Aikido.. The reality?

[JowGaWolf]

Yeah. Not a great place to argue from when discussing a skill though.

No one is talking about the skill of anything and you know it. Have an honest conversation about skill and you'll won't get any of these side track arguments.

But we are not necessarily putting the smart decision above the right decision. And we are not condemning kids who can't swim or Aikidoka's who can't fight for not jumping in.

But they are willing to condem someone who isn't going to step into a fight against multiple people or a man who isn't a strong swimmer for not jumping into water to drown himself in an effort to save someone else

I'm not the one doing the condemning here. I posted simple question by flipping roles where it was an adult that was drowning and a child who cannot swim. To see if anyone would say that the child should take the same risk that some in here think I should take. And yet instead of answering people say it's a strawman, and it's not. It's an honest question. I've notice when people here don't want to answer the hard question, the first thing they say is it's a strawman.

I don't look at things as "Smart Decision" vs "Right Decision." Because to do is to act as if both are opposite and they aren't. For example, Trying to break up a fight by yourself where there are multiple attackers is not Smart and it's Not the Right way to do that.

A smarter decision would be to get some assistance in trying to deescalate meaning you don't go in at it alone. That would be both smart and the right way to go about it. The framing that "Smart decisions" and "Right decisions" are on opposite ends is false and it often leads people to stupid decisions. BJJ /MMA guy already proved that and we saw the result.

 

[RagingBull]

Dude. That's not reversing the role. It's a text book straw man, with a disingenuous appeal to emotion thrown in at the end.

To actually reverse the roles, let's say I'm drowning. If I'm drowning and there is a person who is a competent swimmer, who chooses not to help because he is a coward, I'm going to be pissed. Dead... but also very angry, the last thing I see being him on his cell phone calling 911 and watching me die.

What you're saying is that the guy on the shore isn't just any guy. He's a lifeguard. But not just any lifeguard. This lifeguard may very well not be able to swim, if he gets certified by a school that focuses on things other than swimming ability (as if such a certification would be just fine). And further, that this person is actually smart to avoid the water, because even though he presents himself to the public as a very good swimmer who is lifeguard certified, he knows he cannot swim and would just end up drowning himself. Your position is, to your credit, very consistent. It's just fundamentally broken. I am positive I've heard some wing chun guys suggest that strength is actually bad for wing chun... and that it makes their wing chun less effective

Amazon.de

read this book, there is a full PDF online.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Dude. That's not reversing the role. It's a text book straw man, with a disingenuous appeal to emotion thrown in at the end.

So a drowning child isn't an emotional situation? Save it for someone else dude.

To actually reverse the roles, let's say I'm drowning. If I'm drowning and there is a person who is a competent swimmer, who chooses not to help because he is a coward, I'm going to be pissed.

I never gave the scenario of what a competent swimmer should do. I've only talked about someone who doesn't know how to swim or someone who isn't a strong swimmer. Read what type. Don't fall for these other arguments that some of the others are making. They don't care about the reality man. All they want to is debate and score gotcha points.

I'm going to be pissed. Dead... but also very angry, the last thing I see being him on his cell phone calling 911 and watching me die.

Yeah but if water patrol came around the corner in a boat to save your butt, you'll be glad that he made that call. Like I said before, you got people on here who only care about having a debate. They take about things so that people have a narrow scope.

What you're saying is that the guy on the shore isn't just any guy. He's a lifeguard. But not just any lifeguard. This lifeguard may very well not be able to swim, if he gets certified by a school that focuses on things other than swimming ability (as if such a certification would be just fine). And further, that this person is actually smart to avoid the water, because even though he presents himself to the public as a very good swimmer who is lifeguard certified, he knows he cannot swim and would just end up drowning himself. Your position is, to your credit, very consistent. It's just fundamentally broken.

I didn't say anything about a life guard. Lifeguards are trained to save people who are drowning. They also have equipment to help them safely do that. Life guards are also put into position of duty and responsibility for the safety of those in their area. Sort of like the responsibilities and duty that Police take on. In both cases, those individuals are trained for that purpose. You wouldn't hire a Lifeguard that couldn't swim or a lifeguard that wasn't a strong swimmer.

