Sport And TMA....Again

[Steve]

Yet we have male gynecologists who are considered experts in the field that do not have the very things they are responsible for caring for.

What an asinine comment. I hope you're speaking tongue in cheek.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[RTKDCMB]

I hope you're speaking tongue in cheek.

Firmly entrenched. I must have for got the .

 

[Chris Parker]

Women getting raped in secluded areas in the missionary position is a high likelihood situation. The missionary position is easily transferable into the guard position. It would seem bizarre not to apply the triangle choke or a similar hold in a similar situation.

You've been told this by others, but no, this is in no way correct. It is not a high likelihood situation. The scenario you describe is rare, to say the least. And the idea of applying a triangle is really a bizarre one, frankly. If you started talking reversals and sweeps, I'd be with you... but a triangle? No.

I understand it just fine. I'm just curious as to why we never see that type of randori being done outside the confines of an Aikido dojo or seminar to non-Aikido practitioners.

See, I really don't think you do understand it. I mean, it's an Aikido specific form of randori, so saying you understand it, but are then curious as to why you don't see it outside of Aikido dojo is just screaming that you really don't understand it. Can you reconcile those comments? Tell you what... can you explain what that form of randori is, how it's structured, and what it's aims are? There are very good reasons it's done the way it is, and it has nothing to do with the way rolling is in BJJ.

It reminds me of Masaaki Hatsumi touching people and making them submit in the Honbu, but for some reason neither him, or his students could replicate that effect anywhere else.

You know, for all my issues with a lot of the things I see Hatsumi doing, I've never seen him "touch someone and make them submit"... I question the reality and practicality of a fair bit that I've seen him present, but nothing like this.

Full force as in full, non-compliant resistance. You don't need to break someone's arm if you're placing the proper pressure on your partners arm, and forcing them to tap. Same thing applies to chokes.

Say, here's a funny thing... you do know that "resistance" isn't actually realistic outside of sports, yeah? I'm talking real world violence here (specifically what is referred to as self defence). But, that said, who ever said that non-sports systems don't train non-compliance? Or that sparring/rolling is the only way to do it (or the best)? Gotta tell you... it ain't. At all.

Broken limbs and choke outs happening in competitions are testaments to the effectiveness of that training.

No, it's really not. It's testament to the fact that arms can be broken with joint locks and choking people can render them unconscious. It is also testament to the fact that it can happen in competition. But "effectiveness of that training"? Nope. Training for competition and overdoing things isn't "effectiveness", it's lack of control and awareness (either on the part of the person applying the technique, or the one receiving it). Of course, if we're going to start discussing "effectiveness of the training", you need to qualify what effectiveness means here... and where it's supposed to apply.

Some non-competitive arts don't even spar, much less participate in free sparring/randori at full force.

You'll love this... I don't spar. None of the arts I do spar. Why? Because it's not realistic enough for us. It's too random for us. It's too limiting for us.

Except forcing someone to submit isn't holding back. If someone surrenders to you, then you've defeated them. Every situation doesn't require you to snap someone's arm in half.

Sure... because someone giving up means it's over... And no, not every situation requires you to break something, but by the same token, submissions aren't the same as control.

The point was that those training methods work, even if we don't destroy each other's body part every session.

Again, you'd need to define "work". If you're saying that training in a sports methodology, for competition, in a sporting system, works in a sporting application, then yes, it does. It doesn't mean anything else... and you're confusing mechanics and techniques with "working".

The most common sexual position is missionary, and the most common location of a rape is in a home.

And the most common drink is water, and the most common drinking establishment is a bar... are people getting drunk at the local pool, or is everyone drinking water at the local pub? The point is that two (actually unrelated) points don't add to a third.

Let me strongly suggest that making broad statements about rape is a good way to insert your foot rather deeply into your mouth. I think I'll leave it there... and with the observation that some time researching rape events might be of use.

Hanzou, listen to this.

I'm not particularly aware of Hatsumi or any Bujinkan practitioners working for submissions. Or competing much... Might be wrong, but not something I've seen or heard tell of.

Maybe you can talk about where you've seen or heard about this?

Well, Hatsumi has a background in Judo, as do a number of other seniors (Nagato also has a background in kickboxing, apparently, in addition to Judo... apparently... ). Nothing in the Bujinkan, though. And we don't really work for submissions... osae komi/kime waza is rather different.

