Can Karate Stand a Chance Against Aikido?

[oftheherd1]

How do you get taught to not loose though?

I mean not loosing is kind of frowned upon in a lot of places. Because you are obviously not training hard enough.

I admit I don't know much if anything about your art. But how does it teach you to lose?

As is so often the case with your posts, at least imho, I simply cannot get any meaning or correlation between your last sentence, and my post or yours. So there is no way I would attempt to answer it.

 

[drop bear]

I admit I don't know much if anything about your art. But how does it teach you to lose?

As is so often the case with your posts, at least imho, I simply cannot get any meaning or correlation between your last sentence, and my post or yours. So there is no way I would attempt to answer it.

I think it is because I ask questions nobody ever thinks about. Like when someone says "I cannot afford to lose" it sounds gret but how? How do you practically not lose?

I lose all the time. I have actively found training partners who will make me lose. If I am always winning. I will place myself in a situation where I am not alway winning.

Because I can afford to lose.

 

[oftheherd1]

I think it is because I ask questions nobody ever thinks about.

I can agree with that.

Like when someone says "I cannot afford to lose" it sounds gret but how? How do you practically not lose?

Perhaps to paraphrase another answer, "Obviously you aren't training hard enough."

I lose all the time. I have actively found training partners who will make me lose. If I am always winning. I will place myself in a situation where I am not alway winning.

Because I can afford to lose.

Again, how does your art teach its practitioners to lose? And to what advantage?

Is your art only allowed to be practiced in the dojo, and has no use outside of there?

 

[drop bear]

I can agree with that.



Perhaps to paraphrase another answer, "Obviously you aren't training hard enough."



Again, how does your art teach its practitioners to lose? And to what advantage?

Is your art only allowed to be practiced in the dojo, and has no use outside of there?

There are a few advantages to training to loose.

Basically the starting idea is to train to the point of failure. The idea is you push that point of failure further and further back. But to do that you need to chase that failure and not settle for a win.

Losing also mentally prepares you for it. So it is not such a distraction in real life and it is not such a blow should it happen.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can agree with that.



Perhaps to paraphrase another answer, "Obviously you aren't training hard enough."



Again, how does your art teach its practitioners to lose? And to what advantage?

Is your art only allowed to be practiced in the dojo, and has no use outside of there?

I think I get DB's point here, OTH. We all lose in our training, if we practice full-resistance against people our skill level or higher. Sometimes they'll best us. That's part of training with resistance. And there, losing is a good thing - it's something we can learn a lot from.

I also understand your point, I think. When training SD, you can't afford to lose the encounter, because on the street you don't know what the consequences might be. So, we take a different mental approach when we're testing/validating our SD work. And since we don't need to score points - don't need to win - we may take a different tactical approach, as well. My first NGA instructor started his career as a cop in NYC (later, and still, teaching DT). He always told me when he had a physical altercation with someone, he was focused on not losing. When he retired from being a cop (and then retired from being a reserve officer), he was "undefeated". He was never looking for a "win", but just to avoid losing.

 

[drop bear]

I think I get DB's point here, OTH. We all lose in our training, if we practice full-resistance against people our skill level or higher. Sometimes they'll best us. That's part of training with resistance. And there, losing is a good thing - it's something we can learn a lot from.

I also understand your point, I think. When training SD, you can't afford to lose the encounter, because on the street you don't know what the consequences might be. So, we take a different mental approach when we're testing/validating our SD work. And since we don't need to score points - don't need to win - we may take a different tactical approach, as well. My first NGA instructor started his career as a cop in NYC (later, and still, teaching DT). He always told me when he had a physical altercation with someone, he was focused on not losing. When he retired from being a cop (and then retired from being a reserve officer), he was "undefeated". He was never looking for a "win", but just to avoid losing.

I can't fight while focusing on not losing in the same way I can't ride a motorbike while focusing on not falling off.

I think it makes you less successful.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can't fight while focusing on not losing in the same way I can't ride a motorbike while focusing on not falling off.