And further, that this person is actually smart to avoid the water,

I think this is a smart decision for anyone who cannot swim. I also think that regardless of swimming ability things like life vest should be required, depending on the distance one may be away from the shore. That's just me because I'm not a strong swimmer. I swim well enough to not drown on my own so long as I don't cramp up, black out, or have a heart attack. If I'm in a boat or further out then this is what I'm wearing

I have no misconceptions or delusions about where my swimming skills begin or end.

Your position is, to your credit, very consistent. It's just fundamentally broken.

Its consistent because I'm not selling crap to people in here just for the purpose of having a debate for debate sakes. If you go back and read what I state without reading what other's post, you would see that say anything in the context of what you stated.

This is why I told Hanzou to save that nonsense for someone who doesn't know how he operates.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Amazon.de

read this book, there is a full PDF online.

That link is apparently to a German version of the page.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Obviously if you nitpick over every variable, then you will find something.

Fighting is a variable and those variable multiple greatly for each person you have to fight with.

The guy on the right train Aikido. But he also knows other things. Just because he knows and trains Aikido doesn't mean he doesn't know how to fight. If I start training Aikido today, do you really think I'll lose the fighting skills that I have and still train? There's no nitpick. I'm willing to bet there are multiple people in here who have taken more than 1 martial arts and have been in more than one fight (regardless of what they train)

And knowing how to fight is pretty vague.

But if you know how to fight, then you know how to fight regardless of how vague that comment is.

Beating up some random guy in the street is pretty easy as most are fat & untrained.

Yeah I wouldn't know because I've never gone and had fights with fat people. All the fights that I've been in could have gone either way for me. None of them were fat,

If someone trains in an MA for 3 years, they should be able to beat up the average joe

Not true. If you don't train martial arts for the purpose of using it fight then you get no guarantee that you can beat up "the average joe". The funny thing about your use of phrase "the average Joe" is that you call me out for being vague. But the "the average joe" is so vague that you couldn't possibly define that.

My next door neighbor is fat and would probably what you would consider the average Joe. You can feel free to fight him. He won't fight you. So it be easy right up to the point where he makes use of that gun that I always carries on him.

When you say "The average Joe" I have no idea of what type of person you are talking about.

A good test of not just your skills & aptitude but also their style of MA as well as their MA school/Instructor, is to let someone untrained go full power at your head/body/legs with gloves/shinguards on while you just touch/tap back. Would the average Akido allow this?

I don't drain Aikido, But I train Kung Fu and the only way I'll let anyone go full power on me without me returning the aggression is if the person is significantly weaker or less skilled than me. Other than that, the rule is "you get with what you give." Hit me hard and I'm going to hit you hard too.

As for the Average Aikido practitioners, my guess is that they would respond in a similar manner. "You get what you give." Even if I trained Aikido that would still be my rule.

 

[JowGaWolf]

When an Aikido guy sees a punch coming toward his face, he will never use his arm to hurt his opponent's punching arm. The style limitation will restrict the Aikido system to have anti-missile system.

Based on some of the things I've seen this is the case. But with some other Aikido practitioners, they may not have the same issue. From those who say "the goal is to get your opponent to over extend" I would say they would have a tough time if there opponent never extends. Anyone who "sneaks steps / steal steps" isn't going to over extend

 

[Martial D]

Based on some of the things I've seen this is the case. But with some other Aikido practitioners, they may not have the same issue. From those who say "the goal is to get your opponent to over extend" I would say they would have a tough time if there opponent never extends. Anyone who "sneaks steps / steal steps" isn't going to over extend

Anyone can be made to overextend or be put out of position. Fights are chaotic.

 

[Steve]

So a drowning child isn't an emotional situation? Save it for someone else dude.


I never gave the scenario of what a competent swimmer should do. I've only talked about someone who doesn't know how to swim or someone who isn't a strong swimmer. Read what type. Don't fall for these other arguments that some of the others are making. They don't care about the reality man. All they want to is debate and score gotcha points.


Yeah but if water patrol came around the corner in a boat to save your butt, you'll be glad that he made that call. Like I said before, you got people on here who only care about having a debate. They take about things so that people have a narrow scope.