Then let me clarify; If a woman finds herself in a vulnerable position (like a rape situation), the skills she learns in Bjj would be highly beneficial for her.

The Triangle Choke is one of those skills.

If a woman finds herself in a vulnerable position, the skills learnt in BJJ can help. The triangle is one of the less-useful/practical ones.

Don't worry, statistics backed up everything I said.

Er... no. You seem to have completely misread whatever statistics you've come across, and the simple fact that the LEO's on the forum are telling you that you're wrong is a big clue there.

You misread my quote. What I said was that I find it bizarre that we never see these fantastical feats of skill outside of the Aikido dojo, or the Ninjutsu Honbu.

Here's the thing, though... they're not fantastical. They are about something rather different to what you're used to, though...

Here's Massaki Hatsumi doing some pretty interesting stuff that I would love to see done on someone who isn't one of his students;

As said, there are a range of things Hatsumi does that that I have issues with... and there are a few seen there. But, as I also know the context that they were done in, I can see what's actually going on. And I honestly don't think much of what was shown in that clip (or much of what is seen from Hatsumi, bluntly) is actually practical, realistic combative applications... what there is is an exploration and instruction in principles, often based around concepts of distance and timing (as well as a lot more, obviously).

I would love to learn the secret of pinching the air in front of someone's face, causing them to fall down onto the ground (1:02).

Neko-te. Part of a workshop on kakushi buki. Simulated, in this instance.

Of course. I have no problem with that, as long as its paired with a form of full contact free sparring.

Dude, it really doesn't matter what you think a martial arts class should include, or be like, it matters what the art itself deems necessary or preferential for it's aims. Sparring is counter-productive to a number of arts, including my own. Your lack of understanding of any other approaches doesn't make them wrong, or worse than the single approach you champion.

For what it's worth, if anti-rape training is one's goal, I cannot imagine how a solid year or two of BJJ training would be other than mandatory.

Really? I can. For one thing, while I agree that it can certainly be a benefit, reliance on technical superiority is actually a weakness in and of itself, especially when that technical superiority is not designed for the application stated. Secondly, anti-rape approaches are largely not physical. Can it help? Yes. Is it the only approach? No. Is it the best approach? Honestly, I'd say no again. So should it be mandatory? I'd suggest no.

Being confident and effective from guard just makes sense.

It can be a benefit, yeah... but it comes way down the priority list.

Being confident and effective from guard IS the difference between being raped and "not stick[ing] around long enough to choke the attacker out." In other words, not sticking around is ALSO BJJ. And the confidence and effectiveness of the techniques can be honed in competition.

Uh... no, I can't see myself agreeing with much of that at all. Being confident and effective from guard (again, we really would need to define "effective" in it's context here) is possibly part of a difference in some circumstances and conditions, but hardly being the definitive difference you seem to be stating here. And the confidence and techniques being honed in competition, I really have to say, means nothing in the middle of a real situation, for quite a range of reasons, not least of all the fact that the people you compete against aren't trying to rape you.

Not true. Full force does not equal uncontrolled. the submission comes when defense is no longer an option. As long as there is the potential to escape, techniques are applied "full force."

You're right, full force doesn't mean uncontrolled, but it does mean full force. With the maximum power applied. To the greatest effect. With the full force. Really, that's what the words mean.

I've been put to sleep one time in training. It was a baseball bat choke that I'd never seen before. I was a new blue belt, and was literally unconscious before I hit the mat... less than 2 seconds. That's "full force," in my opinion.

Interesting. Are you saying that the choke was applied with a baseball bat?

It sounds like you train at a pretty good school.

Not meaning any disrespect to RTKDCMB there, but it sounds fairly standard to me...

Here's another advantage of sport arts, particularly grappling arts. I'll speak to BJJ because that's what I know. Because of the sport context of the art, I apply these techniques "full force" against all different body types. Big and small, strong, fat, skinny, no neck, flexible, inflexible. You name it. I'm not punching anyone, so I don't have to pull the punches in order to keep that person safe. You get a lot of full speed, full resistance, full force opportunities to see how each technique actually works against men, women, big, and small. The point is that you are only one part of the equation.

