On Aikido: Its Origins and its efficacy

[Samurai-do]

On Aikido: its origins and its effectiveness
I hope this might provide something of an insight to those who criticise Aikido for not being prevalent on the MMA scene
Feedback, comments etc. always appreciated!

 

[Spinedoc]

On Aikido: its origins and its effectiveness
I hope this might provide something of an insight to those who criticise Aikido for not being prevalent on the MMA scene
Feedback, comments etc. always appreciated!

Not bad..however, there are some inconsistencies in the article.

#1 Sokaku Takeda was not some descendant master of Daito Ryu, he was Soke. Daito Ryu in short, means Great Eastern School. He had studied Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage Ryu as well as other arts, including what he claims was Daito Ryu. NOW, it gets a little fuzzy, Takeda claims a lineage extending back 900 years to Minamoto no Yoshimitsu, but there are no records supporting this.

#2 The techniques in both Aikido as well as Daito Ryu are NOT linear, not at all, in fact linear movement is antithetical to Aikido. The movements are circular or spiral.

Much of the rest of it, while leaning dramatic, is at least factually correct.

Mike

 

[ShawnP]

i love your articles, but wish there were more info to read.

 

[Samurai-do]

Not bad..however, there are some inconsistencies in the article.

#1 Sokaku Takeda was not some descendant master of Daito Ryu, he was Soke. Daito Ryu in short, means Great Eastern School. He had studied Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage Ryu as well as other arts, including what he claims was Daito Ryu. NOW, it gets a little fuzzy, Takeda claims a lineage extending back 900 years to Minamoto no Yoshimitsu, but there are no records supporting this.

#2 The techniques in both Aikido as well as Daito Ryu are NOT linear, not at all, in fact linear movement is antithetical to Aikido. The movements are circular or spiral.

Much of the rest of it, while leaning dramatic, is at least factually correct.

Mike

Hi Mike,
Thanks for giving the article a look over, I appreciate it! yes I am aware that Sokaku Takeda is generally accepted to be the founder of Daito ryu, certainly as we know it today, my point was simply that this is the master that Ueshiba studied under and thus that Daito ryu is the basis for many aikido techniques.
As regards the difference in nature of technique between the two. If I implied that Linear movements were a part of aikido, then I must apologise, as this is not at all what I intended, Aikido is of course based on circular technique. I would contend with you on Daito ryu, however. The way that atemi and kuzushi are used in Daito ryu is different to what you would see in Aikido. There is an emphasis in Aikido on keeping Uke moving (hence the circular movements) whereas Daito ryu techniques involve destroying posture using linear atemi and more conservative movements. Similarly there is a much lesser emphasis in Daito ryu on getting off the line of attack, whereas this tai sabaki is THE fundamental technique in Aikido.
Over to you Mike for your rebuttal!
all the best,
Jack

 

[drop bear]

Plenty of akido in mma. Because it's methods are reflected in wrestling.
So wrist grabs work in mma and even in self defence.

"Take the example of the grabbing of the arm or hand as an attack within aikido. Critics argue that this is unrealistic and, yes, maybe it is in the modern world. In Feudal Japan however, this attack makes a lot of sense. Samurai were often well versed in battojutsu, the art of drawing and killing with the sword in one movement. To avoid getting caught by this move, an attacker would have to restrain the Samurai’s sword arm before delivering his own attack, be it a punch to the face or a knife to the gut. Not so unrealistic in this context."

You just have to be better at setting them up.

 

[Hanzou]

To say that aikido doesn’t work in MMA, however, is akin to stating that submarines are awful at flying. Putting aikido into the context of a one-on-one cage fight is taking it completely out of the context for which many of the techniques were originally created: the streets and battlefields of feudal Japan. The masters of Daito-ryu aikijujutsu, from which aikido is descended, were not training to deal with an attack from a half-naked man trying to bash their noses in, they were training to deal with fully committed attacks, possibly involving weapons of one sort or another.