I didn't say anything about a life guard. Lifeguards are trained to save people who are drowning. They also have equipment to help them safely do that. Life guards are also put into position of duty and responsibility for the safety of those in their area. Sort of like the responsibilities and duty that Police take on. In both cases, those individuals are trained for that purpose. You wouldn't hire a Lifeguard that couldn't swim or a lifeguard that wasn't a strong swimmer.


I think this is a smart decision for anyone who cannot swim. I also think that regardless of swimming ability things like life vest should be required, depending on the distance one may be away from the shore. That's just me because I'm not a strong swimmer. I swim well enough to not drown on my own so long as I don't cramp up, black out, or have a heart attack. If I'm in a boat or further out then this is what I'm wearing
View attachment 26833

I have no misconceptions or delusions about where my swimming skills begin or end.


Its consistent because I'm not selling crap to people in here just for the purpose of having a debate for debate sakes. If you go back and read what I state without reading what other's post, you would see that say anything in the context of what you stated.

This is why I told Hanzou to save that nonsense for someone who doesn't know how he operates.

Lol. It's consistent. Doesn't mean it isn't crap.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Anyone can be made to overextend or be put out of position. Fights are chaotic.

While some people will overextend those who train mentally and physical aren't going to overextend.

Chaotic fight, The first guy to attack doesn't over extend. Through the chaos he keeps good footwork and a solid stance. Good luck on trying to make someone like that overextend. First thing he's going to do is use is footwork to close the gap so he doesn't have to overextend

Again. He doesn't overextend

When people specifically train into habit not to overextend, it's going to be very difficult to make them do so.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Lol. It's consistent. Doesn't mean it isn't crap.

You can't even quote back correctly what I've been saying. You only hear what you want hear and read what you want to read. So there's that.

You claim stuff that I didn't say is crap. Yeah that works for me.

 

[Steve]

You can't even quote back correctly what I've been saying. You only hear what you want hear and read what you want to read. So there's that.

You claim that stuff that I didn't say is crap. Yeah that works for me.

Maybe I'm not trying to quite back what you're saying. Why would I even do that? I promise you, it's all there. If you take some time to read it and understand it, I think you'll figure it out. It's all there.

Try this. Reread the posts but this time presuming you're the one seeing what you want to see and reading what you want to read. It may be enlightening.

 

[drop bear]

No one is talking about the skill of anything and you know it. Have an honest conversation about skill and you'll won't get any of these side track arguments.

Wow. That is even worse. I would at least accept Aikido is trying to teach something.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Reread the posts but this time presuming you're the one seeing what you want to see and reading what you want to read. It may be enlightening.

I did that already. That's step 1 for me. When someone claims that I said something. I first go back to check to see if that's what I stated.

I do this, just in case. I've said something incorrectly. Jobo called me out on something that I said that was incorrect and I thanked him for correcting me. Questions is. Do you do the same?

 

[Steve]

I did that already. That's step 1 for me. When someone claims that I said something. I first go back to check to see if that's what I stated.

I do this, just in case. I've said something incorrectly. Jobo called me out on something that I said that was incorrect and I thanked him for correcting me. Questions is. Do you do the same?

Of course you did.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Wow. That is even worse. I would at least accept Aikido is trying to teach something.

We had a good 25 pages talking about the techniques in Aikido and the various principles. However, somewhere after page 25 the tone of the discussion began to change and it changed from looking at Aikido to bashing it. I get that things go off the track here, but rarely if ever do the conversation towards the end of such a long thread have anything to do with what was discussed at the beginning.

The thing about accepting Aikido is that they have many different views of what Aikido should be about. Which is were we were originally with one Aikido Camp stating that it's for purpose A and the other states that it's for Purpose B.

I watched a couple of Akido Randori videos. After watching a few dozen of them, I began to recognize a common theme that I didn't realize before. Which made thing think differently about Randori.

