Sport And TMA....Again

[ballen0351]

The understanding of the men that constructed those systems is beyond my imagination

YES!! When I think of the way these guys mastered the physiology of the human body and skeletal structure I'm amazed.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Your TV.

Simple burglaries and interrupted burglaries are still more common than home invasions, despite the rise of the latter.

The hard part is figuring out whether they are breaking into your home to harm you or steal your stuff or if they have come to steal your stuff but decide to harm you when they discover someone is home.

 

[Steve]

And it is in context we should all be training. Whether that is a sporting context or a RB context is up to the individual.
:asian:

K-man, I'd respond to your specific points, but the way you post makes it almost impossible to quote you, as you embedded your own words into mine. Suffice to say, I'm not sure you understood me.

 

[RTKDCMB]

I find it easier to copy and paste the quote markers in the square brackets around each separate section I want to respond to.

 

[RTKDCMB]

While the knife technique was questionable, you guys do understand that the multiple attacker video was tongue in cheek. Right?

I do, what gave it away was everyone laughing in the video.

 

[Hanzou]

Interesting blog from a guy who studied both Aikido and Bjj, and drew some comparisons between the two;

http://mma-journey.blogspot.com/2007/08/aikido-vs-brazilian-jiu-jitsu-part-1.html

Some interesting tidbits;

The net effect of this is that aikido gives you far less margin for error. If you bungle a wrist lock (nikkajo/nikkyo) or elbow lock (ikkajo/ikkyo) very often you will be well and truly screwed. Many aikido schools really neglect the idea of transitions between moves and, in particular, recovering from failed submission attempts. Second, if you do botch your control you can't retreat back to a relatively safe position and try again. That's a pretty big issue.

Body control, on the other hand, is a key aspect of Brazilian jiu-jitsu -- you dominate your opponent by achieving and maintaining superior position while seeking a submission. Even if you fail a submission attempt, there's a good chance you haven't lost your position and can thus go for another submission relatively quickly and safely. The downside is that maintaining this dominant position often requires a loss in mobility (i.e. you have to be on the ground).

Let me give a concrete example using various aikido joint locking techniques designed to control an aggressor. Probably the most iconic control in aikido is the nikkyo/nikkajo wrist lock. This wrist lock is typically applied in the standing position, and it requires a compliant opponent to some degree. To remove resistance you're taught to useatemi or some other kuzushi like unbalancing technique, allowing you to execute the technique.

The problem with nikkyo is simple -- you can't apply it partially. You either have it or you don't. This means if you botch it or go a little too light then uke will be able to fight back trivially. The reversal from this technique is simple (pushing back against the technique) and easy to execute even under duress.

Brazilian jiu-jitsu submission techniques typically do not require the opponent to stop resisting. In fact, most of the techniques are designed to work against a fully resisting opponent (something that BJJ has in common with judo, wrestling, sambo, and other sport-oriented fighting arts). So even if you screw up and miss an arm bar or Kimura, there's a good chance you can try again or switch to something else without being in too much danger.

This simply isn't the case with aikido. If you mess up a nikkyo orsankyo or shiho-nage, you're in trouble. Sometimes you're in deeptrouble.

Submission-as-control is a very dangerous prospect, which is why it's so hard to use aikido effectively unless you're amazingly talented and experienced. Brazilian jiu-jitsu's foundation of position-then-submission philosophically offers a lot more safety and reliability in an actual confrontation.

On multiple attackers:

So in effect the ground fighting arts that incorporate throws are going to be more useful all around than throwing arts that don't have any ground fighting, even (especially!) against multiple attackers. And that's ignoring the whole "live training against a resisting opponent" element. The logic behind aikido's belief that it is superior against multiple opponents is based on its focus on throws and standing submissions -- but many other arts have effective throws and standing submissions as well. And those other arts have solid ground games as well.

Finally, a key part of aikido's curriculum is its standing submissions (hiji-shime, nikkyo, sankyo) -- which don't work very well when facing multiple opponents either since maintaining control of one opponent prevents your hands from being used to defend against other opponents. So it's not like aikido's repertoire is theoretically ideal against multiple attackers either.

http://mma-journey.blogspot.com/2007/09/aikido-vs-brazilian-jiu-jitsu-part-3.html

 

[K-man]

Interesting blog from a guy who studied both Aikido and Bjj, and drew some comparisons between the two;

Some interesting tidbits;

The net effect of this is that aikido gives you far less margin for error. If you bungle a wrist lock (nikkajo/nikkyo) or elbow lock (ikkajo/ikkyo) very often you will be well and truly screwed. Many aikido schools really neglect the idea of transitions between moves and, in particular, recovering from failed submission attempts. Second, if you do botch your control you can't retreat back to a relatively safe position and try again. That's a pretty big issue.