Uh... quick question. How is that in any way different to, well, every other art I've ever seen?

In a laboratory, your opponents are theoretical. In a sport, they are right there.

Where is this laboratory, Steve? Seriously, I don't think you've got an accurate idea of what training without sport is like or about with comments like this...

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay, conversation two:

It sounds like you have a definite idea of what "the test" is, and you're applying the filter of self defense to that test. When I say that a sport art teaches to the test, what I mean is a pure sport art, such as Western Boxing or freestyle wrestling, does not purport to be a self defense art. While you can easily see some self defense application, they aren't teaching you self defense. You're learning to box or to wrestle within the rules of the sport.

I'm applying the filter of self defence because it was present throughout your post. You talk about "the skills can translate" from sport to...what?... if not self defence? You mention tactics that are not necessarily practical outside of sporting contexts... what other contexts would you be meaning? You talk about well rounded skills (as if that's a goal)... it's not a goal, it's an end to a goal, so... what is the goal you're talking about if you're contrasting it with competition? You specifically mention self defence as a concern for keeping your head "outside of the box" of a competitive ruleset, bringing in the idea of weapons and groups. And you finish your post with a comment about how you don't think people can become experts in self defence... which is only relevant if that's been the alternate context of your entire post. So my looking at your post as through a filter of self defence training is because, well, that's what you posted.

And I got what you meant when you said "train to the test", but I disagreed with your terminology. That's not a test (of the art/system/techniques/methods). And, really, I'm having some trouble understanding what you're trying to say in this clarification... training boxing gets you good at boxing... well, yeah. It doesn't claim to be self defence (well, honestly, a number of boxing gyms do...), okay, yeah, sure. That's just understanding context, nothing about "to the test" at all. I mean, are you trying to say that self defence systems don't test what they do? Cause, if so, you'd be rather mistaken. But testing doesn't mean going out and finding street fights.

My point is that this is a double edged sword. The down side is that you are very likely learning habits that could be great for the sport but terrible for self defense (ie, pulling guard in a street fight.) The up side, though, is that you are building skills and technical ability that can provide a solid foundation for self defense.

And, again, that's a false assumption. They might provide some foundation (solid or otherwise) for some physical aspects that might have use in a violent encounter, but that's far from definite or necessarily true. I mean, you're saying on one hand that what you're doing might have nothing to do with self defence, or have any real applicability for that context, but they are providing a foundation for it? How, if they're not applicable or related?

A boxer is not learning self defense. The test that the boxer is training for is a boxing match. And what does that mean? It means that a boxer KNOWS that he or she can execute a straight jab, a cross, a hook or an uppercut, with good head movement and footwork against people trained to stop them from doing so. He or she knows how powerful each technique really is. "Oh, that punch REALLY knocks people out, and I have the timing and experience to make it work." Sport does this for you. If a technique is too deadly to ever execute it against a real person at full speed, you will not really know if you can pull it off.

Right. Yes, a boxer trains to be able to box in a ring. They then know that they can box in a ring. They know that they can throw their punches, and wear their opponents in a match. To be frank, though, boxing teaches you to stagger the power of your punches, as it's aim is to allow you to continue through a number of rounds, not send all your power into a single blow... so the very application is not the same as it would be employed outside of a ring. And, of course, sport teaches you to employ in a sporting context... but sports are hardly the only, or best way to know that what you're doing "works" (which means very different things in different contexts, of course). The idea that sports give you that knowledge to the exclusion of other methods providing such insight is quite off base. And Steve? "Too deadly"? Really? Tell me, how often have you broken someone's arm with an armlock? If you haven't, how do you know if you can pull it off? It's more than just the mechanics, of course...

Bottom line is that a boxer can become an expert boxer. A jiu-jitiero can become an expert jiu-jitiero. A bujinkan taijutsu practioner can become an expert at taijutsu. But NONE of those equal expertise at self defense.

Really, Steve, this is the same as saying that you can become a great guitar player, pianist, drummer, or singer... but that doesn't make you a classical flautist. I would also stress here that I have pointed out that simply training in martial arts doesn't equal training in self defence as well... and that I have never stated that training in such arts equals self defence. I have, however, said that training in, and being educated in, self defence does equal gaining expertise in the field of self defence. You're trying to equate things that have never been said.

