Sport And TMA....Again

[James Kovacich]

1) they were a family of bullies not displaying "the martial way".
early on they would storm unsuspecting dojo's and act as if it was a challenge match

2)they would incorporate other styles into there system acting as if it was always or is now a part of GJJ.

3) GJJ/ BJJ lack of takedowns most pointedly wrestling.


4) as a BJJ fighter if you run up against a better striker you can't takedown your in trouble.
there stuborness and lack of respect for those who beat them.

1) The Gracies were not bullies or dijo busters. They were constantly being challenged and. Did the fair share of challlenges.

2) They created Bazilian Gracie Jiujitsu. That involves changes.

3) GJJ has takedowns, throws etc

4) that could be said in reverse against a striker. The better, more skilled fighter prevails.



Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[lklawson]

But why were they upset with Segal? Because he was making false claims about there arts effectiveness, correct?

Basically Seagull was popping off and eventually got into kinda a personal feud with Wall.

http://books.google.com/books?id=-s...lt magazine allen steen steven seagal&f=false


Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[TFP]

1) The Gracies were not bullies or dijo busters. They were constantly being challenged and. Did the fair share of challlenges.

2) They created Bazilian Gracie Jiujitsu. That involves changes.

3) GJJ has takedowns, throws etc

4) that could be said in reverse against a striker. The better, more skilled fighter prevails.



Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

1) they absolutely were bullies and street thugs who openly sought out other styles who did not have beef with them. Learn your history. Helio himself was arrested and sentenced to 2 yrs in prison for a 3 on 1 attack of a local gymnast. Helio appealed to the Supreme Court and lost and at the last minute he was pardoned by the president due his connections.

2) they created GJJ and it's a great art, I find there lack of giving credit to other arts that they borrow from a problem.

3). Yes it does, that's why I said "lack of" meaning there takedowns and amount if time spent on them are lacking IMO.

4). Yup.

 

[K-man]

Here's a little clue for you. Not all martial arts are even designed with the idea of a skilled opponent in mind.

again, this challenge (gracie & ufc) was to establish who's art was most effective in a fighting sense. If people don't view there art as a fighting or self defense art than gjj had no beef with them and they had nothing to prove.

If they had retained the original format I could agree to a point. Once rules were introduced some systems lost more of their techniques than others and it no longer represents styles as such. Now it is the question of who is the most rounded all round fighter and often who gets lucky.

to me the glaring weakness beyond all those that you listed is the grappling fighters lack of interest in grip/hand fighting. He never ever looked to establish dominance in the grip fighting and this you will learn early on in grappling is paramount.

was fun to see the locks and throws in on a semi resistant opponent for sure!
+1 for Aikdo guys!

And when someone like Hanzou says that Aikido won't compete because everyone knows it doesn't work, four of the six techniques used would be banned as 'small joint manipulation'.

I don't believe anyone is trying to say BJJ is the ultimate art for the new age UFC/MMA fights.

That's not the impression we are getting.

Not at all, GJJ and the early UFC's showed the world you needed to cross train in grappling arts to be successful. That standing arts alone we're not enough.

Again, that was after they changed the rules. Sure Royce Gracie did well in the early fights but so to did some of the others. It was a more even playing field, but far too much chance of injury to allow it to continue without additional rules.

But there is an issue when a standing art refuses to recognize the importance of grappling but still wants to act like there art is superior.you YOU NEED TO KNOW SOME TYPE OF GRAPPLING, OFFENSIVELY OR DEFENSIVELY TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL SELF DEFENSE/FIGHTING ART.

I don't think many are saying that you don't need some type of grappling skill. We don't all agree that BJJ is the only way to obtain that skill. Then the kicker at the end is not strictly accurate. It suggests you need a lot of grappling skill to have a 'successful' self defence/fighting art when I would say 'successful' suggests sport and for self defence you need minimal ground skill.


I think that is the point and the arguement.