If you read the comments following the blog there's some interesting reading, however .. I don't agree that there is less margin for error in Aikido. What I have said in the past is that it takes a long time before Aikido becomes second nature. At that stage you transition between techniques seamlessly. So you are not screwed at all. If nikyo is not going to work you flow into Ude Osse and so on. I think the blog is from someone who had not trained for long.



Body control, on the other hand, is a key aspect of Brazilian jiu-jitsu -- you dominate your opponent by achieving and maintaining superior position while seeking a submission. Even if you fail a submission attempt, there's a good chance you haven't lost your position and can thus go for another submission relatively quickly and safely. The downside is that maintaining this dominant position often requires a loss in mobility (i.e. you have to be on the ground).

Here is a major difference. If something is not working in Aikido you don't force it. You disengage or move around the clash. However, on the ground is a different scenario. Here it is very similar to the principles of BJJ in that you relax and let your opponent tire. You can still apply your locks and holds on the ground.

Let me give a concrete example using various aikido joint locking techniques designed to control an aggressor. Probably the most iconic control in aikido is the nikkyo/nikkajo wrist lock. This wrist lock is typically applied in the standing position, and it requires a compliant opponent to some degree. To remove resistance you're taught to useatemi or some other kuzushi like unbalancing technique, allowing you to execute the technique.

Once again this is definitely not true. No aikido techniques require a compliant partner. That would make a mockery of the whole system. If you can't apply a technique it is you failing, not the technique. However, trying to apply techniques with strength in aikido will not work against a strong opponent. You have to use 'soft' technique and this is what takes so long to master. For what it's worth, most of Aikido's locks and holds are present in Goju karate if you know where to look and this requires the soft part of Goju to make them work too. Sure we have atemi available as do all martial arts and this will facilitate the application of locks. Those that have been on MT for a while will attest that I have always claimed Aikido should be tested against total resistance as well as being able to receive as well.



The problem with nikkyo is simple -- you can't apply it partially. You either have it or you don't. This means if you botch it or go a little too light then uke will be able to fight back trivially. The reversal from this technique is simple (pushing back against the technique) and easy to execute even under duress.

Except that against a skilled Aikidoka your reversal can put you straight into an armbar. Which is of course going to cause even more duress!



Brazilian jiu-jitsu submission techniques typically do not require the opponent to stop resisting.

LOL! What sort of martial artist needs you to stop resisting to make a technique work. An incompetent one!

In fact, most of the techniques are designed to work against a fully resisting opponent (something that BJJ has in common with judo, wrestling, sambo, and other sport-oriented fighting arts). So even if you screw up and miss an arm bar or Kimura, there's a good chance you can try again or switch to something else without being in too much danger.


This simply isn't the case with aikido. If you mess up a nikkyo orsankyo or shiho-nage, you're in trouble. Some times you're in deep trouble.

This is total garbage. All aikido techniques are designed to work against total resistance which is as I train them twice a week, every week and teach all the time to my karate students. This person obviously cannot apply the techniques so blames the system for his own failings.



Submission-as-control is a very dangerous prospect, which is why it's so hard to use aikido effectively unless you're amazingly talented and experienced. Brazilian jiu-jitsu's foundation of position-then-submission philosophically offers a lot more safety and reliability in an actual confrontation.

Here I can agree. You do need experience to use Aikido effectively. But even here the similarity with BJJ jumps out. It takes roughly 10 years to master BJJ, as in black belt, and I would suggest it is at least the same for Aikido.

On multiple attackers:

So in effect the ground fighting arts that incorporate throws are going to be more useful all around than throwing arts that don't have any ground fighting, even (especially!) against multiple attackers. And that's ignoring the whole "live training against a resisting opponent" element. The logic behind aikido's belief that it is superior against multiple opponents is based on its focus on throws and standing submissions -- but many other arts have effective throws and standing submissions as well. And those other arts have solid ground games as well.