This type of silliness is the root of why Aikido is criticized so heavily. We don't live in the streets of feudal Japan, we live in the modern world. In the modern world the chances of someone getting attacked by a half naked man trying to bash their face in is monumentally higher than someone getting attacked by a sword wielding attacker in full samurai armor. Additionally, a person trying to bash your face in is a fully committed attacker, and you need to respond accordingly or you could be seriously injured, crippled or even killed.

Judo and Bjj also have roots from feudal Japanese arts. Why are those arts perfectly fine in a MMA environment yet Aikido is not? Why can a black belt in Judo and Bjj perform their techniques in a variety of situations yet there's a large swath of Aikido black belts who are "just getting the hang of the system"? Instead of concocting excuses, why not go to the root of the problem and figure out why there's so many "bad" Aikidoka out there who are instructor grade yet still can't pull off basic techniques in a live environment.

 

[Samurai-do]

This type of silliness is the root of why Aikido is criticized so heavily. We don't live in the streets of feudal Japan, we live in the modern world. In the modern world the chances of someone getting attacked by a half naked man trying to bash their face in is monumentally higher than someone getting attacked by a sword wielding attacker in full samurai armor. Additionally, a person trying to bash your face in is a fully committed attacker, and you need to respond accordingly or you could be seriously injured, crippled or even killed.

Judo and Bjj also have roots from feudal Japanese arts. Why are those arts perfectly fine in a MMA environment yet Aikido is not? Why can a black belt in Judo and Bjj perform their techniques in a variety of situations yet there's a large swath of Aikido black belts who are "just getting the hang of the system"? Instead of concocting excuses, why not go to the root of the problem and figure out why there's so many "bad" Aikidoka out there who are instructor grade yet still can't pull off basic techniques in a live environment.

Hi Hanzou, you seemed to have missed my point, and if that is the case then it is my fault for not articulating myself clearly enough! BJJ and Judo and Aikido all have techniques that work. they could work in any situation, although Judo throws for example are largely designed to work off of the grip of a gi, and BJJ is strongest on the ground. The point is that none of these martial arts systems are analogous to a self-defence system. Even MMA has rules. When we do reality based training, we encourage gouging, clawing biting and anything else that can give you the upper hand. My point is simply that while a common criticism of aikido is that it is very contrived, so are the circumstances in an MMA ring, or a Judo match, or a BJJ tournament. To start with there is the fact that it is limited to a one on one fight as well as the other things already mentioned. Despite this, none of these arts lose their value. Frankly I agree that there are a lot of bad aikido practitioners out there at the minute, whose students throw themselves for fear of being seen as disrespectful. Similarly there are those that can and do practice their techniques against a resisting Uke, (the main difference between aikido and your examples of Judo and BJJ being this practice against a resisting uke). Whenever I am teaching a part of an aikido session (I'm an assistant instructor) we always build in levels of resistance into randori, something many other clubs are unwilling to do. Sure our art can work in the real world, but that doesn't negate the fact that it does draw from its origins in traditional samurai martial arts
I look forward to your reply and rebuttal!
all the best
Jack

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Hi Hanzou

He didn't miss your point, he just likes to insult Aikido and will take any chance possible to do so. Doesn't really care what the argument for Aikido is, or how legitimate it might be. Just warning you before you end up in the pointless debates he loves for some reason.

 

[Hanzou]

Hi Hanzou, you seemed to have missed my point, and if that is the case then it is my fault for not articulating myself clearly enough! BJJ and Judo and Aikido all have techniques that work. they could work in any situation, although Judo throws for example are largely designed to work off of the grip of a gi, and BJJ is strongest on the ground.

Rather narrow view of both Bjj and Judo. There are no-gi modifications to Judo throws that allow it to work without the gi, and gi grips can be modified to work on clothing. Bjj can be just as strong on your feet as it is on the ground if it is properly trained. After all, in order to fight on the ground, you need to get your assailant to the ground.