 

[James Kovacich]

1) they absolutely were bullies and street thugs who openly sought out other styles who did not have beef with them. Learn your history. Helio himself was arrested and sentenced to 2 yrs in prison for a 3 on 1 attack of a local gymnast. Helio appealed to the Supreme Court and lost and at the last minute he was pardoned by the president due his connections.

2) they created GJJ and it's a great art, I find there lack of giving credit to other arts that they borrow from a problem.

3). Yes it does, that's why I said "lack of" meaning there takedowns and amount if time spent on them are lacking IMO.

4). Yup.

I think what you are considering bullying is a combination of rough Brazilian culture and the early days of Vale Tudo. Rickson once said if you go into a Brazilian deli and "stand in line" you'll never get your order because people will step in front of you. Their culture, especially way back then is/was much different than ours.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[TFP]

I think what you are considering bullying is a combination of rough Brazilian culture and the early days of Vale Tudo. Rickson once said if you go into a Brazilian deli and "stand in line" you'll never get your order because people will step in front of you. Their culture, especially way back then is/was much different than ours.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

Two Brazilian judges/courts disagree with you.

Listen, I'm actually ok with it. They were hell bent on proving there fighting style. But let's not pretend they were nice, humble, respectful martial artists. They truly weren't. George, Helio, Carlos, Carlson, etc and there off spring would fight at the drop
of a hat if someone was willing, and if hey weren't willing they would find a way to make them willing.

 

[K-man]

This is a great question and in notice you put the disclaimer in there of "exclusively". Smart move as you know that BJJ is being implemented into most of these branches you mentioned. I would assume because BJJ isn't the only or best art for fighting multiple attackers or a war zone.

I meant to include this in my previous post.
Yes, I intentionally added the disclaimer because Krav in particular takes from everywhere unashamedly. Unfortunately it doesn't acknowledge the source of its techniques so if I didn't suggest some of the groundwork comes from BJJ I'm sure there would be someone nearby to correct my omission.

But your comment on the multiple attackers and war zone is pertinent. Krav is also taught to Israeli civilians because in that region it is the most relevant SD system. To me, Krav is the closest modern system to Okinawan Goju karate that I have seen.
:asian:

 

[TFP]

I meant to include this in my previous post.
Yes, I intentionally added the disclaimer because Krav in particular takes from everywhere unashamedly. Unfortunately it doesn't acknowledge the source of its techniques so if I didn't suggest some of the groundwork comes from BJJ I'm sure there would be someone nearby to correct my omission.

But your comment on the multiple attackers and war zone is pertinent. Krav is also taught to Israeli civilians because in that region it is the most relevant SD system. To me, Krav is the closest modern system to Okinawan Goju karate that I have seen.
:asian:

Oddly enough, even in today's hyper aware world it could simply come down to BJJ no reaching that region yet. I mean even Europe isn't huge in regards to BJJ population yet. This is just a theory of course.

 

[K-man]

Oddly enough, even in today's hyper aware world it could simply come down to BJJ no reaching that region yet. I mean even Europe isn't huge in regards to BJJ population yet. This is just a theory of course.

As is the case in Australia. I don't think it will get all that big either. Too many places are advertising MMA and they teach BJJ within their overall training, that combined with the perception of BJJ being one dimensional. I suspect that may prove the same in Europe.
:asian:

 

[Kframe]

As far as Aikido and BJJ.....thought you might enjoy this...

[video=youtube_share;0UwD4Y3dCpY]http://youtu.be/0UwD4Y3dCpY[/video]

Mike

wow that was nice..

Hanzou, what I gathered, was, they didn't start from the midget grappling position but started on there feet. Any BJJ person is going to be a threat in grappling, im impressed with that Aiki-jitsuka's balance and skill.

 

[James Kovacich]

Two Brazilian judges/courts disagree with you.