Aikido trains to avoid going to the ground unnecessarily. Against multiple attackers this is even more the case. To suggest that aikido is just working on throws and standing submissions is once again totally false. In fact if you forget ukemi which is trained for totally different reasons, Aikido has very few 'throws'. There are numerous takedowns and as these are occurring there is the opportunity for all manner of strikes. Some of the simple takedowns turn into neck breaks or chokes if you really want to ratchet it up. And, to say you need a solid ground game against multiple attackers is just not true.



Finally, a key part of aikido's curriculum is its standing submissions (hiji-shime, nikkyo, sankyo) -- which don't work very well when facing multiple opponents either since maintaining control of one opponent prevents your hands from being used to defend against other opponents. So it's not like aikido's repertoire is theoretically ideal against multiple attackers either.

Again demonstrating total lack of understanding of the techniques and ignorance of Aikido in general. In a real fight there are normally no submissions, particularly against multiple opponents. Ok, let's forget hiji shimi because it normally needs a bit of help to make it work but sankyo is bread and butter. It is not only for submission but a transition that enables you to dominate and dispose of an attacker. It is my favourite 'go to' in knife defence and possibly the most user friendly of all the Aikido techniques. Nikyo is not something you go out of your way to apply. It is like an apple that falls into your lap. If it's there you grab it. But all those techniques just give you the fraction of a second required to strike or knee your attacker. They are definitely not holds that you apply and maintain.

I'm not sure if the blog stated how long the guy studied Aikido but I would suggest not for long.
:asian:

 

[lklawson]

Yes of course and non of that was BJJ, my post was in response to someone saying they view all grappling as BJJ.

Sure. I just wanted to point out that in the early Judo/JuiJitsu - CaCC melting pot, there was a lot of stuff going both directions. When Tani went on the Wrestling Circuit in the beer halls, he was remarkably successful against CaCC wrestlers. Of course, he insisted they were Judogi jackets and the doofuses agreed. But he's still hit them with Tomoe Nage and throws that they weren't familiar with.

It was a really interesting time in the evolution of CaCC and British/European JuiJitsu.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Hell, all of it is awesome IMO! I'm partial to the Carnival years and then the North American Pancrase fighters who brought it back from Japan and ruled the MMA world with it!

The evolution of Carnival CaCC is equally fascinating but a lot less well documented. Lots of really variable rule sets.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

No peaceful sword at th end of this post........ Feathers = ruffled?:boxing:

I digress.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

The hard part is figuring out whether they are breaking into your home to harm you or steal your stuff or if they have come to steal your stuff but decide to harm you when they discover someone is home.

I don't disagree at all.

While it's a simple fact of statistics that more of them are interested in "just" stealing your stuff and not particularly interested in hurting you, it's not like the ones that are willing to do both wear a sign or anything. The legal problems start when you assume the one and don't have an appropriate legal standing, such as Castle Doctrine or a threat that passes the Reasonable Man sniff nest, to use Deadly Force.

Now, while it's generally true that LEO are given a wider birth on that aforementioned Reasonable Man sniff test, it's still simple not right, nor legal, to run immediately to Deadly Force. Which is why I'm glad that he clarified that it wasn't his actual position after all.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Interesting blog from a guy who studied both Aikido and Bjj, and drew some comparisons between the two;

Being yudansha in both Aikido and Judo and with a solid background in pre-Marquis Boxing with grappling and throws of the time, along with a bit of work in C&E and CaCC, I don't particularly disagree on most of it. I'm just wondering what it has to do with anything?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[MJS]

Aliveness has become kind of a trigger word in the MA community, but the ideas behind it are mostly sound. While the "four I" model applies to most decent training (intentionally or not), the idea that EVERY SINGLE thing you do in training MUST BE ALIVE is debatable. I'd say that most of the training should be "alive," but not necessarily all of it. There's room for kata and drills.

I agree. As for the kata...as I've mentioned in the past, pretty much every art I've trained in, has had kata. More times than not, unfortunately, I found that most people doing kata, had zero idea as to what they were doing. IMHO, I feel that this is a serious dis-service to their training. Why? Because I feel that there should be some reason behind what it is that we're doing. Saying, "Because that's the way it's done!" to a student, when they ask a question, is BS, IMO. Sure, ok, but like I said, there must be a reason as to WHY it's done that way. Look at how many people, some of which have been involved in this thread as well as similar ones, that talk negative about kata. I'd say the main reason is because they don't understand it. I don't know about anyone else, but if I'm going to teach a student something, I want them to understand what I'm doing and why I'm doing it.