I think it makes you less successful.

I don't know. I think it's a difference in perception, DB. I've met a lot of folks who train for SD who share this understanding of "not losing". I think it's maybe a difference in how we think, and is what draws us to the training. We know there's no such thing as never losing, but we get the concept from a strategic standpoint. I don't know that it's actually any different than the approach you'd bring to competition, because I can't get into your head. I suspect your "fighting to win" may be quite similar to my "fighting to not lose". Meanwhile, my "fighting to win" doesn't seem to be much like your "fighting to win".

 

[drop bear]

I don't know. I think it's a difference in perception, DB. I've met a lot of folks who train for SD who share this understanding of "not losing". I think it's maybe a difference in how we think, and is what draws us to the training. We know there's no such thing as never losing, but we get the concept from a strategic standpoint. I don't know that it's actually any different than the approach you'd bring to competition, because I can't get into your head. I suspect your "fighting to win" may be quite similar to my "fighting to not lose". Meanwhile, my "fighting to win" doesn't seem to be much like your "fighting to win".

You seem to want to defend against the bad guy. Where as I want the bad guy defending against me. He should be looking to escape. He should be worried about loosing.

This is not a competition mindset I learned this from street fighters. If I am engaged in a fight I am 100% present. Not half there and half trying to be somewhere else. It doesn't work.

The idea that you can die in a fight that is constantly drummed into peoples heads is counter productive to getting people to win fights. You dont fill people full of doubt and then send them off to do something risky. That is bad coaching.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You seem to want to defend against the bad guy. Where as I want the bad guy defending against me. He should be looking to escape. He should be worried about loosing.

This is not a competition mindset I learned this from street fighters. If I am engaged in a fight I am 100% present. Not half there and half trying to be somewhere else. It doesn't work.

The idea that you can die in a fight that is constantly drummed into peoples heads is counter productive to getting people to win fights. You dont fill people full of doubt and then send them off to do something risky. That is bad coaching.

That's the part that's odd to me (about how I see it, not about how you see it). I'm more prone to putting pressure on than most I've trained with. I think it's pretty much in line with what you're saying your approach is. In fact, the way I teach, my students are used to hearing me say things like, "You're trying to make yourself my problem. Okay, you want me? You got me. Now I'm your problem." Once it starts, I'm not staying in defense. Yet, somehow, the strategy of fighting to not lose still makes more sense to me. Again, I think it's just a difference in perception.

I'm not sure what the "half there and half somewhere else" comment is about, though.

 

[drop bear]

That's the part that's odd to me (about how I see it, not about how you see it). I'm more prone to putting pressure on than most I've trained with. I think it's pretty much in line with what you're saying your approach is. In fact, the way I teach, my students are used to hearing me say things like, "You're trying to make yourself my problem. Okay, you want me? You got me. Now I'm your problem." Once it starts, I'm not staying in defense. Yet, somehow, the strategy of fighting to not lose still makes more sense to me. Again, I think it's just a difference in perception.

I'm not sure what the "half there and half somewhere else" comment is about, though.

When I go specifically into strategy for street fighting the term I use is fighting conservatively. so that you are not taking big risks for big rewards.

The half there and half not is how some people fight. So for example the people who want to throw punches but cant get in range because they are afraid of taking punches.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When I go specifically into strategy for street fighting the term I use is fighting conservatively. so that you are not taking big risks for big rewards.

That sounds like a pretty good way of explaining how I see "fighting not to lose". You're probably a more aggressive fighter than I am, on the whole (based upon our choices of training methods and arts), so I'd expect you to be more aggressive than me in most situations, even when you're being conservative. Probably actually a personality difference.

The half there and half not is how some people fight. So for example the people who want to throw punches but cant get in range because they are afraid of taking punches.

Agreed. I see sometimes in folks who have done too much light sparring. They get into "reaching to touch", since they don't practice enough hard contact (seems even hard contact on bags and pads reduces this tendency). They are staying out of range of getting hit, and trying to hit. I'm really good at stepping back two inches on these.