Listen, I'm actually ok with it. They were hell bent on proving there fighting style. But let's not pretend they were nice, humble, respectful martial artists. They truly weren't. George, Helio, Carlos, Carlson, etc and there off spring would fight at the drop
of a hat if someone was willing, and if hey weren't willing they would find a way to make them willing.

Never said they were nice. I honestly don't remember Helios case but experience tells me there's 2 sides to every coin.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Steve]

For a bunch of guys who don't train in bit, you guys seem a little preoccupied with it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Hanzou]

Hanzou, what I gathered, was, they didn't start from the midget grappling position but started on there feet. Any BJJ person is going to be a threat in grappling, im impressed with that Aiki-jitsuka's balance and skill.

That really doesn't make much of a difference.

Upon further inspection, it appears that this was a sparring match between an instructor and one of his students. This also appears to be a hybrid style, given the clothing, and their mixture of styles.

This seems a bit more accurate of a cross-style exchange between Aikido and Grappling;

 

[K-man]

That really doesn't make much of a difference.

Upon further inspection, it appears that this was a sparring match between an instructor and one of his students. This also appears to be a hybrid style, given the clothing, and their mixture of styles.

This seems a bit more accurate of a cross-style exchange between Aikido and Grappling;

OK, let's put this into context. The Turkish wrestler is a Grandmaster visiting the Aikido dojo. This video has been posted before on MT and the observation was made that the wrestler was invited to demonstrate his style. Just saying, before we get all sorts of adverse comments flying past.

 

[Chris Parker]

http://www.bjjee.com/bjj-news/femal...rapist-to-sleep-with-triangle-choke-in-dubai/

Also it doesn't tie up your limbs. Both arms are free. The choke comes from the thighs, and the opponent's trapped arm. Of course there's nothing wrong with punching someone in the face, or placing both hands around your opponent's head to make the choke worse.

Really? Okay, let's look at this... it happened in a bus (confined environment with no other people around... the driver had deliberately driven there so there wouldn't be anyone around), in which case there's some argument for choosing a triangle... but that still doesn't make it an advisable go-to for self defence. As far as "your arms are free", sure... I just said "limbs"...

You mean like this;

I wouldn't consider that sparring.

No, I wouldn't consider someone describing a tactic that can be applied within multiple opponent randori to be sparring either... nor would I consider a clip of BJJ instructors discussing their approach to rolling to actually be rolling either. Is this seriously the best you can do?

I never said that. I said that many people have stated that Aikido takes a very long time to use effectively. I was saying that Bjj takes significantly less time. To the point, I was saying that Bjj is easier to learn than Aikido. Surely we can both agree with that can't we?

Actually, no. The timeframe for relative expertise given was actually roughly equal (5-6 years to know enough, and be able to do enough, to teach juniors). I'd say neither is "easier" to learn... it depends on the student.

This is a great question and in notice you put the disclaimer in there of "exclusively". Smart move as you know that BJJ is being implemented into most of these branches you mentioned. I would assume because BJJ isn't the only or best art for fighting multiple attackers or a war zone.

A better question is actually why it's there in a number of military systems in the first place... cause it ain't anything to do with being effective, easy to learn, powerful, or anything else...

It's not misspelling, it's the late 19th Century/early 20th Century standard romanization. I know you get grumpy about the jutsu/jitsu inversion but even noted native Japanese instructors, when writing in english, used the romanization "jiu-jitsu/ju-jitsu" in their books. Tani & Miyake, 1906? Yamanaka, 1918? Plenty of other examples too. And because GJJ was developed from jiu-do (see what I did there? right around that time you could argue that it's an anachronistic spelling, but not a misspelling.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Yeah, I know.... still wrong, though.... grumble....

again your missing it, my post had nothing to do with bjj! It had to do with you saying "no ground in ninjutsu".