This really depends upon one's goals in training. Somehow, the thread turned from Sport and TMA to BJJ for Self Defense. I've said before, I question the value of training purely for self defense, unless one is in a position to apply the skills in context. In other words, unless you are routinely defending yourself, your "self defense" training is questionable... for you. I believe that one should practice skills that one can apply. I don't get into fights. As I said earlier, I am boring. I don't drink to excess. I don't hang out in bars or ride a Harley with a biker gang. I go home each night, play video games with my teenagers and watch cartoons with my five year old.

If I'm REALLY interested in self defense, I'll buy a 12 ga shotgun and get the entire family (minus the 5 year old) trained in safe handling and use of force training.

For me, and I believe for most people, training for sport is a great way to train for application. Even if one chooses not to compete, training with competitors keeps the training focused, maintains consistency from school to school and allows students to apply the techniques in context.

LOL, well, neither of us should really be surprised as to the drift. Likewise, I don't drink, I don't hang in bad areas, I don't look for trouble, fights, etc, to prove that I'm a badass. But, that said, it seems to me, that despite the reports that people always tend to link, to prove a point, fact is, crime is still out there, and nowadays, it seems like it's on the rise, probably due to the obvious...the wonderful economy that we have. I want to know that should the need to defend myself, or someone I'm with, arise, I want to be capable of standing a good chance of surviving.

I do agree with you on your last paragraph. I'm sure if I went down to one of the MMA/sport oriented gyms in my area, even if I wasn't interested in competing, I'd most likely get good application of techs, as well as a good arena for applying said things.

As long as everyone understands that there are ALWAYS rules, I agree with this. There are ways to pressure test different techniques, but I cringe when someone says, "Yeah, but I train FOR REAL SELF DEFENSE and not sport. My techniques are designed to END FIGHTS." Yeah? Sure, the technique is deadly, but the question is whether YOU are deadly. Are you? If you've never done it, how do you know?



Rickson Gracie (or Bruce Lee or whoever) is a badass. He does the same armbar technique I do. Am I a badass? I'd say, without a trace of false modesty, that I am not a badass. And, on the scale of badassery, even though I execute many of the same techniques Rickson Gracie does, I'm not even close. Point being that, just because he can execute a technique doesn't mean that I can execute that same technique. The technique is sound. It is effective. The question is, AM I EFFECTIVE?

And how can one answer that question? By executing technique in context. Am I able to defend myself against a ninja horde? I don't know. Am I able to defend myself against a single, knife wielding meth addict? I don't know. I've never done any of these things, and so regardless of knowing academically that the techniques are effective, I do not know whether I am effective.

Can I force an average guy with no training to submit in one of several ways? Yes. I know that I can. Am I confident that I can disengage and return to my feet if taken down by the average guy? Yes. I am confident because I do these things in context against people trying very hard to stop me.

I agree 100% Steve, and I apologize if my post made you think differently. I certainly wasn't hinting at there not being rules. My point with the padded stick, was geared more towards sparring. I like to take a specific thing, and drill it slow, which we know will work the majority of the time. Yet, take that same thing and apply it to sparring, and we tend to see that most things go out the window, unless a) some modifications are made or b) people train in a sparring setting, where things are going to be moving faster. Does this mean that even though I put on an old t-shirt, grabbed the magic marker and did my knife techs quicker, more alive, or whatever word we want to use, that should I find myself at the ATM with some guy trying to mug me with a blade, that I won't get cut or worse? Of course not.

 

[ballen0351]

I don't disagree at all.

While it's a simple fact of statistics that more of them are interested in "just" stealing your stuff and not particularly interested in hurting you, it's not like the ones that are willing to do both wear a sign or anything. The legal problems start when you assume the one and don't have an appropriate legal standing, such as Castle Doctrine or a threat that passes the Reasonable Man sniff nest, to use Deadly Force.

Now, while it's generally true that LEO are given a wider birth on that aforementioned Reasonable Man sniff test, it's still simple not right, nor legal, to run immediately to Deadly Force. Which is why I'm glad that he clarified that it wasn't his actual position after all.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

No that is my position. Break in my house to cause me or my family harm and there is a good chance your not leaving alive.

 

[RTKDCMB]

No that is my position. Break in my house to cause me or my family harm and there is a good chance your not leaving alive.

The moral of the story is don't break into people's houses, you don't know who will be waiting for you.