As for the notion that Aikido like Judo and Bjj can work in any situation, wasn't the basis of that excerpt to make an excuse as to why Aikido doesn't work in MMA?

The point is that none of these martial arts systems are analogous to a self-defense system.

The exponents of Gjj would disagree with you. The philosophy behind their entire system is self defense and that has been crystalized with the explosion of sport Bjj.

Even MMA has rules. When we do reality based training, we encourage gouging, clawing biting and anything else that can give you the upper hand. My point is simply that while a common criticism of aikido is that it is very contrived, so are the circumstances in an MMA ring, or a Judo match, or a BJJ tournament. To start with there is the fact that it is limited to a one on one fight as well as the other things already mentioned.

Everyone knows MMA has rules. The reason people believe MMA (or Judo and Bjj) is a better self defense system than Aikido is because when people see street fights they almost uniformly look like rougher versions of MMA fighting. You never see someone perform an Aikido twirl in a street fight, but you'll see plenty of people clinching, wrestling around, mounting someone, and ground and pounding them. Thus I have to disagree that MMA/Judo/Bjj fighting is as contrived at what you see in an Aikido dojo.

 

[Hanzou]

He didn't miss your point, he just likes to insult Aikido and will take any chance possible to do so. Doesn't really care what the argument for Aikido is, or how legitimate it might be. Just warning you before you end up in the pointless debates he loves for some reason.

Where did I insult Aikido?

 

[drop bear]

Even MMA has rules. When we do reality based training, we encourage gouging, clawing biting and anything else that can give you the upper hand. My point is simply that while a common criticism of aikido is that it is very contrived, so are the circumstances in an MMA ring, or a Judo match, or a BJJ tournament. T

This would be a factor if you just told however many combatants to just go for it and see what happens. But if you are creating a circumstance where you bite someone so therefore they have to let go allowing you to apply a technique. That is also creating rules.

Which is where the contrived accusations come in.

I usually use rear bear hugs as an example. Escaping a rear bear hug from a person who knows how to put it on is almost impossible. So to train it and not demoralise people we contrive reasons why they won't hang on or respond with just picking you up and dropping you on their head.

Backward elbows and shin kicks and that sort of stuff.

And so we go from the ideal of no rules to all sorts of strange rules to make the technique viable.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Where did I insult Aikido?

Look in your history, and you'll find it pretty easily. If not, oh well, since I have zero intention of taking your bait.

 

[Chris Parker]

This one might not be short…

On Aikido: its origins and its effectiveness
I hope this might provide something of an insight to those who criticise Aikido for not being prevalent on the MMA scene
Feedback, comments etc. always appreciated!

Hi Jack.

Like Mike (Spinedoc), I found a number of issues with your article… I appreciate where you're coming from, but there are a range of statements and commentaries that are not so easy to support. In the interests of helping further your study, I'm going to apply kind of a fine-tooth comb approach here…

Daito-ryu was a samurai art, used by disarmed samurai against armed and unarmed opponents in a variety of situations.

Well… that's really going to depend on who you believe… after all, there's no real evidence of Daito Ryu existing during the existence of the samurai themselves… and much of the methodology doesn't exactly match the claimed history…

Realistically, the evidence all points to Daito Ryu as being the creation of Sokaku Takeda himself… based on a range of influences that he encountered and was trained in.

The techniques are linear and incorporate many blows and attacking movements. Many throws and pins in Daito-ryu, end with the practitioner ending the life of his assailant, usually by the use of a knife or short sword, an item always carried by the Samurai of Feudal Japan.

While I'll give you that many Daito Ryu techniques are what I would class as more "direct" than much of Aikido's methodologies, I don't know that I'd classify them as "linear" exactly… all in all, they're about as linear as Aikido's Tenchi Nage. As far as "many throws and pins in Daito Ryu end with the practitioner ending the life of his assailant", well, let me just say that that doesn't really reflect the Daito Ryu I've seen… pins (osae komi waza) may leave the option for such a finish (to-dome), but they aren't as ever present as suggested here.