Really? You think that Steve and Scott winning by submission shows that there is ground in ninjutsu? Seriously? Mate, I'm twenty years deep in this art, believe me, there isn't any. And, for the record, Bob's RBWI is a different animal altogether again... from memory they were instigating it well before the Gracies made their appearance... but it wasn't from ninjutsu....

this makes sense, but the fact they won and did so using grappling in this one-on-one no rules fight says something to grapplings effectiveness.

Seriously, enough with the "no rules!" thing. There were many, many rules... they just weren't stated as such. What the early UFC's really were were limited (almost no) restriction competitions.... but there were rules aplenty. And, frankly, all the prevalence of ground work (grappling is not ground work, no matter how often you equate the two) only meant that it was suited to that environment... which hasn't been argued against. In fact, I pointed out that the environment for the early UFC's in particular was geared up to favour such an approach... so it's hardly a surprise that it's seen relatively frequently. It doesn't actually mean anything outside of there, though.

no, whomever won the event would be called the ultimate fighter and there art would represent the top art of those involved. It wasn't a pre determined fact that royce would win.

Yes the gracie's and art davies picked the fighters, and many of the fighters had previous nhb fights. There were not many "gimmies" that night. Most were legit tough guys. And no, the area and rules (there were non) did not favor the grappler, not at all.

Sure, whoever won would be able to use the title... but it was seriously stacked towards the Gracies. And there were rules. Quite a lot.

most the challenges were no rules fights. I do agree a grappling contest vs the gracie's was a no win for any art that didn't really gave submission base. Take mark schultz (one of the greatest, meanest american wrestlers) and his match with rickson. Both grapplers, they decided no strikes, subs only. Well schultz took rickson down and held him in a cradle for 20 minutes before getting triangle choked. This happened twice and was considered a victory for rickson. Never mind that schultz really didn't know any submission or finishing moves (his art of wrestling had been watered down do to it becoming a sport) or the fact that under the rule set of his art he had "pinned" rickson.

But again, most fights were no rules.[/QUOTE]

There were rules, mate. The fact that you can't recognise them tells me a lot, really...

l

ets not forget that all martial arts a (or almost all) come from a combat base. So you in context it's rooted in fighting. And in no rules one on one matches bjj is extremely successful. Like it or not. Now in the gracie's mind if you're saying your martial art is not meant for combat or self defense than no problem, but if your selling it, teaching it as a great way to learn to defend yourself than they would say ours is better and we will prove it.

Oh, boy.... you're actually serious with this, aren't you? You do realize that you're showing me that you don't understand the history of martial arts, the application of them, the contexts they developed in, or what the differences between self defence and "fighting" are, don't you?

yup i totally get that and am fine with it. If an art isn't claiming to be the best fighting art and is just practiced for fun or exercise, or whatever, great for that art and it's practitioners!! But if an instructor is making it out that his art is the best fighting art and it ain't bjj than i may have an issue.

No, you don't get it. Everything you post shows you don't get it. You might think you do, but you're showing each and every time that you aren't able to differentiate distinct contexts and environments. But seriously.... "if an instructor is making out that his art is the best fighting art (whatever that is) and it ain't BJJ, then I may have an issue"... HA!!! I really needed that laugh...

again, this challenge (gracie & ufc) was to establish who's art was most effective in a fighting sense. If people don't view there art as a fighting or self defense art than gjj had no beef with them and they had nothing to prove.

See? More lack of ability to simply grasp what you're being told... sigh....

the gene challenge i agree on and already posted in this thread that it was great he responded by calling out helio who was closer to his age. The jet challenge was real.

The Benny challenge was done in such an unprofessional fashion, seeking to embarrass Benny without really risking anything, that it was just a joke.

yes the gracie's have been beat, i don't think i've ever said otherwise. Asking for examples was in response to being asked " who did they even beat". I'm mostly talking about style vs style match ups pre or early ufc. Almost every single name on that list was post style vs style.