But, try to remember that this isn't strictly a thread about self defense.

Yes, I know. But your entire post I was responding to was presented with the idea of sports versus self defence contexts, as detailed above.

If self defense is your goal, than it would be a great idea to cross train or at least spend time widening the scope of your training.

No, if self defence is your goal, it would be a great idea to know what it involves and actually is. Cross training really isn't the answer. And with the amount of systems I've got experience in, you can trust me on that.

Once again, it seems as though you are defaulting to a filter where effectiveness for self defense is the measure. I used "well rounded" as a way to suggest that self defense ISN'T everyone's goal in training. However you define it is important, and maybe the lesson to be learned here is that knowing what you want out of training is important.

"Well rounded" isn't a goal, it's a means to a goal. Your entire post was referencing self defence, whether you felt you intended to or not. And, if not, what other context would you be talking about? Oh, but I wasn't referring to anything to do with effectiveness, I was making reference to applicability. As far as the lesson here...? Steve, those are essentially my own words.

A self defense school may not be the best school for everyone.possibly, but sport provides objective feedback.

And again, what makes you think that sport is the only way of getting it? Why do you think that non-sporting systems don't also have objective feedback systems in place? And really, if we're going to get down to it, what the sports approach gives you is subjective feedback, not objective.

If you have a clear focus on your training, and you have a clear and realistic understanding of what you expect to learn about your training from the sport, I don't believe it can be anything but positive.

Firstly, again, you're basically using the exact words I did... but, to the point, it certainly can be something other than positive. Let's say you have a clear and realistic understanding of what you want to gain from your training, and it simply isn't found in the sports system? How is the sports training then a positive? What about if the sports training directly contradicts the aims you have? Still positive? It's like saying that I want to get healthy, so I think about what I'm eating while spending each meal at Pizza Hut. Positive? Nope.

If self defense skills are your goald, sports can be a way to hide bad training ("I'm great at deep half guard, so it's my go to in a street fight"). But lack of sport is also a terrific way to hide bad training.

So.... neither are good?

Yes. We disagree completely. You cannot be an expert in self defence without practical, real world experience in the field applying the techniques.

Yes, you can. Many are. It comes down to understanding what the needs are first and foremost, and continuing from there. I mean, most self defence isn't anything to do with any physical techniques at all... so there's nothing to go and test. It actually is far more an academic area than you're thinking it is. Forget the idea of techniques, you're focusing on the wrong thing, and honestly, I don't think you know what you're arguing against.

You CAN become an expert in a system. Call it Parker-fu, put whatever techniques you want, apply measures for proficiency and teach people to an expert level in your system. Because THAT'S what they're learning and applying. They are not defending themselves in your class. They are applying your system.

Steve, you've complained about people who have never done a single class of BJJ stating what's in the system, so can I ask that you don't even try to suggest what's in my classes? You really don't have any frame of reference here, either in what I do (and yes, they do damn well "defend themselves" in my classes) or in what is self defence, by your own words and statements made previously. Everything you've stated here is off base and incorrect.

This is not to say that your system doesn't work. It may. But it doesn't create self defense experts. It creates Parker-fu experts.

It creates what it is intended to create, Steve. If it's a self defence system, it creates people who know and understand self defence, and can apply it. Again, don't tell me what is or is not in my classes.

Its' been around long enough that it's not a fad. There are schools popping up all over the world. It's not a competition. I'm not opening a school in Australia. I get that Hanzou is ruffling some feathers, and frankly, saying that BJJ "isn't a big deal" sounds to me to be a petty attempt to take Hanzou down a notch or two. When I said, "who gives a rip?" what I mean is, "This is completely irrelevant."

There was no suggestion that BJJ is a fad, but it certainly had it's moment as one (many arts have, many will in the future... currently it's MMA, previously it was BJJ, before that was the whole "ninja" thing... previously kung fu, before that, judo, then karate...). All that was said was that it's lost it's sheen of being the new thing, which it has. It's moved past being a fad... which means it doesn't get as much new blood as it used to. That's fine... it happens to all arts. First there's a boom, as interest develops and awareness spikes... then there's a steady flow... then it settles down. That's where we are now. And, for Australia, BJJ was never a huge thing. Good, healthy, sure. But that's it. It really is, here, "no big deal". Just another art. So's mine, of course.