Some see Randori as "Fighting multiple attackers" Now I'm starting to see it as a drill where you have to respond to various attacks quickly. I say this because I thought that it would be a good drill to have people take turns in attacking differently one after the other which creates random attacks that you have to deal with. Not in the context of fighting multiple people, but in the context of "what do you do if one person uses attack A" then the next person attacks and the scenario changes "what do you do if one person uses attack B"

You can have one person just go through a bunch of random attacks but at that point, you a watching for that one person to do something. A person that is standing in front of you cannot attack you unexpectedly from the side in order to give you a chance to deal with something that you truly didn't know was coming.

If this is what Randori is about, the ability to quickly respond to unexpected attacks from random directions then I'll probably add a similar training to my Kung Fu training as that would go well with my concept that a person should be able to do some type of Kung Fu from any position they find themselves in.

If I'm not correct about Randori, then I'm still using it because that way, I don't know what the attack will be and I have to quickly respond to it with a kung fu technique. If I'm correct, then I've learned something from Aikido.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Of course you did.

As much as Jobo gets on my nerves sometime. I still thanked him for correcting me. I hated every moment of it. lol. So yes. I go back and read what I say. If I'm wrong I'll admit or thank the person for correcting me. So yep. I'm consistent. Ironically I'm so consistant that I thanked the same person almost a year later on about something else on the same post count #117.

 

[Hanzou]

We had a good 25 pages talking about the techniques in Aikido and the various principles. However, somewhere after page 25 the tone of the discussion began to change and it changed from looking at Aikido to bashing it. I get that things go off the track here, but rarely if ever do the conversation towards the end of such a long thread have anything to do with what was discussed at the beginning.

No one in here is bashing Aikido. No one said it is a worthless practice that no one should partake in. People are simply questioning its effectiveness after decades of dubious behavior from the Aikido community at large. Rokas (who you used in your OP) simply renewed the discussion since he had 15 years of Aikido experience yet looked like he had never stepped in a martial school in his life.

The thing about accepting Aikido is that they have many different views of what Aikido should be about. Which is were we were originally with one Aikido Camp stating that it's for purpose A and the other states that it's for Purpose B.

I watched a couple of Akido Randori videos. After watching a few dozen of them, I began to recognize a common theme that I didn't realize before. Which made thing think differently about Randori.

Some see Randori as "Fighting multiple attackers" Now I'm starting to see it as a drill where you have to respond to various attacks quickly. I say this because I thought that it would be a good drill to have people take turns in attacking differently one after the other which creates random attacks that you have to deal with. Not in the context of fighting multiple people, but in the context of "what do you do if one person uses attack A" then the next person attacks and the scenario changes "what do you do if one person uses attack B"

You can have one person just go through a bunch of random attacks but at that point, you a watching for that one person to do something. A person that is standing in front of you cannot attack you unexpectedly from the side in order to give you a chance to deal with something that you truly didn't know was coming.

If this is what Randori is about, the ability to quickly respond to unexpected attacks from random directions then I'll probably add a similar training to my Kung Fu training as that would go well with my concept that a person should be able to do some type of Kung Fu from any position they find themselves in.

If I'm not correct about Randori, then I'm still using it because that way, I don't know what the attack will be and I have to quickly respond to it with a kung fu technique. If I'm correct, then I've learned something from Aikido.

This is utter nonsense. The randori is literally called multiple opponent randori, so yes it is practice against fighting multiple opponents. We know this because we have multiple schools believing that their Aikido is effective against multiple attackers.

The reason people create new meaning behind something that is obvious is because it doesn't actually work as intended. Making up esoteric mumbo jumbo about what this is supposed to be or mean is simply a deflection. It's like you fancy yourself as a sword maker, yet every sword you make is deficient and breaks when someone uses it in combat. Instead of simply admitting you're a bad sword maker, and that your process is flawed, you deflect and say that you never intended to make swords for battle in the first place. This is what people are doing with Aikido.

 

[JowGaWolf]

No one in here is bashing Aikido. No one said it is a worthless practice that no one should partake in. People are simply questioning its effectiveness after decades of dubious behavior from the Aikido community at large. Rokas (who you used in your OP) simply renewed the discussion since he had 15 years of Aikido experience yet looked like he had never stepped in a martial school in his life.