I agree 100% that mma is better than bjj. For sure and that gjj paved the way for mixed arts and that mixed arts is better than gjj. 100%!!!

Eh, neither cut it for me. Not serious enough.

I don't believe anyone is trying to say BJJ is the ultimate art for the new age UFC/MMA fights. Not at all, GJJ and the early UFC's showed the world you needed to cross train in grappling arts to be successful. That standing arts alone we're not enough. But there is an issue when a standing art refuses to recognize the importance of grappling but still wants to act like there art is superior.you YOU NEED TO KNOW SOME TYPE OF GRAPPLING, OFFENSIVELY OR DEFENSIVELY TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL SELF DEFENSE/FIGHTING ART
I think that is the point and the arguement.

You do realize that you're trying to say two different things here... first you're talking about what works in an MMA match, then try to imply that to self defence... this is what I mean when I say you simply don't get what the problem is here.

And just so I don't come off as some GJJ/BJJ fan boy........

Perhaps a bit late for that, I fear....

Oddly enough, even in today's hyper aware world it could simply come down to BJJ no reaching that region yet. I mean even Europe isn't huge in regards to BJJ population yet. This is just a theory of course.

Ha! No.

 

[Steve]

For a bunch of guys who don't train in bit, you guys seem a little preoccupied with it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

LOL... sorry about this. Autocorrect got me last night. I meant who don't train in BJJ.

Sport arts (or arts with a competitive element), such as some styles of Karate, BJJ, San Shou and the like, have what I believe is a distinct advantage over non-competitive arts. They train to the test. In other words, if you train for boxing, you ultimately get to box. If you train to wrestle, there is an avenue for you to compete in wrestling. The skills can translate, of course, but the context of the skills you're learning remains very clear and easy to understand.

Non-competitive arts also have some advantages. The main one that comes to my mind is the lack of tunnel vision that can occur in a sport art. If well rounded skills is the goal, it can be detrimental to focus solely on the competition. This leads to tactics that are really only good for the ruleset. For example, pulling guard in BJJ or some of the tactics used in Olympic TKD.

It seems to me that introducing sport into an art is not the end of the world, and can really benefit the style. However, it's just as important to remain open minded, asking questions and training outside of the strict ruleset of the competition (ie, maybe upside down guard isn't a great idea for self defense. What if he has a knife? What if he has a friend? What would I do if this happens or that happens? )

And, if you choose not to train in an art with a competitive element (or even if you do) AND your goal is to be well rounded, I think that the occasional meeting with like minded martial artists from other styles would be very helpful. You think that your techniques will work against a competent grappler? Try it. Hook up with some grapplers and find out. Maybe make some friends in the process.

Bottom line, in my opinion, a middle ground is really the best way, IF your goal is to be a well rounded martial artist.

Now, I still don't think that it's possible for most people in today's society to become experts in self defense. It's just not. But, it's possible to learn skills that can help you, and the more well rounded one is as a martial artist, the better your chances in the remote chance you have to use them.

 

[Steve]

As is the case in Australia. I don't think it will get all that big either. Too many places are advertising MMA and they teach BJJ within their overall training, that combined with the perception of BJJ being one dimensional. I suspect that may prove the same in Europe.
:asian:

Guys, BJJ is doing just fine in Australia and in Europe. John Will, one of the first 12 non-brazilian black belts in BJJ, has several thriving schools in Australia and he is very active within the martial arts (not just BJJ) community. There are lots of great schools in Australia.

Same for Europe. The European open is a HUGE IBJJF event and elite athletes from all over Europe compete.

 

[Hanzou]

Really? Okay, let's look at this... it happened in a bus (confined environment with no other people around... the driver had deliberately driven there so there wouldn't be anyone around), in which case there's some argument for choosing a triangle... but that still doesn't make it an advisable go-to for self defence. As far as "your arms are free", sure... I just said "limbs"...