The word "expert" has a lot of different meanings. In court, an "expert" is a person with specialized training and/or experience beyond that of a lay person which enables and allows them to give opinion testimony rather than merely state what they saw or heard directly. An expert may be able to take a skid mark, and state that, to leave a 30 foot skid mark on that pavement, the car had to be traveling at about 25 mph. Or that an officer's particular use of force was reasonable and appropriate to the resistance encountered and in keeping with the agency's policies and laws.

Another way to define an expert is as someone who knows nearly all there is about a subject. A third, similar definition would be a person with a high level of skill in performing tasks or actions.

The simple reason that I say that it's hard to impossible to be an "expert" in self defense is what I laid out earlier: few people encounter enough situations where they use self defense skills to be able to reliably assess something that worked once, something that was pure luck, from something that is reliable. That's not to say you can't learn enough to have a good guess, and to develop sound assumptions, or to qualify as a court expert. I just dislike the idea of labeling myself as an "expert" colloquially in a subject that is so subjective in experience.

I'm using expert to mean someone with deeper knowledge. I'd apply that to the first and second definitions, and, in those cases, you certainly can be a "self defence expert". The third definition is also part of it... but, in this case, is more to do with the first two than going out and getting involved in multiple encounters. I don't think a self defence expert has necessarily been involved in large numbers of encounters... if they have, many of them I wouldn't probably class as actual self defence, more fights of various forms... it's someone who understands how such things happen, the conditions of violence, the common forms of assault, the psychology of predators and victims, and so on and so forth.

I don't consider myself an expert at anything. But to say you can't be an expert I don't agree with. I believe there are experts out there. Would you consider Rory Miller an expert ?

No more than he would...

Ok well then we will just disagree. There are plenty of experts in self defense. Not as many as actually claim the title but they exist. I've met them even if they don't consider themselves to be they have no problem taking money to put on seminars

My personal opinion is that there certainly are self defence experts, but, as with most who deserve the title, it's one that others use to apply to them, not one self-applied.

You are one sick puppy! But you are right, we need to catch up for coffee. PM time and place or better still, make a time to check out the new dojo.

Ha, yeah, we do have to catch up... busy time of year, but I should get something arranged soon!

 

[Hanzou]

With the state of the obesity epidemic nowadays your chances are about as slim as those guys.

Even then, the chances of fighting a morbidly obese person trained in Sumo wrestling isn't very likely.

Often


Since you do not have any experience in any of the things I posted who are you to say what is practical about them? The high mount would not be a very common position in that situation so many of the things in that post would be practical.

Actually I have quite a bit of experience in the things you posted. In my art we call it "what not to do when someone is on top of you".

Oh and stop referring to the position of a rapist as the missionary position, they are 2 completely different things, and quite frankly, a little offensive.

Where did I say that?

Yes it is, because you can always break their arm anyway, but you don't because you don't need or want to. When someone surrenders to you, you can say to yourself "Well I could have snapped his arm if I put a bit more pressure on it, but he tapped so I didn't have to".

Isn't that exactly what I said?

 

[SENC-33]

Most people are just flat out delusional when it comes to real world self defense. The likelihood of you being attacked by a well trained ninja, ground fighter, or whatever are slim and if YOU happen to be well trained and have to defend yourself you wouldn't even recognize your "art form" if you could see it in a real world scenario. Violence happens fast and rarely are you fully prepared for it. You end up relying more on natural instincts which is why I train to hone those instincts.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Most people are just flat out delusional when it comes to real world self defense. The likelihood of you being attacked by a well trained ninja, ground fighter, or whatever are slim and if YOU happen to be well trained and have to defend yourself you wouldn't even recognize your "art form" if you could see it in a real world scenario. Violence happens fast and rarely are you fully prepared for it. You end up relying more on natural instincts which is why I train to hone those instincts.

3 people who have or have tried to attack me, Karate 2nd Dan, Judo black belt, kickboxer. It happens.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Even then, the chances of fighting a morbidly obese person trained in Sumo wrestling isn't very likely.

Sumo wrestler no, morbidly obese person yes.