Ueshiba, whilst a superb martial artist, was also a deeply spiritual and religious man. He was a follower of Omoto-kyo, a newly revived form of traditional Japanese Shinto worship.

Yeah… of course, that connection to the Omoto Kyo only came into it after WWII… which is after you attribute the creation of Aikido… and, of course, post-dates forms of Aikido such as the Yoshinkan (Gozo Shioda), who left to form his branch prior to WWII himself… so, while it can certainly be seen as a large influence on Ueshiba's development, particularly later in his career, it doesn't necessarily factor in all forms of Aikido. Shudokan (Tomiki Aikido) would be another notable example of it's absence.

Aikido plays down greatly the traditional emphasis from Jujutsu schools on attacking moves: punches, kicks and so on. Instead an aikido-ka (one who practices aikido) attempts to redirect the force of an aggressor’s attack into a pin or throw.

Well, that really depends on which "Jujutsu school" you're talking about… by and large, while atemi waza was present in most schools, it wasn't highly emphasised in many at all. For example, Asayama Ichiden Ryu Taijutsu features almost no striking in it's waza (there is some, but not a lot), instead focusing primarily on kansetsu waza (gyaku waza… joint locks)… little side note, there are a range of similarities between Asayama Ichiden Ryu and Daito Ryu, leading some to believe that Asayama Ichiden Ryu was a potential reference when Takeda was creating Daito Ryu itself…

It could also be noted that Daito Ryu itself lessens the emphasis on striking (atemi waza) as the student progresses… with the study moving through three methods of application; Jujutsu, Aikijujutsu, and finally Aiki no jutsu…with striking being less present as you move on.

The admission that there are bad aikido practitioners out there, however, does not necessarily reflect on the art itself. These are, after all, underlying techniques passed down to us from the Samurai, who would not have preserved them if they were not useful.

Again, this is taken entirely on faith… there is no evidence of Daito Ryu being passed down from the samurai… which of course means that they haven't been "preserved" in any such context or for any such reason.

To say that aikido doesn’t work in MMA, however, is akin to stating that submarines are awful at flying. Putting aikido into the context of a one-on-one cage fight is taking it completely out of the context for which many of the techniques were originally created: the streets and battlefields of feudal Japan.

I'm in agreement with your first sentence there… however, then you lose me a bit. Aikido was not, in any way, created for "the streets and battlefields of feudal Japan"… being created, as it was, some centuries after such time and context at all. You're right in that it's not created for the context of an MMA fight, but not correct in what it was created for… or, more accurately, what the techniques are created for.

The masters of Daito-ryu aikijujutsu, from which aikido is descended, were not training to deal with an attack from a half-naked man trying to bash their noses in, they were training to deal with fully committed attacks, possibly involving weapons of one sort or another.

Again, I get where you're coming from, but you're trying to use the wrong imagery to make your point… mainly as it doesn't help your argument at all.

Let's put it this way… MMA athletes and competitors train to handle a skilled, committed, focused, conditioned, and prepared opponent within the context of an MMA fight… which in itself lends itself to particular technical and tactical approaches. Assuming that a martial art's techniques are aimed at handling the violence of their own context (not always the case, to be honest), then we can say that Daito Ryu practitioners are training to handle a skilled, committed, focused, conditioned, and prepared opponent within the context of classical Japanese higher-society violence (samurai)… which in itself lends itself to particular technical and tactical approaches.

What that means is that you really have to identify the differing cultural contexts which alters the nature of the violence in the first place, which your imagery doesn't do (after all, "half-naked man trying to bash their noses in" could just as easily apply to the sumo influence on classical Japanese Jujutsu systems…). But before that, you need to identify if that even is the context and aim of the techniques in the classical system in the first place… which you might find is not the case.