So are you trying to argue that that example isn't a self defense situation? If that was a legitimate self defense situation then how could you say it wouldn't be advisible in that situation?

No, I wouldn't consider someone describing a tactic that can be applied within multiple opponent randori to be sparring either... nor would I consider a clip of BJJ instructors discussing their approach to rolling to actually be rolling either. Is this seriously the best you can do?

Is this more like it?

Bjj Randori for comparison's sake;

Actually, no. The timeframe for relative expertise given was actually roughly equal (5-6 years to know enough, and be able to do enough, to teach juniors). I'd say neither is "easier" to learn... it depends on the student.

Aikidoka disagree...

Does Aikido take longer time to master and apply than other martial arts?

The simple answer is "yes". A year in Karate/Tae Kwon Do/Kempo and you can probably fight much better than before. It takes well over a year before you start feeling comfortable enough with Aikido techniques to imagine using them in "real life".

The complex answer is "no" in the sense that I don't think anyone ever feels like they have "mastered" an art. If they do then they've stopped growing, or the art is too simple.

http://www.aikidofaq.com/introduction.html

Does it take longer to learn aikido, than other martial arts?

The short answer is yes. How long it takes, like many skills, depends on individual dedication and commitment. How long would it take for you to master a musical instrument? If you react to a dangerous situation with disproportionate tension, fear or anger, no amount of training will help you. Aikido teaches a relaxed awareness and emphasizes blending with, rather than blocking and stopping an attack, making it ideal for defending against more powerful or multiple aggressors.

http://www.aikidoofelpaso.org/faq.html

 

[TFP]

A better question is actually why it's there in a number of military systems in the first place... cause it ain't anything to do with being effective, easy to learn, powerful, or anything else...

I honestly don't understand this.....




Really? You think that Steve and Scott winning by submission shows that there is ground in ninjutsu? Seriously? Mate, I'm twenty years deep in this art, believe me, there isn't any. And, for the record, Bob's RBWI is a different animal altogether again... from memory they were instigating it well before the Gracies made their appearance... but it wasn't from ninjutsu...
I'm stating Scott came in as a Ninjutsu fighter, so yes. If he won by submission then he knew submissions and ground fighting. You are the one who brought up Steve. Plus your post is odd, first you say no ground fighting taught, then say these guys were learning it before the Gracie's were around.

It's interesting because all one would have to do is type Ninjutsu ground fighting into Google and there would seem to be a whole world of people who disagree with you that Ninjutsu dies t have ground fighting or grappling.......


Seriously, enough with the "no rules!" thing. There were many, many rules... they just weren't stated as such. What the early UFC's really were were limited (almost no) restriction competitions.... but there were rules aplenty. as
such as? Tell you arnt one of those "well they couldn't stab each other so that's a rule" kinda guys!


And, frankly, all the prevalence of ground work (grappling is not ground work, no matter how often you equate the two) only meant that it was suited to that environment... which hasn't been argued against. In fact, I pointed out that the environment for the early UFC's in particular was geared up to favour such an approach... so it's hardly a surprise that it's seen relatively frequently. It doesn't actually mean anything outside of there, though

how was it geared toward grappling more so than say being in a room and defending yourself is? And please explain how grappling is not ground work?

Sure, whoever won would be able to use the title... but it was seriously stacked towards the Gracies. And there were rules. Quite a lot.
how exactly was it staked toward the Gracie's? And again, please state these numerous rules you keep suggesting!


But again, most fights were no rules.

There were rules, mate. The fact that you can't recognise them tells me a lot, really...
what were they again? These rules?



Oh, boy.... you're actually serious with this, aren't you? You do realize that you're showing me that you don't understand the history of martial arts, the application of them, the contexts they developed in, or what the differences between self defence and "fighting" are, don't you?
Are you saying GJJ isn't a self defense art. Are you saying most martial arts didn't exist to aid in fighting and defending ones self?