Actually I have quite a bit of experience in the things you posted. In my art we call it "what not to do when someone is on top of you".

And that is why I would not send someone to you to learn self defence. Because you are very limited in your approach and have no idea what real violence is like outside the mat.

Where did I say that?

Implied here: The most common sexual position is missionary, and the most common location of a rape is in a home.

Said here; Women getting raped in secluded areas in the missionary position is a high likelihood situation. The missionary position is easily transferable into the guard position.

Isn't that exactly what I said?

No you said that it was full force when they tapped out, not when you break their arm.

 

[Hanzou]

Sumo wrestler no, morbidly obese person yes.

And not a huge deal.

And that is why I would not send someone to you to learn self defence. Because you are very limited in your approach and have no idea what real violence is like outside the mat.

You're welcome to your opinion, but the facts contradict you.

Implied here: The most common sexual position is missionary, and the most common location of a rape is in a home.

Said here; Women getting raped in secluded areas in the missionary position is a high likelihood situation. The missionary position is easily transferable into the guard position.

Yeah, neither of those statements suggests that missionary is "the rape position".

No you said that it was full force when they tapped out, not when you break their arm.

So what exactly are you disagreeing with? It requires full force to make someone comply/submit to you.

 

[Hanzou]

Most people are just flat out delusional when it comes to real world self defense. The likelihood of you being attacked by a well trained ninja, ground fighter, or whatever are slim and if YOU happen to be well trained and have to defend yourself you wouldn't even recognize your "art form" if you could see it in a real world scenario. Violence happens fast and rarely are you fully prepared for it. You end up relying more on natural instincts which is why I train to hone those instincts.

Like this?
http://youtu.be/-eywhQ6_mu0

Or this?
http://youtu.be/eKB-BEtVR8g



Or this?
http://youtu.be/4PFkea7hm2g

Looks pretty recognizable to me.

 

[RTKDCMB]

You're welcome to your opinion, but the facts contradict you.

You never seem to let real facts get in the way of your story.

Yeah, neither of those statements suggests that missionary is "the rape position".

Women getting raped in secluded areas in the missionary position

Kinda does.

So what exactly are you disagreeing with? It requires full force to make someone comply/submit to you.

I am disagreeing with you that not adding the necessary force to break someones arm after they submit constitutes full force.:hb:

 

[ballen0351]

You're welcome to your opinion, but the facts contradict you.

What facts?

[/B]
Yeah, neither of those statements suggests that missionary is "the rape position".

According to you it is. Hopefully you have moved in from this nonsense however. Just because you read one article about a military officer using a triangle doesn't mean its the end all be all.

 

[Hanzou]

You never seem to let real facts get in the way of your story.

I'll discuss this more in Ballen's response.

Women getting raped in secluded areas in the missionary position

Kinda does.

If you say so.

I am disagreeing with you that not adding the necessary force to break someones arm after they submit constitutes full force.:hb:

That's semantics. It requires full force to make someone submit, and it requires full force to break someone's arm. In both cases, you are applying full force.

 

[Hanzou]

What facts?

That learning to fight from the ground position is beneficial for self defense.
That many fights end up in the clinch, and go to the ground, or with someone falling to the ground.
That the potential for damage or injury occurs when you're on the ground.
That the quickest way to end a confrontation outside of getting a lucky knockout punch (or kick), is to choke them unconscious.

Given some of the examples I've seen personally or heard of on this forum, I still believe that Bjj is the best way for someone to learn that method of fighting.

According to you it is. Hopefully you have moved in from this nonsense however. Just because you read one article about a military officer using a triangle doesn't mean its the end all be all.

I never said it was the be all end all. I simply said that its a great choke to use when you're in the position to use it. Considering that said position is common, the opportunity to use it shouldn't be rare. Case in point would be that military officer stopping that armed rapist.

 

[Hanzou]

You've been told this by others, but no, this is in no way correct. It is not a high likelihood situation. The scenario you describe is rare, to say the least. And the idea of applying a triangle is really a bizarre one, frankly. If you started talking reversals and sweeps, I'd be with you... but a triangle? No.

Where did I say that someone should only be using Triangle Chokes to stop a rape? I simply said that the Triangle Choke is a great technique to use in a SD situation. I even used an example of said SD situation where a triangle was used to stop an attack.