 

[jobo]

When I go specifically into strategy for street fighting the term I use is fighting conservatively. so that you are not taking big risks for big rewards.

The half there and half not is how some people fight. So for example the people who want to throw punches but cant get in range because they are afraid of taking punches.

I agree, you can break fights down in to three classes, one) both want a fight, ,two) nether want to fight, three) one wants to and other doesn't. This puts them ata disadvantage as they are mentally detached and just want to be somewhere else

 

[JP3]

I am a hapkidoist. I am taught many techniques, and I am taught to defend myself without being injured. I am taught to defend against punches, kicks, grapples; basically anywhere you touch me or try to touch me, I have defenses. The only rule is to not lose.

I loved my days training HKD because of just that. No joke intended. Sort of, "Touch me and I'll break it." attitude. Backed-up, too.

 

[JP3]

Aikido is very poweful compare to karate and taekwondo but the aikido here at oxnard is far so i just taking karate

Sweat it not. Get in class, Any class, and learn. I started in aikid when a kidd it... it was .. better ... in my opinion, to come back to it having established proficiency elsewhere.

 

[JP3]

So Aikido gets to be everyone but not everyone gets to be Aikido?

Sees unfair.

Now all i have to do is find me an Aikido instructor and Aikido side kick that guy.

Nah. At my place everyone does get to be Aikido. I'm an aikido instructor and you can come sidekick me. When I get up, having remembered that I am no longer 25, I will still hand you the correct-colored kyu grade belt. If you still need it to hold your pants up -- which would have become evident immediately after said side kick.

 

[JP3]

I'm not sure what the "half there and half somewhere else" comment is about, though.

Drop is talking about being "Switched On," focused, ready to engage, gain advantage and dominate You've talked about lack of Japanese terms in your school, but the related, possibly overlapping mental states which pretty much anyone can achieve of mushin and zanshin apply, imo.

 

[JP3]

When I go specifically into strategy for street fighting the term I use is fighting conservatively. so that you are not taking big risks for big rewards.

The half there and half not is how some people fight. So for example the people who want to throw punches but cant get in range because they are afraid of taking punches.

Which if I may... you also refer to as half-assing, if I'm getting your terminology right.

 

[JP3]

That sounds like a pretty good way of explaining how I see "fighting not to lose". You're probably a more aggressive fighter than I am, on the whole (based upon our choices of training methods and arts), so I'd expect you to be more aggressive than me in most situations, even when you're being conservative. Probably actually a personality difference.


Agreed. I see sometimes in folks who have done too much light sparring. They get into "reaching to touch", since they don't practice enough hard contact (seems even hard contact on bags and pads reduces this tendency). They are staying out of range of getting hit, and trying to hit. I'm really good at stepping back two inches on these.

I'm really good at walking right in to people trying to hit like that, covering them up, putting them on a back corner and then asking them what it was they were previously trying to do. I am wondering (based on Wang's other thread) if I might be doing some sort of bastardized sticky/push hands thing. Probably very badly, but it does work. Those people can't fight, though. Try that on someone who regularly does any sort of full-contact, for real not just in name, and you end up with your face pushed in.

 

[JP3]

I agree, you can break fights down in to three classes, one) both want a fight, ,two) nether want to fight, three) one wants to and other doesn't. This puts them ata disadvantage as they are mentally detached and just want to be somewhere else

What if you get a grouping of, one wants to fight and the other does not, but is open to the idea that he/she may not have the authority/ability to decide if there is going to be a fight or not?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Drop is talking about being "Switched On," focused, ready to engage, gain advantage and dominate You've talked about lack of Japanese terms in your school, but the related, possibly overlapping mental states which pretty much anyone can achieve of mushin and zanshin apply, imo.

I've seen those terms used so sloppily that I'm no longer sure I know what concepts they cover, JP. I find myself moving away from some of the vocabulary of my early training, though it seemed to serve me well back then.

Back to the point at hand, I think you're right.