Take the example of the grabbing of the arm or hand as an attack within aikido. Critics argue that this is unrealistic and, yes, maybe it is in the modern world. In Feudal Japan however, this attack makes a lot of sense. Samurai were often well versed in battojutsu, the art of drawing and killing with the sword in one movement. To avoid getting caught by this move, an attacker would have to restrain the Samurai’s sword arm before delivering his own attack, be it a punch to the face or a knife to the gut. Not so unrealistic in this context.

I've heard that explanation a number of times, and, to be honest, it doesn't really ring true with me. I can see the inherent logic at work, but the physical realities and mechanics of the action just don't have that effect. Instead, the reasoning is more to do with understanding principles than an actual, realistic (real world) attack. That doesn't mean, however, that a samurai would deal with a boxer's style attack as in a modern MMA bout…

The fallacy that I am attempting to highlight becomes obvious if one reverses the roles and attempts to situate an MMA fighter in the middle of the battle of Sekigahara, for instance. What good would his kicks and punches be against even an unarmed but fully armoured warrior?

And what would be the odds of him facing such a warrior? Much of the casualties were from firearms… by the same token, put a Daito Ryu practitioner up against machine-guns… or, if you will, put a Daito Ryu practitioner up against your armoured samurai… you may find that much of the syllabus isn't geared towards katchu bujutsu…

The rebuttal I’ve heard time and again consists of saying that people today don’t wear armour, and subsequently situating both mixed martial arts and aikido in self-defense situations.

Well, modern soldiers do wear the equivalent weight in their gear… tactical response police wear similar types of gear as well… so yeah, people today (in certain contexts) do wear armour… but not having armour doesn't, to my mind, situate either MMA nor Aikido in "street self defence" situations.

At this point I accept that aikido is not a modern self defence system but guess what, neither is MMA. A street fight has no rules, no referee is going to pause the match for fish hooking or downward pointing elbows. Much as MMA might like to think itself superior, it is not! Sure it provides you with a load of skills that would be useful in a self-defense situation, so does aikido, but neither is teaching you self-defense.

Leaving off for the moment that "no rules" is a fallacy by itself, it might be important to note that while MMA doesn't allow for fish-hooking, or downward elbows to the base of the neck, neither of those are present in Aikido either… but, more importantly, self defence is not really found in the techniques… or, to put it another way, physical fighting techniques, while important, is not really the core of "self defence"… so you're right, neither are really teaching it in and of themselves…

While its techniques are effective under the circumstances for which they were created, aikido is more than a martial art, it is a living embodiment of the non-violent philosophy of Ueshiba. To him, removing the lethal elements from the older jujutsu styles was not making them redundant, it was allowing them to continue to be relevant in modern life as an art of self-perfection rather than self-protection.

This I agree with… of course, understanding the why of the techniques is a journey in and of itself…

Hi Mike,
Thanks for giving the article a look over, I appreciate it! yes I am aware that Sokaku Takeda is generally accepted to be the founder of Daito ryu, certainly as we know it today, my point was simply that this is the master that Ueshiba studied under and thus that Daito ryu is the basis for many aikido techniques.

Just to clarify here, the term "soke" does not, nor did it ever, mean "founder"…

As regards the difference in nature of technique between the two. If I implied that Linear movements were a part of aikido, then I must apologise, as this is not at all what I intended, Aikido is of course based on circular technique. I would contend with you on Daito ryu, however. The way that atemi and kuzushi are used in Daito ryu is different to what you would see in Aikido. There is an emphasis in Aikido on keeping Uke moving (hence the circular movements) whereas Daito ryu techniques involve destroying posture using linear atemi and more conservative movements. Similarly there is a much lesser emphasis in Daito ryu on getting off the line of attack, whereas this tai sabaki is THE fundamental technique in Aikido.

This is largely dependent on the level of Daito Ryu you're training in… at the Jujutsu level, there's some truth to it… in later levels, not so much.

Plenty of akido in mma. Because it's methods are reflected in wrestling.
So wrist grabs work in mma and even in self defence.