See, I really don't think you do understand it. I mean, it's an Aikido specific form of randori, so saying you understand it, but are then curious as to why you don't see it outside of Aikido dojo is just screaming that you really don't understand it. Can you reconcile those comments? Tell you what... can you explain what that form of randori is, how it's structured, and what it's aims are? There are very good reasons it's done the way it is, and it has nothing to do with the way rolling is in BJJ.

The reasoning behind that style of randori is pretty irrelevant. What is relevant is that you never see that type of randori being put to use outside of a heavily controlled setting like a demo, a dojo, etc. I've never seen anyone perform an Aikido throw after someone punches them. Never. I've seen Judokas do it. I've seen wrestlers do it. Never seen an Aikidoka perform it against someone looking to smash their face in. I'm simply asking why that is? I think that's a fair question to ask, don't you?

Say, here's a funny thing... you do know that "resistance" isn't actually realistic outside of sports, yeah? I'm talking real world violence here (specifically what is referred to as self defence). But, that said, who ever said that non-sports systems don't train non-compliance? Or that sparring/rolling is the only way to do it (or the best)? Gotta tell you... it ain't. At all.

Yet it is the sport-based systems that appear most adept at being able to perform their art in a non-compliant situation (like a street fight). Again, why is that?

No, it's really not. It's testament to the fact that arms can be broken with joint locks and choking people can render them unconscious. It is also testament to the fact that it can happen in competition. But "effectiveness of that training"? Nope. Training for competition and overdoing things isn't "effectiveness", it's lack of control and awareness (either on the part of the person applying the technique, or the one receiving it). Of course, if we're going to start discussing "effectiveness of the training", you need to qualify what effectiveness means here... and where it's supposed to apply.

If you're training to break someone's arm, and you break someone's arm while they're fully resisting you, I would say your training is effective.

You'll love this... I don't spar. None of the arts I do spar. Why? Because it's not realistic enough for us. It's too random for us. It's too limiting for us.

So where does the testing of the techniques come into play?

Here's the thing, though... they're not fantastical. They are about something rather different to what you're used to, though...

They would certainly be less fantastical if we saw them being utilized outside the confines of a demonstration or a dojo.

Neko-te. Part of a workshop on kakushi buki. Simulated, in this instance.

Sounds very practical.

Dude, it really doesn't matter what you think a martial arts class should include, or be like, it matters what the art itself deems necessary or preferential for it's aims. Sparring is counter-productive to a number of arts, including my own. Your lack of understanding of any other approaches doesn't make them wrong, or worse than the single approach you champion.

I'm interested to hear why you believe that sparring would be impractical in a fighting system. Especially when sparring has proven to be an effective means of practice for centuries, even within classical styles.

 

[ballen0351]

I never said it was the be all end all. I simply said that its a great choke to use when you're in the position to use it. Considering that said position is common, the opportunity to use it shouldn't be rare. Case in point would be that military officer stopping that armed rapist.

Yes you have taken one rare case and now you try to use it as a fact. The real facts don't support your one rare example. Again I've been to talked to and researched many many many rape cases. Your just wrong. So again I'll ask you to leave rape defense to the experts and please don't go teaching anyone anything unless you actually do some case study. I'm not saying BJJ isn't a good idea the fact is ANY regular training in ANY art is better then nothing. I won't discount BJJ but I will say the triangle is a great way to get her hurt. There are much better methods of BJJ to use. I'll leave it at that.

 

[K-man]

That's semantics. It requires full force to make someone submit, and it requires full force to break someone's arm. In both cases, you are applying full force.

This is completely untrue. Submission in Aikido and as I teach it in karate is brought about with minimum force. Full force would destroy the joint, period.

I never said it was the be all end all. I simply said that its a great choke to use when you're in the position to use it. Considering that said position is common, the opportunity to use it shouldn't be rare. Case in point would be that military officer stopping that armed rapist.

Obviously you didn't read the article. The lady in question was not military and there is nothing in the article to suggest she was an officer.