My issue about Roka is that he poor performance is everyone else's fault but his own. Even when he sees that he isn't training correctly for learning how to fight, he will still be delusional about his ability. Like when he made the statement that he was a white belt but felt like he could handle most people. Maybe that's what white belts say these days. Or maybe that's just what Roka's say. As far as Rokas goes, I wouldn't look for him as a measurement on any martial arts. Like when he said that he learned that is better to spar wit someone around his skill level or slightly higher because he couldn't learn anything when the person was too good. Most people who spar already know this. We don't need Roka's stamp of approval to enlighten us about that.

People aren't questioning the effectiveness of Aikido. That would require that we understand what is actually being taught and measured. I used to think Aikido Randori was about multiple attacker scenario but now I don't. Now I see it more as a reaction drill. If it's a reaction drill then there's no need to talk about the effectiveness of it with fighting against multiple people because that's not what it's about or measuring. Even if someone from Aikido told me that it was a multiple attacker scenario. I would tell them that they misunderstood what is actually going on.

The reason Aikido Randori doesn't look like real fighting is because it's not trying to simulate real fighting. I could be wrong, but after watching a bunch of Randori and the fact that it doesn't simulate what real attacks looking like, I would think I'm on the right track.

No body fights like this. The purpose of this drill isn't about fighting with it. It's addressing agility and coordination so your body moves without thinking about what comes next.

 

[JowGaWolf]

This is utter nonsense. The randori is literally called multiple opponent randori, so yes it is practice against fighting multiple opponents. We know this because we have multiple schools believing that their Aikido is effective against multiple attackers.

This is what I found when I looked up Randori


Randori is looked at differently depending on the system the person trains

The meaning of Randori, you can see in the translation of the Japanese Kanji. It says "Ran" is: chaos, random, at random, and "Dori" as take or grab. So we are dealing with chaotic or random handles or grips. The lump sum can be interpreted as "free practice".

Randori (乱取り), (רנדורי), is a free-style practice or sparring, a Japanese term used in Ninjutsu and other martial arts. The term literally means "chaos against an opponent", and implies leaving the structured reactions dictated at the level of the kata.

Randori may be practiced in various ways. If the object be simply training in the method of attack and defense, the attention should be especially directed to the training in the most efficient ways of throwing, bending or twisting, without special reference to developing the body or to mental and moral culture.

Randori promotes a variety of judo specific aspects, such as:

Decide power; Learning to use situations properly
Variety; Practice with different partners
Willingness to learn; Learn together in opposition
Critical skills; You trains with opponents who are bette
Tolerance; As UKE give in sometimes and let TORI throw

What is Randori?
Randori?

Out of all of the definitions I found for Randori. None of them said anything about fighting.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The reason people create new meaning behind something that is obvious is because it doesn't actually work as intended.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Especially if you didn't bother looking at what Randori means,

Making up esoteric mumbo jumbo about what this is supposed to be or mean is simply a deflection. It's like you fancy yourself as a sword maker, yet every sword you make is deficient and breaks when someone uses it in combat. Instead of simply admitting you're a bad sword maker, and that your process is flawed, you deflect and say that you never intended to make swords for battle in the first place. This is what people are doing with Aikido.

I've never had someone who trains Aikido tell me this. Even in this thread I didn't see any of these statements.. when Aikido Practitioners were interviewed on youtube, they didn't say that either. Are there people out there who thinks like this. Of course there are. Does it means the all Aikido schools think like this, Definitely not. I've already mention that there are 2 camps of Aikido thought.

Other martial arts also have different camps of thought too. I've heard kung fu people say similar things about systems that are actually functional and valid as a fighting system. It wasn't the system that was flawed, it was the person and his training. Just like some people say Kung Fu is honorable and then say stuff like "A true martial arts master can win a fighting without fighting." Not what I would say. I wouldn't even say Kung fu is honorable. I actually tell people that Kung Fu has a lot of dirty fighting. But because some are "too dangerous to use kung fu." doesn't mean that I buy into the same mentality. From what I can tell tell Aikido is the same way.

One group sees it as a way to peace. The other group sees it as something functional. We have even seen this distinction from Aikido practitioners who have participated in this thread.