See? More lack of ability to simply grasp what you're being told... sigh...
I grasp what you're saying, I just agree with you.



The Benny challenge was done in such an unprofessional fashion, seeking to embarrass Benny without really risking anything, that it was just a joke.

yeah, the Gracie's were good at hyperbole and marketing for sure, but this doesn't change the fact that a legit challenge was made, also doesn't change the fact that Benny and his students did infact spar with the Gracie's before this challenge and got tooled.



Eh, neither cut it for me. Not serious enough.
but Dana White says it "as real as it gets". Lol, not serious enough huh? If actually fighting isn't serious then I guess I'm off base.


You do realize that you're trying to say two different things here... first you're talking about what works in an MMA match, then try to imply that to self defence... this is what I mean when I say you simply don't get what the problem is here.

well to me the problem is your lack of ability to admit that things testing in the Cage do directly translate to self defense, then your lack of ability to look at the history, the videos of what BJJ practitioners are doing on the street with these moves. I mean I posted plenty of videos of BJJ being used in self defense/street fights, gave plenty of accounts but you just ignore them......


Perhaps a bit late for that, I fear....
could be.


Ha! No.
YUP


[/QUOTE]

 

[K-man]

Originally Posted by Hanzou
I never said that. I said that many people have stated that Aikido takes a very long time to use effectively. I was saying that Bjj takes significantly less time. To the point, I was saying that Bjj is easier to learn than Aikido. Surely we can both agree with that can't we?

Originally posted by Chris Parker
Actually, no. The timeframe for relative expertise given was actually roughly equal (5-6 years to know enough, and be able to do enough, to teach juniors). I'd say neither is "easier" to learn... it depends on the student.

Aikidoka disagree...

Can Aikido be used for self-defense?

Yes, Aikido can be a very effective form of self-defense However, it can take considerable time and effort before Aikido (or any martial art) can be used effectively in a self-defense situation.

Does Aikido take longer time to master and apply than other martial arts?

The simple answer is "yes". A year in Karate/Tae Kwon Do/Kempo and you can probably fight much better than before. It takes well over a year before you start feeling comfortable enough with Aikido techniques to imagine using them in "real life".



The complex answer is "no" in the sense that I don't think anyone ever feels like they have "mastered" an art. If they do then they've stopped growing, or the art is too simple. In Funakoshi's autobiography you definitely get the feeling that he doesn't feel like a "master" and is bemused to be considered one.

http://www.aikidofaq.com/introduction.html

Does it take longer to learn aikido, than other martial arts?

The short answer is yes. How long it takes, like many skills, depends on individual dedication and commitment. How long would it take for you to master a musical instrument? If you react to a dangerous situation with disproportionate tension, fear or anger, no amount of training will help you. Aikido teaches a relaxed awareness and emphasizes blending with, rather than blocking and stopping an attack, making it ideal for defending against more powerful or multiple aggressors.

http://www.aikidoofelpaso.org/faq.html

Hanzou, you are right, yet you are still wrong. What Chris is saying is that after 5 to 6 years you have the expertise to teach juniors. I would go further and say after 5 to 6 years you should have enough technical ability to begin to teach adults the technical aspects of Aikido.

However, that aside, yes, you are certainly correct in stating that it takes a long time to become effective in Aikido. Then when you read back through your previous posts you will see where you bagged Aikido (and please don't ask me where because I'm not reading back through 150 posts ). You are contradicting yourself. Aikido gets a bum rap in discussions about the effectiveness of martial arts. You yourself canned it. Why? The answer is, even after many years of training many students can't apply the techniques in real life. The reasons for that are quite complex and I won't go down that burrow except to say Aikido is an internal art. It does not work if you use strength. A strong practitioner can use strength to make a technique work, but that to me is not Aikido.

So to summarise. Chris is right in what he said and you are right in what you said, but, sorry mate, you are still wrong. Aikidoka don't disagree. Ain't life a *****?