The reasoning behind that style of randori is pretty irrelevant. What is relevant is that you never see that type of randori being put to use outside of a heavily controlled setting like a demo, a dojo, etc. I've never seen anyone perform an Aikido throw after someone punches them. Never. I've seen Judokas do it. I've seen wrestlers do it. Never seen an Aikidoka perform it against someone looking to smash their face in. I'm simply asking why that is? I think that's a fair question to ask, don't you?

As I pointed out and Chris reinforced the randori is used in training, not in fighting. It is used to demonstrate ukemi as much as it is to demonstrate the technique. In all my time in aikido I have only learned one actual 'throw' and I can't remember its name. I had to demonstrate it for grading and it is one I would probably ever use in practice. The rest I classify as take downs. Your opponent ends up in a heap at your feet. The throws you are watching are with compliant partners. As Chris said,you have no idea of what you are watching.

Yet it is the sport-based systems that appear most adept at being able to perform their art in a non-compliant situation (like a street fight). Again, why is that?

This is patently untrue and just your uninformed opinion.

If you're training to break someone's arm, and you break someone's arm while they're fully resisting you, I would say your training is effective.

This is true, but in training it would demonstrate total lack of control. How often have you broken your training partner's arm?

So where does the testing of the techniques come into play?

It depends on your definition of sparring. We test techniques against a realistic attack. In the early stage you know what the attack will be, as you gain experience the attacks become random. We train to deal with an attack in seconds, not roll around for minutes.

They would certainly be less fantastical if we saw them being utilized outside the confines of a demonstration or a dojo.

How different systems train may well look different to the real life application. For example, boxers do a lot of skipping. Is that part of fighting? Boxers shadow box. Do they do that in a real fight? Boxers punch a bag and it doesn't hit back. Does that happen in a real fight.

I'm interested to hear why you believe that sparring would be impractical in a fighting system. Especially when sparring has proven to be an effective means of practice for centuries, even within classical styles.

​Really? What classical styles are you referring to?

 

[Hanzou]

This is completely untrue. Submission in Aikido and as I teach it in karate is brought about with minimum force. Full force would destroy the joint, period.

I was talking about Bjj, not Aikido.

Obviously you didn't read the article. The lady in question was not military and there is nothing in the article to suggest she was an officer.

Last I checked, the Navy is considered military.

As I pointed out and Chris reinforced the randori is used in training, not in fighting. It is used to demonstrate ukemi as much as it is to demonstrate the technique. In all my time in aikido I have only learned one actual 'throw' and I can't remember its name. I had to demonstrate it for grading and it is one I would probably ever use in practice. The rest I classify as take downs. Your opponent ends up in a heap at your feet. The throws you are watching are with compliant partners. As Chris said,you have no idea of what you are watching.

So all of the Aikido throws shown here;

Aren't actually in Aikido?

This is patently untrue and just your uninformed opinion.

Well, where are the Aikidoka competing in the UFC or MMA competitons? Where are all the videos of someone using Aikido to defend themselves in a street fight?

This is true, but in training it would demonstrate total lack of control. How often have you broken your training partner's arm?

Never, because my training partners are smart enough to tap. However, if they didn't tap, I would probably break their arm.

It depends on your definition of sparring. We test techniques against a realistic attack. In the early stage you know what the attack will be, as you gain experience the attacks become random. We train to deal with an attack in seconds, not roll around for minutes.

So someone rushing towards you with their arm extended and hand open is viewed as a "realistic attack"?

How different systems train may well look different to the real life application. For example, boxers do a lot of skipping. Is that part of fighting? Boxers shadow box. Do they do that in a real fight? Boxers punch a bag and it doesn't hit back. Does that happen in a real fight.

Boxers also spar against other boxers who have the same goal in mind: Knock the other guy out.

So when a trained boxer ends up in a fight with a non-boxer:

Its brutally effective, and looks similar to what they do when they practice.

Where are the similar Aikido clips?

​Really? What classical styles are you referring to?

Pankration for starters;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pankration

Its about 2500 years old give or take a century.

There's even a cool image of a trainer overlooking two fighters sparring each other.

 

[ballen0351]

Your boxer clip looks set up as a demo. Why else would they have just happened to be filming plus none of the punches actually connected. Regardless just because it is on youtube doesn't make it fact and a lack of it being on youtube doesn't mean it didn't happen

 

[seasoned]

1000 coming up..............