You just have to be better at setting them up.

Do you really think that "wrist grabs" makes something Aikido? Here's a hint… you're looking at entirely the wrong thing. Again.

This type of silliness is the root of why Aikido is criticized so heavily. We don't live in the streets of feudal Japan, we live in the modern world. In the modern world the chances of someone getting attacked by a half naked man trying to bash their face in is monumentally higher than someone getting attacked by a sword wielding attacker in full samurai armor. Additionally, a person trying to bash your face in is a fully committed attacker, and you need to respond accordingly or you could be seriously injured, crippled or even killed.

And this type of thinking everything should match your own personal impressions and values of what martial arts are designed for is why you have such issues understanding anything outside your own small corner of the subject. I've asked this before, and you've never answered, but I'm going to ask one more time… in the hopes that you might actually be open to learning something and broadening your understanding of other martial arts approaches…

What do you think the techniques of Aikido are designed for? Do you really think they're designed for modern Western street violence? Or for an MMA competition?

Judo and Bjj also have roots from feudal Japanese arts. Why are those arts perfectly fine in a MMA environment yet Aikido is not? Why can a black belt in Judo and Bjj perform their techniques in a variety of situations yet there's a large swath of Aikido black belts who are "just getting the hang of the system"? Instead of concocting excuses, why not go to the root of the problem and figure out why there's so many "bad" Aikidoka out there who are instructor grade yet still can't pull off basic techniques in a live environment.

Or, instead, can you answer my question?

The exponents of Gjj would disagree with you. The philosophy behind their entire system is self defense and that has been crystalized with the explosion of sport Bjj.

And, honestly, I'd disagree with them. I know the rhetoric, but it's not so supported in the methodology…

This would be a factor if you just told however many combatants to just go for it and see what happens. But if you are creating a circumstance where you bite someone so therefore they have to let go allowing you to apply a technique. That is also creating rules.

Er… how is cause and effect "creating a rule"? It's like saying that punching towards someone's head gets them to raise their guard…

Which is where the contrived accusations come in.

You really don't like using actual definitions of words, do you?

I usually use rear bear hugs as an example. Escaping a rear bear hug from a person who knows how to put it on is almost impossible. So to train it and not demoralise people we contrive reasons why they won't hang on or respond with just picking you up and dropping you on their head.

Then I recommend you look into actual defences.

Backward elbows and shin kicks and that sort of stuff.

Which would be part of a technique…

And so we go from the ideal of no rules to all sorts of strange rules to make the technique viable.

You aren't making any sense… again.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Judo and Bjj also have roots from feudal Japanese arts. Why are those arts perfectly fine in a MMA environment yet Aikido is not? Why can a black belt in Judo and Bjj perform their techniques in a variety of situations yet there's a large swath of Aikido black belts who are "just getting the hang of the system"?

I've always found this an interesting argument against Aikido. I don't think there's anything definitively wrong with Ueshiba's art simply because it takes longer to learn. That would be like saying there's something wrong with airliners simply because one must be highly skilled to competently fly them. With Ueshiba's art, so long as someone is either A) competent in something else first, or B) willing to wait longer for combat effectiveness, the art is useful for self-defense (if taught with proper intent, committed attacks, etc.). The same can be said of any art that relies on more complicated/difficult principles. This is why in my own art, we focus less on the "aiki" when we first train students, so we can develop quick effectiveness then add the "aiki" once they have some basic competency.

From my reading and talking with folks who are much more informed of its history, I understand that this likely was the original intention in Ueshiba's art: take competent martial artists and add Aikido to their competency. That path has a much shorter learning curve, in my experience.

 

[Hanzou]

And this type of thinking everything should match your own personal impressions and values of what martial arts are designed for is why you have such issues understanding anything outside your own small corner of the subject. I've asked this before, and you've never answered, but I'm going to ask one more time… in the hopes that you might actually be open to learning something and broadening your understanding of other martial arts approaches…

What do you think the techniques of Aikido are designed for? Do you really think they're designed for modern Western street violence? Or for an MMA competition?

