strawman arguments you want people to play with you in, then getting upset when we point out what you are doing.

 

[Shatteredzen]

That is a choke slam. From pro wrestling.

But I have bundy in a can. No comment on the rest of those links I see.