 

[Steve]

I'm not sure if the blog stated how long the guy studied Aikido but I would suggest not for long.
:asian:

http://www.roydeanacademy.com/blog/comments/the_sister_arts_of_brazilian_jiu_jitsu

Roy Dean is a black belt in BJJ (and producer of some EXCELLENT instructional videos), and is also a black belt in Judo and Aikikai Aikido. If anyone's interested, his blog is full of insight into all of the various arts, but the article above specifically addresses his opinions about how each overlaps with the others.

 

[lklawson]

No that is my position. Break in my house to cause me or my family harm and there is a good chance your not leaving alive.

And this is the part that is at the core of the issue. If he's just there swiping your VCR it's not OK to perforate him because he's not there to cause anybody any physical harm. In the absence of something like the Castle Doctrine, there has to be an articulable reason to believe that deadly force was justified. "Bullet" is simply not the first or only option. Which is why, again, I'm glad that you clarified that your actual position was more nuanced than it first appeared.

 

[MJS]

Interesting blog from a guy who studied both Aikido and Bjj, and drew some comparisons between the two;

http://mma-journey.blogspot.com/2007/08/aikido-vs-brazilian-jiu-jitsu-part-1.html

Some interesting tidbits;





On multiple attackers:



http://mma-journey.blogspot.com/2007/09/aikido-vs-brazilian-jiu-jitsu-part-3.html

Interesting blog. I'm no authority on Aikido, so I can't really comment on much. However, I am quite familiar with joint locks, and of course, anything done without resistance is going to work. I've worked with people who I swear have rubber joints, or an iron grip, so it seems like no matter what you do, everything is going down the tubes. However, where there's a will there's a way, and usually there're some things that either you're doing wrong or things that you can do to help with the application.

I do agree though, with adding some pressure. I mean, if each time you train, your training partner places his hands on your shoulders, rather than your neck, for a choke, or stops his punch so far from target that you don't even have to move, well, what's going to happen when you get someone who really chokes or really punches? Odds are, you're going to be in for quite the surprise.

As for falling back on certain things...well, as I said, I don't know much about Aikido, so I don't know the extent of their ground work, ie: ground grappling, but if there is none, then the guy is going to either be totally screwed or he'll have to fight hard to get back up. My point is...he apparently had a Judo background, so of course, he's going to fall back on that. I really didn't take that as a shot at the effectiveness of Aikido. I think it's safe to say that many people have their 'bread and butter' moves that they tend to fall back on. It could be a fav. technique against a punch, or a fav. submission in BJJ that they always do from the mount.

As for the multiples..well, as it's been said, it's going to be hard no matter what art you train.

Don't hang me, but I went to the evil YT to pluck a clip of Aikido and multiples. Is it the best thing out there? No, and I never said it was, I'm posting an example. What I see here is an effort to stack the opponents, as well as no fancy tech, but instead, something to offbalance or takedown 1, while moving onto the next.

Edit--this was posted by K-Man

Here is a major difference. If something is not working in Aikido you don't force it. You disengage or move around the clash. However, on the ground is a different scenario. Here it is very similar to the principles of BJJ in that you relax and let your opponent tire. You can still apply your locks and holds on the ground.

Regarding what I mentioned in my post about joint locks. We have a few different series of joint locks, that we drill, flowing from one to the next to the next and so forth. The drill isn't meant to actually go from 1 to the next, but instead to provide you with different options. As K-Man said..if something isn't working, simply move onto something else.

 

[ballen0351]

And this is the part that is at the core of the issue. If he's just there swiping your VCR it's not OK to perforate him because he's not there to cause anybody any physical harm. In the absence of something like the Castle Doctrine, there has to be an articulable reason to believe that deadly force was justified. "Bullet" is simply not the first or only option. Which is why, again, I'm glad that you clarified that your actual position was more nuanced than it first appeared.

And again if you were following along with the discussion we were talking about defending yourself. His question was how do you defend yourself in the following places. Then he rattled off a bunch. If all your doing is stealing my VCR I have no need to defend myself. Since I've actually used deadly force in the past I don't really need a lesson but thanks

 

[TFP]

Sure. I just wanted to point out that in the early Judo/JuiJitsu - CaCC melting pot, there was a lot of stuff going both directions. When Tani went on the Wrestling Circuit in the beer halls, he was remarkably successful against CaCC wrestlers. Of course, he insisted they were Judogi jackets and the doofuses agreed. But he's still hit them with Tomoe Nage and throws that they weren't familiar with.

It was a really interesting time in the evolution of CaCC and British/European JuiJitsu.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

If you have any links or book suggestions regarding Catch info and history, please post em!