I have no idea what Aikido techniques are designed for. On one hand you would think self defense, but then their movements are highly stylized and unrealistic. Further, modern western street violence resembles MMA more so than what you see in an Aikido dojo.

And, honestly, I'd disagree with them. I know the rhetoric, but it's not so supported in the methodology…

So all of those self defense systems that have incorporated Gjj/Bjj into their curriculums are misguided/misinformed?

 

[Hanzou]

I've always found this an interesting argument against Aikido. I don't think there's anything definitively wrong with Ueshiba's art simply because it takes longer to learn. That would be like saying there's something wrong with airliners simply because one must be highly skilled to competently fly them. With Ueshiba's art, so long as someone is either A) competent in something else first, or B) willing to wait longer for combat effectiveness, the art is useful for self-defense (if taught with proper intent, committed attacks, etc.). The same can be said of any art that relies on more complicated/difficult principles. This is why in my own art, we focus less on the "aiki" when we first train students, so we can develop quick effectiveness then add the "aiki" once they have some basic competency.

From my reading and talking with folks who are much more informed of its history, I understand that this likely was the original intention in Ueshiba's art: take competent martial artists and add Aikido to their competency. That path has a much shorter learning curve, in my experience.

The problem with this argument is that it only takes 5 -7 years to reach instructor grade in Aikido. That's significantly shorter than the "ten years to get competent in Aikido basics" time frame. For comparisons sake, as a purple belt I'm very good at Bjj fundamentals, and I teach fundamentals to beginner Bjj students. If I was simply competent at Bjj fundamentals, I wouldn't be allowed to teach them, and I'd probably still be a blue belt.

In Aikido we supposedly have people who are incompetent in the fundamentals teaching classes and even opening dojos.

That should be considered a problem.

 

[drop bear]

Do you really think that "wrist grabs" makes something Aikido? Here's a hint… you're looking at entirely the wrong thing. Again.

It was specifically mentioned by the O. P. Which is why i quoted it.

Personally i was staying off what is or isnt akido. I dont really care. I was focusing on what works.

 

[drop bear]

r… how is cause and effect "creating a rule"? It's like saying that punching towards someone's head gets them to raise their guard…

No. Again in a practical sense you have missed the boat. Punching towards someones head does whatever it does.

You may plan to have something happen. But in a real situation it may just not work out that way.

 

[Tez3]

Some time ago our MMA fighters and others in the club were invited to a seminar which had several different arts being taught, one of which was Aikido. Now bearing in mind that you don't learn a whole art in a seminar it was nevertheless interesting and our fighters picked up several new techniques which have proved useful in an MMA fight. Some of these were from the Aikido instructors who were more than helpful and were very interested in thinking what could be useful for us and we did swap some ideas with them. It was a fantastic seminar actually, we got to try the Bo as well which we all enjoyed as well as Kendo. Did some work with Kubutans as well. ( No you can't use any of them in MMA but there's movements which can be useful) All were open minded martial artists keen to expand their knowledge, coffee break times were full of chat about different ways of doing things.

My point is that there are techniques in Aikido that work well in MMA as there are in just about most martial arts, you will never see one style in a fight, it's an amalgam of all styles, ( hint...that's why it's Mixed Martial Arts). No one style has been designed for MMA but fighters take what's works from any style they can. Everything can be useful for an MMA fighter, don't discount anything from anywhere.

 

[drop bear]

Then I recommend you look into actual defences.

Well only sort of. In general your actual defences either dont work or only work against bottom tier guys. I mean if we are to relate to what happens in mma and look at rear bear hugs. In the last ufc just gone there were examples of rear bear hugs used successfully.

So to suggest that your defences work when a top fighters doesn't means you dont understand the problem.

Basically they are letting you go to make your defence work. Which is why you have such a high success rate.